Routing Protocols

for
Sensor Networks
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
 Acknowledgements
E. Magistretti (U. Bologna Italy)
J. Kulik (MIT; BBN Co.)
R. R. Choudhury, P. Kyasanur & N. Vaidya (UIUC)
P. Desai (UFL)
D. Braginsky and D. Estrin (UCLA)
S. Hazarika, W. Chen, Y. Gong & X. Liu (UMASS)
T. Kwon & Mjnam (SNU Korea)
R. Peterson & D. Rus (Dartmouth C.)
H.C. Chung, K. Ghoshal & J. Krishna (TAMU)
C. Tavoularis (Cornell )
G. Dong (Virginia U.)
WSN

Dartmouth College
Concepts
Application: Military

From UMASS
Environmental

From UMASS
 Future Health

Circulatory Net
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
General Properties (1)
 Mainly for Information Collection
 Single Owner
 Up to Hundreds of Thousands of Nodes
 Disposable Nodes
 Cheap Nodes
 Security Concerns
General Properties (2)
 Bounded Directed Stream (from/to Sink)
 Somewhat Limited Computation Capability

 Limited Communication Capability

 Limited Power Resources
 Node may not have Unique ID
 Common case - Stationary Nodes
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
General Architecture (1)
Sensor Network Node Main Components

 Sensor Unit
 ADC – Analog Digital Converter
 CPU – Central Processing Unit
 Power Unit
 Communication Unit
General Architecture (2)
General Requirements (1)
 Varying Network Size
 Inexpensive Nodes Equipment
 Long Lifetime (Power) 
Load-Balancing
 Self-Organization
 Re-tasking and Querying Capability
General Requirements (2)
 Sensible Data Aggregation
 Consolidation of Redundant Data
 Application Awareness

 Tradeoff
Communication for Computation
 Possible Mobility
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
Protocol Classification (1)
 Proactive –
First Compute all Routes;
Then Route
 Reactive –
Compute Routes On-Demand
 Hybrid –
First Compute all Routes;
Then Improve While Routing
Protocol Classification (2)
 Direct
–
Node and Sink Communicate Directly
(Fast Drainage; Small Scale)
 Flat(Equal) –
Random Indirect Route
(Fast Drainage Around Sink; Medium Scale)
 Clustering(Hierarchical) –
Route Thru Distinguished Nodes
Protocol Classification (3)
 Location Aware –
Nodes knows where they are
 Location-Less –
Nodes location is unimportant
 Mobility Aware –
Nodes may move –
Sources; Sinks; All
Protocol Classification (4)
 Unicast –
One-to-One Message Passing
 Multicast (actually Local Broadcast) –
Node-to-Neighbors Message Passing
 Broadcast –
Full-Mesh – Source to Everyone
Protocol Classification (5)
Query Models:
 Historical Queries: Analysis of historical data
“What was the watermark 2h ago in the southeast?”

 One-time Queries: Snapshot view

“What is the watermark in the southeast?”

 Persistent Queries: Monitoring over time

“Report the watermark in the southeast for the next 4h”
Protocol Classification (6)
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH – Discussed …
 Self-Organizing – Adaptive Clustering
Protocol Highlights

 Cluster-Heads elect themselves –

Now – “Random Round-Robin”
Future – Power-Based Probability
 Nodes die in random
 Stationary Sink
 Localized Coordination
 Data Fusion
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH (2)
 “Hot Spot” Problem
Main Drawbacks

(Nodes on a path from an event-congested area

to the sink may drain)
 Inadequate for Time-Critical Applications
 Stationary Sink – Maybe Unpractical
 Basic Algorithm assumes any node can
communicate with sink – limited scale
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH (3)
 Works in Rounds, each with
Main Procedures

Set-Up (Short) and Steady-State (Long)

 Set-Up Phase - subdivided:
– Advertisement (I am a Cluster-Head)
– Cluster Set-Up (I am in your Cluster)
– Schedule Creation (This is your slot)
 Steady-State Phase:
– Data Transmission using TDMA
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH (4)
Everyone uses the same channel
Main Procedures


 Different clusters use different CDMA codes
 Code chosen in random

 Cluster-Head communicate with Sink

 Can be extended to Hierarchical Clustering
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH (5)
Illustrations
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
1 - LEACH (6)
Illustrations
 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (1)
 Token-Passing Chain-Based
Protocol Highlights

 Considered Near-Optimal (in a sense)

 Nodes die in random
 Stationary Nodes and Sink
 Every node have a global network map
 Data Fusion
 Greedy chain construction
 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (2)
 Stationary Nodes
Main Drawbacks

 Global Information
Limited Scale:
 Information travels many nodes
 Assumes any node can communicate
with sink
 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (3)
 Greedy Algorithm Construct Chain –
Main Procedures

Start at a node far from sink and

gather everyone neighbor by neighbor
 Node i (mod N) is the leader in round i
 Nodes passes token thru the chain to leader
from both sides
 Each node fuse its data with the rest
 Leader transmit to sink
 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (4)
Illustrations
 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems

2 - PEGASIS (5)
Illustrations

Rounds Until Death

 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (1)
 LEACH based Clustering
Protocol Highlights

 Smart data transmission (Saves Power)

 Nodes dynamic reconfiguration ability
 Suits for Time-Critical applications
 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (2)
 “Hot Spot” Problem
Main Drawbacks

 Cluster-Heads need to listen constantly

 Wasted time-slots
 Can’t distinguish dead nodes
 Other LEACH problems…
 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (3)
 LEACH Proactive Clustering
Main Procedures

 Node transmit in timeslot only if both:

– Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT)
– Value differs from last transmitted value
(SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST)
 After transmission SV is reset
 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

3 - TEEN (4)
Illustrations
 Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (1)
 Improved (Adaptive - Hybrid) TEEN
Protocol Highlights

 All TEEN Features

 More flexible logic and timeslots
 Multi-type Queries:
– Historical (What was the temp. then?)
– One-time (What’s the temp. now?)
– Persistent (Tell me the temp for 2 hours)
 Can distinguish dead nodes
 Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (2)
 LEACH problems…
Main Drawbacks

 Complex logic
 Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (3)
 LEACH Proactive Clustering
Main Procedures

 Node transmit in timeslot only if both:

– Value greater then a Hard Threshold (HT)
– Value differs from last transmitted value
(SV ) by more then a Soft Threshold (ST)
Or If did not transmit for a max time (TC )
Or if queried by some sink
 After transmission SV is reset
 Adaptive Periodic Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

4 - APTEEN (4)
Illustrations

Power Consumption:
 As could be expected –
APTEEN is better the LEACH
but not as good as TEEN
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (1)
 Network-wide Broadcast Limited by
Protocol Highlights

Negotiation and using Local Communication

 Flooding problems solved:
Implosion – same data from many neighbors
Detection of overlapping regions
Excessive resources consumption (Blindness)
 Needs only Localized Information
 DataFusion
 Two main protocols SPIN-PP & SPIN-BC
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (2)
 Broadcast - Limited Scale –
Main Drawbacks

every node handles O(n) messages

 Data is updated throughout network –
unnecessary in many cases
 Network lifetime - not clear
 High degree nodes = High power needs
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (3)
SPIN-PP (Point-to-Point Communication)
Main Procedures

 Data is described by meta-data ADV msg.

 Node has data  sends ADV to neighbors
 If neighbor do not have data  sends REQ
 Node responds by sending the DATA
 This process continues around the network
 Nodes may aggregate their data to ADV
 In a Lossy Network ADV may be repeated
periodically and REQ if not answered
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (4)
SPIN-BC (Local Broadcast Communication)
Main Procedures

 ADV and DATA sending like PP (but in B.C.)

 Since only one REQ answer is needed, any
node waits a random interval and B.C. REQ
only if none was received yet.
 The rest – like SPIN-PP
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

ADV

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

REQ

Neighbor requests for data and it is sent

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

DATA

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

ADV

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

Already
has data
(or dead)
REQ

Receiving neighbors requests for data.

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

5 - SPIN (5)
Node with data
Illustrations

DATA

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (1)
 Hybrid Data Centric Routing –
Protocol Highlights

Looking for Named Data

 Query–Response Model
 Performs Better than Flooding

 Robust and Fault Tolerant (bypass faults)

 Localized Interactions
 Data Fusion - Application Specific Filters
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (2)
 “Hot Spot” Problem near sink
Main Drawbacks

 Periodic Broadcasts of “Interest”

Reduces Network Lifetime
 Trade-off: Energy Efficiency vs.
Robustness and Scalability
 Complex Data Aggregation -
may Lead to Expensive Node
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (3)
A Query (Interest) is Broadcasted by a node
Main Procedures


(sink)
 Query Reaches Relevant Sensor Sources
 This Sets-Up Exploratory Gradients
 Once Data is Available in a Source
it is Sent Back via Reinforced Path
 Failing Links / Nodes are being Gradually
Bypassed
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4) CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10
LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50
LATITUDE_KEY GE 100
Illustrations

LATITUDE_KEY LE 120
SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
Source INTENSITY GE 0.6
CONFIDENCE GE 0.7
INTERVAL IS 10
EXPIRE_TIME IS 100

Sink

Interest = Interrogation

Gradient = Who is interested

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4) FilterAttrVec
CLASS_KEY EQ DATA_CLASS
Illustrations

SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
INTENSITY GE 0.7
Source 3. addFilter (FilAttrVec, FilterCallback)

1. subscribe (InterestAttrVec, Callback) 2. subscribe (AttrVec, ApplCallback)

InterestAttrVec
CLASS_KEY EQ INTEREST_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT Sink

Interest = Interrogation

Gradient = Who is interested

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4) Interests Setting up
gradients
Illustrations

Source

Sink

Interest = Interrogation
Gradient = Who is interested
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4)
Sending data …
Illustrations

Source
4. h = publish (SensedAttrVec)
5. send (h, SensedAttrVec)

SensedAttrVec Sink
CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT
INTENSITY IS 0.8
CONFIDENCE IS 0.7
Low rate event
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4)
Illustrations

Source m1a 6. FilterCallback.recv (Message

m1)
m1b m2 m2
CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
m2
LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT
INTENSITY IS 0.8
CONFIDENCE IS 0.8

7. sendMessage (Message new)

Low rate event

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4)
Illustrations

Source 8. ApplCallback.recv (NRAttrVec)

Sink

Low rate event

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (4) … and Reinforcing the
best path
Illustrations

CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10
LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50
LATITUDE_KEY GE 100
Source LATITUDE_KEY LE 120
SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
INTENSITY GE 0.6
CONFIDENCE GE 0.7
INTERVAL IS 1
EXPIRE_TIME IS 90

Sink

Low rate event Reinforcement = Increased interest

 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (5)
Illustrations

Source

Sink

Recovering
from node failure
Low rate event
Reinforcement
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (5)
Illustrations

Source

Sink

Stable path
Low rate event
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (6)
Illustrations

Source

Sink
Recovering
from link failure
Low rate event
Reinforcement
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion
6 - DD (6)
Illustrations

Source

Sink
Stable path

Low rate event

Reinforcement
High rate event
Use: “Interests set up gradients drawing down data”
 Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (1)
 Cost-Field min Cost from Node to Sink on
Protocol Highlights

Optimal Path
 Slop-Down the Cost-Fields to Get to Sink
 Minimize Multiple Transmissions using
Back-Off Algorithm Based on Node Cost
 Localized Communication
 Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (2)
 High Time Complexity (due to back-off)
Main Drawbacks

 Many Sinks – Large Cost Tables

 Cost Field Set-Up Time O(N)
 No Load-Balancing
 Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (3)
Broadcast ADV msg. and get Answers from
Main Procedures


all Sinks  Create Cost-Fields
 Calculate Back-Off Timer Proportional to
Cost per each Sink
 Needed Information Sent thru Slop
 If no ACK until Timer Expires – Resend ADV
 Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (4)
Illustrations

Cost

A
B
C

Timeline
 Minimum Cost Forwarding

7 - MCF (5)
Illustrations

A=150
110
S = 200 B = 120
C = 90

130 50
100
60
90
Sink = 0
 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (1)
 Grid Structure Clustering
Protocol Highlights

 Stationary Location-Aware Nodes

 Mission Aware – Infrequent Changes
 Greedy Geographical Forwarding –
Building Grid
 Localized Communication
 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (2)
 No Mobile Sensors
Main Drawbacks

 Requires Location Information

 Grid Nodes may Drain
 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (3)
Grid Build using Greedy Algorithm and
Main Procedures


Location Awerness
 Node Floods Messages to Dissemination
Nodes
 Dissemination Nodes Forward to Sink
 If a Node Fails – Grid is Fixed
 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (4)
Illustrations

Dissemination Node

Data Announcement

Source

Data

Sink

Immediate Query
Dissemination
Node

TTDD Basics
 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (5)
Illustrations

Dissemination Node

Trajectory
Data Announcement Forwarding

Source

Data Immediate
Dissemination
Node
Sink

Immediate
Dissemination Trajectory
Node Forwarding

TTDD Mobile Sinks

 Two-Tier Data Dissemination

8 - TTDD (6)
Illustrations

Dissemination Node

Trajectory
Data Announcement Forwarding

Source

Data Immediate
Dissemination
Node

TTDD Multiple Mobile Sinks

 Random Walks

9 - RW (1)
 Finding a Random Walk over a Grid
Protocol Highlights

 Multi-path Routing Different Routes

 Load Balancing at Different Times
 Large Scale Networks
 Nodes Assumed to be Mostly Stationary
 No Location Information Needed
 Little State Information
 Localized Communication
 Random Walks

9 - RW (2)
 Topology may not be Practical
Main Drawbacks

(Nodes are Assumed to be Located at

Cubic Grid Junctions)
 Random Walks

9 - RW (3) - RSG
Regular Static Graphs
Main Procedures

 Find coordinates differences (Dx, Dy) using

Distributed Bellman Ford (local comm.)
 For every node compute probability of
moving on X and Y
(By the diagonal to the destination)
 On each node move to a adjacent one on X
or Y using that probability. Adjust near end.
All Paths together draws a straight “Banana”
 Random Walks

9 - RW (4) - ISG
Irregular Static Graphs (Some dead nodes)
Main Procedures

 Same as RSG but…

 If one adjacent node is missing – go to the
other (with p=1).
 If both are missing – go to a neighbor
whose B-F distance to the destination is
strictly smaller than the current node
(This will create a detour).
 (Could optimize by not getting to that node…).
 Random Walks

9 - RW (5) - DG
Dynamic Graphs (Nodes may sleep and wake)
Main Procedures

 Same as ISG but…

 When a node changes state: the one-hop
neighbors change B-F labels and possibly
trigger further label (distances) changes
 Concerns:
– Delays in propagating updates
– Sensitivity to inaccuracies in labels
 Random Walks

9 - RW (6) - RSG
…...
Illustrations

0 1 2 N-1
0 S

de[3,2]=2
1 u4

P4
2 u3 P3 v P1 u1
[3,2]

P2
...

u2

N-1 R
 Random Walks

9 - RW (7) – RSG vs. ISG

Illustrations

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1/2 2/3 3/4 1/2
1,20 1,10 1,4 1,1 0 1,7 1,3 0,0 0,1
1/2

1/3

1/4

1/2
1

1
1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1 1/2
1 1,10 2,6 3,3 4,1 1 1,4 2,3 2,3 2,1
2/3

1/2

2/3

2/3

1/2
1

1
1/4 2/3 1/2 1/2
2 1,4 3,3 6,2 10,1
2 1,1 0,0 2,2 4,1
3/4

1/3

1/2

1/2
1

1
1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1,1 4,1 10,1 20,1
3 1,1 1,1 3,1 7,1

ISG ISG
 Random Walks

9 - RW (8) – RSG vs. ISG

Illustrations

A Random walk by flipping a fair coin

RSG (DG Similar) ISG

Load Distribution - Narrow
 Random Walks

9 - RW (9) – RSG vs. ISG

Illustrations

A Random walk by RSG/ISG algorithms

RSG (DG Similar) ISG

Load Distribution - Flat
 Rumor Routing

10 - RR (1)
 Observation: for many application any
Protocol Highlights

arbitrary path will do –

No Need for a Shortest Path
 Nodes are Densely Distributed
 Bidirectional Links
 Localized Communication
 Stationary Nodes
 Meet Trails of Queries and Events
 Rumor Routing

10 - RR (2)
 Attractive only when the ratio between
Main Drawbacks

events and queries is inside a threshold

where it is not attractive to flood
neither.
 Optimal parameters depend heavily on
topology (but can be adaptively tuned)
 Does not guarantee delivery
 Rumor Routing

10 - RR (3)
Movement on the net is done by several
Main Procedures


agents, trying (randomly) to walk straight.
 Every node maintains lists of neighbors and
events (how to get to the reporting node).
 An agent coming from and event is
updating nodes it visits.
 An agent coming from a query is searching
for ways to the reporting nodes.
 High probability the lines will intersect.
 Rumor Routing

10 - RR (4)
Illustrations

Event 1 Knows Event 1 Agent

Event 2 Knows Event 2 Knows Both Event
 Rumor Routing

10 - RR (5)
Illustrations

Event
Source

Query
Source
 Agenda
General Properties
Architectures and Requirements
Routing Protocols Classification
10 Suggested Routing Protocols:
LEACH DD
PEGASIS MCF
TEEN TTDD
APTEEN RW
SPIN RR
Conclusions
WSN will spread to many applications
Properties and Requirements are both
Unique and Diversified
Routing Protocol choice
is and probably will continue to be
Application Driven
More Analysis, Simulations and new
Ideas are needed for every category
 References (1)
 Q. Jiang, D. Manivannan, Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks,
IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference
(CCNC'04), 2004.
 R. Jurdak, C. V. Lopes, P. Baldiy, A Framework for Modeling Sensor
Networks, 19th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented
Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'04),
2004.
 W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energy-
Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor
Networks, IEEE Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on System Sciences, 2000.
 S. Lindsey, C. S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power Efficient GAthering
in Sensor Information Systems, IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2002.
 References (2)
 A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, TEEN: A Protocol for Enhanced
Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 1st
International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing
Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (with
IPDPS'01), 2001.
 A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, APTEEN: a hybrid protocol for
efficient routing and comprehensive information retrieval in
wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of the International Parallel
and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'02), 2002.
 J. Kulik, W. Heinzelman, and H. Balakrishnan, Negotiation-Based
Protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor
Networks, Wireless Networks, Vol. 8, pp. 169-185, 2002.
 C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, J. S. Heidemann, and
F. Silva, Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 2-16,
2003.
 References (3)
 F. Ye, A. Chen, S. Lu, L. Zhang, A Scalable Solution to Minimum
Cost Forwarding in Large Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the
10th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications
and Networks (ICCCN'01), 2001.
 F. Ye, H. Luo, J. Cheng, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, A Two-Tier Data
Dissemination Model for Large-scale Wireless Sensor Networks,
ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MOBICOM'02), 2002.
 S. D. Servetto, G. Barrenechea, Constrained Random Walks on
Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms for Large Scale Wireless
Sensor Networks, In the Proceedings of the 1st ACM International
Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications
(WSNA'02), 2002.
 D. Braginsky, D. Estrin, Rumor Routing Algorithm For Sensor
Networks, In the Proceedings of the 1st ACM International
Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications
(WSNA'02), 2002.
SenseYour
Network
Dude
Karl
Friedrich
Hieronymus
Baron of
Munchausen
(1720-1797)