A Pro-Active Routing Protocol for Continuous Data Dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks

Evaluating Fault Tolerance Aspects in Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks

“…The route recreation interval used for EAD and TOSB (a simplified version of TinyOS Beaconing without link quality estimators) was 120s, while for PROC this interval was set to 180s. Those values, which yield the best performance for each protocol, were empirically determined in [15].…”

“…This protocols provides an insight of how energy-aware techniques behave in the presence of failures. The third protocol, called PROC, possesses internal mechanisms to mitigate failures [15].…”

“…The PROC (Proactive ROuting with Coordination) protocol was developed with the goal of reducing energy consumption and increasing network lifetime [15]. PROC creates a routing tree, called backbone.…”

A comparative analysis of energy-aware routing protocols in wireless sensor networks

“…It is also assumed in PAC that all nodes have tendency to reach the sink but it is not valid for randomly deployed sensor nodes. In PROC [10] Transceivers and require high memory. In EAR [9], main emphasis is on real time applications.…”

A simple, least-time, and energy-efficient routing protocol with one-level data aggregation for wireless sensor networks

“…The routing protocols designed for WSN can be classified based on path selection, as proactive (Daniel et al, 2005), reactive (Wang et al, 2005) and hybrid (Muruganathan and Fapojuwo, 2008). Based on the network architecture, they can be further classified as flat (data-centric, flooding) (Intanagonwiwat et al, 2000;Kulik et al, 2002 andYe et al, 2001), hierarchical, such as LEECH (Heinzelman et al, 2000), TEEN (Manjeshwar and Agarwal, 2001) and APTEEN (Manjeshwar and Agarwal, 2006), and geographical informationbased, such as GAF (Xu et al, 2001) and GEAR (Yu et al, 2001).…”