2012 IEEE 9th International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS 2012) 2012
DOI: 10.1109/mass.2012.6502538
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PathZip: Packet path tracing in wireless sensor networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most related works for path inference in WSNs are Multi-hop Network Tomography (MNT) [2], Passive Diagnosis (PAD) [1], PathZip [10], Pathfinder [11], and Compressive Sensing based Path Reconstruction (CSPR) [18]. Following a tree model, MNT utilizes the parent node (i.e., first-hop receiver) information of the locally generated packets (called as anchor packets) from an intermediate node to infer the routing path of each forwarded packet by the node based on the assumption that the routing path is mostly static and packet loss rate is low.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The most related works for path inference in WSNs are Multi-hop Network Tomography (MNT) [2], Passive Diagnosis (PAD) [1], PathZip [10], Pathfinder [11], and Compressive Sensing based Path Reconstruction (CSPR) [18]. Following a tree model, MNT utilizes the parent node (i.e., first-hop receiver) information of the locally generated packets (called as anchor packets) from an intermediate node to infer the routing path of each forwarded packet by the node based on the assumption that the routing path is mostly static and packet loss rate is low.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, most studies on WSN inference have focused on link loss and delay monitoring [4][5][6][7][8][9], where the key assumption made is that routing topology is already known a priori. A few recent studies on WSN routing path inference are mainly restricted to either the static tree routing model due to its minimum overhead [2], or some heuristic techniques [1,10,11]. The routing tree model implies that an intermediate node would use its parent node in forwarding a through-packet within any data collection cycle, which may not be realistic due to time-varying wireless channel dynamics in many realworld deployments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Arrival time at the sink t |p|−1 (p); • Packet generation time t 0 (p), which can be obtained by existing time reconstruction methods [7]; • The routing path path(p) of packet p, which can be reconstructed by multiple path reconstruction approaches [14], [20], [19]; • Sum of node delays S(p), which is calculated on packet p's source node N 0 (p) and attached in packet p.…”
Section: B Notationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the severe resource constraints of tiny sensor nodes on bandwidth, memory, processing capacity, and battery power, a simple way of directly recording individual forwarding node's ID along the route in each packet is not only resource-inefficient, but also non-scalable. To address this challenge, several novel approaches for path-reconstruction in WSNs have been proposed recently, including Multi-hop Network Tomography (MNT) [1], PathZip [2], Routing Topology Recovery (RTR) [3,4,5], Pathfinder [6], and Compressive Sensing based Path Reconstruction (CSPR) [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whenever packet loss and/or packet reordering occur, the accuracy of a reference packet becomes questionable. (2) PathZip compresses the path information into a hash value carried by each packet, in which the computation complexity grows exponentially with the size of WSN and thus may suffer from scalability issue. (3) RTR and CSPR are based on compressed sensing (CS).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%