Tree Cover Based Geographic Routing with Guaranteed Delivery

Abstract

For wireless ad hoc or sensor networks, nonflooding, guaranteed delivery routing protocols are preferred because of limited energy. In this paper we introduce TCGR, a tree cover based geographic routing protocol for wireless networks. We assign to each node a set of short labels such that nodes are embedded in a metric space induced by one or multiple trees. Based on the embedding, we use only greedy routing to deliver packets, i.e., packets are always forwarded to the neighbor closest to the destination. Unlike many previous geographic routing protocols, we guarantee a full success ratio in finding a route to the destination, if such a route exists in the network. Moreover, each node only needs to maintain a small amount of information, which is almost surely bounded by (log ) 2 O n bits, and the label size and packet header size are also bounded by (log ) 2 O n bits. Simulations show TCGR can achieve remarkable performance in both path stretch and node load.

Robust geometric forest routing with tunable load balancing

“…Another way of balancing traffic passively is using multiple spanning tree-based embeddings [8]. By using multiple trees, the root hotspot effect, which is a common problem in geometric routing with tree-based embeddings [9], is avoided.…”

Efficient Geometric Routing in Large-Scale Complex Networks with Low-Cost Node Design

“…Experimental results in Sect. 5 confirm that given a suitable tree, the coordinate size differs significantly from the characterization of O(n) bit required, made in [16] (n is the network size).…”

“…shortest path routing), we compare it to a state-of-the-art geometric routing scheme in order to make fair comparisons and be able to estimate performance difference of routing schemes of the same class. We selected hyperbolic-embedding of [8] for comparison for several reasons: i) it is based on a single spanning tree (other works such as [16], [17] benefit from multiple trees in the network) ii) it is applicable to any connected topology and provides 100% successful delivery (no need for planarization and face routing techniques) and iii) it results in good performance in terms of stretch (given a suitable tree). We want to explore if the performance is the result of complicated hyperbolic structure/computations or a simple tree labeling with simple distance calculation/forwarding can be equally (more) efficient.…”

“…While [8] embeds a network spanning tree in the hyperbolic plane, [15] and [16] use a labeling of the nodes with the path from the tree root to each node. In [17] a different embedding compared to [15], [16] with poly-logarithmic memory complexity was proposed. In their work, the good performance in terms of stretch is achieved at the cost of higher complexity in the forwarding process and relying on multiple trees.…”

“…In [15] and [16] similar coordinates in ad hoc and sensor networks were used. However, the routing in [15] only used the tree edges and referred to as tree routing.…”