Two-radio architecture
protocols achieve excellent energy savings, but require complex hardware.
108 Ali Abu-el Humos et al.
Protocol Advantages Disadvantages Testing platform Comments
LEACH [3] - Nodes are turned off
when not in use
- Simple to implement
- Requires strict synchronization
among nodes
- Not scalable, not adaptive
to dynamic changes in
the network
- Using DSSS for interference
avoidance is not
a feasible solution all the
time
- Simulation using
MATLAB
- TDMA based protocol
- Hierarchical clustering
network architecture
Bluetooth
[19]
- Same as LEACH - Strict synchronization
among nodes
- Limited number of nodes
(7 slaves and 1 master
node)
- Industrial
standard
- TDMA based protocol
- Designed to interconnect
different wireless devices
- Up to 1 Mbps bit rate
IEEE
802.11 DCF
[23]
- Scalable and adaptive to
dynamic changes in the
network
- Synchronization is not a
problem
- Idle listening
- Suitable for single hop
networks
- Industrial
standard
- CSMA based protocol
- Has optional PS energy
saving mode
- Promotes per node fairness
SMAC [16] - Less strict synchronization
requirement
- Scalable and adaptive to
dynamic changes in the
network
- Reduces idle listening
- Suitable for multi hop
communications
- High latency
- Multiple schedules in the
network
- UCB motes - CSMA based protocol
- Promotes application
level fairness over per
node fairness
TMAC [13] - Same as SMAC with better
energy savings and latency
performance
- Same as SMAC, latency
is better, but still a problem
- Throughput is less than
SMAC at heavy traffic due
to early sleeping problem
- OMNeT++
simulator
- Partially implemented
with
EYES hardware
- CSMA based protocol
SMAC with
adaptive
listening
[17]
- Same as SMAC with
better energy savings
and better latency performance
(at least 50%
improvement during light
load
- Same as SMAC, latency
is better than SMAC, but
still a problem
- UCB motes - CSMA based protocol
DMAC [6] - Same as SMAC with
better energy savings and
minimal latency
- Same as SMAC, latency
is not a problem any
longer
- Only suitable for data
gathering with unidirectional
traffic, from source
node to the sink
- More complex than
SMAC
- NS2 network
simulator
WiseMAC
[2]
- Same as SMAC with better
energy savings
- Latency is not better
than SMAC
- GloMoSim simulator
- Based on the Preamble
Sampling Technique
SMAC with
Global
Scheduling
and Fast
Path Algorithm
[5]
- Same as SMAC with
only one schedule in the
network, better energy
savings and minimal latency
- More general than
DMAC
- More complex than
SMAC
- UCB motes - CSMA based protocol
MS-MAC
[8]
- Same as SMAC
- Provides a solution for
nodes moving between
clusters in the network
- Same as SMAC - No implementation
is
observed
- CSMA based protocol
Two-radio
MAC with
Rate Estimation
and
Triggered
Wakeups
[7]
- Same as SMAC but
nodes can sleep longer in
light traffic and wakeup
more during heavy traffic
- Complex hardware, with
two radios
- Latency is still a problem
- NS2 network
simulator
- CSMA based protocol
Transmission
Control
Scheme
for Media
Access
in Sensor
networks
[15]
- A CSMA most suitable
for WSNs applications:
random delay, constant
window listen time
with fixed or exponential
decreased back off window
- Easy computable, adaptive
traffic rate control
- Does not address idle listening
- UCB motes
- Simple UNIX
simulator
- Does not address data
aggregation in WSNs
ZigBee [22] - Can accommodate a
huge number of nodes (up
to 264)
- Supports very low duty
cycle and long lifetime
for battery powered sensor
nodes
- Lower bit rate than
Bluetooth
- More complicated network
structure
- Industrial
standard
- CSMA based protocol
with optional time slotting
- Suitable for low bit rate
applications
Table 3.
Pages:
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190