International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014
Rigorous Topological Construction for
Packet Loss Reduction by Adopting Cluster
Method
Sankaranarayanan Lavanya, Venugopal.Muarli Bhaskaran
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Paavai Engineering College, Anna University, Namakkal- 637018,
Tamilnadu-INDIA.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Dhirajlal Gandhi College of Technology, Anna University, Salem636309, Tamilnadu-INDIA.
traditional
Abstract
Wireless Sensor networks offer a powerful
combination of distributed sensing, computing and
communication. In that an enhanced routing
protocol is explored to identify the packet loss and
conserve an energy utilization of a network. The
link quality helps to establish an effective
network
management
techniques
impractical. In traditional networks the primary
goals are minimizing response time and providing
comprehensive information, but in sensor networks
the primary goal is minimizing energy use and the
main means for doing this is by reducing the
amount of communication between nodes [1].
communication without packet loss and CPSP
If the energy of the sensor node (SN) is drained,
(coordination based power save protocol) protocol
recharging of the sensor nodes in unattended
is used to save energy of the overall network. In
environment is very difficult. Routing the Data in
that the energy will be saved by a validation of
sensor nodes plays a vital role in transferring the
network status, that means whether the receiver of
data to the base station (BS). In this we have to
a corresponding node is connected to the network
focus on the shortest path to save power of the
or not. Form that the packet delivery ratio is
motes. Another way the wireless sensor nodes can
automatically increased compare to all the process.
transmit the valuable data to the base station
The
the
directly. The target is all the sensed data have to
parameters of lost frames by combining the
reach the base station either via neighbour sensor
forward and backward good frames of before and
nodes or directly to the base station if it is the
after lost frames. From our evaluation results for
nearest. But the nodes which are far from the base
the reduced level of packet loss, access delay and
station it is very difficult to reach the base station
the overall of performance of a throughput,
directly and more power will be wasted in
bandwidth and energy conservation is increased.
transferring rather than sensing [10,11].
Key words: Wireless sensor networks, packet loss,
Sensor network management systems can be
CPSP,
classified according to the approach taken to
concealment
Energy
algorithm
Conservation,
estimates
Link
Quality,
monitoring and control:
concealment algorithm.

1. Introduction
Passive monitoring: The system collects
information about network states. It may
1.1 Wireless sensor networks
perform post-mortem analysis of data.
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) pose unique
challenges for network management that make
ISSN: 2231-5381

Fault detection monitoring: The system
collects information about network states
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 420
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014


in order to identify whether faults have
transmitting/receiving a packet, all the packets that
occurred.
are sent from or intended for that node will be
Reactive monitoring: The system collects
dropped. In order to achieve successful event
information about network states to detect
detection and reporting, the protocols should be
whether events of interest have occurred
designed in such a way that events are detected and
and
reported. This will help in reducing packet drops
then
adaptively
reconfigure
the
network.
and increasing the quality of service of the network
Proactive monitoring: The system actively
[6].
collects and analyses network states to
detect past events and to predict future
events
in
order
to
maintain
the
performance of the network.
2.2 Packet Loss Identification
Detecting packet loss can be done at various levels.
Nodes sending data packets can detect packet loss
In This system provides two main management
services: coverage area maintenance service and
failure detection service. The central manager uses
the topology map model and the energy model to
build a coverage area model in order to monitor
areas of sensing and communication coverage. The
central manager can command the agent to execute
a failure detection management service[12].
by using ACK/NACK messages sent by receivers.
Receivers can detect packets based on timers or by
means of packet sequence number (i.e., whenever
packet receives out of sequence number, it assumes
the expected sequence packet is lost). The protocol
that provides reliability must identify the packet
losses as it enables the protocol to recover the lost
packets efficiently [7].
Thus, the packet loss ratio can be calculated as
2. Identifying true packet loss
There are several reasons for packet losses in
wireless networks. Due to errors in links between
No of packets lost in the network
No of packet generated by the sensing nodes
two nodes, packets may not be delivered. These
errors can occur due to signal attenuation.
Attenuation refers to any reduction in the strength
Whereas the energy loss for the whole network can
be calculated by:
of a signal and is caused by signal transmission
E Network = Total no of packet received by the sink /
over long distances. As a result, packets will be
No of packets dropped by the network
corrupted by the time they reach the receiver.
Packet losses could also occur when two nodes try
The amount of energy remaining in a sensor node
to transmit data simultaneously [5].
and can be measured as
2.1 Node Failures
Er = Remaining Energy / Initial Energy
In sensor networks, nodes can fail for many
3. CPSP (coordination based power save
different reasons, such as obstacles, hardware
protocol)
defects in the node, and harsh environmental
conditions in which the node operates. Also, a drop
in energy levels or any other unforeseen event
causes node failures. If a node fails while
ISSN: 2231-5381
There are different types of routing protocols are
available, that is proactive, reactive and hybrid
protocols. CPSP (coordination based power save
protocol) is one of the type of Reactive routing
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 421
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014
protocols in wireless sensor Networks. In a reactive
divided in two parts: Contention Access Period
routing protocol, routing paths are searched only
(CAP) and Contention Free Period (CFP). Any
when needed. A route discovery operation invokes
device which wants to communicate with other
a route-determination procedure. The discovery
devices during CAP period should complete with
procedure terminates when either a route has been
other no des using CSMA-CA algorithm to access
found or no route is available after examination for
medium [15].
all route permutations. In a WSN, active routes
may be disconnected due to node mobility.
7. Experimental Results
Therefore, route maintenance is an important
The proposed cross layer enhanced checkpoint
operation of reactive routing protocols. Compared
protocol is integrated with the IDVF protocol. The
to the proactive routing protocols for WSN, less
Network Simulator (NS 2.34) is used to simulate
control overhead is a distinct advantage of the
our proposed algorithm. In our simulation, 300
reactive routing protocols. CPSP, which is a
mobile nodes move in a 1500 meter x 1500 meter
reactive protocol.
square region for 120 seconds simulation time. All
Each node after receiving the response to its
request, updates routing tables and forward answer
agents have the same transmission range of 300
meters.
to the source. Source, after received the answer
The simulated traffic is Constant Bit Rate (CBR)
begins sending. If it receives a reply later with a
and Poisson traffic. Our simulation settings and
shorter or newer route, continues sending by the
parameters are summarized in table 1.
new route. Entries in the routing table are removed
No. of mobile agents
101
Area Size
1500 X 1500
Radio Range
300m
Simulation Time
120 sec
Traffic Source
CBR and Poisson
Packet Size
512 bytes
In that two operating modes. One is the beacon
Mobility Model
Random Way Point
enabled mode and the other is non beacon enabled
Protocol
CPSP
mode. The active period is called super frame.
Pause time
5 msec
Transmissions are allowed only in this frame. The
Packet Queuing
Drop Tail
after some time since last use. In addition, the
failed connection causes sending back an error
message
6. Node Filtration
IEEE 802.11 has played the major role in network.
time between two frames is called beacon interval.
Table1. Simulation settings and parameters
It includes an active and an inactive period. The
nodes use the basic CSMA/CA technique for
A. Performance Metrics
We evaluate mainly the performance according
accessing the medium.
to the following metrics.
In that two modes of active and inactive nodes are
mainly used for deciding the transmission, because

Control overhead: The control overhead
based on the node state only the data or information
is defined as the total number of routing
is passed over the network. The nodes should not
control packets normalized by the total
communicate with the coordinator during the
number of received data packets.
inactive periods. The active period is further
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 422
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014



End-to-end delay: The end-to-end-delay
the results, we can see that CPSP scheme has high
is averaged over all surviving data packets
authentication rate than the NDC and MDC
from the sources to the destinations.
schemes because of a secure checkpoint protocol.
Packet Delivery Ratio: It is the ratio of
The optimized signature generation and verification
the
received
can be handled with the help of this protocol.
successfully and the total number of
Authentication rate implies that how many packets
packets transmitted.
and nodes are authenticated to improve the fault
Throughput: It is defined as the number
tolerant level. This will lead to more security.
number
.of
packets
of packet received at a particular point of
time.

Authentication rate: It is defined as how
much number of packets is identified
correctly with respect to faulty packets.

Fault tolerant rate: It is the ratio of
number of packets with corrupted through
the specified path. This ratio should be
kept maximum.
The simulation results are presented in the next
part. We compare our CPSP with the MDC [5] and
Fig. 2. Time Vs Authentication Rate
NDC protocol [4] in presence of congestion
Figure 3 shows the results of packet delivery ratio
environment. Figure 1 shows that traffic creation
for varying the mobility from 10 to 50 bits/sec.
among the nodes. To identify the packet loss, the
From the results, we can see that CPSP protocol
constant bit rate traffic is implemented. The delay
has higher delivery ratio than the DSR protocol and
is produced in packet from source agent to
MDC schemes.
destination agent via neighbour mobile agents.
delivery more authenticated packets compared to
Source may choose the different paths to achieve
existing schemes.
The proposed scheme CPSP
the high packet delivery fraction.
Fig. 1. Topology and Traffic creation
Fig. 3. Mobility Vs delivery ratio
Figure 2 shows the results of packet authentication
rate for varying the time from 10 to 50 secs. From
Fig. 4, presents the comparison of overhead and
mobility. It is clearly shown that the overhead of
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 423
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014
CPSP is lower than the MDC and NDC protocol.
genuine packets in the path and making pause time
The probability of sending control packets are
between the packets low.
getting decreased because of integrating secure
authentication scheme.
Fig. 6. Speed Vs End to End Delay
Figure 7, presents the comparison of fault tolerant
Fig. 4. Pause time Vs Overhead
rate while varying the Simulation time from 10 to
Figure 5 shows the results of Speed Vs Network
Lifetime. From the results, we can see that CPSP
scheme has higher Network Lifetime than the NDC
protocol and MDC while varying the speed of
mobile agents from 10 to 200. The unwanted node
communication is reduced which increases whole
100ms. It is clearly shown that the fault tolerant
rate of CPSP is higher than the MDC and NDC
protocol. When we combine both fault tolerant
routing and network authentication, fault tolerant
rate is automatically increased. Our proposed
scheme CPSP achieves 96% rate than previous
schemes.
network lifetime in the proposed scheme.
Fig. 5. No.of nodes Vs Network Lifetime
Figure 6, presents the comparison of End to end
delay while varying the Speed from 20 to 100 secs.
Fig. 7. Simulation time Vs Fault tolerant rate
Conclusion:
It is clearly shown that the delay of CPSP has low
than the MDC and NDC protocol. Delay of
proposed scheme is decreased because of keeping
ISSN: 2231-5381
In this paper, the problem of energy wasted by the
becan node and key strengths are handled
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 424
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 16 Number 9 – Oct 2014
successfully with the help of these techniques like
[5] Vamsi Krishna Venkata Naga Nandanavanam “Energy-
CPSP (coordination based power save protocol)
Efficient Reliable Sensor-To-Sink Data Transfer For Wireless
and Rekeying. The proposed technique of rekeying
handled the problem for improving the key strength
over the situation of compromised node in the
Sensor Networks” 2010.
[6] Sreekanth Yalamanchili “Congestion Mitigation by Traffic
Dispersion in Wireless Sensor Networks”, 2012.
network and the CPSP is focused in an enhanced
[7] Farizah Yunus, Nor-Syahidatul N. Ismail and et.al “Proposed
manner by detecting the routing loops and saves the
Transport Protocol for Reliable Data Transfer in Wireless
energy of the sensor node by filtering the routing
Sensor Network (WSN)”, 2009.
loop so that the sensed data can reach the base
[8] Kalypso Magklara, Dimitrios Zorbas “Node discovery and
station quickly. Identifying a true packet loss is
replacement using mobile robot”, 2010.
used to identify the attacker nodes in the network
[9] Badihi Olyaei “Modelling, Performance Evaluation and
as well as the energy losses due to a retransmission
Suitability Study of Zigbee Technology for Machine-to-Machine
of message over the failure nodes of source and
Communications Applications”, 2013.
sink.
[10] F. L. LEWIS , “Wireless Sensor Networks”, ed. D.J. Cook
and S.K. Das, John Wiley, New York, 2004.
References:
[11]
Jennifer
Yick,
Biswanath
Mukherjee,
Dipak
[1] Winnie Louis Lee, Amitava Datta, and Rachel Cardell-
Ghosal,“Wireless sensor network survey”, Computer Networks
Oliver “Network Management in Wireless Sensor Networks”,
52 : 2292–2330, 2008.
2010.
[12]
Mohamad
Ramazany,
Zynolabedin
Moussavi,
[2] Kamal Kumar, A.K. Verma and R.B.Patel “Framework for
“Localization of Nodes in Wireless Sensor Networks by MDV-
Key Management Scheme in Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor
Hop Algorithm”, ISSN 2222-9833, VOL. 2, NO.5, MAY 2012.
Networks”, 2008.
[13] Md. Ibrahim Abdullah, “A Key Distribution and
[3] An-Ni Shen and Song Guo, “A Robust Pair-wise Rekeying
Management
Protocol in Hierarchical Wireless Sensor Networks”, ACM 978-
Network”, Vol. 6, No. 3, July, 2011.
Scheme
for
Hierarchical
Wireless
Sensor
1-60558-751, 2009.
[14] Seyed Hossein Nikounia, Amir Hossein Jahangir,“A
[4] Donggang Liu Peng Ning and Wenliang Du “Detecting
Distributed Group Rekeying Scheme for Wireless Sensor
Malicious Beacon Nodes for Secure Location Discovery in
Networks”, ICSNC 2011.
Wireless Sensor Networks”, CNS-0430252, 2005.
[15] Mucheol KIM, Sunhong KIM, Hyungjin BYUN, Sangyong
HAN, “Optimized algorithm for balancing clusters in wireless
sensor networks”, ISSN 1862-1775, 2009.
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 425