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