Latency Optimal Broadcasting in Noisy Wireless Mesh Networks

In this paper, we adopt a new noisy wireless network model introduced very recently by Censor-Hillel et al. in [ACM PODC 2017, CHHZ17]. More specifically, for a given noise parameter $p\in [0,1],$ any sender has a probability of $p$ of transmitting noise or any receiver of a single transmission in its neighborhood has a probability $p$ of receiving noise. In this paper, we first propose a new asymptotically latency-optimal approximation algorithm (under faultless model) that can complete single-message broadcasting task in $D+O(\log^2 n)$ time units/rounds in any WMN of size $n,$ and diameter $D$. We then show this diameter-linear broadcasting algorithm remains robust under the noisy wireless network model and also improves the currently best known result in CHHZ17 by a $\Theta(\log\log n)$ factor. In this paper, we also further extend our robust single-message broadcasting algorithm to $k$ multi-message broadcasting scenario and show it can broadcast $k$ messages in $O(D+k\log n+\log^2 n)$ time rounds. This new robust multi-message broadcasting scheme is not only asymptotically optimal but also answers affirmatively the problem left open in CHHZ17 on the existence of an algorithm that is robust to sender and receiver faults and can broadcast $k$ messages in $O(D+k\log n + polylog(n))$ time rounds.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1705.07369 by other author

A PROTOCOL SUITE FOR WIRELESS PERSONAL AREA NETWORKS

A Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) is an ad hoc network that consists of devices that surround an individual or an object. Bluetooth® technology is especially suitable for formation of WPANs due to the pervasiveness of devices with Bluetooth® chipsets, its operation in the unlicensed Industrial, Scientific, Medical (ISM) frequency band, and its interference resilience. Bluetooth® technology has great potential to become the de facto standard for communication between heterogeneous devices in WPANs. The piconet, which is the basic Bluetooth® networking unit, utilizes a Master/Slave (MS) configuration that permits only a single master and up to seven active slave devices. This structure limitation prevents Bluetooth® devices from directly participating in larger Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) and Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs). In order to build larger Bluetooth® topologies, called scatternets, individual piconets must be interconnected. Since each piconet has a unique frequency hopping sequence, piconet interconnections are done by allowing some nodes, called bridges, to participate in more than one piconet. These bridge nodes divide their time between piconets by switching between Frequency Hopping (FH) channels and synchronizing to the piconet\u27s master. In this dissertation we address scatternet formation, routing, and security to make Bluetooth® scatternet communication feasible. We define criteria for efficient scatternet topologies, describe characteristics of different scatternet topology models as well as compare and contrast their properties, classify existing scatternet formation approaches based on the aforementioned models, and propose a distributed scatternet formation algorithm that efficiently forms a scatternet topology and is resilient to node failures. We propose a hybrid routing algorithm, using a bridge link agnostic approach, that provides on-demand discovery of destination devices by their address or by the services that devices provide to their peers, by extending the Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) to scatternets. We also propose a link level security scheme that provides secure communication between adjacent piconet masters, within what we call an Extended Scatternet Neighborhood (ESN)

Energy-Efficient Communication in Wireless Networks

This chapter describes the evolution of, and state of the art in, energy‐efficient techniques for wirelessly communicating networks of embedded computers, such as those found in wireless sensor network (WSN), Internet of Things (IoT) and cyberphysical systems (CPS) applications. Specifically, emphasis is placed on energy efficiency as critical to ensuring the feasibility of long lifetime, low‐maintenance and increasingly autonomous monitoring and control scenarios. A comprehensive summary of link layer and routing protocols for a variety of traffic patterns is discussed, in addition to their combination and evaluation as full protocol stacks

Contributions to bluetooth low energy mesh networks

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) has become a popular Internet of Things (IoT) technology. However, it was originally designed to only support the star topology. This PhD thesis investigates and evaluates different Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network approaches, including existing ones (such as the Bluetooth Mesh standard), and our own solution for IPv6-based BLE mesh networking (6BLEMesh). The thesis comprises 6 main contributions: 1.- A comprehensive survey on existing BLE mesh networking proposals and a taxonomy for BLE mesh network solutions. 2.- An energy consumption model for Bluetooth Mesh. The model allows to predict useful performance parameters, such as device average current consumption, device lifetime and energy efficiency, considering the impact of the most relevant Bluetooth Mesh parameters, i.e. PollTimeout and ReceiveWindow, as well as application parameters (e.g. the data interval for a sensor that periodically reports its readings). 3.- A new proposed IPv6-based BLE mesh networking IETF standard (in progress), called 6BLEMesh. After defining the characteristics and properties of 6BLEMesh, we evaluated it in terms of connectivity, latency, RTT, and energy consumption. 4.- For the connectivity evaluation of 6BLEMesh, we developed an analytical model that takes a set of network and scenario characteristics as inputs, and provides two main results: i) the probability of no isolation of a node, and ii) the k-connectivity of the considered network. We validated the model by simulation. 5.- An implementation, and an experimental evaluation, of 6BLEMesh. We built a three-node testbed consisting of all node types (i.e. 6LN, 6LR and 6LBR). We used three different popular commercial hardware platforms. We evaluated a number of performance parameters on the testbed, related with latency and energy consumption. Next, we characterized the current consumption patterns of the complete life cycle for different node types in the three-node testbed. We also evaluated the energy performance of a 6LN on three different platforms. We presented a 6LN current consumption model for different connInterval settings. To this end, we experimentally characterized each current consumption state in terms of its duration time and average current consumption value. We illustrated the impact of connInterval on energy performance. 6.- A comparison between Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh, in terms of protocol stack, protocol encapsulation overhead, end-toend latency, energy consumption, message transmission count, end-to-end reliability, variable topology robustness and Internet connectivity. Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh offer fundamentally different BLE mesh networking solutions. Their performance depends significantly on their parameter configuration. Nevertheless, the following conclusions can be obtained. Bluetooth Mesh exhibits slightly greater protocol encapsulation overhead than 6BLEmesh. Both Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh offer flexibility to configure per-hop latency. For a given latency target, 6BLEMesh offers lower energy consumption. In terms of message transmission count, both solutions may offer relatively similar performance for small networks; however, BLEMesh scales better with network size and density. 6BLEMesh approaches ideal packet delivery probability in the presence of bit errors for most parameter settings (at the expense of latency increase), whereas Bluetooth Mesh requires path diversity to achieve similar performance. Bluetooth Mesh does not suffer the connectivity gaps experimented by 6BLEMesh due to topology changes. Finally, 6BLEMesh naturally supports IP-based Internet connectivity, whereas Bluetooth Mesh requires a protocol translation gateway.Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) ha esdevingut una tecnologia popular per a Internet of Things (loT). Ara bé, va ser originalment dissenyada per suportar només la topologia en estrella. Aquesta tesi doctoral investiga i avalua diferents alternatives de xarxa mesh BLE, incloent alternatives existents (com l'estandard Bluetooth Mesh), i la nostra propia solució basada en IPv6, 6BLEMesh. Aquesta tesi comprén 6 contribucions·principals: 1.- Una revisió exhaustiva de l'estat de l'art i una taxonomia de les xarxes mesh BLE. 2.- Un model de consum d'energia per Bluetooth Mesh. El model permet predir parametres de rendiment útils, tals com consum de corrent, temps de vida del dispositiu i eficiéncia energética, considerant !'impacte deis principals parametres de Bluetooth Mesh (PollTimeout i ReceiveWindow) i a nivell d'aplicació. 3.- Un nou estandard (en progrés) anomenat 6BLEMesh. Després de definir les característiques de 6BLEMesh, aquesta solució ha estat avaluada en termes de connectivitat, laténcia, RTT i consum d'energia. 4.- Per a l'avaluació de connectivitat de 6BLEMesh, hem desenvolupat un model analític que proporciona dos resultats principals: i) probabilitat de no arllament d'un node i ii) k-connectivitat de la xarxa considerada. Hem validat el model mitjani;:ant simulació. .- Una imP.lementació, i una avaluació experimental, de 6BLEMesh. S'ha construrt un testbed de tres nodes, que comprén 5tots els tipus de node principals (6LN, 6LR i 6LBR). S'han usat tres plataformes hardware diferents. S'han avaluat diversos parametres de rendiment en el testbed, relacionats amb laténcia i consum d'energia. A continuació, s'ha caracteritzat els patrons de consum de corren! d'un ciclde de vida complet per als diferents tipus de nodes en el testbed. També s'han avaluat les prestacions d'energia d'un 6LN en tres plataformes diferents. S'ha presenta! un model de consum de corren! d'un 6LN per a diferents valors de connlnterval. Per aquest fi, s'ha caracteritzat emplricament cada estat de consum de corrent en termes de la seva durada i consum de corrent. 6.- Una comparativa entre Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh, en termes de pila de protocols, overhead d'encapsulament de protocol, laténcia extrem a extrem, consum d'energia, nombre de missatges transmesos, fiabilitat extrem a extrem, robustesa davant de topologies variables, i connexió a Internet. Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh són solucions de BLE mesh networking fonamentalment diferents. Les seves prestacions depenen de la seva configuració de parametres. Ara bé, es poden extreure les següents conclusions. Bluetooth Mesh mostra un overhead d'encapsulament de protocol lleugerament superior al de 6BLEmesh. Tots dos, Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh, ofereixen flexibilitat per configurar la laténcia per cada salt. Per un target de laténcia doni¡it, 6BLEMesh ofereix un consum d'energia inferior. En termes de nombre de missatges transmesos, les dues solucions ofereixen prestacions relativament similars per a xarxes petites. Ara bé, 6BLEMesh escala millor amb la mida i la densitat de la xarxa. 6BLEMesh s'aproxima a una probabilitat d'entrega de paquets ideal en preséncia d'errors de bit (amb un increment en la laténcia), mentre que Bluetooth Mesh requereix diversitat de caml per assolir unes prestacions similars. Bluetooth Mesh no pateix els gaps de connectivitat que experimenta 6BLLEMesh a causa de canvis en la topología. Finalment, 6BLEMesh suporta de forma natural la connectivitat amb Internet basada en IP, mentre que Bluetooth Mesh requereix un gateway de traducció de protocols

Contributions to bluetooth low energy mesh networks

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) has become a popular Internet of Things (IoT) technology. However, it was originally designed to only support the star topology. This PhD thesis investigates and evaluates different Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network approaches, including existing ones (such as the Bluetooth Mesh standard), and our own solution for IPv6-based BLE mesh networking (6BLEMesh). The thesis comprises 6 main contributions: 1.- A comprehensive survey on existing BLE mesh networking proposals and a taxonomy for BLE mesh network solutions. 2.- An energy consumption model for Bluetooth Mesh. The model allows to predict useful performance parameters, such as device average current consumption, device lifetime and energy efficiency, considering the impact of the most relevant Bluetooth Mesh parameters, i.e. PollTimeout and ReceiveWindow, as well as application parameters (e.g. the data interval for a sensor that periodically reports its readings). 3.- A new proposed IPv6-based BLE mesh networking IETF standard (in progress), called 6BLEMesh. After defining the characteristics and properties of 6BLEMesh, we evaluated it in terms of connectivity, latency, RTT, and energy consumption. 4.- For the connectivity evaluation of 6BLEMesh, we developed an analytical model that takes a set of network and scenario characteristics as inputs, and provides two main results: i) the probability of no isolation of a node, and ii) the k-connectivity of the considered network. We validated the model by simulation. 5.- An implementation, and an experimental evaluation, of 6BLEMesh. We built a three-node testbed consisting of all node types (i.e. 6LN, 6LR and 6LBR). We used three different popular commercial hardware platforms. We evaluated a number of performance parameters on the testbed, related with latency and energy consumption. Next, we characterized the current consumption patterns of the complete life cycle for different node types in the three-node testbed. We also evaluated the energy performance of a 6LN on three different platforms. We presented a 6LN current consumption model for different connInterval settings. To this end, we experimentally characterized each current consumption state in terms of its duration time and average current consumption value. We illustrated the impact of connInterval on energy performance. 6.- A comparison between Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh, in terms of protocol stack, protocol encapsulation overhead, end-toend latency, energy consumption, message transmission count, end-to-end reliability, variable topology robustness and Internet connectivity. Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh offer fundamentally different BLE mesh networking solutions. Their performance depends significantly on their parameter configuration. Nevertheless, the following conclusions can be obtained. Bluetooth Mesh exhibits slightly greater protocol encapsulation overhead than 6BLEmesh. Both Bluetooth Mesh and 6BLEMesh offer flexibility to configure per-hop latency. For a given latency target, 6BLEMesh offers lower energy consumption. In terms of message transmission count, both solutions may offer relatively similar performance for small networks; however, BLEMesh scales better with network size and density. 6BLEMesh approaches ideal packet delivery probability in the presence of bit errors for most parameter settings (at the expense of latency increase), whereas Bluetooth Mesh requires path diversity to achieve similar performance. Bluetooth Mesh does not suffer the connectivity gaps experimented by 6BLEMesh due to topology changes. Finally, 6BLEMesh naturally supports IP-based Internet connectivity, whereas Bluetooth Mesh requires a protocol translation gateway.Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) ha esdevingut una tecnologia popular per a Internet of Things (loT). Ara bé, va ser originalment dissenyada per suportar només la topologia en estrella. Aquesta tesi doctoral investiga i avalua diferents alternatives de xarxa mesh BLE, incloent alternatives existents (com l'estandard Bluetooth Mesh), i la nostra propia solució basada en IPv6, 6BLEMesh. Aquesta tesi comprén 6 contribucions·principals: 1.- Una revisió exhaustiva de l'estat de l'art i una taxonomia de les xarxes mesh BLE. 2.- Un model de consum d'energia per Bluetooth Mesh. El model permet predir parametres de rendiment útils, tals com consum de corrent, temps de vida del dispositiu i eficiéncia energética, considerant !'impacte deis principals parametres de Bluetooth Mesh (PollTimeout i ReceiveWindow) i a nivell d'aplicació. 3.- Un nou estandard (en progrés) anomenat 6BLEMesh. Després de definir les característiques de 6BLEMesh, aquesta solució ha estat avaluada en termes de connectivitat, laténcia, RTT i consum d'energia. 4.- Per a l'avaluació de connectivitat de 6BLEMesh, hem desenvolupat un model analític que proporciona dos resultats principals: i) probabilitat de no arllament d'un node i ii) k-connectivitat de la xarxa considerada. Hem validat el model mitjani;:ant simulació. .- Una imP.lementació, i una avaluació experimental, de 6BLEMesh. S'ha construrt un testbed de tres nodes, que comprén 5tots els tipus de node principals (6LN, 6LR i 6LBR). S'han usat tres plataformes hardware diferents. S'han avaluat diversos parametres de rendiment en el testbed, relacionats amb laténcia i consum d'energia. A continuació, s'ha caracteritzat els patrons de consum de corren! d'un ciclde de vida complet per als diferents tipus de nodes en el testbed. També s'han avaluat les prestacions d'energia d'un 6LN en tres plataformes diferents. S'ha presenta! un model de consum de corren! d'un 6LN per a diferents valors de connlnterval. Per aquest fi, s'ha caracteritzat emplricament cada estat de consum de corrent en termes de la seva durada i consum de corrent. 6.- Una comparativa entre Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh, en termes de pila de protocols, overhead d'encapsulament de protocol, laténcia extrem a extrem, consum d'energia, nombre de missatges transmesos, fiabilitat extrem a extrem, robustesa davant de topologies variables, i connexió a Internet. Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh són solucions de BLE mesh networking fonamentalment diferents. Les seves prestacions depenen de la seva configuració de parametres. Ara bé, es poden extreure les següents conclusions. Bluetooth Mesh mostra un overhead d'encapsulament de protocol lleugerament superior al de 6BLEmesh. Tots dos, Bluetooth Mesh i 6BLEMesh, ofereixen flexibilitat per configurar la laténcia per cada salt. Per un target de laténcia doni¡it, 6BLEMesh ofereix un consum d'energia inferior. En termes de nombre de missatges transmesos, les dues solucions ofereixen prestacions relativament similars per a xarxes petites. Ara bé, 6BLEMesh escala millor amb la mida i la densitat de la xarxa. 6BLEMesh s'aproxima a una probabilitat d'entrega de paquets ideal en preséncia d'errors de bit (amb un increment en la laténcia), mentre que Bluetooth Mesh requereix diversitat de caml per assolir unes prestacions similars. Bluetooth Mesh no pateix els gaps de connectivitat que experimenta 6BLLEMesh a causa de canvis en la topología. Finalment, 6BLEMesh suporta de forma natural la connectivitat amb Internet basada en IP, mentre que Bluetooth Mesh requereix un gateway de traducció de protocols.Postprint (published version

Minimize end-to-end delay through cross-layer optimization in multi-hop wireless sensor networks

End-to-end delay plays a very important role in wireless sensor networks. It refers to the total time taken for a single packet to be transmitted across a network from source to destination. There are many factors could affect the end-to-end delay, among them the routing path and the interference level along the path are the two basic elements that could have significant influence on the result of the end-to-end delay. This thesis presents a transmission scheduling scheme that minimizes the end-to-end delay when the node topology is given. The transmission scheduling scheme is designed based on integer linear programming and the interference modeling is involved. By using this scheme, we can guarantee that no conflicting transmission will appear at any time during the transmission. A method of assigning the time slot based on the given routing is presented. The simulation results show that the link scheduling scheme can significantly reduce the end-to-end delay. Further, this article also shows two methods which could directly addresses routing and slot assignment, one is MI+MinDelay algorithm and the other is called One-Phase algorithm. A comparison was made between the two and the simulation result shows the latter one leads to smaller latency while it takes much more time to be solved. Besides, due to the different routing policy, we also demonstrate that the shortest path routing does not necessarily result in minimum end-to-end delay --Abstract, page ii