ZBR-M: A NEW ZIGBEE ROUTING PROTOCOL - …

1 International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, Technomathematics Research Foundation Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 15 32, 2013. ZBR-M: A NEW ZIGBEE ROUTING PROTOCOL . MOHAMED KASRAOUI. IRSEEM / ESIGELEC. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France ADNANE CABANI. IRSEEM / ESIGELEC. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France JOSEPH MOUZNA. IRSEEM / ESIGELEC. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France Various wireless technologies have been designed to assist with the resource management in a typical supply chain. Wireless communication systems could be a solution easily deployable, helping to improve the supply chain management and to reduce the overall cost of the system. For logistic applications, the ZIGBEE technology can be used in order to manage and track goods. This technology based on the IEEE standard is, actually, used for the design of wireless sensor network (WSN) architecture. Several applications using this type of networks require the interconnection of a considerable number of nodes.

2 That's why an efficient ROUTING PROTOCOL should be deployed by taking into account WSNs constraints. The purpose of this work is to study the ROUTING mechanisms already defined by the ZIGBEE standard and to improve the existing ZBR. PROTOCOL by proposing a new PROTOCOL called ZBR-M which highlights the scalability. Keywords: ZIGBEE , IEEE , Hierarchical Tree ROUTING PROTOCOL , NS2, end-to-end delay. 1. Introduction Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) designate a very bright solution for a large number of application scenarios and especially for the logistics applications. Many researchers have focused in this field and some of them are interested on deploying sensor networks in supply chain management [Evers and Havinga (2007)] that gave rise to use ZIGBEE standard. ZIGBEE is a new Wireless sensor network technology based on the IEEE standard [ ZIGBEE Alliance (2004)]. Its use in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) has aroused a great interest in the research community and its deployment will be increasing 15.

3 16 Mohamed KASRAOUI, Adnane CABANI and Joseph MOUZNA. in the near future. The lifetime and the scalability are the most frequent issues in its deployment. In order to increase the efficiency and scalability of communication, we have improved the ZIGBEE ROUTING PROTOCOL in a large scale network. The new proposed PROTOCOL called ZBR-M computes the shortest path between source and destination nodes by requesting the neighbor's nodes instead of following the tree topology. The result of first simulations shows that ZBR-M PROTOCOL reduces the end-to-end delay average and increases the packet delivery ratio compared to the basic ROUTING PROTOCOL . However, it consumes more energy caused by the high number of broadcasted messages. In order to reduce the energy consumption, we propose to pass the criticality as a parameter in the message type. Hence, and we can select many ROUTING protocols (AODV, ZBR or ZBR-M) for each one.

4 We choose to organize this paper into three sections. We begin in the first section by an overview of ROUTING protocols in wireless sensor and ZIGBEE networks. We reserve the second section for a comparative study of ZIGBEE ROUTING protocols proposed in the literature. In the third section, we present our approach and simulation results analysis. In the last section, we conclude our work an present some perspectives. 2. Overview In this section, we present a state of the art of ROUTING protocols proposed in the literature to carry out ROUTING analysis in sensor networks. The data transmission in a wireless sensor network can be done in two ways: i) A direct transmission method is possible when nodes are close to each other since the received signal is not too attenuated; ii) The sending by ROUTING PROTOCOL based on intermediate nodes, subject to the weakening of the signals.

5 The nodes act both as a client and server, relaying the packets to ensure their final destination. Classification of ROUTING Protocols According to the Network Structure In WSNs, ROUTING protocols are classified into three types such as flat ROUTING PROTOCOL , hierarchical ROUTING PROTOCOL and geographic ROUTING PROTOCOL . Flat ROUTING PROTOCOL It is difficult to assign global identifiers to each node of a sensor network given the large number of deployed nodes [Akkaya and Younis (2005a)]. This absence of a global addressing scheme with the random deployment of sensor nodes makes it hard to select a specific set of sensor nodes that to be queried. Therefore, data is generally transmitted from each sensor node deployed in the region with significant redundancy [Akkaya and Younis (2005b)]. This redundancy penalizes in terms of energy consumption. Thus, this thinking leads to the use of a ROUTING for the selection of a group of nodes and data ZBR-M: A New ZIGBEE ROUTING PROTOCOL 17.

6 Aggregation. The recipient requests by its target regions and waits to receive data from sensors located in the selected region. Hierarchical ROUTING PROTOCOL These protocols are adopted to allow the system to cover a wider area without degradation of service. The principal aim of hierarchical ROUTING is to reduce energy consumption and ROUTING cost of sensor nodes by making them within a cluster in order to perform aggregation and reduce the number of messages transmitted to the base station [Kim et al. (2007)]. This ROUTING is based primarily on the gateway nodes. In fact, ordinary nodes know that if the recipient is not in their immediate vicinity, they just send the request to the gateway. In turn, it will forward the request to the target node. Geographic ROUTING PROTOCOL ROUTING protocols use location-based information service for discovery of ROUTING and data transmission [Li et al.]

7 (2009)]. They allow the directional transmission of information to avoid the flooded data across the network. Therefore, the ROUTING cost will be reduced and the ROUTING algorithm will be more optimized. In addition, the use of network topology based on location information of nodes provides easily control and management of network. The disadvantage of these ROUTING protocols is that each node must know the locations of other nodes. Scalability in WSNs In this section, we introduce some ROUTING protocols for sensor networks and we examine the scaling of the network PROTOCOL with increasing the number of nodes. In the case of SPIN (Sensor PROTOCOL for Information via Negotiation), the negotiation introduces the network overhead and each node disseminates its message descriptor to all other nodes [Kulik et al. (2002)]. Similarly to Directed Diffusion PROTOCOL [Intanagonwiwat et al.

8 (2000)], many control messages have to be exchanged which increase the ROUTING cost. Whatever these two ROUTING protocols have proven their performance for small networks, so, they have to be suitable in a large network without they induce an overload penalizing. Rumor ROUTING PROTOCOL [Braginsky and Estrin (2002)] based on the detection of specific events can only work when the number of events is low. However, if we want to expand the network, the number of events will increase significantly which is disabling. For the TTDD (Two Tier Data Dissemination) [Luo et al. (2003)], the construction and the permanent maintenance of the grid structure for each base station import a considerable excess of traffic which depend of the network size. In addition, the PROTOCOL supports that nodes know their exact location which requires a reliable tracking system. The problem of reliability of the tracking system persists not only for the algorithm TTDD but also for any PROTOCOL which requires geographic information.

9 This type of protocols allows a directional transmission which broadens the area used by the data and it requires that each node has knowledge of the position of other sensor nodes. This 18 Mohamed KASRAOUI, Adnane CABANI and Joseph MOUZNA. knowledge only remains valid for networks containing a large number of sensors due to the limited capacity of the nodes. In conclusion, hierarchical protocols are the best suited to cover a wider such as LEACH [inzelman et al. (2000)], TEEN [Manjeshwar and Grawal (2001)] and HEED. [Younis and Fahmy (2004)]. Due to the dynamic clustering and the data aggregation techniques used by these protocols [Villas et al. (2011)], these techniques maintain an equitable distribution of energy consumption into network by sharing the role of cluster- head between the different nodes. Table 1 shows some examples that use these techniques. Table 1.

10 ROUTING protocols for sensor networks. ROUTING Type QoS data aggregation protocols SPIN FLAT - . Directed FLAT - Broadcast EAR FLAT - - CADR FLAT - - COUGAR FLAT - . LEACH Hierarchical - . PEGAGIS Hierarchical - . AQUIRE FLAT - - TEEN Hierarchical - . MCF FLAT - - HEED Hierarchical - - MECN Geographic - - GAF Geographic - - TTDD Hierarchical - - GEAR Geographic - - Rumor FLAT - . SPEED Geographic - GBR FLAT - . SAR Geographic - 3. ZIGBEE Network ROUTING By default, ZIGBEE uses a combination of two ROUTING protocols. One is hierarchical tree ROUTING (ZBR) PROTOCOL and another is Ad Hoc On-demand Distance vector (AODV). PROTOCOL . AODV (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector) PROTOCOL AODV is a reactive PROTOCOL , , the network stays silent until a connection is requested. If a node wants to communicate with another one, it broadcasts a request to its neighbors who re-route the message and safeguard the node from which they received the message [ (2003)].