ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On delivery guarantees of face and combined greedy-face routing in ad hoc and sensor networks
Full text PdfPdf (398 KB)
Source International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking archive
Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking table of contents
Los Angeles, CA, USA
SESSION: Ad hoc networks table of contents
Pages: 390 - 401  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-286-0
Authors
Hannes Frey  University of Southern Denmark
Ivan Stojmenovic  University of Ottawa
Sponsors
SIGMOBILE: ACM Special Interest Group on Mobility of Systems, Users, Data and Computing
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 100,   Citation Count: 11
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1161089.1161133
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

It was recently reported that all known face and combined greedy-face routing variants cannot guarantee message delivery in arbitrary undirected planar graphs. The purpose of this article is to clarify that this is not the truth in general. We show that specifically in relative neighborhood and Gabriel graphs recovery from a greedy routing failure is always possible without changing between any adjacent faces. Guaranteed delivery then follows from guaranteed recovery while traversing the very first face. In arbitrary graphs, however, a proper face selection mechanism is of importance since recovery from a greedy routing failure may require visiting a sequence of faces before greedy routing can be restarted again. A prominent approach is to visit a sequence of faces which are intersected by the line connecting the source and destination node. Whenever encountering an edge which is intersecting with this line, the critical part is to decide if face traversal has to change to the next adjacent one or not. Failures may occur from incorporating face routing procedures that force to change the traversed face at each intersection. Recently observed routing failures which were produced by the GPSR protocol in arbitrary planar graphs result from incorporating such a face routing variant. They cannot be constructed by the well known GFG algorithm which does not force changing the face anytime. Beside methods which visit the faces intersected by the source destination line, we discuss face routing variants which simply restart face routing whenever the next face has to be explored. We give the first complete and formal proofs that several proposed face routing, and combined greedyface routing schemes do guarantee delivery in specific graph classes or even any arbitrary planar graphs. We also discuss the reasons why other methods may fail to deliver a message or even end up in a loop.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
 
4
Gregory G. Finn. Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale internetworks. Technical Report ISI/RR-87-180, Information Sciences Institute (ISI), 1987.
 
5
Hannes Frey and Ivan Stojmenovic. Geographic and energy aware routing in sensor networks. In Ivan Stojmenovic, editor, Handobook on Sensor Networks Wiley, 2005.
 
6
K. R. Gabriel and R. R. Sokal. A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology 18:259--278, 1969.
7
 
8
Silvia Giordano and Ivan Stojmenovic. Position based routing algorithms for ad hoc networks: A taxonomy. In Xiuzhen Cheng, Xiao Huang, and Ding-Zhu Du, editors, Ad Hoc Wireless Networking pages 103--136. Kluwer, 2004.
 
9
THE CMU MONARCH GROUP. Wireless and mobility extensions to ns-2. http://www.monarch.cs.rice.edu.
 
10
11
 
12
Y.-J. Kim, R. Govindan, B. Karp, and S. Shenker. Geographic routing made practical. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Network Systems Design and Implementation Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 2005.
13
 
14
Evangelos Kranakis, Harvinder Singh, and Jorge Urrutia. Compass routing on geometric networks. In Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry (CCCG'99) pages 51--54, Vancouver, August 1999.
15
16
17
 
18
 
19
Xiang-Yang Li, Gruia Calinescu, and Peng-Jun Wan. Distributed construction of a planar spanner and routing for ad hoc wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (INFOCOM '02) volume 3, pages 1268--1277. IEEE Computer Society, June 23--27 2002.
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
Hideaki Takagi and Leonard Kleinrock. Optimal transmission ranges for randomly distributed packet radio terminals. IEEE Transactions on Communications 32(3):246--257, March 1984.
 
25
G. Toussaint. The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognition 12(4):261--268, 1980.

CITED BY  11

Collaborative Colleagues:
Hannes Frey: colleagues
Ivan Stojmenovic: colleagues