ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Lazy cross-link removal for geographic routing
Full text PdfPdf (334 KB)
Source Conference On Embedded Networked Sensor Systems archive
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems table of contents
Boulder, Colorado, USA
SESSION: Dissemination and routing table of contents
Pages: 112 - 124  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-343-3
Authors
Young-Jin Kim Ramesh Govindan  University of Southern California
Brad Karp  University College London
Scott Shenker  UCB/ICSI
Sponsors
SIGMOBILE: ACM Special Interest Group on Mobility of Systems, Users, Data and Computing
SIGCOMM: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
SIGMETRICS: ACM Special Interest Group on Measurement and Evaluation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGBED: ACM Special Interest Group on Embedded Systems
SIGARCH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Architecture
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 58,   Citation Count: 5
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/10.1145/1182807.1182819
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Geographic techniques promise highly scalable any-to-any routing in wireless sensor networks. In one thread of research on geographic routing, researchers have explored robust, distributed graph planarization. Arguing that such planarization techniques have high overhead, researchers have more recently pursued a thread in which they propose precomputation of routing structures (e.g., hull trees and grids) to achieve low-overhead geographic routing.In this paper we introduce a third approach, LCR, that does not involve any precomputation of distributed routing structures, nor full a priori planarization. Instead, LCR removes non-planarities lazily only when they interfere with correct geographic routing. Lazy removal of link crossings results in an order of magnitude or more lower overhead than any previously proposed approach.


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
FANG, Q., GAO, J., GUIBAS, L.J., DE SILVA, V., AND ZHANG, L. GLIDER: Gradient Landmark-Based Distributed Routing for Sensor Networks. In Proc. IEEE Infocom (2005).
 
4
FINN, G. Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale internetworks. Tech. Rep. ISI/RR-87-180, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Mar. 1987.
 
5
FONSECA, R., RATNASAMY, S., ZHAO, J., EE, C., CULLER, D., SHENKER, S., AND STOICA, I. Beacon Vector Routing: Scalable Point-to-point Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proc. USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (Boston, MA, April 2005).
 
6
GABRIEL, K., AND SOKAL, R. A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology 18 (1969), 259--278.
7
8
 
9
 
10
KARP, B. Challenges in geographic routing: Sparse networks, obstacles, and traffic provisioning. Presentation at the DIMACS Workshop on Pervasive Networking, May 2001.
11
 
12
KIM, D., AND MAXEMCHUK, N. Simple Robotic Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (2004).
 
13
KIM, Y.J., GOVINDAN, R., KARP, B., AND SHENKER, S. Geographic Routing Made Practical. In Proc. USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (Boston, MA, April 2005).
14
 
15
KLEINROCK, L., AND TAKAGI, H. Optimal transmission ranges for randomly distributed packet radio terminals. IEEE Trans. Comm. 32, 3 (1984), 246--257.
16
17
18
19
20
 
21
LIANG, B., LISKOV, B., AND MORRIS, R. Geographic Routing without Planarization. In Proc. USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (April 2006).
22
23
24
25
 
26
TOUSSAINT, G. The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognition 12, 4 (1980), 261--268.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Young-Jin Kim Ramesh Govindan: colleagues
Brad Karp: colleagues
Scott Shenker: colleagues