Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Power-Aware Routi ng i n Mobi l e Ad Hoc Networks

Suesh Si ngh and Mke Woo C. S. Mghavendra


Department of ECE Aerospace Corporati on
Oregon State Uni versi ty El SeWndo, CA 90245
CorvaUs, OR 97331 em ai l : raghu@aero. org
woo,si ngh@ece. orst. edu
Abstract
b thi s paper we present a case for usi ng new power -awar e
metn.cs for determi ni ng routes i n wi rel ess ad hoc networks.
We present fi ve ~er ent metri w based on battery power
consumpti on at nodw. We show that usi ng th=e metri cs
i n a shortest-cost routi ng al gori thm reduces the cost/packet
of routi ng packets by 5-30% over shortwt-hop routi ng (thi s
cost reducti on i s on top of a 40-70% reducti on i n ener gy con-
sumpti on obtai ned by usi ng PAMAS, our MAC l ayer pr-
tocol ). Furthermore, usi ng these new metri cs ensures that
the mean ti me to node fai l ure i s i ncreased si ~cantl y. An
i nteresti ng pr oper ty of usi ng shortest-cost routi ng i s that
packet del ays do not i ncrease. Fi nti y, we note that our new
metri m can be used i n most tradi ti on routi ng pr otocol s for
ad hoc networks.
1 Introduction
Ad Hoc networks are mul ti -hop wi rel ess networ ks wher e dl
nodes cooperati vel y mai ntai n networ k connecti vi ty. These
types of networ ks are useftd i n any si tuati on wher e tem-
por ar y networ k connecti vi ty i s needed, such as i n di saster
reti ef. An ad hoc networ k her e wodd enabl e medi m i n the
fi el d to r etr i eve pati ent hi story horn hospi tal databasm (as-
sumi ng that one or mor e of the nodes of the ad hoc networ k
are connected to the kter net) or Wow i nsurance compani es
to ti e cl ai ms horn the fi el d.
Bui l di ng such ad hoc networ ks poses a si gni fi cant tech-
ni cal chdenge because of the many constrai nts i mposed by
the envi ronment. Thus, the devi cw used i n the fi el d must
be l i ghtwei ght. Furthermore, si nce they are battery oper -
ated, they need to be ener gy conservi ng so that battery fi fe
i s maxi mi zed. Several technol ogi es are bei ng devel oped to
achi eve these go~ by tmgeti ng speci fi c components of the
computer and opti mi zi ng thei r ener gy consumpti on. For i n-
Pemti ssi ontomakedi~tal or hard copies of all or part oftbis \vork for
pemorralor classroomuse is @nted without fee provided that copies
are nt)t made or distributed for protit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the fill citation on the first page. To copy
othen~ise, to republish, to post on seners or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and~ora fee.
MOBI COki 9S Dal l as Texas USA
Copyri ghtACM 19981-581 13435-f198/10...$00OO
stance, l ow-power di spl ays (see [13]), al gori thms to r educe
power consumpti on of di sk &I ves (see [9, 19, 34]), l ow-power
1/0 devi cw such = cameras (see [5]), etc. dl contri bute
to overal l ener gy savi ngs. Other rel ated wor k i ncl udes the
devel opment of l ow-power CPUS (such as those used i n l ap
tops) and hi gh-capaci ty batteri w.
Our focus, i n the past year, has been on devel opi ng
strategi a for reduci ng the ener gy consumpti on of the com-
muni cati on subsystem and increasing the life of the nodes.
Recent studi es have strwsed the need for desi gni ng pr ot~
cok to ensure l onger battery Me. Thus, [21] observes that
the average He of batteri es i n an i dl e ceUti ar phone i s one
day. [32] studi = power consumpti on of several cornrnerci d
radi os (WaveLAN, Metri com and ~) and observw that even
i n Sl eep mode the power consumpti on ranged between 150-
170 mW whal e i n I de state the power consumpti on went
up by one or der of magni tude. k transmi t mode the power
consumpti on typi cal l y doubl ed. The DEC Roarnabout radi o
[1] consumes approxi matel y 5.76 watts duri ng transti l on,
2.8S watts duri ng r ecepti on and 0.35 watts when i de.
H we exami ne the exi sti ng MAC pr otocok and routi ng
pr otocok i n th= context we see a cl ear need for i mprove
ment: i n al l of the current protowk, nodes are powered on
most of the time even when they are doing no useful work.
At the MAC l ayer, nodes expend scarce ener gy when they
over hear transmi ssi ons. b Fi gure 1, node As trans-l on
to node B i s over hear d by node C because C i s a nei ghbor of
A. Node C thus expends ener gy i n recei vi ng a packet that
was not sent to i t. b thi s case, cl earl y, node C needs to be
power ed off for the durati on of the transmi ssi on i n or der to
conser ve i ts ener gy. Our MAC l ayer pr otocol (summari zed
i n secti on 4) does preci sel y thi s and saves l arge amounts of
ener gy. Routi ng pr otocok desi gned for ad hoc networ ks are
dso gui l ty of expendi ng ener gy needessl y. k most of thr ee
pr otocol s the paths are computed based on m~l zi ng hop
count or del ay. Thus, some nodes, become responsi bl e for
routi ng packets from many sourc-dmti nati on pai rs. Over
ti me, the ener gy r eser v= of th=e nod= wi ~ get depl eted
rwul ti ng i n node fai l ure. A better &oi ce of routes i s one
wher e packets get r outed through paths that may be l onger
but that pass through nodes that have pl enty of ener ~ r~
serves.
Our research has focussed on desi gni ng pr otocok that
i ncrease the Efe of nodes and the networ k. k or der to pr-
duce a complete solution, we have attacked each l ayer (MAC,
181
~y .
- . . ..
Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir
A transti ts As transmi ssi on
toB , i s over hear d by C
B
I
A
I
c
#--------+ ....................
a
Fi gure 1: Unnecessary power consumpti on,
networ k and transport) i ndi vi dudl y. b our bottom-up ap-
proach, we opti mi ze the ener gy consumpti on of the MAC
l ayer fi st fo~owed by the networ k l ayer and fmdl y the trans-
por t l ayer. h [24] we present a MAC l ayer pr otocol for ad
hoc networ ks that reduca ener gy consumpti on by 40% to
70% for di fferent l oad and networ k condi ti ons. An over vi ew
of thi s wor k i s provi ded i n secti on 4. I n thi s paper, we
e~l or e the i ssue of i ncreasi ng node and networ k fi fe
by usi ng power -awar e metri cs for routi ng. htui ti vel y,
i t i s best to r oute packets through nodw that have suffi ci ent
remai ni ng power (rather than through a node whose bat-
ter y i s on i ts l ast l egs). Si m~al y, routi ng packets through
Eghtl y-l oaded nod= i s *O ener~-conservi ng because the
ener gy ~ended i n contenti on i s mi ni i ed. We show that
power -awar e routi ng (bui l t on top of a power -awar e MAC
pr otocol ) can save overal l ener gy consumpti on i n the net-
wor k and, si rmdtaneousl y, i ncrease battery Me at dl nodes.
Our wor k on opti mti l ng transport l ayer pr otocok W be
pr=ented i n an upcomi ng paper.
The remai nder of thi s paper i s organi zed as fol l ows. k
the n- secti on we di scuss the probl em of routi ng i n mdti -
hop wi rel ess networ ks and provi de a survey of metri ~ used
by cur r ent routi ng pr otocok. b secti on 3 we di scuss dif-
ferent mettics that resti t i n power -awar e routi ng. Secti on
4 outl i nes our ener gy conservi ng MAC l ayer pr otocol for
mul ti -hop wi rel =s networks. We dso present rel ated r e
sui ts on reduci ng ener gy consumpti on i n ce~ti ar and wi r e
l ess LAN envi ronments by careti l y dai gni ng the MAC pr~
tocol . Secti on 5 praents the resdts of our si mul ati ons wher e
we demonstrate the use of new power -awar e metri m. Fi -
nal l y, secti on 6 summari zes the mai n resul ts and outl i nw
our future research.
2 Metrics used in current Routing Protocols
The probl em of routi ng i n mobfi e ad hoc networ ks i s di f-
fi cul t because of node mobi fi ty. Thus, we encounter two
coti cti ng go~ on the one hand, i n or der to opti mi ze
routes, frequent topol ogy updates are requi red, w~e on the
other hand, frequent topol ogy updates resul t i n hi gher mes-
sage overhead. Several authors have presented routi ng dg~
ri thms for these networ ks that attempt to opti mi ze routes
whi l e attempti ng to keep masage over head smd. k th~
secti on we breMy di scuss the ~er ent metn.cs used for rout-
i ng and then =arni ne thei r effect on node and networ k l i fe.
DMer ent routi ng pr otocol s use one or mor e of a smal l
set of metri cs to determi ne opti mal paths. The most com-
mon metri c used i s shortest-hop routi ng ~ i n DSR (Dy-
nami c Sour ce Routi ng [15]), DSDV (D=ti nati on Sequenced
Di stance Vector [26]), TORA (Temporal l y-Ordered Routi ng
Al gori thm [25]), WRP (Wi rel ess Routi ng Pr otocol [22]) and
i n the DARPA packet radi o pr otocol (see [16, 18]). Some
182
of these pr otocok, however , can just ~ easi l y use shortest
delay as the metri c. Link quality is a metri c that i s used by
SSA (Si gnal Stabi fi ty based Adapti ve Routi ng [8]) and by
the DARPA pr otocol . Here, l i nk quti ty i nformati on i s used
to sel ect one among many ~er ent routes (i n some cases
a short-t-hop r oute may not be used because of poor l i nk
qudty). k addi ti on to l i nk qual i ty, SSA *O us= iocation
stability as a metri c. Thi s metri c bi asw r oute sel ecti on tm
ward routes wi th rel ati vel y stati onary nods. A benefi t of
these type of rout= i s that ther e ~ be httl e need to modi fy
them frequentl y. Fi nal l y, the SRA pr otocol (Spi ne Routi ng
Al gori thm [7]) attempts to mi ti l ze the m~age and ti me
over head of computi ng routes. h thi s pr otocol , nodes me
assi gned to cl usters (one or tw~hops i n di ameter) and cl us-
ters are joi ned together by a vi rtual backbone. Packets des-
ti ned for other cl usters get r outed vi a thi s backbone. The
god her e i s to r educe the compl exi ty of mai ntai ni ng routes
i n the face of node mobfi ty. Of course, the routes are not
necessari l y the shortest.
The sti l ent features of these pr otocol s i s summari zed i n
Tabl e 1. h th= tabl e, we have cl assfi ed the pr otocol s ac-
cordi ng to the metri cs used for r oute opti mi zati on, the mw-
sage over head i n determi ni ngg routes, the type of pr otocol
used and i ts conver gence go~ (acti ve r efer s to a pr otocol
that runs untfl dl routi ng tabl es are consi stent whi l e passive
r efer s to an al gori thm that determi nw rout= based on a
*needed basi s).
2.1 Discussion of the power-awareness of current metrics
Some of thwe metri cs, unfortunatel y, have a negati ve i mpact
on node and networ k We by i nadvertentl y overusi ng the en-
er gy resourcm of a smd set of nodes i n favor of others. For
i nstance i n the networ k i l l ustrated i n Fi gure 2, shortest-hop
routi ng wi ~ r oute packets between &3, 14 and 2-5 vi a node
6, causi ng node 6 to di e rel ati vel y earl y. Sti l l arl y, hi erarchi -
cal and spi ne routi ng al gori thms d (by thei r ver y desi gn)
~l oi t nodes that he on the spi ne i n or der to r educe mes-
sage over head i n routi ng tabl e mai ntenance. b fact, i t i s
i mportant to obser ve that the metri c of reduci ng message
over head may be mi s@ded i n the l ong-term. I f we assume
that 5-10% of networ k bandwi dth i s consumed by routi ng
pr otocol over head then reduci ng thi s number further wi l l
have Ettl e overal l benefi t i f the data packets (that account
for 90-95% of the bandwi dth) ei ther use subopti md routes
or over ~end the ener gy r esour c~ of a smal l set of nodw (on
the spi ne, for i nstance). h fact, we can probabl y rephrase
a versi on of Amdti s Law (see pp. 29, [14]) for routi ng:
Mi nti ze the cost for the frequent case (data
packets) over the i nfrequent case (control packets).
Fi nrdl y, we note that i n most cases, fi nk qual i ty and l ocati on
stabi l i ty are orthogonal to the god of power-awareness and
ther efor e can be used in conjunction wi th the new metri cs
we dehe i n the neti secti on.
3 Metrics for Power-Aware Routing
Our key i ntui ti on i n thi s paper i s that conservi ng power and
careful l y shari ng the cost of routi ng packets wi l l ensure that
node and networ k fi fe =e i ncreased. However , we saw i n
the previ ous secti on that none of the metri cs currentl y used
-- .--- ,(------ .,- . . . . . . . ---
Pr otocol Metri cs Message Conver gence Pr otocol me Summary
Overhead
DSR Shor twt Path Hi gh Passi ve Sour ce Routi ng Route di scovery, Snoopi ng
DSDV Shortest Path Hi gh Acti ve Di stance Vector Routi ng tabl e exchange
DARPA Shortest Path, Hi gh Acti ve Di stance Vector Routi ng tabl e exchange,
Li nk Qual i ty Snoopi ng
WRP Shortest Path Hi gh Acti ve Di stance Vector Routi ng tabl e exchanges
SSA Locati on Stabi l i ty, Moder ate P=i ve Sour ce Routi ng Route Di scover y
Li nk Qufi l ty
TORA Shor twt Path Moder ate Passi ve Li nk Reversal Route update packets
SRA Message and Time Moder ate Acti ve Hi erarti l cd, Spi ne Route di scovery wi thi n
over head cl uster, Spi ne routi ng
Tabl e 1: Compari son of several routi ng pr otocok for ad hoc networks.
for routi ng achi eve thi s god (i n secti on 5 we support thi s
cl ai m vi a si mti ati ons). h thi s secti on, ther efor e, we praent
several power -awar e metri w that do r~dt i n energy-effi ci ent
routes.
1. Minimize Energy wnsumed/packet: This is one of the
most obvi ous metri w that refl ects our i ntui ti on about
conservi ng ener gy. Assume that some packet j tra-
vers= nodes nl , . . . , nk wher e nl i s the sour ce and nk
the dwti nati on. Let T(a, b) denote the ener gy con-
sumed i n transmi tti ng (and recei vi ng) one packet over
one hop from u to b. Then the ener gy consumed for
packet j i s,
k-1

ej = ~T(ni,ni+l)
i= 1
Thus, the god of thi s metri c i s to,
Mi ni mi ze ej, V packets j (1)
Di scwsi on: I t i s easy to see that thw metri c wi l l mi ni -
mi ze the average ener gy consumed per packet. k fact
i t i s i nterwti ng to obser ve that, under fi ght l oads, the
routes sel ected when usi ng thi s metri c wi l l be i denti -
cd to routes sel ected by shortmt-hop routi ng! Thi s i s
not a surpri si ng observati on because, i f we assume that
T(a, b) = T (a constant) , V(a, b) c E, wher e E is the
set of dl edgw, then the power consumed i s (k l )T.
To mi ni mi ze thi s due, we si mpl y need to mi ni mi ze k
whi ch i s equi ti ent to &di ng the shortest-hop path.
k some c=es, however , the r oute sel ected when us-
i ng th~ metri c may ~er from the r oute sel ected by
shortest-hop routi ng. Thus, i f one or mor e nodes on
the shortmt-hop path are heavfl y l oaded, the amount
of ener gy expended i n transmi tti ng one packet over
one hop ti l not be a constant si nce we may expend
vari abl e amounts of ener gy (per hop) on contenti on.
Thus, th~ metri c wi l l tend to r oute packets around
congested are= (possi bl y i ncreasi ng hop-count).
One seri ous drawback of th~ metri c i s that nod= wi l l
tend to have wi del y Meri ng ener gy consumpti on pr~
fl es resul ti ng i n earl y death for some nodw. Consi der
the networ k i l l ustrated i n Fi gure 2. Here, node 6 wi l l
be sel ected as the r oute for packets goi ng from O-3, 1-
4 and 2-5. As a rmul t node 6 wi l l expend i ts battery
r esour ces at a faster rate than the other nodes i n the
networ k and wi l l be the ti st to di e. Thus, th~ metri c
does not r e~y
networ k ~i e.
meet our god of i ncreasi ng node and
o 1
5
m
6
2
4 3
Fi gure 2: A networ k Hl ustrati ng the
er gy/packet as a metri c.
probl em wi th En-
2. Mazimize Time to Network Patiition: Thi s metri c i s
ver y i mportant i n Wl on cri ti cal appl i cati ons such
as battl wi te networks. Unfortunatel y, opti mi zi ng thi s
metri c i s ver y di ffi cul t i f we need to si rnti taneousl y
mai ntai n l ow del ay and hi gh throughput.
Discussion: Gi ven a networ k topol ogy, usi ng the max-
fl ow-mi n-cut theorem, we can fi d a mi ni mal set of
nodes (the cut-set) the r emod of whi ch wi ~ cause
the networ k to parti ti on. The routes between these
two parti ti ons must go through one of thti e cri ti cal
nodes. A routi ng pr ocedur e ther efor e must di vi de the
wor k among thr ee nodw to maxi mi ze the Me of the
networ k. ThB probl em i s si mi l ar to the l oad bakmc-
i n# probl em wher e t~ks need to be sent to one of
the many ser ver s avai l abl e so that the response ti me
i s mi ni mi zed - thi s i s known to be an ~-compl ete
probl em. I f we dont ensure that thr ee nodes drai n
thei r power at equal rate, we wi ~ see del ays i ncrease
as soon as one of thwe nod= di e. Achi evi ng equal
power drai n rate among these nodes requi re careful
routi ng and i s si mi l w to the l oad bal anci ng probl em
d=cri bed above. I n our case, si nce nodes i n Mer ent
parti ti ons i ndependentl y determi ne rout= we cannot
achi eve the gl obal brdance requi red to maxi mi ze the
networ k parti ti on ti me whi l e mi ni rni i i ng the average
del ay. We can ~so see that because the power con-
sumpti on i s dependent on the l ength of the packet we
cannot deci de opti mal routes wi thout the knowl edge
of future arri ds (si mi l ar to the knowl edge of execut-
183
i ng ti mes of t~ks i n di stri buted systems). I f W the
packets are of same l ength, then we can ensure equal
power drai n rate among the cri ti cal nodes by sel ecti ng
these nod= i n a round-robi n fashi on i n routi ng packets
horn one si de to the other .
3. Minimize Vatiance in node power levels: The i ntui ti on
behi nd th~ metri c i s that dl nodes i n the networ k are
equ~y i mportant and no one node must be penfl l zed
mor e than any of the others. Thi s metri c ensures that
d the nod= i n the networ k remai n up and runni ng
together for as l ong as possi bl e.
Discussion: Thi s probl em i s sti l l ar to l oad shari n~
i n di stri buted systems wher e the objecti ve i s to mi n-
i mi ze response ti me w~e keepi ng the amount of un-
ti hed wor k i n A nod= the same. Ati l evi ng th~
opti mrdl y i s known to be i ntractabl e due to unknown
executi on ti mes of fi ture arri -. Even i f we are gi ven
a set of N tasks wi th vari abl e I en@hs to be al l ocated
to 3 or mor e machi nes, thu probl em i s NP-compl ete as
i t i s equi dent to the bi n packi ng probl em. A scheme
that can be used to achi eve the stated god reasonabl y
wel l i s a pofi cy cded Joi n the Shor twt Queue (JSQ).
We can adopt such an i dea by usi ng a routi ng pr oc~
dure wher e each node sends trti c through a nei ghbor
wi th the l east amount of data wai ti ng to be trans-
mi tted. We can i mprove thi s further by doi ng some
I ookups of wai ti ng trfi c few hops away to deci de the
next best hop. An approxi rnat e routi ng pr ocedur e can
be devel oped whi ch us= the next hop b~ed on total
wai ti ng trti c among i ts i mmedi ate nei ghbors when i t
has a choi ce. H dl packets are of same l ength, how-
ever , then we can achi eve th~ equal power drai n rate
by choosi ng next hop i n a round-robi n fashi on so that
on the average dl nodes process equal number of pack-
ets.
3 -
\
Ot 02 03 04 05 00 07 08 09 1
*-*W (mdQ@
11
Fi gure 3: Exampl e of a battery di scharge functi on (Li thi um-
I on).
4. Minimize Cost/Packet: H our god is to maxi mi ze the
~i e of dl nodes i n the networ k, then metri cs other
than ener ~ consumed/packet need to be used. The
184
paths sel ected when usi ng these metri w shoti d be such
that nod= wi th depl eted ener gy r wer ves do not l i e on
many paths. Let ji (zi ) be a functi on that denotes the
node wst or weight of node i . xi represents the totr d
ener gy expended by node i thus far. We dehe the
total cost of sendi ng a packet al ong some path as the
sum of the node wei ghts of dl nodes that he al ong that
path. The cost of sendi ng a pa&et j from nl to nk vi a
i ntermedi ate nod= n2, ..., n~-1 i s,
k-1
.j = ~ fi ($i )
i =l
The god of thi s metri c i s to,
Mi ni mi ze Cj, V packets j (2)
Discussion: ktui ti vel y, fi denotes a nodeS reluctance
to foward packets and we can see that wi th au ap-
propri atel y chosen fi , we can ti l eve di tferent go*.
Thus, i f fi i s a monotone i ncreasi ng functi on, then
nodes (such as node 6 i n Fi gure 2) d not be over used
thus i ncreasi ng thei r fi fe. However , i t i s fi kel y that the
del ay and the ener gy consumed/packet may be gr eater
for some packets, such as those from &3, 14 and 2-5
that use 3-hop routes. Thi s i s not necessari l y a draw-
back si nce the fi fe of node 6 (i n Fi gure 2) i s i ncre~ed
and the vari ati on i n the fi feti rne of di fferent nodes i s
reduced.
fi can dso be tai l ored to accuratel y r efl ect a batterys
remti l ng hfeti me. Many batteri es di spl ay a di scharge
cur ve ~i e the one ti ustrated i n Fi gure 3 (see [12]).
Here, we pl ot the normal i zed consumed capaci ty on
the x-axi s and the measured vol tage on the y-axi s. So,
i f the vol tage i s 2.8V, the battery i s dead si nce dl of i ts
capaci ty (1 i n normti zed uni ts) has been consumed.
When the vol tage i s 3.6V, for exampl e, 80% of the
capaci ty has been consumed. One i ntermti ng choi ce
for fi i s,
.
fi (Zi ) =
1 g(Zi )
wher e zi denotes the measured vol tage (that gi ves a
good i ndi cati on of the ener gy used thus far) and O <
g(zi ) < 1.0 i s the normti l zed remai ni ng ~i eti me (or
capaci ty) of the battery ((g(zi ), zi ) represents a poi nt
on the di scharge curve). Usi ng thi s type of a functi on
ensures that the cost of forwardi ng packets i s ti ed i n
cl osel y wi th the power r esour ces depl oyed i n the net-
wor k. Note that i t i s tri vi al to determi ne fi (Zi ) si nce
zi can be read di rectl y from the battery and the di s-
&arge cur ve i s avai l abl e for the batteryl .
An al ternati ve form of fi for thi s =arnpl e (see Fi gure
3), however , i s,
fi (zi ) = +
l We must add a wor d of cauti on though i n the case of ol der
batteri es, ther e i s a si gni fi cant er r or i n deter mi ni ng the remai ni ng
l i feti me fr om the vol tage. Thi s happens because of chemi cal degr a-
dati on i n the battery. One sol uti on, for our purposes, woul d be to
r ecompute the di scharge cur ve as the battery ages or make ami l abl e
the di scharge cur ves i n some databxe that can be accessed by users
bxed on thei r battery type, model and age.
5.
th~ functi on has a reasonabl e node cost for about 80%
of the batterys Meti me (the vol tage drops from 4V
to 3.6V) but after that poi nt the cost gr ows rapi dl y.
btui ti vel y, thi s form of ~i ensures that shortwt-hop
routi ng W be used when the networ k i s new but M
the networ k nod= near the end of thei r Meti mes, we
careful l y r oute packets so that no one node (or set of
nodes) di = befor e the others (whi ch can resdt i n a
parti ti on).
Fi ndy, we note that the di scharge cur ve for some d-
Hi e batteri es i s ahnost l i near and we can =oci ate
a hear node cost bcti on, such X,
~;(Z~) = cZi (3)
wi th each node.
We can summari ze some of the benefi ts of thi s metri c
I t i s possi bl e to i ncorporate the battery charac-
teri sti ~ di rectl y i nto the routi ng pr otocol ,
As a si de&ect, we i ncrease ti me to networ k par-
ti ti on and r educe vari ati on i n node costs (though
we do not opti mi ze thse metri w), and
Effects of networ k congesti on =e i ncorporated i nto
thi s metri c (as au i n;rease i n node ;ost due to
contenti on).
Minimize M&mum Node Cost: Let Ci(t) denote the
cost of routi ng a packet through node i a~ti me t.De
fi ne d(t)denote the mti um of the Ci (t)s. Then,
Mi ni mi ze ~(t), Vt >0 (4)
metri c mi ni mi zes mti mum node cost. An al ternati ve
defi ni ti on i s to rni ~l ze the maxi mum node cost aj-
ter routing N packets to their destinations or afler T
sewnds. Afl of these vari ati ons ensure that node fai l -
ur e i s del ayed and a si de effect i s that the vari ance i n
node power I evek i s *O reduced. Unfortunatel y, we
see no way of i mpl ementi ng thi s metri c di rectl y i n a
routi ng pr otocol but mi ni mi zi ng cost/node does si g-
ni fi cantl y r educe the m~um node cost (and hence
ti me to fi st node fai l ure).
The fi ve metri cs di scussed above do, i n Mer ent ways, ex-
press our i ntui ti on about conservi ng ener gy i n the networ k
by sel ecti ng routes careti l y. However , what protocols best
i mpl ement thwe metri m? I t i s easy to see that any pr otocol
that fi ds shortest paths can be used to determi ne opti mal
routes b~ed on the fi st and fourth metri cs di scussed above
(equati ons 1, 2). To i mpl ement the fi st metri c, we si m-
pl y wsoci ate an edge wei ght wi th each edge i n the networ k.
Thi s wei ght refl ects the Aue T(a, b). For the second met-
ri c (cost/packet), we associ ate node wei ghts fi wi th each
node and compute the shortest path as usual . We have not
yet i mpl emented the other thr ee metri w but we have de
termi ned that they are opti mi zed somewhat by the metri c
(cost/packet) i f we sel ect ji s careful l y.
Fi nal l y, i t i s i mportant to poi nt out that our metri cs
do not necessari l y need to be used for routi ng dl the ti me.
Rather, when the networ k i s new (when dl nodes are r~
pl et e wi th ener gy resources), short=t-hop routi ng can be
185
used. However , after some ti me when ener gy r esour cw have
fden bel ow a thrwhol d, nodes can begi n usi ng one of the
above routi ng metri ~. Another rel ated poi nt i s that routi ng
pr otocok mi ght use these metri cs for routi ng most packets
but swi tch to shortest-hop (or del ay) routi ng for a fracti on
of the pti ets that have a hi gh pri ori ty.
4 OveNi ew of PAMAS (Power-Aware Multiple Access pro-
towl with Signaling)
h thissecti on we provi de an over vi ew of our MAC l ayer
pr otocol for ad hoc networks. We use thi s pr otocol m the
MAC pr otocol i n our si mti ator as we~. Thus, the en-
ergy savi ngs r epor ted in section 5 are savi ngs that
are obtai ned on top of the considerable savings due
to PAMAS. The PAMAS pr otocol sava 4070% of battery
power by i nte~gentl y turni ng off radi os when they cannot
transmi t or cannot r ecei ve packets. Thus, i n the scenari o
~ustrated i n Fi gure 1, node C power s i tsek off for the dura-
ti on of the transti l on horn A to B. Node C @l thus con-
ser ve i ts battery power because i t ~ not ~end ener gy i n
~i teni ng to As transmi ssi on. The speci fi c condi ti ons under
wi th nodes power off i n PAMAS are:
G A node power s off i f i t i s overhe~i ng a transti l on
and do= not have a packet to transmi t,
G I f at l east one nei ghbor i s trmmi tti ng and at l east one
nei ghbor i s recei vi ng a transti l on, anode may power
off. ThK i s because, even i f the node has a packet to
transmi t, i t cannot do so for fear of i nterferi ng wi th i ts
nei ghbors recepti on,
G I f dl of a nodes nei ghbors nei ghbors are transmi tti ng
(and the node i s not a r ecei ver ), i t power s i tsel f off.
A fundamental probl em that ari sm when nod= power
themsel ves off i s, for how long an a node remain powered
OH k the opti mal case, a node power s i tse~ off exactl y
when one of the condi ti ons above hol ds true. However , i n
actual i mpl ementati on, a node needs to esti mate th~ l en~h
of ti me (keep i n mi nd that a node cannot sense carri er when
i t i s power ed off so i t has no way of knowi ng when a tr--
mi ssi on i n i ts nei ghborhood h= compl eted). k our pr ot-
COI ,= i n dl other MAC l ayer pr otocol s for ad hoc networks,
nodes attempt to grab the channel by mchangi ng RTS/CTS
(ready to send and cl ear to send) mwsages. Thus, the sender
transmi ts a RTS mwsage. The r ecei ver rwponds wi th a CTS
message i f i t r ecei ved the RTS message uncorrupted. The
sender begi ns transmi ssi on upon recei vi ng the CTS. b PA-
MAS, thi s exchange of RTS/CTS mwsagw takes pl ace over
a separate si gndhng channe12. Thus, thi s exchange does
not ti ect any ongoi ng data transmi ~i ons. The RTS/CTS
m~sages cent ti n the l ength of the packet the sender wi ~
send. Thus, any other node i n the nei ghborhood can deter -
mi ne the l ength of the transmi ssi on and power off i f one of
the above condi ti ons i s met. A probl em =i ses i n the case
when a node that has power ed i tsel f off wakens to hear a
new ongoi ng transmi ssi on. I n thi s case, i t needs to be abl e
to =ti mate the l ength of the remai ni i g transmi ssi on and
21n PAMAS the r ecei ver transmi ts a busy tone once i t begi ns hear -
i ng the packet. Thi s i s done to combat a speci fi c hi dden-termi nal
pr obl em.
~--- . >,. . . . . ..-. . a.~ s
.- .
--- .,,
.
- ,,- ., -,.......
power i tseK off (i f one of the condi ti ons above i s met) agai n.
We have a pr otocol that runs over the si gndhng chanel
that al l ows nodes to query transmi tters about the l ength of
the remai ni ng transmi ssi on. Co~i i ons duri ng thi s enqui ry
(whi ch are ~i el y i n hi gh-degree networ ks si nce several nodes
may power off as a consequence of a transmi ssi on and may
waken si mdtaneousl y) are handed wi th a modi fi ed bi nary
backoff al gori thm. Thi s dgori thrn can be tuned so that over -
head of the al gori thm i s traded off agai nst accuracy i n the
esti mate of the l ength of the remai ni ng transmi ssi on.
Fi gure 4 Ul ustrat= the power savi ngs obtai ned (as a per -
centage) when usi ng PAMAS. The networ k used i s a 20-node
random networ k. The x-axi s denotes the edge probabi l i ty.
Di fferent curves i ndi cate power savi ngs for Werent networ k
l oads. Note that at hi gh l oads the power savi ngs are smal l er
because a l arge amount of power i s consumed i n contenti on.
The savi ngs, however , i ncrease wi th i ncreasi ng node con-
necti vi ty si nce a node has mor e opportui ni ti ~ to power -off.
The PAkfAS pr otocol i s non-tri vi al and we cannot expl ai n
i ts operati on i n any detti her e. However we woul d We to
poi nt out that i n PAMAS the delay and throughput are not
changed even when nodes power off. Thi s i s because the
condi ti ons under whi ch nodes power off are such that the
node poweri ng off cannot transmi t or r ecei ve packets any-
way. A detai l ed di scussi on of PAMAS is provi ded i n [23].
We have deri ved bounds on the maxi mum achi evabl e power
savi ngs i n [24].
of
1
0 Ot 02 03 06 07 08
:; AS*
0.9
Fi gure 4 Power saved i n random networ ks wi th 20 nod=.
4.1 Related Work on Power-Consewing MAC Protocols
Recentl y, some researchers have begun studyi ng the probl em
of reduci ng power consumpti on by the wi rel ess i nterface i n
si ngl ~hop wi rel ess networks. Most approaches are based
on the pagi ng pr otocol s POCSAG and FLEX wher e a base
stati on peri odi cal l y transmi ts a beacon fol l owed by a mi n-
i sl ot contai ni ng the ~ of nodes that have a page wai ti ng
for them. Th~e nod= remai n awake i n or der to r ecei ve
thei r mwsagw whi l e dl the others power thernsel v~ off. A
si mi l ar i dea (based on r=ervati on) i s i ncl uded i n the I EEE
802.11 standard as wel l (see [29]). Here, nodes transmi t
thei r requ=ts to the base stati on duri ng speci fi c reservati on
i nter~ and the base stati on transmi ts a TI M (~ti c b-
di cati on Map) that i ncl udes the transmi ssi on schedul e for
the nodes. Al l nodes not parti ci pati ng i n transmi ssi on or
r ecepti on of packets go i nto doze mode untfl the next r wer -
vati on peri od. The standard dso i ndudw an extensi on of
thi s i dea to ad hoc si ngl ehop networks. Here, nod= com-
pete to be el ected the l eader to pl ay the r ol e of the b~e
stati on. [30] presents a compari son of the power consump-
ti on behavi or of thr ee pr otocok - EEE 802.11, DQRUMA
(see [20]) and DSA++ (see [27]) -i n a si ngl ~hop envi ron-
ment. Thei r mai n concl usi ons are that contenti on resul ts i n
hi gher ener gy consumpti on whi l e reservati on and schedd-
i ng resul ts i n l ower ener gy consumpti on. [6] &o di scusses
the ener gy consumpti on of pr otocok and shows that persi s-
tence i s not al ways a good choi ce and adapti ve strategi es
that avoi d packet retransmi ssi on duri ng bad dannel p~
ri ods i s a good ener gy conservi ng strategy. Furthermore,
[6] presents a access pr otocol for ce~ti ar networ ks based on
ALOHA and reservati on (the pr otocol i s si mi l ar to EEE
802.11) and anal yze i ts performance (ener gy consumed and
throughput). [31] *O presents a reservati on-based power
conservi ng accws pr otocol for mobi l e ATM networks.
5 Val i dati on of the Power-Aware Metrim
We conducted extensi ve si mdati ons to better understand
the properti es of the new metri ~ and the ti ect of usi ng these
metri m on end-t~end packet delay. Speci fi cti y, we com-
pared the performance of shortest-hop routi ng wi th shotiest-
cost routi ng (equati on 2) and quanti fi ed the Mer ence be
tween thr ee two approachw usi ng thr ee measur~3:
1. End-t~end packet del ays (measured as the di fference
between tbe when a packet enters the system and
ti me when i t fi dl y dep~s),
2. Average cost/packet (measured for each packet), and
3. Aver age mti um node cost (computed after 300 sec-
onds of si mul ati on ti me)
For the shortest-cost routi ng approach, we used several di f-
fer ent ~i functi ons. I n thi s paper, however , we onl y present
two of these model s for ~i . The fi st model was a linear
model wher e ~(z) = m for some constant c < 1 and the
second model was a quadrati c model wher e ~(z) = az. The
hnem model isbased on the di scharge cur ve of dti i ne bat-
teri es whi l e the quadrati c model represents the preci pi tous
di scharge i n battery l i fe for fi thi um-i on batteri es (Fi gure 3).
For the si mul ati on, we used a 16-node mesh topol og and
10 and 20-node random graphs. The random graphs wer e
gener ated as fol l ows. For each pai r of possi bl e edges, we toss
a coi n that has a probabi l i ty p of comi ng up heads. I f i t does
come up heads, we put that edge i n otherwi se we l eave i t
out. We vari ed the due of p from 0.1 to 0.5. ktui ti vel y,
P = 0.1 produces a sparse graph w~e p = 0.5 pr oducw a
dense graph. We onl y consi dered connected networ ks i n thi s
study and we di d not i ncl ude node mobi hty. The reason we
di d not account for mobi l i ty i s because we wer e not actudy
si mul ati ng a routi ng pr otocol (whose per fowance woul d d-
penal on the mobi l i ty model ) but onl y eduati ng Mer ent
power -awar e metri cs.
3}Ve di d not consi der hi erarchi cal spi ne routi ng because of our
cri ti ci sm i n secti on 2
186
Packets arri ve at each node accordi ng to a poi sson pr~
cess. The packet arri ti rate A vari es between 0.05 and 0.5
packets/see/node. Each node mai ntai ns a FI FO bti er of
packets that need to be for war ded to the next hop. Ever y
packet i s ti mestamped when i t fi st enters the system and
then agai n when i t arri ves at i ts dati nati on al l owi ng us to
compute del ays. Further, node costs are updated constantl y
and when a packet i s transmi tted over one hop, we add the
cur r ent node cost to the total cost of the packet. The packet
costs are averaged out at the end of the si mul ati on as are
the node costs.
We ran each si mul ati on 20 tbes and computed the mean
and the standard devi ati on for each of the thr ee metri w
menti oned e=her (del ay, cost/packet and average m= node
cost) for shortest-hop routi ng and shortest-cost routi ng. b
the graphs we pl ot the percentage improvement in thse met-
ri w when we use shortwt-cost routi ng. We have not pl otted
the cur vw for del ay because ther e was no di fference i n the
average packet delay (computed separatel y for packets trav-
efi ng over one hop, two hops, etc.) between shortest-hop
routi ng and short=t-cost routi ng. ThB resdt was surpri s-
i ng because we had expected a sfi ght worseni ng i n del ay
for packets (i n the shortest-cost case) as they get r outed
around nodw wi th hi gh cost (or l ow remai ni i g Meti me).
On cl oser exami nati on of the si rnti ati on tr ace we found that
some packets di d i ndeed take l onger routes and of thae some
di d have hi gher del ay (measured i n ti me steps). However ,
the number of thr ee packets was not l arge and as a r=dt
di d not contri bute to a stati sti cdy si @cant resdt. What
was mor e si gni fi cant, under hi gh l oads, was the fact that
shortest-hop routi ng resul ted i n sti ghtl y l onger packet del ays
(because of congesti on) whi l e short=t-cost routi ng (whi ch
i s a functi on of ener gy consumed and i s hence affected by
contenti on costs) resti ted i n shor ter del ays si nce congested
routes wer e not chosen! So, overal l , we concl ude that packet
delay i s unti ected when usi ng shortest-cost routi ng.
Let us now consi der the rel ati ve i mprovement i n the
wst/packet and mu node wst metri m when usi ng short=t-
cost routi ng. We need to menti on that both the shortest-hop
and shortest-cost si mti ati ons wer e run on top of PAMAS.
Thus, the i mprovement we see i s i n addi ti on to the i mprove
ment gai ned by PAMAS (whi ch i s si ~cant). Let us fi st
l ook at a 10-node random networ k. Fi gure 5 ti l ustrates the
per centage i mprovement i n the cost/packet/hop for di ffer-
ent ti ues of p. Each cur ve represents a di tferent vr due of
A. The pl ot on the l eft shows the i mprovement when we use
a Knew cost functi on for ~ and the pl ot on the ri ght shows
the i mprovement when the cost functi on i s quadrati c. We
can see that the i mprovement i s i n the 5-15% range. Fi g-
ur e 6 fl l ustratw the same set of pl ots for 20-node random
networks.
I t i s i nter=ti ng to obser ve that the savings are greater
in larger networks. Thi s i s not surpri si ng because l arger
networ ks have mor e routes to choose horn. A second obser-
vati on we can make i s that savings increase with load. Thi s
i s because at ver y l ow l oads, the cost ~erenti d between
nodes i s too smal l to matter. However as l oad i ncreases,
th~ cost Merenti d i ncreases and i s r efl ected i n cost sav-
i ngs per padet. kteresti ngl y however , at heavy l oads (be
yond 0.2 or 0.3 i n th-e studi es), the i mprovement remai ns
constant and, i n fact, becomw negl i gi bl e at ver y hi gh l oads
(overl oaded condi ti ons). ThB l ast graph (wi th A = 1.5 pack-
ets/node/see) was not pl otted because the savi ngs wer e zer o.
187
The reason for th~ i s that dl nodes have a Ml bti er and
expend huge amounts of ener gy i n contenti on whi ch r=dts
i n reduci ng the node cost ~erenti d. Fmdy, we obser ve
that the savi ngs i n cost i ncrwses with dge probability p.
The reason for thi s i s that at sm~ p, the networ k i s sparse
resti ti ng i n few al ternati ve routi ng paths w~e at hi gher p,
mor e paths become ati abl e. The cost functi on ~ *O af-
fects the savi ngs i n cost. As the graphs show, savi ngs are
gr eater for the quadrati c cost functi on than for the hear.
Thi s i s because the cost Werenti d between nod= i ncreases
sharpl y wi th a quadrati c functi on.
We pl ot the reducti on i n maxi mum node costs for 10-
node and 20-node random networ ks i n F)gurw 7 and 8. h
the 10-node networ k, ther e i s a 5-10% reducti on i n maxi mum
node cost for the hear case and 5-50% for the quadrati c
case. Thr ee numbers become 5-45% for the Enear case and
15-120% for the quadrati c case when we have a 20-node net-
wor k. The reasons for thi s dramati c i ncrease i n savi ngs i n
I mger networ ks i s because of the a@abfi ty of mor e routw.
L&ewi se, the savi ngs i ncr ewe i n denser networ ks and they
i ncrease (ti l ti dl y) wi th A. Ml for the sme reasons as di s-
cussed previ ousl y.
Fi gure 9 i l l nstratw the cost savi ngs per pdet and the r~
ducti on i n maxi mum node cost for a l ~node mwh. We used
the mesh because i t provi dw wi th a we~-connected topol o~
and ti ows us to veri fy our concl usi ons from the random net-
wor k topol ogi es. As we can see, as the l oad i ncreasm (al ong
the x-*), the savi ngs i n cost per packet i ncreue at fi st
and then decreasm as l oad conti nues to i ncrease. The rea-
son for the i ni ti al i ncrease i s that at ver y l ow l oads, node
costs are al most the same. As l oad i ncreases, ther e i s an i n-
creasi ng di fference i n node costs between shortwt-hop and
shortest-cost routi ng. Fi nMy, at ver y hi gh l oads, the cost
of dl nodes i s al most the same and thus ther e are no sav-
i ngs. The same behavi or i s i l l ustrated i n the pl ot on the
ri ght wher e we show the reducti on i n maxi mum node cost.
5.1 Summav of Results
Based on the si mul ati ons, we can concl ude that usi ng power -
aware metri cs to fi nd routes i s ver y benefi ci al because the
ti er ence i n battery consumpti on between wi ous nod= i s
reduced. ThB typi cal l y means l onger networ k fi fe and l onger
ti me to node fai l ure. The specti c concl usi ons from the W-
peri ments are
1. Larger networ ks have hi gher cost savi ngs,
2. Cost savi ngs are bmt at moderate networ k l oads ad
negl i gi bl e at ver y l ow or at ver y hi gh l oads,
3. Denser networ ks ti l bi t mor e cost savi ngs i n general ,
and
4. The cost functi on used dramati c~y ti ects the amount
of cost savi ngs.
I t i s wor th poi nti ng out that our resul ts wi l l hol d tr ue i n
networ ks wher e nodes are mobi l e. ThM i s because nod= i n
r ed networ ks do not move randoml y i ndependentl y. fi ther,
cl usters of nodes move i n cor r el ated ways (i mage a pl atoon
of sol di ers). I f, however , nod= do move randody i nd~
pendentl y, then we bel i eve that ther e wi l l be smal l , i f any,
cost savi ngs obtai nabl e by usi ng power -awar e metri ~ (note,
however , that PAMAS wi l l sti l l defi ver huge savi ngs).
Figure 5: Per centage reducti on i n average cost i n 10-node radom networh.
5
t i
01
I
0.$ 0.15 02 025 03 0s 0.4 06 05
E@e ~q
Fi gure 6: Per centage reducti on i n average cost i n 20-node random networh.
6 Conclusions
h thi s paper we di scussed the need to m&e routi ng pr ot~
cob power-aware. Thus, rather than usi ng tradi ti on met-
ri cs such as hop-count or del ay for fi di ng rout=, we befi eve
that i s mor e i mportant to use cost/pAet and mti mum
node cost (whi ch are functi ons of remaining battery power)
as metri w. Our si mul ati ons demonstrated that si gnti cmt
reducti ons i n cost can be obtai ned by usi ng shortest-cost
routi ng as opposed to shortwt-hop routi ng. A feature of
our metri cs i s that they can be easfl y i ncorporated for use
i n @ti ng routi ng pr otocok for ad hoc networ k.
Acknowl edgements
Tti research was supported by NSF ~ant NCR-9706080.
References
[1] http: //m.netuorks .di gi tti . con/npb/h~/
188
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
pr oducts-gui de/r omvi r 2 .htti , Jan 14, 1998.
D. Beyer , Accompl i shments of the DARPA SURAN Pr&
gram, Proc. IEEE MILCOM90, Monter ey, CA, Oct. 1990.
v. Bharghavan, A. Demer s, s.
Shenb and L. Zhang,MACAW: A Medi a Access Prot&
CO1for Wi rel ess LANs, Prodi ngs ACM SIGCCMM9~,
pp. 212-225, 1994.
B61a Bol l obA, hdom Graphs, Academi c Press, 1985.
A. Chandrakasan, T. Si mon, J. Goodman and W. Ra-
bi ner,Si gnN Processi ng for an ul tra l ow power Wi rel ~
Vi deo Camera, 3rd International Workshop on Mobi l e Mul-
tim~ia Communications, Pri nceton, NJ, September 2%27,
1996.
A. Chocbfi ngam and M. Zoni , Ener gy Consumpti on Per -
formance of a cl ass of Access Protocol s for Mobi l e Data Net-
worh, Proc. IEEE VTC98, Ottawa, Canada, May 1S21,
1998.
B. Das, R. Si ~umar and V. Bharghavan,Routi ng i n
Ad Hoc Networ k usi ng a Spi ne, Pmt. IEEE ICCCN97,
(1997).
-. .-
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
1
Pi gure 7 Per centage reducti on i n mti um node cost i n 10-node random networks.
01 015 02 025 025 04 06 05
EW %*
Figure 8: Per centage reducti on i n mti mum node cost i n 20-node random networks.
R. Dube, C. D. Ms, K-Y Wang and S. K. Wl pathi , Si gnal
Stahi ti ~-bssed Adapti ve Routi ng (SSA) for Ad Hoc Mobi l e
Networks, Techni cal Repor t CS-TR-3646, UMI ACS-TR-96-
34, August 28, 1996.
[14]
F. Doughs, F. Kaashoek, B. Marsh, R. Caceres, K. Lai and J.
Tauber, Storage Al temati v~ for Mobi l e Computers, Proc.
1994 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Imple-
[15]
mentation, OSDI , November 1994.
Chane L. Ful l mer and J.J. Garci a-Luna-Aceves,Sol uti ons
to Hi dden Terrni nd Probl ems i n Wi rel ess Networks, Pro-
tiings ACM SZGCOMM97, Cannes, France, Sept. 1418,
[16]
1997.
Mari o Geri a and J.T.-C. Tsai ,Mul ti cl uster, Mobi l e, Mul ti -
medi a Radi o Network, ACM-Baltzer Journal of Wireless
[17]
Networks, I rol . 1, No. 3, pp. 255-265, 1995.
[12] S. Gol d,A PSPI CE Macrornodel for Li thi um-I on Batteri w,
The 12th Annual Battery Conference on Applications and
[18]
Advances, CW1fomi a State Uni v., Long Beach, CA, Jan 14-
17, 1997. (see Fi g. 4)
[13] E.P. Harri s and K.W. Warren,Low Power Technol ogi es: A [19]
System Perspecti ve, 3ti International Workshop on Mobile
189
Mul ti mti i a Communi cati ons, Pri nceton, NJ, September 2$
27, 1996.
J. L. Hennessy and D. A.
Patterson,Computer Archi tecture A Quanti tati ve Appr oach,
2nd edi ti on, Morgan Kaufmann, San Franci sco, CA, (1996).
Davi d B. Johnson and Davi d A. Mdtz. Dynami c sour ce
routi ng i n ad hoc wi r el w networks, I n Tom=z I mi el i nski
and Henr y F. Korth, edi tors, Mobi l e Computi ng, pages 153-
181. Kl uwer Academi c Publ i shi ng, 1996.
John Jubi n and Janet D. Tor now, The DARPA packet radi o
networ k protocol s, Prodings of the IEEE, 75(1):21-32,
January 1987.
P. Karn,l MACA - a New Channel Access Method for Packet
Mo, i n ARRL/CRRL Amateur Radio 9th Computer Net-
wor ki ng Con~er ence, pp. 134-140, 1990.
Gr ezor v S. Lauer. Packet-radi o routi nd. I n Martha Steen-
stru~, ;di tor, Routi ng i n Communi cati ;n& Networks, Chap
ter 11, pages 351-396. Prenti c&Hdl , 1995.
K. L], R. Kumpf, P. Horton and T. Anderson,A Quanti ta-
ti ve Anal ysi s of Di sk Dr i ve Power Management i n Portabl e
- . . .
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
m -
15
to - ,
5 -
:s 0.1 015 02 0s 0.3 0.s 0.4
Fi gure 9: Per centage reducti on i n cost/pkt/hop
Computers, Pm&ings 1994 USENZX, San fi anci sco, CA,
pp. 279-291, 1994.
M. J. Karol , Z.Li u and K. Y. Eng, Di stri buted-queui ng r ~
quest update mul ti pl e accw (DQRUMA) for wi rel ess packet
(AThi ) networks, Proc. ZEEE ZCC95, June 1995, pp. 1224
1231.
W. Maugi on+Smi th and P.S. Ghaug, A l ow power medi um
access control pr otocol for portabl e mul ti -medi a systems,
3rd Zntemational Workshop on Mobile Mul ti mdi a Commu-
nimtions, September 25-271996.
S. Nfur thy and J.J. Garci a-Luna-Aceves, An Effi ci ent Rout-
i ng Protocol for }Vl rel ess Networks, ACM Mobi l e Networks
and Applimtions Journal, Speci al I ssue on Routi ng i n MO
bi l e Communi cati ons Networks, 1996.
S. Si ngh and C. S. fi ghavendr a,Power effi ci ent MAC pr ~
tocol for mul ti hop radi o networks, Proc. ZEEE PZMRC98,
Sept, 1998.
S. Si ngh and C. S. &ghavendra,PAMAS - Power Awar e
hl ul ti -Accws pr otocol wi th Si gnal i ng for Ad Hoc Networks,
A Cbf Computer Communi cati on Revi ew, Jul y 1998.
\r. D. Park and kL S. Corson,A Hi ghl y Adapti ve Di s-
tri buted Routi ng Al gori thm for Mobi l e Wi rel ess Networks,
Proc. ZEEE ZNFOCOM97, Kobe, Japan, (1997).
Charl es E. Perki ns and Pravi n Bhagwat, Routi ng over
mul ti -hop wi rel ess networ k of mobi l e computers, I n Tomasz
I mi el i nski and Henr y F. Korth, edi tors, Mobi l e Computi ng,
pages 183-205. Kl uwer Academi c Publ i shi ng, 1996.
D. Petras and A. Kr5ml i ng, MAC pr otocol wi th pol l i ng
and fast col l i si on resol uti on for an ATM ai r i nterface, Proc.
ZEEE ATflf96 workshop, San Franci sco, CA, Aug. 1996.
Chunhung Ri chard Li n and Mari o Gerl a,Asynchronous
Ll ul ti me&a Mul ti hop \Vl rel ws Networks;, Procdi ngs
ZEEE ZNFOCOhf97, (1997).
Chri sti an R6hl , H. Woesner and A. Wol i sz, A Short Look
on Power Savi ng Mechani sms i n the Wi rel ess LAN Standard
Draft EEE 802.11, Proc. of the 6th WZNLAB Workshop
on Third Gener ati on Wi rel ess Systems, Ll arch 1997.
Kri shna L1. Si ti ngam, M. B. Sri wtava and P.
Agr awd, Low Power Li nk and Access Protocol s for Wi re
l ess Nl ul t i medi a NetworW, Proc. ZEEE Vehicular Technol-
ogy conference VTC97, Phoeni x, AZ, May 4-7, l gg7.
190
and mti um node cost i n a l &node mwh.
[31] Kri shna M. Si dngam, M. B. Sri vastava, P. Agr awd and
J-C. Chen, Low-Power Access Protocok Based on Schedul -
i n~ for Wi rel ess and Mobi l e ATM Networks. Manuscript.
ht~p://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~kri shna.
.,
[32] M. Stemm and P. Gauthi er and D. Harada,Reduci ng power
consumpti on of networ k i nterfaces i n hand-hel d devi ces .3rd
[33]
[34]
[35]
Zntema~ional Workshop on Mobile Mul ti mti i a Commun;ca-
ti ons,September 25-27, 1996.
GK Toh,The Cambri dge Ad Hoc Mobi l e Routi ng Prot&
COI , i n Wi rel ess ATM and Ad Hoc Networks, Kl uwer Aca-
demi c Publ i shers, Boston, Chapter 9, (1997).
S. Zdoni k, M. FranMi n, R. Al onso and S. Acharya,Are
di sks i n the ai f just pi e i n the sky?, ZEEE Workshop on
Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Santa Cruz,
CA, pp. 12-19, December 1994.
Mi chel e Zorzi and R. R. Rae, ener gy Management i n wi r e
l ess Communi cati ons, Proc. 6th WZNLAB Workshop on
Third Generation Wireless I nfor mati on Networks, March
1997.
. -
-. ---