Performance Analysis of Multipath Routing Protocols for Disaster Response Networks
Khaled F. Al Aqad1, M.A. Burhanuddin2
1, 2
Advanced Manufacturing Centre,Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
1
[email protected]
2
[email protected]
Abstract
Multipath routing protocols improve the load balancing and quality of service in WSN and also provide reliable communication, they allow building and use of multiple paths for routing between a source destination pair. they exploits the resource redundancy and diversity in the underlying network to provide benefits such as fault tolerance, load balancing, bandwidth aggregation, and improvement in QoS metrics such as delay, in this paper, we present a selection of multipath routing protocols and give a discussion on how multipath techniques can be extended to disaster response networks, the paper also investigates various multi- path routing protocols from the perspective of disaster response networks DRNs through an in-depth analysis of these protocols and compares their performance to a number of DRNs routing requirements, the paper also helps to understand the properties and limitations of existing multipath routing solutions from the perspective of DRNs and suggests enhancements of these solutions to cope with routing requirements in DRNs.
Key words :Multipath routing, Disaster Response networks, Routing
Requirements, smart computing
1. Introduction
Multipath routing is a technique that exploits the underlyingphysical network resources by utilizing multiple sourcedestination paths. It is used for a number of purposes, includingbandwidth aggregation, minimizing end-to-end delay,increasing fault-tolerance, enhancing reliability, load balancing,and so on. The idea of using multiple paths has existed forsome time and it has been explored in different areas ofnetworking[1].
In the traditional circuit-switching network, alternate path routing was used to decrease the probability of call blocking. In this scheme, the shortest path between twoexchanges is used until it fails or reaches its capacity, when calls are routed through a longer, alternate path[2], In data network the idea of using multiple paths for end-to-end transport first appeared in [2]. One of the earliest distributedmultipath algorithm was formulated by Gallager [3]. Based on the assumption of stationary input traffic and unchangingnetwork, the computation framework converges to minimize the overall delay in the network. The major drawback of Gallager’s algorithm is that it is very difficult to implement in the real world, given that each router needs to have knowledgeof a global constant, which is impossible to determine for all conditions [4]. Also since the adjustment of parameters in
eachrouter is initiated by the destination and is done in iterations, the algorithm tends to converge slowly, or does not converge atall, therefore restricting its use for networks with stationary or quasi-stationary traffic. For these reasons, Gallager’s method isused for obtaining theoretical lower bounds only. A number of improvements to the algorithm have since been proposed. In [5]an extension of Gallager’s algorithm using second derivatives were proposed to improve the speed of convergence andparameter selection.
2. Multipath routing
Multipath routing can provide a range ofbenefits. In the section we describe how these benefits are achieved, and give an overview of the main elements inmultipath routing protocols , the capabilities of multipath routing techniquesare efficientto improve wirelessAd hoc networks’ performance efficiently since they are used to find alternate paths between sources and sink. Thisapproach is considered as one of the existing solutions to cope with the limitations of routing[6]. In the coming section, the benefits and elements of multipath routing are introduced.
2.1 Features of Multipath Routing
The different multipath routing paradigms provide a number of features over traditional single path routing ones, the performance of networks running multipath routing protocols/techniques is enhanced in terms of the following:
Reliability and Fault-Tolerance: The original idea behind using multipath routing approach in WSN was to provide path resilience (against node or link failures) and reliable data transmission. In the fault tolerance domain, whenever a sensor node cannot forward its data packets towards the sink, it can benefit from the availability of alternative paths to salvage its data packets from node or link failures [7].
Load Balancing: As traffic distribution is not equal in all links in the network, spreading the traffic along multiple routes can alleviate congestion in some links and bottlenecks [8].
QoS Improvement: QoS support in terms of network throughput, end-to-end latency and data delivery ratio is an important objective in designing multipath routing protocols for different types of networks [7].
Reduced Delay: The delay is minimized in multipath routing because backup routes are identified during route discovery[1].
Bandwidth Aggregation: Splitting data to the same destination into multiple streams while everyone is routed through a different path, the effective bandwidth can be aggregated. This strategy is particularly beneficial when a node has multiple low bandwidth links but it requires a bandwidth that is greater than the one which an individual link can provide [1].
2.2 Elements of a Multipath Routing Protocol
Multi path routing schemes and algorithms are different in all aspects from traditional single path routing protocols, the differences include the main building blocks and components of protocols and schemes, there are three main elements of multipath routing that include path discovery, traffic distribution, and path maintenance, these components are which are introduced below[9] :
2.2.1 Path Discovery
Since data transmission in wireless sensor networks is commonly performed through multi-hop data forwarding techniques, the main task of the route discovery process is todetermine a set of intermediate nodes that should be selected to construct several paths fromthe source nodes towards the sink node [10], two types of path discovery exist for wireless Ad hoc networks which are :
Disjoint Multipath Routing: In sensor-disjoint path routing, the primary path is available whereas the alternate paths are less desirable as they have longer latency. The disjoint makes those alternate paths independent of the primary path.
Thus, if a failure occurs on the primary path, it remains local and does not affect any of those alternate paths [11].
Braided Multipath Routing: To construct the braided multipath, first the primary path is computed. Then, for each node on the primary path, the best path is computed while it does not include that node. Those best alternate paths are not necessarily disjoint from the primary path and are called idealized braided multi- paths [11].
On wireless networks, because of the significant performanceimpact of using multiple hops, node disjoint paths may not bethe best solution if the paths consist of too many hops. This trade-off between availability and performance should beconsidered when design multipath protocols for multi-hopwireless networks.
2.2.2 Traffic Distribution
There are various strategies of allocating traffic over availablepaths. A multipath protocol may decide to forward traffic usingonly the path with the best metric and keep other discovered paths as backups. Or the paths may be used concurrently. Pathselection algorithm is used to select a subset of available pathsaccording to certain quality of the paths. Hop-count hastraditionally been a popular metric to use. Some other choicesare:
path reliability, disjointness, available bandwidth, degree of route coupling, or a combination of metrics. In QoS routing,a subset of paths is only selected if the combined metricsatisfies the QoS requirement[1].
Number of paths : A protocol can choose to use a single path and keep the rest as backups, or it can utilize multiple paths in a round-robin fashion, with only one path sending at a time. If multiple paths are used concurrently to carry traffic, the protocol needs to decide how traffic is split over the paths and how to handle out- of-order packets at the destination. It is also possible to add a degree of redundancy when distributing traffic over multiple paths. An M-for-N diversity coding scheme is described in [12]. In this coding scheme, M extra transmission lines are used to increase redundancy of an N-transmission-line system. The traffic over the M + N is coded in a way such that the system can tolerate less than M simultaneous line failures at any time. This idea is extended to multipath routing in packet networks in [13].
Allocation granularity: Some possible choices of traffic granularity include, in order of increased control overhead, per source-destination pair, per flow, per packet, per segment. With a fine granularity, load balancing can be more efficient, since traffic fluctuation can be adapted to quickly . Nevertheless, per packet or finer granularity require reordering at the destination, which may not suit some applications.
2.2.3 Path Maintenance
Over time, paths may fail due to link/node failures or, in ad hoc networks, node mobility.
Path maintenance is the process ofregenerating paths after the initial path discovery. It can be initiated after each path failure, or when all the paths havefailed. Some multipath protocols use dynamic maintenancealgorithms to constantly monitor and maintain the quality orcombined QoS metric of available paths.
2.3 Taxonomy of Multipath Routing Protocols
The era of Ad hoc networks has witnessed a variety of applications for Ad hoc networks in different domains, these variations along with the data types being transmitted were reflected on the structure and operational functionality of Ad hoc networks, this resulted in a variety of routing solutions that were designed specifically to cope with the types of applications and format of data being transmitted , a taxonomy of different routing solutions is illustrated in the following figure [9] :
Figure(1): Taxonomy Of Multipath Routing Protocols
1. Alternative Path Routing (APR) :
Finding alternative paths is the main reasons behind developing multipath routing solutions to protect routes in case of failures, this will definitely increase the network’s resiliency to route failures, multiple routes discovery and maintenance between the source and destination improves the routing performance via providing alternative routes that can be used to transmit data when previously established paths are failed to transmit data, it is important to say that these paths are not used simultaneously, only alternative paths are used at the time of failure of original paths. It is also helpful to minimize the frequency of path discovery which in turn reduces the routing overhead.
2. Data Transmission Reliability (DTR):
The network reliability can be improved through the simultaneous use of multiple paths, As long as one of the multiple paths does not fail, thereceiver node will receive the data, To increase the probability of data delivery, theredundancy of data is delivered in the form of multiple copies of the same packet whichtravels to the destination among multiple paths[14].
3. Load Balancing(LB):
The main goal of load balancing is to use the available network resources in order to minimize the risk of traffic congestion. When a link becomes over-utilized and causes congestion, multipath routing protocols can be chosen to divert traffic through alternate
pathsto ease the burden of the congested link. Load balancing can be achieved by spreading thetraffic along multiple routes which alleviates congestion and bottlenecks [15].
4. Energy-Efficient(EE):
One of the reasons behind developing energy aware routing solutions (EAR) is to select the most optimal path so that the overallenergy consumed by the network is minimized. A significant limitation of the energy aware routing is that nodes will have variable levels of energy consumption.The energy reservation of nodes on the minimum energy paths will bequickly consumed while the other nodes remain having considerable energy levels for the node to survive and remain alive. This will result in the quick absence of some nodes.
Another feature of the Energy Aware Routing solutions is tomaximize the system lifetime, which is defined as the time period when the system starts to workuntil any node goes out of energy, or until a particular number of nodes run out of energy, or until thenetwork is partitioned or in other cases[16].
3. Multipath routing protocols
In this section , we provide a brief description of some common multipath routing protocols that belong to different categories of multipath routing protocols introduced in section 2 , these protocols will be studied in depth and their performance will be analyzed in the next section, some of the common multipath routing protocols are :
1. Meshed Multipath Routing (M-MPR):
M-MPR routing protocol was introduced in [17],the protocol achieves a more efficient load distribution and needs less route maintenance overhead with in terms of packet forwarding along a designated route. Performance evaluation of this protocol in terms of throughput proved that its node equivalent performs better as well as the receiver complexity equivalent D-MPR, moreover, the throughput gain of M-MPR is more suitable for large scale transmissions for comparable throughput performance. It distributes traffic more efficiently along the meshed route and requires less route maintenance overhead compared to packetforwarding along the primary route.
2. H-SPREAD
H-SPREAD proposed an extension to find more extra routes at cost of additional messages, by breaking the property of using “one message per node”. When a sensor nodediscovers a new alternative path, it informs its neighborhood about it. Recursively, thisinformation is propagated through the network to maximize the number of disjoint paths pernode .In fact, in less challenging situations, the improvement would be more significant.Correspondingly, the reliability performance shows that H SPREAD is able to maintainpretty good message delivery ratio in the face of both link and node failures that the situationswe studied are very stressful [18].
3. Multipath Multispeed Protocol (MMSPEED)
MMSPEED (Multi path Multi SPEED) is an extension of the SPEED protocol, It is characterized by offering multi-speed transmission and the establishment of more than one path to the destination. Indeed, for each offered speed, a QoS level and an additional path canbe set to improve the quality of traffic. This protocol allows to send packets with respect toend delay parameter required by the applications in order to avoid congestion and reduce thepacket loss rate .It is designed to provide probabilistic QoS differentiation with respect totimeliness and reliability domains. For the timely delivery of packets,
MMSPEED providesmultiple delivery speed options for each incoming packet. Thus, the protocol is scalable andadaptable to large networks. The only limitation of the protocol is that the energy metric isnot taken into consideration [17].
4. Reliable Energy Aware Routing Protocol (REAR):
This protocol was proposed in [19] , REAR considers remaining energy capacity of each sensor node in establishing routing paths and supports multi-path routing protocol for reliable data transmission, REAR also allows each sensor node to confirm thesuccess of data transmission to other sensor nodes by supporting the data acknowledgment ( DATA- ACK) orientedpacket transmission.
5. Load Balanced, Energy-Aware Communications (LBEAC):
This routing scheme was first introduced in [20], it makes use of a multi-path routing scheme with energy-aware and load balanced route selection based on the poll-reply communication model. While poll messages flood, multiple paths are established from every sensor back to the base station. These paths are allof equal minimal hop distance to the base station. When the node receives a poll request, a sensornode reports that it has collected through one of the paths. The path selection can be eitherrandom or based on the energy usage at neighbors. The multipath routing builds a mesh structure for data reply, which reduces the congestion and improves the reliability of data delivery.
6. Maximally Radio-Disjoint Multipath Routing (MR2):
The main goal of this protocol is to provide the required bandwidth to multimedia applications through providing radio disjoint paths that are non-interfering, while increasing the networklifetime. To achieve two fold goals, an incremental approach should be adopted where onlyone path is built at once for a given session. Additional paths are built when required,typically in case of path congestion or lack of bandwidth.
When a given path is selected to beused, all nodes interfering with it are put in a passive state. Passive nodes do not further takepart in the routing process so they could not be used to form a new path that consequentlywill not interfere with previously built ones.
Moreover, passive nodes can be put in sleep oridle modes, thus allowing for energy saving and hence increasing the network lifetime [21].
7. Low-Interference Energy-Efficient Multipath Routing Protocol (LIEMRO) This protocol is mainly designed to improve packet delivery ratio, lifetime, and latency, through discovering multiple interference-minimized node disjoint paths between source node and sink node. In addition, LIEMRO includes a load balancing algorithm to distribute source node’s traffic over multiple paths based on the relative quality of each path. It consists of a multipath routing protocol and a load balancing algorithm. In this approach, a set of nodedisjoint interference-minimized paths are established from the source to the sink, while these paths impose minimum interference over each other (to minimize route coupling effect). Moreover, extra routes are only established if they don’t decrease data reception rate at the sink node [22].
8. Energy Constrained Multipath Routing (ECMP)
This protocol was proposed in [23], Energy constrained multi-path routing (ECMP) extends the MCMP protocol by formulating the QoS routing problem as an energy optimization problem constrained byreliability, play-back delay, and geo spatial path selection constraints. This protocol tradesbetween minimum number of hops and minimum energy by selecting the path that satisfiesthe QoS requirements and minimizes energy consumption.
9. An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Multipath Routing (HDMRP):
The HDMRP protocol was proposed in [24], in this protocol, sink neighbors are called root nodes and root neighbors are called sub-roots. The protocol uses Route Request (RREQ) message propagation through the network to construct multiple energy-node disjoint paths between each node and the sink. Each non root nodemaintains a routing table includingan entry for each discovered path. During pathsestablishment, a node may receive several route request message to construct one or severalpaths. Instead of using all nodes as reducing elements belonging to only one path, HDMRPintroduces a controlled intersection at master nodes by allowing them to forward severalroute request messages to their neighbors.
10. Energy-Efficient and Collision-Aware Multipath Routing Protocol (EECA) An energy efficient and collision aware (EECA) node disjoint multipath routing algorithm for WSNs is presented in [34]. The main idea of EECA is to use the broadcast nature of wireless communication to avoid collisions between two discovered routes without extraoverhead. Additionally, this protocol restricts the route discovery flooding and adjusts nodetransmit power with the aid of node position information, resulting in energy efficiency andgood performance of communication that proposed scheme in terms of the average packetdelivery ratio, the average end-to-end delay, the average residualenergy, and the number of nodes alive [25].
4. Analysis of Multipath routing protocols from disaster response networks perspective:
the tabular analysis provided in this section clearly introduces an in depth analysis of 10 multipath routing protocols from the perspective of DRNs routing requirements, it will be able to show the following :
1. up to which extent each routing protocols satisfies the routing requirements of DRNs.
2. What are the routing requirements that were primary concern of routing protocol design.
Routing
Protocols Year category
Disaster Area Network characteristics
QoS Robustness & Reliability Coverage & Mobility Rapid Deployment Interoperability Spectrum Agility Self-Organization Cost effectiveness Multi-Hop routing Energy Efficiency Routing Overhead % of satisfaction References
M-MPR 2006 LB 36% [17]
H-SPREAD 2006 DTR 27% [18]
MMSPEED 2006 DTR 27% [17]
REAR 2007 APR 36% [19]
LBEAC 2008 LB 27% [20]
MR2 2008 EE 36% [21]
LIEMRO 2010 EE 36% [22]
ECMP 2010 DTR 36% [23]
HDMRP 2012 APR 18% [24]
EECA 2012 EE 36% [25]
Table (1): Analysis Multipath Routing Protocols Satisfaction of DRNsRouting Requirements
Figure(2) Multipath routing protocols satisfaction of disaster area network,
The results of tabular analysis in table (1) are depicted in figure(3), it illustrates the variation in existing routing protocols satisfaction of DRNs routing requirements, this satisfaction ranged from 9% to 45% , this means that the Ad hoc existing routing solutions partially satisfy the routing requirements of DRNs and provide inefficient routing capabilities in DRNs.
Figure(3) MultipathRouting Protocols Consideration For DRNs.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Multipath Routing Protocols Requirement Satisfaction For DRNs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DRNs Routing Requirements Consideration In Ad hoc Protocols Design
Figure(4) depicts the primary concerns of general Ad hoc routing solutions, some requirements like minimum routing overhead, multi-hop routing, robustness and reliability where among the primary concerns of these solutions, energy efficiency was partially considered while rapid deployment, interoperability and spectrum agility are of no concern.
5. Analysis discussion
1. The results of analyzing multipath routing protocols satisfaction of DRNs routing requirements clearly show that general multipath routing protocols are not sufficient to manage and operate the deployed network in disaster area, this result can be made clear from the percentage of satisfaction column which shows the extent up to which each routing protocol satisfies the routing requirements of DRNs, the analysis was based on a theoretical analysis of these protocols referring to the original technical publications in which authors have proposed their routing protocols or techniques, analysis was also aided with other papers that have evaluated the performance of these protocols and sometimes compared a group of protocols from perspective of a number of routing metrics.
2. The routing protocols that were analyzed were selected so that they cover the four routing protocols categories which are Alternative Path Routing, Load Balancing, Energy Efficient and data Transmission Reliability, we intended also to include routing protocols from different time periods and different generations of Ad hoc networks developed between 2006 and 2012 to cover all aspects and variations in the protocol design so that this analysis can be referred to as a comprehensive theoretical analysis of general multipath networks protocols satisfaction of routing requirements in DRNs.
3. The analysis show that some protocols can’t be implemented for DRNs ad hoc networks since they satisfy the routing requirements of DRNs up to insufficient percentages less than 18 %, this can result in horrible communication limitations and make it impossible for victims and relief workers to communicate each other, which is the most important objective for network deployment in disaster area.
6. Conclusion and future work
The paper studies the disaster area from the perspective of DRN routing requirements, DRNs are distinct in all aspects specifically those aspects related to routing data packets among victims and relief workers, DRNs routing requirements were carefully specified, the performance of Multipath routing protocols was analyzed from perspective of these routing requirements, it can be concluded that general routing protocols are insufficient to be directly implemented in DRNs due to their limited performance in terms of poor routing requirements satisfaction shown in the analysis results of table (1), this satisfaction ranged from 18 % to 36 %, this extent of satisfaction can’t guarantee efficient routing in disaster area, future works in this regard can be considering routing requirements of DRNs in the design of the routing protocol so that the resultant routing protocol can be sufficient to be implemented in DRN.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Advanced Manufacturing Centre, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Centre for Research & Innovation Management, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka for providing the facilities, Zamallah and full support for this research. This study is carried out under FRGS grant number (FRGS/2018/FTMK-CACT/F00388).
References
[1] J. Tsai and T. Moors, “A review of multipath routing protocols: From wireless ad hoc to mesh networks,” Work. Wirel. Multihop Netw., vol. 70, pp. 1–6, 2006.
[2] B. R. Hurley, C. J. R. Seidl, and W. F. Sewell, “A Survey of Dynamic Routing Methods for Circuit-Switched Traffic,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 13–21, 2007.
[3] R. G. Gallager, “A Minimum Delay Routing Algorithm Using Distributed Computation,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 2001.
[4] S. Vutukury and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A simple approximation to minimum-delay routing,” Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 227–237, 1999.
[5] D. P. Bertsekas, R. G. Gallager, and E. M. Gafni, “Second Derivative Algorithms for Minimum Delay Distributed Routing ting in Networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 911–919, 2004.
[6] K. Taehee, P. Hosung, M. S. Jin, B. Sambuu, and S. H. Kim, “Energy-balancing multicast routing protocol for wireless sensor networks,” 2008 Int. Conf. Wirel. Commun. Netw.
Mob. Comput. WiCOM 2008, pp. 6–9, 2008.
[7] M. Radi, B. Dezfouli, K. A. Bakar, and M. Lee, “Multipath routing in wireless sensor networks: Survey and research challenges,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 650–685, 2012.
[8] N. S. Nandiraju, D. S. Nandiraju, and D. P. Agrawal, “Multipath routing in wireless mesh networks,” 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Mob. Ad Hoc Sens. Syst. MASS, vol. 1, pp. 741–746, 2006.
[9] M. Masdari and M. Tanabi, “Multipath Routing protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey and Analysis,” Int. J. Futur. Gener. Commun. Netw., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 181–192, 2013.
[10] M. Tarique, K. E. Tepe, S. Adibi, and S. Erfani, “Survey of multipath routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1125–1143, 2009.
[11] B. Bhushan and G. Sahoo, “Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks,” Stud. Comput.
Intell., vol. 776, pp. 215–248, 2019.
[12] E. Ayanoĝlu, I. Chih-Lin, R. D. Gitlin, and J. E. Mazo, “Diversity Coding for Transparent Self-Healing and Fault-Tolerant Communication Networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
41, no. 11, pp. 1677–1686, 1993.
[13] A. Tsirigos and Z. J. Haas, “Multipath routing in the presence of frequent topological changes,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 132–138, 2001.
[14] B. Deb, S. Bhatnagar, and B. Nath, “ReInForM: Reliable information forwarding using multiple paths in sensor networks,” Proc. - Conf. Local Comput. Networks, LCN, vol.
2003-January, pp. 406–415, 2003.
[15] A. Jayashree, G. Biradar, and V. Mytri, “Review of Multipath Routing Protocols in Wireless Multimedia Sensor Network–A Survey,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 3, no. 7, pp.
1–9, 2012.
[16] W. Lou, W. Liu, and Y. Zhang, “Performance Optimization Using Multipath Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc and Wireless Sensor Networks,” Comb. Optim. Commun. Networks, pp.
117–146, 2006.
[17] E. Felemban, C. G. Lee, and E. Ekici, “MMSPEED: Multipath Multi-SPEED Protocol for QoS guarantee of reliability and timeliness in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans.
Mob. Comput., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 738–753, 2006.
[18] W. Lou and Y. Kwon, “H-SPREAD: A hybrid multipath scheme for secure and reliable data collection in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 4, pp.
1320–1330, 2006.
[19] K. Y. Shin, J. Song, J. W. Kim, M. Yu, and P. S. Mah, “REAR: Reliable energy aware routing protocol for wireless sensor networks,” Int. Conf. Adv. Commun. Technol. ICACT, vol. 1, pp. 525–530, 2007.
[20] X. Hong, M. Gerla, H. Wang, and L. Clare, “Load balanced, energy-aware communications for Mars sensor networks,” IEEE Aerosp. Conf. Proc., vol. 3, pp. 1109–
1115, 2008.
[21] M. Maimour, “Maximally radio-disjoint multipath routing for wireless multimedia sensor networks,” WMuNeP’08 Proc. 4th ACM Int. Work. Wirel. Multimed. Netw. Perform.
Model., pp. 26–31, 2008.
[22] M. Radi, B. Dezfouli, S. A. Razak, and K. A. Bakar, “LIEMRO: A Low-Interference Energy-efficient Multipath Routing protocol for improving QoS in event-based Wireless Sensor Networks,” Proc. - 4th Int. Conf. Sens. Technol. Appl. SENSORCOMM 2010, pp.
551–557, 2010.
[23] J. Ben-Othman and B. Yahya, “Energy efficient and QoS based routing protocol for wireless sensor networks,” J. Parallel Distrib. Comput., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 849–857, 2010.
[24] A. Hadjidj, A. Bouabdallah, and Y. Challal, “HDMRP: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Multipath Routing Protocol for Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks,” Lect. Notes Inst. Comput. Sci. Soc. Telecommun. Eng. LNICST, vol. 74 LNICST, pp. 469–482, 2012.
[25] A. Premita and M. Katiyar, “A Review on Power Efficient Energy- Aware Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks ” Department of Electronic and Communication Engineering,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1–8, 2012.
