1. SPIN : S ENSOR P ROTOCOL FOR I NFORMATION VIA N EGOTIATION SUBMITTED BY : SANCHAITA CHATTERJEE ROLL : 13000110041 CSE -4 TH YEAR

2. CONTENT  Data Centric Protocol  SPIN  Introduction  Features  Working  Goal  Two Basic Ideas  Protocols  SPIN-PP, SPIN-EC, SPIN-BC, SPIN-RL  SPIN 1 and SPIN 2  Advantages  Disadvantages  Future Work  Limitations  Conclusion

3. DATA CENTRIC PROTOCOL  Data centric protocols are query based and they depend on the naming of the desired data, thus it eliminates much redundant transmissions.  The BS sends queries to a certain area for information and waits for reply from the nodes of that particular region.  Depending on the query, sensors collect a particular data from the area of interest.  This particular information is only required to transmit to the BS and thus reducing the number of transmissions SPIN was the first data centric protocol

4. SPIN - INTRODUCTION  SPIN stands for Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation.  SPIN uses negotiation and resources adaption to address the deficiencies of flooding.  Negotiation reduces overlap and implosion.  assign a high-level name to completely describe their collected data (called meta-data)  Use three types of messages ADV (advertisement), REQ (request) and DATA.

5. INTRODUCTION CONTD …  Designed to classify the deficiencies of classic flooding by negotiation and resource adaptation.  Sending data that describe the sensor data instead of sending the whole data  The sensor nodes that are interested in the data will get a copy.  SPIN is based on data-centric routing – broadcast an advertisement of the available data and wait for a request from interested sinks.

6. SPIN- FEATURES  Application-level Control  Meta-data  SPIN Message  Resource Management  Negotiation : to operate efficiently and to conserve energy using a meta-data.  Resource adaptation : to extend the operating lifetime of the system monitoring their own energy resources.

7. A PPLICATION L EVEL C ONTROL  Design motivated by Application Level Framing (ALF)  network protocols must choose transmission units that are meaningful to application.  packetization is best done in terms of application data units.  Next step: routing decisions are also best made in application-controlled and application-specific ways  using knowledge of not just network topology but also application data layout and the state of resources at each node. FEATURES – contd…

8. M ETA -D ATA  Sensors use meta-data to describe the sensor data briefly  Consider data X and data Y  If x is the meta-data descriptor for data X  sizeOf (x) < sizeOf (X)  If x<>y  sensor-data-of (x) <> sensor-data-of (y),  i.e X<>Y  If X<>Y  meta-data-of (X) <> meta-data-of (Y)  Meta-data format is application specific Data about data Example : Geographically disjoint sensors, may use their unique ID, say all data by sensor x Target tracking – signal energy + geographical location FEATURES – contd…

9. SPIN M ESSAGES  ADV – advertise data  REQ – request specific data  DATA – requested data A B A B A B ADV REQ DATA FEATURES – contd…

10. Resource Management  Sensors poll their system resources to find available energy.  They can also calculate cost of performing computations. FEATURES – contd…

11. WORKING OF SPIN  Resource adaptive algorithm  When energy is plentiful  Communicate using the 3-stage handshake protocol.  When energy is approaching a low-energy threshold  If a node receives ADV, it does not send out REQ  Energy is reserved to sensing the event

12. WORKING OF SPIN CONTD …

13. S PIN : THE GOAL Broadcast with minimum energy

14. C ONVENTIONAL A PPROACH B D E F G C A  Send to all neighbors  E.g. routing table updates Flooding

15. R ESOURCE I NEFFICIENCIES 3. Resource Blindness 2. Overlap problem 1. Implosion Problem

16. Gossiping A C B D  Forward data to a random neighbor  Avoids implosion  Disseminates information at a slower rate  Fastest rate = 1 node/round

17. W HAT IS THE OPTIMUM PROTOCOL ? B D E F G C A  “Ideal”  Shortest-path routes  Avoids overlap  Minimum energy  Need global topology information

18. T WO BASIC IDEAS  The SPIN family of protocols rests upon two basic ideas:  To operate efficiently and to conserve energy  Nodes in a network must monitor and adapt to changes in their own energy resources to extend the operating lifetime of the system.

19. SPIN ON P OINT - TO -P OINT N ETWORKS  SPIN-PP  3-stage handshake protocol  Advantages  Simple  Minimal start-up cost  SPIN-EC  SPIN-PP + low-energy threshold  Modifies behavior based on current energy resources

20. SPIN on Broadcast Networks  One transmission reaches all neighbors  SPIN-BC  Same 3-stage handshake protocol as SPIN-BC  Uses only broadcast communication  Same transmission cost as unicast  Coordination among nodes  Broadcast message suppression sensor-data-of (x) = sensor-data-of (y)  SPIN-RL  SPIN-BC + Reliability  Periodically re-broadcast ADVs and REQs

21. SPIN 1 AND SPIN 2  SPIN Resource Management  Can make informed decisions about using their resources effectively  Specifies an interface that applications can use to probe their available resources  SPIN Implementation  Implement the basis SPIN message types, message handling routines and, resource management functions  Sensor applications can then use these libraries to construct their own SPIN protocols  SPIN-1 : 3-Stage Handshake Protocol  Simple handshake protocol for disseminating data through a lossless network  Work in three stages (ADV-REQ-DATA) Computer Network21

22. SPIN 1 AND SPIN 2  SPIN-1 : 3-Stage Handshake Protocol  Node A starts by advertising its data to node B (a).  Node B responds by sending a request to node A (b).  After receiving the requested data (c), node B then sends out advertisement to its neighbors (d), who in turn send requests back to B (e, f).

23. SPIN 1 AND SPIN 2  SPIN-2 : SPIN-1 with a Low-Energy Threshold  Adds a simple energy-conservation heuristic to the SPIN-1 protocol  When energy is plentiful, SPIN-2 nodes communicate using the same  3-stage protocol as SPIN-1 node  When its energy is approaching a low-energy threshold, it adapts by reducing its participation in the protocol  SPIN-1 : 3-Stage Handshake Protocol  SPIN-1 can be run in a completely un-configured network with a small, startup cost to determine nearest neighbors.  If the topology of the network changes frequently, these change only have to travel one hop before the nodes can continue running the algorithm.

24. ADVANTAGES  Topological changes are localized - Each node needs to know only its neighbors  provides more energy savings than flooding, and metadata negotiation almost halves the redundant data.  Resource-adaptive enhancements.  Outperforms gossiping.  Seems better than flooding (solves data implosion and overlap).  Simplicity  Each node performs little decision making when it receives new data  Need not forwarding table

25. DISADVANTAGES  SPIN’s data advertisement mechanism cannot guarantee delivery of data.  Large overhead  Data broadcasting  The paper does not consider collisions in the REQ stage  Implosion problem still exists in REQ stage  SPIN not good for applications that need reliable data delivery.

26. F UTURE WORK  Consider the cost of not only communicating data, but also synthesizing data, make it more realistic resource- adaptation protocols.  Queuing delay, loss-prone nature of wireless channels can be incorporated and experimented.

27. L IMITATIONS  The SPIN EC(Energy Constrained) version’s strategy may be too simple.  There should be a topology dependent strategy, e.g. a narrow bridge connecting two connected component should be more energy conservative.  The ideal criteria used to compare with SPIN is ideal in terms of data dissemination rate, so really not ‘ideal’ anymore when energy or other resources are limited, need a new goal function.

28. CONCLUSIONS  Successfully use meta-data negotiation to solve the implosion, overlap problem of simple flooding and gossiping.  Resource-adaptive enhancements  Simple scheme, small communication overhead, but a performance close to the ideal situation.

29. BIBLIOGRAPHY  Negotiation based protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks by Joanna Kulik, Wendi Heinzelman, and Hari Balakrishnan  www.google.com

30. THANK YOU !!