Cooperation in Multi-Domain Sensor Networks

1
Cooperation in Multi-Domain Sensor Networks
Márk Félegyházi
Levente Buttyán
Jean-Pierre Hubaux
buttyan_at_hit.bme.hu
mark.felegyhazi, jean-pierre.hubaux_at_epfl.ch
Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Hungary
EPFL, Switzerland
TERMINODES Project (NCCR-MICS) http//www.terminod
es.org
PerSeNS 2005.03.08
2
Multi-domain sensor networks

• co-located sensor networks
• sensors are compatible
• sinks can be either separate or common

3
Non-cooperative game

• assumption paths to the sink exist in both own
  and common network
• the game unfolds in discrete time steps t
• lifetime of sensor networks until the first
  sensor dies
• finite routing game ends when one subnetwork dies

4
Benefits of cooperation

• operators as players
• two decisions
• ask (or not) the other player to cooperate
• cooperate (or not) if asked
• reduce complexity strategy is pre-defined in
• the sensors

5
Strategies

• success of data gathering if
• moves
• strategy

• DD - don't ask/drop
• DF - don't ask/forward
• AD - ask/drop
• AF - ask/forward

6
Utilities

• gain, gi(t) if the step was successful,
• then gi(t) Gi
• otherwise gi(t) 0
• cost, ci(t) sum of the transmission cost of all
  sensors (cunit da)
• payoff,
• utility

where T is the lifetime of the sensor network
7
Simulation parameters
8
Best strategies

• Three types
• Cooperative (AF, AF)
• Defective (DD, DD)
• Other for example (AF, DD)

9
Simulations Separate sinks
10
Simulations Common sinks
11
Simulations Path loss exponent
12
Conclusion

• Cooperation is beneficial, because it can
  increase the lifetime of sensor networks.
• For separate sinks, operators can use the
  sinks of each other
• For common sinks, cooperation is beneficial
• if sensor networks are sparse overhearing of
  packets is less significant
• if path loss is high - transmission is expensive