skip to main content
10.1145/1080810.1080818acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdialmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

On the pitfalls of geographic face routing

Published:02 September 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Geographic face routing algorithms have been widely studied in the literature [1, 8, 13]. All face routing algorithms rely on two primitives: planarization and face traversal. The former computes a planar subgraph of the underlying wireless connectivity graph, while the latter defines a consistent forwarding mechanism for routing around "voids." These primitives are known to be provably correct under the idealized unit-disk graph assumption, where nodes are assumed to be connected if and only if they are within a certain distance from each other.In this paper we classify the ways in which existing planarization techniques fail with realistic, non-ideal radios. We also demonstrate the consequences of these pathologies on reachability between node pairs in a real wireless testbed. We then examine the various face traversal rules described in the literature, and identify those [12, 16] that are robust to violations of the unit-disk graph assumption.

References

  1. Bose, P., Morin, P., Stojmenovic, I., and Urrutia, J. Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks. In Proc. ACM DIALM Workshop Seattle, WA, USA, Aug. 1999), pp. 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Finn, G. Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale internetworks. Tech. Rep. ISI/RR-87-180, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Mar. 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Gabriel, K., and Sokal, R. A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology 18 (1969), 259--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Gao, J., Guibas, L., Hershberger, J., Zhang, L., and Zhu, A. Geometric spanner for routing in mobile networks. In Proc. ACM MobiHoc (Oct. 2001), pp. 45--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hill, J., Szewczyk, R., Woo, A., Hollar, S., Culler, D., and Pister, K. System architecture directions for networked sensors. In Proc. 9th ACM ASPLOS (Cambridge, MA, USA, Nov. 2000). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Karp, B. Geographic Routing for Wireless Networks. PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Karp, B. Challenges in geographic routing: Sparse networks, obstacles, and traffic provisioning. Presentation at the DIMACS Workshop on Pervasive Networking, May 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Karp, B., and Kung, H. T. GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks. In Proc. ACM/IEEE MobiCom (Boston, Mass., USA, Aug. 2000), ACM, pp. 243--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kim, Y.-J., Govindan, R., Karp, B., and Shenker, S. Geographic routing made practical. In Proc. USENIX Symposium on Network Systems Design and Implementation (Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 2005), USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kleinrock, L., and Takagi, H. Optimal transmission ranges for randomly distributed packet radio terminals. IEEE Trans. Comm. 32, 3 (1984), 246--257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ko, Y.-B., and Vaidya, N. Location-aided routing in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proc. ACM/IEEE MobiCom (Aug. 1998). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kranakis, E., Singh, H., and Urrutia, J. Compass routing on geometric networks. In Proc. 11th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, Aug. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., Zhang, Y., and Zollinger, A. Geometric ad-hoc routing: Of theory and practice. In Proc. ACM PODC (Boston, MA, USA, July 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., and Zollinger, A. Asymptotically optimal geometric mobile ad-hoc routing. In Proc. ACM DIALM POMC Workshop (Sept. 2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., and Zollinger, A. Ad-hoc networks beyond unit disk graphs. In Proc. ACM DIALM POMC Workshop (Sept. 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., and Zollinger, A. Worst-case optimal and average-case efficient geometric ad-hoc routing. In Proc. ACM MobiHoc (2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Li, X., Kim, Y. J., Govindan, R., and Hong, W. Multi-dimensional range queries in sensor networks. In Proc. ACM Sensys (Nov. 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Newsome, J., and Song, D. GEM: Graph embedding for routing and data-centric stroage in sensor networks with geographic information. In Proc. ACM Sensys (Nov. 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Rao, A., Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., and Stoica, I. Geographic routing without location information. In Proc. ACM/IEEE MobiCom (Oct. 2003), pp. 96--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ratnasamy, S., Karp, B., Yin, L., Yu, F., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., and Shenker, S. {GHT: A geographic hash table for data-centric storage. In Proc. ACM WSNA Workshop (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Sept. 2002), ACM, pp. 78--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Savvides, A., Han, C.-C., and Srivastava, M. Dynamic fine-grained localization in ad-hoc networks of sensors. In Proc. ACM/IEEE MobiCom (Rome, Italy, July 2001), {ACM, p. to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Seada, K., Helmy, A., and Govindan, R. Localization errors on geographic face routing in sensor networks. In Proc. {IEEE IPSN Workshop (Berkeley, CA, USA, Apr. 2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Toussaint, G. The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognition 12, 4 (1980), 261--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Woo, A., Tong, T., and Culler, D. Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing. In Proc. ACM Sensys (Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Zhao, J., and Govindan, R. Understanding packet delivery performance in dense wireless sensor networks. In Proc. ACM Sensys (Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Zhou, G., He, T., Krishnamurthy, S., and Stankovic, J. A. Impact of radio irregularity on wireless sensor networks. In Proc. ACM Mobisys (June 2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On the pitfalls of geographic face routing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      DIALM-POMC '05: Proceedings of the 2005 joint workshop on Foundations of mobile computing
      September 2005
      120 pages
      ISBN:1595930922
      DOI:10.1145/1080810

      Copyright © 2005 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 September 2005

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate21of68submissions,31%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader