• Documents
  • Authors
  • Tables

CiteSeerX logo

Advanced Search Include Citations
Advanced Search Include Citations

DMCA

Collection Tree Protocol

Cached

  • Download as a PDF

Download Links

  • [sensys.acm.org]
  • [enl.usc.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [hinrg.cs.jhu.edu]
  • [www.stanford.edu]
  • [www.cs.princeton.edu]
  • [enl.usc.edu]
  • [cs.brown.edu]
  • [www.cs.brown.edu]
  • [www.cs.brown.edu]
  • [cs.brown.edu]
  • [cs.brown.edu]
  • [cs303.stanford.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [sing.stanford.edu]
  • [downloads.specknet.org]

  • Save to List
  • Add to Collection
  • Correct Errors
  • Monitor Changes
by Omprakash Gnawali , Rodrigo Fonseca , Kyle Jamieson , David Moss , Philip Levis
Citations:334 - 16 self
  • Summary
  • Citations
  • Active Bibliography
  • Co-citation
  • Clustered Documents
  • Version History

BibTeX

@MISC{Gnawali_collectiontree,
    author = {Omprakash Gnawali and Rodrigo Fonseca and Kyle Jamieson and David Moss and Philip Levis},
    title = {Collection Tree Protocol},
    year = {}
}

Share

Facebook Twitter Reddit Bibsonomy

OpenURL

 

Abstract

This paper presents and evaluates two principles for designing robust, reliable, and efficient collection protocols. These principles allow a protocol to benefit from accurate and agile link estimators by handling the dynamism such estimators introduce to routing tables. The first is datapath validation: a protocol can use data traffic as active topology probes, quickly discovering and fixing routing loops. The second is adaptive beaconing: by extending the Trickle code propagation algorithm to routing control traffic, a protocol sends fewer beacons while simultaneously reducing its route repair latency. We study these mechanisms in an implementation called Collection Tree Protocol (CTP) and evaluate their contributions to its performance. We evaluate CTP on 12 different testbeds ranging in size from 20–310 nodes and comprising 7 hardware platforms, on 6 different link layers, and on interference-free and interference-prone channels. In all cases, CTP delivers> 90 % of packets. Many experiments achieve 99.9%. Compared to standard beaconing, CTP sends 73 % fewer beacons while reducing topology repair latency by 99.8%. Finally, when using low-power link layers, CTP has duty cycles of 3 % while supporting aggregate loads of 30 packets/minute.

Keyphrases

collection tree protocol    hardware platform    duty cycle    many experiment    control traffic    adaptive beaconing    interference-prone channel    different testbeds    efficient collection protocol    agile link estimator    datapath validation    different link layer    topology repair latency    aggregate load    active topology probe    data traffic    route repair latency    dynamism estimator    trickle code propagation algorithm    link layer   

Powered by: Apache Solr
  • About CiteSeerX
  • Submit and Index Documents
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Data
  • Source
  • Contact Us

Developed at and hosted by The College of Information Sciences and Technology

© 2007-2019 The Pennsylvania State University