Energy-efficient hierarchical cluster-based routing strategies for Internet of Nano-Things: Algorithms design and experimental evaluations
Emre Sahin,Orhan Dagdeviren,Mustafa Alper Akkas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2024.103673
IF: 4.816
2024-09-30
Ad Hoc Networks
Abstract:Nanodevices (NDs), which are only a few nanometers (nm) in size, need to communicate with each other to perform complex operations. In nanonetworks, this communication typically involves multiple hops, requiring efficient routing protocols. Existing protocols are not well suited for nanonetworks due to their high resource consumption and setup overhead. In this paper, we propose three novel routing protocols for nanodevices. Non-Back Flooding Routing (NBFR) and Layer-Based Flooding Routing (LBFR) aim to reduce unnecessary packet transmission by utilizing distance and layer information based on received signal power. On the other hand, Tree-Based Forwarding Routing (TBFR) is a unicast-based approach that aims to transmit the packet to the destination using the shortest and most reliable path possible through a tree structure. The performance of these proposed methods is compared to well-known methods in terms of packet transmission, energy consumption, end-to-end delay, and setup overhead. TBFR achieved a packet transmission success of 92.95% in topology with the highest density of nanorouters (NRs), while it reached up to 99.57% for fewer nanorouters. Moreover, its end-to-end delay values are much lower than those of multi-path routing protocols. It also consumed one-fifth of the energy compared to its most challenging multi-path competitor, NBFR, regarding packet transmission success. However, for dense nanosensor (NS) topologies, NBFR and LBFR achieved higher packet transmission rates of 87.04% and 86.66%, respectively. Furthermore, in addition to achieving low end-to-end delays, the energy consumption of NBFR is very close to that of TBFR. In summary, the tests show that TBFR is more suitable for communication among nanorouters due to the requirement of building the tree structure, which results in a slightly higher setup overhead. In contrast, NBFR and LBFR are more suitable for communication between nanosensors because of their simplicity and low setup overhead. But, it should be noted that NBFR requires a larger header than the other alternatives.
computer science, information systems,telecommunications