INTRODUCTION:

Wireless sensor network consists of smart nodes with processing power, sensor and a battery. Each node receives the sensor data remotely and radios to the central unit using multi hop communication. There can be enhanced application areas of WSN by integrating it with IP. It is convenient for the user to use all his heterogonous electronic devices like TV, VCR headset, mobile phone etc., such that any device can share any of its resources to any other devices in the network. When the devices move from home network to the foreign network they may be enabled to join the foreign network with the permission of home network.

These devices may be in one of the two networks, IP and ZIGBEE. In view of the different standards followed in these networks, they cannot be tied together to share the resources among them due to compatibility issues [1-3, 6-17].

There can be two approaches for working on the above stated issues; A. Gateway-based architecture[1] B. Virtual Gateway.

A. Gateway-based architecture:

Figure 1 shows a gateway-based architecture. Gateway carries out protocol translation between the wireless sensor network and the IP in this architecture.

B. Virtual gateway:

The functionality of the gateway is distributed among the wireless sensor nodes. The sensor nodes are categorized into three types, i) Open nodes ii) Primitive nodes iii) Closed nodes. The Open nodes accept the input data, process it and output the data with software support, which can be altered. These types of nodes are supported with memory. The Primitive nodes do not have any software. The software can’t be changed in the closed nodes. The gateway functionalities can be ported on to open and closed nodes but not onto the primitive nodes. The primitive node can be shared as resource by the opened and closed devices. The open and closed devices also share their resources like memory, power etc among themselves. The concept of interconnecting WSN with IP is explored in this paper by modifying the ZigBee stack with i) Adaptation layer, ii) Routing Information protocol (RIP) ported in the network layer iii) Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) protocol ported in the MAC layer while keeping other layers unchanged.

I. RELATED WORK:

The first breakthrough for IP based sensor nodes is micro IP (uIP) [17] and lightweight IP (lwIP) TCP/IP stack [17]. uIP was developed for very low-processing power systems with 8-bit processor architectures while lwIP presents a larger footprint for more capable systems. This achievement demystified the belief that TCP/IP was too complex for WSN smart nodes.

An example of IP-based WSN[2] implementation is intrusion monitoring system. The network employs Embedded Sensor Board (ESB) platform from FU Berlin motes, running the Contiki operating system and uIP stack. An IP-enabled WSN architecture named IPSense [18] has the advantage of flexible addressing and enhanced mobility. Sensor Routers are faced as gateways between the sensor network and other networks, and benefit from more hardware resources when compared with smart sensor nodes. However this is a gateway approach and there is no intelligence in the nodes except in the gateway.

II. METHODOLOGY USED:

The ZigBee stack [1,3,4,5,6]consists of physical layer, MAC layer, network layer, application layer and other layers as shown in figure 2. In order to link WSN with IP and to interact with all the nodes, the coordinator software must support service discovery protocol. Without using the middleware, application programmers would have to handle jobs like connection and disconnection of devices, implement access control, communication with the service discovery protocol, etc. The middleware takes away the responsibilities of handling these functions from the application developers, thus they do not have to deal with these issues. One of the major problems to interconnect WSN with IP is addressing mechanism as the IP address format is different from that of WSN. Two new addressing schemes are proposed to solve this problem. First method is spatial addressing. In the spatial addressing the geometric coordinates of the WSN node are taken into consideration. Second method is address translation. This method uses address tables to translate the address from WSN to IP and vice-versa. Address table is to be implemented in each WSN node. Further in order to build a virtual gateway, it is required to consider the compatibility among these two networks in terms of throughput, average end-end delay and Average Jitter.

Figure 1. Gateway based Architecture

Figure. 2. ZigBee stack

The Medium Access Control (MAC) [1,3,4,5,6] layer of ZigBee uses simple CSMA-CA protocol to access the channel. The ZigBee MAC layer protocol ensures that the data transmission from any source to destination passes through the coordinator thus increasing the delay in data transmission.

ZigBee network’s layer uses AODV [1,3,4,5,6] as the routing protocol to find route from source to destination. AODV [1,3,4,5,6] is Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing protocol which works on the principle that when there is a demand for the route the route is formed based on broadcasted Route Request (RREQ) and unicast Route Reply (RREP) messages. Hence delay is more in finding the route when it is necessary.

Further the Routing Information protocol (RIP) [1,3,4,5,6] is employed in the network layer while Carrier Sense Multiple Access protocol (CSMA) [1,3,4,5,6] is employed in the MAC layer. A new stack called ZI stack is proposed by incorporating an additional layer, called Adaptation layer [2] between the application layer and network layer as shown in figure 3. Both CSMA [1,3,4,5,6] and RIP are IP based protocols and point to point protocols thus reducing the delay in data transmission. The IP based Routing Information Protocol (RIP) [1,3,4,5,6] is a distance-vector routing protocol, which employs the hop count as a routing metric. RIP prevents routing loops by implementing a limit on the number of hops allowed in a path from the source to a destination. The maximum number of hops allowed for RIP is 15 and count of 16 is considered an infinite distance.

However, this also limits the size of networks that RIP can support. RIP implements the split horizon, route poisoning and hold down mechanisms to prevent incorrect routing information from being propagated [7,8,9,10,11,12,13].

The Adaptation layer [2] is divided into two parts A) data block B) control block. The aim of the data block is to provide effective and secure data transport between applications. The control block is responsible for managing connector channels, sessions and for handling security and access control.

A) Data block:

The application sends data through a link to the Adaptation layer, where the channel management layer redirects [2] the data to the corresponding channel. The Data transport layer creates [2] packets and provides functions such as flow control, reordering, automatic retransmission, quality of service, etc. These functions are not supported in the layers below the middleware, but are necessary for the application. The connection management layer [2] adds information to the packet, which is needed for the delivery address of the source and destination device and the identifier of the channel. Finally, the security layer [2] calculates a data integrity check value and encrypts the packet if necessary.

B) Control block:

This block contains the control functions which are necessary to manage the WSN. The service control part registers local services offered by the applications, handles their access rights and communicates with the service discovery protocol (SDP) [2]. In theory, any kind of SDP can be attached to network, such as SLP, UPnP or Salutation. The channel control creates and reconfigures sessions initiated by the dispatcher application. According to the needs of the dispatcher it asks the link control part of the participating devices to build up the channel between the links. The link control part instructs the channel connector layer to create a channel, activates the necessary transport functions for the given channel in the transport layer and sets the destination of the given channel in the connection layer. The service control [2] part initiates and co-ordinates the different services between devices and stores the necessary information for communication [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

III. EXPERIMENTATION SETUP:

All the simulation work is carried out in QualNet network simulator version 5.0.2. The simulation was done using five scenarios from 11 nodes to 15 nodes. In all the cases the seed is set at one (one packet per one sec.). Five scenarios are tested for Constant Bit Rate traffic and using two sets of different protocols AODV, CSMA-CA(ZigBee standard CSMA-CA) and RIP, CSMA (ZI stack) in each case. The time set for simulation is 800 sec. Hence the maximum number of packets chosen for transmission is 800. All the scenarios have been designed in a terrain size of 1500m x 1500m area with Cartesian terrain as shown in figure 4. Network traffic load is provided by constant bit rate (CBR) application. A CBR traffic source provides a constant stream of packets throughout the simulation, thus providing further stress on the routing task. The MAC layer protocol sensor MAC (ZigBee standard) is kept unchanged with AODV as network layer and changed to CSMA (IP-based) with RIP as network layer (Ip-based) protocol [4,5,18-26]. The measurements in our experiments were defined as follows:

i. Throughput (bits/s):-

It is the number of packets successfully transmitted to their final destination per unit time.

ii. Average End-To-End Delay (sec):

It is the average time taken by packets to reach from Source to Destination.

iii. Average Jitter Effect (sec):-

It signifies that the Packets from the source will reach the destination with different delays.

iv. Total Packets lost:-

This is the difference between total numbers of packets sent and total number of packets received.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS and ANALYSIS:

The simulation of ZigBee stack and proposed ZI stack is based on simulation time, number of nodes, area of network and routing protocols. In the experimental methodologies performance metrics can be measured with variation in number of nodes from 11 to 15 and respective protocols, while rest of all other parameters like simulation time, seed and area of network are kept constant. Effects of different parameters on performance of both the stacks are studied and the results are published below. The simulation results of scenario from 11 to 15 nodes are tabulated in table I AND II.

TABLE I: RESULTS FROM 11 TO 13 NODES

	ZIG	ZI	ZIG	ZI	ZIG	ZI
	11	11	12	12	13	13
AEED	82	3.8	82	3.9	81	3.8
TP	521	520	521	520	508	520
AJ	29	0.01	29	0.01	30	0.01
PL	10	1	10	1	29	2

TABLE II: RESULTS OF 14 AND 15 NODES

	ZIG	ZI	ZIG	ZI
	14	14	15	15
AEED	81	3.8	81	3.8
TP	508	520	508	520
AJ	30	0.02	30	0.02
PL	29	2	29	2

LEGEND:

ZIG: ZIGBEE WSN ZI: ZI WSN

AEED: AVERAGE END TO END DELAY(milli sec)

TP: THROUGHPUT (BITS /SEC)

AJ: AVERAGE JITTER(milli sec)

PL: PACKETS LOST

From the tabulated results the following concepts are understood

i. Average end to end delay of ZI stack is comparatively negligible than that of ZigBee stack

ii. Throughput of ZI stack is higher than that of ZigBee stack, because there is more packet loss in case of ZigBee stacks when there are obstacles. Further the throughput of ZI stack is not reducing with increasing number of nodes where as the throughput of ZigBee stack is diminishing with increasing number of nodes.

iii. The average Jitter is negligible in case if ZI stack when compared to that of ZigBee stack

iv. Packet loss is higher for ZigBee stack than that of ZI stack particularly when there are obstacles.

V. CONCLUSION:

This paper presented simulation analysis of two stacks ZigBee and new stack for wireless sensor networks called ZI stack along with obstacles present in Cartesian terrain. From the comparison results, it can be concluded that

i. Average end to end delay of ZI stack is comparatively negligible than that of ZigBee stack

iii. The average Jitter is negligible in case if ZI stack when compared to that of ZigBee stack

iv. Packet loss is higher for ZigBee stack than that of ZI stack particularly when there are obstacles under the variation in number of nodes.

In RIP there are more flash updates, due to more flash updates data traffic increases and hence throughput is higher. Further due to more flash updates more information is available on the routes hence less delay. Average end-to-end delay and average jitter are negligible in case of ZI stack because data packets are sent from source to destination without involving coordinator while in case of ZigBee, stack coordinator is involved in data transmission.

VI.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We express our sincere thanks to Department of Science and technology for sponsoring this project titled “Realization of IP Based wireless sensor network with emphasis on image transfer and on-demand routing”. This paper is the result of the research findings of this project.

VII. REFERENCES:

1. A. Boomarani Malany, V. R. Sarma Dhulipala, and RM. Chandrasekaran, “Throughput and Delay Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols”, Int. J. Open Problems Compt. Math., Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2009 , ISSN 1998-6262, Page No.461

2. Yu-Doo Kim, Il-Young Moon, Sung-Joon Cho, “A Comparison Of Improved Aodv Routing Protocol Based On IEEE 802.11 AND IEEE 802.15.4”, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 4, No. 2 (2009) 132 - 141, Page No.132

3. Natarajan Meghanathan, “Impact of the Gauss-Markov Mobility Model on Network Connectivity, Lifetime and Hop Count of Routes for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, JOURNAL OF NETWORKS, VOL. 5, NO. 5, MAY 2010, Page No.509.

4. Nadia Qasim, Fatin Said, Hamid Aghvami, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Protocols’ Evaluation through Simulation for Quality of Service”, IAENG International Journal of Computer Science, 36:1, IJCS_36_1_10.

5. Neeti Soni, “Exploiting the need of Comparative study of routing protocols and misbehaving node in wireless network”, Published in International Journal of Advanced Engineering & Application, June 2010 Issue.

6. Anuj K. Gupta, Dr. Harsh Sadawarti, Dr. Anil K. Verma, “Performance analysis of AODV, DSR & TORA Routing Protocols”, IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, No.2, April 2010, ISSN: 1793-823.

7. Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues and Paulo A. C. S. Neves, “A survey on IP-based wireless sensor network solutions”, International Journal Of Communication Systems. 2010, 23:963–981.

8. Dunkels A, Voigt T, Bergman N, J¨onsson M. “The design and implementation of an IP-based sensor network for intrusion monitoring”. Swedish National Computer Networking Workshop, Karlstad, Sweden, 2004.

9. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Performance Comparison Of Routing Protocols For Zigbee Wpan”, IJCSI, vol 8, issue 6, Nov 2011, pp394-402

10. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao , “Performance Comparison Of Csma, Maca, Generic Mac And Sensor Mac Channel Access Protocols For Zigbee Wsn”, Journal of Instrumentation Society of India, Sept 2012, Vol 42 pp: 168-171

11. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “RFID Integration with Wireless sensor network”, IJ-RSAE, Dec 2016, vol 1 issue 2, pp: 1-16

12. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Selection of cluster head in artificially intelligent WSN towards extending network life time and reducing energy consumption”, IJWCNMET, Dec 2016, vol 1, issue 3, pp: 1-19

13. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Customized Zigbee stack-Mathematical modeling”, RTECS, Dec 2016, pp: 7-14

14. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Mathematical modeling of end-to-end-delay of Zigbee stack towards optimization of performance metrics” RTSRT, Dec 2016, vol 3, issue 3, pp: 1-9.

15. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Selection of cluster head in Wireless Sensor Network towards extending network life time”, JoMEA, Dec 2016, vol 3, issue 3, pp 1-10.

16. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Mathematical Modelling of end-to-end delay of customized ZigBee stack towards optimization of performance metrics”, Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Dec 2016, vol 7issue 4, pp: 131-143.

17. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Mathematical Modelling of end-to-end delay of customised ZigBee stack towards optimization of performance metrics”, PARCOMPTECH-2017.

18. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Adaptation Layer towards integration of ZigBee and IP stacks”, 1-4, IEEE-ICACDOT-2016.

19. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “TCP/IP and ZigBee Middleware”, IEEE-ICONSTEM-2016.

20. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “ZigBee Based Multi-Level Parking Vacancy Monitoring System”, 1-4, IEEE-EIT-2010.

21. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Fully automated commando training system”, 54-59 IEEE-EIT-2008.

22. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Zigbee based WSN with IP connectivity”, 178-181, IEEE-CIMSIM-2012

23. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “WSN and IP based parking management system”,434-438, IEEE-ICST-2012

24. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Towards Realization of IP based Wireless Sensor network with emphasis on on-demand routing”, 1-6, IEEE-ICCSP-2013

25. Dr. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Remote data acquisition and control system”, 693-697, TIES-2007

26. Narmada. A, Sudhakara Rao P, 2011, “Performance Comparison Of Routing Protocols For Zigbee Wpan”, International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) Doolar Lane, Mahebourg
Republic of Mauritius, Volume 8, Issue 6, November 2011

Received on 20.02.2017 Accepted on 21.06.2017

Research J. Engineering and Tech. 2017; 8(3): 219-224.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-581X.2017.00035.6