On the routing protocol influence on the resilience ofwireless sensor networks to jamming attacks

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In this work, we compare a recently proposed routing protocol, the multi-parent hierarchical (MPH) protocol, with two well-known protocols, the ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) and dynamic source routing (DSR). For this purpose, we have developed a simulator, which faithfully reifies the workings of a given protocol, considering a fixed, reconfigurable ad hoc network given by the number and location of participants, and general network conditions. We consider a scenario that can be found in a large number of wireless sensor network applications, a single sink node that collects all of the information generated by the sensors. The metrics used to compare the protocols were the number of packet retransmissions, carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) inner loop retries, the number of nodes answering the queries from the coordinator (sink) node and the energy consumption. We tested the network under ordinary (without attacks) conditions (and combinations thereof) and when it is subject to different types of jamming attacks (in particular, random and reactive jamming attacks), considering several positions for the jammer. Our results report that MPH has a greater ability to tolerate such attacks than DSR and AODV, since it minimizes and encapsulates the network segment under attack. The self-configuring capabilities of MPH derived from a combination of a proactive routes update, on a periodic-time basis, and a reactive behavior provide higher resilience while offering a better performance (overhead and energy consumption) than AODV and DSR, as shown in our simulation results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Del-Valle-Soto, C., Mex-Perera, C., Monroy, R., & Nolazco-Flores, J. A. (2015). On the routing protocol influence on the resilience ofwireless sensor networks to jamming attacks. Sensors (Switzerland), 15(4), 7619–7649. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150407619

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free