| Summary: | This work focuses on the performance characterization of distributed collaborative ad-hoc networks, focusing on such metrics as the lifetime, latency, and throughput capacity of two such classes of networks. The first part concerns modeling and optimization of static Wireless Sensor Networks, specifically dealing with the issues of energy efficiency, lifetime, and latency. We analyze and characterize these performance measures and discuss various fundamental design tradeoffs. For example, energy efficiency in wireless sensor networks can only be improved at the cost of the latency (the delay incurred during communication). It has been clearly shown that improvement in energy efficiency through data aggregation increases the latency in the network. In addition, sleep-active duty cycling of nodes (devices constituting the network), a commonly employed mechanism to conserve battery lifetime in such networks, has adverse effects on their functionality and capacity. Hence these issues deserve a detailed study.
The second part of this work concerns performance modeling of Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) and Sparse Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (SPMANETs) in general. We first investigate the effect of modern coding, such as the application of packet-level rateless codes, on the latency, reliability, and energy efficiency of the network. These codes provide us the means to break large messages into smaller packets thereby enabling efficient communication. The work then focuses on developing and formalizing an information-theoretic framework for Delay Tolerant- and other Sparse Mobile Networks. This is enabled by the use of an embedded-Markov-chain approach used for complex queuing-theoretic problems. An important goal of this work is to incorporate a wide range of mobility models into the analysis framework. Yet another important question will be the effect of changing the mobility on the comparative performance of networking protocols. Lastly, the framework will be extended to various communication paradigms such as two-hop vs multi-hop routing, unicast, and multicast.
|
|---|
