J. Today’s Ideas - Tomorrow’s Technol.

A Review of Various Swarm Intelligence Based Routing Protocols for Iot

Shailja Agnihotri, K.R. Ramkumar


MANET, WSN, Swarm Intelligence, IoT, Routing.

PUBLISHER The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at www.chitkara.edu.in/publications

The paper provides insight into various swarm intelligence based routing protocols for Internet of Things (IoT), which are currently available for the Mobile Ad-hoc networks (MANETs) and wireless sensor networks (WSNs). There are several issues which are limiting the growth of Internet of Things. These include the reliability, link failures, routing, heterogeneity etc. The MANETs and WSNs routing issues impose almost same requirements for IoT routing mechanism. The recent work of the worldwide researchers is focused on this area. protocols are based on the principles of swarm intelligence. The swarm intelligence is applied to achieve the optimality and the efficiency in solving the complex, multi-hop and dynamic requirements of the wireless networks. The application of the ACO technique tries to provide answers to many routing issues. Using the swarm intelligence and ant colony optimization principles, it has been seen that, the protocols’ efficiency definitely increases and also provides more scope for the development of more robust, reliable and efficient routing protocols for the IoT. As the various standard protocols available for MANETs and WSNs are not reliable enough, the paper finds the need of some efficient routing algorithms for IoT.


Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET)

The Mobile Ad hoc Network forms a temporary network with a collection of wireless moving devices without the centralized control and/or support services. In these types of networks, the devices create the dynamic topology environment wherein these can enter and exit frequently. There is no fixed infrastructure for the configuration or the reconfiguration of the network [1]. The MANETs are mostly used in the meetings, military communications, disaster recovery situations etc. The participating nodes or the devices face the challenge of limited communication range. Every device moves on independently frequently changing its links to other devices. Each device acts as the router to forward the traffic from the source to the sink.

The multicast routing protocols are required. The various challenges faced in such networks are frequently changing topology, low bandwidth issues, less battery life etc. The protocols which offer the advantages such as high throughput, better power utilization, adaptable to dynamic topology, less number of payload delays etc. are mainly required and much in demand. These factors if fulfilled may provide the Quality of Service (QoS) [2, 43].

Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)

Wireless Sensor Network is the collection of various spatially distributed autonomous nodes forming wireless network topology, basically using the sensors and actuators to predict the surrounding environment. The environmental conditions may include temperature, pressure, sound, vibration etc.

Most of the nodes in a WSN are stationary as compared to MANETs. Also, MANET offers the distributed computing whereas WSN is for the information gathering purposes. WSNs offer centralized control with low data rate. But both are distributed wireless networks involving multi hop routing, low battery nodes and which is self-organizing in nature [2]. The data cannot be sent directly from the source to the sink. The multi hop mesh topology requirement lays emphasis on the fact that it has to travel through the in-between sensor nodes to reach the desired destination. The protocols can be categorized in the following ways:

  • Routing based on the network structure - It includes the flat based routing in which every node participates in the network and plays the same prescribed role. In horizontal routing, only high energy nodes are selected for the route formation. And in the Location based routing, the sensor nodes are identified using signal strength parameter and are controlled through Global Positioning System (GPS).
  • Routing based on the protocol operation- In Multipath selection routing, the route is chosen among the various available paths, compromising on energy resource. In query based routing, the communication between the sender and the receiver is through queries. In Negotiation based routing, the negotiation is done to eliminate the high level of data redundancy.
  • Routing based on how the source finds out the destination- The Proactive type of protocols; the route is decided before the need arises. Whereas the Reactive type of protocols, decide the route only when such demand arises in the network. In the Hybrid type of protocols, these offer the mix of proactive and reactive protocol categories.
  • Routing based on the communication initiator- The request to send or receive the data may arise from the source or the sink, deciding on the initiator of communication category.
  • Routing based on the criteria of selecting the neighboring node- In the Content based routing, the content or the kind of the data is more focused upon for the route selection. In the Probabilistic routing type of protocols, there is random selection of the neighboring nodes for data transmission. In the Broadcast routing methods, each node re-broadcasts the message and if undelivered, it is dropped.
Page(s) 50–63
URL http://dspace.chitkara.edu.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/7/1/jotitt.2017.51004.pdf
ISSN Print : 2321-3906, Online : 2321-7146
DOI 10.15415/jotitt.2017.51004

Routing is the major challenge for the payload delivery from the source to the destination in the network [1-5]. Several significant factors are missing in case of all the existing protocols available for MANETs and WSNs. The existing protocols do not solve all reliability issues and efficient routing is not achieved still completely [30]. As of now, no techniques or protocols are efficient enough to cover all the issues and provide the solution [34]. There is a need to develop new protocols for the communication which will cater all these needs. The different important points to be considered are as follows:

  • Routing: There are various routing algorithms available for MANETs [1, 23] and WSNs [8, 10]. But there are no standard algorithms exist for IoT. The routing algorithms available for MANETs are not applicable to IoT because IoT focuses more on Machine to Machine communications and deals with smart devices [18].
  • Analog Metrics: The significance of analog metrics (Angle of arrival, Time of arrival and Signal strength) has not been fully explored to discover the sustainable and durable links or paths for the successful payload delivery [33].
  • Signal Noise ratio: The existing standards are not considering the effect of noise in the routing and payload delivery process fully, it is not found any heuristic approach of content delivery in IoT based on Signal Noise Ratio (SNR) [28,29,46,51].
  • Heterogeneity: As internet is transforming into IoT, it introduces the level of complexity with respect to interoperability (such as vendor interoperability) [50] or heterogeneity of things like RFIDs, sensors and other devices. The standard protocols are lacking in handling the same. Two important issues need to be considered, firstly, implementation of IPv6 over 6LOWPAN (to connect every small device in IoT) and secondly, standardized protocols for the machine to machine communication [35-37,39].

Efficient and scalable routing protocols adaptable to different scenarios and network size variation capable to find optimal routes are required [31,32,38]. The usage of ACO principles in the routing algorithms, prove to be bright for the route optimization issues.

IoT represents the next evolution of the Internet. Given that humans advance and evolve by turning data into information, knowledge, and wisdom, IoT has the potential to change the world as we know it today—for the better [47]. But along with the transition there are several challenges or issues which need to be resolved. Only after we overcome all the issues, such as routing and heterogeneity etc., we will be able to taste the benefits of the future technology. The existing protocols are not sufficient, need to implement more routing protocols for routing in IoT [40]. Packet routing performance [41] is required to be boosted to enhance the capability of overall IoT system [42].

The usage of ACO principles in the routing algorithms, prove to be bright for the route optimization issues. The importance of the relatively new parameters like heterogeneity, content relevancy and analog metrics has also been analyzed. It is worth noticing that the inclusion of these parameters along with others increases the efficiency and improves the routing process. The routing protocols which are content based or analog metric based (ABRAAM, ACBRAAM or Predictive Routing algorithm) are expected to perform more efficiently and effectively.

  • Zulfiqar, A. and Shahzad, W. (2011), “Critical analysis of swarm intelligence based routing protocols in adhoc and sensor wireless networks”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Networks and Information Technology (ICCNIT), IEEE, pp. 287-292. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCNIT.2011.6020945.
  • Muddassar, F., Gianni, A. and Caro, D. (2010), “Routing Protocols for Next-Generation Networks Inspired by Collective behaviors of Insect Societies: An Overview”, Swarm Intelligence, pp. 101-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74089-6_4.
  • Fatih, Ç., Ahmet Z., and Tuncel, S. (2010), “A survey on swarm intelligence based routing protocols in wireless sensor networks”, International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 2118-2126.
  • Bello, O., and Zeadally, S. (2013), “Communication issues in the Internet of Things, in Next Generation Wireless Technologies: 4G and Beyond”, Springer-Verlag, pp. 189–219.
  • Jian-Feng, Y., Yang, G. and Yang, L. (2011), “Ant colony optimization for wireless sensor networks routing”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC), Beijing, pp. 400 – 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2011.6016670.
  • Garnier, S., Gautrais, J., and Theraulaz, G. (2007), “The biological principles of swarm intelligence”, Swarm Intelligence, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 3-31
  • Dhumane, A., Prasad, R., and Prasad, J. (2016), “Routing Issues in Internet of Things: A Survey”, Proceedings of the International MultiConference, Hongkong, China, Vol. 1, pp. 16-18.
  • Goyal, D., and Tripathy, M. R. (2012), “Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks: a survey”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies, IEEE, Rohtak, India, pp. 474-480.
  • Ashton, K. (2009), “That ‘internet of things’ thing”, RFiD Journal, Vol. 22, No.7, pp. 97-114.
  • Rawat, P., Singh, K. D., Chaouchi, H., and Bonnin, J. M. (2014), “Wireless sensor networks: a survey on recent developments and potential synergies”, the Journal of supercomputing, Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 1-48.
  • Bello, O., and Zeadally, S. (2016), “Intelligent device-to-device communication in the internet of things”, IEEE, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 1172-1182.
  • Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., and Ayyash, M. (2015), “Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 2347-2376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ COMST.2015.2444095.
  • Dave, E, “The Internet of Things, How the Next Evolution of the Internet is changing everything”, retrieved on October 24, 2016 from http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/ ac79/docs/innov/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.pdf
  • Borgia, E. (2014), “The Internet of Things vision: Key features, applications and open issues”, Computer Communications, Vol. 54, pp. 1-31. https://doi.org.org/10.1016/j. comcom.2014.09.008
  • Zhu, Q., Wang, R., Chen, Q., Liu, Y., and Qin, W. (2010), “IoT gateway: Bridging wireless sensor networks into internet of things”, Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP 8th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC), Hongkong, China, pp. 347-352. https://doi.org.org/10.1109/EUC.2010.58.
  • Zorzi, M., Gluhak, A., Lange, S., and Bassi, A. (2010), “From today’s intranet of things to a future internet of things: a wireless-and mobility-related view”, IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol.17, No.6, pp. 44-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MWC.2010.5675777.
  • Mainetti, L., Patrono, L., and Vilei, A. (2011), “Evolution of wireless sensor networks towards the internet of things: A survey”, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), Italy, IEEE, pp. 1-6.
  • Farooq, M., and Di Caro, G. A. (2008), “Routing protocols for next generation networks inspired by collective behaviours of insect societies: An overview”, Swarm Intelligence: Introduction and Applications, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1075-1098.
  • Sarma, A. C., and Girao, J. (2009), “Identities in the future internet of things”, Wireless personal communications, Vol. 49, No.3, pp. 353-363.
  • Hui, X., Zhigang, Z., and Xueguang, Z. (2009), “A novel routing protocol in wireless sensor networks based on ant colony optimization”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application technology, IEEE, Vol.2, pp. 646-649.
  • Di Caro, G., Ducatelle, F., and Gambardella, L. M. (2005), “AntHocNet: An adaptive natureinspired algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc networks”, European Transactions on Telecommunications, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 443–455.
  • Wang, X. B., Zhan, Y. Z., Wang, L. M., and Jiang, L. P. (2008), “Ant colony optimization and Ad hoc on-demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) based routing protocol”, in the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation, IEEE, Vol. 7, pp. 589-593.
  • Baras, J. S., and Mehta, H. (2003), “A probabilistic emergent routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks”, in WiOpt’03: Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks, pp. 10.
  • Camilo, T., Carreto, C., Silva, J. S., and Boavida, F. (2006), “An energy-efficient ant-based routing algorithm for wireless sensor networks”, the International Workshop on Ant Colony Optimization and Swarm Intelligence, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 49-59.
  • Okazaki, A. M., and Frohlich, A. A. (2011), “Ad-zrp: Ant-based routing algorithm for dynamic wireless sensor networks”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), IEEE, pp. 15-20.
  • Hussein, O., and Saadawi, T. (2003), “Ant routing algorithm for mobile Ad hoc networks (ARAMA)”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference, IEEE, pp. 281-290.
  • García Villalba, L. J., Sandoval Orozco, A. L., Trivino Cabrera, A., and Barenco Abbas, C. J. (2009), “Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks”, Sensors, Vol.9, No.11, pp. 8399-8421.
  • Ramkumar, K. R., and Ravichandran, C. S. (2011), “ACBRAAM: A Content Based Routing Algorithm Using Ant Agents for MANETs”, BVICAM’s International Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 100-112.
  • Ramkumar, K. R., and Ravichandran, C. S. (2011), “A Predictive Routing Algorithm Using Ant Agents for Manets”, High Performance Networking, Computing, and Communication Systems, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 245-252.
  • Khan, R., Khan, S. U., Zaheer, R., and Khan, S. (2012), “Future internet: the internet of things architecture, possible applications and key challenges”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT), Pakistan, IEEE, pp. 257-260.
  • Sun, Q. B., Liu, J., Li, S., Fan, C. X., and Sun, J. (2010), “Internet of Things: Summarize on Concepts, Architecture and Key Technology Problem”, Journal of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 1-9.
  • Tan, L., and Wang, N. (2010), “Future internet: The internet of things”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE), Chengdu, China, Vol. 5, pp. 376.
  • Ramkumar, K. R., and Ravichandran, C. S. (2012), “Analog Based Routing Algorithm using Ant Agents for MANETs (ABRAAM)”, Elsevier Procedia Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 3139- 3151. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.365.
  • Abowd, G.D., and Mynatt, E.D. (2000), “Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 29–58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/344949.344988.
  • Khalil, N., Abid, M. R., Benhaddou, D., and Gerndt, M. (2014), “Wireless sensors networks for Internet of Things”, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), IEEE, pp. 1-6. https://dx.doi. org/10.1109/ISSNIP.2014.6827681.
  • Martinez, P., and Skarmeta, A., A white paper on “Empowering the Internet of Things with Software Defined Networking”, FP7 European research project on the future Internet of things.
  • Arkady Z., and Prem P.J. (2015), “Discovery in the Internet of Things: The Internet of Things”, Ubiquity symposium, Ubiquity 2015, Article 2, pp. 1-10.
  • Sicari S., Rizzardi A., Grieco L. A., and Coen-Porisini A. (2015), “Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead”, Elsevier, Computer Networks, Vol. 76, pp. 146–164.
  • Bello O., Zeadally S., and Badra M. (2016), “Network layer inter-operation of Device-to- Device communication technologies in Internet of Things (IoT)”, Elsevier, Ad Hoc Networks, Vol 57, pp. 52-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.06.010.
  • Heer T., Garcia-Morchon O., Hummen R., Keoh S.L., Kumar S.S., Wehrle K (2011), “Security challenges in the IP-based Internet of Things”, Wireless Personal Communication, Vol. 61 (3), pp. 527–542.
  • Dayong Y., Zhang M., and Yang Y. (2015), “A multi-agent framework for packet routing in wireless sensor networks”, Sensors, Vol. 15(5), pp. 10026–10047.
  • Shi L., Yao Z., Zhang B., Li C., and Ma J. (2015), “An efficient distributed routing protocol for wireless sensor networks with mobile sinks”, International Journal of Communication Systems, Vol. 28(11), pp. 1789–1804. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dac.2785.
  • Sun Y., Sun J., Zhao F., and Hu Z. (2016), “Delay constraint multipath routing for wireless multimedia ad hoc networks”, International Journal of Communication Systems, Vol.29(1), pp.210–225. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dac.2814.
  • Tao F., Wang Y., Zuo Y., Yang H., and Zhang M. (2016), “Internet of Things in product lifecycle energy management”, Elsevier, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 1, pp. 26–39. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2016.03.001.
  • Feng X., Liu X., and Yu H. (2016), “A new Internet of Things group search optimizer”, International Journal of Communication Systems, Vol. 29(3), pp. 535–552. https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/dac.2891.
  • Perera C., Zaslavsky A., Christen P. and Georgakopoulos D. (2014), “Context Aware Computing for The Internet of Things: A Survey,” IEEE, Vol. 16(1), pp. 414–454. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1109/SURV.2013.042313.00197.
  • Dastjerdi A. V., and Buyya R. (2016), “Fog Computing: Helping the Internet of Things Realize Its Potential”, IEEE, Computer, Vol. 49(8), pp. 112–116. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ MC.2016.245.
  • P. J. Windley (2015), “API Access Control with OAuth: Coordinating interactions with the Internet of Things”, IEEE, Vol. 4(3), pp. 52–58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2015.2421571.
  • Guha R., Brickley D., and Macbeth S. (2016), “Schema.org: Evolution of Structured Data on the Web”, Communications ACM, Vol. 59(2), pp. 44–51.
  • Loulloudes N., Chrystalla S., and Trihinas D. (2015), “Enabling Interoperable Cloud Application Management through an Open Source Ecosystem”, IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 19(3), pp. 54–59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2015.60.
  • Huwei C., Hui Hui, Z. S., Dongfeng F., and Yilong H. (2017), “Real-Time Pricing Strategy Based on the Stability of Smart Grid for Green Internet of Things”, Mobile Information Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 11.