21.08.2013 Views

Protocols for Secure Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks

Protocols for Secure Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks

Protocols for Secure Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

132 Chapter 5. Multipath <strong>Communication</strong><br />

separation may prove more relevant when a trade-off between cost and security<br />

is to be found, <strong>for</strong> example.<br />

Most algorithms <strong>for</strong> construct<strong>in</strong>g multiple paths treat every pair of sender<br />

and receiver separately. S<strong>in</strong>ce there is substantial overhead required <strong>for</strong> construct<strong>in</strong>g<br />

and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g multiple paths, this does only pay off <strong>for</strong> longerlast<strong>in</strong>g<br />

communication relationships between nodes. In WSNs, there are usually<br />

many node pairs exchang<strong>in</strong>g messages at the same time, and communication<br />

relationships are mostly transient. Conventional multipath schemes do not<br />

amortize set-up overhead over all node pairs, and are <strong>in</strong>efficient <strong>for</strong> short-term<br />

connections.<br />

There are many possible metrics that could be used <strong>for</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g and select<strong>in</strong>g<br />

paths. Especially <strong>in</strong> dynamic (e.g. mobile) networks, it is important<br />

that these metrics can be efficiently evaluated. There is a trade-off between the<br />

overhead <strong>in</strong>duced by the metric evaluation and the penalty that must be paid <strong>for</strong><br />

us<strong>in</strong>g non-optimal paths. Our attacker model suggests that spatially separated<br />

paths are desirable as such paths can circumvent areas that are under attack.<br />

For efficiency reasons, we would like to amortize the set-up and ma<strong>in</strong>tenance<br />

overhead over many communication relationships. Current approaches ma<strong>in</strong>ly<br />

emphasize the set-up of an alternate path <strong>in</strong> case the currently used path fails.<br />

Usually, the replacement path is very close to the replaced path, which means<br />

that most nodes are shared between both. In terms of our attacker model, this<br />

means that if one path is be<strong>in</strong>g compromised, the replacement path is probably<br />

also compromised.<br />

The idea <strong>for</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>g up multiple paths we present <strong>in</strong> this work is based on<br />

the concept of spann<strong>in</strong>g trees, which is fundamental <strong>for</strong> shortest path construction<br />

(cf. Dijkstra’s algorithm, described <strong>in</strong> [44]) and multicast. A multicast<br />

tree can be shared by all senders that are located on the tree, thereby reduc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the overhead compared to a separate tree <strong>for</strong> each sender [12]. We use the<br />

same pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>for</strong> end-to-end communication. Messages are routed based on<br />

the paths determ<strong>in</strong>ed by spann<strong>in</strong>g trees, and all senders use the same set of<br />

spann<strong>in</strong>g trees. This leads to suboptimal path lengths, but us<strong>in</strong>g different trees<br />

simultaneously provides spatially separated paths.<br />

5.2 Rout<strong>in</strong>g on Spann<strong>in</strong>g Trees<br />

5.2.1 The Basic Scheme<br />

We propose a multipath communication scheme that adequately addresses the<br />

requirements of wireless sensor networks. It uses spann<strong>in</strong>g trees as rout<strong>in</strong>g

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!