Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Unlike terrestrial networks that mainly rely on radio waves for communications, underwater networks utilize acoustic waves, which have comparatively lower loss and longer range in underwater environments. However, acoustic waves incurs long propagation delays that typically lead to low throughput especially in protocols that require receiver feedback such as multimedia stream delivery. In addition, energy cost of transmission underwater is much higher than reception (almost 125:1 [1]). Thus, collision and retransmission should be reduced in order to reduce energy cost and improve throughput Receiver-based protocols, like RIPT and COS-TS, can significantly reduce collision and retransmission. But they are time and energy consuming because nodes are controlled to turn into receiver mode by control packets or a timer regardless of load. In this paper, we propose an underwater practical MAC protocol, called UPMAC. The main objective of UPMAC is to adapt to the network load conditions by providing two modes (high and low load modes) and switching between them based on different offered load. Turn-around time overhead is reduced and it is less vulnerable to control packet corruption, since we reduce the use of control packets by the technique of piggyback. UPMAC provides a low data collision rate in both one-hop and multi-hop situation because we use Receiver-based approach in high load mode. Extensive simulations show that our approach can achieve significantly better performance in both general and Sea Swarm (tree) topologies. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2014 | 10.1109/ICCCN.2014.6911801 | ICCCN |
Keywords | DocType | Citations |
upmac,underwater acoustic networks,underwater acoustic communication,multimedia stream delivery,mac protocol,access protocols,receiver-based protocols,radio waves,terrestrial networks,sea swarm topologies,acoustic waves | Conference | 0 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.34 | 0 | 7 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wenzhe Zhang | 1 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Zhenquan Qin | 2 | 76 | 14.43 |
| Jiajun Xin | 3 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Lei Wang | 4 | 433 | 64.21 |
| Zhu Ming | 5 | 6 | 6.18 |
| Liang Sun | 6 | 20 | 11.65 |
| Shu Lei | 7 | 2927 | 216.78 |