Zigbee Cross Layer Optimization: State of the Art and the Road Ahead
Md. Rezaul Haque Khan1, Md. Akbar Hossain2
1
DIT – University of Trento, Via Sommarive 14, I-38050 Trento, Italy
2
Department of EEE, CUET, Chittagong-4349, Bangladesh.
e-mail: khan@dit.unitn.it, akbar002416@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: A number of researchers have looked
at specific aspects of network performance and,
approaching cross-layer design via their interpretation
of what it implies, have presented several cross-layer
design proposals. These proposals involve different
layers of the protocol stack, and address both cellular
and ad hoc networks. There has also been work
relating to the implementation of cross-layer
interactions. It is high time that these various
individual efforts be put into perspective and a more
holistic view be taken. In this article, we take a step in
that direction by presenting a survey of the literature in
the area of cross-layer design, and by taking stock of
the ongoing work. We suggest a definition for cross-
layer design, discuss the basic types of cross-layer
design with examples drawn from the literature, and
categorize the initial proposals on how cross-layer
interactions may be implemented. We then highlight
some open challenges and new opportunities for cross-
layer design.
KEYWORDS: Wireless Sensor Network, Cross Layer
Design, Energy Efficient Protocol and ZigBee power
meter.
1. INTRODUCTION
Cross-layer type protocols have been the
subject of research in many papers as well
as there are several studies investigating
the optimization of some single property or
investigating the property itself using the
cross-layer approach. The traditional OSI
architecture has been approved to be
excellent model for the development of
different data transmission standards.
Motivated by the theoretical and practical challenges,
wireless sensor networks (WSN) have drawn the
attention of the research community in the last few
years. This growing interest can be largely attributed to
new applications, such as wireless video surveillance
systems enabled by new research paradigm. Being a
microelectronic device, wireless video sensor node can
only be equipped with a limited power source (< 0.5
Ah, 1.2 V) [1]. Therefore, sensor node lifetime
becomes strongly dependent on battery lifetime. In an
ad-hoc sensor network any malfunctioning of a few
Detail of the mechanism will be presented in the full version of the paper. Due to lack of space we only present the most important part of the
research
nodes can cause significant topological changes and
might require re-routing and reorganization of the
network. Hence, power conservation and power
management becomes challenging issue. For these
reasons researchers are currently focusing on the
design of power-aware protocols for sensor networks
[1].
The ZigBee standard has recently been launched and is
targeted specifically towards WSN. The ZigBee
protocol is implemented on top of the IEEE 802.15.4
radio communication standard. In particular, the scope
of ZigBee is applications with low requirements for
data transmission rates and devices with constrained
energy sources. The design goals for the WSN have
been driven by the need for transmission of small
control packet and sensor data and a desire to keep the
cost of wireless transceivers to a minimum. Moreover,
the network possesses self-organizing capability so that
little or no network setup is required [1]. The ZigBee
wireless technology enables long battery lifetime and
offers the opportunity to build up complex wireless
sensor networks [2].
However, Zigbee protocol stacks, which is architected
and implemented in a layered manner, might not
function efficiently in mobile wireless environments
[6]. In the last few years, a new design paradigm has
arisen in the field of wireless sensor network research:
the so-called cross-layer optimization. Cross-layer
feedback in the protocol stack would be useful to
improve the efficiency of this protocol stacks [3]. In
fact, this paradigm implies the redefinition of the
overall design strategies for this kind of systems as it
breaks the classical model [4].
2. UNDERSTANDING CROSS-LAYER DESIGN
In general, cross-layer design and optimization means
that the different layers are allowed to couple,
integrate, and exchange information between one
another, to a much higher degree than what was
originally intended when the classical layers of the
protocol stack architecture was designed [5].
Cross-layer research Motivations: Several reasons
have motivated the Zigbee cross-layer optimization
research for the wireless sensor networks:
 Optimization in one layer may need to interact
with other layers to show its effects: Due to
 having a possibility of confrontation on different
approaches for the same optimization goal, cross
layer optimization seems to be the solution. For
example, designing an energy efficient WSN
protocol we need an energy efficient routing. Let’s
assume that a proposed routing protocol will
always select among the shortest routes so that
they will pass through the most densely deployed
area. Compared with a single larger-distance hop
the advantage of this kind of routes is that for the
same transmission distance, taking more number
of smaller-distance hops, it can save transmission
power. However, a severe contention might occur
due to data transmission with more hops. If proper
care is not taken on MAC layer design
optimization, the advantages of the routing design
may be counteracted by the increasing power
consumption due to the increase of contention
possibility [6].
 Conflicts avoidance between optimization goals:
Some solutions for aforementioned optimization
goals might conflict with each other. This leads to
a consolidate design the most promising solution
for actual applications. The effort pretends to fit
every optimization into a complete application
package and thus achieve all possible optimization
goals in an integrated way.
 Removal of unnecessary layer support: Some
situations do not need supports by all layers. In
that case, the most efficient way of optimizing the
system is to remove those unnecessary layers. It is
advisable that the composition of the protocol
stack to support certain applications can also be
optimized by the cross-layer approach.
3. CROSS-LAYER OPTIMIZATION AND
ZIGBEE: RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Cross-layer optimization in WSN has been addressed
by multiple studies in different scenarios. The basic
idea is to design communication layers such that they
can share and react to layer-specific information at
different layers in the communication stack. In recent
years, researches are using cross-layer design for high
efficiency and low cost WSN communication systems.
These efforts can be roughly classified into following
categories according to their optimization goals.
3.1 Power consumption estimation model
Power consumption estimation model for wireless
sensor network system can be divided into two
categories: measurement based technique and
simulation based technique. Measurement based
technique use power measurement equipment while
Detail of the mechanism will be presented in the full version of the paper. Due to lack of space we only present the most important part of the
research
executing primitives on the target device. Simulation
based method use a simulator with an appropriate
power model of the target device. An RF level power
model is measures power consumption while executing
a program on the targeted RF board.
Motivated by previous work in CPU profiling such as
Morph [7] PowerScope: a tool for profiling energy
usage by applications that maps energy consumption to
program structure [8]. Using PowerScope, it is possible
to determine what fraction of the total energy
consumed during a certain time period is due to
specific processes in the system.
D. Shin et al., [9] presents Seoul National University
energy scanner (SES). SES estimates a target
application’s energy consumption in a hybrid fashion.
SES is a highly integrated, energy monitoring tool that
collects power consumption data in a cycle-by-cycle
resolution and associates the collected power data with
C program and assembly language source code. SES
directly measures the CPU core’s energy consumption
while it uses a memory-power model to calculate the
memory system’s energy consumption from collected
memory traces in a cycle-by-cycle resolution.
However, SES needs an extra profile acquisition
module which consists of measurement circuit, profile
controller and acquisition memory. Therefore, the
techniques used in SES may not be applied to ordinary
embedded systems which do not equip with profile
acquisition modules.
ePRO [10], a tool for energy and performance profiler
for embedded applications could improve energy
consumption and performance of a DSP application.
Energy profiling is mainly based on the hardware
instrumentation which measures current samples
during execution of embedded applications with the
support of a periodic kernel module. ePRO employs
measure-based estimation techniques used in SES and
PowerScope. However, ePRO is distinct from SES
because ePRO does not need any extra hardware
module such as profile acquisition module in SES.
Therefore, ePRO can be used on ordinary embedded
systems. The main advantage of ePRO over
PowerScope lies in performance profiling. ePRO has a
performance profiling module while PowerScope only
profiles energy consumption.
Simple-Power[11], a cycle-accurate RT level energy
estimation tool uses transition sensitive energy models
forms the cornerstone of this framework. Simple-
Power also provides the energy consumed in the
memory system and on-chip buses using analytical
energy models.
Energy simulators such as Wattch [12] and
SimplePower [11] estimate the energy consumption in
reasonable time. However, their accuracy is not so high
that energy optimization is difficult by using those
simulators.
Sensor network simulators, such as ATEMU [13],
SensorSim [14], SENS [9], and TOSSIM [15]
developed for studying network protocols, but not for
energy estimation. The ATEMU simulates the
operation of sensors at the instruction level, while
SensorSim, SENS, and TOSSIM simulate the operation
of sensors in state transition instead of cycle-accurate
simulation. The PowerTOSSIM [16] tool is based on
TOSSIM, and is used to estimate the energy
consumption of a sensor network. SensorSim, SENS,
and PowerTOSSIM do not provide fine-grained power
profiles since they are not based on an RF-level power
model.
3.1 Zigbee routing protocol
Recent work has articulated the unique challenges of
ZigBee networks that stem from their resource
limitations. Here we study the implications of such
limitations on ZigBee routing protocols. Significant
progress has been made on low-power hardware design
for mobile devices that the wireless network interface
is often a device’s single largest consumer of power.
Since the network interface may often be idle, this
power could be saved by turning the radio off when not
in use. The responsibilities of the ZigBee network layer
include joining/leaving a network, security, routing,
discovering 1 hop neighbors and storing neighbor
information. The network topology can be multi-hop so
that any pair of devices can communicate with each
other through the help of intermediate nodes.
In this paper, we present a several routing protocol that
can be incorporate with existing ZigBee standard.
Ucast:
It can support unified connectionless protocol by using
a unified interface [17]. Actually, it is nothing but
modular extension to the underlying unicast layer and
can extend any unicast routing protocol as long as
unicast can export a common comparison interface.
The core of this protocol is scoreboard algorithm,
which is executed at all intermediate node along the
content delivery path. In terms of some notion of cost,
it compares the two next hope nodes and returns the
better candidate. These processes continue until all
destinations receive the multicast. By this way, it
becomes very tolerant to topology changes. That’s why
it dynamically decides the multicast delivery path at
each intermediate node instead of keeping the state
information.
Detail of the mechanism will be presented in the full version of the paper. Due to lack of space we only present the most important part of the
research
M-Bee:
M-Bee multicast model is on two major procedures:
Route Discovery (RD) and Receiver Join (RJ) [18].
Route discovery process begins with the sender
sending out a ROUTE-DISCOVERY packet via its M-
Bee endpoint and M-Bee output cluster with broadcast
address. Every node receiving this packet rebroadcasts
the packet once allowing the message to propagate
throughout the network. When a receiver of a group of
receivers gets a ROUTE-DISCOVERY packet, it sends
a RECEIVER-JOIN packet back to the original sender
as a unicast message using path reversal. Election of
forward path is made using the ZigBee broadcast
algorithm. Path reversal unicast address is obtained at
every node from the previous hop address field in the
node table, which was recorded during the ROUTE-
DISCOVERY process.
AODV: Ad hoc on demand distance vector
The main interesting thing of this algorithm is that no
node need not to discover and maintaining a route to
another network until two node need to communicate.
When a source node needs to communicate with
another node for which it has no routing information in
its table, the path discovery process is initiated by
broadcasting a route request (RREQ) to its neighbors
[19]. As the RREQ travels from a source to
destinations, it automatically sets up the reverse path
from all nodes back to the source. Nodes that are along
the path determined by the RREP will timeout after
route request expiration timer and will delete the
reverse pointers since they are not on the path. For path
maintenance, each node keeps the address of active
neighbors through which packets for the given
destination are received is maintained.
Span:
Span is a distributed, randomized algorithm where
nodes make local decision on whether to sleep, or to
join a forwarding backbone as a coordinator [20]. In
addition, the main idea is that a path with many short
hops is sometimes more energy efficient than one with
a few long hops could be applied to any ad hoc
network with variable power radios and knowledge of
positions. A good power saving coordinator technique
should have the following characteristics. It should
allow as many nodes as possible to turn their off most
of the time. In addition, it should forward packets
between any source and destinations with minimally
more delay than all nodes were awake. Therefore, to
preserve the capacity, a node discovers that two of its
neighbors cannot communicate with each other directly
or through an existing coordinator. Span uses broadcast
message to discover and react to changes in the
network topology. Only maintain the connectivity span
pays close attention to overall system capacity.
DISCUSSION:
The scope of this paper is limited to the discussion on
the last mile of the research on Zigbee cross layer
optimization approach. We only discuss a few of them
while many of the filed is yet to be investigated. We
believe this short stint has given us an opportunity to
present the latest condition.
REFERENCE
[1]. Ian F. Akyildiz et al., “Wireless sensor networks: a
survey”, Computer Networks, Elsevier Science,
Volume 38, Issue 4, 15 March 2002, Pages 393-
422.
[2]. P. Valdastri et al., “An implantable ZigBee ready
telemetric platform for in vivo monitoring of
physiological parameters” Sensors and Actuators
A: Physical, Elsevier Science 2007.
[3]. G. Xylomenos, G.C. Polyzos, “Internet protocol
performance over networks with wireless links”,
IEEE Network 13 (4) (1999) pp 55–63.
[4]. Luis Alonso and Ramón Agustí, “Optimization of
wireless communication systems using cross-layer
information”, Signal Processing, Volume 86, Issue
8, August 2006, Pages 1755-1772.
[5]. Karlsson et al, “Cross-layer optimization in short-
range wireless sensor networks (CROPS)”
Technical part, June 14, 2005.
[6]. Chiara Buratti et al., “Cross-Layer Design of an
Energy-Efficient Cluster Formation Algorithm
with Carrier-Sensing Multiple Access for Wireless
Sensor Networks, EURASIP Journal on Wireless
Communications and Networking 2005, pp 672–
685.
[7]. Karlsson et al, “Cross-layer optimization in short-
range wireless sensor networks (CROPS)”
Technical part, June 14, 2005.
[8]. J. Gross, J. Klaue, H. Karl and A. Wolisz, “Cross-
layer optimization of OFDM transmission systems
for MPEG-4 video streaming”, Computer
Communications, Volume 27, Issue 11, 1 July
2004, pp 1044-1055.
[9]. A. J. Goldsmith and S. B. Wicker, “Design
challenges for energy constrained ad hoc wireless
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications
Magazine, pp. 8-27 Aug. 2002.
Detail of the mechanism will be presented in the full version of the paper. Due to lack of space we only present the most important part of the
research
[10].W.K. Baek, Y.J. Kim, and J.H. Kim, “ePRO: A
Tool for Energy and Performance Profiling for
Embedded Applications,” Proc. Of International
SoC Design Conference (ISOCC), Seoul, Korea,
Oct. 2004, pp. 372-375.
[11].W. Ye et al., “The Design and Use of
SimplePower: A Cycle Accurate Energy
Estimation Tool,” Proc. 37th Design Automation
Conference (DAC), 2000, pp.340-345.
[12].D. Brooks et al., “Wattch: A Framework for
Architectural-Level Power Analysis and
Optimizations,” Proc. International Symposium on
Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2000, pp.83-94.
[13].J. Polley et al., “ATEMU: A Fine-Grained Sensor
Network Simulator,” Proc. First IEEE Int’l
Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc
Communication Networks (SECON), Santa Clara,
CA, Oct. 2004, pp.145-152.
[14].S. Park, A. Savvides, and M.B. Srivastava.
“SensorSim: A Simulation Framework for Sensor
Networks,” Proc. MSWIM, Boston, MA, Aug.
2000, pp.104-111.
[15].P. Levis, N. Lee, M. Welsh, and D. Culler.
“TOSSIM: Accurate and Scalable Simulation of
Entire TinyOS Applications,” Proc. the First ACM
Conf. Embedded Networked Sensor Systems
(SenSys), Nov. 2003, pp.126-137.
[16].V. Shnayder, M. Hempstead, B.R. Chen, G.
Werner-Allen, and M. Welsh, “Simulating the
Power Consumption of Large Scale Sensor
Network Applications,” Proc. the Second ACM
Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor
Systems (SenSys), Baltimore, MD, Nov. 2004,
pp.188-200.
[17].Qing Cao, Tian He, Tarek Abdelzaher. uCast:
Unified Connectionlòess Multicast for Energy
Efficient Content Distribution in Sensor Networks.
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed
Systems, Volume 18, Issue 2 (February 2007)
Pages 240-250 Year of Publication: 2007 ISSN:
1045-9219
[18].Kartal, Bilge; Sokullu Radosveta; Suihko, Tapio
“A new multicast routing algorithm for ZigBee
networks” Institute for Systems and Technologies
of Information, Control and Communication
(INSTICC) , WinSys 2007. Barcelona, Spain, 28 -
31 July 2007.
[19].Ergen S.C., 2004, ZigBee/ IEEE Summary
Report, (csinem@eecs.brekley.edu)
[20].4. B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan, R.
Morris, Span: an energy-efficient coordination
 algorithm for topology maintenance in ad hoc
wireless networks, Proc. MOBICOM, 2001.

Detail of the mechanism will be presented in the full version of the paper. Due to lack of space we only present the most important part of the
research