# Context-Aware Gossip-Based Protocol for Internet of Things Applications
## 2 Related Work
Nevertheless, despite the use of the resource-saving Chebyshev distance computation, the fuzzy logic calculations consume considerable computational resources--resources that often need to be preserved to maximise a WSN's lifetime. Another gossiping protocol variant, Fitness-Gossiping (FGP), uses a fitness function to select the optimal next node [29]. This is done to decrease the energy consumption of the simple gossiping protocol and thus increase the network lifetime. The fitness function considers the remaining energy, next-node distance, and sink distance in order to select the node with the highest fitness to which to pass along the packet. The proposed protocol was compared against the simple gossiping protocol in terms of the delay, energy consumption, and number of live nodes. The results confirmed that FGP outperforms the simple gossiping protocol by balancing the power consumption more effectively, thereby enhancing the network lifetime. However, the authors compared their work with the traditional gossiping protocols and did not consider other protocols. Similar to the previously mentioned gossiping protocols, DGossip bases its selection of the next node on its distance to the sink and residual energy [30]. The value used for node selection is computed by means of a factor function that considers each node's energy and distance to the sink as well as the initial energy and the total distance from the source to the destination. The performance of DGossip was compared against that of the original gossiping protocol to determine its effectiveness in terms of energy, latency, and the number of live nodes. The results showed an improvement in energy dissipation and efficiency when utilising the DGossip protocol, which, in turn, increases the network lifetime and reduces latency. Similar to FGP, the authors did not consider other types of protocols in the evaluation. Table 1 summarises the reviewed literature on gossiping protocol variants. For package dissemination, the majority of these works adopt various computations that utilise the distance to the sink and/or the residual energy as the primary parameter(s) for determining the next node for selection [22; 23; 24; 25; 28; 30]. Other parameters examined include the distance to each neighbour node [29], the locations of the nodes [21], and the hop count to the sink [19]. These modified gossiping protocols have typically been evaluated in comparison with the conventional gossiping protocol or other modified gossiping protocols using various metrics. The energy consumption has been most commonly utilised to assess the performance of a proposed protocols against the performances of other protocols in a fixed-size network (100 nodes) [19; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 28; 29; 30], followed by the hop count [22; 23; 28; 29; 30], the number of live nodes [19; 24; 28; 29; 30], the packet loss [19; 21; 22; 23], and the network lifetime [22; 23; 25]. The results of these works reflect the positive impact of utilising adjusted parameters and computations to enhance the performance of the original gossiping protocol. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **Year** & **Parameters** & **Evaluation Metrics** & **Network Size** \\ \hline LGossiping [21] & 2009 & Locations of nodes & Energy consumption Packet loss & 100 \\ \hline ELGossiping [22] & 2010 & Distance to sink Residual energy & Energy consumption Hop count Network lifetime & 100 \\  & & & Packet loss & \\ \hline CHGossiping [23] & 2010 & Distance to sink Residual energy & Energy consumption Packet loss & 100 \\  & & & Packet loss & \\ \hline FELGossiping [19] & 2011 & Hop count to sink Residual energy & Delay Energy consumption Live nodes Packet loss & 100 \\ \hline Fuzzy-Gossip [24] & 2012 & Distance to sink Residual energy & Energy consumption Live nodes & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: A comparison of gossiping protocol variants for WSNs.