Multipath Routing for Access Control Node Failure
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Access control systems face challenges in maintaining data propagation when a node fails, as existing technologies do not effectively reroute data around the failed node, leading to disruptions in access control operations.
Innovation Solution
The method involves determining alternate paths in an access control system by receiving node information, including energy and latency metrics, to reroute data around a failed node, using either flooding or minimum hop distance data, ensuring continuous operation by selecting disjoint or joint routes.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If data is transmitted through a single route in the access control system, then the routing is simple and energy consumption is low, but the system reliability deteriorates when a node fails
Solution Approach 1:
The system pre-determines multiple routes (joint and disjoint) between nodes before any failure occurs. When a node failure is detected, the system can immediately switch to an alternate pre-calculated route without complex real-time routing decisions, thus maintaining reliability while keeping the complexity manageable
Solution Approach 2:
The routing system dynamically adapts between single-route operation (normal conditions) and multi-route operation (failure conditions). The system maintains multiple route options but only activates them when needed, allowing the routing complexity to adjust based on system state
2Reliability
If multiple alternate routes are maintained in the access control system, then the system reliability improves when nodes fail, but the energy consumption and device complexity increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies different routing strategies to different parts of the network based on local conditions. Joint routes are used for normal operation to conserve energy, while disjoint routes are maintained as localized backup options only where critical node failures would occur, balancing reliability needs with energy consumption
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes routing parameters (switching between joint and disjoint routes) based on failure detection. During normal operation, the system uses energy-efficient joint routes; upon detecting a failure, it switches to alternate disjoint routes, thus managing energy consumption while maintaining reliability
3Reliability
If the system uses flooding to transmit data around a failed node, then the system reliability improves, but the latency increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments the routing approach into two parts: controlled multi-path routing for reliability (segmenting the data flow through specific alternate routes) and limited flooding only when necessary. This segmentation reduces unnecessary flooding overhead while maintaining reliability, thus reducing latency compared to pure flooding approaches
4Loss of energy
If the access control node operates on battery power with monitored energy, then the energy conservation is prioritized, but the ability to maintain multiple routes and handle failures is limited
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs partial routing - maintaining multiple route information and failure handling capabilities only to the extent necessary for basic reliability. Rather than implementing comprehensive multi-path routing with full redundancy, the system uses selective joint and disjoint routes that provide adequate failure handling while minimizing the energy overhead of maintaining multiple active paths
Data Source
AI summary
A method of operating an access control system including a plurality of access controls each operating as a node including: receiving a node information from one or more nodes of the access control system, the one or more nodes including an origination node and a destination node; determining one or more routes between the origination node and the destination node in response to the node information or a minimum hop distance between the originating node and the head node and a minimum hop distance between any intermediate routing node and the head node; receiving a reroute message indicating a failed node between the destination node and the origination node; and determining an alternate path from the origination node to the destination node around the failed node in response to the one or more routes.