implementation of adaptive zone routing protocol for wireless networks

T. Ravi Nayak et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2 (12), 2010, 7273-7288

Figure 3.1: DSDV Protocol

From this it can be seen that, there is a great consumption of memory because of control messages only. DSDV is an example of proactive routing protocols and it is based on a classical algorithm known as Distance Vector.

In the protocol DSDV each node possesses a routing table containing all the routes for each node in the network. This table also contains neighbor and also the number of hops called hop count for each route. The DSDV maintain routes in its routing tables that are not being utilized. The routed are updated periodically, and are exchanged by the requisition for routing tables from his neighbors. The table also is brought up to date when there is some change in the topology of the network.

Destination Next Metric Sequence

no.

A A 0 0

B B 1 12

C B 2 14

D D 1 10

E E 1 12

F E 2 18

G E 3 14

Table 3.1: Routing table of node A

The fig 5 and the Table 1 explain the operation of the routing protocol DSDV. Some of the advantages of the DSDV are that it will avoid the formation of loops; this protocol puts in each routing table the sequence number in the order of information of routing. The routes that possess the more new number of sequence are used. In case the sequence number is older the packet is discarded. The bigger disadvantage of the DSDV is the overload in the network with information of routing. That occurs due to periodically updating of the routes that happens by means of broadcast. Using most of the transmission bandwidth for maintaining network is the main disadvantage of proactive routing protocols. Another one disadvantage is connection to one node is changed, results in lot information of routing. Hence, there is a bigger consumption of processing and memory of the devices furniture. Consequently the use of energy also is bigger. The DSDV serves like base of operation of others protocols.

3.2. Reactive Routing Protocols :

The reactive routing protocols do not maintain the information about the routes. Only they initiate the discovery of the routes on-demand i.e. when the device is going to send a message. Normally the routes are maintained only during the communication or until some period of time. However, these routes can be stored in case if they are necessary very frequently. The main disadvantage of the reactive routing protocols is the routes discovery time.

ISSN: 0975-5462 7276


That time required for the determination of routes in some cases is very high when the destination is distant. In compensation, the reactive routing protocol generate less overhead and consumes less energy of the devices in the network compared to proactive routing protocols. Examples of reactive routing protocols are the AODV and DSR. These two protocols of reactive routing were standardized through RFC by the group working on MANETs of the IETF. DSR, the reactive routing protocol uses the routing by spring, in which the node origin is responsible by the choice of the best route.

The routes are stored in cache until the route is not utilized once again in a determined time. Then it is put out. For the network to avoid the unnecessary traffic, when the node origin does not know the route, the first requisition is limited to the node neighboring. Only when the neighbors do not know the route for the destination, then a new requisition is now spread for all networks by the form of flooding. The route discovery is of the following form: when it is necessary to initiate a communication then the network is flooded with requisitions of route (RREQ). Each node that forwards those requisitions places its identifier in the header of the RREQ packet for the record of node through which the packet has been transmitted till the destination node. The destination node or the intermediate nodes those possess the route answer reply packet (RREP). If this route is already being utilized and a fall of node occurs, then it is sent as an error of route (RERR) up to origin, indicating that there is some change in the network. The fig 2.9 gives an example of the operation of the discovery of route in the protocol DSR.

Figure 3.2: DSR Protocol

3.3. Hybrid Routing Protocols :

In a mobile ad-hoc network, it can be assumed that most of the communication takes place between nodes close to each other. The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) described in [15] takes advantage of this fact and divides the entire network into overlapping zones of variable size. It uses proactive protocols for finding zone neighbors (instantly sending hello messages) as well as reactive protocols for routing purposes between different zones (a route is only established if needed). Each node may define its own zone size, whereby the zone size is defined as number of hops to the zone perimeter. For instance, the zone size may depend on signal strength, available power, reliability of different nodes etc. While ZRP is not a very distinct protocol, it provides a framework for other protocols.

First of all, a node needs to discover its neighborhood in order to be able to build a zone and determine the perimeter nodes. In Fig 2.11, all perimeter nodes are printed in dark gray color – they build the border of A’s zone with radius ρ = 2. The detection process is usually accomplished by using the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP). Every node periodically sends some hello messages to its neighbors. If it receives an answer, a point-to-point connection to this node exists. Nodes may be selected by different criteria, be it signals strength, radio frequency, delay etc. The discovery messages are repeated from time to time to keep the map of the neighbors updated.

ISSN: 0975-5462 7277


Figure 3.3: ZRP - Routing Zone of Node A, ρ = 2

3.3.1. Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP):

The IARP protocol is used by a node to communicate with the other interior nodes of its zone. An important goal is to support unidirectional links, but not only symmetric links. It occurs very often, that a node A may send data to a node B, but node B cannot reach node A due to interference or low transmission power for example. IARP is limited to the size of the zone ρ. The periodically broadcasted route discovery packets will be initialized with a Time To Live (TTL) field set to ρ−1. Every node which forwards the packet will now decrease this field by one until the perimeter is reached. In this case, the TTL field is 0 and the packet will be discarded. This makes sure that an IARP route request will never be forwarded out of a node’s zone.

[[

3.3.2. Inter-zone Routing Protocol (IERP):

The Inter-zone Routing Protocol is used to communicate between nodes of different zones. It is a reactive protocol and the route discovery process is only initiated on demand. This makes route finding slower, but the delay can be minimized by use of the Bordercast Resolution Protocol. IERP takes advantage of the fact that IARP knows the local configuration of a zone. So a query is not submitted to all local nodes, but only to a node’s peripheral nodes. Furthermore, a node does not send a query back to the nodes the request came from, even if they are peripheral nodes.

3.3.3. Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP):

The Bordercast Resolution Protocol is rather a packet delivery service than a full featured routing protocol. It is used to send routing requests generated by IERP directly to peripheral nodes to increase efficiency. BRP takes advantage of the local map from IARP and creates a bordercast tree of it. The BRP employs special query control mechanisms to steer route requests away from areas of the network. The use of this concept makes it much faster than flooding packets from node to node.

3.3.4. Query-control mechanisms:

Bordercasting can be more efficient than flooding, since route request packets are only sent to the peripheral nodes, and thus only on the corresponding links. In that case, only one packet is sent on a link although several peripheral nodes can reside behind this link. However, since the routing zones of neighboring nodes overlap, each node may forward route requests several times, which results in more traffic than in flooding. When a node border casts query, the complete routing zone is effectively covered. Any further query messages entering the zone are redundant and result in wasted transmission capacity. The excess traffic is a result from queries returning to covered zones instead of covered nodes as in traditional flooding. To solve this problem, ZRP needs query-control mechanisms, which can direct queries away from covered zones and terminate query packets before they are delivered to peripheral nodes in regions of the network already covered by the query. ZRP uses three types of query-control mechanisms: query detection, early termination and random query-processing delay. Query detection caches the queries relayed by the nodes. With early termination, this information is used to prune bordercasting to nodes already covered by the query.

ISSN: 0975-5462 7278


3.3.5 Query detection:

When a bordercast is issued, only the bordercasting node is aware that the routing zone is covered by the query. When the peripheral nodes continue the query process by bordercasting to their peripheral nodes, the query may be relayed through the same nodes again. To illustrate with an example, the node S in Fig 3.4 border casts a query to its peripheral nodes F–J. As the node J continues by bordercasting to the nodes C, S and E, the query is again relayed by nodes D and E. The query issued by node J to nodes C, S and E is redundant, since these nodes have been covered by the previous query.

Figure 3.4: Query detection example

IV. ADAPTIVE ZONE ROUTING PROTOCOL

4.1. Architecture:

The Adaptive Zone Routing Protocol, as its name implies, is based on the concept of zones. A routing zone is defined for each node separately, and the zones of neighboring nodes overlap. The routing zone has a radius expressed in hops. The zone thus includes the nodes, whose distance from the node in question is at most � hops. An example routing zone is shown in Figure 4.1, where the routing zone of S includes the nodes A–I, but not K. In the illustrations, the radius is marked as a circle around the node in question. It should however be noted that the zone is defined in hops, not as a physical distance.

Figure 4.1: Example routing zone with =2

The nodes of a zone are divided into peripheral nodes and interior nodes. Peripheral nodes are nodes whose minimum distance to the central node is exactly equal to the zone radius .The nodes whose minimum distance is less than �are interior nodes. In Fig 4.1, the nodes A–F are interior nodes; the nodes G–J are peripheral nodes and the node K is outside the routing zone. Note that node H can be reached by two paths, one with length 2 and one with length 3 hops. The node is however within the zone, since the shortest path is less than or equal to the zone radius. The number of nodes in the routing zone can be regulated by adjusting the transmission power of the nodes. Lowering the power reduces the number of nodes within direct reach and vice versa. The number of neighboring nodes should be sufficient to provide adequate reach ability and redundancy.

On the other hand, a too large coverage results in many zone members and the update traffic becomes excessive. Further, large transmission coverage adds to the probability of local contention. AZRP refers to the locally

ISSN: 0975-5462 7279


proactive routing component as the Adaptive IntrA-zone Routing Protocol (AIARP). The globally reactive routing component is named Adaptive IntEr-zone Routing Protocol (AIERP). AIERP and AIARP are not specific routing protocols. Instead, AIARP is a family of limited-depth, proactive link-state routing protocols. AIARP maintains routing information for nodes that are within the routing zone of the node. Correspondingly, AIERP is a family of reactive routing protocols that offer enhanced route discovery and route maintenance services based on local connectivity monitored by AIARP.

The fact that the topology of the local zone of each node is known can be used to reduce traffic when global route discovery is needed. Instead of broadcasting packets, AZRP uses a concept called border casting. Border casting utilizes the topology information provided by AIARP to direct query request to the border of the zone. The border cast packet delivery service is provided by the Border cast Resolution Protocol (BRP). BRP uses a map of an extended routing zone to construct border cast trees for the query packets. Alternatively, it uses source routing based on the normal routing zone. By employing query control mechanisms, route requests can be directed away from areas of the network that already have been covered.

4.2. Adaptive IARP (AIARP):

Each node has its own zone radius: faster node keeps a smaller zone radius; while slower node keeps a larger zone radius. When a node’s zone radius is ‘1’, it does not send any proactive packets, neither HELLO packets nor IARP packets; does not receive any proactive packet from other nodes, either. This zone radius is used for very high mobility nodes, e.g., 30 – 40 m/s and no pause times. When a node’s zone radius is a non-zero value, say ‘n’, it sends HELLO packets periodically and maintains ‘n’ hops routing zone around it. When it receives a HELLO packet from one of its neighbors, it adds the neighbor into its neighbor list if and only if the neighbor’s zone radius is higher than or equal to its zone radius. This means that a node keeps in its neighbor list only those nodes that have equal or less mobility. When it hears an IARP packet, the node receives it if and only if the sender’s zone radius is equal to its zone radius. That is, the exchange of IARP packets is limited to nodes of identical mobility.

Figure 4.2: AZRP Example

4.3. Adaptive IERP (AIERP):

A node which needs a route first check its routing table and its routing zone, if a route exists in the routing table or the destination node is in its routing zone, there is no need to do a route query. Otherwise, the node will initiate a route query by using its IERP and BRP enabled with the query control mechanism. This phase is different from the original ZRP. Recall that the original ZRP uses uniform zone radius in the network. When a node initiates a route query in the original ZRP, all nodes can participate in this query process regardless of their mobility’s and can be part of the final route. This gives the fast nodes and slow nodes same opportunity when building a route. The resulting route will be fragile and unreliable, because link breakage may occur frequently due to the movement of the fast intermediate nodes. In AZRP scheme, maintain different zone radii for different mobility nodes. Nodes from different zone radius groups have different views of the network topology. This gives the nodes the opportunity to establish a more reliable, effective and efficient routes.

When a node initiates a route query, it sets multiple zone radius values in the route request packet before bordercasting the request to its peripheral nodes. Its neighbors eavesdrop the query by using QD2, and according to the zone radius values set in the route request packet, the neighbors decide whether to join the query phase or not. Thus, the query is injected into different zone radius groups and exchanged in each group. Multiple zone radius values are set in the route request packet, so as to

(i) allow specific zone radius groups to join the query, thereby controlling the type of nodes that can be the intermediate nodes; and

ISSN: 0975-5462 7280


(ii) limit the number of zone radius groups that can join the request, thereby controlling the amount of the routing traffics.

V. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS

We simulate ZRP and AZRP on Network Simulator-2 and then compare and analyze their performance. A flat grid topology with 300 x 300 meter is used which track on the mobile nodes boundary. In this boundary, 10 nodes are arranged in grid fashion. Simulations were performed on the ns-2 simulator with wireless components which were developed by the Monarch research group in CMU.]. In ZRP implementation, the link state routing protocol and an AODV are implemented as IARP and IERP, respectively.

Distributed bordercast approach is implemented for bordercasting in simulations. The query-control mechanism described in Chapter 2, which includes Query Detection and Early Termination, is also implemented. HELLO message is used to detect neighbor existence if the zone radius is greater than ‘0’. The distributed coordination function (DCF) mode of IEEE 802.11 standard is used as the MAC layer which uses CSMA/CA, and RTS/CTS/data/ACK dialogue. In all simulations, mobile nodes move around a square region of size 300 m × 300 m according to Random waypoint mobility model. Constant bit-rate (CBR) traffic sources are used. The source-destination pairs are spread randomly over the network. The number of source-destination pairs and the packet sending rate for each pair are varied to change the offered load in the network. Data packet size is 512 bytes. All simulations are run for 300 simulated seconds and each point in a plot represents an average of seven runs with different random number streams. Table 5.1 gives the values of parameters used in simulations. The number of slow nodes fixed to get a reasonable coverage in the whole network.

(a) Network Parameters

Network Size 300 × 300 (m2)

Transmission Radius 250 m

Transmission Rate 2 Mbps

Node Speed 0 – 10 m/s (slow nodes)

10 –20 m/s (medium nodes)

20 – 30 m/s (fast nodes)

Number of Nodes 5/10/20/30 Variable (fast nodes, slow

nodes and medium nodes)

Data Packet Size 512 bytes

Sessions Variable

Data Generating Rate Variable

Simulation time 300 seconds

(b) AZRP Parameters

HELLO Message

Interval

1.0 s

Allow HELLO Loss

Packets

3 packets

Link State Message

Interval

3.0 s

Zone Radius Variable

Table 5.1: Simulation Parameters

ISSN: 0975-5462 7281


Three important performance metrics are measured: • Packet Delivery Ratio - the ratio of the number of data packets received by the CBR sink at the final destinations to the number of data packets originated by the “application layer” at the CBR sources. • Normalized Routing Overhead - the ratio of total number of routing packets “transmitted” during the simulation to the number of “delivered” data packets. For routing packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the routing packet (each hop) is counted as one transmission. • Route Discovery Delay - the time interval between the instant a node initiates a route query and the instant it receives the first reply. The average of the route discovery delay is plotted. Only successful route discovery requests are considered.

5.1: Packet delivery ratio :

Figure 5.1: Packet Delivery Ratio for DSDV, DSR, ZRP and AZRP

As we can see in Figure 1, the Packet Delivery Ratio has a downtrend with the zone radius increase in ZRP protocol. And the downtrend is not the same for the three scenes. A different speed of nodes in the network and a different radius for ZRP protocol will cause great difference of Packet Delivery Ratio.

5.2: Normalized routing overhead :

Figure 5.2: Normalized routing over head graph

The ratio of total number of routing packets “transmitted” during the simulation to the number of “delivered” data packets. For routing packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the routing packet (each hop) is counted as one transmission.

5.3: Route Discovery Delay:

Figure 5.3: End – End Delay graph of DSDV, DSR, ZRP and AZRP

ISSN: 0975-5462 7282


End to end delay is one of the important parameters in analyzing performance of Mantes. It is the time interval between the instant a node initiates a route query and the instant it receives the first reply. The average of the route discovery delay is plotted. Only successful route discovery requests are considered. 5.4. Experiment conclusion: Simulation results show that AZRP performs better than ZRP when nodes move with different velocity. AZRP doesn’t fluctuate obviously and has a trend to converge. This is not true for ZRP. When the new algorithm is used, the packet delivery ratio increases while the system routing overhead and the route discovery delay are reduced. The new algorithm makes the computation more complex, it needs more CPU time and more memory space.

VI. EPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Figure 6.1: NAM functionality

Trace file :

ISSN: 0975-5462 7283


6.1. PROTOCOL PERFORMANCES :

1. DSDV Protocol Performance: DSDV

5 Nodes

10 Nodes

20 Nodes

30 Nodes

Packet Delivery Ratio

99.68

98.70

97.75

94.90

Normalized Routing Overhead

67.19

67.66

68.21

71.27

End – End Delay (ms)

224.96

401.56

407.24

413.67

2. DSR Protocol Performance: DSR

5

Nodes

10 Nodes

20

Nodes

30 Nodes

Packet Delivery Ratio

99.66

99.24

99.14

99.29


66.79

67.24

67.27

67.34

End – End Delay (ms)

221.65

424.37

448.7

464.77

3. Packet Delivery Ratio for ZRP and AZRP: ZONE RADIUS

PACKET DELIVERY RATIO in %

5

Nodes

10

Nodes

20

Nodes

30 Nodes

ZR=1

68.83

56.17

74.86

70.55

ZR=2

63.57

52.11

52.84

52.84

ZR=3

47.44

34.89

25.04

35.36

AZRP (ZR=VARIABLE)

83.78

93.85

88.80

88.81

ISSN: 0975-5462 7284


4. Normalized Routing Overhead for ZRP and AZRP : ZONE RADIUS


5 Nodes

10 Nodes

20 Nodes

30 Nodes

ZR=1

27.14

28.68

38.79

40.04

ZR=2

29.13

33.82

42.43

46.76

ZR=3

30.75

34.79

45.83

47.98

AZRP (ZR=VARIABLE)

26.36

28.5

26.17

27.66

5. End – End Delay for ZRP and AZRP : ZONE RADIUS

End - End DELAY

5 Nodes

10 Nodes

20 Nodes

30 Nodes

ZR=1

146.80

167.08

126.95

113.79

ZR=2

146.77

116.76

151.99

150.62

ZR=3

144.92

167.62

152.59

151.25

AZRP (ZR=VARIABLE)

88.02

167.55

153.05

151.45

6.2. Simulation Results : 1. Experimental Setup In this chapter settings and the results of the simulations carried out with the protocol AZRP. They are shown also the comparative between the protocol AZRP and the protocols DSR, that is reactive and the DSDV that is proactive. Of that way, it is able to be evaluate the protocol AZRP by means of the simulations carried out in the NS-2.

2. Environment of simulation

For the achievement of the simulations and analysis of the facts generated by the NS utilized itself a computer with the configurations according to table

Processor 1.60 GHz Dual core 512KB x2 cache

Hard disk 160GB Memory 1GB Operating system Ubuntu ultimate edition

Table 6.1: Configuration of the notebook

ISSN: 0975-5462 7285


3. Configurations of the Simulations

The transmission distance values and sideways were chosen according to the interface Wireless. Like this, possess an antenna to reach of 250 meters. The model for propagation utilized is the Two-Ray Ground, that simulates an external environment and the interface elevated to 1.5 meters of the ground. The model of antenna utilized is the Omni directional. The standards of movements and traffics were generated with the codes setdest and cbrgen.tcl, which are available in the own one NS-2.

The movements generated by the code setdest are according to the model of mobility Random Way-Point. In that model of mobility, the node stayed stopped by a determined time and is dislocated at some determined point randomly with a speed that varies inside than was configured for the simulation. When the destination is achieved, once again the node stayed stopped by a determined time and afterwards is dislocated for a new point chosen randomly. 4. Results and analysis Results are compared between the routing protocols DSDV, DSR, ZRP and AZRP with three parameters. Those are Packet delivery ratio, the overhead of routing and latency. In the simulations the protocols of routing were subjects to the same variations of setting. Comparisons between DSDV, DSR, ZRP and AZRP are done for 5, 10, 20 and 30 nodes shows the better performance for AZRP with these parameters. GAWK script is used to analyze the Trace files, which are generated during simulations. 5. Considerations

It is necessary to do some considerations before the analysis of the comparisons. The code of the protocol of the AZRP used in that work did not possess all the functionalities cited in its rough sketches in the internet (ZRP internet drafts). Apart from the functionality that does not include the code used are the repair of routes, the discovery of shortcuts and the so called traffic control mechanism QD2.

6. Packet Delivery Ratio

The Packet Delivery Ratio is the parameter which has been considered in this section. The Packet Delivery Ratio gives the ratio of the number of data packets received by the CBR sink at the final destinations to the number of data packets originated by the “application layer” at the CBR sources.

7. Over head Analysis

The ratio of total number of routing packets “transmitted” during the simulation to the number of “delivered” data packets. For routing packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the routing packet (each hop) is counted as one transmission. 8. End-to-end Delay analysis End to end delay is one of the important parameters in analyzing performance of Manets. It is the time interval between the instant a node initiates a route query and the instant it receives the first reply. The average of the route discovery delay is plotted. Only successful route discovery requests are considered.

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

AZRP combines two completely different routing methods into one protocol. Within the routing zone, the proactive component AIARP maintains up-to-date routing tables. Routes outside the routing zone are discovered with the reactive component AIERP using route requests and replies. By combining border casting, query detection and early termination, it is possible to reduce the amount of route query traffic. Since the actual implementation of AIARP and AIERP is not defined, the performance can be further improved by adapting other routing protocols as ZRP components. AZRP can be regarded as a routing framework rather than as an independent protocol. AZRP reduces the

ISSN: 0975-5462 7286


traffic amount compared to pure proactive or reactive routing. Routes to nodes within the zone are immediately available.

AZRP makes an extension for ZRP protocol that can adapt well to the complicated network with nodes moving non-uniformly. AZRP utilizes the excellent performance of the hybrid-driven manner of ZRP and simultaneously overcomes the bad adaptability of ZRP which assumes each node move uniformly and presets the same zone radius. For the mobility of nodes is variable in the practical networks, our future work may focus on the change of the zone radius aroused by the mobility change of nodes. This will be more accordant with the reality.

REFERENCES [1] M.R., Haas, Z.J., Pearlman, M.R., Samar, P., IETF, “The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Internet Draft”,

draft-ietf-manet-zone-zrp-04.txt, July 2002. [2] Z.J., Pearlman, M.R., Haas, “Determining the Optimal Configuration for the Zone Routing Protocol” IEEE JSAC, August, 1999. [3] D.B., Johnson, D.A., Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu, ”The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, IETF Internet Draft, April

2003, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09.txt [4] Clausen, T., Jacquet, P, “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol”, IETF Internet Draft, January 2003,

http://menetou.inria.fr/olsr/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-11.txt [5] Corson, S.,Macker,J.,“Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations “, Network

Workingroup January 1999, RFC2501. [6] Perkins, C. E., Royer, E. M.: Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing, February 1999, Proc. 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computer

Systems and Applications, pp. 90-100. [7] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R., Samar, P.:Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP), June 2001,IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-iarp-01.txt. [8] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R., Samar, P.:Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP), June 2001,IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-ierp-01.txt. [9] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R., Samar, P.:The Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP) for AdHoc Networks, June 2001, IETF Internet

Draft,draft-ietf-manet-brp-1.txt. [10] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R.: Providing Ad-hoc Connectivity With reconfigurable Wireless Networks, Ihaca, New York,

http://www.ee.cornell.edu. [11] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R.: The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing Protocol, August 2001, IEEE/ACM

Transactions on networking, Vol. 9. [12] Prasun, Sinha, Srikanth, Krishnamurthy, Son, Dao:Scalable Unidirectional Routing with Zone RoutingProtocol (ZRP) Extensions for Mobile

Ad-HocNetworks. [13] Joseph, Macker, Scott, Corson: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET), IETF Working Group Charter,

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manetcharter.html [14] DeHoust, Matt: Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Netwoks, April 2000, Individual Project Report. [15] Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) by Nicklas Beijar.

About Authors:

T. RAVI NAYAK, graduated from Greenfort Engineering College, Hyderabad in Electronics & Communications Stream. Now pursuing Masters in Digital Electronics and Communication Systems (DECS) from Sri Indu College of Engineering & Technology and published one International conferences and National Conference and interested in Wireless Technology & Information Security.

S. POTHALAIAH, graduated from the Department of ECE in National Institute of Technology Warangal in 2006, he obtained his M.E. degree from the department ECE, University College of Engineeering ,OU in 2008. He is working as Assoc. Prof, Department of ECE, Sri Indu College of Engg. & Tech.. He has published 6 research papers in international conferences, his interests are in Ad hoc wireless networks works, Image Processing, Control System and Bio Medical Signal Processing.

ISSN: 0975-5462 7287


I express my gratitude to Dr. K ASHOK BABU Professor & Head of the Department (ECE) of and for his constant co-operation, support and for providing nnecessary facilities throughout the M.tech program. He has 15 Years of Experience, at B.Tech and M.tech Level and working as a Professor in Sri Indu College of Engg.& Technology.

ISSN: 0975-5462 7288

implementation of adaptive zone routing protocol for wireless networks

Documents