sagheer ahmed, amar singh - ijtc · we also have discussed the literature survey of various...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND COMPUTING (IJTC)

ISSN-2455-099X,

Volume 2, Issue 7 July 2016.

IJTC201607008 www. ijtc.org 355

LITERATURE SURVEY OF MANETS

ROUTING PROTOCOLS Sagheer Ahmed, Amar Singh

Baddi University of Emerging Sciences and Technology

Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

Abstract: In recent years, a vast research has been seen going on in the field of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs).

In MANET each node is wirelessly interconnect with the other node through different network topologies and there

are various protocols which help nodes to interconnect with the neighbors nodes and hence make wireless network. In

a mobile ad hoc network, nodes move arbitrarily; therefore the network may experience rapid and unpredictable

topology changes. Because nodes in a MANET normally have limited transmission ranges, some nodes cannot

communicate directly with each other. Hence, routing paths in mobile ad hoc networks potentially contain multiple

hops, and every node in mobile ad hoc networks has the responsibility to act as a router. In this paper we provide an

overview of a wide range of the existing routing protocols with a particular focus on their characteristics and

functionality. We also have discussed the literature survey of various Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Protocols such,

as AODV, DSDV, DSR, etc. in details. Furthermore, the Comparison of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid protocols

have also been discussed on the basis of some parameters, Advantages and Disadvantages.

Keywords: MANET, DSR, AODV, Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols

I. Introduction

MANET stands for Mobile Ad hoc Network. It is a robust infrastructure less wireless network. It is

composed of either a mobile node or a fixed node and in some cases it can be formed by the combination of

both these forms of node (Mobile node or fixed node). Nodes are randomly connected with each other and

forming arbitrary topology. They can act as both routers and hosts. They have a capacity of self-configure

that makes this technology suitable for provisioning communication too, For example, disaster-hit areas

where there is no communication infrastructure or in emergency search and rescue operations where a

network connection is urgently required. In MANET routing protocols for both static and dynamic topology

are extensively used. The absence of an infrastructure in ad hoc networks Poses great challenges in the

functionality of these networks. Therefore, we refer to a wireless ad hoc Network with mobile nodes as a

Mobile Ad Hoc Network. In a MANET, mobile nodes have the Capability to accept and route traffic from

their Intermediate nodes towards the destination, i.e., they Can act as both routers and hosts. More frequent

Connection tearing and re-associations takes place an As MANETs are illustrate by limited bandwidth and

node mobility, there is demand to take into account of the energy efficiency of the nodes, topology changes

and unreliable communication in the design. There are various types of protocol available in MANET. The

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



efficiency of a routing protocol in case of MANET is determined by its battery power consumption of a

participating node and routing of traffic into the network. Ad hoc routing protocols includes various forms

of protocol, among these protocol some of them are given below.

1. DSR (Dynamic Source Routing Protocol)

2. AODV (Ad Hoc on Demand Distance vector Routing Protocol)

3. OLSR (Optimized Link State Router Protocol)

4. WRP (Wireless Routing Protocol)

5. ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol)

Fig. 1 A Mobile Ad Hoc Network

Topology-based routing protocols use the information about the links that exist in the network to perform

packet forwarding. They can be further divided into proactive, Reactive and Hybrid approaches which are

further described below in literature survey.

II. Characteristics of MANETs:

A MANET comprises of versatile stages in this essentially proposed as "focus focuses"- - which are allowed

to move about self-entirely. The middle focuses is arranged in planes, watercrafts, trucks, autos, perhaps on

individuals or little gadgets, and there may be varying has per switch. A MANET is a self-directing

arrangement of adaptable focus central head node. The structure might work in control, or might have ranges

to and interface among the framework. In the last operational mode, it is much of the time envisioned to fill

in as a "stub" structure uniting with an adjusted internetwork. Stub structures go on improvement beginning

at and/or set out toward inside focus concentrates, yet don't grant exogenous change to "go" through the stub

system. It focuses the equipped distant recipients and transmitters exploiting gathering gadgets which are

Omni-directional, extraordinarily (point-to-point) and some mix a remote openness as a discretionary, multi

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



recoil graph or "with no arrangement" structure exists between the core interests. This with no arrangement

topology might change with time as the focuses move or modify their transmission and get-together

parameters.

MANETs have a few striking qualities:

• Dynamic topologies: Nodes are allowed to move discretionarily; along these lines, the structure topology-

- which is routinely multi weave, may change carelessly and quickly at unusual times and may contain both

bidirectional and unidirectional affiliations.

• Bandwidth-obliged, variable cutoff joins: Wireless affiliations will keep having fundamentally chopped

down most distant point than their hardwired accessories. Plus, saw throughput of remote correspondences

in the wake of tending to the effects of various access, blurring, fuss, and check conditions, et cetera., is

reliably a superb game plan not exactly a radio's most awesome transmission rate.

• Energy-obliged operation: Some or the vast majority of the inside focuses in a MANET may depend on

upon batteries or other unimportant means for their essentialness. For these centers, the most crucial wireless

course of action criteria for progress may be significance protection.

• Limited physical security: The remote mobile structures are general more sensitive towards physical

security than are settled association hubs. The intensified adequacy of listening in, examining, and

foreswearing of-affiliation ambushes should be purposely considered. Existing alliance security

methodology is frequently related inside restricted structures to decline security. The necessity for versatility

is not uncommon to MANETS. Regardless, in light of the previous properties, the systems required to

complete adaptability likely are. These qualities make a strategy of crucial suppositions and execution care

toward convention design which increase past those managing the setup of coordinating inside of the higher-

speed, semi-static topology of the settled Internet.

II.LITERATURE SURVEY

I.PROACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS:

A. Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV):

DSDV: [1] proposed that the proactive routing approach is based on Bellman–Ford routing [2] algorithm

with some extension. In DSDV the Packets are transmitted between the nodes of the network by using

routing tables which are stored at each node of the network Each routing table at each of the nodes lists all

available destinations and the number of hops to each nodes. The main contribution of the algorithm was to

solve the routing loop problem. Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, the sequence

numbers are generally even if a link is present; else, an odd number is used. The number is generated by the

destination, and the sender needs to send out the next update with this predicted numbers. Routing

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



information is distributed between nodes by sending full dumps slightly and smaller incremental updates

more frequently.

B. Cluster Gateway Switch Routing Protocol (CGSR):

CGSR [6] proposed that CGSR having a clustered mobile wireless network instead of a flat network. This

protocol uses DSDV protocol as the basic routing scheme and, so, this protocol has the same overhead as

DSDV. The mobile nodes are aggregated into clusters and a cluster-head is elected. All nodes that are in the

communication range of the cluster-head belong to its cluster. A gateway node lies in between the

communication range of two or more cluster-heads. In a dynamic network cluster head scheme can cause

performance declination due to frequent cluster-head elections, so CGSR uses a Least Cluster Change

(LCC) algorithm. In LCC, cluster-head change occurs only if a change in network causes two cluster-heads

to come into one cluster or one of the nodes moves out of the range of all the cluster-heads.

C. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP):

WRP[3] proposed that this proactive routing approach belongs to the general class of path-finding

algorithms [2,4,5], defined as the set of distributed shortest path algorithms that calculate the paths using

information regarding the length and second-to-last hop of the shortest path to each destination. WRP

reduces the number of overhead cases in which a temporary routing loop can exist. For the purpose of

routing, each node maintains four things: 1. A distance table 2. A Routing table 3. A link-cost table 4. A

message retransmission list (MRL). In WRP Protocol each time the consistency of the routing information is

checked by each node in this type of protocol by using eliminate routing loops. This type of protocol helps

in find out the best solution for routing in the network.

D. GLOBAL STATE ROUTING (GSR):

In GSR protocol [7] proposed that nodes exchange vectors of linking states among their neighboring nodes

during information exchange in the networks. This protocol is based on the link state vectors, nodes

maintain a global knowledge of the network layout and optimize their routing decisions internally.

Functionally, this protocol is similar to DSDV, but it improves DSDV in such a way that it permits flooding

of routing messages. In this algorithm, each node will maintain a list of various types of its neighbor nodes

i.e. a Topology table, a Next Hop table and a Distance table. Neighbor list of a node contains the list of all

its neighbors (here all those nodes that can be heard by a node are termed as its neighbors.). For the

destination of each node, the link state information is stored by Topology table on the basis of the

information provided by the destination and the timestamp of the information. For each of the destination

node, the Next Hop table records the information next hop through which the packets for this destination

must be forwarded and the Distance table will contains the information of shortest distance to each

destination node.

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



E. Fisheye State Routing (FSR):

FSR [8] proposed that this protocol is built on top of GSR. The FSR Protocol provided a mechanism that

uses a special type of network structure called the fisheye. It avoids the traffic overhead in the network by

forwarding the update messages. The basic importance of this type of protocol is that it keeps the

information about all the other nodes that are not include in each update messages. Instead of that, it will

record the information only about the nearer nodes more frequently than that of the distinct nodes. Hence,

each node of this FSR protocol can provides the accurate and exact information about its neighboring nodes.

F. Hierarchical State Routing (HSR):

HSR [9] proposed that this protocol is based on combine dynamic, distributed multilevel hierarchical

clustering technique with an efficient location management scheme. This protocol divides the network into

distinct clusters where each elected cluster head at the lower level in the hierarchy becomes member of the

next higher level. The basic importance of HSR protocol summarizes its cluster information and passes it to

the neighboring cluster heads with the help of gateways of cluster head. After running the algorithm at any

instant in which a node can flood the generated information to its lower level nodes (Base). The hierarchical

structure are used in HSR protocol provides efficiently deliver of data successfully to any part of the

networks.

G. Optimized link state routing (OLSR):

OLSR [16] is a point-to-point routing protocol. This protocol is based on the traditional link-state algorithm.

In this strategy, each node will maintains topology information about the network by periodically

exchanging link-state messages through the network. The OLSR will minimizes the size of each control

message and it also reduces the number of rebroadcasting nodes during each route update with the help of

multipoint replaying (MPR) strategy. By doing this, during each topology update, each node in the network

selects a set of neighboring nodes for the retransmission of its packets. In this protocol any node which is

not in the set can read and process each packet but that cannot be retrieving. In order to select the MPRs

strategy, each node with the help of hello message periodically broadcasts a list of its one hop neighbors.

The list of nodes in the hello messages individually selects a subset of one hop neighbors, which covers all

of its two hop neighbors.

H. Landmark Ad Hoc Routing (LANMAR):

LANMAR [10] proposed that this protocol collects the features of Fisheye State Routing (FSR) and

Landmark Routing [11]. This protocol uses the concept of landmark from Landmark Routing, which was

basically developed for a static wide area networks. A landmark is defined as routers whose close or

neighbors router within a certain number of hops contain routing entries for that type of router. With the

help of this Protocol each nodes in the MANET, LANMAR splits the network into several pre-defined

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



logical subnets, along with a preselected landmark. LANMAR protocol could be considered as an extension

of FSR Protocol, which exploits group mobility by summarizing the routes to the group members with a

single route to a landmark

II. REACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS:

A. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV):

AODV [10] is basically an extension of DSDV. But, it is a reactive routing protocol instead of proactive

routing protocol. AODV Protocol reduces the number of broadcasts by generating routes based on demand,

that is neither the case for DSDV Protocol which is a proactive routing protocol. In AODV Protocol when

sender wants to sends any packets of information to its destination in first it broadcasts a route request

Packets. This process passes through the intermediate nodes until the packet reaches its destinations. The

record of route request is stored in route table that helps in establishing the reverse path.

B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR):

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [9] is a reactive protocol based on the source route approach. This protocol

is based on the link state algorithm in which source at first starts the route discovery on demand basis. The

sender examines the route from source to destination and the sender adds the address of intermediate nodes

to the route record in the packets. This Protocol was constructed for multi hop networks having small

Parameters. It acts as a reactive routing protocol for wireless mesh networks. It is similar to AODV in that it

forms a route on-demand when a transmitting node requests one. However, it uses source routing instead of

relying on the routing table at each intermediate device.

C. Signal Stability–Based Adaptive Routing Protocol (SSA):

[19] Proposed that the above predicted this protocol that focuses on obtaining those suitable routes through

an ad hoc network. The demand route discovery are mostly performed by SSA protocol, based on two

criteria which are: 1. Signal strength and 2. Location stability. With the help of signal strength, SSA detects

weak and strong channels in the network. This protocol (SSA) can be divided into two cooperative

protocols: First is Dynamic Routing Protocol (DRP) and the Second is Static Routing Protocol (SRP). DRP

uses two tables: Signal Stability Table (SST) and Routing Table (RT). SST stores the signal strengths of the

neighboring nodes obtained by periodic beacons from the link layer of each neighboring node. These signal

strengths are recorded as weak or strong. DRP receives all the transmissions and, after processing them and

passes the signals to the SRP. SRP passes the packet to the nodes upper layer stack if it is the destination

D. Associatively Based Routing (ABR):

ABR [11] protocol defines a new type of routing metric i.e. “Degree of association stability” for mobile ad

hoc networks. In this routing protocol (ABR) any route will be selected randomly based on the degree of its

association mode of its mobile nodes. Each node in this protocol periodically generates its head node to

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



carry its presence. By receiving the message of its head node, the parallel nodes to it will update its own

associate table. For each head node received, the associative Check of the receiving node along with the

head node is increased. A high value of associative check for any particular head node means that the node

is relatively static. Associative check will be reset whenever any of its neighboring node moves out of the

neighborhood of any other node in the network.

E. Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA):

TORA [20] is a reactive routing protocol which having few qualities of proactive protocol where link among

the nodes are established by obtaining a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) from source node to the destination

node. This protocol uses a link reversal model for route discovery. In this Protocol a route discovery query is

broadcasted throughout the network until it reaches the destination or a node that has required information.

This protocol (TORA) defines a parameter, termed height, in which the height represents the measure the

distance between the responding nodes and the final destination node. During the route discovery phase the

parameters are returned to the querying node.

F. Location-aided routing (LAR):

LAR [21] is a protocol that is based on flooding algorithms (such as DSR). However, LAR minimizes the

routing overheads which will be existing in the traditional flooding algorithm through the presence of

location information. This protocol (LAR) assumes that each node in the network knows its location through

a GPS. In Paper [21] two LAR schemes were proposed, the first scheme will calculates a request zone which

defines a boundary where the route request packets can travel through the network to reach the required

destination. The second scheme will store the coordinates of the destination address in the route request

packets. These packets are carried in the direction where the relative distance to the destination becomes

smaller as they move from one hop to another in the network. Both these schemes of LAR reduce the

controls of overhead transmitted through the network and hence protected the bandwidth.

G. Cluster-based routing protocol (CBRP):

In CBRP [17] the nodes are structured in a hierarchy. As most of the hierarchical protocols are discussed in

the previous sections, the nodes in CBRP are grouped into individual clusters. Where each cluster has a

cluster-head, which will coordinates the data transmission within the cluster and to other clusters as well.

The main advantage of CBRP is that in this protocol only the cluster heads exchange routing information,

hence the number of control overhead transmitted through the network are far less as compare to the

traditional flooding methods.

H. Routing on-demand acyclic multi-path (ROAM):

[29] Proposed that this routing protocol uses interrnodal coordination along with directed acyclic sub

graphs, which is extracted from the main routes to destination. This operation in this protocol is considered

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



as a diffusing computation. The main advantage of this protocol is that this protocol discards the search-to-

infinity problem as present in few of the previous on-demand routing protocols by stopping multiple flood

searches when there is no requirement of destination for a long reachable condition.

III. HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS:

A. Zone routing protocol (ZRP):

In ZRP [14] as his name tells, the nodes have a routing zone, that zone will defines a range (in hops) which

is necessary for each node to maintain network connectivity. Therefore, for those nodes which are within the

routing zone, routes are immediately available. The nodes which lies outside the routing zone, are

determined on-demand with the help of any existing on demands routing protocol in order to determine a

route for the specific destination. The main advantage of this type of protocol is that it has reduced the range

of communication overhead when compared to proactive protocols to a large extend.

B. Zone-based hierarchical link state (ZHLS):

ZHLS protocol is based on the type of hierarchical structure in which the network is subdivided into non-

overlapping zones. According to Joa and Lu in Paper [42], in this Protocol each node is assigned one unique

node ID and one zone ID, which can be calculated with the help of some geographical information.

Therefore the networks will follows a two-level topology structure i.e. node level and zone level

respectively. There are two types of link state updates i.e. the node level LSP (Link State Packet) and the

zone level LSP.

C. Scalable location updates routing protocol (SLURP):

This type of Protocol is Similar to ZLHS, in SLURP [34] Proposed that the nodes are arranged in such a

way that they seems to appear into a number of non-overlapping zones. However this Protocol (SLURP)

further reduces the cost of maintaining routing information by eliminating a global route discovery in the

network. This property is achieved by assigning a home region for each node in the network. When a data

packet reaches the region where the destination lies, then source routing4 is used to get the data packet to the

destination. The main disadvantage of SLURP is that it relies on a preprogrammed static zone map (as does

ZHLS).

D. Distributed spanning trees based routing protocol (DST):

DST [28] proposed that the nodes in the network are sequenced into a number of trees. In this Protocol each

tree will have two types of nodes one is route node and the other is internal node. The root will controls the

structure of the tree and whether the tree can merge with another tree, and the rest of the nodes within each

tree are the regular nodes. Each node in case of DST Protocol has been classified into three categories

depending up on the task performed by them. These classes of protocols are router, merge and configure. A

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



route DST proposes two different routing strategies i.e. hybrid tree-flooding (HFT) and distributed spanning

tree shuttling (DST).

E. Distributed dynamic routing (DDR):

DDR [24] Protocol is also based on tree-based routing protocol. But, as compare to DST, in DDR Protocol

the trees do not require any root node. In DDR Protocol firstly strategy trees are constructed using periodic

head node messages which are then communicated by neighboring nodes only. In this type of Protocol a

forest is formed by the tree in the network which is further connected together through gateway nodes (node

in the range of transmission but belongs to different trees). Each individual tree in the forest forms a zone

which is assigned by a zone ID through a zone naming algorithm. Since each node in a tree belongs to a

particular zone (or tree), thus the network of trees can be predicted as a number of non-overlapping zones.

IV. COMPARISON OF PROTOCOLS:

The comparison among the three main types of routing protocols is shown in Table.1.

Table.1 On the basis of Parameters

Summary of Routing Protocols on the basis of their advantages and disadvantages is shown in Table.2.

Protocols Disadvantages Advantages

Reactive Latency is increased in the network. Overhead is low AS compare to

proactive protocol and free from loops.

Proactive Overhead is High as compare to Reactive

Protocol in the network.

Information is always available.

Hybrid Complexity Increases due to its large scalability. Suitable for large networks as compare

to other.

Table.2 Advantages and Disadvantages

Parameters Reactive protocol Proactive Protocol Hybrid Protocol

Routing philosophy Always Flat Flat or Hierarchical Always Hierarchical

Routing Schemes Follows on

demand

Table driven Routing

schemes

Combination of both

Proactive and Reactive.

Routing Overhead Low overhead High overhead Medium overhead

Latency High because Of

flooding

Low because of Routing

tables

Similar to Reactive

protocols.

Scalability Level Unsuitable for

large networks

Low as compare to

Reactive

Always Designed for

Large networks

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



V.CONCLUSION:

In this paper an effort has been made on the Literature review of Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Routing

protocols in MENETs. Also a comparison among the three protocols on the basis of some parameters has

been shown in the form of table1; whereas some of the advantages and disadvantages of these protocols are

also given in table2. There are many demerits in different routing protocols and it is very difficult to select

routing protocol for different purposes because there is always a tradeoff between them. The field of mobile

MANETs is very broad and there are also various challenges that need to be sort out in MANETs, so these

networks are going to have vast use in the future. A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is composed of a

group of mobile, wireless nodes which cooperate in forwarding packets in a multi-hop fashion without any

centralized administration.

Security is the main concern in MANETs, in future we can work on security by using any encryption

techniques such as MD5 OR RSA.

REFERENCES:

[1] Perkins CE, Bhagwat P, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers”.

Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, volume 24, issue 1994, pp. 234–244

[2] Cheng C, Riley R, Kumar SPR, Garcia-Luna-Aceves JJ, “A LoopFree Extended Bellman-Ford Routing Protocol Without

Bouncing Effect”. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, Volume 19, Issue 1989,PP.224–236

[3] Chiang C-C, Wu H-K, Liu W, Gerla M, “ Routing in Clustered Multihop, Mobile Wireless Networks with Fading Channe”l.

Proceedings of IEEE SICON, Volume 3, issue 1997, pp.197–211

[4] Murthy S, Garcia-Luna-Aceves JJ, “An Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Networks. Mobile Networks and

Applications” Volume 1, Issue 1996, pp.183–197

[5] Humblet PA, “Another Adaptive Distributed Shortest-Path Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Communications” Volume 39,

Issue 1991, pp.995–1003

[6] Rajagopalan B, Faiman M, “A Responsive Distributed ShortestPath Routing Algorithm Within Autonomous Systems”.

Journal of Internetworking Research and Experiment, Volume 2, Issue 1991, pp.51–69

[7] Chiang C-C, Wu H-K, Liu W, Gerla M, “Routing in Clustered Multihop, Mobile Wireless Networks with Fading Channel”.

Proceedings of IEEE SICON, issue 1997, pp. 197–211

[8] Chen T-W, Gerla M, “Global State Routing: A New Routing Scheme for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks”. Proceedings of IEEE

ICC,Issue 1998,pp.171–175

[9] Iwata A, Chiang C-C, Pei G, Gerla M, Chen T-W, “Scalable Routing Strategies for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”. IEEE

Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Volume 17, Issue 1999, pp.1369–1379

[10] Jao-Ng M, Lu I-T, “A Peer-to-Peer Zone-Based Two-Level Link State Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”. IEEE Journal

on Selected Areas in Communications, Volume 17, Issue 1999, pp.1415–1425

[11] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, T. Clausen, A. Laouiti, A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, “Optimized link state routing protocol for

ad hoc networks, IEEE INMIC, Pakistan,V olume 5, Issue 2001,pp.68-79.

[12] Pei G, Gerla M, Hong X, “LANMAR: Landmark Routing for Large Scale Wireless Ad Hoc Network with Group Mobility”.

First Annual Workshop on Mobile and Ad Hoc Networking and Computing 2000 (MobiHoc 2000) Issue 2000, pp.11–18

IJTC.O

RG


ISSN-2455-099X,



[13] Tsuchiya PF, “The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very Large Networks”. Computer Communication

Review, Volume 18, Issue 1988, pp.35–42

[14] Perkins CE, Royer EM, Chakeres ID, “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”. IETF Draft, available at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perkins- manet-aodvbis-00. Accessed 21,Volume 1,Issue 2003.

[15] Johnson. D and Maltz. D. A, “Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless Networks” in Mobile Computing (Imielinski and H.

Korth, eds.), Kluwere Academic Publishers, Volume 3, Issue 2013 pp. 199

[16] Dube R, Rais CD, Wang K-Y, Tripathi SK, “Signal Stability- Based Adaptive Routing (SSA) for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks”.

IEEE Personal Communications, Volume 4, Issue 1997, pp.36 45

[17] Toh C-K , “A Novel Distributed Routing Protocol to Support Ad- Hoc Mobile Computing”, .Proceedings of the IEEE 15th

Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, Volume 4, Issue 1996 pp. 480–486

[18] Park VD, Corson MS, “A highly adaptive distributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks”. Proceedings of IEEE

INFOCOM, Volume 3,Issue 1997, pp.1405–1413.

[19] Y.-B. Ko, N.H. Vaidya, “Location-aided routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks”. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual

ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom’98), Dallas, TX, Issue 1998.

[20] M. Jiang, J. Ji, Y.C. Tay, “Cluster based routing protocol”. Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec-01.txt, work in

progress, Issue 1999.

[21] J. Raju, J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A new approach to on-demand loop-free multipath routing’. In Proceedings of the 8th

Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), Boston, MA, Volume 4, Issue

October 1999, pp. 522–527.

[22] Z.J. Hass, R. Pearlman, “ Zone routing protocol for ad-hoc networks’. Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-zrp-02.txt, work in

progress Volume 4, Issue 1999.

[23] M. Joa-Ng, I.-T. Lu, “A peer-to-peer zone-based two-level link state routing for mobile ad hoc networks,” “IEEE Journal on

Selected Areas in Communications. Volome 17, Issue 1999, pp. 1415–1425.

[24] S.-C. Woo, S. Singh, “Scalable routing protocol for ad hoc networks, Wireless Networks”. Volume 7, Issue 2001, pp. 513–

529.

[25] S. Radhakrishnan, N.S.V Rao, G. Racherla, C.N. Sekharan, S.G. Batsell, DST, “A routing protocol for ad hoc networks

using distributed spanning trees”. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, New Orleans, Volume 3,

Issue 1999, pp 1543 - 1547.

[26] N. Nikaein, H. Laboid, C. Bonnet, “Distributed dynamic routing algorithm (ddr) for mobile ad hoc networks”. In Proceedings

of the MobiHOC, First Annual Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, Volume 59, Issue 2000, pp 479. IJTC.O

RG

sagheer ahmed, amar singh - ijtc · we also have discussed the literature survey of various...

Documents