Download Survey on Efficient Multicast Routing Protocols in MANET

International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________
Survey on Efficient Multicast Routing Protocols in MANET
1
Vaishali Kashiwar, 2Prachi Jaini
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, G. H.Raisoni College Of Engineering, Nagpur.India
Email : [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract- Having no fixed infrastructure yet dynamically
reconfigurable wireless network in which each node acts
not only as host but also as a router are main
characteristics of MANET. Discovery routes and nodes
are basic requirement for any multihop point to point ad
hoc networking. Flooding broadcast retransmissions
leads to explosive traffic growth causing lesser
broadcast performance called as “Broadcast storm”. So
efficiency with efficacy are both important for MANET.
Many protocols are proposed and been successful in
achieving optimal broadcast performance as DSDV,
WRP, OLSR, ZRP, CEDAR, AODV, DSR, DYMO etc.
This paper reviews new proposed protocol DADCQ
with other protocols in MANET.
Keywords- MANET, ZRP, CEDAR, DSR, DADCQ
I. INTRODUCTION
Connection of wireless mobile nodes called as Ad Hoc
Network, dynamically forming a temporary network
without use of any centralized control or fixed network
infrastructure. Due to rapidly changing connectivity,
network partition, higher error rates, collision
interference, bandwidth and power constrain together
are posses new problems in network control particularly
in the designing of higher level protocol such as routing
and in implementing applications with Quality of service
requirements[2]. Flooding and looping are the main
problems while transmitting and receiving data in the
Mobile Ad Hoc Network. [1] Multicasting plays an
important role in ad hoc networks when the applications
must send the same data to more than one destination.
Multicasting provides the bandwidth efficiency, reduced
delays and high scalability. They construct multicast
trees primarily based on connectivity that trees may be
unsatisfactory when QoS is considered. This is because
of the lack of resources. QoS is more difficult to give the
guarantee in ad hoc networks than in other type of
networks, due to the wireless bandwidth is shared
among adjacent nodes and the network topology
changes as the nodes move [10].
Routing protocols for MANETs can be differed
depending on the application and network architecture.
Routing protocols are classified into two types, first one
is Unicast routing protocol, second is Multicast routing
protocol. Different routing protocols try to solve the
problem of routing in mobile ad hoc network by
different ways. It has been observed that any one
protocol cannot fit in all the different scenarios, different
topologies and traffic patterns of Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks applications. For instance, proactive routing
protocols are very useful for a small scale MANETs
with high mobility, while reactive routing protocols are
very useful for a large-scale, MANETs with moderate or
less topology changes.
Hybrid routing protocols are a new generation of
protocol, which follows both proactive and reactive
nature. By allowing nodes with close proximity to work
together to form a backbone to reduce the route
discovery overheads causes increase scalability [9]. Data
aggregation is a potential approach to improve
communication efficiency. It consists of different
adaptive methods which can merge information from
various data sources into a set of organized and refined
information [7].
II. RELATED WORK
Multiple protocols are proposed to minimize the
multicast flooding and looping. These protocols are
classified as proactive , reactive and hybrid protocol. In
proactive routing protocols, each node maintains routing
information of every other node in that home network.
The routing information is generally kept in a number of
_______________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Online): 2347-2820, Volume -2, Issue-1, January, 2014
19
International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________
different tables. It is also observed that the DSR protocol
performed well because the principle mechanisms of
route discovery, route maintenance, source routing,
elimination of periodic broadcasting and route cache
used by DSR[15]. Each routing protocol may maintain
different number of tables. Proactive routing protocols
are also known as Table-driven protocols. Few examples
of proactive protocols are DSDV, WRP, OLSR [9].
Proactive protocols have some pros and cons like
routing information is available all the time but on the
other hand it is too much data stored which at the time
of link failure causes late recovery of the tables [8].
Reactive routing protocols are purposefully designed to
reduce the overheads in proactive protocols by
maintaining information for active routes. The routes are
determined and maintained for nodes that require to
send data to a particular destination. Reactive routing
protocols are also known as ondemand routing
protocols. Few examples of proactive protocols are
AODV, DSR, DYMO. [9] Reactive protocols achieve
the bandwidth advantage over proactive protocols.
But at the same time reactive protocols fall to lack in
finding routes with in a lesser amount of time as routes
are created on demand [8].
The hybrid protocol which include both proactive and
reactive protocols. Few examples of proactive protocols
are ZRP, CEDAR, DADCQ [10]. Hybrid protocols take
advantage of best of reactive and proactive protocols. Its
goal is to initiate route-discovery on-demand but at
limited search cost[11]. All these protocols are quite
insecure because attackers can easily obtain information
about the network topology.[3]
III. CLASSIFICATION OF ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
Ad hoc Routing Protocols were classified as follows:
Fig.1.1.Classification of Ad Hoc routing protocols
IV. ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Proactive Protocols
In these protocols each node contains number of
different routing tables which maintain routing
information to every other node in the network.
Different protocols in this table-driven category keep the
path of different routing state information. So, the
difference between these protocols exists in the way the
routing information is updated and type of information
kept in routing tables during routing[8].
A. DSDV
Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector
(DSDV)
removes the looping problem, in which each node
maintains the routing table in which all of possible
destinations within the network and number of routing
hops to each destination stored. Sequence number is
vital for DSDV, used to allow mobile hosts to
distinguish old routes from new ones.
Updations found in the routing table are sent
periodically throughout the network to maintain the
consistency. It uses two types of route update packets to
avoid overhead in network. One is “full dump” packet
which carries all the available routing information
suitable for high mobility network and the other is
“incremental packet” suitable for stable network, and it
carries only that information changed since the last full
dump and discover new route using this changed
information. During that two updates which have same
sequence number then the route with the smaller hop
count is used. Though this is a simple and routing loop
free protocol but sometimes it doesn’t fit in large
networks since it uses most of the network bandwidth in
the updating procedure [9].
The data broadcast by each node will contain its new
sequence number and the following information for each
new route:
ı Proactive Protocols
ı Reactive Protocols
- The destination address
ı Hybrid Protocols
The Figure 1.1 describes the three classifications of Ad
hoc routing protocols and various protocols proposed
under each category.
- The number of hops required to reach the destination
- The new sequence number, originally stamped by the
destination [15].
B. WRP
The Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) is a proactive
unicast routing protocol for (MANETs). WRP uses
Bellman- Ford algorithm to calculate the shortest paths .
Because of the mobile nature of the nodes within the
MANET, the protocol introduces mechanisms which
reduce route loops and ensure reliable message
exchange .WRP employs unique method of maintaining
information regarding the shortest distance to every
destination node in the network and the hop node on the
path to every destination node to counter the count-toinfinity problem and to enable faster convergence. WRP
_______________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Online): 2347-2820, Volume -2, Issue-1, January, 2014
20
International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________
maintains an up-to-date view of the network, every node
has a readily available route to every destination node in
the network. Main difference between WRP and DSDV
is table maintenance and in the update procedures .
WRP uses a set of tables to maintain more accurate
information. DSDV maintains only one topology table
[8].
C. OLSR
Optimized Link State Protocol (OLSR) is a type of
proactive routing protocol. The routes are always
immediately available when needed. OLSR is an
optimization version of a pure link state protocol. The
topological changes cause the broadcast storm problem.
To reduce the possible overhead in the network OLSR
protocol uses Multipoint Relays (MPR).
The idea of MPR is to reduce the same broadcast in
some regions in the network and to provide the shortest
path. The reducing the time interval for the control
messages transmission can bring more reactivity to the
topological changes. OLSR uses two types of the control
messages: 1.Hello , 2. Topology Control (TC). Hello
messages used for searching and finding the information
about the link status & the host’s neighbours. With the
Hello message the Multipoint Relay (MPR) Selector set
is constructed .It describes which neighbours has chosen
this host to act as MPR. This information, the host
utilize to calculate its own set of the MPRs. Hello
messages sent only to one hop away and the TC
messages are sent throughout the entire network [11].
Reactive Protocols
Reactive protocols are used when we want to setup
routes on demand. These type of protocol is generally
based on flooding the network with Route Request
(RREQ) and Route Reply (RREP) messages.
A. AODV
The Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)
routing protocol is an improvement in the DSDV routing
algorithm. AODV which uses sequence number
procedure from DSDV and Route Discovery procedure
from DSR.
AODV builds routes using a route request/route reply
query packets. It uses three control packets for Route
Discovery and Route Maintenance, namely RREQ
(route request), RREP (route reply) and RERR (route
error). If source wants to send a data packet to
destination then source nodes first checks its routing
table for the route to that destination is present or not.
If the route is not present then Route Discovery
procedure is applied and RREQ packet is broadcast to its
neighbor who forward this packet onwards till
destination is found. Nodes keep track of RREQ’s
source IP address and broadcast ID. If they will receive
a RREQ which is they have already processed, then they
discard RREQ to avoid the duplicity. If node has a route
to destination or it is a destination then it unicast a
RREP with destination IP address and sequence number
back to the source. During Route Maintenance, when the
node is active but the links go down or destination
moves away then RREP packet is send to each of its
upstream neighbors to ensure the deletion of that link of
the route. Once the message reaches to source node, it
again starts Route Discovery process only if this route is
still needed . AODV is adaptable to highly dynamic
networks [8].
B. DSR
DSR uses source routing; it means that the source node
knows the whole route to the destination [15]. This is
particularly designed for use in multi hop wireless ad
hoc networks of mobile nodes [5]. One of the benefit of
DSR protocol is that there is no need to keep routing
table. To route a given data packet as the entire route is
contained in the packet header. DSR protocol is not
scalable to large networks and requires significantly
more processing resources than most other protocols. To
obtain the routing information, every node must spend
lot of time to process any control data it receives, even if
it is not the intended recipient.
C. DYMO
DYMO routing protocol enables reactive, multihop
unicast routing between participating DYMO routers.
The basic operation of the DYMO protocol are route
discovery and route maintains .During route discovery,
the originator’s DYMO router initiates dissemination of
a RREQ throughout the network to finds a route to
target’s DYMO router. During this hop-by-hop
dissemination process, each intermediate DYMO router
receives the RREQ, it responds with a RREP sent hopby –hop towards the originator .When the originator’s
DYMO router receives the RREP, the routes can be
established between the originating DYMO router and
the target DYMO router in both direction. . In order to
react to changes in network topology nodes maintain
their routes and monitor their links[3].
Hybrid Routing Protocols
Protocol in this category is combination of the above
two categories. Nodes in a certain distance from the
node concerned are said to be within the routing zone of
the given node. For routing in the same zone, a table
driven approach is used and the nodes that are located in
another zone an ondemand approach is used.
A. ZRP
ZRP is proposed to reduce the control overhead in
proactive routing protocols and decrease the latency in
reactive routing protocols. ZRP defines the zone in
which a zone around each node consisting of its kneighborhood. Its implementation has three components:
Intra zone Routing Protocol (IARP), Inter zone Routing
Protocol (IERP) and Bordercast Resolution Protocol
(BRP)[14].A route to a destination within the local zone
can be established from the proactively cached routing
table of the source by IARP therefore, if the source and
_______________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Online): 2347-2820, Volume -2, Issue-1, January, 2014
21
International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________
destination is in the same zone, the packet can be
delivered immediately. Many existing proactive routing
algorithms can be used as the IARP for ZRP. The source
node sends a route requests to its border nodes, in which
it containing its own address, the destination address and
a unique sequence number[5].
B. CEDAR
Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing (CEDAR)is
apartitioning protocol, which integrates routing with Qo
Ssupport. Each partition includes a core node called
dominator node. A Dominator set (DS) is the graph
which is defined as a set of nodes in the graph such that
every node is either present in DS or in a neighbor of
some node present in DS. The core nodes uses a reactive
source routing protocol to give outline of route from a
source to a destination CEDAR has three key phases:
1. The establishments and maintenance of selforganizing
routing infrastructure (core) for performing route
computations.
2. The propagation of the link-states of highbandwidth
and stable links in the core.
3. A QoS route computation algorithm that is executed
at the core nodes using only locally available state. QoS
routing in CEDAR is achieved by propagating the
bandwidth availability information of stable links in the
core sub-graph. For propagating the link information,
slow moving increase-waves and fast moving decrease
waves are used, which are denotes increase of
bandwidth and decrease of bandwidth respectively[13].
C.DADCQ
Distribution adaptive distance with channel quality
(DADCQ) protocol is used to design a statistical
protocol, for high efficiency while achieving desired
reachability. The aim is to accomplishing this is in the
design of the threshold value. If the threshold value is
too aggressive, the protocol will give low coverage and
if it is too conservative, the broadcast efficiency will be
low. The optimal value of the threshold will be found
that gives the best efficiency and possible reachability.
DADCQ protocol utilizes the distance method to select
forwarding nodes. This protocol helps in achieving high
reach-ability and low bandwidth consumption in urban
and highway scenarios with varying node density and
fading intensity. The primary contribution of this work
is the proposed multihop broadcast protocol DADCQ.
DADCQ combines local spatial distribution information
and other factors with the distance method to select
rebroadcasting nodes.
Previous broadcast protocols proposed for ad hoc that
make use of the distance method use less comprehensive
supplemental information. A key insight proposed here
is a methodology for incorporating more information
into the protocol. This extra information is used to make
the protocols adaptive to more networking scenarios
than many previous proposals[12]. The optimal value of
the threshold function will varies with node density,
distribution pattern, and channel quality. A main
objective of this DADCQ protocol is to demonstrate
how to design a threshold function that is adaptive to a
wide range of these factors. This threshold function is
then used in the proposed DADCQ protocol.
Adaptive threshold function design
It will gives a design strategy for a decision threshold
function. Threshold functions are a critical component
value of many multihop broadcasting methods, such as
stochastic broadcast that is gossiping, the counter
method, the distance method, and the location method .
The proposed design scheme will builds a threshold
function using three independent input variables to
choose to allow the threshold to be adaptive to the
environmental conditions.
These variables measure that the local node density, the
distribution pattern of nearby nodes, and the wireless
channel quality. Thus, the resulting threshold function of
these three inputs causes the protocol to operate
efficiently across a broad range of conditions.
Quadrat method For spatial distribution characterization
One of the most important factors used to compute the
rebroadcasting decision threshold in DADCQ is local
node distribution pattern. This is the first to propose that
the quadrat method of spatial statistics be used to
characterize the spatial distribution of nodes for use in a
multihop broadcast protocol.
Because distribution pattern may affect the behavior of
many multihop broadcast methods, this will be
applicable in a wider context as well.
CONCLUSION
Efficient routing is important for all MANET
applications. Satisfying needs of all applications is
difficult. Hence a survey of different MANET protocols
is essential, to come up with new proposals for MANET.
This paper has come up with an survey study on recent
trends in routing protocol of different classes of
MANET routing protocols with introduction of newest
protocol for adaptive multicast that is DADCQ, which
delivers high reach-ability and low bandwidth
consumption.
REFERENCES
[1]
Rajeswari.M,”Survey on Efficient Multicast
Routing Protocols to achieve Group
Communication in MANET”, International
Journal of Engineering and Innovative
Technology (IJEIT) Volume 1, Issue 2,
February 2012.
[2]
Sree RangaRaju, Jitendranath Mungara," A
Unified Approach to Enhance the Performance
of ZRP for MANETs on an Urban Terrain"
IEEE 2010.
_______________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Online): 2347-2820, Volume -2, Issue-1, January, 2014
22
International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________
[3]
Mayuri
D.
Dondal
and
Prof.
V.S.Jadhav,“Manet
Performance
Evaluationbased On Aodv, Olsr And
Dymorouting Protocol”( IJETEE – ISSN: 23209569) Vol. 5, Issue. 2, July-2013.
[4]
Aleksandr Huhtonen, “Comparing AODV and
OLSR Routing Protocols” 2004.
[5]
S. Sathish, K. Thangavel and S. Boopathi,
“Comparative Analysis of DSR, FSR and ZRP
Routing Protocols in MANET” IACSIT Press,
Singapore 238 IPCSIT vol.4 (2011).
[6]
Sunil Taneja and Ashwani Kush, “A Survey of
Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad HocNetworks”
International
Journal
of
Innovation,
Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3,
August 2010.
[7]
Bo Yu, Cheng-ZhongXu, Senior Member,
IEEE, and MinyiGuo, Senior Member, IEEE,
“Adaptive Forwarding Delay Control for
VANETData Aggregation”, IEEE Transactions
On Parallel And Distributed Systems, Vol. 23,
No. 1, January 2012.
[8]
BhawanaTalwar, AnujK.Gupta, “Ant Colony
based and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Routing
Protocols: a Review”, International Journal of
Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume
49– No.21, July 2012
[9]
M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr. S. Venkatachalam,
“Comparative analysis of QoS routing
protocols
in
MANETS:
Unicast
&Multicast”ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue
4, April 2012.
[10]
G.
Santhi
and
Dr.AlameluNachiappan,
“Adaptive QoS Multicast Routing with
MobilityPrediction in MANETs” International
Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous
Computing (IJASUC) Vol.1, No.3, September
2010.
[11]
Vishal
Gupta
Assistant
Professor,
“Comparative Performance Analysis of AODV,
DSR, DSDV, LAR1 and WRP Routing
Protocols in MANET using GloMoSim 2.0.3
Simulator”,International Journal of Computer
Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 52–No.20,
August 2012.
[12]
Michael Slavik and ImadMahgoub, “Spatial
Distribution and Channel Quality Adaptive
Protocol for Multihop Wireless Broadcast
Routing in VANET ” IEEE Transactions On
Mobile Computing, April 2013
[13]
Anuj K. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, and Anil K.
Verma, “Review of Various Routing Protocols
for MANETs”, International Journal of
Information and Electronics Engineering, Vol.
1, No. 3, November 2011.
[14]
Tiguiane Y´el´emou, Philippe Meseure , AnneMarie Poussard," Improving ZRP performance
by taking into account quality of links" IEEE
2012.
[15]
N. Karthikeyan, B. Bharathi, S. Karthik,"
Performance Analysis of the Impact of
Broadcast Mechanisms in AODV, DSR and
DSDV" IEEE 2013

_______________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Online): 2347-2820, Volume -2, Issue-1, January, 2014
23