Download PDF (997 Kbytes) - The Smart Computing Review

Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
135
Smart Computing Review
The Life Cycle of Routing
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks:
A Survey
Komal Zaman1, Muhammad Shafiq2, Jin-Ghoo Choi2, and Muddesar Iqbal1
1
Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, University of Gujrat / Gujrat, Pakistan /
[email protected], [email protected]
2
Department of Information and Mobile Communication Engineering, Yeungnam University / South Korea /
[email protected], [email protected]
*Corresponding Author: Jin-Ghoo Choi
Received March 9, 2015; Revised April 23, 2015; Accepted May 18, 2015; Published June 30, 2015
Abstract: In mobile ad hoc networks, nodes autonomously exchange their messages each other
without centralized control, possibly under highly dynamic topology. The objective of routing
protocol in mobile ad hoc networks is to establish a well-organized route between transmitting and
receiving nodes to send their messages with minimum control overhead and bandwidth use. In early
1990’s, various protocols had been designed for mobile ad hoc networks, which can be classified as
Proactive (or Table-driven), Reactive (or On-demand), and Hybrid protocols. Nowadays, mobile ad
hoc networks are facing many challenges like mobile ubiquity, scalability, security, energy
constraint, quality of service support, multicast, bandwidth limitations, etc., which makes the
routing much harder. The major facets of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks are the
identification of best available route, coordination with neighboring nodes for route maintenance,
route reliability enhancement, overhead reduction, and network efficiency maximization. This
article overviews various routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks while comparing their
respective functionalities.
Keywords: mobile ad hoc network, table driven protocol, on-demand routing protocol, hybrid protocol
Introduction
M
obile ad hoc networks (MANETs) can be established and deployed haphazardly on short notice. In MANETs, the
mobile nodes are connected with each other by wireless links. There is a need of wireless connections for people
and automobiles that want to connect to the Internet, irrespective of established communication infrastructure. MANETs
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2012R1A1A1005972).
DOI: 10.6029/smartce.2015.03.002
136
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
have some general characteristics such as a dynamic topology, energy constraints, limited bandwidth, and security
vulnerabilities. A dynamic topology refers to the ability of mobile nodes to move freely at random speeds, which causes
constant changes in network topology. Unlike wired networks, energy constraints arise in mobile nodes, which is a major
issue caused by the unavailability of a permanent energy source. The continuous usage of batteries due to the portable
nature of mobile nodes leads to unreliable communications. Due to this problem, energy conservation is a demanding
feature in ad hoc networks. Wireless networks also use less bandwidth than wired networks due to the higher demand for
the wireless spectrum and the nature of the wireless medium, which causes interference, noise generation, fading effects,
and collision. Similarly, wireless networks, especially MANETs, are more prone to security vulnerabilities than that of
wired networks. For instance, a single denial-of-service attack (DOS) or a simple jamming attack might disrupt the
functionality of the entire network. Therefore, in addition to creating routes, a trivial routing protocol must also take
measures against security threats (e.g., eavesdropping, spoofing, and DOS attacks).
Routing is a process between nodes to establish an up-to-date and efficient path for information exchange. The major
concern is to discover and maintain the paths among mobile nodes, while maintaining unidirectional links in a dynamic
topology, particularly in infrastructure-less networks where all nodes behave like a specific router for itself. Usually, route
efficiency is measured by various attributes such as the number of hops, control traffic, and security. Communication
between an exclusive sender and receiver takes place through identical routing protocols, as discussed in following sections,
to handle the underlined concerns in MANETs.
Classification of Routing Protocols in MANETs
Routing protocols are usually classified according to their properties. In general, routing protocols fall into three different
categories: Unicast routing, Multicast routing, and Broadcast routing. Unicast routing represents one-to-one communication
and is the largest class of routing protocol in ad hoc networks. The multicast routing protocol deals with sending a data
stream to multiple destinations. Therefore, such protocols are much more useful in group communication and save on
bandwidth better than multiple unicast protocols. Evidently, broadcast routing refers to sending information by a sender to
its one-hop-neighbor in ad hoc networks. However, this paper covers routing protocol categories based on the type of
temporal information they use. The protocols that they use to explore the paths and maintain them are called Table-driven
protocols, On-demand protocols, and Hybrid routing protocols, and are shown in Fig. 1. In this paper we investigate each of
them individually.
Proactive or Table-Driven Protocols
Proactive or table-driven protocols establish up-to-date routing information of the overall network topology by maintaining
routing tables. Thereby, each node proactively exchanges their tables before sending a communication request to collect
and store the routing information. If any situation arises due to node mobility, the rest of the nodes are required to update
their topological records. The significant drawbacks of this table-driven approach are the control overhead that regularly
updates the entries in routing tables, and the problem of keeping the temporal information based on past evaluations. Also,
after the description of the representative chosen table-driven protocols, they are all summarized at a glance in Table 1.
■ Destination-sequenced Distance Vector
The Destination-sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) [1] was the first purpose protocol developed for MANETs, and it
introduces modifications to the distributed Bellman-Ford (BDF) algorithm. These modifications imply a sequence number
in the routing table to guarantee a loop-free mechanism. It uses the algorithm to find the single, shortest path to its intended
destination. It maintains a routing table at all nodes, which has a record of the attributes of the next hop, number of hops to
the destination, the sequence number, and other details. However, the routing table entries cause overhead, which travels
throughout the network at the cost of throughput performance. Two types of update packets, called Full Dump Packets and
Incremental Packets were used to reduce the overhead. The first packet was designed to carry the entire information of the
route topology, while the next incremental packet was only designed to carry the information about topological changes.
The incremental packets are updated more frequently than full dump packet which degrades the protocol performance for a
large and dense environment.
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
137
■ Wireless Routing Protocol
The Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) [2] is an enhanced version of DSDV and also relates to the algorithm of an overall
pathfinding class [3]. It also maintains routing information in a table. However, unlike DSDV, it uses various kinds of
routing tables (i.e., Distance table, Link cost table, Routing table, and Message retransmission list) to execute pathfinding
and maintenance. Under a highly-scalable network, WRP leads to the maximization of the memory overhead, which
introduces an additional burden on member nodes. As a consequence, the overall throughput performance decreases, and
convergence time increases, which leads to energy starvation for member nodes in MANETs. Moreover, WRP also
exchanges hello messages among neighbor nodes to keep the messages alive. When no such previous packet transmission
exists, each node needs to be activated every time, which leads to a great amount of bandwidth and power consumption.
■ Global State Routing
The Global State Routing (GSR) [4] protocol also falls into the category of proactive routing and works on the basis of a
link state algorithm. This protocol limits the update packets among intermediate nodes by making some improvements to
the traditional link state algorithm. In GSR, all the nodes manage the latest received messages in a link state table. These
messages come from adjacent nodes, and thereby information is periodically shared among one-hop neighbors only, which
reduces the control overhead throughout the network. However, flaws still exist in updating messages, as these messages
are comparatively large in number. Particularly when the network size is large, the size of update messages will also
increase, which has the potential to degrade throughput performance.
■ Fisheye State Routing
The Fisheye State Routing (FSR) [5] protocol is the descendant of the global state routing protocol, which is also based on
the link state foundation updating mechanism. Unlike GSR, this protocol distributes update messages at a greater speed to
its adjacent nodes, and reduces the update message size by avoiding broadcasting on remote nodes that are not in a fisheye
scope. Using the fisheye technique reduces control overhead by disseminating topology information in which information
is updated for every destination on the basis of the source distance in the network. The node stores the Link State, and the
node broadcast periodically updates messages to its neighbors and updates closer node broadcasts more frequently.
■ Optimized Link State Routing
Optimized link state routing (OLSR) [6] is a variation of table driven protocol to be work in link state algorithm style. It is
a point to point routing protocol that performs hop to hop routing in which all the nodes route a packet on the basis of most
recent information about topology knowledge and maintenance in network. Thereby all nodes interchange their link state
messages periodically. It uses multipoint relay nodes (MPR) scheme for the sake of reduction in the size of control
messages alternatively in addition to reduces the number of nodes which are used for rebroadcasting at every route update.
In MPR scheme, a set of adjacent nodes known as MRP set of that node are selected by every node for resending the update
packets. Hence, a node which is not the part of that set then it can only read and process all the packets but unable to resend.
Thus, basic purpose of MRP nodes is to reduce the network flooding.
■ Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility
The Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM) [7] is a table-driven protocol that effectively uses the
Global Positioning System (GPS) to synchronize the member nodes in a network. The DREAM protocol keeps
geographical coordinate information in purpose-built tables called location tables. The exchange of a location information
table makes DREAM more scalable, because it consumes significantly less bandwidth than exchanging complete tables of
the link state and distance vector protocols. It also does not require stationary nodes to send update messages, which further
reduces routing overhead and improves network efficiency.
138
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
Figure 1. Taxonomy of routing protocols in MANETs
■ Source-Tree Adaptive Routing
The Source-tree Adaptive Routing (STAR) protocol [8] is another type of table-driven routing protocol category based on
the link state algorithm. In STAR, a source tree is maintained by all routers. In the source tree the ideal route information to
reach any intended destination is stored. It is very useful to reduce a great amount of routing overhead in the entire network
by supporting the least overhead routing approach (LORA) while exchanging routing information. If needed, STAR also
supports the Optimum Routing Approach (ORA). It uses ORA to eliminate the periodic update mechanism present in the
link state algorithm by distributing update information according to pre-defined conditions or events. As STAR stores route
information in a routing table, it experiences low latency and also consumes less bandwidth for routing updates, which
makes it more suitable for highly-scalable networks. It, however, comes at the cost of increased processing and memory
overhead that varies based on the complexity of the maintenance of network graphs by all the nodes, which may quickly be
exchanged with adjacent nodes to continuously report to different source trees.
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
139
■ Multimedia Support In Mobile Wireless Networks
The Multimedia Support in Mobile Wireless Networks (MMWN) protocol [9] is a kind of proactive routing protocol where
a clustering hierarchy is used to maintain a network route in which all clusters have two kinds of mobile nodes: Endpoints
and Switches. In MNWN, each cluster stores its entire routing table in a dynamically-distributed database (DDD). However,
location management uses a specific node as location manager (LM), which is responsible for updating and finding
locations. Therefore, effectively using DDD and LM reduces the routing overhead. In a highly-dense topology, due to its
hierarchical structure, location management information moves to the location management tree very deeply, which makes
finding and updating of locations more complex. Moreover, the change in the hierarchical cluster membership of the
location manager generates implementation problems, because it affects the tree’s hierarchical management.
■ Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing Protocol
The Cluster-head Gateway Switch Routing Protocol (CGSR) [10] is a variation of table-driven routing that effectively
handles scalability issues in ad hoc networks. It implies hierarchical routing. In CGSR, nodes proactively form clusters by
partitioning a complete network. To build clusters, an algorithm known as least cluster head change (LCC) is used. In
CGSR, two kinds of mobile nodes are used to manage different responsibilities, called cluster heads and gateway nodes.
Cluster heads manage all the nodes and their communication within the boundary of a cluster called intra-communication,
whereas gateway nodes are responsible for the connection of two or more clusters for inter-cluster communication. The
data traffic passes from the cluster head to the gateway and from the gateway to the cluster head, thus it reaches from the
source to its intended destination. As this is a kind of distance vector protocol, it maintains two tables for each node.
Therefore, its routing table records one entry to its cluster head and another for all the clusters in the network. Hence,
CGSR effectively controls the population of route entries in routing tables, particularly in a highly-dense environment. To
route a packet, the source looks to the cluster member table to find its destination’s cluster head, to find the next hop, and
finally consults the distance vector routing table to reach its destination. Moreover, CGSR reduces the routing table’s
broadcast packet size by making one entry for all nodes in an identical cluster. However, there is the downside of
maintaining the structure of clusters for highly-mobile networks.
■ Hierarchical State Routing
The Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) protocol [11] also falls into the table-driven protocol category, and is based on the
link state algorithm, which maintains a map of a hierarchical topology. In this hierarchical topology, all clusters hold three
kinds of nodes: cluster heads, gateways, and internal nodes. The internal nodes are all of the nodes in all clusters that do not
have a special role. In HSR, all nodes carry a unique identity (i.e., MAC address) and a hierarchical identity (HID) for path
setup. The source uses HID to route packets towards a destination by proposing cluster nodes in a logical way instead of a
geological way. In logical clustering, the logical link information at the lower level is interchanged by logical nodes, and
the information regarding the link state is broadcast down to the lowest level. Finally, the lowest level physical node
maintains the hierarchical topology of the network. The resultant advantage is less overhead due to a limited number of
broadcasts on the entire network. However, it requires relatively more overhead for cluster formation and maintenance.
■ Direction Forward Routing
The Direction Forward Routing (DFR) protocol [12] aims to overcome the old entries problem (i.e., outdated records) in
the routing table, known as the “stale” routing table entry problem. As in the DSDV and AODV protocols, the shortest path
is broadcast to the destination when a packet is sent to a predecessor node. If a predecessor moves to another location, the
entries of its routing table become invalid, which makes predecessor-based forwarding fail. Alternatively, a geo-coordinatesystem-equipped ad hoc network resolves this problem in a way that whenever an update happens, the node records its
geographical location along with the direction of arrival. In DFR, if a predecessor forwarding failure happens, the data
packet is sent to the most promising adjacent node available in the record. In DFR, the routing updates are used to learn
directions, unlike in geo-routing, which learns about directions from the destination coordinates. The major advantage of
DFR is that it does not require destination coordinates. Consequently, messages are not sent to dead ends, because there is
no need of “perimeter re-routing” [13] in its operations.
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
140
■ Topology Broadcast Reverse Path Forwarding
The Topology Broadcast Reverse Path Forwarding (TBRPF) protocol [14] is a proactive routing protocol based on the link
state algorithm. This protocol performs hop-by-hop routing and uses a reverse path forwarding mechanism to route the
distribution of updated packets in the reverse direction with a spanning tree protocol. These spanning trees contain the
shortest hop path from the nodes that lead to the update source. In its operation, a source tree is calculated at every node
that offers all accessible destination paths. It also uses multiple periodic hello messages at every node to report its status to
its neighbors. These hello messages only report the change in neighboring nodes’ statuses and are very useful to reduce the
bandwidth overhead.
■ Intra-zone Routing Protocol
The Intra-zone Routing Protocol (IARP) [15] is also a variation of a table-driven protocol with a limited scope and support
when compared to existing global routing protocols. The radius of the routing zone is used to define the IARP’s range,
which is basically a hop distance, and is delivered by IARP route updates. The immediate availability of routes to
destinations avoids latency and traffic overhead while finding a route. The requirement of the global route to find a remote
destination requires more efficient bandwidth, which is broadcast and directed towards the routing zone edges. IARP’s
routing zone provides better and real-time route maintenance when a route is discovered. Within its routing zone, multiple
hop routes are used to avoid the failure of a link.
Table 1. Comparison of proactive routing protocols
Protocol
Structure
Method
Updates
Advantage
Disadvantage
DSDV
Flat
Broadcast
Hybrid
Loop free mechanism
High overhead
WRP
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
Loop free mechanism
Memory overhead
GSR
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
Localized update
High memory overhead
FSR
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Periodical
Reduces control overhead
OLSR
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
DREAM
Flat
Broadcast
Mobility Based
STAR
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Conditional
Reduces control overhead
MMWN
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Conditional
Reduces control overhead
CGSR
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Periodical
Reduces control overhead
HSR
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Hybrid
Low control overhead
Location management needed
DFR
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
Overcome the old entries problem
Selection of the most forward
node to the destination along
with direction may cause a loop
TBRPF
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical/
Differential
Low control overhead
High memory overhead
IARP
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
AWDS
Flat
Broadcast
Periodical
LANMAR
Hierarchical
Broadcast
Periodical
Reduces control overhead and
contention
Reduces memory overhead and
control overhead
Avoid the traffic overhead and link
failure
Support layer three protocols with
fast convergence
Reduces control overhead
High memory overhead and less
accuracy
Two-hop neighbor knowledge
required
GPS is require
Increases memory overhead as
well as processing overhead.
Management of mobility and
maintenance of different
clusters required.
Cluster information and
maintenance required
Limited scope
Scalable in local area network
Limited scope
■ Landmark Ad Hoc Routing
The Landmark Ad Hoc Routing (LANMAR) protocol [16] is actually a combination of the fisheye state routing and
landmark routing protocols. LANMAR is designed for the development of fixed wireless area networks. In LANMAR, a
landmark is a router and its adjacent routers contain routing entries corresponding to this landmark router. In its operation, a
network is divided into many logical subnets along with selected and predefined landmarks. All the nodes within one
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
141
subnet are connected with FSR and move as a group. Exchanging the distance vector provides a route to a landmark and
finally to corresponding subnets. Due to the extension of FSR, there is an advantage of group mobility in LANMAR, which
summarizes the routes of group members to a single route towards a landmark.
■ Ad-hoc Wireless Distribution Service
The Ad Hoc Wireless Distribution Service (AWDS) protocol [17] is based on a link state routing protocol similar to the
OLSR protocol. It uses a unique MAC address in the wireless local area network (WLAN) card instead of an IP address for
fast convergence. It creates a virtual network interface that can be used by the kernel, as in typical local area network
interface cards. Therefore, it supports all kinds of layer-three protocols such as IPv4, IPv6, DHCP, and IPX.
Reactive or On Demand Protocols
Reactive protocols are also known as on-demand routing protocols, in which routing information is maintained by the
member nodes only when communication exists on run time. If a node wants to communicate with another node, a demand
mode route is found and a connection is established between source and destination to send/receive packets. A route request
is sent out to discover a route. There are two types of on-demand protocols. The first is source routing, in which a complete
source is carried by all data packets towards a destination. All data packets have some information in their headers that help
the intermediate node to forward these packets. The second is hop-by-hop routing, in which all data packets keep the
addresses of the next hop and the destination to establish a route. Hence, routing tables are used by intermediate nodes for
information to reach the destination. Unlike table-driven protocols, a significant advantage of reactive protocols is their
suitability for ad hoc networks and no periodic updates, which consequently utilizes less bandwidth. The following
represents the representative on-demand protocols, and an at-a-glance comparison can be found in Table 2.
The following represents the major protocols in reactive routing.
■ Ad Hoc on-demand Distance Vector
The Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol [18] is based on the DSDV and DSR algorithms, in which the
mechanism of route discovery and route maintenance are taken from DSR, whereas periodic update packets and point-topoint routing sequence number are taken from the DSDV protocol. In AODV, the nodes that are not available on an active
path do not need to maintain routes towards the destination node. It implies different messages for path discovery and its
maintenance such as “Route Request,” “Route Replies,” and “Route Errors.” It uses the UDP/IP protocol mechanism to
receive these messages. In AODV, next hop information is stored on the basis of the flow to transmit data packets by both
nodes, i.e., intermediate nodes and source nodes. It uses the destination sequence number of the destination node to set up
the route, while the highest sequence number is selected to find a new route. The source forwards the route request, and a
node with a fresh route is selected. A route reply is sent back to the source. This algorithm introduces many advantages
such as adaptability on highly-dynamic networks, low overhead, detection of fresh routes towards the destination, and a
very small delay in the connection setup.
■ Dynamic Source Routing
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol [19] is a reactive routing protocol with source-based routing that is especially
designed for multi-hop ad hoc networks. It eliminates messages to reduce bandwidth consumption. A route cache concept is
used by nodes containing source routes. Whenever a new route is required, the entries in the cache are updated dynamically.
It also uses dynamic source routing to discover routes and for maintenance. In the route discovery mechanism, a control
message for a route request (RREQ) is forwarded to the neighboring nodes that are available in the cache. The intermediate
nodes rebroadcast this RREQ message further. Finally, a node sends a route reply (RREP) to the source. This RREP is
stored in the cache for future use. In case of a link failure, a route error (RERR) message is sent to the source, and the
source node deletes that route from its cache. If any other route exists as an alternative to the deleted route in the cache,
then it will be replaced. Otherwise it will re-initiate the route discovery mechanism. It uses a flooding technique called
light-weight mobile routing (LMR) to find the routes. There is no need for a route discovery mechanism because every
node has multiple routes to its destination, which increases its reliability by allowing nodes to select the next available route.
Eventually extra delays are avoided. Moreover, every node just maintains its one hop neighbor information, which further
142
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
reduces storage overhead. However, sometimes LMR introduces illegal routes that cause extra delays in finding the right
one. This protocol also increases network connectivity in a highly-dynamic environment, which may cause nodes to
consume too much power and enter sleep mode.
■ Routing On-demand Acyclic Multi-path
The Routing On-demand Acyclic Multi-path (ROAM) protocol [20] is a reactive routing protocol that uses a diffusing
computation operation in which intermodal coordination is used with acyclic sub graphs. This acyclic sub graph is created
by the routers involved. ROAM has some advantages, namely no “Search to Infinity” problem, which affects many ondemand protocols. It ends this problem by stopping a multiple flood search when the needed destination is no longer
available. It also saves significant bandwidth, because all routers maintain entries for the destination and keep the entries
table up to date.
■ Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm
The Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [21] protocol is a distributed routing protocol designed to determine
routes on demand. It reduces communication overhead and quickly establishes paths towards the destination. This protocol
also uses LMR repair techniques in which an LMR query reply mechanism is similar to a directed acyclic graph (DAG).
TORA performs three simple functions: route creation, route maintenance, and route erasure. Route creation makes a DAG
route towards the destination node using height as a metric. After the creation of a DAG route, links are assigned to
neighboring nodes on the basis of a comparative height metric. During route maintenance, during mobility, if a DAG
breaks down, it reestablishes a DAG route towards the destination in a similar fashion. Route erasure involves erasing
invalid routes by flooding a clear packet (CLR) throughout the network. This protocol has the ability to select the most
convenient route instead of the shortest path, which minimizes traffic overhead. One disadvantage is that sometimes TORA
introduces an invalid temporary route.
■ Associativity-based Routing
The Associativity-based Routing (ABR) [22] protocol uses a reactive approach and introduces a new metric for node route
selection, called degree of association stability, in which beacons are used by nodes to indicate their presence, and also to
update routes. Upon receiving the beacon, the associativity tick of the receiving nodes increases along with the beaconing
node. For any specific node, the highest value of the associativity tick shows its comparatively static nature. The
associativity tick is reset when moving any node from one neighborhood to another. ABR has some drawbacks, for
example, determining the degree of associativity for any link requires periodic beaconing lead nodes to become active all
the time, which increases power consumption. It lacks a route cache or multiple routes towards a destination, which leads to
the unavailability of an alternate route in the case of an alternative route demand, whenever the route discovery mechanism
becomes essential.
■ Signal Stability Adaptive
The Signal Stability Adaptive (SSA) protocol [23] is basically a descendent of the ABR protocol. Instead of using an
associativity tick to select the route, this protocol uses location stability and signal strength. In SSA, there is less need to
reconstruct the route, because the routes are not selected on the basis of the shortest path. The major drawback of SSA is it
categorizes a link as a table or a week on the basis of beacon count. Hence, a potential shorter route, which can be
discovered by the intermediate node, does not get considered by intermediate nodes, which causes long delays for route
generation. In the case of link failure, no effort is made for route repair as in the DSR and AODV protocols. Another
disadvantage is that this protocol introduces some additional delays when reconstruction happens on a source node.
■ Location-aided Routing
The Location-aided Routing (LAR) [24] protocol is based on the algorithm of flooding, as is used in the DSR protocol, but
it reduces network flooding by using the location information of a specific node. To gather location information, every
node has to carry a GPS. Since the LAR protocol calculates the estimated zone of a particular node with location
information, it might give a rough estimation about a particular node while mobile. Two different schemes are used by its
operation. The first scheme computes the zone that defines the boundary of route request packets to reach the destination,
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
143
whereas the second scheme keeps the destination coordinates in the packets of the route request. These route request
packets travel in the direction of the shortest route from one hop to another. This protocol consumes less bandwidth and
limits control overhead. The main limitation is the GPS requirement at every node.
■ Ant-colony-based Routing Algorithm
The Ant-colony-based Routing Algorithm (ARA) [25] is an on-demand routing protocol that effectively reduces the routing
overhead in the network by copying ant food search behavior. This protocol uses a route discovery approach similar to the
RREQ method in the DSR protocol in which a Forwarding ANT (FANT) is distributed throughout the network. In this
scheme, each node calculates the shortest path and forwards the FANT to its adjacent nodes. When the destination is
reached, it sends a Backward ANT (BANT) to the source. After receiving the BANT, a route is determined and the packet
delivery from the source towards the destination begins. A data packet travels among all the nodes for the maintenance of
all routes, which increases the pheromone (i.e., short lived path) value. Otherwise, this value reduces energetically until it
expires. ARA has advantages of less overhead due to the small size of both FANT and BANT, but the drawback of a lack
of scalability when the number of nodes increases.
■ Relative Distance Micro discovery Ad Hoc Routing
The Relative Distance Micro-discovery Ad Hoc Routing (RDMAR) protocol [26] is an on-demand routing protocol variant
that uses the relative distance micro discovery (RDMAR) procedure. This procedure computes the distance between source
and destination nodes to minimize the routing overhead, and thus reduces all route request packets to a set number of hops.
In case of link failure, route maintenance is used, which reduces bandwidth and battery power. Moreover, it does not
require GPS for route estimation. However, there exists another limitation regarding the relative distance micro-discovery
procedure that is only useful when the source and destination are tightly synchronized to talk and listen to each other.
Otherwise this procedure behaves like flooding.
■ Flow Oriented Routing Protocol
The Flow Oriented Routing Protocol (FORP) [27] is a variation of the reactive protocol, which selects and maintains its
routes by applying a prediction-based scheme. It predicts the link expiration time (LET) for a link and estimates a route
expiration time (RET) for a given route. On the basis of routing decisions, it ensures quality of service (QoS) for certain
levels. Less control overhead is required for prediction. For mutual timing references among nodes in networks, it requires
GPS, which adds to hardware complexity. If a source wants to send packets to a destination, it checks its own routing table
first. If it has an unexpired path towards the destination, it directly sends the packet to its destination. If not, it initiates a
request packet for a route that contains a flow identification number and a sequence number, along with the binary
addresses of the source node and the destination node. A packet with a lower sequence number and flow identification
number than the existing sequence number is discarded by an intermediate node. If a packet has equal sequence numbers,
the intermediate node sends the route request message only if it is received from a path of a larger RET. Otherwise, the
intermediate node adds the LET of the link from where it received the message and adds its address to broadcast the packet.
Through this, the route request message reaches the destination node continuing the entire crossed path, along with its RET.
In the case of a longer RET, a new path is used instead of the current one. When route expiry is determined by destination,
it initiates a hand-off message and floods the entire network. On receiving the hand-off message, the source determines the
best route and sends a set-up message along with a new selected route.
■ Cluster-based Routing Protocol
The Cluster-based Routing Protocol (CBRP) [28] is a hierarchy-based protocol in which nodes are exclusively organized
into clusters. Cluster heads are responsible for communication within a cluster as well as between clusters, which is the
advantage of this protocol, because only cluster heads share routing information. This also leads to less overhead
throughout the network. However, some issues regarding cluster establishment and maintenance exist. Cluster heads are
also a single point of failure due to the heavy energy requirements, which might disrupt the entire network and lead to
frequent maintenance operations in highly dynamic and scalable networks.
Table 2. Comparison of reactive routing protocols
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
144
Multiple
routes
Route
maintenance by
Protocol
Structure
Advantage
Disadvantage
AODV
Flat
No
Route table
Adjustable with the highly
dynamic topologies
Hello messages, problem of
scalability, introduces large
delays
DSR
Flat
Yes
Route cache
Support multiple routes and
overhearing promiscuous
Scalability problems due to
source routing and flooding,
large delays
LMR
Flat
Yes
Route table
Multiple routes
Temporary routing loops
ROAM
Flat
Yes
Route table
Remove the problem of searchto-infinity
Huge control overhead in
highly mobile networks
TORA
Flat
Yes
Route table
Multiple routes
Temporary routing loops
ABR
Flat
No
Route table
Route stability
Scalability problems
SSA
Flat
No
Route Table
Stability of route
Long delays, problem of
scalability, failure of route
and re-establishment
LAR
Flat
Yes
Route cache
Localized discovery of route
Source routing, flooding is
prefer if no location
information is available
ARA
Flat
Yes
Route table
Small size of control packets,
reduces overhead
Use process of route
discovery is based on
flooding
RDMAR
Flat
No
Route table
Localized discovery of route
If no previous
communication between
nodes then flooding is used
FORP
Flat
No
Route Table
A minimization mechanism
implies for route failure
Route discovery based on
flooding
CBRP
Hierarchical
No
Route table at
cluster
Routing information is only
exchange by cluster-heads
Maintenance of cluster,
temporary loops
SSR
Flat
No
Route table
Fewer route reconstructions
Potentially long delays, no
route discovery mechanism
■ Signal Stability Routing
The Signal Stability Routing (SSR) protocol [23] is an on-demand routing protocol in which a route is selected among
nodes on the basis of node signal strength and location stability. Signal stability routing can be categorized further into two
cooperative protocols, namely, a dynamic routing protocol (DRP) and a static routing protocol (SRP).The former maintains
the routing table and signal stability table. It is also responsible for transmission reception and processing. The DRP sends
the received packet to SRP after updating all the table entries. However, in the case of the latter, if a packet reaches the
intended receiver, it passes the packet to the top of the stack; otherwise, SRP forwards the packet according to the
destination in the routing table. If there is no destination in the routing table, the SSR initiates a route search process. There
is less reconstruction of routes, because SSR prefers the stable and longer path than the shortest path. In case of link failure,
an error message is forwarded to the source by intermediate nodes specifying the failed channel. Later, a route search
mechanism is initiated by source to develop a fresh route towards a destination. An erase message is sent to the rest of the
nodes to notify them about broken links. There exists a major drawback, which is that the intermediate nodes do not reply
to route requests sent to a destination, which causes longer delays before discovering a route.
Hybrid Routing Protocols
Hybrid protocols involve the combined features of both proactive and reactive protocols, in which routes are initially
initiated with some proactive forecasts, which then serve the demand reactively. This reduces delays in route discovery and
also balances the cost of routing tables in an efficient and controlled manner [29]. Hybrid routing protocols are suitable for
a highly-dense environment. Table 3 lists the significant hybrid protocols together for comparisons at a glance.
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
145
■ Zone Routing Protocol
The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [30] has a routing zone that defines its range in terms of hops. In ZRP, all nodes
maintain network connectivity proactively. In ZRP the nodes are divided into two zones, peripheral nodes and interior
nodes. In this zone-based routing scheme, every node is associated with a zone, which is actually a collection of different
nodes. In ZRP, the network performance can be disturbed due to zone size and the overlapping of zone regions. Big routing
zones are preferred for slowly-moving nodes and high route demands, whereas small routing zones are used for fastmoving nodes that are fewer in number where the demand for routes is less. In ZRP, proactive protocols are used inside the
zone, whereas reactive protocols are used between zones. ZRP further uses various protocols for a successful operation. It
uses an intra-zone routing protocol (IARP) [15] to ensure a consistent update of routing tables for all the nodes within the
boundary of a zone. Each zone stores information for all destinations. The inter-zone routing protocol (IERP) [31]
mechanism is used when no destination is available inside the zone. Finally, the border cast resolution protocol (BRP) is
used by border nodes to perform search operations on demand to deliver routing information to the nodes that reside
outside the zone of a source node.
■ Zone-Based Hierarchical Link State
The Zone-based Hierarchical Link State (ZHLS) protocol [32] is a variation of the hybrid protocol, in which the network is
distributed into non-overlapping zones. Within the zone, all nodes are aware of related zones and connectivity information
in the entire network. ZHLS works like link state protocols, where link state routing is accomplished in two levels, i.e., the
node level and the global zone level. It does not require cluster heads due to its hierarchical structure. Only destination zone
ID and node ID are used for route discovery and maintenance operations. ZHLS sends location requests to all zones to find
the ID of a destination zone. However, it does not require any location search until the destination moves to another zone.
There is a drawback in that all the nodes must maintain the static zone map.
Table 3. Comparison of different hybrid routing protocols
Protocol
Structure
Multiple routes
Route maintained by
Advantage
Disadvantage
ZRP
Flat
No
Need tables for inter-zone and
intra-zone communication
Reduce retransmissions
Overlapping zones
exists
ZHLS
Hierarchical
Yes
Need tables for Inter-zone and
Intra-zone communication
Reduces control overhead
and reduction of single
point of failure.
Static zone map
required
SLURP
Hierarchical
Yes
Require cache for location
and a node list
Using home regions for
location discovery
Required the map of
static zone
DST
Hierarchical
Yes
Route tables required
Reduce retransmissions
Root node
DDR
Hierarchical
Yes
Intra-zone and inter-zone
table required
Does not require any map
and coordinator of zone
Ideal neighbors may
causes jams
■ Scalable Location Update Routing Protocol
The Scalable Location Update Routing Protocol (SLURP) [33] is a hybrid approach in which non-overlapping zones are
used to organize nodes in a network. To reduce the maintenance cost of routing information, this protocol eliminates
global-route discovery by allocating a home region to all the nodes in the network. All the nodes have a unique home
region, which is determined by using the function of static mapping such as “f(NodeID) → regionID”. Since the node ID
for all nodes is constant, this function evaluates the same home region. In SLURP, all nodes unicast an update message to
its home regions for zone maintenance within its respective zone. Once the zone update packet reaches the home region,
this update packet is broadcast to all the nodes that exist in that region. Once the zone is found, the data transmission starts
between the source and destination through a geographical forwarding mechanism called Most Forward with Fixed Radius
(MFR). The major drawback of this protocol is the maintenance of the static zone map.
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
146
■ Distributed Spanning Trees based
The Distributed Spanning Trees-based (DST) [34] protocol is a variation of a hybrid routing protocol in which the nodes
are grouped together into a number of trees comprising route node and internal node. However, the nodes of a network in
the DST protocol can also be categorized in one of three diverse states, depending on the types of their tasks. They are the
Router, Merge, and Configure states. To determine route, DST proposes two diverse routing approaches: Hybrid TreeFlooding (HFT) and Distributed Spanning Tree Shuttling (DST). In the former approach, the control packets are
disseminated to all neighbors in a manner similar to spanning trees control packet to attach its bridges. However, the latter
approach is for the distribution of control packets between the source and destination, in which the control packets are
rebroadcast along the edges of the tree. Whenever a control comes down to a leaf node, it is sent up the tree until it reaches
the shuttle level, which is actually a higher level. After reaching the shuttle level, the control passes down the adjoining
bridges. The main drawback of the DST protocol is the root node, which is a single point of failure. Another disadvantage
of this protocol is the extra delays, which are introduced by packets due to holding time.
Table 4. Comparison of main categories in routing protocols
Parameters
Proactive
Reactive
Hybrid
Routing Philosophy
Flat or Hierarchical
Flat
Hierarchical
Routing Scheme
Table-based
On demand
Combination of both
Routing Overhead
High
Low
Medium
Scalability Level
Low
Not suitable for large network
Designed for large network
Latency
Low due to routing tables
High due to flooding
Low inside the zone and
outside the zone is same as in
on demand protocols
Availability of Routing
Information
Always available , stored in table
Available when required
Combination of both
Periodic Updates
Yes, whether the topology of the
network changes
Not needed as route available
on demand
Yes needed inside the zone
Storage Capacity
High due to routing table
Generally low based on no. of
paths
Based
on zone’s
size,
sometime high inside the zone
as proactive routing protocol
Mobility Supports
Periodical updates
Route Maintenance
Combination of both
Advantages
Information always available.
Latency is reduced in the
network
Route
availability
when
required,low overhead , loop
free
Appropriate
for
huge
networks , availability ofup to
date information
Disadvantages
High overhead , flooding routing
informationthroughout
the
network
Latency is increased in the
network
Complexity increases
■ Distributed Dynamic Routing
The Distributed Dynamic Routing (DDR) protocol [35] is another kind of hybrid routing protocol which is based on treebased routing in which periodic beacon messages are used for creation of tree. These beacon messages are only
interchanged by adjacent nodes. In its operation, trees form a forest and then use a gateway node to connect to each other
by using a unique zone ID of the forest. Since all nodes are related with one zone, there can be multiple non-overlapping
zone in the network. There are five stages in the DDR protocol: preferred neighbor election, forest construction, intra-tree
clustering, zone naming, and zone partitioning. The preferred neighbor election stage prefers a node with multiple
neighbors for selection. The forest construction stage connects all the nodes to their preferred neighbor for the construction
of a forest. The intra-tree clustering stage initiates the structure of a tree and creates routing tables for intra-zone
communication. Inter-tree clustering involves determining connectivity with neighboring zones. The zone naming stage
involves assigning a unique name to all zones. The zone partitioning stage partitions a network into a number of nonoverlapping zones. To find a stable route between the source and destination, a hybrid ad hoc routing protocol (HARP) [36]
is used, which further uses the routing tables of intra-zone and inter-zone to work on top of DDR to create a stable route.
This protocol has some advantages. DDR doesn’t depend on a static zone map for routing. It does not require a cluster head
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
147
for data management and transmission of control packets among the nodes and the zones. DDR introduces large delays due
to its preference for neighboring nodes, because if a node is a preferred neighbor to many other nodes, many nodes may
want to communicate with it, which causes long delays.
The table 4 describes the comparison among proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols on the basis of their
features.
·
·
·
·
·
·
Inconsistent route
No periodic updates
Relatively suit able with
scalability
Does not guarantee
shortest path
Harvest energy
Suitable to mobility
Hybrid
approach
·
·
On demand
approach
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Prone to mobility
Hardware support
required (e.g., GPS)
Suitable for higher
level of scalability
Table driven
approach
Consistent route
Periodic update
Large overhead
Prone to scalability
Shortest path
High memory required
Consumes more energy
Figure 2. The life cycle of routing problem in MANETs
Routing Life Cycle in MANETs:
The performance trade-off of the aforementioned classical protocols is based on the argument that they are most likely to be
less suitable to meet the modern requirements of ad hoc wireless networks for many reasons. The foremost reason is the
highly-dense medium due to the drastic traffic saturation of the Industrial Scientific and Medical (ISM) band, which leads
to bandwidth limitations day by day. Hence, under such circumstances, huge control traffic cannot be afforded at the
expense of high bandwidth consumption. Likewise, huge concerns associated with node mobility have arisen in modern
scenarios compared to older networks, due to large support for mobile architecture and the rapid transition of technologies
(i.e., 3G to 5G). Moreover, the energy harvesting protocols are more urgent under the light of huge technology shifts and
the slow development of robust nodes with increased battery life.
Therefore, a suitable protocol for the modern age should effectively organize the network nodes into small sets to
handle scalability issues and resolve the single point of failure problem. For instance, the centralized approaches that map
topological changes efficiently without affecting the transmission parameters by implementing back-up routes and fast
convergence mechanisms for the quick set-up of route discovery and maintenance involving the least number of nodes. It
must take care of QoS parameters for variant data traffic applications. It should also devise a loop-free mechanism to avoid
stale routing, and control broadcasting information to save bandwidth power and cut extra memory requirements.
Unfortunately, there is always a trade-off in the solution of a problem. As described in the previous section, three wellknown solutions exist for the mobile ad hoc routing problem. Fig. 2 illustrates the cycle of routing problems in MANETs.
The table-driven approach can make the routing protocols simpler but cannot guarantee efficiency in large-scale networks
due to high memory requirements and control overhead. Conversely, the on-demand protocols can compensate for issues
related to the table-driven approaches. However, the on-demand approach suffers from inconsistent routes and relatively
148
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
long paths for data traffic. So far, the best solution to the routing problem is to use the hybrid approach with the added
benefit of both approaches. However, the hybrid approach is susceptible to mobility dynamics and hardware support
requirements.
Conclusion
This article aimed to briefly explore the state-of-the-art routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks and focused on
detailed and relative revisions of proactive, reactive, and hybrid routing protocols. Various routing protocols have been
discussed and compared, and their pros and cons are summarized in tabular form. A performance tradeoff exists in various
protocols due to their distinct features which makes it really hard to choose the best approach for diverse ad hoc network
environments. Moreover, numerous challenges such as mobility, scalability, and bandwidth limitations also affect the
performance of routing protocols in ad hoc networks. It is hard to choose a single protocol that is the best for all scenarios
since each protocol has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is well-suited for a certain situation. We believe that our
discussion will be beneficial for the researchers to understand the salient features of various routing protocols and their
strengths and weaknesses. The researchers will be able to resolve many challenges on the routing protocols under-study in a
better way. However, to develop the efficient routing protocols in cutting-edge ad hoc networks, we need more researches
along the lines discussed in this survey.
References
[1] P. Charles, P. Bhagwat, "Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile
computers," ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review. vol. 24. no. 4. ACM, 1994. Article (CrossRef Link)
[2] M. Shree, J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "A routing protocol for packet radio networks," Proceedings of the 1st annual
international conference on Mobile computing and networking. ACM, 1995. Article (CrossRef Link)
[3] C. Chunhsiang, et al, "A loop-free extended Bellman-Ford routing protocol without bouncing effect," ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review. vol. 19. no. 4. ACM, 1989. Article (CrossRef Link)
[4] C. Tsu-Wei,M. Gerla, "Global state routing: A new routing scheme for ad-hoc wireless networks," Communications,
1998. ICC 98. Conference Record. 1998 IEEE International Conference on. vol. 1. IEEE, 1998. Article (CrossRef Link)
[5] G. Pei, G. Mario, C. Tsu-Wei, "Fisheye state routing in mobile Ad Hoc networks," Proceedings of ICC. no. s 1. 2000.
[6] J. Philippe, et al, "Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks," Multi Topic Conference, 2001. IEEE
INMIC 2001. Technology for the 21st Century. Proceedings. IEEE International. IEEE, 2001. Article (CrossRef Link)
[7] B. Stefano, et al, "A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM)," Proceedings of the 4th annual
ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking. ACM, 1998. Article (CrossRef Link)
[8] G. J. Joaquin, M. Spohn, "Source-tree routing in wireless networks," Network Protocols, 1999.(ICNP'99) Proceedings.
Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
[9] K. Kama., R. Ramanathan, "A location management protocol for hierarchically organized multihop mobile wireless
networks," Universal Personal Communications Record, 1997. Conference Record., 1997 IEEE 6th International
Conference on. IEEE, 1997. Article (CrossRef Link)
[10] C. Ching-Chuan, et al, "Routing in clustered multihop, mobile wireless networks with fading channel," proceedings of
IEEE SICON. vol. 97. no. 1997.4. 1997.
[11] P. Guangyu, et al, "A wireless hierarchical routing protocol with group mobility," Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference, 1999. WCNC. 1999 IEEE. IEEE, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
[12] L. Yeng-Zhong, et al, "“Direction” Forward Routing for Highly Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless
Networks 19, 12. 2006.
[13] K. Brad, H. Kung, "GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks," Proceedings of the 6th annual
international conference on Mobile computing and networking. ACM, 2000. Article (CrossRef Link)
[14] B. Bellur, R. G. Ogier, F. L. Templin. Topology broadcast based on reverse-path forwarding routing protocol (tbrpf).
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-tbrpf-06. txt, work in progress, 2003.
[15] H. Zygmunt, M. R. Pearlman, P. Samar, "Intra zone routing protocol (iarp)," IETF Internet Draft, http://www. ietf. org
(2002).
[16] P. Guangyu, M. Gerla, X. Hong, "LANMAR: landmark routing for large scale wireless ad hoc networks with group
Smart Computing Review, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2015
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
149
mobility," Proceedings of the 1st ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking & computing. IEEE
Press, 2000. Article (CrossRef Link)
AWDS (Ad hoc Wireless Distribution Service) Web site: http://awds.berlios.de
D. Samir, C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, "Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing (Internet-Draft),"
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Working Group, IETF (1999).
J. David, "The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks," draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09. txt (2003).
R. Jyoti, J. Joaquin, "A new approach to on-demand loop-free multipath routing," Computer Communications and
Networks, 1999. Proceedings. Eight International Conference on. IEEE, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
P. Vincent, M. S. Corson, "A highly adaptive distributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks,"
INFOCOM'97. Sixteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Driving the
Information Revolution., Proceedings IEEE. vol. 3. IEEE, 1997.
T. Chai-Keong, "A novel distributed routing protocol to support ad-hoc mobile computing," Computers and
Communications, 1996., Conference Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Fifteenth Annual International Phoenix
Conference on. IEEE, 1996. Article (CrossRef Link)
D. Rohit, et al, "Signal stability-based adaptive routing (SSA) for ad hoc mobile networks," Personal communications,
IEEE 4.1, pp.36-45, 1997.
K. Young‐Bae, N. H. Vaidya, "Location‐Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks," Wireless Networks 6.4
(2000): 307-321. Article (CrossRef Link)
G, Mesut, U. Sorges,I. Bouazizi, "ARA-the ant-colony based routing algorithm for MANETs," Parallel Processing
Workshops, 2002. Proceedings. International Conference on. IEEE, 2002. Article (CrossRef Link)
A. George, R. Tafazolli, "RDMAR: A bandwidth-efficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks," Proceedings
of the 2nd ACM international workshop on Wireless mobile multimedia. ACM, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
S. William,M. Gerla, "IPv6 flow handoff in ad hoc wireless networks using mobility prediction," Global
Telecommunications Conference, 1999. GLOBECOM'99. vol. 1. IEEE, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
J. Mingliang, "Cluster based routing protocol (cbrp)," draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec-01. txt (1999).
A. Amri, Huda, M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki, "Scalability of MANET routing protocols for heterogeneous and
homogenous networks," Computers & Electrical Engineering 36.4 , pp. 752-765, 2010. Article (CrossRef Link)
H. Zygmunt , M. R. Pearlman, P. Samar, "The zone routing protocol (ZRP) for ad hoc networks," draft-ietf-manetzone-zrp-04. txt (2002).
H. Zygmunt, M. R. Pearlman, P. Samar, "The inter zone routing protocol (IERP) for ad hoc networks," draft-ietfmanetzone-ierp-01. txt, IETF MANET Working Group , 2001.
J. Mario,I-Tai Lu, "A peer-to-peer zone-based two-level link state routing for mobile ad hoc networks," Selected Areas
in Communications, IEEE Journal on 17.8, pp. 1415-1425, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
W. Seung-Chul M.,S. Singh, "Scalable routing protocol for ad hoc networks," Wireless Networks 7.5 , pp.513-529,
2001. Article (CrossRef Link)
R. Sridhar, et al, "DST-a routing protocol for ad hoc networks using distributed spanning trees," Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 1999. WCNC. 1999 IEEE. IEEE, 1999. Article (CrossRef Link)
N. Navid, H. Labiod, C. Bonnet, "DDR: distributed dynamic routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks,"
Proceedings of the 1st ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking & computing. IEEE Press, 2000.
Article (CrossRef Link)
N. Navid, C. Bonnet, N. Nikaein, "Harp-hybrid ad hoc routing protocol," Proceedings of international symposium on
telecommunications (IST), 2001.
Komal Zaman is the candidate for the Master Degree of Information Technology in University
of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan. She received the B.S. degree in Information Technology, University
of the Punjab, Gujranwala, Pakistan, in 2014. She joined University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan as
Associate Lecture, in 2014. Her research interest includes routing protocol design and analysis in
mobile ad hoc networks.
Choi et al.: The Life Cycle of Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey
150
Muhammad Shafiq is Ph.D. scholar in Department of Information and Mobile Communication
Engineering, Yeungnam University, South Korea. He received M.S. degree in Computer Science,
from UIIT. PMAS. Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in 2010. He received
master degree in Information Technology from University of the Punjab, Gujranwala, Pakistan,
in 2006. He has been serving as Lecturer in Faculty of Computing and Information Technology,
University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan, since 2010. He also served as visiting lecturer in Federal
Urdu University, Islamabad, Pakistan, in 2009. His research interest span routing and medium
access control design, in mobile and cognitive radio ad hoc networks.
Jin-Ghoo Choi received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering and
computer science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, in 1998, 2000, and 2005,
respectively. From 2006 to 2007, he worked with Samsung Electronics as a Senior Engineer. In
2009, he was with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the Ohio State
University, USA, as a visiting scholar. He joined the Department of Information and Mobile
Communication Engineering, Yeungnam University, South Korea, as a faculty member in 2010.
His research interests include performance analysis of communication networks, packet
scheduling in wireless networks, and wireless sensor networks.
Muddesar Iqbal received Ph.D., degree in wireless mesh networks from Kingston University,
U.K., in 2009. In 2010, he joined Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, University
of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan, as Associate Professor. Since 2012, he has been also serving as
Director of the Office for Research Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC) in University of
Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan. He won awards of appreciation from Association of Business Executive
(ABE), U.K. and People’s Republic of China, in 2008. His research interests span the area of
mobile ad hoc routing and admission control in wireless mesh networks.
Copyrights © 2015 KAIS