Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET - CiteSeerX

Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar1* and G. Sahoo2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Cambridge Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; [email protected] 2 Department of Information Technology, Birla Institute of Technology Mesra, Ranchi, India, [email protected]

1

Abstract This paper presents a Behavior Based High Performance (BBHP) protocol for MANET that involves the existing protocols and solutions to their best advantages instead of developing from scratch. Our system is defined as an intelligent system consisting of a behavior monitoring system, knowledge base, an inference engine and the execution system. The knowledge base consists of a set of rules defined using input and output metrics. The input metrics involve threats, mobility, network size and cooperation level and output metrics involve all the existing protocols and solutions used for secured routing. The inference engine decides the best solutions on the basis of observed behavior. Simulation results show that our proposed protocol is better than I-MAN on the basis of data drop, load, delay and throughput parameters. Hence, the proposed system gives an efficient result in the presence and absence of threats because it launches an appropriate protocol on the basis of network contexts.

Keywords: Co-operation Level, Inference Engine, Rule Based System, Behavior Monitoring System, Execution System. Abbreviations Grade (G), Network-Context (NCON), Network Context Protocol (NCON-P), Action protocol (AP), Basic protocol (B), Add-on protocol (A)

1.  Introduction Mobile Adhoc Network (MANET) is an infrastructureless, self-organized network in which a group of wireless devices (nodes) cooperate each other for its network operations. It can be created on the fly in minimum time. Cooperation is the backbone of such type of network because nodes have the dual responsibilities of routing and forwarding. In spite of that node are free to move in the network without losing connection. These networks are difficult to implement due to their distributed and dynamic nature. The mobile Adhoc network has many applications such as in Military war zones, Disaster

*Corresponding author: Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar ([email protected])

relief operations, Mine site operations and other suitable domains where infrastructures are not available, impractical, or expensive. A wireless node may be a personal computer (desktops/laptops) with wireless LAN cards, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), Palmtop or any other wireless or mobile devices. The continuous development of MANET can be tremendous, and opens a wide scope for personal, self-usable, on-demand, cheap networks. Now we have now an old story of MANET and its application but threats and misbehaves still limits the expansion and degrades the reliability. That’s why the capability of MANET can be further extended to fulfil the generic demand and reliability.

Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar and G. Sahoo

The motivation behind this work is to design an intelligent MANET routing protocol by incorporating the existing legacy rather than developing from scratch. The proposed system not only secures the network from attacks and misbehaves but it should consume minimum resources. Reduction in resource consumption means minimization of control traffic overhead to enhance cooperation and minimize selfish misbehaves. Selfish misbehave is a usual behavior and it must not be denied, it is real. These honest causes (such as battery life and bandwidth) encourage nodes to become selfish because energy is a scarce resource of the MANET. This paper presents an intelligent system which observes the behavior of a network and on that basis provides the best solutions. The proposed system consists of a behavior monitoring system, knowledge base, an inference engine and the execution system. The knowledge base consists of a set of rules defined using input and output metrics. The input metrics involve threats, mobility, network size and co-operation level and output metrics involve all the existing solutions and protocols used for secured routing. The behavior monitoring system measures the input metrics and grades the MANET in terms of LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH protection modes to handle diverse MANET contexts. The inference engine decides the best solutions on the basis of rules defined in the rule based system. We have used doctor like diagnostic pattern to identify the perfect behavior of the network. If the network is cooperative then the inference engine chooses the LOW protection mode. Thus, it saves battery power and bandwidth which enhance network cooperation. Choosing a suitable protection mode will certainly enhance network cooperation and maximizes the battery life span. In this work we have taken only three protection modes but it can be extended to satisfy the exact demand. The execution system executes the appropriate protocol as suggested by the inference engine. Our Systems give better performance because it executes the best priority instance (protocol) instead of using a single protocol for every MANET context. It minimizes the battery usage because it divides the MANET in terms of network context rather than enforcing any complex calculations [1] because, authentication using certificates is not suitable for devices having low computation power.

mance. A little change in MANET context will lead to change in the behavior of the routing protocol and affects the performance. Instead of proposing a new protocol we are using the existing work to their best advantages. A lot of techniques and protocols are proposed but still we have challenges that degrade the efficiency and limit the usage. Akhtar and Sahoo [2] proposed a new approach which minimizes the battery usage and enhances cooperation in MANET. It uses two network interface cards in border nodes to partition a MANET into several friendly groups (FG) or subnets. The FG model enhances cooperation but not an appropriate solution for all applications and scenarios. Research works show the limited use of AI techniques to optimize MANET performance. The use of AI technique is presented in I-MAN. It is an Intelligent MANET routing system [3], that deployed already available routing protocols to their best advantages. Saeed [4] emphasized on the Intelligent MANET optimization system in his Doctor of Philosophy thesis. I-MAN protocol enforces improvised processes with a lesser no of metrics such as mobility, network size that is not efficient for all network contexts and cannot be customized further. The proposed BBHP protocol is better than the existing solutions [3, 4] because of its object oriented design that can be further customized on the basis of network contexts. Our protocol consumes less energy and enhances network performance because it launches an appropriate protocol on the basis of network contexts. On the other hand existing solutions [1, 3, 4] employ Adhoc services to protect a network thus, consumes more energy and bandwidth and degrade network performance.

3.  Proposed BBHP Protocol 3.1  Overview Our proposed work defines a MANET under the control of the BBHP Protocol as depicted in Figure 1. The BBHP protocol executes on every node of the MANET. It observes the behavior of MANET and grade the network. On the basis of grade it launches the correct protocol needed for the network context.

3.2  Security Threats and Countermeasure

2.  Related Work As we know that a MANET is highly dynamic in nature and a single routing protocol will degrade the perfor-

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

5343

We have analyzed various threats and its solutions [5, 6, 7, 8] and used these existing works to their best advantages. Table 1 lists the major security attacks and the solutions

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

5344

Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET

to handle these attacks [5]. These attacks are used as input metrics and solutions are used as output metrics in our BBHP Protocol.

3.3  Categorization of Protocols We have categorized various threats and solutions shown in Table 1. The existing protocols have been classified in terms of Monitoring protocols and Action protocols (Basic and Add-on). Our proposed system launches appropriate protocol on the basis of the observation. The observation is done using various metrics such as threat category, network size, mobility, and co-operation level. In this work, we BBHP Protocol

have used several notations to denote attacks and solutions for simplicity.

3.3.1  Threat type Initially we have added few threats in our BBHP protocol shown in Table 2. These threats are defined in terms of classes and launched randomly by the proposed system.

3.3.2  Behavior monitoring protocols Behavior Monitoring protocols are used in the proposed BBHP protocol to monitor the behavior of the network and to observe the threat type. Initially we have included some of the monitoring protocol in our proposed system given in Table 3. Table 2.  Threat type

Input

Output

MANET

Figure 1.  MANET under BBHP Protocol.

Table 1.  Security threats and countermeasures Layer

Attack

Non-cooperation or selfish attacks, Malicious Application attacks such as virus, worms, spy wares, Trojan Horses etc. Session hijacking, SYN Transport flooding, TCP ACK storm attack etc. Cache poisoning, table overflow attacks, wormhole, black hole, Byzantine, flooding, Network resource consumption, location disclosure, impersonation attacks etc. Traffic analysis, monitoring, disruption Data Link MAC (802.11), WEP weakness etc. Physical

Jamming, interceptions, eavesdropping etc.

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

Solutions Watchdog and Pathrater, Nuglets, Confidant, CORE, Firewalls, IDS etc. SSL, TLS, SET, PCT etc. IPSec, ESP, SAR, ARAN to overcome blackhole, impersonation attacks, packet leashes, and SECTOR mechanism for wormhole attack etc. LLSP, WPA etc.

FHSS, DSSS etc.

Threat type Notation used in BBHP DOS DS Impersonation IN Reply RY Man in the middle MM Repudiation RN Data corruption DC Session hijacking SG SYN flooding SF Wormhole WH Black hole BH Flooding FG Resource consumption RC Location disclosure LD Traffic analysis TA Disruption MAC DM WEP weakness WW Jamming JG Interception IN Eavesdropping EG Non Cooperation NC

Table 3.  Behavior Monitoring protocol Monitoring Protocol Watchdog I-MAN Nuglets Confidant CORE

Notation WG IN NS CT CE

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar and G. Sahoo

3.3.3  Action protocols Action protocols are the set of protocols used for secured routing and forwarding. It is of two types: Basic protocols (B) and Add-on protocols (A). Basic protocols are used in a cooperative and closed environment having minimum threats. Add-on protocols are used when the network having threats and non cooperation. The initial list of Action protocols is given Table 4.

3.4  Components of BBHP Protocol The Components of a typical BBHP Protocol are shown in Figure 2 in which a node is denoted using a rectangle. The BBHP Protocol consists of the following components: • Behavior Monitoring System: Monitors the behavior using a set of behavior detection protocols shown in Table 3. This Behavior Monitoring system runs periodically or randomly to detect the behavior and finally, grades the MANET in terms of three protection modes (such as LOW, MED and HIGH). • Knowledge Base: The knowledge base contains the domain knowledge needed to handle the different network contexts. It is a rule based system that suggests the appropriate protocol for the network contexts. The rule based system is coded in the form of rules as given in Table 5. • Working memory: it contains a global database of threats and solution used by the rules. • Inference Engine: makes inferences by deciding which rules are satisfied by the network context, prioritizes

the contented rules, and executes the top priority rule. • Execution System: executes the appropriate protocol as per the grade (G) suggested by the inference engine.

3.5  Production Rules The production rules can be expressed in IF... THEN format as: RULE: R1 IF G = LOW THEN NCON-P1 RULE: R2 ELSE IF G = MED THEN NCON-P2 RULE: R3 ELSE NCON-P3 It means, if the grade is LOW the system launches protocol NCON-P1 and so on. Table 5 shows the rule base with its best suited environment or network context.

BBHP Knowledge Base

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

Type B B B B A A A A A A A A A

Notation DR AV AN SR NT IS HC SC PL FS DS WA PR

Working Memory

Inference Engine

Execution System

Desired Output (APs)

Behavior Monitoring System Behavior Input

MANET

Table 4.  Action protocol Action Protocol DSR AODV ARAN Security-Aware Routing Protocol Nuglet Intrusion Detection System HMAC self-healing community Packet Leash FHSS DSSS WPA Pathrater

5345

Figure 2.  Components of BBHP Protocol.

Table 5.  Rule Base Rules Network Context (If) Appropriate protocol (Then) R1

LOW

NCON-P1

R2

MED

NCON-P2

R3

HIGH

NCON-P3

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

5346

Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET

3.6  Working of the System The proposed system involves various protocols at different stages (i.e., the behavior monitoring system and the execution system). In this work we have executed BBHP protocol on every node of network which shows all nodes are intelligent. At first a network is started in cooperative mode means the grade is LOW. For this the NCON parameter (Network context) is initialized to zero in all the nodes lying in the network. The zero value in NCON parameter shows the fresh start of the MANET. After running a while the Behavior Monitoring System determines the behavior of the MANET using available Behavior Monitoring protocols [3, 9, 10, 11] to grade the network on the basis of various metrics such as the threats, mobility, network size and cooperation level. The Behavior Monitoring protocol then defines the observed value (taken from reputation value) and broadcast in the network. Reputation values are taken from the literature [9, 10, 11, 12]. Similarly, all node broadcasts (observed value) are collected and calculated by nodes to find the mean value (V). The mean is calculated as n V= ∑ x /n i =1 i where , n is the number of nodes in the network xi is the observed value of node i and V is the mean value

On the basis of mean value (V) the Behavior Monitoring system grades the MANET in three protection modes (such as LOW, MED and HIGH) as shown in Table 6. In this work reputation values are taken between 0 and 100. After defining grade the Behavior monitoring system forwards the input parameters (grade) to the inference engine. Then, the inference engine predicts the network performance metrics for each solution and decides the best solution needed for the context. It suggests the Execution system to launch the appropriate protocol (consisting of one Basic and zero or more Add-on protocol) for the current network context. The selected routing protocol should have the best cost on the basis of least data drop, Table 6.  Grade Assignment Mean Value (V)

Grade

V ≤ 30

HIGH

V > 30 and V ≤ 60

MED

V > 60

LOW

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

smaller loads, fewer delay, and high throughput. Finally, the Execution system executes the suggested protocol.

4.  Implementation of BBHP Protocol using Object Oriented Approach 4.1  Implementation of the Proposed Protocol The implementation of the proposed work follows the object oriented humanistic approach as discussed by Akhtar and Sahoo [17]. We have defined a protocol using various components such as interface: the smallest protocol unit of the TCP/IP protocol suite, class: the integration and implementation of all the possible interfaces needed to define a protocol, instance: an object of a class that defines a protocol. The proposed implementation diagram is given in Figure 3. where, interface ranges from (1, 2, …, i) class ranges from (1, 2, …, j) instance ranges from (1, 2, …, k) The implementation diagram shows three components: interface, class and instance. In which a class is defined by implementing a set of interfaces. Then, a class is instantiated to create an instance (protocol). In this work we have defined three classes to support three network contexts shown in Table 7. But a large number of classes can be taken to meet the exact demand and support diverse MANET contexts.

4.2  Description of the Components •  Interface Component It is the smallest protocol unit of TCP/IP protocol suite that is taken from the proposed structure. An Interface can be defined in terms of fine grain and coarse grain. Defining an interface in terms of fine grain creates interface1

interface2

interfacei

class1

class2

classj

instance1

instance2

instancek

Figure 3.  Implementation diagram.

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar and G. Sahoo

complexity in design but provides high customization, thus create a robust and secure protocol. On the other hand, a coarse grain interface certainly simplifies the design but gives poor customization. Fine grain is taken at the function level (such as RREQ, RREP, RERR, HELLO etc.). In this paper we have taken coarse grain interfaces, and it is defined at the protocol level (such as Bellman-Ford, DSDV, FSR, OSPF, WRP, LAR, DSR, AODV). Table 8 shows an interface having final variables and abstract methods. Table 7.  Structure of Action Protocol(s) Interface

Physical (Radio Propagation)

Data Link Network Transport Application (MAC) (Routing)

Free space Two-Ray

CSMA MACA TSMA 802.11

BellmanFord OSPF FSR DSR WRP LAR AODV PL WG CE PR Class

TCP UDP

•  Class Component A set of interfaces is integrated and implemented to create a class. A class contains all possible interfaces needed to define a protocol and able handle a network context. It provides a service in the network. A class is defined by implementing a set of interfaces as shown in Table 9. •  Instance Component An instance is an object of a class that defines a protocol. In this work we have defined two types of protocols: the Behavior Monitoring protocol and the Action protocol. Table 10 shows three Action protocols (APs) and its components. The APs contains one Basic protocol and zero more Add-on protocol as per the requirement of the network. These APs consume less energy and provide secured routing because they are defined on the basis on network contexts. An Action protocol is chosen by the system on the basis of Cooperation-Level and Grade as defined in Table 11. It shows that if the network is cooperative then the system launch AP1. Because, AP1 has only Base protocol component, thus it creates minimum overhead and saves battery lifetime to prolong network life. On the other hand if the network having threats and non cooperation then either AP2 or AP3 is chosen. AP2 or AP3 is defined using both Base and Add-on protocols thus they Table 10.  Instance

NCON-P1

NCON-P2

NCON-P3

Free space CSMA DSR TCP CBR

Two-Ray 802.11 AODV TCP CBR PR(A)

Two-Ray CSMA AODV TCP FTP PL(A) CE(A)

Table 8.  Interface interface Interface_name final variables; abstract methods ();

Table 9.  Class class protocol_name implements interface1, interface2, …, interfacei class variables; // implementation of interface methods abstract methods (); class methods ();

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

Telnet FTP

5347

AP Name

Action-Protocol Component Basic Protocol (B)

Add-on Protocol (A)

AP1

DSR [19]

NO

AP2

AODV [15]

Watchdog and Pathrater [18]

AP3

AODV

CORE [9] or CONFIDANT [10,11], Packet Leash [16]

Table 11.  Suitable environment for APs Co-operation Level Closed MANET (A cooperative network having no threat) Open MANET (A non cooperative network having minimum threats) Open MANET+ (A non cooperative network having maximum threats)

Grade

APs

LOW

AP1

MED

AP2

HIGH

AP3

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

5348

Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET

consume more battery power but secures the network from threats and non cooperation. Definition and application of Closed and Open MANET is defined by Akhtar and Sahoo [2].

4.3  BBHP Structure The proposed structure is arranged in the form of layers as shown in Table 7. Some notations used in Table 7 are taken from Table 2, 3 and 4. The proposed structure has two layers: interface and class. The interface layer consists of several interfaces to define a class. In this work we have taken various interfaces to cover all layers TCP/IP protocol suite. On the basis of the proposed structure we have defined two types of protocol: the Behavior Monitoring protocol and the Action protocol. The Behavior Monitoring protocol consists of a set of protocol needed to monitor the behavior of the network. We have shown some of the Behavior Monitoring protocol in Table 3. The Action protocol consists of a set of protocols used for secured routing and forwarding. In this work we have taken three network contexts (i.e., LOW, MED and HIGH) and to handle these contexts we have defined three classes (i.e., NCON-P1, NCON-P2 and NCON-P3). These classes are instantiated to make appropriate protocols to handle three network contexts. In this work we have taken only three NCON-Ps but we can take a large number of NCON-Ps to meet the exact demand and support diverse MANET contexts.

Thus, our proposed protocol saves energy and bandwidth because it launches an appropriate protocol on the basis of network contexts instead of using a single protocol for every MANET context. In spite of that our protocol secures a network from threats and misbehaves because more numbers of Add-on protocols can be added to handle the network contexts.

4.4  Directory Structure of BBHP Protocol Our Protocol is arranged in terms of packages consisting of classes and interfaces. The directory structure of BBHP Protocol is shown in Figure 4.

4.5  Simulation Environment We have taken two MANET simulation scenarios one using Global Mobile Information System Simulator [13, 14] by implementing I-MAN routing protocol and other having the same parameter using our indigenous tool written in the Java programming language. The ��������������������� simulation parameters are shown in Table 12.

4.6  Simulation Results The simulation scenario involves the following elements: •  The number of network parameters incorporated in the network context (i.e., in terms of threats, mobility, size and co-operation level etc.). •  The number of solutions defined for the network on the basis of Grading (i.e., in terms of LOW, MED and HIGH).

Table 12.  Simulation Parameters Parameters SIMULATION-TIME

10M

TERRAIN-DIMENSIONS

(1000, 1000) 30 GRID RANDOM-WAYPOINT 30S 0 10

NUMBER-OF-NODES NODE-PLACEMENT MOBILITY MOBILITY-WP-PAUSE MOBILITY-WP-MIN-SPEED MOBILITY-WP-MAX-SPEED

Figure 4.  Directory structure of BBHP Protocol.

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

Values

MOBILITY-POSITIONGRANULARITY

0.5

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

Md. Amir Khusru Akhtar and G. Sahoo

We have compared I-MAN and BBHP protocol on the basis of Data Drop, Load, Delay and Throughput parameters. •  Data Drop: Figure 5 shows a comparison of the data drop between I-MAN and BBHP protocol in the defined simulation environment. The result shows that the BBHP protocol has lesser data drop. •  Load: Figure 6 shows the graph of load between I-MAN and BBHP protocol. The result shows that the BBHP protocol has lesser load. •  Delay: Figure 7 shows the graph of Delay between I-MAN and BBHP protocol. The result shows that the BBHP protocol has lesser delay. •  Throughput: Figure 8 shows the graph of throughput between I-MAN and BBHP Protocol. The result shows that the BBHP protocol has better throughput than I-MAN.

5.  Conclusions and Ongoing Work In this paper we have proposed a new protocol called BBHP protocol, which gives better performance [3] and handles different MANET context in an efficient way. Our protocol is defined as an intelligent system consisting of a behavior monitoring system, knowledge base, an inference engine and the execution system. It is implemented using object oriented approach which gives better result in the presence and absence of threats. It defines a protocol on the basis of network contexts. The BBHP Protocol selects the best solution on the basis of the threats detected by the behavior monitoring system. We have compared I-MAN and

0.05 0.045 0.04 IMA N

D elay (k b its /s )

0.035

800 700

5349

B B HP

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015

IMA N B B HP

600

0.005

400

200

342

306

270

234

198

162

90

126

54

0

300

18

Data Drop(bits /s )

0.01 500

T ime (s)

100

342

306

270

234

198

162

90

126

54

18

0

Figure 7.  I-MAN and BBHP protocol Delay.

T im e (s)

Figure 5.  I-MAN and BBHP protocol Data Drop.

800 700

IMA N B B HP

600 T h ro u g h p u t(kb its /s )

140 IMA N

120

B B HP

L oad(kbits/s)

100 80 60

500 400 300 200

40

100

20

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

360

324

288

252

216

180

144

108

72

0

Figure 6.  I-MAN and BBHP protocol Load.

342

306

270

234

198

162

126

90

54

18

T im e (s)

36

0 0

T ime (s)

Figure 8.  I-MAN and BBHP protocol Throughput.

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645

5350

Behavior Based High Performance Protocol for MANET

BBHP protocol on the basis of Data Drop, Load, Delay and Throughput parameters. Results show that BBHP protocol has better performance than I-MAN [3]. Currently, we are working on layer wise classification of threats and solutions and their implementation. We will include a maximum number of threats and solutions in our proposed system to enhance the performance in diverse network contexts.

6.  References 1. Chowdhury M A H, Ikram M et al. (2008). Secure and survivable group communication over MANET using CRTDH based on a virtual subnet model, Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference, 2008. APSCC ‘08. IEEE, 638–643. 2. Akhtar M A K, and Sahoo G (2013). A novel methodology for securing ad hoc network by friendly group model, Computer Networks & Communications (NetCom), vol 131, 23–35. 3. Saeed N H, Abbod M F et al. (2010). IMAN: An Intelligent MANET routing system, 2010 IEEE 17th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), 401–404. 4. Saeed N (2011). Intelligent MANET optimisation system. 5. Biswas K, and Ali M I (2007). Security threats in mobile Ad Hoc network, Master Thesis, Thesis no: CS-2007:07, Department of Interaction and System Design, School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden. 6. Ilyas M (2010). The handbook of Ad Hoc wireless networks, vol 29, CRC press. 7. Boukerche A (2008). Algorithms and protocols for wireless, mobile Ad Hoc networks, vol 77, John Wiley & Sons. 8. Anjum F and Mouchtaris P (2007). Security for wireless ad hoc networks, Wiley.com. 9. Michiardi P, and Molva R (2002). Core: a collaborative reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (10) | October 2013

hoc networks, Advanced Communications and Multimedia Security, 107–121. 10. Buchegger S, and Le Boudec J Y (2002). Performance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc networking and computing, 226–236. 11. Buchegger S, and Le Boudec J Y (2002b). Nodes bearing grudges: Towards routing security, fairness, and robustness in mobile Ad Hoc networks, 10th Euromicro Workshop on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing, 2002. Proceedings, 403–410. 12. Balasubramanian A, and Ghosh J (2005). A reputation based scheme for stimulating cooperation in MANETs, Proceedings of The 19th International Teletraffic Congress, Beijing. 13. Bajaj L, Takai M et al. (1999). Glomosim: a scalable network simulation environment, UCLA Computer Science Department Technical Report, 990027, 213. 14. GloMoSim (1999). Global Mobile Information System Simulator,  Available from: http://pcl.cs.ucla.edu/projects/ glomosim/ 15. Das S R, Belding-Royer E M et al. (2003). Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. 16. Hu Y C, Perrig A et al. (2003). Packet leashes: a defense against wormhole attacks in wireless networks, INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications. IEEE Societies, vol 3, 1976–1986. 17. Akhtar M A K, and Sahoo G (2013). Humanistic approach in mobile Adhoc network: HAMANET, Third International Conference on Computer Science & Information Technology (CCSIT), 01–12, CS & IT-CSCP. 18. Marti S, Giuli T J et al. (2000). Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks, International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking: Proceedings of the 6 th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, vol 6, No. 11, 255–265. 19. Johnson D B (2003). The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile Ad Hoc networks, draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09. txt.

Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645