networks where mobile computers act as routers and packet forwarders in a .... rate of local route repairs in mobile ad hoc networks and is based on density of ...
Paper ID: 142
1
Existing MANET Routing Protocols and Metrics used Towards the Efficiency and Reliability- An Overview Shafinaz Buruhanudeen, Mohamed Othman, Mazliza Othman, Borhanuddin Mohd Ali Abstract-A wireless ad hoc network is a collection of two or more devices/ nodes or terminals with wireless communications and networking capability that communicate with each other without the aid of any centralised administrator. Each node in a MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Network) functions as both a host and a router. The network topology is in general dynamic, because the connectivity among the nodes may vary with time due to node mobility, node departures and new node arrivals. Hence, there is a need for efficient routing protocols to allow the nodes to communicate. This paper gives a state-of-the-art review on the existing routing protocols of MANET and the important routing metrics required in evaluating the performance of the protocols in terms of reliability and efficiency. Index Terms— broadcasting, computer network performance, routing protocol I.
M
INTRODUCTION
ANET is a developing area of research. Efforts have been taken for achieving efficient and reliable routing in mobile ad hoc networks. Mobile ad hoc networking is an efficient way of exchanging peer-to-peer information among devices such as fixed, portable and wireless nodes. To provide communication link, a routing protocol must be able to support unicast, multicast and broadcast. In this way, the routing protocol can be more dynamic. One common and traditional way of achieving routes in mobile ad hoc routing is to consider each host as a router. In mobile ad hoc networks, a route between a pair of nodes (source to destination) may have to go to several other mobile nodes (intermediate nodes) to arrive to its destination nodes. MANET, shortest path algorithm does not serve as the optimal algorithm for routing. Factors such as variable wireless link quality, propagation path loss, fading, multi-user interference, power expended and topological changes become important issues. The network must be able to adaptively alter the routing paths to alleviate any of these effects. The important feature in MANET is to support robust and efficient operation by incorporating routing functionality
into mobile nodes. Such networks are forecasted to have dynamic, sometimes rapidly changing, random, multihop topologies, which are likely composed of relatively bandwidthconstrained wireless links. II. OVERVIEW: AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS Ad hoc mobile routing protocols can be categorised into three, namely, table driven proactive, on-demand-driven reactive/ source initiated and the hybrid protocols. A. Table-Driven Protocols In proactive protocols[1-4], nodes continuously search for routing information within a network, so that when a route is needed, the route is already known. There are mainly four protocols under this category: 1) Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Routing( DSDV) DSDV [1-3,6,9,18,21] is based on the classical Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. Each node maintains a list of all destinations and number of hops to each destination. Each entry is marked with a sequence number. It uses full dump or incremental packets to reduce network traffic generated by route updates. The broadcast of route update is delayed by settling time. The only improvement made here is avoidance of routing loops in a mobile network of routers. With this improvement, routing information can always be readily available, regardless of whether the source node requires route or not. 2) Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) WRP [2-3,6,9,18,40-41] belongs to the class of path-finding algorithm with the exception of avoiding the count-to-infinity problem by forcing each node to perform consistency checks of predecessor information reported by all its neighbours. The novel part of this protocol is it achieves loop freedom. Each node maintains 4 tables: Distance table, Routing table, Linkcost table & Message retransmission list table. Link changes are propagated using update messages sent between neighboring nodes. Hello messages are periodically exchanged between neighbors. This protocol avoids count-to-infinity problem by forcing each node to check predecessor information
Paper ID: 142
2
3) Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing Protocol (CGSR)
4) Ad-hoc-On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
Under CGSR [2-4,6,9,18], mobile nodes are grouped into clusters and each cluster has a cluster head. A cluster head can control a group of ad hoc hosts and clustering provides framework for network separation (among clusters), channel access, routing and also bandwidth allocation. It uses DSDV as the underlying routing algorithm and each node maintains a cluster member table and a routing table. However, for CGSR, some nodes, such as cluster heads and gateway nodes have higher computation and communication load than other nodes. The network reliability may also be affected due to single points of failure of these critical nodes.
AODV [5-7,19-21] builds on the DSDV algorithm and the improvement is on minimising the number of required broadcasts by creating routes on an on-demand basis, as opposed to maintaining a complete list of routes as in DSDV algorithm. A path discovery is initiated when a route to a destination does not exist. Broadcast is used for route request. Link failure notification is sent to the upstream neighbors and this algorithm requires symmetric links. AODV uses bandwidth efficiently (by minimizing the network load for control and data traffic), is responsive to changes in topology, is scalable and ensures loop free routing.
B. On Demand-Driven Reactive Protocols On demand protocols create routes only when desired by source nodes [3-21]. When a node requires a route to destination, it initiates route discovery process within the network. This process completes once one route is found or all possible route permutations are examined. Once a route is discovered and established, it is maintained by route maintenance procedure until either destination becomes inaccessible along every path from source or route is no longer desired. 1) Signal Stability Routing (SSR) Descendent of ABR and ABR predates SSR [3,6,8-9,18,2021,41]. SSR is similar to ABR but it selects routes based on signal strength between nodes and on a node’s location stability thus offers little novelty. SSR route selection criteria has effect of choosing routes that have ‘stronger’ connectivity and it can be divided into Dynamic Routing Protocol (DRP) or Static Routing Protocol (SRP).DRP is responsible for maintenance of signal stability table and routing table. SRP processes packets by passing the packets up the stack if it is the intended receiver and forwarding the packet if it is not 2) Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) DSR [3,6,8-9,18,20-21] is based on the concept of source routing. For this protocol, mobile nodes are required to maintain route caches that contain the source routes of which the mobile is aware. Entries in the route cache are continually updated as new routes are learned. There are 2 major phases of the protocol - route discovery and route maintenance Route discovery uses route request and route reply packets. Route maintenance uses route error packets and acknowledgements. 3) Temporary-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) TORA [5-7,9,21] is highly adaptive, loop-free, distributed routing algorithm based on the concept of link reversal. It is proposed to operate in a highly dynamic mobile networking environment. It is source initiated and provides multiple routes for any desired source/ destination pair. This algorithm requires the need for synchronized clocks. There are 3 basic functions of the protocol, namely route creation, route maintenance and route erasure.
5) Relative Distance Micro diversity Routing ( RDMAR ) This type of routing estimates the distance, in radio loops, between two nodes using the relative distance estimation algorithm. It is source initiated, having features found in ABR. RDMAR [5-7,9] limits the range of route searching in order to save the cost of flooding a route request message into the entire wireless area. It is assumed in RDMAR that all ad hoc mobile hosts are migrating at the same fixed speed. This assumption can make good practical estimation of relative distance very difficult. 6) Associativity Based Routing Protocol (ABR) ABR [5-6,9,18,20-21,38,41-42] is designed for ad hoc networks where mobile computers act as routers and packet forwarders in a wireless environment with no base stations. ABR is based on the concept of associativity. The protocol is source-initiated thus, there are no need for periodic route updates. The main idea of associativity is that there no point in choosing a route based on the shortest path when the route is going to be broken or invalidated due to node’s mobility. Every node in the ad hoc network learns its ‘Associativity’ with its surrounding nodes to determine the best route. Stability is determined using ‘associativity ticks’. Association in ABR takes up a few metrics such as link delay, signal strength, power life, route relaying load, period of presence or spatial and temporal characteristics. Routes are only chosen when they have a high degree of associativity or with high associativity ticks. C. Hybrid Protocols 1) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) ZRP [5-6,10,21] is a protocol used under hybrid category for ad hoc mobile routing protocols. It incorporates the merits of on-demand and proactive routing protocols. ZRP is similar to a cluster with the exception that every node acts as a cluster head and a member of other clusters. The routing zone comprises a few mobile ad hoc nodes within one, two or more hops away where the central node is formed. Since ZRP uses both reactive and proactive schemes, it exhibits better performance. However, since hierarchical routing is used, the path to a destination may be suboptimal. Since each node has higher level topological information, memory requirement is greater.
Paper ID: 142 III. PROTOCOLS’ PERFORMANCES: CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS There are a lot of researches done to compare the performances of both table driven and on-demand routing protocols [42, 43, 44, 38, 45, 46, 47, 48]. Bandwidth and power constraints are the main issues in ad hoc networking because multihop mobile wireless networks rely on each node in the network to forward packets, i.e. each node acts as a router to another node. This dependency places bandwidth, power, and computation demands on mobile hosts which must be taken into account when choosing the best routing protocol. In recent years, protocols that build routes based “on demand” have been proposed and has been a popular research area, where researchers are finding ways and methods to make these protocols more efficient to use. The major goal of on demand routing protocols is to minimise control traffic overhead. [38, 39, 40, 41] studied the differences in performance evaluation using both on demand and table driven protocols using simulations. C.K.Toh, S.Lee and M.Gerla in [38] uses Bellman Ford [39] protocol as table driven protocol and ABR and DSR as on demand protocol for its performance evaluation via simulation by taking into account the control overhead, data throughput, and end to end propagation delay. It was shown that on demand protocols both have considerable less overhead than DBF. Both DSR and ABR also shows different results especially when the network is static, in which DSR gives out lesser overhead as compared to ABR. This is because ABR sends beacons to maintain lists of neighbours resulting in more overhead when there is no mobility. When mobility speed increases, ABR is shown to be more efficient than DSR [5-6,9,38], which could be attributed to the local route recovery feature in ABR protocol. In terms of data throughput, DBF proves to give poor performance because of excessive channel usage by route update control messages. ABR gives a higher throughput compared to DSR, resulting from the use of a different route selection method. However, with DSR, routes chosen are based on shortest delay at the instance of route establishmentwhich means, the path maybe best at that instant, but maybe a route which lacks stability or unacceptably high load [3,6,8-9]. For the last metric- end-to-end delay, DBF proves to have larger delay than on demand schemes due to high control overhead. ABR has shorter delays than DSR and difference is obvious as the mobility speed increases. ABR performance is the best because of its routing metrics [9]. Balancing route load shortens delays which results in lesser congestion and adjusting to the network mobility via beacons from neighbours also results in a faster convergence [46-48]. With DSR, neighbour displacement is only noticed after a packet is sent explicitly to that node. In other words, network reacts if acknowledgement is not received which results in increase in packet delay. Breaking from the traditional routing paradigm based on shortest path is a key feature in ABR [9]. The protocol exploits the spatial, temporal, connection and power characteristics of neighbouring nodes to construct a route that is long-lived. Best
3 still, the protocol programs the nodes in the selected route so that each packet will be forwarded accordingly. There is no need for source routing as such here. On the whole, most existing routing protocols focus on either one of the criteria’s and overlooks the others. The most basic aspects to consider in a MANET protocols are consideration of having multiple paths as an option if a primary route breaks, the enhancements and efficiency of the local route reconstruction, route longevity once the route has been established and the load fairness of the nodes as we should not over burden a particular node in the mobile ad hoc network. IV. MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS- ROUTING METRICS Routing metrics are important as they contribute to the success of the MANET protocols. Selecting the right routing metrics to be incorporated in a protocol would determine the efficiency and the reliability of the protocols. In most cases, the parameters of interests in a MANET protocol include the control packet overhead, route discovery time, data throughput and end-to-end delay. Below are the most common metrics used in the existing MANET routing protocols. A. Shortest path, relay load and node density Shortest path metric simply takes into account the minimum number of hops used from source node to destination nodes. The classic shortest path metric is neither necessarily applicable nor useful in ad hoc wireless networks. This is because, in mobile ad hoc networks, nodes are constantly moving and paths might break due to mobility of the nodes. The longevity of a route is of the top most important metric in ad hoc mobile networks as the merits of the shorter hop but short lived route will be denigrated due to frequent data flow interruptions and the frequent need for route reconstruction [9]. From another perspective, fair route relaying load is also important as no one particular mobile node should be heavily/ unfairly burdened to support many routes and to perform many packet relaying functions [43-50]. This is about fairness for all nodes in the network, and even route relaying load can alleviate the possibility of network congestion in an ad hoc mobile network. Node density is the metric used for improving the success rate of local route repairs in mobile ad hoc networks and is based on density of the nodes in the neighbourhood of a route and on the availability of nodes in this neighbourhood. A. Quintero, S.Pierre and B.Macabeo [11] proposed a routing protocol for ad hoc networks where the objective aims to ensure the selection of the most easily repairable route among those extracted from the route discovery phase. To achieve this goal, [11] takes into account the nature of the neighbourhood of the nodes composing the network, and in particular the density of nodes and their availability. The reparation of a
Paper ID: 142 route in the case of failure can be carried out through local route repair. In [11], authors use the availability parameters to establish the ability of Node A to replace Node B. B. QoS routing in ad hoc networks QoS Routing is the essential part of QoS architecture. QoS consists of a collection of characteristics or constrains between a source and a destination that a connection must guarantee during the communication to meet the requirements of an application [12, 22-27]. Chen and Nahstedt [29] presented Ticket-based Probing algorithm for QoS routing in ad hoc networks. The idea is to use tickets to limit the number of candidate paths. When a source node wants to find QoS paths to a destination, it sends a message that contains a certain number of tickets. Adaptive QoS Routing Scheme [31] is based on the prediction of the local performance in ad hoc networks. Implemented using a link performance prediction strategy, the lower layer parameters are translated into link state information and used to estimate the integrated QoS performance in each local area.. C. Resource Preservations Resource preservations is necessary for providing guaranteed end-to-end performance for multimedia applications. Resource reservation is neither supported in the Internet nor in mobile ad hoc networks [13-15]. Data packets sent by these applications could follow different paths and reach the destination out of order, for example distortion in audio and video files. The current routing protocols used in IP networks are transparent to any particular QoS that different flows could require resulting in routing decisions made without referring to the QoS requirements of the flow. This situation would result in increased call blocking probability. CPN[16-17] covers reliability, security, scalability and QoS key issues. CPN is packet switching networks in which intelligent capabilities for routing and flow control are concentrated in the packets, rather than in the nodes and protocols. Networks which contain Cognitive Packets (CP) are called CPN. CPs learn to avoid congestion and to avoid getting lost or being destroyed. CP relies minimally on routers, so that network nodes only serve as buffers, mailboxes and processors. Sinha et al. proposed a core-extraction distributed ad-hoc routing algorithm (CEDAR) [28], which can react efficiently to the dynamics of ad hoc networks. CEDAR includes 3 main components: Core extraction, Link state propagation and Route computation. In reference [30], authors assume a simple TDMA model that uses a single common channel shared by all hosts and consider the bandwidth reservation problem in such environment..
4 D. Associativity-Based Stable Cluster Formation in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks A framework for dynamically organising mobile nodes (MN) and electing a dominating set in highly spontaneous large-scale mobile ad hoc networks is presented in [32]. The aim is to support location-based routing protocol. The proposed strategy is the Associativity-Based Clustering where a node is selected as the cluster head (CH) based on nodes having associativity states that imply periods of spatial, temporal and stability. This algorithm is the enhancement from the original ABR routing protocol developed by C.K.Toh. Many clustering techniques with CH selection are proposed, but almost none considers node mobility as criterion in the clustering process effectively. This results in failure to guarantee a stable cluster formation. Choosing a CH optimally is an NP-hard problem [33]. Existing solutions to this problem are based on the heuristic (mostly greedy) approaches and none attempts to retain topology of the network. Clustering is one of the favourite approaches in mobile ad hoc networks routing protocols. E. Multicast Tree Selection and Vector Based Algorithm A study on a novel multicast tree selection algorithm that determines near optimal multicast routes for on demand routing protocols was proposed in [51]. This algorithm is based on the Multi-Objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) approach. These multicast routes essentially form a multicast tree. Three parameters- namely end-to-end delay, bandwidth guarantee and residual bandwidth utilization are used for the protocol. In Vector Routing Protocol (VRP) [52], each node has three vectors; neighbourhood, routing and access vectors. The neighbourhood vector is used to store neighbourhood information. From simulation, VRP reveals that it achieves a better delivery ratio than both AODV and DSDV under stable and moderate mobility environments. VRP also achieves much better performance than both AODV and DSDV for routing overhead in different pause times. F. Multi-path routing mechanisms In wired networks, research on multi-path routing protocols has been explored in detail to provide improved throughput and route resilience as compared to single path routing However, in ad hoc networks, multi-path routing mechanism has not been thoroughly explored [46]. In [47], authors proposed a multi-path routing protocol with load balance to increase the network throughput. Other contribution of this paper include a theoretical analysis to compare reactive singlepath and multi-path routing with load balance mechanisms in ad hoc networks, in terms of overheads, traffic distribution and connection throughput. The results show that multi-path routing using load balance metric provides better performance than reactive single path routing. Multi-path routing is one way of improving the reliability of the transmitted information. While multi-path routing may be used for various other reasons such as load balancing, congestion avoidance, reducing frequency of route inquiries and to achieve an overall
Paper ID: 142
5
routing overhead [53, 54, 55, 56, 57], [46] proposed a strategy to design a multi-path routing framework for providing enhanced robustness to node failures. By multiple paths, [46] imply multiple node-disjoint routes from a source node to a destination node. Edge-disjoint paths may be considered, however, if a node that is a relay on multiple of these paths were to fail, all the paths passing through the node would fail. [46] goal towards providing a reliable routing framework is to design a routing protocol that would allow users to find multiple node-disjoint paths from a given source to a desired destination by making modifications to the AODV routing protocol. Multipath routing has been well studied in wired networks [53, 58, and 59]. Multipath routing in MANETs has also received some attention recently [54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61]. Path disjointness has been studied in [55, 57, 60]. Nasipuri et all. [55] developed analytical models to study the effect of the number of multiple paths and lengths of those paths on routing performance. In [60], Lee and Gerla proposed the split multipath routing protocol (SMR). SMR can find an alternate route that is maximally disjoint from the shortest delay route from source to destination. V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK In conclusion, a more reliable and efficient routing protocol is necessary in a mobile ad hoc network which considers mobility and longevity of a route as its main concern. Future work includes an improvised version of the ABR protocolsince ABR is the only protocol which considers aspects of spatial, temporal and stability. This proposed protocol would include the strengths of ABR and improvise on the weaknesses of ABR such as the absence of extensibility and multiple routes, improvisation on the local route reconstruction heuristics and also the load fairness amongst the mobile nodes. The suggested protocol is expected to give a higher route establishment rate with lesser route breakage. 4. REFERENCES: [1] C.P.P. Bhagwat, “ Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’ 94, pp.234-244, September 1994. [2] S. Murthy and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A Routing Protocol for Packet Radio Networks’,” in Proceedings of ACM First International Conference on Mobile Computing & Networking (MOBICOM’95), November 1995. [3] Jyoti Raju and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “ A comparison of On-Demand and Table-Driven Routing for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks’,” in Proceedings of IEEE ICC, June 2000. [4] C.C. Chiang, H.K.Wu, W.Liu and M.Gerla, “Routing in Clustered Multihop Mobile Wireless Networks with Fading Channel,” in Proceedings of IEEE Singapore International Conference on Networks, 1997. [5] C.Perkins and E.Royer, “Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing,” in Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applicationsm February 1999. [6] David B. Johnson and David A.Maltz, Mobile Computing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. [7] V.Park and M.Scott Corson, “A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM ’97, March 1996.
[8] R.Dube, et al, “Signal Stability based Adaptive Routing (SSA) for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks,” in IEEE Personal Communication Magazine, February 1997. [9] C.K.Toh, “Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems,” Prentice Hall Publications, 2002. [10] Z.Haas and M.Pearlman, “The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks,” in IETF MANET Draft, June 1999. [11] Alejandro Quintero, Samuel Pierre, Benjamin Macabeo, “ A routing protocol based on node density for ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks,” vol 2, pp 335-349, 2004. [12] D. Perkins, H. Hughes, A survey of quality-of-service support for mobile ad hoc networks, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2 (2002) 503–513. [13] S. Nelakuditi, S. Varadarajan, Z. Zhi-Li, On localized control in QoS routing, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 47 (6) (2002) 1026– 1032. [14] A. Orda, A. Sprintson, Precomputation schemes for QoS routing, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11 (4) (2003) 578–591. [15] D. Ghosh, V. Sarangan, R. Acharya, Quality-of-service routing in IP networks, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 3 (2) (2001) 200–208. [16] E. Gelenbe, R. Lent, A. Montuori, X. Zhiguang, Cognitive packet networks: QoS and performance, in: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems, MASCOTS, 2002, pp. 3–9. [17] E. Gelenbe, M. Gellman, P. Su, Self-awareness and adaptivity for quality of service, in: Eight IEEE International Symposium on Computers and Communications ISCC’03, 2003, pp. 3–9. [18] D. Johnson, D. Maltz, Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks, in: Computer Communications Review, Proceedings of SIGCOMM ’96, 1996, pp. 153–181 [19] C. Perkins, P. Bhagwat, Highly dynamic destinationsequenced distancevector routing for mobile computer, in: ACM Conference on Communications Architectures, 1994, pp. 234–244. [20] C. Perkins, E. Royer, S. Das, Ad hoc on demand distance Vector routing, IETF, Internet Draft, March 2000. [21] C. Perkins, E. Royer, Ad hoc on demand distance vector algorithm, in: IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications WMCSA ’99, 1999, pp. 90–100. [22] G. Aggelou, R. Tafazolli, QoS support in 4th generation mobile multimedia ad hoc networks, in: Second International Conference on 3G Mobile Communication Technologies, 2001, pp. 412–416 [23] E. Elmallah, H. Hassanein, H. AboElFotoh, Supporting QoS routing in mobile ad hoc networks using probabilistic locality and load balancing, in: IEEE Conference on Global Telecommunications GLOBECOM’01, vol. 5, 2001, pp. 2901–2906 [24] S. Hongxia, H. Hughes, Adaptive QoS routing based on prediction of local performance in ad hoc networks, in:IEEE Conference on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 1191–1195. [25] S.B. Lee, G.S. Ahn, X. Zhang, A.T. Campbell, INSIGNIA: An IP-based quality of service framework for mobile ad hoc network, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Special issue on Wireless and Mobile Computing and Communications (2000) 374–406. [26] G. Raju, G. Hernandez, Q. Zou, Quality of service routing in ad hoc networks, in: IEEE Conference on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 1, 2000, pp. 263– 265. [27] H. Xiaoyan, K. Xu, M. Gerla, Scalable routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks, IEEE Network 16 (4) (2002) 11–21. [28] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, V. Bharghavan, CEDAR: a coreextraction distributed ad hoc routing algorithm, in: IEEE Infocom’99, vol. 1, New York, 1999, pp. 202–209. [29] S. Chen, K. Nahrstedt, Distributed quality-of-service routing in ad hoc networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 17 (8) (1999) 1488–1505. [30] L. Wen-Hwa, T. Yu-Chee, S. Kuei-Ping, A TDMA-based bandwidth reservation protocol for QoS routing in a wireless mobile ad hoc network, in: IEEE International Conference on Communications, vol. 5, 2002, pp. 3186–3190 [31] S. Hongxia, H. Hughes, Adaptive QoS routing based on prediction of local performance in ad hoc networks, in:IEEE Conference on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 1191–1195.
Paper ID: 142 [32] S.Sivakumar, G.Pavlou.: Associativity-Based Stable Cluster Formation in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Programmable Network (PAN- GR/ S02129/ 01) [33] A.D.Amis, R.Prakash, T.H.P.Vuong, and D.T.Huynh, “Max-Min Dcluster Formation in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM'2000, vol. 1, Mar. 2000, pp. 32 – 41 [34] T-C.Hou, and T-J.Tsai, “An Access-Based Clustering Protocol for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 19, July 2001, pp 1201 –1210. [35] J.Habetha, A.Hettich, J.Peetz, and Y.Du, “Central Controller Handover Procedure for ETSI_BRAN HiperLAN2 Ad Hoc Networks and Clustering with Quality of Service Guarantees”, Mobile and Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHOC), 2000, pp. 131 – 132. [36] B.McDonald, and F.Znati, “A Mobility-Based Framework for Adaptive Clustering in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, August 1999, pp 1466 –1487. [37] S.Sivakumar,G.Pavlou, “Stable Clustering Through Mobility Prediction for Large-Scale Multihop Intelligent Ad Hoc Networks”,IEEE WCNC, Mar. 2004 [38] Sung-Ju Lee, Mario Gerla and Chai Keong Toh: A Simulation Study of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Network, vol. 13, no. 4, Jul. 1999, pp. 48-54. [39] R.E. Bellman, Dynamic Programming, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957. [40] Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group Charter. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html. [41] C.K.Toh, “A Novel Distributed Routing Protocol to Support Ad Hoc Mobile Computing,” In Proceedings of IEEE IPCC’96, Scottdale, AZ, Mar. 1996, pp.480-486. [42] Elizabeth M.Belding- Royer, Charles E.Perkins, “Evolution and Future Directions of the Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance-Vector Routing Protocol,” Ad Hoc Networks 1 (2003) 125-150. [43] Antonios Argyriou, Vijay Madisetti, “Using a new protocol to enhance path reliability and realise load balancing in mobile ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks 4 (2006) 60-74. [44] Kwan-Wu Chin, John Judge, Aidan Williams and Roger Kermode, “Implementation Experience with MANET Routing Protocols,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, Volume 32, Number 5: November 2002. [45] Fan Bai, Narayanan Sadagopan, Ahmed Helmy, “The Important Framework for analyzing the impact of mobility on performance of routing protocols for ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks 1 (2003), 383403. [46] Zhenqiang Ye, Srikanth V. Krishnamurthy, Satish K.Tripathi, “A routing framework for providing robustness to node failures in mobile ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks 2 (2004) 87-107. [47] Peter P.Pham, Sylvie Perreau, “Increasing the network performance using multi path routing mechanism with load balance,” Ad Hoc Networks 2 (2004) 433-459. [48] Marco Conti, Enrico Gregori, Gaia Maselli, “Towards Reliable Forwarding for ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Personal Wireless Communications (PWC 2003), Venice, Italy, 2003. pp. 790-804. [49] M.Conti, E.Gregori, G.Maselli, “Coorperation Issues in Ad Hoc Networks,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW’04), Japan, 2004. pp.803-808. [50] M. Conti, E.Gregori, G.Maselli, “Self-Interest in mobile as hoc networks: issues and solutions,” International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing (IJWMC), special issue on Wireless Ad Hoc Networking. [51] Abishek Roy and Sajal K.Das, “Optimising QoS-Based Multicast Routing in Wireless Networks: A Multi-Objective Generic Algorithm Approach”. [52] R.S.Al Qassas and M.Ould-Khaoua, “Proactive Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 20th Annual UK Performance Engineering Workshop, Bradford, UK. July 2004. [53] N.F. Maxemchuk, “Diversity Routing in store and forward networks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1975. [54] M.R.Pearlman, Z.J.Haas, P.Sholander, S.S.Tabrizi, “On the impact of alternate path routing for load balancing in mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the ACM MobiHoc, 2000. pp.3-10.
6 [55] A.Nasipuri, R.Castaneda, S.R.Das, “Performance of Multipath routing for on-demand protocols in mobile ad hoc networks”, Mobile Networks and Applications 6(4) (2001) 339-349. [56] M.K.Marina, S.R.Das, “On demand multi-path distance vector routing in ad hoc networks”, in Proceedings of the International Conference of for Network Protocols (ICNP), November 2001, pp.13-23. [57] K.Wu, J.Harms, “Performance study of a multipath routing method for wireless mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Modelling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS), 2001, pp.99107. [58] S.Vutukury, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “MDVA: a distance vector multipath routing protocol”, in Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 2001. pp.557-564. [59] W.Zaumen, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “ Shortest multipath routing using generalized diffusing computations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 1998. pp.1408-1417. [60] S.J.Lee, M.Gerla, “Split multipath routing with maximally disjoint paths in ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE ICC, 2001, pp. 32013205. [61] J.Raju, J.J.Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A new approach to on demand loop free multipath routing,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, 1999, pp.522-527.
