(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
transmitters. Similarly, nodes in an Ad hoc network mayalternate between periods when they are stationary withrespect to each other and periods when changetopology, rapidly conditions across a single network mayalso vary, so that some nodes are slow moving, whileothers change location rapidly. The routing protocol mustperform efficiently in environments in which nodes arestationary and bandwidth is not a limiting factor. Yet, thesame protocol must still function efficiently when thebandwidth available between nodes is low and the levelof mobility and topology change high. Because it is oftenimpossible to know a priori
what environment theprotocol will find itself in, and the environment canchange unpredictably, the routing protocol must be ableto adapt automatically. Most routing protocols include atleast some periodic behaviors, meaning that there areprotocol operations that are performed regularly at someinterval regardless of outside events. These periodicbehaviors typically limit the ability of the protocols toadapt to changing environments. If the periodic intervalis set too short, the protocol will be inefficient as itperforms its activities more often than required to reactto changes in the network topology. If the periodicinterval is set too long, the protocol will not reactsufficiently to changes in the network topology quicklyand lost packets Periodic protocols can be designed toadjust their periodic interval to try to match the rate ofchange in the network, but this approach will suffer fromthe overhead associated with the tuning mechanism andthe lag between a change in conditions and the selectionof a new periodic interval. In the worst case, whichconsists of bursts of topology change followed by stableperiods, adapting the periodic interval could result in theprotocol using a long interval during the burst periodsand a short interval in the stable periods. This worst casemay be fairly common, for example, as when a group ofpeople enter a room for a meeting, are seated for thecourse of the meeting, and then stand up to leave at theend. The alternative to a periodic routing protocol is onethat operates in an
fashion. On-demandprotocols are based on the premise that if a problem orinconsistent state can be detected before it causespermanent harm, then all work to correct a problem ormaintain consistent state can be delayed until it isproven to be needed. They operate using the same“lazy” philosophy as optimistic algorithms. The DynamicSource Routing protocol (DSR) is unique among thecurrent set of routing protocols for ad hoc networks inthe way it avoids periodic behavior, and in the way itsolves the routing information consistency problem. First,DSR is completely on-demand, which causes theoverhead of the protocol to automatically scale directlywith the need for reaction to topology change. Thisdramatically lowers the overhead of the protocol byeliminating the need for any periodic activities, such asthe route advertisement and neighbor detection packetsthat are present in other protocols. Second, DSR usessource routes to control the forwarding of packetsthrough the network. The key advantage of a sourcerouting design is that intermediate nodes do not need tomaintain consistent global routing information, since thepackets themselves already contain all the routingdecisions. Beyond this, the source route on each packetdescribes a path through the network. Therefore, with acost of no additional packets, every node overhearing asource route learns a way to reach all nodes listed onthe route  .
III DESIGN SPACE AND PROPOSEDALGORITHM
The proposed multicast routing protocol requires lowCommunication overhead since it does not requireperiodical transmission of control packets. Most of theexisting multicast routing protocols, such as DVMRP(Distance-Vector Multicast Routing Protocol)  andFGMP (Forwarding Group Multicast Protocol) , requireperiodical transmission of control packets in order tomaintain multicast group membership and multicastroutes, thereby wasting a lot of bandwidth. In theproposed protocol, route setup and route recovery areinvoked only when they are required route setup processis invoked only when a new node joins a multicast group,and route recovery process is invoked only when amulticast route breaks due to the node movements.Further, in the route recovery process, control packetsused to recover multicast routes are flooded only tolimited network area scoped by TTL (time-to-live). In ourprotocol, bandwidth level at a node is used as TTL.Limiting the scope of route search further decreases thecommunication overhead since control packets are notflooded to the entire network but only to just previousnode (predecessor node)MAODV (Multicast Ad-hoc OnDemand Distance Vector) also tries to minimize thecommunication overhead by invoking the route discoveryprocess on-demand. However, unlike the proposedprotocol, MAODV ignores multicast efficiency.The proposed multicast routing protocol also achieveshigh multicast efficiency, i.e., it requires a small numberof multicast transmissions. Multicast transmission is keptminimal by keeping the number of forwarding nodessmall. Forwarding nodes are the nodes whichbroadcasts (forwards) multicast packets to neighboringnodes. Most of the existing multicast Routing protocolsuse unicast protocols such as DSDV (DestinationSequenced Distance Vector) and AODV (Ad hoc OnDemand Distance Vector) to select the shortest pathsfrom a source to each receiver. For example, in CBT(Core Based Tree) and PIM (Protocol IndependentMulticast) based protocols when a new node needs to join a multicast group, these unicast protocols are usedto set up the shortest path to a core . In FGMPforwarding nodes are selected along the shortest pathschosen by these unicast protocols. In multicast