(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August2010
Multipath Routing for Self-Organizing HierarchicalMobile Ad-hoc Networks –A Review
Udayachandran Ramasamy
Professor, Department of Computer Science andEngineeringSri Ramakrishna Institute of TechnologyCoimbatore, Tamilnadu, Indiaruday2004@yahoo.co.in
Sankaranarayanan K.
PrincipalAkshaya College of Engineering and TechnologyCoimbatore, Tamilnadu, Indiakkd_sankar@yahoo.com
Abstract
—Security has become a primary concern for providingprotected communication between mobile nodes in a hostileenvironment. The characteristics of Ad-hoc networks (dynamictopology, infrastructure less, variable capacity links, etc) areorigin of many issues. Limited bandwidth, energy constraints,high cost security are the encountered problems. This type of networks pose particular challenges in terms of Quality of Service (QoS) and performance. In this paper, the issues of multipath routing in MANETs are reviewed and performances of such MANETs are compared to discuss the application of multipath routing and its effects on different layers to supportQoS.
Keywords-MANET, Mobile Ad-hoc networks and QoS.
I.
INTRODUCTION
In Adhoc networks, more flavours of routing options areprovided to cover the flexible nature of network elements.This paper is organized as follows: In section II differentcategories of MANET’s Routing protocols are classified. InSection III multipath routing will be discussed in depth andthose Adhoc protocols offering multipath routing will beaddressed in detail. Conclusion and References will bementioned in Section IV and V.II.MOBILEAD-HOCNETWORKSANDPROTOCOLSThe major challenges that a routing protocol designed foradhoc wireless networks faces are mobility of nodes, resourceconstraints, error-prone channel state, and hidden and exposedterminal problems[1][2]. In most MANETs, multipathprotocols are needed to facilitate efficient connectivity betweensenders that are not necessarily within each other’s wirelessrange. MANET routing protocols are divided into the followingcategories.
Flat Routing Protocols
Proactive Routing (Table-Driven)
Reactive Routing (On-Demand)
Hybrid Routing (blend of Reactive andProactive)
Hierarchical (Zonal/Cluster-Based) Routing Protocols.
Geographic Position Assisted Routing Protocols
Power-Aware Routing Protocol
Security-Aware Routing Protocol
Multicasting Routing Protocols
Geographical Multicast (Geocasting)
Tree-based
Mesh-based
Zone Routing
Associativity-Based
Differential-Destination
Weight-Based
Preferred Link-basedThe goalsof these protocols could be summarised as [3]:
Minimal Control Overhead
Minimal Processing Overhead
Multihop Routing Capability
Dynamic Topology Maintenance
Loop PreventionIII.M
ULTIPATH
R
OUTING
P
ROTOCOLS
There exists a set of QoS routing and best-effort routingprotocols that use multiple paths between a source-destinationpair. There are several advantages in using multipath routing.Some of the advantages [1] includethe reduction in routecomputing time, the high resilience to path breaks, high callacceptance ratio, and better security. For TCP, theseadvantages may add to throughput degradation. These can leadto significant amount of out-of-order packets, which inturngenerates a set of duplicate acknowledgements (DUPACKS)which cause additional power consumption and invocation of congestion control.
118http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August2010
A.Multipath routing in Reactive Protocols
MSR ‘Multipath Source Routing Protocol’ [4] that supportsmultipath routing is a direct descendant of DSR. In MSR, thethroughput, end-to-end delay, and drop rate have beenimproved greatly. Another routing protocol AOMDV ‘On-Demand Multipath Distance Vector Protocol’ [5], extends thesingle path AODV protocol to compute multiple paths. Underwide range of mobility traffic scenarios, AOMDV offers asignificant reduction in delay and up to 20% reduction inrouting load and the frequency of route discoveries.
B.Multipath Routing in Proactive Protocols
DSDV ‘Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing’[6], maintain routing updates among all nodes all the time. Infact, many proactive protocols tend to offer shortest path toeach destinations. This is done by continuously monitoring thenetwork topology. Unlike reactive routing algorithms,proactive routing protocols are capable of repairing brokenroutes in a short time. This is done by collecting network topology continuously. The drawback of DSDV however is therequirement of parameters such as the periodic update interval,maximum value of the ‘settling time’ for a destination and thename of update intervals, which may become known before aroute is considered stale. TERA ‘Tree Exchange RoutingAlgorithm’ is an extension to standard distance vectorroutingalgorithms, which is based on multipath.
C.Multipath Routing in Hybrid Protocols
‘ZRP’ Zone Routing Protocol is a hybrid routing protocolincorporate the merits of both on-demand and proactive routingprotocols. ZRP is similar to a cluster with the exception thateach node acts as a cluster head and a member of other clusters.The routing zone forms few mobile adhoc nodes within one,two or more hops away where the central node is located.Ant Hoc Net [7] ‘Ant Agents for Hybrid Multipath Routingin Mobile Adhoc Networks’ the route setup of this scheme isperformed by reactive algorithm and the route probing andexploration are done by proactive scheme. This scheme canoutperform AODV in terms of delivery ratio and averagedelay, especially in more mobile and large networks.Scalability is also promising in this scheme. However,relatively large amount of overhead could be mentioned as adrawback and also less adaptability to the network situation.
D.Multipath Routing in Hierarchical Protocols
The use of routing hierarchy has several advantages, themost important ones being reduction in the size of routingtables and better scalability. The Hierarchical State Routing(HSR) protocol [8] is a distributed multilevel hierarchicalrouting protocol that employs clustering at different levels withefficient membership management at every level of clustering.The use of clustering enhances resource allocation andmanagement.Though the reduction in the amount of routing informationstored at nodes is appreciable, the overhead involved inexchanging packets containing information about the multiplelevelsof hierarchy and the leader election process makes theprotocol unaffordable in the adhoc wireless networks context.The Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) [8] is ageneralization of GSR [9] protocol. FSR uses the fisheyetechnique to reduce information required to represent graphicaldata, to reduce routing overhead. The basic principle behindthis technique is the property of a fish’s eye that can capturepixel information with greater accuracy near its eye’s focalpoint. This accuracy decreases with an increase in the distancefrom the centre of the focal point. This property is translated torouting in adhoc wireless networks by a node, keeping accurateinformation about nodes in its local topology, and not-so-accurate information about far-away nodes, the accuracy of thenetwork information decreasing with increasing distance.Hierarchical Max-Flow Routing ‘HMFR’ forwards packets insuch a way thatthe impact of failures is minimized. However,the computational complexity of Max-flow routing is quitehigh, making it not acceptable for moderate size networks.
E.Multipath Routing in Geographic Position Assisted RoutingProtocols
Multipath location -Aided Routing ‘MLAR’ is a multipathversion of LAR [10]; that uses position information (2D or 3D)to make routing decisions at each node. The proposedalgorithm in [11] uses a 3D approach which is a newhierarchical, Zone based 3D routing algorithm based on GRID[12]. The approach proposes a replacement of LAR withMultipath LAR (MLAR) in GRID. It is expected to havesignificant performance differences in 3D and as to whethersingle or multipath algorithms should be used in a particularscenario. The simulation results demonstrate the performancebenefits of MLAR over LAR and AODV in most mobilitysituations. AOMDV delivers more packets compared toMLAR,but at a cost of more frequent flooding to controlpackets and thus bandwidth usage than MLAR.
F.Multipath Routing in Power-Aware Protocols
The limitation on the availability of power for operation is asignificant bottleneck, given the requirements of portability,weight, and size of commercial hand-held devices. Hence theuse of routing metrics that consider the capabilities of thepower sources of the network nodes contributes to the efficientutilization of energy and increase the lifetime of the network.Singh et al [13] proposed a set of routing metrics that supportsconservation of battery power. The routing protocols that selectpaths so as to conserve power must be aware of the states of thebatteries at the given node as well as at the other intermediatenodes in the path.An interesting insight of power-aware adhoc protocols hasbeen presented in [14] inwhich optimization at the network layer is of major concern. The research addresses powercontrol, routing, and sleep mode (stand-by) control.Multipath Power Sensitive Routing Protocol ‘MPSR’ [15]is another adhoc routing protocol with interest in power awarecommunication. MPSR shows how an efficient heuristic-basedmultipath technique can improve the mean-time-to-node failureand maintain the variance in power of all the nodes as low aspossible. The simulation results show performance optimizedin MPSRprotocol compared to the Dynamic Source Routing‘DSR’.
119http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August2010
G.Multipath Routing in Multicasting Protocols
Based on the type of operation, multicast protocols foradhoc networks are broadly classified into two types: Source-initiated protocols and receiver-initiated protocols. There existscertain other multicast protocols such as MCEDAR [16] andAM Route [17] which may not strictly fall under the above twotypes. Multicast Routing Protocols are of great interest as thedemand for such communication is on the rise. MultipathMulticast Routing Algorithm ‘MRPM’ quick distributeddynamic algorithm can manage network resources efficiently.Multi-Flow Real-Time Transport protocol ‘MRTP’ [18] isanother example of a mesh-based adhoc-based protocol thatoffers multipath routing for multicast application. MRTP ismotivated by the observations of effective path diversity incombating transmission errors in adhoc networks and effectivedata partitioning techniques in improving the queueingperformance of real-time traffic. The simulation results showperformance improvement in lost packets per frame and bettermanagement.Multi-Objective Multipath Routing Algorithm for MulticastFlows ‘MMRAM’ [19] proposes a multi-objective trafficengineering scheme using different distribution trees tomulticast several flows. MMRAM is an attractive candidate forMulti Protocol Label Switching ‘MPLS’. This multi-treerouting protocol uses a multicast transmission with loadbalancing.
H.Multipath routing in Security Protocols
The existence of multiple paths between nodes in an Adhocnetwork is exploited to increase the robustness of the dataconfidentiality [20]. The proposed algorithm is tested againsttime for intrusion defection and robustness.
TABLE I. ADHOCROUTINGPROTOCOLSDISCUSSEDROTOCOLSDSRReactiveMSRReactiveAODMDVReactiveAODVReactiveDSDVProactiveTERAProactiveHMFRHierarZRPHybridANT.NETHybridHSRHierarZHLSHierarCGSRHierarMLARGeogMPSRPowerMRPMMulticastMRTPMulticastMMRAMMulticastMTSSecurity
Another multipath routing algorithm for data securityenhancement, Multipath TCP security ‘MTS’, is discussed in[21]. In MTS, the source node chooses the available routesadaptivity rather than testing the ‘Stored routes’ one by oneexhaustively. Compared to AODV and DSR, MTS has a betternumber of participating nodes and highest interception ratio.The average end-to-end delay between MTS, AODV and DSRshows that beyond speeds of 1.7m/s, MTS delay drops rapidlyand performs better in respect to the other two routingprotocols. The protocols discussed are tabulated in Table 1.
CONCLUSIONS
Multipath routing was the main focus of this paper and weinvestigated its effects of multipath routing in variety of protocols. In all these, performance enhancements wereobserved and promising results pointed to the betterdeployment of the schemes when multipath routing is used.R
EFERENCES[1]Siva Ram Murthy. C and Manoj B.S, “Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,Architectures and Protocols”, Perason Edition Inc, 2005.[2]Charles E. Perlins, “Ad Hoc Networking”, Addision-Wesley 2
nd
Printing 2004.[3]Elizabath. M and Belding. R, “ Routing Approaches in Mobile Ad-HocNetworks”, 2004.[4]Lei Wang, Lian Fang Zhang, Yantai Shu and Miao Dong. “ MultipathSource Routing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, CCECE 2000, 7-10March 2000.[5]Mahesh. K and Marina S.R, “On-demand Multipath Distance VectorRouting in Adhoc Networks”, 9
th
International Conference on 11-14 Nov2001.[6]Charles Perkins and Pravin Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Ventor Routing for Mobile Computers”, inProceedings of the Symposium on Communication Architectures andProtocols, ACM SIGCOMM, 1994.[7]Frederick Ducatelle, Gianni Di Caro and Luce Maria Gambardella, “AntAgents for Hbride Multipath Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”,Second Annuml conference on Wireless On-demand Network systemsand services, 19-21 Jan 2005, WONS 2005.[8]A.Iwata, Chiang C.C, Pei.G, Gerla.M and Chen T.W, “Scalable RoutingStrategies for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”, IEEE Journal on SelectedAreas in Communications, Vol 17, No.8, pp 1369-1379, August 1999.[9]Chen.T.W and Gerla.M “ Global State Routing: A New Routing Schemefor AdHoc Wireless Networks”, Proceedings of IEEE, ICC 1998, pp171-175, June 1998.[10]Y.Ko and N.H,Vaidya, “Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in MobileAdHoc Networks”, Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM 1998, pp 66-75,October 1998.[11]Soumendra Nanda, Robert S.Gray, “Spatial Multipath Location AidedAdHoc Routing”, Computer Communications and Networks, 2004.ICCCN 2004 Proceedings, 13
th
International Conference.[12]Liao W.H, Tseng Y.C and Sheu J.P, “GRID: A Fully Location-AwareRouting Protocol for Mobile AdHoc Networks”, TelecommunicationSystems, Vol 18, No.1, pp 37-60, 2001.[13]Singh.S, Woo.M and Ragavendra. C.S, “Power-Aware Routing inMobile AdHoc Networks”, Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM 1998, PP181-190, October 1998.[14]Sushant Jain, “Energy Aware communication in AdHoc Networks”,Technical Report, UW-CSE 03-06-03.[15]Anand Prabhu Subramanian, Anto A.J, Janani Vasudevan andNarayanasamy .P, “Multipath Power Sensitive Routing Protocol forMobile AdHoc Networks”, WONS 2004, Madonna di Campiglio, Italy,Jan 2004.[16]Sinha.P, Sivakumar.R and Bharghavan.V, “MCEDAR: Multicast CoreExtruction Distributed AdHoc Routing”, Proceeding of IEEE WCNC1999, pp 1313-1317, Sep 1999.[17]Bommaiah.E, Lin.M McAuley.A and Talpade.R, “AMRoute: AdHocMulticast Routing Protocol”, Internet Draft, draft-talpade-manet-amroute-oo.txt, August 1998.
120http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Multipath Routing for Self-Organizing Hierarchical Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks – A Review
Security has become a primary concern for providing protected communication between mobile nodes in a hostile environment. The characteristics of Ad-hoc networks (dynamic topology, infrastructure less, variable capacity links, etc) are origin of many issues. Limited…
(More)
764
Reads
4
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
