ALGORITHM OptPathTrans OPTIMIZED FOR USE WITH LOCATION

UPDATE VECTORS AND ITS COMPARISON TO MINIMUM HOP

ROUTING IN MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS

Alexander Roy Geoghegan, Natarajan Meghanathan

Jackson State University, Jackson MS, USA
roygeoghegan@gmail.com, natarajan.meghanathan@jsums.edu

ABSTRACT
In an earlier work, we proposed the OptPathTrans algorithm to minimize the number of
path transitions during a source-destination (s-d) session in a mobile ad hoc network. The
sequence of longest-living stable paths determined over the duration of the s-d session is
called the Stable Mobile Path (SMP). But, the average hop count per static path for SMP
is significantly larger than the minimum required hop count for a path between the source
and destination. Also, algorithm OptPathTrans requires complete knowledge about future
topology changes over the duration of the s-d session. In this paper, we illustrate the
effectiveness of predicting the future topology changes using the location and mobility
information of the nodes in the form of Location Update Vectors (LUVs) learnt at the
time of determining a static stable path of the SMP. The modified algorithm is referred to
as OptPathTrans-LUV and the sequence of predicted static stable paths (that also actually
exists) is referred to as SMP-LUV. Simulation results illustrate that the average lifetime
per static path of SMP-LUV can be as large as 88% of the lifetime per static path
obtained for SMP. On the other hand, the average hop count per static path of SMP-LUV
can be as low as 80% of the hop count per static path for SMP.

Keywords: Stability, Hop Count, Path Lifetime, Simulations, Location Prediction

1 INTRODUCTION topology changes, algorithm OptPathTrans operates

A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a
dynamic distributed system of arbitrarily moving
resource-constrained wireless nodes. Due to the
limited battery charge per node, each node operates
with a reduced transmission range, thus necessitating
the need for multi-hop routes. In the presence of
node mobility, routes are susceptible to break over
time and have to be frequently discovered. Route
discoveries are normally accomplished through a
flooding-based Route-Request-Reply cycle during
which the source node broadcasts Route Request
(RREQ) messages targeted towards the destination.
The destination learns of the best route to the source
through the RREQ messages collected and notifies
the source about the selected route through a Route
Reply (RREP) packet [1]. Frequent flooding of the
network can significantly exhaust the battery
resources of the nodes as well as the network
bandwidth [2]. It is highly important that the routes
discovered by a routing protocol are stable and be
able to sustain node mobility as long as possible.
In [3], Meghanathan and Farago proposed a
polynomial-time algorithm called OptPathTrans to
determine the sequence of longest-living stable paths
over the duration of a source-destination (s-d)
session. Given the complete knowledge of future
using the following greedy principle: Whenever a
path between the source node s and destination node
d is required at time t, choose the s-d path that exists
for the longest time since t. The above strategy is
applied over the duration of the s-d session and the
sequence of stable paths obtained is called the Stable
Mobile Path (SMP). SMP yields the longest-living
stable paths, but the average hop count per static path
of the SMP is also significantly higher than the
minimum hop count.
Algorithm OptPathTrans requires complete
knowledge about the future topology changes for the
entire duration of the s-d session. This may not be
easy to obtain in real-implementation scenarios. In
this paper, we illustrate the effectiveness of
predicting the future topology changes using the
location and mobility information of the nodes learnt
at the time of determining a stable static path of the
SMP. The location and mobility information of the
nodes at the time of determining a static stable path
are stored in the form of a Location Update Vector
(LUV) and these LUVs are used to predict the future
changes in network topology. The modified
algorithm is referred to as OptPathTrans-LUV and
the sequence of predicted static stable paths (that
also actually exists) by this algorithm is referred to as
SMP-LUV. Such a strategy can be implemented in
practice by letting each node to include its LUV in
the RREQ message being broadcast during the route
discovery process.
Our recently proposed Location Prediction
Based Routing (LPBR) protocol [4] also utilizes the
LUVs to gather the location and mobility
information of the nodes. LPBR works as follows:
During a flooding-based route discovery, all the
nodes in the network, except the destination, include
their latest location and mobility information in the
form a LUV record appended to the RREQ message.
The destination gathers all the RREQ messages and
sends back a Route-Reply (RREP) message on the
minimum hop path to the source. If the discovered
path fails, the source does not opt for another route
discovery; instead, waits for the destination to
predict a new path using the LUV information. The
destination locally constructs the global topology
based on the predicted locations for the nodes and
sends a LPBR-RREP message to the source on the
minimum hop predicted path. If the predicted path
exists in reality, the LPBR-RREP message reaches
the source and an expensive flooding-based route
discovery is avoided. This procedure is repeated
every time the path used for communication fails.
However, if the predicted path does not exist in
reality, an intermediate node (that could not further
forward the LPBR-RREP message to the source)
sends back a LPBR-RREP-ERROR message to the
destination. The destination clears the database of
LUVs and waits for the source to launch a new
flooding-based route discovery. The LPBR protocol
has been observed to significantly reduce the number
of times the flooding-based route discoveries are
initiated. As LPBR discovers minimum hop paths
both in the actual as well as the predicted graphs, the
hop count of LPBR is only at most 8% more than
that obtained for the minimum-hop based Dynamic
Source Routing (DSR) protocol [5].
LPBR and OptPathTrans-LUV are different in
the following aspects: LPBR is a distributed routing
protocol to discover the sequence of minimum hop
paths such that the number of flooding-based
broadcast route discoveries is as low as possible.
OptPathTrans-LUV is a centralized algorithm to
discover stable paths on a sequence of network
graphs predicted using the LUVs. The hop count of
SMP-LUV (Stable Mobile Path determined by
OptPathTrans-LUV) would be far larger than that of
the minimum hop count, but smaller than that of the
SMP, as also observed in the simulations in this
paper. In between two successive route discoveries,
LPBR uses several minimum hop paths, whereas,
OptPathTrans-LUV uses only one stable path.
However, as both LPBR and OptPathTrans-LUV are
based on the LUVs of the nodes gathered at the time
of route discovery, the lifetime of the stable paths
determined using OptPathTrans-LUV can be
considered as an upper bound on the time between
successive flooding-based broadcast route
discoveries initiated by LPBR.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section 2 describes the original algorithm
OptPathTrans. Section 3 describes the proposed
OptPathTrans-LUV. Section 4 illustrates the path
lifetime and hop count obtained for algorithms
OptPathTrans and OptPathTrans-LUV and compares
them with respect to the lifetime and hop count of
minimum hop paths over the same period of
simulation time. Section 4 also illustrates the tradeoff
between path lifetime and hop count for stability-
based and minimum-hop based routing. Section 5
concludes the paper.
2 ALGORITHM TO DETERMINE THE
OPTIMAL NUMBER OF PATH
TRANSITIONS (OptPathTrans)
2.1 Terminology
A mobile graph [6] is defined as the sequence
GM = G1G2 GT of static graphs that represents the
network topology changes over some time scale T. In
this research work, we sample the network topology
periodically for every 0.25 seconds (i.e., 4 network
snapshots per second), which could in reality be the
instants of data packet origination at the source.
A mobile path [6], defined for a source-
destination (s-d) pair, in a mobile graph GM = G1G2
GT is the sequence of paths PM = P1P2 PT,
where Pi is a static path between the same s-d pair in
Gi = (Vi, Ei), Vi is the set of vertices and Ei is the set
of edges connecting these vertices at time instant ti.
That is, each static path Pi can be represented as the
sequence of vertices v0v1 vl, such that v0 = s and vl
= d and (vj-1,vj) Ei for j = 1,2, , l. The timescale
of tT normally corresponds to the duration of a
session between s and d.
The Stable Mobile Path (SMP) for a given
mobile graph and s-d pair is the sequence of static s-
d paths such that the number of route transitions is as
minimum as possible. A Minimum Hop Mobile Path
(MHMP) for a given mobile graph and s-d pair is the
sequence of minimum hop static s-d paths.
2.2 Algorithm OptPathTrans
Algorithm OptPathTrans operates on the
following greedy strategy: Whenever a path is
required, select a path that will exist for the longest
time. Let GM = G1G2 GT be the mobile graph
generated by sampling the network topology at
regular time instants t1, t2, , tT of an s-d session.
When an s-d path is required at sampling time instant
ti, the strategy is to find a mobile sub graph G(i, j) =
Gi Gi+1 Gj such that there exists at least
one s-d path in G(i, j) and no s-d path exists in G(i,
j+1). A minimum hop s-d path in G(i, j) is selected.
Such a path exists in each of the static graphs Gi,
Gi+1, , Gj. If time instant tj+1 tT, the above
procedure is repeated by finding the s-d path that can
survive for the maximum amount of time since tj+1.
A sequence of such maximum lifetime static s-d
paths over the timescale of a mobile graph GM forms
the Stabile Mobile s-d path in GM. The pseudo code
of the algorithm is given in Figure 1.
Input: GM = G1G2 GT, source s, destination d
Output: PS // Stable Mobile Path
Auxiliary Variables: i, j - representing sampling
time instants
Initialization: i=1; j=1; PS =
Begin OptPathTrans
1 while (i T) do
2 Find a mobile graph G(i, j) = Gi Gi+1
Gj such that there exists at least one s-d
path in G(i, j) and {no s-d path exists in G(i,
j+1) or j = T+1}
3 PS = PS U {minimum hop s-d path in G(i, j) }
4 i=j+1
5 end while
6 return PS
End OptPathTrans
Figure 1: Pseudo code for algorithm OptPathTrans
2.3 Complexity of Algorithm OptPathTrans
In a mobile graph GM = G1G2 GT, the number
of route transitions can be at most T. A path-finding
algorithm will have to be run T times, each time on a
graph of n nodes. If we use O(n2) Dijkstra algorithm
[7], where n is the number of nodes in the network,
the worst-case run-time complexity of OptPathTrans
is O(n2T).
3 ALGORITHM OptPathTrans OPTIMIZED
FOR USE WITH LOCATION UPDATE
VECTORS (OptPathTrans-LUV)
3.1 Actual and Predicted Mobile Sub Graph
Let Gactual(i, j) = Gactual(i) n Gactual(i+1) n
Gactual(i+2) n .. Gactual(j) denote the actual mobile
sub graph obtained from taking intersections of the
static graphs generated based on the actual locations
of the nodes at time instants ti, ti +1, ti +2, ..., tj. Let
Gpred(i, j) = Gactual(i) n Gpred(i+1) n Gpred(i+2) n ..
Gpred(j) denote the predicted mobile sub graph
obtained from taking intersections of the static
graphs generated based on the actual locations of the
nodes at time instant ti and the predicted locations of
the nodes at time instants ti +1, ti +2, ..., tj.
3.2 Location Update Vector (LUV) and Location
Prediction
The Location Update Vector (LUV) for a node
collected at time instant ti contains the following
information: ID of the node, X and Y co-ordinates of
the node at ti, the velocity and direction of movement
of the node with respect to the X-axis at ti. We
assume the LUV of a node is known at every
sampling time instant ti at which we need to
determine a new stable path as part of the algorithm
OptPathTrans-LUV. Using the LUVs of every node
in the network at time instant ti, the predicted mobile
graph Gpred(i, j) = Gactual(i) n Gpred(i+1) n Gpred(i+2)
n .. Gpred(j) is constructed.
To construct a predicted static graph at time
instant ti+k (where ti ti+k tj), we need to predict the
location (i.e., the X and Y coordinates) of every node
in the network at time ti+k. This is done using the
LUVs of the nodes at time instant ti. We now explain
how to predict the location of a node (say node u) at
a time instant ti+k based on the LUV gathered from u
at time ti. Let (Xui, Yui) be the X and Y co-ordinates
of node u at time instant ti. Let Angleui and Velocityui
represent the angle of movement with respect to the
X-axis and the velocity at which u is moving at time
instant ti. The distance traveled by node u from time
instant ti to ti+k would be: Distanceu(ti to ti+k) = (ti+k
ti)* Velocityui. We assume each node is initially
configured with information regarding the network
boundaries: [0, 0], [Xmax, 0], [Xmax, Ymax] and [0, Ymax].
Let (Xui+k, Yui+k) be the predicted location of
node u at time instant ti+k. The values of Xui+k and
Yui+k are given by Xui+Offset-Xui+k and Yui+Offset-
Yui+k respectively. The offsets in the X and Y-axes
depend on the angle of movement and the distance
traveled by node u from time ti to ti+k. These are
calculated as follows:
Offset-Xui+k = Distanceu(ti to ti+k) * cos(Angleui)
Offset-Yui+k = Distanceu(ti to ti+k) * sin(Angleui)
If (Xui+k < 0), then Xui+k = 0
If (Xui+k > Xmax), then Xui+k = Xmax
If (Yui+k < 0), then Yui+k = 0
If (Yui+k > Ymax), then Yui+k = Ymax
As stated above, when a node is predicted to
cross over the boundary of the network, we just
locate the node to be at the network boundary.
3.3 Algorithm OptPathTrans-LUV
Let t1, t2, , tT denote the regular sampling time
instants of an s-d session When an s-d path is
required at sampling time instant ti, the strategy is to
find the actual mobile sub graph Gactual(i, j) =
Gactual(i) n Gactual(i+1) n Gactual(i+2) n .. Gactual(j)
and the predicted mobile sub graph Gpred(i, j) =
Gactual(i) n Gpred(i+1) n Gpred(i+2) n .. Gpred(j) such
that there exists at least one common s-d path in both
Gactual(i, j) and Gpred(i, j) and no such common s-d
path exists in both Gactual(i, j+1) and Gpred(i, j+1).
The minimum hop s-d path that exists in both
Gactual(i, j) and Gpred(i, j) is selected. Such a path
exists in each of the actual static graphs Gactual(i),
Gactual(i+1), Gactual(i+2), , Gactual(j) and Gpred(i+1),
Gpred(i+2), , Gpred(j). If tj+1 tT, the above
procedure is repeated by finding the s-d path that can
survive for the maximum amount of time since tj+1
satisfying the above constraint. The sequence of such
predicted static s-d paths over the time scale T is
called the Stable Mobile Path predicted using LUV
(represented as SMP-LUV). At each time instant, the
path-finding algorithm has to be run twice, once on
the actual mobile sub graph and another time on the
predicted mobile sub graph. If we use O(n2) Dijkstra
algorithm, where n is the number of nodes in the
network, the worst-case run-time complexity of
OptPathTrans-LUV is O(2n2T) = O(n2T). The pseudo
code of OptPathTrans-LUV is given below:
Input: GM = G1G2 GT, source s, destination d
Output: PS-LUV // Stable Mobile Path LUV
Auxiliary Variables: i, j - representing sampling
time instants
Initialization: i=1; j=1; PS-LUV =
Begin OptPathTrans-LUV
1 while (i T) do
2 Find a predicted mobile sub graph Gpred(i, j)
and an actual mobile sub graph Gactual(i, j)
such that there exists at least one common s-d
path in both Gpred(i, j) and Gactual(i, j) and no
such common s-d path exists in both Gpred(i,
j+1) and Gactual(i, j+1) or j + 1 = T
3 PS-LUV = PS-LUV U {Minimum hop predicted s-
d path that exists in both Gpred(i, j) and
Gaactual(i, j)}
4 i=j+1
5 end while
6 return PS-LUV
End OptPathTrans-LUV
Figure 2: Pseudo code for OptPathTrans-LUV
4 SIMULATIONS
We conduct our simulations in both square and
circular network topologies for different conditions
of network density and node mobility. The area of
both the square and circular network topologies
considered is 1000,000 m2. This corresponds to a
square network of side 1000m and a circular network
of radius 564m. The transmission range of a node in
both these network topologies is 250m. The network
density is varied by conducting the simulations with
25 nodes (low), 75 nodes (moderate) and 125 nodes
(high) which corresponds to an average
neighborhood density (the number of neighbors per
node) of 5, 15 and 25 respectively. We observed a
probability of network connectivity of 0.3-0.4, 1 and
1 in the low, moderate and high density scenarios
respectively.
The node mobility model used is the Random
Waypoint model [8], one of the most widely used
models for simulating mobility in MANETs.
According to this model, each node starts moving
from an arbitrary location to a randomly selected
destination with a randomly chosen speed in the
range [vmin .. vmax]. Once the destination is reached,
the node stays there for a pause time and then
continues to move to another randomly selected
destination with a different speed. We use vmin = 0
and pause time of a node is 0. The values of vmax
used are 10, 30 and 50 m/s representing scenarios of
low, moderate and high node mobility respectively.
Note that, two nodes a, b are assumed to have a
bidirectional link at time t if the Euclidean distance
between them at time t (derived using the locations
of the nodes from the mobility trace file) is less than
or equal to the wireless transmission range of the
nodes. We obtain a centralized view of the network
topology by generating mobility trace files for 1000
seconds. Each data point in Figures 3-6 is an average
computed over 5 mobility trace files and 5 randomly
selected s-d pairs from each of the mobility trace
files. The starting time of each s-d session is
uniformly randomly distributed between 1 to 20
seconds. In Figures 3-6, the Minimum Hop Mobile
Path, the Stable Mobile Path determined by
algorithm OptPathTrans and the Stable Mobile Path
determined by algorithm OptPathTrans-LUV are
identified as MHMP, SMP-Opt and SMP-LUV
respectively.
The performance metrics evaluated are the
average lifetime per static path for a mobile path and
the time averaged hop count of the mobile path under
the conditions described above. The time averaged
hop count of a mobile path is the sum of the products
of the number of hops per static path and the number
of seconds each static path exists divided by the
number of static graphs in the mobile graph. For
example, if a mobile path spanning over 10 static
graphs comprises of a 2-hop static path p1, a 3-hop
 Figure 3.1: Average Lifetime per Figure 3.2: Average Lifetime per Figure 3.3: Average Lifetime per
Static Path (25 Nodes) Static Path (75 Nodes) Static Path (125 Nodes)
Figure 3: Average Lifetime per Static Path in the Mobile Path (Square Network Topology)

Figure 4.1: Average Lifetime per Figure 4.2: Average Lifetime per Figure 4.3: Average Lifetime per
Static Path (25 Nodes) Static Path (75 Nodes) Static Path (125 Nodes)
Figure 4: Average Lifetime per Static Path in the Mobile Path (Circular Network Topology)

Figure 5.1: Average Hop Count Figure 5.2: Average Hop Count Figure 5.3: Average Hop Count
per Static Path (25 Nodes) per Static Path (75 Nodes) per Static Path (125 Nodes)
Figure 5: Average Hop Count per Static Path in the Mobile Path (Square Network Topology)

Figure 6.1: Average Hop Count Figure 6.2: Average Hop Count Figure 6.3: Average Hop Count
per Static Path (25 Nodes) per Static Path (75 Nodes) per Static Path (125 Nodes)
Figure 6: Average Hop Count per Static Path in the Mobile Path (Circular Network Topology)

static path p2, and a 2-hop static path p3, with each
existing for 2, 3 and 5 seconds respectively, then the
time-averaged hop count of the mobile path would be
(2*2 + 3*3 + 2*5)/10 = 2.3.
4.1 Average Path Lifetime
For a given level of node mobility, as we
increase the network density, the difference in the
lifetimes of the paths discovered by algorithms
OptPathTrans and OptPathTrans-LUV increases.
OptPathTrans effectively makes use of the increased
availability of the nodes and the knowledge of the
locations of the nodes over the entire simulation time
period and determines stable paths with the longest
lifetime. Both the Minimum-hop based routing
approach and OptPathTrans-LUV cannot effectively
make use of the increase in network density and
determine paths with relatively larger lifetime than
those determined in low-density networks.
The average lifetime per static path determined
by the Minimum hop path algorithm is only 10%-
40% (i.e., 10 times smaller at the worst case) of the
average lifetime per static path for an SMP. On the
other hand, the average lifetime per static path
determined for SMP-LUV is 30%-88% (i.e., 3.5
times smaller at the worst case) of the average
lifetime per static path obtained for an SMP. The
difference in the lifetime per static path for Minimum
hop routing and OptPathTrans-LUV decreases with
increase in network density and node mobility. The
lifetimes per static path obtained for SMP-LUV can
be as large as, three times the lifetime per static path
obtained using Minimum hop based routing.
In general, at low and high mobility conditions,
for a given routing algorithm and network density,
the average lifetime per static path incurred in a
circular topology is higher than that incurred in a
square topology. On the other hand, in moderate
mobility conditions, the average lifetime per static
path incurred in a square topology is higher than that
incurred in a circular topology.
two metrics. If a routing algorithm has a lower Path
lifetime ratio, then it implies the routes determined
by that algorithm are more stable. Similarly, if a
routing algorithm has a lower Hop count ratio, then it
implies the routes determined by that algorithm have
a hop count that is closer to that of the minimum.

4.2 Average Hop Count

The average hop count per static path

determined by algorithms OptPathTrans and
OptPathTrans-LUV is respectively 20%-88% and
11%-66% more than the minimum hop count for
square network topology. On circular network
topologies, the two stable mobile path algorithms
incur relatively higher hop count. The average hop
count per static path determined by algorithms
OptPathTrans and OptPathTrans-LUV is
respectively 20%-150% and 16%-82% more than the
minimum hop count for circular network topology.
OptPathTrans determines static stable paths whose
hop count could be as large as 24% and 37% more
than that determined by OptPathTrans-LUV in
square and circular network topologies respectively.
In general, the hop count of a minimum hop path is
higher for square network topologies than circular
topologies. On the other hand, the hop count of a
stable path is higher for circular network topologies
than square topologies.
With increase in network density, the average
hop count per minimum hop path decreases. For the
two stability-based algorithms (especially
OptPathTrans), the average hop count per stable path
increases as the network density is increased. This is
attributed to the nature of these two algorithms to
determine long-living stable paths by
accommodating few more nodes on the path that
would increase the average lifetime of the constituent
links of the path.
Figure 7: Path Lifetime Hop Count Tradeoff
4.3 Path Lifetime Hop Count Tradeoff (Square Network Topology)

Figures 7 and 8 capture the tradeoff between
path lifetime and hop count for each of the three
algorithms (Minimum hop based routing,
OptPathTrans, OptPathTrans-LUV) for square and
circular network topologies respectively. The Path
lifetime ratio is defined as the ratio of the average
path lifetime per static path for the SMP determined
by algorithm OptPathTrans to that of the average
path lifetime per static path for a MHMP or the
SMP-LUV. The Hop count ratio is defined as the
ratio of the average hop count of either the SMP or
the SMP-LUV to that of the average hop count per
static path for a MHMP. Note that the ratios are
formulated using the optimum values for each of the
We observe that OptPathTrans has the highest
Hop count ratio and MHMP has the highest Path
lifetime ratio. This implies that the minimum hop
count paths cannot have the longest lifetime what
we call as the lifetime-hop count tradeoff. On the
other hand, we observe OptPathTrans-LUV to have a
relatively lower Path lifetime ratio compared to
MHMP and a relatively lower Hop count ratio
compared to OptPathTrans. Thus, OptPathTrans-
LUV effectively balances the tradeoff between path
lifetime and hop count tradeoff as much as possible.
We observe the Path lifetime ratios of SMP-
LUV are relatively lower for square networks. This
implies for square networks, OptPathTrans-LUV
determines paths with lifetime close to that
determined by OptPathTrans. The Hop count ratios
obtained for SMP-LUV in circular networks are a
little higher, but are still contained within 1.8. We
also observe that in low density networks, MHMP
has almost the same Path lifetime ratio in both square
and circular network topologies. As we increase the
network density, the Path lifetime ratio for MHMP in
circular networks decreases implies, the minimum
hop paths in circular networks are more stable than
that of square networks in moderate and high density
networks. Another interesting observation is that the
hop count of a SMP determined by algorithm
OptPathTrans has a relatively higher Hop count ratio
in circular networks (than square networks),
especially at moderate and high network density.
Figure 8: Path Lifetime Hop Count Tradeoff
(Circular Network Topology)
5 CONCLUSIONS
As hypothesized, algorithm OptPathTrans-LUV
does in fact offers an alternative to both Minimum
hop routing as well as OptPathTrans. OptPathTrans-
LUV is able to yield higher average path lifetime
compared to Minimum hop routing, and also
generally provides a lower time-averaged hop count
than OptPathTrans. OptPathTrans-LUV is able to
accomplish this through effective prediction of the
locations of each node using the Location Update
Vectors (LUVs) available for the nodes at the time of
determining a new stable path. The effectiveness of
location prediction is that even if the predicted
locations of the two nodes are different from the
actual locations of the nodes, there exists a link
between two nodes in the predicted graph if they are
within their transmission range. This helps to
significantly increase the lifetime of the paths
determined by OptPathTrans-LUV compared to
those of the minimum hop paths, and at the same
time, the increase in the hop count is well restricted.
The mobile sub graphs of algorithm OptPathTrans
span over a larger period of time, and the number of
links in such mobile sub graphs are relatively lower.
The stable path (which is a minimum hop path in the
mobile sub graph) determined between a source and
destination would have to go through several
intermediate nodes. On the other hand, the mobile
sub graphs of algorithm OptPathTrans-LUV have
relatively more links and the stable path is basically a
minimum hop path in such a mobile sub graph with
more links. Thus, OptPathTrans-LUV effectively
reduces the tradeoff between path lifetime and hop
count. As future work, we will work on extending
OptPathTrans-LUV to a distributed routing protocol
for MANETs.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research is supported through the National
Science Foundation grant (CNS-0851646) entitled:
REU Site: Undergraduate Research Program in
Wireless Ad hoc Networks and Sensor Networks,
hosted by the Department of Computer Science at
Jackson State University, USA. The authors also
acknowledge Dr. Loretta Moore, Dr. Xuejun Liang
and Mrs. Brenda Johnson (all at Jackson State
University) for their services to this program.
7 REFERENCES
[1] C. S. R. Murthy and B. S. Manoj, Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks: Architectures and
Protocols, Prentice Hall, June 3, 2004.
[2] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen and J. Sheu, The
Broadcast Storm Problem in a Mobile Ad Hoc
Network, Proceedings of ACM International
Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking, pp.151-162, 1999.
[3] N. Meghanathan and A. Farago, On the Stability
of Paths, Steiner Trees and Connected
Dominating Sets in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,
Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.
744 769, July 2008.
[4] N. Meghanathan, A Location Prediction Based
 Reactive Routing Protocol to Minimize the
Number of Route Discoveries and Hop Count
per Path in Mobile Ad hoc Networks, The
Computer Journal, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 461-482,
Oxford Press, British Computer Society, July
2009.
[5] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz and J. Broch, DSR:
The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for
Multi-hop Wireless Ad hoc Networks, in Ad
hoc Networking, Chapter 5, C. E. Perkins, Eds.
Addison Wesley, pp. 139 172, 2000.
[6] A. Farago and V. R. Syrotiuk, MERIT: A
Scalable Approach for Protocol Assessment,
Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 5,
pp. 567 577, October 2003.
[7] T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest and
C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd
Edition, MIT Press/ McGraw Hill, Sept. 2001
[8] C. Bettstetter, H. Hartenstein and X. Perez-Costa,
Stochastic Properties of the Random-Waypoint
Mobility Model, Wireless Networks, vol. 10, no.
5, pp. 555-567, 2004.