See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261495762

Hierarchical networks: Routing and clustering (A concise survey)

Conference Paper  in  Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering · May 2013

DOI: 10.1109/CCECE.2013.6567742

CITATIONS READS
7 724

2 authors, including:

H. Kiwan
University of Regina
12 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by H. Kiwan on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013 26th IEEE Canadian Conference Of Electrical And Computer Engineering (CCECE)

HIERARCHICAL NETWORKS: ROUTING AND CLUSTERING (A CONCISE SURVEY)

H. Kiwan, Y. L. Morgan
Faculty of Engineering
University of Regina and Applied Science
Regina, SK, Canada
kiwan20h@uregina.ca, yasser.morgan@uregina.ca
ABSTRACT
The network topologies enhancements are necessary in
correspond to the growing of data networks. In this paper,
large network problem is described. It includes the routing
update cost. The concept of hierarchical network is
explained as a considered solution. The hierarchical routing
algorithms working methodology and protocols are
presented and compared. In addition, it provides a sufficient
description for the pros and cons of each protocol. The Figure 2: Example of a simple network [2]
hierarchical network problems of cluster number, size
distribution and number of levels, and solving approaches Table 1: Node A routing table with non-Hierarchical routing algorithm [2]
are discussed. This paper discusses how to identify the best
clustering algorithm for wired, ad-hoc and wireless sensor
networks. The optimization guidelines are explained.
Index Terms— Hierarchical, networks, routing
algorithms, clustering, topology, optimization
1. INTRODUCTION
As long as the human’s life activities expand and
develop, the network usage and need rise and, the networks’
size expands. As a result, the network problems pop out.
Some of those problems can be described in Figure 1.

Researchers are working on proposing solutions for these

challenges. One of the possible solutions is dividing the
network into parts and the parts into smaller parts and so on,
same as, rearranging the network into hierarchical structure.
Each part consists of a group of nodes that forms a region.
Figure 1: Describes the huge networking problem
A network size grows larger causing a routers’ number
increase. This affects proportionally the routing tables’ size;
which hold much information about the other routers. The
routing update cost. As a result, the routers’ CPU’s consume
much time mostly updating the routing tables and flooding
problem. So, the bandwidth is wasted by sending the status
reports between routers and by traffic overload [1].
For instance, in a simple network that includes node A, as
shown in Figure 2, the node A has a routing table holds 17
records of all nodes in the network as shown in Table 1.
Suddenly, a node is dropped and a new status report is
provided by each node. These updates are sent to every node Figure 3: Example of a Hierarchical network [2]
to maintain its routing table. As a result, the network traffic
slows down due to the narrow bandwidth [2].

978-1-4799-0033-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

By applying a hierarchical routing solution on the previous
example, the network is divided into 5 regions, as shown in
Figure 3. The routing table of each node holds a smaller
amount of data, 7 records for the other regions; only 1
record per entire region, plus the nodes of its region, as
described in Table 2.
Table 2: Node (A) routing table using Hierarchical routing algorithm [2]
Figure 4 explains the solution in a simple way. Firstly,
routers are divided into regions. In each region, every router
receives the routing information of all routers. Secondly,
each region is divided into clusters. Thirdly, each cluster is
divided into zones. Fourthly, each cluster can be divided
into groups.
Figure 4: Hierarchical Routing Solution
2. METHODOLOGY
Many researchers and approaches investigate the best
practice on how the hierarchical network routing algorithm
can provide the best performance. They try to find out the
optimal routing table size. In brief, there are relations
between size of routing table, number of nodes per level and
number of clusters at the highest level. As shown in Table 3,
there are three common cases that reflect the relations
affecting the size of routing table.
Table 3: Cases of Number of clusters at the highest level and Number
of nodes per level
In the large networks, each router acts as a cluster at level
(0), as shown in Figure 5. A group or a region of clusters at
level (0) forms a cluster in level (1). Groups or regions are
denoted on level (1). Each group has a clusters header. They
are grouped in level (2) to form level (2) clusters.
Figure 5: Hierarchical Network Routing Model
3. HIERARCHICAL ALGORITHMS
Scientists and researchers developed many hierarchical
network routing schemes and algorithms over decades. In
the following Section some of these algorithms are briefly
explained.
3.1 Kamoun and Kleinrock’s Routing Scheme
They describe a hierarchical routing algorithm called M-
level algorithm. M-level is able to reduce the average delay
of the packets in large networks of 100 to 200 nodes [3].
3.2 Baratz and Jaffe’s Routing Scheme
They develop a technique that defines the optimal path. But
the main disadvantage is overhead to define the path. Thus,
this technique is used to support virtual circuit networks by
storing more data than the data stored in Kamoun and
Kleinrock’s algorithm [3] [4].
3.3 Jaffe’s Routing Scheme
In Jaffe’s Routing Scheme, the network contains backbone
nodes and clusters whilst each cluster is sharing a node with
the backbone. Moreover, the cluster database is combined
with the backbone database to provide better performance
[5].
3.4 Chlamtac and Elazar’s Error Bounded Routing
Scheme
This scheme enables the designer to manipulate not only the
cluster levels number but also the error size because the
bounded error is calculated by subtracting the optimal path
from the actual path [6].
3.5 Ramamoorthy and Tsai’s Adaptive Hierarchical
Routing Algorithm
This algorithm is designed for mobile and radio base
stations, where the network topology updates in a dynamic
way and is suitable for the battle fields. In this algorithm the
node holds a brief about other clusters’ information. It is
adaptive and developed from new ARPANET algorithm [4].
4. CLUSTERING ALGORITHMS
Clustering algorithms are responsible for constructing;
maintaining clusters and keeping connections among all the
nodes. There are many algorithms to select a cluster head. In
general, a cluster head is able to perform two main tasks;
data processing and data transmission in the best way. Data
is transmitted fast to other clusters; this is called higher
power mode. While data is transmitted normally to other
clusters; this is called lower power mode. However voting
the optimal cluster head is considered a problem of the type
NP-hard.
4.1 LowID Algorithm
It is an algorithm where the lowest id node is selected to be a
cluster head. It is 1 hop algorithm.
4.2 MaxD Algorithm
In this algorithm, the node with highest connectivity degree
to the neighbor nodes is voted to be the cluster head. It is
one hop algorithm too.
4.3 k-hop Algorithm
The variable k presents the number of the most hop distance
between two nodes in one cluster.
4.4 k-hop-CH Algorithm
In this algorithm, the variable k presents the number of the
top limit hop distance between all nodes and a specific node
inside one cluster.
5. PROS AND CONS OF HIERARCHICAL
NETWORK ROUTING
5.1 Pros
The hierarchal routing provides reduced size of the routing
tables, better scalability, lower traffic overhead and lower
routers’ CPU processing. In general, the hierarchical model
is simple to build and control. It makes it easy to add,
remove or retrieve records [7].
5.2 Cons
In general, the hierarchal routing cause has narrow scope of
what is called “query optimization”. There are restrictions
for a pointer path. As limited navigation and data redundant
problem exists [7].
6. CLUSTERING ALGORITHMS FOR AD-HOC AND
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
In this Section, the clustering algorithms for ad-hoc and
wireless sensor networks are considered for the selection of
the best cluster heads. It is classified in four categories;
heuristic schemes, weighted schemes, hierarchical schemes
and grid schemes. Each category includes one or more
clustering algorithm(s), as shown in Figure 6.
6.1. Heuristic Schemes
This type mainly targets a reasonable performance solution
and the optimal solution or at least part of its characteristics.
6.1.1 Linked Cluster Algorithm (LCA)
It is an old algorithm that developed from the wired
networks to fit the wireless networks. The cluster head is
voted on the base of the greatest ID number with in the set
of neighbor nodes, otherwise, it is a cluster head if there are
no cluster head around.
6.1.2 Linked Cluster Algorithm (LCA2)
In this algorithm, a node follows one of two cases either
non-covered by any cluster head or covered by a cluster
head. The fewest ID nodes are voted to be a cluster head. It
is a modification of linked cluster algorithm to reduce the
cluster heads.
6.1.3 Highest Connectivity
It is similar to the previous algorithms and the one explained
in Section 4.2. The node that has the greatest number of
neighbors is selected to be the cluster head. If there is a tie,
the smallest ID will be the cluster head.
6.1.4 Max-Min-D-Cluster
In this algorithm, the cluster head is not far from more than d
hop distance to all the nodes with in the same cluster. The
network load balancing is one of its useful features.
Figure 6: Clustering Algorithms Classification
6.2 Weighted Schemes
6.2.1 Weighted Clustering Algorithm (WCA)
This algorithm concerned with many parameters; the energy
of each node, the data transmission power, ideal node degree
and the mobility. The selection of a cluster head is based on
a certain equation.
6.3 Hierarchical Schemes
6.3.1 Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH)
This is a well-known approach that has many useful features
related to load balancing and energy saving. Nevertheless,
the cluster head random rotation refines the usage of the
energy all over the network. The cluster construction is
mainly among the nearest nodes.
6.3.2 Two-Level Hierarchy LEACH (TL-LEACH)
It is based on two types of cluster heads, primary cluster
heads and secondary cluster heads. There are
communications among them in a single cluster.
6.3.3 Energy Efficient Clustering Scheme (EECS)
In this algorithm, the node that has the highest residual
energy between the neighbors wins the competition and
becomes the cluster head. The cluster dynamic sizing is
 related to its location from the base station. As a result, the
energy required by nodes far from the base stations is more
than the energy of the near ones.
6.3.4 Hybrid Energy-Efficient Distributed Clustering
(HEED)
It presents a multi-hop algorithm that is efficient for wireless
sensor networks. It minimizes the energy usage for control
and cluster selection, and maximizes the network nodes life
time. There are two main features that affect the cluster head
selection. The first is considering every node’s residual
energy. The second is the cost of new clusters’ inter-
communications. That cost is calculated by the Average
Minimum Reaching Power (AMRP).
6.4 Grid Schemes
6.4.1 Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information
Systems (PEGASIS)
This algorithm is concerned with energy saving. This is
possible practically when a node is not involved in the
formation of a cluster.
6.4.2 GROUP
This is a clustering algorithm that is used in wireless sensor
networks and concerned with location awareness and the
power saving.
7. HIERARCHICAL OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
In the hierarchal network design, it is considered a major
challenge to be able to know the optimal number of levels,
the optimal number of nodes per level, and the optimal
number of clusters at the highest level. In 1977, Kamoun and
Kleinrock described the hierarchical network optimization
problem. They worked on approaches for reducing the table
length to be relative to ln of nodes number. The network
routing performance was better by applying the shortest path
to define the best path within every individual cluster.
However, their assumption contains unrealistic point. The
routing tables of all the nodes in a network must have the
same number of records [1], [3], [8] and [9].
Researchers develop approaches to solve the optimization
problem. There is a set of preferred properties and desired
relations. The network designer is advised to follow it. In
order to be as near as possible to the optimal solution:
 When number of clusters at the highest level is near to
the value of (number of nodes) 1 / (number of levels), the size
of routing table will be small.
 As number of clusters at the highest level tends to be
optimal as the size of routing table is decreasing.
 If number of levels is smaller than log 2 (number of
nodes), then number of nodes per level rises and the
size of routing table decreases.
 If number of levels is greater than log 2 (number of
nodes) then optimal size of routing table is not affected.
View publication stats
 If number of levels equals 2 then optimal number of
clusters at the highest level equals the square root of the
number of nodes.
 When number of clusters at the highest level is near to
the square root of the number of nodes, the optimal size
of the routing table decreases.
 If the change in the cluster size is small, the size of the
routing table change is small too [10].
8. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the hierarchical network routing is explained.
The hierarchical routing is presented as a solution for the
large network problem by example. A simple model
hierarchical network is discussed. The advantages and
disadvantages are mentioned. Selected hierarchical network
routing algorithms are briefly compared. The research also
includes a short review for a number of clustering algorithms
that are suitable for Ad-Hoc network and wireless sensor
networks. The hierarchical optimization problem is
explained and the suggested guidelines and desired
prosperities are discussed in order to provide the optimal
design.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Fourth Edition,
2002
[2] How staff works, http://computer.howstuffworks.com/routing-
algorithm5.htm accessed on 19 July, 09
[3] Kamoun, Farouk and Leonard Kleinrock, “Stochastic
Performance Evaluation of hierarchical Routing for Large
Network,” Computer Networks, vol. 3, pp. 337-353, 1979.
[4] Baratz, A. and J. Jaffe, “Establishing Virtual Circuits in
Large Computer Networks,’’ Proc. of INFOCOM 83, San
Diego, California, April 1983.
[5] Jaffe, J. M., “Hierarchical Clustering by Designing a
Backbone,” Proc. of 4th Convention of IEEE, pp. 2.2.111-4, Tel
Aviv, Isreal, March 1985.
[6] Chlamtac, Imrich and Avishai Elazar, “Hienrchical
Routing with Bounded Routing Error,” Computer Network
Symposium, pp. 196-202, 1986.
[7]
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_Advantages_and_disadv
antages_of_hierarchical_model accessed on July 22th, 2009.
[8] L. Kleinrock and F. Kamoun, “Hierarchical routing for large
networks: Performance evaluation and optimization,” Computer
Networks, vol. 1, pp. 155–174, 1977.
[9] J. Lian, K.Naik, and G.Agnew, “Optimal solution of total
routing table size for hierarchical networks,” in Proc. IEEE
ISCC, Jun. 2004, pp. 834–839.
[10] Jie Lian Naik, K. Agnew, G.B. " A Framework for
Evaluating the Performance of Cluster Algorithms for
Hierarchical Networks," Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions
on, Dec. 2007, issue 6, pp. 1478-1489