2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
Q-AODV: A Flood control Ad-Hoc on Demand
Distance Vector Routing Protocol
Bhagyalakshmi
Ph.D. Scholar,Department of Computer Science & IT
Central University of Jammu
Jammu, India
bhagyalakshmi.magotra@gmail.com
Abstract – Mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self-
organized and self-configurable infrastructure less network
where the mobile nodes move arbitrarily. One of the major
characteristic that differentiate mobile ad-hoc networks from
other types of networks is the ability of the mobile nodes to
receive and forward packets as a router. The focus of the work
is to devise a strategy to control the flooding of control packets
through the network in a way to improve the QoS parameters
associated with MANETs. The proposed strategy tries to
reduce the number of the intermediate nodes that participate
in the route discovery process thereby, reducing the total
number of control packets that are forwarded by the nodes in
the network. This is achieved by controlling the route request
(RREQ) broadcast storm using the node’s queue length. The
source appends a random number with RREQ which is
compared with the queue vacancy proportion at each
intermediate node. The intermediate node relays the RREQ
packet if the random number generated is less than the queue
vacancy proportion. This reduces the number of congested
nodes forwarding the RREQ packets thereby improving QoS
parameters, preserving the energy and increasing the overall
network lifetime. The proposed algorithm Q-AODV is
advancement over AODV that tries to find a less congested
route based on queue vacancy. The proposed algorithm Q-
AODV improves average end to end delay, throughput and
jitter, to some extent, as compared to AODV. The simulation
has been carried out on Qualnet.
Keywords— AODV, Q-AODV, Queue, Queue length, Cross
Layer, QoS, Improved QoS, Energy Efficient, Routing Protocol
I. INTRODUCTION
Broadcasting is the most elementary and the basic
operation in MANETs and plays an important role. It simply
means that a message is diffused to all nodes of the network
from a given source node. The simplest and the commonly
used method for broadcasting in MANETs is flooding,
where every uniquely received message is retransmitted
exactly once by each node. Various routing protocols, like
DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) [1], AODV (Ad hoc On
Demand Distance Vector Routing) [2], ZRP (Zone Routing
Protocol) [3], LAR (Location-Aided Routing) [4], etc.,
transmit route discovery packets, route maintenance packets
and topology update packets using the flooding technique.
This flooding function is very often raised in MANETs and
thus, implementation of an efficient and effective flooding
scheme is crucial and important for optimizing the
throughput of the network and for reducing the overhead of
the routing protocols.
978-1-5386-6373-8/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Amit Kumar Dogra
Ph.D. Scholar, School of Computer Science & Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Jalandhar, Punjab, India
amitkumar62003@gmail.com
In Pure or blind flooding [5] the flooding message is
transmitted again in the network by the receiving node. It
also assures that the flooded messages reaches every other
node in the network provided the connections in the network
remain connected and also the network is collision free. But
at the same time, huge amount of energy of the mobile
nodes is consumed and congestion is caused due to the
generation of redundant messages causing huge traffic. The
congestion in the network increases the chances of collision
which further leads to retransmission of messages and also,
some nodes may fail to receive the messages. Sinha et al. [6]
suggested that the number of nodes in the network that
receive a broadcast message is 80% low in moderately
sparse graphs as compared to the dense networks. However
in dense networks, this results into wastage of bandwidth
and scarce node resources.
The pure flooding, thus, suffers from the problem of
contention, collision and redundant broadcast. Together,
these are referred to as the broadcast storm problem [7]. To
counter this problem many efficient flooding techniques
have been proposed. These techniques may be classified
into three categories:
x Probabilistic Techniques: The nodes that use
probability based techniques for flooding decide to
transmit the message depending upon a specific
calculated probability or upon the occurrence of an
event that related to the calculation of the probability
which with message can be transmitted further to the
neighboring nodes. Probabilistic based techniques
are usually proposed so as to reduce the amount of
redundant rebroadcasts. In order to avoid collisions,
this method also differentiates the timings of the
broadcasting of the messages. The probabilistic
scheme includes probability-based and counter-based
methods.
x Area-Based Techniques: Area-Based Techniques use
knowledge of sender node locations to estimate
whether a transmission would reach a significant
amount of additional coverage area. In case of Area
Based techniques, if the distance from the previously
broadcasting node is large then there is a higher
probability of reaching more nodes. The relative
distance between neighbor nodes is estimated
either based on the received signal strength
(distance-based scheme) or based on pre-acquired
location information of neighbors by location
tracking devices such as the Global Position System
(location-based scheme). The area based techniques
include distance-based and location-based schemes.
294
 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
x Neighbor knowledge techniques: Neighbor
Knowledge Techniques require the use of “Hello”
type packets so that nodes have explicit data
regarding their neighboring nodes and depending
upon this knowledge further broadcast of the packets
is decided.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Broadcasting is the fundamental communication
operation in Mobile Ad hoc Networks where one node sends
a message to all other nodes in the network. Broadcasting is
also used for topology updates, for network maintenance, or
simply for sending a control or warning message. Flooding
is a popular broadcast scheme used during the discovery
phase of most MANET routing protocols, where every
message that is received for the first time, is broadcasted to
all the neighboring nodes. Using flooding, each node
receives the message from all its neighbors in a collision-
free network. A lot of research has been done for the
reduction of surplus transmissions from neighboring nodes.
Some have used the probabilistic approach for controlling
the flooding of control packets while others have used the
threshold value of remaining battery. Few have taken into
consideration the threshold on the node’s queue length along
with the hop count.
Daniel Reina et al in [8] have proposed broadcast
scheme based on probabilistic flooding technique for mobile
wireless networks. In addition to addressing the broadcast
storm problem, the protocol also extends the lifetime of the
network. Authors have suggested the use of simple
probabilistic broadcast scheme based upon battery level of
the nodes. All the nodes exchange their battery levels by
periodically sending HELLO messages. The initiation of the
process of route discovery is done by a node with the help of
flooding. The RREQ packets are flooded in the network
which includes the information about the maximum and
minimum battery levels in the neighborhood of the
originator node. Every intermediate node on reception of a
RREQ packet calculates its forwarding probability
depending upon its own battery level and the maximum and
minimum battery levels. The proposed simple probabilistic
based algorithm extends network lifetime, and has higher
throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Sofian Hamad et al [9] has proposed a proficient
flooding CNRR (Candidate Neighbors to Rebroadcast the
RREQ) algorithm in which the packets are rebroadcasted
based upon the node’s position in the network thereby
efficiently spreading the control packets across the network.
The proposed algorithm is applied on AODV’s route
discovery process to reduce the number of Route Request
(RREQ) messages that propagate through the network. The
proposed algorithm improves the performance of the
network by decreasing the retransmission that are redundant
in nature, thus helps in minimizing the chances of collision
among the nodes and also reduces the chances of contention.
The algorithm does its work by partitioning the radio
transmission range of the nodes into four zones such that
only one node per zone is selected to forward the RREQ.
The selection is done on the basis of the closeness of the
nodes towards the edge of the zone such that more area can
be covered. The node broadcasting the RREQ attaches the
address of the Candidate Neighbors to Rebroadcast the
RREQ (CNRR) into RREQ. Whenever a node receives the
RREQ packet, it checks if the sender node has selected it as
295
forwarder node or not, if so, it repeats the process of
selecting the forwarder nodes and attaches it to the RREQ
before rebroadcasting it; otherwise it will drop the RREQ.
The routing overhead of the AODV protocol has been
reduced by 38% by using this protocol.
R. Vinod Kumar et al in [10] have proposed an energy
efficient routing scheme (EEAODV) based on node’s
energy and congestion level. In their work every
intermediate node on receiving a RREQ, calculates a
threshold value essentially based on its queue occupancy
and energy level. The threshold value is then compared with
interface queue occupancy, and the node rebroadcasts the
RREQ only if its interface queue occupancy is lower than
the threshold value. In this way overloaded nodes do not
take part in the formation of new routes, and traffic load is
distributed evenly across network. The proposed scheme has
been shown by the authors to have better energy efficiency
and end to end delay.
K. Muthumayil et al in [11] have proposed a dynamic
and energy conscious routing algorithm ECL-AODV. The
proposed algorithm works by avoiding the nodes having low
residual energy, and tries to establish a route with high
residual energy. The proposed routing protocol promotes
balanced energy consumption across the network thereby
increasing the lifetime of the network.
Radhika D. Joshi et al in [12] have proposed a flood
control algorithm DEEAR, in which every intermediate
node receiving a RREQ packet delays the rebroadcast of the
RREQ packet by rebroadcast time proportional to the ratio
of mean residual battery power of the entire network to its
residual battery power, and hence the nodes having low
battery level will rebroadcast RREQ packets later than the
nodes with relatively higher battery level.
Sunho Lim et al in [13] have proposed a novel
communication mechanism, called Random Cast, in which a
sender node defines a threshold value for overhearing, that
maintains a balance between energy and routing
performance. It also reduces superfluous rebroadcasts for
broadcast packets, thereby saving more energy.
RandomCast allows a node to decide whether to overhear (a
unicast message) and whether to forward a broadcast
message or not. Every node maintains an overhearing
(rebroadcast) probability based on its mobility, the number
of neighbors and sender ID. Random Cast has been shown
to improve the energy good put by as much as 56 percent.
In literature, many researchers have provided the
overview [14][15][16][17][18][19] of various routing
protocols while focusing on the advantages and
shortcomings of each of them. However, the broadcast
storm is one of the key concerns of the Mobile Ad hoc
Networks [20][21][22]. Flooding also results in wastage of
considerable amount of the sacred energy resource. In past
few years’, lot of researchers have focused in the area of
flooding [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Some have used the
probabilistic approach to control the broadcast storm, some
have used the area based or neighborhood based knowledge
[30][31], few have used the dominating set theory
[32][33][34] while various others have used the hybrid or
the adaptive approaches. However most of them, using the
probabilistic approach, have considered mainly the battery
life as the metric to avoid flooding, for example choosing
the nodes having high remaining battery as the relaying
 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
node while nodes having low energy silently dropping the
request. This approach although provides better results but
at the same time can make the links, to these high energy
nodes, congested which may lead to dropping of packets and
hence retransmission.
The proposed solution considers the level of congestion
at a node as the metric to decide if the route request packet
can be forwarded or not. The proposed system takes a
probability-based approach, where the probability of a node
forwarding the route request is directly proportional to the
queue vacancy.
III. SYSTEM MODEL FOR QUEUE AODV (Q-
AODV)
A. Focused Parameters
There are number of parameters that can be used to
calculate the rebroadcast probability of a node, for example
number of neighboring nodes, bandwidth available,
remaining battery life, congestion etc. In our work we have
focused on the congestion as the metric to calculate
rebroadcast probability. In simple terms congestion can be
defined as the number of packets waiting for being
processed at that node. These packets can be destined for the
node itself or the node may just have to forward/ rebroadcast
them to neighboring node.
When a node receives a packet, the packet is first stored
in the Input Queue before being processed, the packet waits
in the queue until it is processed, and if after processing the
packet needs to be transmitted to some other node, then the
packet is inserted into the output queue from where it is
fetched and then transmitted properly. So it is evident that
number of packets in these Queues is good indicator of
congestion at that node. In our proposed system, we have
used the size of the output queue as an indicator of amount
of congestion at any node.
B. Parameters Appended on each Node
Ever node maintains a number of parameters and
variables required for proper functioning of the nodes.
These parameters are essential as they may store important
information related to each layer of communication model,
such as propagation model used, transmission power,
receiver sensitivity, routing protocol, and many other
parameter related to hardware and software specifications of
the node. In order to implement the proposed algorithm we
need each node to store few more parameters, these are:
a) Output Queue Max Size
This parameter is used by the node to store the value
of maximum queue size.
b) Current Output Queue Size
This parameter is used to store the value of current
occupancy of the queue i.e. how much the output queue of
the node is full.
c) Rebroadcast Probability
It indicates the probability of the node with which it
can rebroadcast the RREQ packet to the neighboring nodes.
When a node receives a RREQ packet not destined for it, the
node calculates ‘Rebroadcast Probability’ based on the
‘current output queue size’. Rebroadcast probability is then
used by the node to decide whether it should rebroadcast the
RREQ or not.
296
C. Message Formats
The proposed algorithm, Q-AODV is based upon the
AODV routing protocol. The number of control messages
used in Q-AODV is same as in AODV with few
modifications. The control messages used in the whole
process of path discovery are: Route Request Packet
(RREQ), Route Reply Packet (RREP), Route Error Packet
(RERR) and Route Reply Acknowledgement (RREP-ACK).
The message formats of the control packets that have been
used for Q-AODV are described in the following section.
1) Route Request (RREQ) Packet format
The RREQ packet in Q-AODV is similar to the one used
by AODV, except for an extra field “Random Probability”.
This field contains the random number generated by the
source. The random number generated lies within the range
[0.1, 1]. The lower limit so defined imposes the condition of
threshold. The intermediate node uses this number along
with their calculated Rebroadcast probability to decide
whether to rebroadcast the RREQ or not.
2) Route Reply (RREP) Packet Format
The message format for RREQ packet in Q-AODV is
same as that in AODV.
Route Error (RERR) and Route Ack. (RREP-ACK)
packet format in Q-AODV are same as in AODV.
IV. PROPOSED ALGORITHM
In AODV the whole process of route discovery relies
heavily on flooding, where in any node requiring a route to
other nodes broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet. The
neighboring nodes (intermediate nodes) on receiving an
RREQ processes it, makes necessary changes in the RREQ
packet, its route table and then rebroadcasts the RREQ
packet. This process continues until the RREQ reaches the
destination or the TTL (time to live) of the RREQ packet
has expired. If any node receives an already processed
RREQ, it silently discards it. Moreover even if destination
node has received the RREQ packet, other nodes still keep
rebroadcasting the RREQ, until it has been disseminated
throughout the network. In last few years a lot of research
has been done to restrict the broadcast storm, one of the way
to achieve this is probabilistic scheme. The probabilistic
scheme is one of the alternative approaches that aim at
reducing redundancy through rebroadcast control in an
attempt to alleviate the broadcast storm problem. In the
probabilistic scheme, a mobile node rebroadcasts packets
according to a certain probability. We intend to propose an
algorithm Q-AODV where the node decides whether to
rebroadcast the received broadcast packet (RREQ) or not
during the route discovery process. The proposed algorithm
focuses on probabilistic broadcast. The algorithm aims to
improve the QoS parameters, namely End to End Delay,
Throughput, and Jitter by providing a less congested route
between the source and destination pair by considering the
queue occupancy of the node. The algorithm has been
implemented on AODV and tends to reduce the
communication through congested nodes thereby reducing
the probability of packet dropping and thus, packet
retransmission.
A. Q-AODV Route Discovery Process
 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)

Whenever a node prepares itself to send some probability)

information to another node, it checks if there is any
available valid route for that destination in its route table, if
a valid route is available the node fetches the next hop for
that route and unicast the data packets to the next hop.
However if a valid route is not available, the route discovery
process starts. Q-AODV follows the same process for route
discovery as AODV but with some variations. Q-AODV
brings in the concept of probability into the route discovery
process. The process of route discovery in Q-AODV is
divided into two phases namely route request phase and
route reply phase. Q-AODV has modified route request
phase, to bring in the concept of probability to restrict the
broadcast storm. The route reply phase, and route
maintenance works same as in AODV. The section below
describes in detail the route request phase of Q-AODV.
1) Route Request Phase
x Whenever a node needs to find out a route to any
other node, it generates a RREQ packet with all its
fields properly initiated. It also generates a random
number within the interval [0.1, 1], and appends it
with the RREQ packet as random probability. Finally
the node broadcasts the RREQ packet.
x Each intermediate node receiving the RREQ packet,
processes it and makes route table entries for the
originator node and node from which the RREQ was
received.
x The node then checks if it itself is the destination
node. If it is, then the node initiates the route reply
process.
x If the node is the not destination node, then it must
rebroadcast the RREQ packet. In AODV every
intermediate node unconditionally rebroadcasts the
RREQ which leads to broadcast storm. However in
our proposed algorithm each intermediate node
calculates its own rebroadcasting probability based
on its current queue length and maximum queue
length and compares it with the random probability
stored in the RREQ packet. The node calculates the
following parameter:
ሺை௨௧௣௨௧ொ௠௔௫௦௜௭௘ି஼௨௥௥௘௡௧௢௨௧௣௨௧ொ௦௜௭௘ሻ
‫ ܾ݋ݎܲݐݏܾܽܿ݁ݎ‬ൌ
ை௨௧௣௨௧ொ௠௔௫௦௜௭௘
x The process illustrated above continues until the
RREQ reaches the destination. Once the RREQ
reaches the destination node, the destination initiates
route reply phase wherein, an RREP packet is
unicasted to the next hop toward the originator node.
In Q-AODV we have also incorporated the concept
of threshold, by implying a condition that node in
which the output queue is more than 90 percent full
should not rebroadcast the RREQ packet and hence
do not take part in route formation process. This
threshold has been implemented by restricting the
values taken by random probability generated by the
originator node to be within the range [0.1, 1]. So if
the intermediate node has output queue more than 90%
full, then the rebroadcast probability calculated by it
would always be less than 0.1, which in turn would
always be less than the random probability as it
ranges between [0.1, 1], so the node will not
rebroadcast the RREQ packet.
2) Route Reply Phase
The route Reply phase of Q-AODV works exactly in the
same way as in AODV.
V. SIMULATION AND RESULT
The simulation for the proposed algorithm is carried out
in Qualnet 5.1 and the results have been evaluated in
comparison to the performance of AODV. Comparisons are
made on the basis of various simulations that have been
made with the purpose of analyzing the working and the
performance of the proposed algorithm Q-AODV. The
following section describes the simulation environment that
has been used and various parameters that have been taken
into consideration. Here we have considered a Mobile Ad
hoc Network having 22 nodes and Q-AODV as its routing
protocol. As Q-AODV has been designed for congested
networks, so to simulate such a situation we have added 5
CBRs between various nodes. Table below shows the
parameters and their values.
(1)

TABLE I P ARAMETERS OF SCENARIO

Above equation gives the proportion of how much the
queue is vacant. More the queue is vacant, more will Parameter Value
be Rebroadcast Probability and vice versa.
Simulator Qualnet 5.1
x The calculated Rebroadcast Probability is compared
with the random probability. If: No. of nodes 22
Simulation Time 200s
a) Random probability < Rebroadcast Probability; the
node will rebroadcast the RREQ packet. Environment Size 1500 x 1500 m2
b) Random probability > = Rebroadcast Probability; Traffic Type CBR (Constant Bit Rate)
the node will not rebroadcast RREQ packet and hence will Maximum Output Queue Size 10000 b
not take further part in the route formation process. Packet Size 512 b
x The basic concept behind the above condition is that
Packet Rate 10 packets/s
more the queue is vacant more will be the
rebroadcast probability, and more are the chances Mobility Model Random Waypoint
that the random number stored in the RREQ is Speed 1m/s
smaller than rebroadcast probability. Now as a result, Pause Time 1s
the less congested nodes (i.e. nodes having larger
rebroadcast probability) are more likely to Antenna Type Omni directional
rebroadcast the received RREQ than the nodes that
are congested (i.e. nodes having smaller rebroadcast

297
 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)

Throughput

83205

81681
81120
80784
Throughput (bits/s)

67298
67417
35830
34163
33916

29338
100000
50000
AODV
0
1 2 3 4 5 Q-AODV
CBR

Figure 3: Comparison of Throughput achieved using AODV and Q-AODV

Figure 4 presents the comparison of Average throughput

of CBRs while using AODV and Q-AODV as their routing
Protocol. From the figure, it is evident that throughput for
all the CBRs has increased while using Q-AODV.
Simulation results have shown that overall the throughput of
Figure 1: Screen Shot of Scenario the network has increased by 5%.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Average End to End Delay
Routing is a significant issue in Mobile Ad hoc
Average End To End Delay

5.67617

6.5608

Networks. We have proposed an AODV based routing

4.01423
4.9913
3.57642
3.09787

2.68552

10
2.13175
1.52715
1.04429

algorithm “Q-AODV”. It has been designed to be used in

5 highly congested networks. Our proposed algorithm
(ms)

AODV outperforms the existing AODV protocol by controlling the

0
1 2
CBR
Figure 2: Comparison of Average End to End Delay achieved using AODV
and Q-AODV
Figure 2 presents the comparison of Average End to End
Delay incurred by CBRs while using AODV and Q-AODV
as their routing Protocol. From the above figure it is clear
that end to end delay has decreased for CBRs while using
Q-AODV. Simulation results have shown that overall the
End to End delay for all the CBRs has reduced by 23%.
Average Jitter
3.844
Q-AODV broadcast storm and reducing the total number of RREQ
3 4 5 relayed during the route discovery process i.e., the route
discovery phase has been redefined by relaxing the
restriction of forwarding the RREQ to all the neighbors by
each node. To achieve this, Q-AODV follows a probabilistic
approach to find out least congested route. Q-AODV also
enforces a threshold condition in the network to avoid the
nodes having their respective queues more that 90% full.
Simulation results have shown that for congested
MANETs, Q-AODV performs better than AODV. The
proposed algorithm reduces the total number of RREQ
packets relayed during the route formation process as
compared to AODV. Using Q-AODV improves QoS
parameters, namely average jitter, throughput and average
end to end delay. The simulations have been performed
with the finite number of nodes and the simulations show

2.7983
2.15975

6 that by using Q-AODV, average jitter decreases by 7%,

0.894286
0.864828
3.22

0.673681
0.588419
1.3955
Jitter (ms)

1.1287

4 average End to End delay has reduced by 23%, and

2 AODV throughput has increased by 5%.
0 Q-AODV Although Q-AODV significantly improves specified
1 2 3 4 5 QoS parameters, but at the same time it faces certain
CBR challenges which are yet to be mitigated.
One of the major challenge being that Q-AODV may
sometimes lead to selection of route that may not be good
Figure 3: Comparison of Average Jitter achieved using AODV and Q- enough in terms of total number of nodes in the selected
AODV route i.e., Q-AODV may not lead to the shortest route
selection between the source and the destination.
Figure 3 presents the comparison of Average Jitter
incurred by CBRs while using AODV and Q-AODV as their Second challenge arises from the core concept of
routing Protocol. From the above figure it is clear that Probability, as it may happen that originator node generates
average jitter has decreased for CBRs while using Q-AODV. a large number (closer to 1) as random probability for
Simulation results have shown that overall the jitter for all RREQ which in turn may result in, most of the intermediate
the CBRs has reduced by 7%. nodes not rebroadcasting RREQ thereby reducing the
chances of route formation. So work can be done to
mitigate these challenges so as to make Q-AODV even
more efficient.

298
 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
REFERENCES
[1] D. Johnson and D.A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad hoc
Wireless Networks”, Mobile Computing, Imielinski and H.F. Korth,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 153-181, 1996.
[2] Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer, “Ad hoc On Demand
Distance Vector Routing”, In the Proceedings of Second IEEE
Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications,
(WMCSA '99), pp. 90-100, 25-26 Feb 1999.
[3] Z.J. Haas and M.R. Pearlman, “The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for
Ad hoc Networks”, Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) Working
Group of the Internet Eng. Task Force (IETF), Nov. 1997.
[4] Y. Ko and N. Yaidya, “Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad
hoc Networks”, Proc. MOBICOM ’98, pp. 66-75, 1998.
[5] C. Ho, K. Obraczka, G. Tsudik, and K. Viswanath, “Flooding for
Reliable Multicast in Multi-Hop Ad hoc Networks”, Proc. Int’l
Workshop Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing
and Comm., pp. 64-71, 1999.
[6] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar and V. Bharghavan, “Enhancing ad-hoc
routing with dynamic virtual infrastructures”, IEEE INFOCOM 2001,
pp. 1763-1772, 2001.
[7] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen, and J. Sheu, “The broadcast storm problem
in a Mobile Ad hoc Network”, Proc. of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM’99,
pp. 151-162, Aug. 1999.
[8] Daniel Reina, Princy Johnson, Federico Barrero and Sergio Toral
“Optimization of network lifetime through energy-efficient broadcast
scheme using dynamic random walk”, pp. 1-5, 4-6 Sept. 2012.
[9] Sofian Hamad, Nazar Radhi, Hamed Al-Raweshidy, “Candidate
Neighbours to Rebroadcast the RREQ for Efficient flooding in
Mobile Ad hoc Network”, Wireless Advanced-2011 (WiAd’11), 20-
22 June 2011.
[10] R. Vinod Kumar, R.S.D.WahidaBanu, “A New Approach For Load-
balancing in EEAODV Protocol”, in the proceedings of International
Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management
2012 (ICAESM’ 12), pp. 485-488, 30-31 March 2012.
[11] K.Muthumayi , V.Rajamani , S.Manikandan, “A Novel Cross Layered
Energy based Ad hoc On-Demand Routing Protocol for MANETs”,
In the proceedings of Third International Conference on Advanced
Computing-2011 (ICoAC’11), pp. 276-281, 14-16 Dec. 2011.
[12] Radhika D. Joshi, Priti P. Rege, “Distributed Energy Efficient
Routing in Ad hoc Networks”, Proceedings of Fourth International
Conference on Wireless Communication and Sensor Networks,
2008(WCSN 2008), pp. 16 – 21, 27-29 Dec. 2008.
[13] Sunho Lim, Chansu Yu, Chita R. Das, “RandomCast: An Energy-
Efficient Communication Scheme for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1039-
1051, 2009.
[14] Atul Eiman Alotaibi, Biswanath Mukherjee, “A survey on routing
algorithms for wireless Ad-Hoc and mesh networks”, Computer
Networks, pp. 940–965, 2012.
[15] Azzedine Boukerche, Begumhan Turgut, Nevin Aydin, Mohammad Z.
Ahmad, Ladislau Bölöni, Damla Turgut, “Routing protocols in Ad
hoc Networks: A survey”, Computer Networks, pp. 3032–3080, 2011.
[16] S. Hamma, E. Cizeron, H. Issaka, J.-P. Guedon, “Performance
evaluation of reactive and proactive routing protocol in IEEE 802.11
Ad hoc Network” , in the Proceedings of the SPIE Ad hoc and Sensor
Networks, Next-Generation Communication and Sensor Networks,
vol. 6387, no. 9, 2006.
[17] C. Liu, J. Kaiser, “A Survey of Mobile Ad-Hoc network Routing
Protocols”, Tech. Report, University of Ulm, pp. 2003-08, 2005.
[18] Mehran , Tadeusz Wysocki, Eryk Dutkiewicz, “A review of routing
protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, Ad hoc Networks, pp. 1–22,
2004
[19] C. Liu, J. Kaiser, “A Survey of Mobile Ad-Hoc network Routing
Protocols”, Tech. Report, University of Ulm, no. 2003-08, 2005.
[20] Martha Steenstrup, “Routing in communication networks”. New
Jersey, Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-010752-2.
[21] Majid Khabbazian and Vijay K. Bhargava, “Localized Broadcasting
with Guaranteed Delivery and Bounded Transmission Redundancy”,
IEEE Transactions on computers, vol. 57, no. 8, August 2008.
[22] Majid Khabbazian and Vijay K. Bhargava, “Efficient Broadcasting in
Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, IEEE Transactions on mobile computing,
vol. 8, no. 2, February 2009.
299
[23] B. Williams and T. Camp, “Comparison of Broadcasting Techniques
for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, Proc. MOBIHOC ’02, pp. 914-205,
2002.
[24] Shih-Hsien Wang, Ming-Chieh Chan, and Ting-Chao Hou, “Zone-
based Controlled Flooding in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,
International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and
Mobile Computing, 2005.
[25] ToshimitsuFujii, Mitsuru Kaji, Yuya Sasaki, Takahiro Hara ,
ShojiroNishio, “A Flooding Control Method with Ack-carry for
Location-based Information Dissemination in Mobile Ad hoc
Networks”, IEEE/IPSJ International Symposium on Applications and
the Internet, 2011.
[26] H. Lim and C. Kim, “Multicast Tree Construction and Flooding in
Wireless Ad hoc Networks,” In Proc. of the ACM Int’l Workshop on
Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile System
(MSWIM), pp. 61-68, Aug. 2000.
[27] Xinxin Liu, XiaohuaJia, Hai Liu, and Li Feng, “A Location
Aided Flooding Protocol for Wireless Ad hoc Networks”, pp.302-
313, 2007.
[28] D. G. Reina, S.L.Toral, P. Jonhson and F. Barrero, “Hybrid Flooding
Scheme for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, IEEE Communications letters,
vol. 17, no. 3, March 2013.
[29] Yunjung Yi and Mario Gerla, Taek Jin Kwon, “Efficient Flooding in
Ad hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study”, IEEE, pp.
1059-1063, 2003.
[30] A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, and A. Laouiti, “Multipoint Relaying for
Flooding Broadcast Messages in Mobile Wireless Networks”, Proc.
35th Hawaii Int’l Conf. System Sciences,2002.
[31] Hai Liu, Pengjun Wan, Xiaohua Jia, Xinxin Liu and Frances
Yao, “Efficient Flooding Scheme Based on 1-hop Information in
Ad Hoc Networks”, in proceedings IEEE infocom,
Communications Society subject, 2006.
[32] Y. Cai, K.A. Hua, and A. Phillips, “Leveraging 1-Hop Neighborhood
Knowledge for Efficient Flooding in Wireless Ad hoc Networks”,
Proc. 24th IEEE Int’l Performance Computing and Comm. Conf.
(IPCCC), Phoenix, Arizona, Apr. 2005.
[33] J. Wu and H. Li, “On Calculating Connected Dominating Set for
Efficient Routing in Ad hoc Wireless Networks”, Proc. Third Int’l
Workshop Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing
and Comm., pp. 7-14, 1999.
[34] I. Stojmenovic, M. Seddigh, and J. Zunic, “Dominating Sets and
Neighbor Elimination Based Broadcasting Algorithms in Wireless
Networks”, IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 13, no.
1, pp. 14-25, Jan. 2002.
[35] F. Dai and J. Wu, “An Extended Localized Algorithm for Connected
Dominating Set Formation in Ad hoc Wireless Networks”, IEEE
Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 908-920,
2004.