Proceedings of 2009 12th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT 2009)
21-23 December, 2009, Dhaka, Bangladesh
A QoS Aware Route Selection Mechanism Using Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Abu Hamed Mohammad Misbah Uddin t , Mohammad Iftekhar Monir, Shahid Md. Asif Iqbal t
t The Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
+Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, Premier University, Chittagong, Bangladesh
cseminhaj@yahoo.com, monirI175@yahoo.com, asifcsep@yahoo.com
Abstract
To truly realize potential ofMANET, multimedia servic-
es must be provisioned with a minimum level ofQoS. To
meet the QoS requirement of such services, many
attributes need to be considered. To keep the routing
process lightweight, standard QoS aware routing pro-
tocol in MANET works with one or two such parame-
ters. In this paper, we have proposed an on-demand
source routing protocol for MANET that works with six
important QoS attributes by varying priority for differ-
ent category oftraffic flow. We have reflected this vari-
ation by incorporating Analytic Hierarchy Process in
the proposal.
Keywords: AHP, MANET, QoS, Traffic Categoriza-
tion, Weight.
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad Hoc Network has gained importance as a
recognized field of research due to its decentralized,
dynamic and self configuring nature. In its early stage,
much of the efforts have been placed in providing solu-
tion for the best effort services. However, since the last
decade, it has been observed that multimedia services
have been a major catalyst for mass recognition of a
technology. In failing to guarantee such services
through typical best effort design, use of MANET in the
real world has been limited. Therefore focus has been
shifted towards the provision of better defined QoS in
this field.
QoS routing plays a major role in QoS provisioning as
it tries to find the best route to serve application's QoS
requirement. Some QoS routing protocol works as an
integral part of session admission control whereas some
tries to improve overall performance through particular
metrics. Majority of proposed QoS routing for MANET
has included throughput and delay as routing parameter.
However, many other metrics are also important to
quantify QoS. But working with more attributes is diffi-
cult and therefore, researchers have avoided working
with more than two attributes to design QoS routing [1].
Analytic Hierarchy Process is a powerful and flexible
decision making tool to set priorities when both qualita-
tive and quantitative aspects of a decision are consi-
dered. When complex multi-criteria based decision
making problem needs to be solved, AHP is a very good
choice as it simplifies by reducing complex decisions to
a series of one-on-one comparisons and then synthesiz-
978-1-4244-6284-1/09/$26.00 ©2009 IEEE
ing the results [2]. Keeping that in mind, we have de-
vised an on demand source routing protocol for
MANET which will use six important QoS attributes to
find out the best route by the help of Analytic Hierarchy
Process.
Remainder of the paper is designed as follows. In sec-
tion II we discuss the theoretical background for our
proposal. Section III gives an overview of related re-
search works in the field. Section IV presents the pro-
posed mechanism. Finally, section V summarizes our
work by discussing the achievement, limitation and fu-
ture work of the proposal.
II. THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. QoS Parameters and Traffic Categorization
The ITU has defined five important QoS Parameters for
IP transport: Transfer Delay, Delay Variation, Loss Ra-
tio, Error Ratio, and Throughput [3]. Here, Loss Ratio
and Error Ratio can also be described in terms of Relia-
bility. Other than these, some more parameter can be
regarded in case of wireless ad hoc network, whether
mobile or stationary. As every mobile node acts as in-
termediate router, load and power condition of these
nodes should also be considered [4]. Therefore, when
QoS aware routing is concerned above mentioned pa-
rameters should be taken into concern.
Some wireless technologies have defined service classes
and related QoS parameters. ITU has defined six service
classes (class 0-5) with recommended values of the QoS
parameters given in [3]. Enhanced Distribution Coordi-
nation Function (EDCF) has introduced prioritize four
access categories, designated 3, 2, 0, 1 from highest to
lowest priority for IEEE 802.11 in [5]. These four
access categories are not allocated to any particular type
of traffic but allocation that is often use is: voice, video,
best effort and background. QoS categorization in
802.16 is provided by means of four alternate schedul-
ing services: Unsolicited Grant, Real Time Polling, Non
Real Time Polling and Best Effort [6]. UMTS specifies
four service classes: Conversational, Streaming, Interac-
tive and Background [7]. As there is no specified traffic
categorization for Ad Hoc Wireless network, one of
these categorizations can be utilized in modified form, if
QoS provisioning is in concern.
552
B.AHP
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured
solution process to work with complex decisions of
dealing multiple criteria to choose one of the multiple
options. It is used globally in a wide variety of decision
situations, in fields such as government, technology,
business, industry, healthcare, and education.
AHP first decompose decision problem into a hierarchy
of more easily understandable sub-problems, which are
evaluated independently. The elements of the hierarchy
can relate to any aspect of the decision problem-
tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly
estimated, well- or poorly-understood -anything at all
that applies to the decision at hand.
Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers syste-
matically evaluate its various elements by comparing
them to one another at a time. In making the compari-
sons, the decision makers can use concrete data about
the elements, or they can use their judgments about the
elements' relative meaning and importance. The AHP
converts these evaluations to numerical values that can
be processed and compared over the entire range of the
problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for
each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and
often incommensurable elements to be compared to one
another in a rational and consistent way. In the final
step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated
for each of the decision alternatives. These numbers
represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the
decision goal, so they allow a straightforward consider-
ation of the various courses of action [2].
III. RELATED WORKS
There have been regular efforts in designing QoS aware
routing protocols. As supporting more than one QoS
constraint make the QoS routing problem NP-complete
[8], majority of the routing protocols have focused on
providing QoS based on one or two metrics, mostly
throughput and delay. In [9], the authors have designed
a QoS-aware routing protocol through the use of the
approximate bandwidth estimation by using two (ad-
mission control and feedback) bandwidth estimation
methods. Zhu and Corson, has developed an end to end
bandwidth based QoS routing protocol for mobile ad
hoc networks employing TDMA [10]. Similarly,
MACAIPR [11] provides guaranteed bandwidth support
via reservation for real time traffic. On the other hand,
Application Aware QoS Routing [12] works with both
transmission delay and session throughput requirement
to assure throughput, bounded delay and jitter. ODCR
[13] uses delay to find out the best route with bounded
delay.
Other QoS parameter based routing solution is also evi-
dent. DSARP [14] has used load condition (buffer full-
ness) to provide bounded delay and jitter. GAMAN [15]
uses node traversal delay and reliability to achieve ro-
bust QoS routing solution. MRPC [16], a power aware
routing protocol uses Min Max formulation to select the
553
path that has the largest packet capacity by using resi-
dual battery power and the link error rates.
IV. PROPOSED SCHEME
A. Process Overview
Our proposed system contains three important blocks:
Flow Classifier, Routing Information Base (RIB) and
AHP Engine. Flow classifier assigns access class to
the traffic flows according to their nature through some
defined process. Routing Information Base runs an on
demand source routing protocol similar to DSR protocol
and gathers values of QoS attributes for different route
throughout the process. AHP pre- computes the weight
distribution of the QoS parameters and stores them. The
engine also accumulates the values of QoS attributes of
different routes from RIB. Finally, it performs calcula-
tion using the weight and the value of QoS parameters
according to AHP process to generate routing metric.
Each unit is explained in the following sections.
B. Flow Classifier
Importance of the QoS attributes varies for different
traffic flow. To reflect the appropriate importance of
attributes while calculating metric for QoS routing pro-
tocol, common user traffic needs to be divided into
multiple classes so that attribute priority are easily
attached to them. As there is no strongly defined allo-
cation strategy to common user applications to differ-
ent classes defined in EDCF, following categoriza-
tion (adapted from UMTS QoS classification [7]) is
used in the design.
Table I: Traffic flow category
Category 3 VoiceNideo Telephony
Category 2 Streaming, AudioNideo on demand
Category 0 Web browsing, Database access, Re
Category 1 Email,File Download
Flow classifier uses category defined in table I to assign
a class to a flow by one the following mechanism: IP
ToS, 802.1p, DSCP [17].
C. RIB & The Routing Process
The RIB runs an on-demand source routing protocol
similar to DSR [18]. According to the design, route re-
quest is generated by the source and route is selected by
the destination. The route discovery process works as
follows. When a node wants to send data to another
node but it does not have the route to reach the destina-
tion, the source node broadcasts a route request packet
directed towards the destination. When an intermediate
node receives the broadcast it adds itself as well its cur-
rent values of QoS attributes.
As discussed in the literary review, common parameters
that attributes to the QoS of a traffic flow in MANET
are: Throughput, Delay, Jitter, Reliability (defined by
Packet Loss and Bit Error Rate), Load and Battery pow-
er. These QoS metrics can be classified as additive,
concave or multiplicative metrics based on their ma-
thematical properties [19]. Additive metrics are defined
as ILi(m), over path P, where L, (m) is the value of the
metric m over link L, and L, P. The value of concave
metric Cmisdefined as the minimum value of that metric
over a path, Cm = mirul., (m)). Finally, multiplicative
metric MIn is calculated by taking the product of the
values along a path, M m=I1 L, (m). Thus, delay is an
additive metric, as it is cumulative over the whole path
and throughput is a concave metric. Therefore, these six
metrics are calculated for each link over a route accord-
ing to its nature and placed in route request packet.
When the destination receives the route request pack-
etCs), it replies the best route to the source. Upon receiv-
ing the packet, RIB in destination node stores each
route along with its QoS values for the six parameters.
To compute the best route, the destination node uses
QoS attribute values only. While sending route request,
source node sets category of the traffic flow for which
the route is intended. This is used by the RIB in the des-
tination node, as it informs AHP engine to perform cal-
culation according to the category.
D. AHP ENGINE
The AHP engine collects the discovered routes along
with their QoS values from the RIB. It is also informed
about the flow class for which the route is intended.
From the class definition, AHP uses the appropriate pre-
computed priority weight and multiplies these weights
with perceived QoS values through a process defined in
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Outcome of the calculation
is the relative preference of the routes. Using relative
preference value, destination node identifies the best
route and sends route reply accordingly. AHP process is
defined as follows.
In the first step, the problem is organized into a three
level hierarchy as figure 2. The key objective here is to
select the best route suited to QoS requirement of the
traffic flow. Therefore route selection is placed at the
root of the tree.
1,...---.-·-
. .......
------.
El E·Ei:3 El; El=
........ .. Ii .... ,-..
. ".",~...' .,
: ""'_'0J- ~- . --'i" L_, ,". ~." '"
~
E-~8~t::J
Fig. 1. AHP 3 Tier Hierarchy
Factors contributing to the objective are shown in the
tier 2 and alternatives or route options are mentioned in
tier 3 of the hierarchy.
554
Usually the AHP method consist four steps: 1) Create
the input values by pair-wise comparisons of decision
elements, 2) Estimate the relative weights of the deci-
sion elements, 3) Check for consistency, 4) Combine
the relative weights to determine the ranking of the dif-
ferent decision alternatives. While designing solution
for MANET, one has to keep in mind that the protocol
should be as lightweight as possible. That's why we
have used a variant of AHP process explained in [20].
This mechanism reduces the processing by eliminating
step 3 and simplifying step 2.
The next step is creating judgments on the parameters'
importance, made in pairs, aij, relating the importance
of parameter i to that of parameter j. A theoretically
justified fundamental scale according to [2], is used to
represent the intensities between each attribute. Usually
the scale consists of nine levels but to make it easier, we
use more restricted scale with three levels mentioned in
the following table. Reason behind this simpler scale is
that we have categorized the value and requirement of
the attributes in three levels: high, medium and low.
Table II: Intensity of Importance Scale
Intensity of Impor- Definition
1 EquallyImportant
3 Moderately More Importan1
5 Strongly More Important
At first, keeping the objective of route selection in fo-
cus, QoS attributes are pair-wise compared. A square
matrix of order n, A = [~j], is created using the compar-
isons where, ~j>O, indicating the importance of parame-
ter i relative to parameter j as show in equation (1).
all a12 a13 ali)
a2l a22 a23 a2i
A= (1)
... ... .. .
(.atl ail ai~ afi
Obviously, ~j = 1, when i=j, while ~j = 1/a.;i; which re-
flects the reciprocal importance of parameter j relative
to parameter i. Then we are going to determine the
weight distribution of the parameters using the compari-
son matrix mentioned in equation (1), in which Wi is the
weight of parameter i in the weight vector w = [w}, W2,
W3, .... , w n] for n attributes. This vector can by found
by the equation (2) based on [2], given as follows:
w.I = "t:"ft ~''; "t:"D ~ft ~"
L.Jj=l W1J .Lii=l L j=l W1J .
(2)
Where, aij is the (ij)th entry of the comparison matrix A.
Thus, we find Wij, column matrix, where i = 1 to n, for a
particular flow class j. Aligning column matrices, Wi},
Wi2, Wi3 ... to column 1, 2, 3 ... and so on, we form
another matrix B = [bij] of order n X m, where, where n
is the number of parameter and m is the number catego-
ries.
We perform another set of pair-wise comparison but
this time for the routes and build a set of comparison
square matrix for all QoS attributes, C = [Cij] of order p,
where p is the number of routes. Using the mechanism
given in equation (2), we construct Rij ; where, Rij is Cat T D J R R B Row Score
2 Sum
route weight distribution of route i for parameter j. We
represent Rij in matrix D = [Dij ] p x ne where p is the T 1 5 1 5 5/3 5/3 15.3 0.28
3
number of routes and n is the number of parameter. Fi- D 1/5 1 1/5 1 1/3 1/3 3.07 0.05
nally, we perform matrix multiplication within D x B = J 1 5 1/5 5 5/3 5/3 15.3 0.28
[E], x m- This is the solution matrix. Highest value of 3
each column represents the best route for a particular R 1/5 1 1/5 1 1/3 1/3 3.07 0.05
category of flow traffic. L 3/5 3 3/5 3 1 1 9.2 0.17
B 3/5 3 3/5 3 1 1 9.2 0.17
To- 55.2 1
E. Case Study tal
To demonstrate how AHP engine works we will use an
example ad hoc network scenario. The topology of the Table V: Factor comparison category 0
scenario is given below (figure 2). S wants to send Ca T D J R L B Row Seo
t Sum re
VoIP traffic to D and it is discovering route for D. In 0
this topology, S can reach to D, using one of the three T 1 1 3 3/5 1 1 7.6 0.1
routes (Route 1: H-I-J-K, Route 2: A-B-C, Route 3: E- 7
D 1 1 3 3/5 1 1 7.6 0.1
F-G). Following section demonstrates how AHP calcu-
7
lates the matrix. J 1/ 1/3 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 2.53 0.0
3 5
R 51 5/3 5 1 5/3 5/3 12.6 0.2
3 7 7
L 1 1 3 3/5 1 1 7.6 0.1
~.,
7
."-.
1,-.. B 1 1 3 3/5 1 1 7.6 0.1
7
To- 45.6 1
tal

Table VI: Factor comparison category 1

Cat 1 T D J R L B Row Score
Sum
T 1 1 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 3.87 0.07
Fig. 2. Ad Hoc Network topology D 1 1 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 3.87 0.07
J 1 1 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 3.87 0.07
R 5 5 5 1 5/3 5/3 19.33 0.37
Using the stringency of common application with their
L 3 3 3 3/5 1 1 11.6 0.21
QoS requirement adapted from [21], following matrixes B 3 3 3 3/5 1 1 11.6 0.21
are pre-computed to all nodes which shows the pair Total 54.14 1
wise weight distribution of the QoS attributes for differ-
ent categories. Although almost all of the QoS attribute Now, different routes are pair wise compared for each
requirement varies for different access class traffic but QoS attributes. Before forming this pair wise compari-
requirement of load and battery power level is uniform sons we need to obtain the values for the QoS attributes
for all categories. That's why we have placed uniform and order them according to the intensity of importance.
intensity of importance of those two attributes through- To do that we use two threshold values: ul and a2,
out the matrices. We have used following notation for where ul > a2 > O. If perceived value of a QoS attribute
simpler usage: Throughput = T, Delay = D, Jitter =J, is beyond ul then its intensity level is considered high.
Reliability = R, Load = L, Battery Power = B. On the other hand, if the value lies between ul and a2
Table III Factor comparison catesorv 3 then intensity level is medium. Otherwise, intensity is
Cat T D J R L B Row Score considered low. We will assume that from a set of per-
3 Sum ceived values of the attributes in the network, following
T 1 3/5 3/5 3 1 1 7.2 0.132 table is formed:
D 5/3 1 1 5 5/3 5/3 15.33 0.28 Table VII: Ranking for other categories
J 5/3 1 1 5 5/3 5/3 15.33 0.28 Parameter Route 1 Route 2 Route 3
R 1/3 1/5 1/5 1 1/3 1/3 2.4 0.044 Throughput High Medium Medium
L 1 3/5 3/5 3 1 1 7.2 0.132 Delay Medium Low High
B 1 3/5 3/5 3 1 1 7.2 0.132 Jitter Medium Low High
Total 54.66 1 Reliabilitv High Medium High
Load Medium High Low
Battery Power Medium High Low
Following matrices shows the pair wise comparison and
Table IV: Factor comparison category 2
priority rating of the each route for each of the parame-

555
ters based on the information in table VIII. ble for category 1. The destination node will send a
Table VIII: Pair wise companson for Thr ou 1lPU
h t route reply to the source accordingly.
Throughput Route Route Route Row Score T able XII: Ra nkimg for ot h er catezones
1 2 3 Sum
Category 2 Category 0 Category 1
Route 1 1 5/3 5/3 4.33 0.44
0.3638 0.3649 0.3599
Route 2 3/5 1 1 2.6 0.27
Route 3 3/5 1 1 2.6 0.27 0.3088 0.2659 0.2249

Total 9.53 1 0.3218 0.3658 0.4138

Similarly, pair-wise weight distribution of all the routes v. CONCLUSION

for other attributes are calculated and following matrix Current trend in research in the field of QoS routing in
is formed. MANET shows that that, researchers are putting a great
Table IX: Priority ratin ~ of options against a lIt:actors emphasis on the session admission (QoS route finding)
Throu- Jit- Reli- Battery capability of their protocol, which is admittedly very
Delay Load
ghput ter ability Power
important. Conforming to that, we present a QoS aware
Route
0.44 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.33 0.33
route selection mechanism for mobile ad hoc network.
1 In order to make a more accurate route selection for best
Route QoS support we select the most important QoS
0.27 0.56 0.56 0.22 0.11 0.11
2
attributes from different aspects. AHP is used to calcu-
Route
0.27 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.56 0.56 late the integral value of multiple parameters and make
3
the route selection decision in which the human aspect
is involved to determine the importance between differ-
The last step is to establish the overall ranking among
ent criteria. As the calculations are neither numerous
the alternatives by combining the priority matrices - nor complicated, a use for real time route selection is
weight distribution of criteria and weight distribution of possible. It can be expanded for additional criteria and
options. The outcome from this product is the overall attributes. So, this scheme significantly advances the
ranking for the options in achieving the goal. Following system flexibility and extensibility, and provides more
matrix multiplication will determine the overall ranking accurate and effective route selection at any time.
of the routes for VolP traffic flow. As VolP traffic falls However, session completion is also as important as
into category 3, weight distribution of routes are multip-
session admission from a user perspective. This is be-
lied with the weight distribution of attributes for catego- cause the perceived QoS is better when some sessions
ry 3. Product from the above combination results the
are blocked but none are dropped in mid session. In this
final overall ranking shown in table XI, with Route 2 proposal we have not explained any QoS assurance pro-
coming out as the most favorable alternatives for cate- cedure. We will look into the aspect of session comple-
gory 3. tion in future research. Furthermore, we will also look
Table 10: Combined Matrix into fast local QoS route-repairing schemes require to
Thro- Del- Jitt- Reli- Lo- Batt-
Cat improve QoS session completion rates and protocols'
ugput ay er ability ad ery
3
Power robustness against mobility. Finally, experimental result
0.44 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.33 0.33 0.132 from simulated environment will reflect the strength of
0.27 0.56 0.56 0.22 0.11 0.11 * 0.28 our proposal. We are going to provide outcomes of si-
0.27 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.56 0.56 0.28 mulated experiments in the upcoming works.
0.044
0.132 REFERENCES
0.132
[1] Hanzo-II, L.; Tafazolli, R.,"A SURVEY OF QOS
ROUTING SOLUTIONS FOR MOBILE AD HOC
Table XI: Ranking of routes or category 3
Route
NETWORKS", Communications Surveys & Tuto-
Category 3
rials, IEEE Volume 9, Issue 2, Page(s):50 - 70,
Route 1 0.34716 Second Quarter 2007.
Route 2 0.38796 [2] Saaty, Thomas L. "How to make decision: The
Route 3 0.26224 Analytic Hierarchy Process", European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 48, pp 9-26, 1990.
[3] ITU-T Y.1540 AMD 1: Internet protocol data
Table XII shows the ranking of the routes if other cate- communication service - IP packet transfer and
gories of traffic are considered. Here, Route 1 is the availability performance parameters Amendment 1.
most favorable route in category 2, Route 3 is the most [4] Prasant Mohapatra, Jian Li, and Chao Gui, "QoS in
favorable for category 0 and Route 1is the most favora- Mobile Ad hoc Networks," Special Issue on QoS in

556
 Next-Generation Wireless Multimedia Communica- [18]D. Johnson, Y. Hu, D. Maltz, "RFC 4728: The Dy-
tions Systems in IEEE Wireless Communications namic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile
Magazine, June 2003. Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4", February 2007
[5] Daqing Gu Jinyun Zhang, "QoS enhancement in [19]T. B. Reddy, I. Karthigeyan, B. Manoj, and C. S. R.
IEEE 802.11 wireless local area networks", Com- Murthy, "Quality of service provisioning in ad hoc
munications Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 41, Issue: wireless networks: a survey of issues and solu-
6, page(s): 120- 124, June 2003. tions." available online:
[6] IEEE 802.16-2004, "IEEE Standard for Local and http://www.sciencedirect.com. Last accessed on
Metropolitan Area Networks - Part 16: Air Inter- 29th July, 2009.
face for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Sys- [20]Dr S. Tom Foster, Dr. Gerald LaCava, "The Ana-
tems", October 2004. lytical Hierarchy Process: A step by step ap-
[7] UMTS: Quality of Service, proach", Available at:
http://www.umtsworld.com/technology/qos.htm. https://acc.dau.mil/GetAttachment.aspx?id=5479&
Last accessed on 29th July, 2009 pname=file&aid=18722&lang=en-US, Last ac-
[8] S. Chen," Routing Support for Providing Guaran- cessed on 29th July, 2009.
teed End-to-End Quality-of-Service", PhD thesis, [21]Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Quality of Service: Re-
University ofIL at Urbana-Champaign, 1999. quirements", Computer Network, Chapter 5, page:
[9] Lei Chen, Wendi B. Heinzelman, "QoS-Aware 397, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, October 2002.
Routing Based on Bandwidth Estimation for Mo-
bile Ad Hoc Networks", Selected Areas in Com-
munications, IEEE Journal on
Volume 23, Issue 3, Page(s): 561 - 572, March
2005.
[10]Chenxi Zhu, M. Scott Corson, "QoS routing for
mobile ad hoc networks", Infocom 2002, Available
athttp://www.ieeeinfocom.org/2002/papers/121.pd
f, Last accessed on: 29 July, 1009.
[11]Lin, C.R. Gerla, M, "Asynchronous Multimedia
Multihop Wireless Networks", INFOCOM '97. Six-
teenth annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Com-
puter and Communications Societies. Proceedings
IEEE Vol: 1, page(s): 118-125, Apr1997.
[12]M. Wang and G.-S. Kuo, "An application-aware
QoS routing scheme with improved stability for
multimedia applications in mobile ad hoc net-
works," in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology
Con£,pp.1901-1905,Sep.2005.
[13]B. Zhang and H. T. Mouftah, .QoS routing for
wireless ad hoc networks: problems, algorithms and
protocols, IEEE Communication Magazine, vol. 43,
pp. 110.117, Oct. 2005.
[14]M. Sheng, J. Li, and Y. Shi, "Routing protocol with
QoS guarantees for ad-hoc network", Electronics
Letters, volume 39, pp. 143.145, Jan. 2003.
[15]L. Barolli, A. Koyama, and N. Shiratori, "A QoS
routing method for ad-hoc networks based on ge-
netic algorithm", In Proceedings of 14th Interna-
tional Workshop. Database and Expert Systems
Applications, pp. 175. 179, Sep. 2003.
[16]A. Misra and S. Banerjee, "MRPC: Maximizing
network lifetime for reliable routing in wireless en-
vironments", In Proceedings of IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference.,
March 2002.
[17]WLAN Quality of Service, Available at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterp
riselMobility/vowlan/41dg/vowlan_ch2.html, Last
accessed on 29th July, 2009.

557