You are on page 1of 4

A Probability Based Multicast Routing Protocol with Energy Constrained for MANET

Xu Zhenqiang School of Information Science and Engineering Henan University of Technology Zhengzhou 450001, China xuzhenqiang@haut.edu.cn Li Guowei School of Computer Science Zhongyuan University of Technology Zhengzhou,450007,China Lgw97@163.com Li Jie Physical Education College of Zhengzhou University Zhengzhou,450044,China lijieby@163.com

AbstractRecently, the study of multicast routing attracts more attentions in MANET. Multicast Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (MAODV) protocol, which is multicast operation of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol, enables dynamic, self-starting, multihop routing between participating mobile nodes wishing to join or participate in a multicast group within an Ad Hoc network. Through analyzing its operation mechanism, we present a probability based multicast routing protocol with energy constrained (PBMR),in which a hybrid probability forwarding strategy is adopted. When a node wants to join a multicast tree, it floods a RREQ-Join message to its neighbors, when the neighbors receive this message, the neighbor with much energy left has a high probability to forward the message, and so on. By making correctness proof and complexity analysis of PBMR, this paper evaluates MAODV and PBMR with extensive simulations, the results show that PBMR has a better jitter than MAODV and a more balance in energy consumption. On the one hand, it saves the energy of the network system; on the other hand, it has a longer network lifetime and a more stable routing than MAODV and successfully solves the inconsistent problem of energy and scalability. Keywords- Energy Level, Ad Hoc Networks, Multicast Routing Protocol, Probability forwarding

communication devices in Ad Hoc networks are batteries operated and have limited energy, so the network is an energy constrained system. How to preserve nodal energy and prolong lifetime of the system gradually plays an important role in evaluating the performance of Ad Hoc network routing protocols. The energy conservation of the network system is a key problem especially in situations such as military areas, disaster relief, deep-ocean operation etc., where time and devices are constrained. From the viewpoint of energy, the shortest path is not always the optimal one. On the contrary, using the shorter hops to replace the relatively longer hops may be a better choice to preserve the energy [3]. While a variety of approaches to energy aware routing protocols in Ad Hoc networks have been proposed, depending on desired goals, they can be classified into two types [4]. The goal of the first type is to focus on minimizing the total consumed energy when transmitting packets, which minimizes the energy consumption per packet or per flow [5~7]. However, they may suffer the same problem as the above-mentioned routing protocols without consideration of energy conservation. If the same paths are being utilized repeatedly due to their minimal energy consumption, nodal energy along these routes is consumed quickly and may cause the topology partitioned earlier as the classical routing protocols. The goal of the second type is to maximize the systems lifetime, which is defined as duration from the beginning of the service to the first time of some nodes energy depletion, by preserving the smaller energy left nodes to prolong the time of system split [8~12]. They put more focus on load balancing among nodes to lengthen service time rather than minimization of energy consumption for individual packet transmission. Based on nodal energy left, our algorithm is presented just by the second idea. It adopts different forwarding probabilities in different energy levels. On the one hand, the routing passes by the much energy left nodes, which prolongs systems lifetime and saves systems energy. On the other hand, it makes the topology relatively stable and avoids the bigger undulation when forwarding data packets. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 surveys the related work on multicast routing for MANET. Section 3 presents the idea and mechanism of PBMR, and gives a theory discussion of correctness proof and complexity analysis of PBMR. Section 4 describes the simulation experiment in detail, depicts simulation results and has a performance

I.

INTRODUCTION

A mobile Ad Hoc network (MANET) is a collection of wireless mobile nodes communicating with each other using multi-hop wireless links. It does not need any existing network infrastructure or centralized administration. Each node in the network also acts as a router, forwarding data packets for other nodes, which in such a network move arbitrarily, thus network topology changes frequently and unpredictably. Moreover, bandwidth, battery life and physical security are all limited in the network system. These constraints, in combination with network topology dynamics make multicast routing protocols in ad hoc networks challenging. The present multicast routing protocols of Ad Hoc networks can be threefold. One is flooding algorithms, the other two are core tree and mesh based routing protocols respectively. MAODV, which is one of classical multicast routing protocols, was first presented in [2], and detailed implemented in ns2 by [1]. It creates bi-directional shared multicast trees connecting multicast sources and receivers. MAODV however is a shortest routing, that is, the least hops routing, which does not consider the energy aware problem. However, the portable

This work was supported in part by Natural Science Foundation of Education Department of Henan Province, China, under grant number 2010B520028 and 2011A120008.

978-1-4244-6252-0/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

evaluation of PBMR versus MAODV. Concluding remarks and future research areas are made in Section 5. II. RELATED WORK MAODV and ODMRP [13] are both two classical on-demand multicast routing protocols for MANET. The former is capable of multicast communication. Multicast routes are discovered on-demand using a broadcast routing discover mechanism. MAODV creates bi-directional shared multicast trees connecting sources and destinations group. The operation of MAODV provides quick convergence when the network topology changes and is loop-free by using multicast group sequence numbers. The latter is mesh based, and uses a forwarding group concept, that is, only a subset of nodes forwards the multicast messages. It applies on-demand procedures to dynamically build routing and maintain multicast group membership. A soft-state approach is taken in ODMRP to maintain multicast group members and no explicit control message is required when a member wants to leave the group.A comprehensive presented and better organized of multicast routing protocols in MANET are made in literatures [14~15]. III. A. The Idea of PBMR The main idea of PBMR is that the decision of routing forwarding should be based on each nodes energy level. The ultimate goal of our approach is to achieve a better energy balance among mobile nodes, which eventually results in a longer lifetime and a stable routing of the topology. This paper presents a simple and hybrid mechanism of probability forwarding in PBMR. According to their energy left, nodes are classified into different energy levels (el). The more energy left, the higher energy level. When a node receives RREQ-J, it adopts different forwarding probabilities. We use two methods to ascertain the forwarding probability. One is coarse-grained, the other is fine-grained. To the coarse-grained, the higher the energy level is, the bigger the forwarding probability has. To the fine-grained, the much the energy left, the bigger the forwarding probability is. In the beginning and end stage, the fine-grained is adopted, in the middle stage, the coarse-grained is used. Thus, when destination nodes receive the first RREQ-J, the path will be formed with much more energy left nodes. On the one hand, it preserves the lower energy level nodes and prolongs the network lifetime, on the other hand, it reduces the number of control messages and saves the system energy as shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b), which illustrate the state when a node receives a RREQ-J. The number in both Figures denotes the energy level of each node. PBMR

Why we use a hybrid probability forwarding strategy? According to the work[16],in the two ends of simulation, i.e. the beginning and end stage, the energy differences among nodes are not obvious, which leads to most nodes lie in the same energy level, its not suitable to use the coarse-grained method. Energy model in NS2 has three levels, named energy level one, energy level two and level three. Nodes are classified into five states: transmitting, receiving, listening, sleep and dead. When left energy of a node is just equal to zero, the node falls into dead state automated. We use function f(el) or F(EL) to denote a nodes forwarding probability, el denotes its energy level, EL denotes its energy left, combining with energy model of NS2, the pseudo of PBMR is listed below: To the coarse-grained: Acquire (el); //acquiring nodal energy level // different forwarding probabilities

f (el ) = pi Obviously,

(1)

p
i =1

=1

(2)

To the fine-grained: // acquire nodes energy left Acquire (EL); // different forwarding probabilities F ( EL) = ei Ei (3)

Where, ei is the current energy of node i, Ei is the initial energy of node i(see Section 3.2). The implementation of multicast tree of PBMR consists of three main procedures the creature of multicast tree, the partitions of multicast tree and the merge of multicast tree (due to space constrained , we do not present them in this paper). B. The analysis of PBMR Consider a directed graph G(N,L),where N is the set of all nodes and L is the set of all directed links (i, j),where i, j N. Let Si be the set of nodes that can be reached by node i with a certain power level in its dynamic range. Let Ei be the initial energy of node i and ei be the current energy of which. The transmission energy required by node i to transmit a bit data to its neighbor node j is denoted by eij and the rate at which information is transmitted from node i to node j is called the flow fij. Ti(f) denotes the lifetime of node i constrained with flow f ,which is presented by as follow.
Ti

( f ) E i /
j S
i

e ij f ij

(4)

Figure 1.

(a)Lower energy level

(b)Higher energy level

Thus, the system lifetime is denoted by:

T sys

( f ) mi nTi ( f ) , i N

(5)

IV.

THE SIMULATION MODEL AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

1) The proof of correctness For the same pair of (source, destination) there have: Lemma 1 the route hops of PBMR are bigger or equal to the MAODVs. Proof (apagoge): Suppose the route hops of PBMR are smaller than MAODV, from the request phase of MAODV, we know that MAODV will select the route found by the PBMR for the same pair of (source, destination), because it is the least hops route, then the route hops of MAODV are just equal to the route hops of PBMR, which is contradiction to the hypothesis. Theorem 1 the system energy consumption of PBMR is smaller than the MAODVs. Proof: From the Lemma 1, the route hops of PBMR are bigger or equal to the MAODVs, and from the literature[3], we know that the energy consumption of a route with more shorter hops is smaller than the energy consumption of a route with less longer hops, then the total systems energy consumption of PBMR is smaller than the MAODVs when n is greater or equal to 2. Lemma 2 In PBMR, the number of nodes in a path is bigger or equal to the MAODVs. Proof: From the Lemma 1 we know the route hops of PBMR are bigger or equal to MAODVs, so the number of the nodes is not smaller than the MAODVs. Theorem 2 the nodal energy consumption of PBMR is more balance than MAODVs. Proof: From the Lemma 2, we know the number of nodes in a route found by PBMR is not smaller than the MAODVs, furthermore, these nodes have always much more energy left, so the route is not traverse the hot regions nodes which are used by the classical routing protocols or minimal routing protocols and their energy are consumed quickly. It leads to a shorter lifetime of the network system and makes the topology partitioned earlier, left many nodes with much more energy left. However, for PBMR, which makes the route traverses more nodes with higher energy level and leads to a longer lifetime of network system, thus obtains a more balance of energy consumption. 2) The analysis of complexity From aforementioned, we know that PBMR has not increase the complexity of the original algorithms or protocols, that is, for MAODV, when the links of G are all bi-directional, the complexity of the algorithm is o(n); when the links are part of unidirectional, the complexity is o(n2), where n is the total number of the network. Let ni be the number of neighbor of node i and Nu equal to n. Theorem 3 When the links of G are all bi-directional, the complexity of PBMR is o (n). Theorem 4 When part of links of G is unidirectional, the complexity of PBMR is o(n2).The proof see [17].

A. The Simulation Model The simulator for evaluating routing protocols of MAODV and PBMR is implemented with the network simulation version 2 (ns2). Our simulation models the initial energy with 8 Joule and 50 mobile nodes placed randomly within a 1500m300m zone. Radio propagation range for each node is 250 m and channel capacity is 2 M bit/s. The node mobility speed is 1m/s and initial position is generated stochastically and the pause time is 0s. Each simulation executes for 900s. The number of senders is 1,5,10 and the number of receivers is 20 respectively. The simulation altogether produces 15 kinds of stochastic topologies, each group corresponds to 5 kinds and the collected data is the averaged over those 5 runs. B. The Analysis of Performance The performance of total energy consumption, the number of dead nodes, the system lifetime and delay of the two routing protocols are shown from table 1 to table 2 and from Fig. 2 to Fig. 3 with the different senders respectively. Table 1 compares MAODVs and PBMRS energy consumption with varying number of senders. We observe from table 1 that, for all the cases, PBMR provides much better performance than MAODV. This is just as expected since PBMR adopts different forwarding probabilities, when nodes are in different energy levels, which preserves the nodes energy and makes a longer lifetime of the system as shown in Fig. 2.
TABLE I.
1Sender PBMR MAODV

AVERAGED ENERGY CONSUMPTION


5 Senders PBMR MAODV 10 Senders PBMR MAODV

136.341

174.156

105.254

138.166

86.348

125.448

TABLE II.

AVERAGED NUMBER OF DEATH NODES


5 Senders PBMR MAODV 10 Senders PBMR MAODV

1Sender PBMR MAODV

44

45

46

46

47

47

Integrated Table 1 with Table 2, its obvious that the total death nodes of PBMR and MAODV are almost equal as presented in table 2, but PBMR has a smaller energy consumption, which indicates that energy consumption per node in PBMR is smaller than those in MAODV, thus, it leads to a longer systems lifetime (as expected in Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Life time vs Senders

Fig. 3 depicts the lifetime of PBMR and MADOV in different senders. This graph clearly demonstrates that the performance of PBMR is better than MAODV as the number of senders increase. In MAODV, the key nodes will be used until they power off or happen to link broken, on the contrary, PBMR exploits different forwarding probabilities in different energy levels or energy left, the nodes with much more energy left have a higher probability to attend routings, there maybe also exist key nodes in these routings, however, the key nodes will be chosen with a lower probability in later routing request stage, because they become ordinary nodes owing to a faster energy consumption in former routing stage, thus, our idea forms a routing tactics based on energy cycle in nature, and the chance of each node is almost equal to attend routing in entire simulation phase, which also verifies the Theorem 2. Fig. 3 illustrates the results of the averaged delay of two protocols. It is obvious to see that the averaged delay of PBMR is smoother than MAODV with the number of senders increasing; that is to say, the wave of delay (jitter) in MAODV is bigger than PBMR. It indicates that PBMR is more suitable to transmit multimedia contents and more scalable for large scale ad hoc networks.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Figure 3. Delay vs Senders

[12]

V. CONCLUSION Energy constrained routing protocol is a core problem in Ad Hoc networks and attracts more attention currently. Based on the balance of energy consumption, mobile nodes energy levels and using the different forwarding probabilities, this paper presents a probability based multicast routing protocol with energy constrained. From the simulating results, PBMR has a better jitter than MAODV and a more balance of energy consumption. On the one hand, it saves the energy of the network system; on the other hand, it has a longer network lifetime than MAODV and successfully solves the inconsistent question of energy and delay. It should be pointed out that PBMR is simple, scalable and efficient. Currently, we are studying how to extend our work into QoS routing with energy aware multicast and any cast in mobile Ad Hoc networks and Delay Tolerant Networks. REFERENCES
[1]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Yufang Zhu, Thomas Kunz. MAODV Implementation for NS-2.26. Carleton University,Technical Report

SCE-04-01,2004. Royer E.M, Perkins C.E. Multicast Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (MAODV) Routing. IETF, Internet Draft: draft- ietf-manet-maodv-00.txt, 2000. Rodopluv, MENG T H-Y. Minimum energy mobile wireless networks[J]. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication.1999, 17(8):1333~1344. Feeney L M. Energy efficient communication in ad hoc wireless networks [EB/OL]. http://www.sics.se/~lmfeeney/ chapter-done.pdf,2010. Bergamo P,Giovanardi A,Travasonia,et al.Distributed Power Control for Energy Efficient Routing in Ad Hoc Networks [EB/OL]. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/552450.html,2010. GOMEZ J,CAMPBELL A T,NAGHSHINEH M,et al. Conserving transmission power in wireless ad hoc networks [C].In:Proc of IEEE Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP01).November 2001. Rahman.A, Gburzynski.P.On constructing minimum-energy path-preserving graphs for ad-hoc wireless networks[C].ICC 2005: IEEE international conference on communications, 2005,1(5): 3083-3087. BERGAMO P, GIOVANARDI A, TRAVASONI A, et al. Distributed Power Control for Energy Efficient Routing in Ad Hoc Networks [EB/OL]. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/ 552450. html,2010. Yu W, Lee J, DSR-based energy-aware routing protocols in ad hoc networks[C]. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Networks (ICWN),Nevada,June 2002. GUPTA N,DAS S R.Energy-Aware On-Demand Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks [EB/OL]. http:// crewman.uta.edu/ ~choi/energy.pdf, 2010. Yin.SY, Lin.XK.Multipath minimum energy routing in ad hoc network[C].ICC 2005: IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 2005, 1-5 : 3182-3186. Liang.WF. Minimizing energy and maximizing network lifetime multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks[C].ICC 2005: IEEE international conference on communications, 2005,1-5: 3375-3379. S. Lee, W. Su, and M. Gerla. On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol in Multihop Wireless Mobile Networks. ACM/Kluwer Mobile Networks and Applications, 2002,7(6):441-453. Luo Junhai, Xue Liu, Ye Danxia. Research on multicast routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks [J].Ad Hoc Networks, 2008, 52(5):988-997. Mina Masoudifar. A review and performance comparison of QoS multicast routing protocols for MANETs [J]. Ad Hoc Networks, 2009, 7(6):1150-1155. Layuan Li, Chunlin Li, Peiyan Yuan.An Energy Level Based Routing Protocol in Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2006 Main Conference Proceedings), 2006, 306-312. Ravi Prakash.Unidirectional links prove costly in Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks[C]. In Proceedings of the DAM for Mobile Computing and Communications .Dial M '99, Seattle, WA: ACMPress, 1998:15-22.

You might also like