ROUTING INFORMATION UPDATION MECHANISM BASED SURVEY ON MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

J Sandeep
M.Phil Student ,Computer Science Bharathiar University Coimbatore e-mail: mailjsandeep@yahoo.com

Mr.T Ramesh
Asst. Prof, Computer Science Department Bharathiar University Coimbatore e-mail: t_ramesh@mailcity.com

Abstract---Mobile Ad-hoc Networks is set of mobile hosts connected by multi-hop wireless links without centralized infrastructure support. With the gain in popularity, the need for suitable Ad-hoc routing protocols will continue to grow. Efficient dynamic routing, minimize control traffic, such as periodic update messages is an important issues in such a network. Many researchers have conducted numerous simulations for comparing the performance of these protocols under varying conditions and constraints. In this paper we discuss the Routing protocols based on routing information update mechanism. We believe the survey on the Protocols can be a great source of information for researchers in ad-hoc networks. Keywords-Ad-hoc Network, Routing protocols

tactical applications such as emergency rescue or exploration missions, where cellular infrastructure is unavailable or unreliable. Commercial applications are also likely where there is a need for ubiquitous communication services without the presence of a fixed infrastructure. II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR AD-HOC NETWORKS

I.

INTRODUCTION

Mobile ad-hoc networks consist of set of mobile hosts connected with each other using multi-hop wireless links. There is no static infrastructure such as base stations, each host in the network acts as a router and forwarding data packets for other hosts. An ad-hoc network has a certain characteristics, which imposes new demands on the routing protocol. The most important characteristics are the dynamic topology, very limited resources such as CPU capacity, storage capacity, battery power and bandwidth, so the routing protocol should try to minimize control traffic, such as periodic update messages. To be effective, the routing protocols have to keep the routing table up-to-date and reasonably small, choose the best route for given destination. Here hosts are free to move, independent of each other, topology of such networks keep on changing dynamically which makes routing much difficult, therefore routing is one of the most concerns areas in these networks. Normal routing protocol which works well in fixed networks does not show same performance in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. In these networks routing protocols should be more dynamic so that they quickly respond to topological changes. If two hosts are not within radio range, all message communication between them must pass through one or more intermediate hosts that double as routers. Such networks are very useful in military and other

The protocols that we review here fall into three categories, namely, proactive routing, reactive routing and hybrid routing. Many proactive protocols stem from conventional link state routing. Ondemand routing, on the other hand, is a new emerging routing philosophy in the ad hoc area. It differs from conventional routing protocols in that no routing activities and no permanent routing information is maintained at network nodes if there is no communication, thus providing a scalable routing solution to large populations. In this paper we discuss routing protocols classifications based on routing information update mechanism here the major categories are:

A. Proactive Routing protocols

In proactive routing protocols every node maintains the network topology information in routing tables periodically exchanging routing information, nodes run the path finding algorithm on the topology information it maintains. Generally routing information is flooded in the whole networks and the protocols classified in this category are: 1) Destination Sequencing Distance-Vector Routing Protocol (DSDV) As Destination Sequencing Distance-Vector routing protocol is a proactive category each node maintains a table that contains the shortest distance and the first node on the shortest path to every other node in the network. Routes to all destinations is readily available at every node at all times, the tables are exchanged at regular intervals to keep up-to-date view of network topology. The tables are also forwarded when a node observes a significant change in local topology table is updated, the table updates are of two types incremental update and full dump in case of full updates, the complete routing table is sent out and in case of a partial updates only the changes since last full update are sent out. The tables in DSDV [1] also have an entry for sequence numbers for every destination. The advantages of this protocol is that it implies much less delays is involved in the route setup process, the mechanism of incremental updates with sequence number tags makes the existing wire network protocol adaptable to ad hoc wireless network. Updates due to broken links lead to heavy control overhead during high mobility, as this protocol suffers from excessive control overhead it is not scalable in ad hoc wireless networks. Another disadvantage of DSDV is that node has to wait for table update. This cause delay resulting in stale routing information in nodes. 2) Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) Wireless Routing Protocol is similar to DSDV but it differs from DSDV in table maintenance and update procedures. While DSDV maintains only topology table, WRP uses a set of tables to maintain more accurate information. The tables that are maintained by node are the following: distance table (DT), routing table (RT), link cost table (LCT), and a message retransmission list (MRL). The DT contains distance and the penultimate node reported by the neighbour. The RT contains the shortest distance, the predecessor node, successor node and the flag indicating the status (correct and error). The LCT contains the cost of a broken link which is and number of update periods. The MRL contains an entry for every update message. WRP has the

advantages that it has faster convergence and involves fewer table updates. It has disadvantage, complexity of maintenance of demands a larger memory and greater processing power from nodes. At high mobility, the control overhead involved is high in updating table entries, hence is not suitable for highly dynamic also for very large ad hoc networks. 3) Cluster-Head Gateway Switch Routing Protocol (CGSR) Cluster-Head Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR) is a cluster based hierarchical routing. The network is partitioned into clusters using Least Clusterhead Change (LCC) algorithm, each cluster has a cluster head. A mobile node that belongs to two or more clusters is a gateway connecting the clusters. CGSR is a distance vector routing algorithm. Two tables, a cluster member table and a DV routing table, are maintained at each mobile node. The cluster member table records the cluster head for each node and is broadcast periodically. A node will update its member table upon receiving such a packet. The major advantage of CGSR is it reduces the routing table size comparing to DV protocols. The drawback of CGSR is the difficulty to maintain the cluster structure in mobile environment. The LCC clustering algorithm adds overhead and complexity in the formation and maintenance of clusters. It is easy to implement priority scheduling schemes with token scheduling and gateway code scheduling. Disadvantages of CGSR are increase in path length and instability in the system at high mobility. 4) Source-Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR) The source tree of a node is the set of links in the nodes preferred path to a destination. Each node maintains a source tree. Each node builds a partial topology graph using aggregates of neighbour information learnt using an underlying neighbor discovery protocol and source trees reported by the neighbours. Dijkstras shortest path algorithm is then run on the constructed topology graph to choose a path to the destination. Thus, STAR [2] belongs to the category of routing protocols based on minimumweight path based routing. STAR has very low communication overload among all. 5) Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [3] is a link state routing protocol. It periodically

exchanges topology information with other nodes in the network. The protocol uses Multi-Point Relays (MPRs) [4] to reduce the number of superfluous broadcast packet retransmissions and also to reduce the size of the LS update packets, leading to efficient flooding of control messages in the network. A node, say node A, periodically broadcasts HELLO messages to all immediate neighbors to exchange neighborhood information and to compute the multipoint relay set. From neighbor lists, a node figures out the nodes that are two hops away and computes the minimum set of one hop relay points required to reach the two-hop neighbors. Such set is the MPR set. In routing information dissemination, OLSR differs from pure link state protocols in two aspects. First, by construction, only the MPR nodes of A need to forward the link state updates issued by A. Second, the link state update of node A is reduced in sizes as it includes only the neighbors that select node A as one of their MPR nodes. In this way, partial topology information is propagated. OLSR computes the shortest path to an arbitrary destination using the topology map consisting of all of its neighbors and of the MPRs of all other nodes. OLSR is particularly suited for dense networks. When the network is sparse, every neighbor of a node becomes a multi-point relay. The OLSR then reduces to a pure link state protocol. 6) Fisheye State Routing (FSR) The Fisheye State Routing (FSR) [5], [6] is a simple, efficient link state type routing protocol which maintains a topology map at each node and propagates link state updates The main differences between FSR and conventional LS protocols are the ways in which routing information is disseminated. FSR exchanges the entire link state information only with neighbors instead of flooding it over the network. The link state table is maintained up-to-date based on the information received from neighbors. Second, the link state exchange is periodical instead of event-triggered, which avoids frequent link state updates caused by link breaks in an environment with unreliable wireless links and mobility. Moreover, the periodical broadcasts of the link state information are conducted in different frequencies for different entries depending on their hop distances to the current node. As a result, a considerable fraction of entries are Suppressed from link state exchange packets. FSR produces accurate distance and path information about the immediate neighborhood of a node, and imprecise knowledge of the best path to a distant destination.

7) Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) Hierarchical State Routing (HSR) [8] is a multilevel, clustering based link state routing protocol. It maintains a logical hierarchical topology by using the clustering scheme recursively. Nodes at the same logical level are grouped into clusters. The elected cluster heads at the lower level become members of the next higher level. These new members in turn organize themselves in clusters, and so on. The goal of clustering is to reduce routing overhead at each level. A Cluster head acts as a local coordinator for transmissions within the cluster. HSR is based on link state routing. At the first level of clustering, each node monitors the state of the link to each neighbor and broadcasts it within the cluster. The cluster head summarizes link state information within its cluster and propagates it to the neighbor cluster heads (via the gateways). The knowledge of connectivity between neighbor cluster heads leads to the formation of level 2 clusters. Applying the aforementioned clustering procedure recursively, new cluster heads are elected at each level, and become members of the higher level cluster. If QoS parameters are required, the cluster heads will summarize the information from the level they belongs to and carry it into the higher level. After obtaining the link state information at one level, each virtual node floods it down to nodes of the lower level clusters. As a result, each physical node has hierarchical topology information through the hierarchical Address of each node. The hierarchy so developed requires a new address for each node, the hierarchical address. The node IDs are physical addresses. They are hardwired and are unique to each node. In HSR, Hierarchical ID (HID) of a node is defined as the sequence of the MAC addresses of the nodes on the path from the top hierarchy to the node itself The advantage of this hierarchical address scheme is that each node can dynamically and locally update its own HID upon receiving the routing updates from the nodes higher up in the hierarchy. The hierarchical address is sufficient to deliver a packet to its destination from anywhere in the network using HSR tables. 8) Global State Routing (GSR) Protocol GSR [9] maintains the knowledge of the full topology at each node as in link state routing, but adopts the link state dissemination mechanism used in DBF (distributed Bellman Ford) based algorithms like DSDV. In GSR, each node maintains its link state table based on the updates received from neighboring nodes and periodically exchanges it with its local neighbors only. Using the global topology map, each node computes the shortest hop path tree

rooted at each node using Dijkstras algorithm modified to get the next hop table and the distance table parallel in tree construction. GSR belongs to the class of minimum-weight path routing protocols. B. Reactive Routing protocols

delay and/or hop count. Representing the weight of each link in the network by the delay incurred on the link, AODV reduces to finding a minimum-weight path between the source and the destination. 3) Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) ABR [14] is a reactive routing protocol and is one of earliest works on path stability. Each node maintains an associativity table which records the associativty ticks (the number of beacons received from a node) with respect to each of its neighbors. Associativity ticks greater than an Associativity threshold Athresh represent periods of association stability. Association stability defines the strength of the link between two nodes over time and space. The destination examines the associativity ticks along each of the learned paths and selects the best. If more than one path has the same overall degree of association stability, the destination selects the shortest-hop path. The destination then sends a REPLY packet along the reverse direction of the selected route. 4) Signal Stability Adaptive (SSA) Routing Protocol The Signal Stability-Based Adaptive (SSA) routing protocol [15] selects routes based on the signal strength between nodes. Signal strength of the link with a neighboring node is determined using the periodic beacons received from that node. If the signal strength is beyond a threshold, the link is considered stable; otherwise, the link is designated to be weak. Preference is given to paths on the stronger stable channels, SSA fits under the stability category. Route discovery in SSA is through source-initiated broadcast request messages. A node forwards the request message to the next hop only if it is received over a stronger channel and has not been previously processed. The destination, unlike in ABR, chooses the first arriving route-search packet and sends back a route-reply in the reverse direction of the selected route. In addition to choosing the path of strongest signal stability, it is most likely that first arriving route-search packet traversed over the shortest and/or the least congested path. If no route-reply message is received within a specific timeout period, the source initiates another route-search and also indicates its acceptability of weak channels in the search packet header. 5) Flow Oriented Routing Protocol (FORP) FORP [16] is a stable path routing protocol that utilizes the mobility and location information of the

Also known as On-Demand routing protocol execute the path-finding process and exchange routing information only when a path is required by a node, do not maintain the network topology information. These protocols do not exchange routing information periodically. 1) Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Dynamic Source Routing protocol is a reactive protocol. The node floods the network with a routerequest and builds the required route from the responses it receives. DSR allows the network to be completely self-configuring without the need for any existing network infrastructure or administration. The DSR protocol is composed of two main mechanisms that work together to allow the discovery and maintenance of source routes in the ad hoc network. All aspects of protocol operate entirely on-demand allowing routing packet overhead of DSR to scale up automatically. Route Discovery: When a source node S wishes to send a packet to the destination node D, it obtains a route to D. This is called Route Discovery. Route Discovery is used only when S attempts to send a packet to D and has no information on a route to D. Route Maintenance: When there is a change in the network topology, the existing routes can no longer be used. In such a scenario, the source S can use an alternative route to the destination D, if it knows one, or invoke Route Discovery. This is called Route Maintenance [10] [11]. 2) Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing Protocol AODV [12] is a single-path, reactive routing protocol. Route discovery is using a route request (RREQ) route reply (RREP) cycle. When a source node has data to be sent to a destination node and does not know the route to the destination node, floods a route request (RREQ) packet throughout the network. Several RREQ packets, each travelling on a different path, will reach the destination. The destination node replies (RREP packet) only to the first RREQ packet and drops subsequent RREQ packets with the same source sequence number and broadcast ID. The RREQ packet that arrived at the earliest is likely to have traversed a path with low

nodes to approximately predict the expiration time of a wireless link (LET). During the RREQ flooding process, before broadcasting the RREQ to the neighborhood, a node records the LET of the link from which the RREQ message was received. The destination receives RREQs through several paths. The Route Expiration Time (RET) of a path is the minimum of the LET values of all the constituent wireless links on the path. The destination selects the route with the maximum value of the RET and the RREP is sent on the selected route. FORP falls under the category of stability-based routing 6) Preferred Link Based Routing (PLBR) Algorithm In PLBR [17], control packet overhead due to route discovery packets is reduced by selectively allowing some nodes to forward the packets using a preferred list. Two algorithms have been proposed to compute the preferred list: based on the degree of the neighbour nodes and based on the stability information of the neighbours. Routes determined using the preferred list based on neighbor degree are shorter hop paths; while routes obtained based on stability information are long-living, but sub-optimal in hop count. C. Hybrid routing protocol This category of protocols combines the best features of the proactive and the reactive categories. Nodes within a certain distance from the node concerned, or within a particular geographical region, are said to be within the routing zone of the given node. For routing within the zone the proactive approach is used and for the nodes that are located beyond the zone an reactive approach is used. 1) Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing (CEDAR) Algorithm CEDAR [18] approximates a core as a minimum dominating set of the ad hoc network. Nodes in the core establish a unicast virtual link with peer core nodes that are at most three hops away. Link state information corresponding to stable high-bandwidth links are propagated across the core. An add wave is generated when a link comes up and a delete wave is initiated when a link goes down. The add wave is propagated at a constant delay at each node while the delete wave is propagated immediately to the next hop. The slow moving add wave corresponds to an increase in the available bandwidth of the link, while the fast moving delete wave corresponds to a decrease in the available bandwidth of the link. The

route computed using the set of stable links is called the shortest widest path or the maximum bandwidth path. If there is a tie among two or more paths with the same maximum bandwidth, the one with the least hop count is chosen. CEDAR falls under the category of routing using stable paths as the maximum bandwidth path is composed of stable, reliable links. 2) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [19] is a framework of hybrid routing protocol suites, which is made up of the modules Intra-zone routing protocol [20], Inter-zone routing protocol [21] and Bordercast resolution protocol [22]. In ZRP, every node has a zone. Within the zone, intra-zone routing protocol, which is a proactive protocol, is adopted to maintain the local topology. When the route between different zones is needed, Intra-zone routing protocol, which is a reactive protocol, is used to find the path between the source and destination. Bordercast is an efficient broadcast technique which reduces the number of redundant forwarding in route discovery of inter-zone routing protocol. Because intra-zone routing protocol is proactive, the route towards the node within the zone is available before its needed, thus the delay and overhead of route discovery is avoided. The path between different zones is built on demand, which saves the overhead of periodic broadcast of topology information throughout the MANET. Proactive intrazone routing protocol helps the route maintenance of reactive inter-zone routing protocol. The broken link can be bypassed with the aid of local topology information, and route optimization can be achieved within the zone. Local topology information obtained from intra-zone routing protocol helps efficient forwarding of broadcast packets, which transmits the packet from covered area of the network to uncovered part. The radius of the zone is a configurable parameter. Different zones may have different radii. With properly configured zone radius, ZRP will outperform both proactive routing protocols and reactive routing protocols. 3) Zone Hybrid Link State (ZHLS) Routing Protocol The network is divided into zones. Each node is assumed to know its location and hence be able to map a given location to its corresponding zone id. Two zones are assumed to be connected if at least one node in one zone is connected to a node in the other zone. Routing within and in between zones is based on shortest path routing. Hence, ZHLS [23] belongs to the category of routing protocols based on minimum-weight path based routing.

III.

CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS.

Characteristic summary of proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols

IV.

CONCLUSION

This survey studied MANET routing protocols in the categories proactive, reactive and hybrid. According to the description and comparison of their schemes, we can arrive at the conclusion that the reactive routing protocols outperform proactive routing protocols in terms of communication overhead. As a result, reactive routing protocol preferred in many applications. Different protocols have different strengths and drawbacks. One protocol cant fit into all the possible scenarios and traffic patterns of MANET applications. Thus, the prospective standard is very likely combined with some competitive schemes. Hybrid routing protocol seems to be a better candidate than pure proactive and reactive routing protocols. REFERENCES
[1] Yasser Kamal Hassan1, Mohamed Hashim Abd El-Aziz2, and Ahmed Safwat Abd El-Radi1, Performance Evaluation of Mobility Speed over MANET Routing Protocols, International Journal of Network Security, Vol.11, No.3, PP.128{138, Nov. 2010. [2] J.J.Garcia-Luna and M.Spohn,Source Tree Adaptive Routing, draft- ietf-manet-star-00.txt, work in progress, October 1999. [3] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, A. Qayyum, A. Laouiti, L.Viennot and T.Clausen, Optimized Link State Routing Protocol, draft-ietf-manet-olsr-05.txt, Internet Draft, IETF MANET Working Group, Nov. 2000. [4] A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, A. Laouiti. Multipoint relaying: An efficient technique for flooding in mobile wireless networks. INRIA research report RR-3898, 2000 [5] A. Iwata, C.-C. Chiang, G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.-W. Chen, Scalable Routing Strategies for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks,

IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Aug. 1999, pp. 1369-1379. [6] G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.-W. Chen, Fisheye State Routing: A Routing Scheme for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, in Proceedings of ICC 2000, New Orleans, LA, Jun. 2000. [7] C. Santivanez, R. Ramanathan, I. Stavrakakis, Making LinkState Routing Scale for Ad Hoc Networks, in Proceedings of The 2001 ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing(Mobihoc2001), Long Beach, California, Oct. 2001. [8] G. Pei, M. Gerla, X. Hong, and C. -C. Chiang, A Wireless Hierarchical Routing Protocol with Group Mobility, in Proceedings of IEEE WCNC99, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 1999. [9] T-W Chen and M. Gerla, Global State Routing: A New Routing Scheme for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks, Proceedings of IEEE ICC, pp. 171 175, June 1998. [10] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu, The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt, July 2004 [11] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks. In Mobile Computing, edited by Tomasz Imielinski and Hank Korth, Chapter 5, pages 153-181, Kluwer Academic Publishers,1996. [12] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 90 100, February 1999. [13] S.-J. Lee and M. Gerla, AODV-BR: Backup Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of WCNC, 2000. [14] C-K. Toh, Associativity-Based Routing for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks, Wireless Personal Communications, pp. 103 139, Vol. 4, No. 2, March 1997. [15] R. Dube, C. D. Rais, K-Y. Wang and S. K. Tripathi, Signal Stability based Adaptive Routing for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, IEEE Personal Communications, pp. 36 45, February 1997. [16] W. Su, S-J. Lee and M. Gerla, Mobility Prediction and Routing in Ad hoc Wireless Networks, International Journal of Network Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 3-30, 2001. [17] R. S. Sisodia, B. S. Manoj, and C. Siva Ram Murthy, A Preferred Link Based Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Journal of Communications and Networks, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 14-21, March 2002. [18] R. Sivakumar, P. Sinha, and V. Bharghavan, CEDAR: a CoreExtraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing algorithm, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (Special Issue on Ad-hoc Routing), Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1454 1465, Aug. 1999. [19] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, and Prince Samar, The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, draftietf-manet-zone-zrp04.txt, July, 2002 (work in progress) [20] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, and Prince Samar, The Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP) for Ad Hoc Networks, draft-ietf-manet-zone-iarp-02.txt, July, 2002 (work in progress) [21] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, and Prince Samar, The Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks, draft-ietf-manet-zone-ierp-02.txt, July, 2002 (work in progress) [22] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, and Prince Samar, The Border cast Resolution Protocol (BRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, draft-ietf-manet-zone-brp-02.txt, July, 2002 (work in progress) [23] M. Joa-Ng and I-Tai Lu, Peer-to-Peer Zone-based Two-level Link State Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1415 1425, August 1999.