CONTENTS 1. Introduction.2-3 2. Abstract.4 3. Literature Survey.5-7 4. Methodology of Routing.8-9 5. References.

10-11

INTRODUCTION
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) are rapidly evolving as an important area of wireless mobility. MANETs are infrastructure less and wireless in which there are several routers which are free to move arbitrarily and perform management of routes. MANETs as shown in fig (1) have characteristics that network topology changes very rapidly and unpredictably in which many mobile nodes moves to and from a wireless network without any fixed access point where routers and hosts move, so topology is dynamic. MANET can have multiple hops over wireless links; also connection point to the internet may also change. It has to support multi hop paths for mobile nodes to communicate with each other. If mobile nodes are within the communication range of each other than source node can send message to the destination node otherwise it can send through intermediate node. Now-a-days mobile ad hoc networks have robust and efficient operation in mobile wireless networks as it can include routing functionality into mobile nodes which is more than just mobile hosts and reduces the routing overhead and saves energy for other nodes.

Fig 1: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks-MANETs.

Inside the ad hoc networking field, wireless sensor networks take a special role. A sensor network is composed of a large number of small sensor nodes, which are typically densely (and randomly) deployed inside the area in which a phenomenon is being monitored. Wireless ad hoc networking techniques also constitute the basis for sensor networks. However, the special constraints imposed by the unique characteristics of sensing devices, and by the application requirements, make many of the solutions designed for multihop wireless networks (generally) not suitable for sensor networks. This places extensive literature dedicated to sensor networks beyond the scope of this paper; however, the interested reader can find an excellent and comprehensive coverage of sensor networks in a recent survey Mostly mobile ad hoc networks are used in military communication by soldiers, planes, tanks etc, operations, automatic battlefields, emergency management teams to rescue5, search, fire fighters or by police and replacement of a fixed infrastructure in case of earthquake, floods, fire etc, quicker access to patient data about record, status, diagnosis from the hospital database, remote sensors for weather, personal area network, taxi cab network, sports stadiums, mobile offices, yachts, small aircraft, electronic payments from anywhere, voting systems6, vehicular computing, education systems with set-up of virtual classrooms, conference rooms, meetings, peer to peer file sharing systems6, collaborative games with multi users. Major challenges in mobile ad hoc networks are routing of packets with frequently mobile nodes movement, there are resource issues like power and storage and also wireless communication issues. As mobile ad hoc network consists of wireless hosts which may move very often. Movement of hosts results in a change of routes.

AbstractIt is seen that mobile ad hoc networks will be an integral part of next generation networks because of its flexibility, infrastructure less nature, ease of maintenance, auto configuration, self administration capabilities, and cost effectiveness. This research paper will be showing comparative evaluation within mobile ad hoc networks routing protocols from reactive, proactive and hybrid categories. It has been comprehensively analyzed the results of simulation for mobile ad hoc routing protocols for quality of services of end to end delay, media access delay, throughput and packet delivery ratio for optimized link state routing, temporary ordered routing algorithm and ad hoc on demand distance vector protocol. In mobile ad hoc networks, mobile nodes must collaborate with each other in order to interconnect, organize the dynamic topology as mobility cause route change and establish communication over wireless links. The simulation results showed the lead of proactive over reactive and hybrid protocols in routing traffic for dynamic changing topology. Proactive protocol, optimized link state routing, a protocol for building link tables for ad-hoc networks, can transmit traffic more rapidly though involve less processing speed in packet forwarding.

LITERATURE SURVEY
Historically, mobile ad hoc networks have primarily been used for tactical network related applications to improve battlefield communications survivability. The dynamic nature of military operations means that military cannot rely on access to a fixed pre-placed communication infrastructure in battlefield. Pure wireless communication also has limitation in that radio signals are subject to interference and radio frequency higher than 100 MHz rarely propagate beyond line of sight (LOS). Mobile ad hoc network creates a suitable framework to address these issues by providing a multi-hop wireless network without pre-placed infrastructure and connectivity beyond LOS. Early ad hoc networking applications can be traced back to the DARPA Packet Radio Network (PRNet) project in 1972, which was primarily inspired by the efficiency of the packet switching technology, such as bandwidth sharing and storeand- forward routing, and its possible application in mobile wireless environment. PRNet features a distributed architecture consisting of network of broadcast radios with minimal central control; a combination of Aloha and CSMA channel access protocols are used to support the dynamic sharing of the broadcast radio channel. In addition, by using multi-hop store-and-forward routing techniques, the radio coverage limitation is removed, which effectively enables multi-user communication within a very large geographic area. The 1990s have seen a rapid growth of research interests in mobile ad hoc networking. The infrastructureless and the dynamic nature of these networks demands new set of networking strategies to be implemented in order to provide efficient end-to-end communication. This, along with the diverse application of these networks in many different scenarios such as battlefield and disaster recovery, has seen MANETs being researched by many different organizations and institutes. MANETs employ the traditional TCP/IP structure to provide end-to-end communication between nodes. However, due to their mobility and the limited resource in wireless networks, each layer in the TCP/IP model requires redefinition or modifications to function efficiently in MANETs. One interesting research area in MANET is routing. Routing in the MANETs is a challenging task and has received a tremendous amount of attention from researches. This has led to development of many different routing protocols for MANETs, and each author of each proposed protocol argues that the strategy proposed provides an improvement over a number of different strategies considered in the literature for a given
5

network scenario. Therefore, it is quite difficult to determine which protocols may perform best under a number of different network scenarios, such as increasing node density and traffic. In this paper, I have provided an overview of a wide range of routing protocols proposed in the literature. We also provide a performance comparison of all routing protocols and suggest which protocols may perform best in large networks. A sensor network is defined as being composed of a large number of nodes which are deployed densely in close proximity to the phenomenon to be monitored. Each of these nodes collects data and its purpose is to route this information back to a sink. The network must possess self-organizing capabilities since the positions of individual nodes are not predetermined. Cooperation among nodes is the dominant feature of this type of network, where groups of nodes cooperate to disseminate the information gathered in their vicinity to the user.

Major differences between sensor and ad-hoc networks: Number of nodes can be orders of magnitude higher. Sensor nodes are densely deployed. Sensor nodes are prone to failure. Frequent topology changes. Broadcast communication paradigm. Limited power, processing and power capabilities. Possible absence of unique global identification per node.

None of the studies surveyed has a fully integrated view of all the factors driving the design of sensor networks and proceeds to present its own communication architecture and design factors to be used as a guideline and as a tool to compare various protocols. After surveying the literature, this is an impression as well and it can be include it in the open research issues that can be explored for future work. The design factors listed are as following:

Fault Tolerance: Individual nodes are prone to unexpected failure with a much higher probability than other types of networks. The network should sustain information dissemination in spite of failures.

Scalability: Number in the order of hundreds or thousands. Protocols should be able to scale to such high degree and take advantage of the high density of such networks.

Production Costs: The cost of a single node must be low, much less than $1.

Hardware Constraints: A sensor node is comprised of many subunits (sensing, processing, and communication, and power, location finding system, power scavenging and mobilizer). All these units combined together must consume extremely low power and be contained within an extremely small volume.

Sensor Network Topology: Must be maintained even with very high node densities. Environment: Nodes are operating in inaccessible locations either because of hostile environment or because they are embedded in a structure.

Transmission Media: RF, Infrared and Optical.

Power Consumption: Power conservation and power management are primary design factors.

MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS ROUTING PROTOCOLS Mobile ad hoc networks routing protocols are characteristically subdivided into three main categories. These are proactive routing protocols, reactive routing protocols and hybrid routing protocols. Each category has many protocols and some of these protocols are shown in figure (2).

Fig 2: MANETs Routing Protocols.

Proactive routing protocol maintains regular and up to date routing information about each node in the network by propagating route updation at fixed time intervals throughout the network, when there is a change in network topology. As the routing information is usually maintained in tables, so these protocols are also called table-driven protocols i.e. Ad hoc On Demand distance Vector protocol (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Admission Control enabled On-demand Routing (ACOR) and Associativity Based Routing (ABR).

Reactive routing protocols establish the route to a destination only when there is a demand for it, so these protocols are also called on demand protocols i.e., Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) and Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR). When a source wants to send to a destination, it uses the route discovery mechanisms to find the path to the destinations by initiating route request. When a route are established, then route remains valid till the destination is reachable or when the route is expired.

Hybrid routing protocols is the combination of both proactive and reactive routing protocols i.e. Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), Hazy Sighted Link State (HSLS) and Orderone Routing Protocol (OOPR). Proactive and reactive algorithms are used to route packets. The route is established with proactive routes and uses reactive flooding for new mobile nodes. In this paper we have compared MANETs routing protocols from reactive, proactive and hybrid categories, as we have used randomly one protocol from each categories as from reactive AODV, proactive OLSR, hybrid TORA; for simulation evaluation of quality of service factors.

REFERENCES [1][C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, I. D. Chakeres, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing Protocol, draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00.txt, October 2003. [2] C. Mbarushimana, A. Shahrabi, "Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07), IEEE Computer Society, March 2007. [3] E. Nordstrom, P. Gunningberg, C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, I. D. Chakeres, Ad hoc OnDemand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing Protocol, draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00.txt, October 2003. [4] C. Mbarushimana, A. Shahrabi, "Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07), IEEE Computer Society, March 2007. [5] E. Nordstrom, P. Gunningberg, A. Ahuja et al., Performance of TCP over different routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc networks, in: Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC 2000), Tokyo, Japan, May 2000. [6] G. Anastasi, E. Borgia, M. Conti, E. Gregori, IEEE 802.11 ad hoc networks: performance measurements, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Networks (MWN 2003) in conjunction with ICDCS 2003, May 19, 2003. [7] G. Anastasi, M. Conti, E. Gregori, IEEE 802.11 ad hoc networks: protocols, performance and open issues, in: S. Basagni, M. Conti, S. Giordano, I. Stojmenovic (Eds.), Ad hoc Networking, IEEE Press Wiley, New York, 2003. [8] L. Blazevic, L. Buttyan, S. Capkun, S. Giordano, J.-P. Hubaux, J.-Y. Le Boudec, Selforganization in mobile ad hoc networks: the approach of terminodes, IEEE Communication Magazine, June 2001, pp. 166175. [9] S. Basagni, R. Bruno, C. Petrioli, Scatternet formation in Bluetooth networks, in: S. Basagni, M. Conti, S. Giordano, I. Stojmenovic (Eds.), Ad Hoc Networking, IEEE Press Wiley, New York, 2003.

10

[10] S. Basagni, R. Bruno, C. Petrioli, A performance comparison of scatternet formation protocols for networks of Bluetooth devices, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom 2003), Forth Worth, TX, March 2326, 2003. [11] L. Bononi, M. Conti, L. Donatiello, A distributed mechanism for power saving in IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, ACM/Kluwer Mobile Networks and Applications Journal 6 (3) (2001) 211222. [12] R. Bruno, M. Conti, E. Gregori, Wireless access to internet via Bluetooth: performance evaluation of the EDC scheduling algorithm, in: Proceedings First ACM Wireless Mobile Internet Workshop, July 2001. [13] R. Bruno, M. Conti, E. Gregori, Optimization of efficiency and energy consumption in ppersistent CSMA-based wireless LANs, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 1 (1) (2002) 1031. [14]S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, A.V.R. Syrotiuk, Location aware one-to-many communication in mobile multi-hop wireless networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Technology (VTC), Tokyo, Japan, May 2000. [15] S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V. Syrotiuk, B. Woodward, A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM), in: Proceedings of The Fourth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM _98), Dallas, TX, USA, October 2530, 1998. [16] F. Cal_, M. Conti, E. Gregori, Dynamic tuning of the IEEE 802.11 protocol to achieve a theoretical throughput limit, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 8 (6) (2000) 785799. [17] F. Cal_, M. Conti, E. Gregori, Dynamic IEEE 802.11: design, modeling and performance evaluation, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 18 (9) (2000) 17741786.

11