Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
50120140506003
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

50120140506003

63

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
63
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 19 REVIEW OF DIFFERENT ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR MANET Ashwini Rajaram Jadhav M.E. Computer Engineering Student of Padmbhushan Vasantdada Patil Institute of Technology, Bavdhan, Pune-21, University of Pune Mr. Navanath Dattatray Kale Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Engineering, Padmbhushan Vasantdada Patil Institute of Technology, Bavdhan, Pune-21, University of Pune ABSTRACT Wireless channel link quality is the difference a challenging problem was until recently data communication Use this attribute in a similar exploration. Broadcast transmission can be regarded as quite different, And usually independently on the receiver by different geographic Locations. In addition, even the same stable receiver may over time, the combination of rigid link quality volatility experience. Broadcasting of quality variation with the nature of the link Wireless channel wireless research showed a direction networking, that is, cooperative communications. Research The cooperative started to attract interest in the communication on but recently its importance on community physical layer and realized on the upper layers of usability has also been Network protocol stack the lack of a fixed infrastructure in ad hoc networks implies that any computation on the network needs to be carried out in a decentralized manner thus, many of the important problems in ad hoc networking can be formulated as problems in distributed computing, and there are certain characteristics of ad hoc networks that make this study somewhat different than traditional work in distributed computing. In this review paper we point out various routing methods. Keywords: Mobile Ad Hoc Network, Routing Protocols, Channel Reuse, Delay Jitter. I. INTRODUCTION The proliferation of mobile computing and communication devices (e.g., cell phones, laptops, handheld digital devices, personal digital assistants, or wearable computers) is driving a revolutionary change in our information society. The nature of ubiquitous devices makes wireless INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJCET) ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print) ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijcet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2014): 8.5328 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJCET © I A E M E
  • 2. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 20 networks the easiest solution for their interconnection and, as a consequence, the wireless arena has been experiencing exponential growth in the past decade. Mobile users can use their cellular phone to check e-mail, browse internet; travelers with portable computers can surf the internet from airports, railway stations, Starbucks and other public locations; tourists can use Global Positioning System (GPS) terminals installed inside rental cars to locate driving maps and tourist attractions, researchers can exchange files and other information by connecting portable computers via wireless LANs while attending conferences; at home, users can synchronize data and transfer files between portable devices and desktops. [1] The lack of a fixed Infrastructure in ad hoc networks implies that any computation on the network needs to be carried out in a decentralized manner. Thus, many of the important problems in ad hoc networking can be formulated as problems in distributed computing. However, there are certain characteristics of ad hoc networks that make this study somewhat different than traditional work in distributed computing.[2] Multi-hop wireless networks typically use routing techniques similar to those in wired networks These traditional routing protocols choose the best sequence of nodes between the source and destination, and forward each packet through that sequence. In contrast, cooperative diversity schemes proposed by the information theory community suggest that traditional routing may not be the best approach. Cooperative diversity takes advantage of broadcast transmission to send information through multiple relays concurrently. The destination can then choose the best of many relayed signals, or combine information from multiple signals. These schemes require radios capable of simultaneous, synchronized repeating of the signal, or additional radio channels for each relay [3] Recent and increased interest of wireless mobile ad hoc networking motivates detailed examination of routing schemes specifically targeted for the demanding constraints that an unreliable, time varying and broadcast like wireless medium imposes. Incorporation and exploitation of radio characteristics are fundamental keys to successful and near optimal operation of routing schemes in a wireless environment. [4] Wireless mesh networks are used increasingly for providing cheap Internet access everywhere. City-wide WiFi networks, however, need to deal with poor link quality caused by urban structures and the many interferers including local WLANs. For example, half of the operational links in Roofnet have a loss probability higher than 30%. Opportunistic routing has recently emerged as a mechanism for obtaining high throughput even when links are lossy, Opportunistic routing, however, introduces a difficult challenge. Multiple nodes may hear a packet broadcast and unnecessarily forward the same packet. [5] Network coding is a new research area that may have interesting applications in practical networking systems. With network coding, intermediate nodes may send out packets that are linear combinations of previously received information. Communication networks today share the same fundamental principle of operation. Whether it is packets over the Internet, or signals in a phone network, information is transported in the same way as cars share a highway or fluids share pipes. That is, independent data streams may share network resources, but the information itself is separate. Routing, data storage, error control, and generally all network functions are based on this assumption. [6] Vehicular networks can be seen as an example of hybrid delay tolerant network where a mixture of info stations and vehicles can be used to geographically route the information messages to the right location. In this paper we present a forwarding protocol which exploits both the opportunistic nature and the inherent characteristics of the vehicular network in terms of mobility patterns and encounters, and the geographical information present in navigator systems of vehicles. [7] Traditional MANET routing protocols are quite susceptible to link failure as well as vulnerable to malicious node attack. In this paper, we propose a novel protocol called Position based Opportunistic Routing (POR) which takes full advantage of the broadcast nature of wireless channel and opportunistic forwarding. The data packets are transmitted as a way of multicast (which is actually implemented by MAC interception) with multiple forwarders. [8] A new family of routing algorithms for the distributed maintenance of routing information in large networks and internets is
  • 3. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 21 introduced. This family is called link vector algorithms (LVA), and is based on the selective diffusion of link-state information based on the distributed computation of preferred paths, rather than on the flooding of complete link-state information to all routers. According to LVA, each router maintains a subset of the topology that corresponds to the links used by its neighbor routers in their preferred paths to known destinations. [9] Wireless industry has seen exponential growth in last couple of years. The advancement in growing availability of wireless networks and emergence of handheld computer, PDAs and Cell phones is now playing very important role in our daily routines. [10] This review paper demonstrates the impetus behind mobile ad hoc networks, and presents a representative collection of technology solutions used at the different layers of the network, in particular presenting algorithms and protocols unique to the operation and dynamic configuration of mobile ad hoc networks. III. REVIEW DIFFERENT MODELING AD HOC NETWORK In this article, we have some of the characteristic features of ad hoc networks review, formulate problems and research work done in the field of survey we focused on two basic problem domain: topology control, computing and network nodes maintain a connected between topology and routing problems. A 2-dimensional (or 3-dimensional) Euclidean space, where each dot represents a network node as a collection of points in an ad hoc network can model; Each node is characterized by its computational and communication power. A node in a wireless communication coding and computational power node can perform two major issues of encryption level. Characteristics of propagation communication networks the characteristics of radio channels and the environment, and the battery power and power control capabilities powered by individual nodes are we now elaborate on these issues Modelling at higher layers Radio propagation and interference models node locations and lack of transmission power, the ability to make a meaningful range of ad-hoc networks, can be used to get the physical layer parameters based on a model like although, designing and high layer protocol is cumbersome to use for analyzing a simple model that abstracts physical layer details away G is a graph in the Euclidean space as an ad hoc network (V-e) to represent the set of all nodes V is set set E is an edge node. If you can directly transmit TV before you To v; the path loss equation and a basic signal-to-noise ratio may be determined by the formula we transition graph refer to-ji. intervention can be modeled to a limited extent by the following assumption: you have a transmission with v only if no other node is able to lead the v ~ v and send it along with the essentially models that packet Radio networks (PRNs) has been used to study; pp ~ N model, as described above, Assumes that each node is an ad-hoc network is always the same transmission transmits power. Modern mobile wireless units’ need their transmission power transmission, subject to a maximum limit is the ability to adjust accordingly. Reduces interference control such power, mobile units, and therefore conserves battery power channel bandwidth allows for better use. If we mentioned in the last paragraph as transmission using Graph-ji Networks represent There is a node w v that is transmitting at the same time, we have an adjacent node successfully transmitting to, u too; It might be because can be found on the power transmission against receiving power on against very small compared to you transmission, which you are transmitting and w at that time due to the different levels.
  • 4. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 22 Mobility Mobility in ad hoc networks are two approaches to modeling a approach often used in simulations, direction and speed of motion of a node is a node mobility vector model as each node independently over a period of time after which its dynamics a new random vector is assigned, Defines mobility vector picks. Models group movement, whereby a group of nodes can move in the same general direction also recently studied a theoretical analysis, Mobility, as detailed models are difficult to work with. Instead, the dynamics underlying transmission can be represented by the graph changes. for example, we work in a primary transmission graph changes need to be made when considering the amount of robustness of an ad-hoc network routing protocol by analysis; That is, when an edge is removed or added to a node in the neighborhood changes. Topology control An ad hoc network is not an associated topology that lack a central infrastructure implies. in fact, an appropriate topology which are applied more high level routing protocols to determine if an ad-hoc network consisting of geographically dispersed nodes is an important task in this section we topology control, An ad hoc network in a suitable topology, consider the problem of determining v to denote the graph and let denote the collection of nodes V which is one of the edge node in node v in there for you if you can directly reach if v. T topology control algorithm returned by topology t denote the quality of connectivity., Energy efficiency, throughput and robustness for according to several criteria including the dynamics can be evaluated in the remainder of this section, we elaborate on these measures. Connectivity and energy-efficiency Perhaps, the most basic of a topology requires that it be connected. more precisely, we require that any two nodes that are attached to the axe-ji. Also associated routing protocols for network topology T forms, that there's potential energy-efficient path exists between a source destination pair is desirable. a perception of energy efficiency power factor, which we now define stress.., as discussed in section 2, and v. To determine energy path with the edges of the sum of the energy used to be along a path used for delivering a packet and the distance between a polynomial function is a transmission from you to v so consumed energy, two nodes u and v, EC (, V) (resp., et al. (U, v)) and-ji (resp., T) v minimum energy paths between the energy we now denote the maximum, over all T's energy to be set up and stretch factor v, e ~ (u, v)/ET (u, v), Quality power stretch factor similar to a perception of hop hop-count ratio factor which stretch. Instead of energy that way. Throughput Connectivity and energy efficiency, with high capacity or throughput, we would like a topology; that is any other satisfying constraints in topology topology as, "more than traffic" should be possible to route network features depending on whether studies are being done and traffic patterns, is believed to be a different way to formalize the notion of a ad-hoc network throughput. Robustness to mobility An additional challenge in the design of distributed topology control algorithms is to ensure some degree of robustness to the mobility of nodes. One measure of robustness of the topology is given by the maximum number of nodes that need to change their topology information as a result of a movement of a node. This number, which may be referred to as the adaptability of the topology control algorithm, depends on the size of the transmission neighbourhood of the mobile node u, and the relative location of the nodes. The topology control algorithms based on proximity graphs all
  • 5. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 23 have low adaptability, since a change in a node location will only require the nodes in its neighbourhood (both old and new) to recomputed their edges in the topology. IV. DIFFERENT ROUTING METHODS Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) consist of small nodes with sensing, computation, and wireless communications capabilities. Many routing, power management, and data dissemination protocols have been specifically designed for WSNs where energy awareness is an essential design issue. The focus, however, has been given to the routing protocols which might differ depending on the application and network architecture. In this paper, we present a survey of the state-of-the-art routing techniques in WSNs. We first outline the design challenges for routing protocols in WSNs followed by a comprehensive survey of different routing techniques. Overall, the routing techniques are classified into three categories based on the underlying network structure: 1. Flat 2. Hierarchical 3. Location-based routing. Furthermore, these protocols can be classified into multipath-based, query-based, negotiation- based, QoS-based, and coherent-based depending on the protocol operation. Figure 1: Routing Protocols in WSN Routing protocols In the previous section, we considered the design of topologies that have certain desirable properties in terms of connectivity, energy-efficiency, and throughput. We now consider the design of routing schemes that harness these properties. We note that while the presentation in this article follows the approach of separating the network design and routing scheme design components, the two components are closely intertwined. The choice of the particular topology control algorithm may
  • 6. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 24 have a strong impact on the choice of the routing scheme. Since the topology is constantly changing, the routing scheme has to be robust to changes in topology. Flat routing protocols For an ad hoc network, given a topology, represented by an undirected graph G = (V, E), a routing scheme has to select paths between source destination pairs in much the same manner as in wired networks. Two paradigms that underlie Internet routing protocols are Distance Vector (DV) and Link State (LS) algorithms. Both DV and LS algorithms require continual exchange of global routing information. This enables the individual nodes of the network to maintain a close approximation of the current network map at every instant. For ad hoc networks, proactive routing protocols follow the DV or LS paradigm and attempt to keep routing information for all the nodes up to date, e.g., OLSR, DSDV. When the topology of an ad hoc network is under constant flux, however, LS generates large number of link state changes, while DV algorithms frequently suffer from out of date state. The size of the network and the mobility of the nodes are two hurdles in the design of scalable routing protocols. For example, the DSDV protocol has O(1) stretch but requires each node to store an O(n)-size distance vector; one consequence of the latter memory overhead is that the adaptability of the network is high since all distance vectors may need to be updated when a node moves. In contrast to proactive algorithms, reactive routing protocols cache topological information and update the cached information on-demand. Reactive protocols avoid the prohibitive cost of routing information maintenance of proactive protocols, and tend to work well in practice. While the idea of aggressive caching and occasional update results in good average performance, the worst- case latency could be high. Hierarchical routing protocols The idea of one-level clustering can be easily generalized to multilevel hierarchical network decomposition. Indeed, this is an old concept in networking dating back to the 70s. While many of the hierarchical routing protocols were originally designed for fixed networks, they are applicable, with suitable modification, for ad hoc networks. The main idea of hierarchical routing is to organize the network as a hierarchy of nested clusters of nodes. Each node of the network is a level-0 cluster. The level-i clusters are grouped together into a certain number of level-i + 1 clusters, for i > 0. In the most basic clustering, one assumes that all level-i clusters are disjoint; many routing protocols use overlapping clusters to provide fault-tolerance and make the protocol more adaptive to dynamic network changes. A hierarchical control structure enforces a hierarchical addressing on the network nodes, which can form the basis of a routing scheme. In a typical routing scheme, each cluster elects certain leaders within the cluster, which obtain and represent network state information at multiple levels of granularity. Routing can be performed by forwarding the given packet to a leveL/cluster which contains the destination node, successively for decreasing value of i, until the packet reaches a level-0 cluster containing the destination, which is the destination itself. Routing protocols differ in the precise mechanism by which network state information is gathered and the particular paths used in the routing process. The hierarchical control structures on which different routing protocols are based differ in the number m of levels of the hierarchy, the size and diameter of the clusters at different levels of the hierarchy, and amount of overlap among the clusters. The different choices lead to a natural trade off between memory overhead and the stretch factor. Reviews several practical hierarchical clustering protocols proposed for ad hoc networks. Most of these protocols rely on heuristics and, as such, do not provide provable worst-case guarantees.
  • 7. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 25 Geographic routing protocols A recent approach to designing simple protocols that keep overhead small is to exploit the underlying geometry (and geography) of the ad hoc network locations, in the Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol, each node only maintains information about their "neighbourhood", which is the set of nodes that the node can directly reach. Using positioning information, the source node greedily passes a given packet to a neighbour that is closest to the destination; if greedy forwarding is impossible, and then the packet is forwarded along a perimeter of the region to reach the destination. While GPSR guarantees connectivity, the best bound on the stretch of the protocol is f~ (n). GPSR is however, adaptive to node mobility since the nodes maintain neighbourhood information only. As such, GPSR does not take into account energy efficiency. An even simpler approach than GPSR is to use the O-graph. The O-graph not only defines a topology but also directly yields a simple routing protocol with O(1) stretch and O(1) memory overhead; the memory overhead is constant since each node needs to store the coordinates of the nearest node in each of a constant number of sectors. This approach is used in for routing in the plane. The worst-case adaptability of the routing scheme is at least the maximum in-degree of a O-graph, which may be large; consequently, the movement of a single node may require updates in a large number of nearby nodes. One approach to alleviate this problem is to use the constant-degree variants of the O-graph, as discussed in Section 3. Unfortunately, while the topology control algorithms based on these variants guarantee the existence of energy-efficient paths, a constructive mechanism for calculating these paths in a distributed manner is not known. Adversarial model A second framework for analyzing ad hoc network routing algorithms is the adversarial model, first developed in and subsequently enhanced in several recent studies. In the context of ad hoc networks, we can model mobility and traffic patterns using an adversary. Mobility can be modelled by allowing the adversary to activate/deactivate network edges; arbitrary traffic patterns Can be modelled by allowing the adversary to determine the rate of packet arrival and the source destination pairs for each packet, we describe here the most general adversarial model considered thus far. In this model, the adversary is allowed to inject packets at arbitrary nodes at arbitrary times and can activate an arbitrary number of incoming or outgoing edges subject to a maximum degree bound z~ for each node. The destination for the each packet is also selected by the adversary. There is one more constraint, that the buffer size of each node is limited to a value B. If at any time, the number of packets in a buffer exceeds B then the excess packets have to be dropped. The adversarial control of the network topology is intended to model the dynamic nature of an ad hoc network in which edges may appear and disappear over time. We assume that no packets are lost; furthermore the model does not cover malicious faults in the sense that it is implicitly assumed that all of the nodes faithfully execute a given routing protocol. The adversarial control of packet injection models the dynamic and unpredictable nature of network traffic. LEACH protocol Heinzelman introduced a hierarchical clustering algorithm for sensor networks, called Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH). LEACH is a cluster-based protocol, which includes distributed cluster formation. LEACH randomly selects a few sensor nodes as cluster heads (CHs) and rotates this role to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensors in the network. In LEACH, the cluster head (CH) nodes compress data arriving from nodes that belong to the respective cluster, and send an aggregated packet to the base station in order to reduce the amount of information that must be transmitted to the base station. LEACH uses a TDMA/CDMA MAC to reduce inter-cluster and intra-cluster collisions. However, data collection is centralized and is performed periodically. Therefore, this protocol is most appropriate when there is a need for constant
  • 8. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 26 monitoring by the sensor network. A user may not need all the data immediately. Hence, periodic data transmissions are unnecessary which may drain the limited energy of the sensor nodes. After a given interval of time, a randomized rotation of the role of the CH is conducted so that uniform energy dissipation in the sensor network is obtained. The authors found, based on their simulation model that only 5% of the nodes need to act as cluster heads. Table 1: Hierarchical routing Vs Flat routing Hierarchical routing Flat routing Reservation-based scheduling Contention-based scheduling Collisions avoided Collision overhead present Reduced duty cycle due to periodic sleeping Variable duty cycle by controlling sleep time of nodes Data aggregation by cluster head node on multihop path aggregates incoming data from neighbors Simple but non-optimal routing Routing can be made optimal but with an added complexity. Requires global and local synchronization Links formed on the fly without synchronization Overhead of cluster formation throughout the network Routes formed only in regions that have data for transmission Lower latency as multiple hops network formed by Cluster heads always available Latency in waking up intermediate nodes and setting up the multipath Energy dissipation is uniform Energy dissipation depends on traffic patterns Energy dissipation cannot be controlled Energy dissipation adapts to traffic pattern Fair channel allocation Fairness not guaranteed Location based routing protocol In this kind of routing, sensor nodes are addressed by means of their locations. The distance between neighboring nodes can be estimated on the basis of incoming signal strengths. SPAN Another position based algorithm called SPAN selects some nodes as coordinators based on their positions. The coordinators form a network backbone that is used to forward messages. A node should become a coordinator if two neighbors of a non-coordinator node cannot reach each other directly or via one or two coordinators (3 hop reach ability). New and existing coordinators are not necessarily neighbors in, which, in effect, makes the design less energy efficient because of the need to maintain the positions of two or three hop neighbors in the complicated SPAN algorithm. VI. CONCLUSION This review paper we discuss several routing patterns and we said that there are many ad hoc network routing protocols, fixed Protocol originally proposed variations-connection in the network design. We hope that peer-to-peer computing, with the arrival of two will tolerate any strong connection problem domain; Peer-to-peer network, many of the same concerns ad-hoc network share with, for example, need to change quickly is continuous and intensive systems to optimize the Organization of decentralized.
  • 9. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, June (2014), pp. 19-27 © IAEME 27 VII. REFERENCES [1] I. Chlamtac, M. Conti, and J.-N. Liu, “Mobile Ad hoc Networking: Imperatives and Challenges,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13– 64, July 2003. [2] R. Rajaraman, “Topology Control and Routing in Ad hoc Networks: A Survey,” SIGACT News, vol. 33, pp. 60–73, June 2002. [3] S. Biswas and R. Morris, “ExOR: Opportunistic Multi-Hop Routing for Wireless Networks,” in Proc. ACM Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM), Philadelphia, PA, USA, August 2005, pp. 133–144. [4] P. Larsson, “Selection Diversity Forwarding in a Multihop Packet Radio Network With Fading Channel and Capture,” ACM Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 47–54, October 2001. [5] S. Chachulski, M. Jennings, S. Katti, and D. Katabi, “Trading Structure for Randomness in Wireless Opportunistic Routing,” in Proc. ACM Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication(SIGCOMM), Kyoto, Japan, August 2007, pp. 169–180. [6] C. Fragouli, J.-Y. L. Boudec, and J. Widmer, “Network Coding: an Instant Primer,” SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 36,pp. 63–68, January 2006. [7] I. Leontiadis and C. Mascolo, “GeOpps: Geographical Opportunistic Routing for Vehicular Networks,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), Helsinki, Finland, June 2007, pp. 1–6. [8] S. Yang, F. Zhong, C. K. Yeo, B. S. Lee, and J. Boleng, “Position Based Opportunistic Routing for Robust Data Delivery in MANETs,” in Proc. 2009 IEEE Conference on Global Telecommunications (GLOBECOM), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, December 2009, pp. 1325–1330. [9] J. Behrens and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Distributed, Scalable Routing based on Link-State Vectors,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 1994, pp. 136–147. [10] S. Murthy and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “An Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Networks,” Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 183–197, October 1996. [11] Aarti Bairagi and Shweta Yadav, “A New Parameter Proposed for Route Selection in Routing Protocol for Manet”, International Journal of Information Technology and Management Information Systems (IJITMIS), Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 31 - 37, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6405, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6413. [12] Sunita Kushwaha, Bhavna Narain, Deepti Verma and Sanjay kumar, “Effect of Scenario Environment on the Performance of Manets Routing Protocol: AODV”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 33 - 38, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375. [13] V.Ramesh and Dr.P.Subbaiah, “Energy Efficient Preemptive Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Manet”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 213 - 222, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375. [14] Taniya Jain and Neeti Kashyap, “Factors for Designing Routing Protocol in Manet”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 189 - 193, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375. [15] Saloni Singla and Tripatjot Singh Panag, “Evaluating the Performance of Manet Routing Protocols”, International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 125 - 130, ISSN Print: 0976- 6464, ISSN Online: 0976 –6472. [16] Thaker Minesh, S B Sharma and Yogesh Kosta, “A Survey: Variants of Energy Constrained Reactive Routing Protocols of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 248 - 257, ISSN Print: 0976- 6464, ISSN Online: 0976 –6472. [17] M. Ahmed, S. Yousef and Sattar J Aboud, “Bidirectional Search Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 229 - 243, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.

×