Scalable Multicasting in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Chao Gui and Prasant Mohapatra Department of Computer Science University of California, Davis guic,prasant @cs.ucdavis.edu ¡ Abstract— Many potential applications of Mobile Ad hoc reported in , and the performance comparison of some ofNetworks (MANETs) involve group communications among the these protocols are discussed in . In multicast routing, a shiftnodes. Multicasting is an useful operation that facilitates group towards protocol state reduction and constraining in multicastcommunications. Efﬁcient and scalable multicast routing inMANETs is a difﬁcult issue. In addition to the conventional provisioning is represented by hierarchical multicast, ,multicast routing algorithms, recent protocols have adopted  and overlay multicast , ,  in the Internet andthe following new approaches: overlays, backbone-based, and recent works in MANET multicast, , , , ,stateless. In this paper, we study these approaches from the . Among the MANET multicast protocols, AMRoute (Adprotocol state management point of view, and compare their hoc Multicast Routing Protocol) and PAST-DM (Progres-scalability behaviors. To enhance performance and enable scalability, we have pro- sively Adapted Sub-Tree algorithm on Dynamic Mesh),posed a framework for hierarchical multicasting in MANET en- are overlay multicast protocols, which constrain the protocolvironments. Two classes of hierarchical multicasting approaches, state within the group members. Backbone-based protocols,termed as domain-based and overlay-based, are proposed. We such as MCEDAR and protocols reported in , ,have considered a variety of approaches that are suitable for use another state constraining method. Only a selected subsetdifferent mobility patterns and multicast group sizes. Results ob-tained through simulations demonstrate enhanced performance of nodes which form the virtual backbone of the network getand scalability of the proposed techniques. involved in routing. Thus protocol states are conﬁned within the virtual backbone. The stateless multicasting protocols do Index Terms— Hierarchical multicasting, Mobile Ad hoc net-works, Domain-based multicasting, Overlay multicasting, State- not maintain any protocol state at the forwarding nodes. Ex-less multicasting, Scalability amples of these protocols include DDM (Differential Destina- tion Multicast) , LGT(Location Guided Tree construction I. I NTRODUCTION algorithms) and RDG (Route Driven Gossip). In this paper, we study the relationship of the protocol The use of mobile and wireless devices are becoming state management techniques and the performance of multicastubiquitous. Thus the need for efﬁcient intercommunication provisioning. For performance, we focus on protocol controlamong these devices is becoming critical. In addition to overhead and protocol robustness. We are further interested inthe infrastructure-based cellular wireless network, the study the following two questions.and developments of infrastructureless wireless networks havebeen very popular in recent years. Mobile Ad hoc NETworks 1) Will the state constraining methods successfully reduce(MANETs) belong to the class of infrastructureless networks, the protocol control overhead?which do not require the support of wired access points 2) When the multicast service scales up vertically (in termsfor intercommunication. It is a dynamically reconﬁgurable of the group size) and horizontally (in terms of thewireless network where the nodes are mobile resulting in number of groups), how the scalability will impact thevariable network topology. Due to the limited radio propaga- protocol performance?tion range, nodes of a MANET communicate either through In order to better address these questions, we present twosingle hop or multihop transmissions. The nodes act as both hierarchical multicast routing solutions for MANETs. Thehosts as well as routers. Applications of MANETs include ﬁrst solution, termed as domain-based hierarchical routing,battleﬁeld communication, disaster recovery, coordinated task divides a large multicast group into sub-groups, each with ascheduling (such as earth moving or construction), vehicular node assigned as a sub-root. Only the sub-roots maintain thecommunication for trafﬁc management, data and information protocol states, and are selected on the basis of topologicalsharing in difﬁcult terrain, and extension of the infrastructure- optimality. Thus, we can have a more ﬂexible control onbased wireless networks. the protocol state distribution. The second solution, termed There has been a plethora of work reported on point-to-point as overlay-driven hierarchical routing, has a different waycommunications in MANETs using unicast routing techniques of building multicast hierarchy. Using overlay multicast as, , . However, most potential applications of MANETs the upper layer multicast protocol, and stateless small grouplisted earlier operate in a group-based collaborative manner. multicasts as lower layer multicast protocol, this hierarchicalSo they need support for group communication protocols. A multicast solution achieves protocol robustness, as well asrecent survey of multicast routing protocols in MANETs was efﬁcient data delivery. These features make overlay multicast This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation approach more suitable for the MANET environment.under the grants CCR-0296070 and ANI-0296034. We study the protocol performance using simulations of
large network size (400 moving nodes). We simulate protocol B. Backbone-based Multicast Protocolsscalability behaviors with group size up to 200 members and For a backbone-based approach, a distributed election pro-number of groups up to 12. The results show robust scal- cess is conducted among all nodes in the network, so that aable performance of the domain-based hierarchical multicast subset of nodes are selected as CORE nodes. The topologyscheme proposed in this paper. induced by the CORE nodes and paths connecting them form The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In sec- the virtual backbone, which can be shared by both unicast andtion II, we study the state management methods of the current multicast routing. In MCEDAR, a distributed minimumMANET multicast protocols, and their scalability issues. In dominating set (MDS) algorithm1 is applied for this purpose,section III, we present two hierarchical multicast schemes. and the resulting backbone has the property that all nodes areThe result of performance studies are presented in section IV. within one hop away from a CORE node. A CORE node andIn section V, we discuss the related hierarchical multicasting its dominated nodes form a cluster. The proposed protocol intechniques in the Internet. Finally, the conclusions are pro-  and  use different techniques for selecting backbonevided in the last section. nodes. Once a virtual backbone is formed, the multicast operation II. M ULTICASTING IN MANET S : S TATE M ANAGEMENT is divided into two levels. The lower level multicast, which AND S CALABILITY is within a cluster, is trivial. For the upper level multicast, the protocol in  uses a pure ﬂooding approach within the State management of multicast protocols involves timely backbone. MCEDAR builds a routing mesh, named as mgraph,updating of the multicast routing tables at the involved nodes within the virtual backbone, to connect all CORE nodes.to maintain the correctness of the multicast routing structure, The backbone topology is much more simple and stable thantree or mesh, according to the current network topology. the whole network topology. If backbone are built upon slow-Even under moderate node mobility and multicast member moving nodes, more topology stability is expected even withsize, state management incurs considerable amount of control high host mobility. However, backbone-based method makestrafﬁc. When the group size grows, and/or number of groups each CORE node a “hot-spot” of network trafﬁc, which posesincrease, traditional tree or mesh based methods , , limits on horizontal scalability. Backbone-based protocols are,  become inefﬁcient. To address the scalability issues, limited for supporting horizontal scalability. Since data trafﬁcwe need to reduce the protocol states and constrain their of all the multicast groups should pass the same set of COREdistribution, or even use methods that do not need to have nodes, the number of multicast groups that can be supportedprotocol state. A number of research efforts have adopted by the network is limited by the channel bandwidth at eachthis method, which can be classiﬁed into the following cate- CORE node.gories: overlay multicasting, backbone-based multicasting andstateless multicasting. We study these different approaches forconstraining protocol states, and their scalability issues. C. Stateless Multicast Protocols A recent shift towards stateless multicasting is represented by DDM, LGT and RDG. All these protocolsA. Overlay Multicast Protocols do not require maintenance of any routing structure at the In overlay multicast, a virtual infrastructure is built to form forwarding nodes. These protocols use different techniques toan overlay network on top of the physical network. Each achieve stateless multicasting. LGT builds an overlay packetlink in the virtual infrastructure is a unicast tunnel in the delivery tree on top of the underlying unicast routing protocol,physical network. IP layer implements minimal functionality and multicast packets are encapsulated in a unicast envelop and– a best-effort unicast datagram service, while the overlay unicasted between the group members. When an on-tree nodenetwork implements multicast functionalities such as dynamic receives a data packet from its parent node, it gets the identitiesmembership maintenance, packet duplication and multicast of its children from the infomation included in the header ofrouting. AMRoute is an ad hoc multicast protocol that the packet. For RDG, a probabilistically controlled ﬂoodinguses the overlay multicast approach. The virtual topology can technique, termed as gossiping, is used to deliver packets toremain static even though the underlying physical topology is all the group members.changing. Moreover, it needs no support from the non-member In DDM, a source encapsulates a list of destination ad-nodes, i.e., all multicast functionality and protocol states are dresses in the header of each data packet it sends out. When ankept within the group member nodes. The protocol does not intermediate node receives the packet, its DDM agent queriesneed to track the network mobility since it is totally handled the unicast routing protocol about which next-hop node toby the underlying unicast protocol. forward the packet towards each destination in the packet The advantages of overlay multicast come at the cost header.of low efﬁciency of packet delivery and long delay. When DDM is intended for small groups, therefore, it intrinsicallyconstructing the virtual infrastructure, it is very hard to prevent excels only in horizontal scalability. When group size is large,different unicast tunnels from sharing physical links, which placing the addresses of all members into the packet headersresults in redundant trafﬁc on the physical links. Besides, the 1 Due to the NP-completeness of MDS problem, the distributed algorithmproblem of low delivery efﬁciency is discussed in section III- provides approximate solutions. However, a near optimal solution will beB. enough.
Hierarchical Multicast Tree For all cases, it is safe to partition the multicast group Construction for MANET according to relative vicinity. Figure 2 shows an ideal case of partitioning according to geographical regions. In this Overlay−driven example, the shaded nodes form the multicast group. Node 15 Domain−based (higher level is overlay multicast) is a source node, and the upper level multicast tree is shown in solid lines, which spans over all sub-roots marked in the Dynamic Dynamic ﬁgure with double circles. The lower level multicast trees are Static Static Sub−grouping Sub−grouping Mesh Mesh shown with dotted lines. Heterogeneity is allowed among the multicast protocols Location guided employed at different sub-groups and at the higher level Sub−grouping groups. The partitioning approach can be applied recursively to form multiple levels of hierarchical multicast, so that it isFig. 1. Different manners of constructing hierarchical multicast trees. possible to support arbitrary large size groups with bounded amount of states maintained at each node. However, for thewill not be efﬁcient. The protocol has a caching mode, so that ease of explanation, we have restricted our discussions to twoonly the difference from the previous states is actually placed levels. 2) An Example-Hierarchical DDM: In the previous sec-in the headers. However, as the forwarding set at the on-route tion, the scalability problems of DDM protocol are analyzed.nodes inevitably grow large, each intermediate node needs to In this section, we propose a hierarchical DDM scheme.keep routes for a large set of destinations. This poses a heavy The geographical region based partitioning needs a locationburden on the supporting unicast protocol even under moderate service of the network. We do not assume its availability,mobility. Further, in order to answer the “next-hop” queries for thus, a topology-aware approach is adopted in our protocol.a large number of destinations, on-demand routing protocols, The key issue in hierarchical DDM is the hierarchy mainte-which are commonly proposed for MANETs, need to ﬂood the nance, which involves how to optimally partition the multicastentire network very frequently with route discovery packets. group into the sub-groups. In the worst case when the distant members are put into one sub-group, the performance will III. H IERARCHICAL M ULTICASTING degrade. Speciﬁcally, we need to answer the following three Hierarchical routing approach can be used to signiﬁ- questions:cantly reduce the protocol states in a large scale network. In 1) How to build the multicast hierarchy? Speciﬁcally, howthis section, we present two hierarchical multicast solutions, to partition the multicast group so that adjacent clusterboth of which have the goal of achieving lower multicast over- of members can form a sub-group? Also, which nodehead and robustness for large-scale multicasting. We refrain among the nodes in a sub-group is selected as a sub-from developing a new multicast routing protocol, but present root?a framework for hierarchical multicasting in MANETs. Based 2) When a new member joins the group, which sub-groupon the framework, a variety of techniques can be adopted for is it assigned to?effective multicasting in MANETs. 3) An optimal partitioning conducted long ago may not A critical component of hierarchical multicasting in represent the current network topology. How to dynam-MANETs involves the way the multicast tree or mesh are ically adjust the partitioning?constructed. For the proposed framework, we have formed The answers to all these questions are proposed as follows.a generic classiﬁcation of various possible conﬁgurations of Group Partitioning and Sub-root Selectionhierarchical multicasting in MANETs. This classiﬁcation is Before partitioning, the source node, denoted as S, only hasdepicted in Figure 1. The approaches differ in the relationship a ﬂat list of current group members. In order to build thebetween two adjacent levels of multicast trees, i.e., how the multicast hierarchy according to the current network topology,lower level multicast trees are organized to serve the upper node S generates a HIER REQ message. The message containslevel. In this section, we describe the methodologies of these a small piece of information on the format of the partition. Themulticasting techniques. most important information is the expected size of each sub- group, which is arbitrated by node S. This message is deliveredA. Domain-Based Hierarchical Multicast to all group members using the original DDM protocol. Since 1) General approach: A multicast group of large size can this is not a network wide broadcast, the cost of the messagebe partitioned into certain number of sub-groups, so that each delivery is mainly proportional to the group size. To furthersub-group is of tractable size. Within each sub-group, a special reduce the cost, it can be piggy-backed onto the ﬁrst datanode is chosen to serve as a sub-root. All source nodes of the packet.group, together with all the sub-roots, form a special sub-group When a member node, denoted as I, receives the packet car-for the purpose of upper level multicast. The source node will rying this HIER REQ message, the DDM header of the packetﬁrst use the upper level multicast tree to deliver packets to contains a list of members, to which node I is responsible forall the sub-roots. Then, each sub-root uses the lower level forwarding the packet. We can view it as the subtree in themulticast protocol to build its own lower level multicast tree multicast tree rooted at node I. Further, this member list isand further delivers packets to its sub-group members. the result of the forwarding process from S to I, representing
100 5 ODMRP Number of Forwards per Data Packet HDDM−Static 90 HDDM 4 Delivery Rate (%) 80 3 70 2 60 1 ODMRP 50 HDDM−Static HDDM 40 0 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 Pause−time (second) Pause−time (second) (a) Packet delivery ratio (b) Forwarding efficiency Control Traffic in Bits per Received Data Bit 1.5 80 ODMRP ODMRP HDDM−Static HDDM−Static Average Delivery Latency (ms) 1.2 HDDM HDDM 60 0.9 40 0.6 20 0.3 0 0 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 Pause−time (second) Pause−time (second) (c) Normalized Bit Overhead (d) Average delivery latencyFig. 4. Performance versus mobility. (Group size is 150, 1 group, 1 source per group)ratio with much less control trafﬁc and lower network load. two-phased delivery paths (from source to sub-roots then toODMRP makes the source node periodically ﬂood the network receivers) in HDDM are often longer than the optimal paths.with JOIN QUERY messages. The nodes on the shortest path However, we observe that the variance of delay among thefrom the source to the receivers form the forwarding group, receivers in HDDM is much lower than that of ODMRP. Thewhich relay every data packet they receive. The forwarding reason is that the lengths of delivery paths for the receiversgroup forms a mesh which includes all the source-to-member are uniﬁed by the multicast hierarchy. We also observe apaths. The mesh’s size is fairly large compared to the group gap between the two HDDM protocols. This is the effect ofsize in the simulation settings. Thus, much more data packet dynamic partition, which tries to shorten the delivery path attransmissions are incurred in ODMRP. The control trafﬁc in the lower level multicasts.ODMRP are JOIN QUERY and JOIN REPLY packets, whilein both HDDM protocols, major part of control trafﬁc is piggy- C. Vertical Scalability Issuesbacked in the packet headers. The high cost of media access In this section, Figure-5 shows the performance metrics asin MANET environment favors the in-band signaling style of functions of group size. With ﬁxed pause time as 60 seconds,control trafﬁc in HDDM. The multicast hierarchy signiﬁcantly we have one multicast group of size from 20 to 200.reduces the length of DDM headers. For a group of size 150 Figure-5(a) shows the result for packet delivery ratio. Asmembers, the average number of destinations in the headers group sizes increases, ODMRP delivers more fraction ofis only 16 for 60s pause time. This accounts for the much packets. The reason is that the forwarding mesh becomes morereduced control trafﬁc. reliable with more redundant paths as it increases its size. Both The average delay latency is shown in Figure-4(d). The HDDM protocols show a stable delivery ratio, with a slightpacket delivery latency is averaged for all the delivered packets decreasing trend. Irrespective of the group size, the forwardingat each receiver. For each protocol, the averaged value and structure of both HDDM protocols is always a hierarchicalthe variance of the latencies at all receivers are shown by the tree, which becomes less reliable for a larger group.curve points and the error bars. ODMRP has lower latency Data forwarding efﬁciency is shown in Figures-5(b). HDDMthan the both HDDM protocols because ODMRP always tries is much more efﬁcient in delivering data packets than ODMRP.to include the shortest path within the forwarding group. The Though most packets delivered to the receivers do not follow
100 10 ODMRP ODMRP Number of Forwards per Data Packet HDDM−Static HDDM−Static HDDM 8 HDDM 80 Delivery Rate (%) 6 60 4 40 2 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Group Size Group Size (a) Packet delivery ratio (b) Forwarding efficiency Control Traffic in Bits per Received Data Bit 2 100 ODMRP ODMRP HDDM−Static HDDM−Static Average Delivery Latency (ms) HDDM HDDM 1.5 80 1 60 0.5 40 0 20 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Group Size Group Size (c) Normalized Bit Overhead (d) Average delivery latencyFig. 5. Performance versus group size. (Pause time is 60s, 1 group, 1 source per group)the shortest path, the forwarding load from source to a sub- ance among the receivers. Compared to ODMRP, HDDM androot is shared among all the members in the sub-group. Thus, HDDM-Static both have higher delay but lower variance. Thishierarchical delivery reduces the data trafﬁc load successfully. is the effect of multicast hierarchy mentioned in the previousThe forwarding mesh formed by ODMRP is of relative big section. The curve for ODMRP has a greater increasing trendsize when group size is small, resulting in very inefﬁcient data than the other two. The network under ODMRP has muchforwarding process. As group size grow larger, this problem higher trafﬁc load than the hierarchical protocols. Though theis alleviated. packets are using the shortest path in ODMRP, the delay at Figure-5(c) shows the result of control overhead. The curve each link is long when trafﬁc load is high.for ODMRP ﬁrst decreases with the increased group size. We derive the following inferences. As the group sizeThough the amount of control packets increases, the number increases, ODMRP has better performance in terms of deliveryof delivered packets increases faster with more receivers. rate and forwarding efﬁciency, however, control overhead andHowever, the curve increases again when group size is large delivery latency increases faster than the group size. Boththan 120. The reason is that the JOIN REPLY packets sent HDDM protocols provide stable performance for all metrics.by the receivers collide more frequently, and the number of The scaling trend in control overhead shows HDDM will beretransmissions of JOIN REPLY increases drastically. Both efﬁcient for large groups.HDDM protocols show better scalability trend than ODMRP.The control trafﬁc does not increase as fast as group size. Mostcontrol cost by the HDDM protocols are piggy-backed onto the D. Horizontal Scalability Issuespacket headers. If one packet transmission can reach multiple In this section, we study the performance behaviors withreceivers from a forwarding node, the delivered data bits are respect to the horizontal scalability. We consider the followingcounted as multiple data packets, while the bit overhead of 6 scenarios: 72 by 2, 48 by 3, 36 by 4, 24 by 6, 18 by 8 andcontrol trafﬁc is still counted as the bits of one packet header. 12 by 12. Here, “72 by 2” means 2 multicast groups, and 72This in-band signaling feature becomes advantageous when members per group. Thus, in all scenarios, the total number ofthe trafﬁc load is high. receivers is ﬁxed to 144. There is one source for each group. Figure-5(d) shows the averaged delivery latency and vari- The trafﬁc demand remains equal in all scenarios.
100 10 ODMRP ODMRP Number of Forwards per Data Packet HDDM−Static HDDM−Static 80 HDDM 8 HDDM Delivery Rate (%) 60 6 40 4 20 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Groups Number of Groups (a) Packet delivery ratio (b) Forwarding efficiency Control Traffic in Bits per Received Data Bit 15 100 ODMRP ODMRP HDDM−Static HDDM−Static Average Delivery Latency (ms) 12 HDDM HDDM 80 9 60 6 40 3 0 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Groups Number of Groups (c) Normalized Bit Overhead (d) Average delivery latencyFig. 6. Performance versus number of groups. (Pause time is 60s, 1 source per group) Figure-6(a) shows the packet delivery ratio and the variance head. The control trafﬁc incurred by ODMRP increases dra-among the groups in the network. As the number of groups matically with the increase in the number of groups. Inincreases, performance of ODMRP shows quick drop to less ODMRP, after the source ﬂoods the JOIN QUERY message,than 10% for 12 groups. With more groups, there are more all members should reply with JOIN REPLY packet. Theseforwarding meshes competing for radio channel. The size of reply packets will cause implosion problem when the groupmeshes do not decrease proportional to the group sizes. This size is large. This problem is solved by aggregating thecauses severe trafﬁc jam and packet collisions. Both HDDM JOIN REPLY packets. When two JOIN REPLY packets reachand HDDM-Static do not have this problem. As the number one node, only one aggregated reply is needed to be forwardedof groups increases, the total number of sub-groups and the further. However, with many groups of small size, the numbersize of each sub-group remain almost the same. The curve for of JOIN REPLY packets is huge and they have less chance toHDDM ﬁnally converges to HDDM-Static when the group be aggregated. Thus, the control trafﬁc increases signiﬁcantly.number increases to 12. As the group size decreases, the The delivered packets are reduced, and this makes the valuenumber of sub-groups decreases due to the lower bound on the of relative control overhead increase even further. Both ofsize of each sub-group. Thus there is less chance for members the HDDM protocols do not have this problem. The controlto switch sub-groups. When group size reduces to 12 in the 12 overhead remains stable with respect to horizontal scalability.group scenario, both HDDM protocols reduce to ﬂat DDM. The reason is that for the sub-group multicast level, the The results for forwarding efﬁciency is shown in Figure- number of sub-groups does not change much with the different6(b). With more groups of smaller size ODMRP uses much scenarios.more forwarding transmissions to deliver a data packet. The Figure-6(d) shows the results for average delivery latencysame trend is found in the previous section, when the group and the variance among the groups in the network. This metricsizes becomes smaller. Both HDDM protocols present more favors the case when the delivery ratio is low. In this case, thestable curves. With smaller group, the chance for one broadcast major part of the delivered packets are those that travel a shorttransmission to reach multiple members decreases, thus their hop distance, thus have small delivery latency. Both HDDMcurves ascends when the number of groups increases. protocols have increased delivery latency when number of Figure-6(c) shows the results for relative control bit over- groups increases. In the case of small number of large groups,
the topology-aware partition method tend to make each sub- VI. C ONCLUSIONgroup only contain adjacent member nodes. In the case of In this paper, we apply the hierarchical routing principle tomore number of smaller groups, the members of a sub-group MANET multicast routing. We categorize the current multi-become more widely spread in the network. This results in cast routing protocols by the amount and distribution of themore hops for the packet delivery at lower level multicast protocol states. We also study the scalability issues of eachgroups. Thus the delivery latency becomes larger. category. We propose two different approaches for hierarchical We can derive the following conclusions. When there are multicast tree construction: domain-based method and overlay-more multicast groups in the network, ODMRP has quick driven method. The domain-based method uses the topologicaldrop in all performance metrics. Both of the HDDM protocols vicinity of nodes to form different levels of hierarchy. Atpresent very stable behavior in terms of horizontal scalability. each level, the same or different multicasting protocol can beWhen there are more groups, dynamic partitioning becomes adopted. By keeping the group size small at each of the levels,less effective. efﬁcient small group multicasting protocol could be adopted. The overlay-driven approach uses two levels of hierarchy; the V. R ELATED W ORK higher level is an overlay topology and the lower level is formed around the nodes of the overlay topology. For the A few schemes,  have proposed to build a virtual purpose of evaluation, we have used the DDM multicastinghierarchy in a wireless multi-hop network. This hierarchy is scheme that has been shown to be very efﬁcient for smallbuilt by various clustering methods, and can be used for better groups.support of a number of network-wide operations, such as We presented a detailed performance evaluation of themultimedia transport and QoS provisioning. PHAM(Physical proposed hierarchical multicasting techniques. The simulationHierarchy-driven Ad Hoc Multicast) is a specially tailored results have demonstrated the performance beneﬁts, enhancedmulticast algorithm for the kind of MANETs with physical scalability, and low overheads associated with the proposedhierarchy. It is assumed that the network is organized in techniques. A comparative study of variations of our tech-physical groups. Each physical group has a super node which niques is also presented and the relative merits of thesehas more capabilities, such as transmission power and compu- techniques for different mobility and size of MANETs aretation power. Our hierarchical multicast algorithms, however, analyzed.assumes a ﬂat network structure. For the future work, we identify the need to develop a The multicast forwarding state at the Internet routers is light-weighted but reliable multicast protocol for small groups.studied in . Several hierarchical routing protocols have It can be applied to the upper level multicast in the routingbeen proposed for supporting multicasting in the Internet, hierarchy to achieve better reliability in packet delivery., . HDVMRP(Hierarchical Distance Vector MulticastRouting Protocol) divides the ﬂat routing region into severalnon-overlapping domains. Each domain runs its own internal R EFERENCESmulticast routing protocol, which is DVMRP for the proposal.  C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-SequencedInter-domain multicast trafﬁc are routed by another routing Distance-Vector Routing(DSDV) for Mobile Computers,” Comp. Com- mun. Rev., Oct. 1994, pp. 234-44.protocol at the higher level. Constructing the hierarchical  C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vectormulticast tree in such manner allows heterogeneity among the Routing,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems andprotocols at different domains and among protocols at different Applications, pp. 90-100, Feb. 1999.  D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-Hoclevels. Another hierarchical multicast routing protocol called Wireless Networks,” Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski and H. Korth,HIP builds a hierarchical multicast tree by introducing the Eds., Kluwer, 1996, pp.153-81.concept of “virtual router”. All border routers of a domain are  C. de Morais Cordeiro, H. Gossain, D. P. Agrawal, ”Multicast over wireless mobile ad hoc networks: present and future directions,” IEEEorganized to appear as a single router in the higher level tree. Network, Vol. 17, Issue: 1, January/February 2003.A different way of hierarchical tree building can be named as  S. J. Lee, W. Su, J. Hsu, M. Gerla, and R. Bagrodia, ”A Performancea “tree of trees,” which is used by OCBT. In this approach, Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols,” Proc. IEEE Infocom’00, Tel-Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000.the leaf nodes of a higher level multicast tree can each be  A.S. Thyagarajan S. E. Deering, “Hierarchical distance-vector multicastfunctioning as the root of a lower-level tree. routing for the MBone,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM’95, Cambrige, Mas- The protocols for hierarchical multicasting are well-suited sachusetts, Sep. 1995.  C. Shields and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “The HIP Protocol for Hier-for the Internet environment, where characteristics are different archical Multicast Routing,” Proc. 17th Annual ACM Symposium onfrom that of MANET environments. These approaches can Principles of Distributed Computing, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, Junebe aggregated and named as domain-based hierarchical mul- 1998.  C. Shields and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “The Ordered Core Based Treeticasting technique. In MANET, the links are formed in ad Protocol,” Proc. IEEE Infocom’97, Kobe, Japan, April 1997.hoc manner, and data is transmitted through radio broadcast.  H. Eriksson, “MBone: The Multicast Backbone,” Communications ofAdopting hierarchical protocols like HDVMRP requires the the ACM, Aug. 1994, Vol. 37, pp.54-60.  Y. Chu, S. Rao, and H. Zhang, “A Case for End System Multicast,”ﬁxed designation of edge nodes. In MANETs, the role of Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS’00, Santa Clara, CA, June 2000.edge nodes will be played by different nodes because of the  M. Kwon and S. Fahmy, “Topology-Aware Overlay Networks for Groupmobility and variable topology. It is thus desirable to explore Communication,” Proc. ACM NOSSDAV’02, Miami, FL, May, 2002.  P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar and V. Bharghavan, “MCEDAR: Multicast Core-the feasibility, design issues, trade-offs, and the performance Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing,” Proc. IEEE WCNC’99, Sept.,of hierarchical multicasting techniques in MANETs. 1999.
 J. Xie, R. R. Talpade, A. Mccauley, and M. Liu, “AMRoute: ad hoc  E. M. Royer, and C. E. Perkings, “Multicast Operations of the Ad- multicast routing protocol,” ACM Mobile Networks and Applications, hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol,” Proc. ACM MOBI- Vol. 7, Issue 6, Dec. 2002. COM’99, Seattle, WA, Aug., 1999. C. Gui and P. Mohapatra, “Efﬁcient Overlay Multicast for Mobile Ad  J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, and E. L. Madruga, “The Core-Assisted Mesh Hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE WCNC’03, New Orleans, LA, Mar., 2003. Protocol,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1380-94, L. Ji and M. S. Corson, “Differential Destination Multicast -A MANET August 1999. Multicast Routing Protocol for Small Groups,” Proc. IEEE Infocom’01,  S.K. Das, B.S. Manoj, and C.S.R. Murthy, “A Dynamic Core Based Anchorage, Alaska, Apr., 2001. Multicast Routing Protocol for Ad hoc Wireless Networks,” Proc. ACM K. Chen and K. Nahrstedt, “Effective Location-Guided Tree Construc- MOBIHOC’02, Lausanne, Switzerland, June 2002. tion Algorithms for Small Group Multicast in MANET,” Proc. IEEE  GloMoSim, http://pcl.cs.ucla.edu/projects/glomosim/. Infocom’02, New York, NY, June, 2002.  T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad J. Luo, P. T. Eugster, and J.-P. Hubaux, “Route Driven Gossip: Proba- Hoc Network Research,” Wireless Communication Mobile Computing bilistic Reliable Multicast in Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Infocom’03, San (WCMC), vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002 Francisco, CA, Mar.-Apr., 2003.  J. Yoon, M. Liu, and B. Noble, “Random Waypoint Considered Harm- L. Kleinrock and F. Kamoun, “Hierarchical Routing for large networks; ful,” Proc. IEEE Infocom’03, San Francisco, CA, Mar.-Apr., 2003. performance evaluation and optimization,” Computer Networks, Vol. 1,  BonnMotion Project, http://web.informatik.uni- pages 155-174, 1977. bonn.de/IV/Mitarbeiter/dewaal/BonnMotion/ C. Jaikaeo and C-C. Shen, “Adaptive Backbone-Based Multicast for Ad  C. R. Lin and M. Gerla, “Adaptive clustering for mobile wireless hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE ICC’02, New York, NY, Apr.-May, 2002. networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1265- M. Gerla, C-C. Chiang and L. Zhang, “Tree multicast strategies in 1275, Sept. 1997. mobile, multihop wireless networks,” ACM Mobile Networks and Ap-  R. Ramanathan and M. Steenstrup, “Hierarchically-organized, multihop plications, Vol. 4, 1999, pp 193-207. mobile wireless networks for quality-of-service support,” ACM/Baltzer M. Grossglauser, and M. Vetterli, “Locating Nodes with EASE: Mo- Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 101-119, June bility Diffusion of Last Encounters in Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE 1998. Infocom’03, San Francisco, CA, Mar.-Apr., 2003.  Y.-B. Ko, S.-J. Lee an K.-Y. Lee, “A multicast protocol for physically S.J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C.-C. Chiang, “On Demand Multicast Routing hierarchical ad hoc networks,” Proc. IEEE VTC, Jeju, Korea, Apr. 2003. Protocol,” Proc. IEEE WCNC’99, pp. 1298-1302, September 1999.  D. Thaler and M. Handley, “On the aggregatability of multicast forward- ing state,” Proc. IEEE Infocom’00, Mar, 2000.