Tanu Preet Singh et al.

/ International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

Effect of Quality Parameters on Energy

Efficient Routing Protocols in MANETs
Tanu Preet Singh
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
Amritsar College of Engineering & Technology
Amritsar, India
tanupreet.singh@gmail.com

Dr. R.K Singh

Department of Electronics & Communication Engineering
Uttarakhand Technical University
Dehradun, India
rksinghkec12@rediffmail.com

Jayant Vats
Department of Management Studies & Computer Applications
Amritsar College of Engineering & Technology
Amritsar, India
jayantvasu@gmail.com

Abstract—This paper presents a survey on energy efficient routing protocols for wireless Ad-Hoc
networks. Survey focus on recent development and modifications in this widely used field. In this paper I
present a number of ways of classification or categorization of these routing protocols and did Qualitative
/ Quantitative analysis of a dozen typical existing routing protocols. In qualitative analysis I compare
their properties according to different criteria and in Quantitative analysis I used a Simulator NS2 to
study their relative performance according to different criteria.

Keywords- LSR: Link State Routing, DVR: Distance Vector Routing, DSDV: Destination Sequence Distance
Vector Routing, FSR: Fisheye State Routing, CGSR: Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing, WRP: Wireless
Routing Protocol, DSR: Dynamic Source Routing, AODV: Ad Hoc On-Demand distance Vector Routing,
TORA: Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm, ABR: Associatively Based Routing Protocol, HSR:
Hierarchical State Routing

I. INTRODUCTION

A mobile Ad hoc network (MANET) is an autonomous system of mobile hosts which are free to move around
randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily. All wireless enabled devices within the range of each other can
discover and communicate in a peer-to-peer fashion without involving central access points. In Ad hoc networks
nodes can change position quite frequently. The nodes in an ad hoc network can be Laptops, PDA (personal
digital Assistant) or palm tops etc. These are often limited in resources such as CPU capacity, storage capacity,
Battery Power, Bandwidth. Each node participating in the network acts both as a router and as a host and must
therefore is willing to transfer packets to other nodes. For this purpose a routing protocol should try to minimize
control traffic. There is limitation of Battery life and in an Ad hoc environment battery is most commonly used.

MANETs have several salient characteristics:

1) Dynamic topologies
2) Bandwidth-constrained
3) Variable capacity links
4) Energy-constrained operation
5) Limited physical security [34]

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2620

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

II. CLASSIFICATION

Methods for classifying routing protocols for wireless ad hoc networks.

What routing information is exchanged?
When and how the routing information is exchanged.
When and how routes are computed and so on. We will discuss these criteria in this section.

A. Proactive vs. Reactive Routing

Proactive Schemes determine the routes to various nodes in the network in advance, so that the route is already
present whenever needed. Packet forwarding is faster in these schemes as the route is already present [34].

a. Problems associated:-

1) Route discovery overheads are large in such schemes.

2) They consume bandwidth to keep routes up-to-date.

Examples: Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Fisheye state routing (FSR) [31].
Reactive Schemes determine the route when needed. Therefore they have smaller Route Discovery overheads.
They employ a flooding (global search) mechanism. A node trying to transmit a packet may have to wait for
route discovery.
Examples of such schemes are Dynamic Source Routing, Ad-Hoc on Demand Distance Vector Routing
(AODV) etc.

B. Single path vs. Multiple path

Single Path Multi Path

1) Overhead of route discovery is Overhead of route discovery is
less. more.
2) Frequency of route discovery Frequency of route discovery is
is more. much less.
3) It results in lesser throughput. It results in higher throughput.
4) It does not distribute the load It distributes the load evenly.
evenly.
5) It has less capacity. It assumes to have more capacity.

C. Table driven vs. Source Initiated

In Table Driven Routing protocols, up-to-date routing information from each node to every other node in the
network is maintained on each node of the network. The changes in network topology are then propagated in the
entire network by means of updates. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) and Wireless
Routing Protocol (WRP) are two schemes classified under the table driven routing protocols head. [34]
The routing protocols classified under Source Initiated On-Demand Routing, create routes only when desired
by the source node. When a node requires a route to a certain destination, it initiates what is called as the route
discovery process. This process basically comprises of packets with a description of the destination (address
information of the destination etc.) being forwarded from one hop to the next. Any node receiving such a
request looks into its available routing table to find if it has a route to the described destination. If a route to the
destination is present, the node returns this route to the source and the process ends else the request packet is
forwarded to its neighbors continuing the route search process. Once a route is found, it is temporarily
maintained in some form (typically the routing table) and then subsequently removed after either a timeout, or if
the destination node leaves the network etc. Some of the schemes classified under this head are Ad-Hoc On
Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)[13], Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)[1,15,31], Temporally Ordered
Routing Algorithm (TORA)[1,31] etc.

D. Source routing vs. hop by hop routing

A few routing protocols utilize source routing. This means, forwarding depends on the source of the message.
Commonly, the source puts all the routing information into the header of a packet. Forwarding nodes utilize this

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2621

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

information. In some cases, the forwarding nodes may alter the routing information in the packet to be
forwarded. They are just a few protocols using source routing: CBRP, DSR [31]. In hop by hop routing, the
route to a destination is distributed in the “next hop” of the nodes along the route. The problem is that all nodes
need to maintain routing information and there may be a possibility of forming a routing loop. [34]

E. Full/Limited/Local Broadcast

There is a full network broadcast, which means, a message is intended for every node in the network, and needs
to be retransmitted by intermediate nodes. On the other hand, there is a local broadcast, which is intended for
any node within the senders reach, but which is not retransmitted at all. In between there are limited broadcasts,
in which the maximum hop count (time to live) is limited as desired. There is no routing protocol, that always
issues full broadcasts, but there are some, that may use full broadcasts: ABR[31], ADV, CEDAR[31], DSDV
[19,31], DSR[1,31], FORP and WAR. Many protocols prefer a limited broadcast: AODV [15], FSLS, FSR[31],
HSR[31], LANMAR, LAR, LMR, SSR[31] and ZRP[31]. And also there are protocols, which use only local
broadcasts: DDR, GSR, GPSR, OLSR, STAR, TBRPF, TORA [31] and WRP.

F. Multicast vs Unicast routing

In multicast routing, data-packets are sent to only desire nodes of the network known as multicast group. Data
packets are transferred between one to other group by transferring data packets between core/source of multicast
group. It supports one-to-many approach for interaction. Example: Ad-Hoc Multicast Routing (AM Route)[31],
On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP)[31].
Unicast routing allows data packets to transfer between two nodes. It supports one-to-one approach for
interaction. All reactive and proactive routing protocols come under this category. [34]

G. Route Selection Parameter

The route selection strategy is an important aspect of a routing protocol. I describe the main representatives and
the protocols, which use them. Signal Strength: Route packets along the connection with the best signal strength.
This is mainly used by ABR and SSR. Link Stability: Route packets along the connections that appear most
stable over a period of time. It is used by DST and FORP Shortest Path/Link State: Select a shortest path
according to some metric. This is used by many protocols: CEDAR, DDR, FSR, GSR, HSR, OLSR, STAR and
TBRPF.

H. Periodic vs. Event Driven

Periodical update protocols disseminate routing information periodically. Periodical updates will simplify
protocols and maintain network stability, and most importantly, enable (new) nodes to learn about the topology
and the state of the network. However if the period between updates is large, the protocol may not keep the
information up-to-date. On the other hand, if the period is small, too many routing packets will be disseminated
which consumes the precious bandwidth of a wireless network.
In an event-driven update protocol, when events occur, (such as when a link fails or a new link appears), an
update packet will be broadcast and the up-to-date status can be disseminated over the network soon. The
problem might be that if the topology of networks changes rapidly, a lot of update packets will be generated and
disseminated over the network which will use a lot of precious bandwidth, and furthermore, may cause too
much fluctuation of routes.[34]

I. Flat vs. Hierarchical Structure

In a flat structure, all nodes in a network are at the same level and have the same routing functionality. Flat
routing is simple and efficient for small networks. The problem is that when a network becomes large, the
volume of routing information will be large and it will take a long time for routing information to arrive at
remote nodes. Examples: DSR (Dynamic Source Routing), AODV (Ad Hoc On-Demand distance vector
routing), DSDV (destination sequence Distance Vector). [34]
For large networks, hierarchical (cluster-based) routing may be used to solve the above problems. In hierarchical
routing the nodes in the network are dynamically organized into partitions called clusters. The high dynamics of
membership and network topology is limited within clusters. Only stable and high level information such as the
cluster level will be propagated across a long distance, thus the control traffic (or routing overhead) may be
largely reduced. Example: CGSR (Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing)[31], HSR (Hierarchical State
Routing)[31].

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2622

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

III. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Qualitative analysis can be done on different criteria as follows [34]

TABLE I. COMPARISION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

TABLE II. COMPARISION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

TABLE III. COMPARISION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

TABLE IV. COMPLEXITY OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS [34]

Table 4 : Comparison of Routing Protocols

Protocol Time Complexity Storage Complexity Computational

Complexity
LSR O(d) O(N*A) O(N)
DVR O(d) O(X) O(N)
DSDV O(d) O(X) O(N)
GSR O(d) O(N*A) O(N)
FSR O(d) O(N) O(N)
CSGR O(d) O(N/M) O(N)
WRP O(h) O(X*A) O(N)
DSR O(2d) O(E) O(2N)
AODV O(2d) O(E) O(2N)
TORA O(2d) O(Dd*A) O(2N)
ABR O(d) O(D-A) O(M*H)
HSR O(D*r) O(M*H) O(N+Y)

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2623

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

In this paper we define the storage, time and Communication complexity for different Routing protocols.
Storage Complexity measures the order of the table size used by the protocols. Communication Complexity
gives the no of messages needed to perform an operation when an update occurs.
N=Number of nodes in the network
E=Communication pairs
M=Average no of nodes in a cluster
H=No of Hierarchical Levels
X=No of nodes affected by topological change
d=Network diameter
h=Height of routing tree
r=diameter of desired paths where the reply packets transit
Y=Total no of nodes forming the desired path where the reply packets pass
A=average no of adjacent nodes
Dd=No of maximum desired destinations [34]

IV. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

The main interest of the project was to test the ability of different routing protocols to react on network topology
changes. Furthermore the focus was set on different network sizes, varying number of nodes and area sizes. I
have taken 3 routing protocols in account, AODV [15], DSDV [19,31] and ZRP[31]. The main aim of taking
these four protocols was that I wanted to include different kinds of protocols in this comparison, as I have on-
demand vs. hybrid routing (ZRP), hop-by-hop vs. source routing. These three protocols cover almost all
categories of protocols.

A. Simulation Environment

The simulations were performed using the NS2 simulator version ns2.34. The simulator is fully implemented in
TCL and OTCL while the graphical toolkit is implemented in NAM and the graphs are implemented in .net
technology. In this project, only the simulator part was used in order to speed up the simulations. The
experiments were executed using the batch mode and the according configuration files. [34]

B. Metrics
The following four metrics have been chosen to compare the protocols:

a. Packet delivery ratio:

Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets received by the destination through the
number of packets originated by the application layer of the source. It specifies the packet loss rate, which limits
the maximum throughput of the network. The better the delivery ratio, the more complete and correct is the
routing protocol.

b. Routing overhead:

The routing overhead describes how many routing packets for route discovery and route maintenance need to be
sent in order to propagate the CBR packets. It is an important measure for the scalability of a protocol. It for
instance determines, if a protocol will function in congested or low-bandwidth situations, or how much node
battery power it consumes. If a protocol requires sending many routing packets, it will most likely cause
congestion, collision and data delay in larger networks.

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2624

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

c. End-to-end delay

End-to-end delay indicates how long it took for a packet to travel from the CBR source to the application layer
of the destination. It represents the average data delay an application or a user experiences when transmitting
data.

d. Hop count

Hop count is the number of hops a packet took to reach its destination[34]

C. Simulation Results

We experimented with different network sizes from 50 up to 1000 nodes. The performance of AODV was very
good in all network sizes Almost all protocols perform relatively well in small networks (i.e. 50 nodes), when
only few hops need to be taken to reach the destination node. Nevertheless, ZRP already at this point fails to
deliver a greater percentage of the originated data packets - it only reaches a delivery ratio of 66%. As the
network size grows, AODV always manages to deliver the packets with reliability greater than 90%. At a first
glance, it can easily be stated that DSR and ZRP completely fail in larger networks: in a network of 200 nodes,
the packet delivery drops below 30 percent. [34]

V. REFERENCES

[1] Sunil Taneja, Ashwani Kush,”A Survey Of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”International Journal Of Innovation ,
Management and Technology,Vol. 1,No. 3,August 2010 ISSN:2010-0248.
[2] K.Saleem,N.Fisal, S.Hafizah, S.Kamilah, and R.A.Rashid,”A Self-Optimized Multipath Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor
Networks” International Journal Of Recent trends In Engineering, Vol 2, No. 1,November 2009.
[3] Nidhi S. Kulkarni,Balusubramanian Raman And Indra Gupta,”On Demand Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks-A
Review” 2009 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC 2009) Patiala, India, 6-7 March,2009.
[4] Dr. Shuchita Upadhayaya and Charu Gandhi “Quality Of Service Routing In MANETs Using Location And Energy Parameters”
International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Networks (IJWMN) , Vol 1, No.2, November 2009.
[5] Rekha Patil , Dr. A. Damodaram “Cost Based Power Aware Cross Layer Routing Protocol For MANET” IJCSNS International
Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.8 No.12,December 2008.
[6] Arun Kumar B. R. ,Lokanatha C. Reddy, Prakash S. Hiremath,” Performance Comparision Of Wireless Mobile ad Hoc Network
Routing Protocols” IJCSNS International Journal Of Computer Science And Network Security Vol. 8,No.6., June 2008.

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2625

 Tanu Preet Singh et al. / International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE)

[7] Mbarushimana, C. and A. Shahrabi: Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks, Proc. of The 21st International conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops
(AINAW’07),pp.679-684,2007.
[8] Mehran Abolhassan, Tadeusz A. Wysocki, Eryk Dutkiewicz; “A Review of Routing Protocols for MANETs”, Ad Hoc Networks
2(1):1-22(2004).
[9] M. Abolhasan, T.A.Wysocki, & E.Dutkiewicz, (2004) “a Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Ad Hoc
Networks,Vol.2,pp.1-22.
[10] Imrich Chlantac, Macro Conti, Jennifer J.-N. Liu, (2003) “Mobile Ad hoc networking imperatives and challenges” Ad Hoc Networks,
Vol 1,pp.13-64
[11] L.Ouakil,S.senouci ,and G. Pujjole, “Performance Comparison of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Based on Energy Consumption”,
Ambience Workshop 2002, Torino, Italy, September 2002.
[12] Lie Wang,Lianfang Zhang, Yantai Shu & Miao Dong (2000), » Multipath source Routing in wireless ad hoc networks»,Proceedings of
Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering,Vol 1, pp.479-483.
[13] C.E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer , and S. R. Das,”Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”,Proc. 2nd IEEE Wksp.
Mobile Comp. And Apps., Feb. 1999,pp. 90-100.
[14] P. Johansson et al.,”Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks-A Comparative Performance Analysis,”Proc. IEEE/ACM
MOBICOM ’99,Aug. 1999 ,pp. 195-206.
[15] E.M. Royer , C-K Toh ,”A Review of Current routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”.IEEE Personal
Communication Magazine,April 1999,pp 46-55.
[16] C.K Toh,”Long-lived ad hoc routing based on the concept of associativity”, Internal draft, IETF, March 1999.
[17] Broch et al. ,” A Performance Comparison on Ad Hoc Multi hop Wireless Networks Routing Protocols,” Proc. IEEE/ACM
MOBICOM ’98,Oct. 1998,pp.85-97.
[18] S. Murthy and J. J Garcia-Luna-Aceves,”An efficient routing protocols for wireless networks”, ACM Mobile Networks
andApplication Journal, Special issue on Routing in Mobile Communication Networks ,1996.
[19] C.E. Perkins & P. Bhagwat (1994) “Highly Dynamic Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile
Computers”,ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Communications Architectures,Protocols and Applications, Vol. 24,pp. 234-244.
[20] David B. Johnson, “Routing Ad Hoc Networks of Mobile Hosts,” Proc. IEEE Wksp. Mobile Comp. and Apps., Dec. 1994,pp.158-
163.
[21] Bertsekas and Gallager , Data Network, pages 404-410,second ed. Prentice Hall, Inc.,1992
[22] Network Simulator-2. www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
[23] Humaira Ehsan and Zartash Afzal Uzmi,”Performance Comparison Of Ad hoc wireless Network Routing Protocols.”
[24] David . Johnson and Davis A. Maltz,”DSR in Ad-Hoc Multi Hop Network.”
[25] P.Johansson et al.,”Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks-A Comparative Performance Analysis,”Proc. IEEE/ACM
MOBICOM ’99,Aug. 1999 ,pp. 195-206.
[26] Natsuru Yamamura, Takuo Nakashima and Seiya Fukushima,” Performance Simulation of Routing Protocols in ad Hoc Wireless
Network” The 3rd International Conference on Innovative Computing Information and Control (ICICIC’08).
[27] Khaleel Ur Rahman Khan, A Venugopal Reddy, Rafi U Zaman,K.Aditya Reddy,T Sri harsha,”An Efficient DSDV Routing Protocol
for Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and its Performance Comparison” Second UKSIM European Symposium on Computer
Modeling and Simulation.
[28] X.Li, (2006), Ph.D thesis on “Multipath Routing and QoS Provisioning in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Queen Mary University of
London.
[29] IETF MANET WG (Mobile Ad hoc NETwork),www.ietf.ora/html.charters/manet charter.html.
[30] www.wikipedia.com
[31] Changling Liu, Jorg Kaiser “A Survey Of Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”
[32] Liqi Shi, Abraham Fapojuwo, Neil Viberg, Wendy Hoople, Nobert Chan “Methods For Calculating Bandwidth, Delay and Packet Loss
Metrics in Multi-hop IEEE802.11 Ad Hoc Networks”
[33] A.N.Al-Khwildi, K.K.Loo and H.S.Al-Raweshidy ”An Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Ad hoc Networks”4th International
Conference:Sciences of Electronic, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications March 25-29,2007-TUNISIA
[34] Ankur Ketrapal Department of Computer Engineering, Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi University “Routing techniques for Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks Classification and Qualitative/Quantitative Analysis.

ISSN : 0975-3397 Vol. 3 No. 7 July 2011 2626