2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

Routing Protocols in MANET: An Overview

Gunseerat Kaur Poonam Thakur
Department of Computer Science & Engineering Department of Computer Science & Engineering
Lovely Professional University Lovely Professional University
Punjab, India Punjab, India
Gunseerat.22157@lpu.co.in Poonam.21571@lpu.co.in

Abstract- Mobile Ad-hoc Networks also known as MANETs be its routing protocol, which furthermore tend to hinder
belong to a collaborative collection of different mobile devices away the security and privacy, multicasting can also be
from a heterogeneous network, the prolific feature is the another sort of problem when it comes to an extensive
capability to join and quit the network any time. This leads to a
network, power consumption, efficiency, mobility of the
creation of a decentralized network of mobile nodes which can
connect, communicate and pass messages to each other without nodes needs to be addressed as well[1]. Ad-hoc networks
the requirement of an intermediate router. MANETs have the take into consideration almost all generic devices which
provision to offer much quicker deployment as compared to a have the capability to connect any sort of network (smart
normal networks, the deployment being horizontal type is only devices, smartphones, laptops, palmtops, etc.), also there is a
possible in this scenario. MANETs are generally used in diverse need to understand each connected device's computation
set of applications like Military operations, emergency or disaster
power, storage, power consumption and communication
relief operations, business meetings, political meetings, Mine cite
operations. In these kinds of networks the most important issue capabilities which vary tremendously with different
is that of finding the best route available between the two nodes paradigms. As an Ad-hoc device the purpose is to sense the
according to the user requirements. Undoubtedly routing presence of neighboring nodes/devices and also identify the
protocols and their evaluation is the most discussed topics in the properties of the device which gets connected, apart from
MANETs since the evolution of this network. A number of that it also has to sense what type the devices are lying in the
enhancements have been done to these basic protocols being vicinity and their relevant set of corresponding attributes.
discussed here by different researchers from time to time
according to their requirements. But this paper tends to throw
With MANETs into the picture it is important to look at the
some light on the basic protocols which will provide the readers mobility models and routing protocols that are driven into
the basic information about the characteristics, advantages and working of this efficient network infrastructure. This
disadvantages of the particular protocol and can help them to use infrastructure finds its applications into a lot of options
any protocol according to their use. An intention is to discuss available, the implications of it support the evidence that
regarding the proactive, reactive, hybrid, location-based, power this could be helpful in fields of war, disaster emergencies,
aware, uni-cast, multicast; covering apparently major number og
educational institutions, open interconnection sharing
routing protocols been proposed so far. This paper tends to cover
the routing protocol covering the timeline from last two decades. spaces, commercial network connectivity sectors and other
In the conclusion we will give the table showing the comparison personal area networks. The abundance of applications
of various discussed routing protocols. We hope that this paper makes it more scrutinized to further address the issues that
will help the researchers in the area of Adhoc networks. are faced.
Keywords- proactive; reactive; hybrid; uni-cast; multicast. Upon describing the process of routing as the name suggests
its transferring the data packets within/ between the
networks from one node to another[2]. This mere function
I. INTRODUCTION signifies that routing is an essential task within any network,
Mobile Adhoc Networks are the infrastructure-less networks it consists of sole responsibility of figuring out the optimal
which have challenging capabilities like rapidly changing path between the sender and receiver upon a given
topology, self-configurable networks. Due to increase in parameter. As the network expands, so does the complexity
demand of internet and its connectivity among people in of finding that path. Significantly, it becomes more complex
this fast growing world MANETs as an application of if multiple tiers and intermediate destinations are
infrastructure less technology have gained a lot of encountered in the route, figuring which the packet has to
popularity. With the advancement in intent of 5G traverse out the track covering all those on its way towards
technology in use and further being setup around, the AD- destination. This phenomenon becomes more important
HOC networks are finding new horizons on its spectrum. when the network is of infrastructure-less type, MANETs.
Although the ideology of these networks are an efficient The set of rules which classify the mode of functioning of
thought, there are a few issues still in process to be the networks and information gathering capacity are
addressed. The main issues for MANETs are considered to classified as proactive, reactive and hybrid.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 935

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

A table based routing method, also known as proactive risk of loops and delays in the network, although they do
routing protocol works by figuring the routing table for its maintain a lot of overhead and routing information thereby
network[10]. The tables are formed with information increasing the load on the nodes which is also less likely to
delivered between nodes and any changes are spread be used. In smaller networks where nodes are around 50, this
throughout maintaining the evenness in topology. The approach can work efficiently but in larger networks this
periodic updates are sent for each time there is any update or tends to fail as the dynamic property cannot be maintained
on a particular time quantum. Although this generates a lot and a lot of data processing will be required, hence
of overhead while routing. The other category of protocols decreasing the scalability factor in the network itself. The
namely, On demand routing protocols are also knows as popular proactive protocols include Destination Sequenced
Reactive routing protocols[11] are initiated from the Distance Vector (DSDV), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP),
source's side and routes are created when the nodes in the Global State Routing (GSR) and Cluster head Gateway
network would initiate the process, this was to resolve the Switch Routing (CGSR), Fisheye State Routing (FSR),
overhead increase in network by timely exchange of Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), and Source Tree
information. This however generated lesser overhead and Adaptive Routing (STAR).
didn't overcrowd the network unnecessarily, thus decrease in
latency. Latency was an issue because it took more time to DSDV (Destination Sequence Distance Vector) [18] falls
compare and contrast the information and generate an into the category of proactive protocol which works by the
optimal route in comparison to a proactive protocol. This methodology of distance vector routing algorithm. Under this
method reduces the need of periodic updates. Lastly the the network node efficiently maintains the up-to-date routes
third category includes hybrid protocols which are merged between every node in the network. The information is
and created using positive aspects of proactive and reactive exchanged on a certain specific time interval common to all
protocols. nodes in the network to maintain the changes in the routing
This paper discusses in brief the routing protocols by table. The chances of going into loop of same information
presenting a comparison study of important ones from each being exchanged by the nodes, there is a provision of
category. In upcoming section the description of routing sequence number, which is sent by the destination node.
protocols in MANETs is given with properties and next a Although it still encounters count to infinity problem.
comparison has been made for each protocol. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) [13] falls into category
of table-driven protocols as well but the difference is in this
II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MANET the routing table is formed by communication between
There are a number of classification criteria for classifying second-to-last hop nodes in each destination. The
routing protocols of mobile adhoc networks. A few common functionality belongs to the category of path locating
among them are like on the basis of how routing information algorithms with exceptions; including the count-to-infinity
is acquired and maintained by the nodes, metrics used for problem.
routing path creation, how information is routed. The
categorization for protocols are reactive or proactive, single Cluster Head and Gateway Switching Routing (CGSR)
path/ multi-path, table driven or source initiated, source [14][19] is another table based routing protocol in which the
routing or hop by hop routing, full-limited or local-broadcast, nodes/ devices are grouped into clusters and the cluster is
periodic or event-based, flat or hierarchical, route selection provided with a cluster head to control the hosts in cluster.
strategy. Initially the broader classification is considered to The head is chosen by the means of distributed cluster head
be of proactive, reactive and hybrid protocol. While these selection algorithm. The clustering mechanism provides basis
broader categories are favorable, there are also some major of code separation among clusters(channel access, routing,
properties which are required to be fulfilled such as: and bandwidth allocation). To reduce intervention of cluster
Distributed operation, Loop free, Demand based operation, head selection time and again, each time a change occurs in
unidirectional link support, security, multiple routes, power the cluster the least cluster change algorithm is implemented
conservation, Quality of Security (QoS). We will give as a whole. As a drawback sometimes time is wasted while
overview of almost all routing protocols which are most selecting the cluster head, rather than packet relaying. It is
widely used and researched. In the next section we will give a feasible in case there is less routing information being stored
table which will compare all routing protocols along with at nodes, or in terms of smaller networks.
their characteristics and pros and cons.
Fisheye State Routing (FSR) [15] algorithm implemented
Proactive Routing protocols[19]: This protocol works by for ad-hoc networks when there are multiple-levels to the
maintaining a table to keep track of the current nodes in the routing table updates. In this a single node stores the state of
network and any change is notified by the nodes in a the link for every destination node at present in the network.
particular time frame. Updates in the entire network are The information regarding the link state is broadcasted to the
diverted through the means of nodes. The proactive routing destination in interval that depends on the hop distance to that
protocols provide simpler implementation by decreasing the destination or in case there is a change through the network.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 936

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

The updates that are sent across network don't contain all the Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR),
information but the updated inputs from the network, thereby Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA),
reducing the latency of processing and overhead Associativity-Based Routing (ABR), Signal Stability Routing
(SSR) and Location Aided Routing (LAR).
The Source Tree Adaptive Routing (STAR) [16] under the
category of proactive routing protocol is overcoming the Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) [12]
drawback of other routing protocols, the periodic update is creates the information about network routes when the
not required and also it doesn't depend on maintaining network needs it. Discovery of routes is done on the basis of
optimal routes in the network path between source and query and reply cycles and the intermediate nodes are storing
destination. The STAR algorithm works by circulating the the information propagated. Routing request message(RREQ)
control information with regard to the conditions in the is circulated in case a node needs to inquire about other
network, thus reducing the overhead. It examines updates in nodes. This message is uni-casted upon the network and a
the network and uses neighbor discovery protocol to discover reply is sent back. In case of an error(RERR) Route error
the presence of nearby mobile nodes. With usage of STAR message is notified to other nodes, which arises when the
there are control messages as well as user data flowing node is not linked anymore. HELLO messages are used for
through the same network, it also uses sequence number to detecting and monitoring links to neighbors.
validate the link-state updates(LSUs). It is learnt to use
Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm to find the routes in the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [19] on the other hand uses
network. pure on-demand protocol, it doesn't deploy any timely
routing updates. It doesn't deploy periodic routing , hence
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [17] reducing network bandwidth overhead and conserving battery
a table-based and proactive routing protocol it selects nodes of devices. It also decreases the chances of count-to-infinity
based on Link-state routing. S node selects its neighbors and problem and works with efficiently with route maintenance
would marks them as multi-point relays, which then would be and route discovery.
responsible for forwarding the traffic towards destination
nodes. The data is diffused into the network with a provision Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Works
for flood control by decreasing the transmissions in a time with source initiated, adaptive approach to provide a loop-
interval. This mechanism is well suited for large and free and multi-path routing algorithm. Link reversal plays a
spontaneous networks where the traffic is sporadic and major role in this algorithm[20], it localizes the control
widespread. An exclusive network is formed between the messages flowing in the network and distributes them on the
small set of network nodes. basis of topology. Dynamically it operates in three phases:
Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [8] route creation, route maintenance and route erasure. With
is based loosely on the multicasting properties which are coordination between nodes it maintains the network and
based on wired networks ideology. An extension to this is makes sure the count-to-infinity problem doesn't arise.
created by detecting the leaf nodes in the network and
working towards dynamic grafting/pruning, and the use of The Associativity Based Routing (ABR) [22] falls under
packet duplication check to function efficiently in wireless another source-initiated on-demand protocol that consists of
networks. DVMRP maintains source-based multicast delivery three phases: route creation, maintenance and deletion.
trees. There exists controversy as to the applicability of Connections are studies to find the stronger connections and
DVMRP to mobile ad hoc networks. maintaining them. A stable route is contrasted against a
shorter route to determine which would be optimal.
Multicast Open Shortest Path First (MOSPF) works as a
multicast proactive protocol which is also considered to be Signal Stability-Based Adaptive Routing (SSR) [21]
the enhancement to OSPFv2, in this case the routers maintain successor of Associativity-based routing approach, this
the paradigm of the whole network topology through uni-cast protocol selects routes by determining their signal strength
OSPF and is maintained by timely broadcast in case a new from different nodes in the vicinity. Its lesser novel approach
link is formed, the new creation is also named as the link- to sort the nodes on the basis of signal strength plays some
state and MOSPF adapts to the changes in the network very anomalies. It is parted into two categories : (a) the Dynamic
rapidly. Routing Protocol (DRP), and (b) the Static Routing Protocol
Reactive Routing Protocols: Source-initiated protocols (SRP). Every time a link is removed or added the source is
which are also known as On demand protocols, in these the interrupted. Location aware routing reads this information to
routing information is collected only when there is certain improve the optimal performance of the MANETs. LAR
change in the topology of the network. It is observed that ensures that the requests are only made between smaller sub-
reactive protocols generate lesser traffic as compared to networks, hence reducing the total signal traffic. There are
proactive routing protocols. Some reactive protocols are two different concepts associated with LAR: (a) expected
Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP), Ad hoc On-Demand zone, and (b) request zone.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 937

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

establishes and maintains a single tree per group and each

Power-Aware Routing (PAR) [23] works by considering group possesses a group sequence number.
battery life of a device to determine the routing metric and
selects the path which has devices with larger batery life in Location-Based Multicast (LBM) [4] is a protocol based on
comparison to others. Since battery capacity is fixed, a the multi-cast routing technique which makes use of location
wireless mobile node is extremely energy constrained. Hence of the system and distributes multicast traffic to the multicast
all network related transactions should be power aware to be group. LBM assumes that every node knows its own location.
able to make efficient use of the overall energy resources of LBM proposes a method that uses the location of
the network. intermediate nodes to confine the flooding scope. It is
possible that multicast group members may not receive
Cluster-based routing protocol (CBRP) in this the routes in multicast packets even though they are properly located in the
the network are maintained as a hierarchy of tiers. The multicast region. Positional inaccuracy can therefore cause
clusters are formed to facilitate smaller group of nodes in problems.
better manner. A cluster head is deployed and coordination of
data transmission is bestowed upon the head. Advantageous Associativity-Based Ad Hoc Multicast (ABAM) [3] is an
approach is that with cluster heads in place it becomes easier ondemand source-based multicast routing protocol for mobile
to propagate the information of nodes from one cluster to ad hoc networks. It builds a source-based multicast tree
another much easier. Number of control messages decrease in focused primarily on the association stability among nodes
the network unlike the other set of protocols. and their neighbors. A stable multicast tree, therefore,
requires fewer tree reconfigurations. In ABAM, ad hoc
Relative Distance Microdiversity Routing (RDMAR) multicasting comprises four components, namely: multicast
relatively is another source-initiated on-demand routing tree formation (per multicast session), handling host
protocol having features found in ABR. Based on the relative membership dynamics, handling node mobility, and multicast
distance estimation algorithm, it can limit the amount of tree deletion/expiration.
flooding. RDMAR does not take into account signal stability,
but concentrates more on relative distance. However, relative Hybrid Routing Protocols consider both reactive and
distance cannot reflect route stability. RDMAR also proactive routing properties to create stability in the network.
incorporates features from other existing on-demand routing Its a hybrid approach towards routing with limited region of
protocols. approach, like a proactive routing algorithm and these regions
can be a cluster tree or a zone. On the other hand reactive
On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) [5] routing works with approaching routes that do not ie in
works on a forwarding concept where a mesh based scheme source's range and collaborating in the network to produce an
is applied to avoid overhead. Data is flooded across the optimal path to destination. The mechanism is to reduce re-
forwarding group which maintains the control messages and broadcasting and creating route discovery within selected
sends them periodically. This approach causes a major group of nodes. The zone routing protocol (ZRP), zone-based
drawback which is the maintenance of multicasting trees and hierarchical link state (ZHLS) routing protocol and
their frequent re-configuration to find the non-shortest path in distributed dynamic routing algorithm (DDR) are three
shared tree. A group membership is associated across the hybrid routing protocols.
multicast routes and on-demand sourcing is done. A join- The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [24] is a hybrid protocol.
query is propagated across the entire network and refreshes Protocol (BRP). There is a concept of “zone”. Within each
the membership of the nodes. zone, the routing is performed in a table-driven manner
(proactive), similar to DSDV. However, a node does not try
Core Assisted Mesh Protocol (CAMP) [7] creates a multi- to keep global routing information. For inter-zone routing,
cast mesh for separate multi-cast groups Nodes in this series ondemand routing is used. This is similar to DSR.
are delegated to establish in a joint operation so that the
requirement of flooding is eliminated. A mesh is conjoined Zone-based Hierarchical Link State Routing Protocol
by accumulating both sender and receiver nodes, this makes (ZHLS) [27], in this approach the network is divided into
this protocol dependent on the underlying uni-cast protocol. zones which will not overlap with each other and hence less
re-broadcasting issues will arise. ZHLS defines two levels of
Multicast Adhoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing topologies - node level and zone level. A node level topology
Protocol (MAODV) [6] works like an on-demand tree tells how nodes of a zone are connected to each other
protocol similar to destination sequence number concept physically. A potential link is explored between the two
introduced in DSDV. Sequence numbers are used to zones and is physically connected at an optimum point. These
determine the freshness of routing information, as in the topologies then inform about how the links are connected in
earlier information is not interpreted twice. AODV between. There are two types of Link State Packets (LSP) as
well - node LSP and zone LSP.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 938

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

AntHocNet is another hybrid routing approach that joins the

better points from AntNet and ARA[28], these find on-
demand route and maintains the existing routes.
ZRP has three sub-protocols: (a) the proactive (table-driven)
Intra zone Routing Protocol (IARP), (b) the reactive Inter zone
Routing Protocol (IERP), and (c) the Border cast Resolution

Protocol Characteristics Routing Struct ure Routes Working Advantages Disadvantages

Name Philosop hy

DSR Source routing. Reactive Flat Multiple Uni-cast Loop Free Route maintenance
Designed mainly for Less network bandwidth usage. mechanism does not locally
mobile ad-hoc networks very quick recovery when repair a broken link. Stale
of up to about two routes in the network route cache information
hundred nodes. Work change could also result in
well even with very inconsistencies.
high rates of mobility. considerable routing
Uses no periodic overhead due to the source
routing messages. routing mechanism

AODV Self starting. High Reactive Flat Single Uni-cast Overall best algorithm. Loop Poor scalability. High
scalable. Power /Multiple free. Quick response to link network overhead. Cannot
efficient for breakages. Avoids count to utilize nodes with
bidirectional traffic. infinity problem. asymmetric links.
DSDV Uses sequence no. to Proactive Flat Single Uni-cast Better choice for low speed Increased size of routing
provide loop freedom. networks. High degree of table. Fluctuation problem.
Uses Hello messages. complexity. Less High bandwidth required if
bandwidth required number of nodes is large.
compared to other proactive
method.
ZRP Within zone similar to Hybrid Hierarc Single Uni-cast Reduces the control Could create
DSDV, inter zone hical overhead.Decrease latency unpredictable large
similar to DSR caused by route search. overhead for large
Routing zone based broadcast networks. High memory
efficiently guide route queries. requirement.

WRP Belong to the class of Proactive Flat Single Uni-cast Loop free. Periodic updates Requires large no. of tables,
path finding algo. messages are used for with periodic updates.
Transmit HELLO accuracy. Avoids count-
messages. toinfinity problem.
CGSR Cluster based. Busy in Proactive Hierarc Single/M Uni-cast Less routing info to be kept. Longer routes need to be
cluster head selection hical ultiple LLC algo. Is used to avoid CH maintained. Updates are
rather than packet reselection. Loop free needed for routing and
relaying. cluster member tables.
OLSR Immediate Proactive Flat Single/M Uni-cast Loop free. Reduction of Not energy aware.
availability of routes ultipath overhead using MPRs. Consumes more resources.
whenever needed Performs better in denser than AODV. Anonymity
networks and highly sporadic property is not fulfilled.
traffic.
BeeAdhoc Nature inspired, uses bee Reactive Flat Mutipath Uni-cast/M Uses source routing. Energy Not loop free.
colony concept ulticast efficient. Better performance
than AODV
Anthoc Net Automatic load Hybrid Probabil Multi-path Uni-cast/M Superior performance Large control overhead
balancing. Designed for istic ulticast at expense of compared to AODV. Not
path exploration. relatively low routing overhead. loop free
ANSI Uses concept of Reactive Flat Single Uni-cast/M Deterministic single- Not loop free. Not energy
Swarn intelligence. ulticast path routing tables aware.
Pherome tables are used. for data
packets are used.
TORA Suitable for Reactive Flat Multi-path Uni-cast/M Loop free. Supports Not energy aware.
large mobile ulticast multicasting. Performs well in Overhead is high.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 939

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

networks high speed, high mobility

having dense networks.
population.
FSR A node mostly Proactive Hierarc Multi-path Uni-cast Reduced routing update Periodic broadcast of link
exchanges messages hical overhead in large networks. state update of a destination
about cluster nodes more Update message size is also to its neighbors.
frequently than farther reduced.
nodes.
DYMO Dynamic Manet On Reactive Flat Multi-path Uni-cast Loop free. Not power aware
Demand routing
protocol. Route
discovery & route
maintenance phases
STAR Performs efficient in Proactive Hierarc Single Uni-cast Does not need More control messages
packet & radio networks hical routing updates. present in the network than
using link state user data at times.
information.
ABR Source initiated routing. Reactive Flat Single Uni-cast Best route selected on stability Periodic beacons are
Query reply packets of shortest path. generated. High overhead.
SSR Consists of two Reactive Flat Single Uni-cast Prefers stronger Long delay.
cooperative protocols connectivity. Fewer route
DRP & SRP. Selects reconstructions are
routes based on signal required.
strength between nodes
LAR Geographical positioned Reactive Hierarc Multiple Uni-cast Reduce signaling traffic. GPS is needed. Positional
routing. Does hical Reduce overhead of route errors may affect routing.
not take into account discovery.
obstacles.
nodes need to know
physical location.
PAR Supports minimal Reactive Flat Multiple Uni-cast Power efficient. Battery life needs to be
energy consumption per known at times.
packet.
ODMRP Group based forwarding. Reactive Hierarc multiple multicast Less channel overhead. Periodic update packets need
Uses flooding only in hical Multicast sender to be sent.
particular group. advertisement
DVMRP Based on RIP. Source Hybrid Hierarc Single Multicast Used in core routers of the Cant used much efficiently
based tree protocol. hical Mbone. with MANETs.
MAODV Core based Reactive Hierarc Single/ Multicast Uses sequence numbers. Not power aware
tree protocol. hical Multiple
MOSPF Require lot of Proactive Hierarc Single Multicast Used in many local multicast High computational cost.
exchange of topology and hical networks. Various
membership enhancements have done to
information. basic protocol for
improvement
CAMP Multicast mesh Reactive Hierarc Single Multicast Link breakage is handled Dependency on the
protocol. hical properly. Flooding is not underlying uni-cast routing
necessary
LBM Multicast region is Reactive Hierarc Multiple Multicast Forwarding region help in GPS devices
formed. High control hical routing. required. Node
and forwarding overhead must know
required. its location.
ZHLS Non overlapping zones. Hybrid Hierarc Single/ Uni-cast Adaptable to changing Communication overhead.
Two types of link state hical Multiple topologies.
packets: node LSP, zone
LSP.
PLBR Efficient flooding Reactive Hierarc Single/ Uni-cast Higher scalability and Both PLBR and WBPL are
mechanism. Reduces the hical Multiple decreased network collisions. much more computationally
routing control complex than the other
overhead. Provides reactive protocols.
better solutions than the
other reactive protocols.

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 940

 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT)

11. Tracy Camp, Jeff Boleng and Vanessa Davies, “ A survey of

Mobility Models for Ad hoc Network Research”, Wireless
III. CONCLUSION Communications and Mobile computing: A special issue on Adhoc
network Research, vol 2, No5, pp. 483-502, 2002.
12. C. Perkins and E. Royer, "Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
In the comparison table given above, we have discussed Routing," in Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile
the advantages and disadvantages of all the protocols Computing Systems and Applications, Feburary 1999.
which we have already given briefly in the above part of 13. Jyoti Raju and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "'A Comparison of
the paper. We have seen that mostly reactive protocols are Ondemand and Table-driven Routing for Ad Hoc Wireless
Networks'," in Proceedings of IEEE ICC, June 2000.
preferred over proactive protocols. Hybrid protocols are
14. C.-C. Chiang, H.-K. Wu, W. Liu, and M. Gerla, "Routing in
suitable for large networks but have communication
Clustered Multihop Mobile Wireless Networks with Fading
overhead. We have discussed multicast routing protocols Channel," in Proceedings of IEEE Singapore International
also. We have given a few nature inspired routing Conference on Networks, 1997.
protocols also. A number of enhancements have been done 15. M. Gerla., Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc
from time to time in these protocols, to reduce their Networks. In Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-fsr-03.txt, work in
progress, 2002.
disadvantages. As conclusion we can say that both 16. J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and Cruz Marcelo Spohn. “Source-Tree
proactive and reactive protocols have their own set of pros Routing in Wireless Networks.” In Proceedings of the Seventh
and cons. Proactive protocols have large amount of data Annual International Conference on Network Protocols Toronto,
for maintenance with high cost and slow reaction on Canada, page 273, Oct 1999.
restructuring and failures, route setup latency is low, not 17. T. Clausen and P. Jacquet, “Optimized link state routing protocol
(OLSR)”, IETF, 2003.
suitable for large highly dynamic network. Reactive
18. Changling Liu, Jorg Kasier, “A Survey of Mobile Ad-hoc Network
protocols have high latency time in route failure, excessive Routing Protocols”, University Of Ulm Tech. Report Series, Nr.
flooding can lead to network clogging, scalability problem, 2003-08, Pp. 1-34, 2005.
low routing overhead, quick reaction for network 19. C.-K. Toh ,“Adhoc Mobile Wireless Networks-Protocols and
restructure and node failure. Hybrid protocols are systems”, 2002 Prentice Hall PTR, ISBN 0-13-007817-4
complex, advantages depend upon the number of nodes 20. V. Park and M. Scott Corson, "A Highly Adaptive Dsitributed
Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks," in Proceedings
activated, low routing overhead, less route setup latency. of IEEE INFOCOM'97, March 1996.
21. R. Dube, et al, "Signal Stability based Adaptive Routing (SSA) for
Ad Hoc Mobile Networks," in IEEE Personal Communication
Magazine, February 1997.
REFERENCES 22. C.-K. Toh, "Associativity-Based Routing For Ad-Hoc Mobile
Networks," in Journal on Wireless Personal Communications, vol.
1. Geethu Mohandas Dr Salaja Silas Shini Sam, “Survey on routing
4, First Quarter, 1997.
techniques on mobile adhoc networks”, 978-1-4673-5090-7/13,
IEEE. 23. S. Singh, M. Woo, and C. S. Raghavendra, "Power-Aware Routing
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," in Proceedings of ACM/IEEE
2. Hongobo Zhou, “A Survey on Routing Protocols in MANETs”,
MobiCom'98 Conference, October 1998.
Technical Report MI 48824-1027, MSUCSE 03-8 (2003).
24. Z. Haas and M. Pearlman, "The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for
3. C-K. Toh, and S. Bunchua, "Ad Hoc Mobile Multicast Routing
Ad Hoc Networks," in IETF MANET Draft, June 1999.
using the Concept of Long-lived Routes," Journal of Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 1, no. 3, 2001. 25. S. Kanimozhi Suguna and Dr.S.Uma Maheswari, “Comparative
Analysis Of Bee-Ant Colony Optimized Routing (Bacor) With
4. Y. B. Ko and N. Vaidya, "Location-based Multicast in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks," in Technical Report, Texas A&M, October 1998. Existing Routing Protocols For Scalable Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
(Manets)” International journal of Computer Engineering &
5. Mario Gerla, Guangyu Pei, "On-Demand Multicast Routing
Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 232 - 240,
Protocol (ODMRP) for Ad Hoc Networks," in IETF Internet Draft,
Published by IAEME.
November 1998.
26. Vivekanand Jha, Kritika Khetarpal , Meghna Sharma,“A Survey of
6. Yufang Zhu and Thomas Kunz, "MAODV Implementation for NS-
Nature Inspired Routing Algorithms for MANETs”,978-1-
2.26",Systems and computer Engineering Carleton University,
42448679-3/11. 2011 IEEE.
Technical Report SCE-04-01,Jan 2004.
27. M. Joa-Ng, I.-T. Lu, "A Peer-to-Peer zone-based two-level link state
7. J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and E. L. Madruga, "The Core-
routing for mobile Ad Hoc Networks" IEEE Journal on Selected
Assisted Mesh Protocol," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Areas in communications, Special Issue on Ad-Hoc Networks, Aug.
Communications, August 1999. 1999, pp.1415-25.
8. Mario Gerla, Ching-Chuan Chiang, Lixia Zhang, "Tree Multicast
28. G. DiCaro, F. Ducatelle, and L.M. Gambardella, "AntHocNet: an
Strategies in Mobile, Multihop Wireless Networks," ACM/Balzter
adaptive nature inspired algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc
Mobile Networks and Applications Journal, 1998.
networks", European Transactions on Telecommunications (Special
9. Thomas Kunz and Ed Cheng, ‘‘On-Demand Multicasting in AdHoc Issue on Self-Organization in Mobile Networking) 16 (2),2005.
Networks: Comparing AODV and ODMRP’’, Proc. of the 22nd
IEEE International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems
(ICDCS’02), Vol-2, pp 1063-6927 (2002).
10. Hongobo Zhou, “A Survey on Routing Protocols in MANETs”,
Technical Report MI 48824-1027, MSUCSE 03-8 (2003).

978-1-7281-0283-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 941