11 ijcse-01219

© 2015, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 56
International Journal of Computer Sciences and EngineeringInternational Journal of Computer Sciences and EngineeringInternational Journal of Computer Sciences and EngineeringInternational Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Open Access
Review Paper Volume-3, Issue-8 E-ISSN: 2347-2693
Review of Different Criteria for Designing Routing Protocols
Suman Saroj1*
, Raj Gaurang Tiwari2
and Pankaj Kumar3
1*,2,3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SRMGPC, India
www.ijcseonline.org
Received: Jul /14/2015 Revised: Jul/28/2015 Accepted: Aug/19/2015 Published: Aug/30/ 2015
Abstract— Routing is the process of finding optimal path between source and destination. Because of the fact that packet
may be necessary to hop or several hops before a packet reach the target, a routing protocol is needed. Routing protocols
allow routers to dynamically advertise and discover routes, decide which routes are available and which are the most efficient
routes to a target. In this paper we review different existing protocols and their applicability in current scenario.
Keywords— MANET, Routing, Performance, Qualitative, Quantitative Characteristics
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile environment differs from the stationary
environment in many respects. Computers in stationary
environments are usually very reliable and efficient during
data transfer from one host to another host. A stationary
environment can distribute an application’s components and
rely upon the use of high-bandwidth, small latency
networks to provide excellent interactive application
performance[1].
Various methods in the past have been developed to
optimize the quality of service over wireless
communications network. These methods have been
developed in order to optimize the operation in
standalone node itself. But the development was not
focused on optimizing the network performance based on
full observation in a network. The advantage of optimizing
the network performance based on observations of the full
network is to maximize the network throughput. In order to
achieve the throughput requirements various methods were
developed.
II. ROUTING PROTOCOL
A routing protocol is the mechanism by which user traffic
is directed and transported through the network from the
source node to the destination node. Objectives comprise
maximizing network performance and minimizing the cost
of network in accordance with its capacity. The network
performance depends upon hop count, delay, throughput,
loss rate, stability, cost, etc; and the network capacity is a
function of available resources resides at each node and
number of nodes in the network as well as its density,
frequency of communication, frequency of change in
topology. Routing in Ad hoc environment is diverse
compared to normal wired networks[2]. This is chiefly
due to following two factors:
1. The bandwidth restriction
2. Rapid change in network topology
The basic routing functionality for mobile ad hoc
networks is as follows:
• Path generation Mechanism: which generates paths
according to the assembled and distributed state
information of the network and of the application;
assembling and distributing network and user traffic
state information,
• Path selection Mechanism: which selects appropriate
paths based on network and application state
information.
• Data Forwarding Mechanism: which forwards user
traffic along the selected route forwarding user traffic
along the selected route.
• Path Maintenance Mechanism: maintaining of the
selected route.
III. PROPERTIES OF PROFICIENT ROUTING
ALGORITHM
Some common desirable properties that any routing
protocol for an ad hoc network should possess are as
follows:
A. Qualitative Characteristics
Several qualitative properties for designing a routing
protocol are desired for a mobile ad hoc network.
• Loop free: Presence of loops in the path from the
source to the destination result in inefficient routing.
In the worst-case situation, the packets may keep
traversing the loop indefinitely and never reach their
destination.
• Distributed control: In a centralized routing scheme,
one node stores all the topological information and
makes all routing decisions; therefore, it is neither
robust, nor scalable. The central router can be a single
point of failure; also, the network in the vicinity of the

International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.-3(8), PP(56-59) Aug 2015, E-ISSN: 2347-2693
central router may get congested with routing queries
and responses.
• Fast routing: The quicker the routing decisions are
made, the sooner the packets can be routed towards
the destination, as the probability that the packets take
the chosen route before it gets disrupted because of
node mobility is quite high.
• Localized reaction to topological changes:
Topological changes in one part of the network
should lead to minimal changes in routing strategy in
other distant parts of the network. This will keep the
routing update overheads in check and make the
algorithm scalable.
• Multiplicity of routes: Even if node mobility results in
disruption of some routes, other routes should be
available for packet delivery.
• Power efficient: A routing protocol should be power
efficient. That is the protocol should distribute the
load otherwise shut-off nodes may cause partitioned
topologies that may result in inaccessible routes.
• Secure: A routing protocol should be secure. We need
authentication for communicating nodes, non-
repudiation and encryption for private networking to
avoid routing deceptions.
• QoS aware: A routing protocol should also be aware
of Quality of Service. It should know about the delay
and throughput for a source destination pair, and must
be able to verify its longevity so that a real-time
application may rely on it.
B. Quantitative Characteristics
There are several quantitative performance metrics that
can be used to assess the performance of routing protocols
within a mobile ad hoc network. First, throughput and
end-to-end delay are typical performance measures that
show a routing protocol's effectiveness in doing its job
(i.e. delivering data packets). Second, for certain protocols
that acquire routes on-demand the amount of time it takes
to acquire a route or route discovery latency is also an
important performance measure. This measurement more
simply conforms to those protocols that are of a demand-
base property and thus should be attained. Third,
bandwidth utilization should be observed to notice, how
effectual the protocol is if both routing packets and data
packets share the same channel. One such measure would
be to attain the number of bytes (or packets) of routing
packets transmitted per number of bytes (or packets) of
data packets delivered. Another such measurement may be
the amount of data bits transmitted per data bit delivered
to show the efficiency of data delivery throughout the
network.
IV.CLASSIFICATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
There are different criteria [3] for designing and
classifying routing protocols for wireless Ad hoc networks
as shown in table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Classification of Routing Protocols
Classification Criteria used
Pre-Computed Routing
Vs. On-Demand
Routing
Depending on when the
route is computed
Periodical Update vs.
Event-Driven Up-
Date
Based on when the
routing information will
be disseminated
Flat Structure vs.
Hierarchical Structure
Based on the number of
levels (clusters) used
Decentralized
Computation vs.
Distributed
Based on how (or where) a
route is computed
Source Routing Vs.
Hop-By-Hop Routing
Based on routing
information available in
packet header
Single Path (unipath)
Vs. Multiple Paths
(multipath)
Based on number of paths
established
A. Pre-Computed Routing Vs. On-Demand Routing [4]
Depending on when the route is computed, routing
protocols can be divided into two categories: Pre-
computed routing and On-demand routing. Pre-computed
routing is also called proactive routing or table driven
routing
[5].
In Proactive routing, routes to all
destinations are computed a priori and link states are
maintained in node’s routing tables in order to compute
routes in advance. To keep the information up to date,
nodes require to update their information periodically.
The major benefit of proactive routing is when a source
needs to send packets to a destination, the route is already
available, i.e., and there is no latency. The drawback of
proactive routing are some routes may never be used and
dissemination of routing information will consume a lot of
the scarce wireless network bandwidth when the link
state and network topology change fast.
On-demand routing is also called reactive routing. In
Reactive (on-demand) routing, protocols update routing
information when a routing requirement is presented i.e.
a route is built only when necessary. The main benefit
reactive routing is that the precious bandwidth of
wireless Ad hoc networks is greatly saved. And the main
disadvantage is if the topology of networks changes

quickly, a lot of update packets will be generated and
distributed over the network, which will use a lot of
valuable bandwidth, and furthermore, may cause too
much fluctuation of routes.
B. Periodical Update Vs Event-Driven Update [4]
Routing information needs to be disseminated to
network nodes in order to ensure that the knowledge of
link state and network topology remains up-to-date.
Based on when the routing information will be
disseminated, we can classify routing protocols as
periodical update and event-driven update protocols.
Periodical update protocols disseminate routing
information periodically. Periodical updates will 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 valuable bandwidth,
and furthermore, may cause too much fluctuation of
routes. One solution[6][7] is to use some threshold which
imposes maximum limit to update packets.
C. Flat Structure 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 straightforward and proficient for little
networks. The hitch is that when a network becomes
bulky, the amount of routing information will be outsized
and it will take a extended time for routing information to
arrive at remote nodes. For large networks, hierarchical
(cluster-based) routing may be used to solve the above
problems [7]. In hierarchical routing the nodes in the
network are dynamically organized into partitions named
as clusters, and then the clusters are combined again into
larger partitions called super-clusters and so on.
Organizing a network into clusters assist to maintain a
comparatively stable network topology. The high
dynamics of membership and network topology is
restricted within clusters. Only stable and high level
information such as the cluster level or the super-cluster
level will be propagated across a long distance, thus the
control traffic (or routing overhead) may be largely
reduced [6]. Within a cluster, the nodes may have
complete topology information about its cluster and
proactive routing may be used. If the destination is in a
different cluster from the source, inter-cluster routing
must be utilized. Inter-cluster routing is usually reactive,
or a combination of proactive and reactive routing. Alike
cellular structure in cellular systems, a hierarchical
cluster is readily deployable to achieve some kind of
resource reuse such as frequency reuse and code reuse
and interference can be reduced when using different
spreading codes across clusters.
D. Decentralized Computation Vs. Distributed
Computation
Based on how (or where) a route is computed, there
are two categories of routing protocols: decentralized
computation and distributed computation. In a
decentralized computation-based protocol, all node in the
network preserve global and complete information about
the network topology such that the node can compute the
route to a destination itself when desired. The route
computation in LSR is a typical example of
decentralized computation.
In a distributed computation-based protocol, every node
in the network only maintains partial and local
information about the network topology. When a route
needs to be calculated, many nodes collaborate to
compute the route. The route computation in DVR and
the route discovery in on demand routing belong to
this category.
E. Source Routing Vs. Hop-by-Hop Routing
Some routing protocols place the entire route (i.e., nodes
in the route) in the headers of data packets so that the
intermediate nodes only forward these packets according
to the route in the header. Such a routing is called
“source routing”. Source routing has the advantage that
intermediate nodes do not need to maintain up-to-date
routing information in order to route the packets they
forward, because the packets themselves previously
contain all the routing decisions. This fact, when coupled
with on demand route computation, eradicates the
necessity for the periodic route advertisement and
neighbour detection packets required in other kinds of
protocols [8]. The major difficulty with source routing is
that when the network is large and the route is long,
placing the whole route in the header of every packet will
waste a lot of scarce bandwidth.
In a hop-by-hop routing, the route to a destination is
distributed in the “next hop” of the nodes alongside the
route. When a node accepts a packet to a target, it
forwards the packet to the next hop corresponding to
the target. The tribulations are that all nodes need to
maintain routing information and there may be a
possibility of forming a routing loop.

F. Single Path Vs. Multiple Paths
Some routing protocols will find a single route from a
source to a destination, which results in simple protocol
and saves storage. Other routing protocols will find
manifold routes, which have the benefits of simple
recovery from a route malfunction and being more
reliable and robust. Single path routing protocols
have been extensively examined in the past[9][10]. A
more recent research topic for MANETs is multipath
routing protocols. Multipath routing protocols set up
numerous disjoint paths from a source to a destination
and are thereby improving resilience to network failures
and allow for network load balancing. These upshots are
principally interesting in networks with high node
density (and the corresponding larger choice of disjoint
paths) and high network load (due to the ability to
load balance the traffic around congested networks).
V. CONCLUSION
Routing is the process of finding optimal path between
source and destination. Because of the fact that packet
may be necessary to hop or several hops before a packet
reach the target, a routing protocol is needed. Routing
protocols allow routers to dynamically advertise and
discover routes, decide which routes are available and
which are the most efficient routes to a target. The routing
protocol has two main jobs, selection of routes for various
source-target pairs and the deliverance of massages to
their correct target. The second function is conceptually
straight forward using a verity of protocols and data
structures (routing tables). In this research work we
focused on selecting and finding various criteria for
routing protocols.
REFERENCES
[1]. Laiali Almazaydeh, Eman Abdelfattah, Manal Al-
Bzoor, and Amer Al- Rahayfeh “Performance
Evaluation Of Routing Protocols In Wireless Sensor
Networks” International Journal of Computer
Science and Information Technology, Volume 2,
Number 2, April 2010
[2]. Jamal N. Al- Karaki, Ahmed E. kamal,”Routing
Techniques In Wireless Sensor Networks:A
Survey”,IEEE Wireless Communications December
2004.
[3]. Smt. Rajashree.V. Biradar & Prof V. C. Patil,
“Classification and Comparison of routing
Techniques in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks”,
Proceedings of international Symposium on Ad-
hoc Ubiquitous Computing (ISHUC’06), pages 7-
11, 2006.
[4]. Yi-Chun Hu, Adrian Perrig, “A Survey of Secure
Wireless Ad Hoc Routing”, IEEE Security and
Privacy, 2(3): pages 28-39, May/June 2004.
[5]. P. Gupta and P. Kumar, “The capacity of
wireless networks”, IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 46(2): pages 388-394, March
2000.
[6]. G. S. Lauer, “Packet-radio Routing in
Communications Networks”, (Ed. M. teenstrup),
pages 313–350, 2004.
[7]. Bokureche, “Performance evaluation of routing
protocols for ad hoc wireless networks”, ACM
Mobile networks application, vol.9, no.4, pages
333-342, august- 2004.
[8]. L. Schwiebert, S. K. S. Gupta, and J. Weinmann,
“Reserach challenges in wireless networks of
biomedical sensors”, Proceedings of the 7th
ACM International Conference on Mobile
Computing and Networking (MobiCom ’01), pages
151-165, Rome, Italy, July 2001.
[9]. M. R. Pearlman, Z. J. Haas, P. Sholander and S. S.
Tabrizi, “On the Impact of Alternate Path Routing
for Load Balancing in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks”, Proceedings of the ACM MobiHoc,
pages 3-10, 2000.
[10]. Nasipuri, R. Castaneda, and S. R. Das, “Performance
of multipath routing for on-demand protocols in
mobile ad hoc networks”, Mobile Networks and
Applications, vol. 6, pages 339-349, 2001.

11 ijcse-01219

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to 11 ijcse-01219 (20)

More from Shivlal Mewada (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

11 ijcse-01219