A cross layer delay-aware multipath routing algorithm for mobile adhoc networks

Dhinaharan Nagamalai et al. (Eds) : ACITY, WiMoN, CSIA, AIAA, DPPR, NECO, InWeS - 2014
pp. 113–123, 2014. © CS & IT-CSCP 2014 DOI : 10.5121/csit.2014.4513
A CROSS-LAYER DELAY-AWARE
MULTIPATH ROUTING ALGORITHM FOR
MOBILE ADHOC NETWORKS
Mahadev A. Gawas1
, Lucy J.Gudino2
, K.R. Anupama3
, Joseph
Rodrigues4
1,2
Department of Computer Science BITS PILANI K.K. Birla Goa campus.
1
mahadev@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
2
lucy@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
3
Department of EEE/EI BITS PILANI K.K. Birla Goa campus.
3
anupkr@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
4
Department of Electronics ATEC Verna goa.
Joseph1_x_r@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETS) require reliable routing and Quality of Service(QoS)
mechanism to support diverse applications with varying and stringent requirements. Routing
protocols such as AODV, AOMDV, DSR and OLSR use minimum hop count as the metric for
path selection, hence are not suitable for delay sensitive real time applications. To support such
applications delay constrained routing protocols are employed. These Protocols makes path
selection based on the delay over the discovered links during routing discovery and routing
table calculations. We propose a variation of a node-disjoint Multipath QoS Routing protocol
called Cross Layer Delay aware Node Disjoint Multipath AODV (CLDM-AODV) based on
delay constraint. It employs cross-layer communications between MAC and routing layers to
achieve link and channel-awareness. It regularly updates the path status in terms of lowest
delay incurred at each intermediate node. Performance of the proposed protocol is compared
with single path AODV and NDMR protocols. Proposed CLDM-AODV is superior in terms of
better packet delivery and reduced overhead between intermediate nodes.
KEYWORDS
AODV, Cross Layer, MANET, MAC, NS2, QoS.
1. INTRODUCTION
MANETs are self-organizing, rapidly deployable wireless network that require no fixed
infrastructure. It is composed of wireless mobile nodes that can be deployed anywhere, and can
dynamically establish communications using limited network management. Real time
applications have been most popular among the applications run by ad hoc networks. It strictly
adheres to the QoS requirements such as overall throughput, end-to-end delay and power level.
Traditionally multihop wireless network protocol design is largely based on a layered approach.
Here each layer in the protocol stack is designed and operated independently with interfaces
between layers that are rather static. This paradigm has greatly simplified network design and led
to the robust scalable protocols on the internet. However, the rigidity of this paradigm results in
poor performance for multihop wireless networks in general, especially when the application has
high bandwidth requirements and/or stringent delay constraints [1]-[4].

114 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
1.1 RELATED WORK
To meet these QoS requirements, recent study on multihop networks has demonstrated that cross-
layer design which can significantly improve the system performance [5]-[6]. To guarantee QoS
in MANETs for delay sensitive applications two factors are considered. Firstly, route selection
criterion must be QoS-aware i.e., it must consider the link quality before using the link to
transmit. Secondly, the instantaneous response to the dynamics of MANET topology changes
must be considered so that the route changes are seamless to the end user over the life time of a
session. Generally, a QoS model defines the methodology and architecture by which certain types
of services can be provided in the network. Protocols such as routing, resource reservation
signaling and MAC must cooperate to achieve the goals set by the QoS model. QoS routing is one
of the most essential parts of the QoS architecture [7]–[9]. Multipath approach has many
advantages such as load balancing, QoS assurance and fault tolerance [10]- [12]. Several
multipath routing protocols have been proposed so far in the literature. One of the earliest
multipath routing protocols is Ad hoc On demand Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV) [13].
AOMDV is a variant of Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [14] which establishes
loop-free and link-disjoint paths based on the minimum hop count. QoS AODV (QS-AODV) in
[15] extended the basic AODV routing protocol to provide QoS support in MANETs. It uses hop
count as criterion for choosing the route with an assumption that NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME
(NTT) is constant. Stephane Lohier et al.[16] proposed reactive QoS routing protocol that also
deals with delay and bandwidth requirements. In his proposal, QoS routes are traced by node to
node and NTT is an estimate of the average one-hop traversal time, which includes queue,
transmission, propagation, and other delays.
Cross-layered multipath AODV (CM-AODV)[17], selects multiple routes on demand, based on
the signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) measured at the physical layer. Load Balancing
AODV (LBAODV)[18] is a new multipath routing protocol that uses all discovered path
simultaneously for transmitting data. By using this approach data packets are balanced over
discovered paths and energy consumption is distributed across many nodes throughout the
network.
Xuefei Li et al. [19] proposed Node-Disjoint Multipath Routing protocol (NDMR) by modifying
and extending AODV to enable the path accumulation feature of DSR in route request packets.
Multiple paths between source and destination nodes are discovered with low broadcast
redundancy and minimal routing latency. A delay aware protocol proposed in Boshoff et al. [20],
uses end-to-end delay, instead of hop count, as metric for route selection. Upon route failure, the
route table which contains multiple paths, along with the end-to-end delay is first searched for an
alternative route to the destination before a new route discovery process is initiated. Even though
it reduces both routing overhead and end-to-end packet delay, the route delay information might
not always be upto date. Perumal Sambasivam et al. [21] modified the AODV protocol's route
discovery mechanism by incorporating multiple node-disjoint paths for a particular source node
along with mobility prediction.
Thus, it is found that most approaches to multipath routing protocols consider the end-to-end
delay. They do not emphasize on considering the processing delay incurred at each node which
may indicate the congestion or link quality along the path which is node disjoint. They also do not
have a mechanism to handle expiry of stale cached routes in the route table before making their
selection. Hence we propose a new algorithm CLDM-AODV with cross-layer communications
between MAC and Routing layers to achieve link and channel-awareness. In section II, we
describe the proposed algorithm. We present simulation results in section III followed by
conclusion.

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 115
2. PROPOSED CLDM-AODV ROUTING ALGORITHM
The proposed algorithm considers only node disjoint routes which satisfy the end-to-end delay
specified in the route request. For calculating end-to-end delay, the algorithm estimates inter-
node packet processing delay at each node. Source node makes a selection of primary path out of
available multiple QoS enable paths. The proposed algorithm includes calculation of inter-node
packet processing delay at each mobile node, initiation of route discovery and route reply
processes.
2.1. END-TO-END DELAY
In general, total latency or delay experienced by a packet to traverse the network from source to
destination may include routing delay, propagation delay and processing or node delay. Routing
delay is the time required to find the path from source to destination. Propagation delay is related
to propagating bits through wireless media. Processing delay involves the protocol processing
time at node x for link between node x and node y. The end-to-end delay of a path is the sum of
all the above delays incurred at each link along the path [17]. For MANETs, propagation delays
are negligibly small and almost same for each hop along the path. The major factors involved in
computation of processing delay are the queuing delay and delay incurred at the MAC layer
processing.
In the proposed method, we have named processing delay as Packet Processing Delay (PPD)
which includes queuing delay and delay incurred at the MAC contention. IEEE 802.11 MAC
with the distributed coordination function (DCF) is used as MAC protocol and the access method
is Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) with acknowledgments. To
transmit packets, nodes make use of request-to-send (RTS), clear-to-send (CTS), data and
acknowledgement (ACK) packets. The amount of time between the receipt of one packet and the
transmission of the next is called a short inter frame space (SIFS). Average queuing Delay at the
node i is iD is given by equation [22],
( ) jji DDD αα −+= − 11 (1)
where,
)(
size
lengthsize
queue
queuequeue −
=α (2)
queuesize is the current size of the queue at node i, queuelength is the length of the queue at node i
and j is the current period.
The channel occupation due to MAC contention is given by,
Tmac= TRTS + TCTS + 3* TSIFS + Tacc (3)
TRTS and TCTS are the time periods on RTS and CTS respectively and TSIFS is the SIFS period. Tacc
is the time for channel contention. The Packet Processing Delay (PPD) is given by:
PPD = iD + Tmac (4)
2.2. ROUTE DISCOVERY
Generally in reactive protocols[1], when a source node ‘S’ has to communicate with destination
node ‘D’, it initiates path discovery by broadcasting a route request packet RREQ to its
neighbours. The <source-address, broadcast-id> pair is used to identify the RREQ uniquely. In
the proposed system, during initial route discovery phase, more than one node disjoint path
between the source and destination is determined and optimal path which satisfies QoS delay
requirement is chosen for the data transmission. When this primary path breaks due to nodes

mobility or path fails to satisfy QoS requirement, then one of the alternate path is chosen as the
next primary path and data transmission can continue without initiating another route discovery
thus reducing the overhead of additional route discovery. In the proposed algorithm, the RREQ
packet is modified to contain the address of the source through which it is forwarded. The packet
header contains additional field for PPD and Thresh_Delay. PPD is initialized to zero and
subsequently updated at each intermediate node as per Eq.(4). Thresh_Delay is set to the
maximum allowable time delay for any path from source to destination. Since RREQ is flooded
network-wide, a node may receive multiple copies of the same RREQ. After receiving the first
RREQ, an intermediate node can receive and collect subsequent RREQ copies for the
predetermined time duration, RREQ_WAIT_TIME, which is assumed as 20ms. The intermediate
node also maintains RREQcounter to limit the number of RREQ that it can receive. In our
proposed system, we initialize RREQcounter to three which is as shown in Figure 1. On receiving
up to three RREQs, the route with minimum PPD selected which ensures the path with highest
quality. Before forwarding the RREQ, intermediate node computes its PPD and compares it with
Thresh_Delay. If the difference between the Thresh_Delay and current value
Fig. 1: RREQ Flowchart of proposed CLDM-AODV
of its PPD is zero or negative, it drops the RREQ packet avoiding unnecessary flooding into
the network. If it satisfies, node broadcasts the packet by updating Thresh_Delay value less by
currently computed PPD value of the node. Since every intermediate node forwards only one
RREQ towards the destination, each RREQ arriving at the destination has traveled along a unique
path from source to destination. Figure 2 shows an example of the delay based route discovery.

Source node S initiates route request by updating the Thresh_Delay in RREQ Packet to
acceptable delay say 100ms and PPD to zero. On receiving RREQ, node 1, 2 and 3 computes
their PPD and updates Thresh_Delay in respective RREQ packet. Node 4 receives three RREQs,
from node 1, node 2 and node 3 respectively. PPD values of these RREQs are compared and
minimum PPD path from node 2 is chosen. Node 4 broadcast the RREQ, since it’s computed
PPD value satisfies the QoS constraint i.e. the difference between Thresh_Delay and PPD of node
4 is greater than zero. On the other hand, at node 5, RREQ packet gets dropped as difference
between Thresh_Delay and PPD at node 5 do not satisfy the QoS criteria. Destination node D
receives two RREQs from node 6 and node 4 respectively. D buffers both the paths for the route
reply.
2.3. ROUTE REPLY
In proposed CLDM-AODV destination node D can collect up to RREQcounter times RREQ
packets within time duration RREQ_WAIT_TIME, which is assumed to 20 ms. Node D generates
a route reply RREP packets in response to every RREQ copy that arrives from the
Fig. 2: Route Discovery of proposed CLDM-AODV
source S via loop-free and node disjoint paths to the destination. RREP packet is an extension of
AODV RREP packet with additional field Max_PPD, which will hold the maximum packet
processing time at intermediate nodes along the reverse path. Before destination node forwards
the RREP, it computes the PPD and updates it in the Max_PPD field as shown in Figure 3. On
reaching the next node, the intermediate node computes its PPD and compares it with the value in
the Max_PPD field of RREP packet if current PPD computed is more than value in the
Max_PPD. On receiving the RREP from all the disjoint routes, the source selects the primary
route with minimum Max_PPD value. This signifies that the packet travelled through the less
congested network, and possibility of packet incurring extra delay or getting dropped on the path
is very low. Figure 4 shows an example of node disjoint route reply procedure. Destination node
D calculates its PPD which is 25 ms and initializes Max_PPD with that PPD. Node D then sends
RREP packets to all QoS qualified RREQ routes. Intermediate nodes 4 and 6, on receiving the
RREP compute their own PPD i.e. 45 ms and 15 ms respectively. This value is compared with
Max_PPD field of RREP packet. If PPD value is less or equal to Max_PPD, it ignores else it
replaces the Max_PPD value in RREP packet. Node 6 does not modify Max_PPD as its computed
PPD value is less than Max_PPD whereas node 4 replaces Max_PPD with 45 ms as its computed
PPD value is greater than Max_PPD. Source node S on receiving the multiple RREP, it buffers
them in the route table. Source S chooses the path with minimum value of Max_PPD as primary
path i.e. path which source receives from node 1 as its Max_PPD value is 25 ms. If source does

not receive RREP in RREP WAIT_TIME from destination, then it restart route discovery with
new session Id.
2.4. ROUTE MAINTENANCE
Route maintenance is very essential as there are high chances of route failure and QoS constraint
violation due to mobility. Route failure due to link breakage is handled by the method using
periodic Hello packets [15]. Any node which detects either a QoS violation or a link failure,
informs the source by sending a route error packet (RERR). If a source node itself moves, restart
the route discovery procedure to find a new route to the destination. If a node along the route
moves so that it is no longer reachable, its upstream neighbor sends a link failure notification
message to each of its active upstream neighbors through RERR until reaches the source node.
QoS violation due to end-to-end delay constraint is detected by the intermediate nodes by
computing one way delay experienced by the data packets from the sender's timestamp on the
received data packets. During data transmission, source node appends the Thresh_Delay
information to the data packets. Intermediate nodes on receiving the data packets, finds the
difference between current time and time stamp of data packet. If value is less than
Thresh_Delay, it generates the RERR packet to the source, or else forwards the packet to the next
hop in the route table.
In our proposed CLDM-AODV, we introduce a method to validate other alternate node disjoint
paths already discovered. At regular interval of time, Life Line Packets (LLP) is forwarded
Fig. 3: RREP Flowchart of proposed CLDM-AODV

Fig. 4: Route Reply of proposed CLDM-AODV
through alternate paths which contain Thresh_Delay. Intermediate nodes on receiving LLP,
verifies the eligibility of packet forwarding by computing difference between current time and
time stamp of data packet. If it is less than Thresh_Delay, it generates the RERR packet to the
source indicating that the path is no longer QoS compliance link and corresponding path entry is
deleted from route table. Destination node replies to these LLP by the same procedure as
followed during RREP packets. On receiving the fresh route quality, source updates the primary
path with highest quality.
3. SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS
3.1 Simulation Environment
The performance of the proposed CLDM-AODV protocol is evaluated and compared with
AODV and NDMR. Simulations are conducted on the Network Simulator (ns-2) with network
comprising of 50 wireless ad hoc nodes moving over an area of 1500m x 300m for 900s of
simulated time. Physical layer is a bi-directional link and channel transmission rate is 2Mbps. At
MAC layer, the DCF of IEEE 802.11 standard for wireless LANs is assumed. RTS and CTS
packets are exchanged before the transmission of data packets. The channel propagation model
we used two-ray ground reflection model. Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic is used. A 512-byte
data packet with 2 packets/second sending rate is assumed for all the experiments. Inter packet
time is assumed to be 35 ms. Radio transmission range of each node is set to 250m. The initial
placement of nodes is random and random waypoint mobility model [24] is used to simulate node
movements. Simulation is run for seed value of 1 to 9.
The simulation parameters are shown in table 1.
Table 1
Parameters Value
NS version Ns –allinone-2.35
Number of nodes 50
Simulation Time 900 sec
Radio transmission range 250m
Traffic CBR(Constant Bit Rate)
CBR Packet size 512 bytes
Simulation Area size 1500m * 300 m
Node Speed 4m/s to 20 m/s
Mobility model Random WayPoint mobility
We compare the performance of AODV, NDMR and CLDM-AODV using the following three
metrics:

1. Control Overhead is the ratio of the number of protocol control packets transmitted to the
number of data packets received.
2. Packet Delivery Fractions (PDF) is the ratio of the data packets delivered to the destination
to those generated by the CBR sources.
3. Average end-to-end delay is an average end to delay of all successfully transmitted data
packets from source to destination.
3.2 Simulation Results
Example 1: In this example, we analyze the effect of speed on control overhead, PDF and average
end to end delay for different number of source nodes in the network. In the simulation we
assume the number of sources to be 30 and 35 and mobility of nodes is 4 meters/sec to 20
meters/sec.
Figure 5(a)-(b) shows the plot of control overhead vs. speed. It is evident from the result that
CLDM_AODV has minimum control overhead compared to AODV and NDMR. In Figure 6,
average control overhead ratio for sources 30, and 35 is plotted. It is easily inferred that
CLDM_AODV has smaller overhead than AODV and NDMR in harsh operation environments.
This improvement is mainly because multiple QOS compliance routes are discovered in single
route discovery phase, which significantly reduces frequent route discovery on route failure.
Figure 7(a)-(b) shows the plot for End-to End delay vs. speed. It can be seen from the plot
corresponding to AODV that there is an increase in delay which is due to high mobility of nodes
which in turn results in increased probability of link failure that causes an increase in the number
of routing rediscovery processes. This makes data packets to wait for more time in its queue until
a new routing path is found. Average end-to-end delay in NDMR does not show much variation
over varying speed and shows better results compared to AODV.
In Figure 8, average End-to End delay vs. speed for sources 30, and 35 is plotted. In proposed
CLDM-AODV protocol, delay curve remains consistently low compared to AODV and NDMR
even though extra waiting time, RREQ_WAIT_TIME, is added in route discovery process.
Addition of RREQ_WAIT_TIME has little effect on the overall performance since CLDM-
AODV has multiple alternate node disjoint paths satisfying the delay constraint, leads to less
route discoveries. Also source regularly uses the primary path with optimal quality.
A packet delivery ratio for AODV, NDMR and CLDM_AODV is as shown in Figure 9(a)-(b). In
Figure 10, average Packet delivery ratio vs. speed for sources 30, and 35 is plotted. Since
CLDM_AODV attempts to use optimal QoS enabled node disjoint path among available multiple
alternate paths for data delivery, the protocol is able to deliver more packets to the destination
compared to AODV and NDMR.
(a) 30 source nodes (b) 35 source nodes
Fig. 5(a)-(b): control packet overhead vs. speed (m/s).

Fig. 6: Average Control overheads for varying number of sources for speed 4m/s to 20 m/s
Fig. 7(a)-(b): End-to-End delay (ms) vs. speed (m/s).
Fig. 8: Average end-to-end for varying number of sources from speed 4m/s to 20 m/s
Fig. 9(a)-(b): Packet delivery ratio vs. speed (m/s).
Fig. 10 Average Packet delivery ratio for varying number of sources from speed 4m/s to 20 m/s
AODV simply drops data packets when routes are disconnected, as it has to resort to a new
discovery when the only path fails. Proposed CLDM_AODV algorithm performs better as data
packets travel through less congested and delay compliance.

4. CONCLUSION
A new algorithm CLDM-AODV suitable for delay sensitive application is presented. Proposed
CLDM-AODV algorithm with multipath capability effectively deals with high mobility traffic
route failures in MANET. Proposed algorithm ensures that the multiple paths are loop-free and is
node disjoint. Comparative study of CLDM-AODV, classical AODV and NDMR is performed
using ns-2 simulations under varying mobility and traffic scenarios. The results indicate that
CLDM-AODV has lower average end-to-end delay even by including extra fields to RREQ and
RREP packets to provide QOS support. The routing overhead is low compared to its counter parts
as route discovery process is minimized by providing QOS compliance alternate routes. The
added advantage of the proposed algorithm is, it periodically checks the paths obtained during
route discovery process and uses optimal link for data communication.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Jurdak, Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks 9th ed. Springer Series, United States of
America.2006.
[2] C.K.Toh, Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems. 2nd ed. Printice Hall, China,
2001.
[3] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer, “Quality of Service for Ad hoc On- Demand Distance Vector
Routing, Internet Draft,” October, 2003.
[4] X. Li and L Cuthbert, “Multipath QoS routing of supporting Diffserv in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,”
Proceedings of SNPD/SAWN'05, 2005.
[5] Z. Ye, S. V. Krishnamurthy and S. K. Tripathi, “Framework for Reliable Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks,” IEEE INFOCOM 2003.
[6] P. Sambasivam, A. Murthy, and E. M. Belding-Royer, “Dynamically Adaptive Multipath Routing
based on AODV,” proc of the 3rd Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop
(MedHocNet), Bodrum, Turkey, June 2004.
[7] P. Macharla, R. Kumar, A. Kumar Sarje, “A QoS routing protocol for delay-sensitive applications in
mobile ad hoc networks,” COMSWARE. 2008, pp. 720-727.
[8] S.Chakrabarti, and A. Mishra, “QoS issues in ad-hoc wireless networks,” IEEE Communication
Magazine, Feb 2001,Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.142 148.
[9] M.K. Gulati and , K. Kumar, “A review of QoS routing protocols in MANETs”, 2013 International
Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI -2013), Jan. 4 - 6, 2013.
[10] C. Chen, W. Wu Z. Li, “Multipath Routing Modeling in Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. of IEEE ICC, May
2005, pp.2974-2978.
[11] P. Wannawilai, C. Sathitwiriyawong, "AOMDV with Sufficient Bandwidth Aware," Computer and
Information Technology (CIT), 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer and
Information Technology, June 2010, pp.305-312.
[12] C. Ahn, S. Chung, T. Kim, and S. Kang, “A node-disjoint multipath routing protocol based on aodv in
mobile ad hoc networks,” In Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), 2010 Seventh
International Conference, April 2010, pp. 828 –833.
[13] M.K.Marina , and S.R.Das, “On-Demand multipath distance vector routing in ad hoc networks,”
Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001.
[14] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, and S. R. Das, Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing, Internet Draft,
2002.
[15] C.E. Perkins, and E.M. Belding-Royer, “Quality of Service for Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector
Routing,” draft-perkins-manet-aodvqos-02.txt, Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Working Group Internet
Draft, 14 October 2003.
[16] S. Lohier, S. Senouci, Y. M. Ghamri Doudane and G. Pujolle, “A reactive QoS Routing Protocol for
Ad Hoc Networks,” European Symposium on Ambient Intelligence (EUSAI'2003), Eindhoven,
Netherlands, November 2003.
[17] J. Park, S. Moh†, and I. Chung, “A Multipath AODV Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
with SINR-Based Route Selection,” ISWCS '08. Wireless Communication Systems, October 2008,
pp. 682–686.

[18] E. Mehdi, E.MohammadReza, D.Amir, Z.Mehdi, and Y. Nasser, “Load Balancing and Route Stability
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks base on AODV Protocol,” Proceeding of International Conference on
Electronic Devices, Systems and Applications( ICEDSA2010), 11-14 April 2010, pp. 258 – 263.
[19] X. Li and L. Cuthbert, “Multipath QoS Routing of supporting DiffServ in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,”
SNPD-SAWN '05 Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE
Computer Society Washington, DC, USA 2005, pp. 308-313.
[20] Boshoff, J.N., Helberg, A.S.J. (2008), “ Improving QoS for Real-time Multimedia Traffic in Ad-hoc
Networks with Delay Aware Multi-path Routing ,” IEEE, Wireless Telecommunication Symposium,
WTS 2008, pp. 1-8.
[21] P. Sambasivam, A. Murthy, E. M. Belding-Royer, “Dynamically Adaptive Multipath Routing based
on AODV,” Med-Hoc- Net, (2004), pp. 16-28.
[22] M. Obaidat, “A Novel Multipath Routing Protocol for Manets,” Wireless Communications,
Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM), 2011, pp.1-6.
AUTHORS
1
Mahadev Anant Gawas
Email: mahadev@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
Phone: 0832 – 2580330
Department of CS & IS,
BITS Pilani, K. K. Birla, Goa Campus,
NH 17-B, Bypass Road, Zuarinagar,
PIN - 403 726, Goa, India.
Research domain:
• Wireless Networking
• Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks.
• Cross Layer

A cross layer delay-aware multipath routing algorithm for mobile adhoc networks

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to A cross layer delay-aware multipath routing algorithm for mobile adhoc networks (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A cross layer delay-aware multipath routing algorithm for mobile adhoc networks