A Review on Comparison of the Geographic Routing Protocols in MANET

International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research
Volume 4– Issue 10, 777 - 781, 2015, ISSN: 2319–8656
www.ijcat.com 777
A Review on Comparison of the Geographic Routing
Protocols in MANET
Yukti
Department of Computer science and engineering
Giani Zail Singh- Punjab Technical University
Campus
Bathinda , Punjab , India
Abhilasha
Department of Computer science and engineering
Giani Zail Singh- Punjab Technical University
Campus
Bathinda , Punjab , India
Abstract: In Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET) with high number of nodes and high mobility the routing of packets is a difficult task. In this
paper, we are reviewing different geographic routing protocols as geographic routing are efficient for highly mobile nodes and made the
communication scalable. Different protocols compared are The Distance Routing Effect Algorithm (DREAM), Location Aided Routing (LAR)
Calculation, Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing(GPSR) as of late new convention comes which is exceedingly proficient is the Adaptive position
update (APU) strategy and further the improved APU strategy and on the basis of performance metrics the protocols are compared and reveals that
the Improved APU strategy gives the high packet delivery ratio, lower delay and low energy consumption.
Keywords: DREAM, LAR, GPSR, APU, Improved APU
1. INTRODUCTION
MANET is a type of mobile ad hoc network that can change locations
and configure itself on the fly. Because Mobile Ad hoc networks are
mobile, they use wireless connections to connect to various networks.
Some MANETs are restricted to local area of wireless devices, while
others may be connected to the Internet. Numerous Directing
conventions have been considered for geographic routing in MANET
furthermore progressions are done over. Some of these conventions are
The Distance Routing Effect Algorithm (DREAM), Location Aided
Routing (LAR) Calculation, Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing
(GPSR) as of late new convention comes which is exceedingly
proficient is the Adaptive position update (APU) system for geographic
steering furthermore improved APU technique which more refines the
consequence of APU methodology.
2. THE DISTANCE ROUTING EFFECT
ALGORITHM (DREAM)
DREAM is location- based routing protocol, however not an absolutely
geological one due to its proactive methodology. DREAM can be
delegated as proactive routing strategy by using a new mechanism of
dissemination and update of location information also routing tables for
every one of the nodes in the network [3]. Every node proactively
redesigns every other node about its location with the help of
DREAM’s location service. The overhead of such location updates is
reduced in two ways. To start with, the effect of distance (nodes move
slowly with respect to each other as their distance of separation
increases). Next, every node generates updates about its location
relying on its mobility rate fast moving nodes update more
frequently whereas slow moving nodes generate updates less routinely.
DREAM geographically forwards data packets in the form of a
directional flood. In DREAM the sender S of a packet with destination
D will forward the packet to every one of the one-hop neighbors that
lie “towards D.” In order to determine this direction, anode calculates
the region that is liable to contain D, called the expected region. As
portrayed in Fig.1. The expected region is a circle around the position
of D as it is known to S. since this position data may be out of date, the
radius r of the expected region is set to (t1-t0) vmax, where t1 is the
current time, t0 is the timestamp of the position information S has a
session D, and vmax is the maximum speed that a node may travel in
the ad hoc network. Given the expected region, the “bearing towards
D” for the delineation given in Fig. 1 is defined by the line in the middle
of S and D and the angle α. The neighboring hops repeat this strategy
utilizing their information on D’s position. If a node does not have a
one-hop neighbor in the oblidged direction, a recovery procedure must
be started. This system is not some piece of the DREAM specific [1].
Figure1: Illustration of progress with DREAM [1].

www.ijcat.com 778
3. LOCATION AIDED ROUTING (LAR)
ALGORITHM
It makes presumptions of a 2-D plane, of GPS prepared nodes or the
accessibility of another location service, of equal node range, of location
error, of no congestion, no transmission error and no delays.
Additionally, it is assumed only one sender and one destination. The aim
is to reduce the number of nodes to which the route request is propagated.
It is a routing protocol with two proposed methods: LAR1 and LAR2,
both illustrated in Fig.2 [3].
In LAR1, the sending node advances the message only within the
request zone and neighbors outside the region are not tended to. Within
the limited sector, flooding is utilized.
In LAR2, the sending node always advances the message to all nodes
closer to the destination than itself [1].
Figure2a.Progress with LAR1 b. Progress with LAR2
(forwarding option further away than source) [1].
4. GREEDY PERIMETER STATELESS
ROUTING PROTOCOL (GPSR)
GPSR is a protocol that works in 2-dimensional plane. It is a Routing
protocol which gives scalability with increasing nodes in the network.
GPSR beacon telecasts MAC address with nodes IP and position [5]. It
advances the information assuming the location service and keeps up a
neighbor table, periodically updated through beacon messages. It
results in a lots of data traffic; source’s location is piggybacked on all
data packets; it is validated in flat (2-D) topologies; it uses two methods
for forwarding data: greedy forwarding and perimeter forwarding (right
hand rule) [3].
In greedy forwarding, the forwarding is carried out on a greedy basis
by selecting the node closest to the destination. This procedure
proceeds until the destination is come to.
In perimeter forwarding, whenever the greedy forwarding method is not
applicable or when this method fails, then the algorithm uses perimeter
routing strategy to route around the communication voids and achieves
the destination. Once the other node comes in transmission range, the
algorithm changes back to the Greedy forwarding, reducing the delay
and increment in the performance [8].
5. ADAPTIVE POSITION UPDATE (APU)
STRATEGY
After GPSR protocol, new method APU strategy comes
which incredibly simplifies the data transfer in MANET. There are
some assumptions before as: all nodes are aware of their own position
and velocity, all links are bidirectional, the beacon updates include the
current location and velocity of the nodes, and data packets can
piggyback position and velocity upgrades and all one-hop neighbors
operate in the promiscuous mode and hence can overhear the data
packets [6].APU employs two mutually exclusive beacon triggering
rules, which are discussed in the following:
5.1 Mobility Prediction Rule:
This rule adapts the beacon generation rate to the mobility of the nodes.
Nodes that are highly mobile need to frequently update their neighbors
since their locations are changing dynamically. Despite what might be
expected, nodes which move slowly do not need to send frequent
updates. In contrast periodic beacon update policy cannot satisfy both
these requirement at the same time. In this scheme, upon receiving a
beacon update from a node i, each of its neighbor’s records node i’s
current position and velocity and periodically track node i’s location
using a simple prediction scheme based on linear kinematics (discussed
below). Based on this position estimate, the neighbors can check
whether node i is still inside of their transmission range and update their
neighbor list accordingly. The objective of the MP rule is to send the
next beacon update from node i when the error between the anticipated
location in the neighbors of i and node i’s actual location is greater than
an acceptable threshold. We use simple location prediction scheme to
estimate a node’s current location. Note that, we assume that the nodes
are located in a 2D coordinate system with the location indicated by the
x and y coordinates. TABLE 1 illustrates the notations used.
Table 1
Notations for Mobility Prediction
Variables Definition
Figure3. An example of mobility prediction
As shown in Fig. 1, the position of node i and its velocity along the x
axis and y axis at time Tl, its neighbors can appraise the present position
of i, using the following equations:

www.ijcat.com 779
Note that, in this equation (Xi
l,Y i
l ) and (Vi
x,Vi
y) refers to the location
and velocity information that was broadcast in the previous beacon
from node i. Node i uses the same prediction criteria to keep record of
its predicted location among its neighbors. Let (Xa, Ya), denote the
actual location of node i, acquired via GPS or other localization
techniques. Node i then computes the deviation Di
devi as follows:
If the deviation calculated is greater than a certain threshold, known as
the Acceptable Error Range (AER), it acts as a trigger for node i to
broadcast its present location and velocity as a new beacon. The MP
rule then tries to maximize the effective duration of each beacon, by
broadcasting a beacon only when the position information in the
previous beacon becomes inaccurate. This extends the effective
duration of the beacon for nodes with low mobility, thus reducing the
number of beacons. Further, highly mobile nodes can broadcast
frequent beacons to guarantee that their neighbors are mindful of the
quickly changing topology.
5.2 On Demand Learning (ODL) Rule:
The MP rule solely may not be adequate for keeping up an exact local
topology. Hence, it is important to devise a mechanism which will
maintain a more exact local topology in those regions of the network
where significant data forwarding activities are on-going. This is
exactly what the On-Demand Learning (ODL) rule aims to accomplish.
As the name recommends, a node broadcasts beacons on-demand, i.e.
with respact to data forwarding activities that occur in the vicinity of
that node. As indicated by this rule, whenever a node overhears a data
transmission from a new neighbor, it broadcasts a beacon as a response.
In actuality, a node waits for a small random time interval before
responding with the beacon to prevent collisions with other beacons.
Review that, it is assumed that the location updates are piggybacked on
the data packets and that all nodes operate in the promiscuous mode,
which permits them to overhear all data packets transmitted in their
vicinity. Likewise, since the data packet contains the location of the
final destination, any node that overhears a data packet also checks its
current location and figures out if the destination is within its
transmission range. Provided that this is true, the destination node is
added to the list of neighboring nodes, if it is not already present. Note
that, this specific check incurs zero expense, i.e. no beacons need to be
transmitted. We allude to the neighbor list developed at a node by virtue
of the initialization phase and the MP rule as the basic list. This list is
mainly updated in response to the mobility of the node and its
neighbors. The ODL rule permits active nodes that are included in data
forwarding to enhance their local topology beyond this basic set. As it
were, a rich neighbor list is maintained at the nodes located in the
regions of high traffic load. Thus the rich list is maintained only at the
active nodes and is built reactively in response to the network traffic.
Every inactive node simply maintains the basic neighbor list. By
making a rich neighbor list along the forwarding path, ODL guarantees
that in situations where the nodes involved in data forwarding are
highly mobile, alternate routes can be easily established without
causing extra postpones.
Fig. 4(a) delineates the network topology before node A starts sending
data to node P. The solid lines in the figure denote that both ends of the
link are mindful of one another. The initial possible routing path from
A to P is A-B-P. Presently, when source A sends data packets to B, both
C and D receive the data packet from A. As A is a new neighbor of C
and D, according to the ODL rule, both C and D will send back beacons
to A. As a result, the links AC and AD will be discovered. Further, on
the basis of location of the destination and their current locations, C and
D discover that the destination P is within their one-hop neighborhood.
Essentially when B advances the data packet to P, the links BC and BD
are discovered. Fig. 4(b) reflects the enhanced topology along the
routing path from A to P.
Figure4.An example illustrating the ODL rule [4].
Note that, however E and F receive the beacons from C and D,
respectively, neither of them responds back with a beacon. Since E and
F do not lie on the forwarding path, it is futile for them to send beacon
updates in response to the broadcasts from C and D. Basically, ODL
aims at improving the accuracy of topology along the routing path from
the source to the destination, for each traffic flow within the network
[4].
6. IMPROVED APU STRATEGY
The proposed Improved Adaptive Position Update (IAPU) strategy for
geographical routing which progressively adjusts the regularity of
position updates based on the mobility dynamics of the nodes and the
forwarding patterns in the network. Improved APU is considering two
essential standards such as Nodes whose movements are harder to
predict update their positions more frequently, and Nodes closer to
forwarding paths update their positions more frequently. The following
are the systematic process of the Improved APU in which it bit by bit
increases the performance of the existing Adaptive Position Update for
Geographic routing with low mobility based forwarding node selection.
This thusly further overcomes the link failure of the whole network in
high mobility routing.
6.1 Beacon Updation
In this process, the nodes position changes either long or short each
node should update their position more frequently through beacon
packet. Updating each and every either low or high movement
updating, it will consume more energy, and received by someone in
general or increasing amounts over time.
6.2 Mobility Prediction
Mobility Prediction (MP) employs a basic mobility prediction scheme
to estimate when the location information broadcast in the previous
beacon becomes incorrect. The next beacon is send out only if the

www.ijcat.com 780
predicted error in the location estimate is greater than a exact threshold,
thus alter the update frequency to the dynamism inherent in the node’s
movement. A periodic beacon update policy cannot fulfill both these
requirements at the same time, since a small update interval will be
inefficient, whereas a larger update interval will lead to inaccurate
position information for the highly mobile nodes. In our procedure,
upon receiving a beacon update from a node i, each of its neighbor’s
records node is current position and velocity and periodically track
node is location using a simple prediction scheme based on linear
kinematics. Based on this position approximate the neighbors can check
whether node i is still within their transmission range and update their
neighbor list accordingly. The aim of the MP rule is to send the next
beacon upgrade from node i when the error between the predicted
location in the neighbors of i and node i’s actual location is greater than
an acceptable threshold.
6.3 On Demand Learning
Update forwarding path's closest neighbor position for effective routing
performance improving the accuracy of the topology along the routing
paths between the communicating nodes. ODL utilizes an on-demand
learning approach, whereby a node broadcast beacons when it
overhears the transmission of a data packet from a new neighbor in its
neighborhood. This guarantees that nodes involved in forwarding data
packets maintain a more up to date view of the local topology. Referred
as On-Demand Learning (ODL), in which it aims at improving the
exactness of the topology along the routing paths between the
communicating nodes. On the opposing, nodes that are not in the
vicinity of the forwarding path are unaffected by this rule and do not
broadcast beacons very frequently.
6.4 Improved APU
In Mobile Ad-hoc Networks if forwarding nodes have high mobility,
may have lot of chances to make local topology inaccuracy. To upgrade
with low mobility based forwarding node selection we improve routing
performance more than APU. If we take high mobility routing, link
failure will affect the Whole Network. Through this way, we can able
to send data without link failure. The Improved APU is that beacons
generated in APU are more concentrated along the routing paths, while
the beacons in all additional schemes are more scattered in the whole
network. As a result, in modified APU, the nodes located in the hotspots
are responsible for forwarding most of the data traffic in the network
have an up-to-date view of their local topology [2].
7. PERFORMANCE METRICS
Diverse Performance metrics are compared for all the protocols. Some
of the metrics are: packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, energy
consumption.
7.1 Packet delivery ratio
Measures the percentage of data packets generated by nodes that are
successfully delivered.
7.2 End to End Delay
This metric measure the average time it takes to route a data packet
from the source node to the destination node.
7.3 Energy Consumption
The energy metric is taken as the average energy consumption per node
calculated through simulation time.
8. SIMULATION RESULT
Comparison of geographic routing protocols in tabular form on the
premise of qualitative parameters when the node density is high [7][5]
[2]. The comparison depicts that as the protocols are derived for routing
performance of routing increased.
Table 2
Comparison of geographic routing protocols
Parameter Packet
delivery
ratio
End to end delay Energy
consumption
DREAM Low Long delay High
LAR Low Long delay High
GPSR High Lower delay Low
APU High Lower than
GPSR
Low
Improved
APU
High Lower delay than
APU
Lower than
APU
9. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
In this paper, we have clarified different geographic routing protocols
and compared the performance of all and presumed that new procedure
is superior to the previous one and more work can be done in this
respect. In Future, further improvements in the current strategy and
new techniques can be proposed and APU strategy can be further
improved to give more reliable communication.
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to thank Prof. Abhilasha for supporting me in this paper and in
all phases of difficulty and faculty of computer science and engineering
department of GZS-PTU campus supporting me in writing a quality
paper. Also I like to thank my family members who always been a
support for me.
11. REFERENCES
[1] Divya Wadhwa, Deepika, Vimm Kochher, Rajesh Kumar Tyagi
(2014), “A Review of Comparison of Geographic Routing Protocols in
Mobile Adhoc Network”, Advance in Electronic and Electric
Engineering, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 51-58.
[2] Mr.C.Nallusamy, Dr.A.Sabari, Mr.N.Suresh (2014), “Improved
Adaptive Position Update for Geographic Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks”, International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology, pp. 46-51.

www.ijcat.com 781
[3] Ana Maria Popescu, Ion Gabriel Tudorache, Bo Peng, A.H.
Kemp(2012),”Surveying Position Based Routing Protocols for
Wireless Sensor and Ad-hoc Networks”, International Journal of
Communication Networks and Information Security (IJCNIS), Vol. 4,
No. 1.
[4] Quan jun Chen, Salil S. Kanhere, Mahbub Hassan(2013),
“Adaptive Position Update for Geographic Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING,
Vol. 12.
[5] Ms. Pranoti A. Bedekar, Dr. Y. M. Patil, Dr. A. S. Vaingankar
(2014), “Review paper on Adaptive Position Update for efficient
routing in mobile ad hoc networks”, Journal of Emerging Technologies
and Innovative Research, Vol.1 , Issue 6.
[6] Quan Jun Chen, Salil S. Kanhere, Mahbub Hassan, Kun-Chan Lan
(2005), “Adaptive Position Update in Geographic Routing, School of
Computer Science and Engineering”, The University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia.
[7] Gang Wang, Guodong Wang(2010), “An Energy Aware
Geographic Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Int J
Software informatics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.183-196.
[8] Varun G Menon, Joe Prathap p m(2013), “Performance Analysis of
geographic Routing Protocols in highly Mobile ad hoc Network”,
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 54,
No. 1.
[9] Michele Zorzi, Senior Member, IEEE, and Ramesh R. Rao(2003),
“Geographic Random Forwarding (GeRaF) for Ad Hoc and Sensor
Networks: Energy and Latency Performance”, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, Vol. 2, No. 4.
[10] Y. Kim, R. Govindan, B. Karp and S. Shenker(2005),
“Geographic Routing Made Practical”, in Proceedings of the 2nd
Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design and
Implementation, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 217-230.
[11] B. Blum, T. He, S. Son, and J. Stankovic(2003), “IGF: A State-
free Robust Communication Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks”,
Tech. Rep., Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia,
USA.
[12] B. Karp and H. T. Kung(2000), “GPSR: Greedy Perimeter
Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks”, in Proceedings of ACM
Mobicom 2000, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 243-254.
[13] Ravi Kumar Poluru, T. Sunil Kumar Reddy, D.Nagaraju,
“Updating the Routing Position in Ad hoc Networks by using
Adaptive Position”, International Journal of Computer Trends and
Technology (IJCTT), Vol. 10, No. 3.

A Review on Comparison of the Geographic Routing Protocols in MANET

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to A Review on Comparison of the Geographic Routing Protocols in MANET (20)

More from Editor IJCATR (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Review on Comparison of the Geographic Routing Protocols in MANET