Comparative Review for Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks

International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing (IJASUC) Vol.7, No.2, April 2016
DOI : 10.5121/ijasuc.2016.7202 13
COMPARATIVE REVIEW FOR ROUTING
PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
Hatem S. A. Hamatta, Nabeel I. Zanoon and Rasha M. Al-Tarawneh
Department of Applied Sciences, Al-Balqa’ Applied University, Aqaba, Jordan
ABSTRACT
Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks is one of the attractive research field that growing exponentially in the
last decade. it surrounded by much challenges that should be solved the improve establishment of such
networks. Failure of wireless link is considered as one of popular challenges faced by Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks (MANETs). As this type of networks does not require any pre-exist hardware. As well as, every
node have the ability of roaming where it can be connected to other nodes dynamically. Therefore, the
network internal structure will be unpredictably changed frequently according to continuous activities
between nodes that simultaneously update network topology in the basis of active ad-hoc nature. This
model puts the functionality of routing operation in crucial angle in the area of research under mobile ad-
hoc network field due to highly dynamic nature. Adapting such kernel makes MANET indigence new
routing techniques to settle these challenges. Thereafter, tremendous amount of routing protocols proposed
to argue with ad-hoc nature. Thus, it is quite difficult to specify which protocols operate efficiently under
different mobile ad-hoc scenarios. This paper examines some of the prominent routing protocols that are
designed for mobile ad-hoc networks by describing their structures, operations, features and then
comparing their various characteristics.
KEYWORDS
MANET, Proactive Routing Protocols, Reactive Routing Protocols, Hybrid Routing Protocols
1. INTRODUCTION
During development cycle in the modern technologies, three types of wireless networks became
clear; Infra-structured networks, ad-hoc networks and combination of both. The first wireless
network is based on bridges known as base stations. Mobiles within these networks need to
connect and communicate with one base station which is the nearest to. Thus, according to
mobility metric in this kind of networks, each node leaves the range of the base station that it
communicates with should be covered with range of another base station. A hand-off process is
required between the old base station and new one. In this case the mobile node will be able to
keep its communication easily throughout the entire network. Such kind of networks is called
Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs), which is suitable for use in controlled and identified
environments (i.e. Offices and universities etc.). In contrast to infra-structure network with base
stations which provide coverage for mobile nodes, an ad-hoc network neither have access to base
stations nor fixed routers and did not have any controlled environments. These networks can be
identified in any environment. Here every node moves unpredictably and dynamically without
any support from infra-structured network components that restrict network construction.
Therefore, the nodes operate as routers which discover and maintain routes to other nodes in the
network. Thus, the network can be constructed any time anywhere (i.e. emergency searches and
meetings etc.).

14
This paper reviews different types of routing protocols designed for ad-hoc networks. In the
beginning it describes the evolution of ad-hoc networks, and then describes the design goals and
the challenges for routing in this kind of network. On the other hand, section 3 describes the
operation of each protocol and its characteristics. While the later section shows general
comparisons between routing classifications; and finally, conclusion is included in the last
section of the article.
2. EVOLUTION OF AD-HOC NETWORK
At the beginning of the 70’s, Abramson with his fellow researchers at the University of Hawaii
invented ALOHAnet which was the first public demonstration of a wireless packet data network
[2]. It utilized single-hop wireless packet switching and multiple access solutions for sharing a
single channel. In addition to the need of fixed single-hop wireless network implementation in
ALOHAnet as originally it was, the basic idea was compelling and applicable to any environment
where access to available resources had to be negotiated among a set of uncoordinated nodes
[13], it started operation of providing public demonstration of wireless packet data network in
1971. Also, it triggered widespread interests in different directions of computer communication
according to its success and novelty.
In 1972, a new project had been developed; called Packet Radio Network (PRNet) to provide a
packet wireless network military application. PRNet was sponsored by the defense advanced
research project agency (DARPA) [13], and [9]. PRNET uses a combination of ALOHA with
Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) to access the shared radio channel. It was designated to
support self-organized, self-configured, and detect radio connectivity for the dynamic operation
of Routing Protocol without any support form fixed infrastructure which proved the feasibility
and efficiency of infrastructure-less network and their applications for civilian and military
purpose.
The Survivable Radio Network (SURAN) appeared in 1980 as an extended to the work on multi-
hop wireless networks to provide ad-hoc networking with small, low-cost, low-power devices
with efficient protocols and improved scalability and survivability [18].
Hence, Mobile Ad-Hoc Network can be defined as a set of multi-hop wireless mobile nodes,
which communicates with each other in the case of absence of established infrastructure or any
centralized administration. Thus, the main goal of MANET is to improve and extend the mobility
of nodes where these nodes must form the network routing infrastructure in ad-hoc environments.
The hotspot of MANETs applications is the need of rapid deployment and dynamic configuration,
reconfiguration with absent of infrastructure network components (i.e. military battlefields,
emergency search, rescue sites and class rooms).
3. AD-HOC MOBILE ROUTING SCHEMES
Since mobile nodes in MANETs are capable of communicating with each other without any
existing of networks infrastructure. These nodes are not bounded to any centralized control such
as base stations or mobile switching centers. For this reason, the communication sessions can be
achieved either through single-hop transmission in case the destination node placed within the
transmission range of the source node, or by multi-hop transmission if the packets must relaying
through intermediate nodes to reach the destination node in case it placed outside the range of
source node [1],[10] and [15]. In MANET, each node behaves not only as a host but also as a
router, to form the needed range to give the source node the ability to communicate with the
destination node without direct wireless transmission range between them. Thus, in this kind of

15
networks each node participates in an ad-hoc routing operation, setting up and maintaining
routing information which allows the form of multi-hop range to any other node through the
network. So, designing efficient routing protocol in such a network is a challenging problem
regarding to its unique characteristics, such as dynamic changing topology, cooperation between
nodes, lack of centralized management and monitoring facility, restricted power supply, and
scalability. This indicates no stable communication infrastructure [12]. For this reason, routing in
ad-hoc network has become a popular and interesting research topic.
Routing is the process of determining a good path thru the network from source node to some
arbitrary destination nodes. So, movements of mobile nodes in MANET cause the nodes to move
in and out the range from one another. Thus, there is a rapid establishment and breaking of links
in the network, forcing the stability of network topology to change dynamically with time. For
this reason, traditional routing protocols which are used in wired network cannot be applied
directly to wireless and ad-hoc network. Thus, several considerations design issues are defined by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) which is required in routing protocols to be used
under mobile ad-hoc network requirements listed as follow [11]:
• Distribution operation
• Demand-based operation
• Proactive operation
• Routing overhead
• Multi-hop routing capability
• Dynamic topology maintenance
• Self-starting and recovery
• Loop prevention
Since the network relies on multi-hop transmissions in its communications, new challenges are
derived to determine the multi-hop route over which data packets can be exchanged between
source and destination mobile nodes. The most important factor to measure the quality of routing
protocols in ad-hoc networks is identified by the ability of adapting the variations of network
topology dynamically. According to the initiation time for routing activities, routing protocols for
mobile ad-hoc network can be broadly classified into three basic categories: 1) proactive or table-
driven routing protocols, 2) reactive or on-demand routing protocols, and 3) hybrid routing
protocols which is combination of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. Figure 1 shows
main classifications and some representative examples of routing protocols classes that can be
used in mobile ad-hoc network.
Figure 1. Classification of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols

16
3.1. Proactive Routing Protocols
It is also called Table-Driven routing protocols; it attempts to maintain consistent, up-to-date
routing information from each node to every other node in the network. Also, such protocols
require each node to maintain its routing table in which it keeps tables updated with the
acquisition of new information. Thus, table-driven proactive routing protocols respond to changes
and updates throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent network view. It has
advantages of providing lower latency in data delivery, whilst its main drawback is the wastage of
bandwidth in periodically sending update packets even when they are not necessary, such as when
there is no link failure, or only a few amounts of routes are required. Some proactive MANET
protocols include: DSDV [17], OLSR [6], and WRP [14] are described in the following
subsections, where some of their basic characteristics are shown in table 1.
Table 1. Basic Characteristics of Some Proactive Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols.
Parameter DSDV OLSR WRP
Route Selection Metric Link State Multipoint
Relay
Shortest Path
Routing Uniformity Uniform Uniform Uniform
Multiple Route No No No
Topology Structure Flat Flat Flat
Routing Update Time Hybrid Periodic Hybrid
Update Information Metric Distance Vector Link State Distance Vector
Beacon Yes Yes Yes
Loop Free Yes Yes Yes, but not
consistent
Critical Nodes No MPR No
No. of Tables 2 7 4
Control Overhead High Low High
3.1.1. Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Routing Protocol (DSDV)
Destination-Sequence Distance Vector Routing Protocol is described by [17] as one of the most
important proactive routing protocols that had been developed earlier for mobile ad-hoc networks.
Few modifications were applied on the classical Bellman-Ford routing mechanism as specified by
RIP [8] to fulfil the needs of stable environment in mobile ad-hoc network. The improvements
made to the Bellman-Ford algorithm cover freedom from loops in routing tables. This was
implemented by adding a sequence number (originally generated by destination node) with each
distance vector entry to indicate the stability and freshness of that entry, thereby avoiding the
formation of routing loops.
According to the needs of stable network, routing table updates are periodically transmitted
throughout the network in order to give all nodes a consistent view of network layout; figure 2
shows the routing table for node N1 in ad-hoc environment. According to that, huge amount of
network traffic will appear. Two types of packets are defined to solve update problems; the first
type is known as a full dump packet, which is used infrequently to carry out all available routing
information. Whereas, the second one is smaller than full dump packet, it is called incremental
packet, which is used to relay only that information which has changed since last full dump.

17
Figure 2. Example of Routing Table in DSDV
The key point of DSDV is the way it handles those types of packets, to keep track of both stale
and fresh information that describes the network layout with minimal impact on the network
overhead. Thus, there are two routing tables kept at each node. One is used for forwarding packet,
while the other is advertised via incremental routing information packets. Accordingly, full dump
is responsibility of the first table while the responsibility of the second table is incremental
packet.
At each time new route broadcast occurs, the following information are included in broadcasted
packet; 1) the address of the destination, 2) number of hops to reach the destination, 3) the
destination sequence number, 4) unique broadcast sequence number[17]. The nodes always use
the rout labeled with the most recent sequence number. But, if there are two updates with the
same sequence number, the route with the smaller metric will be used because it implements the
shortest path to the destination. Also, the nodes keep track of the settling time of routes, or the
average time that routes to a destination will fluctuate before the route with the best metric is
received. DSDV manages the freshness of the routes by delaying the broadcast of a routing
update by the length of the settling time; nodes can reduce network traffic and optimize routes by
eliminating those broadcasts that would occur if a better route was discovered in the very near
future.
3.1.2. Optimized Link-State Routing Protocol (OLSR)
OLSR is a proactive table-driven routing protocol designated for mobile ad-hoc networks. It is an
optimized version of a conventional link-state routing algorithm in which every node maintains
its own information about the network. It is considered as a flat routing protocol, since it does not
require any central administration control to handle routing process. It differs from other routing
protocols according to its ability to minimize the number of required control messages.
Consequently, it gives the network a fresh network topology layout. The key point behind
improvements founded in OLSR is achieved by dividing the network into a set of groups each
with its specified roles. Groups cooperate with each other to determine the required optimization
implemented in OLSR. Thus, OLSR adapt this issue with respect to all possible overhead by
defining special group of nodes called Multipoint Relay (MPR), which includes the minimum
number of the symmetric “1-hop” neighbours from which it is possible to reach all the
symmetrical strict “2-hop” neighbours in order to calculate the optimal MPR set, as shown in
figure 3. Any node belongs to MPR set of node N must satisfy the following conditions:
• X X Neighbours set of node N.

18
• K in 2-hop neighbourhood of node N | K Neighbours set of node X, also must have a
bi-directional link to X.
• |MPR(N)| must be the minimal list of neighbours that cover the 2-hop neighbourhood of
node N with bi-directional links.
Figure 3. Multipoint Relays
The idea of MPR is to improve flooding process of broadcasts by reducing the number of nodes
that occupy the information exchange throughout the network. Many data structures are
introduced by OLSR; those must be adapted by each node in the network:
• Link Table.
• Neighbours Table.
• 2-Hop Neighbours Table.
• MPR Table.
• MPR Selector Table.
• Topology Table.
• Routing Table.
Thus, to perform OLSR operations with these various data structures the protocol also defined
two special packets structure; HELLO, and Topology Control (TC) messages. Hello message
generally serves three important independent tasks: (1) link sensing, (2) neighbour detection, and
(3) MPR selection signaling. Since these tasks are based on periodic information exchange within
a node neighbourhood and also it serves the common purpose of local topology discovery. Thus,
it affects all information that exists in link table, neighbours table, MPR table, and MPR selector
table. Link table can be accomplished through periodic of HELLO message and the table hold
information about the local links, while neighbours table can be deducted directly from
information exists in link table about the entire symmetric 1-hop neighbourhood to perform
neighbour detection. Thus, it is considered as a part of link sensing. On the other hand, MPRs of a
given node (say N) are declared according to subsequent HELLOs which transmitted from given
node, consequently, this information will reach the multipoint relays themselves. So, any node
can belong to MPR(N) if and only if:

19
• It belongs to symmetric 1-hop neighbours of N (is considered as neighbour of N).
• It enables node N to reach 2-hop neighbours.
• It has the willingness to be MPR.
Consequently, MPR(N) are also do the same process of broadcast HELLO message periodically
for its 1-hop neighbours, node N will consider that those nodes set themselves as MPR(N) and
accordingly, it will update its MPR SELECTOR table in which it puts the addresses of its 1-hop
neighbours nodes which has been selected as a multipoint relays along with the corresponding
MPR sequence number of that neighbour node. All previous data structures are defined in OLSR
to be the base infrastructure of transmission of TC. It is considered as the only way the node can
exchange its own links in the network through its MPR sets, the node must send at least link of its
MPR selector set. The sequence number associated with each MPR is also attached to the list.
The freshness of the messages is recognized using higher sequence number. Also, it is used to
avoid loops of the messages by discarding TC packets with same or smaller sequence number.
The advantage of TC is helping each node to build its own topology table and give stable view of
the network layout since the node continuously updates its topology table according to it.
The main difference detected between OLSR and other routing protocols is; its ability to give
each node the required infrastructure and needed data structure to maintain its routing table
locally, which gives the ability to route the packets towards other destinations in the network. The
information available in neighbours and topology tables are the base of routing table in OLSR,
each node re-calculates its routing table if any changes occur in any of link table, neighbours
table, 2-hop neighbours table, or topology table. It maintains its routing information accordingly
with respect to finding the shortest path for all routes that will be inserted in routing table.
Although, routing table re-calculation required a lot of information about the network. In OLSR it
does not trigger any packet to be transmitted neither in the entire network, nor in the 1-hop
neighbourhood. Accordingly, it is clear that OLSR protocol is well suited to work on a dense
network where most of the communication is concentrated between large numbers of nodes.
3.1.3. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)
Another type of proactive (table-driven) distance vector routing protocols is WRP that is used in
multi-hop packet-radio network. It follows the shortest-path routing techniques. Typically, it is
based on Distributed Bellman-Ford algorithm (DBF) [8]. In this protocol, all routing nodes know
the length of the shortest path through its neighbours to every destination node in the network. It
proposed a Path-Finding-Algorithm (PFA), to deal with temporary looping situation. Also, the
protocol limits routing table updates to include only that entries affected by network changes.
The main updating function in WRP is performed only between neighbourhoods. It is designed to
run on the top of the medium access control protocol of a wireless network. Also, it ensures
reliable transmission of update messages as it adapts the mean of re-transmissions. This can be
achieved by sending a positive acknowledgment (ACK) after receiving an updating message free
of errors. This ACK can be considered as an assertion to neighbourhood between nodes. The
protocol maintains three tables and one list. First table is a distance table which implements
required information toward all destinations in the network, the number of hops is considered as a
distance to a particular destination, next hop to reach destination must be specified within each
entry. Second table, the routing table gives full specification vector for each known destination in
the network as shown in figure 4. This specification is (Destination Identifier, Distance to the
Destination, Shortest Path, and specified Tag which identifies the status of that entry if it
corresponds to simple path or loop). Third table is link cost table. It gives the cost of relaying
information through neighbours. Also, status of links with neighbours is attached. At the end, the

20
message re-transmission list (MRL) specifies re-transmission entries. It gives each node the
ability to know which updates have to be re-transmission.
Figure 4. Routing Table in WRP
WRP operates smoothly in information exchange among nodes. This means, it permits
propagation only between neighbours. Accordingly, the first update should ask all neighbours to
send an ACK. Consequently, when there is no updates, null update message called HELLO
message will be sent to the neighbours, where the time interval between two successive messages
is “HELLO Interval”. Each node in the network can decide to update its routing table after a new
update has been received from its neighbours or any changes in the link status with its neighbours
received. Accordingly, in case of receiving updates, they are processed in order. After that, the
node should generate a new update message toward its neighbours.
3.1.4. Summary of Proactive (Table-Driven) Routing Protocols
Updating procedure in MANETs consumes significant amount of network bandwidth in most of
table-driven routing protocols. Accordingly, global routing does not scale very well [1]. The
reason is, each node should update its routing information for all nodes belong to the same
network. This process should be repeated periodically to keep track to the last network topology
layout. Thus, the attractive difference between these protocols is the way they handle the view of
network topology. Thus, table 2 maintains the main advantages and disadvantages for the
examined proactive routing protocols.
Table 2. Basic Characteristics of Some Proactive Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
Protocol Advantages Disadvantages
DSDV (1) Loop free.
(2) Simple computationally efficient.
(1) Excessive communication overhead.
(2) Slow convergence.
(3) Tendency to create routing loops in
large networks overhead.
OLSR (1) Reduce size of update message
and number of transmissions than
a Pure link state routing protocol
(1) It requires information of both 1- hop
and 2- hop neighbors
WRP (1) Loop free.
(2) Lower worst case time complexity than
DSDV.
(1) Prevent sleep mode.
(2) A large amount of memory and
periodic hello message consumes power
and bandwidth.

21
3.2. Reactive Routing Protocols
Reactive routing protocols are designed to minimize routing overhead. It is also called, source-
initiated on-demand routing. Instead of tracking all changes in the network topology to determine
the shortest path to all destinations, on-demand protocols trigger this process only when
necessary. Mainly, these protocols perform two operations. First, ROUTING DISCOVERY which
is triggered when a node requires route to particular destination. Routing discovery process is
performed by source node (source-initiated). Second, ROUTING MAINTENENACE; Once a route
is established, it is maintained by routing maintenance until either the destination becomes
inaccessible along every path from the source or until the needs for route is finished.
The main advantage of on-demand nature operations is that it usually has lower average of
routing overhead if it is compared with proactive routing protocols. Due to that, reactive routing
protocols receive more attention than proactive routing protocols. Since they are more stable for
dynamic environments in MANET. Various parameters were used for reactive routing protocol
improvement to come up with the proactive technique circumstances shown in table 3.
Accordingly, these reactive on-demand protocols include: DSR [7], AODV [16], and ABR [19]
which described in the following subsections.
Table 3. Basic Characteristics of Some Reactive Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
Parameter DSR AODV ABR
Route Selection Metric Shortest Path
Updated Path
Shortest Path
Updated Path
Signal Strength or
Associativity And
Shortest Path
Routing Uniformity Uniform Uniform Uniform
Multiple Route Yes No Yes
Topology Structure Flat Flat Flat
Routing Update Time Event Driven Event Driven Event Driven
/Periodically
Update Information
Metric
Route Error Route Error Route Error
Beacon Yes No Yes
Loop Free Yes Yes Yes
Critical Nodes No No No
Route Reconfiguration Erase Route
and Inform
Source
Erase Route and
Inform Source
Alternate Route or
Localized
Broadcast Query
Until Find A Route
Control Overhead Low Low Low
3.2.1. Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR)
The Dynamic Source Routing protocol is one of reactive on demand routing protocols that is
based on distance vector technique. This protocol adopts the concept of source routing and
derived routing techniques in which the sender explicitly lists the complete sequence of nodes
required to reach destination in the packets header. This concept identifies each forwarding
“hop” using the address of the next node to which the transmitted packet will be advanced on its
way until it reaches its destination. DSR is explicitly initiated for wireless environments of an ad-
hoc network. It dynamically determines the routes needed to reach destination. Thereby, there is
no periodic advertisement in the protocol while it reduces the network overhead.
The basic operation of DSR protocol starts at sender node as it constructs a source routing in
packet’s header. After that, the sender transmits the packet to the first hop listed in the source

22
route of the received REPLY packets. The first hop node check whether it is the final destination
of the packet’s or not, and it simply transmits the packet to the next hop listed in the source route
in the packet’s header until the packet reaches its final destination.
To allow all nodes to participate in the ad-hoc routing, each one maintains its source routes in its
route cache. Accordingly, for any node willing to send a packet to another node, it first checks its
route cache for a source route to the destination. In case route is found, the sender uses it to
propagate the packet directly to the destination. These routes are discovered on demand using
process called Route Discovery as shown in figure 5.
Figure 5. Route Discovery in DSR
In route discovery operation, Route Request Packet is initiated for seeking a route to specified
destination. This packet contains information about the source and destination. According to that,
any node that receives a Route Request Packet first checks its route cache for any available
information about its listed destinations as shown in figure 5. Subsequently, the node adds its
identity to the header of Route Request Packet and then broadcasts it. When information is
available or Route Request Packet reach destination a Route Reply Packet will be sent back to the
source in reverse direction as illustrated in figure 6. This is simply done by copying the sequence
of nodes identities collected from Route Request Packet.
Figure 6. Route Reply Propagation in DSR

23
The Route Reply Packet contains the entire route to the destination which is recorded in the route
cache of the source node. On the case of link failure, the node that had detected the route break
sends ERROR Packet back to the source. In this case, all nodes in this sub-path including the
source will delete all existing information about this route from their route cache and a fresh route
discovery process will be initiated if a route is still needed.
3.2.2. Ad-Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV)
This protocol is considered as an improvement of the Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector
(DSDV). Unlike DSDV, AODV minimizes the number of required broadcasts as it creates and
maintains routes only when they are needed. Thus, it limits the time used for route acquisition.
The protocol uses traditional routing tables and only one entry per each destination. Also, it
utilizes sequence number to examine the freshness of the stored routes in routing table. Also, it
ensures loops free routing. Thus, each routing table entry is “expired” after a certain
predetermined threshold of time.
In contrast to DSR, AODV uses a different mechanism to create routes, when a source node
desires to send a message to another node whereas it does not already have a valid route to that
destination, it applies a path discovery operation to find out fresh valid path to that destination.
Accordingly, it broadcasts a route request packet to its neighbours, all nodes presented (between
source and destination) are occupied as intermediate nodes. Route Discovery operation is
completed either by any intermediate node which has a fresh enough valid route to the requested
destination or by the destination itself.
The path freshness is determined by the destination sequence number, which is compared with
available information in an intermediate node for a requested path. At this moment, if the
intermediate node does not have any information about that destination or it has entry for that
destination in its routing table with destination sequence number less than the one in route request
packet, it proceeds forwarding routing request to its neighbours until it reaches any node which
has valid route for that destination or it reaches destination itself. Route Discovery can be
finalized only by destination or intermediate node if its recorded entry sequence number is greater
than the one in Route Request. Consequently, it establishes unicast Route Reply Packet backward
along the reversed path from which it first receives the Route Request. Accordingly, every node
belongs to this path sets up its forwarding route entries in their routing tables which refer to the
node from which Route Reply came as shown in figure 7 and figure 8 respectively. Thus, valid
path will be achieved for forwarding process.
Figure 7. Route Request in AODV

24
Figure 8. Route Reply in AODV
Another operation is very important in AODV. That is, Routing Maintenance Operation, it
provides route recovery in case of path breaks due to link failure or node movements as shown in
figure 9. This failure cannot be handled locally. So, a special unsolicited route reply will be sent
to source node that initiates this broken path with fresh sequence number and hop count is set to
∞ [16]. This packet instantiated by those nodes where its next hop become unreachable, the
special route reply packet notifies all nodes in the path about the link breaks. Consequently, all of
these nodes reply that packet to their active neighbours and so on. At the time of reaching the
packet to the source, it can restart route discovery in case it still requires a path to that destination.
Figure 9. Routing Maintenance in AODV
3.2.3. Associativity-Based Routing Protocol (ABR)
ABR is one of reactive source-initiated routing protocols that employ an associativity-based
routing scheme where a route is selected according to the period of stability [19]. This interval of
time will be the metric which helps the destination to choose one from the available routes as the
best route for specific connection. The metric was defined on the basis of the movement time of
particular node as an unstable period. This process can be defined using associativity “ticks”
which is defined by Route Selection Rule. According to this rule, three different cases were
specified to gain with the best route:
• Case 1: choose the highest associativity “ticks” route.

25
• Case 2: if some routes have same highest associativity “ticks”, then the one with the
minimum hop-count will be chosen.
• Case 3: if some routes have same highest associativity “ticks” and same minimum hop-
count then any one of these routes will be arbitrary selected.
The route selection metric is executed as a consequence to first phase of ABR routing protocol.
Accordingly, two other phases are required to completely identify ABR routing protocol. These
phases are:
Route Discovery Phase:
It is considered as the first executed phase of ABR routing protocol. It computes the
approximation of the data throughput associated with any selected route. This operation depends
on the availability of knowledge about associative “ticks” for neighbours in the route. Also, the
relaying load of nodes supporting route should be known.
This phase initially, assumes there is no information about the designated Destination in all nodes
in the network except destination’s neighbours. In case any node needs a route to the Destination,
it broadcasts a special message called Broadcast Query (BQ) message. The BQ message will be
flooded throughout the entire network until it reaches any node that has a valid route to the
destination. To reduce the network overhead BQ message attached with a uniquely identified
sequence number where the amount of time BQ message transmitting should not exceed once.
Consequently, all intermediate nodes examine the uniqueness of the BQ message whether it
accessed before or not. According to that, if the node is not the destination, the node will append
its address in BQ message and pass it to its neighbours. Information like relaying load,
propagation delay of the link and the hop-count will be appended in BQ message for all
intermediate nodes between source and destination.
At the Destination side, ABR Route Selection Algorithm will be executed at an appropriate time
after receiving the first BQ message to select the best route from all possible known routes.
Accordingly, the Destination sends a REPLY packet through the selection route. All intermediate
nodes listed in reply packet update their routing information as a valid route. Otherwise the node
will not be able to forward any packet to that destination even if it hears the transmission. In this
case, no duplicate packets will reach destination.
Eventually, the source will send another BQ packet in case it never receives REPLY from
destination after predefined BQ-timeout. Accordingly, all intermediate nodes will consider the
new BQ packet according to its unique sequence number of the same destination.
Route Re-Construction Phase:
This phase is considered as a route maintenance phase. It performs a set of operations
implemented in ABR routing protocol, which are:
• Partial Route Discovery.
• Invalid Route Erasure.
• Valid Route Update.
• New Route Discovery.

26
In this protocol, the chosen route is more likely the one with long-lived that based on the property
of associativity. Accordingly, any unexpected moves should be recorded. The protocol will try to
locate alternative valid route quickly without re-broadcasting query message, unless necessary.
Route Deletion Phase:
It is counted as the last step in ABR routing protocol as it starts when a particular route is no
longer needed. To do this, the source initiates a route delete broadcast; accordingly, all
intermediate nodes update their routing entries.
3.2.4. Summary of Reactive (on-Demand) Routing Protocols
As on-demand routing protocol designed to minimize the high overheads of maintaining routing
information in proactive routing protocols, it applies routing discovery only for active and
required routes. Thus, the node can predict its connectivity to other nodes only on demand to
those nodes. As in proactive, all nodes participating on finding path when source requests that
path for designated destination. Reactive routing reduces the impact of network topology
consistency, since this is not required. This was the core idea of reactive routing technique. But,
latency time will be increase according to the route discovery process which increases the time
for delivering data to the destination. List of advantages and disadvantages of examined reactive
on demand routing protocol as shown in table 4.
Table 4. Basic Characteristics of Some Proactive Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols
Protocol Advantages Disadvantages
DSR (1) Multiple route
(2) Promiscuous overhearing
(3) No periodic hello message and fast
recover
(1) Scalability problems due to the
nature of source routing
(2) Large delay and large networks
overhead
AODV (1) Adaptable to highly dynamic topologies
(2)Uses bandwidth efficiently
(3)Loop free
(1) Scalability problems
(2) Large delay
ABR (1) Route stability
(2)Avoid packet duplicates
(3) No route reconstruction
(1) Operation complexity
(2) Communication complexity
(3) Scalability problems
3.3. Hybrid Routing Protocols
New generation of Routing protocols are generated to be adapted in mobile ad-hoc networks.
These protocols are come up with better balance between adaptability for various network
circumstances, conditions, and routing overhead. These protocols adapt the nature of reactive and
proactive routing techniques, where each will be applied under different conditions and regions. It
increases network scalability, since this improvement is achieved by taking the benefits of
dividing the network into zones or clusters and applying proactive routing concepts within each
zone or cluster, where reactive routing techniques are applied across different zones or clusters.
Thus, it takes the advantages of both pro- and reactive routing techniques to formulate new
routing protocol with better performance paradigm. Some of hybrid routing protocols are
described in the following subsection such as Zone Routing Protocol [5] and Landmark Ad-Hoc
Routing Protocol [3] and [4]. Also, a list of protocols parameters is shown in table 5.

27
Table 5. Basic Characteristics of Some Hybrid Ad-hoc Routing Protocols
Parameter ZRP LANMAR
Route Selection Metric Shortest Path Shortest Path or
Quite Close to Shortest
Path
Routing Uniformity Nonuniform Nonuniform
Multiple Route No Yes
Topology Structure Hierarchical Hierarchical
Routing Update Time Hybrid Hybrid
Update Information Metric Hybrid Hybrid
Beacon Yes Yes
Loop Free Yes Yes
Critical Nodes No Landmark
Control Overhead Medium Medium
3.3.1. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
Due to the scalability required for mobile ad-hoc network, Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) was the
first hybrid routing protocol which reduces the control overhead by applying proactive routing
protocols and decreases the latency that appears from routing discovery in reactive routing
protocols. So, it applies both proactive and reactive ad-hoc routing components.
ZRP was first introduced by Hass in 1997[5]; the key value of this protocol is the ability to divide
all networks members into a set of groups called zones. Each zone limited each node with k-hops
to reach the zone boundaries. To deploy this concept, ZRP found two types of protocols. First,
IntrA-zone Routing Protocol (IARP), it allows all nodes to update and maintain their routing
tables to contain consistent routes for all other nodes within the same zone. IARP was constructed
under the basis of proactive routing techniques. On the other hand, ZRP built IntEr-zone Routing
Protocol (IERP) according to reactive routing concepts to be used between routing zones.
Accordingly, for any required route regarding a specified destination located in local zone, source
can establish its route from its routing table that cached pro-actively by IARP. Then, the packet
can be delivered immediately since both source and destination belong to the same zone. But for
other routes beyond local zone, the source broadcasts a route request to those nodes located at the
zone border which are called peripheral nodes to communicate with other zone. Accordingly,
these peripherals check its local zone whether the requested node is a member of their local zone
or not. Consequently, peripherals will forward the request packet to the destination boarder nodes,
which will send a route reply on the reverse path back to the source with the full path from source
to the required destination. The total overhead of flooding such as path discovery is minimized
since it is based on a corporation between peripherals only.
3.3.2. Landmark Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol (LANMAR)
This protocol implements the adaptation of fixed wide area network. According to landmark
paradigm, the protocol does not require any predefined hierarchal addressing scheme; moreover,
it extracts the basis of landmark and modifies it to be applicable for ad-hoc environment. It adapts
the concept of landmark that handles group mobility. This scheme solves both mobility and
scalability problem. Also, the protocol uses routing scheme that implements some modification
on FSR. Since FSR allows each node to have information about the entire network. While
LANMAR gives the ability to keep information only about the nodes within the scope of
landmark nodes, where these landmarks are elected dynamically.
LANMAR maintains routing information within the group according to proactive link state
routing protocols. Also, a distance vector algorithm is used to maintain routing information

28
amongst all landmarks. So, every node has a full view about topology of its group where
distances of routing vector information to all landmarks are known.
Accordingly, nodes are willing to send a packet for specified destination placed within the same
group, the packet will deliver immediately to that destination, since the routing operation based
on the accurate routing information available in sender routing tables. Otherwise, the node will
pass the packet towards the landmark that corresponds to the destination group, where it may
route the packet to the destination directly.
The main advantage of LANMAR protocol is the ability to reduce the overall control overhead
through the trimming process of local routing tables. On the other hand, the overhead is totally
minimized by the concepts of summarizing routing information to remote groups of nodes.
3.4. Proactive vs. Reactive vs. Hybrid Routing
The trade-offs between ad-hoc routing strategies are quite complex. Table 6 shows different
parameters that can be taken into account while classifying ad-hoc routing protocols as mentioned
in figure 1. Accordingly, to identify which approach is better depends on many factors, such as
the size of the network, the mobility, the data traffic and so on. Most of proactive protocols
attempt to maintain routes to all possible destinations, whether they are needed or not. Thus, it is
continuously propagates and maintains routing information.
In contrast, reactive protocols initiate route discovery on the demand of data traffic. The only
routes required to those desired destinations. This routing approach can reduce routing overhead
when a network is almost static and the active traffic is not heavy. However, the source node has
to wait for routing discovery process to discover valid fresh route to the designated destination,
accordingly, increasing the response time.
The hybrid routing approach can adjust its routing strategies that adapt both proactive and
reactive techniques according to a network’s characteristics and thus provides an attractive
method for routing in MANETs. However, a network’s characteristics, such as the mobility
pattern and the traffic pattern, can be expected to be dynamic.
Table 6. Main Classification of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol
Parameter Proactive Reactive Hybrid
Network Architecture Flat/Hierarchical Flat Flat/Hierarchal
Topology Distribution Periodical When needed Both
Distribution Type Flooding Only from Src to Dest Both
Route Availability Instantaneously On-demand Based on destination
location
Route Latency Comprehensive Available on demand Both
Communication
Overhead
High Low Medium
Amount of Local
Information
Large Low Based on the node role
and cluster size
4. CONCLUSION
According to the characteristics of mobile ad-hoc networks, set of circumstances should be taken
into account when mobile ad-hoc network is required. These networks are based on specific needs
which specify their requirements. Network size, structure, movement speed, availability of
resources and much more, specify the network requirements and also, the type of ad-hoc that will

29
be built. Thus, the protocol uses play significant role and has high impact on the network
operations. Since it adjusts the overall networking operations under these circumstances.
Accordingly, this paper examines main categories of routing protocols Pro-active, Re-active, and
Hybrid routing protocols (Figure 1) that can be applied on MANETs. According to performance
metric and those circumstances, implementing such kind of protocols is not easy but it should be
simple as much as possible.
Since, all categories focus on the concept of reducing the control overheads. Reactive on-demand
protocols perform more efficiently than proactive table-driven protocols since it is not required to
have a consistent view of the network according to its rapid changes, while keeping this view
without any need will exhaust network bandwidth as well as network resources. So it is
beneficially to reduce control overhead by applying reactive routing techniques. But, according to
scalability issues, the reactive protocols do not work well. This opens the door for applying
hybrid routing protocols which is compromising between proactive and reactive techniques. This
category is suitable for large network where it takes its advantages from its ability to apply
hierarchal structure for ad-hoc environment. It simplifies routing management by taking kind of
adjustment between reactive and proactive routing techniques.
REFERENCES
[1] Abolhasan, M., T. Wysocki, and E. Dutkiewicz (2004). A review of routing protocols for mobile ad
hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks 2 (1), 1 - 22. DOI : "10.1016/S1570-8705(03)00043-X".
[2] Abramson, N. (1970). The aloha system: another alternative for computer communications. In
Proceedings of the November 17-19, 1970, fall joint computer conference, AFIPS '70 (Fall), New
York, NY, USA, pp. 281-285. ACM. DOI : “10.1145/1478462.1478502”.
[3] Gerla, M., X. Hong, and G. Pei (2000). Landmark routing for large ad hoc wire-less networks. In
Global Telecommunications Conference, 2000. GLOBECOM '00. IEEE, Volume 3, pp. 1702-1706
vol.3. DOI:”10.1109/GLOCOM.2000.891927”.
[4] Guangyu, P., M. Geria, and X. Hong (2000). Lanmar: landmark routing for large scale wireless ad
hoc networks with group mobility. In Mobile and Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, 2000.
MobiHOC. 2000 First Annual Work-shop on, pp. 11-18. DOI:”10.1109/MOBHOC.2000.869208”.
[5] Hass, Z. (1997). A new routing protocol for the reconfigurable wireless networks. In Universal
Personal Communications Record, 1997. Conference Record., 1997 IEEE 6th International
Conference on, Volume 2, pp. 562-566 vol.2. DOI:”10.1109/ICUPC.1997.627227”.
[6] Jacquet, P., P. Muhlethaler, T. Clausen, A. Laouiti, A. Qayyum, and L. Viennot (2001). Optimized
link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks. In Multi Topic Conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001.
Technology for the 21st Century. Proceedings. IEEE International, pp. 62-68. DOI:”10.1109/ INMIC.
2001.995315”.
[7] Johnson, D. B. and D. A. Maltz (1996). Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. In
Mobile Computing, pp. 153-181. Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers. DOI:”10.1007/978-0-585-29603-
6_5”.
[8] Jr., L. R. Ford. and D. R. Fulkerson (1962). Flows in Networks. Princeton University Press. ISBN:
9780691146676
[9] Jubin, J. and J. Tornow (1987). The darpa packet radio network protocols. Proceedings of the IEEE
75 (1), 21-32. DOI:”10.1109/PROC.1987.13702”.

30
[10] Latiff , L. and N. Fisal (2003). Routing protocols in wireless mobile ad hoc network - a review. In
Communications, 2003. APCC 2003. The 9th Asia-Pacific Conference on, Volume 2, pp. 600-604
Vol.2. DOI: ”10.1109/APCC.2003.1274428”.
[11] Macker, J. P. and M. S. Corson (1998, January). Mobile ad hoc networking and the ietf. SIGMOBILE
Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 2 (1), 9-14. DOI: “10.1145/584007.584015.
[12] Mohapatra, P. and S. V. Krishnamurthy (2005). Ad Hoc Networks Technologies and Protocols.
United States of America: Springer US. ISBN: 978-0-387-22689-7.
[13] Murthy, C. S. R. and B. Manoj (2004). Ad Hoc Wireless Networks: Architectures and Protocols.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall PTR. ISBN: 013147023X.
[14] Murthy, S. and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves (1996, October). An efficient routing protocol for wireless
networks. Mob. Netw. Appl. 1 (2), 183-197. DOI : ”10.1007/BF01193336”.
[15] Perkins, C. (2006). Ad hoc networking in the ietf. In Broadband Convergence Networks, 2006. BcN
2006. The 1st International Workshop on, pp. 1-35. DOI: “10.1109/BCN.2006.1662294”.
[16] Perkins, C. and E. Royer (1999). Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing. In Mobile Computing
Systems and Applications, 1999. Proceedings. WMCSA '99. Second IEEE Workshop on, pp. 90-100.
DOI: “10.1109/MCSA.1999.749281”.
[17] Perkins, C. E. and P. Bhagwat (1994). Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing
(dsdv) for mobile computers. pp. 234-244.
[18] Szkutak, P. M. (1985). Design of a survivable packet radio network control algorithm. In Military
Communications Conference, 1985. MILCOM 1985. IEEE, Volume 3, pp. 713-717. DOI:
“10.1109/MILCOM.1985.4795130:.
[19] Toh, C.-K. (1996). A novel distributed routing protocol to support ad-hoc mobile computing. In
Computers and Communications, 1996., Conference Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Fifteenth Annual
International Phoenix Conference on, pp. 480-486. DOI: “10.1109/PCCC.1996.493675”.
AUTHOR
Dr. Hatem S. A. Hamatta received his B.Sc. degree in Computer Science from Yarmouk
University, Irbid, Jordan, in 2003, the M.Sc. degree in Computer Science from University of
Jordan, Amman, Jordan, in 2006. He is currently pursuing his research work of PhD Degree
in Wireless Network Security from Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. Since 2006,
he has been with the faculty of the Department of Applied Sciences at Al-Balqa` Applied
University/Aqaba University College, Aqaba, Jordan; where he is currently Assistant
Professor and Dean Assistant for Development and Quality Assurance. His research interests include
Wireless Network Security, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and its routing issues, Intrusion Detection Systems
and Security Design Issues. He is also a member of ACM GOLD Affinity Group, Professional
Communication and Computer Society. Also, he is member of ACM and international Association of
Engineers.
Dr. Nabeel Mohammed Zanoon, He received his PhD in Computer System Engineering,
from South-West State University, Kursk, Russia, in 2011. He is faculty member with a Al-
Balqa’ Applied University since 2011; where he is currently Assistant Professor and Head
of Applied Sciences Department. Also, He is Director of the Computer Center and Cisco
Academy with Aqaba University College. He has published several researches in several
area, security of E-Banking, algorithm scheduling in Grid and Cloud, Meta-Grammar,
Hardware and Architectural Computer, Fiber Optical and Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.

31
Rasha M. Al-Tarawneh received her B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in Computer Science from
Al-Balqa` Applied University, Salt, Jordan, in 2008 and 2011 respectively. Since 2011, she
has been with the faculty of the Department of Applied Sciences at Al-Balqa` Applied
University/Aqaba University College, Aqaba, Jordan; where she is currently a full time
Lecturer.

Comparative Review for Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to Comparative Review for Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparative Review for Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks