Performance of Hybrid Routing Protocol for Adhoc Network under Bandwidth Constraints

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: ijcsiseditor

Categories

Technology > Emerging Technologies

Stats

views:: 111
posted:: 8/13/2010
language:: English
pages:: 9

Public Domain

Document Sample

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

PERFORMANCE OF HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR
ADHOC NETWORK UNDER BANDWIDTH CONSTRAINTS
A K Daniel R Singh J P Saini
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Principal
Computer Sc & Engg Department Department of CS & I T M M M Engineering College
M M M Engineering College M J P Rohilkhand University GORAKHPUR (U P) India
GORAKHPUR (U P) India BAREILLY (U P) India Jps_uptu@rediffmail.com
danielak@rediffmail.com rsiet2002@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: An Ad hoc network is a collection of network technology presents a great potential in
wireless mobile nodes dynamically forming a application domains where infrastructure deployment is
temporary network without the use of any existing expensive or not possible, like battlefield environments
network infrastructure or centralized administration. [1], transportation [2] or ambient intelligence scenarios
Routing protocols used inside ad hoc networks must [3]. Cornerstones of ad hoc networks are routing
be prepared to automatically adjust to an protocols. These protocols are specifically designed to
environment that can vary between the extremes of promote dissemination of routing information among
high mobility with low band width, and low mobility network nodes. The goal is to allow the creation of
with high bandwidth. In this paper, a bandwidth- communication links between any two network nodes
efficient multicast routing protocol for ad-hoc and responsible for enabling network communications.
networks is presented. A hybrid routing protocol While exchanging information, the nodes may continue
under bandwidth constraints (HRP-BC) has been to move, so the network must be prepared to adapt
proposed. The proposed protocol achieves low continually [4][5][6]. The network infrastructure
communication over head, and achieves high component such as repeaters or base-stations will
multicast efficiency this protocol has improved frequently be either undesirable or not directly
existing routing protocols by creating a mesh and reachable, the nodes must be prepared to organize
providing multiple alternate routes. The protocol themselves into a network and establish routes among
considered the following 1) Route setup as routing themselves without any outside support. In the simplest
Distance of path, 2) Load at the node as traffic and 3) cases, the nodes may be able to communicate directly
Bandwidth as queue length at the node. The with each other. However, ad hoc networks must also
proposed scheme utilizes the path information, support communication between nodes that are only
traffic and bandwidth resource information at each indirectly connected by a series of hops through other
node, for selection of route path, and compared to nodes. In general, an ad hoc network looks like a
traditional DSR schemes. The simulation results network in which every mobile node is potentially a
shows that the proposed HRP-BC protocol router, and all nodes run a routing protocol[7][8].
achieves better performance to the DSR protocol for Unfortunately, standard routing algorithms work poorly in
the maintenance overhead and the path reliability. It a mobile environment in which network topology
reduces congestion in network and improves changes may be drastic and frequent as the individual
bandwidth utilization. Thus provide efficient use of mobile nodes move. Such protocols are specifically
bandwidth in the ad hoc network. designed to work in absence of fixed infrastructures. In
order to promote dissemination of routing information,
nodes must cooperate and rely on each other to provide
Keywords MANET, Proactive, Reactive, Hybrid, bandwidth routing services. To allow the creation of communication
links between any two Network nodes, nodes can
INTRODUCTION function both as end-hosts within each node’s radio
An ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile range, and as intermediate routers for other network
nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without nodes far apart[9][10]. A link is a one hop connection
the use of any exiting network infrastructures or between two nodes. A set of links enabling the
centralized administration. Ad-hoc networks are self- communication between a source and a destination
configuring and self-maintaining networks that allow defines as multi-hop route. The applications running
dispensing of fixed infrastructures. The networks rely on inside network nodes communicate among them through
nodes cooperation for providing packet routing. Ad-hoc data flows and. exchanging of different types of data

90 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
packets in side the network. In ad hoc mobile networks, ease the entrance of new nodes. This property is their
routes are mainly multihop because of the limited radio biggest strength as well as their main security weakness.
propagation range and topology changes frequently and In this paper, the proposed HRP-BM protocol deals with
unpredictably since each network host moves randomly. the issue of reliable multicast to reduce the maintenance
The routing protocols can be divided into two types overhead increase the path stability, reducing the
reactive and proactive. The Reactive routing protocols congestion in mobile ad-hoc network and efficient use of
find a route on demand by flooding the network with bandwidth. The proposed protocol requires only a small
Route Request packets. Conversely, proactive routing number of control packets to setup and maintain
protocols maintain fresh lists of destinations and their multicast routes as well as a small number of packet
routes by periodically distributing routing tables , transmissions to deliver multicast packets to the
therefore routing is an integral part of ad hoc receivers, and has high multicast efficiency with low
communications, and has received interests from many communication overhead.
researchers. Furthermore, the wireless channel is also a The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
shared-access medium and the available bandwidth also problem statement is given in section II .The proposed
varies with the number of hosts contending for the model and algorithm to solve the problem is given in
channel. Due to its ease of deployment and no section III. The comparative results are discussed in
centralized control unit, mobile nodes can connect with section IV Finally, conclusions and future work are
each other in any form of network topology at discussed in Section V and VI respectively.
anytime[11][12]. All mobile nodes serve as routers and
maintain the dynamic time-varying network topology. In II.PROBLEM STATEMENT: ROUTING AND
MANETs, multicasting service plays an important role in
bandwidth saving for some applications such as
BAND WIDTH MANAGEMENT IN ADHOC
emergent events one to- one unicast transports. NETWORKS
Without multicast capability, data Stream must be Ad hoc network has emerged as one of the most
sent to all receivers by multiple unicast connections. focused research areas in the field of wireless networks
Several researches deal with this issue recently. The and mobile computing. Ad hoc networks consist of hosts
network utilization will become inefficient and much more communicating one another with portable radios The
transmission and control overheads will be introduced basic routing problem is that of finding an ordered series
[13]. There are many multicast protocols in traditional of intermediate nodes that can transport a packet across
wired networks such as Distance Vector Multicast a network from its source to its destination by forwarding
Routing Protocol(DVMRP [14][15][16], Multicast the packet along the series of intermediate nodes. In
extension to the Open Shortest Path First , Core Based traditional hop-by-hop solutions to the routing problem,
Trees (CBT) [17], Protocol Independent Multicast,. each node in the network maintains a routing table. For
Core Based Tree (CBR) is a tree based multicast each known destination, the routing table lists the next
protocol.[18] The main idea of this protocol is to find a node to which a packet for the destination should be
nearest forwarding node to replace with finding the sent. The routing table at each node can be thought of
shortest path between the source node and the receiving as part of a distributed data structure that, taken
node for decreasing the number of packet transmission. together, represents the topology of the network. The
Multicast Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing goal of the routing protocol is to ensure that the overall
Protocol (MAODV) [20] is a modified version of AODV data structure contains a consistent and correct view of
[19]. In MAODV, each node of MANET must send the actual network topology. If the routing tables at some
control packets periodically to maintain the topology. nodes were to become inconsistent, then packets can
Weight-Based Multicast Protocol is also a tree based loop in the network. If the routing tables were to contain
multicast protocol Bandwidth-Efficient Multicast Routing incorrect information, then packets can be dropped. The
Protocol (BEMRP) [21]. However, it not only considers problem of maintaining a consistent and correct view
the transmission hop but also considers the overhead becomes harder as there is an increase in the number of
of the forwarding path. Generally, the above schemes nodes whose information must be consistent, and as the
consider the multi path connection at routing layer and rate of change in the true topology increases. The
leave the issue of reliable transmission being dealt with challenge in creating a routing protocol for Ad hoc
at upper layer.[22][23] Dynamic change in topology networks is to design a single protocol that can adapt to
with time in MANET gives ,several issues, such as the wide variety of conditions present inside ad hoc
processing overhead, packets collisions, and route networks. For example, the bandwidth available between
maintaining, need to be overcome Network population two nodes in the network may vary from more than 10
and node density are important concerns for ad-hoc Mbps, when using high-speed network interfaces with
networking; the higher the population and node density, little interference, to 10 Kbps or less when using low-
the higher the probability to reach any network node speed network interfaces or when there is significant
[24][25] [26]. Ad hoc networks are thus conceived to interference from outside sources or other nodes’

91 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
transmitters. Similarly, nodes in an Ad hoc network may source routes to control the forwarding of packets
alternate between periods when they are stationary with through the network. The key advantage of a source
respect to each other and periods when change routing design is that intermediate nodes do not need to
topology, rapidly conditions across a single network may maintain consistent global routing information, since the
also vary, so that some nodes are slow moving, while packets themselves already contain all the routing
others change location rapidly. The routing protocol must decisions. Beyond this, the source route on each packet
perform efficiently in environments in which nodes are describes a path through the network. Therefore, with a
stationary and bandwidth is not a limiting factor. Yet, the cost of no additional packets, every node overhearing a
same protocol must still function efficiently when the source route learns a way to reach all nodes listed on
bandwidth available between nodes is low and the level the route [27] [28].
of mobility and topology change high. Because it is often
impossible to know a priori what environment the III DESIGN SPACE AND PROPOSED
protocol will find itself in, and the environment can ALGORITHM
change unpredictably, the routing protocol must be able The proposed multicast routing protocol requires low
to adapt automatically. Most routing protocols include at Communication overhead since it does not require
least some periodic behaviors, meaning that there are periodical transmission of control packets. Most of the
protocol operations that are performed regularly at some existing multicast routing protocols, such as DVMRP
interval regardless of outside events. These periodic (Distance-Vector Multicast Routing Protocol) [8] and
behaviors typically limit the ability of the protocols to FGMP (Forwarding Group Multicast Protocol) [9], require
adapt to changing environments. If the periodic interval periodical transmission of control packets in order to
is set too short, the protocol will be inefficient as it maintain multicast group membership and multicast
performs its activities more often than required to react routes, thereby wasting a lot of bandwidth. In the
to changes in the network topology. If the periodic proposed protocol, route setup and route recovery are
interval is set too long, the protocol will not react invoked only when they are required route setup process
sufficiently to changes in the network topology quickly is invoked only when a new node joins a multicast group,
and lost packets Periodic protocols can be designed to and route recovery process is invoked only when a
adjust their periodic interval to try to match the rate of multicast route breaks due to the node movements.
change in the network, but this approach will suffer from Further, in the route recovery process, control packets
the overhead associated with the tuning mechanism and used to recover multicast routes are flooded only to
the lag between a change in conditions and the selection limited network area scoped by TTL (time-to-live). In our
of a new periodic interval. In the worst case, which protocol, bandwidth level at a node is used as TTL
consists of bursts of topology change followed by stable .Limiting the scope of route search further decreases the
periods, adapting the periodic interval could result in the communication overhead since control packets are not
protocol using a long interval during the burst periods flooded to the entire network but only to just previous
and a short interval in the stable periods. This worst case node (predecessor node)MAODV (Multicast Ad-hoc On
may be fairly common, for example, as when a group of Demand Distance Vector) also tries to minimize the
people enter a room for a meeting, are seated for the communication overhead by invoking the route discovery
course of the meeting, and then stand up to leave at the process on-demand. However, unlike the proposed
end. The alternative to a periodic routing protocol is one protocol, MAODV ignores multicast efficiency.
that operates in an on-demand fashion. On-demand
protocols are based on the premise that if a problem or The proposed multicast routing protocol also achieves
inconsistent state can be detected before it causes high multicast efficiency, i.e., it requires a small number
permanent harm, then all work to correct a problem or of multicast transmissions. Multicast transmission is kept
maintain consistent state can be delayed until it is minimal by keeping the number of forwarding nodes
proven to be needed. They operate using the same small. Forwarding nodes are the nodes which
“lazy” philosophy as optimistic algorithms. The Dynamic broadcasts (forwards) multicast packets to neighboring
Source Routing protocol (DSR) is unique among the nodes. Most of the existing multicast Routing protocols
current set of routing protocols for ad hoc networks in use unicast protocols such as DSDV (Destination
the way it avoids periodic behavior, and in the way it Sequenced Distance Vector) and AODV (Ad hoc On
solves the routing information consistency problem. First, Demand Distance Vector) to select the shortest paths
DSR is completely on-demand, which causes the from a source to each receiver. For example, in CBT
overhead of the protocol to automatically scale directly (Core Based Tree) and PIM (Protocol Independent
with the need for reaction to topology change. This Multicast) based protocols when a new node needs to
dramatically lowers the overhead of the protocol by join a multicast group, these unicast protocols are used
eliminating the need for any periodic activities, such as to set up the shortest path to a core . In FGMP
the route advertisement and neighbor detection packets forwarding nodes are selected along the shortest paths
that are present in other protocols. Second, DSR uses chosen by these unicast protocols. In multicast

92 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
environment, using the shortest paths from a source to
each receiver does not always result in efficient III (A) DESIRED CHARACTERISTIC FOR
multicast. Unlike these existing multicast protocols, the PATH SELECTION
proposed protocol does try to find a shortest path,
instead, it tries to find the nearest forwarding node in the 1. Distance of selected path is minimum or
multicast group when a node wants to join the group. optimum.
Nodes along the path between the nearest forwarding 2. Load in selected path is minimum or optimum and
node and the new node become new forwarding nodes. load at intermediate node is less than threshold of
This results that the minimum number of forwarding B.
nodes are added. In addition, the proposed protocol 3. Queue length at intermediate nodes of the path is
provides a mechanism to detect unnecessary forwarding minimum or optimal.
nodes and delete them from a multicast group. Due to Distance is based in the number of hop counts.
the dynamic nature of ad-hoc environment, there may be Queue Length is known to all the nodes, and while
unnecessary forwarding nodes in a multicast group. transferring the queue length, the maximum of all queue
Route optimization process employed in the proposed length at intermediate nodes in path is stored only. As a
protocol can detect and delete them from a multicast node can transfer only one packet at time, thus the
group to reduce unnecessary transmissions of multicast queue length can be used to estimate the available
packets. This further increases multicast efficiency. bandwidth, as we are not considering multiplexing of
Hybrid routing protocols combines the advantages of data at the nodes. Thus, the position of paths in
proactive and of reactive routing. The routing is initially bandwidth list will be similar to the position of path in
established with some proactively prospected routes and queue length list.
then serves the demand from additionally activated
nodes through reactive flooding.
III (B) CONTROL PACKET DETAILS:
It have the following tables and functions
PROPOSED MODEL
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) has with available
bandwidth B and number of nodes be n and distance
(I) ROUTING TABLE CONSTRUCTION:
between nodes is D and load at each node be L. Whenever a mobile node enters a wireless network it
The following figure shows the wireless network of five would broadcast a notification packet with fields as
nodes as Base Station, shown in fig. – 2
B= Total Available Bandwidth
ni=Nodes Name(Base Station) Node No. Distance Queue Flag
Qi=Length of queue at node ni length (00)
Mi=Total number of users at node ni ( Base Station)
Fig. – 2 Notification packet

Initially the distance field value is initialized to 1 and
n2 n4 queue length is initialized to 0 and node number is
calculated from the IP address and subnet mask.
Arithmetic to calculate the node number is to apply AND
n1 operation on complement of subnet mask and IP
address. Flag field is a 2-bit field and its set to 00 for
notification packet. The receiving node, would match
node no. of the received packet from their table, if it don’t
have this node no. registered in its table, it would add a
n3 n5 row. An example of table construction is shown in Fig. –
3
Fig 1 (II) PATH CONSTRUCTION
Now when a nodes get a packet to transmit to some
So in order to select path from n1 to n5 other node then it calculate the node number of the
1. P1:n1-n2-n4 –n5, or destination node, if it has entry of this node in its routing
2. P2:n1-n3-n5, or table then it would simply send packet to it otherwise it
3. P3:n1-n2-n3-n4-n5, or would broadcast the route request(RREQ) packet(Fig. –
4. P4:n1-n2-n3-n5, or 4) with unique sequence no., its node no. as the sender
5. P5:n1-n2-n4-n3–n5 or and route source node no. the flag is set as 01 for
6. P6:n1-n3-n4-n5, RREQ. The node receiving RREQ would then check its
table for destination node, if it has entry then it sends the

93 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
route reply packet (RREP) (Fig. – 5) packet with its
sequence no. as that of RREQ packet, it’s node number Sequ Path Route Destina Dist- Queue Flag
in the path field, distance increased by one from the ence data Source tion ance Length (10)
value in its routing table in the distance field, it’s queue No. Node No. Node
length in the queue length field and flag as 10 to the No.
sender node number of RREQ packet, and then
multicast the RREQ packet with changed sequence no Fig. – 4 Route Request Packet (RREQ)
and its node no. as sender node no. to all the nodes in
its routing table except of sender node no. and
destination node no and save this information of original
sequence no., modified sequence no. sender node no.
and route source node no. in its memory. Even if the Path data Destination Route Data Flag
node receiving RREQ does not have the entry of Node No. Source (11)
destination node in its routing table then also it would Node
multicast it to other node, in its table, except for sender No.
node, route source node number and destination node
no in the same manner as described before. The node Fig. – 5 Route Reply Packet (RREP)
receiving route reply packet checks to see if it itself is
route source node number. If it is not the route source
node no. then it would match the sequence no. and Sequence Sender Route Destination Flag
route source node no. in its memory to retrieve the No. Node Source Node No. (01)
original sequence no. and sender node no. and it sends No. Node No.
the route reply packet to the sender node no. with
sequence no. as

Fig. – 6 Message Packet
104 1 0 105 1 0
103 1 0 103 1 0 retrieved sequence no. and append its own node no. to
the path data field and queue field value is set either to
101 1 0 102 1 0 value of queue length field of received RREP packet or
103 1 0 102 0 0 104 0 0 the its queue length value from the routing table
depending upon whichever is maximum.
102 1 0
The route source node on receiving any of the, RREP
101 0 0 n2 n4 packet will save it in its path list as shown in Fig. – 7.

n1 P1 N1 N2 N4 N5

- N1 N3 N5
n3 n5

- N
N11 NN2 NN3 NN4 NN5
2 3 4 5
103 0 0 105 0 0
101 1 0 103 1 0
- N1 N2 N3 N5
102 1 0 104 1 0
104 1 0
P6 N1 N3 N4 N5
105 1 0

Fig. – 3 Construction of Routing Table

Fig – 7 Path list at the Route Source Node

94 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

(III) ALGORITHM: ROUTES MAIN-TENANCE D_no. (Destination Node No. ) = D_node
F (Flag ) = 0 1
Input : Routing Table: RTable [] [], MessagePacket :M[], 24. Make an entry in system database with field
Destination Node No. : D_node , Boolean variable values
Flag=0 New_Seq = Seq in step 23
1. Start Old_Seq = RREQ.Seq
2. Len=Length[M] RS_No. = RREQ.RS_No.
3. If ( ( M [ Len – 2 ] = = 1 ) AND (M [ Len – 1 ] = = D_No. = RREQ.D>No.
1) )/*Message packet received*/ Sender = RREQ.SNo.
4. For I = 0 to Length [RTable] 25. End If
5. If (RTable [i] [0] = = D_node ) 26. If (( M [ Len – 2 ] = = 1 ) AND (M [ Len – 1 ] = =
6. Transmit M to D_node 0 )) /*Route reply packet received*/
7. Flag = 1 27. If ( RREP.RS_No. = = Node_No.)
8. Break 28. Add Path data of RREP to the path Linked List
9. End If at the node.
10. End For 29. Else
11. If (! Flag ) 30. Insert its node no. in path data of RREP
12. Broadcast RREQ packet with field values as 31. If ( RREP.Q_Len < RTable[0][2])
Seq (Sequence NO. ) = System generated no. 32. RREP.Q_Len=RTable[0][2]
S_No.( Sender node_no.) = self node no. 33. End If
Rs No. ( Route Source Node no. ) = Self
34. Retrieve sender node no. and Sequence number
Node
D_no. (Destination Node No. ) = D_node from database by RREP.Seq,
F (Flag ) = 0 1 RREP.S_no.
13. End If 35. RREP.Seq=Sequence no. of step 33
14. If (( M [ Len – 2 ] = = 0 ) AND (M [ Len – 1 ] = = 36. Send RREP to sender node of sep 33
1 )) )/*Route request packet received*/ 37. End If
15. For I = 0 to Length [RTable] 38. End If
16. If (RTable [i] [0] = = D_node ) 39. Stop.
17. Send RREP to S_No. with Field values
Seq ( Sequence No) = RREQ.Seq (IV) ALGORITHM: PATH SELECTION
Pd ( Path Data ) = stack implementation (
with self node no on top ) Consider the following paths selection rules
Rs No. ( Route Source Node no. ) =  Arrange all the possible paths in ascending
RREQ.Rs No. order of queue length, load and distance,
D_no. (Destination Node No. ) = RREQ . consider only paths which has load lower
DNo. than threshold.
D ( Distance ) = RTable [i] [1] +1  Take the sum of position of the path in the
Q_Len (Queue Length) = RTable [i] [2] three lists and finally select the path with
F ( Flag ) = 1 0 lowest sum.
18. Flag = 1  In case if minimum sum of position in the
19. Break three lists calculated in step (ii) is more than
20. End If one then the following preference order is
21. End For used for selection of an optimal path.
22. If ( ! Flag )
23. Multicast RREQ packet to all except for sender
Queue Length > Load > Distance of path
node no , route source node no and destination
node no with field values The queue length (Bandwidth Concept) of each node
Seq (Sequence NO. ) = System generated no. in the fig-1 is as follows
S_No.( Sender node_no.) = self node no. Q1=10, Q2=12, Q3=15, Q4=9, Q5=5
Rs No. ( Route Source Node no. ) = Self Node

95 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
Thus the queue length and distance of paths are a multicast packet sets RTS flags of its neighbors, and
shown in table-1 as details of Paths. each intended receiver sets CTS flags of its neighbors.
The broadcast uses flooding, technique and only RTS
Queue flags are set by the sending node, and CTS flags are not
Distance Path
Length set by any node. Therefore, in broadcast, collision may
3 P1 :n1-n2-n4–n5 10 occur. However, collisions are ignored in our simulation.
The simulated network area is a N x N meter square,
2 P2 :n1-n3-n5 15 and M mobile nodes are roaming randomly in all
4 P3 :n1-n2-n3-n4- 15 directions at a predefined speed in this area. Each node
has a finite buffer, and packets are lost when buffer
3 P4 :n1-n2-n3-n5 15 overflow occurs. Control packets have higher priority
P5 n1-n3-n4- over data packets in simulations1. Propagation delay is
3 15
n5 assumed to be negligible, and it is assumed that packets
P6 :n1-n2-n4- always arrive without any bit error. A multicast group has
4 15
n3-n5 one source and a number of receivers. The source node
generates multicast packets at a constant rate Extensive
Table 1 simulation results obtained by varying several network
Arranging the paths in ascending order with respect parameters and workload configuration. The values of
to Distance, load and queue length as follows in the the network parameters used in simulations are those
table with their position Table 2 specified in the IEEE 802.11. In this scenario we
evaluate the performance improvement in terms
Queue throughput due to the use of multiple channels in a
Position Distance Load
Length densely populated network. Specifically, we consider a
1 P2 P1 P1 network of 5 to 20 Base Stations with 20 to 80 mobile
nodes with an increasing number of neighbors from 5 to
2 P1 P2 P2
20 Base Station. Each node has a traffic flow with infinite
3 P4 P3 P3 demands towards one of its neighbors. In Fig. 9 to Fig.
4 P3 P4 P4 13.We show the some of throughput of all traffic flows,
5 P5 P5 P5 with available Channel Bandwidth.
6 P6 P6 P6
Traffic Load VS Packet Drop
Table 2
Packet Throughput Ratio

0.996
0.994
0.992
The sum of position of path in the three lists (distance, 0.99
load and queue length) 0.988
0.986
For p1: (2+1+1) =4 0.984
For p2: (1+2+2) =5 0.982
0.98
For p3: (4+3+3) =10 20 40 50 60
For p4: (3+4+4) =11 Mobile Node
Band Width -Cutoff 0.4 Band Width -Cutoff 0.5
For p5: (5+5+5) =15 Band Width -Cutoff 0.6
For p6: (6+6+6) =18
Fig-9
From above calculation it is clear that the sum of
position of path P1 in the three lists is minimum hence
path P1 is selected.

IV SIMULATION RESULTS
In simulation, a flat network is assumed as clusters. For
unicast, before a node sends a unicast packet, it sets
RTS (Request-to- Send) flags of its neighbors and the
intended receiver sets CTS (Clear-to-Send) flags of its
neighbors. Nodes whose RTS or CTS flag is set cannot
transmit data, except the sender. When the sender
finishes sending the data, RTS/CTS flags are cleared by
the nodes which originally set those flags. Similar
scheme is used in multicasting .The node wants to send Fig. – 10

96 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
Comparision Between Drop OverHead VS Nodes
that of the DSR scheme for the maintenance overhead
30 and the path reliability, Thus reducing the congestion in
network and improving bandwidth utilization.
Drop O ver Head

25
20
15
VI FUTURE SCOPE
10
5 In future there can be further evaluation of proposed
0 scheme by using more realistic mobility of nodes in the
20 30 40 50 60 simulation. It is believed that advantage of providing
Nodes HRP-BC DSR traffic information will be significant in those
environments.
Fig-11 VII REFERENCES
[1] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz. Dynamic source
Performance of Overhead VS Mobile Nodes routing in ad-hoc wireless networks. Mobile Computing
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
30
[2] C-K Toh. Wireless ATM and Ad-Hoc Networks:
Protocols and Architectures. Kluwer Academic
25
Publishers, 1997
[3] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat. Highly Dynamic
20
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV)
R u gO e e d
o tin v rh a

for Mobile Computers, SIGCOMM Conf. Proc, 1994.
15 [4] S. Corson and A. Emphremides. A Distributed
Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks,
10 ACM/Baltzer Wireless Networks J., vol. 1, no.1, 1995.
[5] S. Murthy and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves. A Routing
5 Protocol for Packet Radio Networks, MOBICOM, 1995
[6] R. Dube et. Al. Signal Stability-Based Adaptive
0 Routing (SSA) for Ad Hoc Mobile Network, IEEE
30 40 50
Mobile Nodes
60 80
Personal Communications, 1997
HRP-BC-5( BS)
DSR-10-(BS)
DSR-5-(BS)
HRP-BC-15(BS)
HRP-BC-10(BS)
DSR-15(BS)
[7] Z. J. Hass. A New Routing Protocol for the
HRP-BC-20(BS) DSR-20(BS)
Reconfigurable Wireless Network, ICUPC, 1997
[8] S. E. Deering and D. R. Cheriton. Multicast Routing in
Fig-12 Datagram Internetworks andExtended LANs. ACM
Transaction on Computer Systems, May 1990.
Data Delivery Loss Ratio VS Range [9] C-C. Chiang and M. Gerla. On-Demand Multicast in
3 Mobile Wireless Networks Proceedings of IEEE ICNP
Data Delivery Loss

2.5 '98, 1998
2
[10] C-C. Chiang and M. Gerla. Routing and Multicast in
Ratio

1.5
1 Multihop, Mobile Wireless Networks Proceedings of
0.5
0
ICUPC '97, 1997
170 190 210 230 250 [11] C-C. Chiang, M. Gerla and L Zhang. Shared Tree
Range Wireless Network Multicast. Proceedings of IEEE 6th
Nodes 20 Nodes 50 Nodes 100 International Conference on Computer Communications
and Networks (ICCCN'97), 1997.
[12]C. E. Perkins. Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector
Fig-13 (AODV) routing Proceedings of the IEEE 1997
[13] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic
V CONCLUSION source routing in ad hoc wireless networks Technical
report, Carnegie Mellon Unity, 1996
The proposed HRPBC protocols will mostly select the [14] D. Waitzman, C. Partridge, and S. Deering,
optimal path for transmission of packets from source to “Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP)”,
destination in wireless Ad-hoc networks and adopts RFC 1075, Nov. 1988
the path information kept at each node with bandwidth [15] B. Quinn, and K. Almeroth, “IP Multicast
information. It is compared to traditional DSR schemes. Applications: Challenges and Solutions”, RFC 3170,
The simulation show that the proposed HRPBC Sep. 2001
protocol achieve the above objectives and is superior to

97 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010
[16] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat. Highly dynamic
Destination- Sequenced Distance-Vector routing (DSDV)
for mobile computers. Proceedings of the SIGCOMM
’94, page 234-244, August 1994.
[17] T. Ballardie, P. Francis, and J. Crowcroft. Core
Based Tree (CBT) an architecture for scalable
interdomain multicast routing. Proceeding of ACM
SIGCOM, 1993
[18] A. Ballardie, “Core Based Trees (CBT version 2)
Multicast Routing Protocol Specification”, RFC 2186,
Sep. 1997.
[19] C. PERKINS, E.ROYER AND S. DAS Ad hoc On-
demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, RFC
[20] E. M. Royer and C. E. Perkins. Multicast Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (MAODV) Routing . draftietf.
manet-maodv-00.txt, July 2000.
[21] T. Ozaki, J. B. Kim, and T. Suda, “Bandwidth-
Efficient Multicast Routing for Multihop, Ad-Hoc Wireless
Networks”, in IEEE INFOCOM, 2001.
[22] E. M. Royer, and Charles E. Perkins,” Multicast
Operation of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
Routing Protocol”, Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM
1999, pp. 207-218
[23] Zbigniew Dziong, Marek Juda, and Lorne G.
Mason. ] ” A Framework for Bandwidth Management in
ATM Networks -Aggregate Equivalent Bandwidth
Estimation Approach” pp 134-146
[24] Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector - M.
Marina, S. Das: On-demand Multipath Distance Vector
Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of the 2001
IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols
(ICNP) IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001.
[25] Guangyu Pei and Mario Gerla and Xiaoyan Hong
Ching-Chuan Chiang, A Wireless Hierarchical Routing
Protocol with Group Mobility, IEEE WCNC'99, New
Orleans, USA, September 1999.
[26] C. E. PERKINS, P. BHAGWAT Highly Dynamic
Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) for
Mobile Computers Proc. of the SIGCOMM 1994
Conference on Communications Architectures, Protocols
and Applications, Aug 1994,.
[27]Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group Charter,
Chaired by Joseph Macker and M. Scott Corson
[28] J. Jubin and J.D. Tornow, “The DARPA Packet
Radio Network Protocols,” Proceedings of the IEEE,
2007

98 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500