The International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS) is a well-established publication venue on novel research in computer science and information security. The year 2010 has been very eventful and encouraging for all IJCSIS authors/researchers and IJCSIS technical committee, as we see more and more interest in IJCSIS research publications. IJCSIS is now empowered by over thousands of academics, researchers, authors/reviewers/students and research organizations. Reaching this milestone would not have been possible without the support, feedback, and continuous engagement of our authors and reviewers. Field coverage includes: security infrastructures, network security: Internet security, content protection, cryptography, steganography and formal methods in information security; multimedia systems, software, information systems, intelligent systems, web services, data mining, wireless communication, networking and technologies, innovation technology and management. ( See monthly Call for Papers) We are grateful to our reviewers for providing valuable comments. IJCSIS December 2010 issue (Vol. 8, No. 9) has paper acceptance rate of nearly 35%. We wish everyone a successful scientific research year on 2011. Available at http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ IJCSIS Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 Edition ISSN 1947-5500 � IJCSIS, USA.
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 Routing Fairness in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks : Analysis and Enhancement MANIYAR SHIRAZ AHMED1, HAJI MOINUDDIN2, FAZEELATUNNISA 3 1 Lecturer, Department of Computer Science & Information Systems, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 2 Lecturer, Department of Computer Science & Information Systems, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com http://www.hajimoinuddin.co.nr/ 3 Lecturer, Department of Computer Science & Information Systems, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com Abstract: With the rapid advances in wireless and semiconductor technologies mobile connectivity became cheap and ubiquitous. One of the major challenges facing Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (also known as MANETs) is the absence of a proper routing protocol that provides good fairness and scalability, low overhead, low end-to-end delays, seamless connectivity and good quality of service. This paper studies the fairness of routing protocols for MANETS. In this paper we propose routing segments methods to solve the problem of lack of fairness in routing. Keywords: MANETS, Fairness, Segments, Scalability I. INTRODUCTION Mobile routing protocols have been attracting the attention of a major section of the Wireless devices are becoming research community as is evident from the large ubiquitous, with the ever increasing advances in number of ongoing projects at various wireless and mobile computing. Improved universities and institutions on this topic. protocols must be developed to support these Numerous architectures have been proposed new mobile devices/ MANETS and to see earlier that these devices do not overload the existing infrastructure network. The effort in this II. RELATED WORK endeavor is to provide anytime, anywhere connectivity for unlimited mobile devices Routing protocols form the heart of any without overloading the associated infrastructure MANET, which have not evolved as much to networks. support a large amount of mobile units. The Most protocols in place suffer from low performance of most routing protocols degrades quality of service and overload the network with with the increase in mobile nodes, leading to a large percentage of overhead (control data) higher end-to-end delay, more dropped packets when compared to the data packets. Any and low quality of service (QoS). improvement in the routing protocol should be an Dynamic routing protocols can be extendable architecture to support high number classified in several ways. Basically it is of mobile units and at the same time ensures a classified into two (a) exterior protocols versus good quality of service. interior protocols, and (b) distance-vector versus 95 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 link-state protocols. The first classification is and how they use the information to form their based on where a protocol is intended to be used: routing tables. Most protocols fit into one of two between your network and another's network, or categories. within your network. The second classification has to do with the kind of information the The first of these categories is distance-vector protocol carries and the way each router makes protocols. In a distance-vector protocol, a router its decision about how to fill in its routing table. periodically sends all of its neighbor’s two pieces of information about the destinations it knows (a) Exterior vs. Interior Protocols how to reach. First, the router tells its neighbors how far away it thinks the destination is; second, Dynamic routing protocols are generally it tells its neighbors what direction (or vector) to classified as an exterior gateway  protocol use to get to the destination. This direction (EGP) or an interior gateway protocol (IGP). indicates the next hop that a listener should use An exterior protocol carries routing information to reach the destination, and typically takes the between two independent administrative entities, form "send it to me, I know how to get there." such as two corporations or two universities. For example, RIP route updates simply list a set Each of these entities maintains an independent of destinations that the announcing router knows network infrastructure and uses an EGP to how to reach, and how far away it thinks each communicate routing information to the other. destination is. The receiver infers that the next Today, the most common exterior protocol is the hop to use is the announcing router. However, an Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). It is the update can also take the form "send it to this primary exterior protocol used between networks other router who knows how to get there." This connected to the Internet, and was designed second form is usually used only when the router specifically for such purposes. that should be used to reach the destination cannot (or will not) speak the routing protocol In contrast, an interior protocol is used within a being used by the other routers. Not all routing single administrative domain, or among closely protocols support this form of third-party route cooperating groups. In contrast to the exterior update. protocols, IGPs tend to be simpler and to require less overhead in a router. Their primary The other part of the protocol, the distance, is drawback is that they cannot scale to extremely where distance-vector protocols differ. In each large networks. The most common interior case, the protocol uses some metric to tell the protocols in IP networks are the Routing receiving routers how far away the destination is. Information Protocol (RIP), Open Shortest Path This metric may be a true attempt at measuring First (OSPF), and the Enhanced Interior Gateway distance (perhaps using a periodic measure of the Routing Protocol (EIGRP). The first two are round trip time to the destination), something open standards adopted or developed by the that approximates distance (such as hop count), Internet community, while the third is a or it may not measure distance at all. Instead, it proprietary protocol designed by Cisco Systems may attempt to measure the cost of the path to for use on their routers. the destination. It may even involve a complex computation that takes into account factors like (b) Distance-Vector vs. Link-State network load, link bandwidth, link delay, or any Protocols other measure of the desirability of a route. Finally, it may include an administrative weight Another way to classify dynamic routing that is set by a network administrator to try to protocols is by what the routers tell each other, cause one path to be preferred over another. 96 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 In any case, the metric allows a router that hears traverse the link. For example, a given link might about a destination from multiple routers to not be allowed to carry confidential information. select the best path by comparing the "distance" of the various alternatives. How the comparison Distance-vector and link-state protocols have is made depends heavily upon how metric is their own strengths and weaknesses. In a computed. For example, the metric in RIP route properly functioning and configured network, updates is defined to be a hop count, in which either type yields a correct determination of the one hop is supposed to represent handling by one best path between any two points. router. A destination with a hop count of 16 is considered unreachable. When a router receives RIP updates from different routers referring to III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL the same destination network, it selects the router that is announcing the lowest metric. If this Binding refers to keeping the network metric is lower than the metric for the route that together, issuing routing updates, keeping track is currently in its routing table, the router of nodes entering and exiting the network etc. As replaces its routing table entry with the new the size of the MANET increases, the control information from the other router. traffic also increases. When nodes are tasked with binding the network as well as data transfer, In contrast, in a link-state protocol, a router does bottlenecks are created within the network not provide information about destinations it leading not only to battery drain out but slow knows how to reach. Instead, it provides network performance and unfairness in routing. information about the topology of the network in Hence it is critically important to disassociate its immediate vicinity. This information consists both of these functionalities to prevent node of a list of the network segments, or links, to failures due to bottle necks and also unfairness which it is attached, and the state of those links and low power conditions. We also have to solve (functioning or not functioning). This the problem of scalability. information is then flooded throughout the This can be done by managing the manets network. By flooding the information throughout based on the routing and must implement routing the network, every router can build its own fairness in order to prevent early partitioning of picture of the current state of all of the links in the ad hoc network into disjoint network the network. Because every router sees the same segments. information, all of these pictures should be the Routing fairness  in MANETS is same. From this picture, each router computes its essential as it discourages large volume of best path to all destinations, and populates its disjoint network segments. Each sector can have routing table with this information. How a router two motes (sensor mote and base and Sensor determines which path is best is up to each protocol. In the simplest case, a router may motes gather data and send to central mote(base simply compute the path with the least number of station). Motes too far from base station requires hops. In a more complex protocol, the link-state intermediate motes to relay, or route, data. information may include additional information Routing structure formed is a tree, rooted at the to help a router determine the best path. Such base station. information may again include the bandwidth of the link, the current load on the link, administrative weights, or even policy information restricting which packets may 97 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 IV. ROUTING FAIRNESS To be fair in routing, at base station, same number of packets should receive from each Sensor mote mote. Within each period of time (or epoch), Base station transmit number of packets from each sub tree equal to size of that sub tree. The problems with this kind of routing structures can be like motes closer to the base Within 1 epoch, send 1 station has to transmit packets generated locally from A, 10 from B, as well as those generated by downstream motes, 1000 from C, and 1 from myself these motes likely to become bottlenecks in the system which results in more packets originating further away being dropped (unfairness) loss of packets due to queue overflow and interference during transmission (congestion. unfairness may result in network not retrieving sufficient data from faraway motes to meet application Subtree A Subtree B Subtree C requirements. congestion wastes scarce energy Size = 1 Size = 10 Size = 1000 resources. The problem of packets being dropped (unfairness) and be solved by determining For this we require per child queue (does not maximum application data generation rate and by depend on size of sub tree, so can be small and implementing hop-by-hop Automatic Repeat constant), FIFO queues, sub tree size (obtained Request (ARQ). since motes generate data at a as before).Then we should check for proof of rate network can handle, congestion (queue correctness (by induction). overflow) should not occur. ARQ ensures all packets ultimately reach the base station. BUT A’s Queue B’s Queue C’s Queue difficult to obtain maximum rate for every A A E network configuration underestimation of D C B C generation rate reduces effective bandwidth. F D E F 98 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 V. ENHANCEMENT OF FAIRNESS VII. PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION The proxies alleviate the unfair advantage If data needs to be transferred from one that shorter connections have over longer end of the MANET to the other, the source sends connections. For this we can split longer a request to its adjacent TCP segment. This TCP connections into shorter segments. The segment then forwards the request to the throughput of longer connections, however, respective TCP segment. The TCP segment cannot equal that of shorter connections due to which to participate in the data transfer reply interactions between segments. The packets back with node addresses of nodes that are active cannot be sent and received at the proxy at the and willing to participate in the route. same time, so the adjacent TCP segments Propagation of the route establishment have to transport data in stages request is between the TCP segments only, which decide on the basis of the instantaneous We can improve fairness by having information able to them. By limiting the Multiple TCP connections with varying lengths propagation of the route request to the segments in terms of hop count. Because the Longer only the traffic is greatly reduced, because as connections achieve lower throughput than seen in other protocol the request keeps on shorter ones, we have to introduce proxies propagating due to retransmission from nodes which improves throughput. For a connection of throughout the network until the TTL of the length 16 hops, the throughput improves from request has expired causing considerable traffic. around 22 Kbps to 27 Kbps. Thus there will be Before the source transmits data, it must improvement in fairness setup proper segments to be used by the respective protocols. Firstly, depending upon the VI. ROUTING routing information and number of proxies received for its route, this segment is utilized by Routes can be of two types; first spanning the intersegment DSR protocol. Next the source just longer segment, and the second, spanning adds intra-segment routing information for the shorter segments. In the case of routes spanning packet to reach the first gateway node. longer segments, the entire route is divided into By adding segments and proxies in this shorter segments. This active route is fashion two purposes are served. First CGRS hierarchically managed using two routing gets the route to the nearest gateway. Second the protocols; one at the inter-segment level and the DSR protocol gets the next hop to inter-segment other at the intra-segment level. gateway node. The inter-segment header gets The entire route from the source to the reduced with each hop where as the intra- destination has nodes involving multiple segment is renewed at each gateway node. A new segments divided into shorter segments. inter-segment is appended while entering a new A segment is the route between two segment. Inter-segment routing (DSR) occurs at gateway nodes or the route between the gateway the gateway nodes while the intersegment node and the source node or the destination node. routing occurs at both gateway nodes and In other words, a route is a connection of one or segment nodes until the data packet reaches the more segments and segment has a segment-head. destination. 99 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010 VIII. CONCLUSION This paper studies the dynamic routing fairness for mobile adhoc networks and describes the different existing dynamic routing protocols. Different from existing works, this work considers the routing segments to improve fairness in the routing. We show our assumptions that can be implemented to get more fairness in routing. We proposed routing segment method. The problems in routing fairness and proposed solutions have been discussed. REFERENCES 1. Scott M. Ballew. Managing IP Networks with Cisco Routers. Chapter 5 footnote-1. O'Reilly Media. 1997. 2. Scott M. Ballew. Managing IP Networks with Cisco Routers. Chapter 5 footnote-2. O'Reilly Media. 1997. 3. Sarosh Patel, Khaled Elleithy, and Syed S. Rizvi. “Hierarchically Segmented Routing (HSR) Protocol for MANET”, 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations ITNG, USA, April 2009. 4. Network Academy . Introduction to Dynamic Routing Protocols, CCNA Exploration Course Booklet: Routing Protocols and Concepts, Chapter-3. 5. Mikael Johansson. Scheduling, routing and power allocation for fairness in wireless networks. In ieee vehicular technology conference (2004) 6. Christopher Ellis. IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc (MANETs) and Sensor Networks. United States IPv6 Summit 2004 7. Cheng Tien Ee. Congestion control and fairness for many-to-one routing in sensor networks in ACM SenSys 8. Eric Law, UCR. Transport Layer for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. University of California, March 2005 9. Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R outing_ protocols 100 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500
Pages to are hidden for
"Routing Fairness in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks: Analysis and Enhancement"Please download to view full document