08-17-2017, 12:16 AM
[attachment=3547]
Presented By:
Submitted by
AMBIKA. A
ANITHA. M
TAMIL SELVI. G
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Er. PERUMAL MANIMEKALAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, HOSUR
Abstract:
In this Project we approach an efficient way of Broad casting in Mobile Ad hoc Network. This project presents two efficient broadcasting algorithms based on 1-hop neighbor information. We propose an efficient sender-based broadcasting algorithm based on 1-hop neighbor information that reduces the time complexity of computing forwarding nodes to O n . In Liu et al. s algorithm, n nodes are selected to forward the message in the worst case, whereas in our proposed algorithm, the number of forwarding nodes in the worst case is 11. When nodes are uniformly distributed, we prove that the probability of two neighbor nodes broadcasting the same message exponentially decreases when the distance between them decreases or when the node density increases.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mobile ad hoc network:
A wireless ad hoc network is a decentralized wireless network. The network is ad hoc because each node is willing to forward data for other nodes, and so the determination of which nodes forward data is made dynamically based on the network connectivity. This is in contrast to wired networks in which routers perform the task of routing. It is also in contrast to managed (infrastructure) wireless networks, in which a special node known as an access point manages communication among other nodes. The decentralized nature of wireless ad hoc networks makes them suitable for a variety of applications where central nodes can't be relied on, and may improve the scalability of wireless ad hoc networks compared to wireless managed networks, though theoretical and practical limits to the overall capacity of such networks have been identified. Minimal configuration and quick deployment make ad hoc networks suitable for emergency situations like natural disasters or military conflicts. The presence of a dynamic and adaptive routing protocol will enable ad hoc networks to be formed quickly.
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET), sometimes called a mobile mesh network, is a self-configuring network of mobile devices connected by wireless links each device in a MANET is free to move independently in any direction, and will therefore change its links to other devices frequently. Each must forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router. The primary challenge in building a MANET is equipping each device to continuously maintain the information required to properly route traffic.Such networks may operate by themselves or may be connected to the larger Internet.
MANETs are a kind of wireless ad hoc networks that usually has a route able networking environment on top of a Link Layer ad hoc network. They are also a type of mesh network, but many mesh networks are not mobile or not wireless.
The growth of laptops and 802.11/Wi-Fi wireless networking have made MANETs a popular research topic since the mid- to late 1990s. Many academic papers evaluate protocols and abilities assuming varying degrees of mobility within a bounded space, usually with all nodes within a few hops of each other and usually with nodes sending data at a constant rate. Different protocols are then evaluated based on the packet drop rate, the overhead introduced by the routing protocol, and other measures.
]
Flooding
Routing is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send network traffic. Routing is performed for many kinds of networks, including the telephone network, electronic data networks (such as the Internet), and transportation networks. This article is concerned primarily with routing in electronic data networks using packet switching technology.
In packet switching networks, routing directs packet forwarding, the transit of logically addressed packets from their source toward their ultimate destination through intermediate nodes; typically hardware devices called routers, bridges, gateways, firewalls, or switches. General-purpose computers with multiple network cards can also forward packets and perform routing, though they are not specialized hardware and may suffer from limited performance. The routing process usually directs forwarding on the basis of routing tables which maintain a record of the routes to various network destinations. Thus, constructing routing tables, which are held in the routers' memory, is very important for efficient routing. Most routing algorithms use only one network path at a time, but multi path routing techniques enable the use of multiple alternative paths.
Routing, in a more narrow sense of the term, is often contrasted with bridging in its assumption that network addresses are structured and that similar addresses imply proximity within the network. Because structured addresses allow a single routing table entry to represent the route to a group of devices, structured addressing (routing, in the narrow sense) outperforms unstructured addressing (bridging) in large networks, and has become the dominant form of addressing on the Internet, though bridging is still widely used within localized environments.
Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
The AODV Routing protocol uses an on-demand approach for finding routes, that is, a route is established only when it is required by a source node for transmitting data packets. It employs destination sequence numbers to identify the most recent path. The major difference between AODV and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) stems out from the fact that DSR uses source routing in which a data packet carries the complete path to be traversed. However, in AODV, the source node and the intermediate nodes store the next-hop information corresponding to each flow for data packet transmission. In an on-demand routing protocol, the source node floods the Route Request packet in the network when a route is not available for the desired destination. It may obtain multiple routes to different destinations from a single Route Request. The major difference between AODV and other on-demand routing protocols is that it uses a destination sequence number (DestSeqNum) to determine an up-to-date path to the destination. A node updates its path information only if the DestSeqNum of the current packet received is greater than the last DestSeqNum stored at the node.
A Route Request carries the source identifier (SrcID), the destination identifier (DestID), the source sequence number (SrcSeqNum), the destination sequence number (DesSeqNum), the broadcast identifier (BcastID), and the time to live (TTL) field. DestSeqNum indicates the freshness of the route that is accepted by the source. When an intermediate node receives a Route Request, it either forwards it or prepares a Route Reply if it has a valid route to the destination. The validity of a route at the intermediate node is determined by comparing the sequence number at the intermediate node with the destination sequence number in the Route Request packet. If a Route Request is received multiple times, which is indicated by the BcastID-SrcID pair, the duplicate copies are discarded. All intermediate nodes having valid routes to the destination, or the destination node itself, are allowed to send Route Reply packets to the source. Every intermediate node, while forwarding a Route Request, enters the previous node address and it s BcastID. A timer is used to delete this entry in case a Route Reply is not received before the timer expires. This helps in storing an active path at the intermediate node as AODV does not employ source routing of data packets. When a node receives a Route Reply packet, information about the previous node from which the packet was received is also stored in order to forward the data packet to this next node as the next hop toward the destination.
Abstract The Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is
intended for use by mobile nodes in an ad hoc network characterized by frequent changes in page link connectivity to each other caused by relative movement. It offers quick adaptation to dynamic page link conditions, low processing and memory overhead, low network utilization, and establishment of routes between sources and destination which are loop free at all times. It makes use of destination sequence numbers, which are a novel means of ensuring loop freedom even in the face of anomalous delivery of routing control messages, and which solve classical problems associated with distance vector protocols, including the problem of ''counting to infinity''.
Introduction:
The Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) algorithm enables dynamic, self-starting, multihop routing between participating mobile nodes wishing to establish and maintain an ad-hoc network. AODV allows mobile nodes to obtain routes quickly for new destinations, and does not require nodes to maintain routes to destinations that are not in active communication. AODV also defines timely responses to page link breakages. The operation of AODV is loop free, and by avoiding the Bellman-Ford "counting to infinity" problem offers quick convergence when the ad-hoc network topology changes (typically, when a node moves in the network).
One distinguishing feature of AODV is its use of a destination sequence number for each route entry. The destination sequence number is created by the destination itself for any usable route information it sends to requesting nodes. Using destination sequence numbers ensures loop freedom, and is simple to program. Given the choice between two routes to a destination, a requesting node always selects one with the greatest sequence number. Another feature of AODV is that page link breakages cause immediate notifications to be sent to the affected set of nodes, but only that set.
Overview:
Route Requests (RREQs) and Route Replies (RREPs) are the two message types defined by AODV. These message types are handled by UDP, and normal IP header processing applies. So, for instance, the requesting node is expected to use its IP address as the source IP address for the messages. The range of dissemination of broadcast RREQs can be indicated by the TTL in the IP header. Fragmentation is typically not required. As long as the endpoints of a communication connection have valid routes to each other, AODV does not play any role. When a route to a new destination is needed, the node uses a broadcast RREQ to find a route to the destination. A route can be determined when the request reaches either the destination itself, or an intermediate node with a fresh enough route to the destination. The route is made available by unicasting a RREP back to the source of the RREQ. Since each node receiving the request keeps track of a route back to the source of the request, the RREP Reply can be unicast back from the destination to the source, or from any intermediate node that is able to satisfy the request back to the source. If a RREP is broadcast to the limited broadcast address (255.255.255.255), and has a TTL of one, and a destination address of the node itself with metric 0, then it is received by the entire node's neighbors, and treated by them as a "hello" message. This hello message is a local advertisement for the continued presence of the node. Neighbors that are using routes through the broadcasting node will continue to mark the routes as valid. If hello messages from a particular node stop coming, the neighbor can assume that the node has moved away. When that happens, the neighbor will mark the page link to the node as broken, and may trigger a notification to some of its other neighbors that the page link has broken.
Since AODV is a routing protocol, it deals with route table management. AODV assumes the following fields exist in each route table entry: - Destination IP Address - Destination Sequence Number - Hop Count - Next Hop - Lifetime this information must be kept even for ephemeral routes, such as are created to temporarily keep track of reverse paths towards nodes originating RREQs.
3. AODV Terminology:
This section defines terminology used with AODV that is not already defined in route table The table where ad-hoc nodes keep routing (including next hop) information for various destinations. For IPv6, this can be associated with the Destination Cache. triggered update An unsolicited route update transmitted by an intermediate node along the path to the destination. This protocol specification uses conventional meanings for capitalized words such as MUST, SHOULD, etc., to indicate requirement levels for various protocol features.
The format of the Route Request message is illustrated above, and contains the following fields: Type xx Reserved Sent as 0; ignored on reception. Hop Count The number of hops from the Source IP Address to the node handling the request. Broadcast ID A sequence number identifying the particular RREQ uniquely when taken in conjunction with the source node's IP address. Destination IP Address The IP address of the destination for which a route is desired Destination Sequence Number The last sequence number received in the past by the source for any route towards the destination. Source IP Address The IP address of the node which originated the Route Request Source Sequence Number The current sequence number for route information generated by the source of the route request.
5. Route Reply Message Format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type L Reserved Hop Count +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Destination IP address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Destination Sequence Number +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lifetime +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The format of the Route Reply message is illustrated above, and contains the following fields: Type xx Reserved Sent as 0; ignored on reception. Hop Count The number of hops from the Source IP Address to the Destination IP Address. L If the 'L' bit is set, the message is a "hello" message and contains a list of the node's neighbors. Destination IP Address The IP address of the destination for which a route is supplied Destination Sequence Number The destination sequence number associated to the route Lifetime The time for which nodes receiving the RREP consider the route to be valid.
6. Node Operation:
This section describes the scenarios under which nodes generate RREQs and RREPs, and how the fields in the message are handled.
6.1. Maintaining Route Utilization Records:
For each valid route maintained by a node (containing a finite metric), the node also maintains a list of those neighbors that are actively using the route. This active-list of neighbors will receive notifications from the node in the event of detection of a page link breakage.
6.2. Generating Route Requests:
A node broadcasts a RREQ when it determines that it needs a route to a destination and does not have one available. This can happen if the destination is previously unknown to the node, or if a previously valid route to the destination expires. Routes can become invalid if they time out (the Lifetime associated with the route expires), or else if a page link breakage results in an infinite metric being associated with the route. When a route table entry is marked with an infinite metric, its expiration time is also updated to be the current time plus BAD_LINK_LIFETIME milliseconds. After the expiration time, the route MAY be expunged from the node's route table. After broadcasting a RREQ a node waits for a RREP, and if the reply is not received within RREP_WAIT_TIME seconds, the node may rebroadcast the RREQ. The RREQ may be rebroadcast up to a maximum of RREQ_RETRIES times. Each rebroadcast has to increment the Broadcast ID field. The node MAY choose to use larger TTL values in the IP header field, or wait for longer times for the RREP to arrive.
6.3. Forwarding Route Requests:
When a node receives a broadcast RREQ, it first checks to see whether it has received a RREQ with the same Source IP Address field within the last BCAST_ID_SAVE milliseconds. If such a RREQ has been received, the node silently discards the newly received RREQ. Otherwise, the node checks to see whether it has a route to the destination. If the node does not have a route, it rebroadcasts the RREQ from its interface(s) with the same field values, but using its own IP address in the IP header of the outgoing RREQ. The TTL or hop limit field in the outgoing IP header is decreased by one. The Hop Count field in the broadcast RREQ message is incremented by one, to account to the new hop through the intermediate node. In this case, the node also creates a reverse route to the Source IP Address in its routing table with next hop equal to the IP address of the neighboring node that sent the broadcast RREQ (often not equal to the Source IP Address field in the RREQ message). This reverse route might be used for an eventual RREP back to the original node making the RREQ (identified by the Source IP Address). The reverse route is put into the route table with lifetime REV_ROUTE_LIFE milliseconds.
6.4. Generating Route Replies:
If a node receives a route request for a destination, and has a fresh enough route to satisfy the request, the node generates a RREP message and unicasts it back to the node indicated by the Source IP Address field of the received RREQ. First, the node copies over its destination sequence number from the entry in its route table, or if the generating node is the node itself, it uses a destination sequence number at least equal to a sequence number generated after the last detected change in its neighbor set. If the node has not detected any change in its set of neighbors since it last incremented it destination sequence number, it may use the same destination sequence number. As part of the process of generating the RREP, the generating node creates or updates an entry in its routing table for the Source IP Address. The Source Sequence Number is put into the route entry, along with the Hop Count from the RREQ. The expiration time for the route table entry is set to the current time plus ACTIVE_ROUTE_TIMEOUT seconds. If the generating node is not the destination node, then the generating node calculates the Hop Count between the Source IP Address and the Destination IP Address by adding together the Hop Count from the RREQ and the hop count stored in the route table entry for the destination node. If, on the other hand, the generating node is the destination node itself, the Hop Count field in the RREP is simply equal to the Hop Count received in the RREQ. If the node is not the destination node, it calculates the Lifetime field of the RREQ by subtracting the current time from the expiration time in its route table entry. Otherwise, if the generating node is also the destination node, it copies the value MY_ROUTE_TIMEOUT into the Lifetime field of the RREP. If the generating node is not the node indicated by the Destination IP Address, then it puts the next hop towards the destination in the active-list for the reverse.
6.5. Generating Hello Messages:
Every node generates a "hello" message once every HELLO_INTERVAL milliseconds. This hello message is a broadcast IP RREP with TTL = 1, and the message fields set as follows: Destination IP Address the node's IP address, Destination Sequence Number the latest sequence number Hop Count 0 Lifetime (1 + ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS) * HELLO_INTERVAL path route entry.
6.6. Initiating Triggered Route Replies:
A node can trigger an unsolicited RREP if either it detects a page link breakage for a next hop along an active route in its route table, or if it receives a RREP from a neighbor with an infinite metric for an active route (i.e., containing a Destination IP Address for which there is a route table entry with a nonempty active-list) The unsolicited RREP is unicast to each neighbor in the nonempty active-list for the route to that destination. The contents of the RREP fields are set as follows: L 0 Hop Count 65,535 Destination IP Address The destination in the broken route Destination Sequence Number One plus the destination sequence number recorded in the route.
6.7. Detecting Link Breakage:
A node can detect a page link breakage by listening for "hello" messages from its set of neighbors. If it has received hello messages from a particular neighbor, but misses more than ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS consecutive hello messages from that neighbor, the node can presume that the particular neighbor is no longer able to maintain a direct page link with the mobile node. When this happens, the node should assume that its page link with the former neighbor has been broken. A node should assume that a hello message has been missed if it is not received within 1.5 times the duration of the HELLO_INTERVAL. Alternatively, the node can use any physical-layer or link-layer methods to detect page link breakages with nodes it has considered as neighbors.
7. Configuration Parameters:
This section gives default values for some important values associated with AODV protocol operations. ACTIVE_ROUTE_TIMEOUT 300 ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS 2 BAD_LINK_LIFETIME 3000 BCAST_ID_SAVE 3000 HELLO_INTERVAL 1000 NETWORK_DIAMETER 100 NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME 400 MY_ROUTE_TIMEOUT 600 REV_ROUTE_LIFE 3000 RREP_WAIT_TIME 3 * NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME * NETWORK_DIAMETER RREQ_RETRIES 3
8. Extensions:
RREQ and RREP messages may have extensions defined in future versions of the protocol. These extensions will have the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type Length type-specific data .. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Type xx Length the length of the type-specific data, not including the Type and Length fields of the extension. Extensions with types between 128 and 255 may NOT be skipped. The rules for extensions will be spelled out more fully, and conform with the rules for handling IPv6 options.
9. Security Considerations:
Currently, AODV does not specify any special security measures. Route protocols, however, are prime targets for impersonation attacks, and must be protected by use of authentication techniques involving generation of unforgivable and cryptographically strong message digests or digital signatures. It is expected that, in environments where security is an issue, that IPSec authentication headers will be deployed along with the necessary key management to distribute keys to the members of the ad hoc network using AODV.
Dynamic source Routing
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a routing protocol for wireless mesh networks. It is similar to AODV in that it forms a route on-demand when a transmitting computer requests one. However, it uses source routing instead of relying on the routing table at each intermediate device. Many successive refinements have been made to DSR, including DSRFLOW.
Determining source routes requires accumulating the address of each device between the source and destination during route discovery. The accumulated path information is cached by nodes processing the route discovery packets. The learned paths are used to route packets. To accomplish source routing, the routed packets contain the address of each device the packet will traverse. This may result in high overhead for long paths or large addresses, like IPv6. To avoid using source routing, DSR optionally defines a flow id option that allows packets to be forwarded on a hop-by-hop basis.
This protocol is truly based on source routing whereby all the routing information is maintained (continually updated) at mobile nodes. It has only 2 major phases which are Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. Route Reply would only be generated if the message has reached the intended destination node (route record which is initially contained in Route Request would be inserted into the Route Reply).
To return the Route Reply, the destination node must have a route to the source node. If the route is in the Destination Node's route cache, the route would be used. Otherwise, the node will reverse the route based on the route record in the Route Reply message header (this requires that all links are symmetric). In the event of fatal transmission, the Route Maintenance Phase is initiated whereby the Route Error packets are generated at a node. The erroneous hop will be removed from the node's route cache, all routes containing the hop are truncated at that point. Again, the Route Discovery Phase is initiated to determine the most viable route.
For information on other similar protocols, see the ad hoc routing protocol list.
Dynamic source routing protocol (DSR) is an on-demand protocol designed to restrict the bandwidth consumed by control packets in ad hoc wireless networks by eliminating the periodic table-update messages required in the table-driven approach. The major difference between this and the other on-demand routing protocols is that it is beacon-less and hence does not require periodic hello packet (beacon) transmissions, which are used by a node to inform its neighbors of its presence. The basic approach of this protocol (and all other on-demand routing protocols) during the route construction phase is to establish a route by flooding Route Request packets in the network. The destination node, on receiving a Route Request packet, responds by sending a Route Reply packet back to the source, which carries the route traversed by the Route Request packet received.
Consider a source node that does not have a route to the destination. When it has data packets to be sent to that destination, it initiates a Route Request packet. This Route Request is flooded throughout the network. Each node, upon receiving a Route Request packet, rebroadcasts the packet to its neighbors if it has not forwarded it already, provided that the node is not the destination node and that the packet s time to live (TTL) counter has not been exceeded. Each Route Request carries a sequence number generated by the source node and the path it has traversed. A node, upon receiving a Route Request packet, checks the sequence number on the packet before forwarding it. The packet is forwarded only if it is not a duplicate Route Request. The sequence number on the packet is used to prevent loop formations and to avoid multiple transmissions of the same Route Request by an intermediate node that receives it through multiple paths. Thus, all nodes except the destination forward a Route Request packet during the route construction phase. A destination node, after receiving the first Route Request packet, replies to the source node through the reverse path the Route Request packet had traversed. Nodes can also learn about the neighboring routes traversed by data packets if operated in the promiscuous mode (the mode of operation in which a node can receive the packets that are neither broadcast nor addressed to itself). This route cache is also used during the route construction phase. If an intermediate node receiving a Route Request has a route to the destination node in its route cache, then it replies to the source node by sending a Route Reply with the entire route information from the source node to the destination node.
Existing System:
AODV and DSR typically use broadcasting in their route discovery phase. Broadcasting is also used for topology updates, for network maintenance, or simply for sending a control or warning message. The simplest broadcasting algorithm is flooding, in which every node broadcasts the message when it receives it for the first time.
Limitations of Existing System
It increases packet collisions, which can lead to additional transmissions this can cause severe network congestion or significant performance degradation, a phenomenon called the broadcast storm problem .Therefore, the broadcast redundancy significantly increases as the average number of neighbors increases. High broadcast redundancy can result in high power and bandwidth consumption in the network. Moreover, it increases packet collisions.
Proposed System
We proposed a forwarding node selection algorithm that selects at most 11 nodes in O n , where n is the number of neighbors.
An efficient receiver-based algorithm and showed why it significantly reduces the number of forwarding nodes in the network
Proposed System Advantages
Can achieve local optimality by selecting the minimum number of forwarding nodes in the lowest computational time complexity.
The main objective of efficient broadcasting algorithms is to reduce the number of broadcasts while keeping the bandwidth and computational overhead as low as possible. One approach to classify broadcasting algorithms is based on the neighbor information they use.
Dataflow Diagram
Module
Creating Nodes
Broadcasting Route request
Data Sending
Module Description
Creating Nodes
In this module we create node in the form of GUI using java swing and connect the independent nodes. In this module we design the windows for the project. These windows are used to give input to the process and to display the output. We use the Swing package available in Java to design the User Interface.As Swings is LightWeight,Transparent,User Friendly with Look & Feel option .
Broadcasting Route request
In this module we broadcast route request messages based on sender based and reciever based broadcasting Algorithm
AHIGHLY EFFICIENT RECEIVER-BASED BROADCASTING ALGORITHM
In this section, we propose a novel receiver-based broadcasting algorithm that can significantly reduce redundant broadcasts in the network. As mentioned earlier, in receiver-based broadcasting algorithms, the receiver of the message decides whether or not to broadcast the message.Therefore, a potential advantage of receiver-based broadcasting, algorithms over sender-based ones is that they do not increase the size of the message by adding a list of forwarding nodes.
AN EFFICIENT SENDER-BASED BROADCASTING ALGORITHM
Our first proposed broadcasting algorithm is a sender based algorithm, i.e., each sender selects a subset of nodes to forward the message. Each message can be identified by its source ID and a sequence number incremented for each message at the source node.
Performance of Proposed Sender-Based and Receiver-Based Algorithms
The main objective of efficient broadcasting algorithms is to reduce the number of broadcasts. Therefore, we considered the ratio of broadcasting nodes over the total number of nodes as the metric to evaluate the performance of the proposed broadcasting algorithms.
Data Sending
1. In this module we forward the data to destination after finding the route by taking neighboring node information .
2. Using the sender-based broadcasting algorithms each node decides whether or not to broadcast solely based on the first received message and drops the rest of the same messages that it receives later. Liu et al. s algorithm falls in this subclass and achieves local optimality by selecting the minimum number of forwarding nodes in the lowest computational time complexity.In the second subclass of sender-based broadcasting algorithms, each node can decide whether or not to broadcast after each message reception.
Future Enhancements
We will investigate the necessary conditions to guarantee both full delivery and constant approximation ratio to the minimum CDS
Conclusion
An efficient receiver-based algorithm and showed why it significantly reduces the number of forwarding nodes in the network. We also relaxed some system model assumptions that are typically used in the broadcasting algorithms. Interestingly, the 2-hop-based version of our proposed receiver-based algorithm can guarantee constant approximation to the optimal solution (minimum CDS).
REFERENCES
Perkins, Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,
IETF Internet draft, work in progress, 1997.
[2] D. Johnson and D. Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks, Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski and
H.F. Korth, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
[3] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen, and J. Sheu, The Broadcast Storm
Problem in a Mobile Ad Hoc Network, Proc. ACM MobiCom 99,
pp. 151-162, 1999.
[4] M. Garey and D. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to
the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, 1990.
[5] B. Clark, C. Colbourn, and D. Johnson, Unit Disk Graphs,
Discrete Math., vol. 86, pp. 165-177, 1990.
[6] P. Wan, K. Alzoubi, and O. Frieder, Distributed Construction of
Connected Dominating Set in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Proc.
IEE INFOCOM 02, vol. 3, pp. 1597-1604, 2002.
[7] S. Funke, A. Kesselman, U. Meyer, and M. Segal, A Simple
Improved Distributed Algorithm for Minimum CDS in Unit Disk
Graphs, ACM Trans. Sensor Networks, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 444-453,
2006.
[8] H. Liu, P. Wan, X. Jia, X. Liu, and F. Yao, Efficient Flooding
Scheme Based on 1-Hop Information in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,
Proc. IEE INFOCOM, 2006.
244 IEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
[9] Y. Tseng, S. Ni, and E. Shih, Adaptive Approaches to Relieving
Broadcast Storms in a Wireless Multihop Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks, Proc. 21st Int l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems
(ICDCS 01), pp. 481-488, 2001.
[10] Y. Sasson, D. Cavin, and A. Schiper, Probabilistic Broadcast for
Flooding in Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proc. IEE
Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf. (WCNC 03), pp. 1124-1130,
2003.
[11] W. Lou and J. Wu, Double-Covered Broadcast (DCB): A
Simple Reliable Broadcast Algorithm in Manets, Proc. IEE
INFOCOM 04, pp. 2084-2095, 2004.
[12] J. Wu and F. Dai, Broadcasting in Ad Hoc Networks Based on
Self-Pruning, Proc. IEE INFOCOM 03, pp. 2240-2250, 2003.
[13] W. Peng and X. Lu, On the Reduction of Broadcast Redundancy
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proc. ACM MobiHoc 00,
pp. 129-130, 2000.
[14] T. He, C. Huang, B. Blum, J. Stankovic, and T. Abdelzaher,
Range-Free Localization Schemes in Large Scale Sensor Networks,
Proc. ACM MobiCom 03, pp. 81-95, 2003.
[15] A. Keshavarz-Haddad, V. Ribeiro, and R. Riedi, DRB and DCCB:
Efficient and Robust Dynamic Broadcast for Ad Hoc and Sensor
Networks, Proc. Fourth Ann. IEE Conf. Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc
Comm. and Networks (SECON 07), June 2007.
[16] R. Wattenhofer, L. Li, P. Bahl, and Y. Wang, Distributed Topology
Control for Power Efficient Operation in Multihop Wireless
Ad Hoc Networks, Proc. IEE INFOCOM 01, pp. 1388-1397, 2001.
[17] L. Li, J. Halpern, P. Bahl, Y. Wang, and R. Wattenhofer, A Cone-
Based Distributed Topology-Control Algorithm for Wireless
Multi-Hop Networks, IEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 13,
pp. 147-159, 2005.
[18] M. Sun, W. Feng, and T. Lai, Broadcasting in Ad Hoc Networks
Based on Self-Pruning, Proc. IEE Global Telecomm. Conf.
(GLOBECOM 01), pp. 2842-2846, 2001.
[19] A. Papoulis, Probability and Statistics. Prentice Hall, 1990.
[20] R. Chang and R. Lee, On the Average Length of Delaunay
Triangulations, BIT Numerical Math., vol. 24, pp. 269-273, 1984.
[21] M. Khabbazian and V.K. Bhargava, Localized Broadcasting with
Guaranteed Delivery and Bounded Transmission Redundancy,
IEE Trans. Computers, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1072-1086, Mar. 2008.
[22] Y. Cai, K. Hua, and A. Phillips, Leveraging 1-Hop Neighborhood
Knowledge for Efficient Flooding in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,
Proc. 24th IEE Int l Performance, Computing, and Comm. Conf.
(IPCC 05), pp. 347-354, 2005.
[23] J. Wu and H. Li, On Calculating Connected Dominating Set for
Efficient Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Proc. Third Int l
Workshop Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and
Comm. (DIAL-M 99), pp. 7-14, 1999.