A Hybrid Routing Scheme for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Mobile Backbones

Abstract

Abstract.A flat mobile ad hoc network has an inherent scalability limitation. When the network size increases, per node throughput of an ad hoc network rapidly decreases. This is due to the act that in large scale networks, flat structure of networks results in long hop paths which are prone to breaks. These long hop paths can be avoided by building a physically hierarchical backbone network. These networks have some specific backbone capable nodes that have powerful radios and are functionally more capable than ordinary nodes.In this paper, a hybrid routing protocol for large scale networks with mobile backbones has been proposed. This routing protocol uses different types of routing schemes in different layers of hierarchical network which makes it easily extendable to support QoS as well. Along with hierarchical structure, a lowoverhead clustering scheme to elect backbone nodes has been proposed and works with our routing protocol without causing any extra overhead.

Rollback recovery with low overhead for fault tolerance in mobile ad hoc networks

“…On the other hand, 408 our protocol does not place such a restriction and allows a pro-409 cess to recover at any location in the network regardless of 410 where its last checkpoint is stored. (Srinivas et al, 2009;Craparo et al, 2011;Ju et al, 449 2004;Pandey et al, 2006;Ju and Rubin, 2005). Such a struc-450 ture is illustrated in Fig.…”

“…Assuming size of network as A, where A repW = k * (c * g/h); where k is a constant equal to the 464 inverse of size of the network. 465 A number of backbone election algorithms have been pro-466 posed in the literature(Ju et al, 2004;Pandey et al, 2006; Ju 467 andRubin, 2005;Wu and Li, 1999). We adapt the election 468 algorithm known as the MBN Topology Synthesis Algorithm 469(Ju and Rubin, 2005) for our system as it converges in O(1) 470 time and its message complexity is of the order of O(1) per 471 node.…”

Scalable $\epsilon$-Optimal Decision-Making and Stochastic Routing in Large Networks via Distributed Supervision of Probabilistic Automata

“…The proactive approaches suffer from expensive maintenance and slow reaction to topology changes, while the reactive approaches have high discovery latency and induce congestion via periodic flooding. Hybrid protocols attempt to combine their advantages (e.g., HRPLS (hybrid routing protocol for large scale mobile ad-hoc networks with mobile backbones) [31] and HSLS (hazy sighted link state routing protocol) [24]). Another classification is either distance-vector or link state driven.…”

Quality of Service (QoS) Provisioning in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs)

“…Hybrid (Pro-Active/ Reactive), which integrates attributes of the two above approaches. The disadvantage of the hybrid technique depends on the number of active nodes in the network (Pandey et al, 2006). A list of some ad-hoc routing protocols is given in Figure 9 (http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab), such as Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) Routing (Perkins, 2001), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) (Murthy & Aceves, 1995), Hieracical State Routing (HSR) (Iwata et al, 1999), Ad-hoc On demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing (Royer et al 2000), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) (Johnson & Maltz, 1996), Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) (Park & Corson, 1997), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) (Haas, 1997), Hazy Sighted Link State (HSLS) Routing Protocol (Santivanez & Ramanathan, 2001), Scalable Source Routing (SSR) (Fuhrmann et al, 2006).…”