2004
DOI: 10.1023/b:wine.0000028539.73976.64
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reducing Latency and Overhead of Route Repair with Controlled Flooding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In [7], authors have proposed to create backup routes around the main original route by using a controlled flooding framework (AODV-CF). Hence, an alternate route is immediately available without the need to re-flood the network.…”
Section: Local Route Repairmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [7], authors have proposed to create backup routes around the main original route by using a controlled flooding framework (AODV-CF). Hence, an alternate route is immediately available without the need to re-flood the network.…”
Section: Local Route Repairmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AODV, one of the most popular ad hoc routing protocols, implements both of the two schemes. Other examples are controlled flooding [15], height-based recovery [8], witness-aided recovery [9] and neighbor aware source routing [14].The problem of reactive route recovery is the unavoidable time delay caused by the reactive route discovery procedure and the large control overhead resulted by the broadcasting scheme.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This strategy, however, incurs in route discovery latency and cannot guarantee that overhead is indeed lower than in the proactive case. If route failures often happen, then overhead becomes high because route discovery procedures are repeatedly triggered [8,9,10,11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%