EFFICIENT BROADCASTING IN MANETS USING DIRECTIONAL

ANTENNAS

K Kathiravan
B.S. Abdur Rahman Crescent Engineering College
Vandalur, Chennai – 48.

Dr. S Thamarai Selvi

Professor
MIT Chromepet Campus
Anna University, Chennai – 14.

R Reshmi
BSA Crescent Engineering College
Vandalur, Chennai – 48.

ABSTRACT
Broadcast has been widely used in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) as a
communication means to disseminate information to all reachable nodes.
However, the conventional broadcast scheme that broadcast packets omni
directionally suffers from several drawbacks: excessive amount of redundant
traffic, exaggerated interference/contention among neighboring nodes, and
limited coverage (as a result of contention/collision). This is termed as the
broadcast storm problem. In this paper, we address this problem in MANETs
with the use of directional antennas. We propose a broadcast protocol called
directional broadcast protocol (DBP) to alleviate broadcast storm problem in
ad hoc networks using directional antennas. Compared with omni directional
scheme DBP uses minimum number of forward nodes to relay the broadcast
packet, while the number of forward directions that each forward node uses in
transmission is significantly reduced. With lower broadcast redundancy, DBP
is more bandwidth and energy efficient. DBP is based on neighbor discovery
information and does not rely on location or angle-of –arrival information.
Two special cases of DBP are discussed: the first one preserves shortest path
in reactive routing discoveries; the second one uses both directional
transmission and reception mode to minimize broadcast redundancy. An
extensive simulation study using ns- 2.30 shows that DBP significantly
outperforms the omni directional broadcast protocols.

Keywords: Mobile ad hoc networks, Broadcast Storm problem, Directional

antenna.

1 INTRODUCTION Broadcast has been widely used in mobile ad

hoc networks (MANETs) as a communication
Ad hoc networks consist of mobile nodes that means to disseminate information to all reachable
autonomously establish connectivity via multihop nodes. It has been used in, for example, routing
wireless communications . Without relying on any protocols such as DSR [17], AODV [18], ZRP [19]
existing preconfigured network infrastructure or and LAR [20], to discover routes. The simplest way
centralized control, ad hoc networks are useful in of realizing broadcasts is via flooding – upon
many situations where impromptu communication receipt of a broadcast packet, a node simply sends it
facilities are required , such as battlefield out in all directions. In particular, packets are
communication facilities and disaster relief conventionally transmitted with the use of
missions.Other applications of ad hoc networks omnidirectional antennas, and neighboring nodes
include data acquisition in hostile territories, virtual receive and forward these packets
classrooms and temporary local area networks. omnidirectionally. This, however, generates an

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 1

excessive amount of redundant traffic and al. [3] proposed to achieve reliable broadcast
exaggerates interference in the shared medium and multicast in highly dynamic networks.
among neighboring nodes. Moreover, because of Jetcheva et al. [4] aim to support broadcast
the frequent contention and transmission collision and multicast in ad hoc networks characterized
among neighboring nodes, some nodes may not by low density and /or high mobility.
receive the broadcast packet. This is termed as the 2. Probability based schemes allow a node to
broadcast storm problem.Recently, use of forward a packet with certain probability p
directional antennas for data transmission has when it receives the packet for the first time.
received much attention as it demonstrates the Ni et al. [1] introduce the broadcast storm
capability of increasing the network capacity with problem and propose various probability-
spatial reuse, and mitigating the interference and based and area-based solutions. The studies of
contention among neighboring nodes. Succinctly, [1,5] have shown that probabilistic broadcasts
directional antennas [23,24] concentrate more incur significantly lower overhead compared
energy in a certain direction, and hence can achieve to blind flooding while maintaining a high
higher signal-interference-ratio and narrower beam degree of propagation for the broadcast
width and mitigate inter-symbol interference (ISI) messages.
due to multipath fading. These features have been 3. Counter-based , distance-based , and position-
judiciously used to maximize the number of on- based schemes, is also proposed by Ni et al.
going connections and to reduce the interference [1]. The basic idea is to collect duplicate
and contention [21,22, 24, 25]. Motivated by the packets received from neighbors for a random
above research work, we consider in this paper use period of time after the first packet is received,
of directional antennas to mitigate the broadcast and distill knowledge from these packets to
storm problem. The objective is to ensure broadcast make a forwarding decision. For the counter-
packets reach most, if not all, nodes, and yet reduce based scheme, the knowledge is the total
the amount of number of received duplicates, and the packet
redundant traffic. is forwarded if it is below a counter threshold.
In this paper we propose a frame work to For the distance-based scheme, the knowledge
design a broadcast protocol called directional is the minimum distance from the node to the
broadcast protocol (DBP) to alleviate broadcast sender of these packets, which is an estimation
storm problem in ad hoc networks using directional of the node’s additional (broadcast) coverage
antennas. Compared with omnidirectional scheme area, and the packet is forwarded if it is
DBP uses minimum number of forward nodes to over a distance threshold. The location-based
relay the broadcast packet, while the number of scheme leverages the precise location
forward directions that each forward node uses in information to provide a more accurate
transmission is significantly reduced. With lower estimation of the additional coverage area.
broadcast redundancy, DBP is more bandwidth and Neighbor-based schemes avoid broadcast
energy efficient. DBP is based on neighbor storm by forwarding the packet to a smaller
discovery information and does not rely on location subset of nodes while maintaining comparable
or angle-of –arrival information. Two special cases coverage. The selection of nodes is mostly
of DBP are discussed : the first one preserves based on the knowledge about a node’s two-
shortest path in reactive routing discoveries ; the hop and, possibly, one- hop neighbors.
second one uses both directional transmission and Based on whether the forwarding decision is
reception mode to minimize broadcast redundancy. made by the sender or the receiver, the
DBP is a localized protocol. schemes can be further classified [6] into
neighbor designed [7,8,9,10] and self-pruning
2 RELATED WORKS [6,11,12,13]. Lim and Kim [8] propose a
simple neighbor-based scheme in which a
Williams and Camp [2] conducted a node includes its one-hop neighbor
comparative study on existing broadcast schemes list,available via neighbor discovery, inside its
for mobile ad hoc networks.We review the basic broadcast packet. A node receiving a packet
ideas of these schemes with a special focus on that compares its neighbor list to the sender’s
are closely related to our work. neighbor list. If the receiving node could not
reach any additional node, it would not
1. Flooding is the simplest, while the most forward the packet; or forward it, otherwise.
reliable, way of broadcast, where each node The work of [14,15] applies directional
retransmits (forwards) the (broadcast) packet antennas to reducing routing overhead in ad hoc
exactly once upon receiving it for the first networks. Nasipuri et al. [14] present two protocols
time. The major draw back of flooding is its that apply directional antenna to minimizing the
high cost and excessive redundancy, which query flood by forwarding the (query) packet in the
causes the broadcast storm problem[1].Ho et sectors along the direction of the destination.

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 2

Choudhury and Vaidya [15] present a sweeping beams except the ones on which it received the
mechanism that avoids forwarding request in the packet. For each beam, it includes Pf of the
direction where the channel is busy. Hu et al.’s corresponding beam in the packet header.
work [16] applies directional antennas to mitigating Whenever a node receives this packet, it retrieves
the broadcast storm problem. The work presents its received power, say Pr and calculates the ratio of
three schemes: on/off directional broadcast, relay- Pf / Pr. This is the probability with which it will re-
node-based directional broadcast, and location- broadcast. In addition, the order of rebroadcast will
based directional broadcast. The on/off directional be vertically opposite beams followed by their
broadcast is a special case of our counter-based adjacent beams. Similarly neighbor-less and busy
directional broadcast scheme. The relay-node-based sectors will he ignored. Therefore, in the nodes
directional broadcast applies directional antennas to which are very close to the broadcast originator
neighbor-designed, one-hop neighbor based have very little probability to rebroadcast. There is
broadcast; while our neighbor-based scheme still the option of eliminating the idea of very close
applies directional antennas to self-pruning, one- nodes forwarding at all. With this option, in each
hop neighbor based broadcast. The location-based sector only nodes which receive the packet at a
directional broadcast attempts to approximate the power less than or equal to 2*Pf will retransmit
(directional) additional coverage area; while our with probability Pf / Pr . Note that the farthest node
location-based scheme provides a linear estimate of in each sector has probability 1 to rebroadcast.
the additional coverage area. Figure 2 illustrates this idea, where nodes (b) and
(c) do not forward at all while nodes (d) and (e)
forward with probability Pf / Pr . Node (f) will
3 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK definitely forward as its farthest node in that
direction.
With omni directional antennas, the distribution
of energy in all directions other than just the
intended direction generates unnecessary
interference to other nodes and considerably
reduces network capacity. On the other hand, with
directional transmission both transmission range
and spatial reuse can be substantially enhanced by
having nodes concentrate transmitted energy only
towards their destination's direction, thereby
achieving higher signal to noise ratio.
When there is a need to utilize only the
directional characteristics, the demands are more
since this is possible only when the node which Fig 2 Directional transmission based on received
wants to transmit and the node which wants to signal strength
receive are synchronized with their respective
related modes (i.e.). One node is in the transmit As the network grows, the number of control
mode and other is in the receive mode and are packets increases in Omni directional case
pointing towards each other as shown in Figure 1. exponentially resulting in Broadcast storm problem
[1] as shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). Three cases
to calculate the number of broadcast packets
generated for a square lattice size of N nodes are
considered
1.Omni Directional Transmission: Transmits in all
possible directions 2.Blind Directional
Transmission: Transmits in all directions other than
the direction it received 3.Smart Directional
Transmission: Transmits packets in controlled
manner with the help of Routing Protocol in the
network layer.
Figure 1 Basic mechanism with six sectors, M=6
Let N be the number of nodes and T be the
In DBP each node is required to record the received transfer time, then for Omni directional antenna
power of the hello packet from the farthest node transmission, the transfer time is calculated as,
(weakest signal) in each beam[12]. Let us denote
this power as Pf .Upon receiving a broadcast packet T = (N – 1) * 10 + 8 * (N -1)2 + 3 (1)
and after the expiration of RDT (random delay
timer), the node forwards the packet on all the

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 3

 700

Omni
600 Directional(blind)
Directional(smart)

No of Packets Generated
500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Size of Grid

Figure 3(a) The broadcast storm problem in grid Figure 4. Number of control packets generated in a
topology lattice network

4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Simulations are performed in Ns-2.30

whose parameters are tuned to model the Lucent
WaveLan card at a 2 Mbps data rate. The simulator
was modified to incorporate the Directional antenna.
In the Simulator, the effective transmission range is
set to be 250 meters, and the interfering rang is 550
meters for omni directional antenna. The
throughput plots and number of broadcast packets
generated for the omni-directional case using
802.11 MAC protocol are shown.

600000
No of Broadcast packets

500000
Figure 3(b) Representation of broadcast storm
scenario in random topology 400000
AODV
generated

300000 DSDV
DSR
For Blind Directional Antenna transmission, 200000

100000
T = (N -1) * 8+7 * (N -1)2 + 3 (2)
0
For Smart Directional antenna transmission, 5 15 25 35
Speed (m/s)
T = (N – 1) (3)
Figure 4 shows the number of control packets Figure 5 Number of broadcast packets generated
generated for a variety of lattice sizes. The number for 100 nodes with 10 connections
of chains is same as the number of nodes in each
chain resulting in square lattices. The total number
of nodes is shown in X axis. There is reduction in
control packets for Blind directional antenna and a
drastic decrease for Smart directional case.

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 4

 600000 1600000
1400000

No of Broadcast packets
500000
T h ro u g h p u t (b p s ) 1200000
400000

generated
AODV 1000000 AODV
300000 DSDV 800000 DSDV
DSR 600000 DSR
200000
400000
100000 200000

0 0
5 15 25 35 5 15 25 35

Speed (m/s) speed (m/s)

Figure 9 Number of broadcast packets generated

Figure 6 Throughput generated for 100 nodes with for 100 nodes with 30 connections
10 connections

700000 700000

600000
No of Broadcast packets

600000

Throughput (bps)
500000 500000
AODV
generated

AODV 400000
400000
DSDV DSDV
300000 300000
DSR DSR
200000 200000

100000 100000

0 0
5 15 25 35 5 15 25 35

speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)

Figure 7 Number of broadcast packets generated Figure 10 Throughput generated for 100 nodes
for 100 nodes with 20 connections with 30 connections

700000 1200000
N o o f B ro ad cast p ackets

600000 1000000
Throughput (bps)

500000 800000
g en erated

AODV AODV
400000
DSDV 600000 DSDV
300000 DSR
DSR 400000
200000
200000
100000
0
0
5 15 25 35
5 15 25 35
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)

Figure 11 Number of broadcast packets generated

Figure 8 Throughput generated for 100 nodes with
for 100 nodes with 40 connections
20 connections

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 5

 The mobility metric is explicitly designed to
800000
capture the kind of motion important for an ad-hoc
700000 network – the relative motion of nodes. It can be
T h ro u g h p u t(b p s) 600000 used for any continuous node motion. In networks
500000 AODV with a dynamic topology, proactive protocols such
400000 DSDV as DSDV have considerable difficulties in
300000 DSR maintaining valid routes, and lose many packets
200000
because of that. With increasing mobility, its strive
to continuously maintain routes to every node
100000
increases network load as updates become larger.
0
5 15 25 35
The results confirm most of the properties
found in the random scenarios. DSDV had
Speed (m/s)
considerable difficulties in handling most scenarios
even though the mobility was kept rather low. Both
Figure 12 Throughput generated for 100 nodes
DSR and AODV performed quite well for almost
with 40 connections
all examined scenarios, while DSDV had serious
performance problems.
Through simulations and analytical models it is
proved that, the overall performance of the network
is increased by reducing the broadcast packets to a
larger extent using directional antenna. The
No of Broadcast packets

1500000
throughput is increased to a large extent from
source node to destination node.
generated

1000000 AODV
DSDV
500000 DSR
6 REFERENCES
0 [1] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen, and J. Sheu, “The
10 20 40 60 80 100 Broadcast Storm Problem in a Mobile Ad Hoc
No of nodes Network,” Proc. ACM MobiCom Conf., Aug. 1999.
[2] B. Williams and T. Camp, “Comparison of
Figure 13 Number of broadcast packets generated Broadcasting Techniques for Mobile Ad Hoc
with increasing number of nodes Networks,” Proc. ACM MobiHoc Conf., June 2002.
[3] C. Ho, K. Obraczka, G. Tsudik, and K.
From the simulated results the overhead is high in Viswanath, “Flooding for Reliable Multicast in
terms of broadcast packets since DSDV broadcasts Multihop Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. Third Int’l
periodic HELLO messages to its neighbors, and Workshop Discrete Algorithms and Methods for
needs to send control messages more frequently Mobile Computing and Comm. (DIAL-M ’99),
than DSR and AODV to find and repair routes. The Aug. 1999
simulations in this work show that DSR performs [4] J. Jetcheva, Y. Hu, D. Maltz, and D. Johnson,
better than AODV for low traffic loads, since it “A Simple Protocol for Multicast and Broadcast in
discovers routes more efficiently. At higher traffic Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Internet Draft, July
loads, however, AODV performs better than DSR 2001.
due to less additional load being imposed by source [5] Y. Sasson, D. Cavin, and A. Schiper,
routes in data packets. The realistic scenarios were “Probabilistic Broadcast for Flooding in Wireless
examined to get an understanding on how the Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE Wireless
protocols would behave in an environment more Comm. and Networking Conf., Mar. 2003.
realistic than the random scenarios. DSR and [6] J. Wu and F. Dai, “Broadcasting in Ad Hoc
AODV managed to deliver higher throughput when Networks Based on Self-Pruning,” Proc. IEEE
compared to DSDV. INFOCOM Conf., July 2003.
[7] W. Lou and J. Lu, “On Reducing Broadcast
Redundancy in Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Trans.
5 CONCLUSION Mobile Computing, vol. 1, no. 2, Apr.-June 2002.
[8] H. Lim and C. Kim, “Multicast Tree
The simulations presented here clearly show Construction and Flooding in Wireless Ad Hoc
that there is a need for efficient broadcast protocol Networks,” Proc. ACM Int’l Workshop Modeling,
specifically tuned to the characteristics of ad-hoc Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile
networks. The mobility metric used throughout the Systems, Aug. 2000.
study explicitly shows how the examined protocols [9] A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, and A. Laouiti,
behave for various degrees of relative node motion. “Multipoint Relaying: An Efficient Technique for

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 6

Flooding in Mobile Wireless Networks,” Technical Wireless And Mobile Computing, Networking And
Report 3898, INRIA—Rapport de Recherche, 2000. Communications, pp 473-478, 2005.
[10] W. Peng and X. Lu, “AHBP: An Efficient [24] R. Ramanathan, On the Performance of Ad
Broadcast Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Hoc Networks with Beamforming Antennas, in Proc.
J. Science and Technology, 2002. of MobiHoc, pp.95-105, Oct. 2001.
[11] Dai, Wu, “Efficient broadcasting in ad hoc [25] Y.-B. Ko, V. Shankarkumar and N. H. Vaidya,
wireless networks using directional antennas”, “Medium Access Control Protocols Using
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Directional Antennas in Ad Hoc Networks”, In
Systems, Vol.17, pp. 335-345, 2006 Proc. Of IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2000
[12] Chien-Chung,Zhuochuan Huang , Chaiporn
Jaikaeo, “Directional broadcast for mobile ad hoc
networks with percolation theory”, IEEE
Transactions on Mobile Computing, Vol.5, pp.317-
332, 2006
[13] I. Stojmenovic, M. Seddigh, and J. Zunic,
“Dominating Sets and Neighbor Elimination-Based
Broadcasting Algorithms in Wireless Networks,”
IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol.
13, no. 1, Jan. 2002.
[14] A. Nasipuri, J. Mandava, H. Manchala, and
R.E. Hiromoto, “On-Demand Routing Using
Directional Antennas in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks,” Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. Computer
Comm. and Networks, Oct. 2000.
[15] R.R. Choudhury and N.H. Vaidya, “Ad Hoc
Routing Using Directional Antenna,” technical
report, Dept. of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Computer Science Laboratory, Univ.
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aug. 2002.
[16] C. Hu, Y. Hong, and J. Hou, “On Mitigating
the Broadcast Storm Problem with Directional
Antennas,” Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. Comm., May
2003.
[17] Wisitpongphan, N. Tonguz,, “Scalable
broadcast strategies for ad hoc routing protocols”,
IEEE 1st International Symposium on Wireless
Pervasive Computing, pp 6-10, 2006
[18] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, Dynamic Source
Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, in Mobile
Computing, editor T. Imielinksi and Hank Korth,
Kluwer, 1996
[19] Z. J. Haas and M. R. Pearlman, The Zone
Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks
(Internet-Draft), Mobile Ad hoc Network
(MANET) Working Group, IETF, Aug. 1998
[20] Y.-B Ko and Nitin Vaidya, Location-Aided
Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, in Proc.
ACM MobiCom, pages 66-75, Dallas, Texas.
[21] M. Sanchez, T. Giles, and J. Zander
“CSMA/CA with Beam Forming Antennas in Multi-
hop Packet Radio”, Proc. Swedish Workshop on
Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Mar. 5-6, 2001
[22] M. Takai, Jay Martin, Rajiv Bagrodia and
Aifeng Ren “DirectionalVirtual Carrier Sensing
for Directional Antennas in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks”, Proc. of the ACM MobiHoc 2002, June
2002.
[23] Tzu-Chiang Chiang Po-Yi Wu Yueh-Min
Huang, “A limited flooding scheme for mobile ad
hoc networks”, IEEE International Conference on

Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal 7