SEMINAR REPORT

ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR

AD HOC WIRELESS LANs
SEMINAR REPORT
 ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR AD HOC
WIRELESS LANs

ABSTRACT

The idea of forming an ad hoc on-the-fly network of mobile devices opens up an

exciting new world of possibilities. Because ad-hoc networks do not need any pre-
existing infrastructure, they can solve many interesting problems of spontaneous link
establishment, i.e. communication on the fly. In this case, ad-hoc networks have a clear
advantage over the classic, wire-bound connections.

An ad-hoc mobile network is a collection of mobile nodes that are dynamically

and arbitrarily located in such a manner that the interconnections between nodes are
capable of changing on a continual basis. In order to facilitate communication within the
network, a routing protocol is used to discover routes between nodes. The primary goal of
such an ad-hoc network routing protocol is correct and efficient route establishment
between a pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered in a timely manner. Route
construction should be done with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption.

This report examines firstly the mathematical dynamism of such ad hoc networks,
which spawns the need for a different approach towards routing. Then it goes on to
explain various routing protocols for ad-hoc networks and evaluates these protocols
based on a given set of parameters. The paper provides an overview of various protocols
by presenting their characteristics and functionality, and then provides a comparison and
discussion of their respective merits and drawbacks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TOPIC PAGE NO.
1. Introduction 01
1.1 Local Area Network (LAN) 01
1.2 Wireless LAN (WLAN) 02
1.3 Wireless LAN Configurations 03
1.3.1 Independent (Ad hoc) Wireless LAN 03
1.3.2 Infrastructure Wireless LAN 04
1.4 Microcells, Roaming and Handoffs 05

2. Ad hoc Network Routing Considerations 07

2.1 Applications of Ad hoc Networks 07
2.2 Routing Protocols 08
2.3 Routing Considerations 09
2.4 Existing Ad hoc Routing Protocols 10

3. Table Driven Routing Protocols 12

3.1 DSDV 12
3.2 CGSR 13
3.3 WRP 15

4. Source Initiated On-Demand Routing 17

4.1 AODV 17
4.2 DSR 19
4.3 TORA 21
4.4 ABR 23
4.5 SSR 26

5. Comparison of Protocols 28
5.1 Table-Driven Protocols 28
5.2 Source Initiated On-Demand Protocols 30
5.3 Table Driven vs. On-Demand Routing 34

6. Ad hoc Routing Protocols: The Next Generation 36

Conclusion 38

References 39
 1. INTRODUCTION

The widespread reliance on networking in business and the meteoric growth of

the Internet and online services are strong testimonies to the benefits of shared data and
resources. With Wireless LANs users can access such shared information without having
to look for a place to plug in, and network managers can set up or augment networks
without installing or moving wires. Thus Wireless LANs have gained extreme popularity
in a variety of industries and applications over the last few years, health-care, retail,
manufacturing, warehousing, and academics to name a few. These industries have
profited from the productivity gains of using hand-held terminals and note-book
computers to transmit real-time information to centralized hosts for processing.

Today Wireless LANs are becoming more widely recognized as a general-

purpose connectivity alternative for a broad range of business customers and are expected
to diversify in terms of both coverage and revenue returns in due course of time. Let us
look at what they are all about.

1.1 Local Area Network (LAN)

A network is defined as a set of independent computing entities (such as

workstations, mini computers, standalone printers etc.) that are equipped to communicate
with each other.

By definition, a Local Area Network means it is “local” i.e. limited in its physical
extent. Thus a Local Area Network consists of the aforementioned computing entities
that are restricted to a certain geographical range. Fast, flexible and economical
movement of data between systems is achieved by a LAN.

1.2 Wireless LAN (WLAN)

 Wireless LANs provide all the functionality of wired LANs, but without the
physical constraints of the wire itself. A wireless LAN (WLAN) is a flexible data
communication system implemented as an extension to or as an alternative for, a wired
LAN within a building, campus or any small area (the limits of the size of this area
depend on the wireless technology used). Wireless LANs combine data connectivity with
user mobility, and, through simplified configuration, enable movable LANs.

Wireless LANs use electromagnetic airwaves (radio and infrared) to communicate

information from one point to another without relying on any physical connection. Radio
waves are often referred to as radio carriers because they simply perform the function of
delivering energy to a remote receiver. The data being transmitted is superimposed on the
radio carrier so that it can be accurately extracted at the receiving end. This is generally
referred to as modulation of the carrier by the information being transmitted. Once data is
superimposed (modulated) onto the radio carrier, the radio signal occupies more than a
single frequency, since the frequency or bit rate of the modulating information adds to the
carrier.

Wireless LANs offer the following productivity, convenience, and cost

advantages over traditional wired networks:

 Mobility
 Installation Speed and Simplicity
 Installation Flexibility
 Reduced cost of Ownership
 Scalability

1.3 Wireless LAN Configurations

 Depending on the configuration of the Wireless LAN and the connection
hardware used, Wireless LANs can exist in two configurations:

 Independent (Ad hoc) Wireless LANs

 Infrastructure Wireless LANs

1.3.1 Independent (Ad hoc) Wireless LAN

Wireless LANs can be simple or complex. At its most basic, two PCs equipped
with wireless adapter cards can set up an independent network whenever they are within
range of one another. This is called a peer-to-peer network. On-demand networks such as
in this example require no administration or pre configuration. Several mobile nodes (e.g.
notebook computers) may get together in a small area (e.g. in a conference room) and
establish peer-to-peer communications among themselves without the help of any
infrastructure such as wired/wireless backbone. In this case each client would only have
access to the resources of the other client and not to a central server.

Example applications of Ad hoc networks are emergency search-and-rescue

operations, meetings or conventions in which persons wish to quickly share information,
and data acquisition operations in inhospitable terrains.
 Fig. 1.1 Ad hoc network of three mobile devices

Installing an access point can extend the range of an ad hoc network, effectively
doubling the range at which the devices can communicate.

1.3.2 Infrastructure LANs

Despite the exciting research avenues and applications of ad-hoc networking,

some applications might require communications with services located in a pre-existing
infrastructure.

Fig. 1.2 Infrastructure LANs using multiple access points

Such an infrastructure is typically a higher-speed wired (or wireless) backbone.

Therefore we can divide typical network traffic into two directions: uplink (into the
backbone) and downlink (from the backbone). The contact points to the backbone are
called access points. The access points can be either base stations for wired
infrastructures or wireless bridges for wireless infrastructures. Repeaters may also be
used for enlarging the coverage area of communication.

1.4 Microcells, Roaming and Handoffs

Wireless communication is limited by how far signals carry for given power
output. WLANs use cells, called microcells, similar to the cellular telephone system to
extend the range of wireless connectivity. At any point in time, a mobile PC equipped
with a WLAN adapter is associated with a single access point and its microcell, or area of
coverage. Individual microcells overlap to allow continuous communication within wired
network. (Fig. 1.3) They handle low-power signals and hand off users as they roam
through a given geographic area.

Fig 1.3 Handing of the WLAN Connection Between Access Points

Cellular structures are adopted to increase the effective total bandwidth by using
different frequencies in different microcells. This concept is known as frequency reuse.
As a result of frequency reuse, the total available communication bandwidth for all users
is much larger than the transmission speed. A function that allows a mobile node to
communicate with the access point in a cell and then switch to the access point in another
cell is called handoff or handover. The purpose of the handoff is to keep continuous or
seamless service to mobile nodes through different cell coverages. Handoff is
consequently a special feature to deal with the mobility issue for wireless networks.
2. AD HOC NETWORK ROUTING
CONSIDERATIONS
 An ad hoc network is the cooperative engagement of a collection of mobile nodes
without the required intervention of any centralized access point or existing
infrastructure. In ad hoc networks all nodes are mobile and can be connected dynamically
in an arbitrary manner. All nodes of these networks behave as routers and take part in
discovery and maintenance of routes to other nodes in the network.

2.1 Applications of Ad hoc Networks

Akin to packet radio networks, ad-hoc wireless networks have an important role
to play in military applications. Soldiers equipped with multi-mode mobile
communicators can now communicate in an ad-hoc manner, without the need for fixed
wireless base stations. In addition, small vehicular devices equipped with audio sensors
and cameras can be deployed at targeted regions to collect important location and
environmental information which will be communicated back to a processing node via
ad-hoc mobile communications. Ship-to-ship ad-hoc mobile communication is also
desirable since it provides alternate communication paths without reliance on ground- or
space-based communication infrastructures.

Commercial scenarios for ad-hoc wireless networks include:

 conferences/meetings/lectures,
 emergency services and
 law enforcement.

People today attend meetings and conferences with their laptops, palmtops and
notebooks. It is therefore attractive to have instant network formation, in addition to file
and information sharing without the presence of fixed base stations and systems
administrators. A presenter can multicast slides and audio to intended recipients.
Attendees can ask questions and interact on a commonly-shared white board. Ad-hoc
mobile communication is particularly useful in relaying information (status, situation
awareness, etc.) via data, video and/or voice from one rescue team member to another
over a small handheld or wearable wireless device. Again, this applies to law
enforcement personnel as well.

2.2 Routing Protocols

A routing protocol is needed whenever a packet delivered needs to be handed

over several nodes to arrive at its destination. A routing protocol has to find a route for
packet delivery and make the packet delivered to the correct destination. These protocols
can be classified in three categories:

• Centralized or distributed.
• Adaptive or static.
• Reactive or proactive or hybrid.

When a routing protocol is centralized, all decisions are made at a center node,
where as in a distributed routing protocol, all nodes share the routing decision. An
adaptive protocol may change behavior according to the network status, which can be a
congestion on a link or many other possible factors. A reactive protocol takes required
actions such as discovering routes when needed; besides a proactive protocol discovers
the routes before they are needed. Reactive methods are called on-demand routing
protocols. Since they run on demand, the control packet overhead is greatly reduced.
Proactive methods keep tables of routes, and maintain those tables periodically. Hybrid
methods make use of both to come up with a more efficient one. Zone routing protocol is
an example to hybrid methods. Associativity Based Routing (ABR) is an adaptive
protocol, where associativity is related to spatial, temporal and connection stability of a
mobile host.

2.3 Routing Considerations

 Ad hoc networks differ significantly from existing networks. First of all, the
topology of interconnections may be quite dynamic. Secondly, most users will not wish
to perform any administrative actions to set up such a network. Moreover, in order to
provide service in the most general situation, one cannot assume that every computer is
within communication range of every other computer. This lack of complete connectivity
would certainly be a reasonable characteristic of, say, a population of mobile computers
in a large room which relied on infrared transceivers to effect their data communications.

Currently, there is no method available which enables mobile computers with

wireless data communications equipment to freely roam about while still maintaining
connections with each other, unless special assumptions are made about the way the
computers are situated with respect to each other. One mobile computer may often be
able to exchange data with two other mobile computers which cannot themselves directly
exchange data. As a result, computer users in a conference room may be unable to predict
which of their associates’ computers could be relied upon to maintain network
connection, especially as the users moved from place to place within the room.

Routing protocols for existing networks have not been designed specifically to
provide the kind of dynamic, self-starting behavior needed for ad-hoc networks. Most
protocols exhibit their least desirable behavior when presented with a highly dynamic
interconnection topology. Although mobile computers could naturally be modeled as
routers, it is also clear that existing routing protocols would place too heavy a
computational burden on each mobile computer. Moreover, the convergence
characteristics of existing routing protocols did not seem good enough to fit the needs of
ad-hoc networks.

Lastly, the wireless medium differs in important ways from wired media, which
would require that we make modifications to whichever routing protocol we might
choose to experiment with. For instance, mobile computers may well have only a single
network interface adapter, whereas most existing routers have network interfaces to
connect two separate networks together. Besides, wireless media are of limited and
variable range, in distinction to existing wired media.

2.4 Existing Ad hoc Routing Protocols

Since the advent of DARPA packet radio networks in the early 1970s, numerous
protocols have been developed for ad-hoc mobile networks. Such protocols must deal
with the typical limitations of these networks, which include high power consumption,
low bandwidth, and high error rates.

Fig .2.1 Categorization of Ad hoc Routing Protocols

As shown in Figure 2.1, these routing protocols may generally be categorized as:

(a) table-driven and

(b) source-initiated on-demand driven.
 Solid lines in this figure represent direct descendants while dotted lines depict
logical descendants. Despite being designed for the same type of underlying network, the
characteristics of each of these protocols are quite distinct. The following chapters
describe these routing protocols in detail.

3. TABLE-DRIVEN ROUTING PROTOCOLS

The table-driven routing protocols attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date

routing information from each node to every other node in the network. These protocols
require each node to maintain one or more tables to store routing information, and they
respond to changes in network topology by propagating updates throughout the network
in order to maintain a consistent network view. The areas where they differ are the
number of necessary routing-related tables and the methods by which changes in network
structure are broadcast. The following sections discuss some of the existing table-driven
ad-hoc routing protocols.

3.1 Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV)

The Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing protocol (DSDV) described

in is a table-driven algorithm based on the classical Bellman-Ford routing mechanism
[14]. The improvements made to the Bellman-Ford algorithm include freedom from loops
in routing tables.

Every mobile node in the network maintains a routing table in which all of the
possible destinations within the network and the number of hops to each destination are
recorded. Each entry is marked with a sequence number assigned by the destination node.
The sequence numbers enable the mobile nodes to distinguish stale routes from new ones,
thereby avoiding the formation of routing loops. Routing table updates are periodically
transmitted throughout the network in order to maintain table consistency.

To help alleviate the potentially large amount of network traffic that such updates
can generate, route updates can employ two possible types of packets. The first is known
as a full dump. This type of packet carries all available routing information and can
require multiple network protocol data units (NPDUs). During periods of occasional
movement, these packets are transmitted infrequently. Smaller incremental packets are
used to relay only that information which has changed since the last full dump. Each of
these broadcasts should fit into a standard size NPDU, thereby decreasing the amount of
traffic generated.

The mobile nodes maintain an additional table where they store the data sent in
the incremental routing information packets. New route broadcasts contain the address of
the destination, the number of hops to reach the destination, the sequence number of the
information received regarding the destination, as well as a new sequence number unique
to the broadcast [11]. The route labeled with the most recent sequence number is always
used. In the event that two updates have the same sequence number, the route with the
smaller metric is used in order to optimize (shorten) the path. Mobiles also keep track of
the settling time of routes, or the weighted average time that routes to a destination will
fluctuate before the route with the best metric is received (see [11]). By delaying the
broadcast of a routing update by the length of the settling time, mobiles can reduce
network traffic and optimize routes by eliminating those broadcasts that would occur if a
better route was discovered in the very near future.

3.2 Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR)

The Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR) protocol differs from the
previous protocol in the type of addressing and network organization scheme employed.
Instead of a at network, CGSR is a clustered multihop mobile wireless network with
several heuristic routing schemes. By having a cluster head controlling a group of ad-hoc
nodes, a framework for code separation (among clusters), and channel access, routing and
bandwidth allocation can be achieved. A cluster head selection algorithm is utilized to
elect a node as the cluster head using a distributed algorithm within the cluster. The
disadvantage of having a cluster head scheme is that frequent cluster head changes can
adversely affect routing protocol performance since nodes are busy in cluster head
selection rather than packet relaying. Hence, instead of invoking cluster head reselection
every time the cluster membership changes, a Least Cluster Change (LCC) clustering
algorithm Is introduced. Using LCC, cluster heads only change when two cluster heads
come into contact, or when a node moves out of contact of all other cluster heads.
 Fig. 3.1 CGSR: Routing from Node 1 to Node 8.

CGSR uses DSDV as the underlying routing scheme, and hence has much of the
same overhead as DSDV. However, it modifies DSDV by using a hierarchical cluster
head-to-gateway routing approach to route traffic from source to destination. Gateway
nodes are nodes that are within communication range of two or more cluster heads. A
packet sent by a node is first routed to its cluster head, and then the packet is routed from
the cluster head to a gateway to another cluster head, and so on until the cluster head of
the destination node is reached. The packet is then transmitted to the destination. Figure
3.1 illustrates an example of this routing scheme. Using this method, each node must
keep a cluster member table where it stores the destination cluster head for each mobile
node in the network. These cluster member tables are broadcast by each node periodically
using the DSDV algorithm. Nodes update their cluster member tables on the reception of
such a table from a neighbor.

In addition to the cluster member table, each node must also maintain a routing
table, which is used to determine the next hop in order to reach the destination. On
receiving a packet, a node will consult its cluster member table and routing table to
determine the nearest cluster head along the route to the destination. Next the node will
check its routing table to determine the node in order to reach the selected cluster head. It
then transmits the packet to this node.

3.3 The Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)

 The Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) is a table-based protocol with the goal of
maintaining routing information among all nodes in the network. Each node in the
network is responsible for maintaining four tables:

1. distance table,
2. routing table,
3. link-cost table, and
4. message retransmission list (MRL) table.

Each entry of the MRL contains the sequence number of the update message, a
retransmission counter, an acknowledgment-required flag vector with one entry per
neighbor, and a list of updates sent in the update message. The MRL records which
updates in an update message need to be retransmitted and which neighbors should
acknowledge the retransmission.

Mobiles inform each other of link changes through the use of update messages.
An update message is sent only between neighboring nodes and contains a list of updates
(the destination, the distance to the destination, and the predecessor of the destination), as
well as a list of responses indicating which mobiles should acknowledge (ACK) the
update. Mobiles send update messages after processing updates from neighbors or
detecting a change in a link to a neighbor. In the event of the loss of a link between two
nodes, the nodes send update messages to their neighbors. The neighbors then update
their distance table entries and check for new possible paths through other nodes. Any
new paths are relayed back to the original nodes so that they can update their tables
accordingly.

Nodes learn of the existence of their neighbors from the receipt of

acknowledgments and other messages. If a node is not sending messages, it must send a
hello message within a specified time period to ensure connectivity. Otherwise, the lack
of messages from the node indicates the failure of that link; this may cause a false alarm.
When a mobile receives a hello message from a new node, that new node is added to the
mobile's routing table, and the mobile sends the new node a copy of its routing table
information.

Part of the novelty of WRP stems from the way in which it achieves loop
freedom. In WRP, routing nodes communicate the distance and second-to-last hop
information for each destination in the wireless networks. WRP belongs to the class of
path finding algorithms with an important exception. It avoids the count-to-infinity
problem [1] by forcing each node to perform consistency checks of predecessor
information reported by all its neighbors. This ultimately (though not instantaneously)
eliminates looping situations and provides faster route convergence when a link failure
event occurs.

4. SOURCE-INITIATED ON-DEMAND ROUTING

A different approach from table-driven routing is source-initiated on-demand

routing. This type of routing creates routes only when desired by the source node. When
a node requires a route to a destination, it initiates a route discovery process within the
network. This process is completed once a route is found or all possible route
permutations have been examined. Once a route has been established, it is maintained by
some form of route maintenance procedure until either the destination becomes
inaccessible along every path from the source or until the route is no longer desired.

4.1 Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)

The Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol described in

[7] builds on the DSDV algorithm previously described. AODV is an improvement on
DSDV because it typically minimizes the number of required broadcasts by creating
routes on an on-demand basis, as opposed to maintaining a complete list of routes as in
the DSDV algorithm. The authors of AODV classify it as a pure on-demand route
acquisition system, as nodes that are not on a selected path do not maintain routing
information or participate in routing table exchanges.

When a source node desires to send a message to some destination node and does
not already have a valid route to that destination, it initiates a Path Discovery process to
locate the other node. It broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet to its neighbors, which
then forward the request to their neighbors, and so on, until either the destination or an
intermediate node with a fresh enough route to the destination is located. Figure 4.1(a)
illustrates the propagation of the broadcast RREQs across the network. AODV utilizes
destination sequence numbers to ensure all routes are loop-free and contain the most
recent route information. Each node maintains its own sequence number, as well as a
broadcast ID. The broadcast ID is incremented for every RREQ the node initiates, and
together with the node's IP address, uniquely identifies a RREQ. Along with its own
sequence number and the broadcast ID, the source node includes in the RREQ the most
recent sequence number it has for the destination. Intermediate nodes can reply to the
RREQ only if they have a route to the destination whose corresponding destination
sequence number is greater than or equal to that contained in the RREQ.
 Fig. 4.1 AODV Route Discovery

During the process of forwarding the RREQ, intermediate nodes record in their
route tables the address of the neighbor from which the first copy of the broadcast packet
is received, thereby establishing a reverse path. If additional copies of the same RREQ
are later received, these packets are discarded. Once the RREQ reaches the destination or
an intermediate node with a fresh enough route, the destination/intermediate node
responds by unicasting a route reply (RREP) packet back to the neighbor from which it
first received the RREQ [Figure 4.1(b)]. As the RREP is routed back along the reverse
path, nodes along this path set up forward route entries in their route tables which point to
the node from which the RREP came. These forward route entries indicate the active
forward route. Associated with each route entry is a route timer which will cause the
deletion of the entry if it is not used within the specified lifetime. Because the RREP is
forwarded along the path established by the RREQ, AODV only supports the use of
symmetric links.

Routes are maintained as follows. If a source node moves, it is able to reinitiate

the route discovery protocol to find a new route to the destination. If a node along the
route moves, its upstream neighbor notices the move and propagates a link failure
notification message (an RREP with infinite metric) to each of its active upstream
neighbors to inform them of the erasure of that part of the route. These nodes in turn
propagate the link failure notification to their upstream neighbors, and so on until the
source node is reached. The source node may then choose to re-initiate route discovery
for that destination if a route is still desired.

An additional aspect of the protocol is the use of hello messages, periodic local
broadcasts by a node to inform each mobile node of other nodes in its neighborhood.
Hello messages can be used to maintain the local connectivity of a node. However the use
of hello messages is not required. Nodes listen for retransmissions of data packets to
ensure the next hop is still within reach. If such a retransmission is not heard, the node
may use any one of a number of techniques, including the reception of hello messages, to
determine whether the next hop is within communication range. The hello messages may
list the other nodes from which a mobile has heard, thereby yielding a greater knowledge
of the network connectivity.

4.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol is an on-demand routing protocol

that is based on the concept of source routing. Mobile nodes are required to maintain
route caches that contain the source routes of which the mobile is aware. Entries in the
route cache are continually updated as new routes are learned. The protocol consists of
two major phases: route discovery and route maintenance. When a mobile node has a
packet to send to some destination, it first consults its route cache to determine whether it
already has a route to the destination. If it has an unexpired route to the destination, it will
use this route to send the packet. On the other hand, if the node does not have such a
route, it initiates route discovery by broadcasting a route request packet. This route
request contains the address of the destination, along with the source node's address and a
unique identification number.
 Fig 4.2 Creation of the Route Record in DSR

Each node receiving the packet checks whether it knows of a route to the
destination. If it does not, it adds its own address to the route record of the packet and
then forwards the packet along its outgoing links. To limit the number of route requests
propagated on the outgoing links of a node, a mobile only forwards the route request if
the request has not yet been seen by the mobile and if the mobile's address does not
already appear in the route record.

A route reply is generated when either the route request reaches the destination
itself, or when it reaches an intermediate node which contains in its route caches an
unexpired route to the destination. By the time the packet reaches either the destination or
such an intermediate node, it contains a route record yielding the sequence of hops taken.
Figure 4.2(a) illustrates the formation of the route record as the route request propagates
through the network. If the node generating the route reply is the destination, it places the
route record contained in the route request into the route reply. If the responding node is
an intermediate node, it will append its cached route to the route record and then generate
the route reply. To return the route reply, the responding node must have a route to the
initiator. If it has a route to the initiator in its route cache, it may use that route.
Otherwise, if symmetric links are supported, the node may reverse the route in the route
record. If symmetric links are not supported, the node may initiate its own route
discovery and piggyback the route reply on the new route request. Figure 4.2(b) shows
the transmission of the route reply with its associated route record back to the source
node.
 Route maintenance is accomplished through the use of route error packets and
acknowledgments. Route error packets are generated at a node when the data link layer
encounters a fatal transmission problem. When a route error packet is received, the hop in
error is removed from the node's route cache and all routes containing the hop are
truncated at that point. In addition to route error messages, acknowledgments are used to
verify the correct operation of the route links. Such acknowledgments include passive
acknowledgments, where a mobile is able to hear the next hop forwarding the packet
along the route.

4.3 Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)

TORA (Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm) is a highly adaptive, loop-free,

distributed routing algorithm based on the concept of link reversal. TORA is proposed to
operate in a highly dynamic mobile networking environment. It is source-initiated and
provides multiple routes for any desired source/destination pair. The key design concept
of TORA is the localization of control messages to a very small set of nodes near the
occurrence of a topological change. To accomplish this, nodes need to maintain routing
information about adjacent (1-hop) nodes. The protocol performs three basic functions:

I. route creation,
II. route maintenance, and
III. route erasure.
During the route creation and maintenance phases, nodes use a height metric to
establish a directed acyclic graph (DAG) rooted at the destination. Thereafter, links are
assigned a direction (upstream or downstream) based on the relative height metric of
neighboring nodes, as shown in Figure 4.3(a). This process of establishing a DAG is
similar to the query/reply process proposed in LMR (Lightweight Mobile Routing). In
times of node mobility, the DAG route is broken and route maintenance is necessary to
re-establish a DAG rooted at the same destination. As shown in Figure 4.3(b), upon
failure of the last downstream link, a node generates a new reference level which results
in the propagation of that reference level by neighboring nodes, effectively coordinating a

Fig 4.3 (a) Route creation (showing link direction assignment), (b) Route Maintenance (showing
link reversal phenomenon) in TORA.

structured reaction to the failure. Links are reversed to reflect the change in adapting to
the new reference level. This has the same effect as reversing the direction of one or more
links when a node has no downstream links.

Timing is an important factor for TORA because the height metric is dependent
on the logical time of a link failure; TORA assumes all nodes have synchronized clocks
(accomplished via an external time source such as Global Positioning System). TORA's
metric is a quintuple comprised of five elements, namely:

1. logical time of a link failure,

2. the unique ID of the node that defined the new reference level,
3. a reflection indicator bit,
4. a propagation ordering parameter, and
5. the unique ID of the node.
 The first three elements collectively represent the reference level. A new
reference level is defined each time a node loses its last downstream link due to a link
failure. TORA's route erasure phase essentially involves flooding a broadcast clear
packet (CLR) throughout the network to erase invalid routes.

In TORA, there is a potential for oscillations to occur, especially when multiple

sets of coordinating nodes are concurrently detecting partitions, erasing routes, and
building new routes based on each other. Because TORA uses internodal coordination, its
instability problem is similar to the count-to-infinity problem in distance-vector routing
protocols, except that such oscillations are temporary and route convergence will
ultimately occur.

4.4 Associativity-Based Routing (ABR)

The Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) protocol is free from loops, deadlock,

and packet duplicates, and defines a new routing metric for ad-hoc mobile networks. This
metric is known as the degree of association stability. In ABR, a route is selected based
on the degree of association stability of mobile nodes. Each node periodically generates a
beacon to signify its existence. When received by neighboring nodes, these beaconing
causes their associativity tables to be updated. For each beacon received, the associativity
tick of the current node with respect to the beaconing node is incremented. Association
stability is defined by connection stability of one node with respect to another node over
time and space. A high degree of association stability may indicate a low state of node
mobility, while a low degree may indicate a high state of node mobility. Associativity
ticks are reset when the neighbors of a node or the node itself moves out of proximity. A
fundamental objective of ABR is to derive longer-lived routes for ad-hoc mobile
networks.
 Fig 4.4 Route Maintenance for Source and Destination Movement in ABR.

The three phases of ABR are:

1. route discovery,
2. route re-construction (RRC), and
3. route deletion.

The route discovery phase is accomplished by a broadcast query and await-reply

(BQ-REPLY) cycle. A node desiring a route broadcasts a BQ message in search of
mobiles that have a route to the destination. All nodes receiving the query (that are not
the destination) append their addresses and their associativity ticks with their neighbors
along with QoS information to the query packet. A successor node erases its upstream
node neighbors' associativity tick entries and retains only the entry concerned with itself
and its upstream node. In this way, each resultant packet arriving at the destination will
contain the associativity ticks of the nodes along the route to the destination. The
destination is then able to select the best route by examining the associativity ticks along
each of the paths. In the case where multiple paths have the same overall degree of
association stability, the route with the minimum number of hops is selected. The
destination then sends a REPLY packet back to the source along this path. Nodes
propagating the REPLY mark their routes as valid. All other routes remain inactive and
the possibility of duplicate packets arriving at the destination is avoided.
 Route re-construction may consist of partial route discovery, invalid route erasure,
valid route updates, and new route discovery, depending on which node(s) along the
route move. Movement by the source results in a new BQ-REPLY process, as shown in
Figure 4.4(a). The RN[1] message is a route notification that is used to erase the route
entries associated with downstream nodes. When the destination node moves, the
immediate upstream node erases its route and determines if the node is still reachable by
a localized query (LQ[H]) process, where H refers to the hop count from the upstream
node to the destination (Figure 6b). If the destination receives the LQ packet, it REPLYs
with the best partial route; otherwise, the initiating node times out and the process
backtracks to the next upstream node. Here an RN[0] message is sent to the next
upstream node to erase the invalid routes and inform this node it should invoke the
LQ[H] process. If this process results in backtracking more than halfway to the source,
the LQ process is discontinued and a new BQ process is initiated at the source.

When a discovered route is no longer desired, the source node initiates a route
delete (RD) broadcast so that all nodes along the route update their routing tables. The
RD message is propagated by a full broadcast, as opposed to a directed broadcast,
because the source node may not be aware of any route node changes that occurred
during route re-constructions.

4.5 Signal Stability Routing (SSR)

Another on-demand protocol is the Signal Stability based Adaptive Routing

protocol (SSR). Unlike the algorithms described so far, SSR selects routes based on the
signal strength between nodes and on a node's location stability. This route selection
criterion has the effect of choosing routes that have stronger connectivities. SSR can be
divided into two cooperative protocols: the Dynamic Routing Protocol (DRP) and the
Static Routing Protocol (SRP).
 The DRP is responsible for the maintenance of the Signal Stability Table (SST)
and the Routing Table (RT). The SST records the signal strength of neighboring nodes,
which is obtained by periodic beacons from the link layer of each neighboring node. The
signal strength may be recorded as either a strong or weak channel. All transmissions are
received by, and processed in, the DRP. After updating all appropriate table entries, the
DRP passes a received packet to the SRP.

The SRP processes packets by passing the packet up the stack if it is the intended
receiver or looking up the destination in the RT and then forwarding the packet if it is
not. If no entry is found in the RT for the destination, a route-search process is initiated to
find a route. Route requests are propagated throughout the network but are only
forwarded to the next hop if they are received over strong channels and have not been
previously processed (to prevent looping). The destination chooses the first arriving
route-search packet to send back because it is most probable that the packet arrived over
the shortest and/or least congested path. The DRP then reverses the selected route and
sends a route-reply message back to the initiator. The DRP of the nodes along the path
update their RTs accordingly.

Route-search packets arriving at the destination have necessarily chosen the path
of strongest signal stability, as the packets are dropped at a node if they have arrived over
a weak channel. If there is no route-reply message received at the source within a specific
timeout period, the source changes the PREF field in the header to indicate that weak
channels are acceptable, as these may be the only links over which the packet can be
propagated.

When a failed link is detected within the network, the intermediate nodes send an
error message to the source indicating which channel has failed. The source then initiates
another route-search process to find a new path to the destination. The source also sends
an erase message to notify all nodes of the broken link.
 5. COMPARISONS

The following sections provide comparisons of the previously described routing

algorithms. Section 5.1 compares table-driven protocols, and Section 5.2 compares on-
demand protocols. Section 5.3 presents a discussion of the two classes of algorithms. In
Tables 5.1 and 5.2, Time Complexity is defined as the number of steps needed to perform
a protocol operation, and Communication Complexity is the number of messages needed
to perform a protocol operation. Also, the values for these metrics represent worst case
behavior.
 5.1 Table-Driven Protocols

Our discussion here will be based on Table 5.1. As stated earlier, DSDV routing
is essentially a modification of the basic Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. The
modifications include the guarantee of loop-free routes and a simple route update
protocol. While only providing one path to any given destination, DSDV selects the
shortest path based on the number of hops to the destination. DSDV provides two types
of update messages, one of which is significantly smaller than the other. The smaller
update message can be used for incremental updates so that the entire routing table need
not be transmitted for every change in network topology. However, DSDV is inefficient
because of the requirement of periodic update transmissions, regardless of the number of
changes in the network topology. This effectively limits the number of nodes that can
connect to the network since the overhead grows as O(n2).

In CGSR, DSDV is used as the underlying routing protocol. Routing in CGSR

occurs over cluster heads and gateways. A cluster head table is necessary in addition to
the routing table. One advantage of CGSR is that several heuristic methods can be
employed to improve the protocol's performance. These methods include priority token
scheduling, gateway code scheduling, and path reservation.

Parameters DSDV CGSR WRP

Time Complexity (link addition / failure) O(d) O(d) O(h)

Communication Complexity (link addition / O(x=N) O(x=N) O(x=N)
failure)
Routing Philosophy Flat Hierarchical Flat
Loop Free Yes Yes Yes, but not
instantaneous
Multicast Capability No No No
Number of Required Tables Two Two Four
Frequency of Update Transmissions Periodically & Periodically Periodically &
as needed as needed
Updates Transmitted to Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors
& cluster head
Utilizes Sequence Numbers Yes Yes Yes
Utilizes “Hello” Messages Yes No Yes
Critical Nodes No Yes (cluster No
head)
Routing Metric Shortest Path Shortest Path Shortest Path

Table 5.1: Comparisons of the Characteristics of Table-Driven Routing Protocols.

Abbreviations:
N = Number of nodes in the network
d = Network diameter
h = Height of routing tree
x = Number of nodes affected by a topological change

The WRP protocol differs from the other protocols in several ways. WRP requires
each node to maintain four routing tables. This can lead to substantial memory
requirements, especially when the number of nodes in the network is large. Furthermore,
the WRP protocol requires the use of hello packets whenever there are no recent packet
transmissions from a given node. The hello packets consume bandwidth and disallow a
node to enter sleep mode. However, though it belongs to the class of path finding
algorithms, WRP has an advantage over other path finding algorithms because it avoids
the problem of creating temporary routing loops that these algorithms have through the
verification of predecessor information, as described in Section 3.3. Having discussed the
operation and characteristics of each of the existing table-driven based routing protocols,
it is important to highlight the differences. During link failures, WRP has lower time
complexity than DSDV since it only informs neighboring nodes about link status
changes. During link additions, hello messages are used as a presence indicator such that
the routing table entry can be updated. Again, this only affects neighboring nodes. In
CGSR, because routing performance is dependent on the status of specific nodes (cluster
head, gateway or normal nodes), time complexity of a link failure associated with a
cluster head is higher than DSDV, given the additional time needed to perform cluster
head reselection. Similarly, this applies to the case of link additions associated with the
cluster head. There is no gateway selection in CGSR since each node declares it is a
gateway node to its neighbors if it is responding to multiple radio codes. If a gateway
node moves out of range, the routing protocol is responsible for routing the packet to
another gateway.

In terms of communication complexity, since DSDV, CGSR and WRP use

distance vector shortest-path routing as the underlying routing protocol, they all have the
same degree of complexity during link failures and additions.

5.2 Source-Initiated On-Demand Routing Protocols

Table 5.2 presents a comparison of AODV, DSR, TORA, ABR and SSR. The
AODV protocol employs a route discovery procedure similar to DSR; however, there are
a couple important distinctions. The most notable of these is that the overhead of DSR is
potentially larger than that of AODV since each DSR packet must carry full routing
information, whereas in AODV packets need only contain the destination address.
Similarly, the route replies in DSR are larger because they contain the address of every
node along the route, whereas in AODV route replies need only carry the destination IP
address and sequence number. Also, the memory overhead may be slightly greater in
DSR because of the need to remember full routes, as opposed to only next hop
information in AODV. A further advantage of AODV is its support for multicast [7].
None of the other algorithms considered in this paper currently incorporate multicast
communication. On the downside, AODV requires symmetric links between nodes, and
hence cannot utilize routes with asymmetric links. In this aspect, DSR is superior as it
does not require the use of such links, and can utilize asymmetric links when symmetric
links are not available.

The DSR algorithm is intended for networks in which the mobiles move at a
moderate speed with respect to packet transmission latency. Assumptions that the
algorithm makes for operation are that the network diameter is relatively small and that
the mobile nodes can enable a promiscuous receive mode, whereby every received packet
is delivered to the network driver software without filtering by destination address. An
advantage of DSR over some of the other on-demand protocols is that DSR does not
 make use of periodic routing advertisements, thereby saving bandwidth and reducing
power consumption. Hence the protocol does not incur any overhead when there are no
changes in network topology. Additionally, DSR allows nodes to keep multiple routes to
a destination in their cache. Hence, when a link on a route is broken, the source node can
check its cache for another valid route. If such a route is found, route reconstruction does
not need to be reinvoked. In this case, route recovery is faster than in many of the other
on-demand protocols. However, if there are no additional routes to the destination in the
source node's cache, route discovery must be reinitiated, as in AODV, if the route is still
required.

On the other hand, because of the small diameter assumption and because of the
source routing requirement, DSR is not scalable to large networks. Furthermore, as
previously stated, the need to place the entire route in both route replies and data packets
causes greater control overhead than in AODV.

TORA is a link reversal algorithm that is best-suited for networks with large,
dense populations of nodes. Part of the novelty of TORA stems from its creation of
DAGs to aid route establishment. One of the advantages of TORA is its support for
multiple routes.

Parameters AODV DSR TORA ABR SSR

Time Complexity O(2d) O(2d) O(2d) O(d+x) O(d+x)

(initialization)
Time Complexity (post O(2d) O(2d) or 0 O(2d) O(l+x) O(l+x)
failure) (cache hit)
Communication O(2N) O(2N) O(2N) O(N+y) O(N+y)
Complexity
(initialization)
Communication O(2N) O(2N) O(2x) O(x+y) O(x+y)
Complexity (post
failure)
Routing Philosophy Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat
Loop Free Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Multicast Capability Yes No No No No

Beaconing No No No Yes Yes
Requirements
Multiple Route No Yes Yes No No
Possibilities
Route Maintained in Route table Route table Route table Route table Route table
Utilizes Route Cache / Yes No No No No
Expiration Timers
Route Reconfiguration Erase Route; Erase Route; Erase Route;
Methodology Notify Source Notify Source Notify Source
Routing Metric Freshest & Shortest Path Shortest Path Associativity & Associativity &
Shortest Path Shortest Path Stability

Table 5.2: Comparisons of the Characteristics of Source-Initiated On-Demand Ad-Hoc Routing

Protocols.

Abbreviations:
l = Diameter of the affected network segment
y = Total number of nodes forming the directed path where the REPLY packet transits
z = Diameter of the directed path where the REPLY packet transits
TORA and DSR are the only on-demand protocols considered here which retain
multiple route possibilities for a single source/destination pair. Route reconstruction is
not necessary until all known routes to a destination are deemed invalid, and hence
bandwidth can potentially be conserved because of the necessity for fewer route
rebuilding. Another advantage of TORA is its support for multicast. Although, unlike
AODV, TORA does not incorporate multicast into its basic operation, it functions as the
underlying protocol for the Lightweight Adaptive Multicast Algorithm (LAM), and
together the two protocols provide multicast capability. TORA's reliance on synchronized
clocks, while a novel idea, inherently limits its applicability. If a node does not have a
GPS positioning system or some other external time source, it cannot use the algorithm.
Additionally, if the external time source fails, the algorithm will cease to operate. Further,
route rebuilding in TORA may not occur as quickly as in the other algorithms due to the
potential for oscillations during this period. This can lead to potentially lengthy delays
while waiting for the new routes to be determined. ABR is a compromise between
broadcast and point-to-point routing and uses the connection-oriented packet forwarding
approach. Route selection is primarily based on the aggregated associativity ticks of
nodes along the path. Hence, although the resulting path does not necessarily result in the
smallest possible number of hops, the path tends to be longer-lived than other routes. A
long-lived route requires fewer route reconstructions and therefore yields higher
throughput. Another benefit of ABR is that, like the other protocols, it is guaranteed to be
free from packet duplicates. The reason is that only the best route is marked valid while
all other possible routes remain passive. ABR, however, relies on the fact that each node
is beaconing periodically. The beaconing interval must be short enough so as to
accurately reflect the spatial, temporal, and connectivity state of the mobile hosts. This
beaconing requirement may result in additional power consumption. However,
experimental results obtained in [24] reveal that the inclusion of periodic beaconing has a
minute inuance on the overall battery power consumption. Unlike DSR, ABR does not
utilize route caches. The SSR algorithm is a logical descendant of ABR. It utilizes a new
technique of selecting routes based on the signal strength and location stability of nodes
along the path. As in ABR, while the paths selected by this algorithm are not necessarily
shortest in hop count, they do tend to be more stable and longer-lived, resulting in fewer
route reconstructions.

One of the major drawbacks of the SSR protocol is that, unlike in AODV and
DSR, intermediate nodes cannot reply to route requests sent towards a destination; this
results in potentially long delays before a route can be discovered. Additionally, when a
link failure occurs along a path, the route discovery algorithm must be re-invoked from
the source to find a new path to the destination. No attempt is made to use partial route
recovery (unlike ABR) - i.e. to allow intermediate nodes to attempt to rebuild the route
themselves. AODV and DSR also do not specify intermediate node rebuilding. While this
may lead to longer route reconstruction times since link failures cannot be resolved
locally without the intervention of the source node, the attempt and failure of an
intermediate node to rebuild a route will cause a longer delay then if the source node had
attempted the rebuilding as soon as the broken link was noticed. Thus it remains to be
seen whether intermediate node route rebuilding is more optimal than source node route
rebuilding.

5.3 Table-Driven vs. On-Demand Routing

 Parameters On-Demand Table-Driven

Availability of Routing Available when needed Always available regardless of

Information need
Routing Philosophy Flat Mostly Flat except for CSGR
Periodic Route Updates Not Required Yes
Coping with mobility Using localized route Inform other nodes to achieve
discovery as in ABR & SSR consistent routing table
Signaling traffic generated Grows with increasing Greater than that of On-
mobility of active routes (as in Demand Routing
ABR)
Quality of service support Few can support QoS Mainly Shortest Path as QoS
metric

Table 5.3: Overall Comparisons of On-Demand versus Table-Driven Based Routing Protocols.

As discussed earlier, the table-driven ad-hoc routing approach is similar to the

connectionless approach of forwarding packets, with no regard to when and how frequent
such routes are desired. It relies on an underlying routing table update mechanism that
involves the constant propagation of routing information. This is, however, not the case
for on-demand routing protocols. When a node using an on-demand protocol desires a
route to a new destination, it will have to wait until such a route can be discovered. On
the other hand, because routing information is constantly propagated and maintained in
table-driven routing protocols, a route to every other node in the ad-hoc network is
always available, regardless of whether or not it is needed. This feature, although useful
for datagram traffic, incurs substantial signaling traffic and power consumption. Since
both bandwidth and battery power are scarce resources in mobile computers, this
becomes a serious limitation.

Table 5.3 lists some of the basic differences between the two classes of
algorithms. Another consideration is whether a at or hierarchical addressing scheme
should be used. All of the protocols considered here, except for CGSR, use a at
addressing scheme. In [6], a discussion of the two addressing schemes is presented.
While at addressing may be less complicated and easier to use, there are doubts as to its
scalability.
 6. AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS: THE NEXT
GENERATION

Current challenges for ad-hoc wireless networks include:

 multicast,
 QoS support,
 power-aware routing [13], and
 location-aided routing [12].

Multicast is desirable to support multi-party wireless communications. Since the

multicast tree is no longer static (i.e., its topology is subject to change over time), the
multicast routing protocol must be able to cope with mobility, including multicast
membership dynamics (such as leave and join). In terms of QoS, it is inadequate to
consider QoS merely at the network level without considering the underlying media
access control layer. Again, given the problems associated with the dynamics of nodes,
hidden terminals, and fluctuating link characteristics, supporting end-to-end QoS is a
non-trivial issue that requires in-depth investigation. Currently, there is a trend towards
an adaptive QoS approach instead of the plain resource reservation method with hard
QoS guarantees.

Another important factor is the limited power supply in handheld devices which
can seriously prohibit packet forwarding in an ad-hoc mobile environment. Hence,
routing traffic based on nodes' power metric is one way to distinguish routes that are
more long-lived than others. Finally, instead of using beaconing or broadcast search,
location-aided routing uses positioning information to define associated regions so that
the routing is spatially-oriented and limited. This is analogous to associativity-oriented
and restricted broadcast in ABR.

Current ad-hoc routing approaches have introduced several new paradigms, such
as exploiting user's demand, the use of location, power, and association parameters.
Adaptivity and self-configuration are key features of these approaches. However,
flexibility is also important. A flexible ad-hoc routing protocol could responsively invoke
table-driven approaches and/or on-demand approaches based on situations and
communication requirements. The toggle between these two approaches may not be
trivial since concerned nodes must be in-sync with the toggling. Co-existence of both
approaches may also exist in spatially clustered ad-hoc groups, with intra-cluster
employing the table-driven approach and inter-cluster employing the demand-driven
approach or vice versa.

Further work is necessary to investigate the feasibility and performance of hybrid

ad-hoc routing approaches. Lastly, in addition to the above, further research in the areas
of media access control, security, service discovery, and internet protocol operability is
required before the potential of ad-hoc mobile networking can be realized.
 CONCLUSION

In this seminar report I have provided descriptions of several routing schemes

proposed for ad-hoc mobile networks. We have also provided a classification of these
schemes according to the routing strategy, i.e., table-driven and on-demand. We have
presented a comparison of these two categories of routing protocols, highlighting their
features, differences and characteristics. Finally, we have identified possible applications
and challenges facing ad-hoc mobile wireless networks. While it is not clear that any
particular algorithm or class of algorithm is the best for all scenarios, each protocol has
definite advantages and disadvantages and has certain situations for which it is well-
suited. The field of ad-hoc mobile networks is rapidly growing and changing, and while
there are still many challenges that need to be met, it is likely that such networks will see
wide-spread use within the next few years.
 REFERENCES

1] A. S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Third Edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, Chapter 5, pp. 357-358, 1996.

2] T.C Bartee – Data Communications, Networks and Systems, PHI

3] Proxim Inc. – What is a Wireless LAN?, http://www.proxim.com/

4] David Starobinski – The Wireless LANs Page, http://www.wirelesslan.org/

5] Wireless LAN Alliance (WLANA) – Introduction to Wireless LANs,

http://www.wlana.com/

6] D. Baker, M. S. Corson, P. Sass, and S. Ramanatham, “Flat vs. Hierarchical

Network Control Architecture," ARO/DARPA Workshop on Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networking, http://www.isr.umd.edu/Courses/Workshops/MANET/program.html,
March 1997.
7] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing,"
Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and
Applications, February 1999.

8] J. Broch, D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," IETF Internet Draft draft-ietf-manet-dsr-01.txt,
December 1998.

9] C-K. Toh, “Associativity-Based Routing for Ad-Hoc Mobile Networks," Wireless

Personal Communications, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1{36, March 1997.

10] Elizabeth M. Royer, C-K Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-
Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, March 2000.

11] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced

Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers," Computer
Communications Review, pp. 234{244, October 1994.

12] Y. B. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, “Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks," Proceedings of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM '98, October 1998.

13] S. Singh, M.Woo, and C. S. Raghavendra, “Power-Aware Routing in Mobile Ad

Hoc Networks," Proceedings of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM '98, October 1998.

14] L. R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson, “Flows in Networks”. Princeton University

Press, Princeton N.J., 1962.