Full Paper

IJISCS (International Journal of Information System and

eISSN 2598-246X
Computer Science) pISSN 2598-0793

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ROUTING

PROTOCOLS FOR MOBILE AD HOC
NETWORKS (MANETS)
*Corresponding author
Augustine Chidiebere Onuora 1, Eyo E. Essien 2 Prince Ana 3 [email protected]
1Department of Computer Science, Akanu Ibiam Federal aconuora.akanuibiampoly.edu.ng.com
Polytechnic, Unwana, Ebonyi State, Nigeria
2,3Department of Computer Science, Cross River State University
of Technology, Nigeria

Article history: Abstract

Received November 23, 2021 Network routing has been one of the most investigated
Revised April 10, 2022 areas in computing networking for decades. Many
Accepted April 26, 2022 studies on wired and wireless networks have been
conducted. More research fields for network routing
technology have emerged as a result of recent
technological advancements. In recent years, research
into ad hoc networks such as wireless sensor networks
(WSN), vehicular ad hoc network (VANET), wireless mesh
network (WMN), and mobile ad hoc network (MANET)
has increased. Due to the mobile nature of a lot of
gadgets we use this days, the researchers embarked on
a review to comprehensively show the various routing
Keywords: protocol technology that one can adopts when
Ad hoc; implementing a network routing scheme for MANETs.
MANET; Types of routing protocols, classifications, routing
Proactive; techniques, geographical coverage, route metric, route
Reactive; repository and route reconfiguration strategies are
Hybrid; covered in detail. The various routing protocols covered
Network. in this study were compared in this paper. The protocols'
areas of strength were highlighted and network
simulators that had these protocols enabled by default
were also x-rayed.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ad Hoc is a term that comes from the Latin phrase "for this purpose," and it's frequentl y
used to describe solutions that are devised on the spot. In computer networking, an ad hoc
network is a type of computer network that occurs when devices communicate without the
help of a wireless base station [1]. The most prevalent type of ad hoc network is wireless local
wireless networks (WLANs) (LANs). The devices interact directly with one another, rather than
relying on a base station or access points like Wi-Fi LANs to coordinate data delivery. Each
device participates in a routing activity by determining the path and transferring data to other
devices using a routing algorithm [2]. Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are networks in which
all normally mobile nodes in nature and the routers (nodes) are not fixed. Each MANET device
is free to move about and connect to other devices on a regular basis. Each data packet must
be transmitted to its intended destination, necessitating the use of a router. These type of
networks are utilized for battleground communication, destructive recovery, and rescue
operations when the wired network is inaccessible [2].Tactical networks in military operations,

IJISCS | 1
emergency services, patient records retrieval, sensor networks in weather forecasting and
monitoring, earth movement capturing, ocean engineering, real -time data collection, cellular
networks and Bluetooth, video conferencing, virtual classrooms, and so on are other areas of
application for Mobile ad hoc networks [2], [3].
Ad hoc networks work devoid of base station that serves as router. Each intermediary
nodes functions as a router, and the source nodes send their messages through these nodes.
As a result, sent packets is received by the destination from its sender, each node forwards
packets to next nodes until packet arrives the destination node. From source to destination,
data is transported over multiple hops. Multi-hop transmissions among nodes on the same
channel are vital in ad hoc networks. The intermediary nodes serve as a conduit for
communication between nodes. In an ad hoc network setting, each node's performance and
availability are critical.

2.0 CLASSIFICATIONS OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Due to node mobility issue (Nodes constantly changing position) in MANETs, efficient
routing protocols is needed for effective communication in MANETs. From various publications
and articles around the internet, we have basically three (3) classes of MANET routing protocols
namely proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols. In this study, the researchers examined the
attributes for various MANET routing protocols. They are classified as follows:
• Proactive
• Reactive
• Hybrid and
• Others
Other classifications of routing protocols that do not fit the categories above are
• Geographical
• Power-aware
• Multipath
• Hierarchical
• Multicast
• Geographical multicast

2.1. Proactive Routing Protocols

They are table-driven routing schemes that try to keep track of current network pathways
in a database known as routing table. The routing information is stored in a table on each node
in the network. The nodes share topological information so that they may all see the network
from the same perspective. The information transmitted aids in the reflection of any changes
in the topology. When a node needs to send a message, it simply looks up the path to the
destination in the routing table. The message is not delayed as a result of the remote route
finding. The overhead of maintaining an up to date routing tables is its greatest challenge [4],
[5]. Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• B.A.T.M.A.N: This proactive routing protocol was created by a consortium of
German community members to substitute the optimized link state routing protocol
(OLSR). BATMAN which stands for Better Approach to Mobile Ad-hoc Networking. This
routing protocol is for multi-hop mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). A key feature of
B.A.T.M.A.N is that no single node has all of the information about the network, it
decentralizes the knowledge about the optimal path across the network. This
approach removes the requirement for network modifications to be broadcast to
every node in the network. The individual node simply keeps track of the "direction"
from which it receives data and sends it in that direction. Data is transferred from one
node to the next, and packets are given unique, dynamically generated routes [6].
• Babel: Babel is a fast-converging distance-vector routing protocol that avoids loops
in IPv6 and IPv4. It is based on the concepts of DSDV, AODV, and Cisco's EIGRP, but it
is intended to work in both wired and wireless networks, such as Wireless Mesh
Networks and Mobile Ad hoc Networks [7].
It knows and maintains routes to all network destinations before they are used
because it is a proactive protocol. It knows and maintains routes to all network
destinations before they are used because it is a proactive protocol. The absence of
route discovery delay in the routing table has made this routing protocol beneficial
for some systems and network applications [8].

IJISCS | 2
 • Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV): it is a vector routing system that needs
each node to communicate routing changes on a frequent basis. Based on changes
to the Bellman-Ford routing mechanism, DSDV uses the table-driven
routing mechanism. A routing table is stored on each network node and specifies all
of the network's destinations as well as the number of hops required to reach them.
Each item has a sequence number that can be used to identify stale entries. This
approach avoids routing loops in the protocol from arising [9].
• Optimized link state routing (OLSR): The OLSR, a proactive routing protocol based on
link state routing, was proposed by [8]. For mobile ad hoc networks, OLSR protocol
was created. It works as a proactive, table-driven protocol that often exchanges
topological information with other network nodes. It is a proactive link-state routing
protocol. Throughout the ad hoc network, OLSR sends and receives hello and
topology control messages to discover and distribute link state information.
Other proactive Protocols as highlighted by [5] are:
• Wireless routing protocol (WRP).
• Source tree adaptive routing protocol (STAR).
• OLSR with quality of service (QOLSR).
• Hierarchical OLSR for mobile ad hoc networks (HOLSR).
• Cluster head gateway switch routing protocols (C such calculaGSR).

Table 1: Comparism of proactive routing protocols.

Protocol RS Routing No. of HM Update Critical RM CC TC
tables tables frequency node
Babel F Yes 2 Yes Periodic NO Hop-count O(n) O(d)
BATMAN F Yes 1 No Periodic No Hop-count O(n) O(d)
with
neighbor
CGSR H Yes 2 No Periodic Yes, Hop-count O(n) O(d)
cluster
head
DSDV F Yes 2 Yes Periodic No Hop-count O(n) O(d)
HOLSR H Yes 3 Yes Periodic Yes, Hop-count O(n) O(d)
cluster
head
OLSR F Yes 3 Yes Periodic No Hop-count O(n) O(d)
QOLSR H Yes 3 Yes Periodic No Delay, O(n) O(d)
bandwidth,
hop-count
STAR H Yes 1 No Only at No Hop-count O(n) O(d)
specific
events
WRP F Yes 4 Yes Periodic No Hop-count O(n) O(d)

Table Key:
RS = routing structure; H = hierarchical; F = flat; CC = communication complexity; TC = time
complexity; n = number of nodes in the network; d = diameter of the network; RM = routing
metric.
2.2. Reactive Routing Protocols
The Reactive Routing protocol is a MANET-based on-demand routing protocol that saves
bandwidth. Whenever a sender node needs to transfer data packets to a receiver node, the
sender node commences the route search process in this protocol. As a result, the demand for
a route initiates the route search process, hence the name "reactive protocol." The network
layer (Layer 3 of the OSI reference model) of mobile nodes implements reactive protocols. The
mechanisms utilized for routing are the Route Discovery and Route Maintenance functions [5],
[10]. Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• ABR - Associativity-Based Routing: The associativity-based routing (ABR) is an effectiv e
routing system that chooses a route based on nodes' associativity states, which
indicate moments of stability. As a result, the routes chosen are more likely to be long -
lived, requiring less frequent restarts and resulting in increased throughput. On a need -
IJISCS | 3
 by-need basis, route requests are broadcast. The integration into a BS -oriented
Wireless LAN (WLAN) environment is made possible due to its association feature which
enables fault tolerance in the ev ent of BS failure [11], [12].
• Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV): It is built to self-start in a network of
mobile nodes and to endure a wide range of network behaviors, including node
mobility, connection failures, and loss of packets. AODV keeps a routing table at each
node. A next hop node, a sequence number, and a hop count are all required fields
in a destination's routing table entry. The next hop node receives all packets destined
for the destination. The sequence number is a measure of a route's freshness and works
as a form of time-stamping. The current distance to the destination node is expressed
by the hop count [13].
• Ant colony based routing algorithm (ARA): is a swarm intelligence based routing
protocol that is multi-hop that in nature and uses the Meta heuristic of ant colony. This
methodology uses swarm intelligence to mathematics and engineering challenges,
resulting in a highly adaptable, efficient, and scalable routing protocol [14].
• Dynamic source routing (DSR): DSR is a lightweight routing protocol for mobile nodes
in multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks. Again with no existing network infrastructure or
administration, DSR allows the network to be totally self-organized and self-
configured. The "Route Discovery" and "Route Maintenance," are protocol is made up
of two primary mechanisms used by this protocol to operate together and allow
nodes in the ad hoc network to identify and maintain routes to any destination. All
components of the protocol are totally on-demand, allowing DSR's routing packet
overhead to dynamically scale to only that which is required to respond to changes
in the routes currently in use [15].
• Link-life base routing protocol: is an adaptable distributed routing system that is
stable for ad hoc networks that employs the worst-case duration of communicatio n
links, as determined by linear regression of the variance in distance between nodes in
the routing metric. To achieve efficient routing, it uses an efficient beaconing method,
load balancing, and pro-active and reactive route reconfiguration algorithms [16].
• Signal stability-based adaptive routing (SSBR): is an adaptable distributed routing
system for ad hoc networks that routes according to signal strength and location
stability. As a result of the route strategy, the final path from source to destination is
entirely comprised of strong links. When there are several available routes, the
destination selects one [17].
• Temporally ordered routing algorithm (TORA): is based on the link reversal algorithm
which is a highly adaptive, efficient, loop-free, and scalable routing protocol. TORA is
intended to reduce communication cost in ad hoc networks by reacting to local
network dynamics. The localization of control packets to a limited region (set of nodes)
near the occurrence of topological changes due to route break is another key
element of the TORA routing protocol. As a result, each network node has to have its
own local routing and topology knowledge about neighboring nodes [18].
Other Reactive Protocols as highlighted by [5] are:
• Routing on-demand a cyclic multipath (ROAM).
• Labeled successor routing (LSR).
• Labeled distance routing (LDR).
• Hint based probabilistic protocol (HBPP).
• Gathering based routing protocol (GRP).
• Dynamic backup routes routing protocol (DBR2P).
• Distributed ant routing (DAR).
• Ad hoc QoS on-demand routing (AQOR).

Table 2. Comparism of reactive routing protocols

Protocol RS Beacons Route metrics Route Route CC TC
repository reconfiguration
strategy
ABR F Yes Degree of RT Local broad cast O(n + y)— O(d + z)—
association query during route during route
stability discovery discovery
O(x + y)— O(l + z)—during
during route route
maintenance maintenance

IJISCS | 4
 AODV F Yes Hop-count RT SN and new route O(2n) O(2d)
AQOR F Yes Bandwidth RT Initiate from O(2n) O(2d)
destination
ARA F No Hop-count RT Alternate route or O(n + r)— O(d + p)
back track until during route
new route is discovery
identified O(n + a)—
during route
maintenance
DAR F No Weighted Stochastic New route by O(2n) O(2d)
probabilities RT forward ant
DBR2P F No Hop-count None Local repair O(2n) O(2d)
DSR F No Hop-count RC SN and new route O(2n) O(2d)
GRP F No Hop-count RC Route backup O(2n) O(2d + 1)
LDR F No Hop-count RT SN and new O(2n) O(2d)
route/local repair
LSR F No Relay RT SN and new O(2n) O(2d)
sequence route/local repair
label
ROAM F No Hop-count RT Erase route and O(|e|)— O(d)—during
start a new search during route route discovery
to get new route discovery O(x)—during
O(6G a)—during route
route maintenance
maintenance
SSBR F Yes Strong signal RT SN and new route O(n + y)— O(d + z)—
strength during route during route
discovery discovery
O(x + y)— O(l + z)—during
during route route
maintenance maintenance
TORA F No Hop-count RT Link reversal and O(2n)—during O(2d)
route repair route discovery
O(2a)—during
route
maintenance

Table Key:
RS = routing structure; H = hierarchical; F = flat routing repository; RC = route cache; RT = route
table; RM = route metric; SP = shortest path; CC = communication complexity; TC = time
complexity; n = number of nodes in the network, d = diameter of the network, |e| = number
of edges on the network, g = maximum degree of the router, l = diameter of the affected
network segment, z = diameter of the directed path where the REPLY packet transits, y = total
number of nodes forming the directed path where the Reply packet transmits, p = diameter of
direct path of the reply, x = number of clusters.

2.3. Hybrid Routing Protocols

Hybrid protocols are created by combining proactive and reactive protocols. Their
design combines the benefits of both proactive and reactive techniques to obtain superior
results. The hierarchical network paradigm is used to structure the majority of hybr id routing
algorithms. To begin, proactive routing is employed to collect any previously unknown routing
data. Reactive routing approaches are used to keep the routing information updated when
the topology changes [4], [5].
Large networks with several nodes benefit from the hybrid routing protocol. The strengths
of both proactive and reactive protocols were utilized in the construction of these protocols.
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• Distributed dynamic routing (DDR): is used in mobile ad hoc networks, as a simple
loop-free bandwidth-efficient distributed routing technique. It accomplishes multiple
objectives at the same time. To begin with, it offers a variety of strategies for reducing
routing complexity and improving delay performance. Second, it is infrastructure-free
in the sense that it does not require physical location information. Finally, zone name
is done dynamically, and broadcasting is much minimized [19].
• Fisheye state routing (FSR): FSR is based on Pei et al. (2000) link state routing algorithm.
The fisheye approach entails keeping an up-to-date collection of distance and path
quality information for a node's immediate neighborhood, as opposed to
progressively less up-to-date information as the distance grows. Fisheye is a good
IJISCS | 5
 compromise between the routing function's accuracy and the overhead caused by
the routing protocol's control message creation. FSRs are more suitable for large
networks [20].
• Landmark ad hoc routing (LANMAR): is a routing protocol that combines the best
of fisheye state routing (FSR) and landmark routing. Landmarks are leveraged for
each group of nodes that travel together to reduce the cost of routing updates, . Just
like in FSR, nodes only share link status with their neighbors. Routes are preci se within
the fisheye frame, however routes to distant clusters of nodes are "summarized" by
appropriate landmarks. When a packet is transmitted to a faraway location, it first
looks for a landmark, then switches to the more exact path provided by fisheye as it
comes closer to the target [21].
• Zone routing protocol (ZRP): is a hybrid routing protocol that merges the proactive
intrazone routing mechanism of (IARP) with the reactive interzone routing mechanism
of IERP. If the destination of a packet is in the same zone as the origin, the proactive
protocol is used to transport the packet immediately using a previously saved routing
table. A reactive protocol takes over if the route extends beyond the packet's
originating zone, examining each succeeding zone in the route to see if the
destination is within that zone. This reduces the time it takes to process specific routes.
After a zone is validated to include the target node, the stored routing table listing is
utilized to broadcast the packet [22].
Other Reactive Protocols as highlighted by [5] are:
• Zone based hierarchical link state routing protocol (ZHLS)
• Relative distance micro-discovery ad hoc routing (RDMAR).
• Mobility aware protocol (MAP).
• Link reliability based hybrid routing (LRHR).
• Hybrid ant colony optimization (HOPNET).
• Fisheye zone routing protocol (FZRP).
• Distributed spanning tree (DST) routing.

Table 3. Comparism of Hybrid routing protocols.

Protocol RS Multiple Beacons RM Route Route Critic CC TC
routes repository rebuilding al
node
DDR H Yes Yes Stable Intrazone SN Yes Intra- Intra-O(I)
routing and O(ZN) Inter-O(2D)
interzone Inter-
RT O(N + V)
DST H Yes No Power RT Holding Yes Intra- Intra-O(ZD)
consum time or O(ZN) Inter-O(D)
ed, hop shuttling Inter-O(N)
count
FSR F No No Scope RT SN No O(N) O(D)
range
FZRP H No Yes Hop- Intrazone Route Yes O(n) O(D)
count and repair at
interzone failure
RT point
HOPNET H No No Hop- Intrazone Route Yes O(n) O(D)
count and repair at
interzone failure
RT point
LANMAR H No Yes Hop RT at SN Yes O(N) O(D)
count landmark
node
LRHR F Yes Yes Edge RC,RT New route No O(n) O(D)
weight discovery
RDMAR F No No Hop RT SN and No O(N) O(D)
count new route
ZHLS H Yes No End-end Intrazone Location Yes During Intra-O(I)
delay, and request route Inter-O(D)
packet interzone sent discovery
loss RT Intra-
percent O(N/M)
age Inter-
O(N + V)
During
IJISCS | 6
 route
maintena
nce
Intra-
O(N/M)a
Inter-
O(N + V)
ZRP F No Yes Through Intrazone Route Yes Intra- Intra-O(I)
put, end- and repair at O(ZN) Inter-O(2D)
end interzone failure Inter-
delay, RT point O(N + V)
packet
loss
percent
age

Table Key:
RS = routing structure; RC = route cache; H = hierarchical; F = flat routing repository; RT = route
table; RM = route metric; d = diameter of the network, SP = shortest path; CC = communication
complexity; y = total number of nodes forming the directed path where the Reply packet
transmits, n = number of nodes in the network, |e| = number of edges on the network, g =
maximum degree of the router, TC = time complexity; z = diameter o f the directed path where
the REPLY packet transits, p = diameter of direct path of the reply, l = diameter of the affected
network segment, x = number of clusters.

3.0 OTHER PROTOCOLS

Research have shown that several other MANET routing protocols exit. They are protocols
that are neither solely proactive nor reactive in nature. They are also not considered as hybrid
because they contain other features that makes them to be classified differently. Rajeswari
(2020) highlighted these MANET protocols and categorized them as the following

3.1. Geographical multicast (Geocast) routing protocols

Geocast routing is the process of sending data to a group of destinations in a network
based on their geographical positions [23]. Some routing methods for mobile ad hoc networks
employ it as a specialized kind of multicast addressing protocol. Both geographical and
multicast routing protocols are incorporated in geocast routing protocols. Geocast routing
protocols have a number of advantages, including improved performance and reduced
control overhead.
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• Direction guided routing (DGR).
• Geocast adaptive mesh environment for routing (GAMER).
• Geocast protocol for mobile ad hoc network based on GRID (GEOGRID).
• Geocasting in mobile ad hoc networks (GeoTORA).

Table 4. Comparism of Geocast routing protocols.

Protocol RS Core/broadcast Route Forwarding Route Critical
metrics strategy repository node
DGR H Core SP Limited flooding RC Yes
GAMER F Core SP Source routing RC No
GeoGrid H Core Hop Flooding or None No
count ticket based
GeoTora H Broadcast SP Limited flooding RT Yes

Table Key:
RS = routing structure; RC = route cache; F = flat; SP = shortest path; H = hierarchical;
RT = route table.

3.2. Power-aware Routing Protocols

When it comes to routing, especially in MANET, power is a valuable resource. Nodes are
continually moving and movable. To stay alive and operate as routers during routing, these

IJISCS | 7
nodes require sufficient power. These protocols are made with power conservation in mind.
Energy-aware routing protocols are another name for them [24], [25].
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• CLUSTERPOW and MINPOW.
• Device and energy aware routing (DEAR).
• Energy conserving routing in wireless ad hoc networks.
• Interference aware cooperative routing.
• Minimum energy hierarchical dynamic source routing (MEHDSR).
• Power conserving routing with entropy-constrained algorithm.

Table 5. Power-aware Comparism

Protocol RT Type Path Routing metrics Scalability Robustness Critical
strategy node
CLUSTERPOW Yes Clustered Single- Total consumed Yes Yes Yes
path power
DEAR Yes Global Single- Based upon No Yes No
path ‘device type’
Karayiannis and No Distributed Single- Link cost and link Yes No No
Nadella path reliability
Mahmood and No Distributed Single- Energy and No No No
Comaniciu path interference
MEHDSR No Global Single- SP or next Yes No No
path available link
Scott and Bombos No Centralized Single- Multiple Yes No No
path constrained SP

Table Key:
Routing metrics: SP = shortest path.

3.3. Multipath Routing Protocols

The basic goals of multipath routing protocols are to offer reliable communication, load
balancing, and to improve the quality of service (QoS) in an ad hoc setting. Challenges like
discovering and maintaining multiple pathways are addressed by Multipath routing protocol
[26], [27].
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• Ad hoc on-demand multipath distance vector routing (AOMDV).
• Braided multipath routing (BMR
• Caching and multipath routing protocol (CHAMP).
• Disjoint multipath routing using colored trees:
• Energy and mobility aware geographical multipath routing protocols (EM -GMR).
• Scalable multipath on-demand routing (SMORT).
• Secure multipath routing (secMR).
• Split multipath routing (SMR):
• Truth multipath routing protocol (TMRP).

Table 6. Multipath routing protocol

Protocol Proactive/reactive Loops Route metrics Route cache
AOMDV Reactive No Advertised hop count No
CHAMP Reactive Yes Shortest path Yes
Ramasubramanian et al. Proactive No Preferred neighbor Route table
SMORT Reactive No Shortest path Yes
SMR Reactive No Least delay No
TMRP Reactive No Auction winner No

3.4. Hierarchical Routing Protocols

Clustering techniques are used to create a hierarchy of nodes in this protocol. Zones are
made up of nodes that are grouped together. There are one or more clusters and gateways
in each cluster. Hierarchical routing systems were created with the goal of ad dressing
Scalability concerns in ad hoc networks while minimizing overhead. On the other hand,
this adds to the complexity of the routing mechanisms employed by these protocols [28].
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• Core-extraction distributed ad hoc routing (CEDAR).
IJISCS | 8
 • Dynamic address approach
• Hierarchical landmark routing (H-LANMAR).
• Hierarchical state routing (HSR).

Table 7. Hierarchical routing protocols

Protocol Routing No. of routing Update frequency Hello Critical
tables tables message node
CEDAR Yes 1 On demand No Yes
Eriksson et Yes 2 Periodic No No
al.
H-LANMAR Yes 2 Periodic No Yes
HSR Yes 2 Periodic, within Yes Yes, cluster
each subset head

3.5. Multicast Routing Protocols

Data is sent from a single source to numerous recipients using multicasting routing. Tree -
based multicast and mesh-based multicast protocols are the two types of multicast protocols.
The tree-based multicast routing methods make optimal use of network resources. Mesh-based
protocols have a high packet delivery ratio and are robust due to the construction of many
redundant pathways between nodes [29];
Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• Ad hoc multicast routing protocol (AMRoute).
• Adaptive demand-driver multicast routing (ADMR).
• Ad hoc QoS multicasting (AQM).
• Differential destination multicast (DDM).
• Dynamic core based multicast routing (DCMP).
• Epidemic-based reliable and adaptive multicast for mobile ad hoc networks
(Eramobile).
• QoS multicast routing protocols for clustering mobile ad hoc networks (QMRPCAH).

Table 8. Multi cast routing protocol Comparism

Protocol RS Core/broadcast Route Forwarding Route Critical
metrics strategy repository node
ADMR H Neither Link breaks Flooding/tree RT Yes
based
AMRoute H Core Unicast Shared tree Based upon Yes
operation algorithm
AQM F Core QoS Source routing RT No
CBM F Core Threat Limited RC Yes
arrival broadcast
DCMP F Core New route Source routing RT No
DDM F Neither SP Source routing None No
EraMobile F Neither Randomly Local None Yes
selected broadcast
Li et al. F Neither Minimum Source routing RC No
energy
QMRPCAH H Broadcast QoS Bordercast RT Yes

Table Key:
RS = routing structure; F = flat routing repository; RC = route cache; H = hierarchical; RT = route
table.

3.5. Location-aware routing protocols

In this group of protocols, another node collects geographical information about a node
using the GPS technique. The ad hoc network's scalability can be improved by using location-
aware routing protocols [30]. Examples of protocols under this category includes:
• A region based routing protocol for wireless mobile ad hoc networks (REGR).
• Adaptive location aided mobile ad hoc network routing (ALARM).

IJISCS | 9
 • Distance routing effect algorithm (DREAM).
• Dynamic route maintenance (DRM) for geographical forwarding.
• Geographical landmark routing (GLR).
• Greedy perimeter stateless routing (GPSR).
• Location aided knowledge extraction routing for mobile ad hoc networks (LAKER).
• Location aided routing (LAR).
• Maximum expectation within transmission range (MER).
• On-demand geographical path routing (OGRP).
• Secure position based routing protocol (SPBR).
• SOLAR.

Table 9. Location-aware routing protocol Comparism

Protocol Forwarding Loop Route metric Scalability Robustness
mechanism
ALARM Directional flooding Yes Hops and Yes No
mobility
Colargrosso et Directional flooding No Hop count No No
al.
DREAM Flooding No Hop count No No
GLR Source routing Yes SP Yes No
GPSR Greedy flooding Yes SP Yes No
LAKER Directional flooding No Hop count No No
LAR Directional flooding No Hop count No No
MER Greedy geographic No Maximum No Yes
forwarding expectation
OGPR Source routing Yes SP Yes Yes
REGR Directional flooding Yes SP Yes No
SOLAR Greedy geographic No SP No No
forwarding

Table Key:
Route Metric SP = shortest path; LSP = local shortest path; WDG = weighted distance gain;
CC = communication complexity; H = high; M = medium; L = low.

4.0 COMPARISM OF SIMULATORS OFFERING VARIOUS PROTOCOLS BY DEFAULT

Simulators have helped researchers to simulate a protocols and observe its behavior with
changes to certain network metrics and variable. There are numerous network simulators
available for use. Some of these simulator area free to use, some are open source while others
can be used with paid license. The Comparism of simulators as listed by [2] and their various
default protocols were surveyed in the table below.

Table 10. Comparison based on O. S. platform, license and MANET protocols supported
Simulators Operating Programming GUI Support Support Service / MANET License
System Language Documentation Protocols
Supported
GloMoSim Linux, C / Parsec Poor GUI Poor Fisheye, DSR, Open Source
Windows Support DSDV, WRP,
LAR, DREAM,
NS-DSDV
JiST/SWANS Linux, Mac Java/Tel Poor GUI Fair ZRP,AODV,D Open Source
OS, Support SR
Windows
J-Sim. Linux, Mac Java Poor GUI Fair DSR, AODV Open Source
OS, Support
Windows
MATLAB / Linux, Mac C++ / Excellent GUI Excellent Routing Commercial
Simulink OS, MATHLAB Protocols
Windows generally for
all Ad hoc
Network
NetSim Windows C / Java Excellent GUI Excellent AODV, DSR, Commercial
OLSR, ZRP

IJISCS | 10
 Ns2 Linux, C++ / OTcl Poor GUI Poor DSR,AODV,D Open Source
Mac OS (Command SDV
Line)
Ns3 Linux, C++ / Python Poor GUI Good OSLR,AODV, Open Source
Mac OS (Command DSR,DSDV
Line)
OMNeT++ Linux, Mac C++ / NED Good GUI Good OSPF,BGP Freeware
OS,
Windows
OPNET Linux, C++ Excellent GUI Commercial
Windows
QualNet Linux, Mac Parsec Excellent GUI Good Fisheye, DSR, Commercial
OS, DSDV, WRP,
Windows LAR, AODV

From the table above, a lot of protocols are not supported by default by these simulators.
Researcher have to hard code this protocols in their various programming languages (C/C++,
Java, NED, Python). This would definitely increase research time.

5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1. Conclusion
Various MANET protocols have been listed and discussed above. Protocols under the
category of proactive, reactive and hybrid were x-rayed. Other protocols with specials
features like the hierarchical, power-aware, location-aware protocols, etc. were highlighted in
this review. Also Developers of Network Simulator should implement most of these protocols
highlighted in this study to enable researcher have a handful of protocols to experiment with.
This will result to an increase in novel protocols entering the space. Simulations tools like OPNET,
QualNet, NetSim, JiST/SWANS and NS-3 simulators should increase the number of MANET
protocols in their protocol repository.

5.2. Gaps for future research

Researchers should study on more ways to address the following issues that are of concern
to the MANET:
1. Mobility issues that result to loss of packet in routing.
2. Effort should be made to create hybrid protocols that will leverage the positives from
the proactive and the reactive protocols towards solving issues currently encountered
in routing.
3. Due to the mobility of nodes, more power-ware protocols should be researched to
minimized power in nodes.
4. Creation of new network simulator to address MANET protocols. This will result to an
increase in novel protocols entering the space.
5. Finally, researcher should as well see ways of using artificial intelligence, machine
learning and deep learning techniques to see to optimal path or shortest path can be
selected for routing in MANETs.
6. Security of MANET protocols should be also researched.
7. Efficiency over multimedia routing.
8. Finally, researcher should as well see ways of using artificial intelligence, machine
learning and deep learning techniques to see to optimal path or shortest path can be
selected for routing in MANETs.

REFERENCES
[1] Christensson. (2006). Ad hoc network definition. The Tech Terms Computer Dictionary.
https://techterms.com/definition/adhocnetwork
[2] Onuora, A. C., Ana, P., Nwanhele, U. N., & Idemudia, O. J. (2020). Improving Software
Quality by Developing Redundant Components. International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 07(12), 151-155.
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i12/IRJET-V7I1228.pdf
[3] Sivabalan, V. (2021). Protocols for Routing Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks: Proactive, Reactive,
Hybrid. Study.com. https://study.com/academy/lesson/proto cols-for-routing-mobile -ad-
hoc-networks-proactive-reactive-hybrid.html

IJISCS | 11
[4] Ochola, E., Mejaele, L., Eloff, M., & Van der Poll, J. (2017). Manet reactive routing
protocols node mobility variation effect in analysing the impact of black hole attack.
SAIEE Africa Research Journal, 108(2), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.23919/saiee.2017.85316 29
[5] Rajeswari, A. R. (2020). A mobile ad hoc network routing protocols: A comparative study.
Recent Trends in Communication Networks. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92550
[6] Neumann, A., Aichele, C., Lindner, M., & Wunderlich, S. (2008). Better approach to mobile
ad-hoc networking (BATMAN). Network Working Group.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320172464_Better_approach_ to_mobile_ad -
hoc_networking_BATMAN
[7] Chroboczek, J. (2011). The Babel routing protocol. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc6126
[8] Clausen, T. H., Jacquet, P., Adjih, C., Laouiti, A., Minet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Qayyum, A., &
Laurent Viennot. (2003). Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR). Network Working
Group. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc3626
[9] Journal CommIT. (2014, August 15). Destination-sequenced distance vector routing
(DSDV). MTI. https://mti.binus.ac.id/2014/08/15/destination-sequenced-distance-vecto r-
routing-dsdv/
[10] Mukhija, A. (2001). Reactive Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks [Unpublished
master's thesis]. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.
[11] Kummakasikit, M., Thipchaksurat, S., & Varakulsiripunth, R. (2005). Performance
improvement of associativity-based routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. 2005
5th International Conference on Information Communications & Signal Processing.
https://doi.org/10.1109/icics.2005.1688995
[12] Toh, C. (1997). Associativity-Based Routing forAd-HocMobile Networks. Wireless Personal
Communications, 4, 103–139.
[13] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., & Das, S. (2003). Ad hoc on-demand distance vector
(AODV) routing. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc3561
[14] Gunes, M., Sorges, U., & Bouazizi, I. (2002). ARA-the ant-colony based routing algorithm
for MANETs. Proceedings. International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshop.
https://doi.org/10.1109/icppw.2002.1039715
[15] Johnson, D., Hu, Y., & Maltz, D. (2007). The dynamic source routing protocol (DSR) for
mobile ad hoc networks for IPv4. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc4728
[16] Manoj, B., Ananthapadmanabha, R., & Murthy, C. (2001). Link life based routing protocol
for ad hoc wireless networks. Proceedings Tenth International Conference on Computer
Communications and Networks (Cat. No.01EX495).
https://doi.org/10.1109/icccn.2001.956324
[17] Dube, R., Rais, C., Kuang-Yeh Wang, & Tripathi, S. (1997). Signal stability-based adaptive
routing (SSA) for ad hoc mobile networks. IEEE Personal Communications, 4(1), 36-45.
https://doi.org/10.1109/98.575990
[18] Ramakrishn, M., & Shanmugave, S. (2007). Hardware implementation of TORA protocol
in mobile ad-hoc network node. Information Technology Journal, 6(3), 345-352.
https://doi.org/10.3923/itj.2007.345.352
[19] Nikaein, N., Labiod, H., & Bonnet, C. (2000). DDR-distributed dynamic routing algorithm
for mobile ad hoc networks. 2000 First Annual Workshop on Mobile and Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing. MobiHOC (Cat. No.00EX444).
https://doi.org/10.1109/mobhoc.2000.869209
[20] Chun-Chuan Yang, L. T. (2005). Fisheye zone routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks.
Second IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, 2005. CCNC.
2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/ccnc.2005.1405134
[21] Guangyu, P., Geria, M., & Xiaoyan Hong. (2000). LANMAR: Landmark routing for large
scale wireless ad hoc networks with group mobility. 2000 First Annual Workshop on Mobile
and Ad Hoc Networking and Computing. MobiHOC (Cat. No.00EX444).
https://doi.org/10.1109/mobhoc.2000.869208
[22] W. Al-Ani, K., Yussof, S., M. Haglan, H., Shaker, H., & Mahdi Alani, L. (2021). Determining an
optimum zone radius for zone routing protocol (ZRP) based on node mobility. Indonesian
Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 21(2), 1230.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v21.i2.pp1230-1237
[23] Maihofer, C. (2004). A survey of geocast routing protocols. IEEE Communications Surveys
& Tutorials, 6(2), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2004.5342238

IJISCS | 12
[24] Maleki, M., Dantu, K., & Pedram, M. (2002). Power-aware source routing protocol for
mobile ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low Power
Electronics and Design. https://doi.org/10.1109/lpe.2002.1029549
[25] Shin, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Enhanced power-aware routing for mobile ad hoc networks. Ad-
Hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/11561354_24
[26] Gangwar, S. (2013). Mobile ad hoc networks: Comparasion of Multipath routing protocols
with Unipath routing protocols. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS &
TECHNOLOGY, 5(3), 193-199. https://doi.org/10.24297/ijct.v5i3.3520
[27] Jin, J., Ahn, S., & Oh, H. (2015). A multipath routing protocol based on bloom filter for
multi-hop wireless networks. 2015 International Conference on Information Networking
(ICOIN). https://doi.org/10.1109/icoin.2015.7057960
[28] Ouafaa, I., Jalal, L., Salah-ddine, K., & Said, E. (2015). The Comparison Study of
Hierarchical Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc and Wireless Sensor Networks: A Literature
Survey. Proceedings of the The International Conference on Engineering & MIS (ICEMIS
'15), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2832987.2833039
[29] Sarkar, S. K., Basavaraju,, T. G., & Puttamadappa, C. (2013). Multicast Routing Protocols
(2nd ed.). CRC Press.
[30] Lemmon, C. J., Liu, C., & Lee, I. (2010). Review of location-aware routing protocols.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences,
2(2), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.4156/aiss.vol2.issue2.15

IJISCS | 13