![A routing zone of radius 2 Hops However, it should be kept in mind that zone is not a description of physical distance [4]. Media Access Control (MAC) protocol and Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) can be use to provide identification of neighbors. Operation of IARP is done by broadcasting “hello” beacons. The reception of these beacons indicates the connection establishment.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anuj-Gupta/publication/274714941/figure/fig2/AS:294714730401797@1447276875820/A-routing-zone-of-radius-2-Hops-However-it-should-be-kept-in-mind-that-zone-is-not-a_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Anuj Kumar Gupta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anuj Kumar Gupta on Sep 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
International Conference on Advancements in Engineering and Technology (ICAET 2015)
5
A Survey on Zone Routing Protocol
Nafiza Mann
PG Student
CSE dept.
RIMT- Institute of Engineering
and Technology,
Mandi-Gobindgarh
Abhilash Sharma
Assistant Professor
CSE dept.
RIMT- Institute of Engineering
and Technology,
Mandi-Gobindgarh
Anuj Kumar Gupta
Associate Professor
CSE dept.
Bhai Gurdas Institute of
Engineering and Technology,
Sangrur
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is surveyed
for the nature of its parametric performance. ZRP is hybrid
routing protocol works on various routing phenomenon such
as Intra-Zone Routing Protocol (IARP) which routes within its
routing zone, Inter-Zone Routing Protocol (IERP) which
routes outside the routing zone, Bordercast Resolution
Protocol (BRP), Query Control Mechanisms includes Query
Detection (QD1/QD2), Early Termination (ET), Random
Query Processing Delay (RQPD). Multicast Zone Routing
Protocol, Two-Zone Routing Protocol along with security of
Zone Routing protocol in considered. The analyzed
performance of the variety of parameters such as PDR (Packet
Delivery Ratio), Average Jitter, Average Throughput,
Average End-to-End Delay, Route Acquisition Latency,
Control Traffic, Overhead of Zone Routing Protocol in
different simulating environment under the normal and with
blackhole attack circumstances is compared.
Keywords
Hybrid Routing, Proactive Routing, Reactive Routing,
Routing zone, Black hole Attack, Performance parameters.
1. INTRODUCTION
ZRP is among most popular hybrid routing protocols. Zone
Routing Protocol is a prominent protocol combining both
proactive and reactive nature of routing. It is the ad hoc
protocol in which proactive procedure is being followed
within a scope of local neighborhood or routing zone only.
ZRP composed of Intra-Zone Routing Protocol (IARP), Inter-
Zone Routing Protocol (IERP), Bordercast Resolution
Protocol (BRP) along with various Query Control
mechanisms. IARP has limited scope which is defined by
zone radius. Within this routing zone radius, IARP very well
maintains the topology information of its local zone. IERP
acts as a global routing component for ZRP. Whenever a node
needs to send information outside the routing zone or the
route needed by a node is not available in local neighborhood,
IERP is used to send the data. As the traditional nature of
reactive routing protocols, route discovery and route
maintenance is also performed by IERP. For the reduction of
routing overhead Bordercast Resolution Protocol is used. By
using the information provided by IARP, it directs the route
requests outward. The outward request sent is multicast in
nature sent to certain set of peripheral nodes (surrounded). If
in case there is no reply after BRP, these set of nodes again
perform bordercasting to their peripheral nodes.Two main
approaches may be followed for bordercasting, root directed
bordercast and distributed bordercast. The query control
mechanism in ZRP includes: Query Detection (QD1/QD2),
Early Termination (ET), and Random Query Processing Delay
(RQPD). In bordercast tree all nodes can detect the QD1 and
can avoid the redundancy of queries in node‟s routing zone.
Overhearing in transmission range by any node is possible,
extending the QD2. During relaying of query, it can prune
covered nodes or already relayed nodes resulting ET. With
RQPD a relaying node can have another chance to prune
downstream nodes.
2. ZRP ARCHITECTURE
ZRP acts as a framework for other protocols. The local and
global neighborhood in ZRP are separated in such a way so as
to gain advantages of each routing technique. Local
neighborhood, named as „Zone‟, have number of nodes which
may be overlapped within different zones (may have different
sizes). Size of the zone in ZRP is defined as the count of
number of hops it takes to reach to its peripheral nodes called
„Zone Radius‟ [1]. This hybrid behavior suggest and decide to
follow the technique among both. This initiates route-
determination procedure on demand but at limit search cost
[2]. The proactive nature of this protocol minimizes the waste
count associated to this technique. The Zone Routing Protocol
consists of several components, which only together provide
the full routing benefit to ZRP [3].
Fig 1: ZRP Architecture
Each component works independently of the other and they
may use different technologies in order to maximize
efficiency in their particular area. Components of ZRP are
IARP, IERP and BRP. The relationship between components
is illustrated in Figure 1. IARP is responsible for proactive
maintenance while IERP for the reactive one. Bordercasting
leverages IARP‟s up-to-date view of local topology to
efficiently guide route queries away from the query source
[4].
2.1 Intra-Zone Routing Protocol (IARP)
This protocol communicates with interior nodes of the zone.
Zone radius limits the zone size. In IARP, the change in
topology results in change in local neighborhood. IARP
signifies the use of indoor routing zone. It always desires to
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
International Conference on Advancements in Engineering and Technology (ICAET 2015)
6
update the routing information [5]. IARP helps in removal of
node redundancy along with tacking to link-failures. Figure 2.
Shows the routing zone concept with radius 2 hops. Here S is
considered as a source node having zone radius of 2 hops. So
in this case, the node A, B are considered as interior nodes
having hop count less than zone radius. The nodes C, D and G
are considered to be peripheral nodes having hop count less
than or equal to the zone radius. While Nodes E, F have the
hop count greater than the zone radius, i.e. Outwards the
specified zone.
Fig 2: A routing zone of radius 2 Hops
However, it should be kept in mind that zone is not a
description of physical distance [4]. Media Access Control
(MAC) protocol and Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) can
be use to provide identification of neighbors. Operation of
IARP is done by broadcasting “hello” beacons. The reception
of these beacons indicates the connection establishment.
2.1.1 When to send
Source node send new routing information if:
there is change in topology or there is a link failure,
there is change in routing zone of node,
if the node has not send the packet in its previous
time slot.
2.2 Inter-Zone Routing Protocol (IERP)
It is the global reactive routing component of ZRP. IERP is
responsible for acquiring route to destination that are located
beyond the routing zone. With the help of knowledge gained
about local topology, IERP perform the on-demand routing
mechanism [6]. In presence of route, it issues route queries.
Bordercasting helps to minimize the delay caused by route
discovery. Redundancy of nodes (already covered) is avoided.
An example is illustrated in Figure 3.
Fig 3: IERP operation
S prepares to send data to destination D. S checks if D exists
in its local neighborhood. If so, route is already known by S.
Otherwise, a query is sent to its peripheral nodes by S i.e. (C,
G, H). These peripheral nodes further checks for D in their
routing zone. Like in here, when H send query to B, B
recognized D as the node in its routing zone and respond back
to query. The path then established is S-H-B-D [4].
2.3 Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP)
Whenever route is requested with the global reactive
technique, BRP is used to nonstop it and maximizes its
effectiveness. IARP routing information is used by BRP. This
information is constructed by IARP from its map provided by
local proactive technique. It maintains the redundancy
removal phenomenon by pruning the nodes it has already
covered (received the query) i.e. When a node receives a
query packet for a node that does not lie within its local
routing zone, a bordercast tree is constructed so that it packet
can be forwarded its neighbors. Upon reception of the packet,
bordercast tree is reconstructed by these nodes so they can
determine whether or not it belongs to the tree of the sending
node. If it does not belongs to the bordercast tree of the
sending node, it continues to process the request and
determines if the destination lies within it‟s routing zone and
takes the appropriate action, so that the nodes within the zone
are marked covered [1]. The two approaches of BRP are
2.3.1 Root Directed Bodercast
In this source nodes and peripheral nodes construct their
multicast trees to which the forwarding instructions to routing
query packet are appended, resulting additional route
overhead which increase with increase in zone radius.
2.3.2 Distributed Bordercast
In this, an extended routing zone is established and
maintained by each node which increases the local routing
information exchanges, resulting in reduction of route
discovery requirement.
2.4 Query Control Mechanism
As per ZRP strategy, querying performing is more efficient
than directly flooding the route requests but due to heavy
overlapping, multiple forwarded route requests can result into
more control traffic than flooding. This happens because
whenever a query is bordercasted, it efficiently covers the
node‟s complete routing zone and excess route query traffic is
the result of redundant query messages. Thus a collection of
query control mechanism is introduced by ZRP.
2.4.1 QD1/QD2
With the help of BRP, the relaying nodes in the tree becomes
able to detect the query which is redundant (QD1). BRP use
bordercast tree hop by hop for this process. It is possible for
queries to be detected within the transmission range of
relaying node, extending query detection capability (QD2).
Bordercast relay QD2
Fig 4: Query Detection (QD1/QD2)
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
International Conference on Advancements in Engineering and Technology (ICAET 2015)
7
In example, as when node A bordercast to its peripheral nodes
(B-F), The intermediate nodes (relaying) (G, H, I, J) are able
to detect query by QD1. Using QD2, node K able to detect
node G‟s transmission even if node K does not belong to node
A‟s bordercast tree. Even with the high level query detection,
QD2 does not guarantee of the whole routing zone being
informed. Like in here, node L does not overhear and is thus
unaware that L‟s routing is covered by query or not. The
relationship between components is illustrated in Figure 1.
IARP is responsible for proactive maintenance while IERP for
the reactive one. Bordercasting leverages IARP‟s up-to-date
view of local topology to efficiently guide route queries away
from the query source [4].
2.4.2 Early Termination (ET)
In general, it may not be possible to understand that whether
query has perfectly outward to the uncovered zones but the
information obtained from QD1 and QD2 can very well
support Early Termination.
2.4.3 Random Query Processing Delay (RQPD)
During bordercast, node‟s routing zone is covered instantly
but even the query take some infinite amount of time to make
a way along the bordercast tree, it can be detected by QD
mechanism. Within this time, it is possible that any
neighboring node may re-bordercast the message
simultaneously. This problem can be addressed by
bordercasting RQPD. During scheduling of random delay by
waiting node, it can benefit to detect the previous bordercast
tree for already covered areas. This is how RQPD can
significally improve performance up to a point [4].
In Multicast Zone Routing Protocol, a multica--st tree
membership information is maintained proactively. Multicast
ZRP makes on-demand route requests by Multicast Inter zone
routing protocol with an efficient query mechanism [7].
For MANETs, there exist an extension of ZRP named as
Two-Zone Routing Protocol (TZRP). In this two zones may
having different topologies and route updation mechanisms
are used to attain the decoupling of protocol‟s ability to adapt
to traffic characteristics which are gained from the ability to
adapt the mobility. TZRP provides a framework to balance
tradeoff between pure proactive and reactive routing
techniques more effectively than ZRP [7].
The security of any protocol is a big issue. Security of ZRP
aims to tackle the problem of excess bandwidth and long route
requests delay etc. There may be certain mechanisms for
security such as identity based key management. In this,
identifier with the strong cryptographic binding is chosen.
Another can be mechanism which may provide a secure
neighbor discovery. To secure the routing packets can be a
way out. A mechanism for certain alarm messages in presence
of any malicious node (s) can also be adapted [8].
3. ANALYSIS OF ZRP
ZRP has been analyzed on number of platforms with different
kind of methods. As per simulation in [9], the proactive
protocol shows the slightly constant number of flooded
packets with increase in the transmission radius while ZRP as
compare to this protocol, shows a drastic increase in the
number of flooded packets. As concluded in [2], the amount
of intrazone control traffic required to maintain the zone
radius increases along with the size of routing zone. ZRP
configuration can provide good reduction (25%) in control
traffic compared to traditional flood search. The reactive
nature of ZRP is observed more suitable for networks which
exhibits smaller network spans, larger transmission radii. For
highly volatile networks, it is conclude that ZRP provide 20%
less delay then reactive routing only. In real-time scenarios,
ZRP (mobile nodes) may attain good performance as done on
real-time network and traffic configuration as per
experimentation performed in [10][11].
The simulations performed in [12], shows that the proactive
part is able to communicate a large amount of routing
information at very low overhead as shown in Figure 5.and
high value of MAXHOPS results in small route acquisition
latencies, but there exist higher routing overhead and higher
information storing cost. If the networks that are largely idle,
the proactive part may cause unnecessary overhead.
Fig 5: Proactive routing overhead when time is 200sec
Fig 6: Reactive routing overhead when time is 200sec
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
International Conference on Advancements in Engineering and Technology (ICAET 2015)
8
Fig 7: Route Acquisition latency when time is 200sec
Fig 5 and Fig 6 shows the proactive and reactive routing
overhead in the network size of 150 with 200sec of simulation
time span. The MAXHOPS of 8 showed highest value in
proactive and lowest value in reactive nature one.
In Fig 7, the MAXHOPS of 8 showed lowest value for Route
Acquisition Latency as the needed routes were already present
for the connection establishment.
In simulations performed in [4], with query control
mechanism, it is observed that traffic (number of packets)
increases with increase in zone radius during proactive
technique while in reactive technique, there is a fall in number
of traffic (number of packets) with increase in zone radius.
It is observed that, ZRP‟s response time is comparable to that
of flood searching, but with less routing control traffic. The
improvements in route response time are even greater when
we consider that a node can immediately provide routes for all
of its routing zone nodes.
Fig 8: Average Throughput with 10 Connections
Fig 9: Normalized Routing Load with 10 Connections
As observed in simulations performed in [13], average
throughput of ZRP, initially showed moderate performance
with respect to DSR (reactive) and OLSR (proactive). As the
network size increases, the great fall in the performance of
ZRP is observed. While the Normalized Routing Load of ZRP
is overall high in comparison to DSR and OLSR, resulting
lack of performance.
While increase in traffic also increase the optimal zone radius
value. In case of jitter evaluation of ZRP [14], it shows bad
performance as the number of nodes and packets increases. As
observed in [5] simulation, ZRP is not considered so good in
the presence of black hole attack. In Black Hole attack any
fake or malicious node sends information of having a shortest
route to the destination resulting data discard or data misuse. I
can be a attack by any single node or by group of nodes.
Further Performance of ZRP protocol can be enhanced as per
done in [15], where various parameters are taken into
consideration and observed that radius value low (2 here) is
considered to be optimal for small and medium loads while
medium value (3 here) is optimal for important and high
density loads.
4. COMPARISON OF PARAMETERS
In this survey, we have compared the following parameters of
ZRP with the zone radius as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of parameters with the zone radius
Zone Radius
Parameters
Low
High
Control Traffic
(Proactive)
Low
High
Control Traffic
(Reactive)
High
Low
Overhead
Low
High
Mobility
Increase
Decrease
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
International Conference on Advancements in Engineering and Technology (ICAET 2015)
9
Route Acquisition Delay
Low
Packet Delivery Ratio
Moderate
Moderate
Packet Delivery Ratio
(with blackhole attack)
Moderate
Deteriorates
Av. Jitter
Low
High
Av. Jitter
(with blackhole attack)
High
High
Av. End-to-End Delay
Moderate
High
Av. End-to-End Delay
(with blackhole attack)
High
High
Av. Throughput
Moderate
Moderate
Av. Throughput
(with blackhole attack)
Low
Low
5. CONCLUSION
In this survey of Zone Routing Protocol, it is concluded that in
comparison with only proactive protocols and only reactive
protocols, this hybrid routing protocol is more efficient but if
restricted to small area networks only. For the larger network
routing, ZRP is unable to show such a good performance with
various parameters such as control traffic, Packet delivery
ratio, End to End delay, Jitter, Throughput, Overhead etc. as it
shows in small routing networks. These parameters are
examined and compared on the basis of concluded simulation
results. The efficiency of these parameters also depends on the
proactive or reactive nature of the routing. The whole nature
of ZRP depends on its zone radius. With increase and
decrease in routing zone radius, the performance of ZRP
increases or falls considerably. The lower value of zone radius
has proved better for ZRP processing than the greater one.
For future perspective, the analysis of ZRP can be performed
with various platforms. Further, the performance of ZRP can
be observed for large network sizes such as, with respect to
mobile criteria. Performance of ZRP can be enhanced with
new improvements in its routing mechanisms.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Shaily Mittal, Prabhjot Kaur, “Performance Comparison
of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocols in
MANET‟s”, 978-0-7695-3915-7/09 IEEE 2009.
[2] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, “The Performance
Of A New Routing Protocol For The Reconfigurable
Wireless Networks”, School of Electrical Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, IEEE 1998.
[3] Anuj k. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, Anil k.Verma, “A
Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks”, WSEAS Transactions on Communications,
ISSN: 1109-2742, 11(10):331-340, November 2011.
[4] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, “The Performance
of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing
Protocol”, Senior Member, IEEE, IEEE/ACM
TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 9, NO.
4, AUGUST 2001.
[5] Harjeet Kaur, Manju Bala, Varsha Sahni, “Performance
Evaluation of AODV, OLSR and ZRP routing protocol
under the Black Hole attack in MANET”, Vol. 2, Issue 6,
June 2013.
[6] Anuj k. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, Anil k.Verma,
“Performance analysis of AODV, DSR and TORA
routing protocols”, International Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IJET),Article No. 125, 2(2): 226-231,
April 2010.
[7] Xiaofeng Zhang, Lillykutty Jacob, “Multicast Zone
Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad HocWireless Networks”,
Proceedings of the 28th Annual IEEE International
Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN‟03)
0742-1303/03 IEEE 2003.
[8] Ibrahim S. I. Abuhaiba, Hanan M. M. Abu-Thuraia, “
Securing Zone Routing Protocol in Ad-Hoc Networks”,
I. J. Computer Network and Information Security, 2012,
10, 24-36.
[9] Zygmunt J. Haas, “A New Routing Protocol for
Reconfigurable Wireless Networks”, 0-7803-3777-8/97
IEEE 1997.
[10] Julian Hsu, Sameer Bhatia, Mineo Takai, Rajive
Bagrodia, Michael J. Acriche, “Performance of Mobile
Ad Hoc Networking Routing Protocols in Realistic
Scenarios”, IEEE 2003.
[11] Anuj k. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, Anil k.Verma,
“Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols in
Different Mobility Models”, International Journal of
Information Technology and Computer Science
(IJITCS), ISSN: 2074-9015, 5(6): 73-82, May 2013.
[12] Rohit Kapoor, Mario Gerla, “A Zone Routing Protocol
for Bluetooth Scatternets”, 0-7803-7700-1/03 IEEE
2003.
[13] Savita Gandhi, Nirbhay Chaubey, Pathik Shah, Madhvi
Sadhwani, “Performance Evaluation of DSR, OLSR and
ZRP Protocols in MANETs ”, 978-1-4577-1583-9/ 12,
IEEE 2012.
[14] Swati Bhasin, Puneet Mehta, Ankur Gupta,
“Comparison of AODV, OLSR and ZRP in Mobile Ad-
hoc Network on the basis of Jitter”, ECE Department,
Punjab College of Engineering & Technology, Lalru,
ECE Department, Geeta Institute of Management &
Technology, Kurukshetra, ISSN 2277–9140 July 2012.
[15] A. Loutfi, M. Elkoutbi, “Evaluation and enhancement of
ZRP performances”, IEEE 2010.
[16] Brijesh Patel, Sanjay Srivastava, “Performance Analysis
of Zone Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”,
978−1−4244−6385−5/10IEEE2010.
IJCATM : www.ijcaonline.org
