Content uploaded by N. H. Saeed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by N. H. Saeed on Nov 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
MANET Routing Protocols Taxonomy
Nagham H. Saeed, Maysam F. Abbod, and Hamed S. Al-Raweshidy
Wireless Network Computing Group (WNCG), School of Engineering and Design,
Brunel University, West London, Uxbridge, UK. UB8 3PH.
{Nagham.Saeed, Maysam.Abbod, Hamed.Al-Raweshidy}@brunel.ac.uk
Abstract—This paper provides researchers many structures for
mobile Ad hoc protocol that also could be implemented in VANET
protocols. In the literature, there are numerous mobile Ad hoc
network (MANET) routing protocols aiming to find the most
suitable path from source to destination. Therefore these protocols
should be categorized and classified. This classification helps in
understanding, analyzing, comparing, and evaluating the routing
protocols. Also, the classification can assist researchers and
designers to differentiate the characteristics of the routing
protocols and to find the relationships betw een them. The routing
protocols cannot be included under one category or one
classification, therefore, the known characteristics should be listed
and the MANET routing protocols classified according to these
attributes. In this paper, varies routing protocol classifications are
presented that depend on design philosophy, on network
structure, or on the routing protocol characteristic (packet casting
and network routing metrics).
Keywords MANET routing protocols, MANET design
philosophy, network structure, packets casting and MANET routing
metric.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, network structure has changed significantly;
40 years ago the only known and available network was the
wired network. However, as mobility needs continue to grow,
wireless networks have appeared as an efficient solution to
increasing service demands. The development in wired
networks has paled in comparison to the tremendous increase
in wireless networks. This has happened in spite of the
limitations of wireless network techniques, such as the changes
in network topology, a high error rate, power restrictions,
bandwidth constraints, and issues with link capacity [1]-[2].
These limitations are the result of the freedom of movement
in mobile wireless networks, as mobile wireless networks are
dynamic and feature multi-hop topology. As such, researchers
have stepped forward to solve these challenges, putting
substantial effort behind inventing new technologies. They
have hence addressed the problems with innovative solutions to
support the robust and efficient operation of mobile wireless
networks. One of the main areas of research has been routing
technology which will route packets from source to destination.
The focus of this paper is the presentation of different
classifications of Ad hoc routing protocols according to
different criteria. The various classifications give a better
overview of the MANET routing protocols. The classifications
also show the researchers’ settings before designing a routing
protocol and, at the same time, give an overview for existing
routing protocols, as these classifications are more beneficial
than a lengthy listing of previous routing protocols alongside
the updated ones. Another important point should be
mentioned here, that is the taxonomies in this paper are also
adoptable for VANET protocols [3].
In Section II, different routing protocols taxonomies are
presented; MANET routing protocol are classified according to
the design philosophy in Section A whereas in Section B they
are classified according to the network structure, in Section C
the protocols are classified according to the packets casting.
Section D presents a new classification for MANET protocol
depending on routing metric. Finally, Section III consists of the
summary and conclusions from this paper.
II. MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS TAXONOMY
In MANET, each node has the freedom to join, leave, and
move around the network. This movement creates a highly
dynamic environment that effects packet routing. Therefore,
efficient packet routing is one of the most challenging
problems in MANETs. The objective of routing is to guide
packets through the communication subnet to their final
destinations. As a result of working on this problem, numerous
routing protocols [4]-[9] have been proposed in the literature.
The aim is to find the most suitable path from source to
destination, with the ultimate goal being to establish efficient
route and efficient message exchange within MANET.
This section, as shown below, classified the routing
protocol depending on design philosophy, on network
structure, or on the routing protocol characteristic (packet
casting and network routing metrics).
A Design Philosophy
Design philosophy is the most popular method to
distinguish MANET routing protocols. It is based on how
routing information is acquired and maintained by mobile
nodes. Depending on design philosophy, Ad hoc routing
protocols are represented by three main categories; proactive
(also called Table Driven routing or Source routing), reactive
(the other names are On Demand and Distributed routing), and
hybrid (or Hierarchical routing), as shown in Figure 1.
References [6] and [7] present surveys of the current routing
protocols based on routing philosophy structure.
1 Proactive Routing Algorithm
The proactive routing algorithm is the new version of the
Internet Link State algorithm. The proactive routing algorithm
[7] maintains routing tables that contain the information and
the update for each node in the network. In order to maintain a
consistent network view, for each topological change in the
network, nodes should propagate updates throughout the
network. Proactive routing protocols share a common feature—
that is, background routing information can be exchanged
regardless of communication requests. For example, if node A
wants to send data to node D, then node A should search in a
previously prepared topology table (stored on node A itself) to
find D. The Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol
[10] is an example of the proactive routing protocol.
The proactive algorithm has many desirable properties,
especially for applications that include real-time
communications and QoS guarantees, such as low latency route
access and alternate path support and monitoring. The
drawback of this technique, however, is the inefficiency of
bandwidth utilization and power usage due to the overhead
produced.
As such, most proactive protocols will not perform well
given a high mobility rate or a large number of network nodes.
Protocols in this category differ in terms of the number of
tables they contain and how they update their information.
2 Reactive Routing Algorithm
The reactive routing algorithm is the new version of the
Internet Link State Distance Vector algorithm. The reactive
routing algorithm [6] is characterized by Route discovery
mechanisms and Maintenance mechanisms. Route discovery
consists of route request and route reply, which differ from one
protocol to another. The Route discovery mechanism is
initiated when a source needs to communicate with a
destination that it does not know how to reach. When there is a
request from node A to transmit data to node D, a Route
discovery process is begun by broadcasting to all nodes
searching for node D. When D receives this message, it replies
to the request to build the route to source A.
The differences between the reactive routing protocols are
in the implementation of the path discovery mechanism and its
optimization. Generally, reactive routing requires less overhead
than proactive routing, but incurs a path discovery delay
whenever a new path needed. The Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR) protocol [11] and Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector
(AODV) Routing Protocol [12] are examples of reactive
routing protocols.
3 Hybrid Routing Algorithm
Hybrid routing algorithms combine the two previous
techniques (the proactive and the reactive) in an attempt to
bring together the advantages of the two approaches. As such,
hierarchical architecture is utilized in that these algorithms
require an addressing system wherein the proactive and the
reactive routing approaches are implemented at different
hierarchical levels.
Such algorithms are designed to increase scalability by
allowing the nodes closest to each other to connect and form a
number of groups and then assigning the group nodes different
functionalities, both inside and outside the group, to reduce the
Route discovery overhead. This is mostly achieved by
proactively maintaining routes to nearby nodes and
determining routes to far away nodes using a route discovery
strategy. Both the size of the routing tables and update packets
are reduced by including part of the network (instead of the
whole network) within them, thus reducing control overhead in
turn. The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is an example of a
hybrid routing protocol [13].
B Network Structure
In this section, a classification of the routing algorithms
according to the network structure is provided. The routing
algorithms that depend on the network structure consider two
important elements which effect the routing operation: the
nodes’ mobility and the network scalability. The structure of
Figure 2 blow is altered, as in Figure 1, but this is necessary in
order to preserve the integrity of the diagram. Figure 2
categorizes the routing algorithms in Ad hoc networks into
three broad categories: flat routing, Geographic Position
Information assisted routing, and hierarchical routing.
1 Flat Routing
Flat routing approaches [8] adopt a flat addressing scheme
in that each participating node plays an equal role in routing.
Therefore, the routing protocol is named as a uniform routing
protocol in which all its mobile nodes have the same role,
Reactive
Hybrid
Proactive
Ad hoc Routing Algorithms
Figure 1. MANET routing protocol classifications depending on design philosophy.
importance, and functionality. Flat routing schemes extend
into two classes, proactive and reactive, according to their
design philosophy (more detail about these two classes is given
in Section A (1 and 2). In a large network, flat reactive
protocols are better than flat proactive routing protocols
because of the reactive design philosophy; for example, if there
is no communication, this means that there are no routing
activities and no permanent routing information maintained at
the network nodes. The Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)
protocol [10], Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol [11]
and Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing
protocol [12] are examples of uniform routing protocols.
2 Hierarchical Routing
Hierarchical routing has been implemented in wired
networks for a long time. In contrast to uniform flat routing, the
non-uniform hierarchical routing usually assigns different roles
to network nodes; as explained in Section A (3). In contrast to
uniform flat routing, non-uniform routing approaches are
related to hierarchical network structures to facilitate node
organization and management. Normally, reactive algorithms
are exploited to select the special nodes which carry out
reactive management and/or routing functions.
Generally, in wireless network, flat routing schemes
become inefficient when the wireless network size increases
due to link and processing overhead. Therefore, hierarchical
routing has been presented as an efficient solution to solve the
problem and produce a scalable network.
Non-uniform hierarchical routing protocols can be further
sorted into three subcategories: zone-based, cluster-based, and
core-based. These protocols are categorized according to the
organization of the mobile nodes, their respective management,
and their routing functions [5].
• Zone-based (Hybrid)
With zone-based hybrid routing algorithm technique each
node has a local scope and different routing strategies are used,
inside and outside the scope, as communications pass across
the overlapping scopes. Given this flexibility, a more efficient
overall routing performance can be achieved. Compared to
maintaining routing information for all nodes in the whole
network, mobile nodes in the same zone know how to reach
each other with a smaller cost. In some zone-based routing
protocols, specific nodes act as gateway nodes and carry out
inter-zone communication. Therefore, the network will contain
partitions or a number of zones. The Zone Routing Protocol
(ZRP) [13] is a MANET zone-based hierarchical routing
protocol.
• Cluster-based
A cluster-based routing protocol is the most popular
hierarchical routing technique. It uses a specific clustering
algorithm for cluster head election in which mobile nodes are
grouped into clusters by geographic proximity. Cluster heads
then take responsibility on behalf of the cluster for membership
management and routing functions. Cluster head Gateway
Switch Routing (CGSR) [14] is an example of a cluster-based
MANET routing protocol. The Hierarchical State Routing
(HSR) protocol [15] also supports a multi-level cluster
structure.
• Core Node-based
In core node-based routing protocols, critical nodes are
dynamically selected to compose a "backbone" for the
network. The “backbone” nodes carry out special functions,
such as the construction of routing paths and propagation of
Flat routing
(Uniform)
Hierarchical routing
Geographic Position
Information
Assisted routing
Ad hoc Routing Algorithms
Core Node Based
Cluster Based
Zone Based
(Hybrid)
Reactive
(On Demand)
Proactive
(Table Driven)
Figure 2. MANET routing algorithms classifications depending on network structure.
control/data packets. Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)
[10] and Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing
(CEDAR) [16] protocols are typical core node-based MANET
routing protocols.
3 Geographic Position Information Assisted Routing
Routing with assistance from geographic location
information requires each node to be equipped with a Global
Positioning System (GPS). This satellite system [17] provides
reliable positioning, navigation, and universal timing services
to worldwide users on a continuous basis, in all weather, day
and night, anywhere on Earth. This requirement is quite
realistic today since such GPS devices are advanced, updated,
inexpensive, and can provide reasonable precision; GPS
provides location information with a precision within a few
meters. Location information can be used for directional
routing in distributed Ad hoc systems. Research in this area has
shown that geographical location information can improve
routing performance in Ad hoc networks [18].
Additional care must be taken in a mobile environment
because locations may not be accurate by the time the
information is used. All protocols based on GPS assume that
the nodes know their positions. The Location Aided Routing
(LAR) [19], the Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for
Mobility (DREAM) [20], and geographical routing [21] are
examples of geographic position-assisted routing protocols.
C Casting Packets
In this section, the routing algorithms are classified
depending on the packet casting type, either unicast or
multicast routing protocols
There are three categories to cast the control and/or the data
packets in network:
Unicast: source will send messages to a single
destination.
Multicast: source will send same messages to specific
destinations.
Broadcast: source will send same messages to all
possible destinations.
1 Unicast Routing
Most MANET routing algorithms previously categorized
could be classified as unicast routing algorithms such as
Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocols [10],
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocols [11], and Ad hoc
On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocols [12].
2 Multicast Routing
Many multicast routing schemes have been proposed for
wired networks, such as the Multicast Open Shortest Path First
(MOSPF) [22] which has been widely used in these networks.
Multicasting in MANET is defined as the transmission of
packets to a group of hosts identified by a single destination
address. Multicast service is crucial in management
applications where one-to-many dissemination is necessary.
Applications that include close team collaboration in rescue
patrols, military battle, and among scientists with requirements
for audio and video communications, are few examples of
multicast routing services.
The classification methods for unicast routing algorithms
are also appropriate for the existing multicast routing
algorithms to be classified into reactive, proactive, and hybrid
multicast routing. The Ad hoc Multicast Routing (AMRoute)
[23] belongs to the proactive multicast routing category,
whereas On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP)
[24] is a reactive multicast routing protocol and the Core-based
Tree (CBT) [25] is a hybrid multicast routing protocol.
The existing MANET multicast routing approaches can be
subclassified into tree-based, mesh-based, core-based, and
group forwarding-based multicast routing protocols [26]. This
subclassification is based on how the distribution paths among
group members are constructed. Some of the multicast routing
protocols could be included in more than one category, such as
the Core-assisted Mesh Protocol (CAMP) [27] which can be
characterized as both a core and mesh multicast routing
protocol.
• Tree-based
In tree-based multicast routing protocols, the source nodes
are the roots of multicast trees and in them the executing
algorithm for distribution tree contraction and maintenance.
This requires that a source must know the topology information
and address all of its receivers in the multicast group.
Therefore, when used for dynamic networks, source-rooted
tree-based multicast routing protocols often suffer from control
traffic overhead. The AMRoute [22] is an example of one such
source-rooted tree-based multicast routing.
• Core-based
In a core-based multicast routing algorithm, cores are nodes
with special functions such as multicast data distribution and
membership management. Some core-based multicast routing
algorithms also utilize tree structures, but unlike source-rooted
tree-based multicast routing, multicast trees are rooted at core
nodes. For different core-based multicast routing protocols,
core nodes may perform various routing and management
functions. For example, in a CBT multicast routing protocol
[25], cores are cross points for all traffic flows of multicast
groups and may become bottlenecks along the network. On the
other hand, in protocols like CAMP [27], core nodes are not
necessarily utilized by all routing paths.
• Mesh-based
In a mesh-based multicast routing protocol, packets are
distributed along mesh structures that are a set of
interconnected nodes. The mesh structure is more robust than
the tree structure for multicast routing in dynamic networks
because a mesh provides alternate paths when link failure
occurs. However, the cost for maintaining mesh structures is
normally higher than that of trees. The ODMRP [24] and
CAMP [27] are examples of mesh-based multicast routing
protocols.
• Group Forwarding-based
In the group forwarding-based multicast routing, a set of
mobile nodes is dynamically selected as forwarding nodes for a
multicast group. Forwarding nodes then assume the
responsibility for multicast packet distribution. Using this
scheme, it is possible to obtain multiple routing paths and send
duplicate messages to receivers through the different paths
obtained. ODMRP [24] is a group forwarding-based multicast
routing protocol that uses adaptive forwarding groups to
accomplish this.
3 Broadcasting Methods
The broadcasting mechanism is used by MANET nodes for
periodic messages. A number of research groups have
proposed efficient broadcast protocols based on distributed and
hierarchical methodologies. The broadcasting methods could
be subclassified according to their transmission methodology
(or how nodes broadcast their packets). In addition to the
simple flooding, the subclassification includes probability-
based methods, area-based methods, and neighbor knowledge
methods. Most existing distributed network-wide broadcast
techniques have been summarized and categorized in
Reference [28].
• Simple Flooding
Most of the routing protocols use a generally inefficient
form of broadcast called simple flooding. In simple flooding,
when a node receives a packet to be broadcast for the first time,
it transmits the packet to all nodes within its transmission
range. In dense networks, the simple flood wastes bandwidth
and node resources. DSR [11] and AODV [12] routing
protocols use the simple flooding technique.
The following methods improve upon simple flooding and
do not require that every node receive a packet to transmit it
further.
• Probability-based Methods
Using the probability-based protocols [29], the node
decides whether to rebroadcast according to a specified
probability or a simple conditional event which relates to the
probability of reaching additional neighbors.
• Area-based Methods
Area based methods [29] use knowledge of sender node
locations to estimate whether a transmission will reach a
significant amount of additional coverage area. LAR [19] and
DREAM [20] include area-based methods in their routing
protocols.
• Neighbor Knowledge Methods
Neighbor knowledge methods [29] require the use of
“Hello”-type packets so that nodes have explicit data regarding
their neighborhood topology; the nodes then use this neighbor
data to decide whether to rebroadcast a packet. The OLSR
routing protocol [10] implements this method.
D Network Routing Metrics
In this paper, a new classification for routing algorithms has
been added which depends on the routing metric. The routing
metric used in the identification of the routing path could also
be used as a criterion for MANET routing protocols
classification.
In the previous sections, all abovementioned MANET
protocols have based on the hop number as a routing metric,
such as in OLSR [10], DSR [11], and AODV [12]. If there are
multiple routing paths available, the path selected will be the
shortest routing paths with the minimum hop number in order
to decrease traffic overhead and reduce packet collisions when
compared to longer routing paths. However, one disadvantage
to the mobility in MANET is that it can cause route failure and
frequently leads to route discovery. Therefore, the link stability
is an important metric that was considered in the route
construction. An example for that is the Associativity-based
Routing (ABR) [30] that selects routes based only on nodes’
link stability, where each node has an associative state that
implies the period of stability. ABR is a simple bandwidth-
efficient distributed routing protocol that supports mobile
computing in a conference-sized MANET environment. Unlike
the proactive or reactive routing algorithms, this protocol does
not attempt to consistently maintain routing information in
every node. In this manner, the routes selected are likely to be
long-lived; hence, there is no need to restart frequently,
resulting in a higher attainable throughput. Route requests are
broadcast on a per need basis. The protocol is free from loops,
deadlock, and packet duplicates and has scalable memory
requirements.
This network metric taxonomy could include hop number,
link stability (such as mobility), congestion [31], data rate [32],
computing and power consumptions and many other network
metrics.
III. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a review of the routing process in
MANET, which is much more complex than in wired networks
because of the host mobility, interference of wireless signals,
and the broadcasting nature of wireless communication. The
complexities of this process and the associated issues have
motivated researchers to develop several MANET routing
protocols, with varying performance under different conditions.
Each routing protocol developed according to a specific
criterion. In this paper, an overview of four different MANET
routing protocol categories was presented, including design
philosophy, network structure, packets casting, and network
routing metric. Each of these categories was used to compare,
classify, and group MANET routing protocols with similar
characteristics. These characteristics relate mainly to the
information utilized for routing that determined the nodes’
roles in the routing process. In this paper, a new type of
classification for MANET routing protocols was added based
on network routing metrics.
The review in this paper indicates that the invention of new
protocols is not a solution due to the large number of protocols
already available. However, there should be an understanding
of the network requirements and conditions for which each
protocol is suited and will function best. For each of these
criteria, there is a wide list of protocols that will meet its needs;
therefore, this understanding of requirements and conditions is
crucial to selection of the right protocol to enhance efficiency
and performance.
As mentioned previously, focusing on a particular
characteristic leads to the design of a particular routing
protocol. Therefore, a range of comparisons between the
routing protocols for each criterion should be made and then
evaluated.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Andrews, S. Shakkottai, R. Heath, N. Jindal, M. Haenggi, R. Berry, D.
Guo, M. Neely, S. Weber, S. Jafar, and A. Yener, “Rethinking
information theory for mobile Ad hoc networks,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 46, issue 12, pp. 94–101, 2008.
[2] A. S. Tanenbaum, “Computer Networks”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall
PTR, 2003.
[3] J. Kakarla1, S. Siva Sathya1, B. Govinda Laxmi2, B. Ramesh Babu “A
Survey on Routing Protocols and its Issues in VANET,” International
Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887), vol. 28, no.4, Aug.
2011.
[4] S. Sesay, Z. Yang, and J. He, “A survey on mobile Ad hoc wireless
network,” Information Technology Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 168–175,
2004.
[5] C. Liu and J. Kaiser, “A survey of mobile Ad hoc network routing
protocols,” University of Ulm Tech. Report Series, no. 2003-08, Oct.
2005.
[6] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki, and E. Dutkiewicz, “A review of routing
protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 1–22, 2004.
[7] E. M. Royer and C. K. Toh, “A review of current routing protocols for
Ad hoc mobile wireless Networks,” IEEE Personal Communications,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 46–55, Apr. 1999.
[8] X. Hong, K. Xu, and M. Gerla, “Scalable routing protocols for mobile
Ad hoc networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 16, issue 4, pp.11–21, 2002.
[9] W. Kiess and M. Mauve, “A survey on real-world implementations of
mobile Ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 5, pp. 324–339, 2007.
[10] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet, “Optimised Link State Routing Protocol
(OLSR)” Project Hipercom, INRIA, IFTF RFC 3626, 2003.
[11] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, and Y. Hu, “The Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol (DSR) for mobile Ad hoc networks for IPv4”, IETF RFC 4728,
2007.
[12] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, “Ad hoc On Demand Distance
Vector (AODV) Routing,” IETF RFC 3561, 2003.
[13] Z. J. Haas, M. R. Pearlman, and P. Samar, “The Zone Routing Protocol
(ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks”, IETF MANET Working Group, 2003.
[14] C. C. Chiang, T. C. Tsai, W. Liu, and M. Gerla, “Routing in clustered
multihop, mobile wireless networks with fading channel,” The Next
Millennium, Proceedings of IEEE Singapore International Conference
on Networks, SICON, pp. 197–221, 1997.
[15] G. Pei, M. Gerla, X. Hong, and C. C. Chiang, “A wireless hierarchical
routing protocol with group mobility,” IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference, WCNC ’99, vol.3, pp. 1538–1542, New
Orleans, LA, 1999.
[16] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bharghaven, “CEDAR: a Core-
Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing algorithm,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Area in Communication, vol. 17, issue 8, pp. 1454–1465, 1999.
[17] A. Fard, “Global Positioning System (GPS),” [Online], available on:
http://www.network-tutorial.com/global-positioning-system-gps,
[accessed Feb. 6, 2012].
[18] X. Du, “QoS routing based on multi-class nodes for mobile ad hoc
networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 2, issue 3, pp. 241–254, 2004.
[19] Y. B. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, “Location Aid Routing (LAR) in mobile ad
hoc networks,” Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, MobilCom’98, pp.
85–97, 1998.
[20] S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V. Syrotiuk, and B. WoodWard, “A Distance
Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM),” Proceedings of the
4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking, MobilCom’98, pp. 76–84, 1998.
[21] R. Jain, A. Puri, and R. Sengupta, “Geographical routing using partial
information for wireless Ad hoc networks,” IEEE Personal
Communications, vo. 8, issue 1, pp. 48–57, 2001.
[22] J. Moy, “Multicast Open Shortest Path First (MOSPF),” RFC 1584,
1994.
[23] J. Xie, R. Talpade, A. McAuley, and M. Liu, “AMRoute: Ad hoc
Multicast Routing protocol,” Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 7,
no.6, pp. 429–439, 2002.
[24] S. J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C.C. Chiang, “On Demand multicast routing
protocol,” Proceedings of IEEE WCNC’99, pp. 1298–1302, New
Orleans, LA, 1999.
[25] A. Ballardie, “Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) multicast routing
protocol specification,” Internet Request for Comment 2189, 1997.
[26] T. Omari, G. Franks, and M. Woodside, “On the effect of traffic model
to the performance evaluation of multicast protocols in MANET,”
Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp.
404–407, 2005.
[27] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and E.L. Madruga, “The core-assisted mesh
protocol,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17,
issue. 8, pp. 1380–1394, 1999.
[28] B. Williams and T. Camp, “Comparison of broadcasting techniques for
mobile Ad hoc networks,” Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Mobile
ad Hoc networking and computing (MobiHoc), pp. 194–205, 2002.
[29] B. Williams, D. P. Mehta, T. Camp, and W. Navidi, “Predictive models
to rebroadcast in mobile Ad hoc networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 295–303, 2004.
[30] C. K. Toh, “Associativity based routing for Ad hoc mobile networks,”
Wireless Personal Communications Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 103–139,
1997.
[31] R. Rashidi, M.A.J. Jamali, A. Salmasi, R. Tati “Trust routing protocol
based on congestion control in MANET,” International Conference on
Application of Information and Communication Technologies, AICT
2009. pp. 1-5, Dec. 2009.
[32] S.Yongho, P. Jaewoo, C. Yanghee, “Multi-rate aware routing protocol
for mobile ad hoc networks,” The 57th IEEE Semiannual Vehicular
Technology Conference, VTC 2003-Spring, vol. 3, pp. 1749-1752, 2003.
