International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Computational and Applied Sciences (IJETCAS)
www.iasir.net
Energy Efficient Routing Protocol for MANET: A Survey
1GANESH GUPTA
Asst. Professor, Amity School of Engg. & Technology Amity University, Gurgaon, Haryana, INDIA
2MADNESH KUMAR GUPTA Asst. Professor, University College
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana, INDIA
3ASHOK K. RAGHAV
Director & Professor, Industrial Research and Development, Amity University Haryana, INDIA
Abstract: This paper presents review on energy efficient routing protocol for MANET (Mobile Ad -Hoc Network). In MANET nodes are mobile so routing and power management is critical issue. Power consumption can occur due to receiving the data, transmitting the data traffic, mobility etc. Power failure of mobile node not only affects the node itself but also its ability to forward packets on behalf of others and hence overall network lifetime. It might not be possible to replace/recharge a mobil e node that is powered by batteries. To take full advantage of life time of nodes, traffic should be routed in a way that power consumption is minimized. Power Aware Routing is a consideration in a way that it minimizes the energy consumption while routing the traffic, aims at minimizing the total power consumption of all the nodes in the network, minimizing the overhead etc and thus, at maximizing the lifespan of the network using some Power Aware Routing Protocols. Although establishing correct and effici ent routes is an important design issue in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs), a more challenging goal is to provide power efficient routes because mobile nodes operation time is the most critical limiting factor. Each protocol has definite advantages/disadvantages and is well suited for certain situations. The purpose of this paper is to facilitate the research efforts in combining the existing solutions to offer a more power efficient routing mechanism.
Keywords: Mobile ad hoc network, routing protocols, energy efficient routing, transmission power control, load distribution, sleep mode operation and global positioning system.
I. Introduction
The computer network can be classified into two types: Wired or wireless. In wired network, data travels as electrical signals through wires, but in wireless medium, no wires are used and signals travel as electromagnetic waves through the air. With a wirelessly connected device, anyone can move around and still stay connected providing the person to be in range. This is great for office users or even students. In wired network, speed is fixed, where one will get the speed wire is capable of but in wireless network, speed is fluctuating and depends on the distance between nearest access point and whatever happens to be in between wireless device and access point itself. Further, the wireless network can be classified into two types: 1. Infrastructure based, 2.
Infrastructure less . In Infrastructure based wireless networks the mobile nodes can move while communicating with the base stations being fixed and as the node goes out of the range of a base station, it gets into the range of another base station. In Infrastructure less or Ad Hoc wireless networks the existing wireless infrastructure is expensive and inconvenient to use. An ad hoc network consists of a collection of autonomous mobile nodes formed by means of multi-hop wireless communication without using any pre-existing fixed network infrastructure. Ad-hoc networks can be classified into three categories based on applications; Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs), Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs) and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) [3]. Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) are becoming more popular these days in a wide spectrum of applications.
Wireless mobile ad-hoc networks are useful in many areas which are in TABLE I. The energy efficient routing may be the most important design criteria for MANETs, since mobile nodes will be powered by batteries with limited capacity [11]. Power failure of a mobile node not only affects the node itself but also its ability to forward packets on behalf of others and thus the overall network lifetime. This paper surveys and classifies numerous energy-efficient routing mechanisms proposed for MANETs. A mobile node consumes its battery energy not only when it actively sends or receives packets, but also when it stays idle listening to the wireless medium for any possible communication requests from other nodes. Thus, energy-efficient routing protocols minimize either the active communication energy required to transmit and receive data packets or the energy
during inactive periods. The transmission power control approach can be extended to determine the optimal routing path that minimizes the total transmission energy required to deliver data packets to the destination [12].
For protocols that belong to the latter category, each node can save the inactivity energy by switching its mode of operation into sleep/power-down mode or simply turns it off when there is no data to transmit or receive. This leads to considerable energy savings, especially when the network environment is characterized with low duty cycle of communication activities. However, it requires a well-designed routing protocol to guarantee data delivery even if most of the nodes sleep and do not forward packets for other nodes. Another important approach to optimizing active communication energy is load distribution approach [5].
Table II Shows Useful Area in Ad-hoc Network
1.Military Environments 2.Civilian environments 3.Commercial
• Special operations
• Homeland defence
• Soldiers, tanks, plants
• Automated battlefield
• Disaster Recovery (flood, fire, earthquakes etc)
• Law enforcement (crowd control)
• Search and rescue in remote areas
• Environment monitoring (sensors)
• Space/planet exploration
• Boats, small aircraft
• Sports stadiums
• Taxi cab network
• Sport events, festivals, conventions
• Patient monitoring
• Ad hoc collaborative computing (Bluetooth)
• Sensors on cars (car navigation safety)
• Vehicle to vehicle communications
This paper surveys and classifies numerous energy-efficient routing mechanisms for MANETs. The main focus on motivation, research challenges, recent development and modifications in this widely used field. And also, see how conventional routing protocols are modified to make them as energy efficient. We believe the survey can be a great source of information for researchers in ad-hoc networks. Finally, discuss the latest development, industry effort and the future direction for further research is identified problems. While it is not clear whether any particular algorithm or a class of algorithms is the best for all scenarios, each protocol has definite advantages/disadvantages and is well-suited for certain situations. However, it is possible to combine and integrate the existing solutions to offer a more energy-efficient routing mechanism. Since energy efficiency is also a critical issue in other network layers, considerable efforts have been devoted to developing energy-aware MAC and transport protocols [7]. Each layer is supposed to operate in isolation in layered network architecture but, as some recent studies suggested, the cross-layer design is essential to maximize the energy performance . The paper is organized as follows; Introduction is presented in Section I. Section II presents classification of routing protocols then general discussions on energy efficiency which includes two sub sections, first sub section discusses the general definition of energy efficiency and the second sub section includes a discussion on routing algorithms and energy efficiency. Section III, survey on energy efficient routing protocol. Section IV presents result and comparison and finally conclusion is presented in Section V.
II. Overview of Routing Protocols
It is the process of establishing path and forwarding packets from source node to destination node. It consists of two steps, route selection for various source-sink pairs and delivery of data packets to the correct destination.
Various protocols and data structures (routing tables) are used to meet these two steps. This survey paper is focussed on finding and selecting energy efficient routes. We are going to discuss the main approaches in the routing are proactive, reactive, and hybrid then the general definition of energy efficiency as well as energy efficient routing algorithms.
A. Classification of Routing Protocols for MANET
1) Proactive (Table-Driven) routing protocols: A Proactive protocols continuously maintain fresh list of destinations in the network by exchanging topological information among the network nodes. Thus, when there is a need for a route to a destination, such route information is available immediately. Examples of the proactive protocols are - DSDV [2] (Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)[7], Hierarchical State Routing protocol, Optimized Link State Routing,(OLSR)[4] and Topology Dissemination based on Reverse-Path Forwarding routing protocol (TBRPF)[36]. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are high latency time in route finding and excessive flooding can lead to network clogging.
2) Reactive (On demand) routing protocols: The reactive routing protocols are based on some sort of query- reply dialog. It is also called on demand routing. It is more efficient than proactive routing and most of the current work and modifications have been done in this type of routing for making it more and more better. The main idea behind this type of routing is to find a route on demand between a source and destination whenever that route is needed. Discovering the route on demand avoids the cost of maintaining routes that are not being used and also controls the traffic of the network because it doesn’t send excessive control messages which significantly create a large difference between proactive and reactive protocols. Time delay in reactive protocols is greater comparative to proactive types since routes are calculated when it is required. e.g. Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)[18], and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)[7][9] etc.
3) Hybrid routing protocols: Both of the proactive and reactive routing methods have some advantages and shortcomings. In hybrid routing a well combination of proactive and reactive routing methods are used which
are better than the both used in isolation. It includes the advantages of both protocols. Examples of hybrid protocols are Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)[38], Hazy Sighted Link State(HSLS)[40] etc. Some location based routing protocols are LAR [7][20], LEER [17], LEARN [23], DREAM [26] etc. Some others approaches are Flow oriented routing, Adaptive routing, Hierarchical routing etc. Some examples of flow oriented routing protocols are Link life Based Routing Protocol (LBR)[7], Lightweight Mobile Routing Protocol (LMR) [28], Lightweight Underlay Network Ad-hoc Routing Protocol (LUNER)[29], Link Quality Source Routing etc.
Some examples of Adaptive routing protocols are TORA [34] etc. Some examples of Hierarchical routing protocols are Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBR)[32], Core Extraction Distributed Ad-hoc Routing (CEDAR)[30][33], Dynamic Address Routing (DART), Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR)[31], Global State Routing Protocol (GSR)[7], Hybrid Ad-hoc Routing Protocol (HARP)[7]etc.
B. Definition of Energy efficiency
For a wireless networks, the devices operating on battery try to pursue the energy efficiency heuristically by reducing the energy they consumed, while maintaining acceptable performance of certain tasks. Using the power consumption is not only a single criterion for deciding energy efficiency. Actually, energy efficiency can be measured by the duration of the time over which the network can maintain a certain performance level, which is usually called as the network lifetime. Hence routing to maximize the lifetime of the network is different from minimum energy routing.
Minimum energy routes[1][6] sometimes attract more flows, and the nodes in these routes exhaust their energy very soon; hence the whole network cannot perform any task due to the failure on these nodes. In other words, the energy consumed is balanced consumed among nodes in the networks. Routing with maximum lifetime balances all the routes and nodes globally so that the network maintains certain performance level for a longer time. Hence, energy efficiency is not only measured by the power consumption but in more general it can be measured by the duration of time over which the network can maintain a certain performance level.
There are lots of ways to categorize routing algorithms One is flooding and broadcast routing, which is often necessary during the operation of the wireless network, such as to discover node failure and broadcast some information. The second kind is multicast routing, which is very common in wireless networks, to communicate in a one-to-group fashion. The last is unicast, which is always in an end-to-end fashion and the most common kind of routing in networks.
It goes without saying that node failure is very possible in the wireless network. Hence, saving energy when broadcasting in order to recover from the node failure or to re-routing around the failed nodes is essential. By the same token, multicast has the same challenge to achieve the energy efficiency [11][19]. For unicast, it is highly related to the node and link status, which require a wise way to do routing as well. Sometimes, shortest path routing is possibly not the best choice from the energy efficiency point of view. Energy is a limiting factor in case of Ad-hoc networks[12][13][24]. Routing in ad-hoc networks has some unique characteristics. First- energy of nodes is crucial and depends upon battery which has limited power supply. Second-nodes can move in an uncontrolled manner so frequent route failures are possible. Third-wireless channels have lower and more variable bandwidth compare to wired network. Energy efficient routing protocols are the only solution to above situation. Most of the work of making protocols energy efficient has been done on “on demand routing protocols” because these protocols are more energy efficient rather than proactive protocols but still these have some drawbacks which have been discussed in the next section. Energy efficiency can also be achieved by sensible flooding at the route discovery process in reactive protocols. And energy efficiency can also be achieved by using efficient metric for route selection such as cost function, node energy, battery level etc. Here energy efficiency doesn’t mean only the less power consumption here energy efficiency means increasing the time duration in which any network maintains certain performance level. We can achieve the state of energy efficient routing by increasing the network lifetime and performance and all the protocols discussed in this paper are based on this concept. Intensive research has been done in energy efficient communication to achieve power efficient, multi-hop communications in ad-hoc networks. Generally they can be classified into four types, which are described in detail in the following. First let us look at an simple example. Considering the multi-hop communication channels from A to B, and the intermediate node C between them, see Fig. 1.
Figure 1 A Simple Scenario for Energy Consumption in Multi-hop Networks
The possible working states for the wireless modules (including transmitter or receiver) could be transmitting, receiving, idle, sleeping. The corresponding power consumed in these states can be represented by Ptx(SNR(d)), Prx, Pid, and Ps, where SNR(d) is the signal to noise ratio for certain reliable transmission over some communication range. Therefore Ptx is the function of d, which is the transmission range such as the distance
between A and B, or C. Also, the energy consumed is the function of the data rates over the channel. Therefore, there are two possible ways to communicate between A and B. One is to directly transmit date from A to B; or we can relay with Node B. However, these two different methods lead to two different level of energy consumption, in which one must be better. Assume that the power consumed is linear with the data rate sent over the links. Then the two different methods have two levels of power consumption. Assume the link bandwidth is W. The first transmits data directly from A to B, with based on this observation, following ways are discussed to deal with this issue.
P1= R*(Ptx(│AB│))/W + R*Prx/W + 2(1-R/W)*Pid +Ps If sending data through C, then
P2= R*(Ptx(│AC│))/W + R*(Ptx(│CB│))/W + 2R*Prx /W +(3-4R/W)*Pid.
First we show some protocols that only consider the control of transmission range. Then the sleep scheduling methods are described. Finally, a unified approach is proposed.
III. Survey on Energy Efficient Routing Algorithms and Protocols
Just as its name implies, power aware routing [44][21] is to choose appropriate transmission range and routes to save energy for multihop packet delivery [6]. Let first discuss the five metrics for power aware routing:
Minimize Energy consumed per packet: the most intuitive metric, however not optimal for maximum lifetime
Maximize Time to Network Partition: important for mission critical applications, hard to maintain low delay and high throughput simultaneously
Minimize Variance in node power levels: balance the power consumption for all the node in the network, i.e., all nodes in the network have the same importance
Minimize Cost per packets: try to maximize the life of all the nodes
Minimize Maximum Node Cost: try to delay the nodes failures.
Then used them as the new power aware metric for determining the routes, which shows that per packet cost is reduced by 40-70% and mean time node failure increase significantly. Assuming the lifetime for each node is inversely proportional to the information going through that node, the authors in [8][9][10] use the optimal lifetime as the key metric, trying to maximize the minimum lifetime for individual nodes under the constraints of information flows at each nodes. In order to solve this problem, the authors proposed distributed algorithms using bisection search. One is the heuristic flow redirection algorithm [21], whose basic idea is to start from a feasible routing strategy, then redirect the flows from nodes with low lifetimes to nodes with higher lifetimes.
Another algorithm in [9] uses bisection search for successive feasible routing strategies.
A. Proactive energy aware routing protocols and algorithms
First of all we will discuss about proactive routing protocols which are categorized further in a following way on the basis of the algorithms used.
A.1 Destination-sequenced distance vector (DSDV)
DSDV [1] (destination sequenced distance vector) is the most obvious proactive protocol which was given by Perkins and bhagvat. It is based on bellman ford algorithm; it removed the shortcomings (loops, count to infinity problem) of contemporary distance vector protocol which was not suited for ad-hoc networks. It is a destination based distance vector routing protocol in which every node maintains a routing table. This routing table contains all available destinations, the next node to reach to destination, and the no of hops between it. Whenever any node changes its position it broadcast the routing updates to the other nodes. Sequence number is used to avoid loop freeness. Keeping the simplicity of distance vector protocol it guarantees loop freeness it reacts immediately on topology changes. Since the route for destination is always available at the routing table of each node so there is no latency caused by route discovery. But broadcasting of routing updates may cause high traffic load between the nodes if the density of the nodes are high. So this protocol is best suited if the density of the ad-hoc network is low. However if the mobility of the node is too high broadcasting updates may cause time delay.
A.2 Optimized Link state routing (OLSR)
OLSR [8] is another link state proactive protocol which routes to all reachable nodes in the network with minimal delay. It was developed by IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) which is an open standard organization. In this very protocol we use the concept of selective flooding which reduces the network traffic and power consumption for highly dense network since it allows only to the set of nodes (MPR’s) to broadcast the control messages whenever the topology changes. it removed the problem of unnecessary duplication of control messages. The main advantage of OLSR protocol was that it was good for dense network which was not supported by AODV protocol. In OLSR each node periodically broadcast hello messages to learn topology up to 2 hops. Based on this hello messages each node select its set of MPR’s. The problem in this type of protocol is to select a minimal set of MPR each time the topology changes which is a NP hard problem. However in this paper we are concerning on the energy efficient protocols the traditional OLSR protocol was not suitable for the viewpoint of energy efficiency which is a critical issue in case of mobile ad-hoc network. Several enhancements
have been done by the professionals for making it energy efficient which is as follows OLSR protocol does not take energy saving techniques into account proposed a new energy efficient unicast routing protocol EOLSR [3]
which made it energy efficient. EOLSR increases the network lifetime by selecting the path having minimum cost where the cost is calculated on the basis of residual energy of each traversed node and the energy conserved on this path.
A.3 Energy-efficient broadcast OLSR
A new protocol EBOLSR [8] is proposed in 2008 which adapts the OLSR protocol in order to maximize the network lifetime for broadcast communications. In EBOLSR energy efficient MPR [8][19] selection is done by the residual energy of nodes in this protocol we considers the weighted residual energy of energy efficient MPR candidate and its 1 hop neighbors. The basic phenomenon about this EBOLSR protocol was to select the energy efficient multipoint relays[MPR].
A.4 Energy-Efficient OLSR
EEOLSR [7][8] is another enhancement of OLSR [4] for increasing the network lifetime without loss of performance. Two mechanisms are used in this protocol.
EA-Willingness Setting mechanism
Overhearing Exclusion
In EA-Willingness setting mechanism we consider the energy state of the node in MPR selection. Every node shows the willingness for being an MPR heuristic value of the node (default, high, low) is used to determine which node can work as an MPR. The heuristic value is calculated with the help of battery capacity and predicted lifetime of a node. If the battery charge is low that node will have LOW heuristic value whereas if the battery is highly charged and there exist a low traffic in that node then the node will have HIGH heuristic value.
In the overhearing Exclusion device is turned off when neighborhood nodes exchanges message with each other.
This method saves significant amount of energy. In this way EEOLSR solved the problem of energy efficiency of conventional OLSR protocol.
B. Reactive energy aware routing protocols and algorithms
In reactive routing, the routes are discovered only when need of that route arises. There are two types of reactive routing. Source Routing: In source routing, data packets carry the complete addresses from source to destination and no routing table in intermediate nodes. Some source routing protocols are: Dynamic Source Routing, Associatively Based Routing [16], and Signal Stability-based Adaptive Routing [17]
B.1 Dynamic Source Routing
DSR [9] is a source routing protocol it means the sender node knows the complete route to the destination.
These routes are stored in the route cache. If a node has data to send and no route is present then route discovery process will go on. Route discovery is basically based on flooding mechanism in which route request (RREQ) packets is sent to all its neighbours. Each intermediate node rebroadcasts it unless it is the destination or it has a route to the destination. This type of node replies to the request with a route reply packet that is routed back to the source node. If the node has already treated this route request it rejects the new received request. Route maintenance will go on if a link of route is broken then it deletes each route having this link from its cache, then it generates a route error packet to inform the source node and all intermediate nodes about this link failure until this route error packet reaches to the destination. After that a new route request launched by source to find a new route or check in its route cache. Due to caching DSR is more effective at low mobility and at low loads. But, it has many limitations such as it doesn’t take into consideration the capacity of each node as power computing and no security mechanism is defined for DSR.
B.2 Weight based DSR (WBDSR)
WBDSR [10] Weight Based DSR is an improvement of conventional DSR. In this protocol, the weight of each route is considered as metric for route selection. Weight of each route can be calculated as:
Compute the node weight of each node weight i= battery level of this node + Stability of this node
Compute the route-weight as the minimum of all node weights included in this route.
To select the main route the one having the maximum route-weight.
If two or more routes have the same route-weights then choose the route which has minimum hops.
Thus WBDSR gives always the longest network life time in both high mobile networks and static networks because it timely change the used route with another one which maintains the use of the nodes which enhances the network life time.
B.3 Energy Dependent DSR (EDDSR)
DDSR [14] is energy dependent DSR algorithm which helps node from sharp and sudden drop of battery power.
EDDSR provides better power utilization compare to least energy aware routing (LEAR)[23] and minimum drain rate(MDR). EDDSR avoids use of node with less power supply and residual energy information of node is useful in discovery of route. Residual battery power of each node is computed by itself and if it is above the specific threshold value then node can participate in routing activities otherwise node delays the rebroadcasting of route request message by a time period which is inversely proportional to its predicted lifetime. With help of
ns-2 simulator author performed simulation which shows MDR and EDDSR is better than DSR in terms of node lifetime. EDDSR has further advantage over MDR because it can use route cache used by DSR.
B.4 Dynamic Source Routing-Cache (DSR-C)
DSR-Cache(DSR-C)[15] is the variant of existing DSR protocol which is based on energy efficient modification to this protocol .DSR works in two phase-first is route discovery and second is route maintenance. It is essential to reduce the cost of route discovery therefore each node maintains cache of source routes it has obtained through route discovery.
B.5 Associatively-Based Routing (ABR)
ABR [16] Associatively-Based Routing Protocol is another protocol in which selecting the longer lived route is the main concern because it will help in reducing cost of reconstructing routes. The metric used instead of the shortest hop count is the Location Stability or the associatively between nodes. Moving nodes tend to break the associatively with their neighbours and hence they are not good candidates to carry routes. Nodes periodically broadcast beacons to signify their existence with their neighbours; Location Stability is determined by counting the periodic beacons that a node receives from its neighbours. Links between nodes are classified into Stable and Unstable links based on the count of beacons. When source node broadcasts route request packets, each neighbour will check if it received this request before or if its ID is in the list. If yes it will drop the packet. If not it will append its ID and the status of the link weather it is stable or not to the packet and rebroadcast the packet again. Destination node will select the route one with less unstable links while it is not shortest one.
B.6 Signal Stability-based adaptive routing (SSA)
SSA [17] Signal Stability-based adaptive routing protocol is a derivative of ABR. In this protocol signal strength works as a prime metric for route selection. When source node broadcasts route request, route requests are forwarded through stable links only. Route requests received through unstable links are dropped.
Destination node once get the first route request over a stable links it will send a route reply to the source.
IV. Result and Comparison
The comparison of routing protocols based upon the above discussion is as follows: DSR and LAR protocol has multiple routes available in its route table while ABR, SSA, AODV has single route.
Figure 2 Comparison of protocols based on several criteria
LAR, AODV and DSR uses shortest path as metric for route selection, ABR uses Link Stability as metric for route selection and SSA uses Signal Strength for route selection. ABR, SSA and AODV uses beacons for
monitoring the routes but DSR and LAR does not use beacons. The route discovery process in DSR, ABR, SSA and AODV is global but in LAR it is localized. So this protocol helps in prolonging the network life time. The main goal is to extend the average lifetime for each node while the balancing the total energy consumption among all nodes in network. As per discussion held in this survey, results slight improvement in all energy efficient protocols over conventional routing protocol in term of energy.
V. Conclusion
This paper concludes that there is not a single protocol which can give the best performance in ad-hoc network.
Performance of the protocol varies according to the variation in the network parameters, as we know that in ad- hoc network properties continuously vary. Sometimes the mobility of the node of the network is high while sometimes energy of the node is our prime concern. So, we will choose the protocol in such a way that which perform best for that particular type of network. That’s why we have surveyed many types of conventional protocols and their modification which includes energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is one of the main problems in a MANET, especially in designing a routing protocol. Given paper surveyed and classified various conventional and energy efficient routing protocols. In many cases, it is complicated to compare them directly since each technique has a different objective with different assumptions and employs different means to achieve the objective. Our prime concern is energy efficiency and we have tried to discuss almost all possible approaches of energy efficient protocols.
References
[1] Jangsu Lee, Seunghwan Yoo, and Sungchun Kim, “Energy aware Routing in Location based Ad-hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Communications, Control and Signal Processing, ISCCSP 2010, Limassol, Cyprus, 3-5 March 2010.
[2] Fotis Diamantopoulos and Anastasios A. Economides, "A Performance study of DSDV-based CLUSTERPOW and DSDV routing algorithms for sensor network applications," In proceeding of IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing 2006 , pp. 1-6, January
[3] H. Zhang, A. Arora, Y. Choi and M. G. Gouda. 2005.Reliable Bursty Converge cast in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computin g (MobiHoc’05), Urbana-Champaign, IL, May
[4] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, T. Clausen, A. Laouiti, A. Qayyum and L. Viennot, “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol for Ad- hoc Networks,” Multi Topic Conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001, Technology for the 21st Century. Proceedings. IEEE International. Issue Date: 2001.
[5] Radhika D. Joshi and Priti P. rege, “Distributed Energy Efficient Routing in Ad-hoc Networks,” in 978-1-4244-3328-5/08 in IEEE 2008.
[6] Xiaoying Zhang, Thomas Kunz, Li Li and Oliver Yang, “An Energy-efficient Broadcast Protocol in MANETs,”
Communications Networks and Services Research Conference, Proceedings of the 2010 8th Annual Communication Networks and Services Research Conference, Pages: 199-206 SBN: 978-0-7695-4041-2.
[7] Jones CE, Sivalingam KM, Agrawal P, and Chen JC. A survey of energy efficient network protocols for wireless networks.
Wireless Networks 2001; 7(4): 343–358.
[8] Floriano, De Rango, Marco Fotino and Salvatore Marano, “EE-OLSR: Energy Efficient OLSR Routing Protocol For Mobile Ad- hoc Networks,” in Proceedings of Military Communications (MILCOM'08), San Diego, CA, USA, November 17-19, 2008.
[9] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz, ”Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-hoc Wireless Network,” The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, 1996, Volume 353, 153-181, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-585-29603-6_5 .
[10] Benamar KADRI, Mohammed FEHAM and Abdallah M’HAMED, “Weight based DSR for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” in 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008.
pp. 1- 6, 7-11 April 2008.
[11] Goldsmith AJ, and Wicker SB. “Design challenges for energy-constrained ad hoc wireless networks.” IEEE Wireless Communications 2002; 9(4): 8–27.
[12] V. Kauadia and P.R. Kumar, "Power Control and clustering in ad hoc networks," IEEE INFOCOM 2003.
[13] Juan A. Sanchez and Pedro M. Ruiz, “ LEMA: Localized Energy-Efficient Multicast Algorithm based on Geographic Routing,”
in Proceedings. Of 2006 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks in 2006.
[14] J.-E. Garcia, A. Kallel, K. Kyamakya, K. Jobmann, J.-C. Cano and P. Manzoni, “A Novel DSR-based Energy-efficient Routing Algorithm for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” in vehicular technology conference 2003 IEEE.
[15] Hai-Keong Toh, “Associativity-Based Routing for Ad-Hoc Mobile Networks in Wireless Personal Communications,” An International Journal Volume 4 , Issue 2 (March 1997) Pages: 103 – 139.
[16] Hai-Keong Toh, “Associativity-Based Routing for Ad-Hoc Mobile Networks in Wireless Personal Communications,” An International Journal Volume 4 , Issue 2 (March 1997) Pages: 103 – 139.
[17] Rohit Dube, Cynthia D. Rais, Kuang Yeh Wang and Satish K. Tripathi, “Signal Stability Based Adaptive Routing for Ad-hoc mobile Networks,” in Science Technical Report Series; Vol. CS-TR-3646 in 1996.
[18] Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer, “ Ad-hoc on demand distance vector Routing ,” in Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computer Systems and Applications in 1999.
[19] Tai Hieng Tie, Chong Eng Tan and Sei Ping Lau, “Alternate Link Maximum Energy Level Ad-hoc Distance Vector Scheme for Energy Efficient Ad-hoc Networks Routing,” in International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering (ICCCE 2010), 11-13 may 2010,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[20] Young-Bae Ko and Nitin H. Vaidya, “Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad-hoc networks in Wireless Networks,”
Volume 6 , Pages: 307 - 321 Issue 4 (July 2000).
[21] Z. Liu and A. Sankar, "Maximum lifetime routing in wireless ad-hoc networks," IEEE INFOCOM 2004.
[22] J. Choi, Y. Ko, and J. Kim, “Utilizing directionality information for power-efficient routing in ad hoc networks,” Proc. IEEE/IEE International Conference on Networking (ICN’04), Feb 2004.
[23] Yu Wang, Wen-Zhan Song, Weizhao Wang, Xiang-Yang Li and Teresa A. Dahlberg, “ LEARN: Localized Energy Aware Restricted Neighborhood Routing for Ad-hoc Networks,” in Third Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad-hoc Communications (IEEE SECON 2006).
[24] Dahai Du and Huagang Xiong, “A Location aided Energy-Efficient Routing Protocol for Ad-hoc Networks,” in wireless and optical communications conference (WOCC), 2010 19th annual.
[25] S. Murthy, and J.J. GarciaLuna-Aveces, “An Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Networks,” AACM/Baltzer Journal on Mobile Networks and Applications, Special Issue on Routing in Mobile Communication Networks, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp 183-197, ACM, October 1996.
[26] Stefano Basagni, Irnrich Chlamtac, Violet R. Syrotiuk and Barry A. Woodward, “ A Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM),” in Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking texas, United States, pages :76-84 in 1998.
[27] Yonghui chen, chunfeng zhang and zhiqin liu, “Energy Efficient Routing Protocol Based on Energy of node and Stability of Topology,” in 3rd International conference on Information and computing 2010.
[28] M.S. CORSON AND A. EPHREMIDES, “Lightweight Mobile Routing protocol (LMR), A distributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks, Wireless Networks 1 (1995).
[29] C.Tschudin and R. Gold, ”Lightweight Underlay Network Ad hoc Routing (LUNAR),” http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/projects/lunar/ 34 [30] R. Sivakumar, P. Sinha, V. Bharghavan, “Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing (CEDAR) Specification,” Internet Draft,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-cedar-spec.
[31] M. Geria, Guangyu, X. Hong, and T. Chen, “Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks Internet Draft,”
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-fsr, work in progress, June 2001.
[32] M. Jiang, J. Li, Y. C. Tay, “Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP) Functional Specification Internet Draft,”
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec, work in progress, June 1999.
[33] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, V. Bharghavan, “CEDAR: A Core-Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing Algorithm,” The 18th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, INFOCOM '99 New York, NY, USA, pp. 202-209 IEEE, March 19 .
[34] A. Iwata, C. C. Chiang, G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.W. Chen, "Scalable Routing Strategies for Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks" IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on Ad-Hoc Networks, Aug. 1999, pp.1369-79.
[35] N. Nikanein, C. Bonnet, and N. Nikaein, “Hybrid Ad Hoc Routing Protocol - HARP,” in proceeding of IST 2001: International Symposium on Telecommunications http://www.eurecom.fr/~nikaeinn/harp.ps
[36] B. Bellur, R. G. Ogier, and F. L. Temlin,” Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF)”, RFC 3684, February 2004.
[37] Saleh Ali K. Al-Omari and Putra Sumari, “ An over view of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for Existing Protocols and Applications,”
International Journal on applications of graph theory in wireless ad hoc networks and sensor networks (Graph-Hoc), Vol.2, March 2010.
[38] Haas ZJ, Pearlman MR, Samar P (2002) The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks. IETF draft, July 2002, available at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manetzone-zrp-04.txt. Accessed 21 February 2008 94 A.-S.K. Pathan and C.S. Hong.
[39] V. D. Park and S. Corson, “Temporarily-ordered routing algorithm (TORA) version 1 functional specification,”corsondraft-ietf- anet.tora-spec-00.txt, IETF, Internet draft, 1997.
[40] V. Rodoplu and T. H. Meng, "Minimum Energy Mobile Wireless Networks," IEEE J. Selected Areas in Communications 17(8), 1999.
[41] V. Kauadia and P.R. Kumar, "Power Control and clustering in ad hoc networks," IEEE INFOCOM 2003.
[42] P .Santi, "Topology Control in Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks," ACM Comp. Surveys, Vol. 37, n. 2, p. 164-194, June 2005.
[43] B. Krishnamachari, "Networking Wireless Sensors," Cambridge University Press, December 2005.
[44] S. Singh, M. Woo, and C.S. Raghavendra, "Power-Aware Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," ACM/IEEE MOBICOM 1998.
.
