a review of broadcasting methods for mobile ad hoc network

8/8/2019 A Review of Broadcasting Methods for Mobile Ad Hoc Network

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-review-of-broadcasting-methods-for-mobile-ad-hoc-network 1/9

A Review of Broadcasting Methods for Mobile Ad Hoc Network

N.Karthikeyan1 Dr.V.Palanisamy2 Dr.K.Duraiswamy3

1 Research Scholar, Department of Computer Application

SNS College of Technology, Sathy Main Road, Coimbatore-641035, Tamilnadu, IndiaTelephone: +91-422-2669118, Mobile: +91-98427 90907 E-Mail: [email protected] Principal, Info Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sathy Main Road, Coimbatore-641107.

3 Dean, K.S. Rangasamy College of Technology, Tiruchengode - 637215.

Abstract: Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of wireless mobile hosts forming atemporary network without the aid of any stand-alone infrastructure or centralized administration.Mobile Ad-hoc networks are self-organizing and self-configuring multi hop wireless networkswhere, the structure of the network changes dynamically. This is mainly due to the mobility of nodes. The Nodes in the network not only acts as hosts but also as routers that route data to or from other nodes in network. In mobile ad-hoc networks where there is no infrastructure support

as is the case with wireless networks, and since a destination node might be out of range of a source node transmitting packets; a routing procedure is always needed to find a path so as to forward the packets appropriately between the source and the destination. Network widebroadcasting is an important function in MANETs, which attempts to deliver packets from a source node to all other nodes in the network. Network wide broadcasting provides routeestablishment and control functionality for a number of unicast and multicast protocols. This

paper discusses a broad range of research issues such as routing and routing protocols and different broadcasting approaches in MANET environment.

Keywords: Mobile ad hoc network, routing protocols, broadcasting methods

1. INTRODUCTION

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)created a Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) workinggroup to standardize IP routing protocol functionalitysuitable for wireless routing application within both staticand dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due tonode motion and other factors. The vision of ad hocnetwork is wireless internet, where users can moveanywhere anytime and still remaining connected with therest of the world.

The Mobile Ad-Hoc Network is characterized byenergy constrained nodes, bandwidth constrained links

and dynamic topology. In real-time applications, such asaudio, video, and real-time data, the ad hoc networksneed for Quality of Service (QoS) in terms of delay,

bandwidth, and packet loss is becoming important.Providing QoS in ad-hoc networks is a challenging task

because of dynamic nature of network topology andimprecise state information. Hence it is important to havea dynamic routing protocol with fast re-routingcapability, which also provides stable route during thelife-time of the flows. Generally there are two distinctapproaches for enabling wireless mobile units tocommunicate with each other:

1) Infrastructure-based - Wireless mobile networkshave traditionally been based on the cellular concept and relied on good infrastructure supportsuch as access point and backbone. Here mobile

devices communicate with access points like

base stations connected to the fixed network infrastructure. It is depict in Figure.1(a)

2) Infrastructure-less – In Figure.1 (b)infrastructure-less approach, the mobilewireless network is commonly known as amobile ad hoc network (MANET). A MANETis a collection of wireless nodes that candynamically form a network to exchangeinformation without using any pre-existingfixed network infrastructure.

Figure 1: MANET Approaches

The infrastructure-less approach is increasingly

becoming a very important part of communicationtechnology, because in many contexts informationexchange between mobile units cannot rely on anyfixed network infrastructure, but on rapidconfiguration of a wireless connections on-the-fly. In



infrastructure less network, a MANET consists of a setof mobile nodes that may communicate with one another from time to time, and where no base stations present.Each host is equipped with a CSMA/CA transceiver. Insuch case, a mobile node may communicate with eachother directly or indirectly. If it is a indirect

communication, a multi-hop scenario occurs, where the packets originated from the source host are relayed byseveral intermediate mobile nodes before reaching thedestination.

Broadcasting is often used as a building block for route discovery in on-demand ad hoc routing protocols.For designing for ad hoc networks, one of the primarygoal is to reduce the overhead (collision andretransmission, redundant retransmission) while reachingall the nodes in the network. In wireless broadcasting, if all neighboring nodes relay or rebroadcast the received

packet immediately, it will result in the problem of

“broadcast storm”. To avoid the broadcast storm problem, some form of randomized delay can beintroduced before a neighboring node relays the received

packet. The performance of broadcast protocols can bemeasured by a variety of metrics. A commonly usedmetric is the number of messages retransmissions withrespect to the number of nodes. The next importantmetric is reachability or the ratio of nodes connected tothe source that received the broadcast message. Timedelay or latency is sometimes used, which is the timeneeded for the last node to receive the broadcast messageinitiated at the source.

1. 1. MANET Characteristics

The fundamental difference between fixed networksand MANET is that the computers in a MANET aremobile. Due to the mobility of these nodes, there aresome characteristics that are only applicable to MANET.Some of the key characteristics are described below [1]: 1. Dynamic Network Topologies: Nodes are free to

move arbitrarily, meaning that the network topology,which is typically multi-hop, may change randomlyand rapidly at unpredictable times.

2. Bandwidth constrained links: Wireless links havesignificantly lower capacity than their hardwiredcounterparts. They are also less reliable due to thenature of signal propagation.

3. Energy constrained operation: Devices in a mobilenetwork may rely on batteries or other exhaustiblemeans as their power source. For these nodes, theconservation and efficient use of energy may be themost important system design criteria.

The MANET characteristics described above implydifferent assumptions for routing algorithms as the

routing protocol must be able to adapt to rapid changesin the network topology.

1.2 Applications of MANET

There are numerous scenarios that do not have anavailable network infrastructure and could benefitfrom the creation of an ad hoc network.

Rescue/Emergency operations:

Rapid installation of a communication

infrastructure during a natural/environmentaldisaster that demolished the existingcommunication infrastructure line telephonelines, backbones and access points.

Law enforcement activities:

Rapid installation of a communicationinfrastructure during special operations.

Commercial projects: Simpleinstallation of a communication infrastructurefor commercial gatherings such as conferences,

exhibitions, workshops and meetings.

Educational classrooms: Simpleinstallation of a communication infrastructureto create an interactive classroom on demand.

Figure 2: Ad-hoc Technology for Military Communications

With the increase of portable devices as well as progress in wireless communication, ad hocnetworking is gaining importance with the increasing

number of widespread applications. Ad hocnetworking can be applied anywhere where there islittle or no communication infrastructure or theexisting infrastructure is expensive or inconvenientto use. Typical applications include [2]:

• Military battlefield: Ad hoc networking wouldallow the military to take advantage of commonplace network technology to maintainan information network between the soldiers,vehicles, and military information head quarters.Ad hoc Technology for military communicationis shown in Figure. 2.

• Commercial sector: Emergency rescueoperations (like fire, flood, earthquake, etc.,)must take place where non-existing or damaged



communications infrastructure and rapiddeployment of a communication network is needed.

• Local level: Ad hoc networks can autonomouslylink an instant and temporary multimedia network using notebook computers or palmtop computers to

spread and share information among participants at ae.g. conference or classroom.

• Personal Area Network (PAN): Short-rangeMANET can simplify the intercommunication

between various mobile devices (such as a PDA, alaptop, and a cellular phone).

2. ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

Broadcasting may be used to disseminate data to allother nodes in the network or may be used by MANETunicast or multicast routing protocols to disseminatecontrol information. For example, unicast protocols suchas Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Ad Hoc On DemandDistance Vector (AODV), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)and Location Aided Routing (LAR) use broadcasting toestablish routes. Currently these protocols all rely on asimple form of plain or blind flooding technique, inwhich each node retransmits each received unique packetexactly one time. The main role of broadcasting methodsin Routing protocols are route discovery process inseveral routing protocols such as DSR, AODV, ZRP, andLAR, when advising an error message to erase invalidroutes from the routing table, or as an efficient

mechanism for reliable multicast in a fast-movingMANET. According to the routing strategy the routing

protocols can be categorized as [3, 4]

Proactive routing protocols and Reactive on-demand routing protocols

2.1 Proactive (Table-Driven) Routing Protocols

These routing protocols are similar to and come asa natural extension of those for the wired networks. In

proactive routing, each node has one or more tables that

contain the latest information of the routes to any node inthe network. The two kinds of table updating in proactive protocols are the periodic update and the triggeredupdate. In periodic update, each node periodically

broadcasts its table in the network. Each node justarriving in the network receives that table. In triggeredupdate, as soon as a node detects a change in itsneighborhood, it broadcasts entries in its routing tablethat have changed as a result.

Proactive routing tends to waste bandwidth and power in the network because of the need to broadcastthe routing tables/updates. Furthermore, as the number of

nodes in the MANET increases, the size of the table willincrease; this can become a problem in and of itself.DSDV, which is known not to be suitable for large densenetworks, was described in. A route table at each nodeenumerates all available destinations and the

corresponding hop-count from the node. Each routetable entry is tagged with a sequence number, whichis created by a destination node. To maintainconsistency of the route tables in a dynamicallychanging network topology, each node transmitstable updates either periodically (periodic update) or

when new significant information is available(triggered update).

Routing information is advertised by broadcasting or multicasting. The packets aretransmitted periodically and incrementally astopological changes are detected. Topologicalchanges include movement of a node from place to

place or the disappearance of the node from thenetwork. Information about the time interval betweenarrival of the very first routing solution and thearrival of the best routing solution for each particular destination is also maintained. On the basis of this

information, a decision may be made to delayadvertising routes that are about to change, thus,reducing fluctuations in the route tables. Theadvertisement of possible unstable routes is delayedto reduce the number of rebroadcasts of possibleroute entries that normally arrive with the samesequence number.

The proactive routing protocols are

Destination-sequenced distance vector

(DSDV)

Wireless routing protocol

(WRP)Global state routing (GSR)

Fisheye state routing (FSR)

Source-tree adaptive routing

(STAR)

Distance routing effect algorithm for mobility

(DREAM)

Multimedia support in mobile wireless network

(MMWN)

Cluster-head gateway switch routing(CGSR)

Hierarchical state routing (HSR)

Optimized link state routing

(OLSR)

Topology broadcast reverse path forwarding

(TBRP

F)

2.2 Reactive Routing Protocols

On-demand routing protocols were designed toreduce the overheads in proactive protocols bymaintaining information for active routes only. Thismeans routes are determined and maintained for nodes that require to send data to a particular



destination. Route discovery usually occurs by flooding aroute request packets through the network.

Reactive protocols can be classified into twocategories: source routing and hop-by-hop routing. Insource routed on-demand protocols each data packets

carry the complete the source to destination address.Therefore, each intermediate node forwards these packets according to the information kept in the header of each packet. This means that the intermediate nodesdo not need to maintain up-to-date routing informationfor each active route in order to forward the packettowards the destination. Furthermore, nodes do not needto maintain neighbor connectivity through periodic

beacon messages. The major drawback of with sourcerouting protocols is that in large networks they do not

perform well. This is due to two main reasons; firstly asthe number of intermediate nodes in each route grows,then so does the probability of route failure. Secondly, as

the number of intermediate nodes in each route grows,then the amount of overhead carried in each header of each packet will grow as well. Therefore, in largenetworks with significant levels of multi-hoping andhigh levels of mobility, these protocols may not scalewell.

In hop-by-hop routing (also called as point-to-pointrouting) each data packet only carries the destinationaddress and the next hop address. Therefore, eachintermediate node in the path to the destination uses itsrouting table to forward each data packet towards thedestination. The advantage of this strategy is that routesare adaptable to the dynamically changing environment

of MANETs, since each node can update its routing tablewhen they receiver fresher topology information andhence forward the data packets over fresher and better routes. Using fresher route recalculations are requiredduring data transmission. The disadvantage of thisstrategy is that each intermediate node must store andmaintain routing information for each active route andeach node may require to be aware of their surroundingneighbors through the use of beaconing messages.

The reactive routing protocols are

Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV)Dynamic source routing (DSR)

Routing on-demand acyclic multi-path (ROAM)

Light-weight mobile routing (LMR)

Temporally ordered routing algorithm (TORA)

Associated-based routing (ABR)

Signal stability adaptive (SSA)

Relative distance micro-discovery ad hoc routing

(RDMAR)

Location-aided routing (LAR)

Ant-colony-based routing algorithm (ARA)

Flow oriented routing protocol (FORP)Cluster-based routing protocol (CBRP)

3.0 BROADCASTING IN MANET

Network-wide broadcasting [5] aims atdistributing messages from the source node to allother nodes in the network. Broadcasting is a major communication primitive required by manyapplications and protocols in MANETs. Broadcast

protocols are a fundamental building block to realize principal middleware functionalities such asreplication, group management and consensus.Furthermore, broadcasting is frequently used todiscover and advertise resources. A simple exampleof resource discovery is the route discovery in manyreactive routing protocols. Broadcasting is alsofrequently used to distribute content to all network

participants, such as alarm signals or announcements. In highly dynamic scenarios,

broadcasting serves as a robust way of realizingother communication primitives, such as multicast.

Design Issues

The air interface is a shared medium, whichshows its broadcast nature. This broadcast nature of radio channels can be exploited for simple andefficient local broadcasting. We refer by local

broadcast or MAC broadcast to the capability of sending one message to all nodes within thecommunication range using one single transmission.This capability can be used to send network-controltraffic to all neighbors (e.g. HELLO beacons) or tosupport broadcasting algorithms. Since in a sharedmedium a broadcast to all nodes in the transmission

range costs the sender as much as one unicasttransmission to a single neighbor, it is recommendedthat broadcasting strategies exploit this property.Here, we focus on the IEEE 802.11 standard.Therefore, all nodes located within thecommunication range are able to receive a local

broadcast. Using local broadcast nodes do not use theoptional RTS/CTS optimization of CSMA/CA, buttransmit data (on a free channel) and without anyconsideration for hidden terminals. The lack of theRTS/CTS feature may also lead to the exposedterminal problem, which reduces the network capacity. Therefore, MAC broadcasting decreases

the reliability of data delivery compared to sendingthe message to all neighbors using unicast with theRTS/CTS scheme. However, MAC broadcastingmassively reduces the number of transmissionscompared to the unicast-based broadcast.Accordingly, MAC broadcasting is frequently usedto develop broadcast protocols in MANETs.

The most straightforward solution for broadcasting is when nodes forward a receivedmessage to all their neighbors using local broadcasts.Eventually, all nodes within the network shouldreceive the message. This primitive strategy is like a

flood and therefore, is called plain flooding (alsocalled simple flooding, pure flooding, or blindflooding). Even though flooding might lead to anunnecessary message overhead, it should provide arobust basic strategy for broadcasting in networks



with an unknown or changing topology. Due to itssimplicity, localized nature, and topology transparency,flooding is widely used in MANETs as a basic schemefor many broadcast protocols. However, thecharacteristics of MANETs still prohibit a flooding

process from reaching every node. If the density of nodes

is too high, the radio transmission will block outmessages, since too many nodes are repeating their incoming messages. This problem is referred to as

broadcast storms [6]. It describes three major problemsthat in particular occur if plain flooding is used to realize

broadcasting in crowded MANETs: redundancy,collisions and contention.

Redundancy takes place if message forwarding isuseless because it only reaches nodes that already havereceived the message. In order to send a broadcastmessage, a mobile node only needs to assess a clear channel before transmitting. Therefore, collision (e.g.

due to a hidden node) may occur frequently. Withoutfurther measures, a mobile node is not able to knowwhether a message was successfully received by itsneighbors. Contention occurs if the sender has messagesin its MAC buffer but it could not send them. Dependingon the buffer strategy and its parameters, messages may

be deleted from the queue, if the channel is blocked byother neighbors.

In order to relieve the broadcast storm problem,strategies to restrict forwarding to a subset of nodes haveto be developed. It is obvious that for a fixedcommunication range the intensity of the broadcast

storm problem depends on the node density, i.e. number of nodes per unit of area. Therefore, node density has agreat impact on the performance of such strategies. Onthe other hand, if node density is very low, the network

becomes partitioned and flooding will only reach nodesin the partition containing the source. The commonapproach to deal with partitioning is that nodes cachemessages and repeat forwarding at the appropriate time,i.e. partition join. We call each repetition and subsequentforward a rebroadcast. For this purpose we need efficientrepetitive strategies. Global view detection may becomevery costly in MANETs and particularly in highlymobile ones. Therefore, scenario detection is undesired

in MANETs. Furthermore the same node may participatein different MANET scenarios. As a result, we require ageneralized technique for broadcasting, which is suitablefor most of application scenarios.

4.0 RELATED WORK

The following are the qualitative and quantitativeanalysis of broadcasting methods of MANET by meansof different performance metrics.

Fei Dai, Jie Wu [7], proposed and implemented anefficient broadcast protocol for ad hoc networks usingdirectional antennas. This protocol, called directionalself-pruning (DSP), is a non-trivial generalization of anexisting localized deterministic broadcast protocol usingomni directional antennas. Compared with its omni

directional predecessor, DSP achieves much lower broadcast redundancy and conserves bandwidth andenergy consumption. DSP is based on 2-hoptopology information and does not rely on anylocation or angle-of-arrival (AoA) information. Aspecial case of DSP can be used for preserving

shortest paths in on-demand route discovery processes. Another special case of DSP is proposedto use the directional reception mode in

broadcasting. This paper proved that the averagenumber of forward nodes in DSP is within a constantfactor of the minimal value in an optimal solution.Extensive simulation results show that DSPoutperforms many existing directional and omnidirectional broadcast protocols in terms of efficiencyand/or reliability.

Jie Wu, Fei Dai[8], proposed and evaluated amobility management method based on the use of

two transmission ranges. Using this mechanism, itcan also be extended Wu and Dai’s coveragecondition to a dynamic environment where network topology is allowed to change, even during the

broadcast process. In addition, connectivity, link availability, and consistency issues related toneighborhood information of different nodes havealso been addressed. This scheme can also beextended to provide mobility management for other activities such as topology control in MANETs.

Ivan, Mahtab and Jovisa[9] proposed the broadcasting method significantly to reduce the or

eliminate the communication overhead of a broadcasting task by applying the conceptneighboring nodes. Retransmissions by only internalnodes in a dominating set are sufficient for reliable

broadcasting. It also proposed to eliminate neighborsthat already received the message and rebroadcastonly if the list of neighbors that might need themessage is nonempty. The important features of thiswork is reliability (reaching all nodes in the absenceof message collisions), significant rebroadcastsavings, and their localized and parameter less

behavior. The reduction communication overhead for broadcasting take is measured experimentally.

5.0 BROADCASTING METHODS IN

MANET

5.1 Simple Flooding Method

In this method[10], a source node of aMANET disseminates a message to all itsneighbors, each of these neighbors will check if they have seen this message before, if yes themessage will be dropped, if not the message willredisseminated at once to all their neighbors. The

process goes on until all nodes have the message.Although this method is very reliable for a MANETwith low density nodes and high mobility but it isvery harmful and unproductive as it causes severenetwork congestion and quickly exhaust the battery



power. Blind flooding ensures the coverage; the broadcast packet is guaranteed to be received by everynode in the network, providing there is no packet losscaused by collision in the MAC layer and there is nohigh-speed movement of nodes during the broadcast

process. However, due to the broadcast nature of wireless

communication media, redundant transmissions in blindflooding may cause the broadcast storm problem [11], inwhich redundant packets cause contention and collision.

5.2 Probability based Approach

Probabilistic based Flooding:

The Probabilistic scheme [10, 11] is similar toFlooding, except that nodes only rebroadcast with a

predetermined probability. In dense networks multiplenodes share similar transmission coverage. Thus,randomly having some nodes not rebroadcast saves nodeand network resources without harming delivery

effectiveness. In sparse networks, there is much lessshared coverage; thus, nodes won’t receive all the

broadcast packets with the Probabilistic scheme unlessthe probability parameter is high. When the probability is100%, this scheme is identical to Flooding.

Counter-Based Scheme:

Ni [12] et al show an inverse relationship betweenthe number of times a packet is received at a node andthe probability of that node being able to reach additionalarea on a rebroadcast. This result is the basis of their Counter-Based scheme. Upon reception of a previously

unseen packet, the node initiates a counter with a valueof one and sets a Random Access Delay(RAD) (which israndomly chosen between 0 and Tmax seconds). Duringthe RAD, the counter is incremented by one for eachredundant packet received. If the counter is less than athreshold value when the RAD expires, the packet isrebroadcast. Otherwise, it is simply dropped.

5.3 Area Based Methods

Suppose a node receives a packet from a sender thatis located only one meter away. If the receiving noderebroadcasts, the additional area covered by the

retransmission is quite low. On the other extreme, if anode is located at the boundary of the sender node’stransmission distance, then a rebroadcast would reachsignificant additional area, 61% to be precise[12]. Anode using an Area Based Method can evaluateadditional coverage area based on all received redundanttransmissions. We note that area based methods onlyconsider the coverage area of a transmission; they don’tconsider whether nodes exist within that area.

Distance-Based Scheme:

A node using the Distance-Based Scheme compares

the distance between itself and each neighbor node thathas previously rebroadcast a given packet1. Uponreception of a previously unseen packet, a RAD isinitiated and redundant packets are cached. When theRAD expires, all source node locations are examined to

see if any node is closer than a threshold distancevalue. If true, the node doesn’t rebroadcast.

Location-Based Scheme:

The Location-Based scheme uses a more

precise estimation of expected additional coveragearea in the decision to rebroadcast. In this method,each node must have the means to determine its ownlocation, e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS).Whenever a node originates or rebroadcasts a packetit adds its own location to the header of the packet.When a node initially receives a packet, it notes thelocation of the sender and calculates the additionalcoverage area obtainable were it to rebroadcast. If theadditional area is less than a threshold value, thenode will not rebroadcast, and all future receptions of the same packet will be ignored. Otherwise, the nodeassigns a RAD before delivery. If the node receives a

redundant packet during the RAD, it recalculates theadditional coverage area and compares that value tothe threshold. The area calculation and thresholdcomparison occur with all redundant broadcastsreceived until the packet reaches either its scheduled

send time or is dropped.

5.4 Neighbor Knowledge Method

Self Pruning:

Self Pruning is an effective method in reducing broadcast redundancy. Each node in this approach

is required to have knowledge of its neighbors,this knowledge can be achieved by periodic”Hello” messages. The receiving node will firstcompare its neighbor lists to that of sender’s list, thereceiving node will rebroadcast if the additionalnodes could be reached, otherwise the receivingnode will drop the message. This is the simplestapproach in the neighbor knowledge method. InFigure 3, after receiving a message from node 2 node1 will rebroadcast the message to node 4 and node 3as it’s only additional nodes. Note that node 5also will rebroadcast the same message to node4 as it’s only additional node. In this situation stillthe message redundancy takes place.

Figure 3: Self Pruning approach

Ad Hoc Broadcasting Approach:

In this approach, only nodes selected as gateway

4

56

1 2

7

3



of the retransmitting nodes, thus facing problems in ahigh density mobile MANET.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. S.N.

Subbramanian, Director cum Secretary,Dr.S.Rajalakshmi, Correspondent, Dr.V.P. Arunachalam,Principal, SNS College of Technology, Coimbatore for their motivation and constant encouragement. The author would like to thank Supervisor Dr. V. Palanisamy,Principal, Info Institute of Engineering and JointSupervisor Dr.K.Duraiswamy, Dean, KSR College of Technology for their valuable inputs and fruitfuldiscussions

REFERENCES

[1] S. Corson and J. Macker, Mobile Ad hoc

Networking: Routing Protocol Performance issuesand Evaluation Considerations, RFC 2501, January1999.

[2] Stefano Basagni (Editor), Marco Conti (Editor),ilvia Giordano (Editor), Ivan Stojmenović (Editor)Mobile Ad Hoc Networking ISBN: 978-0-471-37313-1, Wiley-IEEE Press, August 2004

[3] Lang, Daniel, Routing Protocols for Mobile AdHoc Networks - Classification, Evaluation andChallenges, VDM Verlag, ISBN: 3836469081

[4] Boukerche A., “Performance comparison andanalysis of ad hoc routing algorithms”, IEEEInternational Conference on. Performance,Computing, and Communications, 2001, Apr 2001, pp 171-178.

[5] B. Williams and T. Camp. Comparison of Broadcasting Techniques for Mobile Ad hoc

Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposiumon Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing(MOBIHOC), 194–205, 2002

[6] Y.-C. Tseng, S.-Y. Ni, and E.-Y. Shih, “Adaptive

Approaches to Relieving Broadcast Storms in aWireless Multihop Mobile Ad Hoc Network,”IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 545-557, May 2003.

[7] Jie Wu, Fei Dai, Mobility Management and itsApplications in Efficient Broadcasting in Mobile AdHoc Networks INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-thirdAnnual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer andCommunications Societies Publication Date: 7-11March 2004 Volume: 1, on page(s): - 350.

[8] Jie Wu, Fei Dai, "Efficient Broadcasting withGuaranteed Coverage in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,"IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 4, no.3, pp. 259-270, May/June 2005, doi:10.1109/

[9] Ivan Stojmenovic, Mahtab seddigh, and JovisaZunic,“ Dominating Sets and Neighbor Elimination-Based Broadcasting Algorithms inwireless Networks” IEEE Transactions onParallel and Distributed Systems, Volume 13,

No.1, January 2002.

[10] N.Karthikeyan. V.Palanisamy, K.Duraiswamy.“Performance Comparison of BroadcastingMethods in Mobile Ad Hoc Network”,IJFGCN Volume.2 No.2, pp. 47-58, June2009

[11] Ni, S., Y. Tseng, Y. Chen and J. Sheu, 1999.The broadcast storm problem in a mobile adhoc network. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEEInternational Conference on Mobile Computingand Networking, Aug. 15-19, Seattle,Washington, United States, pp: 151-162.

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=313451.313525

[12] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen and J. Sheu. TheBroadcast Storm Problem in a Mobile Ad hoc

Network. International Workshop on MobileComputing and Networks, 151–162, 1999.

[13] G. Karumanchi, S. Muralidharan, and R.Prakash. Information dissemination in

partitionable mobile ad hoc networks. InProceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on

Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), pages4{13, October 1999.

[14] C. Becker, M. Bauer, and J. HÄahner. Usenet-on-the-fly: supporting locality of informationin spontaneous networking environments. InProceedings of the Workshop on Ad hocCommunications and Collaboration inUbiquitous Computing Environments (CSCW),2002.

[15] J. Su, A. Chin, A. Goel, and E.D. Lara. User mobility for opportunistic ad-hoc networking.In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Workshop onMobile Computing Systems and Applications,2004.

[16] C. Lindemann and O.Waldhorst. Epidemicdissemination of presence information inmobile instant messaging systems. InProceedings of The 2005 Conference onCommunication in Distributed Systems(KiVS), February 2005.

[17]D.B. Johnson and D.A. Maltz. Dynamic sourcerouting in ad hoc wireless networks. MobileComputing (Kluwer Academic Publishers),353, 1996.



[18]C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer and S. Das.Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)Routing. RFC 3561, July 2003.

a review of broadcasting methods for mobile ad hoc network

Documents