APPLICATIONS , CHALLENGES & COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS Research scholar -sarwan kumar...

IRJMST Volume 3 Issue 3 Online ISSN 2250 - 1959

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology http:www.irjmst.com Page 490

APPLICATIONS , CHALLENGES & COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF

ROUTING PROTOCOLS

SUPERVISOR- DR. M.K. AGARAWAL PROF. , COMP. SC. DEPT.

BUNDELKHAND UNIV.(U.P.)

Research scholar - sarwan kumar pandey BUNDELKHAND , UNIV.(U.P.)

ABSTRACT

This paper presents over all comparison of MANET routing protocols, first generalized

DSDV, WRP, FSR, DSR, ZRP, AODV, TORA, CGSR, ZRP, SSR, and ABR protocols

Routing structure of CGSR is hierarchical and all other have flat, all these protocols are

loop free only WRP is loop free but not instantaneous. As reactive routing protocols for

mobile ad hoc networks, DSR, AODV and TORA are proposed to reduce the control traffic

overhead and improve scalability. WRP, DSDV and FSR have distinct features and use

different mechanisms for loop-free guarantee. WRP, DSDV and FSR have the same time

and communication complexity. Both DSR and TORA support unidirectional links and

multiple routing paths, but AODV doesn’t. In contrast to DSR and TORA, nodes using

AODV periodically exchange hello messages with their neighbors to monitor link

disconnections. WRP, FSR and TORA have characteristic as reduced topology and all

other have full topology, only. AODV and ZRP have multicasting capability other have no

such capability.

INTRODUCTION

Applications of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Ad hoc wireless networks have an important role

to play in military applications [Saleh Ali K. Al-Omari and Putra Sumari, ― An over view

of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for Existing Protocols and applications, 2010]and [ B. B.

Maqbool and M. A. Peer, Classification of Current Routing Protocols, 2010]. Soldiers



equipped with multimode mobile communicators can now communicate in an ad hoc

manner without the need for fixed wireless base stations. In addition, small vehicular

devices equipped with audio sensors and cameras can be deployed at targeted regions to

collect important location and environmental information which will be communicated

back to a processing node via ad hoc mobile communications.

People today attend conferences and meetings with their palmtops, laptops, and notebooks.

It is therefore attractive to have instant network formation, in addition to file and

information sharing without the presence of fixed base stations and systems administrators.

Presenters can multicast slides and audio to intended recipients. Attendees can ask

questions and interact on a commonly shared whiteboard. Ad hoc mobile communication is

particularly useful in relaying information (status, situation awareness, etc.) via data, video,

and/or voice from one rescue team member to another over a small handheld or wearable

wireless device. The proactive routing in mobile ad hoc networks needs mechanisms that

dynamically collect network topology changes and send routing updates in an event-

triggered style. Protocols WRP, DSDV and FSR are loop free and have the same time and

communication complexity. Whereas WRP has a large storage complexity compared to

DSDV because more information is required in WRP to guarantee reliable transmission and

loop-free paths. Both periodic and triggered updates are utilized in WRP and DSDV;

therefore, their performance is tightly related with the network size and node mobility

pattern. As a Link State routing protocol, FSR has high storage complexity, but it has

potentiality to support multiple-path routing and QoS routing.

TABLE 1: APPLICATION FOR THE AD HOC NETWORKS



CHALLENGES IN AD HOC NETWORKS SECURITY

Among all the issues involved in Ad Hoc Networks security is most critical. Beside, when

the system is incorporating such sensitive and vulnerable properties as of Ad Hoc

Networks, the effect can be more serious. The security challenges perceived here are very

much different from that of wired network.

Cooperation : An Ad Hoc Network is formed on the basis of cooperation from other nodes

in the network, since the messages needs to be relayed by the nodes forming a part of the

network. Thus cooperation is an inherent requirement of an Ad Hoc Network. However, it

depends on the nodes desire to contribute or not to the services of the network because

there is no authoritative body in the Ad Hoc Networks to control such issues. A node may

anytime turn selfish and stop supporting for the services in the network for the purpose of

saving its scarce resources. Thus cooperation enforcement is vital for Ad Hoc Network to

perform well as selfishness can lead to severe damages to global network throughput and


International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology http:www.irjmst.com 93

delay as depicted in the simulation study on the impact of selfish behavior on the DSR

routing protocol .

Shared Broadcast Channel : As has been mentioned earlier, the channel through which

the messages travel in Ad Hoc Network is broadcast in nature and all the participating

nodes share this channel to send their data. All those nodes which are in direct radio range

of the source, receive the transmitted data. All those nodes which are in direct radio range

of the source, receive the transmitted data. In such a scenario, it is possible for an intruder

to easily listen and capture the information and use it later to launch a variety of attacks.

recent research is therefore emphasizing the use of directional antennas to combat this.

Insecure Operational Environment : The operating and geographical environment where

Ad Hoc Network is being formed cannot be assured to be safe all the time. For instance, the

military operations are carried out in the battlefield consisting of harsh and hostile

environment and also many times in the enemy region. It si not very difficult to attack the

network in such cases.

Lack of central Authority : Unlike wired network the Ad Hoc Network has no central

authority to coordinate or control. This makes the network complicated enough to allow for

the deployment of the traffic monitoring techniques and security mechanism as there are no

central router, base stations or access points for them to be implemented upon.

Lack Of Association: An intruder can easily join the network pretending to be as

participating nodes as there is no restriction generally employed for any node joining or

leaving the network. Some sort of identification needs to incorporated into network joining

policies. Although, even then the probability of attack remains because nodes can function

maliciously once they enter the network itself.

Limited Resource Availability : One key provision for implementing security is the use of

cryptography. However, cryptographic solutions are too complex, CPU intensive and

resource consuming. Since, the nodes in the Ad Hoc Network have limited bandwidth,

power and memory to work with, such solutions, cannot be deployed always.



Key Management : The two indispensable building blocks of security are authentication

to peer entities involved in Ad Hoc Networks and the integrity verification of message

being exchanged among them. Both the processes of authentication and message integrity

require some sort of key management mechanism so as to provide the participants with

proper keys to work with. In short, the secure administration of cryptographic keys is called

key management [20].

There are basically two approaches for cryptographic algorithms :

Manual configuration of symmetric (secret)keys : Use of individually pair-wise shared

same secret keys for encryption and decryption. These symmetric key algorithms perform

faster but suffer from the problem of secure distribution and non-scalability. If in some way

it is possible to afford dedicated infrastructure including a key server, automatic

distribution of session keys with a key distribution protocol like Kerberos can also be

envisioned.

Public-key based Asymmetric scheme : Here, each node make use of a pair of public and

private keys out of which the encryption is performed using public key and decryption

using private key. An asymmetric algorithm most commonly used is RSA . Conversely,

they are secure until the underlying mathematical problem is not solved, once it does, the

complete network becomes vulnerable again.

The specific characteristic and complexities impose many design challenges to the network

protocol. These networks are faced with the traditional problems inherent to wireless

communication such as lower reliability than wire media, limited physical security, time

varying channels, interference etc. the many design constraints, mobile ad-hoc network

offer numerous advantages.

Some of the challenges in MANET are:

a) Multi-hop and stable routing.

b) Autonomous and infrastructure less.

c) Infrastructure less topology.

d) Low power or efficient routing.

e) Self-creation, self-organization and self administration.



f) Network scalability.

g) Fast communication speed in dynamic hosts.

h) Quality of service.

i) Security of network and routing.

j) Uni-directional links.

k) Constrained resources.

l) Network partitions.

TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

The specific characteristics of MANET impose many challenges to network protocol

design on all layers of the protocol stack. The physical layer must deal with rapid changes

in link characteristics. The media access control (MAC) layer needs to allow fair channel

access, minimize packet collision and deal with hidden and exposed terminals. At the

network layer, nodes need to corporate to calculate paths. The transport layer must be

capable for handling packet loss and delay characteristic that are very difficult from wired

networks. Application should be able to handle possible disconnections and reconnections.

Furthermore all network protocol development need to integrate smoothly with all

traditional networks and take into account possible security problems. The traditional

challenges and possible solutions are-

Unicast Routing.

Service and resource discovery.

Addressing and internet connectivity.

Security and node cooperation

In other words , real Challenges for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Ad hoc networks have to

suffer many challenges at the time of routing [C. Ying, Q. Lv, Y. Liu, and M. Shi, ―Routing

protocols overview and design issues for self-organized network, 2000]. Dynamically



changing topology and no centralized infrastructure are the biggest challenges in the

designing of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc network. The position of the nodes in an ad

hoc network continuously varies due to which we can’t say that any particular protocol will

give the best performance in each and every case topology varies very frequently so we

have to select a protocol which dynamically adapts the ever-changing topology very easily.

SECURITY THREATS IN AD HOC NETWORKS :

Routing is the key function performed in Ad Hoc Networks. Then main threats to start

with, are related to the routing protocol in Ad Hoc Networks and includes followings.

Ad Hoc Network Routing threats :

To perceive the challenges of Ad Hoc Networks , a few of the threats are :

The primary concern with reference to the confidentiality in the routing protocols is

related to the privacy of the routing information itself which both directly or

indirectly provides important information such as regarding network topology,

geographical location, number of hops, sequence number etc. In no way, this

information should be disclosed to any malicious node.

The routing protocols integrity of a network implies that all the nodes in the

network must confer with the correct routing procedures and provide correct routing

information to all those aspiring nodes. Hence, on the other side i.e. threats to

integrity meads establishing incorrect routing information or manipulating existing

information intentionally.

Access to routing information at all times upon demand is what is termed as

availability in routing. Therefore, providing the information related to a route to a

destination to a node when it requires and that too if it has, is the duty of every node

in the network. Hence, these routing operation should be performed in due time

without any delay and information must be provided up-to-date to the requesting

node. So any node not contributing to these or not carrying out normal operations,



taking excessive time interfering with the routing protocol or security would lead to

an availability threat.

Authorization in terms of routing implies that the nodes only authorized to take part

in routing must be able to access the information related to routing. Although, there

has been no specification for authorization in earlier routing protocols, there are

several recently proposed protocols that do emphasize on authorization of a node

before exchanging any information. Since, if some malicious node gains

information regarding routing or manage to become a part of routing procedure, it

destroys the mechanism of honest routing operation and thus can hinder the normal

functioning of complete Ad Hoc Network.

Routing is one of the central aspect of Ad Hoc Networks and mostly they are

formed in cases where it is not possible to use wired infrastructure. Hence, routing

must be reliable so as to provide for emergency procedure to take over in situations

of crisis. However, this issue still needs attention to be paid. For example, an

adversary can utilize the limitation of memory to attack the resource constraints

devices by sending overwhelming route request to a node. So protocols must have

an option to choose certain other route in such situations.

Accountability can help keeping security by making it feasible to take any actions

affecting security by selectively maintaining logged and protected data which

ultimately helps to take appropriate action against attacks. The misbehaviors can be

detected and also help non-repudiation by preventing a node from repudiating

involvement in a security violation because of the record maintained by the node.

External threats :

External threats are caused by outsider nodes. They mainly aim to lower layer, since at

upper layer generally the authorization is deployed in any type of network. So they can not

make easy entry into the network. It is inherently difficult to secure Physical layer because

of the possibly mobile nature of ad hoc nodes. The external threats are broadly classified

into two major categories : 1) passive eavesdropping- listening of transmitted signal by the



adversary, and 2) active interference- the adversary intentionally sends signals/data or alters

the data in order to disrupt the network in some way.

Internal Threats :

Compromised nodes from within the network are responsible for internal attacks. The

threats posed by those nodes that are part of the network of course are more serious than

those caused by outsider since they do possess necessary information about networks

distributed operations. The conduct of an internal node can actually lead to many types of

attacks. There are mainly four categorization of misbehaving nodes. 1) failed nodes, 2)

badly failed nodes, 3) selfish nodes and 4) malicious nodes. It is not necessary for any node

to exhibit misbehavior of only single type at one time. Rather, any node can misbehave in

more than one way simultaneously as well as tow nodes in the same category may vary the

amount of misbehavior they show.

Failed Nodes : A failed node is the one which is unwillingly prohibited from contributing

in any of the services of the network in the normal supportive manner that is demanded of

all nodes in any ad hoc network. Such nodes are simply unable to perform an operation,

and they do not do this purposefully. The reason for this could include power failure and

environmental effects. For instance, it may happen that a node may have been the victim of

a rigorous Denial of Service (DoS) attack by an adversary due to which, the node's battery

or power might have been completely exhausted, making it incapable to execute any task or

network function. It is also possible that the battery of a node is entirely, depleted by itself

and therefore it is unable to give support to the network. This type of failure is also known

as graceful failure.

Badly Failed Nodes : Badly failed nodes are similar to failed node however in addition to

not sending or forwarding data packets or route messages, they can also send false routing

messages. These false route requests for a non-existing node may eat up the costly

bandwidth of the network by causing repeated circulation of the request because no node

would be able to provide a suitable reply for a node which does not exist in the network.



Besides, if the badly failed node intrudes false route replies for a true route request, then it

is quite possible that false routes will be laid down and will disseminate through the

network.

Selfish Nodes : Selfish nodes are those that exhibit the selfishness in contributing to the

operation of an ad hoc network. They are unwilling to cooperate whenever there is some

personal cost involved in terms of resources until they find something beneficial for

themselves. Therese benefits could include either incentives or the some rating points. The

selfish nodes many times may decline the upcoming requests although they are capable of

in order to preserve their sparse resources or to enhance performance.

Malicious Nodes : The objective of the malicious node is to intentionally upset the proper

functioning of the network. To do so, it may refuse to perform the network services if

possible, may misroute the information, may provide false and incorrect information and so

on. The hazardous impact of a malicious activity increases manifold if this node acts as the

only single link between groups of neighboring nodes.

Neighbor Sensing Protocols : Malicious nodes can perform compelled addition of

incorrect neighbors when they do not exist or can even cause nodes to ignore valid

neighbor nodes. The methodology employed generally depends on the neighbor sensing

protocol but the receipt of some form of message is mostly required.

Misdirecting Traffic : A malicious node as mentioned earlier, can make use of

masquerading generally. It inserts bogus source address in the data packets in sends. In

FSR [26], the IP Header source address is scanned by node and used as a neighbor address.

Now, insertion of fake source address by the malicious node in the date packets, which is

actually some other nodes' address, make all the nodes in the network to point their routes

to the malicious node, instead of the true owner of the source address.

Exploiting Route Maintenance : Malicious nodes can invalidate the existing correct links

by simply disseminating the counterfeit route error messages about them. The recovery

procedure in order to either repair the link or to find alternative routes will again consume

the resources which is basically wastage actually. Apart from this, a malicious node can



block a working link to a node so that it can compel this node to send route error messages

(e.g. by blocking acknowledgement in DSR [14], [45]).

Sequence Numbers and Duplicate Mechanism : Replay (old data is replayed again) are

prohibited by using the concept of unique sequence numbers. However, a malicious node

can exploit this to launch a denial of service by flooding the network with large amount of

messages having incorrect source addresses containing as many high sequence numbers as

possible.

Protocol Specific Optimizations : Finally, the malicious node can many times aim to

attack the specific protocol. DSR implements a mechanism known as salvaging to discover

alternative routes when a link break is detected . The malicious node utilizes this salvaging

technique to obstruct the network normal functioning and reduce efficiency. To achieve

this, a malicious node infuses into the network maximum possible routes, with as many

different next hops, as possible.

COMPARISONS AND ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Table : 2 Comparison of Basic characteristics of routing protocols



As reactive routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks, DSR, AODV and TORA are

proposed to reduce the control traffic overhead and improve scalability. Both DSR and

TORA support unidirectional links and multiple routing paths, but AODV doesn’t.

TORA, utilizing the "link reversal" algorithm, DAG constructs routing paths from

multiple sources to one destination and supports multiple routes and multicast [Shiva

Prakash, J.P. Saini, and S.C. Gupta, ―Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols in

Wireless Ad-hoc Network, 2010]. In AODV and DSR, a node notifies the source to re-

initiate a new route discovery operation when a routing path disconnection is detected.

In TORA, a node re-constructs DAG when it lost all downstream links. AODV uses

sequence numbers to avoid formation of route loops. Because DSR is based on source

routing, a loop can be avoided by checking addresses in route record field of data

packets. In TORA, each node in an active route has a unique height and packets are

forwarded from a node with higher height to a lower one.

Table 3: Comparison of Basic characteristics of routing protocols



Table : 4 Comparison of Basic characteristics of routing protocols



Location based routing protocols exploit location and node mobility information for the

routing process. LAR, DREAM and GLS use the information in different ways and

provide different services. LAR can be integrated into a reactive routing protocol and its

main objective is to perform more efficient route discovery and limit the flooding of



route request packets. In DREAM, the location update frequency is determined by the

relative distance between nodes and their mobility characteristics. GLS is not a routing

protocol, but only provides a location service. In GLS, every node has several location

servers scattered throughout the network which provide location information.

In mobile ad hoc networks, node mobility causes link state changes and results in route

maintenance operations [Hai-Keong Toh, ―Associativity-Based Routing for Ad-Hoc

Mobile Networks in Wireless Personal Communications,1997)] and [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, 2010)]. Using

stability of links instead of hop numbers as metric for routing path selection is a

promising solution for reducing control overhead. Although ABR and SSR are all based

on Link State routing algorithm, they have distinct features and different mechanisms.

ABR is a reactive routing protocol and is proposed to incorporate the link stability into

routing to construct long-lived routing paths. The metric associatively is used in ABR to

measure how long a wireless link lasts without failure. Following the assumption that

the number of the associatively tags of a link reflects how long the link will be available

in the future, a route path with greatest associatively tags is constructed. SSR can be

seen as an extension of ABR. SSR uses signal stability as routing metric and route

requests are propagated only through strong channels. SSR also assumes that the current

signal strength of a channel can be used to predict its state in the future. Additionally, in

SSR the messages are only propagated through strong channels to reduce the traffic

overhead.

CONCLUSION

We presented a comprehensive survey of the routing protocols for mobile ad hoc wireless

networks. The common goals of the methodologies of a routing protocol is to reduce

control packet overhead, minimize the end-to-end delay, and maximize throughput;

however, they differ in ways of finding and/or maintaining the routes between source

destination pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we could not find such a comprehensive



survey on MANET routing protocols in the literature. Typical types of routing protocols

and then compared these protocols based on common characteristics. From technological

view of point and can support formal verification of MANET routing protocols or

characterization of these protocols can aid the design, comparison, and improvement of

these protocols with incorporating others good feature.

REFERENCES

[1] Akkayk and Younis M, “An Energy-Aware QoS Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor

Networks,” in the Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Networks

(MWN2003) [C], Providence, Rhode Island, May 2003.

[2] Akyildiz I, Su W and Sankarasubramaniam Y et al., “Wireless sensor networks: a

survey,” Computer Networks [J], Vol. 38,pp.393- 442, March 2002.

[3] Ali, A., Latiff, L. A., Rahid, R. A., Fisal, N “ Real time communication with power

adaptation (RTPA) in wireless sensor network (WSN)” 2006 International Conference on

Computing and Informatics ICOCI 06.

[4] Caccamo, M., L.Y. Zhang, L. Sha and G. Buttazzo “An implicit prioritized access

protocol for wireless sensor networks”. In: Proc. 23rd IEEE RTSS. pp. 39-48, 2002.

[5] Chen M, Leung V and Mao S et al., “Directional geographical routing for real-time

video communications in wireless sensor networks”, Computer Communication [J], 30

(2007), p.3368-3383, 2007.

[6] Chipara O, He Z and Xing et al., “Real-time Power-Aware Routing in Sensor

Networks,” in the Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of

Service (IWQoS 2006) [C], New Haven, CT, June 2006.

[7] Egen S and Varaiya P, “Energy efficient routing with delay guarantee for sensor

networks,” Wireless Networks [J], Springer, Netherlands, p.679-690, June 16, 2006

[8] Felembane, Lee C and Ekicie, “MMSPEED: Multipath multi-SPEED protocol for QoS

guarantee of reliability and timeliness in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on



Mobile Computing [J], 5(6), pp. 738-754, 2006 Sandhya Bansal et al. / International

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST) ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 3

Mar 2011 1800

[9] Guowei Wu , Chi Lin , Feng Xia , Lin Yao , He Zhang, and Bing Liu “Dynamical

Jumping Real-Time Fault-Tolerant Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks”,

Sensor 2010 .

[10] He T, Stankovic J and Lu C et al., “SPEED: A stateless protocol for real-time

communication in sensor networks,” in the Proceedings of International Conference on

Distributed Computing Systems [C], Providence, RI, May 2003.

[11] Li Y, Chen C and Song Y et al., “Real-time QoS support in wireless sensor networks:

a survey,” in the Proceedings of 7th IFAC Int Conf on Fieldbuses & Networks in Industrial

& Embedded Systems (FeT’07) [C], Toulouse, France, Nov 2007.

[12] Lei, Z.; Kan, B.Q.; Xu, Y.J.; Li, X.W “FT-SPEED: A fault-tolerant, real-time routing

protocol for wireless sensor networks”. In Proceedings of 2007 International Conference on

Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Shanghai, China, pp.

2531–2534, 2007.

[13] Lu C, Blum B and Abdelzaher T et al., “RAP: A Real-time Communication

Architecture for Large-Scale Wireless Sensor Networks,” in the Proceedings of the Eighth

IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’ 02)

[C], 2002.

[14] Lu, G., B. Krishnamachari and C.S. Raghavendra “An adaptive energy-efficient and

low-latency MAC for data gathering in wireless sensor networks”. In: Proc. Int. Parallel

Distrib. Process. Symp. pp. 224-231, 2004.

[15] Parvaneh Rezayat, Mehdi Mahdavi, Mohammad Ghasemzadeh, Mehdi Agha Sarram,

“ A Novel Real-Time Power Aware Routing Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks,”

IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.10 No.4,

April 2010.



[16] Polastre, J., J. Hill and D. Culler “ Versatile low power media access for wireless

sensor networks. In: Proc. ACM Sensys. pp. 95-107, 2004.

[17] Stankovic J, Abdelzahert and Lu C et al., “Real-time communication and coordination

in embedded sensor networks,” in the proceedings of IEEE 91(7) [C], 1002-1022.

[18] Van Dam, T. and K. Langendoen “An adap-tive energy-efficient MAC protocol for

wireless sensor networks”. In: Proc. ACM Sensys, 2003.

[19] Watteyne, T., I. Auge-Blum and S. Ubeda “Dual-mode real-time MAC protocol for

wireless sensor networks: a validation/simulation approach”. In: Proc. InterSense, 2006.

[20] Ye, W., J. Heidemann and D. Estrin. “Medium access control with coordinated

adaptive sleeping for wireless sensor net-works”. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 12(3), 493-

506, 2004.

[21] Zhao W, Stankovic J and Ramamritham K, “A Window Protocol for Transmission of

Time-Constrained Messages,” IEEE Transactions on Computers [J], 39(9), p.1186-1203,

September 1990. Sandhya Bansal et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and

Technology (IJEST)

APPLICATIONS , CHALLENGES & COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS Research scholar -sarwan kumar...

Documents

Transcript of APPLICATIONS , CHALLENGES & COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS Research scholar -sarwan kumar...