LITERATURE STUDY

In a multi-hop wireless ad hoc network the nodes cooperate and relay each others packets toward their final destinations. There have been many routing protocols proposed for such networks
[REF-1] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva, A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless adhoc network routing protocols, Proc. MobiCom 98, Dallas, TX, Oct. 1998, pp. 85 97.

Wireless networking is an emerging technology that allows users to access information and services electronically, regardless of their geographic position. Wireless networks can be infrastructure networks or infrastructure less (Ad-hoc) networks. An Ad-hoc network is a collection of mobile nodes which forms a temporary network without the aid of centralized administration or standard support devices regularly available in conventional networks. These nodes generally have a limited transmission range and, so, each node seeks the assistance of its neighboring nodes in forwarding packets and hence the nodes in an ad-hoc network can act as both routers and hosts, thus a node may forward packets between other nodes as well as run user applications. By nature these types of networks are suitable for situations where either no fixed infrastructure exists or deploying network is not possible. Ad-hoc mobile networks have found many applications in various fields like military, emergency, conferencing and sensor networks. Each of these application areas has their specific requirements for routing protocols. Since the network nodes are mobile, an Ad-hoc network will typically have a dynamic topology which will have profound effects on network characteristics. Network nodes will often be battery powered, which limits the capacity of CPU, memory, and bandwidth. This will require network functions that are resource effective. Furthermore, the wireless (radio) media will also affect the behavior of the network due to fluctuating link bandwidths resulting from relatively high error rates. These unique features pose several new challenges in the design of wireless, ad-hoc networking protocols. Network functions such as routing, address allocation, authentication, and authorization must be designed to cope with a dynamic and volatile network topology. Most geographic routing algorithms require each node to know its location, its neighbors locations and the destinations location. Assuming that each node has some way of determining its own location (e.g., using a GPS device), the locations of a nodes neighbors can easily be determined in a scalable manner. The location of the destination can in some rooftop networks be obtained using an offline channel, and in some sensor networks the destination is by default a location; however, many networks require additional mechanisms to obtain this information. Geographic Location Service (GLS), Reactive Location Service (RLS), and the location part of

Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM) are examples of systems or techniques that can be used to distribute this information.
[REF-2] S. M. Das, H. Pucha, and Y. C. Hu, Performance comparison of scalable location services for geographic ad hoc routing, Proc IEEE Infocom 05, Miami, FL, Mar. 2005, pp. 1228--1239.

GLS is a new distributed location service which tracks mobile node locations. GLS combined with geographic forwarding allows the construction of ad hoc mobile networks that scale to a larger number of nodes than possible with previous work. GLS is decentralized and runs on the mobile nodes themselves, requiring no fixed infrastructure. Each mobile node periodically updates a small set of other nodes (its location servers) with its current location. A node sends its position updates to its location servers without knowing their actual identities, assisted by a predefined ordering of node identifiers and a predefined geographic hierarchy. Queries for a mobile node's location also use the predefined identifier ordering and spatial hierarchy to find a location server for that node. Experiments using the ns simulator for up to 600 mobile nodes show that the storage and bandwidth requirements of GLS grow slowly with the size of the network. Furthermore, GLS tolerates node failures well: each failure has only a limited effect and query performance degrades gracefully as nodes fail and restart. The query performance of GLS is also relatively insensitive to node speeds. Simple geographic forwarding combined with GLS compares favorably with Dynamic Source Routing (DSR): in larger networks (over 200 nodes) our approach delivers more packets, but consumes fewer network resources. Many of the early proposals in geographic routing are based on some notion of progress and use this to greedily forward packets. Takagi and Klein rock originally proposed Most Forward within Radius (MFR), which forwards packets to the node within radio range that makes the most progress toward the destination, when projecting the progress onto a line between the sender and the destination.
[REF-3] H. Takagi and L. Klein rock, Optimal transmission ranges for randomly distributed packet radio terminals, IEEE Transactions on Communications 32, 3 (Mar. 1984), pp. 246--257.

In multihop packet radio networks with randomly distributed terminals, the optimal transmission radii to maximize the expected progress of packets in desired directions are determined with a variety of transmission protocols and network configurations. It is shown that the FM capture phenomenon with slotted ALOHA greatly improves the expected progress over the system without capture due to the more limited area of possibly interfering terminals around the receiver. The (mini)slotted no persistent carrier-sense-multiple-access (CSMA) only slightly outperforms ALOHA, unlike the single-hop case (where a large improvement is available), because of a large

area of "hidden" terminals and the long vulnerable period generated by them. As an example of an inhomogeneous terminal distribution, the effect of a gap in an otherwise randomly distributed terminal population on the expected progress of packets crossing the gap is considered. In this case, the disadvantage of using a large transmission radius is demonstrated.
[REF4]S. Giordano, I. Stojmenovic, and L. Blazevic, Position based routing algorithms for ad hoc networks: a taxonomy, Ad-Hoc Wireless Networking, X. Cheng, D. Z. Du, and X. Huang (eds.), Kluwer, 2004, pp. 103--136.

In this paper, we propose a void avoidance algorithm for the Stateless Weight Routing (SWR) algorithm which is recently developed stateless geographical routing protocol for wireless sensor and ad hoc networks. In order to demonstrate the efficiency of the method we started with the illustration of transmission coverage of relay nodes during the course of routing in the SWR protocol. The threshold value to retransmit a packet defined in the SWR may be used for several purposes including elimination of the void problem. It can be shown that the threshold value provides a tool to balance the tradeoff between energy consumption and reliability. Fin later proposed forwarding messages to the node within transmission range that is closest to the destination
[REF-5]G. Finn, Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale internet works, ISI Research Report ISI/RR-87- 180, University of Southern California, Mar. 1987.

A Sketch of a Limited Flooding Procedure An initiating router adds to the packet header a Flooding Flag, indicating special action to be taken upon receipt by a nearby router, a Flooding Limit Field initialized to some limit n, and its own router address. It also places the distance between itself and the destination into a Progress Limit Field. The initiating router then sends copies to its neighbors. Upon receipt, a neighboring router determines whether or not it has active neighbors closer to the destination by examining the progress limit field. If it does, that router terminates the flooding procedure. A terminating router removes the flooding information from the packet and then forwards it. Otherwise, a router decrements the limit field. If the result is zero, the neighboring routers except the one from which the packet was received. The work of discovering an alternate route successfully concludes when a terminating router receives a flooding packet. If the flooding packet keeps a trace of the routers transited until reaching the terminator, then a reverse path exists from the terminator to the initiator. The flooding packet header additionally includes an (n + 1) location Flooding Router List. Each non-terminating router appends its address to the list. The packet is forwarded to a neighboring router if the flooding limit field is positive and the neighboring router's id is not

already in the list. A terminating router forwards the original packet. It also includes the address of the neighbor to which it forwarded the packet in the flooding router list and sends a Flooding Reply Packet back to the initiator by means of source routing using the flooding router list that accompanied the packet. It also places in this packet the distance between the neighbors to which it forwarded the packet and the destination. Upon receipt of a flooding reply, the initiating router creates an Outage Table entry. That entry associates an alternate source route with a destination address. Each time a router discovers an outage, the table is consulted. If an alternate source route exists, it is used. Otherwise, the limited flooding procedure is initiated. If an outage occurs in a source route, then the initiator must be informed by the source route router that detected the outage. This signals the initiator both that the outage table source route is bad and that it should start a limited flooding procedure for that destination. Greedy geographic routing has been proven effective in sensing-covered networks, in which every point of a region is covered (i.e., within sensing range of at least one sensor node). In particular, in convex sensing-covered networks without obstacles a transmission range of at least twice the sensing range of the participating sensor nodes is sufficient to guarantee that Euclidian routing always provides progress. [REF-6] G. Xing, C. Lu, R. Pless, and Q. Huang, On greedy geographic routing algorithms in sensing-covered networks, Proc. MobiHoc 04, Roppongi, Japan, May 2004, pp. 31--42. The relationship between coverage and connectivity in sensor networks has been investigated in recent research treating both network parameters in a unified framework. It is known that networks covering a convex area are connected if the communication range of each node is at least twice a unique sensing range used by each node. Furthermore, geographic greedy routing is a viable and effective approach providing guaranteed delivery for this special network class. In this work, we will show that the result about network connectivity does not suffer from generalizing the concept of sensing coverage to arbitrary network deployment regions. However, dropping the assumption that the monitored area is convex requires the application of greedy recovery strategies like traversing a locally extracted planar sub graph. This work investigates a recently proposed planar graph routing variant and introduces a slight but effective simplification. Both methods perform message forwarding along the edges of a virtual overlay graph instead of using wireless links for planar graph construction directly. In general, there exist connected network configurations where both routing variants may fail. However, we will prove three theoretical bounds which are a sufficient condition for guaranteed delivery of these routing strategies applied in specific classes of sensing covered networks. By simulation results, we show

that geographical cluster-based routing outperforms existing related geographical routing variants based on one-hop neighbor information. [REF-7] B. Karp, and H. T. Kung, GPSR: greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks, Proc. MobiCom 00, New York, NY, Aug. 2000, pp. 243--254. We present Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR), a novel routing protocol for wireless datagram networks that uses the positions of routers and a packets destination to make packet forwarding decisions. GPSR makes greedy forwarding decisions using only information about a routers immediate neighbors in the network topology. When a packet reaches a region where greedy forwarding is impossible, the algorithm recovers by routing around the perimeter of the region. By keeping state only about the local topology, GPSR scales better in per-router state than shortest-path and ad-hoc routing protocols as the number of network destinations increases. Under mobilitys frequent topology changes, GPSR can use local topology information to find correct new routes quickly. We describe the GPSR protocol, and use extensive simulation of mobile wireless networks to compare its performance with that of Dynamic Source Routing. The LBLSP algorithm presented in this paper generalizes GPSR
[REF-8] J. Gao, L. J. Guibas, J. Hershburger, L. Zhang, and A. Zhu, Geometric spanner for routing in mobile networks, Proc. MobiHoc 01, Long Beach, CA, Oct. 2001, pp. 45--55.

The restricted Delaunay graph (RDG), for mobile ad hoc networks. Combined with a node clustering algorithm, the RDG can be used as an underlying graph for geographic routing protocols. This graph has the following attractive properties: 1) it is planar; 2) between any two graph nodes there exists a path whose length, whether measured in terms of topological or Euclidean distance, is only a constant times the minimum length possible; and 3) the graph can be maintained efficiently in a distributed manner when the nodes move around. Furthermore, each node only needs constant time to make routing decisions. We show by simulation that the RDG outperforms previously proposed routing graphs in the context of the Greedy perimeter stateless routing (GPSR) protocol. Finally, we investigate theoretical bounds on the quality of paths discovered using GPSR. More sophisticated techniques can also be imagined, which use alternative techniques as the packet approaches the destination. For example, localized routing tables can be used for the last few hops [4]. [REF-10]L. Blazevic, S. Giordano, J.-Y. LeBoudec, Self organized terminode routing, Cluster Computer Journal 5, 2 (Apr.2002), pp. 205--218.

We consider the problem of routing in a wide area mobile ad hoc network called Terminode Network. Routing in this network is designed with the following objectives. First, it should scale well in terms of the number of nodes and geographical coverage; second, routing should have scalable mechanisms that cope with the dynamicity in the network due to mobility; and third, nodes need to be highly collaborative and redundant, but, most of all, cannot use complex algorithms or protocols. Our routing scheme is a combination of two protocols called Terminode Local Routing (TLR) and Terminode Remote Routing (TRR). TLR is used to route packets to close destinations. TRR is used to route to remote destinations. The combination of TLR and TRR has the following features: (1) it is highly scalable because every node relies only on itself and a small number of other nodes for packet forwarding; (2) it acts and reacts well to the dynamicity of the network because as a rule multipath routing is considered; and (3) it can be implemented and run in very simple devices because the algorithms and protocols are very simple and based on high collaboration. When reaching less severe local minimums, not corresponding to an obstacle. Bose et al. [5] propose combining greedy routing and perimeter routing, this algorithm has later been referred to as Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) [16]. [REF-11] P. Bose, P. Morin, I. Stojmenovic, and J. Urrutia, Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks, ACM Wireless Networks 7, 6 (Nov. 2001), pp. 609--616.(An earlier version appeared in Proc. DialM 99, Seattle, WA, Aug. 1999, pp. 48--55.) We consider routing problems in ad hoc wireless networks modeled as unit graphs in which nodes are points in the plane and two nodes can communicate if the distance between them is less than some fixed unit. We describe the first distributed algorithms for routing that do not require duplication of packets or memory at the nodes and yet guarantee that a packet is delivered to its destination. These algorithms can be extended to yield algorithms for broadcasting and geocasting that do not require packet duplication. A by product of our results is a simple distributed protocol for extracting a planar sub graph of a unit graph. We also present simulation results on the performance of our algorithms.