Anda di halaman 1dari 8

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.

4, 2011

Multicasting Routing Protocols in Ad hoc Networks


Ahmad Ghasemi1, Mostafa Abdollahi2, Ali Amirhamidi3 and Asadollah Salimi Dehkodi4
1,2,3,4

Department of Electrical Engineering, Boroujen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Boroujen, Iran ahmadqassemi@gmail.com, Mostafa.Abdollahi.Bastaki@gmail.com, ali_amirhamidi@yahoo.com, asad_salimy@yahoo.com

Abstract
In mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) for good performance must be considered as energy consumption, protocols in different layers, etc. In this paper we try to investigate and compare different methods for multicasting routing protocols in ad hoc networks to provide guidelines for the engineers that work with ad hoc and sensor networks.

Keywords: mobile ad hoc networks, multicasting, routing, Tree approach, Mesh approach 1. Introduction
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) represents a system of wireless mobile nodes that can freely and dynamically self-organize into arbitrary and temporary network topologies without the presence of any fixed communication infrastructure. Reliable routing and robustness of the network are two important issues for MANETs. In this paper we try to investigate and compare different methods for multicasting routing protocols in ad hoc networks to provide guidelines for engineers that work with ad hoc and sensor networks. We construct paper in six part, first introduction, second multicast overview, third protocols, forth multicasting and different routing, fifth conclusion, and finally references.

2. Multicast overview
Multicast is the delivery of information to a group of destinations , in figure 1 show broadcast, multicast and unicast, pictorially.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. a) broadcast, b) multicast, and c) unicast A multicast application can be characterized as one of three types: I) on e to many, II) many to many, III) many to one, that show in figure 2, pictorially.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2. a) one-to-many, b) many-to-many, and c) many-to-one

October Issue

Page 15 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

3. Protocols
Protocols are classified into three categories based on how route the members of group is created, i.e. Tree approaches a) Source-based b) Core-based II) Mesh approaches III) Hybrid approaches Now we overview this categories. Source-based tree approach: in this approach between each source and each receiver to reach all addresses of nodes construct a tree, e.g. see figure 3. I)

Figure 3. Construct a tree between source and receiver in source-based tree approach This approach have some advantages and disadvantages, that its advantages are I) const ruct optimal path from source to receiver that minimizes delay, II) good for small number of sender, and its disadvantages are I) inefficient in high mobility networks, II) inefficient in large networks. Core-based tree approach: in this approach between all source and all receiver to reach all addresses of nodes construct only a tree, e.g. see figure 4.

Figure 4. Construct only a tree for all sources in core-based tree approach This approach have some advantages and disadvantages, that its advantage a re I) good for many sender with low bandwidth, and its disadvantages are I) construct sub -optimal path from source to receiver, II) extra delay. In total for tree approaches we see that I) a packet traverses each hop and node in a tree at most once, II) very simple routing decisions at each node and III) tree structure built representing shortest paths amongst nodes, and a loop-free data distribution structure. Mesh-based approach: in this approach may have multiple routes to reach a destination while the tree-based protocols maintain only one path [1], then outperform tree-based proposals due to availability of alternative paths. And in this approach due to redundant forwarding consumes more bandwidth and the probability of collisions is higher when a larger number of packets are generated.

October Issue

Page 16 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011 Hybrid approach: hybrid-based ad hoc multicast routing protocols combine of both treebased and mesh-based approaches and overcome their shortcomings. Examples of a hybrid protocol is TORA [2], Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [3]. There are other categories based on structure (or structure-based) which have been used in some literatures that is: a) Tree-based b) Mesh-based

4. Multicasting and different routing


Some important problems must be considered in multicasting in MANETs, as nodes may join or leave the multicast group anytime, and in traditional networks, often the physical topology does not change, whereas in MANETs the physical topology can change. Several new protocols have been proposed for multicasting in MANETs that are classified into two categories: I) Table-driven or proactive a) AMRoute b) CAMP/WRP On-demand or reactive a) AMRIS b) ODMRP

II)

Now we overview this categories. Ad hoc Multicast Routing (AMRoute): this routing use tree approach for multicast data forwarding, and use unicast tunnels to provide connections between multicast group members. In this each group has at least one logical core [4]. Mesh creation in AMRoute: first each group member declares itself as a core for its own group of size one, then each core periodically floods JOIN-REQs to discover other disjoint mesh segments, see figure 5.

Figure 5. Each core periodically floods JOIN-REQs to discover other disjoint mesh segments When a member node receives a JOIN-REQ from a core, it replies with a JOIN-ACK and marks that node as a mesh neighbor, then the node that receives a JOIN-ACK also marks the sender of the packet as its mesh neighbor, see figure 6.

Figure 6. A member node receives a JOIN-REQ from a core, it replies with a JOIN-ACK

October Issue

Page 17 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

After the mesh creation, each core periodically transmits TREE-CREATE packets to mesh neighbors in order to build a shared tree, when a member node receives non-duplicate TREECREATE from one of its mesh links, it forwards the packet to all other mesh links. If duplicate TREE-CREATE are received, a TREE-CREATE-NAK is sent back along the incoming link. The node receiving a TREE-CREATE-NAK marks the link as mesh link instead of tree link. The nodes wishing to leave the group send the JOIN-NAK to the neighbors and do not forward any data packets for the group. Characteristics of AMRoute: a) Usage of virtual mesh links to establish the multicast tree b) Nonmembers do not forward data packets The major disadvantage of AMRoute: it suffers from temporary loops and creates non optimal trees when mobility is present [4]. Ad hoc Multicast Routing Protocol utilizing Increasing ID -number (AMRIS): this routing use tree approach for multicast data forwarding, and it is on-demand protocol. In this dynamically assign an ID-number to each node in each multicast session [5]. Some phrases that use in this routing, Sid: is Smallest-ID and is usually a source that initiates a multicast session, that is selected among set of senders, and msm-id: is multicast session member ID. Initiates a multicast session in AMRIS: Sid initiates a multicast session by broadcasting a NEW-SESSION massage, then all receivers generate their own msm-id based on the value found in NEW-SESSION message, then rebroadcast NEW-SESSION with its msm-id, see figure 7.

Figure 7. Initiates a multicast session in AMRIS Join the tree in AMRIS: if the requesting node X has a neighbor who is already on the tree, JOIN-REQ is unicasted to that neighbor Y, then neighbor Y will send back JOIN-ACK to confirm new X is its child. If the neighbors are not on the tree, but have smaller msm-id. I) X send JOIN-REQ to one of the neighbor Y II) After receiving a JOIN-REQ, neighbor Y sends out its own JOIN-REQ III) If the parent node Y can successfully join the tree, then it sends a JOIN -ACK to X, otherwise it will sends a JOIN-NAK to X, see figure 8.

October Issue

Page 18 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

Figure 8. Join the tree in AMRIS if the neighbors are not on the tree If a node is unable to find any potential parent node, it executes a branch reconstruction (BR) process to rejoin the tree [5]. Characteristics of AMRIS: Advantages: I) not have a loop, II) detects link disconnection by a beaconing mechanism then locally repaired, and III) simplicity of this routing. Disadvantages: I) waste of bandwidth, II) slow rejoin scheme [5] . On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP): this routing requires cooperation of nodes wishing to send data to the multicast group to construct the multicast mesh. In ODMRP, when sources have data to send, but do not have routing or membership information, periodically floods a join data packet throughout the network, then periodic transmissions are used to update the routes, see figure 9.

Figure 9. Periodically floods a join data packet throughput the network in ODMRP Where blue circle represent multicast group member. Reverse path in ODMRP: receiver, broadcasts a Join Table (contains (sender S, next node N) pairs) to all its neighbors, where next node N denotes the next node on the path from the group member to the multicast sender S, see figure 10.

Figure 10. Initialize reverse path in ODMRP When node N becomes a forwarding group member, it transmits Join Table containing the entry (S, M) where M is the next hop towards node S, see figure 11.

October Issue

Page 19 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

(a)

(b) Figure 11. Reverse path in ODMRP Where F marks a forwarding group member [6]. Characteristics of ODMRP: Advantages: I) a network equipped with ODMRP does not require a separate unicast protocol, II) redundant path (when they exist) can help deliver data when the primary path becomes disconnected. Disadvantages: I) this routing dont have explicit join or leave procedure, II) if in networks GPS is available, the cost and additional weight of GPS [7]. Core-Assisted Mesh Protocol (CAMP): this routing uses mesh instead of tree approach for multicast data forwarding, and this method classifies nodes in the network as duplex or simplex members, or non-members. Duplex members are full members of multicast mesh, and simplex members are used to create one-way connections between only sender nodes and the rest of the multicast mesh [8] . In CAMP cores are used to limit the flow of JOIN REQUEST packets, and they dont need to be part of mesh of their group. Join the group in CAMP: first checked whether any of my neighbors is a member of group, because only members of the group can reply with a JOIN-ACK, see figure 12.

Figure 12. Difference between member and non-member Otherwise, sender propagates a JOIN REQUEST towards one of cores and attempts to reach a member router by an expanding ring search see figure 13.

October Issue

Page 20 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

Figure 13. Sender attempts to reach a member router Reverse path in CAMP: receiver node reviews its packet cache, periodically. And determine whether it receiving data packets from those neighbors which are on the reverse shortest path to the source. If not, the node sends either a HEARTBEAT or a PUSH JOIN message towards the source along the reverse shortest path, see figure 14.

Figure 14. Reverse path from destination (D) to source (S) Characteristics of CAMP: Advantages: I) dont have a loop (loop-free), II) it builds massive mesh with growth of the members, and its disadvantage: strongly depends on the underlying unicast protocol to work correctly in presence of router failure and network partition [9]. For comparison between routing protocols, we summarize characteristics of t hem in table 1. Table 1. Comparison between routing protocols Protocols
Configuration Loop free Depends on Unicast Periodic Control packet flood

AMRoute
Tree No Yes Yes Yes

ODMRP
Mesh Yes No Yes Yes

CAMP
Mesh Yes Yes Yes No

AMRIS
Tree Yes No Yes Yes

As seen from the table I that CAMP dont have control packet flood, and AMRoute suffers from loops.

5. Conclusions
Comparison between the protocols is presented, in which is shown that between different protocols only AMRoute suffers from loops, and only CAMP dont have control packet flood.

October Issue

Page 21 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216

International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No.4, 2011

6. References
[1] A. Pathan, M. Manavar, M. Rabbi, M. Alam, C. Hong, NAMP: Neighbor Aware Multicast Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, The international Arab Journal of Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp.102-107, Jan. 2008. [2] L. Lovasz, On the Ratio of Optimal Integral and Functional Covers, Discrete Mathematics, vol. 13, pp.383-390, 1975. [3] Z. J. Haas, The Zone Routing Protocols (ZRP) for ad hoc networks, Internet Draft, Nov. 1997. [4] C. C. Chiang, M. Gerla, L. Zhang, Shared Tree Wireless Network Multicast, In Proceeding(s) of IEEE IC3N, pp.28-33,1997. [5] C. W. Wu, Y. C. Tay, AMRIS: a multicast protocol for ad hoc wireless networks, In Proceeding(s) of IEEE MILCOM99, Atlantic City, pp.25-29, Nov. 1999. [6] S. J. Lee, W. Su, M. Gerla, Ad hoc wireless multicast with mobility prediction, In Proceeding(s) of IEEE ICCCN99, Boston, MA, OCT, pp.4-9, 1999. [7] S. J. Lee, M. Gerla, C. C. Chiang, On Demand Multicast Routing Protocols, In Proceeding(s) of IEEE WCNC99, New Orleans, pp. 1298-1302, Sept. 1999. [8] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, E. L. Madruga, A Multicast Routing Protocol for Ad-Hoc Networks, In Proceeding(s) of IEEE INFOCOM99, New York, pp. 784-792, March. 1999. [9] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, E. L. Madruga, The Core-Assisted Mesh Procol, IEEE Journal on Selected Area in Communication, vol. 17, no. 8, pp.1380-1394, Aug. 1999.

October Issue

Page 22 of 85

ISSN 2229 5216