List of ad hoc routing protocols: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:02, 10 January 2013

anet-dymo, work in progress, June 2008. RFC 4728

Flow-oriented routing

This type of protocols finds a route on demand by following present flows. One option is to unicast consecutively when forwarding data while promoting a new link. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

Takes long time when exploring new routes without a prior knowledge.
May refer to entitative existing traffic to compensate for missing knowledge on routes.

Examples of flow oriented algorithms are:

IERP (Interzone Routing Protocol/reactive part of the ZRP) – ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, MARC R. PEARLMAN, PRINCE SAMAR The Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-zone-ierp, work in progress, July 2002.
RDMAR (Relative-Distance Micro-discovery Ad hoc Routing protocol) – G. AGGELOU, R. TAFAZOLLI Relative Distance Micro-discovery Ad Hoc Routing (RDMAR) protocol Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rdmar, work in progress, September 1999.

Hybrid (both pro-active and reactive) routing

This type of protocols combines the advantages of proactive and of reactive routing. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. The choice for one or the other method requires predetermination for typical cases. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

Advantage depends on number of Mathavan nodes activated.
Reaction to traffic demand depends on gradient of traffic volume.

Examples of hybrid algorithms are:

ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) – ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, MARC R. PEARLMAN, PRINCE SAMAR The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-zone-zrp, work in progress, July 2002. ZRP uses IARP as pro-active and IERP as reactive component.

Hierarchical Routing Protocols

With this type of protocols the choice of proactive and of reactive routing depends on the hierarchic level where a node resides. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding on the lower levels. The choice for one or the other method requires proper attributation for respective levels. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

Advantage depends on depth of nesting and addressing scheme.
Reaction to traffic demand depends on meshing parameters.

Examples of hierarchical routing algorithms are:

CBRP (Cluster Based Routing Protocol) – M. JIANG, J. LI, Y. C. TAY Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP) Functional Specification Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec, work in progress, June 1999.
FSR (Fisheye State Routing protocol) – MARIO GERLA, GUANGYU PEI, XIAOYAN HONG, TSU-WEI CHEN Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-fsr, work in progress, June 2001. <http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Fisheye+State+Routing.html>

Others

IMEP (Internet Manet Encapsulation Protocol) – M. S. CORSON, S. PAPADEMETRIOU, P. PAPADOPOULOS, V. PARK, A. QAYYUM INTERNET MANET ENCAPSULATION PROTOCOL (IMEP) SPECIFICATION, Internet Draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-imep-spec

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-An '''ad-hoc routing protocol''' is a convention, or standard, that controls how [[Node (networking)|nodes]] decide which way to [[routing|route]] [[Packet (information technology)|packets]] between computing devices in a [[mobile ad hoc network]] .
+<includeonly>An '''ad-hoc routing protocol''' is a convention, or standard, that controls how [[Node (networking)|nodes]] decide which way to [[routing|route]] [[Packet (information technology)|packets]] between computing devices in a [[mobile ad hoc network]] .
 In ''ad-hoc networks'', nodes are not familiar with the [[Network topology|topology]] of their networks. Instead, they have to discover it. The basic idea is that a new node may announce its presence and should listen for announcements broadcast by its neighbors. Each node learns about nodes nearby and how to reach them, and may announce that it, too, can reach them.
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 * [[Dynamic Source Routing]] – ''DAVID JOHNSON, DAVID MALTZ, YIH-CHUN HU: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4, RFC 4728 / DAVID B. JOHNSON, DAVID A. MALTZ: Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Mobile Computing, Thomasz Imielinski and Hank Korth (Editors), Vol. 353, Chapter 5, pp. 153–181, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996''
 * [[DSRFLOW|Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing]] – ''YIH-CHUN HU, DAVID B. JOHNSON, DAVID A. MALTZ Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing Protocol Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dsrflow, work in progress, June 2001.''
-* [[DYMO|DYnamic Manet On-demand Routing]] – ''I. Chakeres AND C. Perkins: Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol (DYMO), Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dymo, work in progress, June 2008. RFC 4728''
+* [[DYMO|DYnamic Manet On-demand Routing]] – ''I. Chakeres AND C. Perkins: Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol (DYMO), Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-m</includeonly><includeonly><references/>{{DEFAULTSORT:}}</includeonly>anet-dymo, work in progress, June 2008. RFC 4728''
 ==Flow-oriented routing==
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 [[Category:Ad hoc routing protocols|*]]
-[[fa:فهرست پروتکل‌های مسیریابی ادهاک]]
+[[fa:هرست پروتکل‌های مسیریابی ادهاک]]
 [[fr:Routage ad hoc]]
 [[ru:Список протоколов маршрутизации в ad hoc сетях]]