14 19

ISSN: 2277 – 9043

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering

Volume 1, Issue 5, July 2012

14

All Rights Reserved © 2012 IJARCSEE

SURVEY OF ENERGY EFFICIENT

MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN

MANET

Ranjeet Jaiswal1, Manish Chand Sahu2, Ankur Mishra3 Sanjay Sharma4

OIST Bhopal1, 3, 4, LNCT Bhopal2

Research scholor1, 2, 3, Asst. Professor3

[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ,

[email protected]

Abstract-- Although establishing correct and efficient

routes is an important design issue in mobile ad hoc

networks (MANETs), a more challenging goal is to provide

energy efficient routes because mobile nodes’ operation time

is the most critical limiting factor. This article surveys and

analyses the energy aware routing protocols proposed for

MANETs. They minimize either the active communication

energy required to transmit or receive packets or the inactive

energy consumed when a mobile node stays idle but listens to

the wireless medium for any possible communication requests

from other nodes. Transmission power control approach and

load distribution approach belong to the former category,

and sleep/power-down mode approach belongs to the latter

category. While it is not clear that any particular algorithm

or a class of algorithms is the best for all scenarios, each

protocol has definite advantages/disadvantages and is well-

suited for certain situations. The purpose of this paper is to

facilitate the research efforts in combining the existing

solutions to offer a more energy efficient routing mechanism.

Keywords: Mobile Ad hoc Networks; Multicast

Routing Protocols; Energy Efficiency, Security; Review

Survey

I. INTRODUCTION

Mobile ad hoc networks comprise freely roaming

wireless nodes that cooperatively make up for the

absence of fixed infrastructure; that is, the nodes

themselves support the network functionality. Nodes

transiently associate with their peers that are within the

radio connectivity range of their transceiver and

implicitly agree to assist in provision of the basic

network services. These associations are dynamically

created and torn down. Studies show that the significant

consumers of power in a typical laptop are the

microprocessor (CPU), liquid crystal display (LCD), hard

disk, system memory (DRAM), keyboard/mouse, CDROM

drive, flash drives, I/O subsystem, and the wireless network

interface card .

A typical example from Toshiba 410 CDT mobile

computer demon straits that nearly 36% of power

consumed is by the display, 21% by the CPU/memory,

18% by the wireless interface, and 18% by the hard drive.

Consequently, energy conservation has been largely

considered in the hardware design of the mobile terminal

[10] and in components such as CPU, disks, displays, etc.

Significant additional power savings may result by

incorporating low-power strategies into the design of

network protocols used for data communication.

In ad hoc networks, nodes communicate with each other by

way of radio signals, which are broadcast in nature.

Broadcast is a unique case of multicast, wherein all nodes

in the network should get the broadcast message.

Multicasting is a communication process in which the

transmission of packets (message) is initiated by a single

user and the message is received by one or more end users

of the network. Multicasting in wired and wireless

networks has been advantageous and used as a vital

technology in many applications such as audio/ video

conferencing, corporate communications, collaborative and

groupware applications, distance learning, stock quotes,

distribution of software, news and etc [1]. Under multicast

communications, a single stream of data can be shared with

multiple recipients and data is only duplicated when

required.

However, it would be a difficult and challenging task to

offer energy efficient and reliable multicast routing in

MANETs. It might not be possible to recharge / replace a

mobile node that is powered by batteries during a mission.

The inadequate battery lifetime imposes a limitation on the

network performance. To take full advantage of the lifetime

mailto:[email protected]




ISSN: 2277 – 9043



15


of nodes, traffic should be routed in a way that energy

consumption is minimized. In recent years, various energy

efficient multicast routing protocols have been proposed.

These protocols have unique attributes and utilize different

recovery mechanisms on energy consumption.

Figure: 1 Multicast routing

II. MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOL DESIGN: ISSUES

AND CHALLENGES

The particular features of MANETs make the design of a

multicast routing protocol a challenging one. These protocols

must deal with a number of issues, including, but not limited to,

high dynamic topology, limited and variable capacity, limited

energy resources, a high bit error rate, a multihop topology, and

the hidden terminal problem. The requirements of existing and

future multicast routing protocols and the issues associated with

these protocols that should be taken into consideration are listed

in what follows [2, 3, and 6].

A. Topology, Mobility, and Robustness

In MANETs, nodes are free to move anywhere, anytime, and at

different speeds. The random and continued movement of the

nodes leads to a highly dynamic topology, especially in a high-

mobility environment. A multicast routing protocol should be

robust enough to react quickly with the mobility of the nodes

and should adapt to topological changes in order to avoid

dropping a data packet during the multicast session, which

would create a low packet delivery ratio (PDR: the number of no

duplicate data packets successfully delivered to each destination

versus the number of data packets supposed to be received at

each destination). It is very important to minimize control

overhead while creating and maintaining the multicast group

topology, especially in an environment with limited capacity.

B. Capacity and Efficiency

Unlike wired networks, MANETs are characterized by scant

capacity caused by the noise and interference inherent in

wireless transmission and multipath fading. Efficient multicast

routing protocols are expected to provide a fair number of

control packets transmitted through the network relative to the

number of data packets reaching their destination intact, and

methods to improve and increase the available capacity need to

be considered.

C. Energy Consumption

Energy efficiency is an important consideration in such an

environment. Nodes in MANETs rely on limited battery power

for their energy. Energy-saving techniques aimed at minimizing

the total power consumption of all nodes in the multicast group

(minimize the number of nodes used to establish multicast

connectivity, minimize the number of overhead controls, etc.)

and at maximizing the multicast life span should be considered.

D. Quality of Service and Resource Management

Providing quality of service (QoS) assurance is one of the

greatest challenges in designing algorithms for MANET

multicasts. Multicast routing protocols should be able to reserve

different network resources to achieve QoS requirements such

as, capacity, delay, delay jitter, and packet loss. It is very

difficult to meet all QoS requirements at the same time because

of the peculiarities of ad hoc networks. Even if this is done, the

protocol will be very complex (many routing tables, high control

overhead, high energy consumption, etc.). As a result, doing so

will not be suitable for these networks with their scarce

ISSN: 2277 – 9043



16


resources, and resource management and adaptive QoS methods

are more convenient than reservation methods for MANETs.

E. Security and Reliability

Security provisioning is a crucial issue in MANET multicasting

due to the broadcast nature of this type of network, the existence

of a wireless medium, and the lack of any centralized

infrastructure. This makes MANETs vulnerable to

eavesdropping, interference, spoofing, and so forth. Multicast

routing protocols should take this into account, especially in

some applications such as military (battlefield) operations,

national crises, and emergency operations. Reliability is

particularly important in multicasting, especially in these

applications, and it becomes more difficult to deliver reliable

data to group members whose topology varies. A reliable

multicasting design depends on the answers of the following

three questions. By who are the errors detected? How are error

messages signalled? How are missing packets retransmitted?

F. Scalability

A multicast routing protocol should be able to provide an

acceptable level of service in a network with a large number of

nodes. It is very important to take into account the

nondeterministic characteristics (power and capacity limitations,

random mobility, etc.) of the MANET environment in coping

with this issue.

(III) CLASSIFICATION OF MULTICAST ROUTING

PROTOCOLS IN MANET

This section describes some of the existing multicast routing

protocols used in MANETs. We classify them into three

categories, according to their layers of operation. The categories

are the Proactive Multicast Routing Protocol, Reactive Multicast

Routing Protocol and Hybrid Multicast Routing Protocols.

In this paper, we will classify the proposals that tried to pose

general ideas of how applying multicast concept in MANETs.

The classification of these proposals will be mentioned under

different viewpoints as shown in Figure 2

1. Proactive Multicast Routing Protocols

Conventional routing protocols such as Ad-hoc Multicast

Routing (AMRoute), Core-Assisted Mesh Protocol (CAMP) and

Ad-hoc Multicast Routing Protocol Utilizing Increasing id-

numbers (AMRIS) are proactive multicast routing protocols.

Periodic broadcast of network topology updates are needed to

compute the shortest path from the source to every destination,

which consumes a lot of bandwidth. In Table 3 gives the

Characteristic comparison of proactive Multicast Routing

Protocol.

Figure: 2 Classification of Multicast routing protocols

A. Ad-hoc Multicast Routing (AMRoute)

Ad-hoc Multicast Routing (AMRoute) is a tree based

multicast routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks.

AMRoute creates a multicast shared-tree over mesh. AMRoute

relies on the existence of an underlying unicast routing protocol.

AMRoute has two key phases: mesh creation and tree creation.

This protocol can be used for networks in which only a set of

nodes supports AMRoute routing function. It is only one logical

core in the multicast tree, which is responsible for group

member maintenance and multicast tree creation. In this routing

protocol builds a user- multicast tree, in which only the group

members are included; because non-members are not included

in the tree, the links in the tree are virtual links. In other words,

they are in fact multi-hop IP-in-IP tunnels and AMRoute

depends on the underlying unicast routing protocol to deal with

network dynamics, although it has no privilege for unicast

routing protocols. AMRoute creates an efficient and robust

shared tree for each group. It helps keep the multicast delivery

tree unchanged with changes of network topology, as long as

paths between tree members and core nodes exist via mesh

links. When mobility is present, AMRoute suffers from loop

formation, creates no optimal trees, and requires higher

overhead to assign a new core. Also, AMRoute suffers from a

single point of failure of the core node.

ISSN: 2277 – 9043



17


B. Ad hoc Multicast Routing Protocol utilizing increasing id-

numbers (AMRIS)

AMRIS [7] is a proactive shared tree based multicast routing

protocol, which is independent of the fundamental unicast

routing protocol. In AMRIS, the tree maintenance procedure

operates continuously and locally to ensure a node’s connection

to the multicast session delivery tree. In AMRIS, the tree

maintenance procedure operates continuously and locally to

ensure a node’s connection to the multicast session delivery tree.

AMRIS is an on-demand protocol that constructs a shared

delivery tree to support multiple senders and receivers within a

multicast session. AMRIS dynamically assigns every node (on

demand) in a multicast session with an ID number known as

msm-id. The msm-id provides a heuristic height to a node and

the ranking order of msm-id numbers directs the flow of

datagram in the multicast delivery tree. Every node calculates its

msm-id during the initialization phase, which is initiated by a

special node called S-id. Normally, the S-id is the source node if

there is only one source for the session. Otherwise, the S-id is

the source node that has the minimum msm-id. The S-id

broadcasts a NEW_SESSION message to its neighbours. When

a node wants to join the multicast session, it chooses one of its

neighbours which has the smaller msm-id as its parent and send

it a JOIN-REQ message. If the neighbour is in the tree (if the

tree has been built), it answers with a JOIN-ACK message,

which means the joining is successful; otherwise (when it is the

first time to build the tree), the neighbour forwards JOIN-REQ

to its own neighbours and waits for the reply, which is repeated

until the JOIN-REQ arrives at an on-tree node or the source. As

a result, a delivery tree rooted from the source is formed to

include all the group members and some relay non-members.

AMRIS repairs the broken links by performing local route repair

without the need for any central controlling node, thereby

reducing the control overhead.

C. Core-Assisted Mesh protocol (CAMP)

Core-Assisted Mesh protocol (CAMP) [10] is a proactive

multicast routing protocol based on shared Meshes-The mesh

structure provides at least one path from each source to each

receiver in the multicast group. CAMP relies on an underlying

unicast protocol which can provide correct distances to all

destinations within finite time. Every node maintains a Routing

Table (RT) that is created by the underlying unicast routing

protocol. CAMP modifies this table when a multicast group

joins or leaves the network. A Multicast Routing Table (MRT)

is based on the Routing Table that contains the set of known

groups. Moreover, all member nodes maintain a set of caches

that Sender Forwarder Receiver contain previously seen data

packet information and unacknowledged membership requests.

The creation and maintenance of meshes are main parts of

CAMP.

AMROUTE AMRIS CAMP

Structure of multicast

routing Tree Tree Mesh

Loop Free NO Yes yes

Dependencey on

unicasting Routing

Protocols Yes No Yes

Scalability Fair Fair Good

Comtol Packet flooding Flat Flat Flat

Perodic Message

Requirement Yes Yes Yes

2. Reactive Multicast Routing Protocols

Traditional routing protocols such as On Demand Multicast

Routing Protocol (ODMRP) and Multicast Ad-hoc on-demand

Distance Vector (MAODV) are Reactive multicast routing

protocols. Reactive routing that means discovers the route when

needed. Reactive routing protocols are well suited for a large-

scale, narrow-band MANET with moderate or low mobility. In

Table 4 gives the Characteristic comparison of Reactive

Multicast Routing Protocol.

A. On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP)

On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) [8] is a

reactive mesh based multicast routing protocol. ODMRP is

not only a multicast routing protocol, but also provides unicast

routing capability. The source establishes and maintains group

membership and multicast mesh on demand if it needs to send

data packets to the multicast group, which is somewhat similar

to MAODV. A set of nodes, which is called forwarding group,

participate in forwarding data packets among group members.

All the states in ODMRP are soft states, which are refreshed by

the control messages mentioned above or data packets, which

ISSN: 2277 – 9043



18


achieves higher robustness. ODMRP uses a forwarding group

concept for multicast packet transmission, in which each

multicast group G is associated with a forwarding group (FG).

Nodes in FG are in charge of forwarding multicast packets of

group G. In a multicast group of ODMRP, the source manages

the group membership, establishes and updates the multicast

routes on demand. Like reactive unicast routing protocols,

ODMPR comprises two main phases: the request phase and the

reply phase. When a multicast source has a packet to send but it

has no routing and group membership information, it floods a

Join Request packet to the entire network. Join Request packets

are member-advertising packets with piggybacked data payload.

When a node receives a non-duplicate JOIN Request, it stores

the upstream node ID in its routing table and rebroadcasts the

packet. When the JOIN Request packet reaches a multicast

receiver, the receiver refreshes or creates an entry for the source

in Member Table and broadcasts JOIN TABLE packets

periodically to its neighbours. When a node receives a JOIN

TABLE packet, it checks each entry of the table to find out if

there is an entry in the table whose next node ID field matches

its ID. If there is a match, the node recognizes that it is on the

path to the source, thus it is part of the forwarding group. Then it

sets the FG_FLAG and broadcasts its own JOIN TABLE built

upon matched entries. Consequently, each member of a

forwarding group propagates the JOIN TABLE packets until the

multicast source is reached via the shortest path. This process

constructs (or updates) the routes from sources to receivers and

builds a mesh of nodes, the forwarding group.

B. Multicast Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector

(MAODV) Multicast operation of Ad-hoc On-demand Distance

Vector (MAODV) [10] is a reactive tree-based multicast routing

protocol. MAODV is an extension of the unicast routing

protocol Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV). Using

MAODV, all nodes in the network maintain local connectivity

by broadcasting “Hello” messages with TTL set to one. Every

node maintains three tables, a Routing

Table (RT), a Multicast Routing Table (MRT) and a Request

Table. RT stores routing information and has the same

function as in AODV. In unicast routing operations, every

destination has a unique sequence number. Likewise every

multicast group also has a sequence number to indicate the

freshness of the multicast routing information.

Thus, one and only one group leader is elected to broadcast

periodical GROUP HELLO messages throughout the MANET

to maintain the sequence number. The group leader is by default

the first node joining the group, but could also be another node

when the first node leaves the group. The main drawbacks of

MAODV are long delays and high overheads associated with

fixing broken links in conditions of high mobility and traffic

load. Also, it has a low packet delivery ratio in scenarios with

high mobility, large numbers of members, or a high traffic load.

Because of its dependence on AODV, MAODV is not flexible.

Finally, it suffers from a single point of failure, which is the

multicast group leader.

3. Hybrid Multicast Routing Protocols

Traditional routing protocol such as Optimized Polymorphic

Hybrid Multicast Routing Protocol (OPHMR) is the Hybrid

multicast routing protocol. Hybrid routing protocol attempts to

discover balance between the two such as proactive for

neighbourhood, reactive for far away.

1. Optimized Polymorphic Hybrid Multicast Routing

Protocol (OPHMR)

This protocol [9] is invested with different operational modes

that are either proactive or reactive based on a MN’s power

remainder, mobility level, and vicinity density level. It attempts

to address the issues of power efficiency, latency, and protocol

overhead in an adaptive manner. OPHMR’s reactive behaviour

is based on the On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol

(ODMRP). It’s relatively simplistic. It generates on-demand

route paths for multicast message requests. OPHMR’s proactive

behaviour is based on the Multicast Zone Routing (MZR)

protocol. It builds a zone around each Mobile Node (in hops)

and periodically sends updates within each defined zone. For

added efficiency, OPHMR utilizes an optimizing scheme

adapted from the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)

ODMRP MAODV

Multicast delivery

structure

Mesh Core based tree

Loop free Yes Yes

Periodic message

requirement

Yes No

Routing hierarchy Flat Flat

scalability Fare Fare

ISSN: 2277 – 9043



19


protocol. It used to decrease the amount of control overhead that

is produced. OPHMR is, after a very lengthy period of time,

able to extend battery life and enhance the survivability of the

mobile ad hoc nodes. As a result, it decreases the end-to-end

delay and increases the packet delivery ratio.

IV. CONCLUSION

A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) consists of autonomous

mobile nodes, each of which communicates directly with the

nodes within its wireless range or indirectly with other nodes in

a network. In order to facilitate secure and reliable

communication within a MANET, an efficient routing protocol

is required to discover routes between mobile nodes. The field

of MNAET is rapidly growing due to the many advantages and

different application areas. Energy efficiency and security are

some challenges faced in MANETs, especially in designing a

routing protocol. In this paper, we surveyed a number of energy

efficient multicast routing International

protocols and secure multicast routing protocols. In many cases,

it is difficult to compare these protocols with each other directly

since each protocol has a different goal with different

assumptions and employs mechanisms to achieve the goal.

According to the study, these protocols have different strengths

and drawbacks. A multicast protocol can hardly satisfy all

requirements. In other words, one routing protocol cannot be a

solution for all energy efficient and security issues that are faced

in MANETs, but rather each protocol is designed to provide the

maximum possible requirements, according to certain required

scenarios.

V. REFERENCES

[1]. X. Chen, J. Wu, Multicasting Techniques in Mobile Ad-hoc

Networks, Computer Science Department, South-west Texas State

University, San Marcos, The Handbook of Ad-hoc Wireless

Networks (2003) pp. 25–40.

[2]. M. Mohammed, Energy Efficient Location Aided Routing Protocol

for Wireless MANETs, International Journal of Computer Science

and Information Security, vol. 4, 2009.

[3]. M. Cheng, J. Shun, M. Min, Y. Li and W. Wu, Energy-Efficient

Broadcast and Multicast Routing in Multihop Ad Hoc Wireless

Networks, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 6,

no. 2, pp. 213–223, 2006.

[4]. L Junhai, X Liu, Y Danxia, Research on Multicast Routing Protocols

for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks Computer Networks – Elsevier, 2008.

[5]. R. Vaishampayan, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Energy Efficient and

Robust Multicast Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings

of the IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor

Systems, 2004.

[6]. M.C.C. De, H. Gossain, D.P. Agrawal, Multicast over Wireless

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks: Present and Future Directions, IEEE

Network, 52–59, 2003.

[7]. J. G. Jetcheva and D. B. Johnson: Adaptive Demand-Driven

Multicast Routing in Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,

Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Mobile

andAd-hoc Networking & Computing (MobiHOC), pages 33 - 44,

Long Beach, CA, October 2001.

[8]. M. Maleki and M. Pedram, Lifetime-Aware Multicast Routing in

Wireless Ad hoc Networks, Proceedings of IEEE Wireless

Communications and Networking Conference, 2004.

[9]. Adel Ben Mnaouer, Lei Chen, Chuan Heng Foh, Juki Wirawan

Tantra, "OPHMR: An Optimized Polymorphic Hybrid Multicast

Routing Protocol for MANET," IEEE Transactions on Mobile

Computing, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 551-562, May 2007,

doi:10.1109/TMC.2007.1030

[10]. CHRISTINE E. JONES, KRISHNA M. SIVALINGAM,

PRATHIMA AGRAWAL and JYH CHENG CHEN, “A Survey of

Energy Efficient Network Protocols for Wireless Networks”,

Wireless Networks 7, 343–358, 2001Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Manufactured in The Netherlands.

[11]. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J.J. Madruga, E.L. Dept. of Comput. Eng.,

California Univ., Santa Cruz, CA, “The core-assisted mesh 11] C. C.

Chiang, M. Gerla, and L. Zhang, “Adaptive shared tree multicast in

mobile wireless networks,” Proceeding of GLOBECOM, pp. 1817–

1822, November1998. Protocol” 06 August 2002.

14 19

Technology

Transcript of 14 19