International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering

International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering

Menu

ISSN ONLINE(2320-9801) PRINT (2320-9798)

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

A Study on Energy Efficient Routing Protocols in MANETs with Effect on Selfish Behaviour

Aarti Singh1 and Divya Chadha2
  1. Associate Professor, MMICT&BM, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
  2. Assistant Professor, MMICT&BM, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering

International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering

Abstract

Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs) are characterized with dynamic topology. This dynamism leads to mobility of nodes, interference, multipath propagation and path loss. A more challenging goal in MANET is to provide energy efficient routes as it is one of the major limiting factors in mobile nodes. MANETs are typically powered by batteries which have limited energy reservoir and it may not be easily replaced or recharged on the way. Hence, power consumption becomes an important issue and this lack of power with nodes leads to selfish behavior among nodes in case of commercial MANET. This work provides an indepth analysis of literature for routing protocols in MANETs and their effect on selfish behaviour of nodes



Keywords
MANETs, Routing Protocols, Mobile Agents, Selfish Behaviour, Energy Efficient Routing

INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad- Hoc Networks (MANETs) have evolved rapidly in the field of wireless networks. These are infrastructure less networks where routers and hosts providing access points are not fixed. In case if a mobile user away from an access point needs to send or receive data packets, this is facilitated by radio transmission and receiving ability of mobile phone with help of other nearby existing nodes creating dynamic networks. In literature MANETs are defined as “an autonomous system of mobile routers (and associated hosts) connected by wireless links – the union of which form an arbitrary graph” [1].
They generally have routable networking environment on top of a Link Layer ad hoc network. Since the participating nodes here are not fixed it leads to dynamic change in MANET topology as per the availability of nodes. Also for transmission of packets intermediate nodes plays very important role because transmission of whole information is with cooperation among the nodes which are engaged in transmitting and forwarding the packets. But in some situations cooperative behaviour of nodes may be lost or a mobile node may be failed to cooperate other nodes in network. Such situations are: moving out of the transmission range of its neighbours, exhausting battery power, malfunctioning in software or hardware, or even leaving the network. Exhausting battery power affects efficiency of nodes the most. The nodes in MANETs depend on some means of energy or power. The energy resources are limited and can’t be preserved for longer time as a result, nodes in MANET may stop transmitting and/or receiving for arbitrary time period. This is called selfish behaviour of nodes [20]. Cooperative nodes are active in data forwarding in route. But selfish nodes may deny forwarding a packet for saving their own energy. Selfish behaviour of network nodes causes inefficient data transmission. This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 provides applications of MANETs , open research issues, review of routing protocols and their analysis. Section 2 presents concept of energy consumption in MANETs and energy consumption approaches. In section 3 concludes this work with directions for future research.

A. HISTORICAL VS COMMERCIAL APPLICABILITY OF MANETS
MANET provides an extremely flexible way of communications in dynamic/urgent situations. Commercial applications of MANET involve cooperative exchange of data packets among mobile nodes.
Historically, mobile ad hoc networks have primarily been used for tactical network related applications to improve battlefield communications/ survivability. The dynamic nature of military operations required such a service since military personal cannot rely on access to a fixed pre-placed communication infrastructure in battlefield. Pure wireless communication also suffered from limitation that radio signals are subject to interference and radio frequency higher than 100 MHz rarely propagate beyond line of sight (LOS)[2]. The earliest wireless ad-hoc networks were the packet radio networks (PRNET) in 1970’s, developed by DARPA under ALOHA net project. Presently MANET is finding wide applicability in mobile communications. Some applications are listed in the Table below [3]:

B. RESEARCH ISSUES IN MANETS
As is clear from above discussion that MANET are useful in many areas of importance .Despite this wide applicability there are some issues still prevailing in this field. This section explores such open research challenges [1].
 The time varying statistical behavior affected by various factors like the physics of propagation medium, inner city fading characteristics and shadowing have impact on wireless links.
 Since participating nodes are not fixed, they are moving thus quality of wireless link is unpredictable.
 Due to node mobility and constantly changing neighbourhood connectivity, MANETS have more severe convergence problem than wired network.
 Ad hoc networks are more vulnerable to security problems due to nasty neighbour relaying packets.
 Mobile nodes participating in MANET may become selfish at any time. An easy way to comply with the conference paper formatting requirements is to use this document as a template and simply type your text into it.

C. ROUTING IN MANETS
MANETs routing protocols could be broadly classified into two major categories based on the routing information update mechanism [4]:
 Proactive Routing Protocols: Proactive protocols also known as table driven routing protocols maintain routing information of every other node in the network before it is needed. Nodes can get knowledge of topology of the network by exchanging topological information among the network nodes. Thus, this information is immediately available whenever a route is to be created from a source to destination. Cost of maintenance is very high if topology changes very frequently. For example Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing Protocol (DSDV), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) etc.
 Reactive Routing Protocols: The reactive routing protocols do not maintain routing table in advance. The routing information is collected only when it is required. Reactive protocols make their routes toward destination as the demand for that particular route appears. They do not periodically maintain information about topological change. The information about routing is exchanged through flooding. Ex: Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR), Ad-hoc ON Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV).
 Hybrid Routing Protocols: These protocols are developed for better trade off between Proactive & Reactive protocols. [5] An example of such a protocol is the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). ZRP divides the topology in to zones and then allows transmission between and within the zones based on strength and weakness of protocol.

D. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ROUTING PROTOCOLS
An extensive literature survey highlighted that many routing protocols had been proposed for MANETs. To facilitate careful analysis, an effort is being made to classify these routing protocols on basis of their nature & parameter.

1) ROUTING TABLE MAINTENANCE:
 Reactive Routing Protocols: Such protocols maintain route information only for active paths and reduces path maintenance overhead e.g. Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Location Aided Routing (LAR), Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [7].
 Proactive Routing Protocols: Network status is periodically maintained by such type of protocols by flooding network status information within the network. Every node keeps on maintaining their routing table e.g. Global State Routing (GSR), Hierarchical State Routing (HSR), Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) [7].
 Hybrid Routing Protocols: Such protocols have features from both proactive and reactive protocols. Thus adapting advantages of both types of protocols. Zone Based Routing Protocol (ZRP) [7]. This is an example of this type.
 Table driven: Such protocols provide update information about the network. Tables are created and updated as new routes are discovered e.g. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) and Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)[8]

2) POSITION OR LOCATION
Source Initiated: Such protocols are type of on demand protocols. They start discovering the route only when a node request for that. When a node demand for route discovery process it is initiated by transmitting a packet having destination address and that packet travels one hop to another till destination is discovered. Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing AODV, Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)[8].
 Position Based: Such protocols always tend to discover position data of corresponding destinations. In this case there is no overhead of maintaining routing table or route discovery. The only overhead is of position discovery e.g. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) & Location Aided routing (LAR) [8].
 Source Routing: In such type of protocols node forwards packet according to information contained in header. This information is added to header by the source node. Nodes forward packets on the route on basis of this information e.g. strict source and record route (SSRR)[8].
 Location Based multicast routing Protocols: These protocols determine location of each node by using positioning service or Global positioning system. Destination location can be searched by sender by the use of location services i.e. Scalable Position-Based Multicast (SPBM) [12].
 FGRP protocol using GLOMOSLM simulator: In this protocol [18] overheads related to geographic routing are considered. The problems that may occur when nodes connect are: absence of end to end connections, in additional to data bits to user transmitted data and most important is location information collection.

3) BROADCAST TECHNIQUE
 Full broadcast: In this, message needs to be retransmitted by intermediate nodes and is intended for every node in network e.g. Core Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing (CEDAR), Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing Protocol (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Flow Oriented Routing Protocol (FORP) and Witness Aided Routing Protocol (WAR) [8].
 Limited Broadcast: There are limited broadcasts, in which the maximum hop count (time to live) is limited as desired Distributed Dynamic Routing (DDR) Global State Routing (GSR) , Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Source Tree Adaptive Routing (STAR), Topology Based Reserved Path Forwarding (TBRPF), Temporally Ordered Routing (TORA) and Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) [8].
 Local Broadcast: This type of broadcasting is intended for any node within the senders reach, but merge is not retransmitted at all. AODV, Fuzzy Sighted Link State Routing (FSLS), Fisheye State Routing (FSR), High Availability Seamless Redundancy (HSR), landmark Routing Protocol (LANMAR), Location aided Routing (LAR), LMR, Scalable Source Routing (SSR) and Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [8].

4) RECOVERY MECHANISM
 Recovery Mechanism: Recovery mechanism [8] is very important for nodes to eliminate those routes that are not available or those having some errors. So there is need of some recovery mechanism or protocols. e.g. Associatively Based Routing (ABR), AODV, Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP), DREAM3 ,
 Signal Strength: Route packets along the connection with the best signal strength. This is mainly used by ABR and SSR.
 Link Stability: Route packets along the connections that appear most stable over a period of time. It is used by Delay Sensitive Transport (DST) and FORP.
 Shortest Path/Link State: Select a shortest path according to some metric. This is used by many protocols: CEDAR, DDR, FSR, GSR, HSR, OLSR, STAR and Topology Broadcast Based on Reverse -Path Forwarding (TBRPF) , FORP, WAR and ZRP
 Reliable Route Recovery- AODV: RRR-AODV [16] is designed to improve the performance of AODV Protocol. This protocol improve network efficiency of network by reducing control messages with help of back up nodes. An implicit route recovery process is performed in this.

5) ROUTING STRUCTURE
A multicast group consists of senders and receivers. There exist a tree or mesh between these senders and receivers that act as connections between them. These Connections establish two types of routing structures: Tree Based and Mesh based.
 Tree Based: These tree structures have high cost, due to which senders are not able to maintain their own tree structures. Following are the categories of tree based protocols.
a) Shared Tree Based: A multicast group [9] consists of senders and receiver’s .Some protocols select a single sender to build a multicast tree that is shared with other sender. Such type of tree structure is called Shared Tree Based Structure e.g.: Multicast Operation of the Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (MAODV).
b) On Demand Shared Tree Based: These protocols dynamically assign every node in a multicast session an ID - number. These Sid numbers help to locate neighbouring nodes that are closer to a particular node’s Sid. e.g. Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol (AMRIS) Utilizing Increasing Id-numbers [9].
c) Sender-Tree Based Protocol: Such protocols [9] are highly efficient multicast routing protocols. In this all members set their own branches where new forwarding nodes are added to tree. These are efficient because of a route optimization process that can detect and remove unnecessary nodes from the route. Bandwidth -Efficient Multicast Routing Protocol (BEMRP).
d) On Demand Sender Tree Based Protocol: It adapts its behaviour based on application data sending pattern. In this application layer alone performs tasks of control packets, periodic neighbour sensing, or periodic routing table exchanges and can detect detection of link breaks and expiration of routing state e.g. Adaptive Demand -Driven Multicast Routing(ADMR) [9].

 Mesh Based Protocols
Forwarding Group Concept: On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) uses this concept to build a mesh and mobility prediction is used to refresh the mesh. ODMRP gives high data delivery ratio at high mobility and group members are strongly connected [9].

6) ARCHITECTURE BASED ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Such protocols [12] can create physical hierarchical architecture by different types of mobile nodes e.g. Hierarchical QoS Multicast Routing Protocol (HQMRP), Self Organizing Map (SQM) is typical Hierarchical architecture.

7) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 Multicast Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks with Swarm Intelligence: MANSI [9] is a core based multicast protocol in which mesh is maintained and build by only one core node. In this protocol energy conservation and load balancing is controlled by the concept of swarm intelligence. This concept refers to complex behaviour that t arises from individual behaviors and interactions.
 Bee-Inspired Ad-Hoc Routing protocols for MANETs: Battery level of Bee Ad Hoc [36] is better as compare to other protocols because it tries to best utilize all routes instead of always sending packets on best path and keep on searching that only. All paths are efficiently utilized and thus energy level is also managed properly.

8) SIZE
Adaptive Cell Relay Routing protocol: Some routing protocols may work efficiently for small networks but they may not perform efficiently with change of network density. Adaptive Cell Relay Routing protocol (ACR) presented in this paper is efficient for sparse network but may not be suitable for dense networks. They perform better than Location aided protocols. Examples of ACR are: Cell Relay Routing Protocol for Dense Networks and Large Cell Routing Protocol for Sparse Networks [10].

9) QUALITY OF SERVICE
Quality-of-Service (QoS) in computer networks describes a predefined contract in which a service provider guarantees for good quality service to customer. This contract defines information regarding type of service required and its level.
Following are the type of QoS Routing Protocol presented in [11]
 Adaptive Proportional Routing (APR): In this routing protocol pair of node with source and destination have to maintain one or more explicit routing paths in advance. QoS protocols main task is to exchange QoS state information among routes and uses only locally gathered information
 QoS-aware Multicast Routing Protocol (QMPR): QMPR is designed to improve communication between multipath and single path routing. In this a unicast routing algorithm is used to add a node to already existing path. QoS protocols perform task of checking every intermediate node.
 Chen-Heinzelman protocol: This QoS protocol is better that any other hard QoS protocol as it tries to provide better service for bandwidth. It provides better service because of its two scheme structure that consist of feedback scheme and bandwidth scheme. In feedback scheme, if there is no residual bandwidth updated values are sent to application. In admission scheme, a route is searched that can a route that satisfies bandwidth.
 Multicast Core Extraction Distributed ad-hoc Routing: These protocols are designed to minimize data traffic. QoS metrics used are bandwidth, delay, packet loss rate and cost for multicast routing protocol.e.g. Multicast Core Extraction Distributed ad-hoc Routing (MCEDAR) [12].

10) SECURITY
Privacy Friendly Routing in Suspicious MANET: [15] presented PRISM – On demand location based anonymous MANET routing protocol for increasing privacy and security. Security and privacy are important in operations while establishing connections in hostile and suspicious settings. Location centric paradigm is best suited for privacy.

11) BASED ON POWER AWARENESS:
Energy Efficiency: Energy efficient protocols are introduced to enhance energy level of nodes. Some nodes may have limited battery power. With decrease in power they become incapable to forwa rd packets. These protocols are made to enhance this energy level among nodes. e.g. Minimum Weight Incremental Arborescence( MWIA) [13] is an example of this category. Detail of protocols focusing on this aspect is provided in the next section.
Above discussed protocols are being proposed over a span of ten years. Table 2 given below summarizes these protocols w.r.t. time so as to highlight the concerns behind these proposals.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MANET
Whenever packets are transmitted via intermediate node, its energy is consumed every time. Asymmetric power configuration of adjacent nodes is affected. There are many ways to efficiently utilize energy in MANETs. By utilizing techniques for energy preservation selfish behaviour may be detained to some extent.
 Firstly, by adopting optimum path, power consumed to transmit a packet may be minimized. There are algorithms used to find out the optimum path between the source and destination, node.
 Secondly, the routing protocols must be energy efficient to maximize network throughput, network lifetime, and to minimize delay.
 Lastly energy is consumed when a packet is transmitted. Nodes tend to become selfish if their energy level starts diminishing which is an important issue in MANET. It incurs routing overhead [6].

A. ENERGY IS CONSUMED IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS [19]
 While sending a packet/ Active State
 While receiving a packet/ Active State
 While in idle mode/ Sleep Sate
The energy consumed while sending a packet is the largest source of energy consumption in all the modes. This is followed by the energy consumption during receiving a packet. The energy is also consumed when the node is idle state i.e not participating in any communication but in that case there is wastage of energy because it is not actually consumed and any other node could have used that energy which is the part of communication channel at that particular instance.
Transmission power control and load distribution approaches are used to minimize the energy consumption in the active communication energy, and sleep/power-down mode is used to minimize energy consumed during Sleep State. Given below is the description of these approaches.
 Transmission Power approach
It is very necessary to find optimal path and routing algorithm for efficient routing and it can be achieved by plotting a graph and by considering vertex as mobile node and edge representing a wireless link between the two nodes. These transmission nodes are within each other’s transmission range. Number of immediate nodes neighbour to a particular node can be adjusted if node’s transmission power is controllable. Transmission power plays a very important role if it is weaker it can cause a problem of network partitioning that may arise due to topological sparse, on the other hand if transmission power is strong transmission range is increased and it can also reduce hop count to the destination [20]. e.g, FAR, OMN, PLR, MER.
 Load Distribution Approach
Goal of this approach [25], [26], [27] is to detect those nodes over the route that underutilizes the energy and to find the optimum path not on the basis of shortest route but selecting a route where energy consumption by nodes is less. A route with least load among possible routes from source to destination is chosen. In this, packets are only routed through energy rich intermediate nodes. The routes may be longer but the nodes chosen are rich in energy. Such protocols considers the energy efficiency of nodes and overloading of nodes is prevented to make them efficient thus ensures longer network lifetime e.g. MPR, LEAR.
 Sleep / Power-Down Mode Approach
The sleep/power-down mode approach focuses on inactive time of communication. There are many radio hardware that support low power states. This approach also considers the fact that system must not turn off when it goes to sleep state to save the resources, most importantly energy. This approach is based on Master selection in MANET. Whenever nodes are in sleeping state in MANET, they are actually not listening or forwarding packets at that time. One of the ways to save the energy is by selecting a node as Master node and rest of the nodes are slave nodes. Master node should coordinate and manage the neighbouring slave nodes. Slave nodes can save the battery by periodical sleeps. They can wake up periodically and ask for any data transmission from the Master node. If any data is to be transmitted it is communicated by the Master node to the slave nodes. But node sleeps again if it is not addressed to it. e.g. GAF, PEN.

B. EFFECT OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION ON NODES
Cooperation is the Core of MANETs. A Mobile Ad-hoc network is only successful if there is cooperation between nodes. High cooperation is expected between the nodes while packet transmission. But as far the commercial MANET is concerned it is difficult to encourage the cooperative behaviour between the nodes. In Commercial MANET Power consumption and power saving is a concern with every individual node. In order to save power for its own usage some nodes stops forwarding packets. Intermediate nodes want to conserve their limited resources like energy and bandwidth. This leads to selfish behaviour of nodes in MANETs. These non -cooperative nodes don’t cooperate or participate in forwarding packets for other nodes or finding routing path for them. This is a serious concern & devising ways to detain or minimize selfish behaviour is an open research challenge in this domain.

C. ENERGY CENTRIC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
With fast increase in popularity and applicability of MANETs, retaining energy of mobile nodes became an utmost concern for the researchers. Literature highlights that many energy centric protocols have already been proposed which try to minimize energy usage while data transmission.
 Energy Constraint Node Cache-AODV: [14] describes ECNC_AODV routing algorithm which is based on energy status of each node and cached node. This protocol is better with respect to energy consumption due to rou ting packets, routing overhead and delivery ratio.
 Flow Augmentation Routing: FAR [21] protocol aims at minimizing the sum of link cost along the path and chooses the path with minimum cost. It basically assumes that network is static.
 Online Max-Min Routing: OMM power-aware routing protocol [22] for wireless ad-hoc is applicable over geographic area and support application where sequence of message is not known. It is very helpful in prevention of occurrence of overloaded nodes. The performance of individual node and whole network is affected by these overloaded nodes. This protocol optimizes the lifetime of the network as well as the lifetime of individual nodes .
 Power-aware Localized Routing: (PLR) protocol [22] is a localized, fully distributed energy-aware routing algorithm. It works with the assumption that a source node has the location information of its neighbors and the destination. PLR is equivalent to knowing the link costs from the source node to its neighbors, all the way to the destination. Based on this information, the source cannot find the optimal path but selects the next hop through which the overall transmission power to the destination is minimized.
 Minimum Energy Routing: MER protocol [23], [24] adjust the transmission power of individual node so that it’s enough to reach the next neighbouring hop node. So aim of this protocol is to adjust the nodes power and not to make paths energy efficient.
 Multi-Path Routing: This protocol [28] is suitable when the number of paths in use is more and data usually flow over these distinct paths simultaneously from the source to the destination. During single path load balance technique it is decided that whether a specific path is efficient for sending packets for message sending or not and when that path is found, it is considered as the optimum path. This path remains optimum till a new path is found. The problem with this technique is to decide when a good path turns into not good.
 Geographic Adaptive Fidelity: GAF protocol [29] works on master slave architecture. It aims at saving the battery power of the network by keeping the slave nodes with low energy.
 Prototype embedded Network: PEN protocol [30] practices the sleep period operation in an asynchronous way without involving master nodes.
 Progressive Energy Efficiency Routing Protocol: This protocol [31] performs better during path discovery and in other mobility scenarios. It can achieve its goal in following steps:
a) Route discovery process: It starts with searching all shortest paths, then path having minimum energy level is chosen and to perform this task route request is generated that consist of two piece of information hop count and energy consumption. Hop count is updated at every intermediate node level. For route discovery a problem regarding choice of best energy efficient route may arise if there are several routes having same energy efficiency.
b) Route maintenance: In this protocol nodes can passively watch data exchange within its neighbourhood nodes and looks for more efficient path. Control messages are sent by monitoring nodes to update paths in Replace and insert operations. Maintenance overhead is low because these messages are only send when better path is detected.
 SPAN and BECA/AFECA combination: BECA/AFECA is the two power-save approaches: the Basic Energy- Conserving Algorithm (BECA) and an extended version called the Adaptive Fidelity Energy Conserving Algorithm (AFECA). In this approaches after fixed intervals nodes can dynamically switch between different states. These states are sleeping, listening and active state. These states have important relevance because active nodes by transmitting or retransmitting message between nodes ensure active or listening states. Communicating nodes stay awake. This paper [32] presents a comparison of a combination of Span with AFECA running on top of AODV compared with the same combination modified for nomadic networks. It consists of span coordinator selection mechanism requires BECA/AFECA chain to be modified to take super nodes into consideration. By forcing super nodes to become coordinators, regardless of how well they fare in the coordinator selection algorithms, these nodes will do as much of the routing as possible. Coordinators are in Span chosen based on a number of criteria, such as the remaining energy. It could therefore be expected that Span automatically would favour super nodes as coordinators.
 Energy Efficient Routing using OLSR. In this protocol EEOLSR [33] Residual energy level of nodes and inaccuracy of state information is focused and residual energy collected by control messages in OLSR is also considered. Inaccurate information effect the efficiency of OLSR protocol. In this all those parameters are studied that contains inaccuracies in energy level information of neighbouring nodes. Future work regarding proposal of some techniques to reduce inaccuracies with improves residual energy information of nodes is also suggested.
 Cluster Based routing protocol: CBRP [34] is robust and scalable. In this paper energy efficient Cluster based routing protocol is presented and evaluated. Nodes are divided into cluster in CBRP and clusters are connected via cluster heads .In tis paper idea is to place all the member nodes expect gateway node should go to sleep mode when they are in idle mode.. In this method only Cluster Heads (CHs) and gateway nodes are active for any communication in other words the backbone of the network every time is active to any communication.
 Energy Efficient, Secure and Stable Routing Protocol: EESSRP [35] was introduced with combining factors like security, power and stable routing. MANET is still a very critical task due to highly dynamic environment. An effort has been made to perform analysis using random way point mobility model. The results have been derived using self created network scenarios for varying number of mobile nodes.
Following table provides analysis of existing energy centric protocols based on routing overhead, energy consumed/packet transmission and packet delivery ratio as parameters of interest.

CONLUSION
This work explored various routing protocols existing in MANETs. The energy consumption behaviour of various routing protocols is being analysed. With energy optimization proper delivery of packets with optimum cost is also concerned. Thus, Energy that is to be consumed by the nodes in transmitting a message can be estimated and packets may be distributed both in case of On-Demand and table driven transmission. In table driven transmission the energy can be estimated while prior load distribution and in case of on demand a packet can be send as acknowledgement after examining the energy consumption at a particular node while sending a long information.
In addition, ad hoc routing requires that nodes cooperate in forwarding each other’s packets through the network. This means the throughput available to each single node’s applications is limited not only by the raw channel capacity, but also by the forwarding load imposed by distant nodes. This effect could seriously limit the usefulness of ad hoc rou ting. One serious question is that why the nodes should cooperate in forwarding traffic to other nodes when there is no benefit.
MANETS are not seen as networks in their own right any more than local area networks are networks in their own right. Instead, MANETS are seen as localities within networks, much as LANs operate as the local access to a wider area Internet. The operation of MANETS in isolation is a special case of their operation as part of a larger network. Therefore the unwillingness of nodes inspired by energy saving theory in commercial MANET could seriously hamper the application of ad hoc network. Reputation schemes that are already existing are able to detect the selfish nodes but there are some drawbacks with these schemes such as when to declare a node selfish. Is it necessary that a node which is non cooperative is Selfish there may be some another reasons for that. Ad Hoc Networks is an area that is being widely researched these days and is a very fast growing area. Much work is still left in this field for make it commercially viable.

Tables at a glance
Table icon Table icon Table icon
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3
 

References

  1. Freebersyser J. A., Leiner B., “A DoD perspective on mobile ad hoc networks”, in: Charles E. Perkins (Ed.), AdHoc Networking, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, , pp. 29–51.,2001.

  2. Hoebeke J, Moerman I., Dhoedt B. and Demeester P., “An Overview of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks : Applications and Challenges”, Published inJournal-Communications Network, Vol. 3, No. 3, Pp .60-66, 2005.

  3. Kumar G.V., Reddyr Y.V. and.Nagendra .M, “Current Research Work on Routing Protocols for MANET: A Literature Survey”, (IJCSE)International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering. Vol. 2, No. 3, Pp.706-713,2010.

  4. http://www.olsr.org/docs/report_html/node18.html .

  5. Jung S., Hundewale N., Zelikovsky A., “Energy Efficiency of Load Balancing in MANET Routing Protocols”, Published in Proc. 6th Int. Conf.on Software Eng., AI, Networking and Parallel/ Distributed Computing, 2005 and First ACIS Int. Workshop on Self-Assembling WirelessNetworks, May 2005, pp. 476 – 483.,2005.

  6. Shrivastava A., Chander N.,” Overview of Routing Protocols in MANET’s and Enhancements in ReactiveProtocols. “, 2005, http://cs.lamar.edu/faculty/disrael/COSC5100/Seminar.pdf.

  7. Khetrapal A., “Routing techniques for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Classification and Qualitative /Quantitative Analysis”, . Published inProceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Wireless Networks, ICWN 2006, LasVegas, Nevada, USA, June 26-29, 2006. CSREA Press 2006, Pp. 251-257, 2006

  8. Huang C. ,Chihlo S. “A Comprehensive Survey of Multicast Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Published in Journal of InternetTechnology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 25-34, Jan, 2008.

  9. Du X.,Wu D., “ Adaptive Cell Relay Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”,Published in IEEE Transanction on VehicularTechnology.VOL. 55, NO.1.Pp.278-285, Jan 2006.

  10. Becker P., “QoS Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks – A Survey”, Technical report, University of Kaiserslautern, Turkey ,2007

  11. Juhani L., Liu X., Danxia Y., “Research on multicast routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks”, Published in Elsevier Journal onComputer Networks, Vol. 52, Issue 5, 10 April 2008, Pp. 988–997,2008.

  12. Mikki M. A., “Energy Efficient Location Aided Routing Protocol for Wireless Manets”, Published in International Journal of ComputerScience and Information Security, Vol. 4, No. 1 & 2, 2009.

  13. Nitnaware D, Verma A., “Energy Constraint Node Cache Based Routing Protocol for Ad hoc Network” ,Published in International Journal ofWireless and mobile networks (JWNM), Vol 2, No. 1, Feb.2010,Pp.77-86., 2010.

  14. Defrawy K. El, Tsudik G., “Privacy-Preserving Location-Based On-Demand Routing in MANETs”, Published in IEEE Journal on SelectedAreas in Communications, Vol.29, No. 10,Pp.1926-1934,Dec.2011.

  15. Riasudheen H. and Rajesh J.N., “Reliable Route Recovery Scheme for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Published in Proceedings of InternationalConference on Computing and Control Engineering (ICCCE 2012), April 12-13, 2012, ISBN 978-1-4675-2248-9 © 2012 Published byCoimbatore Institute of Information Technology, India,2012.

  16. Zhao Z., Braun T., “OMNeT++ based Opportunistic Routing Protocols Simulation: A Framework”, Published in 10th Scandinavian Works hopon Wireless Ad-hoc Networks (ADHOC '11), 2011.

  17. Rathidevi E., Kumaran N. S., “Geographical Routing in MANET using Flexible Combination of Push and Pull Algorithm” ,Published inInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 2 Issue 3, March 2013,Pp.44-47,Online ISSN: 2319-7064, 2013.

  18. Arulanandam K. and Parthasarthy B. , “A New Energy Level Efficiency Issues In MANET” , International Journal of Reviews in Computing(IJRIC), Pp. 104-109,2009.

  19. C. Yu, Lee B. & Yong Youn H., “Energy Efficient Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Published by Wiley J. Wireless Commun.and Mobile Comput., Dec. 2003, Pp. 959–73, 2003.

  20. Chang J-H, Tassiulas L., “Energy Conserving Routing in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks”, Published in proceedings of Nineteenth Annual JointConference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2000), March 26-30,2000, Tel Aviv, Pp. 22-31, Vol.1,2000.

  21. Stojmenovic I., Lin X., “Power-Aware Localized Routing in Wireless Networks” ,Published in IEEE Transactions on Parallel and DistributedSystems , Vol. 12, Issue 11, Pp.1122-1133,2001.

  22. Doshi S., Brown T., “Minimum Energy Routing Schemes for a Wireless Ad Hoc Network” ,Proceedings of International Conference onComputer Communications (IEEE Infocom 2002), Pp.1-11., 2002.

  23. Banerjee S., Misra A., “Minimum Energy Paths for Reliable Communication in Multi-Hop Wireless Networks”. Published in Proceedings ofthe 3rd ACM international symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing(MobiHOC 2002), Pp. 146-156, 2002.

  24. Toh C. K, Le A. N. and. Cho Y. Z. , “Load Balanced Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks” .Published in IEEECommunications Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 8, Pp. 78-84.,2004.

  25. Hundewale N., Jung S., and Zelikovsky A., “Energy Efficient Node Caching and Load Balancing Enhancement of Reactive Ad Hoc RoutingProtocols”, Published in Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 13, Pp. 110–132, 2007.

  26. Iqbal M., Gondal I., and. Dooley L, “A Novel Load Balancing Technique for Proactive Energy Loss Mitigation in Ubiquitous Networks” ,Published in proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Consumer Communications and Networks (CCNC 2006), Vol. 1, Pp. 157–167,2006.

  27. Bannack A., and. Albini L., “Investigating the Load Balance of Multi-path Routing to Increase the Lifetime of a MANET”, Published inproceedings of International Conference on Circuits and Systems for Communications (ICCSC 2008), pp. 109–113. 2008.

  28. Xu Y., Heidemann J., Estrin D., “Geography-Informed Energy Conservation for Ad Hoc Routing” , Published in proceedings of InternationalConference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobi -Com’2001), Pp. 70–84. ,2001.

  29. Girling G, Wa J, Osborn P, Stefanova R., “The Design and Implementation of a Low Power Ad Hoc Protocol Stack”, Published in IEEEPersonal Communications , Vol.4, Issue 5, Pp. 8-15,1997.

  30. Zhu J and Wang X., “Model and Protocol for Energy Efficient Routing over Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Published in IEEE Transactions onMobile Computing, Vol. 10 , Issue 11,Pp. 1546-1557, Nov. 2011.

  31. Kristensen M. D. and Ol N., “Energy Efficient MANET Routing Using a Combination of Span and BECA/AFECA”, Published in Journal ofNETWORKS, Vol. 3, No.3, MARCH 2008, Pp. 49-56,2008.

  32. Sangeeta , Singh K., “Energy Efficient Routing In MANET Using OLSR”. Published in International Journal on Computer Science andEngineering (IJCSE), Vol.3, No.4,2011, Pp.1418-1421, 2011.

  33. Seyed-Amin et. al., “Energy Efficient Cluster Based Routing Protocol for MANETs”, Published in Proceedings of 2009 InternationalConference on Computer Engineering and Applications (IPCSIT), Vol.2 (2011), Pp. 380-384, IACSIT Press, Singapore,2011.

  34. Taneja S. & Kush A., “Energy Efficient, Secure and Stable Routing Protocol for MANET”, Published in Global Journal of Computer Scienceand Technology ,Vol. 12, Issue 10, Version 1.0, May 2012, Pp.25-37, 2012.