Evaluation of Various Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs)

Evaluation of Various Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) Dr. L. RAJA Assistant Professor, Dept. of Computer Science & Applications Pachaiyappa s College,Chenni-30 India Abstract the enhanced popularity of mobile wireless devices has lead researchers to develop a wide variety of Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (MANET) protocols. Due to limited resources in MANETs, to design an efficient and reliable routing strategy is still a challenge.. Routing in MANETs receives a remarkable amount of attention from researchers around the world. A number of routing protocols have been developed and it is quite difficult to determine which protocols may perform well under a number of different network scenarios such as network size and topology etc. In this paper, we explore the range of MANET routing protocols available and discuss their characteristics and functionality. Numerous routing protocols proposed by researchers are mainly categorized as Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid routing protocols. A range of literature relating to the field of MANET routing protocols was identified and reviewed. The comparison is provided based on the routing methodologies and information used to make routing decisions. The performance of all the routing protocols is also discussed. Keywords: MANET, Routing Protocol, Comparison. I. INTRODUCTION Wireless system operates with the aid of a centralized supporting structure such as an access point. These access points assist the wireless users to keep connected with the wireless system, when they roam from one place to other. Advancement in wireless technologies introduces a new type of wireless system called Mobile Ad-hoc Network. A Mobile ad hoc network is a group of wireless mobile devices in which nodes work in partnership by forwarding packets for each other to allow them to communicate via remote wireless transmission. Ad hoc networks require no centralized management or fixed network infrastructure such as base stations. Each individual node must act as a router and responsible for performing the packet routing tasks. These routing tasks are done using one or more common routing protocols. MANETs possess certain characteristics like Bandwidth-constrained, variable capacity links, Energy constrained Operation, Limited Physical Security, Dynamic network topology, Frequent routing updates. Due to diverse nature of the network MANETs and its routing issues have become a challenge of this age. Numerous routing algorithms, for this purpose are being proposed by researchers. These protocols are mainly categorized as Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid routing protocols. This paper is organized as follows: Section II discusses routing in MANETs. Section III focuses is classification of various routing protocols. Sections IV, V, VI present the detailed analysis of all the three categories of ad hoc routing protocols and Section VII presents the overall comparison based on the review presented. Finally Section VIII concludes the paper. II. ROUTING PRINCIPLE IN MANETS Mobile Ad-hoc networks are self-organizing and self-configuring multihop wireless networks where, the structure of the network changes dynamically due to the mobility of the nodes. The absence of fixed infrastructure in a MANET poses several types of challenges. The major challenge among them @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 271

is routing. Routing is the act of moving information from a source to a destination in an internetwork and it is the process of selecting paths in a network along which the data packets are sent. An ad hoc routing protocol is a principle, or standard, that controls how nodes decide which way to route packets between computing devices in a mobile ad-hoc network. In ad hoc networks, nodes do not start out familiar with the 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 nearby nodes and how to reach them, and may announce that it can reach them too. The routing process usually directs forwarding on the basis of routing tables which maintain a record of the routes to various network destinations thus, constructing routing tables, which is very important for efficient routing. Routing tables are filled with a variety of information which is generated by the routing algorithms. A key issue is the necessity that the Routing Protocol must be able to respond rapidly to the topological changes in the network. In these networks, each node must be capable of acting as a router. Major problems in routing are limited Bandwidth, Asymmetric links, Routing Overhead, Interference, and Dynamic Topology. Routing in MANETs has been an active area of research and in recent years numerous protocols have been introduced for addressing the problems of routing. Depending on the routing strategy, the routing protocols are divided into three broad classes Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid reviewed in later sections. III. ROUTING PROTOCOLS CLASSIFICATION Routing protocols are categorized depending on the routing topology, as reactive and proactive routing protocols. The ad hoc routing protocols which have both proactive and reactive merits, is called hybrid routing protocols The figure 1 shows the prominent way of classifying MANETs routing protocols. Protocols always maintain up-to-date information of routes from each node to every other node in the network. These protocols continuously learn the topology of the network by exchanging topological information among the network nodes. The first kind of protocol is Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP). The proactive routing protocols present good reliability on the current network topology and low latency for deciding a route. These are typically table-driven. Some examples of this protocol include DSDV, OLSR, WRP, and CGSR. The second kind of protocol is simply called Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP). In these kinds of protocol the communication is only possible when the source node requests to communicate with the other node. Reactive MANET Protocols are generally suited for nodes with high mobility or nodes that transmit data seldom. Some examples of this protocol include AODV, DSR, TORA and ABR. @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 272

Figure 1: Classification of MANET Routing Protocols The third kind of protocol is simply called Hybrid protocol. These protocols try to incorporate various aspects of proactive and reactive routing protocols. The difficulty of all hybrid routing protocols is how to organize the network according to network parameters. The hybrid routing protocols is leads to more memory and power consumption. Some examples of Hybrid Routing Protocols include ZRP, ZHLS, SHARP and CEDAR. IV. PROACTIVE ROUTING (TABLE-DRIVEN) PROTOCOLS Proactive routing protocol detects the layout of the network actively. A routing table can be maintained at every node from which a route can be determined by less delay. The proactive routing protocols present good reliability on the current network topology and low latency for deciding a route. These are typically table-driven. Based on the periodically exchanging of routing information between the different nodes, every node builds its personal routing table which can be used to find a path to a destination. These tables are updated regularly in order to maintain up-to-date routing information from each node to all other node. To preserve the latest routing information, topology information has to be exchanged between the nodes on a regular base. This leads to moderate overhead on the network. Examples of the proactive routing protocols are DSDV, OLSR, WRP, and CGSR explained below: A. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Protocol (DSDV) Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) Routing Algorithm is based on Bellman Ford Routing Algorithm with certain improvements. This protocol adds a new characteristic, sequence number, to all route table entry at every node. In DSDV every node in the network maintains a routing table in which all of the possible destinations within the network and the number of hops to each destination are recorded. Each entry is marked with a sequence number assigned by the destination node. The sequence numbers enable the mobile nodes to distinguish stale routes from new ones, thereby avoiding the formation of routing loops. The routing table updates can be sent in two ways: a full dump or an incremental update. A full dump sends the complete routing table to its neighbors and could span @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 273

many packets whereas in an incremental update only those entries that have metric change were sent and it must form a packet. If there is space left over in the incremental update packet then those entries whose sequence number has changed may be included. Incremental updates are sent to avoid extra traffic and full dump are relatively irregular. In a rapid altering network, full dumps will be more frequent. B. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Optimized Link State Protocol, a point-to-point proactive protocol that employs an efficient link state packet forwarding mechanism called multipoint relaying (MPR). It provides an efficient flooding mechanism by reducing the number of transmissions required. Optimizations are done in two ways: by reducing the size of the control packets and by reducing the number of links used for forwarding the link state packets. Here each node maintains the topology information about the network by periodically exchanging link-state messages among the other nodes. OLSR is based on the following three mechanisms: neighbor sensing, efficient flooding and computation of an optimal route using the shortest-path algorithm. Neighbor sensing is the detection of changes in the neighborhood of node. Each node determines an optimal route to every known destination using this topology information and stores this information in a routing table. Routes to every destination are immediately available when data transmission begins and remain valid for a specific period of time till the information is expired. OLSR uses four messages: Hello message, Topology control, Multiple Interface Declaration (MID), Host and Network Association (HNA). C. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) The Wireless Routing Protocol, as proposed by Murthy and Garcia-Luna-Aceves is a table-based protocol similar to DSDV that inherits the properties of Bellman- Ford Algorithm. Wireless routing protocols (WRP) is a loop free routing protocol. WRP is a path-finding algorithm with the exception of avoiding the count-to-infinity problem by forcing each node to perform consistency checks of predecessor information reported by all its neighbors. Each node in the network uses a set of four tables to maintain more accurate information: Distance table (DT), Routing table (RT), Link-cost table (LCT), Message retransmission list (MRL) table. In case of link failure between two nodes, the nodes send update messages to their neighbors. This eliminates looping situations and enables faster route convergence when a link failure occurs. Because of complexity of maintaining so many tables WRP requires larger memory and processing power and so does not support scalability. D. Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing Protocol (CGSR) The Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing protocol differs from the other protocols as it uses hierarchical network topology, instead of a flat topology. It organizes nodes into clusters, which coordinate among the members of each cluster entrusted to a special node named cluster head. Least Cluster Change (LCC) algorithm is applied to dynamically elect a node as the cluster head. Each node must keep cluster member table where it stores the destination cluster head for each mobile node in the network. These cluster member tables are broadcast by each node periodically using the DSDV algorithm. CGSR is an extension of DSDV and hence uses it as the underlying routing scheme. It has the similar overhead as DSDV. CGSR improves the routing performance by routing packets through the cluster heads and gateways. Gateway nodes are nodes that are within communication range of two or more cluster heads. A packet sent by a node is first routed to its cluster head, and then the packet is routed from the cluster head to a gateway to another cluster head, and so on until the cluster head of the destination node is reached. The packet is then transmitted to the destination. @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 274

Parameters DSDV WRP OLSR CGSR Route updates Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Loop free Yes Yes Yes Yes Routing overhead High High Low Low Throughput Low Low Medium Medium Routing tables 2 4 4 2 TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF PROACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS V. REACTIVE ROUTING (ON-DEMAND) PROTOCOLS In Reactive or on-demand protocols, nodes do not exchange any routing information. A source node obtains a path to a specific destination only when it needs to send some data to it. These protocols do not attempt to maintain correct routing information on all nodes every time. That is whenever there is a need of a path from any source to destination then a type of query reply dialog does the effort. Hence the latency is high. On the other hand, no control messages are compulsory. Examples of Reactive routing protocols are AODV, DSR, TORA and ABR are explained below: A. Adhoc On demand Distance Vector Protocol (AODV) The AODV algorithm gives an easy way to obtain changes in the link position. For example if a connection fails warnings are sent only to the affected nodes in the network. This warning cancels all the routes through this affected node. The algorithms primary objectives are transmit route discovery packets only when desired, differentiate between local connectivity organization neighborhood detection and general topology maintenance and propagate information regarding changes in local connectivity to those neighboring mobile nodes that are likely requires this information. AODV builds unicast routes from source to destination and that s why the network usage is least. Since the routes are built on demand the network traffic is low. AODV uses Destination Sequence Numbers (DSN) to avoid counting to infinity that is why it is loop free. There are three AODV messages i.e. Route Request (RREQs), Route Replies (RREPs), and Route Errors (RERRs). Using UDP (user datagram protocol) packets, the source to destination route is revealed and maintained by these AODV messages. When the source node wants to create a new route to the destination, the requesting node transmits an RREQ message in the network. The destination node replies with RREP message. The RREP reaches the originator of the request. This route is only presented by unicasting a RREP back to the source node. The messages received by the source nodes are cached from originator of the RREQ to each node. When a link breaks an RERR message is generated. RERR message contains information regarding nodes that are not available. B. Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) Dynamic Source Routing protocol is used for wireless mesh networks. It is similar to AODV in that it forms a route on-demand when a transmitting node desires. Instead of relying on the routing table at each intermediate device DSR uses source routing. In DSR the source routes require accumulating the address of each device between the source and destination during route detection. The accumulated pathway information is cached by nodes processing the route detection packets. The known paths are used to route packets. To achieve source routing, the routed packets containing the address of each @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 275

device will navigate which results in high overhead for long paths or large addresses resembling IPv6. The protocol is truly based on source routing whereby all the routing information is maintained at mobile nodes. It has only two major phases, which are Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. Route Reply could be created if the message has reached the intended destination node to answer the Route Reply. If not the node will turn around the route based on the route record in the Route Request message header (this requires that all links are symmetric). In the event of critical broadcast, the Route Maintenance Phase is initiated where the Route Error packets are generated by the node. The erroneous hop will be disconnected from the node's route cache. All the routes containing the hop are curtailed at that point. Again, the first phase of Route Discovery is initiated to determine the possible route. The destination node, on receipt of RRP, sends a route reply packet back to the source, which carries the information temporally about traversed route by route request packet. C. Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm Protocol (TORA) TORA is an algorithm for routing data across Wireless Mesh Networks or Mobile ad hoc networks. It attempts to achieve a high degree of scalability using a "flat", non-hierarchical routing algorithm. TORA builds and maintains a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) rooted at a destination. No two nodes may have the same height. Information may flow from nodes with higher heights to nodes with lesser heights. By maintaining a set of completely planned heights TORA achieves loop-free multipath routing, as information cannot 'flow uphill' and so cross back on its. The key design concepts of TORA are localization of control messages to a very small set of nodes near the occurrence of a topological transform. To achieve this, nodes have to preserve the routing information about adjacent (one hop) nodes. The protocol performs three fundamental functions Route creation, Route maintenance and Route erasure. During the route creation and maintenance phases, nodes use a height metric to set up a directed acyclic graph (DAG) rooted at destination. Then links are assigned based on the relative height metric of nearest nodes. During the period of mobility, if the DAG is broken, the route maintenance unit comes into picture to reestablish a DAG routed at the destination. Timing is an important factor for TORA because the height metric is dependent on the logical time of the link failure. TORA's route erasure phase basically involves flooding a broadcast clear packet (CLR) throughout the network to erase invalid routes. D. Associativity Based Routing Protocol (ABR) ABR protocol is a reactive routing protocol with a metric called the degree of association stability. This associativity is a relationship measure of node s connectivity with its neighbors over time and space. ABR is a standardized routing protocol because of the fact that it provides the same importance to all nodes which participate in routing. A node caches an entry for each neighbor which records the number of beacons received. This information is stored in a variable termed associativity tick and is incremented each time a beacon is received. However, if high associativity ticks are observed, the node is in the steady state and this is the best point to select the node to perform ad-hoc routing. When a node or its neighbor moves to a new position, the nodes reset the associativity ticks. Associativity threshold is computed as follows: where are the broadcast range, the migrating speed, and the beaconing period. ABR protocol consists of three phases, namely, route discovery, reconstruction, and route deletion. The first phase comprises of broadcast query (BQ) and await-reply cycle. The query packet contains source ID, intermediate ID, destination ID, associativity ticks, sequence number, hop count, and a type field that identifies the type of the message. The destination node upon receiving the query packet can find the best route to source by selecting the nodes with high associativity ticks and send the REPLY packet to source node. Route reconstruction occurs when a connection of an @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 276

established route changes due to source, destination, and intermediate node movement. In the final phase, when the source node doesn t require the route to the destination, it sends a route erasure message and all the intermediate nodes on the way to the destination delete the route from the routing table. Parameters AODV DSR TORA ABR Route Creation By source By source Locally By source Performance Metrics Speed Shortness Speed Speed Routing overhead High High High High Throughput High Low Low Low Multipath No Yes Yes Yes TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF REACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS VI. HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS Purely proactive or reactive protocols perform well in a limited region of network location. However, the various applications of ad-hoc networks pose a challenge for a single protocol to operate efficiently. For example, reactive routing protocols are well suited for networks where the call-tomobility ratio is comparatively low whereas Proactive routing protocols are well suitable for networks wherever this ratio is moderately high. The performance of both the protocols degrades when they are applied to regions of ad hoc networks spaced between the two extremes. These protocols incorporate the merits of proactive as well as reactive routing protocols. Nodes are grouped into zones based on their geographical locations or distances from each other. Inside a single zone, routing is done using tabledriven mechanisms while an on-demand routing is applied for routing beyond the zone boundaries. Hybrid routing protocols include: ZRP, ZHLS, SHARP and CEDAR are explained below: A. Zone routing protocol (ZRP) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) was first introduced by Haas and Pearlman. It is a hybrid protocol and to execute operations it divides the total network area into different zones. Zone size or radius does not depend on the distance; it depends on the number of hops. It is applicable in a wide variety of mobile ad-hoc networks with diverse mobility across a large distance. It uses separate strategy to find out new routes for nodes which are lying internally or external to the zone. There are four functions available in ZRP: MAC level task, IARP, IERP and BRP. IARP, proactive protocol is used to discover route within zone and the relational links are measured as unidirectional. To communicate with the nodes which are located in different zones, nodes utilize IERP, on-demand routing protocol. ZRP works as a normal flooding protocol when zone size is one. In order to identify the direct nearest nodes, it uses MAC protocol. And to recognize the other nodes within the zone it uses NDP (Neighbor Discovery Protocol). B. Zone Based Hierarchical Link State Routing Protocol (ZHLS) Zone-based Hierarchical Link State routing protocol is a hierarchical protocol, where the network is divided into non-overlapping zones. In addition, mobile nodes are assumed to know their physical locations with assistance from a locating system like GPS. Each node only knows the node connectivity within its zone and the zone connectivity of the whole network. The zone level topological information is distributed to all nodes. All network nodes in ZHLS construct two routing tables, an intrazone routing table and an interzone routing table. ZHLS uses a hierarchical address scheme which contains zone ID and node ID. A node determines its zone ID according to its location and the predefined zone map is well known to all nodes in the network. @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 277

A two-level network topology structure is defined in ZHLS, the node level topology and the zone level topology. Respectively, there are two kinds of link state updates, the node level LSP (Link State Packet) and the zone level LSP. A node level LSP contains the node IDs of its neighbors in the same zone and the zone IDs of all other zones. A node periodically broadcast its node level LSP to all other nodes in the same zone. Gateway nodes broadcast the zone LSP throughout the network whenever a virtual link is broken or created. Consequently, every node knows the current zone level topology of the network. Before sending packets, a source firstly checks its intra-zone routing table. If the destination is in the same zone as the source, the routing information is already there. Otherwise, the source sends a location request to all other zones through gateway nodes. After a gateway node of the zone, in which the destination node resides, receives the location request, it replies with a location response containing the zone ID of the destination. The zone ID and the node ID of the destination node will be specified in the header of the data packets originated from the source. C. Sharp Hybrid Adaptive Routing based protocol (SHARP) Sharp Hybrid Adaptive Routing Protocol, formally known as SHARP is one category of Hybrid Routing Protocol that maintains the balance between proactive and reactive routing by adjusting the degree to which route information is propagated proactively versus the degree to which it needs to be discovered reactively. It adapts efficiently and seamlessly between proactive and reactive routing strategies. This adaptation can be directed to optimize the user-defined performance metrics, such as loss rate, routing overhead, or delay jitter. SHARP adapts between reactive and proactive routing by dynamically varying the amount of routing information shared proactively. This protocol defines the proactive zones around some nodes. The number of nodes in a particular proactive zone is determined by the node-specific zone radius. All nodes within the zone radius of a particular node become the member of that particular proactive zone for that node. If for a given destination a node is not present within a particular proactive zone, reactive routing mechanism (query-reply) is used to establish the route to that node. Proactive routing mechanism is used within the proactive zone. In this protocol, proactive zones are created automatically if some destinations are frequently addressed or sought within the network. D. Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing Protocol (CEDAR) Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing (CEDAR) is a partitioning protocol, integrates routing with QoS support. Each partition includes a core node called dominator node. A Dominator Set (DS) of a graph is defined as a set of nodes in the graph such that every node is either present in DS or is a neighbor of some node present in DS. The core nodes use a reactive source routing protocol to outline a route from a source to a destination. CEDAR has three key phases. First phase is the establishments and maintenance of self-organizing routing infrastructure (core) for performing route computations. Second phase is the propagation of the link-states of high-bandwidth and stable links in the core. Third phase is a QoS route computation algorithm that is executed at the core nodes using only locally available state. QoS routing in CEDAR is achieved by propagating the bandwidth availability information of stable links in the core sub-graph. To propagate the link information, slow moving increase-waves and fast moving decrease waves are used, which denotes increase of bandwidth and decrease of bandwidth respectively. @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 278

Parameters ZRP ZHLS SHARP CEDAR Routing Structure Flat Hierarchical Hierarchical Hierarchical Multiple routes No Yes Yes Yes Route information stored in Intrazone & Interzone tables Intrazone & Interzone tables Intrazone & Interzone tables Intrazone & Interzone tables Route metric Shortest path Shortest path Shortest path Shortest path TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS VII. COMPARISON OF PROTOCOLS In this section we have presented a comparison between existing routing protocols. TABLE 4 below provides an overall comparison of the three categories of routing protocols. The comparisons basically consider the characteristic properties of routing protocols in high load networks. Proactive routing protocols make an effort to preserve routes to all possible destinations, despite of whether or not they are desirable. Routing information is constantly maintained and propagated. On contrast, reactive routing protocols commence route discovery on the demand of data transfer traffic. Routes are desired only to those preferred destinations. This routing approach can spectacularly reduce routing overhead when a network is relatively static and the active transfer is low. The hybrid routing approach can adjust its routing strategies according to the network characteristics and thus provides an attractive method for routing in MANETs. However, a network's individuality, such as the mobility and traffic pattern, can be expected to be energetic. The linked information is very difficult to obtain and maintain. This complexity makes hard to implement the dynamically adjusting routing strategies. Protocols Proactive Reactive Routing structure Control Overhead Route acquisition delay Bandwidth requirement Power requirement Both Flat and hierarchical High Low High High structures Mostly Flat, Except CBRP Low High Low Low Hybrid Flat Medium Lower for Intrazone; Higher for Inter-zone Medium Medium TABLE 4: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE THREE CATEGORIES OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS VIII. CONCLUSION In this paper, we have presented and discussed the taxonomy of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks and provided comparisons between them. The protocols are divided into three main categories: (i) source-initiated (reactive or on-demand), (ii) table-driven (pro-active), (iii) hybrid protocols. Each routing protocol has unique features. We reviewed and compared a number of protocols. The main differentiating factor between the protocols is the ways of finding and maintaining the routes between source destination pairs. The comparison indicates that the design of a secure ad hoc routing protocol constitutes a challenging research problem against the existing security solutions. We hope that @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 279

the taxonomy presented in this paper will be helpful and provide researchers a platform for choosing the right protocol for their work. At last we have provided the overall characteristic features of all routing protocols and described which protocols may perform best in large networks. Almost all the protocols we discussed in this paper have their own characteristic features and performance parameter combinations where they outperform their competitors. Mobile ad hoc networks have posed a great challenge for the researchers due to changing topology and security attacks, and none of the protocols is fully secured and research is going on around the globe. REFERENCES 1. Anuj K. Gupta, Dr. Harsh Sadawarti and Dr. Anil K. Verma, Performance analysis of AODV, DSR & TORA Routing Protocols, IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, No.2, April 2010 ISSN: 1793-8236 2. S. Ahmed and M. S. Alam, Performance Evaluation of important ad hoc networks protocols, EURASIP Journal on wireless Communications and networking, Vol: 2006, Article ID 78645, PP 1-11, 2006. 3. Kapang Lego, Pranav Kumar Singh, Dipankar Sutradhar, Comparative Study of Adhoc Routing Protocol AODV, DSR and DSDV in Mobile Adhoc NETwork, Indian Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 4 364-371, 2011. 4. Shaily Mittal, Prabhjot Kaur, Performance Comparison of AODV, DSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET's, International Conference on Advances in Computing, Control, and Telecommunication Technologies, 2009. 5. Sunil Taneja, Ashwani Kush, A Survey of Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, August 2010. 6. Suresh Kumar and Jogendra Kumar, Comparative Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad- Hoc Networks (Manet), Journal of Information and Operations Management ISSN: 0976 7754 & E-ISSN: 0976 7762, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012 7. N. S. Yadav and R.P. Yadav Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table- Driven and On- Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Adhoc Networks, International Journal of Information Technology, vol.4, no. 2, pp 101-109, 2007 8. J. Luo, D. Ye, X. Liu, and M. Fan, A Survey of Multicast Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 11, no. 1, First Quarter 2009. 9. Z. J. Haas, M. Perlman, The Performance of Query Control Schemes of the Zone Routing Protocol, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 427-438, Aug 2001. 10. P. Samar, M. R. Pearlman, and Z. J. Haas, Independent zone routing: an adaptive hybrid routing framework for ad hoc wireless networks, in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), vol. 12, 2004, pp. 595.608. 11. Kulwinder Kaur and Barinderpal Singh, Survey Analysis of Routing Protocols and Mobility Models in MANETs, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, pp 55-64, volume 85, 2015. 12. Hemagowri.J, Baranikumari.C, Brindha. B, A Study on Proactive Routing Protocol in Ad-hoc network, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, pp 01-04, volume 2, November 2012. 13. Hrituparna Paul, Dr. Prodipto Das, Performance Evaluation of MANET Routing Protocols, International Journal of Computer Science Issues, pp449-456, volume 9, July 2012. 14. M. palaniammal, m. lalli, comparative study of routing protocols for manets, International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Applications,pp118-127,volume2,feb2014. @IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 280