Abstract
Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are considered as a reunion of wireless mobile devices (nodes) that form a temporary wireless network. In order to facilitate communication in MANET, every node has to participate in the routing process. Finding an optimal route is a fundamental task in MANET, where routes tend to be multi-hoped and susceptible. Several routing protocols exist and can be classified as; topology-based and position-based routing protocols. However, the efficiency of these protocols in highly dynamic and dense environments is a challenging task to be considered for increasing perceived Quality of Service (QoS) in MANET. This paper focuses on the presentation and basic operation of each category. A qualitative evaluation between both categories is conducted to achieve a performance comparison in terms of packet- delivery ratio, End-to End delay and routing overhead. Results show that position-based overcome topology-based routing protocols in high dynamic and sparse environments. Recommendations for designing and implementing efficient position-based protocols are presented.
Highlights
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET) gain more interest with reference to its' potential deployment values [1]
This paper provides an overview of available unicast routing protocols
This work has investigated MANETs topology-based and position-based protocols taking into consideration methods of operation, weaknesses, strength and performance
Summary
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET) gain more interest with reference to its' potential deployment values [1]. MANETs can extend communication beyond the limit of infrastructure-based networks The importance of such structure is allocated within areas where infrastructure based communication cannot be achieved. These places include disaster recovery situations and battlefield operations. As of its infrastructure and operational environment, MANET gains several challenges This includes routing, security, power consumption, and quality of service [3]. This paper provides an overview of available unicast routing protocols It present a qualitative comparison between most known unicast routing protocols with reference to an in depth analysis of QoS variables including End-to-end delay, routing overhead and packet delivery ratio.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have