A Review on Quality Assurance in MANET

Samir Srivastava

and P. K. Singh

Computer Sc. & Engg. Deptt. KNIT, Sultanpur UP, India

Computer Sc. & Engg. Deptt. MMMTU, Gorakhpur UP, India

Keywords: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs), Mobility, Quality of Service, Routing.

Abstract: Requirement of MANET is increasing day by day in the applications of wireless sensor networks. The cause

behind the expansion of MANET is the role of mixed media type applications use in different scenario.

With the expansion of MANET the research challenges are facing issues related to framework , power

constraints and dynamic mechanism hence the improvement is also growing in parallel to the problems due

to security and safety. This article covers different types of network attacks observed in MANET

applications and the protocols that are used to minimize the effect of these attacks. In this review paper the

relations in between the network protocols and routing mechanism are considered in respect to QoSand

detailed survey to recognize the parametric challenges related to MANET applications.



1 INTRODUCTION

Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) are flexible and

decentralized infrastructural less organizations with

nodes mobility and information communication over

multi-hop remote connections (C. Xiuzhen et al.

2013, Pande H.K et al. 2020, Kanellopoulos et

al.2029), They had been concentrated widely in

research and were first set in the US military,

however because of their reasonable benefits, for

example, minimal effort, fast deployment time,

simple design and secure use, the utilization of

MANETs have been generally spread and applied in

different fields like industry and medication(C. Singh

et al. 2015). In spite of MANET's difficulties like its

dynamic topology and constraints related to nodes

limitation on computational and processing power,

their dependence on battery and transmission speed

dependent on remote connections. It has different

applications and crucial jobs having the requirement

for information communication that require quality

affirmation(QoS) in all the participating nodes of

MANETs .

Introducing a efficient routing protocol in

MANTs is critical which requires an ideal Quality

Assurance(QoS) approch which has been recommend

through a Quality confirmation Mobility-Aware

Routing protocol dependent on AODV (Pande H.K et

al. 2020, Kanellopoulos et al.20219,S. Banik et al.

2019). There have been different investigations

concerning routing optimization and communication

models in MANETs in dominant part of which, the

huge job of mobility and its impact on QoS has been

underestimated (V. Part et al. 2012,Robinson et al.

2019, B. M. Nyambo et al. 2014, HemlataArya et al.

2019). Mobility of node is a powerful issue in link

failures which prompts packet loss and consequently,

information retransmissions. Likewise, route failures

produce error packets and require additional time for

connection establishment of network and a novel

route finding scheme is performed, all of which cause

more load in data transmission process and thus

causes a hindrance to acquire desired Quality of

Service.

Figure 1: Way of Communication of Ad-hoc Networks.

2 UNIQUENESS OF MANET

2.1 Dynamic Network Topologies

The nodes in MANETs are permitted to move

arbitrarily toward any directions. The remote

154

Srivastava, S. and Singh, P.

A Review on Quality Assurance in MANET.

DOI: 10.5220/0010564400003161

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computing and Software Engineering (ICACSE 2021), pages 154-158

ISBN: 978-989-758-544-9

topology of network can be changed haphazardly at

eccentric events, periodically and on fundamentally

includes bidirectional associations.

2.2 Low Bandwidth

These networks have limited transmission capacity

as compared to conventional networks. The

throughput of far off correspondence of data is lesser

than wired correspondence considering the effect of

the different access, noise, attack, and circuit

conditions.

2.3 Confined Battery Power

The nodes or hosts are having limited battery power

in MANETS, hence the protocols uaed for

transmission with QoS capabilities utilizing

minimum power capcity is the most crucial in the

design models.

2.4 Decentralized Control

Because of flexibility in network associations, the

working of MANET depends on cooperation of

participating Hosts/Nodes/hubs. Hence, use of any

protocol that incorporates a specific Host/Node/Hub

designated as authority in the MANET causes

hindrance is achieving the desired level of QoS..

2.5 Versatility

Because of the limited memory and dealing with

power on portable batteries, the adaptability is a

central question when we consider a significant

network estimate. Network of 10,000 or even

100,000 hubs are envisioned, and versatility is one

of the genuine design concerns.

3 USES OF MANET

MANET are utilized in security based activities for

defence, military applications, inter correspondence

among PCs and PC in local independent companies.

It is additionally utilized in remote sensor

organizations, sending basic sensor information to a

base station from versatile nodes.

Figure 2: Mobile ad-hoc Network's main Task.

4 LITERATURE REVIEW

Because of MANET’s particular properties like

dynamic topology, their routing protocols and route

finding schemes significantly changes from different

network’s; in this way, the presented conventions for

MANET are planned as needs to overcome

unsuitable overhead and improper functionalities.

Protocols for MANETs are arranged into four

classes of Re-active, Pro-active, Hybrid/cross breed

and topographical routing protocols.

In the Re-active class which incorporates

protocols like AODV, ACOR, DSR and ABR, no

past node to node ways exist and route establishment

starts just when an data packet needs to get to a

specific objective(Node); henceforth, if no data

communication over an networks lifetime happens,

no route will be found too. In a rout establishment

process the source node communicates Route

Request (RREQ) packets to any remaining nodes,

until it arrives at the objective which answers with a

Route Reply (RREP) packet back to the source.

These kinds of protocols require less memory for

rout disclosure and directing and because of their

on-request based monitoring protocol; force on

overhead load is low compared with others. While

on account of disposing of their unneeded ways, for

any new objective, rout establishment needs to run

which causes more complexity (A. Iftikhar et al.

2016, A. Chopra et al. 2014, O. Georgiou et al.

2016, S. Mostafavi et al. 2019)?

This Pro-active class incorporates protocols like

DSDV, OLSR, WRP, CGSR and FSR in which

route establishment occurs before any information

transferred when demands are created and each node

has routes to all other nodes in the network

regardless of whether no data transmission had been

Dynamic

Topology

Routing

Overhead

Hidden

Terminal

Packet

Misfortune

Versatility

of Nodes

Battery

Prerequisit

Security

MANE

A Review on Quality Assurance in MANET

155

made previously. In this class network route

refreshes are conveyed on a periodical duration on a

normal of five seconds which is utilized by nodes to

refresh their routing information tables. These

update packets cause overhead however since all

rout are accessible in nodes' tables, measure

postpone or delay are nearly negligible (C. V.

Raghavendran et al. 2013, S. Mostafavi et al., L.

Baccouche et al. 2015, Y. Qin. et al. 2015, V. Attada

et al. 2015)

Protocols including ZRP, ARPAM, OORP, HSR

and CGSR make up Hybrid/Cross breed class, which

utilize a mix of the procedures utilized by re-active

and pro-active routing protocols, i.e., update packets

are sent like proactive conventions however with

longer spans and on-request directing happens just

when there is no practical way from source node to

destination node. These conventions are used both in

wired networks with fixed framework and remote

networks, for example, MANETs as indicated by the

networks data transmission needs (L. Abusalah et al.

2008, M. Sanaei et al.2008, .

The protocols of Topographical Routing

protocols depend on the Global Positioning System

(GPS) like the Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing

(GPSR) protocol, the most ordinarily known in this

classification [24-25].

MANET's routing protocols expressed above and

their varieties are summed up dependent on their

properties in Table1below

Table 1. MANET’s routing protocols categorized based on their features.

MANET Routing Protocols

Source

Initiate

Table

Driven

Hybrid

Position

Based

Multi

Path

Hierarchical Multicast

Geographical

Multicast

Power

Aware

DSR DSDV ZRP AODV CHAMP HSR DCMP DGR DEAR

AODV OLSR FSR TORA AOMDV CEDAR ADMR GAMER

TORA HOLSR RDMARSLURP ABR SMR PPMA GeoGRID

ABR CGSR ZHLS SSBR NTBR ALMA GeoTORA

SSBR WRP DST AQOR Fireworks

AQOR GSR DDR ARA SMORT AQM

ARA STAR A4LP ROAM TMRP CBM

ROAM LRHR FORP REEF

SCaTR FZRP DAR

DAR FDG

In various experimental works, network congestion

and energy control schemes among the nodes have

been focused to improve QoS. Table I. sums up

these results and presents a portion of their merits

and demerits.

Table 2: Recent Studies Regarding Improvement In

MANET And Some of Their Limitations

Work Insufficiency References

Study and

Proposed a delay-

sensitive QoS

improvement

information

transfer scheme

with minimum

delay, route length

and energy

consumption

Doesn't uphold

steadiness because of

not considering

congestion'impact;

doesn't utilize a

multifaceted routing

scheme.

[9]

Study and

Proposes a

priority based

QoS improvement

in addition to

energy

effectiveness

scheme

Disregards some QoS

influencing factors;

doesn't utilize a

multifaceted approach

with various worth

coefficients for each

factor, based on traffic

load; protocol

relaibilty with

expanded transitional

node mobility

[10]

Proposes a

convention

dependent on

halfway nodes'

traffic load, routes

flexibility tracing,

remaining energy

and association

quality for data

transmission

streamlining

Not productive in

various heavy traffic

load designs; doesn't

utilize a multifaceted

component with

various qualities for

each factor dependent

on various network

conditions

[17]

ICACSE 2021 - International Conference on Advanced Computing and Software Engineering

156

Proposes an

interlayer

cooperation

system called

DYMO to utilize

extraordinary

layers' benefits

toward quality

improvement

Doesn't think doesn't

thinkabout impact of

QoS parameters on

intermediated nodes,

in the route discovery

cycle

[12]

Proposes a route

convention

dependent on

clustering by

considering about

changes and

failure of middle

nodes in a route

Doesn't think about

essential quality

factors in directing;

doesn't utilize a

multifaceted system

[14]

Proposes a QoS

routing protocol

on AODV by

considering

blockage,

overloading,

network delay and

energy

effectiveness

Doesn't think about

the unique idea of

MANETs; doesn't

utilize a multifaceted

system;

[16]

Proposes a

reliability aware

routing scheme

based protocol

called RA-AODV

in which rout are

obliged with start

to finish dynamics

of network

communication

and data

transmission

bandwidth to give

QoS

Doesn't consider

congestion load and

energy proficiency in

its routing interaction;

delivers overhead by

continually

associating adjoining

nodes having fast

speed.

[19]

Proposes a

versatile

experience based

stable and energy

proficient protocol

utilizing network

load, least channel

rate and link

accessibility

Doesn't think about

soundness of

associations between

middle nodes; doesn't

consider end-to end

delay

[20]

Four most oftenly used routing protocols in

MANETs are Destination-Sequenced Distance-

Vector DSDV [13] and Ad Hoc On-Demand

Distance Vector type AODV [14], DSR [15] and

TORA [16]. DSDV is a table-driven in which each

hosts/Nodes maintain a route table consisting of

routes to every other mobile hosts/nodes in the

MANETS, since MANETS Topology is dynamic in

nature thats why every mobile node in the

MANWTS has to update its routing table

automatically and periodically which increases the

congestion in the MANET and badly effect the

QoSachievments. While AODV, DSR and TORA

are Re-active or On demand routing protocol in

which route will be discovered by the source to

destination when it is required/Needed by using

Route Discovery and Route Maintenance phase.In

DSR entire path to destination Node is stored as a

header in the packet hence when the network grows

the path to destination will also increase resulting in

the increase of data size of the packet which

consequentially slow down the MANET

performance by increasinfa end to end delay. While

in the case od AODV the routing information to the

destion is maintained in a table hence degration of

network performance of MANET is less.

AODV utilizes a table-driven coordinating plan

and target plan numbers, DSR utilizes a source

controlling, anyway TORA utilizes an affiliation

inversion coordinating structure. Reliably, the last

three experience a less controlling difficulty and the

past has a less beginning to end delay. [17] and [18]

have examined and observed the execution of

different existing node coordinating schemes under

various conditions.

5 CONCLUSION

MANETs are fragile against various kinds of attacks

because of its infra-structure less association.

Unquestionable trust based frameworks are

constituted to anticipate such sorts of attacks and to

push ahead Quality Assurance(QoS) requirements.

These trust thinking and incorporating trust based

schemes in the current routing protocols will

definitely enhance the QoS achievement degree

level. In this paper, we have given a smaller thought

on several types of QoS parameters impact on

various routing protocols that persists in MANETs.

in the process of route discovery, route maintenance

and security .

REFERENCES

A. Chopra, and R. G. Vishwakarma, "Comparison of Ad

hoc Reactive Routing Protocols: AODV and DSR with

Respect to Performance Parameters for Different

Number of Nodes," IT in Business, Industry and

Government (CSIBIG), pp. 37-41, 2014.

A. Iftikhar, U. Ashraf, and A. Ghafoor, "A comparative

QoS survey of mobile ad hoc network routing

protocols," Journal of the Chinese Institute of

Engineers, Vol. 23, pp. 1-8, 2016.

A Review on Quality Assurance in MANET

157

B. M. Nyambo, G. K. Janssens, and W. Lamotte, "Quality

Of Service In Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Carrying

Multimedia Traffic," International Journal on

Information Technologies & Security, Vol. 7, pp. 41-

68, 2014.

C. Singh, "A Review: Comparative Study of Routing

Protocols for Adhoc Networks," International Journal

of Advanced Research in Computer and

Communication Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 319-321,

2015.

C. V. Raghavendran, G. N. Satish, P. S. Varma, K.

Kumar, "Challenges and Advances in QoS Routing

Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," International

Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science

and Software Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 121-127, 2013.

C. Xiuzhen, X. Huang, and D. Z. Du, "Ad hoc wireless

networking" Vol. 14, pp. 1-44, Springer Science &

Business Media, University of Minnesota USA, 2013.

Hemlata Arya, Atul Chauhan, “Survey on Various

Routing Protocols and Mobility Models used in

Mobile Ad Hoc Network”, Current Trends in

Information Technology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp.40–45,

2019.

Kanellopoulos, Dimitris N. "Recent Progress on QoS

Scheduling for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," Journal of

Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC),

vol. 31, 2019.

L. Abusalah, A. Khokhar, and M. Guizani, “A survey of

secure mobile ad hoc routing protocols,”

Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 10, no. 4,

pp. 78-93, 2008.

L. Baccouche, and J. D. Rekik, "A QoS Architecture for

Real-Time Transactions Guarantee in Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks," Wireless Personal Communications, Vol.

83, pp1595-1616, 2015.

M. Sanaei and S. Mostafavi, "Multimedia Delivery

Techniques over Software-Defined Networks: A

Survey," 5th International Conference on Web

Research (ICWR), 2019, pp. 105-110.

O. Georgiou, et al, "Connectivity of Cooperative Ad hoc

Networks," Computer Science Networking and

Internet Architecture, Vol.4, pp. 1-7, 2016.

Pande H.K., Srivastava K.K., Mangal L.C., “A Resource

Allocation Protocol to Meet QoS for Mobile Ad-hoc

Network (MANET) in Tactical Scenario”. In

Advances in VLSI, Communication, and Signal

Processing. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering,

vol 587. Springer, Singapore, 2020.

Robinson, Y.H., Julie, E.G., Saravanan, K. et al., “FD-

AOMDV: fault-tolerant disjoint ad-hoc on-demand

multipath distance vector routing algorithm in mobile

ad-hoc networks.”, J Ambient Intell Human Comput,

vol. 10, pp. 4455–4472, 2019.

S. Banik, M. M. Mowla and I. Ahmad, "A Strategic

Routing Analysis for Agro Sensor Communications in

Mobile Ad hoc Networks," 2019 1st International

Conference on Advances in Science, Engineering and

Robotics Technology (ICASERT), Dhaka,

Bangladesh, 2019, pp. 1-6.

S. Mostafavi and V. Hakami, "A new rank-order

clustering algorithm for prolonging the lifetime of

wireless sensor networks", International Journal of

Communication Systems, 2019.

S. Mostafavi, W. Shafik, “Fog Computing Architectures,

Privacy and Security Solutions”, Journal of

Communications Technology, Electronics and

Computer Science, Vol. 24, pp. 1-14.

V. Attada, and S. P. Setty, "Cross Layer Design Approach

to Enhance the Quality of Service in Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks," Wireless Personal Communications, Vol.

85, pp.141-156, 2015.

V. Part, "Advances in Ad hoc Networking: MANET,

VANET, WSN, DTN, etc," Advances in Ubiquitous

Networking: Proceedings of the UNet’15 366. 2012.

Y. Qin, L. Li,X. Zhong, Y. Yang, and C. L. Gwee, "A

Cross-Layer QoS Design with Energy and Traffic

Balance Aware for Different Types of Traffic in

MANETs," Wireless Personal Communication

Springer Journal, Vol. 85, pp.1429–1449, 2015.

ICACSE 2021 - International Conference on Advanced Computing and Software Engineering

158