International Journals of Advanced Research in
Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
Research Article
June
2017
Analysis of Hybrid Routing Protocols ZRP, HCR and
ANTHOCNET: A Review
Harmandeep Kaur, Jasvir Singh
Department of Computer Engineering, Punjabi University Patiala,
Punjab, India
Abstract— Mobile ad hoc network is an infrastructure less network. Each node consists of a router and a host,
usually on the same computer. If these nodes are directly in contact with each other they can communicate directly,
otherwise the nodes have to communicate by using the intermediate node. These protocols have limited bandwidth,
limited power supply, mobility and routing overhead. A number of routing protocols have been designed to overcome
these issues. Table driven, On-demand and Hybrid routing are types of MANET routing protocols. In this paper, we
present review for hybrid routing protocols Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), Hybrid Cluster Routing (HCR) and
AntHocNet. We compare these protocols based on the routing methodology and information.
Keywords— ZRP, HCR, AntHocNet, Hybrid Routing Protocol, MANET, Routing Protocols
I. INTRODUCTION
MANET is an infrastructure less network opposed to infrastructure network. In infrastructure less network nodes are
communicate without any centralized control or established infrastructure[1]. Due to these MANET is used in different
area: Military Use, Search and rescue, Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication in intelligent transportation, Temporary
networks in meeting rooms, airports etc. In MANET node acts as a router. Routing is challenging task in MANET due to
limited bandwidth and transmission range. As nodes are moved quickly in MANET and changes their path quickly.
There are different types of routing protocols are comes with different routing methodology so as to overcome the
challenging task in MANET routing. Based, on these routing protocols in MANET are divide into three categories[2]:
MANET Routing Protocols
Proactive Routing
Protocols
Reactive Routing
Protocols
Hybrid Routing Protocols
Example:
Example:
DSDV, OLSR, WRP
AODV, DSR, TORA
Example:
ZRP, HCR, ANTHOCNET
Fig.1 Classification of MANET routing protocols
There are many routing protocols in MANET. In MANET one protocol cannot fit in different scenario and traffic pattern.
For example proactive routing protocols are suited for small-scale. On the other hand reactive routing protocols are well
suited for large-scale. Every protocol has some advantage and disadvantage.
We studies Hybrid routing protocols for MANETs and present the overview of Zone Routing Protocols (ZRP), Hybrid
Cluster Routing (HCR) and ANTHOCNET. We compare these protocols on the basis of routing methodology using
different protocols also we have compared these protocols on the basis of their advantages and disadvantages.
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 642
Kaur et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
A.
Proactive or Table-Driven Protocols
In these routes are defined in the table. As the network topology change routes are updated[3]. These routes are updated
by sending broadcast message to the entire network[4]. In these routing overhead is more due to maintaining up-to-date
information and delay is less due to already defined routes in the table. They are called proactive because they maintain
routing information even before it is needed. They are not suitable for large networks because they maintain node entry
for each and every node in the routing table of every node[3]. Examples of Proactive routing protocols are: DSDV,
OLSR and WRP.
B.
Reactive or On-Demand Routing Protocols
In these, to send the packet from source to destination reactive protocols search the route in an on-demand manner.
Reactive Protocols have less Overhead and more Delay[2]. Route is discovered by flooding the route request (RREQ)
packets throughout the network[5]. The protocols which are used for route discovery are AODV, DSR and TORA.
C.
Hybrid routing protocols
It combines some of the characteristics of proactive protocols and some of the characteristics of Reactive protocols to
gets better results. These protocols solve the routing overhead of proactive routing protocols and the delay of reactive
routing protocols. In this networks are separated into zones and suitable for large networks[2]. Hybrid routing protocols
use reactive routing protocols for route discovery. It uses proactive routing protocols for table maintenance. Examples of
Hybrid routing protocols which are used for route discovery are: ZRP, HCR and ANTHOCNET.
1) Overview of Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP):
The ZRP is hybrid reactive/proactive protocol[6][7]. It employs IntrAzone Routing Protocol (IARP) for route discovery
inside the Zone and for outside the zone it employs IntErzone Routing Protocol (IERP)[8]. Routing Zone is defined as a
hop distance of nodes is no more than a parameter referred to as the zone radius. ZRP employ bordercast for route
discovery instead of flooding algorithms. Nodes efficiently send a message to its peripheral nodes through Bordercasting,
which is provided by a component called the Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP).
Fig. 2 illustrates that routing zone of radius 2 hops[7][9]. S is the central node of the routing zone because routing zone
belongs to node S. The node whose distance is equal to zone radius from central node is called the peripheral nodes. As
shown in fig nodes G, H, I, J and K are peripheral nodes. Node L is three hops away from the central node S therefore it
is outside the routing zone[9]. Interior nodes and peripheral Nodes A-K are members of S’s routing zone. Interior nodes
are those nodes which are inside the routing zone. As shown in fig nodes A, B, C, D, E and F are interior nodes.
Fig. 2 A routing zone of radius two hops
2) Overview of Hybrid Cluster Routing (HCR):
Most of the cluster based routing protocols use proactive approaches within the cluster and reactive approach outside the
cluster[10]. However this type of routing incurs overhead and delay. Therefore Hybrid Cluster based routing is designed
which overcome the delay and routing overhead. HCR protocol divides routing into two levels, i.e., inter-cluster routing
and intra-cluster routing, respectively[11]. Inter-cluster routing is on the higher level, which means a packet is routed
cluster by cluster. On the other hand, intra-cluster routing is on the lower level, which means a packet is routed within a
cluster node by node.
When a source node has data packets to send to some destination it check its routing table, if there is no data available to
the destination, then node perform route discovery procedure[10]. The route discovery consists of inter-cluster route
discovery and intra-cluster route discovery. Inter-cluster route discovery is initiated by a node by sending out a cluster
list request message (CLREQ) to its host cluster heads. After receiving CLREQ it will send back a cluster list reply
(CLREP).When a source node receive message it checks whether message is valid or not. If the message is valid the node
will update its route information in its route table. Otherwise, the node will try to send another CLREQ for
MAX_CLREQ times.
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 643
Kaur et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
Fig. 3 An example of a 2-hop cluster head network for HCR
Intra cluster route discovery is initiated when a packet is send within the cluster. It is based on an on-demand method. It
is initiated by a node when it has some packets to send to the destination, which is located inside a cluster. When a node
receives a route request (RREQ), it will verify whether it can reply to the RREQ[10]. The following two cases are
possible: the node is the requested node or gateway; and an intermediate node has a valid route in its local routing table.
If one of above two cases occurs, the node will unicast a route reply (RREP) with the route information to the RREQ
initiator. Otherwise, the RREQ is re-broadcast by the node.
Fig.4 An example of route establishment and data transmission
3) ANTHOCNET:
Ant Colony Optimization has been inspired from nature of social ant behaviour[12]. When ants move from one place to
other they leave a substance pheromone in his way. Other ants follow pheromone trails to search for food sources. Ants
which find the shortest route are fastest to return to the nest, and reinforce to other ants to follow the same path using the
food trail pheromone deposited by the ants on their way back to the nest. These routes gradually attract other ants, which
attract other ants. When source node s sends the data it checks the routing table, if the routing table is not updated it
reactively sends the ant-like agents, which is called reactive forward ants. These ants gather the path quality they follow
and they become backward ants when reach the destination. They trace back the path and update the routing table.The
routing table Ti in node i contains for each destination d and each possible next hop n a value
.
is called
pheromone, which is a is an estimate of the goodness of the path over n to d[13][14]. This Table indicate multiple paths
from s to d, and data is routed as datagram from node to node. They are stochastically spread over the paths. When a
node has multiple next hops for destination, it will randomly select one of them, with the probability Pnd of a next hop n
assigned as the square of its pheromone. When path is setup, data session is running so that it proactively sends the data
to the destination. For explore new path they have small probability of being broadcast. In case of link failure nodes
either try to repair the path or send the message to neighbor so that they can update their routing table.
Fig.5 AntHocNet Routing Protocol
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 644
Kaur et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
II. RELATED WORK
Hongbo Zhou [1] has provides the detailed study of routing protocols. Traditional routing protocols are described in the
paper and then MANET protocols described for unicast, multicast and broadcast. Unicast Protocols which are Proactive,
reactive and hybrid are described in the paper. Different protocols have different strengths and drawbacks. One protocol
can’t fit into all the possible scenarios and traffic patterns of MANET applications. Thus, the prospective standard is very
likely to combine some competitive schemes. Hybrid unicast routing protocol seems to be a better candidate than pure
proactive and reactive routing protocols.
L Raja and S Santhosh Baboo [2] have compared the Reactive (on-demand) routing protocols for MANETs that is Ad
hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocols, Temporally Ordered Routing
Algorithm (TORA) and Associativity Based Routing (ABR) protocol. Reactive protocols were introduced and their core
architecture was described. The basic actions related to the routing process were studied in details. Also given the
advantages and disadvantages of the protocols based on their routing processes.
Hemagowri J et.al [4] have provided an overview of a wide range of routing protocols. The ad hoc routing protocols can
be divided into two classes. They are table-driven and on-demand. This paper discusses about table-driven routing
protocols of each category. Table-driven routing protocols which are discussed are Destination Sequenced Distance
Vector (DSDV), Wireless routing protocol (WRP), Hierarchical State Routing (HSR), Source Tree Adaptive Routing
(STAR), Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Global State Routing (GSR).
Krishna Gorantala [3] has discussed two mobile ad-hoc routing protocols DSDV and AODV where DSDV is a proactive
protocol in which route are defined in the routing table and AODV is a reactive protocol in which routes are defined ondemand. DSDV is appropriate for smaller networks and for general Ad-hoc networks AODV is appropriate, considering
the bandwidth, throughput and packet loss, in both DSDV and AODV routing protocols.
Sandeep Kaur and Supreet Kaur [8] have provides the overview of ZRP. The performance of ZRP protocol is analyzed
on the basis of parameters throughput, load, data dropped and delay. It is concluded from the result that with the increase
in number of nodes ZRP gives high throughput and load. Delay and Data Dropped is also high with the increase in the
number of nodes.
Zygmunt J. Haas [6] has proposed a new routing protocol Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for reconfigurable wireless
networks, large scale and for highly mobile ad-hoc networking environment. It is appropriate for large flat-routed
networks. It exhibits hybrid behavior proactive and reactive routing. The evaluate performance of the protocol showing
the reduction in the number of control messages as compared with reactive schemes such as flooding.
Marc R. Pearlman and Zygmunt J. Haas [7] have addressed the issue of configuring the ZRP to provide the best
performance for a particular network at any time. Adaptation of the ZRP to changing network conditions requires both an
understanding of how the ZRP reacts to changes in network behavior and a mechanism to allow individual nodes to
identify these changes given only limited knowledge of the network behavior. In this paper, they demonstrate the effects
of relative node velocity, node density, network span, and user data activity on the performance of the ZRP. They
introduce two different schemes (“min searching” and “traffic adaptive”) that allow individual nodes to identify and
appropriately react to changes in network configuration, based only on information derived from the amount of received
ZRP traffic. Through test-bed simulation, they demonstrate that these radius estimation techniques can allow the ZRP to
operate within 2% of the control traffic resulting from perfect radius estimation.
Zygmunt J. Haas and Marc R. Pearlman [9] have proposed the query control scheme for Zone Routing Protocol. In ZRP
route within the zone acquire proactive routing and outside the routing zone acquire reactive route discovery. With
proper query control ZRP can provide expected reduction in the control traffic. The scheme provides early detection and
prevention of overlapping queries which reduce delay and control traffic performance of ZRP. Query control mechanism
allow ZRP to provide routes to all accessible nodes, with less control traffic than purely proactive and purely reactive
routing and with less delay than conventional flood searching.
Xiaoguang Niu et.al [10] have proposed a novel hybrid routing protocol for large scale mobile ad hoc networks namely
Hybrid Custer Routing Protocol (HCR). In this nodes are organised into a hierarchical structure of multi-hop cluster.
Each cluster contains clusterhead, gateway and ordinary nodes. The local and global topology information maintains by
clusterhead. The on demand routing information operates by intra-cluster and proactive routing information maintain by
inter cluster. The results show that HCR Protocol better than AODV, DSR and CBRP in terms of scalability, robustness
and adaptability.
Galla Divya et.al [11] have presented an outline brief survey of various clustering techniques and routing protocols, their
properties and design features. Clustering in mobile ad hoc networks aims to achieve system scalability with cluster
heads responsible for maintaining the group. Distributive Mobility Adaptive Clustering algorithm (DMAC) is used to
group the mobile nodes and provide communication in the network. The existing DMAC algorithm does not address the
issue of updating a node leaving a cluster. A new procedure with leave message has been incorporated in the existing
DMAC clustering algorithm to achieve better performance in clustering the mobile nodes in the network. Further, the
performance of DMAC algorithm is compared with Lowest ID (LID) and Weighted Clustering Algorithm (WCA). The
simulation analysis shows that DMAC outperforms the other two in terms of throughput, packet delivery fraction and
normalized routing load.
Gianni Di Caro et.al [13] have presented AntHocNet, a new algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc networks. AntHocNet
based on ideas from Ant Colony Optimization. It contains both reactive and proactive components. In this during reactive
path setup phase multiple path are set up between source and destination and during communication ants proactively test
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 645
Kaur et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
the existing path and explore new on. The result show that AntHocNet perform better than AODV, one of the most
important current state-of-the-art algorithms, both in terms of end-to-end delay and packet delivery ratio.
Singh Tasbir and Jaswinder Singh [12] have implemented a new ACO based protocol SARA. Ant Colony Optimization
(ACO) is a branch of Artificial Intelligence that uses the concept of Swarn Intelligence for developing routing algorithm
for ad hoc networks. It is inspired by the behaviour of real ants. SARA is a new technique which aims to reduce the
overhead by using route discovery based on the concept of control neighbour broadcast (CNB). It overcomes a number of
drawbacks of ACO. The result of SARA is compares with the AntHocNet on four parameters average energy, throughput
delay and overhead. The result shows that SARA protocol has more throughputs, average energy and less delay,
overhead compared to AntHocNet protocol.
D.Sivakumar and B.Suganthi [14] have presented the comparison of AntHocNet, ACO based solution for hybrid ad hoc
routing strategy with ad hoc on-demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) routing protocol and AODV. The
Performance of these Protocols are compared in terms of packet delivery ratio, throughput, packet loss and end to end
delay using discrete event simulator NS2.The results shows that performance of AnthocNet significantly better than
AOMDV and AODV.
Anuj K. Gupta et.al [15] have provided an overview of wide range of the existing routing protocols with a particular
focus on their characteristics and functionality. Also, 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.
III. COMPARISON OF HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS
TABLE 1 SHOWS THE COMPARISON OF HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS ZRP, HCR AND ANTHOCNET [15]
Parameters
ZRP
HCR
Anthocnet
Multiple Routes
No
Yes
Yes
Route Information Intrazone & Interzone
Host clusterhead list, Member
Pheromone &
Stored in
Table
node list, Neighbor cluster list,
Neighbour Table
Global Cluster Table
Route metric
IARP, IERP and BRP
ELECT_CH, INTRA_CB and
Using Pheromone
Routing protocols used. INTER_CB.
Advantage
Reduced Transmission
Head-Set approach, less overhead
High Delivery Ratio,
and delay
Robustness, Adaptive&Scalable
Disadvantage
Overlapping Zones
No Centralized Processor to
 Cluster head changes are
guide the system towards good
expensive
solutions
 Cluster head (CH) selection,
CH placement and cluster size.
 Imbalance of energy
consumption
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Day by day, as the applications of the ad hoc networks are increasing, a continuous research and development required in
the field of MANETs. In this paper, we have presented the overview of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks and
provided comparisons between hybrid routing protocols. Each routing protocol has unique features. Based on network
environments, we have to choose the suitable routing protocol. Still mobile ad hoc networks have posed a great challenge
for the researchers due to changing topology and research is going on around the globe.
REFERENCES
[1]
H. Zhou, “A Survey on Routing Protocols in MANETs,” Tech. Rep. MSU-CSE-03-08, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2003.
[2]
L. Raja and S. Baboo, “Comparative study of reactive routing protocol (AODV, DSR, ABR and TORA) in
MANET,” Int. J. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 707–718, 2013.
[3]
K. Gorantala, “Routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc networks,” Master’s Thesis Comput. Sci. June, 2006.
[4]
J. Hemagowri, C. Baranikumari, and B. Brindha, “A Study on Proactive Routing Protocol in Ad-hoc network,”
Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res., pp. 4–7, 2004.
[5]
B. D. Shivahare, C. Wahi, and S. Shivhare, “Comparison Of Proactive And Reactive Routing Protocols In
Mobile Adhoc Network Using Routing Protocol Property :,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
356–359, 2012.
[6]
Z. J. Haas, “A new routing protocol for the reconfigurable wireless networks,” vol. 2, pp. 562–566 vol.2, 1997.
[7]
M. R. Pearlman and Z. J. Haas, “Determining the optimal configuration for the zone routing protocol,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1395–1414, 1999.
[8]
S. Kaur and S. Kaur, “Analysis of Zone Routing Protocol in MANET,” Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 9,
pp. 520–524, 2013.
[9]
Z. J. Haas and M. R. Pearlman, “The performance of query control schemes for the zone routing protocol,”
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 427–438, 2001.
[10]
X. Niu, Z. Tao, G. Wu, C. Huang, and L. Cui, “Hybrid cluster routing: an efficient routing protocol for mobile
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 646
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Kaur et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
ad hoc networks,” IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., vol. 8, no. c, pp. 3554–3559, 2006.
I. No and G. Divya, “Analysis and Comparison of Various Clustering Techniques for Group Management in
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Res., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 239–248, 2012.
T. S. and J. Singh, “Analysis of Ant Colony Optimization Based Protocols in MANETs,” Int. J. Adv. Res.
Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 597–601, 2014.
G. Caro, F. Ducatelle, and L. M. Gambardella, “AntHocNet : an Ant-Based Hybrid Routing Algorithm for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Parallel Probl. Solving from Nat. - PPSN VIII, 8th Int. Conf. LNCS 3242, no.
August, pp. 461–470, 2004.
D. S. and B.Suganthi, “Performance Comparison and Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols,” Int. J. Sci. Eng.
Res., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 218–221, 2014.
A. K. Gupta, H. Sadawarti, and A. K. Verma, “Review of Various Routing Protocols for MANETs,” Int. J. Inf.
Electron. Eng., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 251–259, 2011.
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 647