EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF EMERGING ENERGY EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

ISSN: 2229-6948 (ONLINE) ICTACT JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2010, VOLUME: 01, ISSUE: 01 DOI: 10.21917/ijct.2010.0006 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF EMERGING ENERGY EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET Getsy S Sara1, S.Neelavathy Pari2, D. Sridharan3 Department of Electronics and Communication, CEG Campus, Anna University Chennai, India. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 2 Department of Information and Technology, MIT, Anna University Chennai, India. E-mail: protocols. The mechanisms are classified based on whether the routing protocols minimize the active communication energy required to transmit and receive data packets or minimize the energy during inactive periods. This paper is distributed as follows – In section 2 we have discussed about previous such works. Section 3 gives details about current emerging energy efficient routing protocols. Section 4 analyses and compares the different energy efficient routing protocols. Section 5 summarizes this paper. Abstract The routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) consumes huge amount of power and bandwidth and undergoes frequent topology changes to which it must adjust quickly. Energy efficient routing protocols have an important role in MANET. In this survey, few of the emerging energy efficient routing protocols for MANET are reviewed and their performance critically compared. The energy efficient protocols either minimize the active communication energy required to transmit or receive packets or minimize the inactive energy. The classification suggested here summarizes the chief distinctiveness of many published proposals for energy efficient routing. After getting insight into the different emerging energy efficient protocols, the enhancements that can be done to improvise the existing routing protocols are pointed out. The purpose of this paper is to facilitate the research efforts in combining the existing solutions to offer a more energy efficient routing mechanism. 2. RELATED WORK Several simulation based performance comparison have been done for energy efficient routing protocol for MANETs. Dhiraj et al. [3] compared the energy consumption in DSR and AODV and concluded that DSR performed better than AODV if energy consumption only due to routing packets is considered. At low speed DSR performed better while at high speed AODV showed an improvement because at high speed the route cache becomes useless which results in more route discovery in DSR, hence it increases the overheads and energy consumption. Considering the total energy consumed by the nodes when varying the sources, DSR performed better than AODV due to cache. The increment in energy here is due to increase in routing packets which in turn increases with the increase in sources. Ahvar et al. [4] simulated and compared the performance of LAR, DSR and AODV. The key findings from this experiment suggest that LAR is better in energy consumption in high density network. DSR resulted in best energy consumption for low density network. AODV generated higher amount of energy even than DSR in high density network. Qingting et al. [5] suggests that the delivered data packet of AODV is much less than DSDV since nodes in AODV often needs rediscovery. So energy consumption of AODV is more. As the terrain size increases, the efficiency of AODV and DSDV routing protocol decreases. When the number of nodes is constant the cost of exchanging route information in DSDV is close to the cost of route discovery in AODV. Fu et al. [6] describes that proactive protocols are better suited to CBR traffic. Source routing strategy combined with multicasting outperforms proactive and reactive routing strategy in terms of throughput and energy efficiency in mobility scenarios. The most relevant energy aware routing metrics that are widely used are MTPR (Minimum Total Transmission Power Routing), MBCR (Minimum Battery Cost Routing), MMBCR (Min-Max Battery Cost Routing), CMMBCR (Conditional MMBCR) and MDR (Minimum Drain Rate) [19]. Keywords: Mobile Ad hoc network, Energy efficient routing, Energy balance, Transmission power control, Energy dissipation rate. 1. INTRODUCTION Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) [1] is a dynamically reconfigurable wireless network with no fixed infrastructure. Each node acts as a router and host and it moves in an arbitrary manner [27]. MANET has recently been the topic of extensive research. The interest in such network stems from their ability to provide temporary and instant wireless networking solutions in situations where cellular infrastructures are lacking and are expensive or infeasible to deploy. Due to their inherently distributed nature, MANETs are more robust than their cellular counterparts against single-point failures and have flexibility to reroute around congested nodes [28]. In many ad hoc networks, each node is powered by a battery and has limited energy supply. Over time, various nodes will deplete their energy supplies and drop out of the network. Unless nodes are replaced or recharged, the network will eventually become partitioned. In a large network, relatively few nodes may be able to communicate directly with their intended destinations. Instead most nodes must rely on other nodes to forward their packets. Some nodes may be especially critical for forwarding these packets because they provide the only path between certain pair of nodes. Associated with each node that depletes its battery and stops operating, there may be number of other nodes that no longer communicate [11]. Energy is scarce by the fact that the devices are mobile i.e. they must be small and therefore cannot be fitted with large battery packs. For these reasons a number of researchers have focused on design of energy efficient routing protocols. This paper surveys few of the energy efficient routing 37 GETSY S SARA et al: EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF EMERGING ENERGY EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET The MTPR and MBCR [2] mechanism uses a simple energy metric, represented by the total energy consumed to forward the information along the route. This way, MTPR reduces the overall transmission power consumed per packet, but it does not affect directly the lifetime of each node. Let ci (t) be the battery capacity of node ni at time t and fi (t) be the battery cost function of node ni. The less capacity a node has, the more reluctant it is to forward the packets. The proposed value is fi (t) =1/ ci (t). The metric that minimizes this function to forward a packet is called MBCR. If only the summation of battery costs on a route is considered, a route containing nodes with little remaining battery capacity can be selected. MMBCR [2] defines the route cost as: R (rj) = max ni £ rj fi (t) [19]. The desired route r0 is obtained so that R (r0) = min ni £ rj R(rj), where rx is the set of all possible routes. Because MMBCR considers the weakest and crucial node over the path, a route with the best condition among paths impacted by ea (...truncated)