A mobile Ad-hoc NETwork (MANET) is wireless network composed of mobile nodes that are dynamically and randomly located in such a manner that the interconnections between nodes are capable of changing on a continual basis. In order to facilitate communication within the network, a routing protocol is used to discover routes between nodes. The primary goal of such an ad-hoc network routing protocol is correct and efficient route establishment between a pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered in a timely manner. Route construction and maintenance should be done with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. The ABR is a source-initiated protocol and is working on the assumption of stable route from the source to the destination node. Maintenance for the route when the destination node moves will be performed in backtracking scheme starting from the immediate upstream node from the destination. If this process results in backtracking more than halfway to the source, it will discontinue and a new route request will be initiated from the source. In the case if the Source Node moves, then the Source Node will invoke a route reconstruction because the ABR is source-initiated protocol. This study presents an enhanced method for the route re-construction in case the source, the intermediate, or the destination node changes its location by giving more active role to the moving node in maintaining the established route

The simulations results showed that the overall EABR enhancement, when compared with ABR, in terms of communication overhead was ranging from 36% to 56%. While the overall EABR enhancement in terms of number of operation required to reconstructing the route was ranging from 36% to 55%. These enhancements were contributed to the novel way in route reconstructing introduced by EABR

This study introduces an analysis to the performance of the Enhanced Associativity Based Routing protocol (EABR ) based on two factors; Operation complexity (OC) and Communication Complexity (CC). OC can be defined as the number of steps required in performing a protocol operation, while CC can be defined as the number of messages exchanged in performing a protocol operation[1]. The values represent the worst-case analysis. The EABR has been analyzed based on CC and OC and the results have been compared with another routing technique called ABR. The results have shown that EABR can perform better than ABR in many circumstances during the route reconstruction.

No abstract

No abstract