2020
DOI: 10.1109/access.2020.2986010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Modeling Optimizations and Enhancing Routing Protocols for Wireless Multihop Networks

Abstract: The contribution of this paper is two fold. It first analyses the flooding strategies for the Wireless Multihop Networks (WMNs) then it enhances the reactive and proactive routing protocols. For analysis purpose, we select four widely used flooding techniques for routing: i. traditional flooding, ii. Time-To-Live based Expanding Ring Search (TTL-based ERS) flooding scheme, iii. TTL-based Scope Routing (SR) flooding and iv. Multi-Point Relays (MPR) flooding. These techniques play a vital role and act as a backb… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is referred to as the MN1 -sender, index to the receiver MN9, R2 is the general rushing route, R2MN1→MN4→MN9, and R3 is the available rushing route, R3MN1→ MN4→ MN8 is the total amount of nodes directivity between MN1 -sender, MN17 -receiver, without (R2, MN1) is three and (R3, MN17) is 3. The distance from MN1-sender or MN17-receiver to the center of the area routing protocols communication is concerned with the distance from the attackers to the sender or receiver (MN8) and (MN9) [4] [2] [24] [25].…”
Section: Proposed Routing Protocols Communication For Rushing Attacker Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is referred to as the MN1 -sender, index to the receiver MN9, R2 is the general rushing route, R2MN1→MN4→MN9, and R3 is the available rushing route, R3MN1→ MN4→ MN8 is the total amount of nodes directivity between MN1 -sender, MN17 -receiver, without (R2, MN1) is three and (R3, MN17) is 3. The distance from MN1-sender or MN17-receiver to the center of the area routing protocols communication is concerned with the distance from the attackers to the sender or receiver (MN8) and (MN9) [4] [2] [24] [25].…”
Section: Proposed Routing Protocols Communication For Rushing Attacker Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Route.append((destination node ())) End nextNode ++ End return efficient data transmission The above algorithm discusses the sender-receiver destination addresses using MANET routing protocols concerning the path nodes. The mobile nodes in a MANET do not update their positions frequently [4] [24] [15]. If the process needs to establish the connection node on a secure path, the route must change its path flow energetically to avoid the damage of nodes (rushing attacker) in the exact route.…”
Section: End Endmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this equation, n represents the number of successfully received packets; R i represents the time when the destination node received the ith packet; S i represents the time when the source node sent the ith packet [45]. S i and R i times are counted at the application layers of the sender and receiver, respectively.…”
Section: ) End-to-end Delay (E2e)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the mobility of nodes did not considered in multipoint relay (MPR) selection from OLSR, this paper tried to select MPR nodes as most static nodes to reduce the packet loss ratio. Al-Zahrani analyzed the existing flooding algorithms for routing, and classified them into four types: traditional flooding, time-to-live (TTL) based expanding ring search flooding scheme, TTL-based scope routing flooding, and multi-point relays flooding [7]. Enhancement algorithms are suggested based on the analysis of each flooding class to minimize the cost based on energy and time consumptions, with improvements in search set values and intervals of routing algorithms.…”
Section: A Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithm was implemented with the ns-3 network simulator based on C++ language. The proposed algorithm was compared with two proactive routing protocols, namely OLSR-mod and DSDV-mod, which are enhancement version of two proactive MANET protocols, OLSR and DSDV [7]. The following experiments were conducted:…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%