Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing
01 Jul 2003-Vol. 3561, pp 1-37
TL;DR: A logging instrument contains a pulsed neutron source and a pair of radiation detectors spaced along the length of the instrument to provide an indication of formation porosity which is substantially independent of the formation salinity.
Abstract: The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is intended for use by mobile nodes in an ad hoc network. It offers quick adaptation to dynamic link conditions, low processing and memory overhead, low network utilization, and determines unicast routes to destinations within the ad hoc network. It uses destination sequence numbers to ensure loop freedom at all times (even in the face of anomalous delivery of routing control messages), avoiding problems (such as "counting to infinity") associated with classical distance vector protocols.
Citations
More filters
Proceedings Article•
18 May 2003TL;DR: DPSR has the potential to be more scalable than previous routing protocols for MANETs, such as DSR and AODV, and implements the same functionalities as CAN, Chord, Pastry, and Tapestry, which can be exposed to the applications built on top of it via a set of common p2p APIs.
Abstract: We argue that there exists a synergy between peer-to-peer (p2p) overlay networks for the Internet and mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) connecting mobile nodes communicating with each other via multi-hop wireless links-both share the key characteristics of self-organization and decentralization, and both need to solve the same fundamental problem, that is, how to provide connectivity in a decentralized, dynamic environment. We propose Dynamic P2P Source Routing (DPSR), a new routing protocol for MANETs that exploits the synergy between p2p and MANETs for increased scalability. By integrating Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and a proximity-aware structured p2p overlay routing protocol, DPSR limits the number of the source routes that each node has to discover and rediscover to O(logN), while retaining all the attributes of DSR for dealing with the specifics of ad hoc networks. This is in contrast to the maximum of N source routes each node has to maintain in DSR. Thus DPSR has the potential to be more scalable than previous routing protocols for MANETs, such as DSR and AODV.
In addition to being a network layer multi-hop routing protocol, DPSR simultaneously implements a distributed hash table (DHT) in MANETs; it implements the same functionalities as CAN, Chord, Pastry, and Tapestry, which can be exposed to the applications built on top of it via a set of common p2p APIs.
111 citations
Cites background from "Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (A..."
...In addition to DSR, AODV [14], DSDV [13], and TORA [12] also belong to the category of topology-based multi-hop ad hoc routing protocols which assume no knowledge of the mobile nodes’ positions....
[...]
...In addition to DSR, AODV [17, 18], DSDV [16], and TORA [15] also belong to the category of topology-based multi-hop ad hoc routing protocols which assume no knowledge of the mobile nodes’ positions....
[...]
...Compared to the maximum of N source routes each node has to maintain in DSR, the bounded number of source routes managed by each node in DPSR has the potential to make DPSR much more scalable than previous routing protocols for MANETs, such as DSR and AODV....
[...]
15 Oct 2001
TL;DR: Analyzing three routing protocols for ad hoc networks using the GloMoSim simulation environment shows that STAR achieves better overall performance than AODV and DSR in sparsely connected networks and for densely connected networks, while STAR performs much better in terms of control overhead.
Abstract: Many routing protocols for ad hoc networks have been proposed to date. Among them, STAR (source tree adaptive routing protocol) is a representative table-driven protocol, while AODV (ad hoc on-demand distance vector protocol) and DSR (dynamic source routing protocol) are two representative on-demand protocols. This paper analyzes these three protocols using the GloMoSim simulation environment. The scenarios used in the simulation experiments take into account a variety of environmental factors that influence protocol performance. The performance of the protocols is compared in terms of their control overhead, amount of data delivered, and average latency in packet delivery. The simulation results show that STAR achieves better overall performance than AODV and DSR in sparsely connected networks. For the case of densely connected networks, AODV performs better in terms of data delivery, while STAR performs much better in terms of control overhead. The study also addresses the question of how accurate a simulator could be regarded for presenting the characteristics of the routing protocols and for comparison purposes.
111 citations
Cites background or methods from "Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (A..."
...This paper compares the Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector protocol (AODV [5], [14]) and the Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR [6]), with the Source Tree Adaptive Routing protocol (STAR[4])....
[...]
...Many routing protocols have been proposed for ad hoc networks [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]....
[...]
TL;DR: Three schemes that prevent real-time packet classification at the physical layer by combining cryptographic primitives with physical-layer attributes are developed to mitigate selective jamming attacks in wireless networks.
Abstract: The open nature of the wireless medium leaves it vulnerable to intentional interference attacks, typically referred to as jamming. This intentional interference with wireless transmissions can be used as a launchpad for mounting Denial-of-Service attacks on wireless networks. Typically, jamming has been addressed under an external threat model. However, adversaries with internal knowledge of protocol specifications and network secrets can launch low-effort jamming attacks that are difficult to detect and counter. In this work, we address the problem of selective jamming attacks in wireless networks. In these attacks, the adversary is active only for a short period of time, selectively targeting messages of high importance. We illustrate the advantages of selective jamming in terms of network performance degradation and adversary effort by presenting two case studies; a selective attack on TCP and one on routing. We show that selective jamming attacks can be launched by performing real-time packet classification at the physical layer. To mitigate these attacks, we develop three schemes that prevent real-time packet classification by combining cryptographic primitives with physical-layer attributes. We analyze the security of our methods and evaluate their computational and communication overhead.
111 citations
TL;DR: Two hierarchical clustering protocols that improve the scalability of ad hoc routing protocols are presented, which create a one-level clustered hierarchy across an ad hoc network, and a multi-level hierarchy which is able to dynamically adjust the depth of the hierarchy in response to the changing network topology.
Abstract: Ad hoc networks have the notable capability of enabling spontaneous networks. These networks are self-initializing, self-configuring, and self-maintaining, even though the underlying topology is often continually changing. Because research has only begun to scratch the surface of the potential applications of this technology, it is important to prepare for the widespread use of these networks. In anticipation of their ubiquity, the protocols designed for these networks must be scalable. This includes scaling to both networks with many nodes, and networks with rapidly changing topologies. This paper presents two hierarchical clustering protocols that improve the scalability of ad hoc routing protocols. The Adaptive Routing using Clusters (ARC) protocol creates a one-level clustered hierarchy across an ad hoc network, while the Adaptive Routing using Clustered Hierarchies (ARCH) protocol creates a multi-level hierarchy which is able to dynamically adjust the depth of the hierarchy in response to the changing network topology. It is experimentally shown that these protocols, when coupled with an ad hoc routing protocol, produce throughput improvements of up to 80% over the ad hoc routing protocol alone.
111 citations
Cites background from "Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (A..."
...Further details on the AODV protocol can be found in [24, 26]....
[...]
TL;DR: This work utilizes prior routing histories to localize the query flood to a limited region of the network, which contributes to a reduced level of network congestion and better end-to-end delay performance of data packets.
Abstract: Mobile ad hoc networks are characterized by multi-hop wireless links, absence of any cellular infrastructure, and frequent host mobility. Design of efficient routing protocols in such networks is a challenging issue. A class of routing protocols called on-demand protocols has recently found attention because of their low routing overhead. We propose a technique that can reduce the routing overhead even further. The on-demand protocols depend on query floods to discover routes whenever a new route is needed. Our technique utilizes prior routing histories to localize the query flood to a limited region of the network. Simulation results demonstrate excellent reduction of routing overheads with this mechanism. This also contributes to a reduced level of network congestion and better end-to-end delay performance of data packets.
110 citations
Cites background or methods from "Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (A..."
...This approach can also be used in ad hoc networks, by first setting TTL = 1, then to 2, and so on, until the destination is reached [ 20 ]....
[...]
...AODV [19, 20 ] is an on-demand variation of distance vector protocols....
[...]
...The AODV (Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector) routing protocol [ 20 ], on the other hand, maintains the route in a distributed fashion using routing tables in the nodes on the route....
[...]
...Another advantage of this mechanism is that it can also be used with protocols that do not use source routing, such as AODV [ 20 ]....
[...]
References
More filters
01 Mar 1997
TL;DR: This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents as well as providing guidelines for authors to incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document.
Abstract: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:
3,501 citations
12 Nov 2001
TL;DR: In this article, a logging instrument contains a pulsed neutron source and a pair of radiation detectors spaced along the length of the instrument to provide an indication of formation porosity which is substantially independent of the formation salinity.
Abstract: A logging instrument contains a pulsed neutron source and a pair of radiation detectors spaced along the length of the instrument. The radiation detectors are gated differently from each other to provide an indication of formation porosity which is substantially independent of the formation salinity. In the preferred embodiment, the electrical signals indicative of radiation detected by the long-spaced detector are gated for almost the entire interval between neutron pulses and the short-spaced signals are gated for a significantly smaller time interval which commences soon after the termination of a given neutron burst. The signals from the two detectors are combined in a ratio circuit for determination of porosity.
574 citations
01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and provide guidelines to document authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on the IANA.
Abstract: Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on the IANA.
536 citations
01 Oct 1998
TL;DR: Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values that must be administered by a central authority to insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations.
Abstract: Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
334 citations
01 Jun 2004
TL;DR: This document defines terms for mobility related terminology out of work done in the Seamoby Working Group but has broader applicability for terminology used in IETF-wide discourse on technology for mobility and IP networks.
Abstract: There is a need for common definitions of terminology in the work to
be done around IP mobility. This document defines terms for mobility
related terminology. The document originated out of work done in the
Seamoby Working Group but has broader applicability for terminology
used in IETF-wide discourse on technology for mobility and IP
networks. Other working groups dealing with mobility may want to take
advantage of this terminology. This memo provides information for the
Internet community.
207 citations
"Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (A..." refers methods in this paper
...This section defines other terminology used with AODV that is not already defined in [3]....
[...]