MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556739598 · doi:10.5772/12922

Fault-Tolerant Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

2011· book-chapter· en· W1556739598 on OpenAlexaff
B. E. John, Luis Rue

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile ad hoc networkComputer scienceComputer networkAdaptive quality of service multi-hop routingOptimized Link State Routing ProtocolRouting (electronic design automation)Distributed computingRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are characterized by the cooperative engagement of mobile nodes that constitute networks possessing continuously-changing infrastructures, the absence of centralized network managers, access points, fixed base stations, a backbone network for controlling the network management functions, and the absence of designated routers for making routing decisions.All the nodes in MANETs participate in the routing process by acting as routers for one another.However, for the transmission of data from one node to another, such networks normally require several hops because of the limited wireless transmission range associated with the operation of the mobile nodes [2,7,9].The above-mentioned characteristics of MANETs, particularly those arising due to the mobility of the nodes, and the continuously-changing network infrastructure, pose several challenges.Due to the continuously changing infrastructure, the routes that were once considered to be the "best" may no longer remain as the "best" at a later time instant.Therefore, one needs to continuously re-compute the routes, implying that in such networks, there is no permanent convergence to a fixed set of routes.Thus, any routing protocol that needs to operate in MANET network environments should take these issues into consideration [2].Designing routing protocols poses further challenges when one needs to design routing schemes in the presence of adversarial environments in MANET networks.This is the primary focus of this chapter.More specifically, we discuss fault-tolerant routing schemes when the network contains malfunctioning nodes.To motivate this, we observe that most existing MANET protocols were postulated considering scenarios in which all the mobile nodes in the ad hoc network function properly and in an idealistic manner.However, adversarial environments are common in MANET environments, and misbehaving nodes degrade the performance of these routing protocols [11].The need for fault-tolerant routing protocols was identified to address routing in adversarial environments in the presence of faulty nodes by exploring redundancies in the networks [10,11].Despite the challenges that we mention above, it is worthwhile to note a few applications of MANETs which have made them popular.One of the popular application domains of www.intechopen.comMobile Ad-Hoc Networks: Protocol Design 324 MANETs is communications in moving battlefields [7].Other applications may be found in rural regions where building up fixed wired or wireless infrastructures can be costly and/or difficult.Although our primary discussion centers around fault-tolerant routing in MANETs, since this chapter is intended to be of a survey nature, we shall first briefly include an overview of the field and the corresponding routing protocols. Routing protocols for MANETsRouting in MANETs is currently a challenging and interesting problem studied by the community primarily due to the dynamic nature of the infrastructure present in MANETs, e.g., due to nodes joining and leaving the network.For routing, the transmission of data from one node to another is direct, if the source and destination nodes are neighbors, i.e., if they are within the wireless range of each other.On the other hand, the transmission is indirect, if the source and destination nodes are not within their range of operation [7].In such a case, routing is achieved through a series of multiple hops, with intermediate nodes between the source and the destination nodes serving the purpose of routers for relaying the information in between.The dynamic nature of the topology of MANETs due to the constant migration of nodes renders routing considerations difficult.The following characteristics of MANETs make their routing further challenging [7]: 1.The terrain in which the mobile nodes operate in MANETs may pose to be hostile with hazardous conditions that can lead to the frequent failure of the nodes and their mutual links.2. The medium of transmission of information in MANETs is wireless.Wireless media are relatively unreliable, insecure, and quite susceptible to different kinds of errors and unwanted noise.3. MANETs operate with battery-powered nodes, which are normally low powered, and resource constrained.If the region of operation of the nodes is in a hostile terrain, the frequent recharging of the nodes may not always be feasible.Consequently, all routing algorithms should be energy-efficient, of low complexity, and should be capable of operating under limited bandwidth.The different types of errors that can occur in MANETs are the following [7]: 1. Transmission errors 2. Node failures 3. Link failures 4. Route breakages 5. Packet loss due to congested nodes/links.The currently available MANET routing protocols can be classified into two categories [7]: (i) Unipath routing protocols, and (ii) Multipath routing protocols, explained below. Unipath routing protocolsIn unipath routing protocols, the transmission of messages between a source-destination pair of nodes takes places through a unique path.All the unipath routing protocols may be classified to be either table-based or on-demand [7].Table-based protocols are characterized by their ability to maintain routing tables that store information about routes from one node in the network to the others.Obviously, this requires that the nodes in the network maintain the table up-to-date by exchanging routing information between the participating nodes.Although, in general, table-based protocols may be easy to implement, the major limitation www.intechopen.comFault-Tolerant Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks 325 associated with these protocols is that due to the highly-mobile and dynamic nature of ad hoc networks, maintaining the routing information in these tables is a very challenging task [7].On-demand routing protocols, on the other hand, alleviate the above problems, and make routing more scalable to highly dynamic and large networks.As the name suggests, ondemand routing protocols are characterized by the computation of routes on an "asrequired" basis.In on-demand routing protocols, there is initially a route discovery phase in which a route is found between two nodes.The route discovery phase is normally followed by a route maintenance phase in which a broken link in a route is repaired, or a new route is found [7,9].Various unipath routing protocols have been proposed in the literature (e.g., [5,9]).Of these, the Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol [9], and the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol [5] are the most popular ones.In the interest of completeness, we briefly discuss these protocols below, with sufficient details so as to introduce the context for the fault-tolerant routing problem discussed later in this chapter. How to referenceIn order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicMobile Ad Hoc NetworksFrench-language works237,207