List of ad hoc routing protocols
In ad hoc networks, nodes are not familiar with the topology of their networks. Instead, they have to discover it: typically, a new node announces its presence and listens for announcements broadcast by its neighbors. Each node learns about others nearby and how to reach them, and may announce that it too can reach them.
Note that in a wider sense, ad hoc protocol can also be used literally, to mean an improvised and often impromptu protocol established for a specific purpose.
The following is a list of some ad hoc network routing protocols.
Table-driven (proactive) routing
This type of protocols maintains fresh lists of destinations and their routes by periodically distributing routing tables throughout the network. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:
- Respective amount of data for maintenance.
- Slow reaction on restructuring and failures.
Examples of proactive algorithms are:
- Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Optimized Link State Routing Protocol RFC 3626.
- Babel RFC 6126
- Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV)
On-demand (reactive) routing
This type of protocol finds a route on demand by flooding the network with Route Request packets. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:
- High latency time in route finding.
- Excessive flooding can lead to network clogging.
Examples of on-demand algorithms are:
- Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector(AODV) (RFC 3561)
- Dynamic Source Routing (RFC 4728)
- Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing
- Power-Aware DSR-based
Hybrid (both proactive and reactive) routing
This type of protocol combines the advantages of proactive and reactive routing. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. The choice of one or the other method requires predetermination for typical cases. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:
- Advantage depends on number of other nodes activated.
- Reaction to traffic demand depends on gradient of traffic volume.
Examples of hybrid algorithms are:
Hierarchical routing protocols
With this type of protocol the choice of proactive and of reactive routing depends on the hierarchic level in which a node resides. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding on the lower levels. The choice for one or the other method requires proper attributation for respective levels. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:
- Advantage depends on depth of nesting and addressing scheme.
- Reaction to traffic demand depends on meshing parameters.
Examples of hierarchical routing algorithms are:
- C. Perkins, E. Royer and S. Das: Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, RFC 3561
- David Johnson, David Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4, RFC 4728
- David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz: Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Mobile Computing, Thomasz Imielinski and Hank Korth (Editors), Vol. 353, Chapter 5, pp. 153–181, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996
- Yih-Chun Hu, David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz: Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing Protocol Internet Draft, work in progress, June 2001.
- D. Djenouri, N. Badache. On Eliminating Packet Droppers in MANET: A Modular Solution, Ad hoc Networks Journal, Vol 7, Issue 6, pp 1243–1258, Elsevier Publisher, August 2009.
- Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince Samar: The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, work in progress, July 2002.
- M. Jiang, J. Li, Y. C. Tay: Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP) Functional Specification, Internet Draft, work in progress, June 1999. Draft has expired.
- Maria Gerla, Guangyu Pei, Xiaoyan Hong, Tsu-Wei Chen: Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, work in progress, June 2001. Draft has expired.