Bonfring International Journal of Research in Communication Engineering, Vol.

1, Special Issue, December 2011 35

ISSN 2250 110X | 2011 Bonfring
Abstract--- A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists out
of a collection of mobile nodes capable of sending and/or
receiving wireless communications. MANETs are generally
unstructured networks with no centralized administration.
MANETs use routing algorithms to establish routes among
nodes. This unstructured nature presents the opportunity for
misbehaviour among nodes. Many routing protocols for
MANETs do not promote a balanced use of resources among
the participating nodes, since they are designed to optimize
other criteria, such as the number of hops in the message path.
This behavior is undesired in open MANETs, where all users
cooperate to maintain connectivity and expect the system to
promote a fair distribution of load. This paper presents a
fairness monitoring service that rates the effort of each
individual node with regard to the other nodes in its
neighborhood, measured as the relative number of messages
the node is required to forward. We show that this information
can be captured by a service that monitors the packets
exchanged in the network. Simulation results obtained using
ns-2 network simulation platform show a 20-25%
improvement in packet delivery ratio and average end-to-end
delay.

Keywords--- MANETs, Fairness, Wireless Communication

I. INTRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGY such as Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
(MANETs) promotes the emergence of open ad hoc
communities of users. Dynamic routing protocols can be
classified in several ways. Basically it is classified into two (a)
exterior protocols versus interior protocols, and (b) distance-
vector versus link-state protocols.[4] The first classification is
based on where a protocol is intended to be used between your
network and another's network, or within your network. The
second classification has to do with the kind of information
the protocol carries and the way each router makes its decision
about how to fill in its routing table.
A. Exterior vs. Interior Protocols
Dynamic routing protocols are generally classified as an
exterior gateway [1] protocol (EGP[2]) or an interior gateway
protocol (IGP).An exterior protocol carries routing
information between two independent administrative entities,

Jim Mathew Philip, Assistant Professor-Senior Grade/CSE, Sri
Ramakrishna Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, E-mail:
mail2jim_mp@yahoo.co.in
Dr.P. Malathi, Professor/ECE, Sri Ramakrishna Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore, E-mail: pmalathi2004@yahoo.co.in
N.S. Kavitha, Assistant Professor-Senior Grade/CSE, Sri Ramakrishna
Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, E-mail: nsksrit@gmail.com
such as two corporations or two universities. Each of these
entities maintains an independent network infrastructure and
uses an EGP to communicate routing information to the other.
Today, the most common exterior protocol is the Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP). It is the primary exterior protocol
used between networks connected to the Internet, and was
designed specifically for such purposes.
Most protocols in place suffer from low quality of service
and overload the network with a large percentage of overhead
(control data) when compared to the data packets. Any
improvement in the routing protocol should be an extendable
architecture to support high number of mobile units and at the
same time ensures a good quality of service. In contrast, an
interior protocol is used within a single administrative domain,
or among closely cooperating groups. In contrast to the
exterior protocols, IGPs tend to be simpler and to require less
overhead in a router. Their primary drawback is that they
cannot scale to extremely large networks. The most common
interior protocols in IP networks are the Routing Information
Protocol (RIP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), and the
Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP). The
first two are open standards adopted or developed by the
Internet community, while the third is a proprietary protocol
designed by Cisco Systems for use on their routers.
B. Distance-Vector vs. Link-State Protocols
Another way to classify dynamic routing protocols is by
what the routers tell each other, and how they use the
information to form their routing tables. Most protocols fit
into one of two categories. The first of these categories is
distance-vector protocols. In a distance-vector protocol, a
router periodically sends all of its neighbors two pieces of
information about the destinations it know show to reach.
First, the router tells its neighbor show far away it thinks the
destination is; second, it tells its neighbors what direction (or
vector) touse to get to the destination. This direction indicates
the next hop that a listener should use to reach the destination,
and typically takes the form "send it to me, I know how to get
there. "For example, RIP route updates simply list a set of
destinations that the announcing router know show to reach,
and how far away it thinks each destination is. The receiver
infers that the next hop to use is the announcing router.
However, an update can also take the form "send it to this
other router who knows how to get there." This second form is
usually used only when the router that should be used to reach
the destination cannot (or will not) speak the routing protocol
being used by the other routers. Not all routing protocols
support this form of third-party route update. The other part of
the protocol, the distance, is where distance-vector protocols
differ. In each case, the protocol uses some metric to tell the
receiving routers how far away the destination is. This metric
Promoting Fairness in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Jim Mathew Philip, Dr.P. Malathi and N.S. Kavitha
A
Bonfring International Journal of Research in Communication Engineering, Vol. 1, Special Issue, December 2011 36
ISSN 2250 110X | 2011 Bonfring
may be a true attempt at measuring distance (perhaps using a
periodic measure of the round trip time to the destination),
something that approximates distance (such as hop count),or it
may not measure distance at all. Instead, it may attempt to
measure the cost of the path to the destination. It may even
involve a complex computation that takes into account factors
like network load, link bandwidth, link delay, or any other
measure of the desirability of a route. Finally, it may include
an administrative weight that is set by a network administrator
to try to cause one path to be preferred over another.
II. RELATED WORK
Routing protocols form the heart of anyMANET, which
have not evolved as much tosupport a large amount of mobile
units. Theperformance of most routing protocols degrades
with the increase in mobile nodes,[9] leading to higher end-to-
end delay, more dropped packets and low quality of service
(QoS).
It is easy to find algorithms for MANETs that do not
support a fair distribution of load among the participants.
Typically, to save the bandwidth and energy consumption
required for dynamic reconfiguration, nodes elected to
perform a given role in the system, are forced to perform that
role until they fail or disconnect. Concrete examples of
specific roles are replica caches, servers [1], Mobile IP routers
[10], or cluster heads [6]. From these examples, one can
observe that load balancing is a vertical concern, that must be
addressed at all levels of system software.
In this paper, we are concerned with the fair use of
resources promoted by the routing protocols. In particular, we
are concerned with the number of messages that each node is
required to forward on behalf of other nodes. To address this
issue, we propose the use of adaptive routing protocols that
dynamically adjust the load imposed on each node. To drive
the adaptation policies, this paper describes preliminary results
concerning a fairness monitoring service that rates the effort of
each device on message forwarding. To illustrate the benefits
of this service, we propose an optional extension to the
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol [8]. We would like
to point that the our fairness monitoring service may also be
useful to promote load balancing in other system layers:
distributed protocols may use the output of the service to rank
candidates to perform specific roles or to trigger a new role
allocation when some unfairness threshold is reached.
Congestion and fairness are related: a congested node is
probably being unfairly overused. In load-aware routing
protocols like ABR[14] and DLAR [11], intermediate hops
append load information to the route discovery messages. To
be useful, these protocols require the cooperation of all nodes.
In the Hotspot Mitigation Protocol (HMP) [12] and in the
extension to DSR proposed by Hu and Johnson [7] congested
nodes temporarily suspend their normal route discovery
behavior by ignoring incoming route requests destined to other
nodes. This all-or-nothing approach may disrupt the
communication between two endpoints if no alternative route
exists. To circumvent this problem, the two previous protocols
include a special ag in its messages. In [7], the ag should be
activated in the Route Request packet header if no reply to a
previous Route Request was received. An undesirable side-
effect of this approach is the duplication of the Route
Requests, even in the cases where no valid (congested or not)
route exists.
Congestion is evaluated by load metrics such as the
number of bytes per unit of time. Unfairness may not be
detected by congestion indicators if a device is more solicited
than others in the long term. Metrics that capture more
adequately these scenarios are those that relate the traffic at
each participant. The work described in the following section
weights both congestion and fairness indicators and provides
numeric indications allowing a reaction that can be
proportional to the severity of the situation. Its overhead is
restricted to a small increase in computational power and
memory, which is expected to present an acceptable trade-off
for the more efficient utilization of the network interface [13,
9] and for increasing the probability of user cooperation.
III. PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION
In this section, we describe our distributed bottleneck flow
control algorithm in MANETs. In our scheme, nodes do not
maintain flow information, which is different from other
techniques. Every node in a routing path monitors its channel
status and calculates its residual capacity, the capacity
available for use. Each packet that passes through a node
contains the current bandwidth that a flow is using and the
minimum flow that the packet is assigned at the previous
nodes that it has visited. Each node on a path uses the residual
capacity and a flows current assignment to determine the
flows new allocation. If the new rate is smaller than the
minimum rate allocated by the previous nodes on the path, the
node changes that field in the packet. The destination returns
the minimum rate to the source. The source node adjusts its
sending rate accordingly to avoid congesting its bottleneck.
As a result, any bandwidth change resulting from changes
in node positions, the routing path, or newly added/removed
flows is returned to the source node after one round trip time
(RTT). In this way, our distributed bottleneck flow control
scheme can adapt to the dynamic nature of MANETs and
provide reasonable max-min fairness.
Residual capacity at a node is the difference between the
nodes channel capacity and the sum of the bandwidth
consumed by all contending flows of that node. It denotes the
channel capacity that is not used and it constrains the rate that
contending flows can acquire. To measure the residual
capacity, each node in the network monitors the channel
activity. The fraction of channel idle time during the past
measuring period and the channel capacity, determine its
residual capacity. A flow passing a nodes contention
area may consume more bandwidth than the flows rate.
Finding flow bandwidth consumption is very important when
applying the bandwidth balancing technique in wireless
networks.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our
proposed distributed bottleneck flow control algorithm by
simulations in NS2. In the simulations, all nodes communicate
Bonfring International Journal of Research in Communication Engineering, Vol. 1, Special Issue, December 2011 37
ISSN 2250 110X | 2011 Bonfring
with identical half-duplex wireless radios with a bandwidth of
11 Mbps. We adjust the radio transmission power, receiving
threshold and sensing threshold to achieve a 19.4 meters
transmission radius and a 38.8 meters sensing radius. The
radio propagation model we use at these short distances is the
free-space attenuation model.
This protocol is simulated using ns2[14] which supports
complete physical, data link and MAC layer models for
simulating wireless ad hoc networks. We have constructed a
100 X 100 m mobile ad hoc network of 50 nodes randomly
placed, which can be simulated in ns-2.33. These nodes
correspond to the mobile nodes. For the traffic model, we
consider constant bit rate (CBR) data sources each sending
packets at a fixed rate of 4 packets/sec. The data packet size is
512 bytes.


Figure 1: Network Topology



Figure 2: Packet Delivery Ratio
Energy plays a major role in the lifetime of a mobile ad
hoc network. From the graph, it is clear that energy is reduced
considerably. Thus, our proposed system is energy efficient
when compared to the existing system as described earlier.
The sudden increase and decrease in these graph means that
the load may vary from one region to another region according
to the number of nodes.

Figure 3: Average Energy Consumption
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper studies the dynamic routing fairness for mobile
ad hoc networks and describes the different existing dynamic
routing protocols. Different from existing works, this
work considers the routing segments to improve fairness in the
routing
In Open MANETs, protocols need to consider the fair
division of the tasks to balance energy consumption among the
participants. Unfairness is a problem distinct from congestion
in the sense that users may notice that their devices are being
excessively used when compared with other participants even
when no congestion exists. It should be noted that this is not
an issue exclusive of routing: decisions on the location of
services, for example, should take into account the node's past
and current history.
This paper has presented early results from the use of a
service that monitors the network to provide information
concerning the fair division of activities among the nodes on
the network. The service is completely local: it does not
require the exchange of control messages with other nodes;
instead it requires a small additional computational power at
the devices where it is executed.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Rongxing Lu, Xiaodong Lin, Haojin Zhu, Chenxi Zhang, Pin-Han Ho
and Xuemin (Sherman) ShenI, A Novel Fair Incentive Protocol for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, in the WCNC 2008 proceedings.
[2] Kejun Liu, Jing Deng, promod Varshnet and K. Balakrishnan, An
Acknowledgment-Based Approach for the Detection of Routing
Misbehavior in MANETs IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE
COMPUTING, VOL. 6, NO. 5, MAY 2007.
[3] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, and Yih-Chun Hu. The dynamic
source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (DSR). Internet
draft, IETF MANET Working Group, July 19 2004.
Bonfring International Journal of Research in Communication Engineering, Vol. 1, Special Issue, December 2011 38
ISSN 2250 110X | 2011 Bonfring
[4] Boris A. Kock and J. R. Schmidt. Dynamic mobile IP routers in ad hoc
networks. In Proc. of the 2004 Int'l Work. on Wireless Ad-hoc
Networks (IWWAN'04), 2004.
[5] Seoung-Bum Lee, Jiyoung Cho, and Andrew T. Campbell. A hotspot
mitigation protocol for ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks,
1(1):87{106, 2003.
[6] Huang XL, Bensaou B. On max-min fairness and scheduling in
wireless ad-hoc networks: analytical framework and implementation.
ACM Mobihoc01, October 2001.
[7] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, and Yih-Chun Hu. The dynamic
source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (DSR). Internet
draft, IETF MANET Working Group, July 19 2004.
[8] Boris A. Kock and J. R. Schmidt. Dynamic mobile IP routers in ad hoc
networks. In Proc. of the 2004 Int'l Work. on Wireless Ad-hoc
Networks (IWWAN'04), 2004.
[9] S.-J. Lee and M. Gerla. Dynamic load-aware routing in ad hoc
networks. In Proc. of the IEEE Int'l Conf. on Communications (ICC
2001), volume 10, pages 3206{3210, 2001.
[10] L. Butty_an and J. P. Hubaux. Enforcing service availability in mobile
ad-hoc wans. In Proc. of the 1st IEEE/ACM Work. on obile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing (MobiHOC), 2000.
[11] Stephan Eidenbenz, V. S. Anil Kumar, and Sibylle Zust. Equilibria in
topology control games for ad hoc networks. In Proc. of the 2003 Joint
Work. on Foundations of Mobile Computing, pages 2{11, 2003.
[12] M. Gerla, T. J. Kwon, and G. Pei. On-demand routing in large ad hoc
wireless networks with passive clustering. In Proc. of the Wireless
Com- munication and Networking Conference, volume 1, pages 23{28,
2000.

Mr.Jim Mathew Philip has received his B.E degree in
Computer Science & Engineering from Maharaja Engg
College, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu,
India. He completed his M.E degree from Kumaraguru
College of Technology, Anna University, Chennai,
Tamilnadu, India. Presently he is working as an
Assistant Professor (Senior Grade) at Sri Ramakrishna
Institute of Technology, Coimbatore. He has the teaching experience of 7
years. His areas of interest are Mobile Adhoc Networks and Wireless
Networks.

Dr.P. Malathi has received her M.E degree in Applied
Electronics from Coimbatore Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore in 2001. She completed her Ph.D at PSG
College of Technology, Coimbatore. She has the
teaching experience of 15 years. She is the member of
IEEE, ISTE and IETE. Her areas of interest are OFDM,
MIMO, WLAN, PLC and Wireless Mobile
Communication.

Ms.N.S.Kavitha has received her B.E degree in
Computer Science & Engineering from Dr.Mahalingam
College of Engg and Technology, Bharathiar
University, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India. She
completed her M.E degree from Karunya Institute of
Technology, Anna University, Chennai, Tamilnadu,
India. Presently she is working as an Assistant
Professor (Senior Grade) at Sri Ramakrishna Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore. She has the teaching experience of 6 years. Her areas of interest
are Wireless Networks, Mobile Adhoc Networks and Wireless Sensor
Networks.