European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.39 No.4 (2010), pp.577-588

© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding

Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

N. Karthikeyan
Research Scholar, Department of Computer Application
SNS College of Technology, Coimbatore-641035, Tamilnadu, India
Tel: +91-422-2669118, Mobile: +91-98427 90907
E-mail: kaartheekeyan@rediffmail.com

V. Palanisamy
Principal, Info Institute of Engineering, Sathy Main Road, Coimbatore-641107

K. Duraiswamy
Dean, K.S.Rangasamy College of Technology, Tiruchengode – 637215

Abstract

Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs) are wireless networks which are

characterized by dynamic topologies and no fixed infrastructure. Each node in a MANET is
a computer that may be required to act as both a host and a router and, as such, may be
required to forward packets between nodes which cannot directly communicate with one
another. Network wide broadcasting, simply referred to as “broadcasting” is the process in
which one node sends a packet to all other nodes in the MANET. Broadcasting used by
MANET unicast or multicast routing protocols to disseminate control information for
establishing the routes. For designing broadcast protocols for ad hoc networks, one of the
primary goal is to reduce the overhead (redundancy, contention and collision) while
reaching all the nodes in network. There are many approaches in network wide
broadcasting namely flooding, probability based, area based and cluster based broadcasting
methods. In this study, a novel density based flooding scheme has been proposed for more
reliable network broadcast in MANET and the metrics namely broadcast overhead(MAC
load), power consumption and collision are evaluated. The proposed method, density based
flooding guarantees to deliver the packets from a source node to all the nodes of the
network with minimum routing load, MAC load, less power consumption of a node and
collision. The performance evaluation of the proposed algorithm is compared with a single
source broadcasting techniques such as simple flooding algorithm and probability based
flooding algorithm using NS2 simulation. The proposed method, density based flooding for
probabilistic flooding limit the probability of collisions by limiting the number of
rebroadcasts in the network and prove that the broadcast overhead, power consumption and
collision of this method is very minimum compared with simple flooding and probabilistic
flooding methods.

Keywords: Mobile Ad-Hoc Network, Broadcast Methods, Simple Flooding, Probability

Flooding, Density Based Probability Flooding
Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 578

1. Introduction
Network wide broadcasting, simply referred to as “broadcasting”, is the process in which one node
sends a packet to all other nodes in the network. Broadcasting may be used to disseminate data to all
other nodes in the network or may be used by MANET unicast or multicast routing protocols to
disseminate control information. For example, many unicast routing protocols such as Dynamic Source
Routing (DSR) (D. Johnson et al, 2003; N.Karthikeyan et al, 2009), Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector
(AODV) (C. Perkins et al, 2003; N.Karthikeyan et al, 2009), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) (Z. Haas and M.
Pearlman, 2001) and Location Aided Routing (LAR)(Y. Ko and N. Vaidya, 1998) use broadcasting to
establish routes. Currently, these protocols all rely on a simplistic form of broadcasting called
Flooding, in which each node (or all nodes in a localized area) retransmits each received unique packet
exactly one time. The main problems with Flooding are that it typically causes unproductive and often
harmful bandwidth congestion, as well as inefficient use of node resources.
In MANET, broadcasting is used in the route discovery process in several routing protocols,
when advising an error message to erase invalid routes from the routing table, or as an efficient
mechanism for reliable multicast in a fast moving MANET. In MANETs with the promiscuous
receiving node, the traditional blind flooding incurs significant redundancy, collision, and contention,
which is known as the broadcast storm problem (Tseng et al, 2003). Efficient broadcasting in a MANET
focuses on selecting a small forward node set while ensuring broadcast coverage. Ad hoc wireless
networks are dynamic in nature. Due to this dynamic nature, global information/infrastructure such as
minimal spanning tree is no longer suitable to support broadcasting in ad hoc networks.

2. Previous Research
Ni et al, 1999 categorized the Broadcasting techniques into the following five groups: simple flooding,
probabilistic, counter-based, area-based, and neighbor-knowledge-based.
Hu et al, 2003 introduced some schemes by using directional antennas and discussed other
methods to relieve broadcast storm problem are also proposed in the literature, In the simplest
approach of flooding, each mobile host rebroadcasts received broadcasting messages that are received
for the first time, and records them for later references. Because every mobile host relays broadcasting
messages just once, the total number of message relays is N −1 if the network is not partitioned, where
N is the total number of mobile host. In most cases, however, many such relays are redundant and
waste the channel bandwidth. To reduce the number of redundant message relays, both probabilistic
and deterministic methods are proposed.
Hedetniemi et al, 1998 Probabilistic methods such as gossiping have long been adopted to
address the broadcast/multicast problem on wired networks Recent research work attempts to apply
these methods to wireless networks.
Krishnamachari et al, 2001 analyzed the phase transition phenomena in wireless ad hoc
networks.
Sasson et al, 2002 applied random graphs J. Spencer and Ten, 1987 and percolation theory D.
Stauffer and A. Aharony, 1992 to mobile ad hoc networks. They claim that there exists a threshold Pc
< 1, such that by using Pc as the rebroadcast probability, almost all nodes can receive a broadcast
packet, while there is no much improvement on reachability for p > Pc. Since Pc is different in various
MANET topologies, and there is no existing method for estimating Pc, many probabilistic approaches
use a predefined value for Pc. Let the rebroadcast probability be p. Assuming the total number of
mobile hosts is N, the average total number of message relays will be p * N. The advantage of this
method is its simplicity. However, not all routes are assessed by this approach. Routing protocols built
on this approach may be unable to find the optimal route between a given source and destination node
pair. On the other hand, an optimal probability for one topology may be suboptimal for other
topologies.
Ni et al, 1999 introduced a counter-based approach. They analyzed the additional coverage of
each rebroadcast after receiving n copies of the same packet. It shows for n=1, the maximum additional
579 N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K. Duraiswamy

coverage is 61% of the original area and, the average additional coverage is 41%. The value decreases
dramatically as n increases, which means the more copies a node receives, higher is the chance of its
neighbors having already received the same packet, and the more likely is a rebroadcast redundant. In
their approach, before transmitting a rebroadcast, a mobile node initiates a random assessment delay
(RAD) and counts the number of received copies of the current packet. When the RAD expires, the
node will rebroadcast the packet only if the counter does not exceed a threshold value C. Otherwise,
the rebroadcast is dropped. The predefined threshold C is the key parameter in this approach. They
showed many rebroadcasts could be saved when choosing C equal to 3 or 4. In their follow-on work,
they showed that if choosing C > 6, few rebroadcasts can be saved in sparser networks. We use this
result to set the threshold in our approach. This approach exhibits good performance, but it introduces
packet delay at each hop. It is obvious that this approach is not suitable for delay-sensitive applications.
In this paper we attempt to combine the counter-based approach with the probabilistic approach so that
both low bandwidth consumption and low latency can be achieved simultaneously.
Peng et al, 2000 and Lim et al, 2000 proposed two different neighbor-knowledge-based
approaches. These approaches require mobile hosts to periodically exchange HELLO messages
between neighbors. One such method, flooding with self-pruning, constructs a 1-hop neighbor list at
each host from the HELLO messages. The neighbor list at the current host is added to every broadcast
packet. When the packets reach the neighbors of the current host, each neighbor compares its neighbor
list with the list recorded in the packets. It rebroadcasts the packets if not all of its own neighbors are
included in the list recorded in the packets. Another approach of scalable broadcast algorithm (SBA)
embeds neighbor list in HELLO messages from which it constructs a 2-hop neighbor list at each host.
Neighbor-knowledge-based approaches make rebroadcast decisions based on the precise neighborhood
information. Therefore, the number of rebroadcasts maybe near optimal. However, the HELLO
messages themselves consume channel bandwidth, thus affecting the overall performance.
Ni et al, 1999 also discussed area-based algorithms, including distance-based and location-
based approaches. In distance-based approach, only neighbors far away from the current node
rebroadcast packets. In location-based approach, each node receiving a packet compares its location
with that of the previous-hop node, and calculates the additional coverage for the rebroadcast. If the
value is below a threshold, the packet is dropped. Otherwise, the node starts a RAD. It recalculates the
additional coverage whenever a new copy is received during the delay. It rebroadcasts the packet if the
value exceeds the threshold when the RAD expires. Otherwise the packet is dropped. The calculation
of the additional coverage becomes complicated when several copies of the same packet are received.
Karthikeyan et al, 2009 discussed and implemented the cluster based broadcasting method in
mobile ad hoc network. The cluster based broadcasting partitions the ad hoc network into a number of
clusters or sub-sets of mobile nodes. Each cluster has one cluster head and a number of gateways. The
cluster head is a representative of the cluster whose rebroadcast can cover all hosts in that cluster. Only
gateways can communicate with other clusters and have responsibilities to disseminate the broadcast
message to other cluster heads.

3. The Broadcasting Algorithms under Evaluation

3.1. Simple Flooding
A source node broadcasts it s packet to all neighbors. Each of those neighbors in turn rebroadcast the
packet first time it receives the packet. Redundant packets are simply dropped. This behavior continues
until all reachable network nodes have received. However, blind flooding produces high overhead in
the network, resulting in the broadcast storm problem. Figure.1 illustrates the performance of simple
flooding.
Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 580
Figure 1: Mobile Ad Hoc Network

When node v broadcasts a packet, nodes u, w and x receive the packet. u, w and x then forward
the packet and lastly y also broadcasts the packet. Clearly, there is a great broadcast redundancy as a
result of simple flooding. Transmitting the broadcast packet only by nodes v and u is enough for the
broadcast operation.

3.2. Simple Flooding Algorithm - Algorithm I

The simple flooding algorithm (Karthikeyan et al, 2009) with respect to MAC load, power
consumption and collision is implemented in Algorithm I using NS2 Simulation. The steps are as
follows:
• The algorithm for simple flooding starts with a source node broadcasting a packet to all
neighbors.
• Each of those neighbors in turn rebroadcast the packet exactly one time and
• This continues until all reachable network nodes have received the packet.

3.3. Probability Based Flooding Algorithm - Algorithm II

The probability based flooding algorithm (Karthikeyan et al, 2009) with respect to MAC load, power
consumption and collision is implemented in Algorithm-II using NS2 Simulation. The Probabilistic
scheme is similar to simple flooding, except that nodes only rebroadcast with a predetermined
probability. The algorithm for Simple Flooding starts with a source node broadcasting a packet to all
neighbors. Each of those neighbors in turn may rebroadcast the packet exactly one time with respect to
some random condition. And this continues until all reachable network nodes have received the packet.
When the probability is 100%, this scheme is identical to Flooding.
The probabilistic scheme has poor reachability. The problem comes from the uniformity of the
algorithm; every node has the same probability to rebroadcast the packet, regardless of its number of
neighbors. In a dense network, multiple nodes may share similar transmission coverage. Therefore, if
some nodes, randomly, do not forward the broadcast packet, these could save resources without
degrading the delivery effectiveness. On the other hand, in a sparse network, there is much less shared
coverage; thus some nodes might not receive the broadcast packet unless the rebroadcast probability is
set high enough. Consequently, the rebroadcast probability should be set differently from one node to
another according to their local topological characteristics.

3.4. The Proposed Algorithm - Density Based Flooding Algorithm - Algorithm III
In this work, we propose a innovative algorithm for reducing broadcast overhead in flooding based
message delivery. In this algorithm, each node will forward a message based on its neighbor density
and the previous node’s neighbor density and the present. That is, each node will decide to forward or
drop the received message based on the neighbor densities. If a cluster of nodes loosely connected with
few intermediate nodes, then there will be a chance of failure of forwarding the message at that point.
The proposed algorithm will try to avoid that situation by giving high priority at that point. Similarly, if
a node is having high density of neighbors, then there will be lot of chance for packet collision at that
point. The proposed algorithm will try to avoid that situation by giving low priority at that point.
581 N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K. Duraiswamy
Figure 2: MANET scenario

Loosely
connected point
cluster of nodes

Let us consider the above MANET scenario (Karthikeyan et al, 2009) The nodes are considered
as α node β node based on number of neighbors they are having under their broadcast coverage area.
• If the neighbor node count of a node is less than or equal to the threshold τ then the node is
considered as β node If the neighbor node count of a node is greater than the threshold τ then the
node is considered as α node
• All the message packets broadcasted or forwarded by α node will by marked as α type packet.
Similarly, all the message packets broadcasted or forwarded by β node will by marked as β type
packet.
• If a “β type” message packet is broadcasted from or received at a β node then it is treated with
higher priority.
• If a message marked as “β type” is received by a β node (from another β node) then it is re-
broadcasted at 100% probability without delay.
• On receiving any type of message from any kind of node, the α node will wait up to time
duration d before re-broadcasting it. This will give the neighboring β nodes or other node which
may receive the same message to process it and forward it. Further this will minimize the α node
broadcasts and reduce the unnecessary overhead and collisions.

Algorithm-III: The Density Based Flooding Algorithm

1. The node n1 which starts the broadcast resolves it neighbors and updates it Neighbor count η1 and
marks it type as.
β nodes ← η1 <= τ
α nodes ← η1 > τ (1)
and then mark the message with its type and then broadcast it to all its neighbors which are
listening at a specific port (by assuming ρ1 = 1.)The node will add that packet ID I0 in its
‘MessageSeen List’ L1 to avoid forwarding it again.
2. On receiving a packet, a neighboring node will add that packet ID I0 in its ‘MessageSeen List” L2
and then update its Neighbor count η2 and marks its type using the condition (1)
if I0 ∉ L2 then
{
if ti != β and tpi = α then
if λ < ρ2 then
Forward the Packet.
}
Else
Forward the Packet with probability 1.
}
Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 582

Else
It is a previously seen message. So drop it
} (2)
Where
ti ← type of the current node
tpi ← type of the previous node
λ← probability (randomly chosen between 0 and 1)
ρ 2 = 1 / η1 * τ (3)
ρ2 is the probability in which it should re-broadcast the packet.
All the remaining nodes of the network will forward the packet based on the condition (2).
This will stop until all the nodes of the network receive at least one copy of the packet with
same ID I0.

4. Simulation Results and Analysis

NS-2 (Marc Greis) is a discrete event network simulator that has begun in 1989 as a variant of the
REAL network simulator. Initially intended for wired networks, the Monarch Group at CMU have
extended NS-2 to support wireless networking such as MANET and wireless LANs as well. Most
MANET routing protocols are available for NS-2, as well as an 802.11 MAC layer implementation.
NS-2's code source is split between C++ for its core engine and OTcl, an object oriented version of
TCL for configuration and simulation scripts.

Table 1: Simulation Parameters

Number of Nodes 50
Topological area 1000m X 1000m
Bandwidth 1Mbps
MAC Type Simple
Queue Type DropTail/PriQueue
Queue Length 50
Antenna Type OmniAntenna
1 hop Routing Agent DumbAgent
MESSAGE_PORT 42
BROADCAST_ADDR -1
Node Velocity 50m/sec
Mobility Model Random
Initial Node Energy 1000 Joules
Tx Power 0.1819 watts
Rx Power 0.049 watts
Idle Power 0.030 watts

The following results shows the comparison of simple flooding, probabilistic flooding and
density based flooding methods with respect to routing load, MAC load, power consumption and
collision.
583 N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K. Duraiswamy
Figure 3: Average consumed power

Figure.3 shows the Comparison of three methods with respect to power consumption of mobile
node in a MANET. The density based flooding method consumes less power than simple flooding and
probabilistic flooding. Because in density based flooding, a node determines the broadcast based on
neighbors density of the network i.e. high priority is given for beta type node and low priority is given
for alpha type node.

Figure 4: Time Vs Power consumption

Figure.4 shows the comparison of three methods with respect to time versus power
consumption of mobile node in a MANET. The average battery power of mobile node consumes very
less in density based flooding comparing with other two methods, since minimum number of broadcast
is taken place in the high density based networks (alpha node).
Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 584
Figure 5: Comparison of routing load

As shown in the Figure.5, the proposed density based flooding has very low routing overhead
than other two algorithms. Even though, we have used a one hop routing agent or protocol called
Dumb Agent, it will also consume network resources.

Figure 6: Comparison of MAC load

In Figure.6, the proposed density based flooding algorithm has very low MAC layer over head
than other two methods. Here all the nodes are not involved in broadcasting, the node will forward a
message based on its neighbor density as well as the previous node’s neighbor density.
585 N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K. Duraiswamy
Figure 7: Comparison of dropped packets due to collision

As shown in the above graph (Figure.7), the proposed density based flooding algorithm has
very low failure rates at MAC layer transmissions. If a node is having high density of neighbors, then
there will be lot of chance for packet collision at that point. The proposed algorithm will try to avoid
that situation by giving low priority at that point.

Figure 8: Time Vs MAC load

Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 586
Figure 9: Time Vs Dropped MAC packets

As shown in the above graphs (Figure.8 and Figure.9) the density based flooding method
decreases the MAC load and number of dropped packets with respect to time. The simple flooding
method and probability based flooding method increases the broadcast overhead and as well as the
number of dropped packets due to more collision.

Summary and Concluding Remarks

In this study, we have evaluated the performance of density based flooding and its metrics are
compared with a single source broadcasting techniques such as simple flooding algorithm and
probability flooding algorithm.
This algorithm guarantees to deliver the packets from a source node to all the nodes of the
network and decreases the routing load, MAC load, power consumption and collision of the network
compared with other two broadcasting methods namely simple and probability based flooding. It
concludes that simple flooding requires each node to rebroadcast all packets. Probability based
methods use some basic understanding of the network topology to assign a probability to a node to
rebroadcast.
In several previous works, particularly in probability based flooding schemes, the re broadcast
of a message will be done based on the node density at that particular transmitting node. But, in this
algorithm, each node determines rebroadcast probability or forward a message based on it’s neighbor
density as well as the previous node’s neighbor density. That is, each node will decide to forward or
drop the received message based on more than one condition.
587 N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K. Duraiswamy

References
[1] D. Johnson, D. Maltz and Y. Hu. 2003. “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad
hoc Networks” Internet Draft: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09.txt
[2] C. Perkins, E. Beldig-Royer and S. Das, 2003 “Ad hoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
Routing”. Request for Comments 3561
[3] Z. Haas and M. Pearlman, 2001. “The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone
Routing Protocol” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(4):427–438
[4] Y. Ko and N. Vaidya, 1998. “Location-aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”
Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MOBICOM), 66-75.
[5] Y.-C. Tseng, S.-Y. Ni, and E.-Y. Shih, 2003 “Adaptive Approaches to Relieving Broadcast
Storms in a Wireless Multihop Mobile Ad Hoc Network,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 52, no.
5, pp. 545-557
[6] S.Y. Ni, Y.C. Tseng, Y.S. Chen and J.P. Sheu, 1999. “The broadcast storm problem in a mobile
ad hoc network”, in: Proceedings of the 1999 Fifth Annual ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp.
151–162.
[7] B. Williams and T. Camp, 2002. “Comparison of broadcasting techniques for mobile ad hoc
networks”, in: Proceedings of the ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing (MOBIHOC 2002), pp. 194–205.
[8] C. Hu, Y. Hong, and C. Hou, 2003. “On mitigating the broadcast storm problem in MANET
with directional antennas”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Communications, IEEE Computer Society, ICC 2003, Anchorage, Alaska
[9] S.M. Hedetniemi, T. Hedetniemi, and A.L. Liestman, 1988. “A survey of gossiping and
broadcasting in communication networks”, Networks 18, 319–349.
[10] Z. Xiao and K.P. Birman, 2001. “A randomized error recovery algorithm for reliable
multicast”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, IEEE Computer Society, Anchorage,
Alaska
[11] B. Krishnamachari, S.B. Wicker, and R. Bejar, 2001. “Phase transition phenomena in wireless
ad-hoc networks”, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks,
GlobeCom2001, IEEE Computer Society, San Antonio, TX.
[12] J. Spencer, 1987. “Ten Lectures on the Probabilistic Method, Conference Board of the
Mathematical Sciences”, Regional Conference Series, AMS and MAA
[13] D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, 1992. “Introduction to Percolation Theory”, second ed., Taylor &
Francis, London, 1992.
[14] W. Peng, X. Lu and Poster, 2000. “On the reduction of broadcast redundancy in mobile ad hoc
networks”, in: Proceedings of the First ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad hoc
Networking and Computing, MOBIHOC, Boston, pp. 129–130.
[15] H. Lim and C. Kim, 2000. “Multicast tree construction and flooding in wireless ad hoc
networks”, in: Proceedings of the ACM International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and
Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWIM 2000), Boston, MA, pp. 61–68.
[16] S.Y. Ni, Y.C. Tseng, Y.S. Chen, and J.P. Sheu, 1999. “The broadcast storm problem in a
mobile ad hoc network”, in: Proceedings of the 1999 Fifth Annual ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, IEEE Computer Society, New York,
August 1999, pp. 151–162.
[17] Y. Tseng, S. Ni, and E. Shih, 2003. “Adaptive approaches to relieving broadcast storms in a
wireless multihop mobile ad hoc network”, IEEE Trans. Comput. 52 (5) 545–557.
[18] Y. Sasson, D. Cavin, and A. Schiper, 2002. “Probabilistic broadcast for flooding in wireless
mobile ad hoc networks”, EPFL Technical Report IC/2002/54, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (EPFL).
Optimum Density Based Model for Probabilistic Flooding Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network 588

[19] N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy and K.Duraiswamy, 2009. “Reducing Broadcast Overhead

Using Clustering Based Broadcast Mechanism in Mobile Ad Hoc Network”, Journal of
Computer Science 5(8): 548-556, 2009 ISSN 1549-3636 © Science Publications. pp. 548-556
[20] N.Karthikeyan, Dr.V.Palanisamy, and Dr.K.Duraiswamy, 2009. “Performance Comparison of
Broadcasting methods in Mobile Ad Hoc Network” International Journal of Future Generation
Communication and Networking, Vol. 2, No. 2, June, 2009, pp. 47-58
[21] Marc Greis.NS2 Tutorial presentation in the website,www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/tutorial/
nsindex.html
[22] N. Karthikeyan, Dr.V.Palanisamy, and Dr.K.Duraiswamy, 2009. “A performance evaluation of
proactive and reactive protocols using ns2 simulation”, International Journal of Engineering.
Research & Industrial Applications (IJERIA). ASCENT Publications, ISSN 0974-1518, Vol.2,
No. II. pp 309-326.