INTERNET-DRAFT					Dr. Humayun Bakht 
Expires: October 2011				Independent Researcher (MANET)
Request for Comments				Email: humayunbakht@yahoo.co.uk
draft-bakht-maoddp-01.txt
			
	                        		
Category: Informational          			June 2011                              
                  
                                                   
                                         
           Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol (MAODDP) 
Abstract 
    
Routing in mobile ad-hoc network is achieved through the mutual 
cooperation of mobile devices that form routes in between two mobile
nodes.It is one of the challenging issues in mobile ad-hoc network [1].
The current protocols for an ad-hoc network can generally be categorized 
into two groups i.e. pro-active and re-active[15,16,17,18]. 
Pro-active protocols by continuously evaluating the known and attempting 
to discover new routes. 
These protocols try to maintain the most up-to-date view of the 
network[2]. This allows them to efficiently forward packets as the route 
is known in advanced [14]. In contrast reactive protocols determine the 
route only when require [3, 5, 6].
Mobile Ad-hoc On Demand Data Delivery protocol (MAODDP) establishes 
route on demand and delivers the data at the same time one after the 
other [22].MAODDP support both unicast and multicast routing. 
It is designed to minimize reaction to topological changes. 
In order to ensure the freshness of route MAODDP uses combination 
of sequence numbers and broadcast ID. MAODDP is loop-free,
self-starting protocol whic can scales to different size of networks. 
MAODDP offers quick adaptation to the dynamic link 
conditions and determines routes to the destinations on demand.

Status of This Memo 
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

      Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
      Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other
      groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
      http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
      http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
 
     "Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
      and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
      any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
      material or to cite them other than as work in progress." 

This Internet-Draft will expire in November, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF 
Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. 
Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
    
Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 1] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol  June 2011






Table of Contents    

Abstract	1
Status of This Memo	1
2.   Introduction	2
3.   Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol	4
3.1. Broadcasting Joining Message	4
3.2. Broadcasting Route Query and Data Delivery Packet (RQDD)	4
3.3. Forwarding Route Query and Data Delivery Packet (RQDD)	4
3.4. Creating Reverse Routes	4
3.5. Broadcasting and Forwarding Acknowledge Message (ACK)	4
3.6. Managing Sequence Numbers	5
3.7. Error Detection and Broadcasting Error Messages	5
3.8. Power Saving Mode	5
3.9. Multicast Joining Request	5
3.10. Multicasting	5
3.11. Security	6
3.12. Evaluation Environment	6
3.12.A. Evaluation Results	7
4.   Acknowledgements 
 

 1.   Conventions used in this document 
    
  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
     document are to be interpreted as described in "Key words for use 
    in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels". 

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 2] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol      June 2011

    
2.   Introduction 
    
Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is an interesting and 
challenging issue. Much effort[7,8,9,10,11,12,13] has been going 
on to develop a routing mechanism which can full-fill the specific 
routing needs of MANET. Existing literature reports schemes which 
can be classified into one of two types i.e. tables driven and 
on-demand routing protocols. Mobile Ad-hoc on-Demand Data Delivery 
Protocol (MAODDP) adopts an intermediate approach in between the two 
types mentioned above. 

MAODDP offer a routing solution capable of meeting other routing 
associated issues in MANET. MAODDP has been evaluated in SWANS 
where it showed satisfactory performance both on its own and against 
other routing scheme of similar type.  
    
This document is a specification of mobile ad-hoc on-demand data 
delivery protocol(MAODDP)[19,20]. It defines different functions and 
details various features of the protocol. In addition, an explanation to 
the implementation and evaluation details of the protcol is also covered 
in this document.  
  
3.   Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol 
Mobile Ad-hoc On Demand Data Delivery Protocol adopts an 
intermediate approach in between tables driven and existing on-demand 
routing protocols [4]. The key feature of MAODDP is the route 
establishment of the route and data delivery one after the other. 
Definition and explanation of MAODDP functions are as follows.

3.1. Broadcasting Joining Message
Joining message is broadcasted in one of two situations. If number of 
mobile nodes want to form an ad-hoc network they broadcast 
joining message. 
This message in this case, serves as an initial point of contact for the 
other nodes in the network. Alternatively, if a mobile node wants to
join an established ad-hoc network, it broadcasts join message indicating 
joining of new node in the network.


3.2. Broadcasting Route Query and Data Delivery Packet (RQDD)
A node floods RQDD packet containing both route query information and 
data. RQDD is to a destination for which node does not have no route 
information available.


Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 3] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol     June 2011



3.3. Forwarding Route Query and Data Delivery Packet (RQDD)
Whenever a RQDD reaches to a node, it takes following steps in sequence. 
Legitimacy of RQDD: if the same packet has arrived before. To find out 
the freshness of received RQDD, receiving node check the sequence 
number and the broadcast ID of RQDD against stored information. If 
sequence number and broadcast ID matches with stored information nodes 
take no further action and simply discard the packet. Updating routing 
information: A node updates routing information: if it finds no previous 
information about the received RQDD or if the RQDD contains the latest 
information about the source and the destination node. Forwarding RQDD: 
Receiving node takes one ofthe following actions. If the destination 
node is its next hop neighbor or it has no information about the 
destination. 
it forwards RQDD to destination or the next hop neighbor. The other 
alternative is, if the node has fresh enough route to the destination. 
it forwards the RQDD using the available route.

3.4. Creating Reverse Routes
All the nodes through which RQDD passes to destination form a reverse 
route to the source of RQDD.

3.5. Broadcasting and Forwarding Acknowledge Message (ACK)
Destination nodes broadcast an ACK message on recepition of RQDD. This 
ACK message is forwarded to the source node using the reverse route.

3.6. Managing Sequence Numbers
Each node is responsible for maintaining its own sequence number to 
ensure loop free routing.
  
3.7. Error Detection and Broadcasting Error Messages
In MAODDP, error detection occurs in one of the two conditions. When a 
node detects a link breakage for the next hop and if it receives 
route error message (RER) from one of the neighbour. Broadcast of 
these route error messages are limited to the neighbouring nodes 
or to the mobile nodes in an establish route for data transfer.

3.8. Power Saving Mode
MAODDP is adaptable to existing power saving mechanisms [19] besides its 
own power saving scheme. 
Nodes are allowed to switch in between one of two states i.e. soft/sleep 
or active state. 
A node can switch into sleep mode if it does not hear from other node 
within a time limit known as Listening Time (LT). Similarly, after a 
specific time interval known as Active Time (AT) a node can switch back 
to an active state. 

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 4] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol        June 2011

In practice, the time between the two modes are kept as minimum as 
possible to reduce loss of any incoming packet.

3.9. Multicast Joining Request
If a node wishes to join a multicast tree for which it is not a member. 
It can invoke multicast joining request by broadcasting a Multicast 
Joining query (MJR). 
On the other hand, if a node wants to share some information with a node 
part of some other multicast tree it can broadcast multicast route query 
and data delivery (MRQDD).

3.10. Multicasting
MAODDP has been implemented in a manner which allows integration of 
multicast operations of other schemes within the protocolstructure. 
MAODDP multicast operation depends on the combination of flooding and 
formation of the multicast tree structure. 
It is known that flooding is suitable for high data traffic and offers 
lowest control overheads while tree based routing reduces data traffic 
in the network but requires many control data exchanges. MAODDP focus on 
maintaining only those routes that are active. 
Expired or invalid route entries automatically deleted from the route 
table. For multicast operations multicast tree is maintained for the 
life of the multicast group.

3.11. Security
MAODDP deal security at an intermediate level. However, implementation 
of the protocol allows for other security mechanisms e.g. [17] to 
integrate within the protocol. MAODDP security mechanism uses trusted 
certificate server C, whose public keys known to all valid nodes.
Two or more mobile nodes collectively can act as a trusted server.
Keys are priority generated and are exchanged through mutual 
relationship between C and each node. Each node obtains a certificate 
with exactly a single key from the trusted certificate server on
joining the network. 
The certificate details different aspect of connecting node such as node 
addresses, a public key and a time stamp T1 and T2. T1 defines the 
certificate issue time and T2 stands for the expiry time of the 
certificate. These certificates are authenticated and signed 
by the server C. 
The goal of communication between source and the destination is to make 
sure that data is reached safely at the destination.MAODDP allocated 
public key to all the mobile nodes at the joining of the network. 
Public key contains a certificate and expiry time. For each RQDD 
the receiver node extracts the public key from the certificate C 
to validate the signature and to make sure that the certificate is 
not expired and is still valid. The same procedure is repeated in 
forwarding ACKs from the destination to the source node.

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 5] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol    June 2011




3.12. Evaluation Environment  
The SuSE Linux 10.1 operating environment was used for all simulation 
experiments[21]. 
In total six sets of experiments with each set comprising nine different 
tests were conducted. Simulation environment were generated using 
selection of different input parameters. Details of each of these 
parameters and how these were used are as follows Nodes were placed 
in a grid type area range of 5x5 to 30x30 within a two dimension 
fixed field size of 500X500 meters. In one set of experiments nodes 
were placed randomly with the same fixed field as described above. 
Nodes were selected from the range of 25 to 450 mobile nodes. All 
simulation starts at 10 seconds with a fixed resolution time of 60
seconds. MAODDP was evaluated both for short and long simulations
run therefore simulation stop time was chosen from the range of 
600 to 800 seconds. 

A fixed pause time of 10 seconds was used in all simulations experiments. 
In some sets mobility was defined as static and for others following 
mobility modelswere used. 

Random Walk: In Random Walk Mobility model mobile nodes moves in turn. 
Random Way Point: Random Way Point model is an extension of the random 
walk model. In this model each node at the beginning of its turn first 
moves to a new position selected at random in the unit square.

Teleport Model: This was another model which was used in some of the 
simulation experiments. 
Packet loss for most of the experiments defined as default. Adding 
packet loss to the simulation does not really test anything new, since 
the simulation already have packet loss even without specifying it. 
Definition and explanation of conclusions drawn from the simulation 
results are as follows.

Data Delivery: It defines the ratio between the number of ACKs sent 
and broadcast RQDD. 
Route Formed: Defines number of new route added. Elapsed Time: It 
defines the time period in between simulation start and stop time. 
Memory Saved: It is the difference of total memory and memory used 
in a simulation cycle. 
Total Memory: It is the memory allocated by the SWANS[22] 
based on the input parameters used in a simulation cycle. 
Memory Used: It defines the amount of memory used in a simulation cycle.

3.12. A.Evaluation Results
In the light of evaluation results it can be drawn that MAODDP is well 
suited in different types of environments. 
Almost all the operations as defined in MAODDP specification are 
practically applicable and can produce good results.Variations of 
different types of tests have been conducted over MAODDP. These 
simulation environments were selected in a manner which can best 
reflect the nature of communication pattern of mobile ad-hoc network. 
Messages activities both in terms of broadcasting RQDDs and sending 
ACKs were quite high.This indicates that MAODDP has a good scalability 
factor. 

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 6] 


RFC 	Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol          June 2011


It was noted that the addition of mobile nodes yields little affect on 
the protocol behaviour and performance. Evaluation experiments were run 
with three above mentioned mobility models.
In these experiments message activities were observed as low however, 
with a higher data delivery rate. Average collective data delivery of 
all the evaluation experiments found as 79 percent. This indicates that 
MAODDP is capable of delivering high data rates in various network 
environments. 
A higher data delivery rate was observed for mobile nodes ranges 
from 100 to 125.  With respect to the time, highest data delivery was at 
in the middle of the simulation time. Variation of data delivery is 
partially due to the change in grid area which has its due affects in 
data communication. 
New route formation implies more active paths fordata communication. 
In this context, MAODDP showed an impressive and normal behavior as some 
of the well known routing protocols. Probability of new route formation 
was increased with the addition of mobile nodes.Average number of new 
route formed calculated was 613 percent. 
Energy conservations an important aspect mobile ad-hoc network. 
On average MAODDP saved 67.5 percent of available memory. Teleport model 
in compression with random walk and random way point model conserved the 
highest amount of available memory.
   
                                                               
4.  Acknowledgements 
    
The author work on this specification would be incomplete without the 
assistance of project supervisors who have assisted him from the 
beginning till the end of this research project.  
      

    


Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 7] 


RFC 		Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol       June 2011






5.  References 
    
[1]. G. Holland and N.Vaidya. Analysis of TCP Performance over Mobile 
Ad Hoc Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International 
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom). 1999.
[2]. S.Kannan, John E Mellor, and D.D.Kouvatsos, Investigation of 
routing in DSDV. 4th Annual Post-Graduate Symposium on the Convergence 
of Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting, Liverpool UK, 2003.
[3]. Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer, Ad-hoc On-Demand 
Distance Vector Routing. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on 
Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, February 1999: p. pp. 90 to 
100.
[4]. H.Bakht, M.Merabti, and R.Askwith, Mobile Ad-hoc On Demand 
Data Delivery Protocol. 3rdAnnual Post- Graduate Symposium on the 
Convergence of Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting, 2002.
[5]. H.Bakht. A Study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. 
in 1st International Computer Engineering Conference. December 2004. 
Cairo , Egypt.
[6]. H.Bakht, M.Merabti, and R.Askwith. Centralized Frame for Routing in 
Mobile Ad-hocNetworks. in In Proceedings othe International Conference 
on Computer Communication(ICCC). September, 2004. Beijing, China.
[7]. D. B. Johnson and D.A. Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad hoc 
Wireless Networks. Mobile Computing, 1996. 353.

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 8] 


RFC 	Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol          June 2011




[8]. C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, Ad-hoc On- Demand Distance Vector 
Routing. 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 
February 1999: p. 90-100.
[9]. A. Aaron and J. WengA. Aaron and J. Weng, Performance Comparison of 
Ad- Hoc Routing Protocols for Networks with Node Energy Constraints. 
June ,2001, EE 360 Class Project,Stanford University.
[10]. I. D. Aron and S. K.S.Gupta, On the Scalability of On-Demand 
Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks: An Analytical Study. 
Journal of Interconnection Networks, January ,2001.
[11]. J. Broch, et al., A Performance Comparsion of Multi-Hop Wireless 
Ad- Hoc Network Routing Protocols. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual 
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking 
(MobiCom), 1998.
[12]. M.Asim and A.J. PullinM.Asim and A.J. Pullin, Comparison analysis 
of MAODDP with some other prominent Wireless ad hoc routing protocols, 
in IBITE Computing. 2005, Liverpool Hope University: Liverpool.
[13]. C. E. Perkins. Performance Comparsion of two On-Demand Routing 
Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks. in IEEE Conference on Computer 
Communications (INFOCOM). March 2000.
[14]. E. Royer and C.Toh, A Review of Current Routing Protocols for 
Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, 
April 1999: p. 46-55.
[15]. S. Sesay, et al., Simulation Comparsion of Four Wireless Ad hoc 
Routing Protocols. Information Technology, 2004. 3(3): p. 219-226.
[16]. C.K. Toh, S.J.Lee, and M.Gerla, A simulation study of table driven 
and ondemand routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Network, 
1999. 13: p. 48-54.
[17]. W. Wang, Y. Lu, and B. Bhargava. On Security Study of Two Distance 
Vector RoutingProtocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. in IEEE 
International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications. 
March 2003. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas,USA.
[18]. D. Kim, et al., Routing Mechanisms for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks 
based on the EnergyDrain Rate. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 
April-June 2003. 2(2): p. 161-173.
[19]. M Saleemand, MA Sheikh. An Empirical Analysis of Ad hoc Routing 
Protocols for Hybrid Wireless Sensor Networks. International Conference 
on Electrical Engineering, ICEE 07, 2007.

Bakht				Informational                         		  	  [Page 9] 


RFC 			Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol    June 2011

[20]. R.L. Gilaberte and L.P. Herrero. Routing Protocols in Mobile 
Ad-Hoc Networks. Communication Systems and Networks.2005.
[21]. H.bakht, On Demand Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network GEJC Computer 
Sciences and Telecommunication, No 5(22).
[22]. Swans, Java in Simulation Time / Scalable Wireless Ad hoc Network 
Simulator http://jist.ece.cornell.edu/.

Bakht				Informational      [Page 10] 	Expires: November 2011 




RFC 			Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol    June 2011

Editors' Addresses
Dr. Humayun Bakht
Independent Researcher (MANET)   
Taitec College Manchester     
Manchester, UK.
