A comparison based overview of destination distance sequence vector routing (DSDV) and mobile ad
hoc on demand data delivery protocol (MAODDP)
Humayun Bakht
School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences
Liverpool John Moores University
Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
Email: humayunbakht@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
Mobile ad hoc network is an autonomous system
of mobile nodes establishing ad hoc or short live
network without the intervention of any fixed
infrastructure. Routing in these types of network
is an unresolved issue. Effort is going on to
establish an effective routing mechanism for
mobile ad hoc networks. Proposed protocols for
mobile ad hoc network can be categorized into
two types i.e. table’s driven and on-demand
routing protocols.
Destination sequence distance vector routing is
one of tables driven earliest proposed algorithms.
DSDV maintains the consistent overview of the
network. DSDV requires participating nodes
broadcast updates after a regular interval of time.
Most of the tables driven type protocol is either a
extension or modified form of DSDV.
Mobile ad-hoc on demand data delivery protocol
follows an intermediate approach in compression
with tables driven and on demand routing
protocols. The key feature of MAODDP is to
establish the route and deliver the data
simultaneously at the same time one after the
other.
This paper is an effort to describe the detail
functioning of these protocols. This paper also
covers an analytical and discussion section to
compare the various aspects of these protocols
with each other.
1. Introduction
With the advancement in radio technologies like
Bluetooth[1], IEEE 802.11 or Hiperlan, a new
concept of networking has emerged which make
wireless networks increasingly popular in the
computing industry[1, 2]. This is particularly
true within the past decade which has seen
wireless networks being adapted to enable
mobility. There are currently two variations of
wireless networks[3]. The first is known as
Infrastructure networks i.e. those networks with
fixed and wired gateways. The bridges for these
networks are known as base stations. As the
mobile travels out of range of one base station
and into the range of another, a “handoff” occurs
from the old base station to the new, and the
mobile is able to continue communication
seamlessly throughout the network. Typical
applications of this type of network include
office wireless local area networks (WLAN).
The second type of mobile wireless network is
mobile ad-hoc network or infrastructure-less
mobile networks. A mobile ad-hoc network is a
collection of wireless mobile nodes dynamically
forming a temporary network without the use of
any existing network infrastructure or centralized
administration[4, 5]. Mobile ad-hoc networks are
deployed in applications such as disaster
recovery and distributed collaborative computing
where routes are mostly multi-hop and network
hosts communicate via packet radios[6].
Examples include infrared, wireless RF,
Bluetooth, ad-hoc sensor networks[7] or even
wired based transceivers used when emulating ad
hoc networks. There is current and future need
for dynamic ad hoc networking technology [8].
The emerging field of mobile and nomadic
computing, with its current emphasis on mobile
IP operations should gradually broaden and
require highly-adaptive mobile networking
technology to effectively manage multi-hop,
mobile ad-hoc network clusters which can
operate autonomously or, more than likely, be
attached at some point to the bigger network
such as the Internet.
Most of the existing Internet protocols were
designed to aid routing in a network with fixed
infrastructure. These protocols therefore are not
considered good enough to support routing in an
ad-hoc networking environment[9]. One of the
first routing solutions was based on the idea of
considering each mobile nodes of an ad hoc
network as a router and running some
conventional routing protocol[10]. However This
scheme was not very successful as mobile ad-hoc
network suffers from frequent topology changes
which results a large number of packets to be
dropped or lost[11]. Later on numbers of
different protocols have been proposed as a
routing solution for mobile ad hoc networks.
These can be classified as either tables
driven[12] or on-demand protocol[13] types.
Pro-active protocols follow an approach similar
to the one used in wired routing protocols. By
continuously evaluating the known route and
attempting to discover new routes, they try to
maintain the most up-to-date map of the
network. This allows them to efficiently forward
packets as the route is known at the time when
the packet arrives at the node. Pro-active or
table-driven protocols, in order to maintain the
constantly changing network graph due to new
moving or failing nodes require continuous
updates which may consume large amounts of
bandwidth. In contrast, reactive protocols
determine the proper route only when required.
Therefore, when a packet needs to be forwarded
In this instance the node floods the network with
a route-request and builds the route on demand
from the responses it receives. This technique
does not require constant broadcasts and
discovery, but on the other hand causes delays
since the routes are not already available.
Additionally, the flooding of the network may
lead to additional control traffic, again putting
strain on the limited bandwidth.
Mobile ad-hoc on Demand Data Delivery
protocol (MAODDP) follows a centralized
approached figure 1 is based on the idea of
accomplishing route discovery and data delivery
simultaneously at the same time one after the
other. It is an on-demand routing protocol type it
builds routes between nodes only as desired by
source nodes. MAODDP offers loop-free routing
with the help of sequence number, self-starting.
MAODDP offers quick adaptation to dynamic
link conditions, low processing and memory
overhead, low network utilization, and
determines routes to destinations within the
mobile ad-hoc network.
Mobile ad-hoc on demand data delivery
protocol
Bandwidth
Constraint
Security
Routing
Multicasting
Battery Life
Figure 1 Model of MAODDP
MAODDP uses destination sequence numbers to
ensure loop free routing. The primary concerns
in mobile ad-hoc networks are bandwidth
limitations and unpredictable topology changes.
Thus, efficient utilization of routing packets and
immediate recovery of route breaks are critical in
routing and multicasting protocols. MAODDP
intial specification taken into account these two
factors besides number of other factors.
MAODDP could proved to be an effective
solution particularly in terms of minimizing
bandwidth consumption and maximizing battery
life of the mobile nodes in an ad hoc network.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows in
section 2 we discuss routing problems in mobile
ad hoc networks, section 3 and 4 covers details
functioning of destination sequence distance
vector routing and mobile ad hoc on demand on
demand data delivery protocol, analysis and
discussion is given in section 5 while references
are listed in section 6.
2. Routing in mobile ad hoc network
Despite the numerous advantages and potential
application possibilities[8], ad-hoc networks are
yet far from being deployed on large-scale
commercial basis. To enable communication
within a MANET, a routing protocol is required
to establish routes between participating nodes.
Because of limited transmission range, multiple
network hops may be needed to enable data
communication between two nodes in the
network. Since MANET is an infrastructure less
network, each mobile node operates not only as a
host but also as a router, forwarding packets for
other mobile nodes in the network.
There are frequent unpredictable topological
changes in these networks, which makes the task
of finding and maintaining routes are
difficult[14-16]. Conventional routing protocols
based on distance vector algorithms are not very
suitable for such situations as the amount of
routing related traffic would consume a large
portion of the wireless bandwidth, and such
discovered routes would soon become crucial
due to mobility of nodes. Although good
numbers of routing protocols are suggested and
tested for mobile ad-hoc networks. Research
shows performance metrics like throughput,
delay and protocol overhead in relation to
successfully transmitted data still need better
optimization.
These all problems make efficient dynamic
routing an important research challenge in ad hoc
networks. Here new protocols especially reactive
types could be considered as very useful because
they often generate much lower routing
overheads in comparison with proactive routing
protocols[17].
Thus from the above discussion we concluded a
clear need of developing more efficient strategies
for routing in mobile ad-hoc network. Based on
carried research the proposed scheme should be
capable of delivering an effective routing
solution while addressing other routing related
issues along with routing. In this context the
some of the desirable characteristics of the
proposed algorithm are bandwidth efficient,
consume less battery power and be able or can be
extended to support both uni-cast and multicast
routing.
3. Destination sequence
routing protocol
distance
vector
Based on conventional routing protocol, RIP
adapted for use in ad-hoc network, the
destination sequenced distance vector routing
protocol[18] is an extension of classical bellman
ford routing mechanism. In DSDV[19] routing is
achieved by using routing tables maintained by
each node. The main complexity in DSDV is in
generating and maintaining these routing tables.
DSDV requires nodes to periodically transmit
routing table updates packets, regardless of
network traffic. These update packets are
broadcast throughout the network so every node
in the network knows how to reach every other
node. As the number of nodes in the network
grows, the size of the routing tables and the
bandwidth required to update them also grows.
This overhead is considered to be the main
weakness of DSDV.
3.1 Overview
Every mobile node in the network maintains a
routing table, as shown in figure 1 in which all of
the possible destinations within the network and
the number of hops to each destination are
recorded. Each entry is marked with a sequence
number assigned by the destination node. The
sequence numbers enable the mobile nodes to
distinguish stale routes from new ones, thereby
avoiding the formation of routing loops. Routing
tables updates are periodically transmitted
throughout the network in order to maintain table
consistency.
New route broadcasts contain the address of the
destination, the number of hops to reach the
destination, the sequence number of the
destination as well as a new sequence number
unique to broadcast. The route labelled with the
most recent sequence number is always used. In
the event that two updates have the same
sequence number, the route with the smaller
metric is used in order to optimise the path.
Routing is achieved by using routing tables
maintained by each node.
3.2) DSDV Route Advertisement
DSDV requires nodes to periodically transmit
routing table update packets, regardless of
network traffic. These update packets are
broadcast throughout the network. Therefore,
every node in the network knows how to reach
every other node. However due to the
dynamically varying topology, the entries in this
list may change quite frequently over time, thus
requires, route advertisement to be made quite
often . This is to ensure that every mobile node
can almost locate every other node in the
network. In addition each mobile node agrees to
relay data packets to other nodes upon requests.
In this way even though a node does not have a
direct link with a particular node in the network,
it will still be able to exchange data with that
node.
Whenever a node broadcast data, a sequence
number is generated. In addition to data the
broadcast contains other useful information such
as destination ID, number of hops to the
destination and destination sequence number.
Receiver on receiving this data make sure that
the received sequence number is less the
previously recorded sequence number in receiver
routing table. Example of a route advertised table
is shown is figure 1.
Destination
Sequence
Metric
number
F
0
F-670
G
1
G-780
H
3
H-890
Figure 2 Route advertisement in DSDV
The receiver also advertises route received in
broadcast its routing information. The receivers
also add an increment to the metric before
advertising the route since further incoming
packets will require one more hop to reach the
destination.
The settling time is calculated by maintaining a
running over the most recent updates of the
routes for each destination. The most recent
measurement of the settling time is calculated by
maintaining weighted average over the most
recent updates of the route for each destination.
A parameter also selected to indicate how long a
route has to remain stable before it is counted as
truly stable. Any route more stable then this
parameter will cause a triggered update if it is
ever replaced by another route with different
next hop or metric.
3.3) Sequence Number
Broken link, which is mainly due to topology
changes is described by ∞ metric which could be
any value greater then the maximum allowed
metric. Whenever a link to next hop is broken,
any route through the next hop is assigned ∞
metric and an updated sequence number.
Therefore the only situation when mobile node
other then destination node generates sequence
number is when there is a broken link.
In summary there are two conditions when the
sequence number could be generated.
 Whenever a new broadcast is issued.
 When a broken link is found
3.4) Route selection
Any mobile node receiving new broadcast can
find the fresh route by comparing receiving
information with those that are previously
recorded in its routing table. Route with recent
sequence number is considered as fresh route
while the older sequence number one’s are
discarded.
If the sequence number found to be same, then
the route with better metric will be selected.
4. Mobile ad hoc on demand data delivery
protocol
4.1) Introduction
MAODDP stands for mobile on-demand data
delivery protocol. It was first proposed
pproceedings of the 3rd Annual Post-Graduate
Symposium
on
the
Convergence
of
Telecommunications,
Networking
and
Broadcasting[20]. Since then the protocols has
gone through a series of modifications[2, 5].
Several functions to support both multicasting
and unicasting routing and to secure data
transmission have been added in the initial
specification of MAODDP.
 On demand routing
 Loop free routing with the use of sequence
numbers
 Saving battery power of the participating
nodes
 Faster network converge
 Guaranteed data delivery to the destination.
In general, whenever a source node requires a
route to deliver data packets to the destination
for which it does not have any recorded route in
its routing tables. It initiates route discovery and
data delivery process by broadcasting ROUTE
DISCOVERY AND DATA DELIVERY
PACKET (RREQD). There are three possibilities
when this packet reaches to the intermediate
node. The first one if the node has a suitable path
for the destination, as enclosed in the header of
RREQD packet then its forward the packet to the
intended destination. The second possibility
when node does not have any direct path for the
destination node but have idea about the closest
neighbours, in this case, node forward this
packet to that node. The final possibility nodes
have no information whatsoever about the
destination node as specified in the RREQD, in
this case the node forward this packet to its next
hop neighbours. This process is repeated until
the packet reach to the destination. Once the
packet has reached to the destination node It
broadcasts an acknowledge packet (ACK) back
to the source node. This acknowledge packet
confirm the source node that the previous
transmission was successful. It also help the
intermediate node and the source nodes to
updates their routing information about all the
nodes in the path from source to the destination..
However if the nodes do not hear any thing back
from the destination node before the expiry time
of RREQD packet. It will consider the previous
attempt as unsuccessful.

Immediately before a node broadcast a
RREQD, it increments its own
sequence number.
This prevents
problems with deleted reverse routes to
the source of a RREQD.

Immediately before a destination node
broadcast an acknowledged (ACK)
message in response to a route request
and data delivery packet (RRQED), it
updates its own sequence number to
the maximum of its current sequence
number and the destination sequence
number in the acknowledged packet
(ACK).
4.1) Generating Route Request and data
delivery packet (RREQD)
A node floods a RREQD when it determines that
it needs a route to deliver data to a destination
and does not have one available in its routing
table. This can happen if the destination is
previously unknown to the node, or if a
previously valid route to the destination expires
or is broken. The destination sequence number
field in the RREQD is considered as the last
known destination sequence number for this
destination and is copied from the destination
sequence number field in the routing table. If no
sequence number is known, a sequence number
of zero is used. The source sequence number in
the RREQD is the node's own sequence number.
The Flooding ID field is incremented by one
from the last Flooding ID used by the current
node. Each node maintains only one Flooding
ID. The Hop Count field is set to zero.
A source node often expects to have bidirectional
communications with a destination node. In
such cases, it is not sufficient for the source node
to have a route to the destination node; the
destination must also have a route back to the
source node. In order for this to happen as
efficiently as possible, any generation of an
acknowledge packet by the destination node for
delivery to the source node, should be
accompanied by some action which notifies the
destination about a route back to the source node.
4.5) Maintaining Sequence number
MAODDP depends on each node in the network
to own and maintain a sequence number to
guarantee the loop-freedom of all the routes
towards that node. MAODDP uses combination
of sequence number and broadcast ID as a
precaution to avoid message looping. The
sequence number is incremented in one of two
circumstances
Every route table entry at every node MUST
include the latest information available about the
sequence number for the IP address of the
destination node for which the route table entry
is maintained. This sequence number is called
the "destination sequence number". It is updated
whenever a node receives new information about
the sequence number from RREQD packet, ACK
packet, or RERR messages that may be received
related to that destination.
In summary, a node may change the sequence
number for a particular destination only if:



It is itself the destination node, and
offers a new route to itself
It receives an MAODDP messages i.e.
RREQD OR ACK, with new
information about the sequence number
for some other destination node
The path towards the destination node
expires or breaks.
4.3) Generating acknowledge message (ACK)
If a RREQD is successfully deliver to the
destined destination. It is the responsibility of the
destination node to issue acknowledge packet
(ACK) back to the source node. Destination node
MUST update its own sequence number to the
maximum of its current sequence number and the
destination sequence number in the RREQD
packet. The destination node places the value
zero in the Hop Count field of the ACK message.
5. Analysis and discussion
Mobile ad hoc networks suffer with high
mobility, frequent topology changes, bandwidth
constraints, limited power and hidden terminal
problem. Our research concluded[21] that almost
all of these issues are interrelated with the over
all routing mechanism. Therefore for a routing
mechanism to be good enough for such an
environment, it should be able to address some
or all of these issues at a certain level.
Most of the tables driven protocols address
routing without addressing the side effects on the
other related issues such as limited bandwidth
and battery power of ad-hoc networks. Like
other tables driven protocols, DSDV maintain a
consistent overview of the network by forcing
each mobile nodes to broadcast continuous
updates after a regular interval of time. This
approach clearly not very feasible for ad hoc
networking environment. Apart from bandwidth
and battery power it could also create
unnecessary network head and could also a mean
of slowing down the over all routing operation.
In [22] DSDV perform well for fairly static
topologies but become unreliable as node
mobility and the number of traffic sources
increase. Besides number of disadvantages, loop
free routing is considered to be one of the main
benefits of DSDV. In DSDV Optimal values for
parameters like settling time is not easy to
determine. This might result in unnecessary
bandwidth consumption. Moreover, use of
continuous updates could trigger network
overhead. Further more the protocol is not
capable of supporting multicast routing. The size
of the routing table is also a problem as all nodes
are required to maintain location information of
the other nodes in the network, regardless
weather or not this information is required.
Effective support of multicast or group
communication is essential for most ad-hoc
network applications. There are many
applications[23] where group communication is
a crucial task. Group communication, both oneto-many and many-to-many, has become
increasingly important in mobile ad-hoc
networks. In mobile ad-hoc network group
communications, issues differ from those in
wired networks because of the variable and
unpredictable nature of the wireless medium,
where the signal strength and propagation varies
with the time and the environment. Moreover,
node mobility causes continuously changing
topology in which routes break unpredictably
and new routes form dynamically.
In mobile ad-hoc network, an efficient group
communication model can ease effective
communication among various groups in the
network. At present, multicasting routing in
mobile ad-hoc networks is gained by adopting
one of two approaches: flooding and tree-based
routing. Flooding offers the lowest control
overheads with very high data traffic, while treebased routing reduces data traffic in the network
but requires many control data exchanges.
Studies show less efficient performance of these
techniques on mobile ad-hoc network. Like most
of the other tables driven protocols DSDV in its
present form does not address multicast routing.
Security is one of the important aspects of this
technology and it needs some serious
attention[24, 25]. Users within the network want
their communication to be secure. As current
mobile ad-hoc networks do not have any stick
security policy, this could possibly lead active
attackers to easily exploit or possibly disable the
mobile ad-hoc network. Security goals in mobile
ad-hoc
networks are
reached
through
cryptographic mechanisms such as public key
encryption or digital signature. These
mechanisms are backed by centralized key
management where a trusted Certificate
Authority (CA) provides public key certificate to
mobile nodes in order to develop mutual trust
between nodes. Any disturbance with the
Certificate Authority can easily affect the
security of the entire network.
Security therefore, is one of the important aspect
in ad-hoc networking environment[26]. A
routing protocol which offers a secure routing
mechanism could be considered as one of the
efficient solution. DSDV however does not
address security along with routing. However,
besides number of disadvantages, loop free
routing is considered to be one of the main
benefits of DSDV
MAODDP is one of the reactive or on-demand
protocol which offers better route utilization,
faster network coverage by establishing route
and delivering data simultaneously same time
one after the other. This approach is very feasible
specially to maximize the battery life of the
participating nodes. Unlike other on-demand
routing protocols MAODDP reduces the number
of broadcasted packet by integrating the route
discovery and data packets together in a single
packet format i.e. route request and data delivery
packet (RREQD). Some of the unique features of
MAODDP are as follows.
 Centralized approached
MAODDP addresses address issues security,
bandwidth constraints and battery power along
with the routing mechanism..
 Security
MAODDP offer secure routing by introducing its
own security mechanism.
 Multicasting
MAODDP support both types of routing i.e.
unicast and multicast routing figure 3.
Sender
would prefer not to cooperate. When nodes do
cooperate they established the necessary ad-hoc
structure
that
can
makes
multi-hop
communication possible by allowing traffic flow
from a node to reach those destinations that
would either require a significant amount of
transmission energy using single
hop
communication or simply not be possible
without routing the traffic through other nodes.
This further means that nodes must be willing to
forward traffic for other nodes, and in this way
spend energy without receiving any direct
benefit. Thus the concept of introducing measure
which can force participation nodes for
collaboration into the architecture of mobile adhoc networks becomes one of the important
issues.
Unlike most of the existing routing solution
MAODDP address this issue by introducing its
own unique mechanism to identify ‘selfish’
nodes and thus could be used to make network
more reliable and secure.
6. Conclusion and future work
Figure3 Multicasting in mobile ad-hoc
network
 Battery power
MAODDP does not require mobile nodes to be
awake all the time. A node can go into sleep
mode if it is not involved in an active
transmission. Thus save considerable battery
power of the mobile nodes.

Automatic mechanism to find out if the
transmission being failed
MAODDP introduces a status time in the packet
header of RREQD to find out the status of the
previous transmission i.e. if the node does not
receive an acknowledge message before the
expiry of status time (st) it will regard the
previous transmission as unsuccessful.
In this paper, we have presented a study based
comparison of destination sequence distance
vector routing and mobile ad hoc on demand
data delivery protocol. We highlighted different
aspects of these two techniques and presented a
brief description of their applicability,
operational details, suitability under different
environments and their effects on the over all
network performance. Our future work extends
this study based comparison into a simulation
based comparison which will be contributed to
research community as a part of ongoing effort
in this area.
7. References
[1].
[2].

Systematic procedure for corroboration
of mobile devices
In mobile ad-hoc networks each nodes relies on
others to forward data packets to the other nodes
in the network. There are good numbers of
reasons why mobile nodes in ad-hoc networks
[3].
Humayun
Bakht,
Bluetooth
a
commercial application of mobile ad
hoc
networks,
in
Computing
Unplugged. November 2004. p. 2.
Humayun Bakht, et al. Multicasting in
mobile ad hoc networks. in 9th CDMA
International
Conference.
25-28
October 2004. Seoul , Korea.
Humayun Bakht, Internet Mobile Ad
hoc
networks,
in
Computing
Unplugged. April 2005. p. 2.
[4].
[5].
[6].
[7].
[8].
[9].
[10].
[11].
[12].
[13].
[14].
[15].
Humayun Bakht, Understanding mobile
ad hoc network, in Computing
Unplugged. June 2004. p. 2.
Humayun Bakht, Madjid Merabti, and
Robert Askwith. A routing protocol for
mobile ad hoc networks. in 1st
International Computer Engineering
Conference. 27-30 December. Cairo ,
Egypt.
Humayun Bakht, Some applications of
mobile
ad-hoc
network,
in
ComputingUnplugged. September 2004.
p. 1.
Humayun Bakht, Sensor networks and
ad hoc networking, in Computing
Unplugged. Oct 2004. p. 1.
Humayun Bakht, Future of mobile ad
hoc
networks,
in
Computing
Unplugged. October 2004. p. 1.
Humayun Bakht, Madjid Merabti, and
Robert Askwith. Centralized frame for
routing in mobile ad-hoc networks. in
International Conference on Computer
Communication
(ICCC2004).
September, 2004. Beijing, China.
David B. Jhonson, Routing in Ad-Hoc
Networks of Mobile Hosts. Proceedings
of the IEEE Workshop on Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications,
Dec. 1994.
Humayun Bakht, Data Communication
in mobile ad-hoc networks, in
Computing Unplugged. September
2004. p. 2.
G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.-W. Chen,
Fisheye State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks. Proceedings of Workshop on
Wireless Networks
and
Mobile
Computing, 2000.
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. 90-100.
M. Mosko and J.J. Garcia-LunaAceves. Performance of Group
Communications
over
Ad-Hoc
Networks. in The Seventh IEEE
Symposium
on
Computers
and
Communications (ISCC 02),. July 1 - 4,
2002. Taormina/Giardini Naxos, Italy,.
H. Rangarajan and J.J. Garcia-LunaAceves.
Achieving
Loop-Free
Incremental Routing in Ad Hoc
Networks. in Proc. 9th IEEE
[16].
[17].
[18].
[19].
[20].
[21].
[22].
[23].
[24].
[25].
Symposium
on
Computers
and
Communications (ISCC'2004),. June
29--July 1, 2004. Alexandria, Egypt.
H. Rangarajan and J.J. Garcia-LunaAceves. Using Labeled Paths for Loopfree On-Demand Routing in Ad Hoc
Networks. in ACM MobiHoc 2004. May
24--26, 2004. Tokyo, Japan.
Samir R. Das, Charles E. Perkins, and
Elizabeth M. Royer, On demand
multipath routing for mobile ad hoc
networks. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Computer
Communication and Networks, 1999.
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.
C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly
dynamic
destination-sequenced
distance-vector routing (DSDV) for
mobile
computers.
Computer
Communications Review, 94. 24(4): p.
234- 244.
Humayun Bakht, Madjid Merabti, and
Robert Askwith. Mobile Adhoc OnDemand Data Delivery Protocol. in
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual PostGraduate
Symposium
on
the
Convergence of Telecommunications,
Networking and Broadcasting,. 2002.
Humayun Bakht, Madjid Merabti, and
Robert Askwith. Centralized frame for
routing in mobile ad-hoc networks. in
International Conference on Computer
Communication
(ICCC2004).
September, 2004. Beijing, China.
Josh Broch, et al., A performance
Comparsion of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad
Hoc Network Routing Protocols. Fourth
Annual
ACM/IEEE
International
Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MobiCom '98), 1998.
Humayun
Bakht,
Group
communications in mobile ad hoc
networks, in Computing Unplugged.
November 2004. p. 1.
Humayun Bakht, Importance of secure
routing in mobile ad hoc networks, in
Computing Unplugged. August 2004. p.
2.
Humayun Bakht Bakht, Technical
aspects of mobile ad-hoc networks, in
Computing Unplugged. June 2004. p. 2.
[26].
Humayun Bakht, A focus on the
challenges of mobile ad hoc network, in
Computing Unplugged. August 2004. p.
2.