Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02552-4

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc

networks
Trilok Kumar Saini1   · Subhash C. Sharma2

Received: 19 April 2020 / Accepted: 11 September 2020

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The dynamic formations of the mobile ad hoc networks require routing protocols to handle the routing requirements in run-
time. The purpose of this work is to improve the endurance, quality, and trust of the path chosen by the link state routing
in mobile ad hoc networks. The multipoint relay concept has been fascinating in link sate routing optimization to reduce
duplicate retransmissions in the same region. In this paper, we present the notion of flexibility and suitability in choosing the
multipoint relays. A suitable multipoint relay selection algorithm has been proposed to choose the appropriate multipoint
relays which are trustworthy, restrain appropriate residual battery and possess a good quality link for interconnections. The
algorithm also takes care of the willingness, reachability, degree, and the relative mobility of the nodes in the selection
process. The results illustrate that the selection of the appropriate relay nodes offers substantial improvements.

Keywords  Ad hoc network · Suitable multipoint relay · Routing protocol · Tactical network · MANET

1 Introduction
Mobile ad hoc networks offer quick and dynamic formation
of the network of the nodes having moving competency and
wireless capability without requiring the central administra-
tion. These autonomous and self-organized networks have
been useful for information exchange in emergency situ-
ations. The quick formation of the self-configuring, self-
organized, multi-hop network reflects the usability aspect of
these networks (Conti and Giordano 2014). The infrastruc-
ture-less nature, non-discrimination of host and routers, and
possible extendibility to the backbone networks make these
networks a striking choice for widespread applications (Har-
rag et al. 2019). Routing is the key mechanism of multi-hop
ad hoc networks, and routing protocols play an important
role in the route finding process (Karthikeyan et al. 2020).
The proactive calculation of the routes and on-demand route
* Trilok Kumar Saini
trilok.saini@deal.drdo.in
Subhash C. Sharma
scs60fpt@iitr.ac.in
1 and Rege 2012). The selection of the nodes with better link
Defence Electronics Applications Laboratory, DRDO,
Dehradun, India
2 improvement. In the tactical ad hoc context, it is always
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
discovery are the two classic route finding approaches. The
on-demand route discovery assists in reducing the routing
overhead (Saini et al. 2020), while the proactive approach
formulates the routes in advance that assist in overcoming
the delay incurred in the route discovery process. The prior
information of the routes of the networks with periodic
maintenance makes the proactive approach more determinis-
tic even under the dynamism of the ad hoc network (Murthy
and Manoj 2013). Optimized link state routing (OLSR) is a
promising proactive routing protocol. The protocol uses the
technique of multipoint relays (MPRs) for efficient flooding
in the network, and the concept also reduces the number of
control messages in the network (Clausen and Jacquet 2003).
The native multipoint relay selection algorithm of the OLSR
does not consider many vital information of the node, link,
and the network, which can be expedient for appropriate
multipoint relay selection. We look into this aspect, care-
fully choose appropriate metrics, modify the MPR selection
algorithm, and analyze the improvement. The participating
nodes in the mobile ad hoc networks are small in form-factor
and are mostly battery operated. It is desirable that route
selection should consider the residual battery to reduce the
route switching, and to minimize the network partition (Joshi
capability and quality also assist in network performance

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

preferable that forwarding nodes are trustworthy to carry
the data in the network (Nosheen et al. 2019; Pawgasame
and Wipusitwarakun 2015). The mobility of the nodes in
mobile ad hoc networks significantly impacts the perfor-
mance of the routing process (Boushaba et al. 2015; Saini
and Sharma 2020). Consideration of the mobility factor in
the routing mechanism will be useful in a more appropriate
routing decision. Our novelty lies in the flexible combination
of suitable multi-parameters in the selection of the forward-
ing nodes for efficient packet dissemination. We propose
the suitable selection of multipoint relays that takes trust-
worthiness, battery level, link quality, and relative mobility
as a flexible combination in the selection criterion of the
algorithm. We also consider willingness, reachability, and
degree. The paper is organized as follows. We mention the
related work in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, we present the mechanism
of optimized link state routing protocol. In Sect. 4, we pro-
pose our methodology and algorithm. In Sect. 5, we simulate
and compare the proposed algorithm and present the results.
Finally, in Sect. 6, we conclude the paper.
2 Related work
In this section, we present the existing work to improve the
performance of optimized link state routing. In Zhang et al.
(2020), multi-path OLSR has been proposed to exploit the
multi-beam transmissions. Moussaoui et al. (2014) apply the
concept of stability and fidelity to elect the stable multipoint
relay (MPR) nodes and suggested two metrics, i.e., the sta-
bility of nodes (SND) and the fidelity of the nodes (FND)
to improve the multipoint relay selection. Authors make use
of the signal power as an indication of stability. Lim et al.
(2018) propose the concept of mutual node evaluation for
safe multipoint relay selection. In this approach, the evalu-
ation of the node is done based on the packet forwarding
capabilities. Joshi and Rege (2012) propose OLSRM based
on OLSR modifications with the focus on energy efficiency
for better network lifetime. In Shenbagalakshmi and Revathi
(2020), MPR based connected dominated set construction
has been proposed to improve the network life time. Anbao
and Bin (2014) proposed the node localization concept to
improve the MPR selection algorithm. An adaptive proposal
OLSR-AD by Son et al. (2015) introduced the routing metric
based on the expected transmission count and mobility fac-
tor. A concept of locating the obstructing entities was sug-
gested by Belhassen et al. (2018). It utilizes the signalling of
cartography enhanced OLSR and integrates in the protocol.
The proposal in Alamsyah et al. (2009) uses the min–max
algorithm based on the quality of service in the selection
of MPR nodes. Li and Wu (2017) proposed SMLR_OLSR
based on smooth mobility and link reliability. Harrag et al.
(2019) have suggested the approach for selecting the routing
13
T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma
protocol parameters, and apply it to OLSR. The method is
automatic and makes use of the multi objective genetic
algorithm. In Ahn et al. (2016), a concentrated multipoint
relay approach based on sharing MPRs has been proposed,
in which reduction in MPRs has been utilized to reduce the
control overhead and the MAC layer collisions. Karthikeyan
et al. (2020) suggest the secure approach for the routing and
make use of the bio inspired techniques. Boushaba et al.
(2015) proposed the optimization aiming for the reduction
in the number of topology control messages. In Jain and
Kashyap (2019), link defined OLSR (LD-OLSR) consid-
ers the quality of the link in routing decisions. The authors
make use of the expected transmission (ETX) count met-
ric to estimate the link quality. In Ahn and Lee (2017), the
authors proposed the variation in the MPR selection method
in which additional MPRs have been selected. The proposal
assumes that some of the broadcast messages may be lost
due to the wireless nature of transmission, and redundancy
can be useful for robust broadcast in the network. Zhang
et al. (2019) used the quantum genetic strategy to optimize
the selection of MPR in quantum-genetic based OLSR
(QG-OLSR).
3 Multipoint relay in proactive routing
optimization
The optimized link state routing (OLSR), OLSRv2 (Clausen
et al. 2014), and topology dissemination based on reverse-
path forwarding (TBRPF) are the proactive routing protocols
in the charter of the Internet engineering task force (IETF)
(Conti and Giordano 2014). Clausen and Jacquet (2003)
presented the optimization in link state routing for large and
dense networks by using the selected nodes referred to as
multipoint relays (MPRs). In the suggested approach, only
MPR nodes generate the link state information, retransmit
the broadcast messages, and only adequate link state infor-
mation is distributed in the network. The 1-hop neighbors of
the nodes which are not MPRs do not forward the broadcast
packets. The optimization governed by MPRs in the link
state routing is significant to reduce the control overhead
in the network while preserving the proactive nature of the
protocol. Each node selects some of its neighbors with bi-
directional links as MPRs in such a way that these can cover
all the nodes in 2-hop. The union of the neighbor sets of all
MPRs contains the 2-hop neighbor set. The selected MPRs
periodically announce the information of their MPR selec-
tors in the network. The information of the MPR selector set
is utilized by the nodes to calculate and update its route to
the possible destinations in the network (Clausen and Jac-
quet 2003). Let N1h (S) and N2h (S) are the 1-hop and 2-hop
neighbors of node S. If Mi is one of the multipoint relays of
S, and MPR(S) represents the multipoint relay set of node S,
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks

Table 1  Packet format
UDP Header Packet header Message header
Port (698), (8 bytes) (4 bytes) (12 bytes)
such that MPR(S) = {M1 , M2 ...Mk }∀Mi ∈ N1h (S) . The 1-hop
neighbors of the multipoint relay node ( Mi ) cover the nodes
from N2h (S) , that is N1h (Mi ) ⊂ N2h (S) . The message sent by
node S is relayed by Mi ∈ MPR(S) and reaches the node
w ∈ N2h (S) , the relationship can be given by Eq. 1.
MPR(S) ⊂ N1h (S)
N1h (MPR(S)) = {N1h (M1 ) ∪ N1h (M2 )..... ∪ N1h (Mk )�{S} ∪ N1h (S)}⎪
N2h (S) = {w, s.t. u ∈ N1h (S)�w ∈ N1h (u)�{S} ∪ N1h (S)}
N2h (S) ⊆ N1h (MPR(S))
HELLO and TC are the two primary periodic messages
used by the protocol to achieve its functionality. It also
makes use of the MID message for multiple interface decla-
ration. The packet format used by the protocol is shown in
Table 1. The fields and the significance of the headers and
messages have been summarized in Table 2. On the basis
of the neighbors’ information up to 2-hop, nodes can select
the MPRs from its 1-hop bidirectional neighbor set and indi-
cate the selected MPR nodes in the HELLO messages. The
MPR indication in HELLO message is used by the MPRs to
deduce their MPR selector table. The Topology control (TC)
messages are used to construct the network-wide topology
information. The TC messages contain the MPR selector
set and are periodically broadcasted in the network by the
MPRs for building the intra-forwarding database needed for
Message packet routing. On receiving TC message, nodes record and
maintain the topology entry in the topology table, having the
Variable information of the last hop connected pairs. The descending
order backtracking of this information is used for building
the routing table to route the packets in the network. Based
on the flow of the control information in the network, each
node gathers some information and store in its database for
the protocol operation (Clausen and Jacquet 2003; Jacquet
et al. 2001). The major information repositories of the pro-
tocol are shown in Fig. 1. The protocol keeps the next-hop
information to forward the packets towards destinations and
⎫ route the packets through MPR nodes. Table 3 reflects the
⎪
radicals of the protocol activities.
⎬
⎪ The routing objective of the protocol is achieved through
⎪ four major functions, as shown in Fig. 2. The first is the
⎭
(1) neighbor sensing to detect the neighbor nodes and link sta-
tus. The second is the multipoint relay selection to optimize
the flow of broadcast packets in the network (Alamsyah et al.
2009). The third function, topology discovery, is used to
gather the information about multipoint relays of other nodes
and is achieved through the MPR information declaration.
Finally, the routing table is calculated to generate the next-
hop information for the routing of the packets in the network
(Jacquet et al. 2001). The routing table contains the entries
like {destination address, next hop address, distance, and
interface address} to route the packets.
The significant concept of the protocol that governs the
optimization is the MPR selection technique (Zhang et al.
2019). The default MPR selection algorithm makes use
of the willingness, reachability, and degree to select the
MPR set from its neighbors. The willingness represents

Table 2  Packet intrinsic and fields

Header/message Purpose Fields

Packet header Basic layout for packets Packet length, Packet sequence number
Message header Basic layout for messages Message type, V-time, Msg size, Originator address, Time to live, Hop count,
Message sequence number
HELLO message Neighbor detection, link sensing, H-Time, Willingness, Link code, Link message size, Neighbor interface address
MPR selection, and signaling
TC message Topology discovery Advertised neighbor sequence number, Advertised neighbor main addresses
MID message Declare multiple interfaces Interface addresses

Fig. 1  Messages and informa-

tion repositories
Link Set 2-hop MPR
Hello Topology TC
Neighbor Neighbor MPR Set Selector
Message Set Message
Set Set Set

Routing table

13

Table 3  Protocol activities Contrivance
HELLO message
HELLO (1-hop neighbors)
Info of one and two-hop neighbors
HELLO (link status- MPR)
TC (MPR selector set)
Topology table (last hop connected pairs)
Routing table
Fig. 2  Protocol functions
Neighbor
Detection
the readiness of the node to carry and forward traffic. The
protocol starts the MPR selection by the nodes which have
higher willingness value. If multiple choices are available
for the MPRs, the nodes which have higher reachability to
the 2-hop neighbors are preferred. If the reachability of two
nodes is equal, a node with a higher value of the degree is
preferred for the multipoint relay (Clausen and Jacquet 2003;
Clausen et al. 2014).
4 Proposed methodology
We present the novel approach in proactive routing opti-
mization. The method proposes uniqueness in the flexible
selection of multipoint relay (MPR) nodes. The MPRs
are the elected nodes from 1-hop neighbors ( ⊂ N1h ) of the
intended node, which govern the flow of the information
in the network. In this proposal, we consider the flexibility
of the parameters, in which unavailable parameters can be
skipped, and if required, new parameters can be incorpo-
rated. We primarily aim the security concerns, residual bat-
tery capacity, link quality, and mobility. To handle these
artifacts, we propose the trust parameter, battery parameter,
link quality parameter, and relative mobility, respectively.
The trust parameter (Tl ) measures the trust level of the node
based on the parametric inputs of robustness, authentication,
and integrity. It improves the suitability of the approach for
the tactical networks. The battery parameter ( Bl ) has been
considered for the remaining battery capacity and reflects
the lifetime of the node. The link quality parameter ( Lq )
represents the data-carrying capacity and quality of the wire-
less link. The battery level and link quality parameters are
momentous for network availability and quality provision-
ing in the network. The information of the movement of the
13
T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma
Outcome
One hop neighbors, link status
2-hop neighbors
Selection of MPRs (by MPR selection algorithm)
MPR selector table
Topology table (last hop-TC originator, destina-
tion-MPR selector)
Routing table (backtracking)
Routes to nodes in the network
   (Destination, next-hop, distance)
MPR Topology Routing
selection Discovery Table
nodes can be useful to select the node which is less likely
to disjoint. The relative mobility ( Mr ) has been considered
to capture the mobility factor. The measurements of these
parameters require parametric inputs from the lower lay-
ers, which may be partially available or even may not be
accessible in many situations. The algorithm design has
been made flexible to adjust in accordance with the avail-
able inputs. Available parameters, along with the willingness
(W), reachability (R), and degree (D), are also used to decide
the multipoint relay nodes in the network. The presence of
the multipoint relay nodes assists in relaying the desired
information for generating complete network topology while
reducing the unnecessary dissemination of the information
in the network. On the basis of 1-hop and 2-hop neighbors
and other parametric information, the algorithm calculates
the MPRs. The interface of the MPR selection mechanism
has been depicted in Fig. 3. In the subsequent section, we
cover the details of the proposed method and the algorithm.
4.1 Flexible MPR selection
The proposed suitable MPR selection (SMS) algorithm
selects the most appropriate neighbors for the MPR set
based on the best values of willingness, trustworthiness,
residual battery capacity, link quality, mobility factor,
reachability, and degree. We start elaborating on the algo-
rithm by elucidation of the algorithmic parameters, and
subsequently, we cover algorithmic details. In the tactical
networking scenario, the trustworthiness of the individ-
ual node is important for maintaining the solidarity of the
group (Cho 2015). We have categorized the participating
nodes in two categories, i.e., routine ( Cr  ) and trusted ( Ct ).
The trusted nodes comply with the security requirements
of the group, while routine nodes need to meet only the
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks

then the decisive selection is made using reciprocal of the

Trust level remaining battery capacity. The cost function based on the
Battery level
Link quality remaining battery capacity is given by Eq. 3.
Mobility factor
⎧ ∞, b = 0 ⎫
⎪ i
� ⎪
⎪ 1 + 1 bi , bi ≤ Bt ⎪
1-hop neighbors Suitable MPR C(bi ) = ⎨ ⎬ (3)
& Selection MPR Set ⎪ 1,�bi = Bt ⎪
2-hop neighbors Algorithm ⎪1 b ,b > B ⎪
⎩ i i t ⎭

Willingness We consider the link quality as the function of supported

Reachability data rate, stability (Moussaoui et al. 2014), and reliability
Degree (Yelemou and Dandjinou 2014) of the wireless link. If Dr , dl
are the reference data rate and actual data rate, and Ls , Lr are
Fig. 3  MPR selection mechanism the link stability and reliability factors respectively, then the
cost function for link quality is given by Eq. 4.
/ /
Table 4  Trust level
C(lq ) = Dr dl + 𝛼 Ls + 𝛽∕Lr (4)

Category Level
Routine ( Cr) Basic ( Tlb)
Trusted ( Ct) Moderate ( Tlm)
High ( Tlh)
basic communication requirements. Nodes may have dif-
ferent parametric values for robustness p(r) , authenticity
p(a) , and integrity p(i) . If Tl (x) and Tk (x) represent the trust
value and the intertwined trust component of the node,
respectively. The trust value for a node (x) can be given
by Eq. 2.
∑
Tl (x) = 𝛼k Tk (x), ∀ I = {p(r), p(a), p(i)}
(2)
k∈I
All the nodes are required to exchange their trust levels
( Tl ) with their neighbors. The values of the trust level and
their categories are given in Table 4. The precedence of
the trust level is specified as Tlb < Tlm < Tlh.
The packet transmission through a node consumes bat-
tery, and the remaining battery capacity derives the life
of the node (Toh 2001). If the transmissions are routed
through the node with the low battery, then the battery will
exhaust soon, and the node will die. We propose that nodes
having battery below a certain threshold are given less
precedence in MPR selection. Let bi is the remaining bat-
tery capacity of the node i and Bt is the threshold value of
the battery. If (bi ≤ Bt ) , node is reluctant to be MPR, pro-
vided it is not the only node for 2-hop reachability. If the
reaming battery is more than the threshold (bi > Bt ) then
node participates for MPR selection. The default value of
the threshold is taken as 30%, and the battery level meas-
urement granularity is considered one on the scale of 10.
If all other criteria give more than one MPR candidates,
Value We cogitate the mobility factor with respect to the nodes
participating in the MPR selection process. Nodes exchange
0
their mobility values with the neighbors in the periodic con-
1
trol messages. Based on the received mobility value of the
2
neighbors and their own mobility, nodes calculate the rela-
tive mobility factor. In the MPR selection process, relatively
unwavering nodes are preferred. The cost function of the
relative mobility ( Mr  ) is given by Eq. 5, where Ms is the
mobility of the selector and Mn is the mobility factor of its
1-hop neighbor node.
C(Mr ) = {𝛿|Ms − Mn |} (5)
The willingness is the node’s readiness to forward the
traffic (Suhaimi et al. 2009). The value of willingness can be
( 0 ≤ W ≤ 7 ), where 0 specifies that the node is not willing to
be elected as MPR, the value of 3 represents the default will-
ingness, while 7 is the maximum value of willingness. The
nodes that express willingness, i.e., ( W > 0 ) can be selected
as MPRs. The reachability is the influencing parameter of
the algorithm and can be defined as the number of nodes in
the 2-hop neighborhood ( N2h ) of nodes (s) which are not yet
covered by the current MPR set but are reachable through 1
hop neighbor (z) for which reachability is desired (Clausen
and Jacquet 2003). If 2-hop neighbors of the node (s) cov-
ered by current MPRs are N2h (MPR) , then 2-hop neighbors
not yet covered are N2h (s) − N2h (MPR) . The reachability can
be given by Eq. 6, where N(z) is the reachable neighbors of
z.
R(z) = {N(z) ∈ (N2h (s) − N2h (MPR))} (6)
The degree D(z) of a node (z) can be calculated from its
symmetric neighbors Ns (z) . If z is the 1-hop neighbor of the
node (s) that performs the computation, i.e., z ∈ {N1h } then
it excludes the neighbors of z belonging to { N1h } and also

13
 T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma

excludes the node (s) performing the computation. The value Algorithm1 ∶ SmartMPRSelection(SMS)
of the degree can be given by Eq. 7. FindMPR(Ns , N1h , N2h )
D(z) = Ns (z) − N1h (z) − 1 (7) in ∶ Ns ; neighbor set N1h , N2h
out ∶ Multi point relays Smpr
All these parameters are used in the MPR selection pro-
1 ∶ Smpr ← 𝜙;St ← 0
cedure, which in turn drives the overall optimization of the
network. 2 ∶ for all n ∈ N1h do
3 ∶ if (OnlyReachable(n, N2h ) = TRUE) then
4.2 Realization procedure 4 ∶ Smpr ← Smpr ∪ n
5 ∶ N1h ← N1h �n
The proposed algorithm starts by taking all the nodes in the
1-hop neighborhood ( N1h ) for the consideration of MPR. It 6 ∶ N2h ← N2h �N1h (n)
checks the willingness (W) of the neighbors and calculates 7 ∶ end if
the degree (D) of the nodes. In the selection process, the algo- 8 ∶ end for
rithm selects the nodes, which are the only nodes to provide 9 ∶ while ( |N2h | > 0) do
2-hop reachability. We have considered two classes of will-
10 ∶ W ← 0;T ← 0;B ← 0;L ← 0;Mr ← 0;R ← 0;D ← 0
ingness that are either unwilling or willing with the default
11 ∶ for all n ∈ N1h do
value of willingness. If nodes are willing, the algorithm finds
the neighbors which have high trust level Tl (max) and reli- 12 ∶ if(Wi > W) then
ability. If trustworthiness is the same, it finds the nodes with 13 ∶ T ← Ti ;B ← Bi ;L ← Li ;Mri ← 0;R ← Ri ;D ← Di ;St ← n
remaining battery capacity Bl (rem) more than the threshold 14 ∶ endif
value ( Bt ). If the trustworthiness of the nodes is the same and 15 ∶ St ← n
nodes have battery capacity higher than the threshold, then the
16 ∶ if(Ti > T) then
algorithm finds a neighbor with high link quality Lq (max) . If
willingness and battery meet the criteria, trustworthiness and 17 ∶ T ← Ti
quality factors are equal, then the algorithm finds the neighbor 18 ∶ else if (Ti = T) then
with the least relative mobility Mr (min) . If relative mobility is 19 ∶ if ((Bi > B) and (Bi > BT )) then
the same, then most reachability R(max) is the consideration. 20 ∶ B ← Bi
If reachability also results in the same subset, the algorithm
21 ∶ if((Bi > BT ) and (Li > L)) then
selects the neighbor with the most degree D(max) . SMS algo-
22 ∶ L ← Li
rithm makes use of the logic as given by Algorithm1. The
notations used in the algorithm are given in Table 5. To realize 23 ∶ else if ((Li = L) and (Mri > Mr )) then
the concept, we have made modifications in data structures 24 ∶ Mr ← Mri
of the control packets so that additional information of the 25 ∶ else if ((Mri = Mr ) and (Ri > R)) then
participating nodes could be exchanged with the neighbors. 26 ∶ R ← Ri
27 ∶ else if (Di > D) then
Table 5  Notation used in the algorithm 28 ∶ D ← Di
Notation Definition 29 ∶ else St ← 0
Ns Node performing the computation 30 ∶ end if
N1h 1-hop neighbors of S 31 ∶ end if
N2h 2-hop neighbors of S 32 ∶ else St ← 0
N1h (n) One hop neighbors of n 33 ∶ end if
Smpr Set of MPRs
34 ∶ end for
Wi Willingness of node i
Ti Trust level of node i
35 ∶ Smpr ← Smpr ∪ {St }
Bi Battery level of node i 36 ∶ update N1h ;N2h
Bt Battery threshold 37 ∶ end while
Li Link quality of node i 38 ∶ return Smpr
Mri Relative mobility of node i
Ri Reachability of node i
Di Degree of node i

13
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks
4.3 Computational analysis
In the proposed algorithm, while selecting the multipoint
relays, nodes require to compute and compare the param-
eters like trust level, battery level, mobility factor, and link
quality, etc. in addition to the willingness, reachability and
degree. Therefore the computational complexity at the node
slightly increases as compare to the OLSR. Algorithm com-
putation involves the following steps. Step1: Select those
nodes from one hop { N1h } which are the only reachable
nodes to 2-hop { N2h }. Step 2: Algorithm picks the best
neighbor in each iteration, puts it in the MPR set { Smpr  },
and updates the strict 2-hop neighborhood. Step3: If nodes
exist in 2-hop neighbors to be covered, the algorithm con-
tinues, else it ends. First, we deduce the average number
of neighbors selected as MPR. Let {K1 , K2 , K3 ....Kk } is the
set of 1-hop neighbors of the node N. In the ith step, Ki is
selected as MPR, if it better satisfies the quality and cover-
age of 2-hop neighbors than any previous node Kj , ∀ (j < i) .
If 𝜌 nodes are already selected as MPR, the probability of a
new node to be selected as MPR is 2−𝜌 . Hence, if number of
nodes in one hop neighborhood is k, and nodes to be selected
as MPR are equal to m, then m = 2−m × k . Thus, nodes to
be selected as MPR = O(log k) . The optimal MPR selection
is an NP-complete problem (Ahn and Lee 2017), thus for
MPR computation, heuristic has been presented. Let, the
algorithm starts with the set S0 , P be the nodes selected in
step-1 and Sk be the solution. This implies that P ⊆ Sk and
|S0 − P| ≤ log n|Sk − P| , where n is the number of nodes
in the network. This infers that the solution is within the
factor log(n) from the optimal, similar to OLSR. Due to the
additional parameters, the number of computations increases
by the constant factor O(1) , considering c parameters, addi-
tional computation equals to cO(1) . Thus the complexity of
the algorithm results in at most O(log n) times the optimal
solution.
5 Network deployment, analysis, and results
In this section, we discuss the deployment scenarios, proto-
col configuration, and parameters to analyze the algorithm.
The proposed SMS algorithm has been simulated in the
OPNET simulator, and results have been compared with
the OLSR and the LD-OLSR (Jain and Kashyap 2019).
The behavior of the algorithm has also been analyzed
under various conditions. We conduct many simulations to
evaluate the performance of the proposed method in multi-
ple scenarios. The simulation parameters and the baseline
parameters of the protocol are given in Table 6 and Table 7,
respectively.
Table 6  Simulation parameters
Parameter Value
Deployment area 10 km × 10 km
Transmission range 1100 m
Node data rate 11 Mbps & 1 Mbps
Transmit power 5 mw
Packet reception threshold  – 95 dBm
Table 7  Protocol parameters Parameter Value
Willingness 3
Hello interval 2 s
TC interval 5 s
Neighbor hold time 20 s
Topology hold time 30 s
5.1 Algorithm analysis and comparison
In this scenario, nodes { ns , n1 , n2 .....n10 , nD } have been
deployed in the simulation area of 10 km × 10 km, each
having the transmission range of approximately 1100 m.
The deployment has been depicted in Fig. 4. The source
node ( ns ) generates traffic towards the destination ( nD ). All
the nodes have IPv4 addressing and execute the proactive
routing protocol in three configurations, i.e., OLSR, LD-
OLSR, and the OLSR-SMS algorithm. The traffic charac-
teristics and the values of extended parameters for the SMS
algorithm are given in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. In
this scenario, the flexibility of the algorithm has been used
to intimate unknown relative mobility. Parameters given in
Table 9 represent the value of trust level, battery level, and
link quality (Tl , Bl , Lq ) of the nodes.
By applying these parameters, we analyze the compara-
tive performance of the SMS algorithm with OLDR and
LD-OLSR. In the network, some of the nodes have high-
quality links (H), while others have low-quality links (L) in
terms of maximum data-carrying capacity. In this scenario,
we have done the analysis in two cases. In the first analysis
(case1), traffic generation at the source ( nS ) is 2 Mbps, while
in the second situation (case2), the source generates the traf-
fic at 1 Mbps towards the destination ( nD ). The performance
metrics for the protocol are traffic received measured in bits
per second by the destination node and the end to end (ETE)
delay between the creation of the packet at the source and
its reception at the destination. The measured statistics are
given in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for case 1 and case 2, respectively.
The results educate that the SMS algorithm gives relatively
better performance in both cases due to the high-quality
MPR selection.
13
 T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma

Fig. 4  Node deployment sce-

nario-1

7 4
1

5
8 S 2 D
10

3 6
9

Table 8  Traffic parameters 5.2 Flexible parameter analysis

Parameter Value
In this scenario, nodes { ns , n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , nD1 , nD2  } have
Traffic (bps) 2,000,000 & 1,000,000 bps been deployed, as shown in Fig. 7. To analyze the effect of
Traffic (packets/sec) 200 & 100 packets per seconds parameter configuration and availability, we apply various
Traffic flow node S to node D combinations of algorithm parameters. The source node ( ns )
Traffic start time 30 s generates traffic towards two destinations { nD1 , nD2 }. The
Type of traffic IP participating nodes can have different values for the protocol
Type of service Best effort parameters, i.e., trust level ( Tl ), battery level ( Bl ), link qual-
ity ( Lq ) and mobility ( Mr ). The legacy algorithm does not

Table 9  Extended SMS node-S node1 node2 node3 node4 node5 node6 node7 node8 node9 node10 node-D
parameters
(1,9,H) (1,8,L) (1,8,L) (1,9,H) (1,7,H) (1,7,L) (1,9,H) (1,9,H) (1,8,L) (1,9,H) (1,9,L) (1,9,H)

Fig. 5  Traffic and ETE delay measurement – case1

13
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks

Fig. 6  Traffic and ETE delay measurement – case2

Fig. 7  Node deployment sce-

nario-2

3 1

D2 S D1

2
4

get influenced by these parameters, but the SMS algorithm
calculates the MPR considering these parameters. It also
takes into consideration the reachability and the degree of
the nodes. We analyze the impact of these parameters on the
MPR selection, and on the performance of the algorithm, as
depicted in the following four cases.
5.2.1 Link quality analysis
In the scenario given in Fig. 7, we first simulate the protocol
in the condition when all the nods are trustworthy and have
adequate battery above the threshold. The link quality of
nodes n2 and n3 has been configured better than the quality
of n1 &n4 . The selected MPRs by the SMS algorithm are
{ n2 , n3 }. The performance comparison of the SMS algorithm
with the OLSR and LD-OLSR is given in Fig. 8.
5.2.2 Trust level and link quality
In this configuration, we analyze the performance of the
proposed algorithm for two different destinations. The par-
ametric configuration has been depicted in Fig. 9. In the

13
 T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma

Fig. 8  Traffic received at destination by SMS algorithm and OLSR

T = 1, B = 5, Q = L path towards destination nD1 , the SMS algorithm selects n2

T = 0, B = 7, Q = H
as MPR because it is the high-quality node as compared to
3 1 the node n1 . While in the path towards destination nD2 , the
node n4 is selected as MPR in spite of its low-quality link,
because n3 is not the trusted node. As shown in Fig. 10,
D2 S D1 when there is an upsurge in the traffic towards the destina-
tion, a drop in the received traffic is observed due to the
poor link condition of n4.
2
4
5.2.3 Trust and battery level
T = 1, B = 7, Q = L T = 1, B = 7, Q = H
We further analyze the effect of trust level and different
Fig. 9  Configuration for trust level and link quality battery levels on the MPR selection. In the configuration,

Fig. 10  Throughput performance of SMS Algorithm from source (S) to D1 & D2

13
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks

as shown in Fig. 11a, we found that the protocol consid-
ers trust at higher precedence and prefer to choose MPR
accordingly. If the trust level is the same, then battery value
is the deciding criterion in MPR selection. In this case
nodes { n2 , n4 } are preferred for MPRs in comparison to
{ n1 , n3}.
5.2.4 Battery level and link quality
We also analyze the effect of battery level and link quality in
the MPR selection of the algorithm. The parameter configu-
ration is shown in Fig. 11b. Simulation results evident that
node having battery capacity below the threshold is not cho-
sen for MPR. The debug-output of the simulator reflecting

T = 1, B = 2, Q = H T = 0, B = 7, Q = H T = 1, B = 5, Q = L T = 1, B = 8, Q = H

3 1 3 1

D2 S D1 D2 S D1

2 2
4 4
T = 1, B = 5, Q = L T = 1, B = 4, Q = L T = 1, B = 2, Q = H T = 1, B = 9, Q = L

(a) Trust and battery level (b) Battery level and link quality

Fig. 11  Parametric configuration of the nodes

Fig. 12  Simulator output for MPR selection

Table 10  MPR selection Node Node-1 Node-2 Node-3 Node-4 Selected MPR for node-S
summary
Parameter (Tl , Bl , Lq) (Tl , Bl , Lq) (Tl , Bl , Lq) (Tl , Bl , Lq)

Case 1 1, 8, L 1, 8, H 1, 8, H 1, 8, L node-2, node-3

Case 2 1, 5, L 1, 7, H 0, 7, H 1, 7, L node-2, node-4
Case 3 1, 8, H 1, 9, L 1, 5, L 1, 2, H node-1, node-3
Case 4 0, 7, H 1, 4, L 1, 2, H 1, 5, L node-2, node-4

13

MPR selection for this case is shown in Fig. 12. The choice
of the MPRs by the SMS algorithm for the source node (S)
has been summarized in Table 10. It exhibits different com-
binations of trust, battery level, link quality, and the cor-
responding MPR selection.
5.3 Mobility analysis
We create a dynamic scenario in which participating nodes
move randomly in the deployment area. Nodes randomly
pick the mobility value from a set, defined as {0, 5, 10, 20}
m/sec. The algorithm has been configured to consider rela-
tive mobility. The algorithm parameters {Ti , Bi , Lq , Mr } have
been configured such that {Ti , Bi , Lq } are uniform for all the
nodes, while relative mobility {Mr } has been considered by
the algorithm in the computation. The source node generates
Fig. 13  Traffic received and ETE delay statistics
Fig. 14  Node deployment with increasing node density
13
T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma
1 Mbps of CBR traffic towards the destination, the traffic
received at the destination and end to end delay has been
measured for the SMS, OLSR, and LD-OLSR. The outcome
has been presented in Fig. 13. The results illustrate that con-
sideration of mobility slightly improves the performance of
the proposed method.
5.4 Comparative analysis
For the comparative analysis, we have taken three scenarios
with increasing order of node density, i.e., the number of
nodes in the network (N) = {20, 40, 60} . In the simulation,
the network area is 3000 M × 3000 M, and the transmission
range of the nodes is 500 M. In the network, it is considered
that all the nodes are trustworthy and willing to participate.
The participating nodes can move arbitrarily in the net-
work, and possess the different capability in terms of battery
Flexible multipoint relay selection for suitable route in mobile ad hoc networks
Fig. 15  Performance compari-
son with different node density
700000
600000
Throughput bps
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
20
capacity, speed, and link quality. The CBR traffic generation
has been considered to generate the application data at the
rate of 200 packets per second, and each packet of 512 bytes.
The deployment of the nodes in three scenarios with increas-
ing node density is shown in Fig. 14. The results have been
presented in Fig. 15.
When the number of nodes in the network is less, all three
algorithms perform almost similar. In this case, throughput
is poor because of the scarcity of the connectivity. In the
rest of the two cases, there is a significant improvement in
the performance of the algorithms. The proposed algorithm
performs better than the compared algorithms. The proposed
method helps to choose the suitable multipoint relays. The
selection of the appropriate MPR nodes influences the net-
work performance. The results also indicate that the through-
put increases as the number of nodes increases. This is due
to the improved connectivity with increasing node density.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we propose the flexible MPR selection
approach for selecting trustworthy, quality-oriented, reliable
relay nodes for the controlled flooding of the information in
the mobile ad hoc network. The flexibility of the parameters
has been considered by the proposed algorithm. The algo-
rithm considers the willingness, trustworthiness, residual
battery capacity, link quality, relative mobility, reachabil-
ity, and degree of the participating nodes in the selection
process. The proposed work offers the extension to the MPR
selection mechanism of the OLSR and improves the perfor-
mance of the algorithm. The realization has been achieved
by including the desired fields in the control packet struc-
tures to hold the added information, and the logic has been
formulated to incorporate the available information in deci-
sion making. The simulation results indicate the improved
performance and suitability of the algorithm in the mobile
ad hoc networks. During the simulation analysis, we have
SMS OLSR LD-OLSR
40 60
No of Nodes
also observed some limitations of the algorithm that may
restrain the scope of the work. The dependency on the physi-
cal layer, unavailability of the information on selected nodes,
and the possibility to masquerade the trust parameters may
limit the performance of the algorithm in real deployments.
We consider these observations as an input for the future
expansion of the work.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflicts of interest None.
References
Ahn J, Lee TJ (2017) Multipoint relay selection for robust broad-
cast in ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Netw 17:82–97. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.adhoc​.2014.01.007
Ahn J, Park J, Cha W, Kim ST, Mah P, Lee TJ (2016) MAC-aware
concentrated multi-point relay selection algorithm in ad hoc net-
works. Wirel Pers Commun 86:423–433. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1127​7-015-2937-6
Alamsyah A, Purnama IKE, Setijadi E, Purnomo MH (2009) MPR
selection to the OLSR quality of service in MANET using min-
max algorithm. Int J Electr Comput Eng 9(1):417–425. https​://
doi.org/10.11591​/ijece​.v9i1.pp417​-425
Anbao W, Bin Z (2014) Improving MPR selection algorithm in OLSR
protocol based on node localization technology. J Networks
9(7):1674–1681. https​://doi.org/10.4304/jnw.9.7.1674-1681
Belhassen M, Dhraief A, Belghith A, Mathkour H (2018) ALOE: auto-
nomic locating of obstructing entities in MANETs. J Ambient
Intell Hum Comput 9:1955–1974. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1265​
2-018-0742-2
Boushaba A, Benabbou A, Benabbou R, Zahi A, Oumsis M (2015)
Multi-point relay selection strategies to reduce topology control
traffic for OLSR protocol in MANETs. J Netw Comput Appl
53:91–102. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2015.03.008
Cho J (2015) Tradeoffs between trust and survivability for mission
effectiveness in tactical networks. IEEE Trans Cybern 45(4):754–
766. https​://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2014.23357​44
13

Clausen T, Dearlove C, Jacquet P, Herberg U (2014) The optimized
link state routing protocol version 2. RFC 7181. https​://doi.
org/10.17487​/RFC71​81
Clausen T, Jacquet P (2003) Optimized link state routing protocol
(OLSR). RFC 3626.https​://doi.org/10.17487​/RFC36​26
Conti M, Giordano S (2014) Mobile ad hoc networking: milestones,
challenges, and new research directions. IEEE Commun Mag
52(1):85–96. https​://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2014.67100​69
Harrag N, Refoufi A, Harrag A (2019) New NSGA-II-based OLSR
self-organized routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks.
J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10:1339–1359. https​: //doi.
org/10.1007/s1265​2-018-0947-4
Jacquet P, Muhlethaler P, Clausen T, Laouiti A, Qayyum A, Viennot
L (2001) Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc net-
works. In: IEEE international multi topic conference, pp 62–68.
https​://doi.org/10.1109/INMIC​.2001.99531​5
Jain R (2019) Kashyap I (2019) An QoS aware link defined OLSR
(LD-OLSR) routing protocol for MANETS. Wirel Pers Com-
mun 108:1745–1758. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/s1127​7 -019-
06494​-9
Joshi RD, Rege PP (2012) Implementation and analytical modelling
of modified optimised link state routing protocol for network life-
time improvement. IET Commun 6(10):1270–1277. https​://doi.
org/10.1049/iet-com.2011.0257
Karthikeyan K, Ramesh S, Kirubakaran N, Maheswari PU, Prasath
RA, Muthukumar M (2020) Advanced resilient data consigning
mechanism for mobile adhoc networks. J Ambient Intell Hum
Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1265​2-020-01820​-7
Lim JH, Lim KW, Ko YB (2018) Reliable mutual node evaluation for
trust-based OLSR in tactical MANETs. In: International confer-
ence on heterogeneous networking for quality, reliability, security
and robustness, pp 114–119. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
78078​-8_12
Li Z, Wu Y (2017) Smooth mobility and link reliability-based opti-
mized link state routing scheme for MANETs. IEEE Commun Lett
21(7):1529–1532. https​://doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM​.2017.26544​
39
Moussaoui A, Semchedine F, Boukerrama A (2014) A link-state QoS
routing protocol based on link stability for mobile ad hoc net-
works. J Netw Comp Appl 39:117–125. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jnca.2013.05.014
Murthy SR, Manoj BS (2013) Ad hoc wireless network architectures
and protocols. Pearson Education Inc, 22nd Impression
Nosheen I, Khan SA, Ali U (2019) A cross-layer design for a multi-hop,
self-healing, and self-forming tactical network. Wirel Commun
Mob Comput 2019:1–16. https​://doi.org/10.1155/2019/15239​06
13
T. K. Saini, S. C. Sharma
Pawgasame W, Wipusitwarakun K (2015) Tactical wireless networks:
A survey for issues and challenges. In:Asian conference on
defence technology (ACDT), Hua Hin, pp 97–102. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/ACDT.2015.71115​92
Saini TK, Sharma SC, Saini A (2020) Routing considerations, simu-
lation analysis, and dynamic learning and awareness protocol
for mobile ad hoc networks. Int J Future Gener Commun Netw
13(1):1471–1483. https​://sersc​.org/journ​als/index​.php/IJFGC​N/
artic​le/view/10269​/5556
Saini TK, Sharma SC (2020) Recent advancements, review analy-
sis, and extensions of the AODV with the illustration of the
applied concept. Ad Hoc Netw. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc​
.2020.10214​8
Shenbagalakshmi G, Revathi T (2020) Enhanced route discovery using
connected dominating set and 2-hop repair in wireless ad hoc
networks. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s1265​2-020-01799​-1
Son TT, Minh HL, Sexton G, Aslam N (2015) Self-adaptive proac-
tive routing scheme for mobile ad-hoc networks. IET Networks
4(2):128–136. https​://doi.org/10.1049/iet-net.2014.0022
Suhaimi S, Mamat K, Wong KD (2009) Enhancing the willingness
on the OLSR protocol: methodology on experimenting the real
testbed. In: International conference on wireless communications,
networking and mobile computing, Beijing, pp 1–4. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/WICOM​.2009.53022​34
Toh CK (2001) Maximum battery life routing to support ubiquitous
mobile computing in wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE Commun
Mag 39(6):138–147. https​://doi.org/10.1109/35.92568​2
Yelemou T, Dandjinou TM (2014) Taking into account link quality in
OLSR protocol core areas. In: IEEE international conference on
adaptive science & technology (ICAST), Ota, pp 1–4. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/ICAST​ECH.2014.70680​71
Zhang D, Cui Y, Zhang T (2019) New quantum-genetic based OLSR
protocol (QG-OLSR) for mobile ad hoc network. Appl Soft Com-
put 80:285–296. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.03.053
Zhang L, Hu L, Hu F, Ye Z, Li X, Kumar S (2020) Enhanced OLSR
routing for airborne networks with multi-beam directional anten-
nas. Ad Hoc Netw. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc​.2020.10211​6
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.