=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2786/Paper52
|storemode=property
|title=Trust Sensitive Dual Cluster Head Based Routing Scheme to Isolate Misbehaving Nodes in MANET
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2786/Paper52.pdf
|volume=Vol-2786
|authors=Aruna Subramanian,Subramani Appavupillai
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/isic2/SubramanianA21
}}
==Trust Sensitive Dual Cluster Head Based Routing Scheme to Isolate Misbehaving Nodes in MANET==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2786/Paper52.pdf
436
Trust Sensitive Dual Cluster Head Based Routing Scheme to Isolate
Misbehaving Nodes in MANET
Aruna Subramaniana, Subramani Appavupillaib
a
Sona College of Technology, bM.V.Muthiah Government Arts College for Women
Abstract
Routing protocols function as the obligatory force in MANETs to transfer data outside the physical wireless ranges of
the nodes. In hierarchical cluster based routing; cluster head nodes and gateway nodes alone participate in routing
decisions. Those nodes may fail to cooperate during route discovery due to selfish or malicious grounds. Hence,
imposing cooperation among nodes in MANET to employ a secure route becomes an extremely significant issue.
Cryptographic mechanisms can be used, but it acquires a high computational cost and may not categorize the nodes
with malicious intention. Therefore, we proposed a dual cluster head based trust aware mechanism as an alternative
to cryptographic technique to protect forwarded packets from malicious nodes. Our proposed protocol TWCBRP
classifies the network into one hop overlapping clusters with primary and secondary cluster heads, which are
accountable for conducting all the routing activities. It constantly assurances the trustworthiness of cluster heads by
replacing primary with secondary cluster head, as soon as the former becomes malicious. Cluster members send
routing packets only through trusted cluster heads and gateway nodes thus guaranteeing a secure path. The
performance of TWCBRP is evaluated with Network Simulator2 and illustrates better performance in terms of packet
delivery ratio, throughput, delay, and control overhead when compared to a distributed weighted cluster based
protocol (CBPMD).
Keywords
MANET, malicious node, selfish node, trust, security.
1. INTRODUCTION
MANET is a self-configuring, decentralized type of
unmanaged (ie., infrastructure less) wireless network Therefore, there is an inducement for a node to
with dynamic topology. It does not rely on fixed routers misbehave in a malicious and selfish manner without
or access points as in the case of infrastructure wireless cooperating with other nodes. The intention of
networks. Instead, each node performs as a host as well malicious node is to attack and damage the network.
as a router and participates in routing process by Similarly, the intention of selfish node is to save its
forwarding data for other nodes. Nodes in MANET use power, memory and CPU time [2]. A selfish node is not
flooding as the basic mechanism for forwarding data malicious and it does not intend to damage the network
and control packets. So, the data is forwarded through [3]. But, it normally restrains itself from other nodes
intermediate nodes dynamically based on the network which do not bring any benefit to the network. That is,
connectivity. There are number of characteristics in they do not participate in routing process, intentionally
MANET such as mobility, dynamic topology, energy delay RREQ, and drops data packets. Hence, imposing
constrained operation, limited bandwidth, and security cooperation among nodes in MANET to employ a secure
threats make it used in a number of applications for route becomes an extremely significant issue.
MANET. That is, they are appropriate for disaster Therefore, an unpredictable node can wreak
situations like natural or human induced disasters, substantial damage and undesirably affect the quality
military battle-fields, and emergency medical and reliability of data [4]. Cryptographic mechanisms
situations, group communications, civil and business can be applied in MANET routing schemes to secure data
operations [21]. The nature of the mobile nodes in packets during the transmission of data packets in the
MANET brands them extremely susceptible to a variety network. But cryptographic techniques incur a high
of security threats because they usually own low computational cost and cannot identify malicious nodes
computational resource as well as short radio [5]. So, employing cryptographic techniques in MANET
transmission range due to the limited battery power are quite impractical as MANETs have limited resource
they carry, and they might be moving constantly [1]. and vulnerable to several security attacks. Trust
mechanism can be used as an alternative to
ISIC’21: International Semantic Intelligence Conference, February cryptographic technique [5]. Trust mechanism
25-27, 2021, Delhi, India computes trust value on nodes which helps to detect
EMAIL: sarunasnivoss@gmail.com (A. 1); and isolate malicious and selfish nodes to provide
subramani.appavu@gmail.com (A. 2) secure data transmission.
ORCID: 0000-0001-7791-6955 (A. 1)
©️ 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
2. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
NETWORK MODEL
437
The concept of trust originally derived from social
By electing single cluster head, it is very difficult to sciences field and is defined as the degree of subjective
address the issue of cluster stability [6]. Furthermore, belief about the behaviors of a particular entity [9].
the elected cluster head may or may not cooperate Trust has also received its attention in several
during routing. Therefore, imposing cooperation among literatures: psychology, sociology, economics, political
nodes in MANET becomes a significant issue in order to science, anthropology and recently in wireless networks
provide a secure route. Hence, we proposed a new trust [7, 9, 22]. Blaze et al. [4] instigated the term” Trust
aware weighted dual cluster head based routing Management” and acknowledged it as a separate
protocol to provide a secure and stable route in MANET. component of security services in networks and
dual cluster heads namely primary and secondary clarified that” Trust management offers a unified
cluster heads are elected to sustain cluster stability. approach for specifying and interpreting security
Hybrid trust mechanism is imposed on nodes in the policies, credentials, and relationships” [4]. It consists
clusters to detect and isolate malicious and selfish of three components: experience, recommendation and
nodes and to provide a secure route. Supposedly, we knowledge [4]. The ‘experience’ factor of trust for each
can describe a MANET as an undirected graph G= (V, E), node is directly measured by their immediate neighbors
where V represents a set of nodes vi and E represents a and kept updated at regular intervals in the trust table.
set of links ei. [7,8]. Therefore, building some sort of The existing trust table is propagated to all other nodes
backbone structure for a network can enrich the as ‘recommendation’ part of the trust. At a regular
performance of the whole network when the network interval, the previously evaluated trust is included in
becomes dense. The cluster structure is an efficient the current ‘knowledge’ factor of total trust. Now
backbone infrastructure for MANETs [7, 21]. The either these three factors individually or a combination
network is partitioned into group of clusters. We define of them can be used in computing the trust. Trust
a cluster to be a subset of V and our proposed protocol management in MANETs is preferred when participating
elects two cluster heads namely primary and secondary nodes, without any earlier interactions, desire to
cluster heads to maintain the stability of cluster establish a network with an acceptable level of trust
structure. The nodes in a cluster are said to be relationships among themselves. Trust management has
geographically close to each other. The range of a different applicability in many decision making
cluster is measured by the number of hops from the situations including intrusion detection,
cluster head to the extreme member node in its cluster. authentication, access control, key management,
In our proposed work, we define the cluster radius to isolating misbehaving nodes for effective routing, and
be 1 hop. That is, every cluster member node will be other purposes [10,20]. The term trust management is
directly connected to its cluster head. Gateways are interchangeably used with the term reputation
the non-cluster head nodes which lie on more than one management [11]. However, there is a minor difference
cluster head’s transmission range. Cluster heads and between trust and reputation. Trust is active, while
gateways form a backbone of the original network [8]. reputation is passive [11].
The cluster size is well-defined to be the number of
nodes in the cluster, including cluster head and cluster 3.2 Classifications of trust management
members. schemes
The effort on trust computations can be largely
classified into the following categories:
3. LITERATURE REVIEW Direct trust computation method – In this
method, every node computes the trust value of
its neighbors by itself.
Broadcasting is a fundamental operation of MANET. This
could be productive only if all nodes operate in a Indirect trust computation method- In this
trustworthy manner. Therefore, establishing and method, central agent manages (ie., helps) the
quantifying behavior of nodes in the form of trust is node to compute the trust value of its neighbor
essential for ensuring proper operation of MANET [4]. nodes.
This is primarily important in case of tactical networks.
Due to the dynamic nature of mobile nodes, trust
computation of nodes in MANET becomes a relatively a) Distributed trust computation schemes
challenging task when compared to static networks. This can be further classified as: [24]
Also, the nodes in MANET are more vulnerable to Neighbor sensing based trust computation
attacks than nodes in wired network and thus scheme (ie., Direct trust)
performance degrades. So security is an important issue Recommendations based trust computation
in MANET to provide secure communication between scheme (ie., InDirect trust)
mobile nodes.
(i) Neighbor sensing method: Here, every single node
observes its neighbors for their event reports and
3.1 Definition of Trust and Motivation towards stores them up in their “knowledge” cache. A
trust management trustor node will compare its own observation
report from the trustee node and also from other
438
neighbor nodes. Trust factor will be decided based Paramasivam. B et al [15] proposed a secure as well as
on the amount of deviations between the a fair cluster head selection protocol for improving
observation reports [14]. security in MANETs. This model integrates security
(ii) Recommendation based scheme (ie., factors into the clustering approach for achieving
Indirect trust): attacker identification and classification. Byzantine
Here, trust relationships on nodes are established agreement based cooperative technique is used for
based on recommendations alone [14]. attacker identification and classification to make the
network more attack resistant. The nodes that are
(iii) Hybrid schemes: totally surrounded by malicious neighbors fine-tune
In hybrid schemes, the trust on a node is computed dynamically their belief and disbelief thresholds.
based on direct trust experience and
recommendations from other nodes [14]. Venkanna.U et al [17] proposed a methodology to elect
a accommodating node as the cluster head node by
using key decision parameters such as trust value,
3.3 Related Works remaining energy level, and time of availability values
of nodes. Cluster stabilization is achieved by electing
In recent times, there has been considerable effort on two cluster heads in which a secondary cluster head will
various trust computing techniques with respect to take the role of the primary cluster head whenever the
MANET [11]. Buchegger et al [12] proposed CONFIDANT primary moves out of the cluster. The first step in this
(ie., Cooperation of Node’s Fairness In Dynamic Ad hoc model is to structure the problem as a hierarchy for
NeTworks) protocol for detecting and isolating cluster formation. The second step is to calculate the
misbehavior nodes in MANET. In this method, relative local weights of key decision parameters
confirmation from direct experiences and namely TV, REL, and ToA towards the goal. The third
recommendations are collected. That is trust step is to estimate relative local weight of each node in
relationships and routing decisions are constructed on the cluster with respective to each decision factor. The
experienced, observed and forwarding behavior of fourth step is to determine the overall weight value of
other nodes. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is taken as each node in the cluster.
a base routing protocol in this scheme.
Rahul. A et al [18] proposed a cluster based indirect
M. Tamer Refaei et al [13] suggested a reputation - trust mechanism to evaluate the trustworthiness of
established mechanism as a means of building trust cluster heads. This model consists of three phases such
among nodes. Here a node autonomously evaluates its as interaction phase, request phase and trust
neighboring nodes based on completion of the evaluation phase. In interaction phase, the member
requested services. The neighbors need not be nodes will generate feedback values in the range from
monitored in promiscuous mode as in other reputation 1 to 10 depending on the number of successful
based methods. There is no need of replacing of interactions between the cluster members and cluster
reputation information among nodes, thus implicates head. In request phase, if any node wants to access a
less overhead. This scheme provides a distributed secure connection with any of the service providers
reputation evaluation methodology that is (CH), it requests the trust value of all its neighboring
implemented autonomously at every node in an ad hoc CHs. In trust evaluation phase, all the CHs will collect
network with the objective of identifying and isolating the recommendation values from its member nodes and
selfish neighbor nodes. aggregate the recommended values and issues the final
trust value to the requesting node. The requesting node
will establish its connection with the CH which has a
Haidar Safa et al [14] presented a cluster-based trust
highest final trust value.
aware routing protocol (CBTRP) and it is a kind of
reactive on-demand source routing protocol. To make
sure safe routing path, the proposed CBTRP scheme 4. PROPOSED APPROACH
first establishes the origin for a trusted environment by
providing a trust based mechanism to differentiate 4.1 Overview
trusted nodes from malicious ones. The trust value is Our proposed protocol, which is named “TWCBRP”, is a
computed based upon the information that one node trust aware dual cluster head based routing protocol to
can gather about the other nodes. Then, it organizes provide a secure and stable routing in MANET. Two
the network into one-hop disjoint clusters, whereby cluster heads namely primary and secondary cluster
every node elects the most qualified and trustworthy heads are elected in order to maintain route stability.
node of its 1-hop neighbors to be its cluster-head. The primary objective is to isolate malicious and selfish
Cluster members in CBTRP forward packets only nodes through trust computations of nodes for
through the trusted cluster heads. Packets from providing a secure routing.
malicious nodes are not processed and no packets will
also be forwarded to them. a) Trust Computation of nodes in clusters
(i) Direct trust computation:
439
Each node computes the direct trust value by analyzing Periodically, each mobile node broadcasts a HELLO
the behavior of its neighbor nodes. That is, the packet to other nodes that lies within its transmission
information on the subject of other nodes can be range to notify its presence and to discover its
gathered by analyzing the forwarded, received and neighbors. Initially, before cluster formation, all the
overheard packets. In TWCBRP, trust between two nodes may be in un_decided state. During cluster
entities is represented by a 3-dimensional metric formation, when all nodes have discovered its
opinion [14] as follows: neighbors, they exchange their weight values through
HELLO packet. Therefore, the state of the node
𝑊𝐵𝐴 = (𝑏𝐵𝐴 , 𝑑𝐵𝐴 , 𝑢𝐵𝐴 ) …….. (1), such that changes either as cluster_head or as cluster_member.
𝑏𝐵𝐴 + 𝑑𝐵𝐴 + 𝑢𝐵𝐴 =1 A member node which lies within the transmission
range of more than one cluster heads becomes a
Where, 𝑊𝐵𝐴 denotes node A’s opinion about node B’s gateway node. The HELLO packet format is given in
trustworthiness, in which, 𝑏𝐵𝐴 denotes the belief that A table-1.
holds for B, 𝑑𝑏𝑎 denotes the disbelief that A holds for B,
and 𝑢𝐵𝐴 denotes the uncertainty that A holds for B. In Table-1
Hello packet format
our proposed protocol, a node monitors other node’s
behavior using watch dog mechanism [19] to collect & Status of the node (0-undecided state/1-cluster head/ 2-cluster
record all positive (P) and negative (N) events about member)
their trustworthiness. Therefore, the opinion metrics of Node ID
𝑊𝐵𝐴 can be expressed as a function of P and N as follows: Weight value
𝑃 𝑁 Cluster Head’s Neighbor Table
𝑏𝐵𝐴 = ……(2) 𝑑𝐵𝐴 = ……….(3)
Cluster Head’s Cluster Adjacency Table
𝑃+𝑁+2 𝑃+𝑁+2
2
𝑢𝐵𝐴 = ………(4)
𝑃+𝑁+2
Where, each of the belief, disbelief and uncertainty In our proposed TWCBRP protocol, primary and
values may range between 0 and 1 inclusively. The secondary cluster heads are elected by computing the
direct trust value of node B by node A is computed as weight values of the nodes. Each node computes its
follows: own weight using the following weighting function
which is based on [WCA], [SWDCBRP]:
𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 = 𝑏𝐵𝐴 ………(5)
Wt (V) = (W1*LQ + W2*RS + W3*BW + W4*MV)
………………… (8),
Every time the number of positive or negative events
where, LQ is the link quality, RS is the residual energy,
changes, the corresponding opinion values will be
BW is the available bandwidth and MV is the mobility
recalculated using equations 2,3, and 4 respectively.
of the mobile node. A node with highest weight among
the other nodes in its transmission range is elected as
a primary CH. Similarly; a node having a second
(ii) Indirect trust computation (ie., recommended
highest weight is elected as a secondary CH. The
trust)
following ICF algorithm is used for cluster formation
The indirect trust value (ie., recommended trust value)
in the network.
of node B by all its one-hop neighbors is computed as
Algorithm-1: Initial Cluster Formation
follows:
𝐷𝑇𝑉𝑖 𝐴𝑖
(ICF) algorithm
𝐼𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 =∑𝑁𝑖=1
𝐵
……………….(6), where, N is /*At system initiation, let us assume that, each node A
𝑁
the number of one-hop neighbor nodes of B, 𝐼𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 is in MANET holds undecided state and opinion values as,
the recommended trust value on B by all its one hop 𝑏𝐵𝐴 =0; 𝑑𝐵𝐴 = 0; 𝑢𝐵𝐴 =1; 𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 =0; 𝐼𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 = 0;
neighbors ‘Ai’ based on their belief factors. Each node A maintains the weights of its one-hop
neighbors and assume node A is invoking the
(iii) Final trust computation algorithm*/
The FTV of a node be governed by both the direct Input: Set of nodes in MANET
trust value and the indirect trust value. The α part of Output: Set of clusters
DTV and β part of IDTV are used to calculate the FTV ICF( )
of a node B. It is computed as, Begin
𝐹𝑇𝑉 𝐵𝐴 =α * 𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 + β * 𝐼𝐷𝑇𝑉 𝐵𝐴 such that α+β = 1 Do {
………… (7), Find a node B with highest weight in its CH set (ie.,
where say B[i] where i=1 to N)
Case-1: when, 𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 < 0.5, α = 0.5 and If (B==A)
β =0.5. {
if (PCH does not exist in the cluster) {
Case-2: when, 𝐷𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 >=0.5, α =1 and β
Node A elects itself as PCH; }
=0.
elseif (SCH does not exist in the cluster) {
b) Selection of primary and secondary cluster heads
Node A elects itself as SCH; }
}
440
elseif ( (𝑢𝐵𝐴 >0.5) or (𝑏𝐵𝐴 >=0.5) or (𝑏𝐵𝐴 == 𝑑𝐵𝐴 ) ) //A in this table. This table is used during route discovery
checks the opinion value of B { and data forwarding. The following table-4 describes
if (( B is a cluster member or undecided) && (PCH the format of cluster adjacency table (CAT):
does not exist in this cluster)){
B changes its status to PCH and accepts A as its Table-4
member } Cluster Adjacency Table
elseif ( (B is a cluster member or undecided) &&
Cluster ID Gateway ID Entry update time (in sec)
(SCH does not exist in this cluster) ) { (CID) (GID)
B changes its status to SCH; A becomes member
of this cluster; } CAT table is used to keep information about its
elseif (B is a PCH of this cluster) { adjacent clusters. That is, a node records the ID of each
A sends induced Join_Cluster message to B; of its adjacent CHs and the corresponding gateway node
B sends an Accept_Join message to A; A becomes to reach it. This table is used during route discovery and
a member of this cluster; } } data forwarding.
elseif (𝑑𝐵𝐴 >=0.5) {
Remove B from CH set and continue the loop. } 4.2 Cluster maintenance phase
} while ((PCH Not Exists) or (SCH Not Exists));
End; Since, our MANET is vulnerable to attacks, the elected
primary CH and secondary CH would become malicious
The initial cluster formation (ICF) algorithm is or selfish and affect the network connectivity. In our
described as follows. Each node computes its own TWCBRP protocol, at system initiation, cluster
weight value using eqn-8 and broadcasts to its 1-hop formation is done through Initial Cluster Formation
neighbors through hello packet. Similarly each node (ICF) algorithm with two trust aware cluster heads
receives the weights of its one-hop neighbors and namely primary and secondary cluster heads. The
inserts them in its neighbor table and forms a CH set. If secondary cluster head after being elected keeps itself
a node A, has no interactions with its neighbor nodes B, in promiscuous mode and overhear the transactions of
initially its belief (𝑏𝐵𝐴 ), disbelief(𝑑𝐵𝐴 ) and undecided PCH node. If forwarding ratio of PCH becomes lesser
opinion values ( 𝑢𝐵𝐴 ) would be computed as 0, 0, 1 than dropping ratio, SCH triggers PCH node with a
respectively using the eqns-2, 3, and 4. Each node A LIFE_DOWN message, to carry out the pending
then finds a node B with highest weight in its CH set transactions of PCH by invoking CH_Change algorithm.
and checks its opinion values of it. If its 𝑢𝐵𝐴 > threshold Similarly, if forwarding ratio of SCH becomes lesser
or its 𝑏𝐵𝐴 ≥ threshold or its belief value (𝑏𝐵𝐴 ) == disbelief than dropping ratio, it sends a LIFE_DOWN message to
value (𝑑𝐵𝐴 ), then node B will either become primary CH all its one-hop neighbors and invokes the CH_Change
or secondary CH based on the need. If its ( 𝑑𝐵𝐴 ) ≥ algorithm to elect a new SCH node. The significance of
threshold, then node B will be removed from A’s CH set. CH_Change algorithm is that, it involves only the set of
The following table-2 describes the format of one-hop nodes that are within the cluster for local cluster heads
neighbor table (1NT): updating and does not involve the entire nodes in the
network for re-election process. Therefore, it
Table-2 minimizes updating overhead during topological
one-hop neighbor table change. The CH_Change algorithm is given below:
Node Node Cluster Direct InDirect Final Entry Algorithm-2: Cluster Head (CH) change
ID Status ID Trust Trust Trust update algorithm
(CID) value Value Value time (in
(DTV) (IDTV) (FTV) sec) // Let us consider Node A as SCH and Node B as PCH
// Let us assume Node A is invoking the algorithm
Each entry in one-hop neighbor table contains Input: SCH node
information about a 1-hop neighbor and also used to Output: Change of cluster head
record the opinion about each 1-hop neighboring node. CH_Change ( )
This table is used for cluster formation and route Begin
discovery. The following table-3 describes the format //F-Forwarding ratio and D-Dropping ratio
of two-hop neighbor table (2NT): If (node weight value of B < Th) or (F(B) < D(B)) then
//here Node B is PCH
Table-3 {
Two-hop neighbor table SCH sends a LIFE_DOWN message to PCH to relinquish
the role of PCH and to process its
Node Node Next Hop Entry update time ( in sec) pending transactions and invokes Elect ( ) function to
ID Status Node elect a new SCH;
PCH joins the cluster as a cluster member;
By examining the HELLO packets received from its } else
neighbors, a node gathers information about its 2-hop If (node weight value of A < Th) or (F(A) < D(A)) then
neighbors (ie., 2-cluster away nodes) and stores them //here Node A is SCH
441
{ table (NT). If D is found in its 2-hop neighbor table and
SCH sends a LIFE_DOWN message to all its member can be reached through more than one-hop neighbors,
nodes and invokes Elect ( ) function; it chooses the one with the most recent
} } EntryUpdateTime as the intermediate node [18]. If D is
End; not found in its 1-hop and 2-hop NTs, it checks its route
function Elect ( ) { cache (RC). Route cache is the storage space in each
Do //here Node B is cluster members mobile node for storing recently discovered routes. If a
{ route to D is made available in its route cache, S simply
Find a node B with highest weight in its neighbor uses the route to send the data packet to destination
table (ie., say B[i] where i=1 to N) D. Otherwise; it floods a route request (RREQ) packet
If ((node B is a cluster member or undecided) && to its neighbor nodes. An intermediate node (IM) after
(𝐹𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 >=0.5)) { receiving the RREQ will decide how to process it based
Node B changes its status to SCH and sends a on its cluster status and the information available in the
HELLO message to its one-hop RREQ packet header. It is expressed as follows:
neighbors; }
elseif (𝐹𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 <0.5) { 1. If IM is a cluster member or with undecided status,
Remove B from CH set and continue the loop. } it simply drops the RREQ packet.
} while (SCH Not Exists); 2. If IM is a cluster gateway (CGW), it checks whether
} it is listed as an entry in RREQ packet header. If no,
it simply drops the packet. If yes, it unicasts the
RREQ to the corresponding neighboring CH as
a) Route discovery
recorded in RREQ.
3. If IM is a CH, it appends its CID in the traversed
Route discovery is a mechanism whereby a source node cluster address list and increases the NUM2 counter
S wishing to send a packet to destination node D, it is by 1. If D is found to be a 2-hop neighbor, IM unicasts
done through intermediate nodes. Route discovery in the RREQ to D based on its 2-hop neighbor table.
TWCBRP is done through flooding RREQ packets only 4. Otherwise, for each neighboring cluster which is not
with cluster heads and gateway nodes. However, in listed in neighboring CH list, IM records the CID of
order to isolate malicious nodes from participating in neighboring CH and the corresponding gateway
the network, their 1-hop neighbors will ignore all address to reach that cluster in RREQ, increment
packets received from them, and will attempt to find a NUM1 counter by 1, and broadcasts to them.
route that does not include intermediary misbehaving 5. If no such neighboring cluster is found, it drops
nodes. For that, each node will keep itself in RREQ.
promiscuous mode to record the transaction of its next 6. Before recording any node’s ID in RREQ packet, each
hop node [18]. For every successful and unsuccessful node checks that the recorded entry does not have
transaction, it updates its direct trust value and final 𝐹𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 <0.5.
trust value respectively. Intra-cluster routing takes
place when source node S and destination node D are
The following table-5 shows the format of RREQ
located within the same cluster. This can be identified
packet.
by PCH’s 1-hop neighbor table. Inter-cluster routing
takes place when the source node S and the destination
node D are not located in the same cluster. Therefore,
Table 5
primary CH needs to involve gateway node for data and Route Request (RREQ) packet
control packet transmission. A gateway node is a node
that lies within the transmission range of both the Packet Num1 Num2 Identification
clusters, and would become members of both clusters. Type Number
Therefore, a powerful node should be appointed as a Destination address
gateway node for maintaining network connectivity. In
Gateway node address [1]
our proposed TWCBRP protocol, among the nodes that
lies in the common region of more than one clusters, a Neighboring cluster head address [1]
node with highest weight and highest trust value (FTV) …….
is elected as a gateway node in order to improve Gateway node address [Num1]
network connectivity. The elected gateway node will Neighboring cluster head address [Num1]
act as a “trust guarantor” for the cluster heads that lies List of traversed cluster addresses [Num2]
within its transmission range.
b) Data forwarding mechanism in TWCBRP protocol
Here, in the above table, PT indicates whether the
packet type is RREQ or RREP packet. List of
When source node S attempts to send a data packet to
gateway nodes are used by CHs to forward RREQ
the destination node D, it first checks its 1-hop
packets to its one-hop away CHs. List of
neighbor table (NT). If D is found, it sends the data
neighboring CHs are used by gateway nodes to
packet directly. Otherwise, S checks its 2-hop neighbor
442
forward the RREQ, and each CH appends its 4.3 Simulation Results
addresses in the traversed cluster address list field
in the RREQ packet during route request a) Simulation Model and Parameters
propagation. The identification field is used to The Network Simulator (NS-2) is used to simulate the
match the route request packet with the proposed architecture. In the simulation, mobile nodes
correspondent route reply packet. Num1 and Num2 are randomly deployed in 750 meter x 750 meter region
indicates hop counts for neighbor cluster head and for 50 seconds of simulation time. All nodes have the
gateway pairs and targeted cluster address list same transmission range of 250 meters. The simulated
respectively. The following table-6 shows the traffic is Constant Bit Rate (CBR). The simulation
format of RREP packet. settings and parameters are summarized below:
Table 6 Number of Nodes: 100 to 500; Node Speed: 5 m/s to 25
Route Reply (RREP) packet
m/s; Area Size: 750 X 750 m; Mac: IEEE 802.11;
Packet Num1 Num2 Identification Transmission Range: 20m; Simulation Time: 50 Sec;
Type Number Traffic Source: CBR; Number of CBR connections: 10;
List of traversed cluster addresses [Num1] Packet Size: 512; Rate: 50 kb; Initial Energy: 20 Joules;
List of CH addresses in calculated route Transmission Power: 0.660; Receiving Power: 0.395.
[Num2]
b) Performance Metrics
In the above table, PT indicates whether the The proposed TWCBRP is compared with the CBPMD
packet type is RREQ or RREP. List of addresses in protocol [16]. The performance is evaluated mainly,
calculated route is used to reach the RREQ of according to the following metrics. Packet Delivery
source node. The identification number is copied Ratio is the ratio between the number of packets
from the RREQ packet in order to match with it. received and the number of packets sent. Packet Drop
refers the average number of packets dropped during
The actual routing is done like the way that the the transmission. Delay is the average end-to-end delay
traditional on-demand source routing protocol such measured in seconds. Energy Consumption is the
as AODV does. That is, each intermediate node in amount of energy consumed by the nodes to transmit
the underlined data packet forwards it to the next the data packets to the receiver. Throughput is the
specified address until the destination node is average number of packets received per second.
reached. However, the significance of TWCBRP
protocol is that it does not allows malicious and c) Results
selfish nodes (𝐹𝑇𝑉𝐵𝐴 <0.5) to forward neither RREQ A. Based on Nodes: In our first experiment we
nor RREP packets. vary the number of nodes as 100,200,300,400
and 500.
c) Node movement
Node movement in XYZ protocol is shown with Table 7
the following algorithm. Simulation Results
Input: Node A in mobility
Output: Node A joins/leaves the cluster Nodes
Delay Delivery Ratio Energy Throughput
Begin CBPMD TWCBRP CBPMD TWCBRP CBPMD TWCBRP CBPMD TWCBRP
If(node A is a leaving node from cluster) { 100 7.558292 0.126717 0.72323 0.996462 12.57041 16.48706 5302 8730
Find the status of Node A; 200 10.11672 0.380857 0.777793 0.991782 15.30881 17.60048 5702 8689
If (moving node A is a PCH or SCH) { 300 16.45621 1.214569 0.549038 0.97466 14.53496 18.12165 4025 8539
Invoke CH_Change algorithm; } 400 13.61595 2.8902 0.141591 0.938591 11.88331 18.0135 1038 8223
Else if (moving node A is a cluster member) { 500 12.85457 0.788641 0.182547 0.983449 13.84155 17.81934 3008 8616
No change takes place in the cluster structure;
and no need of re-election. }
}
Else if (Node A is a joining node into the cluster)
{
Node A sends a JOIN_REQUEST message to PCH
node;
Upon the receipt of ACCEPT_JOIN message from
its PCH node, it joins the cluster as
a member node. }
End;
Figure 1: Nodes Vs Delay
443
Figure 7 shows the delay of TWCBRP and CBPMD than the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 400 the
techniques for different nodes scenario. We can see residual energy of TWCBRP is 34.03% higher than the
that, for nodes 100, the delay of TWCBRP is 98.32% existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 500 the residual
lower than the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 200 energy of TWCBRP is 22.32% higher than the existing
the delay of TWCBRP is 96.23% lower than the existing CBPMD technique. In over all we can conclude that the
CBPMD technique, for nodes 300 the delay of TWCBRP residual energy of CBPMD approach has 23% of higher
is 92.61% lower than the existing CBPMD technique, for than CBPMD approach.
nodes 400 the delay of TWCBRP is 78.77% lower than
the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 500 the delay
of TWCBRP is 93.86% lower than the existing CBPMD
technique. In over all we can conclude that the delay
of our proposed CBPMD approach has 92% of lower than
CBPMD approach.
Figure 3: Nodes Vs Throughput
Figure 10 shows the throughput of TWCBRP and CBPMD
techniques for different nodes scenario. We can see
that, for nodes 100, the throughput of TWCBRP is
39.26% higher than the existing CBPMD technique, for
Figure 2: Nodes Vs Delivery Ratio nodes 200 the throughput of TWCBRP is 34.37% higher
than the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 300 the
Figure 8 shows the delivery ratio of TWCBRP and CBPMD throughput of TWCBRP is 52.86% higher than the
techniques for different nodes scenario. We can see existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 400 the
that, for nodes 100, the delivery ratio of TWCBRP is throughput of TWCBRP is 87.37% higher than the
27.42% higher than the existing CBPMD technique, for existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 500 the
nodes 200 the delivery ratio of TWCBRP is 21.57% higher throughput of TWCBRP is 65.08% higher than the
than the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 300 the existing CBPMD technique. In over all we can conclude
delivery ratio of TWCBRP is 43.66% higher than the that the throughput of our proposed TWCBRP approach
existing CBPMD technique, for nodes 400 the delivery has 56% of higher than CBPMD approach.
ratio of TWCBRP is 84.91% higher than the existing
CBPMD technique, for nodes 500 the delivery ratio of
TWCBRP is 81.43% higher than the existing CBPMD
technique. In over all we can conclude that the delivery 5. Conclusion
ratio of CBPMD approach has 52% of higher than CBPMD In this paper, we have proposed a trust sensitive
approach. weighted dual cluster head based routing protocol
which ensures secured routing and enhances
connectivity in MANET. Since malicious and selfish
nodes are isolated from the routing path, this
guarantees secured and trusted path from source to
destination. Moreover, with primary and secondary
cluster heads, the stability of the routing path as well
as the stability of the cluster structure is also
guaranteed.
References
Figure 4: Nodes Vs Residual Energy [1] Udhayavani, M., and M. Chandrasekaran. "Design of
TAREEN (trust aware routing with energy efficient
Figure 9 shows the residual energy of TWCBRP and network) and enactment of TARF: a trust-aware routing
CBPMD techniques for different nodes scenario. We can framework for wireless sensor networks." Cluster
see that, for nodes 100, the residual energy of TWCBRP Computing (Springer) 22.5 (2019): 11919-11927.
is 23.75% higher than the existing CBPMD technique, for
nodes 200 the residual energy of TWCBRP is 13.02% [2] Priya, I. Leela, S. Lalitha, and P. Victer Paul.
higher than the existing CBPMD technique, for nodes "ENERGY EFFICIENT ROUTING MODELS IN WIRELESS
300 the residual energy of TWCBRP is 19.79% higher
444
SENSOR NETWORKS-A RECENT TREND
SURVEY." International Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics 118.16 (2018): 443-458.
[3] Ahmed, Adnan, et al. "A trust aware routing protocol
for energy constrained wireless sensor
network." Telecommunication Systems 61.1 (2016):
123-140.
[4] Revathi, S., and T. R. Rangaswamy. "Secure Route
Discovery using Opinion Based Method in MANET."
International Journal of Computer Networks and
Wireless Communications (IJCNWC), ISSN: 2250-3501,
Vol.5, No.1, February 2015.
[5] Aruna, S, and A. Subramani. "Weighted Double
Cluster Head Based Approach for Enhancing Route
Stability in MANETS." Asian Journal of Information
Technology 13.11 (2014): 725-732.
[6] Paramasivan, B., and M. Kaliappan. "Secure and Fair
Cluster Head Selection Protocol for Enhancing Security
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", The Scientific World
Journal (2014).
[7] Aruna, S, and Dr. A. Subramani. "Comparative
Study of Weighted Clustering Algorithms for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks." International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering 4 (2014): 307-
311.
[8] Jichkar, Mr Rahul A., and M. B. Chandak,
"Application of Indirect Trust Computation in MANET",
International Journal of Advanced Research in
Computer and Communication Engineering Vol. 3, Issue
3, March 2014.
[9] Venkanna, U., and R. Leela Velusamy. "TEA-CBRP:
Distributed cluster head election in MANET by using
AHP." Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications
(2014): 1-12.
[10] Maleknasab, Mehdi, Moazam Bidaki, and Ali
Harounabadi. "Trust-based clustering in mobile ad hoc
networks: Challenges and issues", International Journal
of Security and Its Applications 7.5 (2013): 321-342.