Comparative Study and Simulation of Flat and

Hierarchical Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor

Network
Hassan Oudani Jalal Laassiri
Polydisciplinary Faculty of Ouarzazate, Department Professor at Faculty of Sciences of Kenitra, Department of
Mathematics and Informatics and Management, Laboratory of Computer Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, Kénitra, Morocco,
Engineering Sciences and Energy, Ibn Zohr University- Agadir, laassiri.jalal@gmail.com
Morocco,
hassan.oudani@gmail.com

Salah-ddine Krit Lahoucine El maimouni

Professor of informatics–Physics at Polydisciplinary Faculty of PolydisciplinaryFaculty of Ouarzazate, Laboratory of
Ouarzazate, Department Mathematics and Informatics and Engineering Sciences and Energy, Ibn Zohr University- Agadir
Management, Laboratory of Engineering Sciences and Energy, BP/638 Morocco ,
Ibn Zohr University- Agadir, Morocco la_elmaimouni@yahoo.fr
salahddine.krit@gmail.com

Abstract— Sensor Networks are emerging as a new tool for Most communication protocols in Ad-Hoc networks do not
important applications in diverse fields like military surveillance, adapt to the characteristics of sensor networks, hence the need
habitat monitoring, monitoring and gathering events in to improve them or to develop new protocols. Many routing
hazardous environments, surveillance of buildings, whether strategies were created for wireless sensor networks. Some are
monitoring etc, In the research area of wireless sensor networks
the Flat and hierarchical routing protocols is a major issue. In
adaptations of strategies that exist for other types of networks
this paper we intend to discuss some of the major Flat routing (mainly for wireless networks in the broadest sense) , while
protocols (AODV, DSDV, GSR, FSR, OLSR, SPIN) and others were designed specifically for wireless sensor
hierarchical routing protocols (LEACH-C, LEACH-F, networks[6].
PEGASIS, ZHLS) for wireless sensor networks. First we will
discuss the routing protocols in short and later we will compare
and simulate the behavior on lifetime and energy using NS2
simulator. II. CHARACTERISTICS OF SENSOR NETWORK
Wireless sensor networks have a scope broad and diverse.
Keywords— wireless sensor networks, Flat routing protocols,
hierarchical routing protocols, NS2. This is made possible by their low cost, their small size, the
wireless communication medium used and the wide range of
types of sensors available. Another advantage is the ability to
I. INTRODUCTION self-organize and establish communications with each other
A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a special ad hoc without human intervention, particularly in inaccessible or
network. It is used in general to control a particular hostile, which increases the number of more targeted areas by
environment. It consists of a set of communicating sensors by their application [7].
wireless links [1]. WSN involved in specific applications: Although the sensor networks not misbehave benefits as the
military, medical, and environmental, for the monitoring of cost of equipment and the cost of implementation Instead,
critical infrastructure in the affected areas and hostile [2, 3]. however, they suffer from a lot of gaps as asymmetric
A major constraint in wireless sensor networks is the connections (one-way communications between nodes), the
protection of communications[27,28]. Extending the lifetime problem of interference that generates an error rate of
of the network by deploying adequate routing and security transmission and weakens the performance a radio link and
protocols enables efficient energy management [1,3]. the node mobility resulting in frequent breakage road causing
Recharging batteries whose capacity is limited, in hostile areas a rate therefore enough errors [7].
is often impossible. For this, the WSN require effective
security mechanisms and inexpensive energy [5, 6].
In a WSN, each node acts as transmitter and router.The energy
sensor failure can significantly change the network topology
and impose a costly reorganization of the latter [1, 5].

978-1-5090-5579-1/16/$31.00
©2016 IEEE
 III. ROUTING IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS The figure below shows a taxonomy protocols routing for
sensor networks. These protocols differentiated by the
A. Routing protocol in WSN network structure, functions protocol and transmission mode
Routing protocols are designed differently to meet the ,the table bellow show a classification of routing protocol in
objectives of a wireless sensor network. WSN .
The strategy (or protocol) routing is used in order to
discover the paths between nodes. The main purpose of this
strategy is the establishment of roads that are correct and TABLE I. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF PROTOCOL IN WSN
effective between any pair of units, which ensures the
exchange of messages continuously. Given the limitations of Criterion Classification Definition
the WSN networks, road construction should be done with a
minimum of control and consumption of bandwidth. In the The network is clustered. The
manner of creation and maintenance of routes in the routing routing is done on several
levels (intra-cluster and inter-
data, the routing protocols can be separated into two main hierarchical cluster).
categories,the pro-active protocols that establish the routes in
advance based on the periodic exchange of routing tables and
the reactive protocols that seek routes on demand.
All nodes have the same role
Other classes are a quote namely protocols Hybrid Routing Network
and cooperate with each
(Combine both proactive and reactive techniques), structure
Flat other to complete the routing.
geographical, hierarchical quality of service and multicast [8].

The nodes of the location

Geographical information are used for data
routing.

The network must meet the

Quality of data quality with reasonable
service energy consumption.
Eliminate redundant
Negotiation transmissions and establish
communications by network
Functions resources.
protocol Using multiple paths to
increase network
performance by maintaining
Multipath alternate paths.

The paths are established a

proactive priori.

Fig. 1. Classification of routing protocols and function protocol type in The paths are established on
WSN Transmission reactive demand as needed.
mode
Combines both proactive and
B. WSN Architecture Hybrid reactive techniques.
In sensor networks there are two types of architecture for
networks , flat architecture that constitutes a homogeneous
network where all nodes have the same in terms energy
resources ,calculation and memory [9,10,30], and another
hierarchical architecture where all nodes do not have the same
roles and therefore the same resources.
C. Classification of Protocols in WSN
The main objective of the protocol is correct and effective
establishment of routes between a pair of nodes so that
messages can be routed , Figure below shows a classification
of routing protocols in WSN according to the structure
network and different type of function that can use each
protocol [9, 11,26,27,28,29].
D. The role of a routing protocol called dissemination method, used in the DBF (Distributed
The routing protocol allows nodes to connect directly to Bellman- Ford) [17].
each other to relay messages through multiple hops[26]. The 4) FSR Protocol
presentation of a state of the art flat major routing protocols in FSR (Fisheye State Routing) can be seen as an
ad hoc networks is important since the presentation of these improvement of the GSR protocol presented previously. The
protocols allow us to better analyze the advantage of the high number of exchanged update messages involves a large
hierarchical approach especially in large networks [12]. consumption of bandwidth, which has a negative effect in the
In the following a brief overview will be given for flat Ad-hoc networks characterized by limited bandwidth. The
protocols ( AODV , DSDV , GSR , FSR , OLSR , SPIN) , FSR protocol is based on the use of technology "fish eye"
hierarchical ( LEACH -C , LEACH -F, PEGASIS , ZHLS ) (fisheye), proposed by Klein rock and Stevens who used to
implemented in NS-2 [21] level of energy and behavior on reduce the amount of information needed to represent the
lifetime. graphical data. The eye of fish captures with precision the
points near the focal point.
IV. STUDIES ROUTING PROTOCOL IN WSN In FSR, dissemination flood of messages does not
exist. The exchange is done only with immediate neighbors.
A. Flat routing protocol The update data periodically exchanged in FSR, like the
1) DSDV Protocol vector exchanged in DSDV protocol, where distances are
DSDV (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector) is a modified according to the time stamp or sequence number
proactive protocol distance vector routing. Each network node associated with the node that was the origin of the setting up
maintains a routing table with the next hop and the number of to date [17].
hops for all possible destinations. Periodic updates of 5) OLSR Protocol
Broadcasts tend to maintain the routing table completely OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing) uses two kinds
updated at any time. of the control messages: Hello and Topology Control (TC).
In DSDV, two types of update packages are used: " fulls Hello messages are used for finding the information about the
dump" , containing all the information and smaller packages, link status and the host’s neighbours. With the Hello message
containing only the information that has changed since the last the Multipoint Relay (MPR) Selector set is constructed which
full dump . Updates are either incremental or full [13, 14]. describes which neighbours has chosen this host to act as
2) AODV Protocol MPR and from this information the host can calculate its own
AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector) is a set of the MPRs. the Hello messages are sent only one hop
distance-vector protocol, as DSDV, but it is reactive rather away but the TC messages are broadcasted throughout the
than proactive as DSDV. Indeed, AODV requests a route entire network. TC messages are used for broadcasting
when it needs it [13, 14]. information about own advertised neighbours which includes
AODV uses sequence numbers in a manner similar to at least the MPR Selector list. The TC messages are
DSDV to avoid routing loops and to indicate the "novelty" of broadcasted periodically and only the MPR hosts can forward
roads. An entry in the routing table essentially contains the the TC messages. [17, 25].
address of the destination, the address of the next node, the 6) SPIN Protocol
distance in number of hops, the destination sequence number, SPIN (Sensor Information Negotiation Protocol) is a
the expiration time of each entry in the table. protocol that uses the idea of appointment data using high-
When a node needs to find a route to a destination whose level descriptors or meta given. Prior to transmission, meta-
entry in the routing table does not exist or has expired, it data is exchanged between the sensors by a data advertising
broadcasts a route request message (Route Request message, mechanism. Each node receiving new data, the announcement
RREQ) to all its neighbors. The RREQ message is broadcast to its neighbors and those interested retrieve data by sending a
over the network to reach the destination. During its journey request [9, 17].
through the network, the RREQ messages makes creating
B. Hierarchical Routing Protocol
temporary records routing table for the reverse route of the
nodes through which it passes. If the destination or a route to When the network size becomes larger, its management
it is found, a road is made available by sending a route reply becomes more difficult. Flat routing protocols work well when
messages (Route Reply, RREP) to the source node. This road the network does not include a large number of nodes. The
crosses response along the temporary reverse path of the structuring of a network is one of the main tools to save
RREQ message [15, 16]. energy in each network node [23], resulting in prolonging the
3) GSR Protocol lifetime of the system. One of the known structures is the
GSR (Global State Routing) is a protocol similar to the hierarchy that is used to partition the network into subsets to
protocol described above DSDV. This protocol uses ideas facilitate network management especially routing, which takes
based routing link state (Link State, LS), and improves place on several levels [4]. The strength of this type of
avoiding inefficient mechanism flood routing messages. GSR architecture is the aggregation and data fusion to reduce the
uses a global view of the network topology, as is the case in number of messages transmitted to the sink, which means
the LS -based protocols. The protocol also uses a method better energy efficiency. In fact, two main approaches are
derived from these protocols: cluster-based approach and 5) ZHLS Protocol
chain–based approach [3, 18]. ZHLS (Zone -based Hierarchical Link State Protocol)
1) LEACH Protocol is a protocol based on the training area , that is to say the
LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarch) is decomposition of the network into a set of disjoint
a self organizing adaptive protocol based on clustering [3], zones [19, 20].In this protocol, members of an area do not
which uses randomized rotation of cluster heads to evenly elect representatives unlike other hierarchical protocols. ZHLS
distribute the energy load among sensor nodes in the network. uses GPS technology (Global Position System) so that each
It is considered one of the first hierarchical routing approaches node knows its position and the area in which it is located.
based on clustering [22]. With this decomposition, there are two levels of topologies:
The idea behind LEACH is to form clusters of nodes the node level and area level. Topology based on the first level
sensors depending on the strength of the received signal and to information on the manner in which the nodes of a given area
use local cluster heads ( cluster head , CH) as routers to route are physically connected. A virtual link may exist between
data to the base station [19, 22]. two areas, if there is at least one node of the first zone, which
2) LEACH-C Protocol is physically connected to a node of the other area [24].
Since the LEACH algorithm does not guarantee the
number of CH provided for initializing the algorithm or the
equitable distribution of CH, centralized version of LEACH- V. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PROTOCOL LEACH,LEACH-C
AND PEGASIS .
CENTRAL algorithm is proposed [3]. The latter allows
determining, from the exact position of the nodes, the optimal Before making a comparative study between the flat and
configuration to minimize energy expended. LEACH-C is a hierarchical protocols , firstly we will presented some results
variant of LEACH where the clusters are formed in a of simulation in simulator NS2 [21] done by other researchers
centralized manner by the base station. LEACH-C uses the [19, 20], which makes a comparative study between the
same transmission step that LEACH. During the initialization hierarchical Protocol LEACH , LEACH -C and PEGASIS .
phase of the Base Station (BS) receives information of each The presentation of these results mentioned in [19, 20] it’s
node on their location, and their energy reserve. Then, it to make a comparison with our simulation results executed.
executes centralized cluster formation algorithm to form The figure and tow table below shows respectively the
clusters and select their CH. LEACH-C uses the algorithm of simulation results, the digital results and the parameters
simulated success for optimal clusters. Once the clusters are simulate of protocols LEACH, LEACH -C and PEGASIS
formed, the base station sends this information to all nodes in depending on the model mentioned in [19, 20] .
the network. However, the centralized version of LEACH is
not suited for large-scale networks [18, 19].
3) LEACH-F Protocol
LEACH -F (LEACH - CENTRAL - Fixed) is a further
development of the LEACH protocol based on clusters that
are formed once and then are fixed [3]. Then, the cluster head
position rotates among the nodes in the cluster. The advantage
is that , once the clusters are formed , no further initialization
phase will take place , LEACH -F uses the same centralized
algorithm cluster formation that LEACH -C . Fixed clusters in
LEACH -F does not allow new nodes to be added to the
system and do not adjust their behavior based on the nodes
death [18, 19].
4) PEGASIS Protocol
PEGASIS (Power Efficient Gathering in Sensor
Information Systems) is a protocol based on the chains [23].
The protocol of the basic idea is that in order to prolong the
lifetime of the network, the nodes will be organized so that
they form a chain, and will have need to communicate with
only their closest neighbors and take turns in communicating
with the base station [20, 22]. Fig. 2. Energy consumption and node lifetime in hierarchical protocols
Indeed, PEGASIS has two main objectives. First, LEACH , LEACH -C , PEGASIS
increasing the lifetime of each node by using collaborative
techniques and thus increase the lifetime of the network.
Secondly, allow only the local coordination between
neighboring nodes so that the bandwidth consumed in the
communication is reduced [20, 22].
TABLE II. DIGITAL RESULTS OF PROTOCOLS LEACH, LEACH- TABLE III. PARAMETRES SIMULATION PROTOCOLS LEACH,LEACH-
C,PEGASIS C,PEGASIS

LEACH LEACH-C PEGASIS Criterion Value

TIME(Second)
Number of a live node Number of Node 100
10 100 100 100 network topology 100 x 100 m²
30 100 100 100 Initial Energy of node 2J
50 100 100 100 Simulated parameter Energy consumption and live node
70 100 100 100 Simulator NS2
90 100 100 100 Protocol LEACH,LEACH-C,PEGASIS
110 100 100 100
130 100 100 100 VI. SIMULATION AND COMPARISON OF FLAT AND
150 100 100 100
170 100 97 100
HIERARCHICAL PROTOCLS
190 100 97 100
210 99 95 100 A. Simulation Parameters Protocol
230 98 93 99 To make a comparison of both flat and hierarchical
250 95 88 97
architecture, several parameters are to be tested, and of these
270 90 79 92
290 87 72 87 parameters we will take the results of simulation in NS2
310 82 69 85 [21],in rely on coercion energy and lifetime of the network is
330 76 60 82 constrained .These two energy consumption by node of
350 62 49 80 network, more than the power consumption increases over the
370 52 47 77 lifetime of the network decreases. Alternatively reduce energy
390 49 47 75
410 42 36 66
consumption came maximized the duration of lifetime
430 38 32 63 networks. Since the mobile nodes are powered by
450 32 30 60 independent sources of energy , it is interesting to know how it
470 30 26 56 is consumed the energy relative to each other to know the
490 24 22 54 most effective protocols for these two architectures.
510 19 20 51
530 15 19 47
In our case study applies this limited compared the results of a
550 10 18 43 protocol Flat (AODV, DSDV) and Hierarchical (LEACH),
570 10 14 30 and then we will compared all this result to the result done by
590 9 12 23 other researchers mentioned in [19, 20].
610 6 11 20 1) Parameter of flat protol
630 4 10 19
650 9 19 a) AODV Protocol
670 8 18 The table below shows the AODV protocol
690 7 17 simulation context .
710 6 15
730 4 14
TABLE IV. AODV PRTOCOLE PARAMETRES SIMULATION
750 14
770 12 Criterion Value
790 12 Number of Node 10
810 12 network topology 500 -400
830 12 Initial Energy 3.4 J
850 11 Energy transmission 0.33 W
870 10 Energy Reception 0.1 W
890 10 Simulated parameter Energy consumption
910 10 Simulator NS2
930 10 Protocol AODV
950 10
970 9
990 9
1010 9
1030 9
1050 8
1070 8
1090 7
1110 6
1130 6
 b) DSDV Protocol
The table below shows the DSDV protocol simulation
context.

TABLE V. DSDV PRTOCOLE PARAMETRES SIMULATION

Criterion Value
Number of Node 10
network topology 500 -400
Initial Energy 3.4 J
Energy transmission 0.33 W
Energy Reception 0.1 W
Simulated parameter Energy consumption
Simulator NS2
Protocol DSDV
2) Parameter of hierarchical Protocol
a) LEACH Protocol
The table below shows the LEACH protocol
simulation context .

TABLE VI. SIMULATION PARAMETRE OF LEACH

PROTOCOLE
Fig. 4. Energy consumption of AODV protocol
Criterion Value
Number of Node 10 2) DSDV Protocol
network topology 800 -400 Both figures below shows the simulation results
Simulated parameter Number of Living Node
representing network topology and the energy consumption of
Simulator NS2
protocol DSDV.
Protocol LEACH

VII. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSION

A. Simulation results
1) AODV Protocol
Both figures below shows the simulation results
representing network topology and the energy consumption of
protocol AODV.

Fig. 5. Topology DSDV protocol 10 Node

Fig. 3. Topology AODV protocol 10 Node

 Fig. 6. Energy consumption of DSDV protocol Fig. 8. Energy consumption of the protocol LEACH

3) LEACH Protocol
Three figures below shows the simulation results
representing the network topology, energy consumption of
LEACH protocol that resulted in the lifetimeme of nodes in
the network and the number of bits processed by the cluster
packet transmission time.

Fig. 9. Number of bits in cluster LEACH

Fig. 7. Topology LEACH protocol 10 Node

B. Discusion results References
Bitter simulation results we see that the energy [1] Xu,N,“A Survey of Sensor Network Applications”. IEEE
Communications Magazine, 40, 102-114,(2002).
consumption is proportional to the number of packets
[2] Ali Norouzi , Ahmet Sertbas , “Energy Efficient Coverage
processed and the type of treatment performed (transmission Optimization in Wireless Sensor Networks based on Genetic
/ reception), it is noted that the transmission of a packet Algorithm” , Universal Journal of Communications and Network
request more energy than the reception. 3(4): 82-88, 2015.
In the flat AODV protocol in finding energy [3] Mahnaz Esmaeeli, Seyed Ali Hosseini Ghahroudi , “ Improving
consumption very important, and a rough time of 26 seconds Energy Efficiency using a new Game Theory Algorithm for Wireless
Sensor Networks”, International Journal of Computer Applications
to notice that energy nodes will approach zero. It means that (0975 – 8887) Volume 136 – No.12, February 2016.
the node lifetime is very small. [4] Wei Sun1, Xiaoying Song, Fasheng Wang, “ Energy-balanced
For flat Protocol DSDV and in the same context Clustering Routing Protocol Based on Task Separation in Wireless
simulation of the AODV protocol, as shown in the Sensor Networks”, wseas transactions on communications, Volume
15, ,E-ISSN: 2224-2864 , 2016.
simulation result, in recognition that the energy
[5] Corke, P., Wark, T., Jurdak, R., Wen, H., Valencia, P. and Moore, D,
consumption and the DSDV protocol lifetime is better than “Environmental Wireless Sensor Networks”,Proceedings of the IEEE,
that of AODV protocol, also we see that energy begins 98,1903-1917.
approached zeros in the second 80 instead of 26 for the http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2068530,(2010).
AODV, and this caused by mobility of node and the [6] Li, J.Z. and Hong, G, “Survey on Sensor Network Research”, Journal
number of processed packets in each protocol. of Computer Research and Development,45, 1-15, (2008).
Generally Flat protocols energy consumption is very [7] Ren, F.Y., Lin, G. and Huang, H.N. Wireless Sensor Networks.
Journal of Software, 7, (2003).
high, which reduces the lifetime of each node in the network
[8] F. Akyildiz, Weilian Su, Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, “A survey
that is why we have simulated the process LEACH on sensor networks”, IEEE Communications, Aug 2002.
hierarchical routing protocol, and compare this results to flat [9] Al-Karaki, J. N. and Kamal, A. E., “Routing Techniques in Wireless
protocols. Sensor Networks: A Survey,” IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol.
After the simulation results observed in the nodes of 11, pp. 6_28 (2004).
lifetime in the hierarchical protocol is very large than the [10] E.Royer, and C.Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for ad
hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Personal Communication,
flat protocols. So the hierarchical protocols are performing Vol. 6, pp. 46_55 (1999).
than flat protocols. [11] D.Boubiche, A.Bilami “ Protocole de Routage à Base de Clusters à
For comparison results of hierarchical routing protocols Chaînes Statiques dans les R.C.S.F”, 1stWorkshop on Next
LEACH, LEACH-C and PEGASIS depending on the model Generation Networks: Mobility (IEEE WNGN 2008) ,18 juillet 2008.
mentioned in [19,20], we noted that PEGASIS offers better [12] Dhillon, S.S. and Chakrabarty, K.,“Sensor Placement for Effective
power management compared to LEACH protocol and Coverage and Surveillance in Distributed Sensor Networks”, IEEE, 3,
1609-161, (2003).
LEACH-C, which increases the lifetime of node in
[13] E.M Royer and C-K Toh. “A review of current routing protocols for
PEGASIS protocol. adhoc mobile wireless networks”. IEEE Personal Communications,
As prospects we plan to make a comparative study of the Apr. 1999.
performance PEGASIS and ZHLS to propose another more [14] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly dynamic destination-sequenced
efficient protocol. distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers” ,In
Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Communications
VIII. CONCLUSION Architectures, Protocols and Applications, pp. 234–244,1994.
[15] C. Perkins, E. Royer, “Ad hoc on demand distance vector algorithm”,
Being given that the main purpose of a routing protocol in: IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing, Systems and Applications
for WSN is the proper and efficient development of routes WMCSA ’, pp. 90–100, 99, 1999.
between a pair of nodes so that messages can be routed, why [16] Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer, and Samir R. Das. “Ad hoc
multiple routing protocols have been developed these last ondemand distance vector (AODV) routing”, IETF internet draft
(work in progress), Internet Engineering Task Force, November 2002.
years.
[17] I. Chlamtac, M. Conti, and J. Liu. “Mobile ad hoc
In this article we had seen in some algorithms flat and networking:imperatives and challenges”. Ad Hoc Networks, pp13–64,
hierarchical routing, in order to make a comparison between 2003.
the two architectures in power consumption and the lifetime [18] Y.Wang, C.Hsiao Tsai and H.Mao, “HMRP: Hierarchy-Based
of the network,the work we have done (study and simulation Multipath Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks’, Tamkang
protocols under NS2), allows us to see the difference in Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 255-264 (2006).
energy consumption by the nods in flat protocols. [19] W..R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H.Balakrishnan, “An
Application-Specific Protocol Architecture for Wireless Micro sensor
Finally this comparative study, we concluded that the Networks”, IEEE Transactions on the wireless communications, Vol.
hierarchical architecture has more advantage than the flat 1, No. 4, pp. 660-670, Oct. 2002.
architecture namely: well-structured network, easy network [20] S. Lindsey, C. Raghavendra, “PEGASIS: Power-Efficient Gathering
management, less power consumption, high lifetime, unless in Sensor Information Systems", IEEE Aerospace Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 3, 9-16 pp.1125-1130, 2002.
the message circulating on networks and the flood problem
[21] Ns-2.http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
is avoided. But in general it is interesting to consider and
combine maximum routing algorithm to derive the best
profits.
[22] Monika Raghatate,Dipak W. Wajgi, “An energy saving algorithm to
prolong the lifetime of wireless sensor network ”,International Journal
of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 6, No. 5, October
2014.
[23] Hetal Rana, Sangeeta Vhatkar, Mohommad Atique, “Comparative
Study of PEGASIS Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network”, IOSR
Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE) e-ISSN: 2278-0661,p-
ISSN: 2278-8727, Volume 16, Issue 5, Ver. I (Sep – Oct. 2014), PP
25-30.
[24] Kanishka Raheja , Sunil Kr Maakar, “A Survey on Different Hybrid
Routing Protocols of MANET ”,(IJCSIT) International Journal of
Computer Science and Information Technologies, 5512-5516, Vol. 5
(4) , 2014.
[25] Nisha Soms, P. Malathi, “Certain Investigations on Securing the
OLSR Protocol Against Compound Attacks”, Conference Paper ·
January 2016
[26]. Krit Salah-ddine, Jalal Laassiri and El Hajji Said, " Design
Methodology of Energy Consumption for Wireless Sensor Networks
using Energy Renewable", Journal Of Computing, Volume 4, Issue 5,
Mai 2012.
[27] Wafaa Ibrihich, Krit Salah-ddine, Jalal Laassiri,and Said El Hajji,
"Review On The Attacks And Security Protocols for Wireless Sensor
Networks" European Journal of Scientific Research, Volume 101 No
2 May, 2013
[28] Wafaa Ibrihich, Krit Salah-ddine, Jalal Laassiri, and Said El Hajji,
"Comparative Analysis of secure routing in WSN " The
2014 International Conference of Wireless
Networks, ICWN_58, London, U.K., 2-4 July 2014.
[29] Wafaa Ibrihich, Krit Salah-ddine, Jalal Laassiri, and Said El
Hajji, "Study and Simulation of Protocols of WSN Using
NS2" Transactions on Engineering Technologies, pp 467-480, 2015.
[30] Wafaa Ibrihich, Krit Salah-ddine, Jalal Laassiri, and Said El
Hajji, "Recent Advances of Hierarchical Routing Protocols for Ad-
Hoc and Wireless Sensor Networks: A Literature
Survey*" International Journal Of Informatics Technologies- Ijit,
Vol.:9, issue: 2, May 2016.