58
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010
Cluster Management using Cluster Size Ratio in Ad
Hoc Networks
D K L V Chandra Mouly, Ch D V Subba Rao and M M Naidu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
S V University College of Engineering, Tirupati - 517502, India.
dklvcm.mtech@gmail.com, subbarao_chdv@hotmail.com
Abstract: Cluster Management using Cluster Size Ratio
(CMCSR) is a completely distributed algorithm for partitioning
a given set of mobile nodes into clusters. The proposed
algorithm tries to reduce the amount of computational and
information overhead while maintaining a stable cluster
formation. It constructs and maintains a backbone topology
based on a minimal dominating set (MDS) of the network.
According to this algorithm, each node determines the
membership in the MDS for itself and its one-hop neighbors
based on one-hop neighbor information that is disseminated
among neighboring nodes using willingness and priority
information of the nodes. The algorithm then ensures that the
members of the MDS are connected into a connected
dominating set (CDS), which can be used to form the backbone
infrastructure of the communication network to facilitate
routing. The algorithm outperforms the existing algorithms with
respect to stability. Load balancing the cluster heads using the
cluster size ratio is the heuristic used in this algorithm.
1. Introduction
This section discusses elementary issues of ad hoc networks
and benefits of clustering.
1.1 Ad Hoc Networks
In the next generation of wireless communication systems,
there will be a need for the rapid deployment of independent
mobile users. Significant examples include establishing
survivable, efficient, dynamic communication for
emergency/ rescue operations, disaster relief efforts, and
military networks. Such network scenarios cannot rely on
centralized and organized connectivity, and can be
conceived as applications of ad hoc networks. An ad hoc
network is an autonomous collection of mobile users that
communicate over relatively bandwidth constrained wireless
links. Since the nodes are mobile, the network topology may
change rapidly and unpredictably over time. The network is
decentralized, where all network activity including
discovering the topology and delivering messages will be
taken care by the nodes, i.e., routing functionality will be
incorporated into mobile nodes.
The set of applications for ad hoc networks is diverse,
ranging from small, static networks that are constrained by
power sources, to large-scale, mobile, highly dynamic
networks. The design of network protocols for these
networks is a complex issue. Regardless of the application,
ad hoc networks need efficient distributed algorithms to
determine network organization, link scheduling, and
routing. However, determining viable routing paths and
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
delivering messages in a decentralized environment where
network topology fluctuates is not a welldefined problem
[1].
1.2 Clustering in Ad Hoc Networks
A wireless ad hoc network consists of nodes that move freely
and communicate with each other using wireless links. Ad-
hoc networks do not use specialized routers for path
discovery and traffic routing. One way to support efficient
communication between nodes is to develop wireless
backbone architecture; this means that certain nodes must be
selected to form the backbone. Over time, the backbone
must change to reflect the changes in the network topology
as nodes move around. The algorithm that selects the
members of the backbone should naturally be fast, but also
should require as little communication between nodes as
possible, since mobile nodes are often powered by batteries.
One way to solve this problem is to group the nodes into
clusters, where one node in each cluster functions as cluster
head, responsible for routing [2].
1.3 Benefits of clustering
Ad-hoc networks are suited for use in situations where an
infrastructure is unavailable or to deploy one is not cost
effective. One of many possible uses of mobile ad-hoc
networks is in some business environments, where the need
for collaborative computing might be more important
outside the office environment than inside, such as in
business meeting outside the office to brief clients on a
given assignment.
Mobile ad-hoc networks allow the construction of flexible
and adaptive networks with no fixed infrastructure. These
networks are expected to play an important role in the future
wireless generation. Future wireless technology will require
highly-adaptive mobile networking technology to effectively
manage multi-hop ad-hoc network clusters, which will not
only operate autonomously but also will be able to attach at
some point to the fixed networks.
2. Literature Review
This section emphasizes some of the past clustering
techniques.
2.1 Types of Topology Management
There are two approaches to topology management in ad
hoc networks:
• Power control.
• Hierarchical topology organization.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 59
2.1.1 Power Control
Different Power control mechanisms adjust the power on a
per-node basis, so that one-hop neighbor connectivity is
balanced and overall network connectivity is ensured [4, 5,
6]. Li [7] proved that network connectivity is minimally
maintained as long as the decreased power level keeps at
least one neighbor remaining connected at every 2π/3 to
5π/6 angular separation. Ramanathan [7] proposed to
incrementally adjust nodes power levels so as to keep
network connectivity at each step topologies derived from
power-control schemes often result in unidirectional links
that create harmful interference due to the different
transmission ranges among one-hop neighbors [9]. The
dependencies on volatile information in mobile networks,
such as node locations [4], signal strength or angular
positions [8] also contribute to the instability of topology
control algorithms based on power control.
2.1.2 Hierarchical topology control
This approach to topology control is often called clustering,
and consists of selecting a set of cluster heads in a way that
every node is associated with a cluster head, and cluster
heads are connected with one another directly or by means
of gateways, so that the union of gateways and cluster heads
constitute a connected backbone [10, 14, 15]. Once elected,
the cluster heads and the gateways helps to reduce the
complexity of maintaining topology information, and can
simplify such essential functions as routing, bandwidth
allocation, channel access, power control or virtual circuit
support. For clustering to be effective, the links and nodes
that are part of the backbone (i.e., cluster heads, gateways,
and the links that connect them) must be close to minimum
and must also be connected.
2.2 TYPES OF CLUSTER HEAD ELECTIONS
Cluster heads can be elected in four ways.
• Deterministic Clustering
• Non-Deterministic Clustering
• Reactive Clustering
• Proactive Clustering
A. Deterministic Clustering
Deterministic clustering can determine the cluster heads in a
single round. Different heuristics have been used to form
clusters and to elect cluster heads. Several approaches [12]
utilized the node identifiers to elect the cluster heads within
one or multiple hops.
B. Non-Deterministic Clustering
In non-deterministic clustering, negotiations are used.
Negotiations require multiple incremental steps, and may
incur an election jitter during the process, because of the
lack of consensus about the nodes being elected as the
cluster heads. Examples of this approach are the “core”
extraction algorithm [13] and the spanning tree algorithm
[14]. SPAN [13] allows a node to delay the announcement
of becoming a cluster head for random amounts of time to
attempt to attain minimum conflicts between cluster heads
in its one-hop neighborhood.
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010
C. Reactive Clustering
It is on-demand clustering algorithm. There is no periodic
exchange of clustering information in the network. Instead,
whenever there is data traffic, cluster related information is
piggybacked in outgoing data packets and extracted out of
received packets.
D. Proactive Clustering
Some are proactive clustering algorithms, which require
periodic broadcast of cluster-related information. SPAN [13]
adaptively elects coordinators according to the remaining
energy and the number of pairs of neighbors a node can
connect.
2.3 Scope for Present Work
The efficiency of a communication network depends not
only on its control protocols, but also on its topology. Our
work i.e. CMCSR proposes a distributed topology
management algorithm that constructs and maintains a
backbone topology based on a Minimal Dominating Set
(MDS) of the network. Without topology management each
and every node should maintain the routing information for
all the nodes they need. By using topology management a
subset of nodes are selected called cluster heads and each
cluster head performs the routing work for its members.
3. System Model
3.1 Assumptions
This work assumes that an ad hoc network comprises a
group of mobile nodes communicating through a common
broadcast channel using omni-directional antennas with the
same transmission range. The topology of an ad hoc
network is thus presented by an undirected graph G = (V,E),
where V is the set of network nodes, and E ⊆ U * V is the
set of links between nodes. The existence of a link (u, v) ∈ E
also means (v; u) ∈ E, and that nodes u and v are within the
packet-reception range of each other, in which case u and v
are called one-hop neighbors of each other. The set of one-
hop neighbors of a node i is denoted by Ni. Two nodes that
are not connected but share at least one common one-hop
neighbor are called two-hop neighbor of each other.
Each node has one unique identifier, and all transmissions
are omni directional with the same transmission range. The
nodes move with constant mobility. The energy is decreased
linearly. Different types of nodes consume energy at
different rates. We ignore the energy consumed due to local
computations, but assume that the energy consumption rate
is only dependent on the type of the node. A host consumes
0.6% of the total energy per minute in these algorithms;
whereas a cluster head consumes 3%.
3.2 Model
In an ad hoc network all nodes are alike and all are mobile.
There are no base stations to coordinate the activities of
subsets of nodes. Therefore, all the nodes have to
collectively make decisions. All communication is over
wireless links. A wireless link can be established between a
pair of nodes only if they are within wireless range of each
60 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010

other. We will only consider bidirectional links. It is priorities that consists of two components: (a) Neighboring
assumed the MAC layer will mask unidirectional links and Nodes, (b) Willingness value assigned to a node as a
pass only bidirectional links. Beacons could be used to function of its mobility and energy level.
determine the presence of neighboring nodes. After the We denote the willingness value of node i by Wi, the speed
absence of some number of successive beacons from a of node i by a scalar Mi that ranges from 0 to 1 meters per
neighboring node, it is concluded that the node is no longer second, and the remaining energy on node i as Ei in the
a neighbor. Two nodes that have a wireless link will, range of 0 and 1. The willingness Wi is a function that
henceforth, be said to be one wireless hop away from each should be defined according to the following criteria:
other. They are also said to be immediate neighbors.
Communication between nodes is over a single shared 1. To enhance survivability, each node should have the
channel. responsibility of serving as a cluster head with some
nonzero probability determined by its willingness value.
In ad hoc networks the nodes within each neighborhood are 2. To facilitate with the stability and the frequency with
not known a priori. The individual cluster may transition to which cluster head elections must take place, the
spatial TDMA for inter-cluster and intra-cluster willingness value of a node should remain constant as long
communication. All nodes broadcast their node identity as the variation of the speed and energy level of the node do
periodically to maintain neighborhood integrity. Due to not exceed some threshold values.
mobility, a node’s neighborhood changes with time. As the 3. To avoid electing cluster heads that quickly lose
mobility of nodes may not be predictable, changes in connectivity with their neighbors after being elected, the
network topology over time are arbitrary. However, nodes willingness value of a node should decrease drastically after
may not be aware of changes in their neighborhood. the mobility of the node exceeds a given value.
Therefore, clusters and cluster heads must be updated 4. To prolong the battery life of a node, its willingness
frequently to maintain accurate network topology. value should decrease drastically after the remaining energy
of the node drops below the given level.
3.2.1 Attributes of a node
Willingness value (Wi) is as specified below:
The attributes of a node and their functionality are as given
Wi = 2log2(Ei+.9)log2(Mi+2)
in Table I.
Here the constants 0.9 and 2 in Eq. (1) eliminate the
Table 1: Attributes of a node and their functionality
boundary conditions in the logarithmic operations. The
ATTRIBUTE FUNCTION logarithmic operations on the speed and the remaining
energy values render higher willingness values in the high
ID Unique name given to node
energy and low speed field, while giving close to zero values
ENERGY The capacity to work in
in the low energy and high-speed region.
MOBILITY The speed of the node when it
is moving Priority value (Pi) is a function of no.of neighbors and
WILLINGNESS How much the node is willing willingness
to be a cluster head i.prio = 2log2(Wi)/n
PRIORITY Has the priority among other Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the two factors on the
nodes to became a cluster head priority values. From the Figure 2 we can conclude that the
CLUSTER SIZE Cluster size ratio which it is priority is directly proportional to the willingness value and
having number of neighbors.
TYPE Whether it is cluster head or
gateway or door way or
member
NEIGHBORS Number of one – hop neighbors
1

3.2.2 Computing Priorities of Nodes 0.9

0.8
Given that cluster heads provide the backbone for a number 0.7
0.6
of network control functions, their energy consumption is Priority 0.5
more pronounced than that of ordinary hosts. Low-energy 0.4 10
nodes must try to avoid serving as cluster heads to save 0.3
7
0.2
energy. However, to balance the load of serving as cluster 4
0.1
heads, every node should take the responsibility of serving 0 1 Number of
as a cluster head for some period of time with some 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Neighbors

likelihood. Furthermore, node mobility has to be considered Willingness

in cluster head elections. To take into account the mobility

and energy levels of nodes in their election, we define the
two-hop neighbor information needed to assign node Figure 1. Priority Graph
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 61
3.2.3 MDS and Cluster Head Election
The approach to establishing a minimal dominating set
(MDS) is based on three key observations First, using
negotiations among nodes to establish which nodes should
begin the MDS incurs substantial overhead when nodes
move around and the quality of links changes frequently.
Hence, nodes should be allowed to make MDS membership
decisions based on local information. Second, because in an
MDS every node is one hop away from a cluster head, the
local information needed at any node needs to include only
nodes that are one and two hops away from the node itself.
Third, having too many cluster heads around the same set of
nodes does not lead to an MDS. Hence, to attain a selection
of nodes to the MDS without negotiation, nodes should rank
one another using the two-hop neighborhood information
they need. Based on the above, the approach adopted in
CMCSR consists of each node communicating to its
neighbor’s information about all its two-hop neighbors.
Using this information, each node computes a priority for
each node in its two-hop neighborhood, such that no two
nodes can have the same priority at the same instant of time.
A node can become cluster head if the node has highest
priority in its two hop neighborhood.
3.2.4 Connected Dominating Set Election
The CDS [4] of a network topology is constructed in two
steps. In the first step, if two cluster heads in the MDS are
separated by three hops and there are no other cluster heads
between them, a node with the highest priority on the
shortest paths between the two cluster heads is elected as a
doorway, and is added to the CDS. Therefore, the addition
of a doorway brings the connected components in which the
two cluster heads reside one hop closer. In the second step,
if two cluster heads or one cluster head and one doorway
node are only two hops away and there are no other cluster
heads between them, one of the nodes between them with
the highest priority becomes a gateway to connect cluster
head to cluster head or doorway to cluster head. After these
steps, the CDS is formed.
CDS is constructed in two steps
• Selecting doorway
• Selecting gateway
(a) Selecting Doorway
Node i can become a doorway for cluster heads n and j if the
following conditions are satisfied. i) If cluster n and j are
not two hops away. ii) There is no other cluster head m on
the shortest path between n and j. iii) There is no other node
m with higher priority than node i.
Selecting gateway
Node i can become a gateway for cluster head n and j if the
following conditions are satisfied.
i) If there is no cluster head or doorway between n and j.
ii) If there is no node with higher priority than node i.
3.2.5 Computing Cluster Size ratio
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010
The objective is to develop an enhancement for existing
heuristics to provide a contiguous balance of loading on the
elected cluster heads. Once a node is elected as cluster head
it is desirable for it to stay as a cluster head up to some
maximum specified amount of time, or budget. The budget
is a user defined constraint placed on the heuristic and can
be modified to meet the unique characteristics of the system,
i.e., the battery life of individual nodes. Some of the goals of
the heuristic are:
1. Minimize the number and size of the data structures
required to implement the heuristic,
2. Extend the cluster head duration budget based on an input
parameter,
3. Allow every node equal opportunity to become a cluster
head in time,
4. Maximize the stability in the network.
Data Structures
The data structures necessary for the heuristic consist of one
local variable: Physical ID (PID). The PID is the initial id
given and is unique for each individual node. However, this
changes with time to represent the elect ability of a node.
Basic Idea
The node id load heuristic operates on the principle of load
balancing. That is, the ids of each non-cluster head node
cycles through the queue at a rate of 1 unit per run of the
load-balancing heuristic. Each node has a minimum value
of 0 and a maximum value of Max_Cluster Size. Upon
reaching Max_Cluster Size a node will rotate to a value of 0
on the next cluster election heuristic run. As the cluster
election heuristics run they will use the priorities to
determine the cluster heads of the network. A cluster head
will maintain this value until it has exhausted its cluster
head duration budget. At this point it will set its work to 0,
i.e., less than any other node, and become a normal node.
4. Performance Evaluation
We have conducted simulation experiments to evaluate the
performance of the proposed heuristic i.e. CMCSR. These
simulation results were then compared against Topology
Management by Priority Ordering TMPO [15]. We assumed
a variety of systems running with 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100
nodes to simulate ad hoc networks with varying levels of
node density. Two nodes are said to have a wireless link
between them if they are within communication range of
each other. Additionally, the span of a cluster, i.e. the
maximum number of wireless hops between a node and its
cluster head (d) was set to 2. The entire simulation was
conducted in a 1150 * 1150 unit region. Initially, each node
was assigned a unique node id and (x, y) coordinates within
the region. The nodes were then allowed to move at random
in any direction at a speed of not greater than half of the
wireless range of a node per second. The simulation range is
set to 2000 seconds, and the network was sampled for every
2 seconds. At each sample time the proposed cluster size
ratio and cluster election heuristic was run to determine
cluster heads and their associated clusters. Each simulation
run for 2000 seconds measures several performance metrics.
The main simulation metric measured was Cluster head
62 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010

Duration, which provides a basis for evaluating the
performance of the proposed load-balancing heuristic.
For the purposes of these simulations we have set the cluster
head budget to be a function of the maximum amount of
work it performs That is, once a node becomes a cluster
head it will remain a cluster head until it has exhausted its
maximum work load, or until it loses out to another cluster
head based on the rules of the cluster election heuristic.
The proposed CMCSR algorithm makes a noticeable
difference in the cluster head duration (ranging from 4% to
28%). This shows that the load-balancing heuristics
generates longer cluster head durations; it will also produce
much tighter and more deterministic responses (stability).
These results are not surprising. Therefore, once a cluster
head is elected it continues as cluster head for a maximum
of the programmed budget. This will provide the longer
cluster head durations that we see. The cluster size ratio
shaped line indicates the cluster head duration with load i..e.
incase of CMCSR.
4.2 Nodes Vs Number of Cluster Heads
Figure 3 shows the graph for the average number of cluster
heads formed during the topology management. The
topology management is executed for 1800 seconds for each
of x nodes and the values are noted. The diamond shaped
line indicates the number of cluster head formed during
topology management without load (TMPO). Second the
topology management executed for the 600 seconds for each
x nodes and the values are noted. Totally the program is
executed for 18000 seconds. The square shaped line
indicates the cluster head formed during topology
management with load (CMCSR).
16

heuristic is continuously rotating, moving ordinary nodes

14
into the position of becoming a cluster head. Therefore, once
a cluster head budget is exceeded, a different cluster head is 12
elected and the process repeats. This provides the cluster
size ratio effect of distributing the responsibility of being a No.of Clusters
10

cluster head among all nodes. We present below three

8
graphs for our simulation results. First one is the average
cluster head duration. Second one is the average number of 6
cluster head. And finally the improvement graph for the
cluster head duration. 4

2
4.1 Nodes Vs Cluster Head Duration
0
Figure 2 shows the graph for the average cluster head 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

duration. X-axis takes the number of nodes and y-axis No.of Nodes

shows the cluster head duration in seconds. The topology TMPO CMCSR
management is executed for 1800 seconds for each x nodes
Figure 3. Average no. of clusters
and the values are noted. Totally the program is executed for
18000 seconds. The diamond shaped line indicates the
cluster head duration without load i.e. incase of TMPO.
25
30

25
20
Cluster Head Duration(in Sec)

20

15
15

10
10

5
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No. of Nodes
0
TMPO CMCSR
900 1800 2700 3600
Syst em Execut ed(Sec)
Figure 2. Average Cluster head duration Vs no. of nodes TMPO CMCSR

Second the topology management is executed for the 600 Figure 4. Average Cluster head duration
seconds for each x nodes and the values are noted. Totally
the program is executed for 18000 seconds. The square
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 63
4.3 Improvement in Cluster head Duration
Figure 4 shows the graph for the average cluster head
duration. X-axis takes system executed in seconds and y-
axis shows the average cluster head duration in seconds.
The below graph is constructed under the following
conditions. Both TMPO and CMCSR is run for 900 sec,
1800 sec, 2700 sec and 3600 sec by taking total number of
nodes into account as 50. The diamond shaped line indicates
the cluster head duration without load and the square shaped
line indicates the cluster head duration with load. The
results related to the above three graphs indicates that
CMCSR outperforms TMPO.
5. Conclusions
The cluster size load balancing heuristics have been
proposed for ad hoc networks. The cluster election heuristics
favor the election of cluster heads based on node willingness
and number of neighbors. Here the heuristic places a cluster
size budget on the contiguous amount of time that a node
acts as cluster head. As seen from the simulation results,
this heuristic produce larger cluster head durations while
decreasing the cluster size and enhancing the stability.
Our proposed CMCSR is a novel energy-aware topology
management approach based on dynamic node priorities and
cluster size load in ad hoc networks. CMCSR consists of two
parts that implement the MDS and CDS elections
respectively. Compared to five prior heuristics of MDS and
CDS elections in ad hoc networks, MDS offers four key
advantages. i) CMCSR obtains the MDS and CDS of the
network without any negotiation stage; only two-hop
neighbor information is needed. ii) CMCSR allows nodes in
the network to periodically re-compute their priorities, so as
to balance the cluster head role and prolong the battery life
of each node. iii) CMCSR introduces the willingness value
of a node, which decides the probability of the node being
elected into the MDS according to the battery life and
mobility of the node and iv) MDS introduces doorway
concept for the CDS in addition to the well-known gateway
and cluster head concepts.
A key contribution of this work consists of converting the
static attributes of a node, such as node identifier, into a
dynamic control mechanism that incorporates the three key
factors for topology management in ad hoc networks -- the
nodal battery life, mobility, and cluster size load balancing.
Although existing proposals have addressed all these
aspects, CMCSR constitutes a more comprehensive
approach.
References
[1] http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wahn_mahn.shtml.
[2] Tomas Johansson and Lenka Carr-Motyˇckov´. “On
Clustering in Ad Hoc Networks,” First Swedish
National Computer Networking Workshop,
SNCNW2003, 8-10 September, 2003.
[3] R.Pandian, P.Seethalakshmi and V.Ramachandran,
“Enhanced Routing Protocol for Video Transmission
over Mobile Adhoc Network,” Journal of Applied
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010
Sciences Research 2(6): 336-340, INSInet Publication,
2006.
[4] L. Hu. “Topology Control for Multihop Packet Radio
Networks,”. IEEE Transactions on Communications,
41(10), Oct. 1993.
[5] S. Narayanaswamy, V. Kawadia, R. S. Sreenivas, and
P. R. Kumar, “Power Control in Ad-Hoc Networks:
Theory, Architecture, Algorithm and Implementation of
the COMPOW Protocol,” Proceedings of the European
Wireless Conference on Next Generation Wireless
Networks: Technologies, Protocols, Services and
Applications, pages 156-162, Florence, Italy, Feb. 25-
28, 2002.
[6] H. Takagi and L. Kleinrock, “Optimal Transmission
Ranges for Randomly Distributed Packet Radio
Terminals,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
32(3),7, Mar. 1984.
[7] L. Li, V. Bahl, Y.M. Wang, and R. Wattenhofer,
“Distributed Topology Control for Power Efficient
Operation in Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,”
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer
Communications (INFOCOM), Apr. 2001.
[8] R. Ramanathan and R. Rosales-Hain, “Topology
Control of Multihop Wireless Networks using Transmit
Power Adjustment,” Proceedings of IEEE Conference
on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), IEEE,
Mar. 26-30, 2000.
[9] R. Prakash, “Unidirectional Links Prove Costly in
Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the
Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile
Computing and Communications - DialM, Seattle, WA,
Aug. 20, 1999.
[10] S. Bandyopadhyay and E. J. Coyle, “An Energy
Efficient Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm for
Wireless Sensor Networks”, In Proc. INFOCOM 2003,
San Francisco, Apr, 2003.
[11] M. Maeda and Ed Callaway, "Cluster Tree Protocol
(ver.0.6)",http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/2001/May01/
01189r0P80215_ TG4-Cluster-Tree-Network.pdf.
[12] L. Bao and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Transmission
Scheduling in Ad Hoc Networks with Directional
Antennas,” Proc. ACM Eighth Annual International
Conference on Mobile Computing and networking,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Sep, 23-28 2002.
[13] B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan, and R.
Morris, “Span: an Energy-Efficient Coordination
Algorithm for Topology Maintenance in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks,” In Proc. 7th ACM MOBICOM,
Rome, Italy, Jul, 2001.
[14] C.C. Chiang, H.K. Wu, W. Liu, and M. Gerla,
“Routing in Clustered Multihop, Mobile Wireless
Networks with Fading Channel,” IEEE Singapore
International Conference on Networks SICON'97, pages
197-211, Singapore, Apr. 14-17, 1997.
[15] L. Bao and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Topology
Management in Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc of the 4th
ACM Interational Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing (MOBIHOC), Annapolis,
Maryland, USA, Jun. 2003.
64 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2010

Authors Profile
Mr D K L V Chandra Mouly received M.Tech (CSE) from S V
University College of Engineering, Tirupati, India in the year
2007. Currently he is pursuing his Ph.D. (Part-time) at S V
University, Tirupati. His areas of interests are Computer Networks
and Distributed Systems.

Dr Ch D V Subba Rao received Ph.D (CSE) from S V University,

Tirupati, India in 2008. He got 18 years of teaching experience. At
present, he is working as Associate Professor, Dept of Computer
Science and Engineering, S V University College of Engineering,
Tirupati, India. His areas of interests are Distributed Systems,
Operating Systems, Computer Networks and Programming
Language Concepts.

Dr M M Naidu received Ph.D (IIT-Delhi) in the year 1988. He got

32 years of teaching experience. Currently he is working as
Professor in the Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, S V
University College of Engineering, Tirupati, India. His areas of
interests include Software Engineering, Enterprise Resource
Planning, Computer Networks and Computer Graphics.