Wireless Personal Communications

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-06853-6

A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

J. Marietta1   · B. Chandra Mohan1

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Recently, internet of things has drawn attention among the academicians, governments and
engineers from various sectors. There are many critical issues in IoT such as security, scal-
ability, big data analytics. Availability, interoperability, performance, mobility. This paper
focus on providing optimal routing among the various networking environment such as
wired wireless and sensors in the IoT. In this paper the major research issues involved in the
existing routing protocols to meet the requirements of internet of things are reviewed the
major issues involved in the design of a routing protocol and the different classification of
routing protocols are studied. The major challenges of the internet of things, must address
the problem of dynamic topology, scalability, mobility of nodes and limited bandwidth.
The review covers different kinds of routing protocols such as reactive, proactive, hybrid,
location aware, hybrid, multicast, multipath, Geocast, power aware and hierarchical exist-
ing geometric routing protocols have been sensibly studied which involves discussion on
routing techniques, the advantages and disadvantages of the existing work area analysed in
order to help the future researchers. The analysis of existing routing protocols is carried out
based on shortest path, least transmission time. Finally, a research open challenge in rout-
ing which needs to be addressed by the research and academic community are discussed.

Keywords  Internet of thing · Routing · Ad hoc · Wireless sensor networks

1 Introduction

Now-a-days, the number of objects being connected to the internet is growing rapidly, with
the advent of the smart objects. For example, smart objects such as sensors are used widely
in weather monitoring and forecasting; air pollution monitoring; climate control of vehicle,
industrial and home air conditioning; fire monitoring in smart homes; moisture and water
level monitoring in the agriculture; transportation and parking in the smart cities. Most
of the industries, deployed IoT which includes Aviation and Aerospace industry, automo-
tive industry, Telecommunication industry, healthcare, Pharmaceutical industry, Retail

* B. Chandra Mohan
[email protected]
J. Marietta
[email protected]
1
School of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT University, Vellore, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

logistics, supply chain management, manufacturing, environmental, transportation, Agri-

culture, media, entertainment industry, and insurance industry. The concept of IoT was first
proposed at a conference by Kevin Ashton in the year 1999, as uniquely connected objects
with the use of radio-frequency identification. The exact definition of IoT is still in the
outlining process with numerous numbers of perceptions taken from various authors. The
emergence of the IoT considers the hierarchy of the evolution of various technologies such
as RFID, wireless sensor networks, mobile computing. IoT is considered as the heterogene-
ous network, which includes a number of technologies such as cloud computing, perva-
sive computing, sensor technology, barcodes, RFID, NFC, wireless sensor networks and
VANET. Every day, around two billions of people of the world are accessing the internet
for various purposes, including learning, surfing, blogging, social networking, streaming
of videos and audios. Hence, the nodes and the deployments on Internet based services
increases its market. Due to this rapid growth, the number of nodes in the cloud computing,
Internet of Things, smart Objects is increased.
Recent research has pointed out that the increase in the number of nodes results in the
growth of the routing table. Also, the recent system requires high storage and more pro-
cessing time in order to access these huge data size.
This paper describes the various technologies, protocols and the issues related with
the development of this new paradigm. The main aim of the IoT Technology is to make a
bridge between the physical world and the external digital world by the integration of the
various technologies. This paper discusses about the various key enabling Technologies
involved in IoT open issues, challenges involved in the past decade. In IoT there are net-
working of things where the devices are equipped with low power, low cost, low memory
with processing and message transmitting capabilities which are connected to the inter-
net with the assist of the gateways. The IoT devices are arranged as mesh network and
are connected to the internet through gateway router which makes them differ from the
traditional wireless sensor networks. In order to achieve the vision of interconnecting the
devices, routing protocols are required to enable the communication between the things in
the dynamic, distributed infrastructure. IoT network characteristics change vastly in net-
work size, flow of traffic patterns and mobility. The requirement of routing protocol in the
different scenarios needs to be analyzed based on the traffic patterns, energy efficiency,
scalability, mobility, bidirectionailty and transmitter range. The nature of the IoT devices
which form a network have led to the invent of new routing protocols. This paper further
explains about survey on existing routing protocols, their merits, demerits and the tech-
niques involved. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II provides a detail
study about the existing routing protocols in the adhoc networks Section III provides the
summary of the existing routing protocols in the VANET Section IV discuss the protocols
in the WSN.

2 IoT Routing Protocols

Recent days, there are several routing protocols have been designed to meet the require-
ments of Internet of Things on various parameters such as energy efficiency, load balanc-
ing, multicasting, network lifetime, reliability, and scalability. This chapter explains the
recent research on various routing protocols proposed for IoT. Pan et  al. [1] addressed
the problems in the multicast routing which includes the computation power is more in
deciding in which direction the multicast packets need to be send. There are some other

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

problems like paths may contain the voids or loops which might cause the construction of
the multicast paths a longer one. In order to address all these problems, the authors have
designed a lightweight geographic multicast protocol. This proposed algorithm is used to
reduce the multicast latency. He has also has discussed about the geographic based routing
protocols. They observed the drawbacks in the existing geographic based routing protocols
such as the network nodes needs lot of computation, the multicast paths will be long if
there is any voids or holes in the network. The proposed scheme in this paper states that the
transmission link is reduced and the length of the path is reduced in the multipath routing.
The disadvantage in this paper is node mobility is not discussed in this paper.
Huang et al. [2] proposed an Athena routing mechanism (ARM) algorithm which could
solve the problem of the existing multicast routing protocols such as computation time.
This algorithm has the focus only on the adhoc sensor network scenarios and not the mul-
timedia scenarios. The problem in the multicast routing for the multimedia applications is
addressed. For the multicast routing multimedia tree is constructed for the proposed algo-
rithm. The entropy technique is used to create a comprehensive metric by aggregating mul-
tiple constraints. The algorithm is compared with the multi constrained multi-cast routing
and found that the efficiency is better in terms of speed and accuracy. The algorithm pro-
posed could support the multimedia applications in the IoT environment.
In order to improve the energy efficiency in the IoT routing protocols various authors
have proposed different routing considering different metrics and parameters. Rani et  al.
[3] proposed ME-CBCCP algorithm to provide the solution for the optimization problem
and to address the scalability problem in IoT. The available WSN techniques cannot be
directly applied to the IoT large scale network. The proposed method provides energy effi-
ciency and the scheme is flexible for the IoT network. This scheme could be implemented
for providing the efficient communication in the IoT network. The performance is com-
pared with the existing WSN schemes and it has been proved that the proposed method
provide better performance in term of scalability, time and the lifetime of the network.
Qiu et al. [4] proposed sensor networks of IoT as self-organizing protocol named ETSP
(Efficient Tree-based Self-organizing Protocol). This protocol provides longer network
time and provides energy consumption. The self-organizing procedure use the process
including number of the child nodes, hop count, communication distance and the resid-
ual energy. The packet success rate in ETSP is more compared to the AODV and DSDV.
Tseng et al. [5] proposed the load balancing mechanism to handle bursty traffic. As there is
increase in the number of nodes, IoT sensors deliver high traffic to the IoT gateways. This
might create traffic which may leads to bottleneck problems (traffic). Multiload balancing
routing (MBR) is designed to overcome the problem of Zigbee’s where the bottle neck
problem is caused which might lead to paralyze of the network. Comparing the MBR with
the Zigbee’s AODV MBR provides less data packet loss, provides better connectivity in
grid topology and random uniform topologies, provides load balance. The MBR protocol
provides a better routing solution for the IoT application.
Vellanki et al. [6] proposed node level energy efficient (NLEE) protocol to improve the
energy efficiency in the internet of things. The metrics used are transmission count, resid-
ual energy of the nodes and the hop count of the node paths. The network delay is reduced
the energy efficiency is achieved and the shortest path in the network can be provided. The
proposed algorithm is compared with the AOMDV-IoT and EEPR and found that it outper-
forms the algorithm in terms of the energy efficiency. The QoS provisioning metrics are
not explored in this study.
Shin et al. [7] proposed the energy efficient centroid based routing protocol to improve
the network life time and improve the higher energy utilization. For the self-organization

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

of the local nodes a new technique for the cluster formation is proposed. The cluster head
selection is made based on the centroid position so that the load balancing could be done
effectively. In order to reduce the long-distance communication, the energy consumption is
reduced. The centroid position is calculated by using the residual energy. This protocol out-
performs LEACH, LEACH-C and GEEC in terms of network life time. The proposed pro-
tocol could be suitable for the network which needs the maximum network lifetime and the
base station is available within the network. The optimization technique is framed based on
the dead nodes and the cluster head nodes. The study is not performed for the multi-hop
path from the cluster head nodes to the base station. The study needs to be extended for the
base station located outside the network.
Baker et al. [8] proposed a multi cloud IoT service composition algorithm for satisfying
the user request considering the energy efficiency. Evaluation is done based on the other
algorithms like base cloud, smart cloud, COM2. The performance is achieved based on the
number of services searched which is least. This algorithm provides the energy efficiency
and the optimal result is achieved. The study is done for the energy efficient approaches,
services and systems for the cloud infrastructures. Due to the specific constraint require-
ment needed for the IoT network, routing protocol in IoT are expected to be reliable. Vari-
ous authors have proposed routing protocols to meet the reliability of the protocol. Li et al.
[9] proposed heuristic technique to provide reliable communication. The experimental
results tell that the Hop Neural Networks (HNN) based heuristics with the correct additive
measures provide good solution and the comparison study is performed based on the other
multicast algorithms.
Qiu et al. [10] proposed a routing protocol for emergency response applications in the
Internet of things. The performance is improved in terms of data transmission for reliabil-
ity and the emergency response in IoT is made efficient. This approach solves the prob-
lem to ignore the valid paths. The data transmission is reliable in this method. The energy
consumption is used more in this ERGID. When compared with SPEED and EA-SPEED
the performance is more in ERGID. Advanced metering infrastructure (Ullah et al. [11])
consists of the devices which includes memory, limited battery, processing power. The net-
work requirement for smart meter networks includes prolongs network life time and energy
consumption. The residual energy and the queue utilization of neighboring nodes are con-
sidered as the metric for the adaptive parent node selection mechanism. In order to extend
the network lifetime, the power consumption needs to be minimized. For the different
topologies like grid and random topology the proposed method is evaluated using the cooja
simulator. The performance analysis shows that there is a greater performance in terms of
packet delivery ratio and average power consumption. The problem of routing loops is pre-
vented by studying the residual energy of the neighboring nodes. The problem of network
congestion is addressed by considering the queue utilization of the neighboring nodes. The
reliability of the links between the node and the root is studied and the minimum hop count
is considered. The performance analysis is done and the comparison is made with ELPS
(Energy aware load balancing parent selection) and found that the performance is good in
terms of the power consumption and outperforms packet delivery ration considering the
worst and best channel conditions.
Liao et  al. [12] proposed the cooperative routing based on the QoS metrics for the
WBAN applications. This is a probabilistic approach and for the route selection the cost
function is used. The performance of this routing protocol can extend the network lifetime,
the throughput is higher and the energy consumption is minimized. The propagation delay
is reduced. The QoS requirement of WBAN includes Data rate, Tolerance, Maximum num-
ber of sensor nodes, Mobility, Latency, and Coexistence. In order to improve the network

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

life time various routing protocols have been proposed for IoT. Various parameters such as
packet delivery ratio, transmission delay, fault tolerance has been considered in order to
improve the performance of the IoT network. Xie et al. [13] proposed the routing approach
based on the Dynamic programming. This approach is proposed to overcome the problem
of the Divide and conquer. The traditional tree-based approach is replaced with the server
centric network structures. The proposed algorithm improves the performance by reducing
the latency, providing fault tolerance and the resource consumption is achieved. The exten-
sion of this work should be performed in Dcell, FiConn and other structures to verify the
performance of ARM.
Hasan et  al. [14] proposed the method to guarantee the fault tolerance routing and to
improve the connectivity among the objects and the things. Bio-inspired particle multi
swarm optimization routing algorithm has been proposed to construct the nodes, recover
and select k-disjoint multipath routes. The performance analysis is done by comparing the
results with the canonical particle swarm optimization. To enhance the performance of the
routing algorithm personal-best position and the global position has been introduced as the
velocity update. The performance analysis is done by comparing with the other algorithms
which mainly focus on optimizing the energy consumption and the average delay.
Sasidharan et al. [15] proposed a new composite routing metrics in the LOADng rout-
ing protocol for the IoT applications. The study proves that this might improve the packet
delivery ratio and extend the network lifetime. In order to improve the network life time,
the power consumption needs to be minimized. The drawback is the authors did not study
the link quality metrics which might improve the QoS requirements. Javaid et al. [16] pro-
posed the routing protocol to prolong the life time of the underwater wireless sensor net-
works. The performance analysis shows that the proposed algorithm outperforms in terms
of the network lifetime. The comparison study is made with the similar protocols in terms
of the network topology and the network lifetime. The network lifetime is improved with
the efficient utilization of the energy and balanced energy consumption. The proposed Bal-
anced Energy Adaptive Routing improved the network lifetime to 55%.
Zhang et al. [17] addressed the problem of designing routing approach for the secondary
users in cognitive sensor networks. The spectrum availability and the spectrum quality are
estimated and for the estimation novel routing metrics are considered. In order to restrict
the rerouting, one retransmission is allowed; through all the possible channel delivery suc-
cess probability is defined as the first metric. The second metric constitutes the average
transmission delay. The simulations result shows that there is an improvement in the per-
formance metrics. The drawback in this paper the mobility of the primary user and the sec-
ondary user is not analyzed. The energy consumption is not studied in this paper.
Shin et al. [18] proposed the Route optimization technique for the efficient communica-
tion in the smart Home-IoT network. For the security the authors used the Diffie–Hell-
man Algorithm. The Route optimization problem in PMIPV6 is overwhelmed. The result
provided the lesser handover latency 38.7%, end to end delay is reduced to 15.1%, packet
loss is reduced to 56.3%, the throughput is increased to 18.18%, the transmission rate is
increased by 63.1%. The drawback in this paper is mobility of the nodes and the varying
traffic is not studied. Shu et al. [19] proposed location-based routing mechanism to provide
the high communication efficiency. There are existing location-based mechanisms for the
wireless sensor networks (WSN). There exists problem with the privacy performance in
these types of location-aware mechanisms. The sharing of information among the neigh-
bors in the IoT network may lead to the privacy issues in the communication network. The
geographic routes are computed by using the Hilbert-Curve-encrypted location informa-
tion. This reduced the privacy weakness in the IoT network. This method provided high

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

efficiency and privacy is enabled. For the study of the existing problems of efficiency and
privacy, connected IoT network with no hole is considered. The drawbacks are the study is
not done considering the network boundary, mobility and load balancing.
The nodes in the IoT network are constrained in processing power, memory and energy.
We have reviewed various paper proposed for the low power networks. Kim et  al. [20]
proposed Queue utilization base RPL (QU-RPL). They studied the load balancing and the
congestion problem in the RPL protocol. The problem of load balancing occurs due to the
parent selection in RPL. Due to congestion which occurs due to heavy traffic, the packet
loss occurs in the network. The parent node is selected based on the queue utilization of
the neighbor nodes and the hop distance to an LLN border router (LBR). The comparative
study is done with the standard RPL and found that the QU-RPL up to 84% the queue loss
is reduced and up to 147% the packet delivery ratio is increased. The end-to-end packer
delivery performance is improved.
Kim el al. [21] investigated the problem in RPL like load balancing and congestion.
The congestion problem causes packet loss when the traffic is high. The load balancing in
RPL takes place due to the parent selection. To overcome these problems Queue Utiliza-
tion based RPL is proposed considering the neighbor node utilization and the hop distance.
This prevents the Queue loss and the PDR is increased. Al-Turjman et  al. [22] designed
an approach for the delivery of data in the risky applications in the IoT network. They
investigated the routing algorithms for various IoT parameters such as energy consumption,
cost, and delay data delivery ratio. The CEEA technique provides 40% in the data delivery
success rate compared to RIDSN. In order to avoid catastrophe, damage this algorithm is
recommended for the disaster applications. Kharrufa et  al. [23] investigated the routing
protocol for Low power and Lossy network for and use the RPL in the dynamic network
and use the enhanced RPL for the dynamically changing network with different network
requirements. The enhanced RPL provide the higher packet delivery ratio, lower end to end
delay and reasonable energy consumption. Table 1 describes the Literature review of the
IoT Routing protocols.

3 Routing Protocols in Adhoc

Ad hoc wireless network consists of set of mobile hosts also called as the nodes connected
by wireless links. Due to the dynamic topology, energy constrained nodes, bandwidth con-
strained wireless links, absence of base station or access points the existing protocols the
exiting protocols for the wired network could not be directly applied to the wireless net-
work. There exist many protocols for Adhoc wireless networks. This includes the discus-
sion about the various types of routing protocols which include Reactive, Proactive, hybrid,
location aware, hybrid, multicast, multipath, Geocast, power aware and hierarchical.

3.1 Table‑Driven Protocols

In this type of protocol one or more routing tables are maintained which contains the rout-
ing information about all the other nodes in the network. The optimal path is determined
for the packet delivery and the packet is delivered to the correct destination. Based on the
application and the type of network the routing protocols are designed. The protocol design
has been an area of research for more than a decade which is worked from academicians,
industry and researchers. The table–driven routing protocols are the addition of the wired

13
 Table 1  Literature review of the IoT routing protocols
Author/year Advantage Disadvantage Inference

Pan et al. [1] Disadvantage in multicast routing is Node mobility is not studied The number of transmission links are
studied such as more computation time Location prediction concept is not reduced and the multicast routing the
and longest path included constructed shortest path lengths
Al-Turjman et al. [22] Cognitive energy In data delivery success rate 40% Energy Consumption is more compared Delivery of data in risky IoT networks in
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

efficient approach (CEEA) improvement compared with RIDSN to cognitive networking with opportun- terms of energy consumption, cost and
(Resilient IoT for dynamic sensor istic routing (CNOR) delay are studied
networks)
Kharrufa et al. [23] Reverse Tickle Compared to the m-PPL 10% improved Optimization is not studied. Poor mobil- Improved packet delivery ratio, end to end
algorithm PDR, end to end delay and better ity management delay, and energy consumption The low
energy consumption packet overhead and loop avoidance
Huang et al. [20] Entropy technique Speed and accuracy are much better All the QoS requirements are not satis- Design Multicast routing for the multime-
fied dia IoT applications
Kim el al. [21] Queue loss is reduced to 84 percent, PDR – Congestion and load balancing problem
is improved by 147 percent are studied
Qiu et al. [4] Efficient tree based self- Compared with AODV and DSDV suc- – –
organizing protocol cess rate is more
Qiu et al. [10] Delay iterative method ERGID the performance is more Than Energy consumption is more Solve the ignoring valid paths. The data
Residual energy probability Choice SPEED and EA-SPEED in terms of end transmission is reliable
to end delay
Liao et al. [12] Incremental relaying Throughput is high, energy consumption Heavy load traffic is not handled Multiple QoS metrics is considered for the
Probabilistic approach is minimized, delay is reduced QoS Routing

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

routing network protocols. In every node the topology information is maintained. The rout-
ing tables are updated frequently so that the regular and precise information could be main-
tained in the table. Some of the examples that belong to this category include wireless
Routing Protocol (WRP), Distance-vector routing protocol (DSDV), Source-tree adaptive
routing protocol (STAR).

1. DSDV (Destination-sequenced distance-vector) Parkinson’s et al. [24] Routing updates

are done either incremental or full dump. The metrics used is shortest path. The advan-
tage of this algorithm Packet overhead is controlled. The disadvantage is large resources
are needed.
2. R-DSDV Boukerche et al. [25] proposed this algorithm and use the routing probability
distribution, congestion control mechanism. The metrics used is shortest path. The
advantage is Communication overhead is less. The disadvantage is routing information
not fully used.
3. OLSR (Optimized link state routing) Jacquet et al. [26] made improvement in routing
techniques through optimization techniques. The metrics used is shortest path. The
advantage is availability of route. The disadvantage include communication overhead
is high.
4. HOLSR Villasenor-Gonzalez et al. [27] proposed (A hierarchical proactive routing
mechanism for mobile ad hoc networks) Build upon OLSR. The metrics used is short-
est path. The advantage is minimum delay. The disadvantage is communication overhead
is high.
5. CGSR (Cluster head gateway switch routing) Chiang et al. [28] proposed least cluster
change algorithm. The metrics used is shortest path. The advantage is Communication
overhead is less. The disadvantage is Large resources needed.
6. WRP (wireless routing protocol) Murthy et al. [29] proposed this algorithm which has 4
routing table. The metrics used is shortest path Communication. The advantage include
overhead is less. The disadvantage is tendency creating loops.
7. GSR (Global state Routing) Chen et al. [30] proposed an algorithm where topology,
next hop and distance is maintained. The metrics used is shortest path. The advantage
is packet throughput is optimized. The advantage includes communication overhead.
8. STAR​ (Source–tree adaptive routing) Garcia–Luna–Aceves et al. [31] Roy et al. [32]
proposed route selection algorithm. The metrics is shortest path. The advantage is no
periodic messages. The disadvantage includes least overhead and optimization Routing
information not fully used.
9. QOLSR (OLSR with quality of service) Munaretto et al. [33] proposed an algorithm
along with OLSR delay and bandwidth parameters are added. The metrics are degree,
delay and hop count the advantage is minimum delay. The disadvantage is communica-
tion overhead is high.

3.1.1 Comparative Study of Table‑Driven Protocols

Considering the end-to–end delay, throughput ad packet delivery the performance of

OLSR is better. But considering the parameters such ad packet drops the performance of
OLSR (Proactive) is less than AODV (Reactive). The performance of DSR is less in traffic
scenarios. From the study we found that the performance of the reactive protocols is better
in the mobility nodes.

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

3.2 Source‑Initiated Protocols

The protocols under this category do not maintain any topology information; The route
is created only when required by using the technique of connection establishment. When
a data transfer needs to occur from source to destination, the route discovery process
in invoked. The significance of this research paper is focused on the comparative study
about the reactive protocols such as DSR, AODV, TORA. Dynamic Source Routing Pro-
tocol (DSR) is designed to overcome the disadvantage of the table-driven approach which
is updating of the Routing table periodically. The control overhead is reduced by using
the route cache information in the intermediate nodes. But there is a routing overhead due
to the mechanism called as source-routing. The broken ink is not repaired by the routing
mechanism using this protocol which is the disadvantage. There is a delay in connection
set compared to the proactive protocols. This protocol gives its best performance in static
and where the nodes are less mobile.
Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing protocol (AODV) uses the on-demand
approach as the Routing information update mechanism for finding the routes. The most
recent path is identified by the destination sequence number. The only difference of this
protocol from other on-demand protocol is the usage of the destination sequence number.
The path information is updated by the node only if the destination sequence number stored
in the node is greater than the destination sequence number already stored in the node. The
disadvantage of this protocol is that the links are not repaired locally. If the path break is
learnt by the source node it will re-establish the path to the destination. The bandwidth is
consumed in the links by the periodic beaconing. For single Route request, multiple Route
reply packets could be sent. This might lead to a situation of control overhead. Table  2
describe the various protocols available for the On–demand routing protocols which are
categorized based on the routing metric shortest path.

3.2.1 Comparative Study of Source‑Initiated Protocols

The detailed study about the reactive protocols has been studied. The study is done so that
the performance of the protocols could be improved. From the survey made it’s concluded
that AODV is better when there are large numbers of nodes and when there is mobility
of nodes. Considering metrics such as throughput, delay, work load the performance of
TORA is less. Multiple routes are available in TORA and not in AODV and ABR.

3.3 Hybrid Protocols

Hybrid protocols take the best feature of the proactive and reactive protocols. In this type
of protocols the nodes are divided into zones. For the routing the proactive protocols are
used. The advantages, disadvantages, metrics for the hybrid routing protocols is discussed.
Here each node maintains the network topology information up to m nodes. Some of the
examples of the Hybrid routing protocols are Core extraction distributed ad hoc rout-
ing (CEDAR), Zone-Based Hierarchical Link State Routing Protocol (ZHLS). Table  3
describes the Literature survey of the Hybrid Routing protocols based on shortest path as
metrics.

13


13
Table 2  Literature survey of the on-demand routing protocols based on shortest path metrics
Algorithms Description Route metrics Advantage Disadvantage

GRP (gathering based routing Functionality similar to DSR and Shortest path Optimal path is calculated by Computation overhead is high
protocol) Ahn et al. [34] AODV Network information gathering
packet
SLR (source routing with local By pass routing is adapted Shortest path Performance is improved Packet loss
recovery) Sengul [35]
LDR (labled distance routing) Similar to AODV but distance Shortest path Improved AODV Communication overhead is high
Garcia-Luna-Aceves [31] labels are used
DBR2P (dynamic backup routes Backup routes are used in this Shortest path Link failure is handled Operation is complex
routing protocol) Wang [36] approach No routing table is required
ARA (The ant-colony based Swarm intelligence and ant shortest path Route maintenance is not Packet loss, energy constraints
routing algorithms) Gunes colony concept is used required
et al. [37]
ROAM (routing on-demand acy- Shortest path is the metrics shortest path The path search query is guar- No scalability
clic multipath) Raju et al. [38] anteed
TORA (temporally ordered rout- Link reversal concept is used shortest path or the next avail- Scalable and adaptive Communication overhead is high
ing algorithm) Park et al. [39] Functions are route creation, able path Handle failures
maintenance, erasure
DSR (dynamic source routing), Route discovery (request shortest path or the next avail- Failure is determined by the Communication overhead is high
Johnson et al. [40] and reply) and Route able path route error message
maintenance(error) phases
AODV (Ad hoc on-demand dis- Route discovery process broad- newest route and SP The number of broadcast mes- Communication overhead is
tance vector) Pei et al. [41] casts the route request sage is reduced high. Periodic updates are
required
J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan
 Table 3  Literature survey of the hybrid routing protocols based on shortest path as metrics
Hybrid routing protocols
Algorithm Description Metric Advantage Disadvantage

ZRP (zone routing protocols) samar ZRP use proactive Shortest path Control traffic, control overhead Routing schemes are overlapped
et al. [42] IARP use reactive concept
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

Designed for large scale networks

LANMAR (landmark ad hoc routing) For ever subnet landmark node is Shortest path The node within the scope and Computation complexity
Pei et al. [41] calculated landmark range is considered in the
routing table
RDMAR (relative distance micro- Route request table manages history Shortest path Link failure problem is addressed by Traffic is more
discovery ad hoc routing) Aggelou about the recent discovery messages sending emergency flag
et al. [43]
ZHLS (zone based hierarchical link Node ID and the Zone ID informa- Shortest path No cluster heads Preprogrammed static road map is
state routing protocol) Joa-Ng et al. tion is required to locate the node. required to find the zones hence not
[44] This could be calculated by using suitable for the dynamic networks
the GPS
HOPNET (hybrid and ant colony Features from ZRP and DSR are Shortest path Scalability, link breakage is managed Communication overhead
optimization) Wang et al. [45] incorporate ACO
FZRP(Fisheye zone routing protocol) The fisheye state routing collective Shortest path Self -repairing in case of link break- Computation complex
Yang et al. [46] with ZRP age
ANSI (Ad hoc routing with swarm To select optimal path Swarm intel- Shortest path Route failure is handled with node Single point failure
intelligence) Rajagopalan et al. [47] ligence is used buffers

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

4 Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks

The requirement for designing the WSN network includes

(a) Energy efficiency

(b) Scalability
(c) Resilience
(d) Device heterogeneity
(e) Mobility adaptability

Based on architectural/network structure WSN is classified as

(a) Flat
(b) Hierarchical
(c) Location

Based on route selection/path establishment WSN is classified as

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Hybrid

Based on protocol operation WSN is classified as

1. Multipath based
2. Query based
3. Negotiation based
4. QoS based
5. Coherent based routing

5 Network Structure Protocols

5.1 Flat Routing

5.1.1 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via Negotiation)

Kulik et al. [49] proposed the method to eliminate the redundant data through the network.
The data received by the network from its own sensor or any of the neighbors, the infor-
mation received is advertised to the neighbor. Meta-data negotiation is used in the SPIN
routing protocol. Information among the sensors is disseminated in an effective way. For
naming the data that uses the SPIN routing protocol meta-data is used. For point-to-point
network SPIN-PP and SPIN-EC protocols are proposed. For broadcast network SPIN-BC
and SPIN-RL variants of SPIN protocols are proposed. Only the 1-hop neighborhood is
required by the node which is the advantage of this protocol. The amount which should be
gathered should be small or it will affect the storage and bandwidth.

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

5.1.2 Directed Fusion

This protocol labels the node based on the attribute-based value. The attribute based value
defined by the application could be used by the node to generate the request. The node cre-
ates a link for the originator of interest. The link is named as gradient. The link is described
based on the rate of data, duration taken and the time taken for the expiration. If the nodes
are location aware then the then the data could be forwarded to the region of interest based
on the geographic routing protocols. When the message of interest is received multiple gra-
dients are established to the sink. The optimized gradient among the received multiple gra-
dients are calculated by using the positive and negative reinforcements. The advantage of
this protocol is the fault tolerant level is tuned automatically. The need of periodic update is
the drawback of this protocol. The fault tolerance and energy efficiency could be achieved
by using this protocol.

5.1.3 Rumor Routing

A long lived packed is injected by the node that observes an event. This packet is called
the agent. The queries generated by the sink node are propagated among the nodes which
observe the event. The agent is injected in the node which observes the even related to the
queries which is generated by the sink node. For a definite number of hops the agent will
move around the network.

1. SPIN (Sensor protocols for information via negotiation) Heinzelman et al. [48], Kulik
et al. [49]
  This routing protocol uses the meta-data negotiations to eliminate redundant transmis-
sion. The advantage of this protocol is energy used effectively. The disadvantage of this
protocol includes its mandatory to know the one hop neighborhoods.
2. Directed fusion, Ye et al. [50]
  This routing protocol is attribute based, data-centric. The advantage of this protocol
includes no position awareness. The disadvantage of the protocol includes power usage
is more.
3. Rumor routing, Braginsky et al. [51]
  This routing protocol is attribute based. The advantage of thus protocol includes
Loops creation could be avoided, flooding is suppressed.
4. COUGAR, Yao et al. [52]
  This routing protocol is attribute based. In this protocol the leader is selected with the
query plan. The advantage of the protocol is power usage is limited. The disadvantage
of the protocol is overhead is high.
5. ACQUIRE, Sadagopan et al. [53] (Active QUERY forwarding in sensor networks)
  This routing protocol is attribute based and uses the complex query. The advantage of
the protocol includes power usage is less. The disadvantage of the protocol is scalability
is limited.
6. GBR (Gradient based routing), Schurgers et al. [54]
  In this protocol, route is selected based on the battery power. The advantage of this
protocol is Power usage is low, overhead low. The disadvantage of this protocol is scal-
ability is limited.
7. MCFA, Ye et al. [55]

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

  This routing protocol use the cost field-based approach to minimum cost forwarding.
The advantage of this protocol is, it does not require intermediate node for forwarding
path. The disadvantage of this protocol is power usage is more.
8. CADR, Chu et al. [56]
  This routing protocol adopt the technique of Date quering and routing. The advantage
of this protocol includes low detection latency. The disadvantage of this protocol is
power usage is limited.
9. EAR (Energy and activity-aware routing), Shah et al. [57]
  This routing protocol use the limited resources, and find the minimum usage path
to optimize the energy. The advantage of this protocol is 40% increase in performance
compared to direct diffusion technique. The drawback is network survivability needs
be worked. Table 4 describes the Literature survey of the Flat Routing Protocols.

5.2 Hierarchical Routing (Clustering)

5.2.1 LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering)

This protocol [58] improves the performance of the sink node. The issue of the sink node
depletion is addressed by using this protocol. Considering the energy level the sensor nodes
are elected. The other nodes transmit the data with minimum power as they get joined with
the cluster head. Every time a cluster head is elected periodically.

5.2.2 PEGASIS (Power‑Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems)

This protocol [60] is the optimization form of the LEACH protocol. Here the nodes are
classified based the chain formation. The chain formation is done by using the greedy algo-
rithms. Based the chain structure the node transmits the data only to the node which is
closest the neighbors. Thus, the power consumption could be done. Data aggregation tech-
nique is used to forward the date from the node to the sink. The election is the technique
used to elect the node in the chain which needs to send the data to the sink.

5.2.3 MECN & SMECN (Small Minimum‑Energy Communication Network)

The transmission range can be increased or decreased by the node [61]. This feature is used
for the power consumption. The transmission power level which is efficient is calculated
by using this algorithm. There is no guarantee for multiple paths. The node which is hav-
ing the minimum energy between the links will exist. If any failure occurs in the minimum
energy path then there will be link failure.

5.2.4 TTDD (Two‑Tier Data Dissemination)

The data delivery to multiple sink nodes is the major focus [66]. The scalability and effi-
cient data delivery is provided. Sink mobility problem is addressed. The protocol creates a
virtual grid structure through which the data could be delivered. The protocol is location
aware and has numerous sink nodes which are mobile.
Table 5 describes the Literature Survey of the Hierarchical Routing Protocols.

13
 Table 4  Literature survey of the flat routing protocols
Network structure protocols

Flat routing (data centric)

Protocols Description Advantage Disadvantage

SPIN (sensor protocols for information Meta-data negotiations used to eliminate Energy used effectively Its mandatory to know the one hop neigh-
via negotiation) Heinzelman et al. [48] redundant transmission Deliver or than 60% data borhoods
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

and Kulik et al. [49]

Directed fusion, Ye et al. [50] Attribute based, data-centric No position awareness, power usage is
more
Rumor routing, Braginsky et al. [51] Attribute based Loops creation could be avoided, flood-
ing is suppressed
COUGAR, Yao et al. [52] Attribute based, Leader is selected with Power usage is limited Overhead is high
the query plan
ACQUIRE, Sadagopan et al. [53] (active Attribute based, Complex query Power usage is less Scalability is limited
query forwarding in sensor networks)
GBR (Gradient based routing), Schurgers Route is selected based on the battery Power usage is low, overhead low Scalability is limited
et al. [54] power
MCFA, Ye et al. [55] Cost field based approach to minimum Does not require intermediate node for Power usage is more
cost forwarding forwarding path
CADR, Chu et al. [56] Date querig and routing techniques are Low detection latency Power usage is limited
adopted
EAR (energy and activity-aware routing), Use the limited resources, find the mini- 40% increase in performance compared Network survivability needs be worked
Shah et al. [57] mum usage path to optimize the energy to direct diffusion technique

13

Table 5  Literature survey of the hierarchical routing protocols
Hierarchical routing (clustering)

13
Algorithm Description Advantage Disadvantage

LEACH (low energy adaptive clustering) Nodes classified as clusters, attribute and Scalability is good Power usage is maximum, scalability is
Heinzelman et al. [58] hierarchy based. Base station is fixed limited
TEEN & APTEEN (threshold sensitive Threshold value is set, attribute and hier- Scalability is good If the threshold value is not obtained then f
energy efficient sensor network protocol) archy based. Base station is fixed no communication
Manjeshwar et al. [59]
PEGASIS (power-efficient gathering in Nodes classified as chains, greedy Overhead is low Power usage is maximum, scalability is
sensor information systems) Lindsey algorithm is used in chain construction, limited
et al. [60] Attribute QOS and Hierarchy based,
Base station is fixed
MECN & SMECN (small minimum- Distributed protocol is developed for the Minimized power consumption Performance is less for mobile compared to
energy communication network) Rodo- mobile adhoc network to find the power stationary
plu et al. [61] topology
SOP, Subramanian et al. [62] Self-organizing algorithm is developed Scalability is good, Power usage is low Overhead is high
The size of the RT is reduced
OP, Mann et al. [63] Swarm intelligence based on meta-heuris- Better packet delivery, throughput and Scalability is not tested
tic technique is used increased lifetime
HPAR hierarchical power aware routing, Optimize the life time Power constraints are reduced Other network spaces are not considered
Li et al. [64]
VGA, Jamal et al. [65] Data aggregation technique is done to Scalability is good, Power usage is low Overhead is high
increase the lifetime
Sensor aggregate, Fang et al. [55] Construct and maintain sensor aggregates, Performance is better Overhead is high
target counting problem is addressed
TTDD (two-tier data dissemination) Ye Grid structure is build which is used by Efficient data delivery Power constraints
et al. [66] the mobile nodes to receive the data
HEERP (hierarchical energy efficient rout- The number and size of the message is Energy efficient and prolonged lifetime Packet delay might happen
ing protocol), Nesrine et al. [67] limited
HSEP (heterogeneity aware hierarchical The transmission distance between cluster Increased throughput Network lifetime is comparatively less
stable election protocol), Khan et al. [68] head and sink
J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

5.3 Location Based (Geographic)

5.3.1 GAF (Geographic Adaptive Fidelity)

Xu et  al. [69] proposed this algorithm for upgrading the execution of wireless sensor
arranges by recognizing equal nodes as for sending node. Two nodes are thought to be pro-
portionate when they keep up a similar arrangement of neighbor nodes thus they can have a
place with a similar communication path. To distinguish identical nodes, their positions are
important. Moreover, a virtual lattice is built. This framework is shaped by cells whose size
permits to express that every one of the nodes in one cell can straightforwardly exchange
data with the nodes having a place with neighboring cells and the other way around.
Thusly, the nodes in a cell are related. Nodes recognize related nodes by the frequent
exchange of discovery messages with the nodes in their cells. With the data contained in
these messages, the nodes arrange which one will support the interchange of data. Alter-
nate nodes will remain power off. With this method, there is continuous network between
the nodes which are communicating. In any case, the chose nodes occasionally rotate for
reasonable energy utilization. To do as such, the nodes wake up occasionally.

5.3.2 Gear

The protocol is aware about the power and the location information. For the next hop selec-
tion tunable cost function is used. The cost function is calculated as the distance from the
neighbor to the target and also the energy level is considered.

5.3.3 SAR (Sequential Assignment Routing)

Multipath approach is used in this protocol. The multiple tree structure is developed by
this protocol. Local recovery technique is used when the sensor fails. This will avoid the
rebuilding the entire tree. Available energy and QoS metrics are used for the path selection.
The awareness about the neighbor is required in this protocol. Table 6 represents the Lit-
erature Survey of the Location based Routing Protocols.

6 Geometric Routing Protocols

Geometric routing protocols differ from the traditional routing protocols such as RIP or
OSPF. The geometric routing requires the assumption such as (1) the network topology is
modelled by the graph G (V, E) where V is the vertices and E is the Edges. (2) the network
packet includes the position information of the destination node as well the other informa-
tion required by the routing protocols (3) every node in the network should know its posi-
tion as well as the position of the neighbor in the network. No routing table is maintained
in geometric routing, the benefit includes scalability, robustness and the efficiency which
improves the performance of communication in the network. Geometric routing was ini-
tially proposed using the greedy algorithm based on the measure of calculating the dis-
tance based on the Euclidean distance. The packet could be forwarded to the nearest closest
neighbor with the minimum distance that is close to the destination. Late 90’s compass
routing technique was introduced based on the least deviation angle. But there are demerits
in both this type of algorithm as the packet delivery could be assured only in special types

13


13
Table 6  Literature survey of the location based routing protocols
Location based (geographic)
Protocols Description Advantage Disadvantage

GAF (geographic adaptive fidelity) Xu Attribute based and location based Energy consumption is less More computation time and memory
et al. [69]
HGAF (hierarchical geographic adaptive Increased network lifetime, power savings Better compared to GAF in terms of Complex operation
fidelity) Inagaki et al. [70] energy efficiency
GEAR (geographic and energy aware Demand driven Overhead is less Scalability is limited
routing) Yu et al. [71]
SPAN, Chen et al. [72] Multi-hop packet routing Power usage is limited Overhead is high
MFR (most forward within radius) Stoj- Nodes position information is used Suitable for VANET Delay
menovic et al. [73]
GEDIR (geographic distance routing) Request message is broadcasted not Performance is improved Limited scalability
Stojmenovic et al. [74] unicasted
GOAFR (greedy other adaptive face rout- Combination of greedy and face routing Loops are avoided More number of loops, no guarantee of
ing) Sohrabi et al. [75] packet delivery
SAR (Sequential assignment routing) Mulipath and QoS based Performance is improved Power usage and overhead is high
Kuhn et al. [76]
APS (Ad hoc positioning system) Address the problem of self-positioning Search is limited to smaller zone Positioning us restricted to indoor, cost is
Niculescu et al. [77] more
GAR (genetic algorithm based routing) Based on the genetic algorithm Better in terms of energy consumption Scalability is limited, power usage is high
Gupta et al. [78] and life time and more overhead
J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

of graph. Both the compass routing and the greedy routing sureties the packet delivery in
Delaunay triangulations but fails in arbitrary triangulation.
Machao et al. [79] proposed the routing protocol which use the route discovery and load
balance mechanism. The parameters used in this paper include Energy efficiency, latency
and data delivery. The tool used in this paper in OMNET++. The disadvantage of the
paper is packet delivery rate is less. Compared with AODV and LABILE Network life-
time 26.6% latency 17.9% packet delivery 12%. Reina et al. [80] studied the Classification
of adhoc networks and how it is connected to the internet. The advantage of this paper
includes Current communication protocols support IoT. The disadvantage includes network
performance and metrics for IoT case scenarios not mentioned. The authors have discussed
connecting adhoc. MANET, WSN, VANET to the internet.
Xin et al. [81] studied the existing protocols of MANET. The parameters used for the
study incudes Routing overhead, average end to end delay, latency. The authors Compared
AODV, DSR, OLSR. The disadvantage includes only few routing protocols with limited
parameters are compared. The observation by the authors includes DSR performs better in
terms of routing overhead AODV better in terms of throughput. Jin et al. [82] CCR proto-
col studied the routing protocols based on the parameters Energy consumptions, network
lifetime. The simulator used for the study is Contiki Cooja emulator. The advantage of this
study includes fast recovery mechanism to choose the next hop. The drawback is scalability
problem is not addressing.

7 Open Issues

1. Mobility
In IoT mobile nodes move along with the vehicles, humans and they are resource con-
strained. Most of the industries such as the healthcare, fashion and the sports manu-
facture the wearable devices. Most of the companies prefer wearable devices for their
employees track and monitor them. These devices could be used for communication and
exchange of the information. The need to connect the smart devices to the application
system of the companies has been increased. With the advent of the Internet of things the
need for the mobile devices also increased. The need for designing the energy efficient
routing protocol which could handle the mobility of the nodes in the IoT environment
is very essential.
2. Scalability problem
The IoT network is increasing tremendously increasing since the connection of objects
to the internet becomes easier. By 2024, 27 billion devices will be connected to the
internet. This will increase the size of the internet. The size of the network increases
exponentially, the management of the network and the devices become complex. With
the increase in the large volume of devices in the network balancing all the devices in
the network will become complex. The devices in the network should work for long
years without any maintenance. Because maintenance cost will affect the operational
costs in the IT sectors. The IoT system should be designed in such a way when number
of devices is added it should be easily expanded.
3. Context aware
The smart devices collect information from the environment and process the required
data. To make the routing smart, the context could be collected from various sources.
Based the analysis done knowledge is extracted from the environment. This knowledge

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

collected could be used for the choosing the correct optimal path. The path decisions
could be taken based on the knowledge obtained by collecting the context from the envi-
ronment. Only the residual energy of the node is considered as the metrics for context
awareness. Other metrics such as quality of the link, power required for processing and
the memory could be considered for the context awareness and the routing protocol
could be designed.
4. Congestion control
Internet of Things network will include networks such as adhoc networks, wireless
sensor networks, mobile adhoc networks and vehicular adhoc networks. This complex
networks will increase in the size of the network will cause the traffic. When the amount
of traffic in the network increases the capacity of the network congestion occurs. New
routing protocols should be designed to overcome the problem of congestion. If conges-
tion occurs in a network there will be depletion of energy in the nodes and it will reduce
the lifespan of the network. The routing protocols should be designed in such a way that
if there is a increase in traffic in particular nodes should perform load balancing to make
the network traffic free. The routing protocol also should notify and self-healing when
occurs some congestion in the network.
5. Changing Topology
Most of the IoT devices are connected to the wireless network. The network changes
over time. Here in the IoT network nodes come and go. There will be issues related to
capture fault and there will be problem with the reliability of the data. Due the chang-
ing topology in the Iot environment the performance of the network is deteriorated. In
order to improve the performance in the IoT network there is a need of protocols solve
the problem dynamic changing topology
6. Security of Data
Connecting the low power devices to the internet is a very challenging task. Security
is one of the very important challenge in IoT communication mostly which are wire-
less. Most of the wearable devices are mobile and they will be randomly changing its
position. In wireless communication there is lack of guarantee to transfer the data from
source to destination. Since the communication is wireless there is chance of unauthor-
ized users might get access to the network over the network. In order to prevent the data
theft authentication is needed between all the devices which are connected. DDoS, IP
Spoofing, DNS Spoofing, SQL Injection, Man in the middle, Phishing, sniffer area the
major attacks which affects the network. In order to overcome the security threats that
affect the network, routing protocol should be designed that the data which is send over
the network should be free from all the attacks. Required authentication and authoriza-
tion techniques should be developed to improve the security in the IoT devices.
7. Load Balancing
The increase in the interconnection of the devices increases the traffic in the network.
Load balancing is very important to minimize the traffic by distributing the workload and
the computing resources in the cloud and fog computing environments. The resources
are allocated among the multiple devices, computers, network and the servers. Thus
the workload demands for the various sectors could be managed. The distribution of
the workload traffic has to be done so that the congestion control could be done in the
network.
8. Removing the redundant data
IoT network will generate huge amount of data. Large data needs to be sending from the
source to the destination. This will create huge traffic and congestion in the network.
More energy will be wasted in the IoT network due to the tremendous and redundant

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

data. In order to overcome this problem, the technique of data fusion can be used. More
researches have to be done in this area in order to improve the performance of the net-
work.

8 Conclusion

This paper discusses about various routing protocols in the adhoc, MANET, VANET and
Wireless Sensor Networks. The various techniques involved, metrics, advantages and dis-
advantages of various routing protocols are discussed. Various protocols designed for IoT
has been discussed and also the enhancements needed in that protocols are discussed. The
open challenges for routing in IoT are discussed which give the opportunity for the acad-
emicians, network engineers, industry people to carry out the research in the challenges
and issues in the area of Internet of Things.

References
1. Pan, M. S., & Yang, S. W. (2017). A lightweight and distributed geographic multicast routing protocol
for IoT applications. Computer Networks, 112, 95–107.
2. Huang, J., Duan, Q., Zhao, Y., Zheng, Z., & Wang, W. (2017). Multicast routing for multimedia com-
munications in the internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(1), 215–224.
3. Rani, S., Talwar, R., Malhotra, J., Ahmed, S. H., Sarkar, M., & Song, H. (2015). A novel scheme for an
energy efficient internet of things based on wireless sensor networks. Sensors, 15(11), 28603–28626.
4. Qiu, T., Liu, X., Feng, L., Zhou, Y., & Zheng, K. (2016). An efficient tree-based self-organizing proto-
col for internet of things. IEEE Access, 4, 3535–3546.
5. Tseng, C. H. (2016). Multipath load balancing routing for internet of things. Journal of Sensors. https​
://doi.org/10.1155/2016/42507​46.
6. Vellanki, M., Kandukuri, S. P. R., & Razaque, A. (2016). Node level energy efficiency protocol for
internet of things. Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 3(140), 2.
7. Shen, J., Wang, A., Wang, C., Hung, P. C., & Lai, C. F. (2017). An efficient centroid-based routing
protocol for energy management in WSN-assisted IoT. IEEE Access, 5, 18469–18479.
8. Baker, T., Asim, M., Tawfik, H., Aldawsari, B., & Buyya, R. (2017). An energy-aware service compo-
sition algorithm for multiple cloud-based IoT applications. Journal of Network and Computer Applica-
tions, 89, 96–108.
9. Li, G., Zhang, D. G., Zheng, K., Ming, X. C., Pan, Z. H., & Jiang, K. W. (2013). A kind of new multi-
cast routing algorithm for application of internet of things. Journal of Applied Research and Technol-
ogy, 11(4), 578–585.
10. Qiu, T., Lv, Y., Xia, F., Chen, N., Wan, J., & Tolba, A. (2016). ERGID: An efficient routing proto-
col for emergency response internet of things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 72,
104–112.
11. Ullah, R., Faheem, Y., & Kim, B. S. (2017). Energy and congestion-aware routing metric for smart
grid AMI networks in smart city. IEEE Access, 5, 13799–13810.
12. Liao, Y., Leeson, M. S., Higgins, M. D., & Bai, C. (2016). Analysis of in-to-out wireless body area
network systems: Towards QoS-aware health internet of things applications. Electronics, 5(3), 38.
13. Xie, J., Lyu, L., Deng, Y., & Yang, L. T. (2015). Improving routing performance via dynamic program-
ming in large-scale data centers. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2(4), 321–328.
14. Hasan, M. Z., & Al-Turjman, F. (2017). Optimizing multipath routing with guaranteed fault tolerance
in internet of things. IEEE Sensors Journal, 17(19), 6463–6473.
15. Sasidharan, D., & Jacob, L. (2017). Design of composite routing metrics in LOADng routing protocol
for IoT applications. ICN, 2017, 26.
16. Javaid, N., Cheema, S., Akbar, M., Alrajeh, N. A., Alabed, M. S., & Guizani, N. (2017). Balanced
energy consumption based adaptive routing for IoT enabling underwater WSNs. IEEE Access, 5,
10040–10051.
17. Zhang, L., Cai, Z., Li, P., Wang, L., & Wang, X. (2017). Spectrum-availability based routing for cogni-
tive sensor networks. IEEE Access, 5, 4448–4457.

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

18. Shin, D., Sharma, V., Kim, J., Kwon, S., & You, I. (2017). Secure and efficient protocol for route opti-
mization in PMIPv6-based smart home IoT networks. IEEE Access, 5(4), 11100–11117.
19. Shu, T., & Cui, S. (2017). Renovating location-based routing for integrated communication privacy
and efficiency in IoT. In IEEE international conference on communications (ICC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
20. Kim, H. S., Kim, H., Paek, J., & Bahk, S. (2016). Load balancing under heavy traffic in RPL routing
protocol for low power and lossy networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 16, 964–979.
21. Kim, H. S., Kim, H., Paek, J., & Bahk, S. (2017). Load balancing under heavy traffic in RPL routing
protocol for low power and lossy networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 16(4), 964–979.
22. Al-Turjman, F., & Radwan, A. (2017). Data delivery in wireless multimedia sensor networks: Chal-
lenging and defying in the IoT era. IEEE Wireless Communications, 24(5), 126–131.
23. Kharrufa, H., Al-Kashoash, H., Al-Nidawi, Y., Mosquera, M. Q., & Kemp, A. H. (2017). Dynamic
RPL for multi-hop routing in IoT applications. In 13th Annual conference on wireless on-demand net-
work systems and services (WONS) (pp. 100–103). IEEE.
24. Perkins, C. E., & Bhagwat, P. (1994). Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing
(DSDV) for mobile computers. In ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review (Vol. 24, No. 4,
pp. 234–244). ACM.
25. Boukerche, A., Das, S. K., & Fabbri, A. (2001). Analysis of a randomized congestion control scheme
with DSDV routing in ad hoc wireless networks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,
61(7), 967–995.
26. Jacquet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Clausen, T., Laouiti, A., Qayyum, A., & Viennot, L. (2001). Optimized
link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks. In Multi topic conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001.
Technology for the 21st century. Proceedings. IEEE International (pp. 62–68). IEEE.
27. Villasenor-Gonzalez, L., Ge, Y., & Lament, L. (2005). HOLSR: A hierarchical proactive routing
mechanism for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 43(7), 118–125.
28. Chiang, C. C., Wu, H. K., Liu, W., & Gerla, M. (1997). Routing in clustered multihop, mobile wireless
networks with fading channel. In Proceedings of IEEE SICON (Vol. 97, No. 1997.4, pp. 197–211).
29. Murthy, S., & Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J. (1996). An efficient routing protocol for wireless networks.
Mobile Networks and Applications, 1(2), 183–197.
30. Chen, T. W., & Gerla, M. (1998). Global state routing: A new routing scheme for ad-hoc wireless net-
works. In IEEE international conference on communications. ICC 98. Conference record (Vol. 1, pp.
171–175). IEEE.
31. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J., Mosko, M., & Perkins, C. E. (2006). A new approach to on-demand loop-
free routing in networks using sequence numbers. Computer Networks, 50(10), 1599–1615.
32. Roy, S., & Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J. (2001). Using minimal source trees for on-demand routing in ad
hoc networks. In INFOCOM 2001. Twentieth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and com-
munications societies. Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 1172–1181). IEEE.
33. Munaretto, A., & Fonseca, M. (2007). Routing and quality of service support for mobile ad hoc net-
works. Computer Networks, 51(11), 3142–3156.
34. Ahn, C. W. (2006). Gathering-based routing protocol in mobile ad hoc networks. Computer Communi-
cations, 30(1), 202–206.
35. Sengul, C., & Kravets, R. (2006). Bypass routing: An on-demand local recovery protocol for ad hoc
networks. Ad Hoc Networks, 4(3), 380–397.
36. Wang, Y. H., & Chao, C. F. (2006). Dynamic backup routes routing protocol for mobile ad hoc net-
works. Information Sciences, 176(2), 161–185.
37. Gunes, M., Sorges, U., & Bouazizi, I. (2002). ARA-the ant-colony based routing algorithm for

MANETs. In International conference on parallel processing workshops, 2002 Proceedings (pp.
79–85). IEEE.
38. Raju, J., & Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J. (1999). A new approach to on-demand loop-free multipath rout-
ing. In Eight international conference on computer communications and networks. Proceedings (pp.
522–527). IEEE.
39. Park, V. D., & Corson, M. S. (1997). A highly adaptive distributed routing algorithm for mobile wire-
less networks. In INFOCOM’97. sixteenth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and com-
munications societies. Driving the information revolution. Proceedings IEEE (Vol. 3, pp. 1405–1413).
IEEE.
40. Johnson, D. B., Maltz, D. A., & Broch, J. (2001). DSR: The dynamic source routing protocol for multi-
hop wireless ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networking, 5, 139–172.
41. Pei, G., Gerla, M., & Hong, X. (2000). LANMAR: Landmark routing for large scale wireless ad hoc
networks with group mobility. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international symposium on mobile ad
hoc networking and computing (pp. 11–18). IEEE Press.

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

42. Samar, P., Pearlman, M. R., & Haas, Z. J. (2004). Independent zone routing: An adaptive hybrid rout-
ing framework for ad hoc wireless networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), 12(4),
595–608.
43. Aggelou, G., & Tafazolli, R. (1999). RDMAR: A bandwidth-efficient routing protocol for mobile ad
hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on wireless mobile multimedia
(pp. 26–33). ACM.
44. Joa-Ng, M., & Lu, I. T. (1999). A peer-to-peer zone-based two-level link state routing for mobile ad
hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 17(8), 1415–1425.
45. Wang, J., Osagie, E., Thulasiraman, P., & Thulasiram, R. K. (2009). HOPNET: A hybrid ant colony
optimization routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc network. Ad Hoc Networks, 7(4), 690–705.
46. Yang, C. C., & Tseng, L. P. (2007). Fisheye zone routing protocol: A multi-level zone routing protocol
for mobile ad hoc networks. Computer Communications, 30(2), 261–268.
47. Rajagopalan, S., & Shen, C. C. (2006). ANSI: A swarm intelligence-based unicast routing protocol for
hybrid ad hoc networks. Journal of Systems Architecture, 52(8), 485–504.
48. Heinzelman, W. R., Kulik, J., & Balakrishnan, H. (1999). Adaptive protocols for information dissemi-
nation in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM/IEEE international confer-
ence on mobile computing and networking (pp. 174–185). ACM.
49. Kulik, J., Heinzelman, W., & Balakrishnan, H. (2002). Negotiation-based protocols for disseminating
information in wireless sensor networks. Wireless Networks, 8(2/3), 169–185.
50. Ye, F., Chen, A., Lu, S., & Zhang, L. (2001). A scalable solution to minimum cost forwarding in large
sensor networks. In Tenth international conference on computer communications and networks, 2001.
Proceedings. (pp. 304–309). IEEE.
51. Braginsky, D., & Estrin, D. (2002). Rumor routing algorthim for sensor networks. In Proceedings of
the 1st ACM international workshop on wireless sensor networks and applications (pp. 22–31). ACM.
52. Yao, Y., & Gehrke, J. (2002). The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks.
ACM Sigmod Record, 31(3), 9–18.
53. Sadagopan, N., Krishnamachari, B., & Helmy, A. (2003). The ACQUIRE mechanism for efficient que-
rying in sensor networks. In IEEE international workshop on sensor network protocols and applica-
tions, 2003. Proceedings of the first IEEE (pp. 149–155). IEEE.
54. Schurgers, C., & Srivastava, M. B. (2001). Energy efficient routing in wireless sensor networks. In Mil-
itary communications conference, 2001. MILCOM 2001. Communications for network-centric opera-
tions: Creating the information force (Vol. 1, pp. 357–361). IEEE.
55. Ye, F., Luo, H., Cheng, J., Lu, S., & Zhang, L. (2002). A two-tier data dissemination model for large-
scale wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on mobile
computing and networking (pp. 148–159). ACM.
56. Chu, M., Haussecker, H., & Zhao, F. (2002). Scalable information-driven sensor querying and routing
for ad hoc heterogeneous sensor networks. The International Journal of High Performance Computing
Applications, 16(3), 293–313.
57. Shah, R. C., & Rabaey, J. M. (2002). Energy aware routing for low energy ad hoc sensor networks.
In Wireless communications and networking conference, 2002. WCNC2002. 2002 IEEE (Vol. 1, pp.
350–355). IEEE.
58. Heinzelman, W. R., Chandrakasan, A., & Balakrishnan, H. (2000). Energy-efficient communication
protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international
conference on system sciences (p. 10). IEEE.
59. Manjeshwar, A., & Agrawal, D. P. (2001). TEEN: A routing protocol for enhanced efficiency in wire-
less sensor networks. In Null (p. 30189a). IEEE.
60. Lindsey, S., & Raghavendra, C. S. (2002). PEGASIS: Power-efficient gathering in sensor information
systems. In Aerospace conference proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 3–3). IEEE.
61. Rodoplu, V., & Meng, T. H. (1999). Minimum energy mobile wireless networks. IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, 17(8), 1333–1344.
62. Subramanian, L., & Katz, R. H. (2000). An architecture for building self-configurable systems. In
2000 First annual workshop on mobile and ad hoc networking and computing. MobiHOC (Cat. No.
00EX444) (pp. 63–73). IEEE.
63. Mann, P. S., & Singh, S. (2017). Energy-efficient hierarchical routing for wireless sensor networks: A
swarm intelligence approach. Wireless Personal Communications, 92(2), 785–805.
64. Li, Q., Aslam, J., & Rus, D. (2001). Hierarchical power-aware routing in sensor networks. In Proceed-
ings of the DIMACS workshop on pervasive networking (pp. 47–52).
65. Fang, Q., Zhao, F., & Guibas, L. (2003). Lightweight sensing and communication protocols for target
enumeration and aggregation. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM international symposium on mobile ad
hoc networking & computing (pp. 165–176). ACM.

13
 J. Marietta, B. Chandra Mohan

66. Nesrine, K., & Jemaa, M. B. (2012). HEERP: Hierarchical energy efficient routing protocol for wire-
less sensor networks. In A. A. Khan., N. Javaid., U. Qasim., Z. Lu, & Z. Khan (Eds.), International
conference on communications and information technology (ICCIT) (pp. 308–313). IEEE.
67. Nesrine, K., & Jemaa, M. B. (2012). HEERP: Hierarchical energy efficient routing protocol for wire-
less sensor networks. In A. A. Khan., N. Javaid., U. Qasim., Z. Lu., & Z. A. Khan (Eds.), International
conference on communications and information technology (ICCIT) (pp. 308–313). IEEE.
68. Khan, A. A., Javaid, N., Qasim, U., Lu, Z., & Khan, Z. A. (2012). Hsep: Heterogeneity-aware hierar-
chical stable election protocol for wsns. In Seventh international conference on broadband, wireless
computing, communication and applications (pp. 373–378). IEEE.
69. Xu, Y., Heidemann, J., & Estrin, D. (2001). Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc rout-
ing. In Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking
(pp. 70–84). ACM.
70. Inagaki, T., & Ishihara, S. (2009). HGAF: A power saving scheme for wireless sensor networks. Infor-
mation and Media Technologies, 4(4), 1086–1097.
71. Yu, Y., Govindan, R., & Estrin, D. (2001). Geographical and energy aware routing: A recursive data
dissemination protocol for wireless sensornetworks., Technical Report UCLA/CSD-TR-01-0023,
UCLA Computer Science Department.
72. Chen, B., Jamieson, K., Balakrishnan, H., & Morris, R. (2002). Span: An energy-efficient coordination
algorithm for topology maintenance in ad hoc wireless networks. Wireless Networks, 8(5), 481–494.
73. Stojmenovic, I., Ruhil, A. P., & Lobiyal, D. K. (2006). Voronoi diagram and convex hull based geo-
casting and routing in wireless networks. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 6(2),
247–258.
74. Stojmenovic, I. V. A. N., & Lin, X. (1999). GEDIR: Loop-free location-based routing in wireless net-
works. In Proceedings of IASTED international conference on parallel and distributed computing and
systems (Vol. 1025).
75. Sohrabi, K., Gao, J., Ailawadhi, V., & Pottie, G. J. (2000). Protocols for self-organization of a wireless
sensor network. IEEE Personal Communications, 7(5), 16–27.
76. Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., & Zollinger, A. (2003). Worst-case optimal and average-case efficient geo-
metric ad-hoc routing. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc net-
working & computing (pp. 267–278). ACM.
77. Niculescu, D., & Nath, B. (2001). Ad hoc positioning system (APS). In Global Telecommunications
conference, 2001. GLOBECOM’01 (Vol. 5, pp. 2926–2931). IEEE.
78. Gupta, S. K., Kuila, P., & Jana, P. K. (2013). GAR: An energy efficient GA-based routing for wireless
sensor networks. In ICDCIT (pp. 267–277).
79. Machado, K., Rosário, D., Cerqueira, E., Loureiro, A., Neto, A., & de Souza, J. (2013). A routing pro-
tocol based on energy and link quality for internet of things applications. Sensors, 13(2), 1942–1964.
80. Reina, D. G., Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., Bessis, N., & Asimakopoulou, E. (2013). The role of ad hoc
networks in the internet of things: A case scenario for smart environments. In Internet of things and
inter-cooperative computational technologies for collective intelligence (pp. 89–113). Berlin: Springer.
81. Xin, H. M., & Yang, K. (2015, April). Routing Protocols Analysis for Internet of Things. In 2nd Inter-
national conference on information science and control engineering (ICISCE) (pp. 447–450). IEEE.
82. Jin, Y., Gormus, S., Kulkarni, P., & Sooriyabandara, M. (2016). Content centric routing in IoT net-
works and its integration in RPL. Computer Communications, 89, 87–104.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13
A Review on Routing in Internet of Things

Mrs. Marietta Johnson  received her Bachelor Degree in Computer Sci-

ence and Engineering from Anna University in the year 2012 and Mas-
ter of Technology from BITS Pilani, Rajasthan, India in the year 2015.
She worked in the software industry (Cognizant Technology Solutions,
Bangalore, India) for 3 years. She was Research Associate at VIT, Vel-
lore, India from 2016 to June 2017. Currently she is a Research
Scholar at VIT, Vellore, India. Her present research includes Internet
of Things, network and machine learning.

Dr. B. Chandra Mohan received his B.Tech Degree in Information

Technology, Master degree in Computer Science and Engineering
from Madras University and Anna University in the years 2003 and
2006 respectively. He completed his doctorate degree in the field of
Heterogeneous Next Generation Network at Anna University in the
year 2012. He worked both in industry and academics, in India and
Abroad, about 14 years. Presently he is serving as Associate Professor
in VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India. His experience includes
as Teaching Faculty in Anna University Chennai, India; as a professor
in VelTech Engineering College, Jaya Engineering College and Palla-
van Engineering College, India. He has published a dozen of papers in
International Conferences, Journals and Book series. His paper is
awarded as top 25 most cited articles by Expert System with Applica-
tions, Elsevier. His research interest in Networks, Data Mining, Swarm
Intelligence, IoT and Big Data. He is serving as Research Supervisor
in VIT University, Anna University and AMET University.

13