Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc and Peer-to-Peer Networks A Comparison

  • Rüdiger Schollmeier
  • Ingo Gruber
  • Michael Finkenzeller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2376)


The goal of this paper is to make the similarities and differences of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) and Mobile Ad Hoc (MANET) networks clear. Thus we want to show the synergetic potential hidden in these two decentralized and self organizing networks. As well as both networks are established on a different physical layer, both networks hold similarities concerning their routing and network management principles. The reason therefore is, that both of them have to solve a similar goal, namely to provide networking functionalities in a completely unmanaged and decentralized environment. One of the most interesting tasks in these networks is thus how queries are guided through the network. Therefore we concentrate in this work on the different routing algorithms employed in Peer-to-Peer and mobile ad hoc networks. Finally, the similarities of both networks can be used, to bring up the synergetic effects of looking at both networks at the same time.


Transmission Range Intermediate Node Overlay Network Local Zone Route Request 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Atkinson, S. Kent. “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol”. RFC2401. November 1998Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Bertsekas, R. Gallager, Data Networks, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall Inc., 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Bluetooth Specification, see
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    M. Frodigh, P. Johansson, P. Larsson, “Wireless ad hoc networking: The art of networking without a network” Ericsson Review, No. 4, pp. 248–263, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Gnutella Protocol Specification v0.4. August 2000.
  7. 7.
    Z. Haas, M. Pearlman, “The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing Protocol”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 9, No. 4, August 2001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Jubin, J. Tornow. “The DARPA Packet Radio Network Protocols”, in Proceedings of the IEEE volume 75,1, pages 21–32, Jan 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Langley. “Freenet”. ”. Appeared in “Peer-to-Peer Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Computing”. Editor: A. Oram. Publisher: O’Reilly & Associates, Incorporated. March 2001Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Leiner, D. Nielson, “Issues in Packet Radio Network Design, Proceedings of the IEEE Special issue on “Packet Radio Networks”, 75,1:6–20, 1987Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Limewire. “Current Network Size”. January 2002
  12. 12.
    The Napster Protocol. September 2001
  13. 13.
    C. Perkins, “Highly Dynamic Destination Sequence Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers”, ACM SIGCOMM’94, 1994Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Perkins, E. Royer, “Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector Routing”, Proceeding of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, February 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christpher Rohrs. “Query Routing for the Gnutella Network”. December 2001.
  16. 16.
    S. Saroiu, P. K. Gummadi, S. D. Gribble. “A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems” Technical Report # UW-CSE-01-06-02. July 2001Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Schollmeier. “A definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking towards a Delimitation against Classical Client-Server Concepts”. Proceedings of WATM-Eunice 2001. pp. 131–138. 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The IEEE 802.11 Standards, see
  19. 19.
    P. Johansson et al. “Scenario Based Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, Mobicom’ 99, 1999 Seatle, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Broch et al., “A Performance Comaprison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols”, MobiCom’ 98, 1998, Dallas, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Stoica et al “Chord. A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for Internet applications. Technical Report TR-819, MIT, March 2001Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D: Karger et al “Consistent hashing and random trees: Distriubuted caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the World Wide Web”, Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (El Paso, TX, May 1997), pp. 654–663Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Druschel, “Past: Persistent and anonymous storage in a peer-to-peer networking environment. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS 2001) (Elmau/Oberbayern, Germany, May 2001), pp. 65–70Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Ratnasamy “A scalable content-addressable network” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (San Diego, CA, August 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rüdiger Schollmeier
    • 1
  • Ingo Gruber
    • 1
  • Michael Finkenzeller
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für KommunikationsnetzeTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Siemens Corporate TechnologySiemens AGMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations