Thomas Kunz
 Systems and Computer Engineering
7
Related Work
lLots of work on ROUTING PROTOCOLS, though very little on avoiding packet loss due to route failure
uFlow Oriented Routing Protocol (FORP): destination predicts topology change based on the Link Expiration Time
uAssociativity Based Routing (ABR), Signal Stability-Based Adaptive Routing (SSA) favor longer-live routes
lPaper in MobiCom 2001
uAlso uses signal power strength
uBut uses different metrics: preemptive zone, packet latency etc.
uAt least 2 times increase in routing protocol overhead for DSR
When we started this thesis last year, there is basically no related work. Some papers proposed use the mobility information to reduce the bad links.
For example, in FORP, every packet contains the link expiration time, so the destination can predict the topology change and decide if the route needs hand off. The ABR and SSA favor the longer-live routes to reduce route maintenance.

One paper published this month in MobiCom 2001, uses reception signal power strength, and sends warning to the source if the route is likely to be broken. But this paper uses different metrics like preemptive zone and packet latency. Also, implemented this preemptive routing in DSR caused at least twice increased overhead.