[ieee 2011 seventh international conference on mobile ad-hoc and sensor networks (msn) - beijing,...

An Efficient Unstructured P2P overlay overMANET using Underlying Proactive Routing

Nadir Shah∗ and Depei Qian†∗†Sino-Germnan Joint Software Institute

Beihang, University,

Beijing, China

Email: [email protected], [email protected]∗Department of Computer Science

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Wah Cantt, Pakistan

Abstract—In a traditional unstructured P2P file sharing net-work, each peer randomly establishes connection with certainnumber of other peers to ensure the connectivity of the P2Poverlay. This random overly leads to redundant traffic and P2Pnetwork partition in mobile ad hoc network (MANET). Thispaper explains the construction of an efficient unstructured P2Poverlay over MANET (E-UnP2P) using a proactive underlyingrouting protocol. Instead of having redundant links among thepeers in the P2P network, E-UnP2P introduces a root-peerconnecting all peers. Each peer maintains connection with closestpeers such that it can reach the root-peer. A peer constructs aminimum-spanning tree consisting of itself, its directly connectedneighbor peers and 2-hop away neighbor peers to identify faraway peers and builds the overlay closer to the physical network.We can show by simulation that E-UnP2P performs better incomparison with the existing approach (XL-Gnutella).

I. INTRODUCTION

Peer-to-peer (P2P) network is an alternative of the

client/server systems for sharing resources like CPU, memory,

files etc. It is a robust, distributed and fault tolerant network

architecture. A number of approaches for P2P over wired net-

work (Internet) have been proposed [1]–[4].These approaches

can be roughly classified into structured, unstructured and

hybrid architectures [5]. Each of them has its own applications

and advantages. Many important P2P applications have been

deployed over the Internet [6]–[8].

Mobile and wireless technology has achieved great progress

in recent years. Today’s cell phones, PDAs and other handheld

devices have larger memory, higher processing capability and

richer functionalities. The user can store more audio, video,

text and image data with handheld devices. These devices are

also equipped with low radio range technology, like Bluetooth

[9] and Wi-Fi [10], etc. By means of the low radio range

technology, they can communicate with each other without

using communication infrastructure (e.g. cellular infrastruc-

ture) and form a mobile ad hoc network (MANET). Each node

in MANETs works as both a host (for sending/receiving the

data) and a router (maintaining routing information of other

nodes). MANET is deployed in the places where infrastructure

is either not available, for example disaster scenario, or too

expensive. Due to high capability of the mobile devices,

P2P networks can be deployed over MANET composed of

mobile devices. There are various P2P applications over this

kind of MANET. For example, the users equipped with the

cell phones, PDAs or other handheld devices, communicating

through low radio range, can form a P2P network for shar-

ing audio/video clips, pictures, files and other information.

Possible file sharing application scenarios can be found at

airport lounges, music concerts, bus stops, railway stations,

and cafeteria.

The approaches proposed for P2P network over Internet

cannot be directly applied to the ones over MANETs due

to unique characteristics of MANET, e.g. nodes’ mobility,

scarce of power energy, limited memory and infrastructure

less nature. Recently, a few schemes have been proposed

for P2P network over MANETs. Majority of them are only

modification of the existing P2Ps over Internet [11]–[23] while

a few have adopted new approaches [24]–[34].

We are interested in the unstructured P2P file sharing over

MANET. Our approach is targeting at the MANETs scenarios

where not all the nodes are to share and access the files, i.e.

some are peers and others are non-peers. We define a node

that joins the P2P network for sharing and/or accessing the

files as a peer. Non-peer nodes are called normal-nodes.

As pointed out in our previous work [39], [40] that the

traditional unstructured P2P overlay has several limitations in

MANET. Shah et al. [39] proposes an efficient overlay for

unstructured P2P over MANET (E-UnP2P) using underlying

position based reactive routing protocol. This paper explains to

construct an efficient unstructured P2P overlay over MANET

using a proactive underlying routing protocol OLSR [35].

To build an efficient overlay avoiding redundant links and

redundant transmissions while ensuring connectivity among

the peers, E-UnP2P introduces a root-peer in the P2P network

connecting all other peers. Each peer maintains connection

with other closest peers such that it can reach the root-

peer. Using the information of its directly connected and 2-

hop away (logically) neighbor peers, each peers builds up

a minimum-spanning tree to identify far away peers and

builds up the overlay closer to the physical network. The

simulation results show that E-UnP2P outperforms the random

overlay approach adopted by XL-Gnutella [11] using under-

lying proactive routing protocol, in term of routing overhead,

2011 Seventh International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks

978-0-7695-4610-0/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/MSN.2011.15

248


978-0-7695-4610-0/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/MSN.2011.15

248


978-0-7695-4610-0/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/MSN.2011.15

248

average file-discovery delay and false-negative ratio .

We present the related work in Section II. The detailed

description of the proposed approach is presented in Section

III. Section IV presents simulation and results. Finally, Section

V concludes the paper.

II. RELATED WORK

Previously proposed approaches for the unstructured P2P

file sharing over MANET are based on two types of underlying

routing protocol, reactive and proactive routing protocols.

Reactive routing protocols find the route on demand i.e. these

protocols find the route to the destination when the data is

to be sent to that destination. Proactive routing protocols

periodically update routing information to all nodes regardless

of whether or not the data is to be sent to those nodes. The

approaches in [28]–[30] are based on reactive routing protocol

AODV [36]. These approaches do not maintain overlay among

the peers. The file-lookup request is flooded in the whole

network, similar to the route request but content based. These

approaches return not only the ID but also the route to the

source peer. Flooding-based approaches are inefficient and do

not scale well [37].

In [24], using swarm-intelligence, the authors propose a so-

lution, called P2PSI, for addressing free-riding and hot-spot

problem of unstructured P2P file sharing over MANETs.

P2PSI divides the files into different categories and the

pheromone-table is built at a node which contains routing

information for each category of files instead of an individual

file. This approach would perform poorly if the peers store

diverse types of files.

In [12], the authors evaluate the performance of Gnutella

using the underlying reactive and proactive routing protocols.

They also build a random overlay for all protocols and do not

consider the optimization of Gnutella over MANETs.

Diego et al. [13] improves the unstructured P2P over

MANET using Gossiping [38] approach of MANET routing

protocol. This is achieved by computing the forwarding prob-

ability of a link based on the network load, thus the packet

is forwarded on the lower load link. They do not attempt to

construct an efficient unstructured P2P overlay over MANET.

Macro et al. [11] propose a cross-layer approach called

XL-Gnutella for Gnutella [6] over MANETs based on the

proactive routing protocol OLSR [35]. In this approach, a

new control message, called Optional Information (OI), is

introduced for advertising and exchanging peer’s credential

in the same way as other control messages for routing are

exchanged. When a node wants to join a P2P network, the

node gets the information from routing agent about the closest

peers in the physical network and connects to that peers.

A peer maintains connection with neighbor peers based on

physical proximity according to the values of lower bound

(LB) and upper bound (UB) of the number of connections. In

connecting state, when the number of connections is less than

LB, a peer strives to establish a connection with the new peers.

A peer accepts incoming connection in connected-state (when

its number of connection is lower than UB). In full-state,

i.e. when the number of connections exceeds UB, the peer

neither establishes outgoing connection nor accepts incoming

connection. However, in attempt to build up an overlay with

topology closer to the physical network in XL-Gnutella, even

in the full-state and connected-state, the peer accepts incoming

connection or establishes outgoing connection with the new

peer provided the new peer is closer than its current closest

neighbor peers. Although this approach tries to build an

overlay in which the peer prefers to contact closer peer in

the physical network, it does not establish an efficient overlay.

[39] describes the construction of an efficient unstructured

P2P overlay over MANET using underlying reactive position-

based routing protocols. To compute or determine the physical

position coordinates of a node in MANET, it is sometime not

feasible. In [13], upon receiving the reply from the source

peer P1 for a file-lookup request, a peer P may not have the

route to P1 at its routing agent due to on-demand nature of

AODV. To retrieve the file by P from P1 following the path of

P2P overlay, this route may be longer than the one in physical

network between P and P1. Thus, this would produce more

routing traffic and longer retrieval delay. Due to these reasons,

we evaluate the performance of E-UnP2P using underlying

OLSR proactive routing protocol in this paper.

III. PROPOSED ALGORITHM

To maintain a connected P2P overlay topology, E-UnP2P

[39], [40] introduces a root-peer. A peer maintains connection

with other closest peers such that it can reach the root-peer. In

Gnutella [6] and XL-Gnutella [11], the neighbor relationship

between two peers is maintained by the one who initiate the

neighbor relationship by periodically sending probe messages.

E-UnP2P proposes that the neighbor relationship between two

peers should be maintained by the one having a larger distance

from the root-peer. The process is illustrated as follows. When

two peers establish neighbor relationship, the root-peer is

used as a reference point to designate one of them to be

a responsible for maintaining the neighbor relationship. The

current peer sets a neighbor’s state as NBIND if the current

peer is closer to the root-peer or has the lowest ID in case of tie

(when both the current peer and its neighbor peer are at equal

distance from the root-peer). Otherwise, the neighbors state

will be set to BIND. A peer periodically sends probe messages

to the neighbor peer with a BIND state to maintain neighbor

relationship, and receives probe messages from neighbor peers

with a NBIND state. The root-peer is also used to ensure the

connectivity among the peers. Each peer (except the root-

peer) connects to at least one peer with a BIND state to

ensure the connectivity of the P2P network. Receiving the

updated information of the P2P topology, a peer P constructs

a weighted undirected-connected graph consisting of P itself,

P’s directly connected neighbor peers and P’s 2-hops away

(logically) neighbor peers, assigning the number of hops as

the weight of the links between two logically linked peers.

Then, the peer P executes the minimum-spanning-tree (MST)

algorithm with itself as a source vertex to identify redundant

links. The redundant links are removed and an efficient overlay

249249249

is built up which is closer to the physical network.

In our system, each peer maintains a peer-routing table that

stores the information of the root-peer and neighbor peers,

as shown in Figure 1(b). Each peer also maintains a local

repository which contains index of its stored files. The detailed

description of the basic operations of our approach is given as

follows.

A. Peer-join

When a peer decides to join a P2P file sharing network, the

peer first informs its routing agent so that the routing agent can

informs the peer at application layer of the P2P traffic passed

through. The join peer broadcasts the joining request (JRQST)

message in the physical network using expanding-ring search

(ERS) algorithm. Receiving JRQST, a peer sends the joining

reply (JRPLY) message. Sending JRQST is stopped by the

join peer when the join peer receives JRPLY from at least one

other peer or when the TTL reaches a maximum threshold

value, which is one of following two cases

• The time-to-live (TTL) value of the ERS algorithm

reaches the maximum threshold value and the join peer

does not receive any JRPLY. The join peer assumes that

there is no other peer of the P2P network and itself

becomes the root-peer.

• The join peer receives JRPLY from at least one other

closest peer. JRPLY of peer P1 contains P1’s directly

connected neighbor peers, the root-peer and their distance

from P1.

Receiving JRPLY from peer P1, the join peer P connects with

P1. The neighbor relationship between two peers is adjusted

as discussed above. After receiving JRPLY from a number of

peers, the peer P constructs MST consisting of P, P’s directly

connected neighbor peers and P’s 2-hops (logically) away

neighbor peers and avoid redundant links as follows. The peer

P drops the connection with a directly connected neighbor

peer P1 to which it does not have direct link in MST. The

peer also establishes neighbor connection with a new peer P2

which is not previously directly connected neighbor peer but

has a direct link in MST.

For example, a part of P2P network is shown in Figure 1(a)

with P1 as a root peer. Now N3 wants to join the P2P file

sharing network so it contacts P2 and exchanges the neighbor

information, the resulting physical topology is shown in Figure

1(b). The corresponding overlay with the distance in term

of number of hops between two logically linked peers in

the physical network as the weight of the links is shown in

Figure 1(c). The connected graph of P1 is shown in Figure

1(d). Although P1 is not directly connected to the peer N3

in the overlay (Figure 1(c)) but a direct link between P1 and

P3 is made in the connected graph in Figure 1(d). This is

because the routing agent has the knowledge of routes to

all known nodes due to proactive nature of OLSR routing

protocol. After executing the MST algorithm, the resulting

minimum-spanning tree of P1 is shown through bold lines

in Figure 1(d). Then P1 identifies that its previous neighbor

P2 is no longer its direct neighbor in MST while the new peer

P1 N1 N2 N3 P2

Root

P1

Neighbor Its distance Its status Its neighbors Their distance

P2 4 NBIND _ _

Root Its distance

P1 4


P1 4 BIND - -

Peer-routing table at P2

Its distance

0


(a) A part of P2P network before the joining of N3

P1 N1 N2 P2

Root

P1


P2 4 NBIND _ _

N3 3 BIND P2 1

Root Its distance

P1 4


P1 4 BIND - -

N3 1 BIND P1 3


Its distance

0


N3

(b) A part of P2P network after the joining of N3 before executionof MST algorithm

P1

P2

N3

4 1

(c) The overlay of Figure1(b)

P1

P2

N3

4 1

3

(d) The connected graphand MST of P1

P1

P2

N33

1

(e) The overlay of Figure1(b) after execution of MSTalgorithm

P1 N1 N2 N3 P2

Root

P1


P2 1 NBIND _ _

P1 3 BIND _ _

Its distance

3

Peer-routing table at N3

Root

P1


N3 3 BIND P2 1

Root Its distance

P1 4


N3 1 BIND P1 3


Its distance

0


(f) The P2P network after the joining of N3 and the execution of MST algorithm

Peer Non-peer Communication link

Fig. 1.

N3 is, so it drops its connection with P2 and establishes its

connection with N3. The resulting final overlay topology is

shown in Figure 1(e) and its corresponding physical network

is given in Figure 1(f). This is more efficient overlay with a

topology closer to the physical network.

250250250

B. Update

Each peer periodically sends probe messages to its neighbor

peers with a BIND state to maintain connectivity. Receiving

the probe message, the peer also replies with the probe

message. The probe message from peer P contains root-peer,

P’s directly connected neighbor pees and their distances from

P. Since connectivity among the nodes may change due to

nodes’ mobility, the peer-routing table is updated accordingly

and the MST algorithm is executed to identify the redundant

links. After certain number of retries, if a peer P does not

receive the reply for the probe messages from a neighbor peer

P1 with BIND state, the peer P invokes recovery operation for

the peer P1. When a peer P does not receive the probe message

from a neighbor peer P2 of NBIND state and the time period

of P2 expires, the peer P removes P2 from its peer-routing

table.

C. Peer-leave

When a peer wants to leave the P2P file-sharing network,

it can invoke a peer-leave operation to inform its neighbor

peers. This is so that neighbor peers receiving that information

invoke a recovery operation. Normally, a peer does not have

to inform its neighbor peers about its leaving. The absence

of a peer can be detected by its neighbor peers by a built-in

keep-alive mechanism.

D. Recovery

When a peer P detects that one of its neighbor peers, say P1,

with a state of BIND is disconnected (P1 has either left the P2P

network or has been switched off), P establishes connections

with the neighbor peers of P1 to maintain a connected P2P

network. Then a peer executes the MST algorithm to identify

the redundant links. The absence of a peer (P1) can be detected

by the peer P through probe messages or from the routing

agent of P. If the disconnected neighbor peer is the root-peer,

one of the closest directly connected neighbor peers of the

root-peer announces itself as the new root-peer. In case of tie,

the one having the lowest ID is elected as the new root-peer.

Then the new root-peer is announced to the other peers in the

network in the same way as the file-lookup query is sent.

E. File-discovery

As our approach is based on unstructured P2P network, we

use keyword-based searching to locate a file. When a peer

wants to retrieve a file, the peer sends the file-lookup request to

all of its neighbor peers. Upon receiving a file-lookup request,

the peer P examines its local repository for the matching file.

If a matching is found in the local repository, P sends a

reply to the requesting peer. Otherwise, P forwards the request

to P’s directly connected neighbor peers excluding the one

from which the request is received. When the requesting peer

receives the reply for the file-lookup request, it invokes the

file-access operation. If the requesting peer does not receive a

reply for a file-lookup request within certain period of time, it

re-sends the file-lookup request provided the number of retries

does not exceed a threshold value.

F. File-access

The requesting peer may receive replies for a file-lookup re-

quest from multiple source peers. the requesting peer retrieves

the file from the source peer having the shortest distance. Due

to proactive nature of OLSR routing protocol, a requesting

peer can retrieve the file from the source peer via shortest

available route in the routing table. The file is retrieved in

blocks and complete control over the transfer of the blocks

is kept on the receiver side. The block size is selected so

that it can be accommodated in a single packet. A scheduling

algorithm like [28] can be implemented, for the sake of

simplicity, for the lost of blocks. The lost of a block may

be caused by collision or link breakdown. Each intermediate

node monitors the outgoing link failure from the feedback of

the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer.

IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

We use ns-2 [41] to conduct simulation to compare our

approach (E-UnP2P) with XL-Gnutella [11]. The specification

of the simulation environment is given in Table I. In our

scenario the nodes join/leave the P2P file-sharing network

randomly while maintaining the specified ratio of peers among

all nodes. We created a mobility scenario using Bonnmotion

[42] to ensure that the physical network is connected. The

file-discovery is initiated for total 100 random files by random

peers. We study the performance metrics for peer discovery

and overlay maintenance of the resulting overlays. The fol-

lowing metrics are used for comparison,

• Routing overhead: The total number of packets transmit-

ted at routing layer.

• Average file-discovery delay: The average time elapsed

from the moment when a file-lookup query is sent to the

moment when the first reply is received.

• False-negative (FN) ratio: The ratio between the numbers

of unresolved file-lookup queries for the files that exist in

P2P network to the total number of initiated file-lookup

queries.

The evaluation is carried out by varying peers ratio in the

network and the maximum moving speed of nodes.

TABLE ISIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

Parameter Value Parameter Value

MAC layer IEEE 802.11 Transmission range 250m

Total number of nodes 100 Bandwidth 2MB

Simulation area 1000X1000 Simulation Time 1000s

Mobility model Random Way Point LB 4

Number of file retries 2 UB 8

Propagation Model TwoRayGround

A. Comparison of the traffic overhead

From Figures 2, it is shown that XL-Gnutella in com-

parison to our approach has higher traffic overhead at all

251251251

peers ratio and maximum moving speed of nodes. These

figures also show that with the increase of peers ratio, the

increase in traffic overhead of our approach is lower than

XL-Gnutella. Obviously, this is because that XL-Gnutella

maintains redundant neighbor peers. It is also shown from

these figures that by increasing nodes’ maximum moving

speed, the traffic overhead of both approaches also increases.

This is because, when the moving speed of nodes increases,

the topology more frequently changes. However our approach

has lower traffic overhead as compared to the XL-Gnutella in

the cases of all maximum moving speed of nodes. Reducing

traffic overhead in MANET reduces the chances of packet

collision and consumption of energy which would result in

better performance of the network and increase the network

longevity. Thus our approach improves the performance of the

network and increases network longevity.

B. Comparison of file-discovery delay

Since the XL-Gnutella maintains redundant links and our

approach avoids redundant links, therefore one can expect

shorter average file-discovery delay in XL-Gnutella. But the

Figure 3 shows that our approach has shorter average-file

discovery delay. This is because of the following three reasons.

First, XL-Gnutella has higher traffic overhead, increasing the

contention delay to access the medium. Second, our approach

builds up an overlay which has a topology closer to the phys-

ical network. Therefore the file-lookup query is forwarded on

the shortest path in the physical network. Third, XL-Gnutella

does not ensure that a peer always establishes connection

with closer neighbor peer in the physical network [39]. These

figures also show that increasing peers ratio, the average file-

discovery delay of both approaches gets longer. It is also

shown from these figures that the average file-discovery delay

of both approaches increases by increasing nodes’ maximum

moving speed. This is because that the traffic overhead of both

approaches increases by increasing nodes’ maximum speed

leading to a longer contention delay.

C. Comparison of false-negative (FN) ratio

As P2P network partition may occur in XL-Gnutella there-

fore we investigate two types of false-negative: false-negative

due to P2P network partition (FNP) and false-negative due to

packet collision (FNC). Figure 4 shows that the P2P network

partition occurs in XL-Gnutella when the peers ratio is greater

than 25%, resulting false-negative due to partition (FNP).

There is only false-negative due to packet collision in our

approach. These figures show that our approach has a lower

FN ratio as compared to the XL-Gnutella. These figures also

show that the ratio of FN of both approaches increases by

increasing peers ratio and nodes’ maximum moving speed.

This is because with the increase of peers ratio, routing traffic

of both approaches increases causing larger contention delay to

access the medium by a node and more packet collisions. Also

with the increase of maximum moving speed of nodes, the

topology changes more frequently which causes more traffic

overhead and more chances of collision in both approaches.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

XL-Gnutella Our approach

maximum speed 0.4 m/s

Ro

uti

ng o

verh

ead i

n

Kilo

Peers ratio

(a)

200maximum speed 0.8 m/s

80

100

120

140

160

180

ing

ov

erh

ead

in

0

20

40

60

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

XL-Gnutella Our approachPeers ratio

Routi

Kil

o

(b)

100

120

140

160

180

200

maxim speed 1.2 m/s

ead

in K

ilo

0

20

40

60

80

100

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%


Ro

uti

ng

overh

e

Peers ratio

(c)

150

200

250


ead

in K

ilo

0

50

100

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%


Ro

uti

ng

ov

erh

e

Peers ratio

(d)

Fig. 2. Th comparison of routing overhead of XL-Gnutella and our approach

252252252

0

50

100

150

200

250

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%



��

��

��

��

Peers ratio

(a)

200

250

300

350


isco

very

dela

y

0

50

100

150

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%


Avera

ge f

ile-d

i

in m

illi

seco

nd

Peers ratio

(b)

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00maximum speed 1.2 m/s

��

��

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

XL-Gnutella Our approachPeers ratio

��

��

��

��

(c)

200

250

300

350


dis

co

very

seco

nd

0

50

100

150

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%


Avera

ge f

ile-d

dela

y i

n m

illi

s

Peers ratio

(d)

Fig. 3. The comparison of average file-discovery delay of XL-Gnutella andour approach

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%maximum speed 0.4 m/s

o o

f F

N

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

FNC in Our approach FNC in XL-Gnutella

FNP in XL-Gnutella

Peers ratio

Rati

(a)

8%

10%

12%

14%


f F

N

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

FNC in our approach FNC in XL-Gnutella

FNP in XL-Gnutella

Rati

o o

f

Peers ratio

(b)

15%

20%


0%

5%

10%

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

FNC in Our approach FNC in XL-GnutellaFNP in XL-Gnutella

Rati

o o

f F

N

Peers ratio

(c)

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%


FN

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

FNC in Our approach FNC in XL-Gnutella

FNP in XL-Gnutella

Rati

o o

f F

Peers ratio

(d)

Fig. 4. The comparison of false-negative ratio of Gnutella and our approach

253253253

V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

We discusses the construction of an efficient unstructured

P2P overlay over MANET using proactive underlying rout-

ing. Instead of having redundant links among the peers for

unstructured P2P network over MANET, E-UnP2P introduces

a root-peer connecting all peers in the network. Each peer

maintains connection with closest peers such that it can reach

the root-peer. Each peer constructs a minimum-spanning tree

consisting of itself, its directly connected neighbor peers and

2-hop away neighbor peers to identify redundant neighbor

peers and builds the overlay closer to the physical network.

The simulation results show that our approach outperforms

the random overlay approach adopted by XL-Gnutella [11]

in term of routing overhead, average file-discovery delay and

false-negative ratio in file-discovery.

As a future work, we would like to further investigate other

related aspects of P2P networks such as user anonymity and

free-riding.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work is supported by the International Cooperation

Project under the Ministry of Science and Technology of China

(Grant No. 2010DFA11670)

REFERENCES

[1] I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M.F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan,Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications,in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 01 Conference, San Diego,California, USA, August 2001.

[2] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, Pastry: Scalable, decentralized objectlocation and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems,IFIP/ACM In-ternational Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware),Heidelberg, Germany, pages 329-350, November 2001

[3] B Pourebrahimi, K.L.M. Bertels, S. Vassiliadis, A Survey of Peer-to-PeerNetworks, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Workshop on Circuits, Systemsand Signal Processing, ProRisc 2005, November 2005.

[4] M. Ripeanu, I. Foster, A. Iamnitchi, Mapping the Gnutella Network:Properties of Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems and Implications forSystem Design, IEEE Internet Computing Journal special issue on peer-to-peer networking, 2002, 6(1).

[5] Elena Meshkova, Janne Riihijrvi, Marina Petrova, Petri Mhnen, A surveyon resource discovery mechanisms, peer-to-peer and service discoveryframeworks, Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computerand Telecommunications Networking, Volume 52 , Issue 11 (August2008), ISSN:1389-1286.

[6] http://gtk- gnutella.sourceforge.net/[7] http://www.kazaa.com/us/help/glossary/p2p.htm 21 Jan 2009[8] http://opennap.sourceforge.net/# status 21 Jan 2009[9] http://www.bluetooth.com 21 Jan 2009.[10] http://www.wi-fi.org/ 21 Jan 2009[11] G. Turi, M. Conti, E. Gregori, A Cross Layer Optimization of Gnutella

for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, In Proceeding of the ACM MobiHocSymposium, Urbana-Champain, May 2005.

[12] Leonardo B. Oliveira, Isabela G. Siqueira?, Antonio A.F. Loureiro,On the performance of ad hoc routing protocols under a peer-to-peerapplication, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing Volume 65,Issue 11, November 2005, Pages 1337-1347.

[13] Diego N. da Hora, Daniel F. Macedo, Leonardo B. Oliveira c, IsabelaG. Siqueira, Antonio A.F. Loureiro ,Jos M. Nogueira , Guy Pujolle,Enhancing peer-to-peer content discovery techniques over mobile ad hocnetworks, Journal, Computer Communications, Volume 32 , Issue 13-14, August 2009 ,Pages 1445-1459,ISSN:0140-3664.

[14] Dewan Tanvir Ahmed, Shervin Shirmohammadi, Multi-Level Hashingfor Peer-to-Peer System in Wireless Ad Hoc Environment, In Proceedingof the IEEE Workshop on Mobile Peer-to-Peer Computing, White Plains,NY, USA, March 2007

[15] Raphal Kummer, Peter Kropf, Pascal Felber: Distributed Lookup inStructured Peer-to-Peer Ad-Hoc Networks. In Proceeding of the OTMConferences (2) 2006: 1541-1554.

[16] G Ding, Bharat Bhargava, Peer-to-peer file-sharing over mobile ad hocnetworks, In Proceeding of the Second IEEE Annual Conference onPervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2004, pp. 104-108.

[17] Diego N. da Hora, Daniel F. Macedo, Jos Marcos Nogueira, Guy Pujolle,Optimizing Peer-to-Peer Content Discovery over Wireless Mobile Ad HocNetworks. In Proceeding of the ninth IFIP International Conference onMobile and Wireless Communications Networks (MWCN), pages 6-10,2007.

[18] H. Pucha, S.M. Das, and Y.C. Hu. Ekta: an efficient dht substrate fordistributed applications in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceeding of theSixth IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications(WMCSA 2004), pages 163-173, 2004.

[19] Bin Tang, Zongheng Zhou, Anand Kashyap and Tzi-cker Chiueh, AnIntegrated Approach for P2P File Sharing on Multi-hop Wireless Net-works, In Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Wirelessand Mobile Computing, Networking and Communication (WIMOB 05),Montreal, Canada, August 2005.

[20] Oliveira, Rodolfo and Bernardo, Lus and Pinto, Paulo, Flooding Tech-niques for Resource Discovery on High Mobility MANETs. In Pro-ceeding of the International Workshop on Wireless Ad-hoc Networks(IWWAN 05), 23-26 May 2005, London (UK).

[21] F. Niethammer R. Schollmeier, I. Gruber. Protocol for peer-to-peer net-working in mobile environments.In Proceeding of IEEE12th InternationalConference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2003.

[22] Min Li, Enhong Chen, Phillip C-y Sheu, A Chord-Based Novel MobilePeer-to-Peer File Sharing Protocol,In Proceeding of 8th Asia-Pacific webconference, Harbin, China, January 16-18, 2006.

[23] Andrew Ka-Ho Leung and Yu-Kwong Kwok, On Topology Control ofWireless Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Networks: Energy Efficiency, Fairnessand Incentive, In Proceeding of the 6th I E E E International Symposiumon a World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks, Taormina,Giardini, Naxos, 13-16 June 2005, p. 318-323.

[24] Ren-Hung Hwang and Cheng-Chang Hoh, Cross-layer design of P2Pfile sharing over mobile ad hoc networks, Journal: Telecommun SystemsJune 2009, pages 42: 47-61 ,DOI 10.1007/s11235-009-9168-7.

[25] Hasan Sozer, Metin Tekkalmaz, Ibrahim Korpeoglu, A Peer-to-Peer FileSearch and Download Protocol for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Journal:Computer Communications, Vol. 32, No. 1, pages 41-50, Elsevier, January2009.

[26] M. Papadopouli and H. Schulzrinne, Effects of Power Conservation,Wireless Coverage and Cooperation on Data Dissemination among Mo-bile Devices. In Proceeding of the ACM Symp. On Mobile Ad HocNetworking & Computing (MobiHoc 2001), Long Beach, CA, 2001

[27] C. Lindemann and O. Waldhorst, A Distributed Search Service for Peer -to- Peer File Sharing in Mobile Applications. In the Proceeding of the 2ndIEEE Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P 2002), Linkping, Sweden,71-83, 2002.

[28] A. Klemm, C. Lindemann, and O. Waldhorst, A special-purpose peer-to-peer file sharing system for mobile ad hoc networks, In Proceeding ofthe Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MADNET2003), Sophia- Antipolis, France, Mar. 2003, pp. 41-49.

[29] Ahmet Duran, Chien-Chung, Mobile ad hoc P2P file sharing.” InProceeding of the Wireless Communications and Networking Conference,WCNC. 2004 IEEE, Vol. 1 (2004), pp. 114-119 Vol.1

[30] Abada A., Li Cui, Changcheng Huang, Hsiao-Hwa Chen, A Novel PathSelection and Recovery Mechanism for MANETs P2P File Sharing Ap-plications In Proceeding of the Wireless Communications and NetworkingConference, IEEE WCNC 2007.

[31] Mei Li, Wang-Chien Lee, and Anand Sivasubramaniam, Efficient peer-to-peer information sharing over mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedingsof the 2nd Workshop on Emerging Applications for Wireless and MobileAccess (MobEA 2004), in conjunction with the World Wide Web Con-ference (WWW), May, 2004.

[32] Siddhartha K. Goel, Manish Singh, Dongyan Xu, Baochun Li, EfficientPeer-to-Peer Data Dissemination in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, In Pro-ceeding of International Workshop on Ad Hoc Networking (IWAHN’02,in conjunction with ICPP 2002), Vancouver, BC, August 2002.

[33] Pan Hui, Jeremie Leguay, Jon Crowcroft, James Scott, Timur Friedman,Vania, Osmosis in Pocket Switched Networks, In Proceeding of the First

254254254

International Conference on Communications and Networking in China,Oct 25-27, Beijing, China

[34] Uichin Lee, Joon-Sang Park, Seung-Hoon Lee, Won W. Ro, GiovanniPau, Mario Gerla, Efficient Peer-to-peer File Sharing using NetworkCoding in MANET, Journal of Communications and Networks (JCN),Special Issue on Network Coding , November 2008.

[35] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet. Optimized Link-State Routing Protocol,IETFRFC-3626, October 2003.

[36] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, Ad hoc On-Demand DistanceVector (AODV) Routing, RFC 3561, July 2003

[37] A. Helmy, S. Garg, P. Pamu, N. Nahata, CARD: A Contact-basedArchitecture for Resource Discovery in Ad Hoc Network”, Journal: ACMMobile Networks and Applications (MONET) , Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 99-113, February 2005.

[38] Hedetniemi, S.M., Hedetniemi, T.S. and Liestman, A.L., A surveyof gossiping and broadcasting in communication networks. Journal:Networks. volume 18. 319-349.

[39] Nadir Shah, Depei Qian, An Efficient Overlay for Unstructured P2PFile Sharing over MANET using Underlying Cluster-based Routing,KSIITRANSACTIONS ON INTERNET AND INFORMATION SYSTEMSVOL. 4 NO. 5 October 2010

[40] Nadir Shah and Depei Qian, ”An efficient unstructured P2P overlay forfile sharing over MANETs using underlying reactive routing”, Journal ofInternet Technology (SCIE),2011, Vol. 12 No. 3, P.517-530

[41] ww.isi.edu/nsnam/ns 03 November 2009[42] http://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/wg/cs/applications/bonnmotion/, November

2009

255255255

[ieee 2011 seventh international conference on mobile ad-hoc and sensor networks (msn) - beijing,...

Documents