GREEDY FACE ROUTING ALGORITHM FOR MOBILE NETWORK
DEVICES
Kshitij Dogra, Author
Abstract – Routing over Wireless networks has
been a constant field of study. In this research
paper, we present a version of face routing
mechanism which is a hybrid of traditional face
routing and greedy routing.. We have tried to
exploit the geometry of a wireless network in
which the packet moves along the geographic
edges of the face of a network graph, and chooses
a greedy approach under a specific circumstance.
This greedy methodology poses a low routing
overhead, and ensures guarantee and optimality
in path selection. We simulate the proposal using
NS-2 and vary the basic networking parameters to
study the results. Thus we can say that the work
done is novel and gives an insight to wireless
routing.
Keywrds – Ad hoc networks, Traditional Face Routing,
greedy approach
I. INTRODUCTION
A wireless ad-hoc network consists of a collection of
nodes that communicate with each other through
wireless links without a pre-established networking
infrastructure. It originated from battlefield
communication applications, where infrastructure
networks are often impossible. Due to its flexibility
in deployment, there are many potential applications
of a wireless ad-hoc network.
In a data communication network, if two nodes are
not connected directly by a communication link, their
messages to each other need to be forwarded by
intermediate nodes. Finding a path between two
nodes on which to send messages in data
communication networks is a fundamental problem,
called routing. In a traditional computer network,
there are nodes dedicated to the routing task, called
routers. Applications on hosts communicate with
servers and messages are forwarded by routers to
their destinations. In contrast to traditional computer
networks, wireless ad-hoc networks do not
distinguish between hosts, servers, and routers.
Wireless ad-hoc networks are also different from
wireless networks with base stations, such as cellular
phone systems, in which messages are relayed by the
base stations. In wireless ad-hoc networks, nodes are
not only application hosts, but also function as
routers to forward messages for other nodes that are
not within direct wireless transmission range of each
other. The participating nodes form a self-organized
network without any centralized administration or
support. Therefore, wireless ad-hoc networks are
purely distributed systems. The characteristics of
wireless ad-hoc networks that are different from
traditional networks pose two specific challenges in
routing. First, since there are no dedicated routers nor
persistent routing databases, wireless ad-hoc
networks require fully distributed routing protocols.
Second, the topology of a wireless ad-hoc network
can change frequently and unpredictably. A routing
protocol for a wireless ad-hoc network must be well
adapted to the constant changes of topology. These
characteristics make routing in wireless ad-hoc
networks an interesting and challenging problem.
Limited battery capacity and overall communication
bandwidth mandates that message forwarding has to
be performed in a resource efficient manner.
Basic Concept of Face Routing
Face routing was the first geometric routing
algorithm that guaranteed message delivery without
flooding. Several variants of face routing protocols
were subsequently proposed. Planar graph routing
which is also referred as face routing is the most
prominent recovery strategy preserving the stateless
property of geographic greedy routing mechanisms.
The basic idea is to planarize the network graph in a
localized manner and to forward a message along one
or possibly a sequence of adjacent faces which are
providing progress towards the destination node.
The network formed by wireless nodes which are
deployed on a plane can be modeled by a two
dimensional geometric graph. Each network node v is
represented by a point in the plane which follows
from the node’s location. Two points v and w are
connected by a straight line v-w if their
corresponding network nodes are connected by an
edge in the network graph. A two dimensional
geometric graph is planar if any two edges intersect
in their end points only.
A network formed by a wireless network can be
modeled by a 2-D network graph. A simple graph
model for wireless ad-hoc networks is the unit disk
graph (UDG) model, in which each pair of vertices
are connected directly by an edge if and only if they
are at most distance 1 apart. A unit disk graph models
a wireless ad-hoc network in which the nodes have
same circular transmission range. Nodes are
considered to be stationary during the routing
process, so a unit disk graph is a static graph
representing a snapshot of the network at a point in
time. An enhancement is the quasi unit disk graph
(QUDG). It allows the transmission region of nodes
to be non-circular. In a quasi unit disk graph, there is
a constant k, where 0 < k < 1, such that nodes at most
distance k apart are connected by an edge, nodes
more than distance 1 apart are not connected by an
edge, and nodes with distance in between may or
may not be connected by an edge. It is a static graph
model where no change of the network graph is
allowed during the routing process.
The edges of a planar graph constitute polygons
which partition the plane into several inner and one
outer face. The basic idea of planar graph routing is
to forward a message along the interiors of a
sequence of adjacent faces which are providing
progress towards the destination node t, e.g. the
sequence F1, F2, F3, F4 depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1:A message visits a sequence of faces providing
progress towards the final destination in face routing.
Exploration of a single surface can be done in a
localized way by applying either the left hand or the
right hand rule. Place the left on the edge of the face
boundary and continue exploring the edges by
travelling along the interior of the face. Message
forwarding according to the left hand rule is similar
to sending the message along the edge which is lying
next in counterclockwise direction from the
previously visited edge. The right hand rule in
contrast sends the packets to the clockwise direction
in respect to the previously visited edge. For an
example to the forwarding according to the left and
right hand rule, refer to the Fig. 1.Applying the right
hand rule and starting with the edge sv1 will result in
the circle s-v1-v2-v3-v4-s. Applying the left hand
rule and starting with the edge sv4 will result in the
circle s-v4-v3-v2-v1-s
Traditional face routing approach
In the original method of face routing, the packet is
forwarded along the boundary of the first face
intersected by the line segment from the starting
point to the destination. The first edge of the traversal
of a face is the first edge in clockwise order around
the starting point from the line segment to the
destination. After the traversal of an edge (u, v), the
next edge of the face traversal is the first edge after
(v, u) in clockwise order around v. In this way, the
packet traverses the edges on the boundary of the
face in the counterclockwise direction. The traversal
in this way is called using the right-hand rule. When
the traversal reaches an edge that intersects the line
segment from the starting point to the destination at a
point closer to the destination than the starting point
is, that point becomes the new starting point and the
traversal switches to the next face. This procedure
repeats until the destination is reached.
Fig. 2: Original face routing technique using 7 edges of
graph.
Greedy face routing approach
In case of greedy routing, a node forwards the packet
to the neighbor that is closest to the destination in
terms of distance or direction. Greedy routing is very
simple and efficient since nodes do not need to
maintain routing information, and packets are
forwarded immediately without being duplicated.
Compared to other protocols, greedy routing has
extremely low routing overhead and it scales well to
large wireless ad-hoc networks. However, greedy
routing does not guarantee that a packet reaches its
destination.
 Fig. 3: Greedy routing technique using 8 edges of
graph.

II. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

We propose a new version of face routing for that
guarantees message delivery while naturally
incorporating a greedy approach. It switches between
traditional face routing and greedy routing. The main
difference lies in the choosing of the new starting
point. In our protocol, the new starting point can be
an intersection point on the line from the source to
the destination. Specifically, in our new version,
starting from the starting point of a face, the packet is Fig. 5 : Flowchart for Greedy Face Routing
forwarded along the boundary of the face intersected
by the line segment from the starting point to the We are now in a position to state the algorithm that
destination, until it finds a point on the face that is we have made in this concern.
closer to the destination than the starting point is.
Then this point becomes the new starting point and Algorithm for new face routing technque
the packet starts to traverse the face intersected by the
line segment from the new starting point to the We propose a set of algorithms for implementing our
destination. This procedure repeats until the packet new version of face routing. The first algorithm,
reaches the destination. FaceDetection ( G (S) ), is aimed at identifying the
faces present in a planar static graph using its edges.
The second algorithm, FaceSwitch (Forg, Fadj, n, n1,
d), is used for switching the face during the course of
routing. The third algorithm, FaceRouting (F, s-d),
decides the edge traversal sequence within a face
selected for face routing. The final algorithm
GreedyFaceRouting (G(S), s, d) implements greedy
face routing.

We now show the firs algorithm, that is ‘Face

detection’

Fig. 4 : New Face Routing Technique

(5 edges)

As mentioned earlier, our method of routing works as

a combination of traditional approach and the greedy
method, we hereby show the flow diagram depicting
the schematic structure that has been adopted.
 Algorithm FaceDetection ( G (S) ): Algorithm FaceRouting (F, s-d)
Input: Edge set S={e1, e2, e3,…..,en} of Planar graph G Input: Face F={e1, e2, e3,…..,en} with edges ei forming an n-sided face and line s-d
joining source node s and destination node d.
Output: Edge set S`={ S`1, S`2, S`3,…..,S`n} , where S`i (0 < i < n) is a subset of S
forming an i-sided face Output: Edge set E={e1, e2, e3,…..,ek} along which packet is to be routed
1. Set S’NULL
1. Identify edge eend from F which intersects line s-d where e1<eend<ek
2. Set k 3 //minimal face can be formed by 3 nodes
2. Set E  NULL
3. For k 3 to n do
3. With s as center, rotate clockwise from line s-d to find first edge e1 of F
a. For each subset R{ e1, e2, e3,…..,ek} from S
4. Ee1
i. If e1 = ek then //condition for edges to form a face
1. S`kS`k + R 5. While e1 is not equal to eend do
ii. End if a. Select next edge ej rotating clockwise from previous edge
b. End for b. EE+ej
c. k  k + 1 6. End while
4. End for 7. Return E
5. Return S` 8. End
6. End

The next algorithm performs the task of

We now present the algorithm for face switching.
This algorithm shows whether to continue with the
current method or to switch to the greedy approach.
Algorithm FaceSwitch (Forg, Fadj, n, n1, d)
implementing greedy face routing in a wireless ad-
hoc network. It uses the previously presented face
identification and switching algorithms in order to
establish an optimal routing path.

Inputs: Algorithm GreedyFaceRouting (G(S), s, d)

 The current face being traversed (Forg). Inputs:

 Face adjacent to the current face (Fadj)
 Node common on both faces n  Edge set S={e1, e2, e3,…..,en} of Planar graph G
 Next node on current face n1  Source node s
 Destination node d  Destination node d

Output: Next face to be traversed Fnext Output: Packet routed from source to destination node

1. If n is not equal to d then 1. S`  FaceDetection(G(S))

a. If distance between n – d < distance between n1 – d // Greedy routing 2. Connect source node s and destination node d by a line s-d
i. Fnext  F adj 3. Identify face set F` which lie on line s-d
b. Else 4. ns
i. Fnext  Forg 5. n1  s+1
ii. Continue face routing on current face using FaceRouting (F, s-d) 6. For each face F in F` do
c. End if a. FaceSwitch (Forg, Fadj, n, n1, d)
2. End if 7. End for
3. End 8. End

These algorithms state the effective routing, by

The following algorithm implements face routing
within a face of a planar network graph. In other
words, it gives the set of edges which should be
traversed according to the traditional approach of
face routing.
utilizing both the geometrical approach and the
greedy routing.
III. ANALYSIS
We now compare the performance of the devised
greedy face routing protocol by variation of traffic
parameters.
The tool used for monitoring the performance of the
network is NS2 with NAM. The graphs have been
plotted using the XGRAPH utility available in
LINUX environment which uses the trace files
generated by Network Simulator to plot graphs of
traffic flow through the network nodes.
 2. Parameters - Simulation for multiple sources and
single sink under varying packet rates

Source Packet Packet Idle Packet

Node size Burst Time Rate
(kB) (s) (s) (k)
1 200 1 2 100
9 200 1 2 200
7 200 1 2 300

Fig. 6: CBR traffic

This screenshot shows the routing of packets in our

proposed topology using greedy face routing
algorithm . The network sends a constant bit rate
(CBR) traffic from source node 12 to node
destination node 2.
We now simulate this network based upon the below
mentioned parameters.

1. Parameters – Simulation for multiple sources and

single sink with constant parameters

Source Packet Packet Idle Packet

Node size Burst Time Rate
3. Parameters - Simulation for multiple sources and
(kB) (s) (s) (k) single sink under varying idle times
1 200 1 2 200
Source Packet Packet Idle Packet
9 200 1 2 200
Node size Burst Time Rate
7 200 1 2 200
(kB) (s) (s) (k)
1 200 1 1 200
9 200 1 2 200
7 200 1 3 200
 varying parameters pertaining to network traffic such
as packet size, packet rate, burst rate and idle time.

Our future work shall entail our simulation results

and comparison of this protocol with existing ad-hoc
network routing protocols such as AODV, DSR etc.
Our thrust lies primarily in the fact that our face
routing protocol exploits the geometry of the
network, which is not the case with existing
algorithms.

V. REFERENCES
[1] Robust Position based routing for wireless ad-hoc
networks, Kousha Moaveninejad, Wen-Zhan Song,
Xiang-Yang Li, Elsevier Science, Illinois Institute of
4. Parameters - Simulation for multiple sources and Technology
single sink under varying burst rate [2] Face Routing in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks,
Xiaoyang Guan, Graduate Department of Computer
Source Packet Packet Idle Packet Science University of Toronto, Copyright 2009 by
Xiaoyang Guan
Node size Burst Time Rate [3] Prevention of Impersonation Attack in wireless
mobile ad-hoc networks, Latha Tamilselvan and Dr.
(kB) (s) (s) (k) V. Sankaranarayanan, IJCSNS International Journal
of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.7
1 200 2 2 200 No.3, March 2007
[4] On Delivery Guarantees of Face and Combined
9 200 4 2 200 Greedy-Face Routing in Ad Hoc and Sensor
7 200 6 2 200 Networks, Hannes Frey, Ivan Stojmenovic,
MobiCom’06, September 23–26, 2006, Los Angeles,
California, USA.
[5] Real Time Intrusion Detection for Ad-hoc
networks, Ioanna Stamouli, University of Dublin,
September 2003.
[6] Young-Jin Kim, Ramesh Govindan, Brad Karp,
and Scott Shenker. On the pitfalls of geographic face
routing. In Third ACM/SIGMOBILE International
Workshop on Foundation of Mobile Computing,
DIAL-M-POMC, 2005.

IV Conclusion and Future Work

We devised a new routing strategy combining the
conventional approach of face routing while
inherently using a greedy strategy. We proposed a set
of algorithms to execute this routing strategy. We
also presented the performance of the network by