Cluster-Based Networks
Niththiyanathan Jeyaratnarajah
Helsinki University of Technology
Espoo, Finland
Email: jeyaratn@cc.hut.fi
Abstract
Cluster-based network control structures promote more
efficient use of resources in controlling large dynamic
networks. Therefore they are very good candidates for ad
hoc networks. There are many types of cluster-based
architectures proposed in the literature for specific
purposes. Of them link-cluster architecture is specifically
designed for transmission management in ad hoc
networks. Near-Term Digital Radio Network (NTDR)
architecture and virtual subnet architecture are the
clustering methods used for backbone formation.
Hierarchical routing- quasi, or strict - is the favored
approach to improve routing efficiency in cluster-based
networks. Either link-state routing or distance-vector
routing is used in hierarchical routing. SURAN and
MMWN routing architectures are based on strict-
hierarchical routing.
1 Introduction
A communication network is an entity with dynamically
changing states in an unpredictable manner. To meet
performance goals prescribed for user traffic, a network
must be able to adapt its behavior to accommodate
changes in its intrinsic properties such as connectivity,
capacity and offered load. The control functions
governing the network's performance have the following
objectives which are competing:
Ø Quick and accurate response when adapting
network's behavior to current network state.
Ø Minimal use of network resources during and after
the adaptation process.
The networks that constantly change connectivity (e.g.,
mobile networks) or are large with a large amount of
configuration parameters are better served by self-
organizing controlled structure. They are built and
maintained by nodes, and provide increased network
availability, faster response to state changes, less
probability of configuration errors.
The appropriate network control structure and algorithms
for using this type of structure are chosen depending on
the control functions to be performed, size of the
network and the expected frequency and magnitude of
changes in network state.
Cluster-based control structures promote more efficient
use of resources in controlling large dynamic networks.
With cluster based control, the physical network is
transformed into a virtual network of interconnected
node clusters. There can be one or more controllers per
cluster and their functions are to make control decisions
for cluster members, construct and distribute
representations of cluster state for external use.
This paper presents several cluster based control
structures and associated control algorithms for large
dynamic networks. Applicability of these structures and
algorithms to ad hoc networks are also investigated
particularly on routing functions. Cluster-based control
networks improves efficiency of resource use by creating
contexts for:
Ø Managing wireless transmission among multiple
nodes to reduce channel contention.
Ø Forming routing backbones to reduce network
diameter.
Ø Abstracting network state information to reduce its
quantity and variability.
2 Cluster based network
architectures
The cluster based control structures used in ad hoc
networks to achieve specific purposes are described
below.
2.1 Link-cluster architecture
This type of architecture is used in multiple-access
broadcast environments. Distinct clusters of nodes are
formed in such a way that transmissions are managed in
a contention-free manner, thus reducing interference. In
this architecture, all network nodes autonomously
organize themselves into interconnected clusters Each
cluster contains a clusterhead, one or more gateways,
and zero or more ordinary nodes as shown in Figure 1.
The clusterhead schedules transmissions and allocates
resources within the clusters. Gateways connect adjacent
clusters. A gateway may directly connect two clusters as
a member of both, or indirectly connect two clusters as a
member of one and forming a link to a member of the
other. Therefore architecture can contain both
overlapping and disjoint clusters.
Nodes establish a link-clustered architecture over a
physical network by the following:
Gateway
Ordinary Node Cluster Clusterhead
Figure 1: The Link-Clustered Architecture
1. Discovering neighbors with bi-directional
connectivity by broadcasting a list of those
neighbors that they can hear and by receiving
broadcasts from neighbors.
2. Electing clusterheads and forming clusters.
3. Agreeing on gateways between clusters.
2.1.1 Clusterheads
There are at least two algorithms proposed for the
election of clusterheads in the literature, namely
identifier-based clustering and connectivity-based
clustering. Implementation for both algorithms can be
either distributed or centralized. With the centralized
version, the node with the lowest or highest numbered
identifier (identifier based) or with the largest number of
neighbors (connectivity based) is chosen as a clusterhead
for the cluster containing that node and its one-hop
neighbors. With the distributed version of identifier-
based clustering, a node elects itself if it has the lowest
or highest numbered identifier in its neighborhood. With
the distributed version of connectivity-based clustering,
a node becomes a clusterhead if it is the most highly
connected of all of its neighbors which are not elected as
clusterheads.
The variants of clustering algorithms that always form
disjoint clusters for the above two methods are also
described in the literature. In those cases clusterheads are
used only as aids in cluster formation and not as
coordinators of intra-cluster transmission.
2.1.2 Node Mobility
As nodes move about the network, cluster membership
must be updated accordingly to ensure proper scheduling
of transmissions. Clustering algorithms described by
Baker, Ephremidis, Wieselthier, Gerla, and Tsai
recompute cluster membership, and clusterhead and
gateway status whenever a node moves in or out of a
cluster. Identifier-based clustering is more stable than
connectivity-based clustering in the cluster
recomputation approach. This is because a node's
clusterhead status may change more frequently with
connectivity based clustering.
The least cluster change algorithm reduces the number of
changes in clusterhead status due to node movement. In
this algorithm, a change in clusterhead status occurs only
if two clusterheads move within the range of each other
and in this case one of them relinquishes its clusterhead
or an ordinary node moves out of range of any other
node and becomes a clusterhead for its own cluster. The
cluster maintenance schemes are also proposed by Lin
and Gerla to minimize the number of changes in the set
of existing clusters as nodes move.
2.1.3 Routing
The link-clustered architecture provides a natural routing
backbone consisting of clusterheads and gateways and
the links between them. However, clusterheads as points
of traffic concentration may become congested and each
clusterhead may become a failure point for
communication across its cluster. Therefore, link-
clustered architecture is not used as routing control
architecture in routing algorithms. Instead, each node
distributes and collects routing information, and
generates and selects routes. However, clusters exists to
define regions for transmission management primarily
and to form a routing backbone in link-clustered
architecture.
2.2 Near-Term Digital Radio (NTDR)
Network
Near-Term Digital Radio (NTDR) networking has been
designed for and deployed in large tactical networks.
This is used as one of the clustering methods for
backbone formation.
NTDR produces a set of clusters, each containing a
clusterhead, which are linked together forming a routing
backbone as shown in Figure 2. It comprises single level
of clusters with nodes within one hop of a clusterhead
similar to link-clustered architecture. However, NTDR
architecture differs from link-clustered architecture in
the following. Clusterheads function as gateways for
direct inter-cluster communications. All intra-cluster
communication must traverse through the clusterhead
except for the neighboring nodes within one hop to each
other.
All nodes are capable of quickly becoming clusterheads
as need arises from the node interconnectivity changes
due to frequent node movements or outage of
clusterheads. Each node keeps track of the neighbors
with which it has bi-directional connectivity by receiving
and periodically broadcasting beacons.
Cluster
Cluster Member Backbone Link
Clusterhead
Figure 2: The NTDR Network Architecture
2.2.1 Clusterheads
An NTDR node elects itself as clusterhead if it does not
receive beacons from any clusterhead or if it receives
beacons advertising two different partition identifiers.
The NTDR algorithm uses the following mechanisms to
limit the number of nodes simultaneously attempting to
Guest Node
become clusterheads:
Ø Each node that detects one of the conditions for
becoming clusterhead waits a short random time
interval and tests again the conditions. If the
condition persists following the waiting period , the
node assumes the role of clusterhead.
Ø Each new clusterhead immediately issues beacons
in quick succession proclaiming its status.
Light-grey Virtual Subnet
2.2.2 Cluster Affiliation
A node seeking cluster affiliation prefers clusters such
that
Ø The node and the clusterhead belong to the same
organization.
Ø The signal from the clusterhead is transmitted at low
power but received at high strength.
Ø The resulting cluster size is relatively small.
A cluster member remains affiliated with its chosen
clusterhead until one of the following occurs:
Ø The clusterhead relinquishes its role.
Ø The clusterhead's beacons no longer list the
member.
Ø The received signal strength from the clusterhead is
unacceptably low.
2.2.3 Routing
In the NTDR network, the clusterheads are responsible
for maintaining backbone and hence monitor and
distribute information among themselves about the
changes in backbone. Each clusterhead generates
membership information of its cluster and link state
information of its links to neighboring clusterheads. It
floods the information over the backbone and computes
routes to other network nodes on the basis of it. The link
state includes a 'resistance' metric, that is a measure of
interference likely to be encountered by future
transmissions over the links. Clusterheads compute least-
resistance routes to destinations using Dijkstra's shortest-
path-first (SPF) algorithm.
2.3 Virtual Subnet Architecture
The virtual subnet architecture employs a set of several
disjoint routing backbones to provide fault-tolerant
connectivity and load balancing in a multihop mobile
wireless network. Based on the node locality, the
network is first divided into a set of physical subnets
of disjoint clusters. Members of different physical
subnets are clustered together to form virtual subnets,
each of which spans all physical subnets.
Physical Subnet
Dark-grey Virtual Subnet
Black Virtual Subnet
Figure 3: The virtual Subnet Architecture
Neighboring physical subnets and all virtual subnets are
assigned different frequencies for communication to
reduce interference. Both the maximum number, P, of
physical subnets and the maximum number, Q, of virtual
subnets in the network are predetermined.
Each node is a member of exactly one physical and zero
or more virtual subnets, as shown Figure 3. A node
might belong to multiple virtual subnets if it
communicates frequently with those subnets' members.
A node's address within this cluster-based control
structure uniquely identifies both its physical and virtual
subnet affiliations by the prefix of its address
representing the physical subnet and suffix of its address
representing the virtual subnet. If a node is member of
multiple virtual subnets, it will possess multiple address
suffixes and hence multiple addresses.
The virtual subnet architecture presents a framework for
organizing and using multiple overlaid routing
backbones in an ad hoc network. Therefore, s complete
set of networking algorithms such as subnet clustering,
frequency assignment, distribution of address and
routing information, computing of routes, and
forwarding of packets, compatible with this architecture
has to be specified before it could be realized as an
actual ad hoc network.
2.3.1 Node Mobility
When a node moves from one location to another, it may
require to join another physical subnet and new virtual
subnet to remain connected to the network. The node
affiliates one of the proximate physical subnets and one
of the available virtual subnets (one with unfilled quota
Q). If all proximate subnets have filled their quotas of
virtual subnet affiliations, the node affiliates with one of
those physical subnets as a "guest" and may later
become a member, if space is available. The node then
announces its new acquired address to all members of its
new physical and virtual subnets.
When source node wants to communicate with a
destination node, it first distributes an address query
within its physical subnet, using globally unique
location-invariant identifier for the destination. If the
destination is currently affiliated with a virtual subnet
represented by some member of the source's physical
subnet, the destination's address will be returned to the
source. If it is not, source distributes the address query
within its virtual subnet. In this case, the destination's
address will be returned, if the destination is currently
affiliated with a physical subnet represented by some
member of one of the source's virtual subnets.
2.3.2 Routing
Availability of multiple routes within virtual subnet
architecture increases a source's ability to efficiently and
quickly obtain an alternate route to destination and hence
to maintain existing session, as nodes move and
connectivity changes within the network.
There are two strategies suggested for multiple
forwarding. The first is direct routing, in which the
source forwards packets to the destination solely on the
basis of source and destination addresses.
If a node is found in such a way that it is a member of
source's physical subnet and destination's virtual subnet
as shown in Figure 4 (a), packets are forwarded through
that node. If the destination node is a guest of a physical
subnet, packets are routed through a node which is a
member of source's virtual subnet and destination's
physical subnet as shown in Figure 4 (b).
Source Destination
Destination's virtual
subnet
(a)
Source's physical Destination's physical
Source
Destination
Source's virtual subnet
(b)
Figure 4: Direct Routing
However, this simple routing may not be possible in the
presence of highly mobile nodes. The second strategy is
long-path routing which randomly distributes the routes
selected over the space of possible routes, and thus helps
the network to accommodate partitioned subnets and to
balance traffic load among nodes. The source chooses
randomly one of the virtual subnets represented within
its physical subnet. if it is not a member of that virtual
subnet packets will be forwarded to a node which is a
member of the source's physical subnet and chosen
virtual subnet. From there, routing is done to a member
node of both chosen virtual subnet and destination's
physical subnet as shown in Figure 5(a).
If source is a member of the chosen virtual subnet, it
selects randomly a distinct physical subnet from its own
but represented within its virtual subnet and routes
packets through it to destination as shown in Figure 5(b).
Long-path routing produces at most Q+P-1 different
routes from a source to a destination if each subnet is
connected. When there are partitioned subnets, each
intermediate node along the route may have to make
random selections on next hop subnet to route around
such partitions increasing the number of possible routes.
Therefore route length can become very long. However,
 nodes can reduce route lengths by making available Routing schemes can operate correctly in the presence of
more information on their interconnectivity and using nonancestral clusters and therefore disjointness criterion
the information for route selection. Accordingly nodes is not a necessary condition.
can adopt a routing strategy which is a combination of
the two described before.
Level-3 cluster
Selected virtual Destination's
Source's physical physical subnet
subnet subnet
Level-2 cluster

Level-1 cluster

Level-0 cluster
Source Destination
Selected virtual
subnet
y
Destination's
Source's virtual virtual subnet
subnet

Source's physical Destination's

subnet physical subnet

Destination Figure 6: The Nested Cluster Architecture

Source

The hierarchical routing scheme can be classified to be

Figure 5: Long-Path Routing
3 Routing in cluster-based networks
The inherently dynamic nature of ad hoc networks poses
challenges on the design of effective yet efficient routing
functions. Routing functions are focused in this section.
3.1 Hierarchical routing
Hierarchical cluster-based control structure is a network
consisting of N nodes organized into an m-level
hierarchy of nested clusters of nodes, as shown in Figure
6, such that all level-i clusters are disjoint for 0≤i<m .
Each node is a level-0 cluster. They are grouped into
level-1 clusters that in turn are grouped into level-2
clusters, and so on, such that eventually all level-(m-1)
clusters are grouped into a single level-m cluster
containing all nodes. Addressing scheme for this type of
nested cluster structure is of hierarchical type. The
address is expressed as the concatenation of the labels of
the level-(m-1) through level-0 clusters that contain the
node. For example, with respect to the clustering
hierarchy depicted in Figure 6, the address of the node z
is x.y.z with u as the implicit prefix .
quasi-hierarchical or strict-hierarchical. The distinction
between them is elaborated with the following example.
Let's assume that ck is the lowest-level cluster containing
both the source and destination of a session. With quasi-
hierarchical routing, a packet is routed directly from the
source, s0, to the boundary of dk-1, the level-(k-1) cluster
of the destination, d0. From there, the packet is routed
directly to the boundary of dk-2, d0's level-(k-2) cluster
and so on, until finally being routed directly from the
boundary of d1 to d0. With strict-hierarchical routing, a
packet is routed indirectly from s0 to the boundary of sk-1,
s0's level-(k-1) cluster, as follows. First, the packet is
routed directly from s0 to the boundary of s1. From there,
it is routed through level-1 clusters in s2, until it reaches
the boundary of s2, and so on, until it reaches the
boundary of sk-1. Once at the boundary of sk-1, the packet
is routed through level-(k-1) clusters in ck to the
boundary of dk-1. From there, the packet is routed
through level-(k-2) clusters in dk-1 to reach the boundary
of dk-2, and so on, until finally being routed directly
from the boundary of d1 to d0. The following Figure 7
depicts the two ways.

Strict-hierarchical Route
s0
s1 d2
s2 Quasi-hierarchical Route c3
Figure 7: Quasi-hierarchical Routing versus Strict-
hierarchical Routing
3.1.1 Quasi-hierarchical routing
Most of the hierarchical cluster-based routing fall into
the quasi-hierarchical category. Furthermore, almost all
quasi-hierarchical routing schemes are derivatives of the
distance vector routing approach. In this case, the
objective is to determine the next hop on the minimum-
cost route from a node to each level-i cluster within the
node's level-(i+1) cluster, for 0≤i<m. The information
about routing inside of the cluster is not distributed
outside the cluster.
This routing scheme reduces the routing information
received and forwarding information retained by each
node from O(N) for a nonhierarchical control structure to
O(mCmax) for an m-level hierarchical control structure of
nested clusters, where Cmax is the maximum number,
over all i, of level-i clusters contained within a level-
(i+1) cluster. For large values of m and arbitrary sources
and destinations, this quasi-hierarchical routing scheme
may yield routes whose costs are larger than those of the
true minimum-cost paths. However, in practice clusters
are formed with only a few levels and the cost difference
is often small.
Quasi-hierarchical routing can also be based on link state
routing . With this scheme, nodes generate, distribute,
and use hierarchical routing information as follows. Each
node within a level-1 cluster floods, to other nodes
within the cluster, its link state information expressed as
link cost to its neighboring nodes. All nodes then
generate minimum-cost routes via Dijkstra's SPF
algorithm to all other nodes within that cluster. Each gate
node on the boundary of a cluster uses intra-cluster link-
state information to compute every other gate for the
cluster. A gate then constructs link state information in
the form of costs over virtual links to "neighboring"
gates both within the same cluster and in adjacent
clusters connected to the gate via direct links. The gate
floods this link-state information to all other gates in all
level-1 clusters. Then all gates in the network generate
minimum-cost routes to all other gates, and hence to all
other clusters, in the network. Moreover, each gate
floods its intra-cluster nodes its minimum costs to all
other clusters. By combining this inter-cluster cost
information with the intra-cluster link-state information,
d0
a node can determine the next hop on the minimum-cost
route to any destination cluster.
d1
Cluster
Gate
Virtual links
Figure 8: The Link-State Routing Architecture with
Gates
Distance-vector and link-state quasi-hierarchical routing
schemes can be applied as hybrid schemes for routing in
large tactical packet radio networks. This hybrid scheme
was suggested for Survivable Adaptive Networks
(SURAN) program. In this scheme, each node ultimately
uses distance-vector routing to determine the next hop on
the minimum-cost route to each destination, but for
destination outside of its cluster the distance vector
routing information is in part derived from link-state
information between clusters and super clusters.
Both quasi-hierarchical routing schemes such as regional
node routing and landmark routing enlist certain nodes
as focal points for routing. The focal nodes help guide
nodes in making forwarding decisions for a packet as it
travels from source to destination.
With regional node routing , each level-k cluster, termed
as k-region, contains one (or more) k-regional nodes
except the top-level m-region. Node affiliations to
 regions and the addressing scheme are depicted in the
following Figure 9.
Level-3
Level-2
Level-1
x cluster c' stored in the forwarding table is always a node
Level-0
a
y
z hop to c' is a level-i cluster that is neighbor of c. If c' and
b contains at least one node, y, with direct link to c'. With
c
0-regional
1-regional Address of c:
2-regional x-a.z-b.c
Figure 9: The Regional Node Routing Architecture
With landmark routing, each level-i landmark, x defines
a level-i cluster consisting of all nodes that are within the
radius of ri(x) node hops from x, where 0< ri(x) ≤ ri and
rI is the maximum radius permitted for level-i cluster.
Each level-m landmark has a radius that is at least as
large as the diameter of the network and each node is a
leve-0 landmark. For 0<i≤m, more than one level-i
landmark is also a level-(i+1) landmark and for each
such landmark, y, rI+1(y)>rI(y).
3.1.2 Strict-hierarchical Routing
Strict-hierarchical routing is a favored approach in
mobile wireless networks due to their robustness in the
presence of network state changes. The robustness
comes at the expense of increased route costs and packet
forwarding overhead compared to those for quasi-
statistical routing.
In this type of routing, a representative of a level-i
cluster, c, gathers its routing information and distributes
(employing either the distance-vector or the link-state
approach) to representatives of other level-i clusters
within its level-(i+1) cluster. Using routing information
similarly obtained from other clusters, c's representative
computes the minimum-cost routes and next-hop clusters
from c to any other level-i clusters within its level-(i+1)
cluster. Subsequently, the representative of c distributes
the route cost and next-hop cluster information together
with the cluster boundary information to all nodes within
c..
There are two key differences between strict-hierarchical
routing and quasi-hierarchical routing with respect to
forwarding information. The first difference concerns
the number of forwarding table entries a node must
consult to determine the next-hop node to a destination.
With quasi-hierarchical routing, the next hop to level-i
which is a neighbor of node x. With strict-hierarchical
routing, the next hop to c' stored in the forwarding table
is always a cluster at level j≤ i, as explained below. For
an entry for c' to appear in x's forwarding table, c' and x's
level-i cluster, c, must be siblings within x's level-(i+1)
cluster. If c' and c are nonneighboring siblings, the next
c are neighboring siblings, the next hop to c' is a level-j
cluster, where 0≤j<i, that lies on the boundary of c and
quasi-hierarchical routing, a node can determine the next
hop to any destination using a single forwarding table
entry, whereas wit strict-hierarchical routing, a node may
have to consult up to 2m-1 forwarding table entries to
determine the next-hop node to a destination. In practice
m remains small.
The second difference concerns the costs of the routes
from which the forwarding entries are derived. With
quasi-hierarchical routing, the cost to reach the level-i
cluster, c', from x is always the true minimum cost as it
is computed as the sum of individual link costs. With the
strict-hierarchical routing, the cost to reach c' from x is
computed as the sum of the individual cluster costs over
all level-i in the route from c to c'. Therefore the latter
routing is likely to yield higher-cost routes than the
former routing.
The following strict-hierarchical routing scheme was
chosen for use in SURAN packet radio network because
of route stability in the presence of dynamically
changing nodes and links. Each node uses distance-
vector routing to determine the minimum cost routes and
next-hop nodes to all nodes within its cluster and to all
neighboring clusters within its supercluster. As shown in
Figure 10 one node within each cluster (or supercluster)
acts as a clusterhead (or super-clusterhead) that is
responsible for generating and distributing routing
information about the cluster (or supercluster) to all
other clusters (or superclusters) within the same
supercluster (or network).
Each clusterhead (or superclusterhead) determines the
connectivity and cost to each neighboring clusterhead (or
super-clusterhead). It then floods this link-state
information to all clusterheads (or super-clusterheads) in
its supercluster (or network). Suggested costs from one
clusterhead (or super-clusterhead) include the number of
node hops to the neighboring clusterhead (or super-
clusterhead), the number of cluster hops to the
neighboring super-clusterhead, and the value 1 to
indicate inter(super)cluster connectivity only.
Supercluster
Node Cluster
Border Node
Clusterhead
Super-clusterhead
Figure 10: The SURAN Routing Architecture
A hybrid strict-hierarchical routing scheme is used in
large, tactical packet radio networks. This routing
scheme is strict-hierarchical in terms of forwarding table
entries, but it is also quasi-hierarchical in terms of the
granularity and propagation of routing information.
Each node participates in distance-vector routing to
determine the minimum cost route and corresponding
next hop to each node in its level-1 cluster and add to
discover the boundary nodes of that level-1 cluster and
their connectivity of neighboring clusters. Within a
level-1 cluster, route cost is expressed in terms of the
number of node hops and the next hop is neighboring
node. Routing outside of node's level-1 cluster is
accomplished with information provided by global
routing nodes. Each level-1 cluster contains a global
routing node playing the role of cluster representatives.
Global routing nodes execute the quasi-hierarchical
routing procedure.
The link-based strict-hierarchical routing schemes
described below were designed to provide quality of
service routing in large dynamic networks. Both
schemes have the following features:
Ø Nodes represent and distribute routing information
according to the link-state approach, at all levels of
the clustering hierarchy.
Ø Nodes select routes with the objective of satisfying
individual users' service requests given the
constraints imposed by the current state of the
network, and they forward packets as directed by the
sources.
Destination-based packet forwarding employed by the
hierarchical routing schemes so far is not sufficient in
the context of quality-of-service provision. Not only
does source-directed forwarding offer quality-of-service
but also does it ensure that different nodes make
forwarding decisions consistent with the route selected
by the source and hence increase the chances of
successful packet delivery. Moreover, source-directed
forwarding usually results in smaller forwarding tables.
With explicit-route forwarding, a node does not need to
maintain a forwarding table. With virtual-circuit
forwarding, the size of a node's forwarding table is
directly proportional to the number of virtual circuits in
which it participates. With destination-based forwarding
the size of node's forwarding table is directly
proportional to the number of destinations for which it
has received routing information.
A strict-hierarchical routing scheme designed for
multimedia support in large mobile wireless, referred to
as a MMWN is presented by Ramanathan. Figure 11
illustrates the nested-cluster architecture for MMWN. In
this architecture, each node is a level-0 cluster, but two
distinct nodes may have different numbers of ancestral
clusters. Thus, a cluster may be associated with multiple
levels in the clustering hierarchy, and the height of the
clustering hierarchy is expressed as the maximum level
associated with the single cluster that contains all others.
Two clusters are considered to be siblings, even if they
appear at different levels of clustering hierarchy,
provided that they both share the same parent cluster.
Sibling clusters may form a connecting virtual gateway
if a direct link exists between at least one pair of border
nodes, one in each cluster. A virtual gateway consists of
the border nodes in each of the two clusters with their
connecting links. Two virtual gateways attached to a
cluster form the endpoints of a virtual link across that
cluster.
Each cluster contains at least one QoS manager that
generates abstracted link-state information such as
connectivity to the cluster, services (e.g., delay,
throughput, loss rate) across the cluster and to
neighboring clusters, and distributes the information to
other clusters. QoS manager for a cluster floods the
 cluster's link-state updates to all nodes within the parent
cluster.
a's Level-2
Ancestral Cluster
a
Virtual Gateway
Connecting b and x
b
x Ø Upper and lower limits on the number of child
v clusters within each cluster
y Ø An upper limit on the diameter of each cluster in
z terms of child clusters
z's Level-3 Border Node for v
Ancestral Cluster Virtual Gateway and x
Connecting y and v
Figure 11: The MMWN Routing Architecture
Using this link-state information, a node attempts to
generate routes that are consistent with both the users'
service requests and the network's current capabilities.
Hierarchical cluster-based control structures offer the
opportunity to significantly reduce the quantity of
network state information that must be distributed,
processed, and stored throughout a network. It is realized
by representing the state of a cluster in an abstracted
form that hides the details of connectivity and services
offered within the cluster. However, constructing a
reasonable abstraction for a cluster with wide-ranging or
frequently changing characteristics requires trading off
size and fidelity of the abstraction. Abstraction
techniques, however, share the feature that the
connectivity and services for a cluster, c, are expressed
relative to c's neighboring clusters, which are entry
points to and exit points from c.
4 Clustering
Formation and maintenance of a cluster-based control
structure requires algorithms for initially clustering
nodes and or adjusting clusters as nodes join, leave, or
move within the network. There are a number of
clustering algorithms for fixed networks and mobile
networks in the literature. A clustering algorithm must
produce clusters which are connected and may achieve
other objectives such as:
Ø Minimizing the amount of routing information to be
routed, processed, and stored by each node
Ø Maximizing connectivity within each cluster
Ø Localizing high-intensity traffic within a cluster
Ø Localizing highly variable traffic within a cluster.
Ø Minimizing the number of intercluster links
Ø Maximizing the stability of intercluster links
Ø Minimizing the difference between the hierarchical
route and the true optimal route for each pair of
nodes.
Moreover, the clustering algorithm may be subject to
constraints such as the following:
Ø All clusters containing the number of child clusters
Hierarchical cluster-based control structures force a tight
coupling among routing, clustering and abstraction and
thus algorithm used for one of the these functions affects
the others. For instance, the choice of clustering
algorithm determines which nodes are clustered together,
which in turn determines the connectivity and services
provided by each cluster and hence what state
information can be abstracted for use by routing. The
abstraction algorithm determines the representation of
cluster state, which in turn may influence the formation
of higher level clusters if the clustering algorithm tends
to group together similar lower level clusters. The
routing algorithm determines which routes are selected,
which in turn affects traffic load in the network, and thus
may affect the formation of clusters based on criteria
such as traffic localization. Therefore determining which
combination of routing, clustering and abstraction
algorithms is most appropriate for a particular network,
exhibiting both low overload and a high probability of
finding routes that meet users' service requirements and
conform to the network's service limitations a topic for
further research.
When a node moves to another cluster, it acquires an
address reflecting its new location with respect to
clustering hierarchy. The mapping between a node's
identity and address must be maintained by nodes within
the network such that a source can determine the address
of any destination in a network. A location manager
updates address mappings in the location database as
nodes move, finds the mapping for a node in the location
database, and pages a portion of the network for the
address of a node when the mapping in the database is
stale. Two approaches have been suggested to distribute
the contents of the location database throughout a
hierarchical cluster-based control structure for mobile
networks.
One approach is that the network contains a set of
redundant top-level location managers such that each
location manager maintains the address mapping for
each node in the network. In this approach updating
costs are high whereas finding costs are low.

In the second approach, the network contains a set of

location managers, one per cluster such that each
location manager maintains only the address mappings
for nodes within its cluster. When a source requests the
address of a destination, the address query propagates
from a lowest –level location manager to successively
higher-level location managers until it reaches one that
can respond to the query or until a page is deemed
necessary. With this method update costs are low but
finding costs are high

5 Conclusion
In this paper cluster-based control structures for large
dynamic networks are discussed in managing a shared
transmission medium, constructing routing backbones
and building abstractions of network state. The link -
cluster architecture is mainly for transmission
management whereas NTDR and virtual subnet
architectures are clustered for backbone formation. In
order to improve routing in large dynamic networks two
types of hierarchical routing architectures, namingly
quasi-hierarchical and strict-hierarchical routing
architectures, are suggested Though the concept of
cluster-based network control has existed for a long
period, only a few of the many examples of cluster-based
control structures described in this paper have been
deployed and exercised in full-scale networks.

Ad hoc networks possess two properties that make them

candidates for cluster-based control: mobile nodes,
which may cause frequent changes in network
connectivity; and wireless links, which have shared
access, are susceptible to large and frequent fluctuations
in quality, and may induce significant per-hop delays.
The cluster-based control structures can be more
appropriate candidates for improving the performance of
ad hoc networks through reduced sensitivity to small
changes in state and through localized control in
response to significant changes in state.

References
[1] Charles E. Perkins: Chapter 4, Ad Hoc Networking,
Addison Wesley, 2001, ISBN 0-201-30976-9