Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of routing protocols for CRAHNs

From: On-demand routing protocols for cognitive radio ad hoc networks

Routing protocols Advantages Disadvantages
SORP [13] and DORP [14] • Suitable for delay-sensitive application • Does not include PU avoidance
• Simulation result: lower cumulative delay
WHAT routing [15] • Multiple consideration on metric calculation • Uses manually defined parameter
• Simulation result: enhances throughput
Connectivity-based routing [17] • Observes connectivity of SUs’ network by considering PUs’ activity • Discovers all possible paths during route discovery, which might result in high resource consumption
• Includes PUs’ activity and channel switching in the routing metric
CAODV [18] • Considers spectrum diversity, which provides adaptability to PUs’ activity • Discovers multi-path or multi-channel routes, which might result in high resource consumption
D2CARP [19] • Considers spectrum diversity, which provides adaptability to PUs’ activity • Discovers multi-path and multi-channel routes and broadcasts RREP packets, which might result in high resource consumption
MSCRP [16] • Solves the deafness problem • Adds node networking tasks
• Simulation result: significantly improves throughput
Local coordination-based routing [20] • Provides load balancing • Adds control packet exchanges
• Simulation result: incurs fairly lower cumulative delay
SPEAR [21] • Provides channel reservation • Uses traditional routing metric
• Simulation result: achieves significant throughput improvement • Uses manually defined parameter
BCCCS [22] • Provides backup channel • Adds list and table keeping
• Simulation result: shows almost 100% connectivity
TACR [23] • Includes learning capability • Uses manually defined parameter
• Simulation result: reduces end-to-end delay and packet loss rate • Adds complexity
CRM-IC [24] • Maximum capacity route selection • Uses single routing metric
• Simulation result: larger end-to-end throughput and better transmission completion time
AiSorp [25] • Defines route maintenance procedure modification • Uses manually defined parameters
• Simulation result: longer routing lifetime
Anti-intermittence routing [26] • Defines route maintenance procedure modification • Uses manually defined parameters
• Simulation result: longer routing lifetime
STOD-RP [27] • Provides proactive route via tree-based routing • Lacks analysis of gateway node activity (e.g., energy consumption)
• Simulation result: reduces end-to-end delay and control overhead