Table 1 Characteristics comparison between existing protocols
From: Address allocation for MANET merge and partition using cluster based routing
| Â | Address evenness | Routing dependency | Distributed operation | Address uniqueness | Address stability | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agent based addressing (Günes and Reibel2002) | Yes | No | Centralized | Guaranteed | Low stability | Stateful |
MANET Conf. (Nesargi and Prakash2002) | Yes | No | Distributed | Guaranteed | High stability | Stateful |
Prophet (Zhou et al.2003) | Yes | No | Distributed | Not guaranteed | Not specified | Stateful |
Buddy protocol (Mohsin and Prakash2002) | No | No | Distributed | Guaranteed | High stability | Stateful |
Strong duplicate address detection (Perkins et al.2001) | Yes | No | Distributed | Not guaranteed | Not specified | Stateless |
Weak duplicate address detection (Vaidya2002) | Yes | Yes | Distributed | Guaranteed with high Probability | High stability | Stateless |
Passive duplicate address detection (Weniger2003) | Yes | Integrated within the routing protocol | Distributed | Guaranteed with high Probability | High stability | Stateless |
Adhoc IP address autoconf. (Jeong et al.2005) | Yes | Yes | Distributed | Guaranteed with high Probability | High stability | Stateless |
Hybrid centralized query based auto-configuration (Sun and Belding-Royer2003) | Yes | No | Semi centralized | Guaranteed | High stability | Hybrid |