TASKs:

(1) Using a carefully designed topology, show a situation when a packet is dropped by Random Progress algorithm despite a routing path existing to the destination

(2) Using a carefully designed topology, show a situation when a packet using Random Progress algorithm travels a `non-shortest' path. Feel free to use your own definition of shortest path. It could be shortest in the sense of geographical distance, or in terms of number of hops.

(3) Using a carefully designed topology, show a situation when Most Forward Within Radius would create a routing loop.

(4) Using a carefully designed topology, show a situation when Greedy Forwarding (void traversal not implemented) would fail to deliver a packet, but Random Progress could deliver it.

(5) Existing geographic routing algorithms are based on single- hop neighbour location information, which provides low complexity, but is not optimal. In this task, you will consider an extension that allows nodes to exchange their own positions as well as their one hop neighbour information (exchange their ‘neighbour position tables').

(a) Propose extensions of the three progress-based geographic routing algorithms that select next hop based on two hop progress, i.e., the progress is now calculated after the packet travels two hops instead of one hop used by existing algorithms. You may use pseudo-code to specify the algorithms.

(b) Show the benefits of the extended versions compared to the single- hop algorithms using carefully designed topologies. You need to first identify a list of benefits (different algorithms may benefit differently from this extension) that are gained by extending the algorithms to 2-hop, and then show each of these benefits using carefully chosen routing scenarios.