## 2 Related Work
As Section 5 shows, bounded and unbounded protocols perform well only when the source and destination nodes are close to each other; otherwise, the added signaling of the original and chase flooding might easily become higher than the signaling of traditional flooding alone. As Section 4 shows, there exists an optimized repeal-flooding boundary, for any source-destination pair beyond it is counterproductive to chase the original flooding. Finding such boundary for chase packets is not a trivial task. Placing the boundary too close to the source makes chasing the original flooding unlikely as most destinations are usually located outside such boundary. Remember that only destinations found inside the repeal-flooding boundary contain the original flooding by using chase \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Algorithm** & **Technique** & **Contention Area** & **Flooding Speed** & **Chasing Technique** \\ \hline L-B [9] & BRIS & Unbounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Different speeds \\ ERS [10] & No repletion & Bounded & \(\delta\) & No chasing \\ LHBA [11] & BRID & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Different speeds \\ BERS [12] & BRIS & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Stop and wait \\ BERS+ [13] & BRIS & Unbounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Stop and wait \\ TLRDA-C [14] & BRIS & Unbounded & \(m\delta\) and \(n\delta\), \(m<n\) & Different speeds in/out the ring \\ BERS* [15] & BRIS & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-2}\) for \(d>1\) & Stop and wait \\ AODV-PC [16] & BRID & Unbounded & \(m\delta\) and \(n\delta\), \(m<n\) & Different speeds in/out the ring \\ tBERS [17] & BRID & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Stop and wait \\ BCIR [18] & BRID & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Stop and wait \\ tBERS* [17] & BRID & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-2}\) for \(d>1\) & Stop and wait \\ BCL* [18] & BRID & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-2}\) for \(d>1\) & Stop and wait \\ I-BERS [19] & BRIS & Bounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-1}\) & Stop and wait \\ ABC [20] & BRID & Unbounded & \(\delta+md\) & Added delay \\ CMBERS+ [21] & BRID & Unbounded & \(\delta\times 2^{d-2}\) for \(d>1\) & Stop and wait \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Flooding contention protocols. packets. On the other hand, placing the boundary farther away from the source increases the number of destinations allowed to chase the original flooding; however, adding up the overhead of the original flooding and chase packets may end up being higher than the overhead of traditional flooding. This paper introduces Flood and Contain (F&C), a repeal-based flooding algorithm that can quickly establish the optimized repeal-flooding boundary for each node without making any assumptions on the underlying network. F&C falls into the BRID category that uses two separate flooding processes as most repeal-based schemes; however, opposite to other proposals, F&C does not attempt to chase the original flooding beyond the optimized repeal-flooding boundary. The evaluation section presents the conducted overhead and delays comparisons among the most significant repeal-based protocols listed in Table 1 and F&C to emphasize the improved qualities of the proposed algorithm. There are other strategies proposed in the literature to reduce the signaling overhead of route discovery that do not consider the use of chase packets at any phase of their operation [22; 23] and therefore are not directly comparable to F&C. For example, in [24; 25], the authors proposed a probabilistic scheme for broadcasting search packets. Within such a scheme, upon receiving a search packet, a node rebroadcasts it with a specific probability (\(p\)). Probabilistic flooding reduces transmission redundancy, but it does not guarantee that all nodes receive the search packet, due to the fact that \(p\) is set to a fixed value [26]. In [27], the authors proposed a dynamic probabilistic scheme, in which each node uses a parameter for counting the number of times a packet was received, using it as a node density estimator.