IMPACT OF MOBILITY MODELS ON ROUTING PROTOCOLS ...
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
2 -
download
0
Transcript of IMPACT OF MOBILITY MODELS ON ROUTING PROTOCOLS ...
IMPACT OF MOBILITY MODELS ON ROUTING PROTOCOLS
FOR VARIOUS TRAFFIC CLASSES IN MOBILE AD HOC
NETWORKS
A thesis submitted
to Kent State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science
By
Hayder Majid Abdulhameed Alash
May 2016
© Copyright
All rights reserved
Except for previously published materials
ii
Thesis written by
Hayder Majid Abdulhameed Alash
B.S., University of Baghdad, 2009
M.S., Kent State University, 2016
Approved by
Hassan Peyravi, Adviser
Javed Khan, Chair, Department of Computer Science
James L. Blank, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………..….VII
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………...…IX
DEDICTION………………………………………………………………………………
ACKNOWLEDGMENT…………………………………………………………………
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) ......................................................................... 2
1.2 Issues in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) ....................................................... 4
1.2.1 Security……………….………………………………………...…………….4
1.2.2 Routing……………………………………………………………………….5
1.2.3 Scalability…….……………………………………………………….……...5
1.2.4 Quality of Service……………………...………………………………..…...6
1.3 Routing Protocols for MANETs ............................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Proactive (Table driven) ..........................................................................…...6
1.3.2 Reactive (On demand) ........................................................................….......7
1.3.3 Hybrid……………………….........................................................................7
1.4 Other Issues Related to Quality of Service in MANETs........................................... 8
1.4.1 Unpredictable Link Properties .................................................................…...8
1.4.2 Node Mobility.................................................................................................8
1.4.3 Hidden and Exposed Terminal........................................................................9
1.4.4 Limited Battery Life………………...............................................................9
1.4.5 Route Maintenance………….........................................................................9
iv
1.5 Thesis Organization ................................................................................................. 10
2 SURVEY OF PERVIOUS WORK ............................................................................. 11
2.1 Mobility Models ...................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Random Waypoint Mobility Model .............................................................. 13
2.1.2 Group Mobility Model .................................................................................. 15
2.1.2.1 Reference Point Group Mobility Model……………………………… ...16
2.2 Routing Protocols. ................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Proactive Routing Protocols .......................................................................... 18
2.2.1.1 Bellman-Ford…………………………………………………………….19
2.2.1.2 Fisheyes State Protocol (FSR)………………………………………...…19
2.2.1.3 Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)………………………...21
2.2.1.4 Source Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR)…………………….….23
2.2.2 Reactive Routing Protocols ................................................................. ……..24
2.2.2.1 Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (ADOV)............25
2.2.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR)…………………….………....29
2.2.2.3 Dynamic MANT On Demand Routing Protocol (DYMO) …………..…33
2.2.2.4 Location Aided Routing Protocol (LAR) ……………………………….35
2.2.3 Hybrid Routing Protocols ............................................................................. 39
2.2.3.1 Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)…………………….……………… ……..39
3 MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS……………………………………….…………..42
3.1 Characteristics of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) ........................................ 44
v
3.2 Applications ............................................................................................................ 45
4 SIMULATION MODEL ………………………………………………………...…. 48
4.1 Simulator ................................................................................................................. 48
4.2 Features ................................................................................................................... 49
4.3 Traffic Model .......................................................................................................... 50
4.3.1 Constant Bit Rate (CBR)……………………………………………………...51
4.3.2 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)……………………………………………………...52
4.3.3 Random Traffic………………………………...……………………………..52
4.3.4 File Transfer Protocol (FTP)…………………………………...…...………...53
4.4 Simulation Setup ..................................................................................................... 53
4.4.1 Simulation Time………………………………………………..……………..54
4.4.2 Mobility………………………………...………………...…………………...55
4.4.3 Node Placement and Network Shape…..………………...…………………...55
4.4.4 Physical Layer………………………………………………………….……..56
4.4.5 MAC Layer…………………………………………………………………...56
4.4.6 Network Layer………….…………………………………………….….…...56
4.4.7 Routing Protocols……………………………………………………….……56
4.5 Metrics ..................................................................................................................... 57
4.5.1 Throughput …….……………………………………………………………..57
4.5.2 End-to-End Delay.…………………………………………………………....57
4.5.3 Average Jitter ….……………………………………………………………..58
5 SIMULATION RESULT…….………………………………………………………59
5.1 Throughput .............................................................................................................. 59
vi
5.2 Average End-to-End Delay ..................................................................................... 63
5.3 Average Jitter .......................................................................................................... 66
5.4 Modifying AODV Parameters ................................................................................ 68
6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK…………………………………………....70
6.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 70
6.2 Future work ............................................................................................................. 71
GLOSSARY……………………………………………………………………………..72
REFERENCES………………..………………………………………………………...75
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Mobile Ad Hoc Network.……………………………………………….…. 3
Figure 2.1 Mobility Model Types………….…………………………………………... 13
Figure 2.2 Random Waypoint Mobility Model………………………………………... 14
Figure 2.3 Group Mobility Model……………………………………..……………..... 16
Figure 2.4 Classification of Routing Protocols……………………………………….... 18
Figure 2.5. Scope of Fisheye…….……………………………………………………….21
Figure 2.6. Multipoint Relays.………………………………………………………….. 22
Figure 2.7. Source Node Discovery Process…………………………………………… 25
Figure 2.8. A route Reply RREP Process ...…………………………………………… 26
Figure 2.9. Route Maintences …………..……………………………………………... 27
Figure 2.10. Build Record Route ….……...………………………………………........ 30
Figure 2.11. DSR Route Reply…………..…………………………………………….. 31
Figure 2.12. DSR Route Maintences…………………………………………….……... 32
Figure 2.13. Route Discovery in DYMO and AODV……………………..………….... 34
Figure 2.14. LAR Expected Zone………………….……………………………….…. 36
Figure 2.15. LAR Scheme 1- Request Zone... ………………………………………… 37
Figure 2.16. LAR Scheme 2 ……………….………………………………………….. 38
Figure 2.17. ZRP Zone …………………….………………………………………….. 41
Figure 3.1 Wireless Network …………….…………………………………………..... 43
Figure 5.1 Throughput in Random Waypoint Model…………….……………………. 60
Figure 5.2 Throughput in Group Mobility Model ……………….……………………. 62
viii
Figure 5.3 End-to-End Delay in Random Waypoint Model ………………………….. 64
Figure 5.4 End-to-End Delay in Group Mobility Model ……………………………... 65
Figure 5.5 Jitter in Random Waypoint Model ………………….…………………….. 66
Figure 5.6 Jitter in Group Mobility Model …………………………………………… 67
Figure 5.7 AODV Comparison ………………………………..……………………… 69
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Simulation Parameters …………………………………………………..… 54
Table 5.1 Comparsion Results ……………………………………………………...... 68
DEDICATION
My Mother, who is always pray for me
My Father, who is always trust me
My Brother and Sister, I miss you more and more
My Love, I Love you forever…
To my Friends, who always support me
To my country, thank you for this gift
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Hassan Peyravi for all his support and
guidance throughout this thesis. He has developed my skills in many areas and assisted
me in its writing. In addition, I would like to thank the other members of my committee,
Dr. Feodor F. Dragan, and Dr. Gokarna Sharma for the comments and revisions they
have offered.
Thanks from the bottom of my heart to my beloved parents, my brother, and my
sister who have always prayed for me, which became a guiding force in completing my
studies successfully. Special thanks to my mother who is my everything for always being
there for me. I would also like to thank my love and future wife Zainab who withstood
pressure in my absence and hung on for a long period.
I am also so thankful to Marcy Curtiss, the graduate secretary. I am sincerely
thankful to my friends who helped and supported me. Finally, yet importantly, I would
like to extend special thanks to my country for allowing me to complete graduate studies
at Kent State University.
Hayder Majid Abdulhameed Alash
April 1, 2016
Kent, Ohio
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) are widely used in wireless networks
consisting of mobile devices that communicate in the absence of any centralized support.
Examples of such networks include networks for trucks on interstate highways, wireless
military battlefield networks that connect troops, aircraft, satellites, and sensors on land
and in water, and interplanetary networks. Mobile devices in these networks will act as
routers that generate user’s traffic and carry out network control and routing tasks. The
mobility of devices in MANET dynamically changes the network topology, which makes
routing between devices more complicated. When devices move, the impact could be
very significant in terms of connectivity and Quality of Service (QoS).
Main challenges in QoS provisioning in MANET include dynamic bandwidth
management to guarantee the end-to-end delay and throughput performance to satisfy the
requirements for diverse applications. There are several factors that affect the QoS
including mobility, routing algorithms, and traffic patterns. Recently, many researchers
have developed several theoretical models to describe mobility, traffic patterns, and
routing algorithms. In this thesis, we intend to conduct a comparative analysis of several
routing algorithms under a few popular mobility models and diverse traffic patterns.
Specifically, we have developed simulation models that incorporate various mobility
models, routing algorithms, and traffic sources to measure applications’ performance in
2
terms of end-to-end throughput (bit rate), latency, and jitter. Three classes of MANET
routing algorithms (Proactive, Reactive, and Hybrid), two mobility models (Random
Waypoint and Group), and three classes of traffic patterns (constant bit rate, variable bit
rate, and random) have been investigated. We have designed network topology based on
randomly placed devices over a communication area. While we studied various
simulation tools, we found that QualNet [1] offers many important analytical details to
better assess the trade-offs across layers. This work provides network designers and
network operators with significant insight about the relationship between mobility and
routing, on one hand, and users and their applications, on the other hand, to effectively
manage their network.
The rest of this chapter covers preliminaries and architectural issues in MANETs.
Specifically, we describe major mobility models, routing algorithms, routing
maintenance, security, scalability, efficiency in terms of energy consumption, etc.
1.1 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks are becoming more popular in recent years as an
alternative to traditional wired networks. Wireless networks can be classified into three
types: infrastructure networks, ad hoc network (infrastructure less), and hybrid networks
that combine the two types. MANETs are independent systems for mobile devices
connected by wireless links (see Fig. 1.1). They are similar to multi-hop wireless
networks (MWNs), but they differ in terms of topology, architecture, and mobility. Each
node in a MANET is free to move independently or as a group member in any direction.
3
A MANET has limited available resources (i.e., bandwidth) due to its dynamic
environment. Throughput, delay, and delay variation are the most important metrics in
QoS assessment. Generally, applications may have additional requirements such as peak
rate or sustainable peak rate requirements. Other requirements to support QoS include
bandwidth, link delay, and error rate. It is hard to get this information because of dynamic
change (node mobility). MANETs links are more exposed to higher bit-error rates than
their wireless networks counterparts, and that causes fluctuations in link capacity.
Figure 1.1: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
4
MANETs have different traffic types than fixed wireless networks. When we
design a MANET, many problems can arise (such as routing, security, power
consumption, quality of services, and reliability) due to shared wireless channel, limited
transmission power of wireless devices, battery constrains, and mobility. Therefore,
providing Quality of Services (QoS) in MANETs is more complex than in fixed wired
and wireless networks.
1.2 Issues in Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs)
Generally, MANETs were first proposed for military battlefield and disaster
recovery communications. However, recent evolution in several application areas such as
remote sensing, smart highways, remote environmental and animal movement outposts
are based on ad hoc networks concepts. These applications require different QoS
requirements. The bandwidth requirements vary from a few Kb/s to several Gb/s. Some
are delay-sensitive, while others are loss-sensitive. Also, some are highly mobile and
others may have limited mobility.
There are several issues in MANETs that are very difficult to integrate with
internet. We will address some of them below.
1.2.1 Security
Security is an important issue in MANETs. In wireless networks, the link is more
vulnerable to nose, error, and eavesdropping than a wired link. Providing security in the
presence of mobility and wireless links is more challenging. Therefore, security is often
5
performed through encryption and/or physical layer spread spectrum modulation (direct
sequence or frequency hopping). It is a difficult problem to find a trust channel.
1.2.2 Routing
Routing is one of the most difficult problems to implement in MANETs. Routing
is the process of finding the best path to send data packets from a source to a destination.
Since every device acts as a router, the network becomes more complicated to manage.
This is because each node can move randomly in any direction within the network.
When a node moves, new paths need to be discovered and selected, as the optimal route
in specific time might not work after a few seconds. Also, the environment can be
changed from indoor to outdoor scenarios that cause a path to fail.
1.2.3 Scalability
The operation of MANETs strongly depends on network size and packet size.
Routing and finding feasible paths become more complicated with size. Similarly, packet
size has major impact on forwarding. Scalability measures the ability of the network to
provide an acceptable level of services as network grows in size and traffic. Routing
protocols add more limitation for the scalability of MANETs. The dynamic topology of a
MANET creates a big challenge to provide the huge amount of broadcast message in a
dynamic environment.
6
1.2.4 Quality of Services
Quality of Services (QoS) is a very challenging issue for the developers. It is
harder to achieve high performance in MANET due to highly dynamic topology. The
network should be able to provide the required quality of service for user’s demand. The
performance can be characterized by delay, jitter, and bandwidth. It is difficult to
maintain the quality of these parameters under mobility. In a MANET, cross-layer
optimization is needed to achieve quality of service.
1.3 Routing protocols for MANETs
Routing protocols are used to find a path for transmission of packets from a
source to a destination node. They should deal with the limitation in a MANET such as
low bandwidth, high power consumption, and high error rates. Several routing protocols
for MANETs have been developed. These routing protocols can act differently
depending on the number of nodes, mobility, and type of traffic sources. The routing
protocols can be categorized as: Proactive, Reactive, and Hybrid.
1.3.1 Proactive (Table Driven)
Every node in proactive routing maintains a table that contains information of the
routes to any other node in the network. These tables are periodically updated due to
network topology changes. Proactive routing continuously broadcasts the control
message and updates tables. This operation consumes a portion of bandwidth that can be
used for applications otherwise and can be considered as a waste of bandwidth.
7
Therefore, when the number of nodes in mobile ad hoc network increases, the size of data
stored in the tables will increase. This is a major drawback of proactive routing. Major
proactive routing algorithms include Bellman-Ford Routing protocol [2], Fisheye State
Routing protocol (FSR) [3], Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR) [4], and
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Routing protocol (DSDV) [5].
1.3.2 Reactive (On Demand)
Reactive routing protocols reduce the need for maintaining updated table
information because a route is established only when the source node desires to send a
packet to a destination. These protocols flood a message into the network to discover a
route to a destination. The discovered route is maintained by route maintenance until
either the route is no longer desired or the destination node becomes unreachable. The
reactive routing protocols use bandwidth more efficient than proactive protocols, but they
suffer from delay due to the route discovery procedure. There are several reactive routing
protocols such as: Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector routing protocol (AODV) [6],
Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) [7], Dynamic MANET On Demand Routing
protocol [8], and Location Aided Routing protocol (LAR) [9].
1.3.3 Hybrid
Hybrid protocols combine the best features in both proactive and reactive routing
protocols. These protocols are developed to increase scalability and reduce route
discovery delay. The main idea is to use the proactive routing for maintaining routes to
8
neighbored nodes and determining routes to far away nodes using a route discovery
packet. These protocols partition the network into a number of zones such as Zone
Routing Protocol (ZRP) [10].
1.4 Other Issues Related to Quality of Service (QoS) in MANETs
Quality of services in MANET is limited due to the lack of resources and
continuous topology changes, which make QoS provisioning a very complicated process.
The QoS should be provided in all network layers such as application layer, transport
layer, etc. There are other equally important issues that are briefly described below.
1.4.1 Unpredictable Link Properties
Wireless links are unpredictable and change their conditions with time. Signal
quality fluctuates due to several factors such as fading, interference, and multipath
cancellation. These properties will influence the bandwidth and delay measurements.
1.4.2 Node Mobility
Mobility of devices (nodes) changes the network topology frequently, which
changes routes dynamically. Mobility affects the transmission range between two
devices. When a device moves, it may cause link failure that increases packet loss rate
and retransmission. Mobility influences many factors including channel access, routing,
and applications.
9
1.4.3 Hidden and Exposed Terminal Problems
Media access control (MAC) uses a traditional Carrier Sense Multiple Access
protocol (CSMA), which introduces the hidden and exposed terminal problems. The
hidden terminal problem happens when two nodes (A and B) are hidden from each other
when they are colliding at receiver node C. An exposed terminal problem will result from
a scenario where node B and C attempt to transmit data to node A and D respectively.
Node B is exposed to the signal range of node C, which postpones its transmission.
Nodes B and C hear each other; therefore, they will not transmit.
1.4.4 Limited Battery Life
Battery life is one of the important issues in MANETs. Mobile devices use
batteries that have a limited capacity of power to supply devices. If the power of the
device is consumed, it will affect itself and the entire network. QoS should be power
aware and power efficient.
1.4.5 Route Maintenance
Given that the topology in MANET is a dynamic, this changes the behavior of
communication medium making the accurate maintenance of network state information
very difficult. Therefore, the routing algorithms in MANET must deal with inaccurate
information. Nodes in a MANET can enter and leave an environment continuously,
which may cause broken path during the data transfer. Thus, the need of a route with
10
minimal delay and overhead emerges. end-to-end QoS requires a bandwidth reservation
at intermediate nodes, which may become cumbersome due to dynamic topology.
1.5 Thesis Organization
The remaining parts of this thesis are organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents a
survey about related work in the literature. Chapter 3 covers a general overview about
mobile ad hoc networks, their characteristics, and their applications. Chapter 4 presents
simulation environment, while result and analysis are presented in Chapter 5. Finally, in
Chapter 6, we conclude the thesis with a short discussion on possible future work.
11
CHAPTER 2
Survey of Pervious Works
This chapter covers a brief survey of significant mobility models and routing
protocols. Mobility and routing protocols have been studied extensively during the past
decade for various network applications ranging from small sensor networks to
interplanetary and deep space communication systems.
2.1 Mobility Models
Mobility is an important factor in wireless networks. It represents the movement
of mobile nodes (MNs) and how their speed and direction are changed over time.
Mobility models represent or predict user's or wireless device’s movements. These
models are often used to simulate or emulate the actual movement of the devices in terms
of geometry, speed, etc., in a geographic area. A significant body of literature [11, 12]
has shown that the mobility directly affects communication performance in terms of
throughput and delay. Mobility models can be simulated in two ways: using traces
obtained through real experiments, or generating synthetic data using the statistical
characteristics. Traces are real mobility patterns that exist in life. Synthetic is trying to
realistically represent the movement of users in the absence of traces availability. There
are many different ways to classify synthetic mobility models such as individual and
group mobility models. Figure 2.1 illustrates a hierarchical classification of mobility
12
models. The individual mobility model represents the individual movement of mobile
nodes (MNs). It emulates the behavior of the user in real life.
We can classify individual mobility into seven different models [11]:
1. Random Waypoint Mobility Model [11]
2. Random Walk Mobility Model [11]
3. Random Direction Mobility Model [11]
4. Gauss-Markov Mobility Model [11]
5. A Boundless Simulation Area Mobility Model [11]
6. City Section Mobility Model [11]
7. A probabilistic Version of the Random Walk Mobility Model [11]
Group mobility model represents the group of MNs movements. Each mobile
node’s movement is independent from other nodes’ movements that are outside its group,
but its movement is highly correlated with the movement of the nodes within its group.
We can classify group mobility into five group mobility models [11]:
1. Reference Point Group Mobility Model [12]
2. Exponential Correlated Random Mobility Model [11]
3. Column Mobility Model [12]
4. Nomadic Community Mobility Model [12]
5. Pursue Mobility Model [12]
13
Figure 2.1: Mobility Model Types
2.1.1 Random Waypoint Mobility Model
Random waypoint model has been used in many mobility studies to compare
performance of ad hoc network routing protocols. It was the first model created by
Johnson and Maltz [12, 14] in which the nodes are randomly placed in the simulation
area. As shown in Figure 2.2, each node randomly chooses a destination and a direction.
After waiting for a period of time (pause time), each node chooses the new destination in
the simulation area. The speed has been chosen from a uniform distribution [Vmin, Vmax],
Mobility
Models
Group
Mobility
Models
Entity
Mobility
Models
Random
waypoint Random
Direction
Random
Walk
Bondless
Simulatio
n area
Gauss-
Markov City
Section
Reference
Point
Group
Exponential
Correlated
Random
Column
Mobility
Model
Nomadic
Mobility
Model
Pursue
Mobility
Model
14
where Vmin represents the minimum speed and Vmax represents the maximum speed. A
new speed and a new destination direction are chosen independently from the previous
movement. Pause time and Vmax are two important parameters in the Random Waypoint
model. They affect the behavior of mobile nodes. When Vmax is high and the pause time
is long, this produces a more stable network than if Vmax is low and the pause time is
small.
Figure 2.2: Random Waypoint Mobility Model
This model assumes that the average speed is maintained during the simulation
time. In [14], it shows during the simulation time that the average speed is decreasing
until Vmin = 0. The nodes become more stuck moving long distances at a low average
600
500
400
300
200
100
15
speed. A simple solution has been proposed in [13] that sets a positive minimum speed
(e.g. Vmin = 1 or more). This solution enables the nodes to reach a constant speed and
stabilizes their mobility as well. The model in [15] includes a new parameter Pstat that
refers to the probability that the node remains stationary over the simulation process. It
selects the pause time between probabilities [Pmin, Pmax], which does not change with
time.
In [13, 16, 17], the models have failed to reach a steady state. The authors in [18]
tried to solve the problem existed in the previous approaches. The approach in [18]
provides new distributions for speed, pause time, and location in the simulation area.
They derived stationary distributions for these parameters in rectangular area to begin a
simulation in the steady state distribution.
2.1.2 Group Mobility Models
Group mobility models represent a group of nodes, which move together (see Fig.
2.3) [19]. They represent the random movement of a group of mobile nodes as well as the
random movement of each individual mobile node within the group [11]. There are many
examples in ad hoc networks, which represent the behavior of mobile nodes as a group
that moves together. For example, in military battlefield communications, a group of
soldiers are working together to capture an enemy or provide protection. Other examples
include rescue missions and vehicular networks.
16
2.1.2.1 Reference Point Group Mobility Model [12]
In reference point group mobility model [12, 19], nodes move according to the
logical center path of the group. The movements of the logical center of each group and
the random motion of mobile node are based on random waypoint mobility model. This
logical center is used to determine group movement by a group movement vector (GM).
The motion of group center identifies the shape of the movement for all mobile nodes
inside the groups.
Figure 2.3: Group Mobility Model
Vg1
Vg2
RP(T
GM RP(T+1 RM
17
Each mobile node in the group mobility randomly moves around the logical
center (group leader) whose movements rely on the group movement. When the leader
node moves from time t to time t+1, members’ locations are changed based on the group
logical center. After the location of logical center changes, it is combined with random
motion vector (RM) to represent the new movement of each mobile node (MN) around its
logical center.
2.2 Routing Protocols
Routing protocol represents the way that nodes communicate with each other. It
provides information about routes between nodes. An efficient route must have minimum
overhead and efficient bandwidth utilization. There are two fundamental routing
protocols widely used in networks and distributed systems: distance vector and link state
routing [20]. In distance vector, every node keeps a route to every other node. They
create a route table and keep it up to data. In link state, nodes periodically deploy link
state cost to all nodes in the network.
These two routing protocols are not suitable in wireless network because of the
limited bandwidth, and control overhead. So, there are many other protocols that have
been proposed in the literature, which adapt to changes in network conditions including
changes in topology, traffic, bandwidth, etc. These routing protocols can behave
differently depending on the number of nodes, node mobility, and the type of traffic
source. They can be classified based on the characteristics illustrated in Figure 2.4 [21, -
22].
18
Figure 2.4: Classification of Routing Protocols
2.2.1 Proactive Routing Protocols
Proactive protocols are table driven routing protocols. Each node stores route
information about neighboring nodes. Nodes build a table of routing information and
keep it up to date. The route information is kept in a number of different tables. Also, if
the network changes its topology, nodes can update the route information. Proactive
protocols provide routes immediately because they save all routing information when
they start up. These protocols have a significant problem in mobile networks because of
increased overhead. Proactive routing protocols operate differently in terms of the
number of tables they use, and how routing information are stored and accessed. In this
Routing
Protocols
Proactive Reactive Hybrid
Bellman
Ford
FSR
OLSR STAR
AODV DSR
DYMO LAR
ZRP
ZHLS
19
thesis, we study these routing protocols in the context of mobility in general and group
mobility in specific.
2.2.1.1 Bellman-Ford Protocol [2]
Bellman-Ford routing algorithm is based on the distance vector routing [2]. Each
node maintains a routing table, which contains information about the estimated time or
distance to reach the destination. This protocol has a disadvantage that it is not loop free.
Loops waste time and network bandwidth. In [2], a solution was proposed to avoid this
problem, which is maintaining only loop free paths and find the shortest path. In [22],
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) is a development to Bellman-Ford
routing algorithm that creates a loop free path. Nodes use a sequenced number to
distinguish an old route from a new one. The routing information is updated in the
routing table in two ways: full dump and incremental update. The full dump updates the
table(s) periodically by sending the full routing table, while incremental update is event
driven that just sends the updated information.
2.2.1.2 Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) [3]
A Fisheye State Routing protocol [3] is a proactive routing protocol (table driven)
that was proposed by Kleinrock and Stevens [3]. The Fisheye is an implicit hierarchical
routing protocol. It is built on a Link State Routing protocol used in wired networks. This
routing protocol has been used to reduce the routing information needed to represent
networks. Fisheye can maintain accurate path quality information about immediate
20
neighbors that are the nearest local node. This accuracy decreases as the distance
increases from this node. This means that nodes maintain routing information near other
neighbors.
Fisheye is functionally similar to link state routing, which maintains a topology
map at each node. The key difference is the way in which information is distributed. In
link state routing, packets are flooded into the network whenever a node detects a
topology change. In Fisheye, nodes periodically exchange information between other
nodes (not flooding like link state in wired networks). Thus, Fisheye is suitable for large
networks because it consumes less bandwidth and messages that are being exchanged
than the link state routing and this makes nodes keep less information [23].
Figure 2.5 shows the way by which Fisheye works in a wireless network. It was
used in circles to represent different Fisheye scopes. Each scope contains a set of nodes
with different colors. They can reach each other by traversing a number of hops. Nodes
with small scopes contain more information than those with large scopes that are far
away from the center. The scope radius of the Fisheye is important to balance between
routing accuracy and the control overhead. In [24], the authors present that FSR has a bad
performance for packet delivery ratio when using different pause times for different
scenarios.
21
Figure 2.5: Scope of Fisheye
2.2.1.3 Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [4]
Optimized link state routing protocol [4] is also a proactive routing protocol (table
driven). It periodically exchanges information between nodes in the network to maintain
the topology up to data. The protocol is based on a link state algorithm and it provides a
hop-by-hop routing. Each node should choose a set of nodes from neighbors to become a
relay node called “multipoint relays” (MPR).
Figure 2.6 shows how a node selects MPR nodes. The multipoint relay nodes
(MPR) are responsible to send control traffic information through the network. OLSR
minimizes the amount of information exchanged between nodes because it reduces the
Hop=1
Hop=2
Hop>2
7 12
11 18 19
16 17
23
9
8 5
10
9
2
1 3
4 6
13
15 36 14
24
21
22
29 20
34
32 28
27
20
26
31
25
30
22
number of duplicated retransmissions. Each node chooses a set of MPRs as one hop
neighboring nodes would be counted as two hops nodes far from the local node [25]. The
control messages (called Hello messages) are used to guarantee a bidirectional link with
other neighbor nodes. Nodes deploy the message called Topology control (TC) to
identify multipoint relay selection. Nodes do not select MPR, which can perform
operation packets (read, process), and they cannot retransmit information.
Figure 2.6: Multiple Relays
This protocol does not require reliability when it transmits control traffic because
it regularly exchanges control messages. Also, it uses a sequence number to ensure that
receivers know the order delivery of the control message. The protocol updates
Retransmitting nodes or multipoint relays
N
23
information when nodes are moving from one location to another. Therefore, it works
well with node mobility in that it can acquire any change through the control message. It
is scalable for large and dense network areas [4].
In [26], they re-examine the performance of three protocols in the presence of a
self-similar (maintain bursty characteristics) traffic model. OLSR showed poor
performance with self-similar traffic and high mobility. They displayed the highest delay
packet delivery ratio and overhead. In [27] OLSR achieves higher end-to-end reliability
and overhead than AODV and SBR (Statistic Based Routing) by increasing the impact of
mobility. In [28], the authors show that OLSR has the best end-to-end delay and data
delivery ratio for CBR (Constant Bit Rate) traffic even though the routing load is higher
as opposed to what authors found in [27]. In [29], the authors show that OLSR has the
lowest routing overhead in the network but it is not a suitable routing protocol in
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET).
2.2.1.4 Source Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR) [30]
Source tree routing protocol [30] is based on a link state algorithm. Each node
has a set of links containing the paths to the destination. It protects a source tree between
all links. This protocol uses two ways to update routing information: least overhead
routing approach (LORA) or optimum routing approach (ORA). The LORA tries to
provide viable routes that may not be optimal, but it uses less amount of routing
overhead. The ORA provides the optimal paths and it uses a conditional update rather
than periodic updates used in other protocols.
24
Under LORA [30], a router running STAR sends updates to its neighbors when it
loses all routes to one or more destination. In [19], the amount of control overhead has
been decreased by keeping the path and this can be done as long as the path information
is valid and maintained. Also, it decreases the update rate by using clustering and
periodic updates. STAR is suited for large networks because it minimizes bandwidth
consumption for updating routing information. However, this protocol may not perform
well under high mobility. Therefore, it may need more memory or processing because
nodes change their neighbors when they move.
The authors in [31] try to compare the performances of three routing protocols in
terms of data delivered, control overhead, and average latency. They found that STAR
performed well in a small network with low connection between nodes. But in a dense
connection, STAR (even with lower latency and control overhead) does not change much
when nodes change the number of data flows.
2.2.2 Reactive Routing Protocols
Reactive protocols are on demand routing protocols. These protocols create the
route when nodes want to send data to a particular destination. They use the route
discovery to find routes to destinations by flooding a route request through the network.
There are two types of reactive protocols: source routing and hop-by-hop routing. In
source routing, each packet carries the whole information from a source to a destination.
In hop-by-hop routing, which is also called (point to point routing), each packet carries
information about the destination and the next hop address. The advantage of these
25
protocols is that they reduce the overhead in table driven. They reduce bandwidth
consumption, but they take high routing delay because paths are established when nodes
demand them [22].
2.2.2.1 Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV) [6]
Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector [6, 32] is a reactive routing protocol. It is
based on Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV) routing protocol. AODV uses
two mechanisms for route discovery process and route maintenance process. A route
discovery is used to find the route only when a node has a data packet to send to a
specific destination node that it does not know it. A source node broadcasts a route
request message (RREQ) to its neighbor nodes (see Fig. 2.7) [33].
Figure 2.7: Source Node Discovery Process
D S
26
Neighbor nodes rebroadcast a route request message (RREQ) to their neighbors
and they continuously broadcast until they reach a destination. Sometimes, one of the
neighbor nodes knows the path to a destination node.
Finally, after a RREQ reaches a destination or neighbor node that knows a fresh
path to destination, it will reply by transmitting a message back to the source node called
route reply message (RREP) by creating a reverse path (see Fig. 2.8). A fresh path is the
intermediate nodes that have a sequence number equal or greater than the one in RREQ.
The intermediate nodes between source and destination set up a route to a destination
node. The forward route is setup for a period of time then the intermediate nodes will
delete it if a route is not used. RREP will be deleted after a time out of 3000 milliseconds
[33].
Figure 2.8: A Route Reply RREP Process
RREP D
S
27
Path maintenance is used to maintain the route between source and destination
node (see Fig. 2.9). If a source node moves, it can resend a new RREQ message to
discover a new route to a destination. If any node along the path or destination is moved,
its upstream neighbor produces a link failure message to each of its active neighbors to
inform them. AODV includes a loop free by using two counter sequence numbers and
broadcast id. The sequence numbers are used to determine the freshness of information
about the route to a source node. The broadcast id is unique in that it is incremented for
every RREQ.
Figure 2.9: Route Maintenance
S
D Link Failure notification
Data transmission
28
Nodes may use Hello message to determine local connectivity and detect link
breaks. Hello message is a control message that creates or refreshes the routing table
entry. It locally broadcasts control message with a specified interval. There are two
variables that control the broadcasting Hello messages: Hello Interval and Maximum
Allow Hello Loss. Hello Interval is the maximum time interval between the transmissions
of Hello message. Maximum Allow Hello Loss is the maximum number of periods of
Hello interval to wait without receiving a Hello message before detecting a loss of
connectivity to a neighbor.
The advantage of Ad hoc on demand routing protocol [22] is the reduction of the
number of broadcasts messages because it discovers a path on demand. It is adaptable to
the changes of networks. Sometimes, the delay increases because the node may
rediscover the route that incurred delays to establish a route.
Papers [13, 26, 28, 34] compare the performance of different routing protocols.
They obtained, from the simulation comparative result that AODV performs well at all
mobility speeds than other protocols. In [35], the authors test the behavior of AODV and
other protocols in large scale mobile networks. AODV suffers more in the term of packet
delivery fraction (PDF) because it increases the route discovery process for large scale
networks. But it still performs well in terms of end-to-end delay.
29
2.2.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) [7]
Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) [7, 22, 36, 37] is a reactive routing
protocol based on the source routing concept. Each date packet includes a full address
(list of nodes), which the packet must pass from source to destination. The source builds
a source route in the packet header. A node in the network maintains a route cache that
stores source routes. When new routes are discovered, it updates entries in route cache.
When a source node has a packet to send to another node, it checks its route cache for a
route to a destination. If the route cache does not contain any information, then the source
node broadcasts a route request across the network. One advantage of DSR is that allows
a source node to store more than one path toward a destination. It reduces the route
discovery overhead by using route cache and it reduces the route maintenance overhead.
The disadvantage of DSR is that the packet header size grows as the number of
intermediate nodes increases. There are two major mechanisms that work together in
DSR:
1. Route discovery: a source node will initiate a route discovery by broadcasting a route
request packet, which may be received by other nodes within its wireless transmission
range (see Fig. 2.10). The route request contains the destination address, a request id,
a route record field, and order intermediate node address. If the route discovery finds
the route to a destination, a route reply packet will be generated, which contains a
sequence of intermediate nodes. The route record field accumulates the sequence of
hops taken during route discovery.
30
Figure 2.10: Build Record Route
Each route request packet contains a unique request id. It represents a counter,
which is increased when a new route request is sent by the source. Each node should
maintain a list of the initiator’s address and request id. There are four steps that are used
to process the route request packet at any nodes receivers.
a) If the initiator address and request id are found in the list of recent route requests, then
the route request packet is discarded.
b) If the host’s address is already existed in the route record, then the route request packet
is discarded.
Source
<1>
<1>
<1>
<1,3>
<1,4>
<1,4,6>
<1,3,>
Destination
<1,2>
<1,2,5>
1 3
2
4
6
5
7
31
c) If the destination address of the request matches the host’s address, then the route
record contains the route by which the request reaches host’s address starting from the
source. It sends a route reply packet to the source node that contains a copy of this route.
d) Otherwise, it attaches this host’s address to the route record in the route request packet
and rebroadcasts the packet.
Figure 2.11: DSR Route Reply
A source node broadcasts route requests and continue to do so till the time it
reaches a destination. A route reply is sent back to the source after attaching the list with
all intermediate nodes either upon the point where the request packet reaches the target
node or an intermediate node, which has a route to the destination (see Fig. 2.11). There
are two ways to send a reply packet: by using a reverse of route record if it supports
Source
<1, 2, 5>
Destination
<1, 2, 5>
<1, 2, 5>
1 3
2
4
6
5
7
32
symmetric link, or by initiating route discovery on the part of the destination if it is an
asymmetric link. The route record indicates which sequence of hops was taken [33].
2. Route maintenance: Each node transmitting a packet is responsible for verifying that
the packet has been received by the next hop during travel to a destination (see Fig.
2.12). If the node decides on a fatal transmission error at its data link layer, a route
error packet is directed to the source. The route error packet contains the address of
the node detecting the error and the initiator address. Upon receiving a route error
packet by the node, it takes out the hop that contains the error from the route cache,
and all other routes containing this hop are condensed at that point. Also, the route
maintenance uses an acknowledgement packet to confirm the status of the route from
the source to the other node.
In [26, 34], the authors show that DSR performs very well in terms of end-to-end
delay, throughput, and lowest control overhead. In large scale wireless networks [28, 35],
the DSR scale is well in term of the packet delivery fraction, but suffers from increase of
end-to-end delay because of its route discovery process.
Figure 2.12: DSR Route Maintenance
A B C E D
33
2.2.2.3 Dynamic MANET On Demand Routing Protocol (DYMO) [8]
Dynamic MANET On demand [8, 38, 39] routing protocol is a reactive protocol,
which was developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) group. It is used to
find a unicast route between nodes that want to communicate with each other. DYMO is
built based on AODV routing protocol that it is modified to use path accumulation. There
are two operations of the DYMO: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance [8]. In route
discovery process, the source node welling to transmit data to a specific destination
broadcasts a route request packet (RREQ) into the network. The intermediate nodes
record a route to a destination. RREQ contains the source address, destination address,
sequence number, and hop limit. The source node may resend a RREQ again if it does
not find any route to the destination.
After the route request packet reaches the destination node, it responds back to the
source node by using a Route Reply (RREP) packet. The intermediate nodes add their
own address to RREP packet when they receive RREP. After that, the route between the
source and destination node is established in both directions when the source node
receives the route reply packet. The path accumulation reduces the routing overhead
because it reduces the number of RREQ packet in route discovery [40]. Fig. 2.13 shows
how path accumulations work. Besides route information of a requested target, a node
will also receive information about all intermediate nodes of a newly discovered path.
This is a major difference between DYMO and AODV, which only generates route table
entries for the destination node and the next hop.
34
Figure 2.13: Route Discovery in DYMO and AODV
The Route Maintenance is used to monitor the route from source to destination.
Each intermediate node maintains a route. It will inform the source node that the current
route is not available if the next node along the route from source to destination is broken
[41]. It sends a Route Error (RERP) packet that includes a list of addresses and sequence
numbers. The source node will start a route discovery process again if it has data to
transmit to a destination.
In [41], the authors compare performance between three different routing
protocols DYMO, AODV, and DSR. Each protocol utilizes a random waypoint mobility
model in different pause times. The DYMO shows a good packet delivery ratio of all
D
DYMO
D, C, B D, C
A, B A, B, C
D A B C
A
D
AODV
D D
A A
D A B C
A
35
pause times than other protocols because it uses path accumulation that reduces the
number of route request packets. Paper [42] shows that DYMO has a higher throughput
than other protocols, but it has the worst performance for average jitter.
2.2.2.4 Location Aided Routing Protocol (LAR) [9]
Location Aided Routing Protocol [9, 43] is a reactive routing protocol that is
based on a flooding algorithm. LAR is an improvement over AODV and DSR in terms
of route request packet flooding. The purpose of using LAR is to decrease the routing
overhead by using location information. This protocol uses the Global Positioning
System (GPS) to obtain the location information about nodes. LAR knows the physical
location of any node needed. GPS information has small error that cannot determine the
exact node position. LAR uses the location information to flood a route request packet for
destination in the forwarding zone instead of an entire network space.
In Expected Zone [43], a node sends a data packet to a particular node in an
expected zone. Suppose node S knows that node D is at location L and the current time is
t1. Then node S is able to determine the expected zone of D by using the location
information. For instance, if node D traveled with an average speed v, then node S can
expect node D in the circular region of radius v (t1 - t0), centered at location L (see Fig.
2.14). The expected zone is only estimated by node S to determine all the possible
locations of D. If a node moves with higher speed than the average, then the destination
node may be outside the expected zone at time t1 [44].
36
Figure 2.14: LAR Expected Zone
If node S does not know the information location about node D at time t0, then
node S is not able to determine the expected zone. Therefore, the entire network region is
chosen to be the expected zone. Thus, it is reduced to a simple flooding routing
algorithm. In Request Zone, when a source node sends data packet again, an intermediate
node will forward a route request packet only, if it belongs to the request zone. The
request zone comprises the expected zone and other regions adjacent to the request zone.
There are two different types of LAR request zone: LAR Scheme 1 (LAR1) and LAR
Scheme 2 (LAR1).
LAR1 Request Zone [9] uses a rectangular shape (see Fig. 2.15). Assume that
source node S recognizes the old location of destination node D at (Xd, Yd) at time t0. It
also recognizes its average speed v, then the expected zone at time t1 is defined as a
L V(t1-t0)
37
circle with radius R = v (t1 – t0) centered at location (Xd, Yd). In LAR1 algorithm [9],
the request zone is defined as the smallest rectangle that includes current source node and
expected zone. The sides of the rectangle are parallel to the axes of X and Y. The source
node defines the four corners of the rectangular request zone.
Figure 2.15: LAR Scheme 1- Request Zone
The route request packet includes the four coordinates when initiating the route
discovery process. The node has discarded the route request when a node is outside the
rectangle (expected zone). If the destination node receives the route request packet, it
replies back with a route reply packet (as in the flooding algorithm). It includes the
Expected Zone
Request Zone Network Space
S (Xs,Ys)
C (Xd+R,Ys)
A (Xs, Yd+R) B (Xd + R, Yd+ R)
Q (Xd+R,Yd) (Xd,Yd)
R
P (Xd, Yd+ R)
J (Xj, Yj)
I (Xi, Yi)
Expected Zone (Xd, Yd) R
38
current location and the actual time in the route reply packet. The source node records
and uses this information for a route discovery in the future.
Figure 2.16: LAR Scheme 2
The LAR Scheme 2 (LAR2) [9] explicitly estimates the requested zone in its
route request packet. Suppose source node S knows the location (Xd, Yd) of destination
node D at time t0. The source node calculates its distance from location (Xd, Yd) (see
Fig. 2.16). It forwards the distance with the route request packet. The node can only
forward the route request packet if the distance is closer or limited to the maximum
(Xd, Yd)
S (Xs, Ys)
DISTi
DISTk
DISTs
DISTn
K
N
I
39
distance. The disadvantage of this protocol is that every node needs to carry special
equipment (GPS) [22].
2.2.3 Hybrid Routing Protocols
Hybrid routing protocols [22] have both features of proactive and reactive routing
protocols. These protocols are used to reduce the route discovery overhead by allowing
nodes that are close to each other to work together forming some sort of a backbone. This
is accomplished by features of proactive and reactive routing protocols that maintain
routes for nearby nodes and find routes for far away nodes by using route discovery.
Hybrid protocols can divide the network based on zones, clusters, or trees. Most
of these protocols are zone based, which partitions the network space based on the
number of zones (regions) in each node. There are many different hybrid routing
protocols proposed in wireless networks like Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [10], Zone
Hierarchical Link State (ZHLS) [41], Scalable Location Updates Routing Protocol
(SLURP) [41], Distributed Spanning Trees Based Routing Protocol (DST) [41], and
Distributed Dynamic Routing Protocol (DDR) [41].
2.2.3.1 Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
Zone Routing Protocol [10, 45] is a hybrid routing protocol, which includes the
best of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. ZRP divides the network area into
overlapping zones. It determines the zone of node by using proactive routing protocols
that have route information to all neighbors. It uses the reactive routing protocols for
40
routing between multiple zones. The route zone of each node defines the minimum
distance in hops from the source node to the zone radius. It has a radius, which is
evaluated by the number of hops and not as a physical distance. Each node determines its
own zone size. In Figure 2.17, the routing zone of S consists of the nodes A–K, but not L.
Each node of each zone is divided into two types: peripheral nodes and interior
nodes. Peripheral nodes are nodes placed at the boundary of the zone (the zone radius).
The interior nodes are nodes located inside the zone radius expect boundary. ZRP has
various routing protocols used to supply routing like Intrazone Routing Protocol (IAR)
[45], Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) [45], and Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP)
[45]. The Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP) is a proactive routing that is used within the
zone to identify the route to peripheral nodes. It is limited to the radius of the node zone.
IARP needs to periodically update the route information inside the radius of the node’s
routing zone because it is a table driven protocol. The Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP)
is the reactive routing protocol that is exploited to connect between nodes of different
zones. It is only initiated when it is needed to send data to nodes outside the zone (on
demand). It reduces the amount of delay by using the Bordercast Resolution Protocol
(BRP). IERP takes the advantage of routing information that IARP provides. It does not
submit the query to all local nodes, but only to its peripheral nodes that will reduce delays
in global route discovery [49].
The Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP) is used to send a route request created
by IERP directly to peripheral nodes. BRP uses the local map from IARP and generates a
41
broadcast tree of it. It uses a query control mechanism to direct route request away from
areas of the network that have already been included by another query.
Figure 2.17: ZRP Zone
The radius of the zone plays a key role for performance of ZRP. If it uses a large
radius, then the proactive routing protocol dominant. Also, if it is uses a small radius of
one hop then the reactive routing increases, which increases route discovery and, that
increases the delay. In [45], authors provide a flexible solution for performance of ZRP.
They introduce many query control schemes (like Query Detection (QD1/QD2), Early
Termination (ET), and Random Query Processing Delay (RQPD)) to overcome a
redundant query.
L
K
J
B C
S G D
E
I
H F
A
42
CHAPTER 3
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Wireless networks can be divided into two types: infrastructure networks and ad
hoc networks (infrastructure less) (see Fig. 3.1). A fixed infrastructure wireless network
is a set of wireless devices, which are connected to fixed base stations (BS). In other
words, a fixed infrastructure has a central access point (AP), which is responsible for all
operations such as routing and security. The base stations are used to make a connection
with devices and are responsible for routing between them. Cellular networks are an
example of infrastructure wireless networks. A mobile device is needed to find the
nearest base station to communicate with it (and called handoff or handover).
Ad hoc network is a network without any fixed infrastructure, which has two
types: static and mobile ad hoc networks. A static ad hoc network has fixed nodes, which
communicate with each other through predefined links. These nodes act like a router that
can receive and transmit data without the need for any access point (AP).
Mobile ad hoc networks are a set of wireless network devices, which have
temporary network communication with each other without relying on a fixed
infrastructure or central administration (such as router or access point AP). MANETs are
peer-to-peer or multi-hop mobile wireless networks that store and forward packets from a
source to a destination. MANET has the capability for easy and rapid deployment
43
anywhere because there is no base station needed. MANET is a self-configuring and self-
organizing mobile wireless network. These networks are mainly used in military
applications, business, emergency services, and conferences. All devices in MANET are
moving freely and randomly, which connect between each other dynamically. The
devices act like a router that is able to discover and maintain routes to other devices in the
network. One of the biggest challenges in the MANET is the routing protocol. Traditional
wired routing protocols cannot work well for MANET that has no infrastructure and
dynamic topology changes.
Figure 3.1: Wireless Network
There are several advantages of MANETs. It can be established and removed very
fast without any previous infrastructure. Also, MANET can support connection failures
44
(fault tolerance) due to routing protocols, which are designed to manage these problems.
Mobility is another advantage, which MANET nodes can move randomly at the same
time in different ways. MANET can have less cost due to the absence of its
infrastructure. Finally, it allows reusing spectrum due to short communication links, and
it reduces radio transmission.
MANETs have some problems such as bandwidth constraints because the
capacity of the wireless connection is less than the wired networks. Also, the battery has
a power constraint, which reduces the number of operations. Therefore, MANETs need
efficient algorithms to keep battery power for the longest time. Error rate in MANETs is
higher than wired networks because of the increased transmission error and interferences
[46]. Security is more complex to maintain in MANETs than in wired networks because
of the lack of secure boundary and centralized management. This lack may cause various
links attacks.
3.1 Characteristics of Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs)
MANETs are characterized by:
1. Dynamic Network Topology
Devices move in any direction, thus, the network topology changes randomly and
unpredictably. Mobile nodes establish routing between each other dynamically as
they move inside network area.
45
2. Bandwidth and Capacity
Wireless links have lower capacity than infrastructure networks. Throughput is less
than the maximum transmission rate after effects of noise, fading, and interference.
3. Power
Devices in MANET have different types of batteries or other exhaustible means
for their energy. The energy conservation plays an important factor when system
designs are optimized.
4. Security
MANETs are more effective to physical security threats than wired networks.
There are many security techniques applied in MANETs. The decentralization of
MANETs allows more robustness.
3.2 Applications
MANETs are widely spread in many areas. MANETs can be easily used in any
environment or anytime without communication infrastructure. Ad hoc networks have
been developed for military applications without any stationary infrastructure or
centralized management such as battlefields [47]. There are many applications as follows:
1. Defense application: Many defense applications have been used where
communication infrastructure is impossible to locate. It is used to maintain an
information network among soldiers on the ground, vehicles, or planes in the air.
46
2. Personal area network application: A personal area network is a short transmission
range between devices that is used for communication between these devices (e.g.
Bluetooth, IrDA).
3. Crisis management applications: When a natural disaster happens (e.g. earthquake,
fire, flood), it is very difficult to establish a wired connection between devices.
MANET provides quick communication setup in a few hours instead of few days,
which is required for wire-line communication.
4. Industrial applications: MANET is widely used in commercial applications (e.g.
manufacture). There are many electronic devices that are interconnected. The wiring
connection leads to the crowding of space. Ad hoc networks allow for easily moved
and reconfigured networks based on need.
5. Health care applications: MANET is very helpful in critical and emergency situations.
It allows exchange information (data, video, audio) between a patient and health care
center. For example, the video information may act as an aid to determine the level of
injuries.
It is worthy to mention that MANETs are widely used in recent applications.
Some of its features include: flexibility, lack of infrastructure, auto configuration, ease of
deployment, and low cost among others. In addition, the use applications make it a
fundamental part of the future. As a result, MANETs are implemented on military
communication, airplane, and natural disaster. There are many challenges on MANETs to
47
be solved, including mobility, protocols, and services. In our work, we show the
performance of routing protocols under different mobility with various traffic patterns.
48
CHAPTER 4
Simulation Model
In this chapter, we describe the simulator software, models, and the parameters
used in our simulation. We used QualNet [1] simulator from Scalable Network
Technologies to create experiments and conduct performance analysis. The software is
accurate, fast, tested, and scalable.
4.1 Simulator
QualNet [1] is a planning, testing, and training tool, which tries to mimic the
behavior of a communication network. QualNet has layered modules for Physical, MAC,
Network, Transport, and Application layers. We have utilized all these modules to
conduct an extensive set of experiments. In these experiments, we used various mobility
models and routing algorithms to support various traffic models. We acquired our results
from QualNet simulation that can create a custom scenario model to predict wireless,
wired, and mixed platform networks. It allows users to evaluate the behavior of a
network, and examine the network features. QualNet provides a comprehensive
environment for designing protocols, creating and animating network scenarios, and
analyzing their performance. It is composed of the following components:
49
1. Architecture: the architecture consists of a graphical scenario design and
visualization tool. There are two modes in the architecture component. First, design
mode for designing experiments. Second, visualize mode for running and visualizing
experiments.
2. Analyzer: A graphical statistic analyzing tool that displays results collected during
simulation time.
3. Packets Tracer: It is a graphical tool to display and analyze packets.
4. File Editor: A text editing tool.
5. Command Line Interface: Command line access to the simulator.
4.2 Features
There are several features of the simulator that enable creating a virtual network
environment and those are:
1. Speed
It can support real-time speed to enable software-in-the-loop network emulation
and human-in-the-loop modeling. Faster speed allows the designer and developer
to run several analyses by varying traffic parameters, network, and model in a
short time.
2. Scalability
It can model thousands of nodes, which benefit from the latest hardware and
parallel computing techniques. It can run on cluster, multi-core, and multi-
processor systems to model large networks with high accuracy.
50
3. Model Fidelity
It uses extremely detailed standards based implementation of protocol model and
also provides advanced models for the wireless environment to enable more
accurate modeling of real world communication networks.
4. Portability
QualNet and its library of models can run on several platforms, such as Windows
and Linux operating systems’ distributed and cluster parallel architectures, and
both 32 and 64-bit computing platforms. QualNet allows users to develop a
portable model or design a network model on their own computers and then
transfer it to a powerful multi-processor Linux server to run capacity,
performance, and scalability analyses.
5. Extensibility
It can be connected to other hardware and software applications, such as real
networks, and third party visualization software to greatly enhance the value of
the network model.
4.3 Traffic Model
There are many types of traffic sources that can be generated as a stochastic
model of traffic or data source. We can classify data traffic into four types:
51
4.3.1 Constant Bit Rate (CBR)
CBR generator generates a fixed data rate (deterministic rate) by transmitting
packets of a fixed size at a fixed rate, which is used for measuring the data rate in the
network. CBR is used to simulate applications between end systems, which require
expected response time and fixed amount of bandwidth to be continuously available
during the connection time. It is useful for streaming multimedia content including
applications services such as video and voice services on a limited capacity channel
because it uses maximum bit rate, not the average. Therefore, CBR is used to take
advantage of all capacity. It is not the optimal choice for storage due to the fact that it
does not allocate enough data for complex sections because it wastes data for simple
sections.
To solve the problem of lack of enough data for complex sections, it can choose a
high bit rate to guarantee that there will be enough for the whole encoding process [48]. It
is difficult to achieve a perfect CBR that deals with other coding schemes such as
Huffman coding or run length encoding to produce variable length codes. This problem
can be partly solved by changing the quality or completely solved by padding. When the
stream video uses a CBR, the sender could be under the CBR rate. Therefore, it is
necessary to add stuffing packets in the stream to complete the data rate required. These
packets do not have any effect on the stream.
52
4.3.2 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
VBR is opposed to constant bit rate (CBR) where VBR files change the amount of
output data per time segment. VBR allows a higher bit rate that requires more storage
space to be allocated to the more complex segments of media files, while less space is
allocated to less complex segments. VBR uses an average bit rate, which calculates the
average of these rates. This feature of VBR produces a better space management
compared to a CBR file of the same data. It allows more flexibility to use bits available
to encode the sound or video data more precisely. It uses fewer bits in small encode
demand and more bits in high encode demand. There are several disadvantages that are
shown on VBR, which may take additional time to encode data. Therefore, the process
becomes more complex. VBR may show problems during streaming when the bit rate
exceeds the data rate of the communication path. We can avoid this problem by limiting
the bit rate during encoding through increasing the playout buffer.
4.3.3 Random Traffic
Random traffic is a stochastic model of the traffic flows (a random distribution
based traffic generator) such as a cellular network and computer network. These random
distributions are applicable to both session property and traffic property. A packet
generation model is a traffic of packet flows such as web traffic, and the data of which
can be sent and received by a user’s web browser. It can generate different traffic models:
Exponential, Pareto, and Uniform. Exponential is an ON/OFF mode that the holding time
follows in an exponential distribution. During the ON period, packets are generated at a
53
burst rate while the OFF period does not generate any traffic. Pareto is also ON/OFF
traffic with burst times follows Pareto distribution. These models are used to analyze the
performance of different protocols, algorithms, and network topologies.
4.3.4 File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
FTP is a standard network protocol used to transfer files from one device (client)
to another (server) over TCP network. FTP uses a separate channel for control and data
connections between client and server. It also uses an authentication system (username
and password) to ensure that only authorized users are allowed to access a server, but,
sometimes, anonymous users can connect to the server if it is set up to provide files to
any user requesting them. FTP uses encryption content for secure transmission that keeps
the username and password secure such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/ Transport Layer
Security (TLS), and Secure Shell (SSH) File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). When the
connection is established and authentication is complete, there are two basic commands
used to send or received files. The main goal of FTP is to make file transfer simple and
easy. FTP can be used with other applications to move files from one place to another.
4.4 Simulation Setup
We experimented our routing protocols with different mobility models and
various traffic classes in MANET. We created simulations to investigate performance and
evaluation of routing protocols. The simulation parameters are included in Table 3.1.
54
There are several parameters effects on simulation such as mobility, network shape, node
placement, and other factors.
Dimension 1500×1500m
Number of Nodes 50
Mobility Model Random Waypoint, Group Mobility
Simulation Time 1000 sec
Minimum Speed 0 m/s
Maximum Speed 10 m/s
Pause Time 5 sec
Traffic Model CBR, VBR, Random
Node Placement Strategy Random
Routing Protocol FSR, OLSR, AODV, DYMO, ZRP
Item Size 512 bytes
MAC Protocol 802.11
Data Rate 2 Mbps
Antenna Model Omni Directional
Table 3.1 Simulation Parameters
4.4.1 Simulation Time
We ran the simulation for 1000 seconds to avoid generating statistical anomalies.
Application generates traffic during this time, which starts at 1 second.
55
4.4.2 Mobility
Nodes move randomly in network space due to dynamic environments. There are
several types of mobility models used in different studies. For example, random waypoint
model is used more widely than other models. In this model, nodes move and select
destination in a random way. After that, nodes pause for a period of time (nodes stop for
some time after they reach the destination), then select the new destination randomly and
move. A new speed and a new destination direction are chosen independently from the
previous movement. Pause time is an important parameter in the Random Waypoint
model that affect the behavior of mobile nodes. Random waypoint and group mobility
models are used in our simulation. The speed has been selected from a uniform
distribution between [Vmin, Vmax]. We selected the minimum speed 0 m/s and the
maximum speed 10 m/s. Nodes paused for 5 seconds, and then moved to a new
destination.
4.4.3 Node placement and Network shape
Shape of space in the network is affected when the nodes moving in space, which
will influence the simulation results. Different shapes create different mobility pattern of
nodes. Different shapes of networks affect the work of routing protocols. In our
simulation, the network consists of 50 mobile nodes randomly placed in a 1500×1500m
square space. When nodes are reached the simulation boundary, they bounce back to the
simulation area. There is no obstacle inside the simulation area.
56
4.4.4 Physical Layer
The Physical layer is a simple radio model, which can support either Signal-to-
Noise Ratio (SNR) or Bit Error Rate (BER). In our experiments, each scenario uses
802.11b radio on physical layer with Omni direction antenna model. The Omni antenna is
a basic antenna, which yields the same antenna gain irrespective of the direction of the
transmitted or received signal. We set the noise factor to 10. Also, we set the radio data
rate to 2 Mbps.
4.4.5 MAC Layer
There are several MAC types such as 802.11, 802.11e, 802.11s, TDMA, and
CSMA. In our simulations, we selected 802.11 for all scenarios.
4.4.6 Network Layer
In this layer, we selected IPv4 network protocols. This protocol supports mobility,
which allows transparent routing of IP datagrams to mobile nodes during moving from
one domain to another. The IPv4 uses 2048 bytes IP fragmentation unit to keep the whole
packets.
4.4.7 Routing Protocols
In our simulation, we selected five types of routing protocols (FSR, OLSR,
AODV, DYMO, and ZRP), which are more popular in wireless networks. These
protocols have different ability to react to dynamic topology changes such as node
movement, links breaks, and different traffics.
57
4.5 Metrics
We compare the performance of Proactive (FSR, OLSR) Routing protocols,
Reactive (ADOV, DYMO) Routing protocols, and Hybrid (ZRP) Routing protocol. We
have used average end-to-end delay, throughput, and Jitter to analyze and compare
performances of these protocols.
4.5.1 Throughput
Throughput is a ratio of total successful data, which reaches the receiver from the
sender in the time needed to receive it. Throughput is represented in bits per second
(bits/sec) or in packet per second. We analyze the throughput result of routing protocols
in terms of (bits/sec). MANETs need a high throughput due to unreliable connection,
limited bandwidth, dynamic topology, and limited battery. We can calculate throughput
from the equation below.
Throughput (bits / sec) = total delivered data / total simulation time
4.5.2 End-to-End Delay
End-to-End Delay is the average time that a data packet needs to reach a
destination. This is the time when the source starts transmitting the first packet to its
receiver. It calculates all delays caused by transmission time, queuing, MAC control, and
transfer time. Transmission delay is the time taken to transmit all the packets on the link
while propagation delay is the time taken to transmit first bit to reach the destination.
Processing delay is the time taken by all operation between source and destination. It also
58
needs to calculate a delay for route discovery when using reactive routing protocols.
Applications demand is different; therefore, they need different delay levels. Most
applications in network (such as video) require a low average delay. In a MANET, the
delay is higher than wireless network because of the limited signal power, mobility,
established routes, and failed connections. end-to-end delay is used to measure the impact
of different mobility models and various traffics on different routing protocols. We can
calculate end-to-end delay from the equation below.
End-to-End Delay = transmission delay + propagation delay + process delay
4.5.3 Average Jitter
Jitter is the variation in the time between different data packets arriving. The
source node sends packets in a continuous flow, but the delay between packets arriving
varies due to route changes, queuing, and congestion. Jitter causes serious problems at the
receiving end for audio and video applications. Applications require small jitter for better
performance.
59
CHAPTER 5
Simulation Result
In this chapter, we presented results for simulation models that show the effect of
factors (mobility and traffic) together on routing algorithms and measure application
performance in terms of end-to-end delay, throughput (bit rate), and jitter. We ran
simulations for a 1000 second with different traffic loads. We acquired the results from
separate files by QualNet then put the data into spreadsheets and created charts.
5.1 Throughput
Throughput will increase when the number of nodes increases. Thus, it will
increase performance. Also, it will increase when the speed increases, but it depends on
the type of routing and what is the optimal maximum speed you should select in random
waypoint mobility model. The results of throughput for routing protocols are shown in
Fig 5.1. In CBR traffic, AODV protocol outperforms other routing protocols with all
loads because it can respond to dynamic change in the network topology and can
maintain routes better than others. OLSR routing protocol shows high throughput
performance among proactive routing protocols. DYMO performs well under 50 percent
loads. But when the load increases, DYMO shows a few fluctuations due to the mobility.
FSR shows lower throughputs than OLSR due to the characteristic of proactive routing
60
protocols. ZRP presents the worst throughput among the protocols with all loads. It
cannot react fast because it needs more time to find a route.
Figure 5.1: Throughput in Random Waypoint Model (higher is better)
61
In random traffic (Fig. 5.1), like CBR traffic, AODV outperforms other routing
protocols. DYMO and ZRP show the worst throughput among the routing protocols when
the load is higher than 50 percent. OLSR shows better throughput with the load higher
than 50 percent. FSR shows the worst throughput when the load is under 40 percent.
In VBR traffic (Fig. 5.1), OLSR routing protocol shows better throughput than
other protocols when the load is higher than 80 percent. Also like CBR traffic, AODV
outperforms other protocols while FSR shows less throughput among other routing
protocols. We can see that ZRP performs almost the same as the DYMO after the load
exceeds 50 percent.
Under group mobility model with CBR and VBR traffic, our results are shown in
Figure 5.2. AODV outperforms other protocols in different traffic. OLSR shows the
worst throughput among other protocols. ZRP performs better than OLSR when the load
is higher than 50 percent, whereas DYMO shows good throughput when the load is under
50 percent. FSR shows better throughput when the load is higher than 80 percent.
In random traffic, DYMO shows the worst throughput when the loads are higher
than 50 percent, while ZRP shows the worst throughput when the loads are under 50
percent. OLSR shows better throughput than proactive protocols.
63
5.2 Average End-to-End Delay
According to our simulation results in random waypoint mobility model using
CBR traffic (see Fig. 5.3), delay for AODV is less than the average delay of other
protocols because the route discovery process is very fast. OLSR performs almost the
same AODV routing protocol. It does not need to do route discovery due to the fact that
its characteristic is table driven. FSR shows less average delay when the load is 30 and 40
percent. DYMO shows the worst delay among all routing protocols, while ZRP shows
higher average delay when the load is less than 50 percent.
In random traffic, AODV also outperforms other protocols with different loads,
followed by OLSR, FSR, and DYMO. ZRP shows the worst average delay due to
mobility influence on the ability to find routes fast. In VBR traffic, AODV also performs
very well compare to other routing protocols. DYMO shows higher delay when the load
exceeds 50 percent.
In group mobility models, according to our simulation, results are shown in
Figure 5.4. In CBR and VBR traffic, ZRP routing protocol outperforms other protocols
(less end-to-end delay). DYMO and AODV protocol show the worst average delay. In
random traffic, OLSR outperforms other routing protocols, while DYMO shows the
worst average delay.
66
5.3 Average Jitter
According to our results in random waypoint mobility model (see Fig. 5.5),
AODV presents the best performance, while ZRP presents the worst performance in
terms of average jitter using CBR, Random, and VBR traffic. In random and VBR traffic
source, OLSR, FSR, and DYMO protocols show almost the same average jitter when the
load exceeds 50 percent while in CBR traffic, DYMO shows high average jitter and
follows ZRP.
Figure 5.5: Jitter in Random Waypoint Model (lower is better)
67
In group mobility model (see Fig. 5.6) with CBR traffic, ZRP has the best
performance, while DYMO and AODV have the worst performance when compared to
other protocols. In random and VBR traffic, AODV shows lower jitter than other
protocols. Like CBR traffic, DYMO shows the worst performance in random traffic,
while OLSR has the highest jitter in VBR traffic.
Figure 5.6: Jitter in Group Mobility Model (lower is better)
68
The routing protocol, which has higher throughput, will give best performance.
Our results show that AODV has a higher throughput than other routing protocols. Table
5.1 shows the comparison of routing protocols under random waypoint and group
mobility models with CBR, VBR, and Random traffics.
Table 5.1: Comparison Results
5.4 Modifying AODV Parameters
There is a set of parameters in the AODV routing protocol that affects the
behavior of the network in terms Quality of Services (QoS). This leads us to think about
using Hello message (control message) that is used to detect and monitor links between
nodes (connectivity). The results show that end-to-end Delay in AODV decreases and
throughput increases under a random waypoint mobility model with CBR, VBR, and
random traffics. In Figure 5.7, we can see that ratio throughput and delay in AODV with
Hello message is better than AODV without it.
Mobility
model
CBR VBR Random
Throughput Delay Jitter Throughput Delay Jitter Throughput Delay Jitter
Random
Waypoint
AODV
AODV
AODV
AODV
AODV/FSR
AODV
AODV
AODV
AODV
Group
mobility
AODV
ZRP
ZRP
AODV
ZRP
AODV
AODV
OLSR
AODV
70
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion & Future Work
6.1 Conclusion
Mobile ad hoc networks are a dynamic and unpredictable network topology.
There are several routing protocols that have been proposed for MANETs. Most pervious
research focused on improving the existing routing protocols or designing new routing
algorithms. In our work, we investigated and compared the impact of mobility models on
routing protocols for various traffic classes in MANETs. There were many factors that
affected the performance of routing protocols such as mobility and traffic patterns. We
designed several simulation models that brought these factors together and measured the
application performance in terms of end-to-end throughput (bit rate), latency, and jitter.
Three classes of MANET routing algorithms (Proactive, Reactive, and Hybrid), two
mobility models (Random Waypoint and Group), and Three classes of traffic patterns
(constant bit rate, variable bit rate, and random) have been used.
We evaluated and compared the performance of five routing protocols (FSR,
AODV, OLSR, DYMO, and ZRP) in MANETs. As a result of our simulation, it indicated
that AODV has the best performance with different mobility models for various traffic
patterns. It showed high throughput, less end-to-end delay, and less jitter. We found that
mobility is a key factor, which affects the performance of routing protocols. AODV
routing protocol performed better at all mobility speeds among others protocols.
71
6.2 Future Work
MANETs have received more attention in recent years. We studied the impact of
mobility on routing protocols with various traffic patterns. For future work, we have
several goals. The first goal is to improve the performance of AODV routing protocol.
While the second goal would be planning to test AODV routing protocol with other
mobility models. Finally, we would like to suggest the development of a new real life
simulation that will allow analyzing the performance of routing protocols under realistic
mobility and traffic.
72
Glossary
MANETs Mobile Ad Hoc Networks 1
QoS Quality of Services 1, 6, 8
MWNs Multi-hop Wireless Networks 2
FSR Fisheye State Routing protocol 7, 19, 56
OLSR Optimized Link State Routing protocol 7, 21, 22, 56
DSDV Destination Sequenced Distance Vector 7, 19, 26
AODV Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector routing protocol 7, 25, 33, 56
DSR Dynamic Source Routing protocol 7, 29, 33
DYMO Dynamic MANET On Demand routing protocol 7, 33, 56
LAR Location Aided Routing protocol 7, 35
ZRP Zone Routing Protocol 8, 39, 56
MAC Media Access Control 9, 56
CSMA Carrier Sense Multiple Access protocol 9
MNs Mobile Nodes 11, 12
MPR Multipoint Relays 21
TC Topology Control 22
SBR Statistic Based Routing 23
VANETs Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks 23
STAR Source Tree Adaptive Routing protocol 23
73
LORA Least Overhead Routing Approach 23
ORA Optimum Routing Approach 23
RREQ Route Request message 25, 26, 33
RREP Route Reply message 25, 33
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force 33
GPS Global Positioning System 35, 39
ZHLS Zone Hierarchical Link State 39
SLURP Scalable Location Updates Routing Protocol 39
DST Distributed Spanning Trees Based Routing Protocol 39
DDR Distributed Dynamic Routing protocol 39
IAR Intrazone Routing Protocol 40
IERP Interzone Routing Protocol 40
BRP Bordercast Resolution Protocol 40
QD1/QD2 Query Detection 41
ET Early Termination 41
RQPD Random Query Processing Delay 41
BS Base Stations 42
AP Access Point 42
CBR Constant Bit Rate 23, 51
VBR Variable Bit Rate 52
FTP File Transfer Protocol 53
SSL Secure Sockets Layer 53
74
TLS Transport Layer Security 53
SFTP Secure Shell (SSH) File Transfer Protocol 53
SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio 56
BER Bit Error Rate 56
TDMA Time Division Multiple Access 56
75
REFERENCES
[1] http://web.scalable-networks.com/content/qualnet.
[2] Cheng, Chunhsiang, Ralph Riley, Srikanta PR Kumar, and Jose J. Garcia-Luna-
Aceves. "A loop-free extended Bellman-Ford routing protocol without bouncing
effect." In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp.
224-236. ACM, 1989.
[3] Guangyu Pei, M. Gerla and Tsu-Wei Chen, "Fisheye state routing: a routing scheme
for ad hoc wireless networks," Communications, 2000. ICC 2000. 2000 IEEE
International Conference on, New Orleans, LA, 2000, pp. 70-74 vol.1.
[4] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, T. Clausen, A. Laouiti, A. Qayyum and L. Viennot,
"Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks," Multi Topic
Conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001. Technology for the 21st Century.
Proceedings. IEEE International, 2001, pp. 62-68.
[5] Perkins, Charles E., and Pravin Bhagwat. "Highly dynamic destination-sequenced
distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers." In ACM SIGCOMM
computer communication review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 234-244. ACM, 1994.
[6] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, "Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing," Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications, 1999. Proceedings. WMCSA '99. Second
IEEE Workshop on, New Orleans, LA, 1999, pp. 90-100.
[7] Johnson, David B., and David A. Maltz. "Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless
networks." In Mobile computing, pp. 153-181. Springer US, 1996.
76
[8] Chakeres, Ian, and Charles Perkins. "Dynamic MANET on-demand (DYMO)
routing." draft-ietf-manet-dymo-9.txt, May (2007). [Online] Available:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/draft-ietf-manet-dymo/draft-ietf-manet-dymo-09.txt
[9] Y.-B. KO, N.H. Vaidya, Location-aided routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks, in:
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom 98), Dallas, TX, 1998.
[10] Z.J. Hass, R. Pearlman, Zone routing protocol for ad-hoc networks, Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-manet-zrp-02.txt, work in progress, 1999.
[11] Camp, Tracy, Jeff Boleng, and Vanessa Davies. "A survey of mobility models for ad
hoc network research." Wireless communications and mobile computing 2, no. 5
(2002): 483-502.
[12] Bai, Fan, and Ahmed Helmy. "A survey of mobility models." Wireless Adhoc
Networks. University of Southern California, USA 206 (2004).
[13] J. Yoon, M. Liu and B. Noble, "Random waypoint considered harmful," INFOCOM
2003. Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
Communications. IEEE Societies, San Francisco, CA, 2003, pp. 1312-1321 vol.2.
[14] Broch, Josh, David A. Maltz, David B. Johnson, Yih-Chun Hu, and Jorjeta Jetcheva.
"A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing
protocols." In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM/IEEE international conference
on Mobile computing and networking, pp. 85-97. ACM, 1998.
[15] Resta, Giovanni, and Paolo Santi. "An analysis of the node spatial distribution of the
random waypoint mobility model for ad hoc networks." InProceedings of the
77
second ACM international workshop on Principles of mobile computing, pp. 44-
50. ACM, 2002.
[16] Jardosh, Amit, Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer, Kevin C. Almeroth, and Subhash Suri.
"Towards realistic mobility models for mobile ad hoc networks." InProceedings
of the 9th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking,
pp. 217-229. ACM, 2003.
[17] G. Lin, Noubir G and Rajmohan Rajaraman, "Mobility models for ad hoc network
simulation," INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-third AnnualJoint Conference of the IEEE
Computer and Communications Societies, 2004, pp. 463.
[18] W. Navidi and T. Camp, "Stationary distributions for the random waypoint mobility
model," in IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 99-108,
Jan-Feb 2004.
[19] Hong, Xiaoyan, Mario Gerla, Guangyu Pei, and Ching-Chuan Chiang. "A group
mobility model for ad hoc wireless networks." In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM
international workshop on Modeling, analysis and simulation of wireless and
mobile systems, pp. 53-60. ACM, 1999.
[20] Rover, Elizabeth M., and Chai-Keong Toh. "A review of current routing protocols
for ad hoc networks." IEEE Communications 6 (1999): 46-55.
[21] Liu, Changling, and Jörg Kaiser. A survey of mobile ad hoc network routing
protocols. Universität Ulm, Fakultät für Informatik., 2003.
[22] Abolhasan, Mehran, Tadeusz Wysocki, and Eryk Dutkiewicz. "A review of routing
protocols for mobile ad hoc networks." Ad hoc networks 2, no. 1 (2004): 1-22.
78
[23] A. Iwata, Ching-Chuan Chiang, Guangyu Pei, M. Gerla and Tsu-Wei Chen,
"Scalable routing strategies for ad hoc wireless networks," in IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1369-1379, Aug 1999.
[24] Maurya, Ashish K., Dinesh Singh, and Ajeet Kumar. "Performance Comparison of
DSR, OLSR and FSR Routing Protocols in MANET Using Random Waypoint
Mobility Model." International Journal of Information and Electronics
Engineering 3, no. 5 (2013): 440.
[25] Clausen, Thomas, Philippe Jacquet, Cédric Adjih, Anis Laouiti, Pascale Minet, Paul
Muhlethaler, Amir Qayyum, and Laurent Viennot. "Optimized link state routing
protocol (OLSR)." (2003).
[26] A. Al-Maashri and M. Ould-Khaoua, "Performance Analysis of MANET Routing
Protocols in the Presence of Self-Similar Traffic," Local Computer Networks,
Proceedings 2006 31st IEEE Conference on, Tampa, FL, 2006, pp. 801-807.
[27] Klein, Alexander. "Performance comparison and evaluation of AODV, OLSR, and
SBR in mobile ad-hoc networks." In Wireless Pervasive Computing, 2008.
ISWPC 2008. 3rd International Symposium on, pp. 571-575. IEEE, 2008.
[28] Mbarushimana, Consolee, and Alireza Shahrabi. "Comparative study of reactive and
proactive routing protocols performance in mobile ad hoc networks." In Advanced
Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 2007, AINAW'07. 21st
International Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 679-684. IEEE, 2007.
[29] Ledy, J., Hilt, B., Boeglen, H., Poussard, A.M., Drouhin, F., Vauzelle, R. and
Lorenz, P., 2015. Impact of Realistic Simulation on the Evaluation of Mobile Ad
79
Hoc Routing Protocols. Emerging Topics in Computing, IEEE Transactions
on, 3(3), pp.317-334.
[30] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and M. Spohn, "Source-tree routing in wireless
networks," Network Protocols, 1999. (ICNP '99) Proceedings. Seventh
International Conference on, 1999, pp. 273-282.
[31] Hong Jiang and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "Performance comparison of three routing
protocols for ad hoc networks," Computer Communications and Networks, 2001.
Proceedings. Tenth International Conference on, Scottsdale, AZ, 2001, pp. 547-
554.
[32] H. Ehsan and Z. A. Uzmi, "Performance comparison of ad hoc wireless network
routing protocols," Multitopic Conference, 2004. Proceedings of INMIC 2004. 8th
International, 2004, pp. 457-465.
[33] Jorg, David Oliver. "Performance comparison of MANET routing protocols in
different network sizes." Computer Networks & Distributed Systems (2003).
[34] Sesay, Samba, Zongkai Yang, Biao Qi, and Jianhua He. "Simulation comparison of
four wireless ad hoc routing protocols." Information technology journal 3, no. 3
(2004): 219-226.
[35] Broustis, Ioannis, Gentian Jakllari, Thomas Repantis, and Mart Molle. "A
Comprehensive Comparison of Routing Protocols for Large-Scale Wireless
MANETs." In Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, 2006.
SECON'06. 2006 3rd Annual IEEE Communications Society on, vol. 3, pp. 951-
956. IEEE, 2006.
80
[36] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, and Josh Broch,“DSR: The Dynamic Source
Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” in Ad Hoc
Networking, edited by Charles E. Perkins, Chapter 5,pp. 139-172, Addison-
Wesley, 2001.
[37] T. P. Lambrou and C. G. Panayiotou, "A Survey on Routing Techniques Supporting
Mobility in Sensor Networks," Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks, 2009. MSN
'09. 5th International Conference on, Fujian, 2009, pp. 78-85.
[38] F. Maan and N. Mazhar, "MANET routing protocols vs mobility models: A
performance evaluation," Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN), 2011 Third
International Conference on, Dalian, 2011, pp. 179-184.
[39] S. Edenhofer and P. Höfner, "Towards a rigorous analysis of AODVv2
(DYMO)," Network Protocols (ICNP), 2012 20th IEEE International Conference
on, Austin, TX, 2012, pp. 1-6.
[40] C. Sommer and F. Dressler, "The DYMO Routing Protocol in VANET
Scenarios," Vehicular Technology Conference, 2007. VTC-2007 Fall. 2007 IEEE
66th, Baltimore, MD, 2007, pp. 16-20.
[41] Maurya, Ajay Kumar, Dinesh Singh, Ajit Kumar, and Ritesh Maurya. "Random
waypoint mobility model based performance estimation of On-Demand routing
protocols in MANET for CBR applications." In Computing for Sustainable
Global Development (INDIACom), 2014 International Conference on, pp. 835-
839. IEEE, 2014.
81
[42] Singh, Dinesh, Ashish K. Maurya, and Anil K. Sarje. "Comparative performance
analysis of LANMAR, LAR1, DYMO and ZRP routing protocols in MANET
using Random Waypoint Mobility Model." In Electronics Computer Technology
(ICECT), 2011 3rd International Conference on, vol. 6, pp. 62-66. IEEE, 2011.
[43] Agrawal, Dharma, and Qing-An Zeng. Introduction to wireless and mobile systems.
Cengage Learning, 2010.
[44] Sarkar, Subir Kumar, T. G. Basavaraju, and C. Puttamadappa. Ad hoc mobile
wireless networks: principles, protocols and applications. CRC Press, 2007.
[45] Haas, Zygmunt J., and Marc R. Pearlman. "The performance of query control
schemes for the zone routing protocol." IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking
(TON) 9, no. 4 (2001): 427-438.
[46] Karimi, Masoumeh, and Deng Pan. "Challenges for Quality of Service (QoS) in
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks." In IEEE Wireless and Microwave Technology
Conference (WAMICON’09). 2009.
[47] Karimi, Masoumeh. Quality of Service (QoS) Provisioning in Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks (MANETs). INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2011.
[48] AL-Maksousy, Hassan Hadi Latheeth. "Performance Analysis of Multi-hop Wireless
Networks." Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. Kent State University, 2012.
[49] C. A. Santivanez, B. McDonald, I. Stavrakakis and R. Ramanathan, "On the
scalability of ad hoc routing protocols," INFOCOM 2002. Twenty-First Annual
Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
Proceedings. IEEE, 2002, pp. 1688-1697 vol.3.