Page 2 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2865 Edited by G. Goos ...

Evaluation of the AODV and DSR Routing Protocols 35our experiments, therefore we effectively consider scenarios where the networkload is not bursty. In [2,5] it is shown that DSR outperforms AODV in scenarioswhere the offered network load is low. Our results show the same trend.5 Conclusions and Ongoing WorkThe main goal of this work is to evaluate the performance of two MANET routingprotocols in the MERIT tool, an implementation of the MERIT framework. Ourresults show that DSR outperforms AODV in the scenarios we consider. Theseresults agree with the observations made in a similar context in [5] where theprotocols were compared in terms of their path optimality and other performancemeasures. Also, the MERIT spectra which plots the MERIT ratio against variousnetwork parameters of interest show that the MERIT ratio intuitively capturesthe network dynamics and behaves as expected.In our ongoing work, we are evaluating the performance of routing protocolsimplemented in different network simulators to verify the implementationindependence, and scalability aspects of the MERIT framework. As well, weare working towards defining a transition cost function that will capture moreaccurately the cost of updating the paths in the routing table.AcknowledgmentsWe thank A. Faragó for helpful discussions, J. Boleng for sharing code to determinelink state transitions in ns-2, and K. Vadde for help with the figures.References1. S. Bhadra and A. Ferreira, “Computing Multicast Trees in Dynamic Networks usingEvolving Graphs,” Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique(INRIA), Research Report No. 4531, August 2002, revised October 2002.2. J. Broch, D.A. Maltz, D.B. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva. “A PerformanceComparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols,” Proceedingsof the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computingand Networking (Mobicom’98), Dallas, Texas, pp. 85–97, October 1998.3. Wireless and Mobility Extensions to ns-2. Carnegie Mellon University Monarch(Mobile Networking Architectures) Project. http:/www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu4. M.S. Corson and J. Macker. “Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): RoutingProtocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations,” Network WorkingGroup, RFC 2501, January 1999. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2501.txt5. S.R. Das, C.E. Perkins, and E.M. Royer. “Performance Comparison of Two On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 19th AnnualJoint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communication Societies (Infocom2000), Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 3–12, March 2000.6. A. Faragó and V.R. Syrotiuk. “MERIT: A Unified Framework for Routing ProtocolAssessment in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACMInternational Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom’01),Rome, Italy, pp. 53–60, July 2001.