Page 2 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2865 Edited by G. Goos ...
Page 2 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2865 Edited by G. Goos ...
Page 2 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2865 Edited by G. Goos ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Evaluation of the AODV and DSR Rout<strong>in</strong>g Protocols 35our experiments, therefore we effectively consider scenarios where the networkload is not bursty. In [2,5] it is shown that DSR outperforms AODV <strong>in</strong> scenarioswhere the offered network load is low. Our results show the same trend.5 Conclusions and Ongo<strong>in</strong>g WorkThe ma<strong>in</strong> goal of this work is to evaluate the performance of two MANET rout<strong>in</strong>gprotocols <strong>in</strong> the MERIT tool, an implementation of the MERIT framework. Ourresults show that DSR outperforms AODV <strong>in</strong> the scenarios we consider. Theseresults agree with the observations made <strong>in</strong> a similar context <strong>in</strong> [5] where theprotocols were compared <strong>in</strong> terms of their path optimality and other performancemeasures. Also, the MERIT spectra which plots the MERIT ratio aga<strong>in</strong>st variousnetwork parameters of <strong>in</strong>terest show that the MERIT ratio <strong>in</strong>tuitively capturesthe network dynamics and behaves as expected.In our ongo<strong>in</strong>g work, we are evaluat<strong>in</strong>g the performance of rout<strong>in</strong>g protocolsimplemented <strong>in</strong> different network simulators to verify the implementation<strong>in</strong>dependence, and scalability aspects of the MERIT framework. As well, weare work<strong>in</strong>g towards def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a transition cost function that will capture moreaccurately the cost of updat<strong>in</strong>g the paths <strong>in</strong> the rout<strong>in</strong>g table.AcknowledgmentsWe thank A. Faragó for helpful discussions, J. Boleng for shar<strong>in</strong>g code to determ<strong>in</strong>el<strong>in</strong>k state transitions <strong>in</strong> ns-2, and K. Vadde for help with the figures.References1. S. Bhadra and A. Ferreira, “Comput<strong>in</strong>g Multicast Trees <strong>in</strong> Dynamic Networks us<strong>in</strong>gEvolv<strong>in</strong>g 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 Rout<strong>in</strong>g Protocols,” Proceed<strong>in</strong>gsof the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Comput<strong>in</strong>gand Network<strong>in</strong>g (Mobicom’98), Dallas, Texas, pp. 85–97, October 1998.3. Wireless and Mobility Extensions to ns-2. Carnegie Mellon University Monarch(Mobile Network<strong>in</strong>g Architectures) Project. http:/www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu4. M.S. Corson and J. Macker. “Mobile Ad hoc Network<strong>in</strong>g (MANET): Rout<strong>in</strong>gProtocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations,” Network Work<strong>in</strong>gGroup, RFC 2501, January 1999. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2501.txt5. S.R. Das, C.E. Perk<strong>in</strong>s, and E.M. Royer. “Performance Comparison of Two On-Demand Rout<strong>in</strong>g Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks,” Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the 19th AnnualJo<strong>in</strong>t Conference of the IEEE <strong>Computer</strong> and Communication Societies (Infocom2000), Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 3–12, March 2000.6. A. Faragó and V.R. Syrotiuk. “MERIT: A Unified Framework for Rout<strong>in</strong>g ProtocolAssessment <strong>in</strong> Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the 7th Annual ACMInternational Conference on Mobile Comput<strong>in</strong>g and Network<strong>in</strong>g (Mobicom’01),Rome, Italy, pp. 53–60, July 2001.