Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the performance of Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) routing protocols with respect to network size and density. Each of these protocols represents the three categories of MANET routing protocols which are proactive, reactive and geographical routing protocol, respectively. The evaluation was done through simulation and the performance was measured in terms of throughput, average End-to-End (E2E) delay, Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF) and Normalized Routing Load (NRL). The results of the simulations show that the GPSR protocol is superior to OLSR and AODV in most cases. The results also show that throughput, end-to-end delay and packet delivery fraction are largely affected by the network size, while normalized routing load is largely affected by the number of nodes in the network.

Keywords:

AODV, GPSR, MANET, OLSR, routing protocols, simulation,

References

1. Ahlgren, B., C. Dannewitz, C. Imbrenda, D. Kutscher and B. Ohlman, 2012. A survey of information-centric networking. IEEE Commun. Mag., 50(7): 26-36.
   CrossRef    
2. Ahn, J.H. and T.J. Lee, 2014. Multipoint relay selection for robust broadcast in ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Netw., 17: 82-97.
   CrossRef    
3. Alsaqour, R.A., M.S. Abdelhaq and O.A. Alsukour, 2012. Effect of network parameters on neighbor wireless link breaks in GPSR protocol and enhancement using mobility prediction model. EURASIP J. Wirel. Comm., 171(1): 1-15.
   CrossRef    
4. Anastasi, G., E. Borgia, M. Conti and E. Gregori, 2003. IEEE 802.11 ad hoc networks: Performance measurements. Proceeding of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, pp: 758-763.
   CrossRef    
5. Bai, F. and A. Helmy, 2004. A Survey of Mobility Models. Wireless Adhoc Networks. University of Southern California, USA, pp: 206.
   
6. Beigh, B.M. and M. Peer, 2012. Performance evaluation of geographical routing protocols: An empirical study. Proceeding of the International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI, 2012). Coimbatore, India, pp: 1-6.
   
7. Conti, M. and S. Giordano, 2014. Mobile ad hoc networking: milestones, challenges and new research directions. IEEE Commun. Mag., 52(1): 85-96.
   CrossRef    
8. Elgohary, A., T.S. Sobh, S.A. Nouh and M. Zaki, 2014. An efficient and dependable protocol for critical MANETs. J. High Speed Netw., 20(3): 153-168.
   
9. Fehnker, A., R. Van Glabbeek, P. Höfner, A. McIver, M. Portmann and W.L. Tan, 2012. Automated analysis of AODV using UPPAAL. In: Flanagan, C. and B. König (Eds.), TACAS, 2012. LNCS 7214, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 173-187.
   CrossRef    
10. Guo, J. and A. Wang, 2014. Study on integration OLSR protocol in mobile ad hoc network. Proceeding of the 9th International Symposium on Linear Drives for Industry Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 4, 701-708.
    CrossRef    
11. Issariyakul, T. and E. Hossain, 2011. Introduction to Network Simulator NS2. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
    CrossRef    
12. Jaiswal, J. and P.M. Khilar, 2011. Fault tolerant greedy perimeter stateless routing in wireless network. Proceeding of the International Conference on Communication, Computing and Security, pp: 92-95.
    CrossRef    
13. Komai, Y., Y. Sasaki, T. Hara and S. Nishio, 2014. K NN query processing methods in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE T. Mobile Comput., 13(5): 1090-1103.
    CrossRef    
14. Niraj, M. and M. Arora, 2012. Performance evaluation of routing protocols for qos measures in MANETS. Int. J. Manag. IT Eng., 2(4): 63-74.
    
15. Saputro, N., K. Akkaya and S. Uludag, 2012. A survey of routing protocols for smart grid communications. Comput. Netw., 56(11): 2742-2771.
    CrossRef    
16. Seok, K.K. and N. Saxena, 2013. Analysis of a novel advanced greedy perimeter stateless routing algorithm. Proceeding of the International Conference on ICT Convergence (ICTC, 2013), pp: 831-834.
    
17. Shi, Z., C. Beard and K. Mitchell, 2011. Competition, cooperation, and optimization in multi-hop csma networks. Proceeding of the 8th ACM Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Wireless Ad Hoc, Sensor, and Ubiquitous Networks. ACM, pp: 117-120.
    CrossRef    
18. Singla, S. and T.S. Panag, 2013. Evaluating the performance of manet routing protocols. Int. J. Electron. Commun. Eng. Technol., 4(1): 125-130.
    
19. Sinha, S. and B. Sen, 2012. Effect of varying node density and routing zone radius in ZRP: A simulation based approach. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng., 4: 1069-1077.
    
20. Son, D., A. Helmy and B. Krishnamachari, 2004. The effect of mobility-induced location errors on geographic routing in mobile ad hoc sensor networks: Analysis and improvement using mobility prediction. IEEE T. Mobile Comput., 3(3): 233-245.
    CrossRef    
21. Vanthana, S. and V. Prakash, 2014. Comparative study of proactive and reactive adhoc routing protocols using Ns2. Proceeding of the World Congress on Computing and Communication Technologies (WCCCT, 2014), pp: 275-279.
    CrossRef    
22. Yussof, S., H.S. Jassim, T.S. Kiong, S.P. Koh and R. Ismail, 2009. A routing protocol based on trusted and shortest path selection for mobile ad hoc network. Proceeding of the IEEE 9th Malaysia International Conference on Communications (MICC, 2009), pp: 547-554.
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.