Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

21
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara
  • date post

    20-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    219
  • download

    1

Transcript of Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Page 1: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad

Hoc Networks

PATTERNENDIF Ferrara

Page 2: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Description of Routing Pr.cols

DIJKSTRA• Dijkstra is an “ideal” routing protocol. Each node knows perfectly the current topology of the network without exchanging any information/control packets.

• Each node knows which the next hop is, if there is a path to reach the destination.

• It can be used as a bound for comparisons.

Page 3: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Description of Routing Pr.cols

Link State (LS)• LS is a proactive, non-source routing protocol.

• Periodically, each node sends HELLO (1-hop broadcast) packets to inform neighbors about its status.

• Periodically, each node sends LS_PKT (flood broadcast) packets containing the information about its links with neighbors.

• Each node can compute its own routing table, applying Dijkstra algorithm on the information it has collected.

Page 4: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Description of Routing Pr.cols

AODV (Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector)

• AODV is an on-demand, reactive, non-source routing protocol.

• When a route is requested, a node sends a flood-broadcast packet (Route Request).

• When the destination (or a node with fresh information about the route) receives the Route Request, it sends a packet back (Route Reply).

• Nodes in the reverse path records the information about this route.

• No multiple routes are allowed.

Page 5: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Description of Routing Pr.cols

DSR (Dynamic Source-Routing)• DSR is an on-demand, reactive, source routing protocol.

• It is very similar to AODV, but information about the route is recorded into the packet, so source-routing is enabled.

• Multiple routes are allowed.

Page 6: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

SAM: Simple Ad hoc siMulator

MAC

RADIO

CHANNEL

Traffic Gen

ROUTE

Statistics

MOB

TRANSPORT

SAM is a DISCRETE EVENT simulator.

Each node is composed by 7 Entities (modules). There is a unique Channel.

Entities can communicate and exchange data by signals called Events.

Page 7: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

SAM: Simple Ad hoc siMulator

MODULES of SAM

TRAFFIC GENERATOR

Isochronous traffic (transmitted as broadcast)

Asynchronous traffic (classical traffic)

•Poissonian (arrival time and packet lenght)

•Constant Bit Rate (CBR)

TRANSPORT

•UDP

•TCP

Page 8: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

SAM: Simple Ad hoc siMulator

MODULES of SAM

ROUTE (Network Layer)

•Dijkstra (no information exchanging: optimal algo)

•Distance Vector (DV)

•Link State (LS)

•Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector (AODV)

•Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Protocol

•Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol

Page 9: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

SAM: Simple Ad hoc siMulator

MODULES of SAM

MAC

•CSMA p-persistent

•IEEE 802.11 DCF

RADIO

•Capture Effect

•Spreading Modulation

Page 10: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

SAM: Simple Ad hoc siMulator

MODULES of SAM

CHANNEL

•Path Loss

•Shadowing

•Rayleigh Fading

MOB (Mobility Module)

•Random Way-Point

•Pseudolinear Mobility (Pselin)

Page 11: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Simulation ResultsSIMULATION SETUP

•Number of nodes: 30

•Simulation area: 10x10 m2

•MAC protocol: IEEE 802.11b DCF

•Routing protocols: Dijkstra, LS, AODV, DSR

•Transport protocol: UDP (512 bytes average)

•Traffic Generation: Poissonian and CBR

•CBR: fixed packet size and destination

•Poissonian: poissonian time generation and size, uniformly chosen destination for each new packet

•Tx Power Levels: -22dBm (2.5 meters)

Page 12: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

CBR traffic generation

Page 13: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Poisson traffic generation

Page 14: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

CBR Traffic Generation

Page 15: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Poisson Traffic Generation

Page 16: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

CBR Traffic Generation

Page 17: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Poisson Traffic Generation

Page 18: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

CBR Traffic Generation

Page 19: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Poisson Traffic Generation

Page 20: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

CBR Traffic Generation

Page 21: Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks PATTERN ENDIF Ferrara.

Poisson Traffic Generation