Most of the adhoc routing protocol research work has been done using simulation only because of the difficulty of creating real implementation. In simulation the developer controls the whole system, which is in effect only a single component. An Implementation, on the other hand, needs to interoperate with a
large complex system and the system components. In this paper we focus on working implementation of AODV routing protocol by means of certain design possibilities and possible opportunities for obtaining needed AODV events. We discuss the socket based mechanism particularly when AODV routing daemon communicates changes to the IP route table. The paper suggests the need of implementation of Generic
Netlink Family.
This thesis presents a simulation based analysis of these protocols. We used the combination of EIGRP&IS-IS, RIP&IS-IS routing protocols on the Hybrid network in order to reveal the advantage of one over the other as well as the robustness of each protocol combination and how this is measured.
The network layer provides the means to transfer variable length data sequences between sources and destinations across one or more networks. It performs functions like network routing, fragmentation and reassembly of data, and reporting delivery errors. Routers operate at this layer to send data throughout an extended network. A key protocol at this layer is the Internet Protocol (IP), which manages the connectionless transfer of data between end systems and routers. It is also responsible for detecting and discarding errored packets. Management protocols at this layer include routing protocols, multicast group management, and network address assignment.
he Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)[1] is an IP routing protocol optimized for mobile ad hoc networks, which can also be used on other wireless ad hoc networks. OLSR is a proactive link-state routing protocol, which uses hello and topology control (TC) messages to discover and then disseminate link state information throughout the mobile ad hoc network. Individual nodes use this topology information to compute next hop destinations for all nodes in the network using shortest hop forwarding paths.
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Routing Algorithms─ Part 2Sushant Kushwaha
The document discusses several routing algorithms for mobile ad-hoc networks: TORA is a reactive protocol that reacts to changes and link reversals in highly dynamic networks; CGSR is a hierarchical and proactive protocol where routing tables are pre-built so paths are immediately available; flat routing table based protocols pre-build routing tables showing all paths while optimized link state protocols only update required routing data to reduce overhead.
Network Surveillance Based Data Transference in Cognitive Radio Network with ...IRJET Journal
This document compares different wireless routing protocols to find the most energy efficient for creating a cognitive radio network model with attacker nodes. It analyzes reactive, proactive, and hybrid routing protocols including AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, and a hybrid protocol. Simulation results show the hybrid protocol consumes the least energy compared to other protocols, making it well-suited for an energy efficient cognitive radio network model.
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Routing Algorithms─ Part 1Sushant Kushwaha
DSR deploys source routing, reacting dynamically to changes by maintaining only active routing addresses from source to destination. AODV is also a reactive protocol that maintains only active routes, with each node keeping a next-hop routing table. Route entries expire after a time limit. AODV adopts destination sequence numbers to ensure loop-free and up-to-date routes.
Performance Analysis and Simulation of OLSR Routing Protocol in MANET ijcnac
Mobile ad hoc network is a collection of wireless nodes that are communicate other
nodes (router) without using access point, infrastructure . Mobile ad-hoc network is an
autonomous system that means no need for depaentd other nodes it have own capability
to handle and controlling all funcitionlity, to sending and receiving all information form
one device to other device. MANET has power full feature that controlling itself by
dynamic nature, multihop,low power and configuration of the system. In this paper we
analyzing, simulation and implements the TC messages and HELLO Message by MPR of
OLSR routing performance checked at 200 nodes on Qualnet 5.0.2 simulator. In Qualnet
simulator to simulate and implement the performance of OLSR routing protocols takes
various performance metrics like hello message sent (HMS) , hello message received
(HMR), TC message generated (TCMG), TC message replied (TCMR), TC messages
received on Constant Bit Rate (CBR) using random waypoint model. In this paper check
the performance OLSR routing protocol gives effective performance for lage networks.
This document provides an overview of different routing protocols. It discusses IP routing, static routing, and dynamic routing. It also covers proactive routing protocols like DSDV which maintain routing tables and periodically update them. Reactive protocols like DSR and AODV establish routes on demand. Hybrid protocols combine proactive and reactive approaches. The document describes the key processes, advantages, and disadvantages of DSDV, DSR, AODV, and zone routing protocol.
This thesis presents a simulation based analysis of these protocols. We used the combination of EIGRP&IS-IS, RIP&IS-IS routing protocols on the Hybrid network in order to reveal the advantage of one over the other as well as the robustness of each protocol combination and how this is measured.
The network layer provides the means to transfer variable length data sequences between sources and destinations across one or more networks. It performs functions like network routing, fragmentation and reassembly of data, and reporting delivery errors. Routers operate at this layer to send data throughout an extended network. A key protocol at this layer is the Internet Protocol (IP), which manages the connectionless transfer of data between end systems and routers. It is also responsible for detecting and discarding errored packets. Management protocols at this layer include routing protocols, multicast group management, and network address assignment.
he Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)[1] is an IP routing protocol optimized for mobile ad hoc networks, which can also be used on other wireless ad hoc networks. OLSR is a proactive link-state routing protocol, which uses hello and topology control (TC) messages to discover and then disseminate link state information throughout the mobile ad hoc network. Individual nodes use this topology information to compute next hop destinations for all nodes in the network using shortest hop forwarding paths.
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Routing Algorithms─ Part 2Sushant Kushwaha
The document discusses several routing algorithms for mobile ad-hoc networks: TORA is a reactive protocol that reacts to changes and link reversals in highly dynamic networks; CGSR is a hierarchical and proactive protocol where routing tables are pre-built so paths are immediately available; flat routing table based protocols pre-build routing tables showing all paths while optimized link state protocols only update required routing data to reduce overhead.
Network Surveillance Based Data Transference in Cognitive Radio Network with ...IRJET Journal
This document compares different wireless routing protocols to find the most energy efficient for creating a cognitive radio network model with attacker nodes. It analyzes reactive, proactive, and hybrid routing protocols including AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, and a hybrid protocol. Simulation results show the hybrid protocol consumes the least energy compared to other protocols, making it well-suited for an energy efficient cognitive radio network model.
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Routing Algorithms─ Part 1Sushant Kushwaha
DSR deploys source routing, reacting dynamically to changes by maintaining only active routing addresses from source to destination. AODV is also a reactive protocol that maintains only active routes, with each node keeping a next-hop routing table. Route entries expire after a time limit. AODV adopts destination sequence numbers to ensure loop-free and up-to-date routes.
Performance Analysis and Simulation of OLSR Routing Protocol in MANET ijcnac
Mobile ad hoc network is a collection of wireless nodes that are communicate other
nodes (router) without using access point, infrastructure . Mobile ad-hoc network is an
autonomous system that means no need for depaentd other nodes it have own capability
to handle and controlling all funcitionlity, to sending and receiving all information form
one device to other device. MANET has power full feature that controlling itself by
dynamic nature, multihop,low power and configuration of the system. In this paper we
analyzing, simulation and implements the TC messages and HELLO Message by MPR of
OLSR routing performance checked at 200 nodes on Qualnet 5.0.2 simulator. In Qualnet
simulator to simulate and implement the performance of OLSR routing protocols takes
various performance metrics like hello message sent (HMS) , hello message received
(HMR), TC message generated (TCMG), TC message replied (TCMR), TC messages
received on Constant Bit Rate (CBR) using random waypoint model. In this paper check
the performance OLSR routing protocol gives effective performance for lage networks.
This document provides an overview of different routing protocols. It discusses IP routing, static routing, and dynamic routing. It also covers proactive routing protocols like DSDV which maintain routing tables and periodically update them. Reactive protocols like DSR and AODV establish routes on demand. Hybrid protocols combine proactive and reactive approaches. The document describes the key processes, advantages, and disadvantages of DSDV, DSR, AODV, and zone routing protocol.
This document discusses different types of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. It begins by classifying routing protocols into four categories: proactive (table-driven), reactive (on-demand), hybrid, and geographic location-assisted. It then provides more details on proactive protocols like DSDV, and reactive protocols like DSR and AODV. For DSDV, it describes how routing tables are regularly exchanged and updated when link breaks occur. For DSR and AODV, it explains how routes are discovered on-demand via route requests and replies. Key differences between DSR and AODV are also summarized.
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) is an IP routing protocol optimized for mobile ad hoc networks, which can also be used on other wireless ad hoc networks. OLSR uses hello and topology control (TC) messages to discover and then disseminate link state information throughout the mobile ad hoc network.
Contents which are covered here:
Classification of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol
Link State Routing
Problems of Link State Routing
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
1 Hop and 2 Hop Neighbors
Hello Packet
MPR Selection
Topology Table
MPR Information Declaration
*** Animated figure/diagram might not be visible in PDF view. Please consider it. ***
OLSR Model, OLSR Protocol, Optimized Link-State Routing Protocol
IJRET : International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology is an international peer reviewed, online journal published by eSAT Publishing House for the enhancement of research in various disciplines of Engineering and Technology. The aim and scope of the journal is to provide an academic medium and an important reference for the advancement and dissemination of research results that support high-level learning, teaching and research in the fields of Engineering and Technology. We bring together Scientists, Academician, Field Engineers, Scholars and Students of related fields of Engineering and Technology.
Performance analysis on multihop transmission using arp routing protocol in i...eSAT Journals
This document discusses using the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) routing protocol for multi-hop transmissions in IEEE 802.11 ad hoc networks. It proposes using ARP messages between nodes to establish routes for sending data when the source and destination nodes are out of radio range of each other. Intermediate nodes receiving ARP requests or replies would act as routers, forwarding the data to the destination. The method aims to reduce overhead compared to other ad hoc routing protocols like AODV. Simulation results showed the ARP routing protocol performed comparably to AODV in terms of throughput, packet loss and round trip time for different distances and environments.
Routing is the operation of transferring information transversely through an internetwork from a source to a destination. Alongside the approach, as a minimum one middle node normally is found. Routing is frequently compared with bridging, Copy the link given below and paste it in new browser window to get more information on Network Routing:- http://www.transtutors.com/homework-help/computer-science/network-routing.aspx
Distance vector and link state routing protocolCCNAStudyGuide
Distance vector routing protocols exchange routing updates periodically regardless of topology changes, which can increase convergence time and the risk of routing loops. Link state routing protocols send triggered updates only when there is a topology change, minimizing convergence time and eliminating routing loops. Distance vector protocols rely solely on information from directly connected neighbors to calculate routes, while link state protocols use a system of databases and can detect media types, increasing overhead compared to distance vector protocols. Examples of the protocols are RIP and IGRP for distance vector, and OSPF for link state.
The document discusses Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) configuration on a MPLS network using Juniper routers. It describes using logical systems to partition a single physical router into multiple logical devices. LDP is configured between logical systems LS1-P1, LS11-PE1, and other logical systems. LDP establishes MPLS LSPs along the best path determined by OSPF. The label bindings are verified between routers to ensure end-to-end connectivity across the MPLS domain.
This document provides a literature review of research papers on detecting and preventing blackhole attacks in the AODV routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). It summarizes 9 papers that propose various techniques like using sequence numbers, watchdog mechanisms, and route confirmation messages to identify malicious nodes and increase security. The document outlines the key ideas, results, and potential future work from each paper to improve performance and security against blackhole attacks in AODV routing.
Simulation & comparison of aodv & dsr protocolPrafull Johri
This document summarizes and compares two reactive routing protocols - AODV and DSR. It discusses how NS2 was extended to simulate wireless networks and the two protocols. AODV uses route discovery to find paths, maintains route tables, and can locally repair broken links. DSR also uses route discovery but source routes are carried in packet headers. While AODV has lower initial packet loss, DSR performance improves over time, so either protocol can be used for longer simulations.
This document discusses routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). It introduces several routing protocols including proactive (table-driven) protocols like Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), reactive (on-demand) protocols like Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and hybrid protocols like Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) that use both proactive and reactive approaches. For each protocol, it provides a brief overview of the routing approach and algorithm. It also compares the characteristics of proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols.
The document compares the AODV and OLSR routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. AODV is a reactive protocol that establishes routes on demand, while OLSR is a proactive protocol that maintains routes to all nodes. OLSR generally has lower latency than AODV but higher overhead. Both protocols elect multipoint relays to reduce flooding. AODV uses less bandwidth but requires route discovery, while OLSR maintains all routes continuously.
Each router using a link-state routing protocol builds a complete and synchronized view of the network topology. This is achieved by routers flooding the network with link-state advertisements (LSAs) that describe the state of their links. With a complete view of the network, routing loops are difficult to occur since each router can independently calculate the optimal path to each destination.
In the last few years, video streaming facilities over TCP or UDP, such as YouTube, Facetime, Daily-motion, Mobile video calling have become more and more popular. The important
challenge in streaming broadcasting over the Internet is to spread the uppermost potential quality,
observe to the broadcasting play out time limitation, and efficiently and equally share the offered
bandwidth with TCP or UDP, and additional traffic types. This work familiarizes the Streaming
Media Data Congestion Control protocol (SMDCC), a new adaptive broadcasting streaming
congestion management protocol in which the connection’s data packets transmission frequency is
adjusted allowing to the dynamic bandwidth share of connection using SMDCC, the bandwidth share
of a connection is projected using algorithms similar to those introduced in TCP Westwood. SMDCC
avoids the Slow Jump phase in TCP. As a result, SMDCC does not show the pronounced rate
alternations distinguishing of modern TCP, so providing congestion control that is more appropriate
for streaming broadcasting applications. Besides, SMDCC is fair, sharing the bandwidth equitably
among a set of SMDCC connections. Main benefit is robustness when packet harms are due to
indiscriminate errors, which is typical of wireless links and is becoming an increasing concern due to
the emergence of wireless Internet access. In the presence of indiscriminate errors, SMDCC is also
approachable to TCP Tahoe and Reno (TTR). We provide simulation results using the ns3 simulator
for our protocol running together with TCP Tahoe and Reno.
IRJET- Performance Improvement of Wireless Network using Modern Simulation ToolsIRJET Journal
This document summarizes a research study that used the ns-3 network simulator to analyze the performance of two routing protocols - Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) - in a wireless ad hoc network under different conditions. The study varied parameters like packet size, number of nodes, and hello interval (the frequency at which routing information is broadcast) and measured metrics like throughput, delay, jitter, packet delivery ratio, packet loss, and congestion window. The results showed how the performance of the two protocols was impacted by changes to these parameters. The goal was to better understand congestion control and avoidance in wireless ad hoc networks through simulation.
Static routing tables require manual configuration and cannot automatically update when network changes occur. Dynamic routing tables use protocols like RIP, OSPF, or BGP to periodically update routing tables across routers when links or routers fail. Routing tables contain information like the network address, next hop address, interface, and flags to determine the best path for packet delivery.
The concept of the spanning tree protocol was devised to address broadcast storming. The spanning tree algorithm itself is defined by the IEEE standard 802.1D and its later revisions.
The IEEE Standard 802.1 uses the term bridge to define the spanning tree operation, and uses terms such as Bridge Protocol Data Units and Root Bridge when defining spanning tree protocol functions.
When a bridge receives a frame, it reads the source and destination address fields. The bridge then enters the frame’s source address in its forwarding database. In doing this the bridge associates the frame’s source address with the network attached to the por t on which the frame was received. The bridge also reads the destination address and if it can find this address in its forwarding database, it forwards the frame to the appropriate port. If the bridge does not recognize the destination address, it forwards the frame out from all its por ts except for the one on which the frame was received, and then waits for a reply. This process is known as “flooding”. Similarly, packets with broadcast or multicast destination MAC addresses will be flooded by a bridge.
A significant problem arises where bridges connect via multiple paths. A frame that arrives with an unknown or broadcast/multicast destination address is flooded over all available paths. The arrival of these frames at another network via different paths and bridges produces major problems. The bridges find the same source MAC address arriving on
multiple different por ts, making it impossible to maintain a reliable forwarding database. As a result, increasing numbers of packets will be forwarded to multiple paths. This process is selfperpetuating and produces a condition known as a packet storm, where the increase of circulating frames can eventually overload the network.
Link-state routing protocols use Dijkstra's algorithm to calculate the shortest path to all destinations based on a link-state database containing the full network topology. Each router runs the same algorithm locally to determine the optimal path. Key aspects include link-state advertisements to share connectivity information, the topological database to store network maps, and shortest path first calculations to derive routes. Common link-state protocols are OSPF and IS-IS. They provide fast convergence and scalability but require more resources than distance-vector protocols.
RRSTP: A Spanning Tree Protocol for Obviating Count-to-Infinity from Switched...CSCJournals
This paper will presents a highly reliable and rapidly converging spanning tree protocol named as Reliable Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol. The need of this spanning tree protocol is felt because reliability of switched Ethernet networks is heavily dependent upon that of spanning tree protocol. But current standard spanning tree protocol – Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol – is well known for its susceptibility to classical count-to-infinity problem. Because of this problem the protocol has extremely variable and unexpectedly high convergence time even in small networks. As a result network wide congestion, frame loss and frame delay may occur. Even forwarding loops may be induced into the network under certain circumstances. It is expected that the new protocol – RRSTP – will significantly increase the dependability of switched Ethernet networks by providing guaranteed protection against the count-to-infinity problem.
AODV (Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector) VS AOMDV (Ad hoc On-demand Multipath ...Ann Joseph
The document discusses Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV), which is a multipath extension of the AODV routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. AOMDV discovers multiple loop-free and disjoint paths between source and destination nodes in a single route discovery to improve fault tolerance. It provides benefits like lower end-to-end delay, higher throughput, and reduced route discovery operations compared to AODV, which is a single path routing protocol.
EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE...cscpconf
This document evaluates the performance of proactive, reactive, and hybrid ad hoc routing protocols (OLSR, AODV, DYMO, ZRP) for IEEE 802.11 MAC and 802.11 DCF in a vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) simulation using Qualnet. It discusses the characteristics and operations of these four routing protocols. The simulation varies VANET parameters like speed and altitude. The results show that in real traffic scenarios, the proactive OLSR protocol performs more efficiently for IEEE 802.11 MAC and DCF compared to the reactive and hybrid protocols.
Performance Evaluation AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRPAD Hoc Routing Protocol for IE...pijans
In VANET high speed is the real characteristics which leads to frequent breakdown, interference etc.
Therefore Performance of adhoc routing protocols is helpful to improve the Quality of Service (QOS). In
this paper we studied various adhoc routing protocols, Reactive, Proactive & Hybrid, taking in to
consideration parameters like speed, altitude, mobility etc in real VANET scenario. The AODV and DYMO
(Reactive), OLSR (Proactive) and ZRP (hybrid) protocols are compared for IEEE 802.11(MAC) and IEEE
802.11(DCF) standard using Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Since IEEE 802.11, covers both physical and
data link layer. Hence performance of the protocols in these layers helps to make a right selection of
Protocol for high speed mobility. Varying parameters of VANET shows that in the real traffic scenarios
proactive protocol performs more efficiently for IEEE 802.11 (MAC) and IEEE 802.11(DCF).
This document discusses different types of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. It begins by classifying routing protocols into four categories: proactive (table-driven), reactive (on-demand), hybrid, and geographic location-assisted. It then provides more details on proactive protocols like DSDV, and reactive protocols like DSR and AODV. For DSDV, it describes how routing tables are regularly exchanged and updated when link breaks occur. For DSR and AODV, it explains how routes are discovered on-demand via route requests and replies. Key differences between DSR and AODV are also summarized.
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) is an IP routing protocol optimized for mobile ad hoc networks, which can also be used on other wireless ad hoc networks. OLSR uses hello and topology control (TC) messages to discover and then disseminate link state information throughout the mobile ad hoc network.
Contents which are covered here:
Classification of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol
Link State Routing
Problems of Link State Routing
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
1 Hop and 2 Hop Neighbors
Hello Packet
MPR Selection
Topology Table
MPR Information Declaration
*** Animated figure/diagram might not be visible in PDF view. Please consider it. ***
OLSR Model, OLSR Protocol, Optimized Link-State Routing Protocol
IJRET : International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology is an international peer reviewed, online journal published by eSAT Publishing House for the enhancement of research in various disciplines of Engineering and Technology. The aim and scope of the journal is to provide an academic medium and an important reference for the advancement and dissemination of research results that support high-level learning, teaching and research in the fields of Engineering and Technology. We bring together Scientists, Academician, Field Engineers, Scholars and Students of related fields of Engineering and Technology.
Performance analysis on multihop transmission using arp routing protocol in i...eSAT Journals
This document discusses using the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) routing protocol for multi-hop transmissions in IEEE 802.11 ad hoc networks. It proposes using ARP messages between nodes to establish routes for sending data when the source and destination nodes are out of radio range of each other. Intermediate nodes receiving ARP requests or replies would act as routers, forwarding the data to the destination. The method aims to reduce overhead compared to other ad hoc routing protocols like AODV. Simulation results showed the ARP routing protocol performed comparably to AODV in terms of throughput, packet loss and round trip time for different distances and environments.
Routing is the operation of transferring information transversely through an internetwork from a source to a destination. Alongside the approach, as a minimum one middle node normally is found. Routing is frequently compared with bridging, Copy the link given below and paste it in new browser window to get more information on Network Routing:- http://www.transtutors.com/homework-help/computer-science/network-routing.aspx
Distance vector and link state routing protocolCCNAStudyGuide
Distance vector routing protocols exchange routing updates periodically regardless of topology changes, which can increase convergence time and the risk of routing loops. Link state routing protocols send triggered updates only when there is a topology change, minimizing convergence time and eliminating routing loops. Distance vector protocols rely solely on information from directly connected neighbors to calculate routes, while link state protocols use a system of databases and can detect media types, increasing overhead compared to distance vector protocols. Examples of the protocols are RIP and IGRP for distance vector, and OSPF for link state.
The document discusses Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) configuration on a MPLS network using Juniper routers. It describes using logical systems to partition a single physical router into multiple logical devices. LDP is configured between logical systems LS1-P1, LS11-PE1, and other logical systems. LDP establishes MPLS LSPs along the best path determined by OSPF. The label bindings are verified between routers to ensure end-to-end connectivity across the MPLS domain.
This document provides a literature review of research papers on detecting and preventing blackhole attacks in the AODV routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). It summarizes 9 papers that propose various techniques like using sequence numbers, watchdog mechanisms, and route confirmation messages to identify malicious nodes and increase security. The document outlines the key ideas, results, and potential future work from each paper to improve performance and security against blackhole attacks in AODV routing.
Simulation & comparison of aodv & dsr protocolPrafull Johri
This document summarizes and compares two reactive routing protocols - AODV and DSR. It discusses how NS2 was extended to simulate wireless networks and the two protocols. AODV uses route discovery to find paths, maintains route tables, and can locally repair broken links. DSR also uses route discovery but source routes are carried in packet headers. While AODV has lower initial packet loss, DSR performance improves over time, so either protocol can be used for longer simulations.
This document discusses routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). It introduces several routing protocols including proactive (table-driven) protocols like Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), reactive (on-demand) protocols like Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and hybrid protocols like Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) that use both proactive and reactive approaches. For each protocol, it provides a brief overview of the routing approach and algorithm. It also compares the characteristics of proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols.
The document compares the AODV and OLSR routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. AODV is a reactive protocol that establishes routes on demand, while OLSR is a proactive protocol that maintains routes to all nodes. OLSR generally has lower latency than AODV but higher overhead. Both protocols elect multipoint relays to reduce flooding. AODV uses less bandwidth but requires route discovery, while OLSR maintains all routes continuously.
Each router using a link-state routing protocol builds a complete and synchronized view of the network topology. This is achieved by routers flooding the network with link-state advertisements (LSAs) that describe the state of their links. With a complete view of the network, routing loops are difficult to occur since each router can independently calculate the optimal path to each destination.
In the last few years, video streaming facilities over TCP or UDP, such as YouTube, Facetime, Daily-motion, Mobile video calling have become more and more popular. The important
challenge in streaming broadcasting over the Internet is to spread the uppermost potential quality,
observe to the broadcasting play out time limitation, and efficiently and equally share the offered
bandwidth with TCP or UDP, and additional traffic types. This work familiarizes the Streaming
Media Data Congestion Control protocol (SMDCC), a new adaptive broadcasting streaming
congestion management protocol in which the connection’s data packets transmission frequency is
adjusted allowing to the dynamic bandwidth share of connection using SMDCC, the bandwidth share
of a connection is projected using algorithms similar to those introduced in TCP Westwood. SMDCC
avoids the Slow Jump phase in TCP. As a result, SMDCC does not show the pronounced rate
alternations distinguishing of modern TCP, so providing congestion control that is more appropriate
for streaming broadcasting applications. Besides, SMDCC is fair, sharing the bandwidth equitably
among a set of SMDCC connections. Main benefit is robustness when packet harms are due to
indiscriminate errors, which is typical of wireless links and is becoming an increasing concern due to
the emergence of wireless Internet access. In the presence of indiscriminate errors, SMDCC is also
approachable to TCP Tahoe and Reno (TTR). We provide simulation results using the ns3 simulator
for our protocol running together with TCP Tahoe and Reno.
IRJET- Performance Improvement of Wireless Network using Modern Simulation ToolsIRJET Journal
This document summarizes a research study that used the ns-3 network simulator to analyze the performance of two routing protocols - Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) - in a wireless ad hoc network under different conditions. The study varied parameters like packet size, number of nodes, and hello interval (the frequency at which routing information is broadcast) and measured metrics like throughput, delay, jitter, packet delivery ratio, packet loss, and congestion window. The results showed how the performance of the two protocols was impacted by changes to these parameters. The goal was to better understand congestion control and avoidance in wireless ad hoc networks through simulation.
Static routing tables require manual configuration and cannot automatically update when network changes occur. Dynamic routing tables use protocols like RIP, OSPF, or BGP to periodically update routing tables across routers when links or routers fail. Routing tables contain information like the network address, next hop address, interface, and flags to determine the best path for packet delivery.
The concept of the spanning tree protocol was devised to address broadcast storming. The spanning tree algorithm itself is defined by the IEEE standard 802.1D and its later revisions.
The IEEE Standard 802.1 uses the term bridge to define the spanning tree operation, and uses terms such as Bridge Protocol Data Units and Root Bridge when defining spanning tree protocol functions.
When a bridge receives a frame, it reads the source and destination address fields. The bridge then enters the frame’s source address in its forwarding database. In doing this the bridge associates the frame’s source address with the network attached to the por t on which the frame was received. The bridge also reads the destination address and if it can find this address in its forwarding database, it forwards the frame to the appropriate port. If the bridge does not recognize the destination address, it forwards the frame out from all its por ts except for the one on which the frame was received, and then waits for a reply. This process is known as “flooding”. Similarly, packets with broadcast or multicast destination MAC addresses will be flooded by a bridge.
A significant problem arises where bridges connect via multiple paths. A frame that arrives with an unknown or broadcast/multicast destination address is flooded over all available paths. The arrival of these frames at another network via different paths and bridges produces major problems. The bridges find the same source MAC address arriving on
multiple different por ts, making it impossible to maintain a reliable forwarding database. As a result, increasing numbers of packets will be forwarded to multiple paths. This process is selfperpetuating and produces a condition known as a packet storm, where the increase of circulating frames can eventually overload the network.
Link-state routing protocols use Dijkstra's algorithm to calculate the shortest path to all destinations based on a link-state database containing the full network topology. Each router runs the same algorithm locally to determine the optimal path. Key aspects include link-state advertisements to share connectivity information, the topological database to store network maps, and shortest path first calculations to derive routes. Common link-state protocols are OSPF and IS-IS. They provide fast convergence and scalability but require more resources than distance-vector protocols.
RRSTP: A Spanning Tree Protocol for Obviating Count-to-Infinity from Switched...CSCJournals
This paper will presents a highly reliable and rapidly converging spanning tree protocol named as Reliable Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol. The need of this spanning tree protocol is felt because reliability of switched Ethernet networks is heavily dependent upon that of spanning tree protocol. But current standard spanning tree protocol – Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol – is well known for its susceptibility to classical count-to-infinity problem. Because of this problem the protocol has extremely variable and unexpectedly high convergence time even in small networks. As a result network wide congestion, frame loss and frame delay may occur. Even forwarding loops may be induced into the network under certain circumstances. It is expected that the new protocol – RRSTP – will significantly increase the dependability of switched Ethernet networks by providing guaranteed protection against the count-to-infinity problem.
AODV (Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector) VS AOMDV (Ad hoc On-demand Multipath ...Ann Joseph
The document discusses Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV), which is a multipath extension of the AODV routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. AOMDV discovers multiple loop-free and disjoint paths between source and destination nodes in a single route discovery to improve fault tolerance. It provides benefits like lower end-to-end delay, higher throughput, and reduced route discovery operations compared to AODV, which is a single path routing protocol.
EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE...cscpconf
This document evaluates the performance of proactive, reactive, and hybrid ad hoc routing protocols (OLSR, AODV, DYMO, ZRP) for IEEE 802.11 MAC and 802.11 DCF in a vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) simulation using Qualnet. It discusses the characteristics and operations of these four routing protocols. The simulation varies VANET parameters like speed and altitude. The results show that in real traffic scenarios, the proactive OLSR protocol performs more efficiently for IEEE 802.11 MAC and DCF compared to the reactive and hybrid protocols.
Performance Evaluation AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRPAD Hoc Routing Protocol for IE...pijans
In VANET high speed is the real characteristics which leads to frequent breakdown, interference etc.
Therefore Performance of adhoc routing protocols is helpful to improve the Quality of Service (QOS). In
this paper we studied various adhoc routing protocols, Reactive, Proactive & Hybrid, taking in to
consideration parameters like speed, altitude, mobility etc in real VANET scenario. The AODV and DYMO
(Reactive), OLSR (Proactive) and ZRP (hybrid) protocols are compared for IEEE 802.11(MAC) and IEEE
802.11(DCF) standard using Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Since IEEE 802.11, covers both physical and
data link layer. Hence performance of the protocols in these layers helps to make a right selection of
Protocol for high speed mobility. Varying parameters of VANET shows that in the real traffic scenarios
proactive protocol performs more efficiently for IEEE 802.11 (MAC) and IEEE 802.11(DCF).
Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Scienceresearchinventy
The document summarizes a study that evaluated the performance of three mobile ad hoc network (MANET) routing protocols: AODV, DSDV, and DSR. The protocols were simulated using the NS-2 network simulator across networks of 30 to 70 nodes. Key performance metrics analyzed include packet delivery fraction, average end-to-end delay, normalized routing load, and packet loss. The results found that AODV performed best in terms of packet delivery fraction and shortest end-to-end delay, while DSDV had the lowest normalized routing load and DSR had the lowest packet loss. Overall, the document compares the performance of these three MANET routing protocols under different conditions using simulation results.
This document analyzes the performance of different routing protocols (AODV, DSR, DSDV) under various mobility models (random waypoint, random direction, random walk) and node speeds in mobile ad hoc networks. It finds that reactive protocols like AODV and DSR generally have higher packet delivery ratios than proactive DSDV, but end-to-end delays vary depending on the mobility model and node speed. The document proposes an algorithm to select the best routing protocol based on whether data delivery or time is the higher priority, and whether nodes are stationary or mobile. DSDV is preferred when data delivery is most important, while DSR performs better for time-critical applications.
Network Surveillance Based Data Transference in Cognitive Radio Network with ...IRJET Journal
The document compares different wireless routing protocols to find the most energy efficient for creating a cognitive radio network model with attacker nodes. It first describes cognitive radio networks and their ability to dynamically access unused radio spectrum. It then summarizes the characteristics of reactive, proactive, and hybrid routing protocols. Reactive protocols determine routes on demand through flooding, while proactive protocols constantly update routing tables. The document analyzes the ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) and dynamic source routing (DSR) reactive protocols as well as the destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV) and optimized link state (OLSR) proactive protocols. It aims to compare these protocols and determine the most energy efficient for the cognitive radio network model.
This document analyzes the performance of three routing protocols - AODV, DSDV, and OLSR - in a mobile ad hoc network simulation using the NS-3 simulator. It describes the key characteristics of each protocol and the simulation setup, which involved 50 nodes moving according to a random waypoint model. The performance metric studied was packet delivery ratio. The results showed that OLSR achieved the highest packet delivery ratio, performing better than AODV and DSDV in delivering packets from source to destination nodes over the 600 second simulation.
Review paper on performance analysis of AODV, DSDV, OLSR on the basis of pack...IOSR Journals
This document analyzes the performance of three routing protocols - AODV, DSDV, and OLSR - in mobile ad hoc networks based on packet delivery ratio. It simulates the protocols using NS-3 simulator over 600 seconds with 50 nodes moving randomly. The results show that OLSR has the best performance with high and stable packet delivery ratio, while DSDV has the worst performance with many dropped packets. AODV shows average performance throughout the simulation.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSDV AND AOMDV USING WIMAX IN NS-2IAEME Publication
WiMAX (IEEE 802.16) technology empowers ubiquitous delivery of wireless broadband facility for fixed and mobile users. WiMAX standard describes numerous physical and MAC layer characteristics. Here, an attempt is made to implement some of these physical and MAC layer structures including the mobility extension 802.16e. NS2 (Network Simulator-2) is chosen as the simulator to implement these features as NS2 provides suitable library to simulate network scenario. The performance of the simulated module is analyzed by running AODV, DSDV and AOMDV routing protocols on a wired-cum-wireless WiMAX scenario. The throughput for each routing protocol is calculated for varying number of mobile nodes or subscriber stations.
Analyzing the Effect of Varying CBR on AODV, DSR, IERP Routing Protocols in M...IOSR Journals
This document analyzes the performance of the AODV, DSR, and IERP routing protocols in a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) with varying constant bit rate (CBR) traffic loads. It conducts simulations in QualNet 6.1 and evaluates the protocols based on average end-to-end delay, throughput, average jitter, and packet delivery ratio under different CBR values. The results show that AODV generally performs best with low and stable delay, jitter and high throughput and delivery ratio. DSR has better performance than IERP for throughput and delivery ratio. IERP shows the worst performance for delay and jitter as CBR increases. The document concludes by stating AODV is best overall but
Survey comparison estimation of various routing protocols in mobile ad hoc ne...ijdpsjournal
MANET is
an autonomous system of mobile nodes attached by wireless links. It represents
a complex and
dynamic distributed systems that consist of mobile wireless nodes that can freely self organize into
an ad
-
hoc network topology. The devices in the network may hav
e limited transmission
range therefore multiple
hops may be needed by one node to transfer data to another node in network. This leads to the need f
or an
effective routing protocol. In this paper we study various classifications of routing protocols and
th
eir types
for wireless mobile ad
-
hoc networks like DSDV, GSR, AODV, DSR, ZRP, FSR, CGSR, LAR, and Geocast
Protocols. In this paper we also compare different routing proto
cols on based on a given set of
parameters
Scalability, Latency, Bandwidth, Control
-
ov
erhead, Mobility impact
Survey comparison estimation of various routing protocols in mobile ad hoc ne...ijdpsjournal
This document summarizes and compares various routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). It first describes the characteristics and challenges of MANETs. It then classifies routing protocols for MANETs into three main categories: table-driven (proactive), on-demand (reactive), and hybrid protocols. Examples of protocols from each category are described in detail, including DSDV, AODV, DSR, and ZRP. Key features such as route discovery, table maintenance, and use of proactive and reactive approaches are discussed for each example protocol. Finally, the document compares different protocols based on parameters like scalability, latency, bandwidth overhead, and mobility impact.
Routing protocols in Ad-hoc Networks- A Simulation StudyIOSR Journals
This document summarizes a study that simulated and compared several routing protocols for ad hoc networks using the Network Simulator 2 (NS-2). It began by describing ad hoc networks and reviewing related work comparing routing protocols. It then provided an overview of desirable routing protocol properties and described several prominent protocols in detail: DSDV, AODV, DSR, ZRP, TORA, IMEP, and CBRP. The document outlined the NS-2 simulator and the mobility extension used. It concluded by detailing the simulation methodology and modifications made to the AODV and DSR implementations in NS-2 to perform the comparative analysis.
To improve the QoS in MANETs through analysis between reactive and proactive ...CSEIJJournal
A Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET), is a self-configuring infra structure less network of mobile devices
connected by wireless links. ad hoc is Latin and means "for this purpose". Each device in a MANET is free
to move independently in any direction, and will therefore change its links to other devices frequently. Each
must forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router. The primary challenge in building
a MANET is equipping each device to continuously maintain the information required to properly route
traffic. QOS is defined as a set of service requirements to be met by the network while transporting a
packet stream from source to destination. Intrinsic to the notion of QOS is an agreement or a guarantee by
the network to provide a set of measurable pre-specified service attributes to the user in terms of delay,
jitter, available bandwidth, packet loss, and so on. The analysis is mainly between proactive or table-driven
protocols like OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing) viz DSDV (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector) &
CGSR (Cluster Head Gateway Switch Routing) and reactive or source initiated routing protocols viz
AODV (Ad hoc on Demand distance Vector) & DSR (Dynamic Source Routing). The QoS analysis of the
above said protocols is simulated on NS2 and results are shown thereby.
IRJET- Survey on Enhancement of Manet Routing ProtocolIRJET Journal
This document discusses routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). It provides an overview of several popular routing protocols, including AODV, DSDV, DSR, AOMDV and discusses their advantages and disadvantages. The document aims to analyze how the AOMDV protocol could be improved, for example by considering nodes' remaining battery power. It proposes developing a new routing algorithm based on this to achieve better performance than existing protocols.
Performance comparison of aodv and olsr using 802.11 a and dsrc (802.11p) pro...IJCNCJournal
A Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET) is a network formed purely among vehicles without presence of any
communication infrastructure as base stations and/or access point. Frequent topological changes due to
high mobility is one of the main issues in VANETs. In this paper we evaluate Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) routing protocols using 802.11a and 802.11p in
a realistic urban scenario. For this comparison, we chose five performance metrics: Path Availability, Endto-
End Delay, Number of Created Paths, Path Length and Path Duration. Simulation results show, that for
most of the metrics evaluated, OLSR outperforms AODV when 802.11p and that 802.11p is more efficient
in urban VANETs.
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...ijceronline
This document summarizes a research paper that evaluates the performance of two routing protocols (AODV and DSDV) under different traffic patterns (TCP and CBR) in a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) simulation. The paper describes MANET characteristics and challenges for routing. It provides an overview of reactive (AODV), proactive (DSDV), and hybrid routing protocols. It also defines TCP and CBR traffic patterns. The research aims to analyze and compare the packet delivery ratio and end-to-end delay of AODV and DSDV under different traffic loads using the NS-2 simulator. Preliminary results show that reactive protocols perform better in terms of these metrics.
This document analyzes the performance of two on-demand routing protocols (AODV and DSR) in mobile ad hoc networks with varying network sizes up to 50 nodes. It simulates the protocols using the NS-2 network simulator and measures performance metrics like packet delivery fraction, end-to-end delay, normalized routing load, and throughput. The results show that the differences in AODV and DSR protocol mechanics lead to significant variations in performance for different network densities.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ON EXTENDED ROUTING PROTOCOL OF AODV IN MANETijasuc
This document summarizes and compares two extended versions of the AODV routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs): Reverse AODV (RAODV) and Multicast AODV (MAODV). RAODV aims to improve routing performance by allowing multiple route reply messages, while MAODV allows nodes to send multicast data packets through a multicast group tree. The document outlines the key features and operations of each protocol, including route discovery processes. It then evaluates and compares the performance of RAODV and MAODV using metrics like end-to-end delay and overhead while varying the number of nodes.
The Effects of Speed on the Performance of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc...Narendra Singh Yadav
Mobile ad hoc network is a collection of mobile nodes communicating through wireless channels without any existing network infrastructure or centralized administration. Because of the limited transmission range of wireless network interfaces, multiple "hops" may be needed to exchange data across the network. Consequently, many routing algorithms have come into existence to satisfy the needs of communications in such networks. Researchers have conducted many simulations comparing the performance of these routing protocols under various conditions and constraints. One question that arises is whether speed of nodes affects the relative performance of routing protocols being studied. This paper addresses the question by simulating two routing protocols AODV and DSDV. Protocols were simulated using the ns-2 and were compared in terms of packet delivery fraction, normalized routing load and average delay, while varying number of nodes, and speed.
A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols (Reactive and ...IOSR Journals
This document compares the performance of three routing protocols - AODV, DSDV, and OLSR - under the random waypoint mobility model using network simulation. Simulation results with 30 and 50 nodes found that OLSR performed better than AODV and DSDV in terms of packet receive rate and packets received with 30 nodes and a simulation time of 100 seconds. DSDV performed better than the other protocols with 50 nodes and a simulation time of 200 seconds. Overall, AODV showed the poorest performance in both scenarios. The document analyzes these routing protocols and the random waypoint mobility model to evaluate their performance under different parameters.
Similar to AN IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES FOR AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL IN REAL WORLD (20)
Redefining brain tumor segmentation: a cutting-edge convolutional neural netw...IJECEIAES
Medical image analysis has witnessed significant advancements with deep learning techniques. In the domain of brain tumor segmentation, the ability to
precisely delineate tumor boundaries from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scans holds profound implications for diagnosis. This study presents an ensemble convolutional neural network (CNN) with transfer learning, integrating
the state-of-the-art Deeplabv3+ architecture with the ResNet18 backbone. The
model is rigorously trained and evaluated, exhibiting remarkable performance
metrics, including an impressive global accuracy of 99.286%, a high-class accuracy of 82.191%, a mean intersection over union (IoU) of 79.900%, a weighted
IoU of 98.620%, and a Boundary F1 (BF) score of 83.303%. Notably, a detailed comparative analysis with existing methods showcases the superiority of
our proposed model. These findings underscore the model’s competence in precise brain tumor localization, underscoring its potential to revolutionize medical
image analysis and enhance healthcare outcomes. This research paves the way
for future exploration and optimization of advanced CNN models in medical
imaging, emphasizing addressing false positives and resource efficiency.
KuberTENes Birthday Bash Guadalajara - K8sGPT first impressionsVictor Morales
K8sGPT is a tool that analyzes and diagnoses Kubernetes clusters. This presentation was used to share the requirements and dependencies to deploy K8sGPT in a local environment.
Null Bangalore | Pentesters Approach to AWS IAMDivyanshu
#Abstract:
- Learn more about the real-world methods for auditing AWS IAM (Identity and Access Management) as a pentester. So let us proceed with a brief discussion of IAM as well as some typical misconfigurations and their potential exploits in order to reinforce the understanding of IAM security best practices.
- Gain actionable insights into AWS IAM policies and roles, using hands on approach.
#Prerequisites:
- Basic understanding of AWS services and architecture
- Familiarity with cloud security concepts
- Experience using the AWS Management Console or AWS CLI.
- For hands on lab create account on [killercoda.com](https://killercoda.com/cloudsecurity-scenario/)
# Scenario Covered:
- Basics of IAM in AWS
- Implementing IAM Policies with Least Privilege to Manage S3 Bucket
- Objective: Create an S3 bucket with least privilege IAM policy and validate access.
- Steps:
- Create S3 bucket.
- Attach least privilege policy to IAM user.
- Validate access.
- Exploiting IAM PassRole Misconfiguration
-Allows a user to pass a specific IAM role to an AWS service (ec2), typically used for service access delegation. Then exploit PassRole Misconfiguration granting unauthorized access to sensitive resources.
- Objective: Demonstrate how a PassRole misconfiguration can grant unauthorized access.
- Steps:
- Allow user to pass IAM role to EC2.
- Exploit misconfiguration for unauthorized access.
- Access sensitive resources.
- Exploiting IAM AssumeRole Misconfiguration with Overly Permissive Role
- An overly permissive IAM role configuration can lead to privilege escalation by creating a role with administrative privileges and allow a user to assume this role.
- Objective: Show how overly permissive IAM roles can lead to privilege escalation.
- Steps:
- Create role with administrative privileges.
- Allow user to assume the role.
- Perform administrative actions.
- Differentiation between PassRole vs AssumeRole
Try at [killercoda.com](https://killercoda.com/cloudsecurity-scenario/)
Electric vehicle and photovoltaic advanced roles in enhancing the financial p...IJECEIAES
Climate change's impact on the planet forced the United Nations and governments to promote green energies and electric transportation. The deployments of photovoltaic (PV) and electric vehicle (EV) systems gained stronger momentum due to their numerous advantages over fossil fuel types. The advantages go beyond sustainability to reach financial support and stability. The work in this paper introduces the hybrid system between PV and EV to support industrial and commercial plants. This paper covers the theoretical framework of the proposed hybrid system including the required equation to complete the cost analysis when PV and EV are present. In addition, the proposed design diagram which sets the priorities and requirements of the system is presented. The proposed approach allows setup to advance their power stability, especially during power outages. The presented information supports researchers and plant owners to complete the necessary analysis while promoting the deployment of clean energy. The result of a case study that represents a dairy milk farmer supports the theoretical works and highlights its advanced benefits to existing plants. The short return on investment of the proposed approach supports the paper's novelty approach for the sustainable electrical system. In addition, the proposed system allows for an isolated power setup without the need for a transmission line which enhances the safety of the electrical network
Introduction- e - waste – definition - sources of e-waste– hazardous substances in e-waste - effects of e-waste on environment and human health- need for e-waste management– e-waste handling rules - waste minimization techniques for managing e-waste – recycling of e-waste - disposal treatment methods of e- waste – mechanism of extraction of precious metal from leaching solution-global Scenario of E-waste – E-waste in India- case studies.
Batteries -Introduction – Types of Batteries – discharging and charging of battery - characteristics of battery –battery rating- various tests on battery- – Primary battery: silver button cell- Secondary battery :Ni-Cd battery-modern battery: lithium ion battery-maintenance of batteries-choices of batteries for electric vehicle applications.
Fuel Cells: Introduction- importance and classification of fuel cells - description, principle, components, applications of fuel cells: H2-O2 fuel cell, alkaline fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell and direct methanol fuel cells.
artificial intelligence and data science contents.pptxGauravCar
What is artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is the ability of a computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks that are commonly associated with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason.
› ...
Artificial intelligence (AI) | Definitio
Comparative analysis between traditional aquaponics and reconstructed aquapon...bijceesjournal
The aquaponic system of planting is a method that does not require soil usage. It is a method that only needs water, fish, lava rocks (a substitute for soil), and plants. Aquaponic systems are sustainable and environmentally friendly. Its use not only helps to plant in small spaces but also helps reduce artificial chemical use and minimizes excess water use, as aquaponics consumes 90% less water than soil-based gardening. The study applied a descriptive and experimental design to assess and compare conventional and reconstructed aquaponic methods for reproducing tomatoes. The researchers created an observation checklist to determine the significant factors of the study. The study aims to determine the significant difference between traditional aquaponics and reconstructed aquaponics systems propagating tomatoes in terms of height, weight, girth, and number of fruits. The reconstructed aquaponics system’s higher growth yield results in a much more nourished crop than the traditional aquaponics system. It is superior in its number of fruits, height, weight, and girth measurement. Moreover, the reconstructed aquaponics system is proven to eliminate all the hindrances present in the traditional aquaponics system, which are overcrowding of fish, algae growth, pest problems, contaminated water, and dead fish.
AN IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES FOR AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL IN REAL WORLD
1. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
DOI : 10.5121/ijdps.2010.1210 118
AN IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES FOR AODV
ROUTING PROTOCOL IN REAL WORLD
Nitiket N Mhala1
and N K Choudhari 2
1
Associate Professor, Department of Electronics Engg., BDCOE, Sevagram,India
nitiket_m@rediffmail.com
2
Principal, Bhagwati Chadurvedi COE, Nagpur,India
drnitinchoudhari@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Most of the adhoc routing protocol research work has been done using simulation only because of the
difficulty of creating real implementation. In simulation the developer controls the whole system, which is
in effect only a single component. An Implementation, on the other hand, needs to interoperate with a
large complex system and the system components. In this paper we focus on working implementation of
AODV routing protocol by means of certain design possibilities and possible opportunities for obtaining
needed AODV events. We discuss the socket based mechanism particularly when AODV routing daemon
communicates changes to the IP route table. The paper suggests the need of implementation of Generic
Netlink Family.
KEYWORDS
AODV, netlink, routing daemon, Linux kernel, snooping, netfilter
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile wireless devices are rapidly gaining popularity due to recent improvements in the porta-
bility and power of these products. There is a growing need for communication protocols which
allow users of these devices to communicate over wireless links. To allow such on-the-fly for-
mation of networks, the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol has
been developed [1], [2], [3]. AODV has been designed for use in ad hoc mobile networks. It
allows users to find and maintain routes to other users in the network whenever such routes are
needed. Testing mobile wireless protocols in a real-world environment presents numerous diffi-
culties. These difficulties include creating repeatable scenarios with tens, hundreds, or even
thousands of mobile nodes. Creating multiple scenarios with only small variances is also quite
challenging. Because of these difficulties, simulations of AODV have been created to test the
protocol in a variety of repeatable scenarios [1] [3]. However, while simulating a protocol can
aid in the basic design and testing of the protocol, certain assumptions and simplifications can
be made in a simulation that are not valid in a real-world scenario. Hence, it is important to im-
plement the protocol, once the simulation is complete.
Creating a working implementation of an ad hoc routing protocol is non-trivial and more diffi-
cult than developing a simulation. In simulation, the developer controls the whole system, which
is in effect only a single component. An implementation, on the other hand, needs to interope-
rate with a large, complex system. Some components of this system are the operating system,
sockets, and network interfaces. Additional implementation problems surface because current
operating systems are not built to support ad hoc routing protocols. A number of required events
are unsupported; support for these events must be added. Because these events encompass many
system components, the components and their interactions must also be explored. For these rea-
2. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
119
sons it takes significantly more effort to create an ad hoc routing protocol implementation than a
simulation.
2. RELATED WORK
Conventional IP based routing protocols are not appropriate for ad hoc mobile networks because
of the temporary nature of the network links and additional constraints on mobile nodes i.e. li-
mited bandwidth and power [13, 14].Routing protocols for such environments must be able to
keep up with the high degree of node mobility that often changes the network topology drasti-
cally and unpredictably. The mobile ad hoc networking (MANET) working group has been
formed within the IETF to develop a routing framework for IP based protocols in mobile ad hoc
networks. AODV (Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing) is one such protocol, which is
widely established. The AODV has been published as an experimental RFC [15].AODV is a
widely researched protocol among the research community. Most of the research effort has fo-
cused on simulations aimed at determining the performance of AODV [16,17] also in compari-
son to the performance of other ad hoc routing protocols [18].There exist currently several
AODV implementations [19] for different operating systems. These implementations comply
with a varying degree to the protocol description defined in [15]. Even though all are considered
protocol compliant, different design decisions (e.g., kernel level implementations perform effi-
ciently, compared to user level implementations) can give certain protocol handlers an advan-
tage over others. Recently there have been many AODV routing protocol implementations, in-
cluding Mad-hoc [20],AODV-UCSB [21], AODV-UU [22], Kernel-AODV [23] and AODV-
UIUC [24]. Each implementation was developed and designed independently; but, they all per-
form the same operations and many interoperate.
2. 1Brief AODV Protocol Overview
The AODV routing protocol [11][12] is a reactive routing protocol; therefore, routes are deter-
mined only when needed. Figure 1 shows the message exchanges of the AODV protocol. Hello
messages may be used to detect and monitor links to neighbors. If Hello messages are used,
each active node periodically broadcasts a Hello message that all its neighbors receive. Because
nodes periodically send Hello messages, if a node fails to receive several Hello messages from a
3. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
120
neighbor, a link break is detected. When a source has data to transmit to an unknown destina-
tion, it broadcasts a Route Request (RREQ) for that destination. At each intermediate node,
when a RREQ is received a route to the source is created. If the receiving node has not received
this RREQ before, is not the destination and does not have a current route to the destination, it
rebroadcasts the RREQ. If the receiving node is the destination or has a current route to the des-
tination, it generates a Route Reply (RREP). The RREP is unicast in a hop-by hop fashion to the
source. As the RREP propagates, each intermediate node creates a route to the destination.
When the source receives the RREP, it records the route to the destination and can begin send-
ing data. If multiple RREPs are received by the source, the route with the shortest hop count is
chosen. As data flows from the source to the destination, each node along the route updates the
timers associated with the routes to the source and destination, maintaining the routes in the
routing table. If a route is not used for some period of time, a node cannot be sure whether the
route is still valid; consequently, the node removes the route from its routing table. If data is
flowing and a link break is detected, a Route Error (RERR) is sent to the source of the data in a
hop-by hop fashion. As the RERR propagates towards the source, each intermediate node inva-
lidates routes to any unreachable destinations. When the source of the data receives the RERR,
it invalidates the route and reinitiates route discovery.
2.2 Logical Structure of Implementation
While implementation in real world, certain changes are necessary both protocol and kernel in
order to allow to operate AODV correctly. The figure highlights where the modifications can
occur. We can choose to implement AODV in Linux kernel because of inherent mobility and
open loop characteristics of Linux.Similarly; the alternative to implementing a routing protocol
in user space is to incorporate the existing protocol into the existing kernel as in, [4]. Protocol
modifications suggest most basic changes made to AODV in route Reply and Route Table.
When a node receives a route request, it replies if it either is the destination or it has a current
route to the destination. In the simulation, RREPs were originally unicast from responding node
to the source. As the RREP was propagated, intermediate nodes update their routing tables to
include the routes to the destination. In implementation however this does not work, because if
RREP is unicast from responding node to the source, the intermediate nodes use IP forwarding
and do not process the packet. Hence the protocol needed to be changed so that RREPs are un-
4. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
121
icast on a hop-by-hop basis. Additionally, a source IP address field was added to the RREP so
that ultimate destination of the RREP would be retained. .Similarly, AODV routing daemon
communicates changes to the IP routing table through the use of netlink socket. Whenever
AODV has route addition, modification or deletion, it transmits a message to IP through this
socket and route is updated accordingly.
2.3 Implementation Strategy
In order to function for AODV routing daemon, it is essential to determine when to trigger
AODV protocol events. The events must be extrapolated and communicated to the routing dae-
mon via other means. The events that must be determined are
When to initiate a route request:
This is indicated by a locally generated packet that needs to be sent to a destination for which a
valid route is not known.
When and how to buffer packets during route discovery:
During route discovery packets destined for the unknown destination should be queued. If a
route is found the packets are be sent.
When to update the lifetime of an active route:
This is indicated by a packet being received from, sent to or forwarded to a known destination.
When to generate a RERR if a valid route does not exist:
If a data packet is received from another host and there is no known route to the destination, the
node must send a RERR so that the previous hops and the source halt transmitting data packets
along this invalid route.
When to generate a RERR during daemon restart:
After the AODV routing protocol restarts, it must send a RERR message to other nodes attempt-
ing to use it as a router. This behavior is required in order to ensure no routing loops occur.
3. IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN POSSIBILITIES
3.1 Possible opportunities for obtaining the said events include
• Snooping
• Netfilter
• Kernel Modification
3.1.1 Snooping
In order to determine the needed events is to promiscuously snoop all incoming and outgoing
packets.[5] The code to perform snooping is built into the kernel and is available to user space
programs. For e.g. An ARP packet is generated when a node does not know the MAC layer ad-
dress of the next hop. Using this interface, if an ARP request packet is seen for an unknown des-
tination and it is originated by the local host, then a route discovery needs to be in-
itiated.Similarly, all other AODV events may be determined by monitoring incoming and out-
going packets. The most important advantage of this solution is it does not require any code to
run in the kernel space. Hence it allows for simple installation and execution .But two disadvan-
tages are overhead and dependence over ARP.
3.1.2 Netfilter
5. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
122
Netfilter [6] is a set of hooks at a various points inside the Linux protocol stack. Netfilter redi-
rects packet flow through user defined code, which can examine, drop, discard, modify or queue
the packets for user space daemon. Using Netfilter is similar to snooping method however it
does not have the disadvantage of unnecessary overhead or dependence on ARP. This solution
has the strength such as there is no unnecessary communication; it is highly portable, it is easy
to install and user space daemon can determine all the required events. On the other hand, the
disadvantage of this solution is that it requires a kernel module. However kernel module is easi-
er than kernel modifications. A kernel module is more portable than kernel modifications be-
cause it depends only on the Netfilter interface. This interface does not change from one kernel
version to next.
3.1.3 Kernel Modification
In order to determine the AODV events is to modify the kernel. Code can be placed in the ker-
nel to communicate the events to an AODV user-space daemon. For example, to initiate route
discovery, code is added in the kernel at the point where route lookup failures occur. Given this
code in the kernel, if a route lookup failure happens, then a method is called in the user-space
daemon.
Figure shows the architecture of the AODV daemon and the required support logic. The advan-
tages of this solution are that the events are explicitly determined and there are no wasted over-
head. The main disadvantages of this solution are user installation and portability. Installation of
the necessary kernel modifications requires a complete kernel recompilation. This is a difficult
procedure for many users. Also, kernel patches are often not portable between one kernel ver-
sion and the next. Finally, understanding the Linux kernel [7] and network protocol stack re-
quires examining a significant amount of uncommented, complex code.
6. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
123
3.2 Basic Considerations in kernel modifications to meet out the required aodv
Events
3.2.1 IP routing
When a packet arrives at a node’s IP-Layer from the application layer, Ip checks whether it has
a route to the destination by consulting its routing table. If it has either a route or a default rou-
ter, it forwards the packet. If neither of these exists, IP informs the application that a route does
not exist, and the session is aborted. In adhoc routing, default routes typically does not exist,
except possibly for specific connections to an infrastructure. Often, due to node mobility and
specifically with on-demand protocols, a valid route is not known for a given destination. In-
stead of notifying the application, IP must be changed to notify the routing daemon that route
needs to be found for the destination.
3.2.2 Route Tables
AODV maintains its own route table of destination for which it has a route. Each route table
entry has associated with it a lifetime field. When an entry’s lifetime expires, that entry is inva-
lidated. Each time a route to a destination is used, the life time associated with that route is up-
dated so that the route table entry is not prematurely deleted. Because IP is responsible for for-
warding data packets, however, AODV does not know when route entries are used. Hence it
cannot accurately use this feature within the routing daemon. To enable this functionality of
AODV to be maintained , the kernel can be modified so that IP maintains a structure parallel to
the IP route table in which it stores a Last use field.
4. SOCKET BASED MECHANISM
The socket based mechanisms allow the applications to listen on a socket, and the kernel can
send those messages at any time. This leads to a communication mechanism in which user space
and kernel space are equal partners.
4.1 Netlink Sockets
Netlink is a special IPC used for transferring information between kernel and user space
processes, and provides a full-duplex communication link between the Linux kernel and user
space. It makes use of the standard socket APIs for user-space processes, and a special kernel
API for kernel modules. Netlink sockets use the address family AF_NETLINK, as compared to
AF_INET used by a TCP/IP socket.
Why Netlink sockets?
It is simple to interact with the standard Linux kernel as only a constant has to be added to the
Linux kernel source code. There is no risk to pollute the kernel or to drive it in instability, since
the socket can immediately be used.
• Netlink sockets are asynchronous as they provide queues, meaning they do not disturb
kernel scheduling.
• Netlink sockets provide the possibility of multicast.
• Netlink sockets provide a truly bidirectional communication channel: A message trans-
fer can be initiated by either the kernel or the user space application.
• They have less overhead (header and processing) compared to standard UDP sockets.
4.2 Role of Socket mechanism in AODV Implementation
7. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
124
AODV can be implemented as a routing daemon in use space. The daemon communicates with
the Linux kernel through the use of sockets. At initialization, AODV opens a UDP socket to the
kernel. This socket is used for both the transmission and reception of AODV control messages.
AODV has been issued port number 654 and hence binds to this port when opening the socket.
The AODV routing daemon communicates changes to the IP route table through the use of net-
link socket.[8] Whenever AODV has a route addition, modification or deletion, it transmits a
message to IP through this socket and the route is updated accordingly .In order to prevent the
premature deletion of routes in the kernel routing table, AODV’s route table maintenance is al-
tered to include a periodic refresh of the kernel route table entries .This may be accomplish
through the use of periodic timer. When the timer expires, AODV sends a message to IP on the
netlink socket telling it to update, or refresh, the route.
4.3 Identified drawbacks
• Each entity using netlink sockets has to define its own protocol type (family) in the ker-
nel header file include/linux/netlink.h, necessitating a kernel re-compilation before it
can be used.
• The maximum number of netlink families is fixed to 32. If everyone registers its own
protocol this number will be exhausted.
4.4 Implementation of Generic Netlink Family
In order to eliminate the above two drawbacks ,We suggest to implement “Generic Netlink
Family” It acts as a Netlink multiplexer, in a sense that different applications may use the gener-
ic netlink address family. Generic Netlink communications are essentially a series of different
communication channels which are multiplexed on a single Netlink family. Communication
channels are uniquely identified by channel numbers which are dynamically allocated by the
Generic Netlink controller. Kernel or user space [9] users which provide services, establish new
communication channels by registering their services with the Generic Netlink controller. Users
of the service, then query the controller to see if the service exists and to determine the correct
channel number. Each generic netlink family can provide different "attributes" and "com-
mands". Each command has its own callback function in the kernel module and may receive
messages with different attributes. Both commands and attributes, are "addressed" by an iden-
tifier
4.5 User Space Sending Phase
1. Create a socket
2. Connect to the NETLINK_GENERIC socket family.
3. Resolve the ID for the particular generic netlink family we want to talk with.
4. Create the generic netlink message header. This specifies which callback function of
your kernel module gets executed.
5. Put the data into the message. The second argument is used by the kernel module to
distinguish which attribute was sent.
6. Send the message to the kernel
4.6 Receiving Phase
1. Add a callback function to the socket. This callback function gets executed when the
socket receives a message. In the callback function the message needs to be decoded.
2. Wait until a message is received.
8. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
125
4.7 Recommendations
The Generic Netlink mechanism is a very flexible communications mechanism and as a result
there are many different ways it can be used. The following recommendations are based on
conventions within the Linux kernel and should be followed whenever possible. While not all
existing kernel code follows the recommendations outlined here all new code should consider
these recommendations [10] as requirements.
4.7.1 Attributes and Message Payloads
The Netlink attribute mechanism has been carefully designed to allow for future message ex-
pansion while preserving backward compatibility. There are also additional benefits to using
Netlink attributes which include developer familiarity and basic input checking
4.7.2 Operation Granularity
While it may be tempting to register a single operation for a Generic Netlink family and multip-
lex multiple sub-commands on the single operation this is strongly discouraged for security rea-
sons. Combining multiple behaviors into one operation makes it difficult to restrict the opera-
tions using the existing Linux kernel security mechanisms
4.7.3 Acknowledgment and Error Reporting
It is often necessary for Generic Netlink services to return an ACK or error code to the client.
5. CONCLUSION
AODV is a widely researched protocol among the research community. Most of the research
effort has focused on simulations aimed at determining the performance of AODV. However,
while simulating a protocol can aid in the basic design and testing of the protocol, certain as-
sumptions and simplifications can be made in a simulation that are not valid in a real-world sce-
nario. Currently several AODV implementations exist for different operating systems. In real
sense, creating a working implementation of an ad hoc routing protocol is non-trivial and more
difficult than developing a simulation. In view of this, our paper efforts implementation possi-
bilities for AODV routing protocol in a real world. Here, we first identified the unsupported
events needed for AODV to perform routing. We then examined the advantages and disadvan-
tages of three strategies for determining this information. Among the three implementation
strategies, we emphasizes on kernel modifications strategy. This paper strongly interpreted on
the basic considerations should be carefully considered for kernel modifications to meet out the
required AODV events. Therefore, we briefly introduced Socket Based Mechanism and explain
its major role in AODV implementation which is most important when AODV routing daemon
communicates changes to the IP route table through the use of netlink socket. In conclusion for
future kernel modification, we suggest the implementation of Generic Netlink Family.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank everyone, including the anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
[1] C.E Perkins and E.M. Royer. Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing.Proceeding of the
9. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
126
2nd IEEE Workshop on mobile Computing systems and Applications,pages 90-100.New
Orleans,L.A.February 1999.
[2] C.E Perkins and E.M. Royer and S.R. Das.Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
routing.IETF Internet Draft,draft-ietf-manet-aodv-05.txt,March 2000.
[3] E.M. royer and C.E. Perkins Multicast Operation of Adhoc distance vector Routing Protocol.
Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Net
working,pages 207-218 ,Seattle,WA,august,1999.
[4] D.A. Maltz ,J.Broach and D.B.Jonson Experiences Designing and Building, a Multihop Wire
less Adhoc Test Bed Technical Report CMU, CMU school of computer science
[5] F. Lilieblad, O. Mattsson, P. Nylund, D. Ouchterlony, and A. Roxenhag. Mad-hoc AODV
Implementation and Documentation. http://mad-hoc.flyinglinux.net.
[6] J. Kadlecsik, H. Welte, J. Morris, M. Boucher, and R. Russell. The netfilter/iptables Project.
http://www.netfilter.org/
[7] http://www.kernel.org
[8] www.linuxjournal.com/article/
[9] http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~arkeller/linux/kernel_user_space_howto.html
[10] http://lwn.net/Articles/
[11] C.E.Perkins,E.M. Belding-Royer and S.Das. Adhoc On Demand Distance vector (AODV)
Routing.RFC3561,July 2003.
[12] C.E.Perkins & E.M. Royer,The Adhoc On Demand Distance Vector Protocol In C.E
Perkins,editor,Adhoc networking pages 173-219.Addision-Westly,2000.
[13] Perkins, C.E., Ad Hoc Networking. 2000, NJ: Addison-Wesely.
[14] Royer, E.M. and C.-K. Toh, A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless
Networks.IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, 1999: p. 46-55.
[15] Perkins, C., B.-R. E., and D. S., Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing. 2003, Request For
Comments (Proposed Standard) 3561, Internet Engineering Task Force.
[16] Lee, S.J., E.M. Royer, and C.E. Perkins, Scalability Study of the Ad Hoc on-Demand Distance
Vector Routing. ACM/Wiley International Journal of Network Management, 2003: p. 97-114.
[17] Ramarathinam, V. and M.A. Labrador. Performance Analysis of TCP over Static Ad Hoc Wire
Less Networks. in In Proceedings of the ISCA 15th International Conference on Parallel and
Distributed Computing Systems (PDCS). 2002.
[18] Samir R. Das, et al., Performance Comparison of Two On-demand routing Protocols for Ad hoc
Networks.IEEE Personal Communications Magazine special issue on Ad hoc Networking, 2001:
p. 16-28.
[19] Implementations, P.A., available at http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/AODV/aodv.html #Implementa
tions. 2002.
[20] F. Lilieblad, O. Mattsson, P. Nylund, D. Ouchterlony, and A. Roxenhag. Mad-hoc AODV Imple
mentation and Documentation. http://mad-hoc._yinglinux.net.
[21] I. D. Chakeres. AODV-UCSB Implementation from University of California Santa Barbara.
http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/ AODV/aodv.html
[22] H. Lundgren, D. Lundberg, J. Nielsen, E. Nordstr¨om, and C. F. Tschudin. A Large-scale
Testbed for Reproducible Ad hoc Protocol Evaluations. In IEEEWireless Communications
10. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.1, No.2, November 2010
127
and Networking Conference 2002 (WCNC), March 2002.
[23] L. Klein-Berndt. Kernel AODV from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/aodv kernel/.
[24] V. Kawadia, Y. Zhang, and B. Gupta. System Services for Implementing Ad-Hoc Routing: Archi
tecture, Implementation and Experiences. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys), pages 99.112, San Francisco, CA, June 2003.
Authors
Mr. Nitiket N. Mhala is PhD student and also working as Associate Profes-
sor & Head in the Department of Electronic Engineering, Sevagram, India.
He received his ME Degree from RM Institute of Research and Technology,
Badnera, Amravati University and BE Degree from Govt. College of Engi-
neering, Amravati, Amravati University. He published a Book Entitled PC
Architecture and Maintenance. He published research papers at National
and International level. He is a member of Institute of Electronics and Tele-
communication Engineer (IETE). His area of interest spans Data communi-
cation, Computer network and Wireless Ad hoc networks.
Dr. N. K. Choudhari is a Professor and completed his Ph.D degree in
Electronics Engineering from J.M.I., New Delhi and received his M.Tech
in Electronics Engineering from Visveswaraya regional Engineering Col-
lege, Nagpur. He received his BE in Power Electronics from B.D.C.O.E.,
Sevagram. Presently he is Principal at Smt.Bhagwati Chaturvedi COE,
Nagpur, India. He is guiding few research scholars for persuing Ph.D de-
gree in RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur, India. He has worked as mem-
bers of different advisory committees and was a member of Board of Stu-
dies Electronics Engg. of RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur, India.