International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of Computer Science, Neural Networks, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Plastic Engineering, Food Technology, Textile Engineering, Nano Technology & science, Power Electronics, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Computational mathematics, Image processing, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, VLSI Testing & Low Power VLSI Design etc.
Study of Attacks and Routing Protocol in Wireless Networkijsrd.com
Wireless mesh networks (WMNs) are attractive as a new communication paradigm. Ad hoc routing protocols for WMNs are classified into: (1) proactive, (2) reactive, and (3) hybrid approaches. In general, proactive routing is more suitable for a stationary network, while reactive routing is better for a mobile network with a high mobility. In many applications, a node in WMN is mobile but it can fluctuate between being mobile. Wireless mesh networks is an emergent research area, which is becoming important due to the growing amount of nodes in a network.
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
This compare and evaluate two routing protocols DSR and CBRP in ad hoc networks. DSR is based on flat topology and CBRP is of cluster based. Both are compared in different number of scenarios and their performances are compared in terms of pdf, channel utilization, nrl, average end to end delay and control overheads.
IJERA (International journal of Engineering Research and Applications) is International online, ... peer reviewed journal. For more detail or submit your article, please visit www.ijera.com
Study of Attacks and Routing Protocol in Wireless Networkijsrd.com
Wireless mesh networks (WMNs) are attractive as a new communication paradigm. Ad hoc routing protocols for WMNs are classified into: (1) proactive, (2) reactive, and (3) hybrid approaches. In general, proactive routing is more suitable for a stationary network, while reactive routing is better for a mobile network with a high mobility. In many applications, a node in WMN is mobile but it can fluctuate between being mobile. Wireless mesh networks is an emergent research area, which is becoming important due to the growing amount of nodes in a network.
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
This compare and evaluate two routing protocols DSR and CBRP in ad hoc networks. DSR is based on flat topology and CBRP is of cluster based. Both are compared in different number of scenarios and their performances are compared in terms of pdf, channel utilization, nrl, average end to end delay and control overheads.
IJERA (International journal of Engineering Research and Applications) is International online, ... peer reviewed journal. For more detail or submit your article, please visit www.ijera.com
Tree Based Proactive Source Routing Protocol for MANETspaperpublications3
bstract: A mobile adhoc network (MANET) is a wireless communication network and the node that does not lie within the direct transmission range of each other depends on the intermediate nodes to forward data. Opportunistic data forwarding has not been widely utilized in mobile adhoc networks (MANETs) and the main reason is the lack of an efficient lightweight proactive routing scheme with strong source routing capability. PSR protocol facilitates opportunistic data forwarding in MANETs. In PSR, each node maintains a breadth-first search spanning tree of the network rooted at it-self. This information is periodically exchanged among neighboring nodes for updated network topology information. Here added a Mobile sink to reduce the overhead in case of number of child node increases and also to reduce the delay.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID ROUTING...ijwmn
Wireless Sensor networks are a challenging task due to the lack of resources in the network as well as the frequent changes in network topology. Various routing protocols are designed basically to establish correct and efficient paths between source and destination. In the recent years, several routing protocols
have been proposed in literature and many of them studied through extensive simulation at different network characteristics. In this paper, we compare the performance of three most common routing protocols of wireless sensor networks i.e. AODV, DSDV and ZRP. These protocols have been simulated
using NS2 Package. This study investigates the routing protocols corresponding to packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, average throughput, dropped packets and end-to-end delay. Hence, evaluation and comparison between routing protocols is required because performance of any routing protocol can be changed with various parameters such as speed of nodes, pause times and number of nodes.
Performance Comparison of AODV and DSDV Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Wireless...Narendra Singh Yadav
An 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. This paper presents performance comparison of the three 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 pause time. Simulation revealed that although DSDV perfectly scales to small networks with low node speeds, AODV is preferred due to its more efficient use of bandwidth.
MANET Routing Protocols , a case studyRehan Hattab
L. Yi, Y. Zhai, Y. Wang, J. Yuan and I. You , Impacts of Internal Network Contexts on Performance of MANET Routing Protocols: a Case Study, Sixth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing,2012.
Fisheye State Routing (FSR) - Protocol OverviewYoav Francis
Overview of the Fisheye State Routing (FSR) for cellular networks, IDC 2012
By Yoav Francis and Nir Solomon
(Part of a performance comparison of various routing algorithms in cellular networks)
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.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of Computer Science, Neural Networks, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Plastic Engineering, Food Technology, Textile Engineering, Nano Technology & science, Power Electronics, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Computational mathematics, Image processing, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, VLSI Testing & Low Power VLSI Design etc.
IMPROVED NETWORK CONNECTIVITY IN MANETSIJCNCJournal
The growth in wireless communication technologies has resulted in a considerable amount of
attention given to mobile adhoc networks. All mobile hosts in an adhoc network are embedded with
packet forwarding capabilities. It is decentralized and is independent of infrastructure. Since mobile
hosts in an adhoc network usually move freely, the topology of the network changes dynamically and
disconnection occurs frequently. These characteristics require the routing protocols to find an
alternative path towards the destination for data transfer. The existing on-demand routing protocols
does the alternative path establishment only after the disconnection of links in the existing path. The
data sent by the source during alternate path establishment period will be lost leading to incomplete
data transfer. The network traffic will therefore increase considerably. This problem can be overcome
by establishing an alternative path when the existing path is more likely to be broken, by sending a
warning message to the source indicating the likelihood of disconnection. In this paper an attempt has
been made to analyze a protocol that improves the network connectivity by preempting the alternative
path before the existing link gets failed by monitoring the signal strength and ‘age of the path’.
Abstract— A MANETs is a self-configuring network is a collection of mobile hosts that are connected via a wireless link. Opportunistic data forwarding has drawn much attention in the research community of multihop wireless networks. Opportunistic data forwarding is the lack of an efficient, lightweight proactive routing scheme with strong source routing capability. In this project proposed to a lightweight proactive source routing (PSR) protocol. PSR can be maintained at different network topology information than distance vector (DV), link state (LS), optimized link State routing (OLSR), then reactive source routing [e.g., dynamic source routing (DSR)]. In this project concentrate on reducing the overhead at the base line protocols, then testing to the better data transportation. Network Simulator (NS-2) help in testing and implementing to this project for effectively reduced to the overhead in the data transportation.
This ppt describes about the Different protocols of Ad-Hoc Network .It is a pure survey report which will make clarification about each protocols used in ad-hoc network and helps to future generation to make more publishing of recent trends of ad-hoc networks.
Routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks have to
face the challenge of frequently changing topology, low
transmission power and asymmetric links. Both
proactive and reactive routing protocols prove to be
inefficient under these circumstances. The Zone Routing
Protocol (ZRP) combines the advantages of the proactive
and reactive approaches by maintaining an up-to-date
topological map of a zone centered on each node. Within
the zone, routes are immediately available. For
destinations outside the zone, ZRP employs a route
discovery procedure, which can benefit from the local
routing information of the zones.
Mobile ad hoc network is a reconfigurable network of mobile nodes connected by multi-hop wireless links and capable of operating without any fixed infrastructure support. In order to facilitate communication within such self-creating, self-organizing and self administrating network, a dynamic routing protocol is needed. The primary goal of such an ad hoc network routing protocol is to discover and establish a correct and efficient route between a pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered in a timely manner. Route construction should be done with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. This paper examines two routing protocols, both on-demand source routing, for mobile ad hoc networks– the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), an flat architecture based and the Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP), a cluster architecture based and evaluates both routing protocols in terms of packet delivery fraction, normalized routing load, average end to end delay, throughput by varying number of nodes per sq. km, traffic sources and mobility. Simulation results show that in high
mobility (pause time 0s) scenarios, CBRP outperforms DSR. CBRP scales well with increasing number of nodes.
A Survey of Enhanced Routing Protocols for Manetspijans
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) form a class of dynamic multi-hop networks consisting of a set of
mobile nodes that intercommunicate on shared wireless channels. MANETs are self-organizing and selfconfiguring multi-hop wireless networks, where the network structure changes dynamically due to the node
mobility. There exists no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes, interference, multipath propagation
and path loss. Hence efficient dynamic routing protocols are required for these networks to function
properly. Many routing protocols have been developed to accomplish this task. In this paper we survey
various new routing protocols that have been developed as extensions or advanced versions of previously
existing routing protocols for MANETs such as DSR, AODV, OLSR etc.
Issues in designing a routing and Transport Layer protocol for Ad hoc networks- proactive
routing, reactive routing (on-demand), hybrid routing- Classification of Transport Layer
solutions-TCP over Ad hoc wireless Networks
Tree Based Proactive Source Routing Protocol for MANETspaperpublications3
bstract: A mobile adhoc network (MANET) is a wireless communication network and the node that does not lie within the direct transmission range of each other depends on the intermediate nodes to forward data. Opportunistic data forwarding has not been widely utilized in mobile adhoc networks (MANETs) and the main reason is the lack of an efficient lightweight proactive routing scheme with strong source routing capability. PSR protocol facilitates opportunistic data forwarding in MANETs. In PSR, each node maintains a breadth-first search spanning tree of the network rooted at it-self. This information is periodically exchanged among neighboring nodes for updated network topology information. Here added a Mobile sink to reduce the overhead in case of number of child node increases and also to reduce the delay.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID ROUTING...ijwmn
Wireless Sensor networks are a challenging task due to the lack of resources in the network as well as the frequent changes in network topology. Various routing protocols are designed basically to establish correct and efficient paths between source and destination. In the recent years, several routing protocols
have been proposed in literature and many of them studied through extensive simulation at different network characteristics. In this paper, we compare the performance of three most common routing protocols of wireless sensor networks i.e. AODV, DSDV and ZRP. These protocols have been simulated
using NS2 Package. This study investigates the routing protocols corresponding to packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, average throughput, dropped packets and end-to-end delay. Hence, evaluation and comparison between routing protocols is required because performance of any routing protocol can be changed with various parameters such as speed of nodes, pause times and number of nodes.
Performance Comparison of AODV and DSDV Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Wireless...Narendra Singh Yadav
An 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. This paper presents performance comparison of the three 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 pause time. Simulation revealed that although DSDV perfectly scales to small networks with low node speeds, AODV is preferred due to its more efficient use of bandwidth.
MANET Routing Protocols , a case studyRehan Hattab
L. Yi, Y. Zhai, Y. Wang, J. Yuan and I. You , Impacts of Internal Network Contexts on Performance of MANET Routing Protocols: a Case Study, Sixth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing,2012.
Fisheye State Routing (FSR) - Protocol OverviewYoav Francis
Overview of the Fisheye State Routing (FSR) for cellular networks, IDC 2012
By Yoav Francis and Nir Solomon
(Part of a performance comparison of various routing algorithms in cellular networks)
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.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of Computer Science, Neural Networks, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Plastic Engineering, Food Technology, Textile Engineering, Nano Technology & science, Power Electronics, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Computational mathematics, Image processing, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, VLSI Testing & Low Power VLSI Design etc.
IMPROVED NETWORK CONNECTIVITY IN MANETSIJCNCJournal
The growth in wireless communication technologies has resulted in a considerable amount of
attention given to mobile adhoc networks. All mobile hosts in an adhoc network are embedded with
packet forwarding capabilities. It is decentralized and is independent of infrastructure. Since mobile
hosts in an adhoc network usually move freely, the topology of the network changes dynamically and
disconnection occurs frequently. These characteristics require the routing protocols to find an
alternative path towards the destination for data transfer. The existing on-demand routing protocols
does the alternative path establishment only after the disconnection of links in the existing path. The
data sent by the source during alternate path establishment period will be lost leading to incomplete
data transfer. The network traffic will therefore increase considerably. This problem can be overcome
by establishing an alternative path when the existing path is more likely to be broken, by sending a
warning message to the source indicating the likelihood of disconnection. In this paper an attempt has
been made to analyze a protocol that improves the network connectivity by preempting the alternative
path before the existing link gets failed by monitoring the signal strength and ‘age of the path’.
Abstract— A MANETs is a self-configuring network is a collection of mobile hosts that are connected via a wireless link. Opportunistic data forwarding has drawn much attention in the research community of multihop wireless networks. Opportunistic data forwarding is the lack of an efficient, lightweight proactive routing scheme with strong source routing capability. In this project proposed to a lightweight proactive source routing (PSR) protocol. PSR can be maintained at different network topology information than distance vector (DV), link state (LS), optimized link State routing (OLSR), then reactive source routing [e.g., dynamic source routing (DSR)]. In this project concentrate on reducing the overhead at the base line protocols, then testing to the better data transportation. Network Simulator (NS-2) help in testing and implementing to this project for effectively reduced to the overhead in the data transportation.
This ppt describes about the Different protocols of Ad-Hoc Network .It is a pure survey report which will make clarification about each protocols used in ad-hoc network and helps to future generation to make more publishing of recent trends of ad-hoc networks.
Routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks have to
face the challenge of frequently changing topology, low
transmission power and asymmetric links. Both
proactive and reactive routing protocols prove to be
inefficient under these circumstances. The Zone Routing
Protocol (ZRP) combines the advantages of the proactive
and reactive approaches by maintaining an up-to-date
topological map of a zone centered on each node. Within
the zone, routes are immediately available. For
destinations outside the zone, ZRP employs a route
discovery procedure, which can benefit from the local
routing information of the zones.
Mobile ad hoc network is a reconfigurable network of mobile nodes connected by multi-hop wireless links and capable of operating without any fixed infrastructure support. In order to facilitate communication within such self-creating, self-organizing and self administrating network, a dynamic routing protocol is needed. The primary goal of such an ad hoc network routing protocol is to discover and establish a correct and efficient route between a pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered in a timely manner. Route construction should be done with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. This paper examines two routing protocols, both on-demand source routing, for mobile ad hoc networks– the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), an flat architecture based and the Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP), a cluster architecture based and evaluates both routing protocols in terms of packet delivery fraction, normalized routing load, average end to end delay, throughput by varying number of nodes per sq. km, traffic sources and mobility. Simulation results show that in high
mobility (pause time 0s) scenarios, CBRP outperforms DSR. CBRP scales well with increasing number of nodes.
A Survey of Enhanced Routing Protocols for Manetspijans
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) form a class of dynamic multi-hop networks consisting of a set of
mobile nodes that intercommunicate on shared wireless channels. MANETs are self-organizing and selfconfiguring multi-hop wireless networks, where the network structure changes dynamically due to the node
mobility. There exists no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes, interference, multipath propagation
and path loss. Hence efficient dynamic routing protocols are required for these networks to function
properly. Many routing protocols have been developed to accomplish this task. In this paper we survey
various new routing protocols that have been developed as extensions or advanced versions of previously
existing routing protocols for MANETs such as DSR, AODV, OLSR etc.
Issues in designing a routing and Transport Layer protocol for Ad hoc networks- proactive
routing, reactive routing (on-demand), hybrid routing- Classification of Transport Layer
solutions-TCP over Ad hoc wireless Networks
International Journal of Engineering Research and DevelopmentIJERD Editor
Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering,
Information Engineering and Technology,
Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
Automation and Mechatronics Engineering,
Material and Chemical Engineering,
Civil and Architecture Engineering,
Biotechnology and Bio Engineering,
Environmental Engineering,
Petroleum and Mining Engineering,
Marine and Agriculture engineering,
Aerospace Engineering.
Performance Comparison and Analysis of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing...ijwmn
Wireless Sensor networks are a challenging task due to the lack of resources in the network as well as the frequent changes in network topology. Various routing protocols are designed basically to establish correct and efficient paths between source and destination. In the recent years, several routing protocols have been proposed in literature and many of them studied through extensive simulation at different network characteristics. In this paper, we compare the performance of three most common routing protocols of wireless sensor networks i.e. AODV, DSDV and ZRP. These protocols have been simulated using NS2 Package. This study investigates the routing protocols corresponding to packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, average throughput, dropped packets and end-to-end delay. Hence, evaluation and comparison between routing protocols is required because performance of any routing protocol can be changed with various parameters such as speed of nodes, pause times and number of nodes.
Performance Comparison and Analysis of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing...ijwmn
Wireless Sensor networks are a challenging task due to the lack of resources in the network as well as the frequent changes in network topology. Various routing protocols are designed basically to establish correct and efficient paths between source and destination. In the recent years, several routing protocols have been proposed in literature and many of them studied through extensive simulation at different network characteristics. In this paper, we compare the performance of three most common routing protocols of wireless sensor networks i.e. AODV, DSDV and ZRP. These protocols have been simulated using NS2 Package. This study investigates the routing protocols corresponding to packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, average throughput, dropped packets and end-to-end delay. Hence, evaluation and comparison between routing protocols is required because performance of any routing protocol can be changed with various parameters such as speed of nodes, pause times and number of nodes.
Improved routing scheme with ACO in WSN in comparison to DSDVijsrd.com
Routing is the process of selecting best paths in a network in terms of energy and distance. In adhoc it is critical to collect the information in an efficient manner as it has limitations in terms of centralized congestion. In such case to perform the effective communication there is the requirement of some such routing approach that can provide the routing with optimized path. In this work, ACO based routing approach is defined to generate the optimized path in comparison to DSDV over the network. The presented approach is implemented in matlab environment and obtained results shows the effective results in terms of optimized path.
Survey of Reactive Routing Protocols for MANETIOSR Journals
Abstract : A MANET is a collection of mobile nodes by wireless links forming a dynamic topology without any network infrastructure such as routers, servers, access points/cables or centralized administration. The nodes are free to move about and organize themselves into a network. These nodes change position frequently. The main classes of routing protocols are Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid. A Reactive (on-demand) routing strategy is a popular routing category for wireless ad hoc routing. It is a relatively new routing philosophy that provides a scalable solution to relatively large network topologies. The design follows the idea that each node tries to reduce routing overhead by sending routing packets whenever a communication is requested. DSR and AODV are reactive route discovery algorithms where a mobile device of MANET connects by gateway only when it is needed. The performance differentials are analyzed using varying performance metrics. These simulations are carried out using the ns-2 network simulator. Keywords – AODV, DSR, MANET, NS-2, Reactive routing protocols, Survey.
Survey of Reactive Routing Protocols for MANETIOSR Journals
A MANET is a collection of mobile nodes by wireless links forming a dynamic topology without any
network infrastructure such as routers, servers, access points/cables or centralized administration. The nodes
are free to move about and organize themselves into a network. These nodes change position frequently. The
main classes of routing protocols are Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid. A Reactive (on-demand) routing strategy
is a popular routing category for wireless ad hoc routing. It is a relatively new routing philosophy that provides
a scalable solution to relatively large network topologies. The design follows the idea that each node tries to
reduce routing overhead by sending routing packets whenever a communication is requested. DSR and AODV
are reactive route discovery algorithms where a mobile device of MANET connects by gateway only when it is
needed. The performance differentials are analyzed using varying performance metrics. These simulations are
carried out using the ns-2 network simulator
JMeter webinar - integration with InfluxDB and GrafanaRTTS
Watch this recorded webinar about real-time monitoring of application performance. See how to integrate Apache JMeter, the open-source leader in performance testing, with InfluxDB, the open-source time-series database, and Grafana, the open-source analytics and visualization application.
In this webinar, we will review the benefits of leveraging InfluxDB and Grafana when executing load tests and demonstrate how these tools are used to visualize performance metrics.
Length: 30 minutes
Session Overview
-------------------------------------------
During this webinar, we will cover the following topics while demonstrating the integrations of JMeter, InfluxDB and Grafana:
- What out-of-the-box solutions are available for real-time monitoring JMeter tests?
- What are the benefits of integrating InfluxDB and Grafana into the load testing stack?
- Which features are provided by Grafana?
- Demonstration of InfluxDB and Grafana using a practice web application
To view the webinar recording, go to:
https://www.rttsweb.com/jmeter-integration-webinar
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Generating a custom Ruby SDK for your web service or Rails API using Smithyg2nightmarescribd
Have you ever wanted a Ruby client API to communicate with your web service? Smithy is a protocol-agnostic language for defining services and SDKs. Smithy Ruby is an implementation of Smithy that generates a Ruby SDK using a Smithy model. In this talk, we will explore Smithy and Smithy Ruby to learn how to generate custom feature-rich SDKs that can communicate with any web service, such as a Rails JSON API.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Clients don’t know what they don’t know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clients’ needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey 2024 by 91mobiles.pdf91mobiles
91mobiles recently conducted a Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey in which we asked over 3,000 respondents about the TV they own, aspects they look at on a new TV, and their TV buying preferences.
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Transcript: Selling digital books in 2024: Insights from industry leaders - T...BookNet Canada
The publishing industry has been selling digital audiobooks and ebooks for over a decade and has found its groove. What’s changed? What has stayed the same? Where do we go from here? Join a group of leading sales peers from across the industry for a conversation about the lessons learned since the popularization of digital books, best practices, digital book supply chain management, and more.
Link to video recording: https://bnctechforum.ca/sessions/selling-digital-books-in-2024-insights-from-industry-leaders/
Presented by BookNet Canada on May 28, 2024, with support from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
State of ICS and IoT Cyber Threat Landscape Report 2024 previewPrayukth K V
The IoT and OT threat landscape report has been prepared by the Threat Research Team at Sectrio using data from Sectrio, cyber threat intelligence farming facilities spread across over 85 cities around the world. In addition, Sectrio also runs AI-based advanced threat and payload engagement facilities that serve as sinks to attract and engage sophisticated threat actors, and newer malware including new variants and latent threats that are at an earlier stage of development.
The latest edition of the OT/ICS and IoT security Threat Landscape Report 2024 also covers:
State of global ICS asset and network exposure
Sectoral targets and attacks as well as the cost of ransom
Global APT activity, AI usage, actor and tactic profiles, and implications
Rise in volumes of AI-powered cyberattacks
Major cyber events in 2024
Malware and malicious payload trends
Cyberattack types and targets
Vulnerability exploit attempts on CVEs
Attacks on counties – USA
Expansion of bot farms – how, where, and why
In-depth analysis of the cyber threat landscape across North America, South America, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East
Why are attacks on smart factories rising?
Cyber risk predictions
Axis of attacks – Europe
Systemic attacks in the Middle East
Download the full report from here:
https://sectrio.com/resources/ot-threat-landscape-reports/sectrio-releases-ot-ics-and-iot-security-threat-landscape-report-2024/
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
AI for Every Business: Unlocking Your Product's Universal Potential by VP of ...
Md3421762181
1. Deeptanoy Ghosh, Poonam Thakur / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.2176-2181
2176 | P a g e
Comparison and Analysis of Pro-Active Routing Protocols in
MANET
Deeptanoy Ghosh1
, Poonam Thakur2
1, 2
(CSE, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad hoc wireless networks are
characterized by infrastructure less environment,
multi-hop wireless connectivity and frequently
changing topology. Wireless links are highly error
prone and can go down frequently due to mobility
of nodes. So stable routing is a very critical task
due to highly dynamic environment in ad-hoc
wireless networks. The identification of stable and
efficient routing protocol plays a very critical role
in places where wired network are neither
available nor economical to deploy. In this paper,
comparison and behavioral study of different
MANET pro-active routing protocols such as
DSDV, WRP, CGSR, GSR, DREAM, STAR,
HSR, TBRPF, FSR, LANMAR, OLSR, and
HOLSR have been carried out so as to identify
which protocol is most suitable for efficient
routing over mobile ad-hoc network (MANET).
This paper provides an overview with advantages
and disadvantages of these pro-active routing
protocols by presenting their comparative
analysis.
Keywords: DSDV, WRP, LANMAR, CGSR, FSR,
OLSR, HOLSR.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro-active routing protocols [1] [2] [3] [4]
require each node to maintain up-to-date routing
information to every other node in the network. The
various routing protocols in this group differ in how
topology changes are detected, how routing
information is updated and what sort of routing
information is maintained at each node. These
routing protocols are based on the working principles
of two popular routing algorithms used in wired
networks. They are known as link-state routing and
distance vector routing. In the link-state approach,
each node maintains at least a partial view of the
whole network topology. Each node periodically
broadcasts link-state information such as link activity
and delay of its outgoing links to all other nodes
using network-wide flooding. After receiving the
information, the node updates its view of the network
topology and applies a shortest-path algorithm to
choose the next hop for each destination. On the
other hand, each node in distance vector routing
periodically monitors the cost of its outgoing links
and sends its routing table information to all
neighbors.
II. THE NEED AND SPECIALITY OF
PRO-ACTIVE ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
Routing in wireless network is difficult since
mobility causes frequent network topology changes
and requires more robust and flexible mechanisms to
search for and maintain routes. With a changing
topology, even maintaining connectivity is very
difficult. Besides handling the topology changes,
these protocols must deal with other constraints (low
bandwidth, limited power consumption, high error
rates). Proactive methods maintain routes to all
nodes. These protocols include nodes to which no
packets are sent. They react to topology changes, and
no traffic is affected by the changes. These methods
also called table-driven methods. Proactive routing
protocols maintain routes to all destinations, instead
of whether or not these routes are needed. The main
advantage of this category of protocols is that hosts
can quickly obtain route information and quickly
establish a session.
III. OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS PRO-
ACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Pro-active routing protocols can be divided
into two sub-groups based on the routing structure:
(1) flat and (2) hierarchical. In flat routing protocols
nodes are addressed by a flat addressing scheme. In
flat addressing scheme each node plays an equal role
in the network. On the other hand, different nodes
have different routing responsibilities in hierarchical
routing protocols. Routing protocols require a
hierarchical addressing system to address the nodes.
A. Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector
(DSDV) Routing
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector
Routing protocol [6] [7] [8] is a distance vector
routing protocol that define loop-free routing by
tagging each route table entry with a sequence
number. The protocol requires each node to maintain
a routing table. Each entry, corresponding to a
particular destination, contains the number of hops to
reach the destination and the address of the neighbor
that acts as a next-hop towards the destination. Each
node periodically broadcasts updates to its neighbors
to maintain the consistency of the routing tables in a
dynamically varying topology. Updates are also
broadcast to neighbors immediately when significant
new information, such as link breakage is available.
2. Deeptanoy Ghosh, Poonam Thakur / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.
2177 | P a g e
In DSDV two modes of updates can be employed.
First one is known as “full dump” where multiple
network protocol data units may be needed to carry
all available routing information to the neighbors.
The second one is referred to as “incremental” where
only routing information changed since the last “full
dump” is sent in a single network protocol data unit
to the neighbors. In case topological change is not
rapid, “full dump” can be employed less frequently
than “incremental” mode to reduce network traffic.
Advantages:
1. This protocol is Loop-free and simple.
2. Computationally efficient.
Disadvantages:
1. Due to network-wide periodic and triggered update
requirements, DSDV introduces excessive
communication overhead.
2. DSDV may engage in prolonged exchanges of
distance information before converging to shortest
paths after a link failure. These problems can become
unacceptable if network size or node mobility
increases.
3. Slow convergence.
4. Tendency to create routing loops in large
networks.
B. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)
Wireless Routing Protocol [8] [9] [10] is
another distance vector routing protocol that aims to
reduce the possibility of forming temporary routing
loops in MANET. WRP belongs to a subclass of the
distance vector protocol known as the path-finding
algorithm that Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc
Networks eliminates the counting-to-infinity problem
of distributed Bellman Ford. Each node obtains the
shortest-path spanning tree to all destinations of the
network from each one-hop neighbor in a path-
finding algorithm. A node uses this information along
with the cost of adjacent links to construct its own
shortest-path spanning tree for all destinations. Each
node in WRP maintains a distance table, a link-cost
table, a routing table and a message retransmission
list. WRP requires each node to exchange routing
tables with its neighbors using update messages
periodically as well as after the status of one of its
links changes.
Advantages:
1. Fewer nodes are informed in WRP than in DSDV
during a link failure. Hence WRP can find shortest
path routes faster than DSDV.
2. Loop free.
3. Lower WTC than DSDV.
Disadvantages:
1. WRP does not allow nodes to enter into a sleep
mode to conserve energy.
C. Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR)
Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing
protocol [11] [12] [13] is a hierarchical routing
protocol that uses DSDV as its underlying routing
algorithm. It reduces the size of routing update
packets in wide networks by partitioning the whole
network into multiple clusters. CGSR uses only one
level of clustering hierarchy. In CGSR, each cluster
contains a clusterhead. Clusterhead manages all
nodes within its radio transmission range. A node that
belongs to more than one cluster works as a gateway
to connect the overlapping clusters. In CGSR there
are two tables maintained: a routing table and a
member table. The routing table maintains only one
entry for each clusterhead. Each entry in the routing
table contains the address of a clusterhead and the
address of the next hop to reach the clusterhead. The
cluster member table records the clusterhead address
for each node in the network and broadcast it
periodically.
Advantages:
1. CGSR reduces the size of the routing table as well
as the size of routing update messages.
2. Since each node only maintains routes to its
clusterhead in CGSR, routing overhead is lower than
compared to DSDV and WRP.
3. Simpler addressing scheme compared to MMWM.
Disadvantages:
1. Since additional time is required to perform
clusterhead reselection, time to recover from link
failure is higher than DSDV and WRP.
D. Global State Routing (GSR)
Global State Routing [14] [15] is the
modification of link-state algorithm by adopting the
routing information dissemination method used in
DBF. Instead of flooding, GSR transmits link-state
updates to neighboring nodes. Each node in GSR
protocol maintains a neighbor list, a next-hop table, a
topology table and a distance table. Whenever a node
receives a routing message containing link-state
updates from one of its neighbors, it updates its
topology table if the timestamp is newer than the
ones stored in the table. When the node reconstructs
the routing table it broadcasts the information to its
neighbors with other link-state updates.
Advantages:
1. The key difference between GSR and traditional
link-state algorithms is the way routing
information is disseminated.
2. A node in GSR transmits longer packets
containing multiple link-state updates to its
neighbors. Therefore GSR requires fewer update
messages than a traditional link-state algorithm
in an ad-hoc network with frequent topology
alters.
Disadvantages:
1. As the network size and node density increase, the
size of each update message becomes larger.
3. Deeptanoy Ghosh, Poonam Thakur / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.
2178 | P a g e
E. Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility
(DREAM)
Distance Routing Effect Algorithm [16] [17]
[18] for Mobility uses location information using
GPS to provide loop-free multi-path routing for
MANET. In DREAM, each node maintains a location
table that records location information of all nodes.
There are two principles in DREAM: distance effect
and mobility rate. Distance effect states that the
greater the distance between two nodes the slower
they appear to move with respect to each other. The
mobility rate states another interesting observation
that the faster a node moves, it needs to advertise its
new location information to other nodes.
Advantages:
1. DREAM minimizes routing overhead by
employing “distance effect” and “mobility rate”.
Disadvantages:
1. DREAM requires Global Positioning System.
F. Source Tree Adapting Routing (STAR)
Source Tree Adapting Routing [19] [20]
[21] is based on a link-state algorithm that minimizes
the number of routing update packets disseminated
into the network to save bandwidth that is reduce
network traffic. Source Tree Adapting Routing
protocol requires each node to maintain a source tree,
which is a set of link constituting complete paths to
destinations. It also derives a routing table by running
Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm on its source tree.
A node knows the status of its adjacent links and the
source trees reported by its neighbors.
Advantages:
1. Minimizes the number of routing update packets
disseminated in the network.
Disadvantages:
1. May not provide optimum routes to destinations.
2. Significant memory and processing overheads for
large and highly mobile MANETs.
G. Hierarchical Star Routing (HSR)
Hierarchical Star Routing [22] [23] designed
to scale well with network size. It argues that the
location management that is the location updating
and location finding in MMWM is quite complicated
since it couples location management with physical
clustering. Hierarchical Star Routing aims to make
the location management task simpler by separating it
from physical clustering. The protocol maintains a
hierarchical topology by clustering group of nodes
based on their geographical relationship. The
clusterheads at a lower level become members of the
next higher level. The new members then form new
clusters, and this process continues for several levels
of clusters. The clustering is beneficial for the
efficient utilization of radio channels and the
reduction of network layer overhead that is
processing, routing table storage and transmission. In
addition to the multi-level clustering HSR provides
multi-level logical partitioning based on the
functional affinity between nodes. Logical
partitioning is responsible for mobility management.
Advantages:
1. In HSR nodes are also partitioned into logical
partitions, that is, subnets, in order to resolve
implementation problems of MMWM.
2. HSR requires less memory.
Disadvantages:
1. It introduces additional overhead like any other
cluster based protocol for forming and maintaining
clusters.
H. Topology Broadcast Based on Reverse Path
Forwarding (TBRPF)
Topology Broadcast Based on Reverse Path
Forwarding protocol [24] [25] is also a link-state
based routing protocol. It uses the concept of reverse-
path forwarding to broadcast link-state updates in the
reverse direction along the spanning tree formed by
minimum-hop paths from all nodes to the source of
the update. Each node in TBRPF maintains a list of
its one-hop neighbors and a topology table. Each
entry in the topology table for a link contains the
most recent cost and sequence number associated
with that link. With this information each node can
compute a source tree that provides shortest paths to
all reachable remote nodes.
Advantages:
1. TBRPF generates less update traffic than pure link-
state routing algorithms.
2. TBRPF requires only the non-leaf nodes in the
broadcast tree to forward update packets.
3. The use of minimum-hop tree instead of a shortest-
path tree makes the broadcast tree more stable.
4. Less communication cost to maintain the tree.
5. Lower WCC compared to pure link-state routing.
Disadvantages:
1. Overheads increase with node mobility and
network size.
I. Fisheye State Routing (FSR)
Fisheye State Routing protocol [26] is an
improvement of GSR. FSR is an implicit hierarchical
routing protocol that uses the “fisheye” technique to
reduce the size of large update messages generated in
GSR for large networks. The scope of the fisheye of a
node is defined as the set of nodes that can be
reached within a given number of hops. FSR, like
GSR, requires each node to maintain a neighbor list,
a next hop table, a topology table and a distance
table. Entries in the topology table corresponding to
nodes within the smaller scope are propagated to the
neighbors with higher frequency.
Advantages:
1. The fisheye approach enables FSR to reduce the
size of update messages.
2. In FSR, each node can maintain fairly accurate
information about its neighbors.
4. Deeptanoy Ghosh, Poonam Thakur / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.
2179 | P a g e
Disadvantages:
1. As the distance from the node increases, the
accuracy and detail of information also decreases
thus a node may not have precise knowledge of the
best route to a distant destination.
2. GSR requires the entire topology table to be
exchanged among neighbors.
3. Entire topology change can consume a
considerable amount of bandwidth when the network
size becomes wide.
J. Landmark Ad-Hoc Routing (LANMAR)
Landmark Ad-Hoc Routing [27] [28] [29] is
a combined link-state and distance vector routing that
is combination of FSR and DSDV protocol that aims
to be scalable. LANMAR borrows the notion of
landmark to keep track of logical subnets. Subnets
can be formed in an ad-hoc network with the nodes
that are likely to move as a group such as colleagues
in the same organization or brigades in the battlefield.
LANMAR only uses the FSR functionality when a
network is formed for the first time. One of the nodes
learns from the FSR tables that there it contains a
certain number of nodes within its fisheye scope. It
then proclaims itself as a landmark for that group.
When more than one node declares itself as a
landmark for the same group, the node with the
largest number of group members wins the election.
If there is a tie, the node with the lowest ID breaks
the tie. The distance vector routing mechanism
propagates the routing information about all the
landmarks in the entire network. Within each subnet,
a mechanism, similar to FSR, is used to update
topology information. As a result, each node contains
detailed topology information about all the nodes
within its fisheye scope and the distance and routing
vector information to all landmarks.
Advantages:
1. LANMAR reduces both routing table size and
control overhead for large MANETs.
2. LANMAR guarantees the shortest path from a
source to a destination if the destination is located
within the scope of the source.
3. LANMAR improves routing scalability for large
MANETs with the assumption that nodes under a
landmark move in groups.
Disadvantages:
1. Assumption of group mobility. Nodes may not
have the best route to distant destinations.
K. Optimized Link-State Routing (OLSR)
Optimized Link-State Routing [30] [31] [32]
optimizes the link-state algorithm by compacting the
size of the control packets that contain link-state
information and reducing the number of
transmissions needed to flood these control packets to
the whole network. Each node maintains a topology
table that represents the topology of the network built
from the information obtained from the TC messages.
Each node broadcasts specific control messages
called the topology control (TC) messages. Each
node also maintains a routing table where each entry
in the routing table corresponds to an optimal route,
in terms of the number of hops. Each entry consists
of next-hop address, a destination address and the
number of hops to the destination. In OLSR routing
table is built based on the information available in the
topology table and the neighbor table.
Advantages:
1. It minimizes flooding of control traffic.
2. OLSR reduces the size of the control packets since
in each control packet a node puts only the link-state
information of the neighboring MPRs instead of all
neighbors.
3. Reduces size of update messages and number of
transmissions than a pure link-state routing protocol.
Disadvantages:
1. Information of both 1-hop and 2-hop neighbors is
required.
L. Hierarchical Optimized Link-State Routing
(HOLSR)
Hierarchical Optimized Link-State Routing
[33] [34] is a routing mechanism derived from the
OLSR protocol. The main improvement realized by
HOLSR over OLSR is a reduction in routing control
overhead. To reduce routing control overhead,
HOLSR organizes mobile nodes into multiple
topology levels based on their varying
communication capabilities.
Advantages:
1. Suitable for large heterogeneous MANETs.
2. All nodes do not contain information of all other
nodes of the network.
3. The size of the routing tables of lower-level nodes
in HOLSR is less than that of OLSR.
Disadvantages:
1. Information of both 1-hop and 2-hop neighbors is
required.
2. Introduces additional overhead for forming and
maintaining clusters.
IV. COMPARISONS OF THESE
PROTOCOLS
Pro-active routing protocols with flat routing
structures usually incur large routing overheads in
terms of storage requirements and communication
costs to maintain up-to-date routing information
about the entire network. They may not scale well as
the mobility or network size increases. DREAM
reduces the transmission overhead by exchanging
location information rather than full or partial link-
state information. FSR has reduced the
communication overhead by decreasing the
frequency of updates. OLSR reduces rebroadcasting
by using multipoint relays. So these flat routing
protocols have better scalability. The hierarchical
pro-active routing protocols reduce communication
5. Deeptanoy Ghosh, Poonam Thakur / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.
2180 | P a g e
and storage overhead as the network size increases.
Only the clusterheads are required to update their
views of the whole network. In MANETs, group
mobility is usually impossible. Hence these protocols
can introduce additional complexity as well as
overhead for cluster formation and maintenance of
the network. Hence these protocols may not perform
better than flat pro-active routing protocols. A
parameter wise comparison has given below in the
table.
Protoc
ols
WC
C
W
TC
R
S
CRITI
CAL
NODE
S
FREQUE
NCY OF
UPDAT
ES
H
M
DSDV O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO Periodic
and On-
Demand
Y
ES
WRP O(
N)
O(
h)
F NO Periodic
and On-
Demand
Y
ES
CGSR O(
N)
O(
D)
H Cluster
head
Periodic N
O
GSR O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO Periodic N
O
DREA
M
O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO On-
Demand
N
O
STAR O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO On-
Demand
N
O
HSR O(n
*l)
O(
D)
H Cluster
head
Periodic N
O
TBRP
F
O(
N)
O(
D)
F Parent
Node
Periodic
and On-
Demand
Y
ES
FSR O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO Periodic N
O
LAN
MAR
O(
N)
O(
D)
H Landm
ark
Periodic N
O
OLSR O(
N)
O(
D)
F NO Periodic Y
ES
HOLS
R
O(
N)
O(
D)
H Cluster
head
Periodic Y
ES
WCC: Worst Case Complexity (No of messages
needed to perform an update operation in worst case);
WTC: Worst Case Time Complexity (No of steps
involved to perform an update operation in worst
case); RS: Routing Structure; F: Flat; H:
Hierarchical; HM: HELLO Messages; N: No of
nodes in the network; D: Diameter of the network; H:
Height of routing tree; N: Average no of nodes in a
cluster; L: No of hierarchical levels.
V. FUTURESCOPE AND CONCLUSION
The emphasis in this paper is concentrated
on the behavioral study of various pro-active routing
protocols and their comparisons. The study will be
helpful in identifying which pro-active protocol is
best suitable for MANET and how the performance
of that protocol can be further improved. Therefore,
the study will be of great interest to researchers in
getting an idea about which protocol to consider
under which circumstances.
REFERENCES
[1] Kaliyaperumal Karthikeyan, Sreedhar
Appalabatla, Mungamuru Nirmala and Teklay
Tesfazghi, “Comparative Analysis of Non-
Uniform Unicast Routing Protocols for Mobile
Adhoc Networks”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science and
Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 12,
December 2012.
[2] Santanu Santra and Pinaki Pratim Acharjya,
“Comparative Study of Proactive Routing
Protocols for MANETs”, International Journal
of Electronics and Computer Science
Engineering, 375, Available Online at
www.ijecse.org ISSN- 2277-1956.
[3] Basu Dev Shivahare, Charu Wahi and Shalini
Shivhare, “Comparison Of Proactive And
Reactive Routing Protocols In Mobile Adhoc
Network Using Routing Protocol Property”,
International Journal of Emerging Technology
and Advanced Engineering, Website:
www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2,
Issue 3, March 2012).
[4] Kavita Pandey And Abhishek Swaroop, “A
Comprehensive Performance Analysis of
Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid MANETs
Routing Protocols”, IJCSI International
Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 8,
Issue 6, No 3, November 2011, ISSN (Online):
1694-0814, www.IJCSI.org
[5] Hemanth Narra, Yufei Cheng, Egemen K.
Cetinkaya, Justin P. Rohrer and James P.G
Sterbenz, “Destination Sequenced Distance
Vector (DSDV) Routing Protocol
Implementation in ns-3”.
[6] Sachin Kumar Gupta & R. K. Saket,
“PERFORMANCE METRIC COMPARISON
OF AODV AND DSDV ROUTING
PROTOCOLS IN MANETs USING NS-2”,
IJRRAS 7 (3) June 2011.
[7] Khaleel Ur Rahman Khan, Rafi U Zaman and
A. Venugopal Reddy, “The Performance of the
Extended DSDV (eDSDV) MANET Routing
Protocol and its Suitability in Integrated
Internet-MANET”, K R KHAN et al: THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE EXTENDED
DSDV (EDSDV) MANET ROUTING.
[8] Amandeep Makkar, Bharat Bhushan, Shelja,
and Sunil Taneja, “Behavioral Study of
MANET Routing Protocols”, International
Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2011.
[9] Shaiful Alam Chowdhury, Md. Ashraf Uddin
and Shahid Al Noor, “A Survey on Routing
Protocols and Simulation Analysis of WRP,
DSR and AODV in Wireless Sensor