Performances of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols - ijsetr.orgijsetr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IJSETR-VOL-3... · ad hoc routing protocols within the different coverage areas. This is

International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR), Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014

ISSN: 2278 – 7798

All Rights Reserved © 2014 IJSETR

1358

Abstract— This paper presents the performances of

different ad hoc routing protocols within different network

areas. Mobile ad hoc networks are multi hop wireless networks

in which mobile nodes can move freely and can communicate

with each other without any centralized control or base station.

Any mobile device which is within MANETs can act not only as

a source and a sink but also as a router for data transmission.

Routing is one of the vital functions of network performance.

And then the ability of data transmission also depends on

routing between the mobile devices throughout the network.

Therefore, the performances of routing protocols in mobile ad

hoc networks (MANETs) have been proposed to test with

different network areas such as 800 square meter and 500

square meter. They are simulated with three performance

metrics such as packet delivery fraction, average end-to-end

delay and throughput. In mobile ad hoc networks, the topology

is frequently changes due to the movement of mobile nodes.

Therefore, the selection of mobility model testing the

performance of routing protocols is very important. Random

Waypoint Mobility Model (RWMM) which is the most

commonly used mobility model in ad hoc network is utilized in

this observation. This study is simulated on the network

simulator (NS2) and the comparisons of the performances of

routing protocols are illustrated at different movement speeds.

A realistic mobility model has also been innovated in this

observation. Using the realistic mobility model, the

performances of the proposed routing protocols have also been

investigated within the network area of 800m × 800m at the

different mobility speeds.

Index Terms—Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs),

Routing Protocols, AODV, DSR, Performance Metrics,

Realistic Mobility Model

I. INTRODUCTION

Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are multi hop

wireless networks in which mobile nodes can move freely

and can communicate with each other without any

centralized control or base stations [3]. Each node in

MANETs acts as a source transmitting the data packets, as a

destination receiving the packets transmitted by other source

and also plays an additional role as a router, in routing the

data packets which are destined to some other node. The

applications of these networks are in battle field, disaster

recovery and emergency rescue operations [4].

There are two variations of wireless mobile communications.

Manuscript April, 2014.

San San Naing, Department of Electronic and Communication,

Mandalay Technologicaal University Mandalay, Myanmar,

+959400413115,

Zaw Min Naing, Technological University (Maubin), Maubin, Myanmar,

+9598585184

Hla Myo Tun, Department of Electronic and Communication, Mandalay

Technologicaal University, Mandalay, Myanmar, +9595416337.

The first one is known as infrastructure wireless networks,

where the mobile node communicates with a base station that

is located within its transmission range (one hop away from

the base station). The second one is infrastructure less

wireless network which is known as Mobile Ad hoc

Networks (MANETs). The sample diagram of infrastructure

wireless networks can be seen in fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Infrastructure vs Ad Hoc Network

MANETs consist of fixed or mobile nodes which are

associated without the help of fixed infrastructure or central

administration. These nodes are self-arranged and can be

organized “on the fly” anyplace, any time to support a

particular reason or situation. Two nodes know how to

communicate if they are within the reach of other’s

transmission range; if not intermediate nodes serve as routers

[2]. Mobile Ad-Hoc networks or MANET networks [1] are

mobile wireless networks, capable of autonomous operation.

Such networks operate without a base station infrastructure.

The nodes cooperate to provide connectivity. Also, a

MANET operates without centralized administration and the

nodes cooperate to provide services [3]. The diagram of

Mobile Ad hoc Network or infrastructure less network is

illustrated in fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Infrastructure less (Ad Hoc) Network

This investigation is mainly focused on the performance of

ad hoc routing protocols within the different coverage areas.

This is also observed at the various mobility speed because

mobile nodes which are in the ad hoc wireless network move

generously. Moreover, network density is also changed at all

mobility speed. This is explored with the network simulator

Performances of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

San San Naing, Zaw Min Naing, Hla Myo Tun


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1359

(NS2) which is a commonly used simulator for mobile ad hoc

networks.

The rest of the paper are: section 2 describes some

characteristics and applications of MANETs and

classification of ad hoc routing protocols. Simulation

environments and parameters are depicted in section 3. The

results of this observation is presented in section 4 and then

the overall performance of this study is concluded in section

5.

II. MANETS AND AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) are self-configuring

networks of nodes connected via wireless without any form of

centralized administration. This kind of networks is

currently one of the most important research subjects, due to

the huge variety of applications (emergency, military, etc...)

[4]. In MANETs, each node acts both as a host and as a

router, thus, it must be capable of forwarding packets to other

nodes. Topologies of these networks change frequently. To

solve this problem, special routing protocols for MANETs

are needed because traditional routing protocols for wired

networks cannot work efficiently in MANETs.

A. MANETs

Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) are autonomous

systems of mobile hosts connected by wireless links. In

MANETs, each node acts both as host and as router, thus, it

must be capable of forwarding packets to other nodes.

Topologies of these networks change frequently. To solve

this problem, special routing protocols for MANETs are

needed because traditional routing protocols for wired

networks cannot work efficiently in MANETs. Hence, a

specific dynamic routing protocol for MANETs which

discovers and maintains the routes, and deletes the obsolete

routes continuously is necessary.

This kind of networks is becoming more and more

important because of the large number of applications, such

as [4]:

• Personal networks: Laptops, PDA’s (Personal Digital

Assistants), communication equipments, etc.

• Military applications: tanks, planes, soldiers, etc.

• Civil applications: Transport service networks, sport

arenas, boats, meeting centers, etc.

• Emergency operations: searching and rescue equipment,

police and firemen, etc.

B. Routing in MANETS

In MANETs, each node acts both as host and as router,

thus, it must be capable of forwarding packets to other nodes.

Topologies of these networks change frequently. To work out

this problem, special routing protocols for MANETs are

needed because traditional routing protocols for wired

networks cannot work efficiently in MANETs [6]. Hence, a

specific dynamic routing protocol for MANETs which

discovers and maintains the routes, and deletes the

superseded routes continuously is necessary.

MANETs are necessary to have different routing protocols

from the wired networks because traditional routing protocol

for wired network cannot work efficiently in MANET. Three

types of routing protocols are commonly used in MANETs.

They are Table-driven (Proactive), Demand-driven

(Reactive) and Hybrids [5].

i. AODV Routing Protocol

Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing is

an on-demand and distance-vector routing protocol. AODV

routing protocol is capable of both unicast and multicast

routing. It keeps the routes in the routing table as long as they

are needed by the source nodes [8]. To find a path to the

destination, the source broadcasts a route request (RREQ)

packet. The neighbours in turn broadcast the packet to their

neighbours till it reaches an intermediate node that has

recent route information about the destination or till it

reaches the destination. The route request packet (RREQ)

uses sequence numbers to ensure that the routes are loop free

and to make sure that if the intermediate nodes reply to route

requests, they reply with the latest information only. When a

node forwards a route request packet to its neighbours, it also

records in its tables the node from which the first copy of the

request came. This information is used to construct the

reverse path for the route reply (RREP) packet. If the source

moves then it can reinitiate route discovery to the destination.

The diagram of propagation of route request (RREQ) packet

and path taken by route reply (RREP) packet for AODV is

shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 AODV routing protocol with RREQ and RREP

message [12]

ii. DSR Routing Protocol

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is similar to AODV as it

establishes a route on-demand. It uses source routing instead

of relying on the routing table at each intermediate node.

Every node contains a route cache. The key distinguishing

feature of DSR is the use of source routing. That is, the sender

knows the complete hop-by-hop route to the destination.

These routes are stored in a route cache. The data packets

carry the source route in the packet header. Each entry in

route cache specifies the intermediate nodes to a destination.

The route cache is used to respond to RREQs even if it is not

the destination. The route cache is always updated when it

learns a new route [7].


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1360

The two major phases of the protocol are: route discovery

and route maintenance [10]. When the source node wants to

send a packet to a destination, it looks up its route cache to

determine if it already contains a route to the destination. If it

finds that an unexpired route to the destination exists, then it

uses this route to send the packet. But if the node does not

have such a route, then it initiates the route discovery process

by broadcasting a route request packet (RREQ). A route reply

(RREP) is generated when either the destination or an

intermediate node with current information about the

destination receives The process of route request (RREQ) and

route reply message (RREP) is shown in the route request

packet [9]. To send the route reply packet, the responding

node must have a route to the source. If it has a route to the

source in its route cache, it can use that route. The diagram of

building record route during route discovery and propagation

of route reply (RREP) packet with the route record for DSR is

displayed in Fig. 4.

1Source

8

6

7

5

4

3

2

Destination8

1

6

7

5

4

3

2

Source

(a) Building Record Route during Route Discovery

Destination

(b) Propagation of Route Reply (RREP) Packet with the Route Record

<1,2>

<1,3>

<1>

<1,3,5>

<1,4>

<1,3,5,7>

<1,4,6>

<1,4,6>

<1,4>

<1>

<1>

<1>

Fig. 4 Creation of the route record in DSR [10]

III. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT AND PERFORMANCE

PARAMETERS

A realistic mobility model has been implemented based on

Manhattan Model. This model has been established for the

vital area of Mandalay Technological University (MTU). The

performances of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks

(MANETs) have been proposed to test with different network

areas such as 800 square meter and 500 square meter. The

performances of two ad hoc routing protocols are explored by

using three performance metrics. The network density is also

varied with different node numbers such as 10, 20, 30, 40 and

50 nodes. They are also simulated at the various mobility

speeds (2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 m/s) in both network areas

because every node in mobile ad hoc network changes

dynamically.

Fig. 5. Simulation Procedure of NS 2

The simulation time is set up to 500 seconds and the pause

time is 1 second. They are explored with the network

simulator (NS2) which is utilized as a main simulator for this

observation. The simulation procedure of NS2 is depicted in

fig. 5.

A. Simulation Environment

We make use of ns-2.35 which has support for simulating

a multi-hop wireless ad-hoc environment completed with

physical, data link, and medium access control (MAC) layer

models on ns-2. The protocols maintain a send buffer of 64

packets. It contains all data packets waiting for a route, such

as packets for which route discovery has started, but no reply

has arrived yet. To prevent indefinite buffering of packets,

packets waiting in the buffer for more than 30s are dropped.

All packets sent by the routing layer are queued at the

interface queue till the MAC layer transmits them. The

maximum size for interface queue is 50 packets. Routing

packets get higher priority than data packets. Our evaluations

are based on the simulation of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 wireless

nodes forming an ad hoc network, moving about over a

square (800m x 800m and 500m x 500m) flat space for 500s

of simulated time. A square space is chosen to allow free

movement of nodes with different density. To enable fair and

direct comparisons between the routing protocols, identical

loads and environmental conditions had to be maintained.

Each simulator run accepts an input scenario file describing

the motion of mobile nodes and also the sequence of packets

originated by the mobile node, along with time of change in

motion or packet origination pattern.

B. Performance Metrics

The performances of ad hoc routing protocols are explored

with three performance metrics in this observation. We

compare the performance of AODV and DSR according to

the following performance metrics: Packet delivery fraction:

the ratio of data packets delivered to the destinations to those

generated by the constant bit rate. Packet delivery fraction

(PDF) is the fraction of number of packet received at the

destination to the number of packet sent from the source

multiply by 100.

Average End-to-End delay of data packets: this includes

all possible delays caused by buffering during route

discovery, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission

delays at the MAC, propagation and transfer times. They are

average packet delivery fraction, average end-to-end delay

and average throughput.

Throughput is a very important parameter in evaluating

the modifications performance. It is calculated as the number

of bits received per second. Throughput is affected by the


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1361

number of packets dropped or left wait for a route which is

calculated as the summation of the number of packets

dropped or left wait for a route for all the nodes. There is two

representations of throughput; one is the amount of data

transferred over the period of time expressed in kilobits

per second (Kbps). The other is the packet delivery

percentage obtained from a ratio of the number of data

packets sent and the number of data packets received.

IV. RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCES OF AODV AND DSR

This study presents the performances of AODV and DSR

routing protocols in mobile ad hoc network. They are

performed in the different coverage areas such as 800m × 800

m and 500m × 500 m. Moreover, they are also observed with

the different number of mobile nodes and the mobility speed

is varied, too. The simulation time is set up to 500 seconds

and the pause time is 1 second. The performance results of

AODV and DSR protocols are presented with each

performance metric at various mobility speeds for each

network area. Firstly, the results of both protocols for a

network with 800 square meters are presented with each

performance metric at different speeds. Secondly, the results

of both protocols for a network with 500 square meters are

presented with each performance metric at different speeds.

Finally, the results of the performance comparisons of two

routing protocols are presented using the realistic mobility

model.

The results of the performances of AODV and DSR

routing protocols for 800m × 800m are illustrated in the

following figures. The packet delivery fractions of both

routing protocols for different network density are depicted

in fig. 6 with the different speeds.

Fig. 6 Packet Delivery Fraction of AODV and DSR with 10,

30 and 50 wireless mobile nodes at different speeds.

The average end-to-end delays of both routing protocols

for different network density are depicted in fig. 7 with the

different speeds.

Fig. 7 Average end-to-end delay of AODV and DSR with 10,

30 and 50 wireless mobile nodes at different speeds

The average throughputs of both routing protocols for

different network density are depicted in fig. 8 with the

different speeds.

Fig. 8 Average Throughput of AODV and DSR with 10, 30

and 50 wireless mobile nodes at different speeds

The results of the performances of AODV and DSR

routing protocols for 500m × 500m are illustrated in the

following figures. The packet delivery fractions of both

routing protocols for different network density are depicted

in fig. 9 with the different speeds.

Fig. 9 Average PDF of AODV and DSR with 10, 30 and 50

wireless mobile nodes at different speeds


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1362

The average end-to-end delays of both routing protocols

for different network density are depicted in fig. 10 with the

different speeds.

Fig. 10 Average end-to-end delay of AODV and DSR with

10, 30 and 50 wireless mobile nodes at different speeds

Fig. 11 Average Throughput of AODV and DSR with 10, 30

and 50 wireless mobile nodes at different speeds

The average throughputs of both routing protocols for

different network density are depicted in fig. 11 with the

different speeds.

The performances of AODV and DSR routing protocols

are also investigated for the vital area of Mandalay

Technological University (MTU) by implementing a realistic

mobility model with 800 m2 network area. That mobility

model is established based on Manhattan Model. The vital

area of MTU is illustrated in fig. 12.

Fig. 12 The Block of the vital area of MTU

There are many mobility models to assess the performances

of routing protocols in NS 2. Among these mobility models,

Random Waypoint Mobility Model (RWMM) is a commonly

used model. However, the author would like to precise the

performances of routing protocols for the real network

application. Therefore, she specified the network area for

real application. And then, she implemented a realistic

mobility model based on Manhattan mobility model. The

implementation of the realistic mobility model for this

proposed mobile ad hoc network area can be seen as follow.

MANHATTAN

HOR_STREET_NUM 3

VER_STREET_NUM 5

LANE_NUM 16

LANE 0 0 1 0.10 332.33 999.90 332.33 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 2 0 1 332.33 332.33

CROSSPOINT 1 2 1 -1 333.33 332.33

CROSSPOINT 2 3 0 1 665.67 332.33

CROSSPOINT 3 3 1 -1 666.67 332.33

LANE 0 1 -1 999.90 333.33 0.10 333.33 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 3 1 -1 666.67 333.33

CROSSPOINT 1 3 0 1 665.67 333.33

CROSSPOINT 2 2 1 -1 333.33 333.33

CROSSPOINT 3 2 0 1 332.33 333.33

LANE 1 0 1 0.10 665.67 999.90 665.67 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 2 0 1 332.33 665.67

CROSSPOINT 1 2 1 -1 333.33 665.67

CROSSPOINT 2 3 0 1 665.67 665.67

CROSSPOINT 3 3 1 -1 666.67 665.67

LANE 1 1 -1 999.90 666.67 0.10 666.67 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 3 1 -1 666.67 666.67

CROSSPOINT 1 3 0 1 665.67 666.67

CROSSPOINT 2 2 1 -1 333.33 666.67

CROSSPOINT 3 2 0 1 332.33 666.67

LANE 2 0 1 332.33 999.90 332.33 0.10 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 1 1 -1 332.33 666.67

CROSSPOINT 1 1 0 1 332.33 665.67

CROSSPOINT 2 0 1 -1 332.33 333.33

CROSSPOINT 3 0 0 1 332.33 332.33

LANE 2 1 -1 333.33 0.10 333.33 999.90 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 0 0 1 333.33 332.33

CROSSPOINT 1 0 1 -1 333.33 333.33

CROSSPOINT 2 1 0 1 333.33 665.67

CROSSPOINT 3 1 1 -1 333.33 666.67

LANE 3 0 1 665.67 999.90 665.67 0.10 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 1 1 -1 665.67 666.67

CROSSPOINT 1 1 0 1 665.67 665.67

CROSSPOINT 2 0 1 -1 665.67 333.33

CROSSPOINT 3 0 0 1 665.67 332.33

LANE 3 1 -1 666.67 0.10 666.67 999.90 4 0.00 1.00

CROSSPOINT 0 0 0 1 666.67 332.33

CROSSPOINT 1 0 1 -1 666.67 333.33

CROSSPOINT 2 1 0 1 666.67 665.67

CROSSPOINT 3 1 1 -1 666.67 666.67

The performance parameters which are used in this

observation is illustrated in Table 1.


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1363

The performances of AODV and DSR routing protocols are

explored for the various mobile nodes numbers with different

movement speeds by using the realistic mobility model.

They are observed with three performance metrics: packet

delivery fraction, average end-to-end delay and average

throughput. The diagrams of performance comparison for

two ad hoc routing protocols at different mobility speed using

realistic mobility model are shown in Figure. 13, 14, 15, 16

and 17.

The results for three performance metrics of both routing

protocols for the various mobile nodes numbers at 2 m/s

mobility speed is illustrated in fig. 13.

Fig. 13. The Performances of AODV and DSR for different

nodes at 2 m/s mobility speed















ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1364






When the performances of both routing protocols

are explored by using realistic mobility model, the overall

results of both routing protocols are significantly better than

that of using random waypoint mobility model. In the

observation of using realistic model, the PDF performance is

from 97.67% to 99.87% at all movement speeds when the

nodes are set up to 20, but it is from 89.72% to 98.17% in the

observation using RWPMM. When the node number is

increased to 30 nodes, the PDF performance is from 91.44%

to 97.11%, on the other hand it is from 60.03% to 71.45% in

the observation using RWPMM. In the same way, when the

node number is raised to 50 nodes, it is from 59.79% to

86.79%, nevertheless but it is from 33.81% to 59.50% in the

observation using RWPMM. But, AODV routing protocol

outperforms DSR in mobile ad hoc network with larger node

numbers at all high movement speeds.



The average end-to-end delay of both routing protocols

using realistic mobility model is significantly lower than that

of using RWPMM. However, when the node number is

increased to 40 and 50, the results of both observations are

not quite different. Average throughput of the exploration of

using realistic mobility model is very higher than that of

using RWPMM. Average throughput of the exploration of

both investigations is quite different for all node numbers at

all speeds.

According to this exploration, AODV routing protocol can

perform well at all mobility speed. However, DSR routing

protocol cannot perform as well as AODV routing protocol at

higher mobility speed and larger node numbers. Therefore,

AODV should be used for this mobile ad hoc network.

V. CONCLUSION

The mobile ad hoc network has become popular in wireless

communications. This kind of networks is currently one of

the most important research subjects due to the huge variety

of applications. The performances of two ad hoc routing

protocols are evaluated in this observation. This study is

explored with the performances of AODV and DSR routing

protocols with 10, 30 and 50 wireless mobile nodes at the

different mobility speeds. It is also simulated for the different

network areas such as 500m × 500m and 800m × 800m. We

choose the traffic sources to be constant bit rate (CBR)

source. The source and destination pairs were spread

randomly over the network. Only 512-byte data packets were

used. Varying the number of CBR traffic sources was

approximately equivalent to varying the sending rate. Hence,

for these simulations we choose to fix sending rate at 4

packets per second, and used 3 different communication

patterns corresponding to 8, 25 and 40 connections

according to the number of nodes. We compare the

performances of AODV and DSR utilizing three

performance metrics: packet delivery fraction, average

end-to-end delay and average throughput.

For 800m × 800m network area, the PDF performance of

AODV is higher than that of DSR at all mobility speeds when

the number of nodes is set up to 10 nodes. However, there are

no very significant differences between those routing

protocols. When the number of nodes is set up to 30, the PDF

of AODV is significantly higher than that of DSR at all

speeds. And also, when the number of nodes is set up to 50,

the PDF of DSR is very lower than that of AODV at all

movement speeds. We can see that the higher the network

density, the lower the PDF performance for both routing

protocols. And then, we can also see that the lower the PDF

performance of DSR than AODV, the higher the network

density. Moreover, we can find that the higher the mobility

speed, the lower the PDF performances of both routing

protocols. Similarly, average end-to-end delay of DSR is

higher than that of AODV for all network densities at all


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1365

high movement speeds generally. On the same way, the

throughput performances of both routing protocols are not

quite different for the low network density at low mobility

speeds. When the network density and speed is high, the

throughput of AODV is higher than that of DSR. AODV

routing protocol outperforms DSR routing protocol with high

network density at all movement speeds.

For 500m × 500m network area, the PDF performances of

AODV routing protocol are very well (nearly 100%) at all

mobility speeds for the network density with 10 nodes. That

of DSR routing protocol is nearly the same output except at

the highest speed. When the network density is set up to 30

nodes, the PDF performances of both routing protocols are

over 90 % except the performance of DSR at the highest

speed (30m/s). When it is set up to 50 nodes, the PDF

performances of AODV is over 50% and that of DSR is

around 50%. For the network density with 10 nodes and 30

nodes, the average end-to-end delay of DSR is slightly lower

than that of AODV at all speeds except at the highest speed

(30 m/s). However, when the network density is set up to 50

nodes, the average delay of DSR is higher than that of AODV

at all speeds. Correspondingly, the throughput performances

of both routing protocols are not quite different for the

network density with 10 nodes and 30 nodes at all speeds. On

the other hand, when the network density is set up to 50

nodes, the throughput of AODV is higher than that of DSR at

all speeds nearly.

According to these researches, we found that the routing

protocols can perform well in a small network area with low

network density because mobile ad hoc network is a

temporary network and it is also a self-configuration and

self-administration network without any centralized control.

Therefore, we can see that the larger the coverage network

area becomes, the lower the performance of the network can

achieve. We can exclaim that DSR routing protocol is

appropriate to small network area with low network density.

On the other hand, when we want to utilize the small network

area with high network density, AODV routing protocol is

very suitable according to this research. Moreover, AODV

routing protocol is much more appropriate than DSR routing

protocol for a large network area with high network density.

When the performances of both routing protocols are

explored by using realistic mobility model, the overall results

of both routing protocols are significantly better than that of

using random waypoint mobility model. In the observation of

using realistic model, the PDF performance is nearly 100% at

less node number at moderate speeds, but the maximum PDF

performance is 98.17% in the observation using RWPMM.

In contrast to the average end-to-end delay of both

observations are not quite different in the networks with

higher node numbers. However, the average delay of the

observation of using RWPMM is significantly higher than

that of the observation of using realistic mobility model. On

the other hand, the average throughputs of both observation

are not quite different from each other.

After all, by comparing the two observations of utilizing

the random waypoint mobility model and realistic mobility

model, the performances of routing protocols which use

realistic mobility model outperforms than that of the routing

protocols which utilize random waypoint mobility model.

Therefore, we can exclaim that the better performance of the

mobile ad hoc network can be achieved by implementing the

realistic mobility model for the proposed network area.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to acknowledge especially to her

supervisor, Professor Dr. Zaw Min Naing, for his

accomplished guidance, persistent professional advices and

encouragement throughout the research and to her

co-supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Hla Myo Tun, for his

valuable suggestions and priceless guidance. The author

would like to express the special thanks to the reviewers who

assess her paper, too.

REFERENCES

[1] Mobile ad hoc networks (MANET). http:

//www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html, 1997. IETF Working

Group Charter

[2] Mehran Abolhasan, Tadeusz Wysocki, and Eryk Dutkiewicz. A review of

routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. Technical report,

Telecommunication and Information Research Institute, University of

Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522; Motorola Australia Research

Centre, 12 Lord St., Botany, NSW 2525, Australia, 2003.

[3] J. Broch, D. Maltz, D. Johnson, Y. Hu, and J. Jetcheva. ―Multi-Hop

Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols.‖ ACM/IEEE

International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking

(MOBICOM’98), pages 85-97, 1998.

[4] A.Boukerche, 2004. “Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for

Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 9,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, 333-342.

[5] H. Ehsan and Z.A. Uzmi (2004), “Performance Comparison of

AdHocWireless Network Routing Protocols”, IEEE INMIC 2004.

[6] Corson, S., and Macker, J. Mobile Ad ho Networking (MANET):

Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations.

RFC 2501, IETF, Jan. 1999.

[7] David B. Johnson and David A.Maltz, “Protocols for adaptive wireless and

mobile computing”. In IEEE Personal Communications, 3(1), February

1996.

[8] MD.Johnson, “Dynamic Source Routing for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,

IEFT MANET Draft, April 2003.

[9 ] David B. Johnson, Davis A. Maltz, "Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc

Networks", Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski and H. Korth, Eds., Kulwer,

1996, pp. 152-81. Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless

Networks

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~jain/cis788-99/adhoc_routing/index.html

(18 of 20) [2/7/2000 10:38:34 AM]

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~atm/adhoc/paper-collection/johnson-dsr.pdf

Discusses Dynamic Source Routing Algorithm.

[10] David B. Johnson, Davis A. Maltz, "The Dynamic Source Routing

Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks" October 1999 IETF Draft, 49

pages. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-dsr-03.txt

Discusses Dynamic Source Routing Algorithm.

[11] Mingliang Jiang, Jinyang Li, Y.C. Tay, "Cluster Based Routing Protocol"

August 1999 IETF Draft, 27 pages.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec-01.txt

Discusses Cluster Based Routing Protocol.

[12] Ms. Néeraj Rathore, “Performance Evaluation of MultipathAODV

Routing Protocol”, International Journal Of Engineering And Computer

Science ISSN:2319-7242 Volume 2 Issue 2 Feb 2013 Page No. 448-452,

www.ijecs.in


ISSN: 2278 – 7798


1366

San San Naing is currently doing research for her doctoral degree in

Electronic and Communication from Mandalay Technological University,

Mandalay, Myanmar. Her main research interests are Mobile Ad hoc networks,

Routing Protocols and web Quality of Service in MANETs. Her e-mail address

is [email protected].

Zaw Min Naing is a professor from Technological University (Maubin),

Maubin. He has got many research papers and international journals papers

concerned with electronics and communication technology. His e-mail address

is [email protected].

Hla Myo Tun is an associate professor, Department of Electronic and

Communication, Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay, Myanmar.

He received a lot of international journal papers related with control

engineering, communication technology and electronic circuit design. His

e-mail address is [email protected].

Documents

Performances of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols - ijsetr.orgijsetr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IJSETR-VOL-3... · ad hoc routing protocols within the different coverage areas. This is