Performance evaluation of routing protocols for MANETs with known connectivity patterns using evolving graphs
- 236 Downloads
The assessment of routing protocols for mobile wireless networks is a difficult task, because of the networks’ dynamic behavior and the absence of benchmarks. However, some of these networks, such as intermittent wireless sensors networks, periodic or cyclic networks, and some delay tolerant networks (DTNs), have more predictable dynamics, as the temporal variations in the network topology can be considered as deterministic, which may make them easier to study. Recently, a graph theoretic model—the evolving graphs—was proposed to help capture the dynamic behavior of such networks, in view of the construction of least cost routing and other algorithms. The algorithms and insights obtained through this model are theoretically very efficient and intriguing. However, there is no study about the use of such theoretical results into practical situations. Therefore, the objective of our work is to analyze the applicability of the evolving graph theory in the construction of efficient routing protocols in realistic scenarios. In this paper, we use the NS2 network simulator to first implement an evolving graph based routing protocol, and then to use it as a benchmark when comparing the four major ad hoc routing protocols (AODV, DSR, OLSR and DSDV). Interestingly, our experiments show that evolving graphs have the potential to be an effective and powerful tool in the development and analysis of algorithms for dynamic networks, with predictable dynamics at least. In order to make this model widely applicable, however, some practical issues still have to be addressed and incorporated into the model, like adaptive algorithms. We also discuss such issues in this paper, as a result of our experience.
KeywordsAd hoc wireless networks Sensor networks Evolving graphs Routing protocols Delay tolerant networks Performance analysis
- 2.Bhadra, S., & Ferreira, A. (2003). Complexity of connected components in evolving graphs and the computation of multicast trees in dynamic networks. In Proceedings of Adhoc-Now’03, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 2865, pp. 259–270). Springer Verlag, October. Also appeared as an INRIA research report (RR-4531) in Aug 2002.Google Scholar
- 3.BonnMotion: A mobility scenario generation and analysis tool. http://web.informatik.uni-bonn.de/IV/Mitarbeiter/dewaal/BonnMotion/. Page accessed on October 2007.
- 5.Broch, J., Maltz, D. A., Johnson, D. B., Hu, Y.-C., & Jetcheva, J. (1998). A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM annual international Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’98) (pp. 85–97). Dallas, TX: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Bui-Xuan, B., Ferreira, A., & Jarry, A. (2003). Computing shortest, fastest, and foremost journeys in dynamic networks. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 14(2):267–285. Also appeared as an INRIA research report (RR-4589) in October 2002.Google Scholar
- 7.Carter, C., Yi, S., & Kravets, R. (2003). ARP considered harmful: Manycast transactions in ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 03), New Orleans, LA, March.Google Scholar
- 10.Corson, S., & Macker, J. (1999). Mobile ad hoc networking (MANET): Routing protocol performance issues and evaluation considerations. RFC 2501, IETF, January.Google Scholar
- 11.DTNRG. Delay tolerant networking research group: http://www.dtnrg.org. Page accessed on August 2007.
- 13.Ferreira, A. (2002). Building a reference combinatorial model for MANETs. IEEE Network, 18(5):24–29, Set 2004. A preliminary version appeared as “On models and algorithms for dynamic communication networks: The case for evolving graphs”, Algotel 2002, Mèze, France.Google Scholar
- 14.Ferreira, A., Galtier, J., & Penna, P. (2002). Topological design, routing and hand-over in satellite networks. In I. Stojmenovic (Ed.), Handbook of wireless networks and mobile computing (pp. 473–493). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 15.IEEE standard for wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/main.html. Page accessed on March 2007.
- 16.Jacquet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Clausen, T., Laouiti, A., Qayyum, A., & Viennot, L. (2001). Optimized link state routing protocol. In Proceedings of 5th IEEE INMIC’01 (pp. 62–68), Lahore, Pakistan, December 2001.Google Scholar
- 17.Jain, S., Fall, K., & Patra, R. (2004). Routing in a delay tolerant network. In SIGCOMM ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Johnson, D. B., & Maltz, D. A. (1996). Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. In T. Imielinski & H. Korth (Eds.), Mobile computing (vol. 353, chap. 5, pp. 153–181). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- 21.Merugu, S., Ammar, M., & Zegura, E. (2004). Routing in space and time in networks with predictable mobility. Technical Report GIT-CC-04-7, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- 22.Monteiro, J., Goldman, A., & Ferreira, A. (2006). Performance evaluation of dynamic networks using an evolving graph combinatorial model. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob’06) (pp. 173–180), Montreal, CA, June. Best Student Paper Award.Google Scholar
- 23.NS2. The network simulator—ns2. http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/. Page accessed on March 2007.
- 24.Perkins, C., & Bhagwat, P. (1994). Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. In Conference on Communications Architectures, Protocols and Applications (ACM SIGCOMM’94) (Sep 1994, pp. 234–244), London.Google Scholar
- 25.Perkins, C. E., & Royer, E. M. (1999). Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing. In Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA’99) (Feb 1999, pp. 90–100), New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- 26.Royer, E. M., & Toh, C.-K. (1999). A review of current routing protocols for ad-hoc mobile wireless networks. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, 6(2), 46–55.Google Scholar
- 27.Rice University Monarch Project. The CMU monarch wireless and mobility extensions to NS2. http://www.monarch.cs.rice.edu/. Page accessed on March 2007.
- 28.Ros, F. J. (2007). UM-OLSR implementation (version 0.8.8) for NS2. http://masimum.dif.um.es/?Software:UM-OLSR. Page accessed on March 2007.
- 29.Sen, R., Handorean, R., Roman, G.-C., & Hackmann, G. (2004). Knowledge-driven interactions with services across ad hoc networks. In ICSOC ’04: Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on Service Oriented Computing (pp. 222–231). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 30.Sharma, G., Mazumdar, R. R., & Shroff, N. B. (2006). On the complexity of scheduling in wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM annual international Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’06) (pp. 227–238).Google Scholar
- 31.Siqueira, I. G., Ruiz, L. B., Loureiro, A. A. F., & Nogueira, J. M. (2007). Coverage area management for wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Network Management, 17(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
- 32.Spyropoulos, T., Psounis, K., & Raghavendra, C. (2008). Efficient routing in intermittently connected mobile networks: The single-copy case. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 16(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
- 33.Stojmenovic, I. (ed.) (2002). Handbook of wireless networks and mobile computing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 34.Stojmenovic I. (ed.) (2005). Handbook of sensor networks: Algorithms and architectures. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
- 35.Stojmenovic, I., Nayak, A., & Kuruvila, J. (2005). Design guidelines for routing protocols in ad hoc and sensor networks with a realistic physical layer. IEEE Communications Magazine (Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks Series), 43(3), 101–106.Google Scholar
- 37.Yoon, J., Liu, M., & Noble, B. (2003). Random waypoint considered harmful. In The 22nd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM’03) (vol. 2, pp. 1312–1321), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar