Advertisement

Interaction between Internet Based TCP Variants and Routing Protocols in MANET

  • Sukant Kishoro Bisoy
  • Prasant Kumar Patnaik
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 247)

Abstract

Due to the presence of mobility in the mobile ad hoc network (MANET), the interconnections between nodes are likely to change. Dynamic nature of MANET makes TCP more aggressive in case of packet loss and retransmits a lost packet and unnecessary causes an energy loss. TCP carries 95% of the internet traffic to transport data over the internet. Hence, it is of utmost importance to identify the most suitable and efficient TCP variants that can perform well in MANET. Main objective of this paper is to find suitable routing protocols for TCP variants and analyze the performance differential variation in terms of throughput, packet loss rate and energy consumption. Simulations result using NS2 shows that, OLSR is best routing protocol with respect to throughput and packet loss ratio irrespective of TCP variants and it provides a lower packet loss rate (15% to 20%) than others in most situations. DSDV protocol consumes 15% to 25 % less energy than AODV and 5 to 10% than OLSR.

Keywords

AODV DSDV OLSR TCP-Newreno TCP-Sack1 TCP-Vegas 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Perkins, C.E., Belding-Royer, E., Das, S.R.: Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. IETF RFC 3561 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P., Laouiti, A., Minet, P., Muhlethaler, P., Qayyum, A., Viennot, L.: Optimized Link State Routing Protocol(OLSR). IETF RFC 3626Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Internet Engineering Task Force.: Manet working group charter, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html
  4. 4.
    Parkins, C.E., Bhagwat, P.: Highly Dynamic Destination Sequence Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM 1994, London, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Postel, J.: Transmission Control Protocol. RFC 793 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papanastasiou, S., Ould-Khaoua, M.: Exploring the performance of TCP Vegas in Mobile Ad hoc Networks. International Journal of Communication Systems 17(2), 163–177 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feng, D., Zhu, Y.: An Improved AODV Routing Protocol Based on Remaining Power and Fame. In: International conference on Electronic Computer Technology, pp. 117–121 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin-zhu, W., Ya-qin, F., Min, S.: Performance comparison of Two Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks. In: WASE International Conference on Information Engineering, pp. 260–262 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mbarushimana, S., Shahrabi, A.: Comparative study of reactive and proactive routing protocols performance in mobile ad hoc networks. In: 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW 2007), pp. 679–684 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vijaya, I., Mishra, P.B., Dash, A.R., Rath, A.K.: Influence of Routing Protocols in Performance of Wireless Mobile Adhoc Network. In: Second International Conferences on Emerging Applications of Information Technology (EAIT), pp. 340–344 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford Jr, L.R., Fulkerson, D.R.: Flows in Networks. Princeton Univ. Press (1962)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, V.: Congestion avoidance and control. Computer Communication Review 18(4), 314–329 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson, V.: Modifed TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm. Technical report (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoe, J.: Start-up Dynamics of TCP’s Congestion Control and Avoidance Scheme. Master’s thesis. MIT (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Floyd, S., Henderson, T., Gurtov, A.: The NewReno Modification to TCP’s Fast Recovery Algorithm. RFC 3782 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fall, K., Floyd, S.: Simulation-based comparison of tahoe, reno, and sack tcp. Computer Communication Review 26, 5–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brakmo, L., O’Malley, S., Peterson, L.: TCP Vegas: New Techniques for Congestion Detection and Avoidance. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, New York, USA, pp. 24–35 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Information Sciences Institute, The Network Simulator Ns-2, University of Southern California, http://www.isi.edu/nanam/ns/
  19. 19.
    Freeney, L.M.: An Energy Consumption Model for Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks. Mobile Networks and Applications 6(3), 239–249 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feeney, L.M., Nilsson, M.: Investigating the energy consumption of a wireless network interface in an ad hoc networking environment. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOMM, Anchorage AK (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, D., Bae, H., Song, J.: Analysis of the Interaction between TCP Variants and Routing Protocols in MANETs. In: Proc. of the 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICPPW 2005), pp. 380–386 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bhubaneswar and Faculty Member, C.V. Raman College of Engg.SOA UniversityBhubaneswarIndia
  2. 2.School of Computer EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations