Analyzing the Interaction Between TCP Variants and Routing Protocols in Static Multi-hop Ad hoc Network

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 308)


In recent year, wireless Internet become more popular due to growth of mobile devices. TCP is designed to perform well in traditional wired networks, where packet loss is used as measure of congestion. However, TCP connections in ad hoc networks are plagued by problems such as high bit error rates, frequent route changes, multi-path routing, and temporary network partitions. The throughput of TCP over such connection is not satisfactory, because TCP misinterprets the packet loss or delay as congestion and invokes congestion control and avoidance algorithm. 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 static multi-hop ad hoc network in terms of throughput, packet delivery ratio, and packet loss. Result using NS2 shows that AODV is best routing protocol with respect to throughput and packet delivery ratio irrespective of TCP variants. Vegas is the best protocol among TCP variants due to its higher throughput and higher PDR and lower packet loss in most situations, and DSR has lower packet loss irrespective of TCP variants.




  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,
  4. 4.
    Johnson, D.B., Maltz, D.A., Hu, Y.C.: The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (DSR), IETF Internet Draft (work in progress), July 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parkins, C.E., Bhagwat P..: Highly dynamic destination sequence distance vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’94, London, (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Postel, J.: Transmission control protocol. RFC 793, (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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’07), pp. 679–684 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bisoy, S.K., Pattnaik, P. K.: Interaction between internet based TCP variants and routing protocols in MANET. In: Proceedings Springer International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications (FICTA), vol. 247, pp. 423–433 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Information Sciences Institute: The network simulator Ns-2,, University of Southern California
  11. 11.
    Li, J, Blake, C., De Couto, D., Lee, H., Morris, R.: Capacity of ad hoc wireless networks. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference in Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2001), pp. 61–69 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeney, L.M.: An energy consumption model for performance analysis of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. Mob. Networks Appl. 6(3), 239–249 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sukant Kishoro Bisoy
    • 1
  • Prasant Kumar Pattnaik
    • 2
  1. 1.SOA UniversityBhubaneswarIndia
  2. 2.School of Computer EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations