On the Initial Network Topology Factor in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 229)

Abstract

The impact of the initial network topology on performance of routing algorithms is explored. Typically researchers use a randomly chosen network topology for performance evaluation of their protocols and algorithms. Here we show that the initial network topology can have a significant impact on algorithm performance and can lead to biased results, in particular, an initial topology that includes a major connectivity obstacle such as low connectivity level (e.g., a tree topology) or bridges. Although users move according to commonly implemented random mobility models, the effect of the initial topology can persist over time. To avoid biased results we recommend using multiple initial topologies instead of one, and/or running the simulation in an initialization phase until the effect of the initial topology fades.

Keywords

MANET MANET benchmark Network topology Performance evaluation Routing algorithms Traffic generation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Gabriel Scalosub for useful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Nossenson R, Schwartz A (2012) The impact of initial network topology on performance of routing algorithms in MANETs. Lecture notes in engineering and computer science: proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2012, WCE 2012, London, UK, 4–6 July 2012, pp 1269–1272.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abolhasan M, Hagelstein B, Wang JC-P (2009) Real-world performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh protocols. http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/736
  3. 3.
    Murray D, Dixon M, Koziniec T (2010) An experimental comparison of routing protocols in multi hop ad hoc networks. In: Proceedings of telecommunication networks and applications conference (ATNAC), 2010 Australasian, 31 Oct 2010–3 Nov 2010, pp 159–164.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah S, Khandre A, Shirole M, Bhole G (2008) Performance evaluation of ad hoc routing protocols using NS2 simulation. In: Mobile and pervasive computing (CoMPC)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Timcenko V, Stojanovic M, Rakas SB (2009) MANET routing protocols vs. mobility models: performance analysis and comparison. In: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on applied informatics and communications (AIC ’09).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johansson P, Larsson T, Hedman N (1999) Scenario-based performance analysis of routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks. In: Mobicom ‘99, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barakovi S, Kasapovi S, Barakovi J (2010) Comparison of MANET routing protocols in different traffic and mobility models. Telfor J 2(1):8–10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson D, Maltz D (1996) Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. In: Imielinski T, Korth H (eds) Mobile computing, Chap. 5. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 153–181.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perkins C, Belding-Royer E, Das S (2007) Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. IETF mobile ad hoc networking working group.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perkins C, Bhagwat P (1994) Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’94.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marina M, Das S (2001) On-demand multipath distance vector routing for ad hoc networks. In: Proceedings of 9th IEEE international conference on network protocols, pp 14–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The NS-2 network simulator–NS2 website: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
  13. 13.
    CANU Mobility Simulator Environment Website: http://canu.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/mobisim/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceJerusalem College of Technology (JCT)JerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceThe Academic College of Tel-AvivTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations