A Comparison of Optimized Link State Routing with Traditional Ad-hoc Routing Protocols
Loading...
Authors
Lye, Pore Ghee
McEachen, John C.
Subjects
Advisors
Date of Issue
2006-12
Date
December 11-13, 2006
Publisher
Language
Abstract
The performance of mobile ad-hoc networks
(MANET) is related to the efficiency of the routing protocols in
adapting to frequently changing network topology and link
status. This paper addresses the issue by comparing the
relative performance of three key ad-hoc routing protocols:
Destination-sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Ad-hoc Ondemand
Distance Vector (AODV) and Optimized Link State
Routing (OLSR). The protocols are tested based on two
scenarios, namely, tactical networks for ships and sensor-based
network nodes. Four performance metrics were measured by
varying the maximum speed of mobile hosts, network size and
traffic load, to assess the routing capability and protocol
efficiency. The simulation results indicate that AODV
performs better than OSLR and DSDV in the first scenario.
Although OLSR also performed relatively well, the associated
high routing overhead is the dominant reason for not choosing
it. On the other hand, OLSR emerged as the protocol of choice
for sensor networks, where the high routing overhead is
counteracted by consistently better performance in all other
metrics. Due to the slow evolution of the sensor network
topology, OLSR performed satisfactorily for best effort traffic
but needed subtle adjustments to balance between latency and
bandwidth to meet the requirements of delay-sensitive
applications.
Type
Article
Description
Series/Report No
Department
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Organization
Identifiers
NPS Report Number
Sponsors
Funding
Format
Citation
Published in 5th Workshop on the Internet, Telecommunications and Signal Processing, December 11-13, Hobart, Australia.
Edited by Beata J Wysocki & Tadeusz A Wysocki. ISBN: 0 9756934 2 5
Distribution Statement
Rights
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.