Comparative Study of Proactive and Reactive AdHoc Routing Protocols Using Ns2

Vanthana, S.; Prakash, Vijay

doi:10.1109/wccct.2014.40

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proactive: This protocol is commonly known as the table‐driven routing protocol. Every router present between the source and the destination maintains a routing table that is occasionally updated with the help of control messages. Reactive: This is called an on‐demand routing protocol since no routing table is maintained for routing data packets 10,11 . The route is created from a particular source only when it has data to send to a corresponding receiver. Hybrid: The hybrid protocol amalgams both the proactive and reactive protocols. …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intelligent Routing for Internet of Things Mesh Networks

Chakraborty

Das

Pradhan

2022

Trans Emerging Tel Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet of Things (IoT) is gaining popularity due to its complex network architecture, formed by the tremendous connection of objects. Sensors used in different IoT applications are installed in unfavorable terrains and conditions. Since each sensor node can sense, compute, and promote wireless communication, a novel intelligent routing algorithm is required, as the traditional ones do not fulfill the current network requirements. Reinforcement learning models can help overcome the wireless network's challenges faced during routing due to its dynamicity by selecting and adapting weights that optimize the paths based on the requirement of the applications and operating conditions. In this article, a routing agent with Q‐learning is proposed that adjusts the routing policy of a network based on local information to converge toward an optimal solution by maintaining the overall balance between latency and the network's lifetime. A reward is given to an agent that increases the network lifetime and reduces the average network latency. The evaluation of the proposed model was done using network simulators (NS‐2) on different network scenarios that showed improved results in terms of network lifetime compared to centralized minimum angle and distributed minimum angle.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intelligent Routing for Internet of Things Mesh Networks

Chakraborty

Das

Pradhan

2022

Trans Emerging Tel Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Routing protocols in MANETs are categorized into three classes: geographical routing protocols, hierarchical routing protocols and flat routing protocols [16]. In our study we are considering the flat routing protocols which are classified into three categories: reactive, proactive, and hybrid protocols [17,18].…”

Section: Manet Routing Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols: Performance Evaluation and Assessment

Elsadig¹,

Fadlalla²

2018

IJCDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently a great deal of attention has been paid to Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) due to their important roles in many different applications that include, but are not limited to: civil, military, and health applications. This kind of network can reach places that difficult for human beings to reach such as disaster areas. In spite of the rapid development of MANET technologies, the routing process still poses a real challenge due to the high mobility and dynamic topology features of such networks. This paper presents an investigation into some popular MANET routing protocols. This investigation aims to evaluate the performance of MANET routing protocols using the key performance indicators: throughput, end to end delay, and data packet delivery ratio. These indicators are commonly used in such evaluations. Our investigation results showed that DSR and AODV outperform DSDV. In a high-density network (a network with a large number of nodes), AODV outperforms DSR; while, in a low-density network the DSR performs better than the AODV. So, DSR is applicable for small networks; while AODV is applicable for large networks.

show abstract

“…AODV shows higher efficiency and performance under high mobility than DSDV. In [27], a comparative study has been done between AODV, DSR, and DSDV. They concluded that AODV performed better regarding packet loss and DSDV regarding throughput.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Performance Review of Intra and Inter-Group MANET Routing Protocols under Varying Speed of Nodes

Sisodia¹,

Singhal²,

Khandal³

2017

IJECE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) are a cluster of self-organizing and self-governing wireless nodes without any backbone infrastructure and centralized administration. The various nodes in MANET move randomly, and this node mobility may pose challenges on the performance of routing protocols. In this paper, an Intra and intergroup performance review of various MANET routing protocols are performed under varying speed of nodes. The routing protocols included in this study are reactive, proactive, and hybrid protocols. This performance review is done using the NS2 simulator and random waypoint model. The routing protocols performance is assessed through standard performance measure metrics including packet delivery ratio, throughput, routing overhead and end to end delivery with varying speed of nodes. The simulations result shows that there is no significant impact of varying speed of nodes on standard performance evaluation metrics. . It is self-organizing and self-configuring and can be deployed without any wired base stations or infrastructure support. The mobile nodes act as hosts and also as routers to send the data across the networks. Keywords: HybridA MANET is a collection of free mobile nodes such as laptops, smartphones, tablet PC, etc. It has many characteristics. In MANETs, there is no central server and nodes themselves are responsible for communicating with other nodes to carry out network operations such as on-demand routing [3]. Nodes are free to move anywhere whenever and wherever they want, and they are also free to change their speeds [4]. Therefore, the network topology changes randomly and at uncertain times. Nodes can send messages to other nodes which are not in range or nor directly connected with the help of intermediate nodes [5].MANET has many advantages. It is scalable as it supports the addition of more mobile nodes in the network. The information can be accessed irrespective of the geographic position of nodes [5]. The use of mobile nodes results in many connection failures. The routing protocols are designed to handle these situations [6]. MANETs are fault tolerant. The main advantage is that the nodes do not need wireless routers to connect to the internet [7].Therefore, it reduces the cost of deploying a router and affordable than a

show abstract

Comparative Study of Proactive and Reactive AdHoc Routing Protocols Using Ns2

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

An Intelligent Routing for Internet of Things Mesh Networks

An Intelligent Routing for Internet of Things Mesh Networks

Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols: Performance Evaluation and Assessment

A Performance Review of Intra and Inter-Group MANET Routing Protocols under Varying Speed of Nodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About