Modeling and Performance Analysis of OPNET-Based Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Ding, Dandan; Bu, Fanliang; Wang, Bowen

doi:10.1109/icicn52636.2021.9673875

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…OPNET modeler 14.5 software is used as a simulation tool to design and analyze our proposed network. OPNET is considered a robust software to simulate networks operate with different protocols [24], [25]. The proposed network topology scenario is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance analysis and evaluation of distance vector and link state routing protocols over a large area networks

Hameed¹,

Alabady

Thanoon³

2022

TELKOMNIKA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Routing protocols are extremely important incredibly significant in data communication and computer networks. The high performance, reliability, stability, and security of the networks depend primarily on choosing the best type of dynamic routing protocol. In this paper, we evaluate and investigate the network performance for routing information protocol (RIP), enhanced interior gateway routing protocol (EIGRP), open shortest path first (OSPF), and intermediate system-to-intermediate system (IS-IS) routing protocols with three different scenarios of routes failure using the optimized network engineering tools (OPNET) simulator to determine which of the protocols is the most appropriate and effective in achieving high network performance. The results show that for large area networks, the EIGRP routing protocol gives the best network performance when all network routers are working with no failing, but when some network routers were failing to work and path failure is happening, the IS-IS link-state routing protocol works efficiently and gives the best performance. The obtained results for IS-IS protocol when failing seven routers is as: the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) page response time is (247.8 msec), voice delay variation is (4.19 µsec), video delay variation is (8.83 µsec) and ping request and response time is (115 msec).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%