Performance Analysis of OLSR and BATMAN Protocols Considering Link Quality Parameter

Abstract

In this paper, we present the implementation and analysis of our testbed considering the Link Quality Window Size (LQWS) parameter of Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.) protocols. We investigate the effect of mobility in the throughput of a Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET). The mobile nodes move toward the destination at a regular speed. When the mobile nodes arrive at the corner, they stop for about three seconds. In our experiments, we consider two cases: only one node is moving (mobile node) and two nodes (intermediate nodes) are moving at the same time. We assess the performance of our testbed in terms of throughput, round trip time, jitter and packet loss. From our experiments, we found that throughput of TCP was improved by reducing LQWS.

Multimedia Transmissions over a MANET Testbed: Problems and Issues

“…We conducted many experiments with our MANET testbed, which are shown in our previous works [3], [4]. We proved that while some of the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) problems can be solved (for instance the routing loop), but this protocol still has the self-interference problem.…”

Mobility Effects on the Performance of Mobile Ad hoc Networks

“…In previous experiments [7,17,22], we realized that an external antenna improves radio signal reception. The transmission rate of the data flows is 122 pps = 499.712 Kbps, i.e.…”

“…We also considered the node mobility and carry out experiments for OLSR and B.A.T.M.A.N. protocols [7]. We found that throughput of TCP were improved by reducing Link Quality Window Size (LQWS), but there were packet loss because of experimental environment and traffic interference.…”

A method of proactive MANET routing protocol evaluation applied to the OLSR protocol

“…Among papers that experimentally assess the performance of proactive MANET routing protocols, the most common evaluative metric was throughput, typically TCP throughput [2,4,7,9,12,13,16]. Other popular metrics were packet delivery or loss rates [1,3,7,10,13,20], "ping" success rates [4,20], latency [1,9,10], overhead [3,10,13], and average hop count [10].…”

“…In this context, route performance has been defined in multiple ways including, but not limited to, the percentage of packets that arrived [1,3,7,10,13,20], throughput (usually TCP throughput) [2,4,7,9,12,13,16] and round trip time or latency [1,9,10]. While these metrics provide quantitative points for evaluation, they concentrate on the performance of reported routes and do not directly evaluate how well a routing protocol performs its primary task: to find and maintain routes in a MANET based on decision metrics.…”