Proactive versus reactive routing in low power and lossy networks: Performance analysis and scalability improvements

Tripathi, J.; Oliveira, Jaudelice C. de; Vasseur, Jean-Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2014.06.007

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several papers compare RPL to LOADng, a lightweight reactive routing protocol for sensor networks, by simulations, and their conclusions are contradictory [7], [15], [16]. These conflicting results are not surprising, since the choice between the proactive or reactive behavior is primarily dictated by the network density and size, but also by the traffic pattern.…”

Section: Background On Rplmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…On the contrary, Lightweight Routing Protocol (LRP) [4], [5] aims at generating as little traffic as possible while remaining simple. Both protocols consider the case of sensor networks in which the sensors need to send out data packets to the sink with limited topology changes at the time scale of the packet generation period; otherwise, a reactive approach would be more suitable [6], [7]. Also, the nodes should be accessible, so the routing protocol has to build "downward" routes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensors Networks: Routing Overhead and Asymmetric Links

Audéoud

Heusse

2017

2017 29th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 29)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-RPL (the IETF Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) and LRP (Lightweight Routing Protocol) have in common to build a collection tree (or, more precisely, a DODAG) and "downward" host routes in the wireless sensor network. Additionally, the objective of LRP is to keep control overhead as low as possible. To substantiate this claim, we compare RPL and LRP using 40 nodes of the IoT-LAB testbed -and the results are telling.We then introduce asymmetric links, which are unavoidable in most deployments, and measure their impact on the considered protocols in another set of experiments. We present the mechanisms that were introduced in LRP to deal with such cases and we report on extensive experiments involving RPL and LRP to analyze the behavior of both protocols when the links change or they exhibit asymmetry.

show abstract

Section: Background On Rplmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensors Networks: Routing Overhead and Asymmetric Links

Audéoud

Heusse

2017

2017 29th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 29)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Path ( , ) represents the reliability of th path of th uplink transmission from the head of cluster to sink at time , and its value as shown in (8). Where Path is the number of hops of this path, PL ℎ Path ( , ) indicates the packet loss rate of ℎth jump in this path:…”

Section: Evaluation Model Of Uplink For Clustered Wsnsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Connectivity reliability [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] investigates the probability that the network is still connected for a given period of time under the case of some nodes or links failure. Performance reliability [8,9] analyzes the end-to-end delay, packet delivery rate, and other network parameters. With the increasing of network scale, accurate analysis of network reliability has been proven to be an NPhard problem in [10].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transmission Reliability Evaluation for Wireless Sensor Networks

Zhu

Lü

Han

et al. 2016

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Network reliability of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is difficult to be evaluated because of its complexity, multistates, and dynamic characteristics. To satisfy the user's need of reliability evaluation for network transmission we propose some evaluation models and a dynamical evaluation framework. The evaluation models are mission-oriented and based on transmission paths (uplink and downlink). The dynamic evaluation framework can be on-demand customized and it will be autoupdated once the communication environment changes or the nodes fail. Finally, we simulated clustered and mesh WSNs with NS-2. Simulation result shows that the proposed evaluation framework was effective and accurate.

show abstract

“…The energy conservation is a critical issue in an ad-hoc network environment because each node has limited battery power and it is not easy to replace/recharge the battery during communication [14,15]. Hence, it is important to utilize the battery power efficiently to ensure longer network lifetime by utilizing the optimum power for transmission [16].…”

Section: Node"s Transmission Rangementioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Relation between ART and Mobility & Transmission Range at Default QualNet & Calculated Transmission Powers

2016

6th International Conference on Advances in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics (ICAESAM-2016) Dec. 21-22, 2016 Kuala

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing, it is suggested that the value of Active Route Timeout (ART) should be a constant (i.e. generalized for all kinds of applications or traffic generators). However, it has been observed from the current work that the choice of ART value according to network behavior and traffic generators may significantly increase the network performance. The presented work in this paper tries to analyze an optimal relation between the ART and node"s mobility & transmission ranges in which AODV network provides best performance. Here, AODV network performance is subjected to IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol under random waypoint topology. This paper uses the QualNet simulation tool to carry out the results, and the graphs have been prepared from obtained simulation results by using D-plot. Moreover, the Constant bitrate (CBR) traffic generator has been provided to generate the traffic between the mobile nodes and performance observation is based on throughput metric.

show abstract

Proactive versus reactive routing in low power and lossy networks: Performance analysis and scalability improvements

Cited by 32 publications

References 25 publications

Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensors Networks: Routing Overhead and Asymmetric Links

Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensors Networks: Routing Overhead and Asymmetric Links

Transmission Reliability Evaluation for Wireless Sensor Networks

Optimal Relation between ART and Mobility & Transmission Range at Default QualNet & Calculated Transmission Powers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About