Browsing by Author "Sarkar, S.K."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Performance analysis of AODV, AODVUU, AOMDV and RAODV over IEEE 802.15.4 in wireless sensor networks
(2009) Gowrishankar, S.; Sarkar, S.K.; Basavaraju, T.G.
In this paper the focus is on the performance study of four routing protocols, namely AODV, AODVUU, RAODV and AOMDV. We call these protocols AODV family of protocols as all these protocols consider AODV as the base routing protocol upon which these protocols are improved. Even though AODV and AODVUU are not different protocols, we wanted to see if there is any improvement in using the AODVUU implementation for a sensor network environment. We have investigated whether a multiple path algorithm like AOMDV would result in more data delivery as compared to single path solutions like AODV in a sensor network. Also, the reverse route discovery mechanisms employed in RAODV is checked for a sensor network. There is a need to understand the versatile behavioral aspects of these routing protocols in a wireless sensor network with varying traffic loads and the number of sources. All these protocols are simulated using NS- 2 over IEEE 802.15.4. We also claim that our work is the first of its kind to study and compare the performance of all these four routing protocols from a sensor network point of view by extensively using various performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, average network delay, network throughput and normalized routing load. � 2009 IEEE.
Performance analysis of AODV, AODVUU, AOMDV and RAODV over IEEE 802.15.4 in wireless sensor networks
(2009) Gowrishankar, S.; Sarkar, S.K.; Basavaraju, T.G.
In this paper the focus is on the performance study of four routing protocols, namely AODV, AODVUU, RAODV and AOMDV. We call these protocols AODV family of protocols as all these protocols consider AODV as the base routing protocol upon which these protocols are improved. Even though AODV and AODVUU are not different protocols, we wanted to see if there is any improvement in using the AODVUU implementation for a sensor network environment. We have investigated whether a multiple path algorithm like AOMDV would result in more data delivery as compared to single path solutions like AODV in a sensor network. Also, the reverse route discovery mechanisms employed in RAODV is checked for a sensor network. There is a need to understand the versatile behavioral aspects of these routing protocols in a wireless sensor network with varying traffic loads and the number of sources. All these protocols are simulated using NS- 2 over IEEE 802.15.4. We also claim that our work is the first of its kind to study and compare the performance of all these four routing protocols from a sensor network point of view by extensively using various performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, average network delay, network throughput and normalized routing load. Â© 2009 IEEE.
Simulation based performance comparison of community model, GFMM, RPGM, manhattan model and RWP-SS mobility models in MANET
(2009) Gowrishankar, S.; Sarkar, S.K.; Basavaraju, T.G.
A characteristic feature of ad hoc networks is the infrastructure less and seamless connectivity of the wireless mobile nodes. Mobility plays an important role in the connectivity of these nodes. In this paper a performance comparison of five important mobility models; Community Model, Group Force Mobility Model (GFMM), Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM), Manhattan Mobility Model and Random Waypoint-Steady State (RWP-SS) Mobility Model has been analyzed. Community Model, GFMM and RPGM Mobility Models are pure group mobility models, while Manhattan Mobility Model can be considered as a pseudo Group Mobility Model. We have included RWP-SS to give a whole picture of how group mobility models stand against a random model like RWP-SS. From our analysis we deduce that group mobility models hold inherent advantage over mobility models like Random Waypoint models. Among the group mobility models, Community model has good performance when compared to other mobility models. Energy Consumption of these mobility models has also been analyzed. Various Metrics like Packet Delivery Ratio, Average Network Delay, Network Throughput, Routing Overhead and Number of Hops have been considered. The results obtained in our paper colligates with the theoretical results in [20]. We also claim that our work is the first to compare these five different mobility models together. � 2009 IEEE.
Simulation based performance comparison of community model, GFMM, RPGM, manhattan model and RWP-SS mobility models in MANET
(2009) Gowrishankar, S.; Sarkar, S.K.; Basavaraju, T.G.
A characteristic feature of ad hoc networks is the infrastructure less and seamless connectivity of the wireless mobile nodes. Mobility plays an important role in the connectivity of these nodes. In this paper a performance comparison of five important mobility models; Community Model, Group Force Mobility Model (GFMM), Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM), Manhattan Mobility Model and Random Waypoint-Steady State (RWP-SS) Mobility Model has been analyzed. Community Model, GFMM and RPGM Mobility Models are pure group mobility models, while Manhattan Mobility Model can be considered as a pseudo Group Mobility Model. We have included RWP-SS to give a whole picture of how group mobility models stand against a random model like RWP-SS. From our analysis we deduce that group mobility models hold inherent advantage over mobility models like Random Waypoint models. Among the group mobility models, Community model has good performance when compared to other mobility models. Energy Consumption of these mobility models has also been analyzed. Various Metrics like Packet Delivery Ratio, Average Network Delay, Network Throughput, Routing Overhead and Number of Hops have been considered. The results obtained in our paper colligates with the theoretical results in [20]. We also claim that our work is the first to compare these five different mobility models together. Â© 2009 IEEE.