{"title":"面向稳定的移动自组网路由协议仿真研究","authors":"N. Meghanathan","doi":"10.1109/WOCN.2006.1666628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present an extensive ns-2 (K. Fall and K. Varadhan) simulation-based performance comparison of three widely known stability-oriented mobile ad hoc network routing protocols: associativity-based routing (ABR) protocol (C-K Toh, 1997), flow-oriented routing protocol (FORP) (W. Su et al., 2001) and route assessment based routing (RABR) protocol (S. Agarwal et al., 2000). The order of the ranking of the protocols in terms of the packet delivery ratio and the number of route transitions is as follows: FORP, RABR, and ABR. The order of ranking in terms of the average hop count per route and end-to-end delay per packet is: ABR, RABR, and FORP. Thus, we see a stability-delay tradeoff within the class of stability-oriented routing protocols","PeriodicalId":275012,"journal":{"name":"2006 IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A simulation study on the stability-oriented routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks\",\"authors\":\"N. Meghanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/WOCN.2006.1666628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We present an extensive ns-2 (K. Fall and K. Varadhan) simulation-based performance comparison of three widely known stability-oriented mobile ad hoc network routing protocols: associativity-based routing (ABR) protocol (C-K Toh, 1997), flow-oriented routing protocol (FORP) (W. Su et al., 2001) and route assessment based routing (RABR) protocol (S. Agarwal et al., 2000). The order of the ranking of the protocols in terms of the packet delivery ratio and the number of route transitions is as follows: FORP, RABR, and ABR. The order of ranking in terms of the average hop count per route and end-to-end delay per packet is: ABR, RABR, and FORP. Thus, we see a stability-delay tradeoff within the class of stability-oriented routing protocols\",\"PeriodicalId\":275012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2006 IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2006 IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/WOCN.2006.1666628\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2006 IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WOCN.2006.1666628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16
摘要
我们提出了一个广泛的ns-2 (K. Fall和K. Varadhan)基于仿真的性能比较三种广为人知的面向稳定性的移动自组织网络路由协议:基于关联的路由(ABR)协议(C-K Toh, 1997)，面向流的路由协议(FORP) (W. Su等人，2001)和基于路由评估的路由(RABR)协议(S. Agarwal等人，2000)。各协议的转发率和路由转换次数排序为:FORP、RABR、ABR。每条路由的平均跳数和每包的端到端时延排序为:ABR、RABR、FORP。因此，我们在面向稳定性的路由协议中看到了稳定性-延迟的权衡
A simulation study on the stability-oriented routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks
We present an extensive ns-2 (K. Fall and K. Varadhan) simulation-based performance comparison of three widely known stability-oriented mobile ad hoc network routing protocols: associativity-based routing (ABR) protocol (C-K Toh, 1997), flow-oriented routing protocol (FORP) (W. Su et al., 2001) and route assessment based routing (RABR) protocol (S. Agarwal et al., 2000). The order of the ranking of the protocols in terms of the packet delivery ratio and the number of route transitions is as follows: FORP, RABR, and ABR. The order of ranking in terms of the average hop count per route and end-to-end delay per packet is: ABR, RABR, and FORP. Thus, we see a stability-delay tradeoff within the class of stability-oriented routing protocols
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
