Impact of IEEE 802.11 PHY/MAC Strategies on Routing Performance in Wireless Mesh Networks

Houaidia, Chiraz; Idoudi, Hanen; Bossche, Adrien van den; Val, Thierry; Saı̈dane, Leı̈la Azouz

doi:10.1109/waina.2013.2

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of this paper is to setup and configure a real IEEE 802.11n [8] based WMN testbed and to evaluate, in a comparative way, the OLSR performances. We studied the impact of PHY/MAC components using simulation in a previous work [10]. This paper is part of a scientific approach which intends to contribute to innovative points such as mesh routing metrics and strategies but the feasibility and performance study will also be made on the testbed that we are presenting in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental performance analysis of routing metrics in Wireless Mesh Networks

Houaidia¹,

Bossche²,

Idoudi

et al. 2013

2013 9th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a description of a wireless mesh network testbed setup and a measurement-based performance evaluation of the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol [7] under three different routing metrics. The considered metrics include hop-count, ETX and ETT. The network performances are evaluated in an indoor testbed formed by heterogeneous MIMO devices. A part of our tests was about the impact of 802.11n features on the network performances showing the importance of lower layers consideration. Our measurements point out the shortcoming of each metric and eventual optimizations towards a more efficient routing. Experimental results show that OLSR-ETT outperforms OLSR-ETX and OLSR-hopcount significantly in terms of packet loss, end-to-end delay, and efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental performance analysis of routing metrics in Wireless Mesh Networks

Houaidia¹,

Bossche²,

Idoudi

et al. 2013

2013 9th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has therefore been an emphasis on comparing hybrid routing protocols to reactive and proactive ones. However, almost all previous works made use of common performance metrics among which: end-to-end delay [37], [38], throughput [37], [38], [39], PDR [37], [39], and sometimes Normalized Routing Load [36]. Energy related metrics have been considered in very few works like [9].…”

Section: Protocols Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy and Performance Evaluation of Reactive, Proactive, and Hybrid Routing Protocols in Wireless Mesh Network

Fendji¹,

Samo²

2019

IJWMN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates the energy consumption of well-known routing protocols, along with other metrics such as throughput, packet delivery ratio (PDR), and delay in different scenarios. We consider two other metrics in order to capture the efficiency of the energy consumption: e-throughput which is the ratio between the consumed energy and the throughput; and the e-PDR which is the ratio between the consumed energy and the PDR. We compare four routing protocols: AODV, OLSR, and HWMP in Reactive and Proactive modes. The number of nodes is varying between 25 and 81 nodes, with different mobility models. Simulations are conducted using NS3 and the parameters of a real network interface card. From the results, AODV presents the lowest energy consumption and a better e-Throughput. OLSR provides a better e-PDR in mobile scenarios. With a smaller e-PDR and e-Throughput, the proactive mode of HWMP is more energy efficient than the reactive mode.

show abstract

“…We studied in a previous work [32] through simulations the impact of PHY/MAC protocols on higher layers. This study has not been done to announce or promote one particular routing protocol as the "winner" protocol having the best performance but it is done to check the conditions where each of the proposed protocols achieves the highest efficiency.…”

Section: Design Considerations and Path Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%