Investigating the impacts of entity and group mobility models in MANETs

Abstract

Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) represent complex distributed systems that do not rely on any infrastructure or centralized administration. These networks consist of wireless mobile devices which communicate with each other over the wireless channel. Because each mobile node (MN) has a limited transmission range, multi-hop communication is necessary to deliver data across the entire network. Such type of communication requires routing protocols which are capable of discovering multihop routes between the sending and receiving nodes. In addition, various mobility models are used to mimic the walking patterns of MNs in real-world environments. These models are generally categorized into two types, i.e., (i) entity and (ii) group-based mobility models depending upon their functionalities.In this paper, we assessed the impacts of different networking contexts on the performance of different mobility models. We selected Random Waypoint (RWP) and Gauss-Markov (GM) models from the first category and Reference Point group (RPGM) and Nomadic Community (NCMM) mobility models from the second. We performed extensive simulations using Network Simulator (NS-2). Simulation results reveal that there is a decline in cost as the speed of MNs is increased. In addition, node density differently impacted the performance of both types of models. The recommendation of this research will provide better understanding of the different mobility models in MANETs and their uses in real-world environments such as search and rescue operations, battlefield situations, tracking operations, people-centric networking and many more.

Mo3: A Modular Mobility Model for Future Generation Mobile Wireless Networks

“…In order to overcome this limitation, most contributions on mobility modeling compare models in terms of protocolrelated performance metrics such as link duration, average capacity, or packet delivery rate, rather than on the basis of the generated patterns. A reference example can be found in [55], where the performance of a network using the Ad Hoc on Demand Routing protocol was analyzed in combination with four different mobility models. Performance metrics included packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, and routing overhead.…”

“…We argue however that this approach cannot, in general, provide an insight on the quality of mobility models unless a baseline benchmark for the considered performance metrics to compare against is available. As an example, the comparison in [55] determines that the four models lead to different network performance, but cannot tell which model is better, since no baseline benchmark is provided. For this reason, in this work protocol-related metrics are only used to compare Mo 3 vs. the RPGM model in a scenario where a baseline benchmark is available.…”

Survivability Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols under DOS Attacks

“…The above mentioned reactive and proactive routing protocols play an important role because they have recently been modified and extended into different emerging domains, such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) [1], Intelligent Transport Systems (ITSs) [8][9][10], Bio-inspired applications [11], underwater networks [12], and Internet of Things (IoT) [3]. Researchers focus their efforts on improving different aspects of these protocols, for example, security [13][14][15][16], energy [17], and mobility [18][19][20]. However, in the presence of the above mentioned attacks, the routing protocols are needed to be evaluated and compared in order to establish the inherent strength of these protocols for network survivability and fault tolerance.…”