Performance evaluation of multicast ad hoc on-demand distance vector protocol

Mobaideen, Wesam Al; Mimi, Hani Mahmoud; Masoud, Fawaz A.; Qaddoura, Emad

doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2007.02.003

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reference [19] have performed a wide range of simulations to test the performance of the MAODV protocol however a key limitation of their work is that they only used random waypoint mobility model in testing, as discussed previously this mobility model alone has several limitations. The simulations also failed to collect a number of important performance metrics such as network throughput and didn't perform any performance comparisons with other multicast protocols available such as Lightweight Adaptive Multicast (LAM) which were discussed in the literature.…”

Section: ) Multicast Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (Maodv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next piece of literature in our review is an evaluation of the MAODV protocol produced by [19] who discuss the technical aspects of the protocol and provides a number of simulations to evaluate the performance of the protocol in scenarios such as long and short lived communications.…”

Section: B Expanding Upon Aodv -Multicastingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multicast paths are added to a multicast delivery tree which is stored on the source; this tree records all multicast destinations and allows the node to learn unicast destinations from the tree without broadcasting RREQ [18]. The first node to join a multicast group becomes the leader of that group responsible for group maintenance, this is done using by broadcasting GRPH messages which contain the leaders IP, these GRPH messages are used to synchronise the multicast group using incrementing sequence numbers [19]. Should a tree group member become disconnected it will attempt to reconnect to the existing tree using the leader IP and re-synchronise before attempting to create a new tree, this reduces network overhead.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc NETworks (MANET)

Hinds¹,

Ngulube²,

Zhu³

et al. 2013

IJIET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The increase in availability and popularity of mobile wireless devices has lead researchers to develop a wide variety of Mobile Ad-hoc NETworking (MANET) protocols to exploit the unique communication opportunities presented by these devices. Devices are able to communicate directly using the wireless spectrum in a peer-to-peer fashion, and route messages through intermediate nodes, however the nature of wireless shared communication and mobile devices result in many routing and security challenges which must be addressed before deploying a MANET. In this paper we investigate the range of MANET routing protocols available and discuss the functionalities of several ranging from early protocols such as DSDV to more advanced such as MAODV, our protocol study focuses upon works by Perkins in developing and improving MANET routing. A range of literature relating to the field of MANET routing was identified and reviewed, we also reviewed literature on the topic of securing AODV based MANETs as this may be the most popular MANET protocol. The literature review identified a number of trends within research papers such as exclusive use of the random waypoint mobility model, excluding key metrics from simulation results and not comparing protocol performance against available alternatives.Index Terms-AODV, MANET, routing protocols. I. INTRODUCTIONWireless technologies such as Bluetooth or the 802.11 standards enable mobile devices to establish a Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) by connecting dynamically through the wireless medium without any centralised structure [1]. MANETs offer several advantages over traditional networks including reduced infrastructure costs, ease of establishment and fault tolerance, as routing is performed individually by nodes using other intermediate network nodes to forward packets [2], this multi-hopping reduces the chance of bottlenecks, however the key MANET attraction is greater mobility compared with wired solutions.There are a number of issues which affect the reliability of Ad-hoc networks and limit their viability for different scenarios; lack of centralised structure within MANET requires that each individual node must act as a router and is responsible for performing packet routing tasks; this is done using one or more common routing protocols across the MANET [3]. Performing routing tasks requires memory and computation power, however mobile devices feature physical size and weight limitations essential for their mobility, this Manuscript received September 6, 2012; revised December 12, 2012. This work was supported by the University of DerbyThe authors are with the University of Derby, Derbyshire, DE22 1GB, UK (e-mail: A.Hinds1@unimail.derby.ac.uk, eppiemike@aol.com, s.y.zhu@derby.ac.uk, h.al-aqrabi@derby.ac.uk ).reduces the available memory and computational resources as well as limiting battery power.MANETs containing more nodes require greater processing power, memory and bandwidth to maintain accurate routing information; this introduces traffic overhead into the network a...

show abstract

Section: ) Multicast Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (Maodv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Expanding Upon Aodv -Multicastingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc NETworks (MANET)

Hinds¹,

Ngulube²,

Zhu³

et al. 2013

IJIET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several comparative analysis studies [40][41][42][43][44] have shown that these multicast protocols perform well under specific scenarios considering mobility, traffic loads, packet overhead, and network conditions. One protocol may not be optimal in all scenarios [45].…”

Section: Multicast Operation Of Swanmeshmentioning

confidence: 99%

SwanMesh: A Multicast Enabled Dual-Radio Wireless Mesh Network for Emergency and Disaster Recovery Services

Iqbal¹,

Wang

Wertheim³

et al. 2009

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present the design and implementation of our multicast enabled dual-radio wireless mesh network for emergency communications. We have developed a novel implementation of a Multicast extension to the AODV (MAODV) protocol in Linux Kernel 2.6 user space to support multicast operation of our SwanMesh testbed. This paper presents the architecture of our SwanMesh testbed. Furthermore, we present unicast communication throughput test results. We observed that SwanMesh can efficiently deliver data services such as broadband internet in emergency situations using its unicast functionality although there were noticeable throughput drops after each hop. Therefore the SwanMesh multicast operation may be suitable for delivery of real time applications in emergency communication, such as audio and video teleconferencing. We also performed validation tests to ensure correct multicast functionality of our MAODV implementation. The possible application of WMN in emergency is discussed.

show abstract

Analysis of tree‐based multicast routing in wireless sensor networks with varying network metrics

Krishna

Doja²

2012

Int J Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYWireless ad hoc and sensor networks are emerging with advances in electronic device technology, wireless communications and mobile computing with flexible and adaptable features. Routing protocols act as an interface between the lower and higher layers of the network protocol stack. Depending on the size of target nodes, routing techniques are classified into unicast, multicast and broadcast protocols. In this article, we give analysis and performance evaluation of tree‐based multicast routing in wireless sensor networks with varying network metrics. Geographic multicast routing (GMR) and its variations are used extensively in sensor networks. Multicast routing protocols considered in the analytical model are GMR, distributed GMR, demand scalable GMR, hierarchical GMR, destination clustering GMR and sink‐initiated GMR. Simulations are given with comparative analysis based on varying network metrics such as multicast group size, number of sink nodes, average multicast latency, number of clusters, packet delivery ratio, energy cost ratio and link failure rate. Analytical results indicate that wireless sensor network multicast routing protocols operate on the node structure (such as hierarchical, clustered, distributed, dense and sparse networks) and application specific parameters. Simulations indicate that hierarchical GMR is used for generic multicast applications and that destination clustering GMR and demand scalable GMR are used for distributed multicast applications. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Performance evaluation of multicast ad hoc on-demand distance vector protocol

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc NETworks (MANET)

A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc NETworks (MANET)

SwanMesh: A Multicast Enabled Dual-Radio Wireless Mesh Network for Emergency and Disaster Recovery Services

Analysis of tree‐based multicast routing in wireless sensor networks with varying network metrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About