120 likes | 266 Views
MH H i. MSS S i. Other MSSs. ART Start. AWT Start. NEWTKT. REQUESTACK. ACKs. Half Reply. ACCEPT OR REJECT. ART End. AWT End. Experiment4- throughput vs. height of the tree. Environment:
E N D
MH Hi MSS Si Other MSSs ART Start AWT Start NEWTKT REQUESTACK ACKs Half Reply ACCEPT OR REJECT ART End AWT End
Experiment4- throughput vs. height of the tree • Environment: • All the MSSs are arranged in a tree like structure and we change the height of tree consisting of MSSs. • As we increase the height, the number of MSSs also increases. As we are using binary tree structure for simplicity, the number of MSSs will be 2n-1. • The number of MHs is fixed as 130 for these simulations.
Experiment4- throughput vs. height of the tree • Why? • The throughput for tree-based protocol is much better as an inquiry for an E-ticket has to travel only to certain levels in the tree and for each new E-ticket an inquiry message from a MSS can propagate at most until root. • The throughput in the two-phase algorithms low as compared to the tree-based protocol since the number of message exchange increase with the increase in the number of MSSs.
Experiment5 & 6-ART(AWT) vs. % of duplicate E-tickets • Environment: • we have intentionally generated duplicate E-tickets by varying the time of generation of the E-tickets from 15 ms to 30 ms. • Our aim in this experiment is to vary the duplicate E-tickets submitted at different time and observe the performance parameters. • We simulated TPEP for both phases separately to check the efficiency in terms of average response time of the algorithm in each phase and a comparison between the two-phase I, two-phase II and tree-based protocol is given.
Experiment5 & 6-ART(AWT) vs. % of duplicate E-tickets • ART vs. % of duplicate E-tickets
Experiment5 & 6- ART(AWT) vs. % of duplicate E-tickets • AWT vs. % of duplicate E-tickets
Experiment5 & 6- ART(AWT) vs. % of duplicate E-tickets • Why? • In TBP the request gets rejected when it reaches the root as the E-ticket was already appended earlier to the vTkts list at the root • In TPEP the submission of a duplicate E-ticket is treated as a submission of a fresh E-ticket, and MSS sends an inquiry for the sequence number of the E-ticket to all other MSSs visited by the MH. It generates extra messages and the MSS has to wait for the responses from other MSSs which increases response time. • We conclude from experiments 5 and 6 that the time for the validation of an E-ticket is spent more in communication among the MSSs as the number of duplicate E-tickets increases.
Conclusions • This paper proposed algorithm guarantees validation of an E-ticket ‘‘at least once and at most once”. In addition to proposing algorithms for E-ticket validation,astrategy for restructuring a distributed algorithm for mobile computing environment is also demonstrated. • Our tree-based algorithms provides better response time, throughput and waiting time than the flat version of the algorithm. • We have also taken host’s resource constraints into consideration.
Future Work • Security Issue • the issues where mobile hosts cheat. • P2P domain • in wireless ad hoc networking environments using mobile agents.
Comment • Whether the number of E-tickets in the Environment will affect the outcome? • The TBP System