1 / 14

Comparison of several MANET routing protocols

Comparison of several MANET routing protocols. AODV, OLSR Final presentation By teams 2&3. Table of content. Context and Objectives Failed attempts Solutions Environment Measurements: results Conclusion. Context and objectives. Measurement of network performance

vaughan
Download Presentation

Comparison of several MANET routing protocols

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of several MANET routing protocols AODV, OLSR Final presentation By teams 2&3

  2. Table of content • Context and Objectives • Failed attempts • Solutions • Environment • Measurements: results • Conclusion

  3. Context and objectives • Measurement of network performance • A working MANET network • Understand which protocol to use in a given situation

  4. Failed Attempts • Linux installation of AODV involved a Linux kernel recompilation and strange underground libraries were missing • The NTP synchronization appeared to be more obscure than we thought it would be • OLSR was running well though • Using Windows, we didn’t have anymore tool to measure Jitter • No jitter measurement

  5. Solutions • MS Windows • OLSR implementation : • http://olsr.org/ • AODV implementation : • http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/AODV/aodv-windows.html • The same implementation as used in the last lab experiment • Iperf • http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/ • MS ping

  6. 3rd floor Environment : LG semicolon (N24) • Purpose: effective transmission and measurements between 1 and 4 • Static (codenamed Chappe) • 4 moving towards 2 in a 30s laps time (codenamed Salmon) 4 3 1 2 2’s coverage ends here 4th floor

  7. Checking interferences • Use netstumbler to check the surrounding wireless network • Channels 1, 10, 11 are used so we decide to use the non overlapping free channel: 6 • No interferences !

  8. Checking the operation of the protocolsStart configuration : “Same room”

  9. 4 3 1 2 Checking the operation of the protocolsEnd configuration : “Chappe”

  10. 4 3 1 2 Throughput • Chappe : • 4 and 2 communicate • No movement • Salmon : • 4 runs in the direction of 2, changing the routing tables

  11. Ping (delay) results • Based on 20 consecutive ping requests • Unit of time: ms

  12. Internet access distribution • One laptop shares the Internet connection to the others • 1 ethernet interface is connected directly to the internet • 1 wireless interface is connected to the ad-hoc meshed network • The station runs a NAT service to provide the internet access • Skype worked and gave us the feeling that the jitter was not too bad

  13. Conclusion • Overall, the OLSR implementation was more user-friendly and worked with less headaches • Moreover, the throughput is better, the average delay is identical • AODV takes more time to build the routing table • But BEWARE ! This could change according to the implementation you are using. • Finally, both were working quite well, we recommend those implementations • We tried other implementations that didn’t work at all

More Related