An Investigation of TFRC Over MANET Routing Protocol

A Mobile Ad Hoc Network or MANET is a collection of wireless nodes that are able to junction standalone and which cannot be predicted by a temporary network without any fixed backbone infrastructure. Mobility and the non-fixed infrastructure of MANET are also attractive for sensor networks applicat...

全面介紹

Saved in:
書目詳細資料
主要作者: Mohamad Rizal, Abdul Rejab
格式: Thesis
語言:English
English
出版: 2010
主題:
在線閱讀:http://etd.uum.edu.my/2178/1/Mohamad_Rizal_Abdul_Rejab.pdf
http://etd.uum.edu.my/2178/2/1.Mohamad_Rizal_Abdul_Rejab.pdf
http://etd.uum.edu.my/2178/
http://lintas.uum.edu.my:8080/elmu/index.jsp?module=webopac-l&action=fullDisplayRetriever.jsp&szMaterialNo=0000757860
標簽: 添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
機構: Universiti Utara Malaysia
語言: English
English
實物特徵
總結:A Mobile Ad Hoc Network or MANET is a collection of wireless nodes that are able to junction standalone and which cannot be predicted by a temporary network without any fixed backbone infrastructure. Mobility and the non-fixed infrastructure of MANET are also attractive for sensor networks applications, rescue operations, military, and time-critical applications. MANET routing protocol consist of a table driven and on-demand routing protocol and the specific focus to on-demand routing protocol such as Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV). The TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) provides a smoother congestion control, smoother throughput variance compared with Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). In this paper, we propose an investigation of the performance metrics such as jitter, packet delay, and throughput. We compare the performance metrics of DSR and AODV using extensive simulation experiments Network Simulation (ns-2). Based on the research results, DSR operates better in TFRC over AODV routing protocol and it performed with better in jitter, throughput and packet delay. The DSR protocol perform better with 19.45% to 23.27% less jitter, 36.43% to 69.65% better throughput and 92.56% to 98.05% lower packet delay than the AODV protocol.