Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mini Thesis PDF
Mini Thesis PDF
PERFORMANCE OF MESH
NETWORK PROTOCOLS FOR
DISASTER SCENARIOS
by
Maggie Chimbwanda
2011
ABSTRACT
by Maggie Chimbwanda
Mesh networks are ad hoc networks where each node can supply connectivity to
adjacent nodes. Mesh networks originated in the military, but are now applied to
overcome some of the hurdles of traditional wireless deployments. Mesh clients
can either be stationary or mobile, and can form a client mesh network among
themselves with mesh routers. Mesh networks have routing protocols such as ad
hoc on demand distance vector routing, dynamic source routing, and optimized
link state routing.
In this project the performance of Mesh network routing protocols, when using a
user datagram protocol during disaster scenarios, will be investigated. These
protocols will be analyzed for efficient routing performance with respect to
different aspects such as network load, throughput, and delay.
A simulation tool, OPNET, will be used for modeling and simulating the
network to get the performance results of the protocols under the mentioned
aspects.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................... 22
Prototype ........................................................................................................................... 22
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 22
Pilot study ..................................................................................................................... 22
Detailed description of the pilot study ........................................................................ 22
Pilot study results ......................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................... 30
Simulation implementation approach .............................................................................. 30
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 30
Brief description of network simulation implementation .......................................... 30
Network modeling/design ........................................................................................... 32
Assigning values to the network components ............................................................ 34
Run simulation .............................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................... 38
Simulation methodology ................................................................................................... 38
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 38
Simulation scenario (experiment)................................................................................ 38
Results ........................................................................................................................... 46
Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................... 50
Results analysis .................................................................................................................. 50
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 50
Results ........................................................................................................................... 50
Throughput ................................................................................................................... 50
Delay ............................................................................................................................. 56
Network load ................................................................................................................ 60
AODV in all experiments .............................................................................................. 66
DSR in all experiments .................................................................................................. 66
OLSR in all experiments ................................................................................................ 67
Comparative analysis of all experiments ..................................................................... 68
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 8 ......................................................................................................... 73
Final writeup ...................................................................................................................... 73
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 73
Project conclusion ........................................................................................................ 73
Future work .................................................................................................................. 74
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 75
Appendices ................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A......................................................................................................................... 76
ii
Probes ........................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................... 78
Data from questionnaires ............................................................................................ 78
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................... 81
Term 1 Project plan ...................................................................................................... 81
Term 2 Project plan ...................................................................................................... 83
Term 3 Project plan ...................................................................................................... 85
Term 4 Project plan ...................................................................................................... 87
Bibliography .............................................................................................. 89
Index .......................................................................................................... 92
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE OF MOBILE NODES IN A MESH NETWORK ................................................................. 2
FIGURE 2: UDP IN OSI MODEL ....................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 3: OPNET WORKFLOW MODEL. ......................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 4: OPNET WORKFLOW ..................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 5: AN EXAMPLE OF A SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 20
FIGURE 6: PILOT EXPERIMENT SIMULATION WORKSPACE ..................................................................... 24
FIGURE 7: THROUGHPUT RESULTS IN ROUTING PROTOCOLS ................................................................. 26
FIGURE 8: DELAY RESULTS IN ROUTING PROTOCOLS ............................................................................ 27
FIGURE 9: NETWORK LOAD RESULTS IN ROUTING PROTOCOLS .............................................................. 28
FIGURE 10: FLOW OF THE PROJECT EXPERIMENTS................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 11: EXAMPLE OF A PEER TO PEER TOPOLOGY ............................................................................ 32
FIGURE 12: EXAMPLE OF A MESH NETWORK SETUP IN A DISASTER INCIDENT ............................................. 39
FIGURE 13: SCENARIO 1 WITH 10 NODES ........................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 14: SCENARIO 2 WITH 20 NODES ........................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 15: SCENARIO 3 WITH 40 NODES ........................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 16: DELAY RESULTS WITH 4 NODES………………………………………………………………………………….47
FIGURE 17: DELAY RESULTS WITH 7 NODES......................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 18: DELAY RESULTS WITH 10 NODES ...................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 19: DELAY RESULTS OF SCENARIO 1 ........................................................................................ 48
FIGURE 20: THROUGHPUT WITH 4 NODES .......................................................................................... 51
FIGURE 21: THROUGHPUT WITH 7 NODES .......................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 22: THROUGHPUT WITH 10 NODES ........................................................................................ 53
FIGURE 23: THROUGHPUT WITH 20 NODES ........................................................................................ 54
FIGURE 24: THROUGHPUT WITH 40 NODES ........................................................................................ 55
FIGURE 25: DELAY WITH 4 NODES ..................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 26: DELAY WITH 7 NODES ..................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 27: DELAY WITH 10 NODES ................................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 28: DELAY WITH 20 NODES ................................................................................................... 59
FIGURE 29: DELAY WITH 40 NODES ................................................................................................... 60
FIGURE 30: NETWORK LOAD WITH 4 NODES ....................................................................................... 61
FIGURE 31: NETWORK LOAD WITH 7 NODES ....................................................................................... 62
FIGURE 32: NETWORK LOAD WITH 10 NODES ..................................................................................... 63
FIGURE 33: NETWORK LOAD WITH 20 NODES ..................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 34: NETWORK LOAD WITH 40 NODES ..................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 35: ANALYSIS OF AODV IN ALL EXPERIMENTS .......................................................................... 66
FIGURE 36: ANALYSIS OF DSR IN ALL EXPERIMENTS.............................................................................. 67
FIGURE 37: ANALYSIS OF OLSR IN ALL EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................ 68
FIGURE 38: COMPARISON OF AODV, DSR, AND OLSR IN 4 NODES ....................................................... 69
FIGURE 39: COMPARISON OF AODV, DSR, AND OLSR IN 7 NODES ....................................................... 69
FIGURE 40: COMPARISON OF AODV, DSR, AND OLSR IN 10 NODES ..................................................... 70
FIGURE 41: COMPARISON OF AODV, DSR, AND OLSR IN 20 NODES ..................................................... 70
iv
FIGURE 42: COMPARISON OF AODV, DSR, AND OLSR IN 40 NODES ..................................................... 71
v
LIST OF TABLES
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Professor I.M. Venter and Dr. W.D.
Tucker for their assistance in the preparation of this project. In addition, special
thanks to University of the Western Cape (UWC) BANG Group members for
working together as a family. Thanks to the Center of Excellence (CoE) funding
of my project. Thanks also to the members of the school council for their
valuable input.
vii
GLOSSARY
File transfer protocol (FTP). A standard network protocol used to copy a file
from one host to another over a TCP-based network, such as the Internet.
Optimized link state routing (OLSR). A routing protocol for mobile and ad
hoc networks, optimized to preserve bandwidth.
viii
Optimized network evaluation tool (OPNET). A simulation tool used to
model a network topology.
Route reply message (RREP). A message that is sent after a request message
has been sent in the ad hoc on-demand routing protocol.
Topology Control (TC). A message that is sent in the optimized link state
routing protocol when updating the tables.
ix
Chapter 1
Mesh networks are ad hoc networks originally used by the military. Each node of
this type of network supplies connectivity to adjacent nodes. The nodes can
either be fixed or mobile. Mobile nodes can be a mobile phone, a laptop, a
personal computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or an MP3player (See
Figure 1).
1
Figure 1: Example of mobile nodes in a mesh network
There are two types of mesh nodes: mesh routers and mesh clients. Mesh
routers provide bridge/gateway functionalities thus they are able to provide
access to other networks (e.g. internet, worldwide interoperability for microwave
access, etc.). Mesh routers act as the backbone for mesh clients. Mesh clients do
not have bridge/gateway functionalities when configured with wireless network
interface cards (NICs). Clients can perform peer-to-peer data transfers with
other clients when in ad hoc mode. Mesh clients can be computers or handsets.
2
Mesh networks have routing protocols that perform different tasks: ad hoc on
demand distance vector (AODV) routing protocols generate route request
(RREQ) messages if a source node wants to create a new route for a specific
destination. Dynamic source routing (DSR) are self-organizing and self-
configuring protocols that allow nodes to dynamically discover or source a route
for data packets from one router to another (known as hops) to any destination.
Optimized link state routing (OLSR) protocols are involved in updating and
maintaining information in a variety of routing tables.
The focus of this project is the evaluation of the above mentioned routing
protocols when using user datagram protocol (UDP) during disasters. UDP is
the protocol often used in videoconferencing applications especially tuned for
real-time communication (e.g. recording a real live disaster event in motion on
the web).
3
Some results showed that proactive protocols (OLSR) perform better than
reactive protocols (DSR, AODV). Reactive protocols are prone to buffer
overflow and packet drops over network layers (Ali & Ali, 2009).
Literature
4
can deploy available devices such as mobile phones, laptops, MP3 players, etc. as
part of the mesh network.
According to the article “Tactical Communications vol. 3 issue 12”, factors that
make communication reliable are that users should be able to communicate in
real time and transfer information between each other. Mesh network should be
scalable to support the increased number of users when browsing the web or
transferring information. Mesh networks need to have components such as
broadcasting fax, websites (for emails and sending/retrieving information),
radios, and conference calls (Preparedness, 2008).
According to Townsend during the rescue period after the hurricane Katrina,
most of the rescue teams and victims had to communicate more using mobile
phones to call each other. Some of the victims could and some could not make
calls or send SMS to their friends and family to inform them of their locations. It
states that voice over IP is said to be the way to engineer survivability during
disaster scenarios (Townsend & Moss, 2005).
Interviews
Two persons were interviewed using a set of questions (see Appendix B).Both
interviewees have never experienced a disaster event; however, the first
interviewee was aware of the applications and devices used to assist with the
deployment of a mesh network. The second interviewee had knowledge of voice
broadcasting applications such as SMSs if a disaster were to occur. From the two
interviews it can be concluded due to the lack of disaster experience and lack of
experience of not constructing a mesh network, it likely that the two personnel’s
5
are not aware of some the aspects that need to be considered for construction
mesh networks, such as the routing protocols needed to be considered to make
communication effective in an event of disaster.
Voice communication:
Users want to be able to communicate using voice communication because it is
fast and immediate, and it is a communication mechanism that is used every day
and every minute.
Video communication:
Users want to be able to communicate using video communication to talk to
other rescuers in real time. This is because video communication can provide
both voice and video feeds of things happening instantly.
Project aim
The main aspect of this project is to evaluate which of the routing protocols will
provide better performance during disasters by reducing the problems
experienced with voice communication, and video communication. This is
because first responders to a disaster event need a communication that is flexible
and easily deployable to be able to communicate with other rescue teams by
means of voice and video. They also want to communicate with live video calls
and/or video conferencing to talk or show live feeds of the current situation in
their environment. Mesh networks are sensitive to throughput, delay and traffic
load; hence these aspects will be evaluated. The network load, number of nodes,
6
and speed of the nodes play an important role in efficient results of traffic
routing for protocol performance.
What is not expected from the testing of the performance of the protocols
in conjunction with mesh networks
The optimized network evaluation simulation tool (OPNET tool) will be used
for the evaluation of the routing protocols. The evaluation will not be an
exhaustive evaluation. Only the routing protocols will be tested in conjunction
with UDP. The results will thus only reflect these conditions.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the use of mesh networks in disaster situations was discussed.
The most important requirements for such a network were identified namely:
voice broadcasting, and video calls/conferencing. In this project these aspects
will be addressed by testing of a simulated network using a simulation tool
OPNET. The next chapter focuses on an overview of the protocols that will be
considered in this project in order to simulate and test the protocol
performances for these aspects.
7
Chapter 2
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we looked at the background of mesh networks, their
advantages, the project motivation, user’s view of the problem, and what is/not
expected from the performance of the protocols. Based on the information
gathered, the main problem is identifying the most reliable, efficient and accurate
routing protocol that will be suitable for Mesh networks in disaster scenarios. In
this chapter an overview of the protocols to be considered in this project will be
looked into detail individually.
8
Type of Name of Characteristics
Protocols Protocols
9
messages are sent when a destination node successfully receives packets that are
transmitted from the sender node in response to notify that transmission is
successful.
10
Figure 2: UDP in OSI model
11
delay, and network load, will determine which routing protocol will perform best
in ad hoc situations.
12
Model Design
Running
Simulation
Conclusion
In this chapter an overview of the mesh network routing protocols with the user
datagram protocol have been discussed in order to get a clear understanding of
why these protocols are important in the implementation of this project. In the
following chapter the design aspects of testing the simulation environment will
be analyzed.
13
Chapter 3
Introduction
In the previous chapter the mesh network routing protocols were individually
introduced. In this chapter the project simulation environment analysis plan will
be discussed, it will include a brief description of the planned analysis, the
simulation environment, a scenario description, description of how a network
for a specific scenario will be modeled, performance metrics, code generation
description, simulation settings, and what the design will look like.
This simulation design will be used with different scenarios to determine the
optimal protocol. The requirements of the different scenarios include the
following: type and number of devices users might use; the geographical radius;
protocols to be assigned to a network; and different testing parameters. Based on
these requirements from the scenario, five simulations will be conducted based
on the parameters mentioned in the first chapter (throughput, network load, and
delay).
Simulation workflow
As mentioned in the previous chapter, OPNET (version 16.1) was chosen as the
simulation tool of choice for this project because the license for this software
was readily available to be used in this project. Application for the license is
required to enable installation on a personal computer so that modeling of a
14
network and evaluation of the protocols behavior in the different scenarios can
be implemented. It has a flexible graphical interface to simulate and view results.
The basic workflow of the OPNET model (refer to Figure 4), shows the
necessary procedures that will be followed to conduct this project.
The model design stage involves selecting and dragging the necessary objects
such as: nodes, servers, routers, etc. onto the simulation workspace. This stage
also involves the selection of routing protocols to be used in the network,
applications to be applied to a scenario (e.g. voice calling), mobility speed, and
simulation running time. Collection of statistics stage is where statistics are
collected based on two options: object statistic (from individual nodes in the
network) or global statistics (from the entire network). These statistics include
the routing protocols, testing parameters, and the application assigned in the first
15
stage. Run simulation is the running of the modeled network based on the time
set in the first stage. The viewing and analyzing of the results in OPNET is based
on two metrics (i.e. global or object) this gives the option to compare the routing
protocol performance whether of individual nodes or the network as a whole.
“Cape Town, South Africa suffers a small earthquake disaster. It causes all internet
connections in the area to malfunction due to collapsed buildings and communication towers.
First responders at the scene consist of 4 rescuers. For easy movement around the scene the rescue
teams have a mobile phone, and two handheld radios that can be used for communication. A
stationery point (tent) is setup for the mobile rescuers to report on the evolving events around
them to communicate with each other, other approaching rescuers and the victims’ families”.
Simulation settings
The performance of the routing protocols (AODV, DSR, and OLSR) with UDP
will be tested using a simple simulation setup. Most of the variables are static; the
only dynamic parameters will be the number of nodes. The performance metrics
will be tested in each simulation experiment so that comparison of the routing
16
protocols can be effective. Based on the scenario described above, the following
simulation settings (refer to Table 2) will be used to evaluate the performance of
the routing protocols.
17
Experiment Parameters
18
protocols (AODV, OLSR, and DSR) in conjunction with UDP will be evaluated
based on the parameters throughput, delay and network load.
Performance parameters
The performance metrics: network load; throughput; and delay will give different
results of the different simulations.
Network load:
Network load will test the amount of data traffic carried by the network. Each
routing protocol will be tested based on the weight of the network (i.e. number
of nodes in the network) and the volume of the data received between nodes
during simulation.
Throughput:
Throughput will test the amount of data that reaches the receiver from the
source to the time taken by the receiver to receive the last packet. The routing
protocols will be tested on throughput when using UDP between nodes (i.e. if
node is making a voice communication).
Delay:
Delay will test the number of time taken by packets to pass through the network.
This parameter will test the routing protocols acceptance to the various
constraints when the UDP protocol is used in conjunction, as voice applications
are very sensitive to delay.
Coding description
The OPNET simulation tool allows code construction to be done in a high-level
programming language such as C or C++. In this project, C programming
language will be used for the code construction. The coding documentation will
be discussed further in Chapter 6.
19
Simulation configuration
The project’s proposed network simulation configuration will test three different
scenarios with each scenario having an increase in the number of nodes to test
these routing protocols. An example of how the modeled network will be
configured with 10 nodes for the routing protocols OLSR, AODV, DSR and the
UDP protocol is shown in Figure 5. Additional devices include an, application
configuration, and profile configuration. The testing parameters throughput,
delay, and network load are provided here.
20
Conclusion
In this chapter a brief description of the simulation environment analysis plan
was discussed, such as the environment in detail, the scenario detail, modeling of
network for the scenario, performance metrics, simulation settings, code
generation description and what the simulation environment will look. In the
chapter following, a prototype of the simulation environment analysis will be
developed.
21
Chapter 4
PROTOTYPE
Introduction
The previous chapter gave a detailed description of the simulation environment,
and what aspects will be considered during testing. In this chapter the setting up,
testing and the results of a pilot study will be discussed for the prototype.
Pilot study
This project’s prototype is based on a pilot study. A pilot study also known as a
pilot experiment is a small scale preliminary study conducted before a large-scale
quantitative project is implemented, in order to check the feasibility or to
improve the design of the whole project (Bille.R, 2010). A pilot study is used to
test the design of the full-scale experiment which can be adjusted (Haralambos,
2000).
This project is more of testing and evaluation of mesh routing protocol, thus
using a pilot experiment will best demonstrate the design of the full-scale
experiment.
22
network because peer-to-peer networks are typically used for ad hoc networks
such as mesh networks, thus no need for a server. The settings for the pilot
experiment will include the routing protocols (AODV, DSR, and OLSR) with
the transport protocol UDP, (See Table 3), of which all three routing protocols
will be tested based on the three testing parameters: throughput, delay, and
network load. In comparison to the table in the previous chapter, the pilot setup
will be different in the sense that the number of nodes and number of routing
protocols to test will be dynamic while the rest of the parameters will be static.
Experiment Parameters
Name
Modeling of the network involves using the OPNET wizard menu to first create
a blank workspace and then dragging the nodes and other network devices from
an object palette onto the workspace. Each node is then assigned the routing
protocols (AODV, DSR, and OLSR) and transport protocol UDP. Other
parameters assigned are applications such as video conferencing because this is
one of the user requirements identified in Chapter 1.
After these parameters are entered into the OPNET network model, the pilot
experiment will run and test the performance of the routing protocols, and based
23
on the given results a comparison of the routing protocol will be analyzed to give
the best performance under the testing parameters (throughput, delay, and
network load) of routing protocol performs best. The simulation tool OPNET
shows results based on two aspects; global (as a whole network) or object (as
individual nodes). Retrieving results by object is exhaustive hence global results
will be used to compare the performance of the pilot experiment. The Figure
6below shows the model of the pilot experiment simulation workspace.
The above figure shows the network model for the pilot experiment. The red
line represents an outline or boundary or domain of a disaster scenario, and the
24
four nodes inside the red line represent the mesh network construction within
the domain. The four nodes are mobile within the domain thus if a node is
configured for mobility it is represented by a white arrow on each node (see
Figure 6). The two devices outside the domain are the profile definition node
and the application definition node. The application definition defines the
application defined to the nodes in the network; in this case a video conferencing
application is assigned to this experiment according to one of the user
requirements. The profile definition defines the activity patterns of a node in
terms of the applications used; in this case the profile described for this
experiment is multimedia expert.
25
Figure 7: Throughput results in routing protocols
26
Figure 8: Delay results in routing protocols
27
Figure 9: Network load results in routing protocols
For global results, it shows that DSR and OLSR have high throughput and a
constant speed when sending packets compared to AODV which resulted in low
throughput and a loss of packets when the simulation time was at 4mins. For
delay results, AODV showed the highest delay and again had a loss of packets at
4mins of simulation time; OLSR having the second highest delay compared to
DSR that had low delay. Both OLSR and DSR did not experience packet loss
during the simulation. Network load results for DSR and OLSR show high load
28
and constant sending of packets compared to AODV network load which
showed low results and again packet loss at 4mins of simulation time.
Based on the pilot experiment results it may be concluded that DSR is the best
routing protocol to be used in disaster scenarios when constructing mesh
networks for efficient communication.
For the next stage of the project, project implementation, the full-scale
experiment will be conducted and these (pilot) results may tend to change as the
number of nodes will increase to give different results. Also during
implementation it will be taken into consideration why the routing protocol
AODV experienced packet loss for all three performance metrics at the same
simulation time of 4mins.
Conclusion
The chapter gave an overview of how the prototype pilot study settings were
conducted and gave an insight of how the whole project will be implemented.
The pilot study gave comparison results of the routing protocols. The next
chapter will discuss the implementation of the full scale experiment with some
knowledge of how the pilot experiment was performed.
29
Chapter 5
Introduction
The previous chapter discussed the pilot experiment which gave a brief
description of how the implementation of the overall project will be conducted.
This chapter will now explain the implementation planning of the full-scale
project in much more detail, explaining all the configurations that are required to
conduct implementation.
30
40
20 nodes
10 nodes
nodes
7
nodes
4
nodes
For the first experiment 4 nodes were used to simulate the network and the
performance metrics: network load; throughput; and delay were used to test the
routing protocols AODV, OLSR, and DSR. These parameters were also
considered for the other four experiments; experiment 2 with 7 nodes,
experiment 3 with 10 nodes, experiment 4 with 20 nodes, and experiment 5 with
40 nodes (see Table 2).
The modeling of the network was done using the simulation tool OPNET
(version 16.1). The modeling process followed the OPNET workflow model
(see Figure 4) a modeling design stage; an assign values stage; and a running
simulation stage was executed and is discussed in this chapter of the project,
whilst testing, viewing and analyzing of the results will be discussed in the
chapter following the methodology.
31
Network modeling/design
The first step of the OPNET workflow modeler is modeling or the design of the
simulation network.
32
Implementation of the modeling of the network starts by first generating a blank
scenario/workspace with the startup wizard. OPNET allows manually modeling
of the network (entering parameters that satisfy the user) or automatically
modeling (selecting from a pre-defined list from the wizard). In this case the
modeling was done using the automatic option because it is a less exhaustive
process compared to the manual configuration. With manual configuration each
of the network components are dragged from the object palette onto the
workspace, one-by-one. The components that will be included in this project
include; nodes, application configuration, profile definition, and network
domain.
33
Table 4: Network components
34
globally to the whole network, it included; simulation time, mobility rate, and
assigning results parameters.
35
Table 5: Description of assigning values to network components
36
Run simulation
The last stage of the implementation of the project experiment is running the
simulated network to test the routing protocols. All the nodes and entities in the
network need to be assigned and configured before “running”. In the menu bar
selecting DES>Run Discrete Event Simulation runs the simulation based on the
simulation time set during the assigning stage.
Conclusion
In this chapter an overview of the project implementation configurations steps
have been discussed. The following chapter explains the testing of the three
scenarios which consist of the five experiments.
37
Chapter 6
SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In the previous chapter the simulation implementation configurations, the
parameter settings, entities, and values that make up the network for the
experiments were discussed. In this chapter explains the implementation of the
three experiments and its associated challenges are presented.
38
Figure 12: Example of a Mesh network setup in a disaster incident
A stationary point (tent) is set up where rescuers can report to other rescuers and
family members as well assist in medical assistance. Other team members are
mobile using devices such as mobile phones, PC tablets, smartphones, handheld
radios, etc. to communicate with each other whilst finding victims or reporting
on the event.
The number of rescue team members will increase if it is discovered that the
disaster effects are much worse and more rescuers are needed at the site. Before
the network is setup, a simulation test is performed to test the performance of
routing protocols that are reliable and efficient for communication. Hence three
different network scenarios that consist of five experiments are simulated and
39
tested, each representing the scalability of the network when the number of
rescue members coming onto the site increases.
Each scenario comprised the routing protocols AODV, DSR, and OLSR; and
the transport protocol UDP. A running time of 10 minutes was applied to all
five experiments at a mobility rate of 10 meters/sec within a radius of 2000m x
2000m. For each scenario the behaviour of the routing protocols was considered
in terms of the performance metrics; throughput, delay, and network load. The
test results for all five experiments were global results (from the network as a
whole) and not object results (from individual nodes). Other aspects that were
considered when analyzing the results were the scalability and how the running
time is affected depending on the scalability of the network.
Scenario 1:
For the first scenario three experiments were conducted, with a difference in
number of nodes, area size, and node permutations (Table 6). The main aim of
conducting the first two experiments (4 nodes and 7 nodes) was to see if
different permutations and scalability of nodes would give a difference in results,
and based on the results, the third experiment was implemented (10 nodes)
which is the main project simulation requirements (Chapter 3 p18).
The three different permutations shown below in the table were the ones that
showed a change in results. Table 6 gives the details of the experiments (scenario
1).
40
Table 6: Scenario 1 network simulation settings
The metrics throughput, delay and network load were used to evaluate whether
the routing protocols’ (AODV, DSR, and OLSR) performance are reliable and
efficient during communication. As mentioned in Chapter 1 (p6) one of the
user’s requirements identified was to be able to communicate by voice, so the
application for this scenario was voice-calling; and the transport protocol for this
application is UDP.
The simulation radius describes the geographical location size of the network
setup where the rescuers can be mobile at a rate of 10 meters/sec within the
41
specified radius. The packet size describes the size of the voice packet that was
sent from one node to the other. Simulation radius, mobility rate, and packet size
helped in analyzing the performance of the routing protocols. The time it takes
to run the simulation (real-time not simulation) analyze any errors that might
occur (e.g. packet loss during transmission).
Simulation time is the time set to run the simulation. For this project and
scenario the run time is set to 10 minutes. The simulation time is the time
recognized in the OPNET modeler and not the actual wall-clock time. Figure 14
shows a simulation setup for scenario 1.
42
Scenario 2:
Based on the difference of results retrieved from the experiments conducted in
scenario 1, it was safe to test the project simulation by increasing the nodes.
Scenario 2 consisted of 20 nodes and a radius size of 2000m x 2000m, a
simulation time of 10 min at 10metres/sec mobility rate, using voice application.
Because permutation of 20 nodes was exhaustive, this experiment only tested
nodes that included 5 mobile phones, 5 radios, 5 laptops, and 5 smart phones.
Table 7 gives the details of the experiment (Scenario 2). Figure 14 shows the
simulation setup for Scenario 2.
43
Figure 14: Scenario 2 with 20 nodes
Scenario 3:
This scenario simulates a number of 40 nodes with a radius size of 2000m x
2000m, a simulation time of 10 min at 10metres/sec mobility rate, using voice
application. Permutation of 40 nodes was exhaustive so this experiment only
tested nodes that included 10 mobile phones, 10 radios, 10 laptops, and 10 smart
phones. Table 8 gives the details of the experiment (Scenario 3). Figure 15 shows
the simulation setup for Scenario 2.
44
Table 8: Scenario 3 configurations
45
Figure 15: Scenario 3 with 40 nodes
Results
The results of the above mentioned experiments are shown in Figure 16, Figure
17, & Figure 18. These results are from Scenario 1 and only show the testing
parameter delay from the following selected permutations: 2 cellphones and 2
laptops (experiment 1); 3 cellphones, 2 handheld radios and 2 laptops
(experiment 2); and 4 cellphones, 4 handheld radios and 2 laptops (experiment
3). The rest of the results for the other test metrics (throughput and network) for
Scenario 1 and 2 will be shown and analyzed in the following chapter because
this chapter only discusses the project implementation.
46
Figure 16: Delay results with 4 nodes Figure 17: Delay results with 7 nodes
47
Figure 18: Delay results with 10 nodes
0.35
0.3 AODV_4
DSR_4
0.25
Delay in seconds
OLSR_4
0.2 AODV_7
DSR_7
0.15
OLSR_7
0.1 AODV_10
DSR_10
0.05
OLSR_10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.05
Simulation time in minutes
From this figure it can be seen that when the number of nodes are increased, the
delay increases. The different routing protocols perform differently.
48
Challenges
With experiment 1 in Scenario 1 (4 nodes), the DSR routing protocol was able to
simulate and produce efficient results for both voice and video applications.
When the numbers of nodes were increased (Experiment 2 and 3 with 7 and 10
nodes) the simulation failed for video-conferencing. This occurred because DSR
routing processes in the nodes failed to recognize and set the size of the packets,
despite reducing the packet size. The voice application was successful, because it
was independent of the number of nodes or area size, all three routing protocols
simulated problem free.
Conclusion
In this chapter the project implementation, testing of the three scenarios and
their experiments were discussed. A discussion of the results of the overall
project will be discussed in the next chapter so that the best routing protocol can
be predicted based on the analysis of the results.
49
Chapter 7
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Introduction
In the previous chapter the simulation, testing, and the implementation of the
routing protocols (when using a voice-calling application) were discussed. In this
chapter the results of all the five experiments are discussed and analyzed to give
the results of the best performing mesh routing protocol.
Results
The test results of the routing protocols AODV, DSR, OLSR were obtained in a
graphical format because OPNET results are presented and compared using
graphs. Each of the routing protocols is represented in a color-coded graphical
line: OLSR protocol is represented by a green line; DSR by a red line; and
AODV by a blue line. As mentioned in Chapter 1, these routing protocols are
analyzed based on the performance metrics: throughput; delay; and network
load. Five experiments were executed using the OPNET modeler. A comparison
was done to give better view of how each of these protocols performed when
the number of nodes were increased.
Throughput
Throughput results of all five experiments are shown below individually.
Throughput is the total amount of data that reaches the receiver (from the
source) compared to the time taken by the receiver to receive the last packet.
Throughput results increased for each experiment when the number of nodes
increased thus giving a high performance for the different routing protocols.
50
Figure 20: Throughput with 4 nodes
51
Figure 21: Throughput with 7 nodes
52
Figure 22: Throughput with 10 nodes
53
Figure 23: Throughput with 20 nodes
54
Figure 24: Throughput with 40 nodes
From these results it can be seen that DSR has the highest throughput (Figure
20) when the number of nodes are less, but when the nodes increase, OLSR had
a high throughput (see experiment 2 and 3 (7 and 10 nodes)). AODV had a
much higher throughput when there are more than 20 nodes, thus AODV
comparatively performs better than other routing protocols (DSR, OLSR) when
using the transport protocol UDP for a voice traffic application for the highest
number of nodes.
55
Delay
Delay is the time taken by packets to pass through the network. Figures 25-29
show the delay results of all five experiments as individual graphs. Delay results
increased when the number of nodes for each experiment increased.
56
Figure 26: Delay with 7 nodes
57
Figure 27: Delay with 10 nodes
58
Figure 28: Delay with 20 nodes
59
Figure 29: Delay with 40 nodes
From these results it can be seen that AODV has high network load when the
number of nodes are less (experiment 1 and 2), but when the nodes increase to
10, 20, and 40 nodes, DSR has the highest delay. Thus DSR out-performs
AODV and OLSR when using the transport protocol UDP for a voice traffic
application.
Network load
Network load is the amount of data traffic carried by the network. Figures 30-34
show network load results of all five experiments. The network load experiment
60
results also show an increase in performance when the number of nodes
increased.
61
Figure 31: Network load with 7 nodes
62
Figure 32: Network load with 10 nodes
63
Figure 33: Network load with 20 nodes
64
Figure 34: Network load with 40 nodes
From these results it can be concluded that DSR presents with the highest
network load for experiments with 4, 7, 10, and 20 nodes respectively. Whilst
AODV shows the highest network load for 40 nodes. Based on the first four
experiments DSR outperforms AODV and OLSR (even though AODV
outperforms DSR when 40 nodes are deployed). Further testing (with more
nodes) is required to determine if AODV outperforms DSR.
65
AODV in all experiments
Routing protocol AODV was simulated in all five experiments and results are
retrieved from the testing parameters throughput, delay, and network load. The
graph shows that AODV (when using UDP) has much high throughput in 40
nodes compared to when nodes were 10 and less. The behaviour of AODV is
almost the same for network load and delay for 4, 7, 10, 20, and 40 (i.e. results
being in the same scale range).
66
(when using UDP) for network load and delay shows consistent results for all
experiments (4, 7, 10, 20, and 40 nodes).
67
OLSR results for all experiments
5000000
4_Delay (sec)
4500000
7_Delay (sec)
4000000
10_Delay (sec)
3500000 20_Delay (sec)
3000000 40_Delay (sec)
2500000 4_Throughput (bits/sec)
68
Results for experiment with 4 nodes
300000
AODV_Delay
250000
DSR_Delay
200000
OLSR_Delay
150000 AODV_Throughput
100000 DSR_Throughput
OLSR_Throughput
50000
AODV_Networkload
0 DSR_Networkload
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-50000 OLSR_Networkload
Simulation time (min)
500000 AODV_Delay
DSR_Delay
400000
OLSR_Delay
300000 AODV_Throughput
DSR_Throughput
200000
OLSR_Throughput
100000 AODV_Networkload
0 DSR_Networkload
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 OLSR_Networkload
-100000
Simulation time (min)
69
Figure 40: Comparison of AODV, DSR, and OLSR in 10 nodes
3000000 AODV_Delay
DSR_Delay
2500000
OLSR_Delay
2000000
AODV_Throughput
1500000 DSR_Throughput
OLSR_Throughput
1000000
AODV_Networkload
500000
DSR_Networkload
0 OLSR_Networkload
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-500000
70
Results for experiment with 40 nodes
18000000
16000000
AODV_Delay
14000000
DSR_Delay
12000000
OLSR_Delay
10000000
AODV_Throughput
8000000
DSR_Throughput
6000000
OLSR_Throughput
4000000
AODV_Networkload
2000000
DSR_Networkload
0
OLSR_Networkload
-2000000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Simulation time (min)
71
Network load (bit/sec) 562,688 587,221.33 569,280
Table 9: Average values of throughput, delay, and network load for AODV, OLSR, and DSR for all experiments
Table 9 gives the average result values of the performance of each routing
protocol after simulation runtime for all five experiments under the metrics:
throughput; delay; and network load. Throughput and network load are
measured in bits per seconds, and delay is measured in seconds.
Conclusion
In this chapter the behaviour of the different protocols were analyzed. In the
following chapter the results will be used to predict the best routing protocol.
72
Chapter 8
FINAL WRITEUP
Introduction
The previous chapter discussed the results analysis of the routing protocols when
using UDP. In this chapter the conclusion based on the project findings is given.
Project conclusion
In this project the performance of the routing protocols AODV, DSR, and
OLSR in terms of the testing parameters: throughput; delay; and network load,
was evaluated for a UDP application – voice calling. Another aspect that was
considered (in the evaluation) was scalability (i.e. increase in number of nodes)
because the simulation results focused on the routing protocols’ performance
when the number of nodes varied.
The motivation of this project was to evaluate the mentioned routing protocols’
performance under the testing parameters in order to find a suitable protocol for
communication. This protocol will be used in disaster events for efficient and
reliable communication when using any type of voice communication device.
The simulation results are provided in graphical and table format. The graphical
format results (Figures 20-34) are retrieved straight from the simulation tool
OPNET whereby the results are generated after a simulation has run. The table
format results (Table 9) represent the average values of each protocol under each
testing parameter so that a comparative analysis can be done from the values.
It was shown that different routing protocols perform differently with different
number of nodes. In the first experiment (4 nodes), DSR performed better in
terms of throughput and delay whilst AODV performed better for network load.
73
As soon as the nodes are increased (7 nodes), OLSR performs better in terms of
throughput, DSR shows little delay, and AODV presents with a low network
load.
In the third experiment (with 10 nodes) OLSR out-performed both DSR and
AODV in terms of throughput and delay. However in terms of network load
AODV outperforms the other protocols. The fourth experiment (20 nodes)
showed that AODV performed better in terms of throughput and OLSR
performed better in terms of delay and network load compared to both DSR and
AODV.
Lastly, the experiment with 40 nodes demonstrated that AODV performed the
best in terms of throughput, OLSR in terms of delay, and DSR in terms of
network load.
To conclude the project results shows that the two routing protocols, OLSR and
AODV, outperformed DSR in peer to peer mesh networks (when using UDP).
For smaller networks DSR gave better results (but the performance degraded
when the network became larger.
But this may not necessarily mean that OLSR and AODV will always
outperform DSR. Different routing protocols have different attributes
depending on the environment (the type of network and traffic type) thus these
need to be considered when deciding on which protocol to apply.
Future work
In future research, different traffic applications which are used in disaster events
(e.g. video communication) should be considered. It will require using simulation
tools that support this type of traffic application e.g. NS2. Furthermore it would
be interesting to get data for a real-life event (that is: apply the testing on a case
74
study) to test if the findings of the simulation would correspond with real-life
results.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the final conclusion of the project. It has been found that
OLSR and AODV give better performance results depending on the number of
nodes in a simulated network, thus these routing protocols are reliable for peer
to peer networks for disaster events.
75
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Probes
Have you ever been involved in a disaster management scenario (e.g. flood,
IF YES
i. Are you aware of what a Mesh Network is?
vi. If not, what other measures did you use to make communication
network?
viii. What problems did you encounter with the devices used?
76
IF NO
i. Are you aware of what a Mesh Network is?
telecommunication network?
vi. How would you be able to assess if the constructed network will be
77
APPENDIX B
Have you ever been involved in a disaster management scenario (e.g. flood,
fire, war, earthquake, etc.)?
No, we have not experienced one – but we have a disaster routine plan.
Are you aware of what a Mesh Network is?
Yes I am
If yes have you ever constructed/used one?
A wireless mesh network can be seen as a special type of wireless ad-hoc network. Wireless
mesh network often have more planned configuration, and may be deployed to provide dynamic
and cost effective connectivity over a certain geographic area.
What communication devices would you use?
Wireless mesh architectures infrastructure is, in effect, a router network minus the cabling
between nodes. It's built of peer radio devices that don't have to be cabled to a wired port like
traditional WLAN access points (AP) do. Mesh architecture sustains signal strength by
breaking long distances into a series of shorter hops. Intermediate nodes not only boost the
signal, but cooperatively make forwarding decisions based on their knowledge of the network, i.e.
perform routing. Such architecture may with careful design provide high bandwidth, spectral
efficiency, and economic advantage over the coverage area.
78
How would you be able to assess if the constructed network will be reliable
and efficient?
This type of infrastructure can be decentralized or centralized; both are relatively inexpensive,
and very reliable and resilient, as each node needs only transmit as far as the next node. Nodes
act as routers to transmit data from nearby nodes to peers that are too far away to reach in a
single hop, resulting in a network that can span larger distances. The topology of a mesh
network is also reliable, as each node is connected to several other nodes. If one node drops out of
the network, due to hardware failure or any other reason, its neighbors can quickly find another
route using a routing protocol
Have you ever been involved in a disaster management scenario (e.g. flood,
fire, war, earthquake, etc.)?
No.
Are you aware of what a Mesh Network is?
No
If yes have you ever constructed/used one?
N/A
What telecommunication network do you propose you would use if a
disaster were to occur in your area?
The Information Communication Services (ICS) department has a system called GV Chase
System that sends out text messages (SMSs) to staff, students and workers on campus when a
disaster incident occurs to warn them of the dangers that might affect them.
What communication devices would you use?
Construction of the GV Chase System is still under the beta phase. Since a disaster incident
has never occurred on campus, the ICS department has not had the chance to use it.
79
How would you be able to assess if the constructed network will be reliable and
efficient?
I would recommend that a disaster response drill could occur on campus to test the effectiveness of
the system in preparation for any future disaster.
80
APPENDIX C
Identify users to Identify users to Identify users to Identify someone Mock Presentation Presentation –
interview interview or give a interview or give a (Writing Centre) to on Tuesday Tuesday another
Comments questionnaire to. questionnaire to. read your doc. & mock presentation &
organise someone the real one on
Note questionnaire or Note questionnaire for checking the Wednesday! (09h00
probes and add as or probes and add presentation. – 11h00
appendix. as appendix.
RAD n/a Fill in headings Start write-up of Write-up RAD Complete RAD
81
RAD.
82
Term 2 Project plan
Tasks 28th t March 4th April 11th April 18th April 25th April 2th May 9th May 16th May 23rd May
Combined Combined Monday a Monday holiday Combined
Comments
Create 3 new Complete Start write up of Complete Complete Complete write-up of Complete write Complete write
chapters with editing. Start the OOA & write-up of write up of OOA. up of OOD up.
Thesis Document
subheadings with the write complete the OOA. OOD Re-organise the 20th May: Hand
for UIS, OOA up of the UIS UIS write-up document to reflect in completed
and OOD – an experiment rather document to
see p3 than a program. supervisor
83
UIS Start with User Complete UIS Update changes to If needed -
Interface UIS update changes
Specification to UIS
GUI & Start with the Program GUI/ Program Program GUI/ Complete GUI/ Finalise GUI/
prototype planning of the prototype GUI/ prototype prototype prototype
prototype prototype Plan and start with a
pilot study
Look at Look at
previous previous
Other
projects projects
84
Term 3 Project plan
Maggie Bila
th th th nd th th th th th th th
Tasks 12 July 19 July 26 July 2 Aug 9 Aug 16 Aug 23 Aug 30 Aug– 5 Sept 5 Sept 12 Sept
Thesis Finalise the Finalise the Make changes to object’s pseudo code as you develop the software, Finalise
Document editing of the editing of the document all changes etc. in the code&start on the User’s guide (User’s Documentation and
th
documentation documentation - Guide a deliverable for the next term only!) hand in on the 27
& editing
Update any
changes to the
design – e.g.
objects
Planning of Reconsider how to represent the data – Write the skeleton of your Chapter 5 – how you do
chapters planning of Chapters. the setting up and what scenarios you will be
considering. And write the results of some
experiments that you have done in Chapter 6 – no
discussions yet.
Re-visit the GUI Check the GUI Re-design parts of the GUI or the whole GUI or just change Replace Finalise GUI
and make and see if you it for the time being to red – so that you can change it later screenshots with
changes or are happy that screenshots of
redesign it deals with all the current
the options program (it will
have changed)
Maggie revisit
the brief.
Scenarios Plan scenarios and determine what aspects will be considered in the scenario and tested
(simulation)
Create & Create & populate (add a few
populate data references to) the MySQL
database database or put together files
to be used in programme
85
th
Programming Plan the Program Program Programming Program 4 Finalise
st st nd
task approach by 1 1 &2 task/module programming &
breaking task task/modul task/mod /object testing
into objects or e /object ule
modules to /object
program
Testing and Read about Read about Read Decide on a
refining with a MySQL software & about subset of
basic data set database tools you wish software testing data
and decide to implement & tools
on its you wish Testing and refining
structure or to
if you use implemen
files how it t
will be used.
th h
Mock 6 Present 14
Prepare for
Presentation Sept. September
presentation
Present
Website Update NB Update NB Update NB Update NB
86
Term 4 Project plan
th st th th th th st
Tasks for the 20 Sept 27 Sept 4 October 11 October 18 Oct 25 Oct 1 Nov
week of the nd
Presentation on the 2
rd
Thesis Finalise the Complete all editing of 3 Start by identifying all the tasks that the program Finalise user’s Hand in
th
Document editing of the term’s must be able to do - write the User’s guide guide & Thesis documentation on Monday 8
documentation documentation. documentation November
. Ask
colleague or
someone to
edit /proofread
it!!
Programming Revise programme & add what is still outstanding Revise Revise programme
tasks not programme &
completed And make changes to thesis doc to reflect this! create Finalise Installation disc.
Mr Bila please re-think your project and highlight what you have and plan to achieve installation
disc.
Design Test Read up about Add the theoretical part of Design test suites
suites evaluation of evaluation to your
programs – get documentation. Edit the Choose your “users”
ideas of how you chapters where you Questionnaires etc.
want to do referred to it initially.
evaluation. Add Ethical aspects
to
documentation.
Edit the chapters
where you
referred to it
initially.
87
Execute tests, Execute tests & keep record of it
revise code or by writing it up in Thesis doc.
even project Create graphs that can be
design included in Thesis doc.
st
Presentation Mock Presentation on the 1
Nov.
Prepare for presentation and
install on relevant computers.
Test if it works!!
88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ali, S., & Ali, A. (2009). Performance Analysis of AODV, OLSR, and DSR
in MANET. Retrieved 01 18, 2011, from essay.se: http://www.essay.se
2. Arnold, J. L., Levine, B. N., Manmatha, R., Lee, F., Shenoy, P., Tsai,
M. C., et al. (2004, 07-09). Information-sharing in out-of-hospital disaster
response: The future role of information technology. Retrieved 08 15, 2011,
from Prehospital and Disaster Medicine:
http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu
3. Bille.R. (2010). Action without change? On the use and usefulness of pilot
experiments in enviroment mangement. Retrieved 05 04, 2011, from
S.A.P.I.E.N.S.: www.wikipedia.com
7. IEEE. (1999). Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
Layer Specifications. Retrieved 06 2011, from IEEE Std 802.11:
www.ieee.com
89
8. Kim, J., Vinay, S., & Stephen, B. (2008, 04 19). Realistic Simulation of
Urban Mesh Networks. Retrieved 03 15, 2011, from
http://www.eecis.udel.edu
10. Kurose, J. F., & Rose, K. W. (2010). Computer Networking: User Datagram
Protocol. Retrieved 05 10, 2011, from Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol
11. MacVittie, L. (2011, 06 11). IPv4 to IPv6 switch: When protocols collide.
Retrieved 07 12, 2011, from em.wikipedia.org
12. Oliverz-Giles, N. (2011, 03 11). Google deploys Person Finder after Japan
earthquake, tsunami leaves hundreds dead. Retrieved 03 12, 2011, from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com
15. Rahman, A., Islam, S., & Talevski, A. (2010). Performance measurement of
various routing protocols in ad-hoc network. Retrieved 02 21, 2011
90
17. Townsend, M. A., & Moss, L. M. (2005, April). Telecommunications
Infrastructure in Disasters: Preparing cities for crisis communication. Retrieved
02 08, 2011, from New York University:
http://hurricane.wagner.nyu.edu
91
INDEX
A
ACK, viii, 9
N
Acknowledgment message. See ACK Network Interface Card. See NIC
Ad hoc on demand distance vector. See NIC, viii, 2
AODV NS2, viii, 75, See Network simulator
Ad hoc On Demand Vector. See AODV
ADOV, 19, 66
AODV, viii, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23, 25, 28, 29, O
31, 35, 40, 41, 51, 56, 61, 66, 67, 69, 74, OLSR, viii, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 28,
75, 76 31, 35, 40, 41, 51, 56, 61, 66, 68, 69, 74,
75, 76
D OPNET, ix, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23,
24, 31, 32, 42, 46, 51, 74
DSR, viii, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 28, 29, Optimized link state routing. See OLSR
31, 35, 40, 41, 49, 51, 56, 61, 66, 67, 69, Optimized Link State Routing. See OLSR
74, 75 Optimized Network Evaluation Tool. See
Dynamic source routing. See DSR OPNET
Dynamic Source Routing. See DSR Optimized network tool. See OPNET
OSI, 10
F
File Transfer Protcol. See FTP
P
FTP, viii PDA, ix, 1
Personal Digital Assistant. See PDA
H
HTTP, viii
R
Hypertext Transfer Protocol. See HTTP RERR, ix, 9
Route error message. See RERR
I Route reply message. See RREP
Route request message. See RREQ
IP, 10 RREP, ix, 9
RREQ, ix, 3, 9
M
S
MAC, viii
MANET, viii, 11 Short Message Service. See SMS
Media Access Control Adress. See MAC SMS, ix, 5
MID, viii, 10
Mobile Ad hoc Network. See MANET
MP3, viii, 1, 5
T
MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3. See MP3 TC, ix, 10
Multiple interface declaration. See MID TCP, ix, 10
92
Topology control. See TC
Transmission Control Protocol. See TCP
V
Voice over IP. See VoIP
U VoIP, ix
UDP, ix, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, 35,
40, 41, 46, 56, 61, 67, 68, 74, 75
W
User datagram protocol. See UDP WiMAX, ix
User Datagram Protocol. See UDP Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave
Access. See WiMAX
93