Abstract

Geographical routing protocols have received a serious attention due to more advantages they have in comparison to the conventional routing protocols. They require information about the physical position of nodes needed to be available. Commonly, each node determines its own position through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) or some other type of positioning service. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol, which is one of geographical routing protocols, limits the forwarding decision of the packet based on the node's own position, the destination's position and the position of the forwarding node's neighbors. Location information has some inaccuracy depending on the localization system and the environment exists in. This paper aims to study the impact of mobility metrics (beacon interval, and node speed) on introducing location information error in GPSR protocol using different mobility models. The effect of these metrics is identified in GPSR as Neighbor Break Link (NBL) problem. Based on simulation analysis, mobility prediction schemes are proposed to migrate the observed problem.

Highlights

  • Geographical routing protocols [3,16] in ad hoc networks have received serious attention due to their substantial advantages as compared to topology-based routing protocols [5], being either proactive or reactive protocols

  • Under Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol, a node makes routing decisions only based on the locations of its neighbors and the location of the destination node available by using location service protocol like Grid Location Service (GLS), GPSR thereby avoids the overhead of maintaining global topology information

  • We evaluate the performance of GPSR protocol based on the following metrics: – Packet Drop-Neighbor Break: the number of data packets drop due to the link breaks between the nodes and there neighbors during the packet forwarding process. – Delivery Ratio: The number of successfully data packets delivered to destination over the total number of packets transmitted. – End-to-End Delay: the average time delay for data packets from the source node to destination node

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Geographical routing protocols [3,16] in ad hoc networks have received serious attention due to their substantial advantages as compared to topology-based routing protocols [5], being either proactive or reactive protocols. This greedy forwarding process is repeated by nodes y, k, z, and w until the packet reaches the destination node D

Objectives
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call