Performance Of Proactive Protocols Research Articles

Path management strategy to reduce flooding of grid fisheye state routing protocol in mobile ad hoc network using fuzzy and rough set theory

In ad hoc mobile wireless networks, energy consumption is an important issue as most mobile hosts operate on limited battery resources. Most of the existing ad hoc routing algorithms select the shortest path using various resources (energy). Approach: to overcome these problems an optimal path management approach called path vector calculation based on fuzzy and rough set theory were addressed. The ultimate intent of this study is to select the qualified path based on energy consumption of the node in the network. Simple rules were generated using fuzzy and rough set techniques for calculating path vector and to remove irrelevant attributes (resources) for evaluating the best routing. The set of rules were evaluated with proactive protocols namely fisheye state routing (FSR) protocol in the NS-2 simulation environment based on metrics such as total energy consumed, average energy consumed, overall residual energy and average residual energy and it also considers the importance of the objects (nodes). The results have shown that in MANET, decision rules with fuzzy and rough set technique has provided qualified path based best routing. The network life time and performance of proactive protocols in MANET has improved with fuzzy and rough set based decision rules.

Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols A Comparative Study

Efficient routing has always been a matter of concern for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). While reactive protocols are competing with the performance of proactive protocols, hybrid protocols have attempted to brew the best of the both. This paper reviews some of the selected literature regarding MANET routing protocols and studies the comparative performance of different routing protocols such as (AODV, DSR DSDV FSR, ZRP and etc.) under different scenarios (varying number of nodes, mobility, traffic type and load). The results from these papers are then compiled together and summarized in the form of graphs comparing the QoS parameters including Packet Delivery Ratio, Average End to End Delay, Average Throughput and Normalized Routing Load. The study concludes that no single protocol fit all needs. For a given scenario, a protocol may be chosen depending upon the mobility, size and required QoS.