1/13 comparison of several manet routing protocols aodv, olsr final presentation by teams 2&3
TRANSCRIPT
1/13
Comparison of several MANET routing protocols
AODV, OLSR
Final presentation
By teams 2&3
2/13
Table of content
Context and Objectives Failed attempts Solutions Environment Measurements: results Conclusion
3/13
Context and objectives
Measurement of network performance A working MANET network Understand which protocol to use in a given
situation
4/13
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
5/13
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
6/13
Environment : LG semicolon (N24)
1 3
2
4
2’s coverage ends here
4th floor
3rd floor
Purpose: effective transmission and measurements between 1 and 4 Static (codenamed Chappe) 4 moving towards 2 in a 30s laps
time (codenamed Salmon)
7/13
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 !
8/13
Checking the operation of the protocolsStart configuration : “Same room”
9/13
Checking the operation of the protocolsEnd configuration : “Chappe”
1 3
2
4
10/13
Throughput
AODV OLSR
Same room 4.49 Mbits/sec 4.56 Mbits/sec
Chappe 238 Kbits/sec 648 Kbits/sec
Salmon 225 Kbits/sec 611 Kbits/sec
1 3
2
4
Chappe : 4 and 2 communicate No movement
Salmon : 4 runs in the direction of 2,
changing the routing tables
11/13
Ping (delay) results
Based on 20 consecutive ping requests Unit of time: ms
12/13
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
13/13
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
14/13