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