An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols

Problem statement: Although many efforts have been done on studying the behaviour of TCP in MANET, but the behaviour of TFRC remain unclear in MANET. The purpose of this research is two folds.First, we studied the behaviour of TFRC and TCP over AODV and DSR as the underlying routing protocols in ter...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi, Habbal, Adib M. Monzer, Azzali, Fazli, Hassan, Suhaidi, Rizal, Mohamad
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Science Publications 2012
Subjects:
Online Access:http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/1/JCS%208%204%20468-473.pdf
http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/
http://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2012.468.473
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.uum.repo.17447
record_format eprints
spelling my.uum.repo.174472016-03-08T07:12:36Z http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/ An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi Habbal, Adib M. Monzer Azzali, Fazli Hassan, Suhaidi Rizal, Mohamad QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science Problem statement: Although many efforts have been done on studying the behaviour of TCP in MANET, but the behaviour of TFRC remain unclear in MANET. The purpose of this research is two folds.First, we studied the behaviour of TFRC and TCP over AODV and DSR as the underlying routing protocols in terms of throughput, delay and jitter.The second objective was to identify whether MANET routing protocols have an impact on transport protocols or not.Approach: Network Simulator 2 (NS-2) was used to conduct all of the experiments, i.e., TFRC over AODV, TFRC over DSR, TCP over AODV and TCP over DSR.We created 30 nodes on a 1000×1000 m location area and each node was assigned CBR traffic, transport protocol and routing protocol.In order to simulate the nodes mobility, we implemented a Random Waypoint mobility model with varying speeds of 5, 10, 15 and 20 m sec−1 (m/sec) with a 10 sec pause time.Results: We observed that TFRC throughput increases almost 55% when using DSR as its routing protocol, but TCP throughput has no significant difference with different underlying protocols.However, in terms of jitter and delay, both routing protocols, i.e., AODV and DSR have the impact of more than 50% on TFRC and TCP. Conclusion/Recommendations: The results obtained also show us that TFRC or TCP should choose AODV as its routing protocol because it has less jitter which is one of the critical performance metrics for multimedia applications. Science Publications 2012 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en cc_by http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/1/JCS%208%204%20468-473.pdf Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi and Habbal, Adib M. Monzer and Azzali, Fazli and Hassan, Suhaidi and Rizal, Mohamad (2012) An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols. Journal of Computer Science, 8 (4). pp. 468-473. ISSN 1549-3636 http://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2012.468.473 doi:10.3844/jcssp.2012.468.473
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
building UUM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Utara Malaysia
content_source UUM Institutionali Repository
url_provider http://repo.uum.edu.my/
language English
topic QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
spellingShingle QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi
Habbal, Adib M. Monzer
Azzali, Fazli
Hassan, Suhaidi
Rizal, Mohamad
An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
description Problem statement: Although many efforts have been done on studying the behaviour of TCP in MANET, but the behaviour of TFRC remain unclear in MANET. The purpose of this research is two folds.First, we studied the behaviour of TFRC and TCP over AODV and DSR as the underlying routing protocols in terms of throughput, delay and jitter.The second objective was to identify whether MANET routing protocols have an impact on transport protocols or not.Approach: Network Simulator 2 (NS-2) was used to conduct all of the experiments, i.e., TFRC over AODV, TFRC over DSR, TCP over AODV and TCP over DSR.We created 30 nodes on a 1000×1000 m location area and each node was assigned CBR traffic, transport protocol and routing protocol.In order to simulate the nodes mobility, we implemented a Random Waypoint mobility model with varying speeds of 5, 10, 15 and 20 m sec−1 (m/sec) with a 10 sec pause time.Results: We observed that TFRC throughput increases almost 55% when using DSR as its routing protocol, but TCP throughput has no significant difference with different underlying protocols.However, in terms of jitter and delay, both routing protocols, i.e., AODV and DSR have the impact of more than 50% on TFRC and TCP. Conclusion/Recommendations: The results obtained also show us that TFRC or TCP should choose AODV as its routing protocol because it has less jitter which is one of the critical performance metrics for multimedia applications.
format Article
author Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi
Habbal, Adib M. Monzer
Azzali, Fazli
Hassan, Suhaidi
Rizal, Mohamad
author_facet Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi
Habbal, Adib M. Monzer
Azzali, Fazli
Hassan, Suhaidi
Rizal, Mohamad
author_sort Mohd Zaini, Khuzairi
title An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
title_short An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
title_full An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
title_fullStr An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
title_full_unstemmed An interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and MANET routing protocols
title_sort interaction between congestion-control based transport protocols and manet routing protocols
publisher Science Publications
publishDate 2012
url http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/1/JCS%208%204%20468-473.pdf
http://repo.uum.edu.my/17447/
http://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2012.468.473
_version_ 1644282218589192192
score 13.209306