| Ad-Hoc Routing:
Performance Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| n | Conclusions
of study: |
||||||||||||||||||
| – | each
protocol performs well in come cases and has |
||||||||||||||||||
| drawbacks
in others |
|||||||||||||||||||
| – | DSR
performs predictably |
||||||||||||||||||
| n | delivers
virtually all data packets at low mobility rate and |
||||||||||||||||||
| speed |
|||||||||||||||||||
| n | fails
to converge as node mobility increases |
||||||||||||||||||
| – | AODV
performs nearly as well as DSR at all mobility |
||||||||||||||||||
| rates
and speeds |
|||||||||||||||||||
| n | accomplishes
its goal of eliminating source routing overhead |
||||||||||||||||||
| n | requires
transmission of many routing overhead packets |
||||||||||||||||||
| n | is
more expensive than DSR of high rates of node mobility |
||||||||||||||||||
