1. 1/13 Comparison of several MANET routing protocols AODV, OLSR Final presentation By teams 2&3

2. 2/13 Table of content Context and Objectives Failed attempts Solutions Environment Measurements: results Conclusion

3. 3/13 Context and objectives Measurement of network performance A working MANET network Understand which protocol to use in a given situation

4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8/13 Checking the operation of the protocols Start configuration : “Same room”

9. 9/13 Checking the operation of the protocols End configuration : “Chappe” 1 3 2 4

10. 10/13 Throughput AODVOLSR Same room4.49 Mbits/sec4.56 Mbits/sec Chappe238 Kbits/sec648 Kbits/sec Salmon225 Kbits/sec611 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. 11/13 Ping (delay) results Based on 20 consecutive ping requests Unit of time: ms

12. 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. 13/13 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. 14/13