From mh97@cornell.edu Mon Oct 22 15:23:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (postoffice.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.7]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9MJN8o22976 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mars (dhcp5.csl.cornell.edu [132.236.71.52]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03578 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:23:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "ming hao" To: "'Emin Gun Sirer'" Subject: 615 PAPER 25 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:22:09 -0400 Message-ID: <000401c15b2e$d8b15c90$3447ec84@mars> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200109022045.f82Kj9409239@hoho.cs.cornell.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols. Josh Broch, David A. Maltz, David B. Johnson, Yih-Chun Hu, and Jorjeta Jetcheva. the main contribution of this paper is to compare main routing algorithms in the same environment for the first time. this will illustrate the relative performance of different algorithms and helpful for choosing a algorithm in the later real implementation. the paper extends the NS2 simulator in the term of physical layers and MAC layer and compare four routing algorithms, DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV. the relatively more accurate physical link and MAC layer modeling is another contribution of this paper. the metric used by this paper is delivery ration, routing overhead, path optimization. the latency is counted. further, the routing overhead only counts the number of packets. the paper does not argue why different length of packets does not make a big difference. the result shows that 1. dsr and aodv has a stable and better packet delivery ratio while DSDV can not converge when pause time less than 100s and TORA drops too many packets when network has 30 data sources. 2. dsr has lest routing overhead because of its cahcing from forwarded and promiscuously overhead packets and non-propagating request. DSDV is a proactive protocol so it has constant overhead regardless of the node mobility. 3.DSDV and DSR almost always use shortest path regardless of pause time while TORA and AODV do this only at large pause time. 4. when counting the length of control packets, AODV has lest number while DSR performs still better than the other two algorithms. in a summary, though this paper gives us an idea how those algorithms perform relatively. it is still hard to say some one is better than others because of limited scenarios simulated by the paper. Just as admitted in the paper, it not comparable between this paper and Freisleben and Jansen's because of different speeds of nodes and number of nodes. -ming From c.tavoularis@utoronto.ca Mon Oct 22 16:13:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca (bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca [128.100.132.16]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9MKDCo29432 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webmail1.ns.utoronto.ca ([128.100.132.24] EHLO webmail1.ns.utoronto.ca ident: IDENT-NOT-QUERIED [port 32982]) by bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca with ESMTP id <238696-20668>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:28 -0400 Received: by webmail1.ns.utoronto.ca id <126210-22889>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:21 -0400 To: COM S 615 Subject: 615 PAPER 25 Message-ID: <1003781539.3bd47da3bc8d0@webmail1.ns.utoronto.ca> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0400 (EDT) From: c.tavoularis@utoronto.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.3 This is an excellent paper that unifies the simulation study of some of the major ad hoc routing protocols. It compares the performance of four ad hoc routing protocols: DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV. Using a modified ns-2 network simulator, the authors create a simulation environment that supports realistic physical and MAC layers based on IEEE 802.11 standards (including DCF and ARP) while modeling signal attenuation to determine delays between nodes and received power levels. From the received power level, the physical layer decides whether the signal is noise, erroneous, or a successful packet and the MAC layer detects collisions. The authors implemented some general improvements to the protocols: jitter between broadcasts to minimize collisions; priority of routing packets in the transmit queue to reduce route discovery delays; and breakage feedback at MAC layer to reduce packet dropping. Protocol specific improvements include: implementing DSDV-SQ that triggers updates with each new sequence number as opposed to new metric only; aggregating TORA and IMEP messages; using only bi- directional links in DSR to support lower layers; and implementing AODV-LL to replace periodic HELLO messages. The protocols are tested for 210 different scenario files with 50 nodes, and with two different max speeds, 1m/s and 20m/s, over which speed is uniformly distributed. The scenario files vary motion from continuous motion to no motion. Having 70 fixed movement patterns and using 10, 20 or 30 sources provides variation in traffic load. 3 metrics are used: packet delivery ratio over the simulation, routing overhead counting each hop, and path optimality as a difference of the chosen path from the shortest possible path. An additional study is done to include significance of header size in DSR. DSDV-SQ, the only proactive protocol under examination, had very poor packet delivery in high mobility, and exhibited constant overhead regardless of node movement. DSDV-SQ very frequently chose the optimal path. TORA may have delivered packets better than DSDV-SQ, but was still limited due to the occurrence of short-lived routing loops dropping packets, while suffering from very high overhead. TORA actually failed to converge in many high traffic cases due to unmanageable congestion. Also, TORA chose longer than optimal paths as mobility increased. DSR exhibited the best packet delivery ratio and the lowest overhead. AODV-LL also had good packet delivery but with high overhead due to flooding, particularly in high mobility. DSR and AODV-LL take advantage of previous route knowledge to decreases overall overhead and significant improvement can be seen when there are many (30) data sources. DSR effectively exploits caching and eavesdropping as well. After considering the additional header bytes in DSR, it was found that DSR incurs more overhead than AODV-LL in all but very high mobility cases. Further study must be performed, since control information added to existing packets is not as costly as control information being sent out in individual numerous packets. DSR and AODV-LL perform the best and appear to support mobility well. But, I’m curious about the delay incurred by each of the protocols, since a large delay will invalidate other good performance characteristics. Results suggest that DSR would have less delay since it most often chooses the shortest path while AODV-LL does not. Aside from providing significant results, this paper addresses compatibility issues of routing protocols with the physical and link layer, and tests the true functionality of the protocols without making simplifying assumptions. From eyh5@ee.cornell.edu Mon Oct 22 22:07:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (memphis.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.8]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9N27Xo08464 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from james (james.ee.cornell.edu [128.84.236.65]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9N288N17418 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:08:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:06:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward Hua To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Subject: 615 Paper #25 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols Josh Bgroch, David A. Maltz, David B. Johnson, Yih-Chun Hu, and Jorjeta Jetcheva This paper presents a comprehensive performance analysis for four routing algorithms in an ad hoc network, DSDV, TORA, DSR, and AODV. Of the four, only DSDV is based on proactive routing scheme, whereas the others are all of reactive-routing, which appears to be the general consensus in the ad hoc research community. The authors go to painstaking details to define a high-caliber simulation environment, generated by NS2. Not only is the overall topology that applies to all four algorithms is defined, but according to its unique characteristics, each algorithm is also tailored with parameters to make it more realistic in practice. While running the simulations, the authors have also made modifications to these algorithms and reported improved performance. Three performance metrics are used for the evaluations: 1)packet delivery ratio, 2)routing overhead, and 3)Path optimality The observations drawn from the evaluations are as follows: 1)AODV performs worse than DSR in terms of packet delivery ratio regardless of the nodal mobility. This somewhat in contrast to the results obtained in the paper by Perkins, Royer, and Das, where for high mobility AODV is seen faring better than DSR. 2)For DSR and AODV, packet delivery ratio is independent of the offered traffic load at various mobilities. Also, compared with the above two, TORA, and especially DSDV, are not suitable for ad hoc networks with high mobiliy. 3)Generally, with the exception of DSDV, the routing overhead increases as the number of sources increases, the overhead tends to come down when mobile nodes are less actively moving about in the network. 4)Figure 6 is intended to give a comparision of route optimality of the four routing protocols. However, by looking at the graph, it does now show a consistency in this regard (i.e., which routing protocol consistently yields optimal routes). I think in choosing which routing algorithms to compare with, it is important to distinguish between proactive routing and reactive routing. In this paper, DSDV (proactive routing) is compared against the performance of three reactive routing protocols. This may not be a fair comparison, especially when it comes to measuring the overhead, as proactive routing usually generates more overhead due to its aggressive nature. Also, it seems to be the trend in the ad hoc research community that reactive routing protocols are more favored than their proactive routing counterparts. Also, since TORA is designed to react promptly to the dynamic change of topology in the network, this reaction time ought to be measured as well to see how it fares comparing the other routing algorithms. This measurement will be very important as it may pave way for further research on how to deal with the dynamics of the network topology to better assist in the repair of a broken route or reconstruction of a new one should a need arise. From wbell@CS.Cornell.EDU Mon Oct 22 22:56:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (postoffice.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.7]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9N2uco14453 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dhcp-190.rover.cornell.edu (dhcp-190.rover.cornell.edu [128.84.24.190]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15146 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 615 PAPER #25 From: Walter Bell To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1003805762.1043.19.camel@brute> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution/0.16.99+cvs.2001.10.18.15.19 (Preview Release) Date: 22 Oct 2001 22:56:16 -0400 25) A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols This paper presents a unified simulation study of several ad-hoc routing protocols. They present results for DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV in a unified simulation environment under ns-2 which attempts to accurately model the 802.11 wireless standard. They implemented the 4 protocols on top of ns-2 with help from the authors, and attempted to be fair between the different implementations of the protocols in their environment by evaluating how the real world parameters would affect the protocol negatively-- such as in AODV presenting an implementation that reduces control overhead by only noticing link breakages from the link layer, and not periodic broadcast messages. They present the simulations of 50 wireless nodes in a rectangular space. This is the second time we've seen a rectangular simulation space; it's rectangular to force longer routes between nodes than would occur normally in a square simulation space. They use the random way point model, which is characterized by each node picking a destination and a speed, and moving towards that destination and pausing for a certain amount of time before repeating.To ensure that the study was comparable between protocols, they generated 70 movement patterns and 4 communication patterns for 210 total scenarios that each routing protocol was tested on. They do not claim that these simulations accurately reflect the real world, mearly that since the protocols are all simulated in the same environment it is fair to make conclusions about their behaviours in these simulations. They present results for goodput, control overhead, and path optmimality for the different communication patterns (which reflect the number of transmission sources.) They have good insightful details, and their work seems to agree with current beliefs on the effectiveness of protocols (for example, DSDV, being a proactive protocol, has many problems stabilizing under periods of high motion, although it has a constant amount of control overhead.) This is definitely a reference paper for any future simulation study comparison. From teifel@csl.cornell.edu Tue Oct 23 01:40:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: from disney.csl.cornell.edu (disney.csl.cornell.edu [132.236.71.87]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9N5e3o01568 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (teifel@localhost) by disney.csl.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id f9N5dwn34543 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:39:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from teifel@disney.csl.cornell.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: disney.csl.cornell.edu: teifel owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:39:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "John R. Teifel" To: Subject: 615 PAPER 25 Message-ID: <20011023013903.A33502-100000@disney.csl.cornell.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII multi-hop performance: This paper discusses the relative performance of four multi-hop wireless ad hoc network protocols (DSDV, TORA, DSR, AODV). This is essentially a simulation paper and no new protocols or protocol optimizations are introduced. They do a detailed packet-level simulation of the various protocols and apparently make a good attempt at fixing the problems with the ns-2 simulator and making it produce accurate simulations for wireless networks. They do this by adding MAC and physical-layer models of the IEEE 802.11 standard, as well as an accurate wireless channel model. In general, the authors found that DSR performed better than the other protocols in most of the metrics that this paper examined. The other protocols perform as follows: AODV, DSDV, and then TORA (in order of decreasing performance). This performance (of course) depends on their particular simulation setup and such, but I feel that their simulation approach was rather robust and was realistic for actual ad hoc networks. From daehyun@csl.cornell.edu Tue Oct 23 09:50:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: from wilkes.csl.cornell.edu (wilkes.csl.cornell.edu [132.236.71.69]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9NDoio25349 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daehyun@localhost) by wilkes.csl.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.2) id JAA09366 for egs@cs.cornell.edu; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:50:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from daehyun) From: Daehyun Kim Message-Id: <200110231350.JAA09366@wilkes.csl.cornell.edu> Subject: 615 PAPER 25 To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:50:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This paper compares four ad hoc network routing protocols - DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV. They extended the ns-2 network simulator to model the MAC and physical layer of IEEE 802.11 and wireless transmission channel. And they presented a detailed packet level simulation result for 50 mobile nodes. They performed the simulations with two different node nobilities - a maximum speed of 20 m/s and 1 m/s. The followings are interesting observations. For 20 m/s; 1. DSR and AODV show better performance than TORA and DSDV, especially in higher mobility. 2. DSDV fails to converge at pause times less than 300 seconds. It is mainly because of a stale routing table entry. 3. TORA shows bad performance for 30 sources. It is due to congestion. 4. DSR shows better performance than AODV even in higher mobility. This is contradict with the result of another paper I have reviewed this week. 5. DSR has the least overhead and TORA has the most. AODV and DSDV cross as mobility changes. AODV is better in lower mobility and DSDV in higher. 6. DSR and AODV shows almost same shape of curves, because they both use on-demand and similar mechanisms. 7. The overhead of DSDV does not change with respect to mobility, because it is periodic routing protocol. But the overhead of the others decrease as mobility gets lower. 8. DSR and DSDV find the shortest path effectively. But AODV and TORA have a significant tail up to 4 or more hops longer. For 1 m/s; 1. DSDV converges in this case. 2. TORA shows a strange curve, which is not explained in this paper. 3. DSR and AODV show much lower protocol overhead than DSDV and TORA, due to their on-demand characteristic. Generally, DSR shows best performance and AODV is almost as good as DSR. DSDV and TORA are worse than the above two. However, this paper does not say this fact definitly, because this is just a case study. I think, the fairness is the most important in this kind of study, and in that sense, this paper did good work. They analyzed the protocols very carefully and implemented them in detail, even with help from the designers of each protocol. They also modeled lower layers accurately , which usually has not been done in other papers. The simulation settings and metrics were also well defined. Overally, this paper gives credibility to readers. I think, the simulation size is not so practical - 50 nodes, 1500mX300m space and 900 second simulation time. This might reflect some situations such as wireless notebook networks inside a library. But it is not a suitable model for situations such as battle field and sensor networks. In addition, DSR might have more overhead than the other protocols as the networks scale up. So, we need to be careful in comparing the protocols. This paper is excellent in comparing the protocols. But, it will be good to propose new ideas based on this study. I think there might have been following papers after this. From andre@CS.Cornell.EDU Tue Oct 23 12:46:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (postoffice.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.7]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9NGkJo17274 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from khaffy (d2192.dialup.cornell.edu [132.236.155.192]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02077; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andre by khaffy with local (Exim 3.31 #1 (Debian)) id 15vz6O-0000ST-00; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:48:08 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:48:08 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Allavena To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Subject: 615 PAPER 25 Message-ID: <20011023124808.B1588@khaffy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Allavena?= Perf Comparison of MultiHop Wireless Routing Protocol This paper presents a performance comparison of TORA, DSR, DSDV abd AODV. DSDV is implemented in 2 ways (sepending on when the triggered updates are done). The results are that TORA is not very effecient (huge control overhead), DSDV-SQ and TORA also have a low sucess delivery. AODV and DSR both perform pretty well, DSR having a lower routing overhead. The differences are always larger at high mobility rates. Note that ARP packets were not taken into account in the simulations. TORA has is own "ARP process" embeddeed in the protocol (the beaconning messages). I think this can make a difference at a large rate of setting up new routes, but not enough to change the result of the simulations. There is the right are the wrong way of doing DSR. (right= only the receipt of a new metric should cause a triggered update). The simultation didn't address the performances of TCP over those protocols. My guess is that there are relatively closely related to the performances of the protocols. -- André Allavena (local) 154 A Valentine Place École Centrale Paris (France) Ithaca NY 14850 USA Cornell University (NY) (permanent) 879 Route de Beausoleil PhD in Computer Science 06320 La Turbie FRANCE From samar@ece.cornell.edu Tue Oct 23 12:53:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from memphis.ece.cornell.edu (memphis.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.8]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9NGrro18438 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from descartes (descartes.ee.cornell.edu [128.84.236.60]) by memphis.ece.cornell.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9NGsON32030 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:54:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:53:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Prince Samar X-Sender: samar@descartes.ee.cornell.edu To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Subject: 615 PAPER 25 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 25) A Performance Comparison of Multi-hop Wireless Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols This paper presents a performance comparison, using simulations, of four ad hoc routing protocols: AODV, DSR, TORA and DSDV. The ns-2 network simulator has been used for the comparison, which the authors have extended to model the MAC and physical-layer behavior of IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN. The network consists of 50 mobile nodes spread over a rectangular area of 1500m x 300m. The nodes have a nominal transmission range of 250m. Nodes move in the model using the random way-point model characterized by pause time whenever a node reaches its destination location. The traffic loads are kept low (4 packets/s, 10-30 sources, 64 byte packets). Packet delivery fraction, number of routing packets and distribution of path lengths were used as performance metrics. The four protocols studied - DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV - show good performances in some cases yet have certain drawbacks in certain other cases. DSDV, which is a proactive protocol, has a very high packet delivery ratio in low mobility rate and small node velocities but it fails to converge as the node mobility increases. TORA seems to perform the worst of all the four protocols in the scenarios examined, due to congestion of the network caused by excessive routing traffic generated. Still, it manages to deliver over 90% of the packets in cases with 10-20 sources. The performance of DSR was found to be pretty impressive in all the cases examined. But the use of source routes tends to increase the amount of traffic (in bits) in the network. AODV was also found to perform well at all the rates of mobility and movement speeds, but was found to generate more routing overhead packets especially in cases of high mobility. This paper is one of the preliminary study of comparison of routing protocols for ad hoc networks and provides a lot of insights into their operation. However, I feel it has not been completely fair to DSDV (which is a proactive protocol and has the ability to provide routes instantaneously) and TORA (which provides multiple routes to the destination and has the ability to repair them on the fly). Apart from this, the small number of nodes (50) and the restricted network area (1500m x 300m) probably do not expose some of the other characteristics of these protocols. A study of the comparative scalability of these protocols would have been quite interesting. From jcb35@cornell.edu Tue Oct 23 14:45:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from travelers.mail.cornell.edu (travelers.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.13]) by sundial.cs.cornell.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/M-3.7) with ESMTP id f9NIjAo02015 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from travelers.mail.cornell.edu (travelers.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.13]) by travelers.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27495 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:45:06 -0400 (EDT) From: jcb35@cornell.edu Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:45:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: jcb35@travelers.mail.cornell.edu To: egs@CS.Cornell.EDU Subject: 615 paper 25 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This paper, entitled "A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols," extends a standard network simulator to look at a few ad hoc networking protocols on level playing field. The monarch group uses ns, a discrete event simulator, and modifies it to support multi-hope wireless networks. They add a wireless mac layer, arp, and link modeling to the simulator. Each node has a packet buffer and one network interface. The paper presents simulations for DSDV, TORA, DSR, and AODV. They use a 50 node, 1500m by 300m space and run the simulation for 900 seconds. While they admit this may not accurately reflect real-world conditions, this is at least a place to start comparisons between the protocols. In the simulation results, it is interesting to see that DSR and AODV-LL deliver a good number of the packets (95-100%) independently with the packet load. DSDV and TORA perform bad in high mobility situations compared to DSR and OADV, and TORA fails to deliver a high percentage of the packets sent with larger networks. Another interesting graph was the routing overhead in terms of packets and bytes sent over the network - obviously, dsr had fewer packets sent out than aodv, but aodv performed better when overhead was measured by bytes over the network, except with extremely high nodes. Overall, this paper was an interesting comparison between the protocols, and did not show any surprising results, although it did show that aodv has more network overhead at high mobility rates, which is a little counter intuitive.