Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results
Prince Samar <samar@ece.cornell.edu> Sat, 12 March 2005 22:35 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12841 for <manet-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:35:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DAFFk-0001DW-9N for manet-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:38:36 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DAF9b-0002vA-Ph; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:32:15 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DAF9Z-0002v5-LP for manet@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:32:14 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12769 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:32:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gehenna.ece.cornell.edu ([128.84.95.235]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DAFCs-0001A7-3a for manet@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:35:38 -0500
Received: from photon.ece.cornell.edu (photon.ece.cornell.edu [128.84.81.138]) by gehenna.ece.cornell.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214FF1E80A0; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:32:11 -0500
From: Prince Samar <samar@ece.cornell.edu>
To: Mehran Abolhasan <mehrana@uow.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results
In-Reply-To: <200503031520.56948.mehrana@uow.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503121823290.27457-100000@photon.ece.cornell.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86
Cc: glomosim-users-l@lists.ucla.edu, manet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: manet-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 057ebe9b96adec30a7efb2aeda4c26a4
Dear Mehran, Here are some of my thoughts on your unusual simulation results. - First a disclaimer: I am not familiar with the particular code for ZRP that you are using. So, I cannot comment on the accuracy of the implementation, or rule out bugs in the code. - We consider ZRP as more of a routing protocol *framework* than "yet another routing protocol out there." For a fair comparison of ZRP with AODV, the reactive component (IERP) should be derived from AODV. Similarly, when comparing ZRP with any other reactive/proactive routing protocol, the IERP/IARP should be based on that particular routing protocol. Please refer to [1] and [2] for guidelines to convert a reactive or proactive routing protocol into IERP or IARP. - At what network settings (node mobility, call rate etc.) did you compare the results? And at what values of the routing zone radius for ZRP? If the ratio of calling rate to mobility in your settings is very low, so that highly reactive routing is preferred [3], then probably zone radius of 1 (or, 0) would be the optimal setting for ZRP. This setting corresponds to pure reactive routing. Thus, the performance of ZRP would be at least be as good as that of AODV, given that AODV is used as the IERP. Also, clearly at this setting, the contribution of proactive (IARP) component to routing overhead will be zero. - Please make sure that the update interval for periodic routing updates by IARP is set appropriately in relation to the degree of mobility in your simulation. It sounds like the update interval is set for high mobility (and thus the high proactive overhead) as compared to the actual degree of mobility in your simulation settings. Please refer to [4] for a simple 'rule of thumb,' or [5] for a much more efficient scheme for this. - According to version 4 of the ZRP internet draft, a node does not need to maintain extended routing zones. Hence, the proactive component of the routing overhead is considerably reduced in version 4. - Independent Zone Routing (IZR), an enhancement to ZRP, is proposed in [3]. IZR enables each node to independently autoconfigure its own optimal zone radius depending on the network characteristics. Further, it provides each node the ability to adapt its zone radius over time and space as local network characteristics change. This significantly increases the efficiency and scalability of the framework. - You may find further simulation results on Zone Routing in [4] and [3]. [1] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince Samar, "The Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks," IETF Internet Draft, MANET WG, July 2002. [2] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince Samar, "The Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP) for Ad Hoc Networks," IETF Internet Draft, MANET WG, July 2002. [3] Prince Samar, Marc R. Pearlman, Zygmunt J. Haas, "Independent Zone Routing: An Adaptive Hybrid Routing Framework for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 12 , Issue 4, pp. 595-608, Aug. 2004. [4] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, "The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing Protocol," ACM/IEEE Transactions on Networking, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 427-438, August 2001. [5] Prince Samar, Stephen B. Wicker, "On the Behavior of Communication Links of a Node in a Multi-Hop Mobile Environment," in The Fifth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc) 2004, Tokyo, May 2004. Hope this helps. Regards, Prince ------------------- Prince Samar, Ph.D. Airvana Inc. +1-978-250-3115 On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Mehran Abolhasan wrote: : Hi All, : : Just wondering, has anyone simulated the ZRP routing protocol? i simulated the : ZRP protocol using the code provided for version 2 of protocol (see : http://people.ece.cornell.edu/~haas/wnl/wnlprojects.html). I got some strange : results, in particular throughput results far less scalable that AODV. I am : not sure if there is a bug in this code or are these the actual results. I : have also noticed that the IARP routing part produces a lot of overhead. Are : there any major changes between version 2 and version 4, which address : overhead issues? : : If anyone has has performed a simulation study of ZRP interms of looking at : packet delivery radio, throught, control overhead, could you please refer me : to your paper, results or simulation code. : : Kind regards, : : : _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
- [manet] ZRP simulation results Mehran Abolhasan
- Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results Prince Samar
- Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results mehrana
- Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results Prince Samar