Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results

[[e-mail]]

Dear Price Samar,

The code i used is based on the second internet draft for ZRP. 
I patched this code in glomosim and observed the throughput and 
control overheads for 50 and 100 nodes with 10 and 20 CBR
sources transmitting at 4 packet per second. The mobility
level was varied between 0 and 20 m/s, with 0 pause time.
Under both scenarios, AODV produced over 90% throughput.
However, ZRP produced less than 70%. I also tried with lower
levels of mobility, however, the results were not
significantly better for ZRP. I also varied the update
intervals for the Inrazone updates, and tried different values
for zone radius (e.g. Zone radius values of 1, 2 and 3.

One observation i made was that the IARP component produces 
a lot of overhead, due to frequent link failure detection and
changes in the Inrazone, and packets where being dropped due
to buffer overflows. So i suppose that the Proactive component
of IARP should be improved. I am not sure if improvements to
this where made in the version 3 and 4 of ZRP??

I understand that ZRP is viewed as a framework, and
improvements can be made in both the proactive and reactive 
components. However, for majority of Hybrid routing protocols
proposed to date, ZRP is also seen as a performance comparison
bench mark, and hence, it is often treated as a routing
protocol than a framework.   


Kind regards,
Mehran


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:32:11 -0500 (EST)
>From: Prince Samar <[e-mail]>  
>Subject: Re: [manet] ZRP simulation results  
>To: Mehran Abolhasan <[e-mail]>
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
>
>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.
>[phone]
>
>
>
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Mehran Abolhasan 
B.E Computer, PhD
Research Fellow 
Telecommunications and IT Research Institute (TITR)
University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, NSW 2522, Australia
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.titr.uow.edu.au/~mehran
Email 1: [e-mail]
Email 2: [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet