Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

422 Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor NetworksTABLE 8.3OEDSR Performance for Differing TopologiesTestThroughput[bps]E2E Delay[sec]Dropped[packets]Drop Rate[packets/sec]T1 1152.0 0.7030 181 1.9472T2 970.6 0.7030 3 0.0321T3 972.0 0.7030 6 0.0643T4 1035.5 0.7020 73 0.7811T5 1048.0 0.7020 83 0.8862T6 1047.3 0.7030 84 0.8968AVG 1037.6 0.7027 72 0.7680OEDSR network performance with varied packet size is shown. The networkperformance degrades as the packet size reduces and the numberof generated packets increases. Because the amount of bandwidth usedto transmit overhead bits increases at the expense of user data throughput,decreasing packet size increases overhead.Figure 8.53 illustrates throughput when an active RN is removed fromthe network and OEDSR reestablishes communication.At packet index 25, there is a drop in throughput when the RN isremoved. Subsequent reestablishment of an alternate route by OEDSR isdemonstrated because the throughput is restored. In comparison, staticrouting is not able to recover and would require manual interventioncausing continued network downtime.Static routing was compared to the OEDSR protocol. The route wasmanually configured to mimic a desired route. Experimental results showa similar throughput, E2E delay, and drop rate for the static routing andOEDSR. However, lack of a dynamic network discovery period isobserved during network initialization with static routing. In the case ofOEDSR, the setup time is dependent on the number of hops and the querytime for each hop. In contrast, static routing requires manual setup foreach topology change, which can take long periods of time. It is importantTABLE 8.4OEDSR Performance for Differing Packet SizePacket Size[bytes]Throughput[bps]E2E Delay[sec]Dropped[packets]Drop Rate[packets/sec]30 1075.7 0.2500 188 2.018150 1197.0 0.3440 167 2.799170 1096.1 0.5620 156 1.671590 1047.3 0.7030 84 0.8968