This paper provides a deep evaluation of the energy consumption of routing protocols. The evaluation is done along with other metrics such as throughput and packet delivery ratio (PDR). We introduce two more metrics t...This paper provides a deep evaluation of the energy consumption of routing protocols. The evaluation is done along with other metrics such as throughput and packet delivery ratio (PDR). We introduce two more metrics to capture the efficiency of the energy consumption: e-throughput and e-PDR. Both are ratios in relation to the energy. We consider the three low layers of the stack. Three types of routing protocols are used: proactive, reactive, and hybrid. At the MAC and PHY layer, three radio types are considered: 802.11a/b/g. Finally, the number of nodes is varying in random topologies, with nodes being static or mobile. Simulations are conducted using NS3. The parameters of a real network interface card are used. From the results in mobile position scenarios, no protocol is outperforming the others;even if OLSR has the lowest energy consumption, most of the time. However, in constant position scenarios, AODV consumed a lower energy, apart from the scenarios using the 802.11a standard where HWMP energy consumption is the lowest. Regarding the energy efficiency, AODV protocols provided the best e-throughput and OLSR the best e-PDR in overall configurations. A framework for selecting energy-efficient routing protocol depending on network characteristics is proposed at the end.展开更多
文摘This paper provides a deep evaluation of the energy consumption of routing protocols. The evaluation is done along with other metrics such as throughput and packet delivery ratio (PDR). We introduce two more metrics to capture the efficiency of the energy consumption: e-throughput and e-PDR. Both are ratios in relation to the energy. We consider the three low layers of the stack. Three types of routing protocols are used: proactive, reactive, and hybrid. At the MAC and PHY layer, three radio types are considered: 802.11a/b/g. Finally, the number of nodes is varying in random topologies, with nodes being static or mobile. Simulations are conducted using NS3. The parameters of a real network interface card are used. From the results in mobile position scenarios, no protocol is outperforming the others;even if OLSR has the lowest energy consumption, most of the time. However, in constant position scenarios, AODV consumed a lower energy, apart from the scenarios using the 802.11a standard where HWMP energy consumption is the lowest. Regarding the energy efficiency, AODV protocols provided the best e-throughput and OLSR the best e-PDR in overall configurations. A framework for selecting energy-efficient routing protocol depending on network characteristics is proposed at the end.
