![Usage of MANET in the Military [6]. Disaster Relief Operation: The network infrastructure has often been ruined by natural disasters, such as flood, fire explosions, and earthquake. For this reason, [7, 8]. mentioned the need to have a temporary and fast deployment network such as MANET to provide assistance in the emergence/ rescue operations.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hussein-M-Haglan/publication/341784909/figure/fig1/AS:897431206113282@1590975681542/Figure-2-Usage-of-MANET-in-the-Military-6-Disaster-Relief-Operation-The-network_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Hussein M. Haglan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hussein M. Haglan on Jun 01, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
200
ARTÍCULO
ABSTRACT/ The Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) encompasses a cluster of portable points that forms an instantaneous network with no
stationary topology. Within the MANET, the nodes all freely and random move in- and outside the network, and such movements cause
continuous change to the network topology. For this reason, it is highly challenging to provide the route between the nodes. In MANETs, the
route between nodes are provided by several established routing protocols. Accordingly, this paper examined the impacts of node speed and
packet size on the performance of three routing protocols namely: Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV), Ad hoc On-demand
Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR). The average throughput (TP) and Average End-to-End (E2E) delay performance
metrics used to evaluate the routing protocols, while NS2 simulator was used for testing the routing protocols. The simulations results prove
the superiority of DSDV over AODV and DSR especially concerning average end-to-end delay with increase in the node speeds and packet size.
Keywords: Ad hoc network (MANET), DSDV, AODV, DSR, End-to-end delay, packet size, speed of nodes.
RESUMEN/ La red móvil ad hoc (MANET) abarca un grupo de puntos portátiles que forman una red instantánea sin topología estacionaria.
Dentro del MANET, todos los nodos se mueven libremente y al azar dentro y fuera de la red, y tales movimientos causan cambios continuos
en la topología de la red. Por esta razón, es muy difícil proporcionar la ruta entre los nodos. En MANET, la ruta entre nodos es proporcionada
por varios protocolos de enrutamiento establecidos. En consecuencia, este documento examinó los impactos de la velocidad de los nodos y
el tamaño del paquete en el rendimiento de tres protocolos de enrutamiento, a saber: Vector de distancia secuenciada por destino (DSDV),
Vector de distancia bajo demanda ad hoc (AODV) y Enrutamiento de origen dinámico (DSR). El rendimiento promedio (TP) y las métricas de
rendimiento promedio de extremo a extremo (E2E) se usaron para evaluar los protocolos de enrutamiento, mientras que el simulador NS2 se
usó para probar los protocolos de enrutamiento. Los resultados de las simulaciones demuestran la superioridad de DSDV sobre A ODV y DSR,
especialmente en lo que respecta al retraso promedio de extremo a extremo con el aumento de las velocidades de los nodos y el tamaño del
paquete.
Palabras clave: red ad hoc (MANET), DSDV, AODV, DSR, retraso de extremo a extremo, tamaño de paquete, velocidad de los nodos
1. Introduction
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) which
comprises a set of mobile nodes, is a
commonly used form of wireless ad-hoc
networks. As MANET does not require any
permanent infrastructure such as a base
station or access point, it is generally used for
communication in the absence of common
communications infrastructures. As reported in
several past studies [1, 2]. MANET is
appropriate for emergence response, military
applications, virtual classrooms, just to name
a few. The mechanism of MANET is as shown
in Figure 1.
Akeel Shaker Mahmoud
Centro de Computación, Universidad de
Anbar, Iraq
Atheer Bassel
Centro de Computación, Universidad de
Anbar, Iraq
Hussein M. Haglan
Centro de Computación, Universidad de
Anbar, Iraq
Effect of Node Speed and Packet Size on the
Performance of the Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc
Network (MANET)
Efecto de la velocidad del nodo y el tamaño del paquete en el
rendimiento del Protocolos de enrutamiento en la red móvil
ad-hoc (MANET)
Recepción/ 27 junio 2019
Aceptación/ 25 agosto 2019
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
201
ARTÍCULO
Figure (1): Mobile ad hoc network [2].
In MANET, its routing protocols come in three
main types namely: proactive protocol,
reactive protocol, and hybrid routing protocol.
Accordingly, proactive routing protocols
encompasses familiar and accessible protocols
when delivery of a packet has to be made to
the destination, while routing protocols (on-
demand driven routing protocols) does not
have continuously available route. On the
other hand, hybrid routing protocols
encompass the advantages of both proactive
and reactive routing protocols. As explained in
[3, 4]. hybrid routing protocols employ
proactive mechanism for a node inside the
transmission range, whereas reactive
mechanism is employed for a node outside the
transmission range.
Routing protocols in MANET environment have
been evaluated and compared in many
studies. Among these include Dynamic Ad-Hoc
On-Demand Multi-Path Distance Vector
(AOMDV), Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
(AODV), and Source Routing (DSR), Optimized
Link State Routing (OLSR). In some studies,
only one variable or parameter of the network
was studied, while in other studies, several
variables were mapped as the primary factors
of the evaluation tests. Besides that, diverse
arrangements of assessment metrics, setting
of network, as well as simulation platforms
were taken into account. This allows the
examination of their advantage in the network
and its surroundings in order that the
comparative values and their aptness and
accurateness can be ascertained [5, 6].
In the present paper, MANET’s running speed
and packet size on the performance of three
routing protocols namely DSDV, AODV and
DSR are examined. The rationale underpinning
this study is that, for on-demand routing,
areas with slow changes in connection
demonstrate more appropriateness. Finally,
with these two protocols combined, the hybrid
type of routing protocol generates better
performance.
There are four sections following this section
(Section I). In detail, Section II reviews the
protocols related to this study. This is followed
by a section (Section III) that presents the
materials and the method proposed for this
research. Next, Section IV discusses the
parameters of simulation and the analysis of
experimental results. Section V concludes this
study, while also discussing the avenues for
future work.
2. Related work
Past works on the routing protocols in MANETs
are presented in this section. In this regard,
among the common ones from the network
layer include DSDV, AODV and DSR. As
mentioned earlier, the routing protocols have
been employed in many applications. Some
are as discussed below.
Military Applications: Among the
military needs is battlefield survivability,
and the need for battlefield survivability
can indeed be fulfilled using MANET.
Notably, in a battlefield, it may not be
possible to furnish a communication link
between soldiers. Hence, to enable the
communication, a MANET can be formed
using devices of mobile wireless carried by
soldiers [7]. Accordingly, a MANET
application in the Military is illustrated in
Figure 2.
Figure (2): Usage of MANET in the Military [6].
Disaster Relief Operation: The network
infrastructure has often been ruined by
natural disasters, such as flood, fire
explosions, and earthquake. For this
reason, [7, 8]. mentioned the need to
have a temporary and fast deployment
network such as MANET to provide
assistance in the emergence/ rescue
operations.
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
202
ARTÍCULO
Education: For education institutions
such as universities, the use of MANET
facilitates the execution of the education
and other university related activities such
as virtual classrooms, and ad-hoc
communications during lectures or
meeting [9].
Additionally, many studies made comparison
between the performance of many routing
protocols and explored various criteria of
performance under countless of environments
of simulation in order that different outcomes
for the routing protocols can be produced.
In [5, 10] the authors assessed as well as
compared the performance of Ad-Hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and
Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) which are
both routing protocols, using the environment
of MANET. In examining the routing protocols
performance, simulation was employed by the
authors using the variables of the nodes
number and the size of network. With the
application of the hybrid protocol, the authors
integrated the two components of on-demand
(reactive) and table-driven (proactive)
protocols into one system of routing.
Accordingly, for table driven routing, areas
with slow changes of connection appear to be
more fitting, whereas on-demand routing is
suitable for areas with high-speed mobility.
The hybrid type which merges the two
protocols has improved the performance. The
author then employed the NS-2.33 tool in
examining the simulation, and from the
results, the authors concluded that the number
of nodes and network size considerably affect
the performance of the routing protocols. Also,
in both scenarios, AODV appears to supersede
OLSR in in terms of performance.
In [11, 12], it was suggested that all mobile
nodes show the function as both a host and a
router, denoting the ability in communicating
with other nodes. As can be concluded from
the experimental results, the protocols were all
unable to optimally function in all the selected
metrics. Furthermore, in the comparison of
three protocols (DSR, AODV and DSDV), the
authors found DSDV to show the best
performance particularly with respect to the
use of energy in the application of constant
rate.
The works of [13, 14] involved the calculation
and analysis of three routing protocols which
are: DSDV, DSR and AODV. Taking into
account the three parameters’ throughput,
packet delivery ratio and end to end delay,
simulations were carried out, and the results
obtained differ for each work. In particular, in
one work, DSR routing protocol was found to
outperform the rest, while in another, AODV
routing protocol was found to show the best
performance
Finally, to conclude this section, analyzed the
algorithms that most of scientist and
researchers are interested in, trying to study
them in details. These researchers in the
integration features of the solution of various
protocols and create a successful MANETs. In
addition, the hybrid type improves the
performance by combining these two or more
protocols.
3. The Materials and the proposed
Method
The present section presents the proposed
method, the simulation environment
(parameters), as well as the identification of
performance metrics grounded upon the
routing protocols.
3.1 Simulation environment
The DSDV, AODV and DSR routing protocols
were evaluated performance-wise, with the
application of two distinctive scenarios. In each
scenario, there are several parameters were
fixed except node speed in scenario 1 was
varied and packet size in scenario 2 was
varied. Accordingly, the first scenario
encompasses nodes of diverse speeds (5, 10,
15, and 20 m/s) while packet size was fixed to
512 bytes. In the second scenario
encompasses diverse packet sizes (128, 256,
512, and 1024 bytes) while node speed was
fixed 20 m/s. Table 1 presents the parameters
for both scenarios.
Table (1): Simulation parameters for scenarios 1&2
Simulation
parameters
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Simulator
NS2
NS2
Routing protocol
DSDV, AODV & DSR
DSDV, AODV & DSR
Node Speed
5, 10, 15 & 20 m/s
20 m/s
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
203
ARTÍCULO
Packet Size
512 bytes
128, 256, 512 & 1024
bytes
Number of Nodes
50 Nodes
50 Nodes
Simulation Time
50 s
50 s
Network area size
1670 m × 970 m
1670 m × 970 m
Transmission Range
250 m
250 m
MAC layer
IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.11
Antenna
Antenna Type Omni
Antenna
Antenna Type Omni
Antenna
Traffic Type
Constant bitrate (CBR)
Constant bitrate (CBR)
Mobility Model
Random waypoint
Random waypoint
3.2 Identification of Performance Metrics
The quantitative assessment of MANET routing
protocols involves the use of performance
metrics, and this type of measurement is
crucial in the assessment of network
performance or even in the assessment
comparison of diverse routing protocols.
Accordingly, in the evaluation of performance
of DSDV, AODV and DSR routing protocols, the
present study employs two performance
metrics, as briefly discussed below:
a) Average Throughput (TP): TP denotes
the average ratio of obtained successful
data packets to the overall length of
simulation time. The measurement of
throughput is in kilobits per second
(kbits/sec), and it measures the routing
protocol’s effectiveness and efficiency in
data packets reception by the
destinations. Throughput is computed
using equation (1) below:
( )
Packets received by destination
Throughput TP kbps simulation time
(1)
b) Average End-to-End Delay (E2E
delay): E2E Delay encompasses the
average time to efficaciously broadcast
the data packet from the source to
destination via the network. This metric
contains all conceivable delays including
propagation, queuing at the interface
queue, buffering during discovery latency
of the route, delay of retransmission at the
MAC and time of the transmission delay.
The computation of the average E2E delay
is based on the following equation:
From the above equation: where i is the packet
counter, then n total number for data packets,
is the time of received data packet, is the
time of sent data packet.
4. Simulation and Results Analysis
In the stage of analysis, AWK program is
employed. This program employs the trace file
generated from simulation as an input, and
from the input, the performance values are
evaluated. In this research, evaluation is a
crucial part. In this regard, Throughput and
Average End-to-End delay (E2E) will be
measured and assessed. This transformation
will facilitate analysis. Lastly, the three
protocols will be analysed, with the use of the
mobility factor, and the analysis is performed
using the results obtained from the simulations
with different scenarios of mobility in Network
Simulator NS2 version 2.28, this results
changed into a graph. Comparative
parameters are used.
As can be observed in Figure 3, two input files
are required in NS2 simulation. These files
include the scenario files and the
communication file in which the traffic type
was produced. The use of both types of files in
the simulation results in the output called the
trace file. In the analysis of the performance
metrics, AWK programming is operated on the
trace file.
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
204
ARTÍCULO
Figure (3): Simulation Architecture on NS2
4.1 Performance Analysis for Scenario 1.
Effects of the Node Speed
The present subsection presents the
performance metrics and implementation
specifics of DSDV, AODV and DSR. For the
evaluation of the performance of network,
many performances metrics can be used, and
these include Average Throughput and
Average end to-end delay, which are also
employed in the present study for network
simulation.
a) Average Throughput
In this type of performance metric, the
measured number of packets or data is
efficaciously transmitted to their ultimate
destination using a communication link for
each unit time. The measurement is in bits per
second (bit/s or bps). The effects of the node
speed on the average throughput can be
viewed in Table (2), and the obtained
outcomes were from scenario 1.
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
205
ARTÍCULO
Table 2 Data Set of the Average Throughput
Node Speed
DSDV
AODV
DSR
5
51.896
51.9924
50.0659
10
51.8962
51.9988
49.921
15
47.8422
52.1248
49.9845
20
51.8961
52.1322
50.0232
Figure (4) Average Throughput in DSDV,
AODV, and DSR via Node Speed
The average throughputs for DSDV, AODV, and
DSR routing Protocols are displayed in Figure
4. In view of that, throughput which is
measured in kilobits per second (Kbits/sec),
encompasses the quantity of data per unit time
conveyed from one node to another by way of
communication link. For routing protocols,
bigger throughput is necessary, in order to
assure efficiency. Furthermore, routing
Protocols highlighted in the present study have
different throughputs, with the number of node
speeds increasing in the network. In this
regard, when the node speeds are 5, 10, 15
and 20 m/s, DSDV went down to 51.8961 from
51.896, AODV went down to 52.1322 from
51.9924, and DSR went up to 50.0232 from
50.0659. As can be construed from the results,
AODV appears to be superior to the two routing
protocols in terms of average throughput,
owing to the fact that it evades loop and routes
newness. In addition to that, both DSDV and
DSR have varying node speed and the packet
drop ratio rises.
b) Average End-to-End Delay
This type of performance metric measures the
average time required in routing a data packet
to the sink from the source node. Accordingly,
the impacts of dataset of the node speed on
the average end-to-end delay can be viewed in
Table (3), and the obtained outcomes were
from scenario 1.
Table 3 Data Set of the Average End-to-End
Delay
Node Speed
DSDV
AODV
DSR
5
5.9
76.52
47.62
10
5.89
76.5
56.47
15
5.9
78.65
48.57
20
5.9
87.26
46.64
Figure (5): End-to-end Delay in DSDV, AODV,
and DSR via Node Speed
For DSDV, AODV and DSR routing Protocols,
the variations of the average end-to-end delay
are displayed in Figure 5. In essence, Average
end-to-end delay encompasses the average
time spent in successfully broadcasting the
data packet to the destination from source
through the network. The measurement used
is milliseconds (ms). For routing protocols to
be efficient, they need to have smaller average
end-to-end delay. Meanwhile, the employed
routing Protocols in this study have different
end-to-end delay with node speeds on the
increase in the network. In this regard, when
the node speeds are 5, 10, 15 and 20 m/s,
DSDV went down to 5.9 from 5.9, AODV went
down to 87.26 from 76.52, and DSR went up
to 46.64 from 47.62. As demonstrated by the
simulation outcomes, DSDV supersedes AODV
and DSR with regards to average end-to-end
delay.
4.2 Performance Analysis for Scenario 2.
Effects of the Packet Size
The present subsection presents the
performance metrics as well as the particulars
of implementation of DSDV, AODV and DSR.
Network performance can be assessed using
performances metrics including Average
Throughput and Average end to-end delay,
which are also employed in this study.
Additionally, this study will compute the ratio
of packet delivery of merged protocols of
DSDV, AODV and DSR.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
510 15 20
Average Throughput
(kbps)
Node Speed
DSDV
AODV
DSR
510 15 20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Node Speed
Average e2e Delay
DSDV
AODV
DSR
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
206
ARTÍCULO
a) Average Throughput
The effects of dataset of the packet size on the
average throughput are displayed in Table (4)
and the obtained outcomes were from scenario
2.
Table 4 Data Set of the Average Throughput
Packet
Size
DSDV
AODV
DSR
128
14.444
14.5101
12.4972
256
26.929
27.0231
25.0304
512
51.896
52.1322
50.0232
1024
103.381
89.3012
96.2323
Figure 6 Average Throughputs in DSDV, AODV,
and DSR via Packet Size
The average throughputs for DSDV, AODV, and
DSR routing Protocols are displayed in Figure
6. Throughput which is gauged in kilobits per
second (Kbits/sec) encompasses the amount
of data for each unit time conveyed from one
node to another by way of communication link.
In order to be efficient, routing protocols need
to have bigger throughput. The employed
routing Protocols in this study different
throughputs with packet sizes increasing in the
network. In this regard, when the packet sizes
are 128, 256, 512 and 1024 bytes, DSDV went
down to 103.381from 14.444, AODV went
down to 89.3012 from 14.5101, while DSR
went up to 96.2323 from 12.4972. As can be
observed from the obtained results, when the
packet size is increased, DSDV shows
superiority with respect to the average
throughput as opposed to AODV and DSR.
b) Average End-to-End Delay
The effects of dataset of the packet size on the
average end-to-end delay are displayed in
Table 5 and the obtained outcomes were from
scenario 2.
Table (5): Data Set of the Average End-to-End
Delay
Packet Size
DSDV
AODV
DSR
128
2.82
57.19
31.4
256
3.85
65.21
39.77
512
5.9
90.02
50.98
1024
10.72
157.58
130.86
Figure (7): Average End-to-End Delay in
DSDV, AODV, and DSR via Packet Size
The average end-to-end delay for DSDV,
AODV, and DSR routing Protocols are displayed
in Figure 7. Average end-to-end delay which is
gauged in milliseconds (ms), encompasses the
average time spent in efficaciously
broadcasting the data packet to destination
from source by way of the network. In order to
be efficient, routing protocols need to have
smaller value of average end-to-end delay.
The employed routing Protocols in this study
have different end-to-end delay with packet
sizes increasing in the network. In this regard,
when the packet sizes are 128, 256, 512 and
1024 bytes, DSDV went down to 10.72 from
2.82, AODV went down to 157.58 from 57.19,
while DSR went up to 130.86 from 31.4. As can
be observed from the simulations results, the
AODV protocol is better than that of AODV and
DSR with respect to average end-to-end delay
with larger Packet Size.
To summarize all the final performances result,
we show the three protocols are evaluated and
comparison based on throughput (TP) and
average end-to-end-delay (E2E). This scenario
has different speeds of 5, 10. 15, and 20 m/s,
and, has different packet sizes as 128, 256,
512, and 1024 bytes. In addition, the results
show that the DSDV is superior to another
protocols namely AODV and DSR in most
cases. This is mainly attributed to the DSDV
protocol guarantees loop free paths and it has
extra traffic can be avoided with incremental
updates, which leads to a slight delay in
delivery. DSDV not maintain multiple paths to
destination. A good practice in DSDV is to
maintain best paths to a destination only. The
simulation results also show that the rise in the
128 256 512 1024
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Paccket Size
Average e2e Delay
DSDV
AODV
DSR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
128 256 512 1024
Average Throughput
Packet Size
DSDV
AODV
DSR
REVISTA AUS 26-2 / Akeel Shaker Mahmoud et al.,/ DOI:10.4206/aus.2019.n26.2.26/ www.ausrevista.com/ editor@ausrevista.com
207
ARTÍCULO
node speed affects the average End-to-End
Delay, while the increase in packet size has a
large effect on throughput and end-to-end
delay.
5. Conclusions
The present study briefly demonstrated the
impacts of node speed and packet size on the
performance of the routing protocols of DSDV,
AODV and DSR in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network
(MANET). In evaluating the routing protocols,
the average throughput (TP) and End-to-End
(E2E) delay was used as the performance
metrics with the application of NS2 simulator.
The simulation outcomes demonstrate that the
increase in the speed of nodes does not cause
the E2E delay to significantly impact the
performance of the routing protocols.
Contrariwise, the increase in packet size
significantly affects AODV and DSR routing
protocols in terms of performance. In other
words, as opposed to the AODV and DSR
routing protocols, DSDV is superior in regards
to average end-to-end delay with increase in
the node speeds and packet size. Such results
are linked to the fact that the protocol of DSDV
assures paths with no loop. Also, with
incremental updates, DSDV can prevent
additional traffic. Furthermore, in routing
table, only best paths to a destination are
preserved by DSDV. However, this causes
minor delivery interruption. The forthcoming
work will employ particle swarm algorithm
(PSO) in the design and development of our
own routing protocol. Arguably, the protocol
will supersede the available counterparts
especially with respect to routing performance,
end-to-end delay, packet overhead and
throughput.
References
[1] Zhao, Xibin, et al, Optimizing communication
in mobile ad hoc network clustering, Computers
in industry, 64.7 (2013) 849-853.
[2] Hong, Xiaoyan, Kaixin Xu, and Mario Gerla,
Scalable routing protocols for mobile ad hoc
networks, IEEE network 16.4 (2002) 11-21.
[3] Raut, S. H., & Ambulgekar, H. P. Proactive
and reactive routing protocols in multihop mobile
ad hoc network, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science and
Software Engineering, 3.4 (2013)., 152-157.
[4] Abolhasan, Mehran, Tadeusz Wysocki, and
Eryk Dutkiewicz, A review of routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks, Ad hoc networks, 2.1
(2004) 1-22.
[5] Jubair, M., Khaleefah, S., Mostafa, S., &
Mustapha, A. Performance Evaluation of AODV
and OLSR Routing Protocols in MANET
Environment, International Journal on Advanced
Science, Engineering and Information
Technology (2018).
[6] Sharef, B. T., Alsaqour, R. A., & Ismail.
Vehicular communication ad hoc routing
protocols: A survey, Journal of network and
computer applications, 40 (2014) 363-396.
[7] Tareq, M., Alsaqour, R., Abdelhaq, M., &
Uddin, M. Mobile Ad Hoc Network Energy Cost
Algorithm Based on Artificial Bee
Colony, Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, 2017.
[8] Ahmed, A., Khan, F., Rahatullah, G., & Ali, Y.
The role of mobile ad-hoc networking for
pervasive computing. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 3.8
(2012) 19–24.
[9] Taha, A., Alsaqour, R., Uddin, M., Abdelhaq,
M., & Saba, T. Energy Efficient multIpath routing
protocol for Mobile ad-hoc Network using the
Fitness Function. IEEE Access, 5 (2017) 10369-
10381.
[10] Tareq, M., Alsaqour, R., Abdelhaq, M., &
Uddin, M. Mobile Ad Hoc Network Energy Cost
Algorithm Based on Artificial Bee
Colony, Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, 2017.
[11] Razouqi, Q., Boushehri, A., & Gaballah.
Performance analysis for diverse simulation
scenarios for DSDV, DSR and AODV MANET
routing protocols, International Computer
Engineering Conference (ICENCO). IEEE, 2017.
p. 30-35.
[12] Taha, A., Alsaqour, R., Uddin, M., Abdelhaq,
M., & Saba, T. Energy Efficient multIpath routing
protocol for Mobile ad-hoc Network using the
Fitness Function. IEEE Access, 5 (2017) 10369-
10381.
[13]Tareq, M., Alsaqour, R., Abdelhaq, M., &
Uddin, M. Mobile Ad Hoc Network Energy Cost
Algorithm Based on Artificial Bee Colony,
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing,
2017..
[14] Sureshbhai, T. H., Mahajan, M., & Rai, M. K.
An investigational analysis of DSDV, AODV and
DSR routing protocols in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,
International Conference on Intelligent Circuits
and Systems (ICICS), IEEE, 2018. p. 281-285.
