Subject: comparison of reactive and proactive protocols

From: "John Zavgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:14:55 -0500

Greetings:

 Thanks for the overwhelming response to the question that I posted recently. I received a large number of good comments and references, however, I'm a little concerned by the lack of analysis that compares the behavior of the "avant guarde" on demand, reactive, protocols with the more staid, proactive protocols, sometimes referred to as "table driven".  (Or should we call them "plug board" protocols!) There seems to be a lot of work done on comparing reactive protcols against each other, but very little or no work seems to be done makes comparisons across the two broad catagories of protocols: proactive versus reactive.

 Is there a "level playing field" analysis that compares the two approaches for identical scenarios: mobility, traffic loads, datalink interface, etc? I.e., one and only one independent variable: the routing protocol?

Thanks.

---

From: Rajendra Boppana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:41:25 -0600

Hi John and others,

My student and I have recently completed a simulation analysis of pro-active
vs. on-demand algorithms. Starting with DSDV, we developed an adaptive
distance vector (ADV) algorithm that adapts to traffic and mobility. We
compared ADV with AODV and DSR.

We considered 64-byte and 512-byte packets, node speeds chosen randomly from
[0,1) or [0,20) m/s, 1000m x 1000m square field and 1500m x 600m rectangular
fields, 50- and 100-node networks, and 20, 40, or 60 CBR connections. (Not
all combinations of parameters were simulated.)

We found that ADV gives lower latency (at almost all packet rates) and
substantially higher throughput before saturating. The results on delivery
rates are mixed: ADV has lower delivery rate when the number of connections
is low, but comparable or higher delivery rates when the number of
connections is high. ADV's routing overhead in packets/s, but high in
bits/s.  (All comparisons are w.r.t. AODV and DSR.)

We are currently polishing the write-up, and hope to finish soon. If there
is sufficient interest, I will be glad to provide the graphs.

Raj

-----Original Message-----
From: John Zavgren [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 6:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: comparison of reactive and proactive protocols

Greetings:

 Thanks for the overwhelming response to the question that I posted
recently. I received a large number of good comments and references,
however, I'm a little concerned by the lack of analysis that compares the
behavior of the "avant guarde" on demand, reactive, protocols with the more
staid, proactive protocols, sometimes referred to as "table driven".  (Or
should we call them "plug board" protocols!) There seems to be a lot of work
done on comparing reactive protcols against each other, but very little or
no work seems to be done makes comparisons across the two broad catagories
of protocols: proactive versus reactive.

 Is there a "level playing field" analysis that compares the two approaches
for identical scenarios: mobility, traffic loads, datalink interface, etc?
I.e., one and only one independent variable: the routing protocol?

Thanks.