Evaluating the Performance Impact of Protocol

Parameters on Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols

1,2,3
Saaidal R. Azzuhri,
1,2
Marius Portmann,
2
Wee Lum Tan
Email: {Saaidal.Azzuhri, Marius.Portmann, WeeLum.Tan}@nicta.com.au
1
School of ITEE, University of Queensland,
2
ational ICT Australia (ICTA),
3
University of Malaya


AbstractRouting protocols are used to discover, maintain,
and repair routes between pairs of nodes in wireless ad-hoc
networks. In order to handle dynamic network topologies
caused by node mobility, many routing protocols are designed
with multiple features and parameters to effectively discover
routes and to quickly detect link breaks. In this paper, we
compare the performance of four popular routing protocols,
AODV, DYMO, OLSR and HWMP, in terms of the Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR) metric, and analyse the various reasons
for packet loss in scenarios where nodes are mobile. We also
explore key protocol parameters and how their choice impacts
the protocol performance. Based on our simulation results, we
find that the way in which protocols detect link breaks is
critical for overall network performance. We therefore
specifically explore how the choice of link break detection
parameters can improve protocol performance. We further
explore other protocol variations and features and their
potential for performance improvements.

I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless ad-hoc networks such as wireless mesh
networks (WMN) and mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET)
have emerged as a key technology for an increasingly wide
range of applications, due to their attractive features such as
self-configuration and self-healing capabilities. One of the
main current research areas in wireless ad-hoc networks is
the development of routing protocols that are able to
perform well for a wide range of deployment scenarios. The
main functionalities of routing protocols are to establish,
maintain and repair routes. In recent years, a large number
of routing protocols for both WMN and MANET have been
developed [1-4]. These protocols can be roughly classified
as either reactive, proactive or hybrid (combination of both
or proactive and reactive). Out of the large number of
proposed protocols, we identify the following four as the
most relevant in terms of actual usage and in regards to
their significance in the context of relevant standardisation
efforts: OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing Protocol) [1],
AODV (Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector routing) [2],
DYMO
1
(Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol)
[3], and HWMP (Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol) [4]. The
first three protocols are developed within the IETF MANET

1
In the recently released latest IETF draft, DYMO is renamed to
AODVv2, due to the fact that it is seen as an evolution of AODV.
For the purpose of consistency with the existing literature and
clarity, we use the term DYMO in this paper.
working group, while HWMP is proposed in the context of
the IEEE 802.11s [4] standard.
In this paper, we perform an extensive simulation based
performance evaluation of these four key protocols in terms
of the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) metric, under a range of
network scenarios with varying degrees of mobility. We
further provide an analysis of the different reasons of packet
loss for the various protocols. While there has been a
significant amount of research undertaken that has
compared the performance of various MANET and WMN
routing protocols, e.g. [6-8], there has been no attempt to
directly compare the performance of these four protocols.
We also investigate the potential performance
improvement that can be gained by adapting critical
protocol mechanisms and parameters. From our simulation
results, we see that the link break detection mechanism
employed by the considered protocols is critical for overall
protocol performance. We therefore specifically
investigated how the choice of key parameters in the link
break detection mechanism affects performance.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In
Section II, we provide a brief overview of each of the four
considered protocols, while Section III presents and
discusses the results of our protocol performance
comparison. We explore the choice of key protocol
parameters of the selected protocols in Section IV, and
present our conclusions and ideas for future work in Section
V.
II. OVERVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. Ad-Hoc On-Demand Vector (AODV) Routing
AODV [2] is a popular reactive routing protocol used in
wireless ad-hoc networks. A route between a source node
and a destination node is found via the route discovery
process, in which the source node broadcasts a Route
Request (RREQ) message. Any node that receives the
RREQ message that has a route to the destination node or is
itself the destination node, will send back (via unicast) a
Route Reply (RREP) message to the source node. If a link
of an active route is broken, a Route Error (RERR) message
will be generated by the upstream node of the break, and
will be sent to all nodes utilizing the broken link, including
the source node. As a consequence, the source node will
initiate a new route discovery process. Alternatively, the
node upstream of the break may choose to locally repair the
link by broadcasting a new RREQ message.
978-1-4673-4410-4/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE
978-1-4673-4410-4/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE
To detect a link break, AODV by default uses periodic
Hello messages to monitor neighbour connectivity. Another
method to detect link breaks is to use Link-Layer (LL)
feedback [9]. If a packet fails to be transmitted after the
maximum number of MAC layer retries, a link broken
notification will be sent to the routing layer. In our
simulations, we include both versions of the protocols, i.e.
AODV-HELLO and AODV-LL for our comparison. For
our simulations, we use AODV-UU [10], the widely used
implementation of AODV by Uppsala University.

B. Dynamic MAET On-demand Routing (DYMO)
DYMO is similar to and a successor to the AODV
protocol. DYMO not only retains the core mechanisms of
AODV, but also provides some enhancements such as
support for Internet gateway scenarios and the path
accumulation feature. Instead of creating a routing table
entry only for the destination node as in AODV, the path
accumulation feature enables DYMO to discover routes to
each intermediate node on the path between the source and
destination nodes during the route discovery process, as
shown in Fig. 1.
For link break detection, DYMO can use both the Hello
messages and LL feedback mechanisms. However, unlike
AODV, DYMO does not support the local link repair
mechanism. For our evaluation, we use the DYMO-UM
implementation [11], which utilises the LL feedback
mechanism. DYMO also uses the term Routing Element
(RE) to refer to both the RREQ and RREP messages, as
defined in the draft [3].

C. Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)
OLSR is a table driven proactive routing protocol that is
widely used in wireless ad-hoc networks. Routing topology
information is disseminated via the use of Hello and
Topology Control (TC) messages. Hello messages
provide

information on link connectivity to one-hop and two-hop
neighbours. Based on this information, MultiPoint Relay
(MPR) nodes are selected from among the set of one-hop
neighbours. These MPR nodes will broadcast TC messages
that contain the networks topology information. TC
messages can only be forwarded by MPR nodes, thereby
significantly reducing OLSRs protocol overhead compared
to pure link state routing protocols. Information in the Hello
and TC messages are used to update other nodes of
topology changes (i.e. due to link breaks), which may
trigger a routing table update process. Apart from Hello
messages, OLSR can also use the LL feedback mechanism
for link break detection purposes [1]. In our evaluation, we
use the OLSR-UM [11] implementation.

D. Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol (HWMP)
HWMP is the proposed routing protocol for WLAN
mesh networking, developed within the context of the IEEE
802.11s standard. It is a hybrid routing protocol which has
both the reactive (basic) and proactive (extension)
components. HWMPs reactive component is based on
AODV. For the proactive component, any mesh node or
portal can be selected (usually a gateway) to periodically
broadcast control messages which are used to form a tree.
For routing metric, rather than using the traditional hop-
count metric, HWMP uses a more sophisticated routing
metric called Airtime Link Metric (ALM) which considers
the radio quality of the link. To detect a link break, HWMP
relies on the dedicated Peer-link Management Protocol
(PMP) [4].
The only publicly available implementation of HWMP
in the ns2 simulator is developed by the Institute for
Information Transmission Problem (IITP) [12]. However,
this implementation of HWMP is very basic and does not
contain the PMP link break detection mechanism. The only
way to recover from a link break is to wait for the routing
entry to timeout. Due to this drawback in the
implementation, HWMP is shown to perform badly in our
evaluation, as described in the next section.
In Table I, we provide a summary of the key properties
for each routing protocol that we described above.

Figure 1: Path information in AODV and DYMO

Table I: Routing Protocol Properties
Routing
Protocol
Type
Link
Break
Detection
Routing
Metric
Gateway
Support
AODV Reactive Hello/LL
Hop
Count
No
DYMO Reactive Hello/LL
Hop
Count
Yes
OLSR Proactive Hello/LL
Hop
Count
No
HWMP Hybrid PMP ALM Yes
III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
We compare the performance of the four routing
protocols in various scenarios incorporating different node
mobility and traffic load. Using the ns2 simulator, we
simulated 50 nodes moving randomly over a rectangular
area of size 1500m x 300m. The mobility model used is the
random-waypoint mobility model [7], in which nodes
randomly choose a destination to move to, with a node
speed that is uniformly distributed between [0,
MAX_SPEED]. Once the node reaches the destination, it
pauses for a while (PAUSE_TIME) before repeating the
whole process. Multiple traffic flows are generated between
randomly selected pairs of nodes.
In our simulations, we measure the performance of the
routing protocols in terms of the Packet Delivery Ratio
(PDR) metric. PDR is defined as the ratio of the total
number of data packets received at the destination node, to
the total number of data packets sent from the source node.
We also investigate in detail, the statistics and reason for
the data packet drops in each protocol. All protocols are
evaluated using the ns-2.34 simulator, with the exception of
HWMP which is evaluated with the ns-2.33 simulator.
Table II shows a summary of the relevant simulation
parameters. In our simulations, we perform 50 runs
(corresponding to 50 different mobility patterns) for each
pause time and the results are averaged over these runs. We
also report the 90% confidence interval in our results. In our
900s long simulations, traffic flows and data tracing are
only activated after 300s of warm-up time in order to ensure
that the simulated network has reached steady state.
Fig. 2 shows the PDR performance of the routing
protocols for a traffic load of 30 flows, and with a
maximum node speed of 20m/s. We have performed
simulations for different number of traffic flows and
maximum node speeds (as shown in Table II), and the PDR
performance results achieved in these scenarios are similar
to that shown in Fig. 2. For low pause time (which
corresponds to high node mobility), we can see a huge
difference between each protocol in terms of their PDR
performance. With more than 95% PDR, AODV-LL has the
best performance, followed by DYMO and AODV-
HELLO. We believe this is due to the AODV-LL and
DYMO protocols using the LL feedback mechanism, which
provides immediate notification of link breaks as soon as a
packet fails to be transmitted. On the other hand, in AODV-
HELLO, nodes have to wait for two consecutive Hello
messages to be lost (corresponding to two seconds) before it
can determine that the link is broken.
Table II: Simulation Parameters
Number of Flows 10, 20, 30 flows
Packet Size 64 bytes
Source rate (CBR traffic) 2 Kbits/s (4 packets/s)
802.11 MAC Tx. Rate 11Mbps
Transmission Range 250 metres
Propagation Model Two Ray Ground
MAX_SPEED 1m/s, 20m/s
PAUSE_TIME 0, 30, 60, 120, 300, 600, 900 sec

Figure 2: PDR vs. Pause Time

OLSR and HWMP perform poorly especially at higher
rates of mobility (corresponding to low pause time). At 0
sec pause time, OLSR and HWMP delivered only 66% and
55% of packets respectively. For OLSR, we believe that its
poor performance is due to its slow detection of link breaks.
The default OLSR implementation uses the Hello messages
mechanism to detect link break, which leads to a high delay
in the update of the routing table. For HWMP, as we
mentioned before, the ns2 implementation that we used in
our evaluations does not have a proper PMP link detection
mechanism and hence is unable to detect link breaks at all.
As a result, HWMP performs the worst among all the
protocols that we evaluated.
Fig. 2 also shows that as the pause time increases, the
difference in the PDR performance among the four
protocols decreases. This is due to the fact that lower node
mobility results in a lower number of links being broken,
and as such, the packets from the source nodes are able to
be successfully delivered to the destination nodes.
We next analyse the reasons for packet drop in each
routing protocol. We take a detailed look at the traces for
the 0 sec pause time scenario for each protocol since this
scenario shows the worst PDR performance. Based on the
results, we found that packet drop is due to several reasons,
namely MAC transmission retries exceeded (RET), no route
or invalid route error (NRTE), interface queue buffer
exceeded (IFQ), routing loop (LOOP) and Time-To-Live
(TTL) field reaching zero. A brief explanation on these
reasons of packet drop is given in Table III. Table IV shows
the packet drop statistics in detail for each protocol, where
the values shown are the average of the 50 simulation runs.
We see that AODV-LL has the lowest number of packet
drops. This corresponds to its high PDR performance
observed in Fig. 2. We also see that the LL feedback
mechanism clearly outperforms the Hello messages
mechanism in detecting link breaks in the AODV protocols.
This is because the number of RET and NRTE packet drops
in AODV-HELLO is almost 9 times higher than that of
AODV-LL.

0 200 400 600 800
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pause Time (sec)
P
D
R

(
%
)


AODV-HELLO
AODV-LL
DYMO
OLSR
HWMP
Table III: Packet Drop Reasons
Types of
Drop
Reason
RET
After 7 retransmission attempts without getting
an ACK reply at the MAC layer, the packet will
be dropped and the routing layer notified.
NRTE Packet drop due to no route available.
IFQ
Packet drop due to interface queue buffer
already full.
LOOP Packet drop due to routing loop.
TTL
Packet drop due to its time-to-live field reaching
zero.

Table IV: Packet Drop Statistics
Protocol RET RTE IFQ LOOP TTL
AODV-
HELLO
6131 440 0 0 0
AODV-
LL
712 53 0 0 0
DYMO 1092 3369 0 0 0
OLSR 19607 968 4 35 156
HWMP 28397 0 18 0 0

For the DYMO protocol, Table IV shows that it has the
highest number of NRTE packet drop compared to others.
We believe this is due to the path accumulation feature in
DYMO. The path accumulation feature enables routing
information of other participating node to be appended to a
Routing Element (RE) as it passes through those nodes on
their way to the source and destination nodes during a route
discovery process. This additional routing information can
be used to create entries in the routing tables of nodes that
process the RE message, and hence can later reduce the
number of route discovery attempts to those participating
nodes. However in a highly dynamic network environment,
these routing entries can easily become stale or out-dated.
This then causes packets to be dropped when the nodes
attempt to send packets over these invalid routes.
For the OLSR protocol, we see that the highest number
of packet drop is due to RET. As mentioned before, OLSR
depends on the Hello message mechanism to detect link
breaks, whereby if a node does not receive a Hello message
from its neighbour within a specific amount of time, then it
declares the link to its neighbour is broken and will then
invalidate the route entry corresponding to that neighbour.
Therefore in OLSR, even after a link break occurs, a node
may continue to send packets over the broken link until it
finally determines that the link is broken due to the missing
Hello message. This is the cause of the high number of RET
packet drops in OLSR. It is also interesting to note that
OLSR is the only routing protocol that has packet drops due
to LOOP and TTL. This is because OLSR (as a proactive
routing protocol) is known to be susceptible to create
routing loops in a network where nodes are highly mobile
[13].
As for the HWMP protocol, we can see that the highest
number of packet drop is also due to RET. As explained
before, the HWMP implementation used in our simulations
does not have a link break detection mechanism and solely
depends on its path timeout feature to remove stale routing
entries. Hence, nodes will keep on sending packets over an
invalid route until the route entry expires, thereby leading to
a high number of RET packet drops in the network.
IV. PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT
In this section, we adapt some parameters in the AODV-
HELLO and DYMO routing protocols to see the impact it
has on the network performance. For the OLSR protocol, a
comparison is made between the LL feedback and the Hello
messages mechanism to detect link breaks.
A. AODV-HELLO
For the AODV-HELLO protocol, we identified two
important parameters that control the determination of link
connectivity based on the periodic Hello messages, i.e.
HELLO_INTERVAL and ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS.
HELLO_INTERVAL is defined as the time interval
between consecutive transmissions of Hello messages,
while ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS is defined as the
number of periods of HELLO_INTERVAL that can lapse
without receiving a Hello message before a node decides
that the link to its neighbour is broken. In AODV [2], the
default value for HELLO_INTERVAL is one second while
the default value for ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS is two.
We define the parameter link break detection time (L
lb
) as
follows:
L
lb
= HELLO_ITERVAL x ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS
Therefore, a node will assume link connectivity to its
neighbour is lost if no Hello messages is received within the
time period L
lb
. In the following simulation, we vary the
two parameters according to Table V to produce different
values of L
lb
.
From Fig. 3, we see that there is a correlation between
the PDR metric and the L
lb
parameter in that the PDR
decreases for increasing values of L
lb
. This is easily
explained by the fact that increasing values of L
lb
means
that it would take longer for a node to detect link breaks,
and leads to lower PDR. However, for the two cases where
L
lb
= 1s, we see that the scenario with HELLO_INTERVAL
= 0.5s performs better than the scenario with
ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS = 1. This may be explained as
follows. The scenario where HELLO_INTERVAL = 0.5s
requires the loss of two consecutive Hello messages before
a link can be declared as broken. On the other hand, in the
scenario where ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS = 1, a loss of a
single Hello message will trigger a link break and the
invalidation of a route entry. We note that in our
simulations, there is a total of 30 traffic flows, and due to
the high probability of collisions with data packets in these
flows, a Hello message can easily be lost. Therefore, rather
than the Hello message being lost due to node mobility, it is
lost due to packet collision. As such, in the latter case, even
Table V: Varying AODV-HELLO Parameters
HELLO_ITERVAL ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS L
lb

0.5s 2 1s
1s 1 1s
1s 2 2s
1s 3 3s
2s 2 4s


Figure 3: PDR vs. Pause Time for variants of AODV-
HELLO

though the link is still existent, it is unnecessarily declared
broken and causes the route entry to be invalidated, leading
to a poorer PDR performance.

B. DYMO
For the DYMO protocol, we measure the impact of the
Path Accumulation (PA) feature and the RREQ_TRIES
parameter on the PDR performance. RREQ_TRIES is the
parameter that determines how many times a node will try
to discover a path to a destination node. In the ns2-
implementation of DYMO, the PA feature is enabled and
the RREQ_TRIES parameter is set to one. Therefore, a
node will only perform the route discovery process once,
and if unsuccessful, it will assume no route is available and
drop the data packets in its buffer. We evaluate four
scenarios in this simulation:
DYMO-PA: Default setting with path accumulation
enabled
DYMO-noPA: Default setting with path accumulation
disabled
DYMO-RREQ2-PA: RREQ_TRIES = 2 and with path
accumulation enabled
DYMO-RREQ2-noPA: RREQ_TRIES = 2 and with
path accumulation disabled

Figure 4: PDR vs. Pause Time for variants of DYMO

Table VI: Packet Drop and Routing Element (RE)
Statistics for DYMO
DYMO
Variants
RET RTE
RE
Msgs.
%
Rise
in RE
Msgs.
%
Drop
in
RTE
DYMO-PA 1092 3369 1825410 - -
DYMO-noPA 1145 2015 2093690 14.7% 40%
DYMO-
RREQ2-PA
1097 2971 1827100 0.09% 11.8%
DYMO-
RREQ2-noPA
1134 1176 2064130 13.1% 65%

From the results in Fig. 4, it is clear that by disabling the
PA feature in DYMO, DYMO-noPA achieves a PDR
performance that is about 2.5% better compared to DYMO-
PA in the case of 0 sec pause time. By increasing the value
of RREQ_TRIES to two, the PDR performance of DYMO-
RREQ2-noPA improved further by around 4% compared to
DYMO-PA. Table VI shows the packet drop and routing
overhead statistics, based on traces from the scenario with 0
sec pause time. We see that for the best setting of DYMO-
RREQ2-noPA, the number of NRTE packet drops has gone
down by 65% compared to the default setting of DYMO-
PA. However, there is a small trade-off when the PA feature
is disabled. The number of RE control messages increases
by around 13-14%. Without the PA feature, the nodes will
need to send more RE messages in order to discover the
routes to destination node, especially in a highly dynamic
network scenario. We believe that this is an acceptable
trade-off in order to achieve higher PDR performance.
From these results, we conclude that both the path
accumulation feature and the optimal RREQ_TRIES
parameter setting in the DYMO protocol are crucial to its
performance improvement, and must be administratively or
adaptively controlled by the protocol.
C. OLSR
The implementation of OLSR evaluated in Section III
(results shown in Fig. 2) uses the Hello messages
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
80
85
90
95
100
Pause Time (sec)
P
D
R

(
%
)

HELLO__INTERVAL = 0.5s, Llb = 1s
ALLOWED__HELLO__LOSS = 1, Llb = 1s
HELLO__INTERVAL = 1.0s, Llb = 2s
ALLOWED__HELLO__LOSS = 3, Llb = 3s
HELLO__INTERVAL = 2.0s, Llb = 4s
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
90
92
94
96
98
100
Pause Time (sec)
P
D
R

(
%
)

DYMO-PA
DYMO-noPA
DYMO-RREQ2-PA
DYMO-RREQ2-noPA
mechanism for link break detection (OLSR-HELLO). In
Fig. 5, we compare its performance with OLSR-LL, which
uses the LL feedback mechanism to detect link breaks. As
we can see, OLSR-LL easily outperforms OLSR-HELLO in
the high mobility scenarios. For example, in the 0 sec pause
time scenario, OLSR-LL achieves a PDR of 93%, which is
significantly higher than the PDR of 66% achieved by
OLSR-HELLO. The LL feedback mechanism enables a
node to immediately detect a link disconnection to its
neighbor node, hence allowing it to quickly update its
routing table. It also prevents the node from using the
disconnected link to send packets. Table VII shows the
statistics for the packet drop reasons in OLSR-HELLO and
OLSR-LL. We see that the number of packet drops due to
MAC layer callback (RET) decreases drastically for OLSR-
LL compared to OLSR-HELLO. This huge reduction in the
MAC layer callback packet drop contributes to a higher
PDR performance for OLSR-LL.

Figure 5: PDR vs. Pause Time for variants of OLSR

Table VII: Packet Drop Statistics for OLSR
OLSR
Variants RET RTE IFQ LOOP TTL
OLSR-
HELLO 19607 968 4 35 156
OLSR-LL 2828 932 0 32 235

V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have compared the performance of the
four most current and popular routing protocols in wireless
ad-hoc networks in terms of the PDR metric. Our results
show that the mechanism by which each protocol detects
link breaks is crucial in determining its overall network
performance. In particular, we see that the Link-Layer
feedback mechanism outperforms the periodic Hello
messages mechanism, especially in the AODV and OLSR
routing protocols. We also observe that by varying certain
protocol parameters in AODV-HELLO and DYMO, an
improved network performance can be obtained. However,
there are still more scenarios to investigate (e.g. different
node densities, mobility models and others) and more
protocol parameters that can be exploited and adapted for
performance improvement. This will be the focus of our
future work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
National ICT of Australia (NICTA) is funded by the
Australian Government as represented by the Department of
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy as
well as the Australian Research Council through the ICT
Centre of Excellence program.

REFERENCES
[1] T. Clausen, and P. Jacquet, Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
(OLSR), RFC 3626, 2003.
[2] C.E Perkins, E. Belding-Royer and S. Das, Ad Hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector (AODV) Routing RFC3561, 2003.
[3] I. Chakeres and C. Perkins, Dynamic MANET On Demand
(DYMO) Routing, draft-ietf-manet-dymo-17.txt, 2009.
[4] IEEE P802.11s/D1.06, draft amendment to standard IEEE
802.11: Mesh Networking. IEEE, May 2007.
[5] NS2 manual http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/ns_doc.pdf
[6] A. Boukerche, Performance evaluation of routing protocols for Ad
Hoc Networks, Mobile etworks and Applications,vol.9, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2004, pp.333-342
[7] Broch, D.A Maltz, D.B Johnson, Y.C Hu, and J. Jetcheva, A
Performance Comparison of Multihop Ad Hoc Network Routing
Protocols, ACM MobiCom, 1998.
[8] S.R Das, C.E. Perkins, and E.M. Royer, Performance Comparison of
Two On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Networks, IEEE
IFOCOM, 2000.
[9] I. Chakeres and E. Belding-Royer. "AODV Implementation Design
and Performance Evaluation," International Journal of Wireless and
Mobile Computing (IJWMC), Issue 2/3, 2005.
[10] http://core.it.uu.se/core/index.php/AODV-UU
[11] http://masimum.inf.um.es/
[12] https://forge.iitp.ru/ns2/hwmp/
[13] C. R. Aponte and S. Bohacek, OLSR and approximate distance
routing: Loops, black holes, and path stretch, 4
th
International
Conference on Communication Systems and etworks (COMSETS),
2012.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Pause Time (sec)
P
D
R

(
%
)

OLSR-HELLO
OLSR-LL