AIRCC's International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Comparison of Congestion Control Variants of TCP in Reactive Routing Protocols Manet


Affiliations
1 Department of Computer Science, Arab American University, Jenin, Palestinian Territory, Occupied
 

A widely used TCP protocol is originally developed for wired networks. It has many variants to detect and control congestion in the network. However, Congestion control in all TCP variants does not show similar performance in MANET as in wired network because of the fault detection of congestion. In this paper, we do a performance comparison between TCP variants NEW RENO, SACK and Vegas in AODV and DSR reactive (On-Demand) routing protocols. Network traffic between nodes is provided by using File Transfer Protocol (FTP) application. Multiple scenarios are created and the average values of each performance parameter are used to evaluate the performance. The results show that TCP variants perform better in terms of throughput and Packet drop with DSR routing protocol compared with AODV routing protocol. TCP variants show a lower Jitter in AODV compared with DSR.

Keywords

MANET, Congestion Control, TCP Sack, TCP Vegas, TCP New Reno, AODV, DSR, Jitter, Throughput.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer & S. Das, (2003)” Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”, RFC 3561.

  • D. Johnson & D. Maltz, (2007) “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4”, RFC 4728.

  • M. Allman, V. Paxson & W. Stevens,(1999) “TCP Congestion Control”, RFC2581.

  • Tomar, Poonam, & Prashant Panse, (2011),"A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison of TCP Tahoe, TCP Reno and TCP Lite." International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies (IJCSIT), Vol. 2, No 5, pp2467-2471.

  • Yuvaraju B. N& Niranjan N Chiplunkar , (2010) “Scenario Based Performance Analysis of Variants of TCP using NS2-Simulator” International Journal of Advancements in Technology, Vol. 1, No 2, pp223-233.

  • Neha Arora,(2013) “Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols And TCP in MANETS”,International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology (IJETET) Vol. 02, No. 1, pp19-28.

  • Suneel Kumar Duvvuri & Dr. S. Rama Krishna (2016) “Performance Evaluation of TCP alternatives in MANET using Reactive Routing Protocol”, International Journal of Modern Computer Science (IJMCS) ,Vol. 4, No.4, pp35-39.

  • M.Jehan & Dr. G.Radhamani ,(2011)“Scalable TCP: Better Throughput in TCP Congestion Control Algorithms on MANETs”, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), pp14-18.

  • Iffat Syad, Sehrish Abrejo & Asma Ansari, (2013) “analysis of proactive and reactive MANET routing protocols under selected TCP variants”, International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing (IJASUC) Vol.4, No.4, pp17-26.

  • Hrituparna Paul , Anish Kumar Saha , Partha Pratim Deb & Partha Sarathi,(2012) “Comparative Analysis of Different TCP Variants in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network”, International Journal of Computer Applications Vol. 52, No.13, pp19-22.

  • Md Nazmul Islam Khan, Rashed Ahmed & Md. Tariq Aziz, (2012)“a survey of TCP Reno,New Reno and Sack over mobile ad-hoc network”, International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.3, No.1, pp49-63.

  • Andreas Hafslund', Lars Landmark2, Paal Engelstad3 and Frank Y. Liz (2004),”Testing and Analyzing TCP Performance in- a Wireless-Wired Mobile Ad Hoc Test Bed”, IEEE, International Workshop on Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks, pp115-119.

  • Alaa Seddik-GhalebYacine,Ghamri-Doudane & Sidi-Mohammed Senouci (2006), “Effect of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols on TCP Performance within MANETs”,IEEE,3rd Annual IEEE Communications Society on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, pp866-873.

  • Anuj K. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, & Anil K. Verma ,(2011)” Review of Various Routing Protocols for MANETs”,International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp251259.

  • S.Floyd & T. Henderson , (2004)” The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm”, RFC 3782.

  • S Floyd, (1996) “ TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options”, RFC 2018.


Abstract Views: 491

PDF Views: 206




  • A Comparison of Congestion Control Variants of TCP in Reactive Routing Protocols Manet

Abstract Views: 491  |  PDF Views: 206

Authors

Abu-Zant Mahmoud
Department of Computer Science, Arab American University, Jenin, Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Mohammad Hamarsheh
Department of Computer Science, Arab American University, Jenin, Palestinian Territory, Occupied

Abstract


A widely used TCP protocol is originally developed for wired networks. It has many variants to detect and control congestion in the network. However, Congestion control in all TCP variants does not show similar performance in MANET as in wired network because of the fault detection of congestion. In this paper, we do a performance comparison between TCP variants NEW RENO, SACK and Vegas in AODV and DSR reactive (On-Demand) routing protocols. Network traffic between nodes is provided by using File Transfer Protocol (FTP) application. Multiple scenarios are created and the average values of each performance parameter are used to evaluate the performance. The results show that TCP variants perform better in terms of throughput and Packet drop with DSR routing protocol compared with AODV routing protocol. TCP variants show a lower Jitter in AODV compared with DSR.

Keywords


MANET, Congestion Control, TCP Sack, TCP Vegas, TCP New Reno, AODV, DSR, Jitter, Throughput.

References