Md. Khalid Mahbub Khan, Kawsaruzzaman Kawsaruzzaman, Md. Mahbubur Rahman, Al Imtiaz
{"title":"The Impact of Node Density and Buffer Size on DTN Routing Protocols with Energy Efficiency","authors":"Md. Khalid Mahbub Khan, Kawsaruzzaman Kawsaruzzaman, Md. Mahbubur Rahman, Al Imtiaz","doi":"10.24018/ejers.2020.5.9.2104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) architecture comprises of portable devices known as nodes, considered a resource-limited networking system. These nodes in DTN utilize the ‘Store Carry and Forward’ approach to route data since the end to end connections are absent here due to a large number of constant intermittent connectivity. The energy quantity of nodes is restricted because limited-lifetime rechargeable batteries drive them. Accordingly, energy is an essential resource in DTN scenarios. For efficient network performance, including proper energy usage, nodes need to expense a minimum amount of energy. For this reason, it is essential to select an energy-efficient forwarding strategy and exhibit excellent performance among existent forwarding approaches in the DTN environment for routing messages effectively. In this paper, we have studied the energy efficiency of conventional DTN routing protocols: Epidemic, Spray and Wait, Spray and Focus, MaxProp, and PRoPHET on the impact of varying both buffer size and node density. We analyzed their energy consumption and compared their performance based on five performance metrics: average remaining energy, delivery ratio, average delay, transmission cost, and average hop count, respectively. Using ONE simulator, we performed a simulation with varying node density (while buffer size is fixed) and varying buffer size (while node density is fixed). From the outcomes of simulation, we found that Spray and Wait are the most energy-efficient DTN routing protocols. On the contrary, Spray and Focus possessed as the best performer in terms of average hop count, average delay, delivery ratio and transmission cost among conventional DTN routing protocols.","PeriodicalId":12029,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Engineering Research and Science","volume":"5 1","pages":"1054-1061"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Engineering Research and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2020.5.9.2104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) architecture comprises of portable devices known as nodes, considered a resource-limited networking system. These nodes in DTN utilize the ‘Store Carry and Forward’ approach to route data since the end to end connections are absent here due to a large number of constant intermittent connectivity. The energy quantity of nodes is restricted because limited-lifetime rechargeable batteries drive them. Accordingly, energy is an essential resource in DTN scenarios. For efficient network performance, including proper energy usage, nodes need to expense a minimum amount of energy. For this reason, it is essential to select an energy-efficient forwarding strategy and exhibit excellent performance among existent forwarding approaches in the DTN environment for routing messages effectively. In this paper, we have studied the energy efficiency of conventional DTN routing protocols: Epidemic, Spray and Wait, Spray and Focus, MaxProp, and PRoPHET on the impact of varying both buffer size and node density. We analyzed their energy consumption and compared their performance based on five performance metrics: average remaining energy, delivery ratio, average delay, transmission cost, and average hop count, respectively. Using ONE simulator, we performed a simulation with varying node density (while buffer size is fixed) and varying buffer size (while node density is fixed). From the outcomes of simulation, we found that Spray and Wait are the most energy-efficient DTN routing protocols. On the contrary, Spray and Focus possessed as the best performer in terms of average hop count, average delay, delivery ratio and transmission cost among conventional DTN routing protocols.
容忍延迟网络(DTN)架构由称为节点的便携式设备组成,被认为是一种资源有限的网络系统。DTN中的这些节点利用“存储、携带和转发”方法来路由数据,因为由于大量持续的间歇连接,这里没有端到端连接。节点的能量数量受到限制,因为驱动它们的是寿命有限的可充电电池。因此,在DTN场景中,能源是必不可少的资源。为了获得高效的网络性能,包括合理的能源利用,节点需要消耗最少的能量。因此,在DTN环境下,选择一种节能的转发策略,并在现有的转发方法中表现出优异的性能,是有效路由消息的关键。在本文中,我们研究了传统DTN路由协议:Epidemic、Spray and Wait、Spray and Focus、MaxProp和PRoPHET对缓冲区大小和节点密度变化的影响。我们分析了它们的能耗,并根据五个性能指标对它们的性能进行了比较:平均剩余能量、传输比、平均延迟、传输成本和平均跳数。使用ONE模拟器,我们执行了不同节点密度(缓冲区大小固定)和不同缓冲区大小(节点密度固定)的模拟。仿真结果表明,Spray和Wait是最节能的DTN路由协议。在传统的DTN路由协议中,Spray和Focus在平均跳数、平均时延、投递率和传输成本方面表现最好。