Figure 4 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Download
View publication
[a-e]: The performance metrics of AODV over four mobility models (RWP, RPGM, GMM, and MGM) under CBR traffic type for parameter 3.

[a-e]: The performance metrics of AODV over four mobility models (RWP, RPGM, GMM, and MGM) under CBR traffic type for parameter 3.

Source publication
Table 2 . simulation environment
Figure 4. [a-e]: The performance metrics of AODV over four mobility...
Figure 5a-e, shows the performance metrics of AODV over four mobility...
Figure 7. [a-e]: The performance metrics of AODV over four mobility...
+1 Hardware and Operating System configuration
Performance Evaluation of Mobility Models over UDP Traffic Pattern for MANET Using NS-2
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2020
The current study presents the simulative study and evaluation of MANET mobility models over UDP traffic pattern to determine the effects of this traffic pattern on mobility models in MANET which is implemented in NS-2.35 according to various performance metri (Throughput, AED (Average End-2-end Delay), drop packets, NRL (Normalize Routing Load) an...
Cite
Download full-text

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... Fig. 8a, throughput of RPGM is extremely better than all the other mobility models and MGM and GMM have clearly worst results. Fig. 8b, shows the AODV has best PDF with RWP and RPGM mobility models. RWP is better next to RPGM. PDF in MGM and GMM is very low when compared to RWP and RPGM Models. Figure 8c, shows that in MGM and GMM, the no. of ...
Context 2
... Fig. 8a, throughput of RPGM is extremely better than all the other mobility models and MGM and GMM have clearly worst results. Fig. 8b, shows the AODV has best PDF with RWP and RPGM mobility models. RWP is better next to RPGM. PDF in MGM and GMM is very low when compared to RWP and RPGM Models. Figure 8c, shows that in MGM and GMM, the no. of packets loss increased when the simulation time increased, RPGM and RWP provide a lowest no. of packet loss. In Fig. 8d, the ...
Context 3
... in MGM and GMM is very low when compared to RWP and RPGM Models. Figure 8c, shows that in MGM and GMM, the no. of packets loss increased when the simulation time increased, RPGM and RWP provide a lowest no. of packet loss. In Fig. 8d, the NRL of AODV protocol can be simply sorted in an order from worst to best as follows: MGM, GMM, RWP and RPGM. Figure 8e, shows the RPGM and RWP exhibit the lowest delay and GMM and MGM have highest delay because in MGM and GMM, the nodes can move only in four direction with predefined probabilities to change direction only at the intersection point. ...
Context 4
... 8c, shows that in MGM and GMM, the no. of packets loss increased when the simulation time increased, RPGM and RWP provide a lowest no. of packet loss. In Fig. 8d, the NRL of AODV protocol can be simply sorted in an order from worst to best as follows: MGM, GMM, RWP and RPGM. Figure 8e, shows the RPGM and RWP exhibit the lowest delay and GMM and MGM have highest delay because in MGM and GMM, the nodes can move only in four direction with predefined probabilities to change direction only at the intersection point. ...
Context 5
... Fig. 8d, the NRL of AODV protocol can be simply sorted in an order from worst to best as follows: MGM, GMM, RWP and RPGM. Figure 8e, shows the RPGM and RWP exhibit the lowest delay and GMM and MGM have highest delay because in MGM and GMM, the nodes can move only in four direction with predefined probabilities to change direction only at the intersection point. ...