A comparison of TCP performance over three routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks

By Thomas D. Dyer, R. Boppana. ACM Interational Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, 2001

317 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Mobile ad hoc networking: imperatives and challenges (2003, methodology): “In a MANET, nodes mobility may have a severe impact on the performance of the TCP protocol [2,80,127,128,261].”
The Node Distribution of the Random Waypoint Mobility Model for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks (2003, methodology): “Such settings have been used, for instance, in the evaluation of routing ([11], [12], [18], [20], [21], [32]), multicast [27], and energy-conserving [33] protocols.”
Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (2007, methodology): “The AODV simulation parameters used are the same as in [ 1 ] except the Active Route Timeout which was set to 3 seconds [12], the DSR parameters we used are similar to those in [2]; OLSR’s Hello Interval and TC Interval were set to 2 and 5 seconds respectively, its link expiry time or Neighbour Hold”
ATP: a reliable transport protocol for ad hoc networks (2003, background): “…bandwidth: While mobile hosts in general can be assumed to possess fewer amounts of resources than their static (wireline) counterparts, the wireless channel bandwidth is also scarce, resulting in multi-hop .ows typically enjoying limited bandwidths of at most a few hundred kilobits per second.”
MANET simulation studies: the incredibles (2005, methodology): “See [8] for an example of a MobiHoc paper that addressed scenario initialization.”