Bandwidth for LEACH AODV and LABILE

[Abdelbari ben yagouta]

Hi everybody,
my goal is to compare the latency and throughput between leach, AODV and labile routing protocols.
But the results obtained indicate that (as in the accompanying figures):

1. For the throuput : the packets received from the base station with AODV et LABILE are 16 times greater than with LEACH, and for that matter I ask: is that AODV (labile) and leach use the same bandwidth or not?, and how else I can do to make them equal to the comparison will have meaning.
2. For the latency: how I can fix the number of packets to send to leach and AODV (labile) to compare the latency using different protocols (AODV, labile and leach)

[Abudalkhalek Hussien]

for your first point, i don't think the problem lies in the bandwidth but the way leach operates. leach send packets directly to the base station from the cluster heads without taking advantage of multi hop communication unlike  aodv and labile (which uses multi hopping), so if the base station is out of the radio range of the cluster head the packet will be lost in leach. so leach is a single hop routing protocol 

for u r second point, u need to modify leach to take advantage of multi-hop communication to or keep it as its because this is how leach operates

[Thanassis Boulis]

As Abudalkhalek said already, the problem is that LEACH does not do dynamic routing. I do not know how LEACH in Castalia is implemented, and whether you can define static routes between multiple clusterheads. 

The "problem" with latency (LEACH being better than the other two) is not a problem at all. As you can see LEACH does not work: only packets that are one hop away from the basestation are received. So it is natural that these packets will have very low latency (they do not have to be routed via multiple nodes).

Something else which seemed a bit strange to me, was that for the protocols that are working (AODV, LABILE) there is a big difference in received packets from 300s to 400s (almost double). I assume the traffic is constant, so why this big change?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castalia Simulator" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to castalia-simula...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to castalia-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/castalia-simulator/258bd933-d586-4637-b8b2-2a9102267104%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Abdelbari ben yagouta]

Thanks for your help Mr Abdelkhalak and Mr Athanassios,
For your question Mr. Athanassios (I do not know how LEACH in Castalia is implemented )
I use the leach protocol developed by Adonijah and Claudio Silva Pires in Para university, brazil - 2011 is attached below.

Please if you have a stable version which correctly describes the correct behavior leach give me the source code
And thank you again for your answers and your helpers

[zewdi...@gmail.com]

if you have method to get packet received  by sink please share with great thank