Comparative performance analysis of AntHocNet and DSR in optimal path route determination

TL;DR

This paper compares AntHocNet and DSR routing algorithms, introducing goodput as a metric, and finds AntHocNet generally outperforms DSR in delay and overhead in network path determination.

Contribution

The study evaluates and compares AntHocNet and DSR algorithms using a new metric, goodput, highlighting AntHocNet's superior performance in key network parameters.

Findings

AntHocNet has 20.67% less overhead than DSR.

AntHocNet outperforms DSR in end-to-end delay.

Goodput is introduced as a new routing metric.

Abstract

One of the key challenges in current Internet routing is the application of improved bio-inspired algorithms in deriving the path towards the destination. Current routing trends determine the optimal path based on throughput, delay or combination of these two metric. Here in this paper, we compare the performance of the two algorithms, AntHocNet (AHN) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) for determining the routing path. We introduce the goodput factor as one of the metric for determining the path. Goodput is the number of useful information bits, delivered by the network to a certain destination per unit time .The results show that AHN outperformed DSR in terms of end-to-end delay and overhead. Also the simulation results showed that overhead of AHN was 20.67% lesser than DSR.