# MANET Routing Protocols' Performance Assessment Under Dynamic Network Conditions
## 2 Literature Review  
The performance of MANET routing protocols has been studied extensively, with researchers analyzing various metrics to evaluate their efficiency. While these studies provide useful insights, many overlook critical aspects such as hybrid protocols, energy efficiency, and adaptability in real-world conditions. This study aims to fill these gaps by providing a more comprehensive evaluation of routing protocols. [PERSON] et al. [2] compared routing protocols based on throughput and delay. They found that reactive protocols like AODV worked better in dynamic networks, while proactive protocols like OLSR were more effective in stable environments. However, their analysis did not include energy consumption or jitter; which are key metrics in this study. [PERSON] et al. [3] analyzed protocol performance in challenging scenarios, such as high mobility. They highlighted that reactive protocols adapt well to dynamic conditions. However, they did not evaluate energy usage or the trade-offs involved in hybrid protocols. This study builds on their findings by analyzing energy efficiency and demonstrating how hybrid protocols handle dense networks effectively. [PERSON] et al. [4] provided a performance analysis of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks, focusing on metrics such as throughput, delay, and packet delivery ratio but did not consider energy consumption. [PERSON] et al. [6] conducted the performance evaluation of the AODV and TORA routing protocols. The simulation program NS-2 is used to assess these routing protocols in terms of data packet delivery between the source and destination nodes. The mobility model is appropriate for small and medium-sized networks, according to the simulated findings. When the mobile sink movement speed is 5 ms, the TORA protocol achieves a packet delivery ratio of about 58%. However, the AODV received more than TORA. Therefore, when AODV and TORA outcomes are compared in typical scenarios, it is found that AODV performs better than TORA. For the MANET environment selected for this simulation, the AODV protocol is acknowledged and advised. Based on its simulation time, the AODV is found to be the ideal candidate in both cases. Accordingly, this study concludes that, under the assumed hypothesis, the on-demand protocol, AODV, outperformed the TORA protocol. [PERSON] et al. [7] explored the QoS parameters of MANET protocols, including throughput and packet delivery ratio. They showed significant performance differences among protocols at varying network densities. However, their research did not consider energy consumption or jitter, which is essential to fully understanding protocol performance. These gaps are addressed in this study by evaluating an extended set of metrics. Unlike previous studies that relied on older simulation tools like NS2 and OPNET, this research uses OMNeT++ 6.0.1 with INET-4.5.0. This modern tool offers better scalability and flexibility, enabling more accurate simulations of network performance under different conditions. [PERSON]. [PERSON] et al. [8] compared the proactive and reactive modes of AODV, OLSR, and HWMP. Energy consumption, throughput, PDR, delay, e-throughput, and e-PDR were among the measures they employed, along with the NS3 simulator. It used two topologies--a grid topology and a movable nodes topology--to assess the routing methods. According to the findings, OLSR is the most effective routing protocol in the world, particularly when it comes to PDR and latency. However, scalability and mobility might have a significant impact on its throughput. AODV appears to be more reliable in many network conditions than OLSR and can provide the same performance as OLSR in many cases. [PERSON] et al. [9] compare four wireless routing protocols for MANET (AODV, OLSR, TORA, and DSR) using the OPNET simulator. They also compare some popular simulators.