# Estimation of the Achievable Performance of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Optimal Link State Routing
###### Abstract
A similar standard, Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW), was developed as part of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program [9] by the US Armed Forces. The WNW standard utilizes the Dynamic Time Division Multiple Access (DTDMA) mechanism [10] for deterministic channel access and the proactive Radio Open Shortest Path First (ROSPF) [11] routing protocol. Civil broadband mobile peer-to-peer networks have gained wide popularity with the introduction of the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) [12] standard for local wireless networks. In addition to a hotspot mode with an access point, this standard provides two peer-to-peer network modes: ad hoc and mesh. The ad hoc mode allows for organizing only a one-step peer-to-peer network. To extend the coverage area of the ad hoc network, nodes can retransmit packets at the network (IP) layer using dynamic routing protocols. Channel access in the \"ad hoc\" mode is implemented using the Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) mechanism. The Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [1] is responsible for addressing routing protocol development and network evolution issues. Recommendation [1] analyzes the routing issues in MANETs and proposespossible qualitative and quantitative metrics for evaluating the performance and efficiency of these protocols. Routing protocols for mobile self-organizing networks can be classified into four main groups: protocols with proactive routing, protocols with reactive routing, hybrid protocols, and protocols that use geographical position data of nodes. Among the most commonly used protocols are proactive protocols: OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing) [13] and B.A.T.M.A.N. (Better Approach To Mobile Ad hoc Networks) [14], and reactive: AODV (Dynamic Source Routing) [15] and LQSR (Link Quality Source Routing) [16]. The selection of the best route between network nodes is based on quality of service (QoS) metrics. These metrics can be measured at the physical, link, and network layers of the OSI model. Numerous studies comparing the listed protocols for different types of networks [17; 18; 19] have shown that in MANETs with a limited mobility of nodes, a good enough performance in terms of the speed and quality of transmission, scalability, and other parameters provides protocol OLSR. Therefore, in this study, the OLSR protocol with MPR optimization was chosen for routing. In addition, some decision-making techniques, e.g., the equivalent exchange method [20; 21], can be utilized for seeking the compromise while different goals are involved. A performance analysis and comparison of protocols and networks in general is a challenging task due to the fact that the data transmission process in self-organizing networks is influenced by a large number of different factors, many of which are random in nature. Therefore, due to the dynamic nature and variability of the processes observed in mobile networks, researchers, along with analytical methods of analysis, most often use methods based on network modeling, network emulation, or testbed experiments [22]. At the moment, the market of software packages for network simulation modeling is filled with many solutions. The most popular simulation environments--Simulators of Wireless MANETs--include network simulators Network Simulator 2 (NS-2) and Network Simulator 3 (NS-3) [23], the simulation system GloMoSim (Global Mobile Information System Simulator) [24], the system of the simulation modeling and analysis of communication networks (OPNET Modeler) [25], and a number of others. A comparison of commonly used simulators in an MANET is given in [26]. These tools allow you to specify parameters and technologies at the physical, link, network, and transport layers, as well as the type of traffic at the application layer; select specific node mobility models; and specify various network topology configurations and basic node usage scenarios, including those which stipulate the interoperability of the whole network [27].