# FANET Routing Protocol Analysis for Multi-UAV-Based Reconnaissance Mobility Models
## 2 Related Work  
Related studies have analyzed the performance of FANET routing protocols. We classify the studies into four groups. Group A specifies no mobility models [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]. Group B uses only one mobility model or one mobility model with a fixed one [8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17]. Group C uses several mobility models [18; 19; 20]. Group D analyzed routing protocols with specific scenarios [21; 22]. Table 1 summarizes the related work. Group A analyzed routing protocols with no mobility models [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]. [PERSON] et al., [PERSON] et al., and [PERSON] et al. examined two protocols each, AODV and DSDV [3], AODV and OLSR [5], and AODV and LAR [7], respectively. [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. analyzed three protocols: AODV, DSDV, and OLSR [1; 6]. [PERSON] et al. proposed the LEPR routing protocol based on AODV and compared the AODV, DSR, and LEPR routing protocols [2]. [PERSON] et al. compared and analyzed six routing protocols: AODV, DSDV, DSR, OLSR, AOMDV, and HWMP [4]. In this group, most studies evaluated representative ad hoc routing protocols such as AODV, DSDV, and OLSR. However, no studies specified mobility models. As the performance of routing protocols will differ depending on mobility models, it is necessary to specify and analyze this information. Group B analyzed routing protocols with only one mobility model [8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16]. Most of the studies used the random waypoint mobility model [8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16]. [PERSON] et al. analyzed the performance of AODV and OLSR routing protocols [10; 11; 12]. [PERSON] et al. initially analyzed the BeeAdHoc protocol as well [9]. [PERSON] et al. analyzed AODV, DSDV, DSR, and AntHocNet. [8]. [PERSON] et al. analyzed routing protocols considering two variables, node \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Reference** & **Routing Protocols** & **Mobility Models** & **Scenario** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Group A} & [1] & AODV, DSDV, OLSR & – & \(\times\) \\  & [2] & AODV, DSR, LEPR & – & \(\times\) \\  & [3] & AODV, DSDV & – & \(\times\) \\  & [4] & AODV, DSDV, DSR, & – & \(\times\) \\  & [5] & AODV, OLSR & Fixed & \(\times\) \\  & [6] & AODV, DSDV, OLSR & – & \(\times\) \\  & [7] & AODV, LAR & Fixed & \(\times\) \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Group B} & [8] & AODV, DSDV, DSR, & \multirow{2}{*}{Randomwaypoint} & \(\times\) \\  & [9] & AODV, DSDV, DSR, & & \\  & [10; 11; 12] & AODV, OLSR & Randomwaypoint & \(\times\) \\  & [13] & AODV, DSDV & Randomwaypoint & \(\times\) \\  & [14] & AODV, AODV, DSDV, & Fixed, Random & \(\times\) \\  & [15] & AODV, DC-O1 SR, OLSR & Randomwaypoint & \(\times\) \\  & [16] & DR, AODV, GRP, OLSR, & \multirow{2}{*}{Randomwaypoint} & \(\times\) \\  & [17] & E-OLSR & & \\  & [18] & BATMAN-ADV, BABEL, & \multirow{2}{*}{Fixed, Horizontal flight} & \(\times\) \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Group C} & [18] & \multirow{2}{*}{olsr} & Randomwaypoint, & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\times\)} \\  & [19] & AODV, DSR, GRP, OLSR, & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & [20] & OLSR+, OLSR, G-OLSR & Randomwaypoint, & \\ \cline{1-1}  & [21] & EORB-TP, LADTR, & \multirow{2}{*}{Randomwaypoint} & \multirow{2}{*}{Reconnaissance} \\ \cline{1-1}  & & GEOSAW, LEPR & & \\ \cline{1-1} Group D & [22] & AODV, DSR, OLSR, ZRP & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Our paper & AODV, DSDV, OLSR & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of the related work. speed and network size [13]. [PERSON] et al. analyzed three categories of proactive, reactive, and hybrid routing protocols [14]. [PERSON] et al. proposed a routing protocol called DC-OLSR that is applicable to heterogeneous dual-channel FANETs [15]. [PERSON] et al. proposed an optimized E-OLSR by adjusting parameters and compared its performance with existing routing protocols through simulation [16]. [PERSON] et al. analyzed routing protocol performance using 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz WiFi networks under real-world conditions [17]. Because those studies used only one mobility model, they could not demonstrate different protocol performances with different mobility models.