The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
Performance Analysis of Social-aware Content-based
Opportunistic Routing Protocol on MANET Based on
DTN
I Gede Agus Surya Negara, Leanna Vidya Yovita, Tody Ariefianto Wibowo
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Telkom University
Bandung, Indonesia
Abstract—Nowadays, almost all telecommunication devices
use TCP/IP to communicate with each other. However, it is
difficult for MANET to support the type of end-to-end
connectivity required by TCP/IP-based communications due to
disruptions, frequent topology changes and network partitions
caused by the movement of the nodes. DTN is an emerging
paradigm in the telecommunication network which is able to
provides data communication in areas with intermittent
connectivity, long delay communication, and high error rate.
SCORP (Social-aware Content-based Opportunistic Routing
Protocol) is a routing protocol on DTN which works by taking
account of social proximity and content interests on each node
before replicating the message to the other node in order to
improve the ability of network in sending messages.
In this paper, we show the performance analysis and the
advantages of SCORP compared with Epidemic and Spray and
Wait under different number of buffer size and nodes on the
network. We also show the impact of different number and types
of interests per group of nodes on the performance of SCORP. We
use Braga and Asia-Afrika area in Bandung as the simulation area
in The ONE Simulator.
Keywords— delay-tolerant network; routing protocol; mobile
ad hoc network; opportunistic routing
I. INTRODUCTION
Most of all telecommunication devices are connected and
communicate with each other by using a standard protocol suite
called TCP/IP and to get maximum service, the TCP/IP-based
network must have an end-to-end path between sender and
receiver of the message, round-trip time between nodes is not
large and low probability of packet drop in a network.
The internet will always need and has to keep an end-to-end
connection between the sender and receiver to maintain the
communication between them. This end-to-end connection will
pass several routers from sender to receiver during the
transmission of data packets. Internet network is only able to
work optimally if there is a continuous bidirectionally end-to-
end connection, low delay and low error rate [1]. If there is a
failure during the transmission of the message, the current
process of message sending is stopped and the message that is
in the delivery process will be dropped.
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Wireless communication technologies such as Bluetooth and
IEEE 802.11 technology standard allows any mobile devices to
establish Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) to be connected
with each other without requiring a central communications
infrastructure [2]. Routing in MANET is performed by the node
itself by using other nodes as intermediate nodes to forward the
messages [3]. Each node in a MANET is free to move in any
directions and make contacts with different nodes periodically.
MANET devices have limited memory as a storage medium of
the messages, computing resources and battery power [4].
DTN (Delay-Tolerant Network) is a new paradigm in the
telecommunication network which is an architecture that was
proposed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to
handle the intermittently connected network [5]. DTN is
originally developed for space-communication network
(interplanetary network). DTN can provide communication on
a network that does not have an end-to-end path, have long
delays and high error rate, so DTN is suitable to provide
communications in the environments that do not support the use
of TCP/IP network [1]. Unlike the TCP / IP network, despite
the delay on the network is high, DTN can still provide
communications on it. DTN works by using a technique known
as store-carry-forward. Data delivery can be achieved by
augmenting the nodes with permanent storage capabilities and
large buffer size to store the arriving messages long enough
until an appropriate node as the next hop becomes available [6].
There are several routing protocols which are used to deliver
messages from one to another node. Developing DTN routing
protocol is important due to the fact that DTN nodes are mostly
mobile wireless devices with limited resources (i.e. storage
capacity and power). Routing protocol with the ability to deliver
messages to the destination with high probability, low latency
and a low overhead ratio is really needed in DTN. Replicating
a message to large number of nodes will increase the message
delivery probability but causes high power consumption due to
multiple transmissions and receptions of the messages which
can cause the nodes to shut down and it will negatively impact
the performance of the network [6]. To achieve those
objectives, the researchers start developing a concept of routing
protocol that is capable of exploiting social interaction and also
the interests of content that nodes want.
47
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
SCORP (Social-aware Content-based Opportunistic
Routing Protocol) is a routing protocol that implements these
concepts by utilizing social proximity between node and
knowledge of the types of the message content to improve the
efficiency of message transmission [7].
In this paper, we want to show the impact of the buffer size,
number of DTN nodes on the network and different number and
types of interests per group of nodes on the performance of
SCORP. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 presents the related work and contributions from this
work. Section 3 describes the TECI utility function and the
algorithm of SCORP. Section 4 presents the evaluation
methodology, settings, and results. Finally, in Section 5, the
paper is concluded and future work is presented.
II. RELATED WORK AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The need of data forwarding from one node to another with
high delivery probability, low cost and low delay in the absence
of end-to-end path is really important on Delay Tolerant
Network (DTN). In [8], the authors introduced Epidemic
routing, which goals are to maximize the message delivery
probability by spreading the messages to all nodes that don’t
have the messages. However, this type of routing is wasteful of
network resources since it spreads the messages to all nodes and
creates contentions for the node with limited buffer size.
In [9], the authors introduced the new concept of routing
scheme, which is called Spray and Wait. This type of routing
scheme reduces the transmission overhead by limiting the
number of message copies, so it will not waste the network
resources as much as Epidemic routing does. Spray and Wait
combines the multi-copy scheme, from spreading the limited
number of copies to several nodes, and single-copy scheme,
from performing direct transmission to the destination. Spray
and Wait does not require any network information and past
encounters between nodes in forwarding messages.
Social-aware Content-based Opportunistic Routing
Protocol (SCORP) has been introduced in [7]. SCORP works
by taking social proximity and interests of all nodes into
account. The authors explained and analyzed the performance
of SCORP by comparing it with another routing protocols such
as Spray and Wait, dLife and Bubble Rap. That study tried to
investigate the advantages of SCORP to improve data
dissemination in urban, dense scenario. That study also tried to
know the impact of the network load and the value of TTL on
the performance of SCORP. The results show that SCORP has
a better performance than the other routing protocol such as
Spray and Wait, dLife and Bubble Rap under different TTL and
network load. In [10], the performance of SCORP has been
analyzed under different network density, network load and
pause time and compared with Bubble Rap and dLife. The result
shows that performance in low and high density networks can
be improved by considering the dynamics of the network and
DTN can be used to reduce communication costs in a network
with high-density.
In this paper, we want to evaluate the performance and show
the advantage of SCORP by using buffer size, number of nodes
on the network and different number and types of interests per
group of nodes as the evaluation metrics. SCORP is evaluated
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
against Epidemic and Spray and Wait which does not consider
the network information in forwarding messages. We want to
show that by considering the network information, such as
social proximity and interest of nodes will increase the delivery
probability and decrease the cost and latency. We also want to
show that the different types and number of interests per group
of nodes will bring advantages of SCORP than the same types
and number of interests per group of nodes.
III. SOCIAL-AWARE CONTENT-BASED OPPORTUNISTIC ROUTING
PROTOCOL
The power and the buffer size of the device are limited on
MANET, so the overall performance of the network is
determined by the scheme and the type of routing that is used
[11]. There are currently several types of routing protocol which
is proposed and implemented on the DTN. Each routing
protocol has some advantages and disadvantages in certain
circumstances. Over the past few years, many social-aware
routing protocols manifold has emerged to take the advantage
of social closeness between nodes in a DTN network [12]. This
type of routing protocol utilize the social interactions and
structures between nodes that can help in the process of
delivering the message so as to improve the DTN performance
[13], [14], [15]. SCORP (Social-aware Content-based
Opportunistic Routing Protocol) is a social-aware content-
based routing protocol which uses the social dynamism and
knowledge of the content desired by the node to improve the
efficiency of data transmission in densely populated areas. The
data delivery between nodes occurs by taking into account the
social proximity between nodes and the content knowledge that
nodes have while taking forwarding decisions [7].
In this section, we will explain how to compute the TECI to
determine the social strength between nodes and show the
algorithm of SCORP.
A. Time-Evolving Contact to Interest x (TECI)
TECI aims to determine the social strength between nodes
tagged with interest x in a daily sample. Fig. 1 shows how social
interactions occur varies during a day. The interactions occur
from 6 AM to 2 AM. Nodes A and B have interest 1, node C, D,
and E has interests 2, 3 and 4, respectively. SCORP measures the
duration of contacts, indexing such duration to interests that such
nodes have [7]. For example, the contact duration between node
A and B which have interest 1 can be denoted as CD(a,b1). Thus,
node A has measures of different levels of social interactions
with another node which have interest x (w(a,x)) during specific
time periods of the daily sample which are considered while
deciding whether a node is a good forwarder of a message which
is tagged with a certain interest.
From the perspective of node A, TCTI (Total Connected
Time to Interest x) is a total duration of k contacts to another
node with interest x in a daily sample. TCTI is given by Eq. 1.
( , )= ( , ) (1)
ATCTI (Average Total Connected Time to Interest x) is an
average of total duration of k contacts to another node with
48
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
interest x in a same daily sample over consecutive days. ATCTI
is given by Eq. 2
( )
=
( , ) ( , )(
( , )
TECI can be computed by node A based on ATCTI computed
in that daily sample and consecutive t-1 samples, where t is the
total number of samples. TECI is given by Eq. 3.
= ( , ) = ( , )
Fig. 1. Contacts that node A has with another node having interests in
different daily samples.
B. Algorithm
The algorithm of SCORP is described in [7]. When the
CurrentNode meets Nodei in a daily sample, the CurrentNode
will get the social weight towards the nodes that have such
interests and current carried messages in Nodei’s buffer. If
Messagej, as the message that want to be forwarded by
CurrentNode is not same with one of the Nodei carried
messages, it will be forwarded to Nodei if:
a. Nodei has an interest with Messagej ; or
b. Nodei has a bigger value of social weight towards node
which has an interest with Messagej.
The mechanism of SCORP is illustrated in Alg. 1.
begin
foreach Nodei ecountered by CurrentNode do
receive
(Nodei.weightsToAllInterests and Nodei.carriedMessages)
foreach Messagej ∈ buffer.(CurrentNode) & ∉
buffer.(Nodei) do
if (Messagej.getContentTypes ∈ Nodei.getInterests)
then CurrentNode.replicateTo(Nodei, Messagej)
else if (Nodei.getWeightTo(Messagej.getContentTypes) >
(CurrentNode.getWeightTo(Messagej.getContentTypes)
then (CurrentNode.replicateTo(Nodei, Messagej)
end
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Alg. 1. Forwarding algorithm of SCORP
The mechanism of SCORP is shown in the flowchart on Fig.
)
(2) 2.
(3)
Fig. 2. Forwarding mechanism of SCORP
IV. SCORP EVALUATION
This section starts by describing the evaluation
methodology, experimental settings to analyze the performance
of SCORP and experimental results.
A. Evaluation Methodology
SCORP is evaluated against Epidemic routing and Spray and
Wait. Performance analysis is done by using Opportunistic
Network Environment (ONE) Simulator 1.4.1 which is
specifically designed for evaluating DTN routing and
application protocols [16]. Results are presented with 95% of
confidence interval and analyzed in term of delivery probability
(ratio between the number of delivered messages and messages
that are expected to be delivered), overhead ratio (number of
replicas per delivered messages) and average latency (average
time epsed between message creation and delivery) since the
requirements of DTN are either maximization of delivery ratio
or minimization of delivery latencies and number of replicas or
possibly both [6].
B. Experimental Settings
We use the Braga and Asia-Afrika area, which is one of the
popular tourism and crowded areas in Bandung, as the
simulation area in ONE Simulator. For more realistic simulation,
we add Bandung City Square, Museum of the Asia-African,
49
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
Braga Street, and Cikapundung Riverside as the Point of
Interests (POIs) in the simulation area.
We simulate 5-hour of interactions between MANET nodes
which use Bluetooth v2.0 as the interface with the transmit speed
of 2 Mbps and 10-meter of communication range. All the nodes
follow the Shortest Path Map Based Movement mobility model
which represent the pedestrians that randomly choose the
destination and use the shortest path to reach them. The speed of
nodes is range from 0 to 1,4 m/s based on the minimal walking
speed of normal-weight adults [17]. The message TTL is 2 hours
to make a realistic scenario with limited time of content in
document utility. The messages are PDF documents. The size of
the document is 300 KB, based on the average PDF documents
size [18]. For Spray and Wait, the maximum number of copies
is 10 for each created message. (L=10)
Scenario 1 is the evaluation of the buffer size impact on the
performance of SCORP. The buffer sizes of the nodes vary
between 4 MB, 8 MB, 12 MB, 16 MB, and 20 MB. There are
21 nodes in this scenario. Node 0 is the source of messages for
the other 20 nodes. For SCORP, all the nodes are configured
with 20 interests based on Table 1 and the source create 20
messages with different interests once. Thus, there will be 400
messages that are expected to be delivered to 20 receivers. For
a fair comparison, the number of messages reaching
destinations in each simulation of routing protocol must be
same. For Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait, node 0 creates
20 different messages to each node. Thus, we have a total of
400 messages to be generated and expected to be delivered to
destination.
TABLE I. LIST OF INTERESTS FOR ALL NODES
No. Interest No. Interest
1 Football 11 Health
2 Culinary 12 History
3 Politics 13 Gossip
4 Computers 14 Motorbike
5 Basketball 15 Gadgets
6 Cultures 16 Tips &Tricks
7 Tourism 17 Religions
8 Education 18 Kid
9 International 19 Astronomy
10 National 20 Fashion
Scenario 2 is the evaluation of the numbers of DTN nodes
on the network. The buffer size of all nodes is 20 MB. The
number of nodes on the network varies between 21, 41, 61, 81,
and 51. Node 0 is source and node 1 until node 20 are receivers.
There are 2 types of SCORP in this scenario: First, all the
receiver nodes are configured with 5 interests (No. 1-No. 5,
based on Table 1) and the source creates 5 messages with
different interests once, Second, all the receiver nodes are
divided into 4 groups configured with different types and
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
number of interests for each group based on Table 2 and node 0
as the source creates 20 messages with different interests once.
For Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait, the source has an
unlimited buffer and create 5 different messages to each node in
its own group every 30 seconds. Thus, for a fair comparison, we
have a total of 100, 200, 300, and 400 messages to be delivered
to the destinations.
TABLE II. THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTERESTS FOR EACH GROUP OF RECEIVER
NODES
Group Node no. Interests
A 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 No. 1-No. 5
B 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 No. 6-No. 12
C 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 No. 13-No. 15
D 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 No. 16-No. 20
C. Simulation Results
The simulation results from scenario 1 will guide us to
understand the impact of the buffer size of all nodes in the
network with the performance of SCORP on DTN and we can
compare it with Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait.
Fig. 3 shows us the message delivery probability for sending
messages on different values of buffer size. The message
delivery probability increases with the value of buffer size. This
is caused by the ability improvement of nodes to store and carry
more messages and replicate more number of messages to the
other nodes so it will decrease the possibility of buffer
exhaustion which can cause the incoming messages to be
dropped.
Message Delivery Probability
100
80
60
%
40
20
0
4 8 12 16 20
Buffer Size (MB)
SCORP Spray and Wait Epidemic
Fig. 3. Message delivery probability under different buffer sizes
From Fig. 3, the message delivery probability of Epidemic
routing is lower than SCORP and Spray and Wait for any buffer
size. The delivery probability of Epidemic routing up to
approximately 72% and 1.5% less than SCORP and Spray and
Wait, respectively. This is caused by the flooding mechanism
of Epidemic routing which exhausts the buffer. To support this
reason, for 4 MB of buffer size, there is an average of 1793
transmissions between nodes and this number is divided by the
number of nodes (20, source is not included). The average
replication per node in 5 hours of simulation is 89.65 and due
to the message TTL (2 hours), the average replication before the
message is dropped is 35.86. If it is multiplied by the size of
50
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
the message (300KB), there are 10.758 MB of buffer
occupancy, which exceeds the buffer size (4 MB) and makes
some messages are dropped. There are also 17.472 MB, 18.672
MB, 19.122 MB and 20.872 MB of buffer occupancy for 8 MB,
12 MB, 16 MB and 20 MB of buffer size, respectively, which
exceeds the allowed buffer sizes.
Spray and Wait works by limiting the number of message
copies in order to improve the message delivery probability. In
this scenario, Spray and Wait only experiences buffer
exhaustion for 4 MB of buffer size. When the buffer size
increases to 8 MB, 12 MB, 16 MB and 20 MB, it does not
experience buffer exhaustion due to the average buffer
occupancy is 5.38 MB. Thus, there are less messages to be
dropped so that the delivery probability is higher than Epidemic
routing’s. The delivery probability increases 8.75% from 4 MB
to 20 MB of buffer size.
As buffer size increases from 4 MB to 20 MB, SCORP has
an 35% increase in delivery probability, from 65% to 100%
probability of delivering message. The average buffer
occupancy of SCORP for 2 hours of simulation is 2.27 MB,
lower than Epidemic routing’s (17.17 MB) and Spray and
Wait’s (5.38 MB) so that there are no dropped messages due to
buffer exhaustion. SCORP works by taking content knowledge
into account. In this scenario, all nodes are interested with all
contents on the message so that every nodes will be the
destinations for all created messages. Contrast with SCORP,
Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait do not consider network
information and content of the message. Each of the message is
created to be delivered to specific node as a destination even the
content of the message is same from the others. This will result
a large number of messages to be created on the network and
increasing risk of buffer exhaustion. The delivery process of
Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait depends on the other
nodes as relays. The small number of nodes on the network and
short time of simulation makes the opportunity to make a
contact and perform forwardings between nodes becomes rarely
and the delivery process becomes harder. Thus, their delivery
probability is lower than SCORP.
Fig. 4 shows us the overhead ratio on the different value of
buffer size. Epidemic routing floods the network by creating the
largest number of copies in order to perform successful delivery
of the message. In this scenario, Epidemic routing creates an
average of 30.75 copies of all buffer sizes to successfully
deliver a message to its destination.
Overhead ratio
30
Number of replicas
25
20
15
10
5
0
4 8 12
Buffer Size (MB)
SCORP Spray and Wait
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Fig. 4. Overhead ratio under different buffer sizes
Spray and Wait bounds number of copies per message on the
network in order to lower the overhead ratio. From Fig, 4, Spray
and Wait produces an average of 5.99 copies per message,
80.5% less than the number of copies from Epidemic routing.
Meanwhile, in this scenario, SCORP does not need any
replicas to perform a successfull delivery. Unlike Epidemic
routing and Spray and Wait, there are no relay nodes for
SCORP in this scenario due to all the 20 nodes have interests in
all message contents so that all receiver nodes become
destination nodes. Since the message is only replicated to nodes
that are interested in, every contact between two nodes will
affect a message transmission to the destination. Thus, the
overhead ratio on the network is zero and it will make battery
power consumption due to transmissions and receptions of the
messages more efficient.
Fig. 5 shows us the impact of different buffer sizes on
average latency. The value of the average latency increases with
the increasing of buffer size due to messages are stored longer
in the buffer. Spray and Wait experiences an average 3900.205
seconds of latency, up to approximately 8.47% and 48.20%
more than Epidemic and SCORP, respectively, due to its
waiting phase on its mechanism, which makes all the nodes that
receive the copy to perform direct delivery to the destination so
that it takes a long time to find the destination to complete the
delivery.
Average Latency
5000
4000
Seconds
3000
2000
1000
0
4 8 12 16 20
Buffer Size (MB)
SCORP Spray and Wait Epidemic
Fig. 5. Average latency under different buffer sizes
SCORP experiences less lantency than Epidemic routing
and Spray and Wait for any buffer sizes in this scenario. The
average latency increases by 9.10% from 4 MB to 20 MB of
buffer size. The ability of nodes to deliver the messages
increase with the buffer size so that node can receive more
messages that match with its interests. In this scenario, all nodes
have interests in all contents of created messages. Thus, every
forwarding between nodes will perform successfull delivery
and reduce latencies.
16 20 Scenario 2 will help us to understand the impact of a
different number of nodes on the network. This scenario shows
how different types and number of interests for each group of
Epidemic nodes impacts on the performance of SCORP. Fig. 6 shows the
51
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
message delivery probability under different number of nodes.
As the number of nodes increases, all the nodes make contacts
very often and increases the chance of delivering the messages
between them. Message Delivery Probability
100 SCORP with same
number and types
90
of interests
80
70 Spray and Wait
60
50
%
Epidemic
40
30
20 SCORP with
10 different number
0 and types of
21 41 61 81 interests
Number of nodes
Fig. 6. Message delivery probability under different number of nodes.
From Fig. 6, the message delivery probability of Epidemic
routing decreases by 66.75% when the number of nodes
increases from 20 to 80. The number of forwardings on the
network for Epidemic routing increases as the number of nodes
increases so that the buffer occupancy increases. The average
buffer occupancy for Epidemic routing is 66.15 MB which
exceeds the 20 MB allowed. Thus, some messages are dropped
from the buffer and the number of successfully delivered
messages decreases. Spray and Wait also experiences
degradation on delivery probability. The delivery probability
decreases by 49.25% when the number of nodes increases from
20 to 80. As more messages created, replication and the number
of copies on the network increases and this causes messages
flooding on the network that reduces the delivery capability of
Epidemic routing and Spray and Wait.
Since SCORP only replicates the message to the node that
is interested in the content of the message or has a strong social
interaction with other nodes that has interested in the content of
that message, the nodes interact often and the messages are
quickly disseminated and not flooding the network by making
a copies to all encountered nodes like what Epidemic routing do
so that increasing the number of delivered messages. From Fig.
6, SCORP with equal number and same types of interests has
the highest delivery probability among Epidemic, Spray and
Wait and SCORP with different number and types of interests
due to all nodes have interest in all contents so that all
replications become successful messages deliveries to
destinations, making the delivery probability for all number of
nodes stays 100% in this scenario. The average buffer
consumption is also low, 0.38 MB per 2 hours.
Meanwhile, SCORP with different number and types of
interest does not experiences 100% messages delivery.
Dividing nodes into different groups with different interests
decreases the possibility to find and make contacts with nodes
that have the same type of interests. Messages replication does
not only happen due to the same interest of message content
between two nodes and this causes successful delivery since
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
that every encountered node becomes destination but also can
be happened if that encountered node has a strong social weight
with other node that has an interest in the content of that
message than the current node. Small number of nodes will
result in lack of contacts between nodes. Replicating less
messages affecting weak capability of sucessfull message
delivery.
Overhead Ratio
SCORP with
800
same number and
700 types of interests
600 Spray and Wait
Number of copies
500
400
Epidemic
300
200
100 SCORP with
different number
0
and types of
21 41 61 81
interests
Number of nodes
Fig. 7. Overhead ratio under different number of nodes.
From Fig. 7, the largest overhead ratio is produced by
Epidemic routing. Its flooding mechanism to get the high
delivery probability creates large number of copies (564 copies
are needed to successfully deliver a message to its destination
in 81 nodes simulation against 7.76, 0 and 2.73 copies of Spray
and Wait, SCORP with the same number and same types of
interests and SCORP with different number and types of
interests, respectively) and it increases as the number of nodes
increases due to more contacts and replications occur. Spray
and Wait bounds the number of copies on the network (L=10)
so that the number of copies is not high as Epidemic routing.
The average created copies for sending a message is 7.51.
SCORP with same number and types of interests creates up
to approximately 100% less copy than Epidemic and Spray and
Wait due to replication only occurs if the encountered nodes
are interested in the content of the message. The same number
and types of interests causes all nodes on the network become
destinations of all created messages since they have interests to
all contents of the messages. Each replication that is occurred
will be a successful message delivery so that the overhead ratio
is zero for all number of nodes in the scenario.
Meanwhile, SCORP with different number and types of
interests for each group will make node to make copies of the
messages to the other node that has no interest in the content of
the message but have stronger social weight towards another
node that has an interest with that content of message than the
current node in order to perform sucessful delivery. SCORP can
identify whether such node should receive copies in order to
perform sucessful delivery or not. The overhead ratio is up to
approximately 99.07% and 66.29% less than Epidemic routing
and Spray and Wait, respectively, and increases 29.58% from
20 nodes to 80 nodes on the network.
In term of average latency, the latencies decreases as the
number of nodes on the network increases due to the higher
number of contacts between nodes. From Fig. 8., Epidemic
52
 The 2016 International Conference on Control, Electronics, Renewable Energy and Communications (ICCEREC)
routing experiences up to approximately 23.94%, 59.02% and
65.62% longer than Spray and Wait, SCORP with different
number and types of interests per group and SCORP with same
number and types of interests. Spray and Wait bounds the
number of copies of message so that not flooding the network
as Epidemic routing does and this causes less latencies. Their
latencies are higher than SCORP due to their forwarding
mechanism, which do not considers any network information,
that causes messages to be replicated to every encountered
nodes that some of them may not reach the destinations so that
messages are stored longer, which increases the overall time to
deliver messages. SCORP experience less latencies as messages
forwardings only happen if the encountered node has interest in
the content of the message or it has stronger social weight
towards another node that is interested in that content of the
message than the current node so that increasing the probability
to deliver messages successfully in less time. SCORP with same
number and types of interests has shorter latencies, up to
39.62% less than SCORP with different number and types of
interests per group, due to all the message replication become
successful delivery. Meanwhile, SCORP with different number
and types of interests need nodes to send copies of the messages
to the uninterested nodes that have stronger social weight
towards the interested nodes than
Average the current node.
Latency
4500
4000
3500
3000
seconds
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 different number
21 41 61 81
Number of nodes
Fig. 8. Average latency under different number of nodes.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Routing protocol with high delivery probability, low
average latency, and a low overhead ratio is really needed in
DTN, especially for MANET which its node has power
constrained, need to use a routing protocol which produces less
number of replicas to avoid multiple transmissions and
receptions that can cause ineffective battery power usage.
SCORP considers the social dynamism and the content type of
the message. SCORP only forward the message to the node that
has interest in the content of the message or has stronger social
weight toward another interested node than the current node.
From our work, we show the advantages of SCORP than
Epidemic and Spray and Wait in term of delivery probability,
overhead ratio and average latency and the impact of different
number and types of interests per group of nodes on
performance of SCORP. In the future work, we plan to analyze
the performance of SCORP by varying the message size,
simulation time and expanding the size of the simulation area.
978-1-5090-0744-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
We also want to make the simulation more realistic by using the
Working Day Movement Model.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Warthmann, "Delay-and Disruption Tolerant Network (DTNs): A
Tutorial," 2012.
[2] E. Alotaibi and B. Mukherjee, "A Survey on Routing Algorithms for
Wireless Ad-hoc and Mesh Networks," Computer Networks: The
International Journal of Computers and Telecommunications
Networking, vol. 56, pp. 940-965, 2011.
[3] M. Zhang, "Performance Comparison of Flat and Cluster-based
Hierarchial Ad Hoc Routing with Entity and Group Mobility," in
Proceedings of IEEE Communications Society Conference on Wireless
Communications & Networking, Budapest, 2009.
[4] A. Hinds, M. Ngulube, S. Zhu, and H. Al-Aqrabi, "A Review of Routing
Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET)," International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 3, 2013.
[5] V. Cerf, S. Burleigh, A. Hook, L. Torgerson, R. Dust, K. Scott, K. Fall,
and H. Weiss, "Delay Tolerant Networking Architecture," IETF Network
Working Group, RFC4838, Informational,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4838.txt, April 2007.
[6] Maurice J. Khabbaz, Chadi M. Assi, and Wissam F. Fawaz, "Disruption-
Tolerant Networking: A Comprehensive Survey on Recent Developments
and Persisting Challenges," IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials, vol. 14, no. 2, 2012.
[7] W. Moreira, P. Mendes, and S. Sargento, "Social-aware Opportunistic
SCORP with same Routing Protocol based on User's Interactions and Interests," Ad Hoc
Networks Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social
number and types
of interests Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 129, pp. 100-115,
2014.
Spray and Wait [8] A. Vahdat and D. Becker, “Epidemic Routing for Partially-Connected Ad
Hoc Networks,” Duke University, Durham, 2000.
[9] T. Spyropoulos, K. Psounis, and C. C. Raghavendra, “Spray and Wait: An
Epidemic Efficient Routing Scheme for Intermittently Connected Mobile
Networks,” SIGCOMM’05 Workshops, August 22–26, 2005,
Philadelphia, PA, USA.
[10] W. Moreira and P. Mendes, ” Impact of Human Behavior on Social
SCORP with
Opportunistic Forwarding,” Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 293-302, 2014.
and types of [11] C. E. Palazzi, A. Bujari, S. Bonetta, G. Marfia, M. Roccetti, and A.
interests Amoroso "MDTN: Mobile Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network," in The
International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks ,
Maui, 2011.
[12] W. Moreira, P. Mendes, and S. Sargento, "Opportunistic Routing Based
on Daily Routines," in IEEE International Symposium on a World of
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM) , San Francisco,
2012.
[13] W. Moreira, P. Mendes, and S. Sargento, "Opportunistic Routing Based
on Daily Routines," in IEEE International Symposium on a World of
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM) , San Francisco,
2012.
[14] P. Hui, J. Crowcroft, E. Yoneki, "BUBBLE Rap: Social-Based
Forwarding in Delay-Tolerant Networks," IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1576-1589, 2010.
[15] H.A. Nguyen, S. Giordano, "Context Information Prediction for Social-
Based Routing in Opportunistic Network," Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 10, pp.
1557-1569, 2012.
[16] A. Keränen , J. Ott , T. Kärkkäinen, "The ONE Simulator for DTN
Protocol Evaluation," in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Simulation Tools and Techniques, Rome, 2009
[17] R. C. Browning, E. A. Baker, J. A. Herron, R. Kram, "Effects of Obesity
and Sex on The Energetic Cost and Preferred Speed of Walking," Journal
of Applied Physiology, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 390-398, 2006.
[18] Stephanie, "How Big is a Gig," 14 March 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://blog.iclick.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/howbigisagig_infographic.pdf. [Accessed 6
June 2016].
53