Evaluation and comparison of TCP
Wired-cum-Wireless LAN
'Abdul Razaque Rind, 2Khurram Shahzad, 3M.Abdul Qadir
'r786ania2000(yahoo.com, 2khurramks2002@hotmail.com, 3aqadir(jinnah.edu.pk
"2'3Center for Distributed and Semantic Computing (CDSC)
Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract - The great deployment of IEEE 802.11 wireless
networks has spawned momentous challenges for future data
communication. Consumers often criticize the connectivity and
performance related issues. Many of the routing protocols are
suggested for wireless LAN. Prominent steps for selection of
routing protocols according to the nature of network
environment produce better performance. We use DSDV routing
protocols to evaluate the performance of TCP &UDP over wired
cum wireless LAN. We use Network Simulator-2 with different
parameters, generating different speeds of mobile nodes and
different link capacity (bandwidth) with same packet size in every
scenario. We compare TCP and UDP in terms of throughput,
good put and other significant parameters to justify their
performance in particular circumstances.
Keywords: TCP, UDP, Throughput, Good put, wired-cum-
wireless LAN
1. Introduction
Wireless LAN has great impact on global communication
due to faster, low cast and interoperability. The future of
technology has boosted the trends of people towards this
deployment. Wireless LAN is mostly used in airports, hotels
and coffee shops for better and low cast services. The
performance of TCP and UDP in wired-cum-wireless
environment is different. TCP is mostly designed for wired
environment because network nodes have reliable access to
infrastructure network. TCP is not specially designed for
mobile nodes because network connectivity to the Internet
through wireless may be unpredictable. Two approaches
require for enhancing the user experience of TCP applications
for mobile environment. First approach is to improve the
existing protocols in order to reduce high error bit rate and
hand off time. Second approach is to invoke existing TCP
mechanism as a catalyst through any method without any
modification [1].
The performance of TCP is greatly degraded due to high bit
error rate found in the wireless network. Making TCP
efficient, various approaches have been introduced but it
doesn't achieve any targeted goals in WLAN [1]. The slow
start and congestion avoidance methods have been used to
ensure appropriate transmission rate. We can use UDP to
obtain better performance and protection for real time
transmission Voice over IP and Video Conference. Voice over
IP services can be provided on wireless LANs where MVN are
equipped with IEEE 802.11 network interfaces, which send IP
packets through access points to the internet [2].
Wired Network has better performance than wireless
Network in terms of throughput. The most of the traffics on
internet pertains to the transfer of the jobs including down
1-4244-0794-X/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and UDP over
loading of audio, video, web pages, file transfer etc can also
be coordinated by TCP.
UDP is faster than TCP because of less overhead of header;
TCP has retransmission and acknowledgement, which makes it
slower. Due to increasing demand of bandwidth for real time
multimedia applications supported by new routing and
switching technologies, QoS provision is possible now [22].
Different variants of UDP are being introduced by Network
Researchers but TCP is still dominant in Internet, the factor
which discourages the performance of TCP, is window based
congestion control mechanism. Every body is fully aware that
the performance of TCP is affected in wireless environment
because it improperly stops packet loss due to congestion [24].
Performance of UDP and TCP is decreased due to multi-hop
802.1 1 environments with radio intervention. [24].
Performance of UDP is degraded due to many factors, for
instance Overhead, SNR, Network and host hardware,
implementation of network protocols and device drivers [14,
15] while performance of TCP is affected due to many factors
include congestion window, recovery mechanism, packet size,
and timeout values of TCP as well as the acknowledgements,
back off mechanism of IEEE 802.11 MAC retransmission and
retry limit [16].
Layer-2 hand off time affects the performance of mobile
nodes. It is basic reason of packet loss in performance
degrading, especially in case of reliable end-to-end
communication [3]. There are several affecting factors for
throughput of WLAN including number of users, interference,
micro cell range, and multi path propagation, hardware and
standards support. Latency and bottlenecks are two major
factors that affect the performance of wireless network while
in the case of wired network, as latency and bottle necks will
also affect the wireless portion [8, 11]. The remainder of this
paper is organized as follows. Section-Il describes the related
work, Section-III describes used routing protocol, Section-IV
describes Simulation Method, Section-V describes Simulation
Analysis of TCP and UDP, Section -VI gives over view of
performance result, and Section-VII gives the Discussion,
finally Section-VIII Summarize our conclusions and future
work.
2. Related work
Xuanming Dong [12] presents new performance model that
may be accurate in predicting the TCP throughput over
Rayleigh Fadding channels and use model that captures the
main aspect of TCP congestion and flow control. Paper also
presents UDP performance on several popular high-speed
packet wireless networks due to effects of Doppler spread and
337
 delay spread.
Xavier P 'erez-Costa [16] discuss the wireless adoption layer
which can be implemented for enhancing the generic
performance and produces forward error control mechanism
with enhancement module and considers it important tool for
obtaining better performance of TCP and UDP over the
essentially untrustworthy wireless channels.
M. Bottigliengo at al [17] give proposal and compared the
effectiveness of his task with IEEE 802.1 lb standard, and
proved through simulation under TCP and UDP traffic
scenario [17].
Zhenghua Fu at al [20] analyzed the performance of UDP
over IP-based wired and wireless networks through NS-2.
They presented throughput, packet drop and utilized
bandwidth. They also analyzed the degraded performance of
UDP on wired network as compared to wireless network.
Andrea De Vendictis at al [10] gives an analysis of IEEE
802. 11 WLAN test bed analysis of TCP/IP traffic and major
properties of TCP/IP traffic in IEEE 802.11-infrastructure
wireless LAN including UDP and TCP traffic performance.
Main focus of paper is mostly on TCP characteristics.
Andrea De Vandicts at al [23] gives an analysis of TCP and
UDP in wireless LAN 802.1 lb test bed with respect to flow
fairness by using single access point and increasing the mobile
stations.
Charles R. Simpson at al [18] presents the empirical model
of end user network in which introduce two traffic models as
first model for specific TCP or UDP port and second model
for all TCP and UDP traffic ports for end users.
Y. Yi at al [19] describes the relation of TCP and link layer
of static ad-hoc network. TCP packet losses occur without
mobility and performance of TCP is sub-optimal. Our work is
moderately different from other previous work due to different
used parameters and basis of evaluation, analysis and
comparison criteria while such work was not produced prior,
using NS2 Simulator.
We justify the performance of TCP and UDP on basis of
different aspects. Our work validate to this theoretical idea that
with increase of MN, the performance of TCP and UDP
decrease.
3. Routing Protocols
We have used the proactive Destination-Sequence Distance
Vector (DSDV), as on demand protocols ADV and AODV
cannot be used to establish the routes in wireless portion (Ad-
hoc) of the network. ADV has no clear route mechanism
because it is distance vector protocol that avoids long routing
routes and using sequence numbers. DSDV meets the
complete demand of wired-cum- wireless LAN network [11].
We have used TCP with FTP and UDP with CBR applications
as transport protocols.
4. Simulation Method
We used Network Simultor-2. The network we simulated
consists of different scenarios, which contain different
number of nodes randomly placed on 1000m* 1000m
topological grid. The position of Home Agent (HA) is 300,
250 and Foreign Agent (FA) is 800, 250 in grid, simulation
338
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
time is 80 seconds. We utilize mobility pattern that is based
on random waypoint model. The speed of nodes is uniformly
distributed between 5m/s to 40m/s. We used different link
capacity include 256Kb, 1Mb, 2Mb, 5Mb and 11Mb. Every
link capacity for both TCP and UDP is used for various
mobile nodes speeds, in order to determine which one is
better in particular case.
We simulate the steady state conditions of network with
various background traffics. UDP packet size is fixed 1000
bytes with CBR Traffic as compared to TCP with same packet
size with FTP Traffic. In each simulation scenario, we evaluate
through put and good put.
Through put is computed as amount of data delivered by
TCP and UDP divided by 80 sec.. Good put is the ratio of TCP
and UDP packets successfully delivered and compared with
the total number of the packets transmitted.
5. Simulation Analysis of TCP and UDP
The test environment consists of wired-cum-wireless
topology having number of variables to accommodate the test
cases. Fig. 1 shows the wired cum wireless which highlights
the fixed nodes and inter connecting lines shows the positions
of Home agent and Foreign agent with movements of mobile
nodes. Simulation is started at 0.5 sec. We generated different
scenarios with FTP and CBR traffics for TCP and UDP
respectively. During the simulation, each mobile node moves
between foreign agent and home agent. Here we analyze two
scenarios with different aspects such as different mobile nodes,
varying link capacity and speed.
Scenario # 1 indicates the throughput of TCP and UDP with
one and thirteen mobile nodes with one foreign agent, one
home agent and one corresponding node.
Scenario # 2 indicates the good put of TCP and UDP with
one and thirteen mobile nodes with one foreign agent, one
home gent and one corresponding node
If we increase the mobile nodes that the throughput may be
degraded in the TCP case while for the case of UDP
throughput increase. In addition during different scenarios
good put of TCP cannot be affected much more but in the case
of UDP good put decrease.
6. Performance Result
We analyze performance of UDP and TCP according to
following scenarios.
A. Scenario #1 (Throughput)
We use FTP for TCP and CBR for UDP traffic. One
corresponding node communicates with one mobile node.
During the communication, mobile node moves from Home
Agent (HA) to Foreign Agent (FA). During the allotted 80
second time of simulation, we evaluated the scenarios on the
basis of link capacity such as 256Kb, 1Mb, 2Mb, 5Mb and
11Mb. Mobile node's speed is set from ranging 5m/sec,
1Om/sec, 20m/sec, 30m/sec and 40m/sec. The size of TCP and
UDP packets remains same in all of the scenarios. The
following graphs give analytical comparison of TCP and UDP
in detail. Through put can be found by the following formula:
Through put = Packet (size) x delivered packet / Time (sec)
 95

90
-~ 85-

UDP
80 (m/s
90
n0 101 02 03 04
0
L- 75-

70

n q10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

UDTP Speed (mis)

Fig 5: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 11 Mb & Throughput,

having 1 Mobile node (with different speed)
Fig 1: Simulation layout scenario for 13 A
In this scenario, there are thirteen mobile nodes that move
from their Home Agent (HA) to Foreign Agent (FA) and
82 -
communicating with one correspondence node (CN), before
80 - and after the handoff. We use the same link capacity, same
-78- packet size and speed of mobile nodes as same as in previous
0.
76 -
.m 74 - scenario.
=
0
72 - With help of scenario # 2 we calculated the throughput of
70 - all of MN by fixing link capacity to 5Mb where the speed of
688
mobile nodes to be set to 30m/s.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 We evaluate throughput w.r.t mobile nodes, using TCP and
T TCP Speed (misec)
UDP. We analyze that by increasing number of mobile nodes,
UDP
throughput of every mobile node vary from other increasing
Fig 2: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 256iKb & Throughput, number of mobile nodes for both TCP and UDP. The graphs
having 1 Mobile node (with different spe ed) for the throughput are given below.

90 220
85 170 -
I..,
80
0. o.120 -
-
F- 75
Q 70 2 70

65 20 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 n g 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
UTCP 5 0TCP
--1- UDP Speed (mis) UDP Speed (m/s)
Fig 3: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 1 Mb & Throughput, Fig 6: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 256Kb & Throughput,
having 1 Mobile node (with different speed) having 13 mobile nodes (with different speed)

90 200
U)
85 .0
n I 150
80
0. -0XL1 00
0 75
70 = 50
I-
65 _i_ OX _
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TCP
UDP
Speed (m/s) TCP 100
+TC
UDP
20
peed (m?s)
3. 40 50

Fig 4: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 5Mb & Throughput, Fig 7: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 1Mb & Throughput,
having 1 Mobile node (with different speed) having 13 mobile nodes (with different speed)

339

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 by the following formula:
100 Good put Delivered packets x 100 Transmitted packets
0.11
90 105 -
I-
0)
s0 80- -0 95 -

0 m
oe 85 -
s_ 70- 75 -
60 655-
n 10 20 30 40 50
0>
0
55
-4-TCP 45
UDP Speed (m/s)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Fig 8: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity 5Mb & Throughput, TCP
having 13 mobile nodes (with different speeds) UDP # of Mobile Nodes
Fig I 1: Good put of TCP, UDP with 13 MN, speed 30m/s and
110 LinkCapacity256Kb
I-,
en
m1 00
90 110
0
80 m0
2 70
s
bu
f-erN
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 70-

-* TCP
UDP Speed (m/s) 60 |
n 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Fig 9: Comparison of TCP, UDP w.r.t Link capacity I IlMb & Throughput, UDP
TCP
having 13 mobile nodes (with different speed) -W-U DP # of Mobile Nodes
In this scenario, we fix link capacity to 5Mb where the
speed of mobile nodes to be set to 30m/s. We evaluate Fig 12: Good put of TCP, UDP with 13 Mobile nodes, speed 30m/s, Link
capacity 1Mb
throughput w.r.t mobile nodes, using TCP and UDP. We
analyze that by increasing number of mobile nodes that
throughput of every mobile node vary from other nodes for 105
both TCP and UDP. The graphs for the throughput are given a)
below. m 9
1-1
100 _ 85
0.
90
o
0
75
80
65

~70 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
-4-TCP
60
_ UDP
# of Mobile Nodes
50
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fig 13: Good put of TCP, UDP with 13 Mobile nodes, speed 30m/s, Link
-+TCP capacity 5Mb
UDP # of Mobile Nodes
105
Fig 10: Throughput of TCP, UDP with 13 MN, speed 30m/s, Link capacity 100
5Mb Cu
1-1 95
B. Scenario # 2 (Good Put) 0.

90
We evaluate and analyze the good put of all mobile nodes to 0.85
use different link capacity. We find that different packet loss Q
0
0 80
occurs in UDP case especially when we use link capacity
75
256Kb while in case of 5Mb and I Mb packet losses for UDP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
decreases. In case of TCP packet loss with different link TOP # of Mobile Nodes
capacity is minimum as compared to UDP (dropped packets to UDP
be retransmitted). We set speed of all mobile nodes to 30m/s
with different link capacity such as 256Kb, 1Mb, 2Mb, 5Mb Fig 14: Good put of TCP, UDP with 13 Mobile nodes,
and 1Mb for both TCP and UDP. Good put can be calculated Speed 30m/s, Link capacity 11 Mb

340

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In addition with scenario # 2, we calcullated the throughput registration for communication. Thus layer-2, layer-3 and
of all mobile nodes with respect to link caipacity. The fig. and acknowledgement messages affect the performance of TCP
fig show the throughput performance of ev ery node on varying [2,4,6]. Another performance affecting factor is only one
link capacity. corresponding node, communicating with many nodes in our
scenario. TCP has capability of retransmission; lost packets are
-* MN MN2 MN3 MN4 MN5 retransmitted because of this, good put for TCP is encouraging
MN6 -MN7 MN8 MN9 MN10 even number of MNs increase and link capacity change. In
MN11 MN12 MN13 case of UDP, having no signaling message and lesser payload
80 but main factor of degrading the performance of good put is no
retransmission of lost packets. Communication of
70 corresponding node with single mobile, produce encouraging
throughput and good put in form of TCP with FTP application.
e- 60 The performance of UDP with CBR traffic in case of
0. 50 single mobile node is little bit lesser than TCP but increasing
cm the number of mobile nodes, can be cause of increasing the
2 40 throughput but decreasing good put (packet loss).
Our goal is to obtain additional data for utilizing the
30 services of UDP and TCP in particular cases in wired cum
20 wireless channel. Our results for both TCP and UDP cases
produce substantial contribution. Losses are caused due to
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43 9 10 11 12 many implementations including mobile nodes, using low link
Link Capacity (Mb/<
capacity; Network boundary and speed of mobile nodes are
Fig 15: Comparison of all mobile nodes w.r.t Link CTapacity & Throughput having the major factors to degrade the performance of TCP
with TCP and UDP over wired cum wireless LAN.
8. Conclusion and Future Work
4MN1 MN2 MN3 MN4 MN5
MN6 MN7 - MN8 MN9 MN10 We concluded that TCP is giving better performance (good
MN11 MN12 MN13 put) in case of minimum number of mobile nodes. TCP also
105 produce encouraging results in case of data includes file
transfer, loading of audio, video, web pages etc on internet but
95 It does not give encouraging performance voice over IP, while
.0
in case of UDP, It is found better in VOIP and even increasing
85 of mobile nodes produce better throughput while maximum
m
0. 75 packet losses occur, in consequence the good put to be greatly
0 affected If we can bear loss of little data in terms of file
v 65 transfer that UDP can also be best choice for fast delivery of
F- data. Link capacity and speed of MNs affect the performance
55 of TCP and UDP. In future we focus on different comparison
of TCP variants and introduce the hierarchical concept in
45 wired-cum-wireless LAN by using NS-2. We also want to
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 introduce smart cache on access points to reduce latency and
Link Capacity (MbIs) saving packet losses during hand off process.
Fig 16: Comparison of all mobile nodes w.r.t Link Capacity & Throughput
with UDP References
7. Discussion of Test Results [1] Luis Muno, Marth GarciaJohnny Choue, Ramon guero, "Optimizing
Internet flows over IEEE 802.1 lb wireless local area networks: a
Our measurements discovered various comparisons of TCP performance-enhancing proxy based on forward error correction"
& UDP performance over wired cum wireless LAN due to IEEE Communication Magazine December 2001.
different parameters used in evaluation. Different scenarios are [2] Chien-Chao Tseng,Li-Hsing Yen,Hung-Hsin Chang and Kai-Cheng
explained and simulated by NS-2, using various numbers of Hsu, "Topology-Aided Cross-Layer Fast Handoff Designs for IEEE
802.1 I/Mobile IP Environments" under contract Taiwan, China NSC
mobile nodes. Single node linked with wired area is 94-2213-E-009 -005 and NSC 94-2219-E-009 -006, 2005.
communicating with different mobile nodes, using the UDP & [3] Robert Hsieh and Aruna Seneviratne, "A Comparison of Mechanisms
TCP with its applications including CBR and FTP for Improving Mobile IP Handoff Latency for End-to-End TCP",
respectively, playing a role for receiving and transmitting the ACM 2003 Conference on Mobile Communication, USA, 2003
[4] M.S. Bargh, R.J. Hulsebosch, E.H. Eertink, A. Prasad, H. Wang, P.
packets. Schoo, "Fast Authentication Methods for Handovers between IEEE
Due to the increasing the mobile nodes, the performance is 802.1 1 Wireless LAN s", ACM 1 st October, 2004
degraded for both UDP and TCP because in case of TCP, [5] Leo Patana pongpibul, Glenford Mapp and Any Hopper, "An End-
every MN has number of signaling message to complete the System Approach to Mobility Management for 4G Networks and its

341

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 application to Thin-Client computing Mobile, IEEE mobile
computing and communication Review, volume 10, Nov3 2004
[6] Hidetoshi Yokota, Akira Idoue, Toru Hasegawa, Toshihiko Kato,
"Link Layer Assisted Mobile IP Fast Handoff Method over
Wireless LAN Networks" ACM 23-26 September 2002
[7] S. Shin, A. Forte, A. Rawat, and H. Schulzrinne, "Reducing MAC
Layer Handoff Latency in IEEE 802.11 Wireless LANs," in Proc.
ACM MobiWac 2004, October 2004.
[8] Srikant Sharma, Ningning Zhu and Tzi-cker Chiueh, "Low-
Latency Mobile IP Handoff for Infrastructure-Mode Wireless
LANs", IEEE Journal Vol.22, NO. 4, MAY 2004.
[9] M. Bottigliengo, C. Casetti, C.-F. Chiasserini, M. Meo, "Smart
Traffic Scheduling in 802 11 WLANs with Access Point" IEEE,
2003
[10] Andrea De Vendictis, Francesco Vacirca, Andrea Baiocchi,
"Experimental Analysis of TCP and UDP Traffic Performance
over Infra-structured 802.1 lb WLANs", Italian FIRB Project
PRIMO,2005
[11] R. Boppana and S. Konduru, "An adaptive distance vector routing
algorithm for mobile, ad-hoc network" in IEEE Infocom 200,
March 2001
[12] K. El Malki et al., "Low latency handoffs in Mobile IPv4,"Internet
Draft, Aug. 2005.
[13] Xuanming Dong, "Effect of Slow Fading and Adaptive
Modulation on TCP/UDP Performance of High-Speed Packet
Wireless Networks"
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-
109.html
[14] R. et al. Performance analysis on Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 with
Fast-handoff over End-to-End TCP. IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2002.
[15] X.P erez-Costa and M.Torrent-Moreno. A Performance Study of
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 from a System Perspective. in
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications
(ICC), May 2003.
342
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on June 28,2010 at 09:42:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[16] Xavier P erez-Costa, Marc Torrent-Moreno and Hannes
Hartenstein,"A performance Comparison of Mobile IPv6,
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6, Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 and
their Combination", Mobile Computing and Communications
Review Volume 7,4th November, 2004.
[17] Luis Mufioz, Marta Garcia, Johnny Choque, Ram6n Aguero,Petri
Mihdnen, "Optimizing Internet Flows over IEEE 802.1 lb
Wireless Local Area Networks: A Performance-Enhancing Proxy
Based on Forward Error Correction" IEEE Communications
Magazine, December 2001
[18] Charles R. Simpson, Jr., Dheeraj Reddy, George F. Riley,
"Empirical Models of TCP and UDP End-User Network Traf.
from NETIghome Data Analysis" Proceedings of the 20th
Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation
(PADS'06), IEEE 2006
[19] Y. Yi and S. Shakkottai, "Hop-by-hop congestion control over a
wireless multi-hop network" In INFOCOM, 2004.
[20] Zhenghua Fu, Haiyun Luo, Petros Zerfos, Songwu Lu, Lixia
Zhang, Mario Gerla, The Impact of MultihopWireless Channel on
TCP Performance, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2005
[21] A. A. Akintola, G. A. Aderounmu,A. A. Owojori, M. 0. Adigun,
"Performance Modeling of UDP over IP-Based Wireline and
Wireless Networks", Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology, Volume 3, 2006
[22] A.A.Akintola, G.A.Aderounmu, M.0 Adigun and A.A
Owojori,"Performance Modeling of UDP over IP-Based wire line
and wireless Networks", Issues in informing science and
Information Technology volume 3,2006.
[23] Andrea De Vandicts, Francesco Vacirca and Andrea Baiocchi,
"Experimental Analysis of TCP and UDP Traffic performance
over Infra-Structured 802.1 lb WLAN". Unpublished.
[24] Christian Rohner, Erik Nordstorm, Per Gunning berg and Christian
Tschudin, " Interactions between TCP, UDP and Routing Protocols
in Wireless Multi-hop Ad hoc Networks"