Routing Protocols for Wireless Multimedia Sensor Network: A Survey

Table 2

Simulation scenario of proposed routing protocols for WMSNs.

Protocol	Verified method		Simulator type	Performance metrics	Compared to	Comparison result
	Simulator	Testbed
Yao et al. [15]	√		Not specified	Energy consumption-delay-distance	SAR	The REAR algorithm prolongs the network liftme and performs much better than SAR
Guannan et al. [16]	√		OMNet++	PRR-network life time	MHC and flooding	Achieveing higher data rate and longer network life time. But under higher package transmitting rate from source, receiving rate, and network life time will drop fast
Mande and Yuanyan [17]	—	—	—	—	—	—
Hamid et al. [18]	√		NS-2	Delay-node life time-throughput	Single-r and multi-r mechanisms	Providing significant performance improvements in terms of average delay, average lifetime, and network throughput
MCRA [20]	√		NS-2	Delay-packet loss ratio-control message overhead	SPEED-DD	Showing that it has a good overall performance
Poojary and Pai [21]	√		Qualnet network simulator	Energy consumption-PRR	Not specified	Prolonging the network life time and the packet drop reduces as the number of paths selected for the data transmission is increased
Li et al. [22]	√		NS-2	Throughput-delay-goodput	EDGE and basic diffusion	Achieving high throughput and desirable delay to meet the QoS requirement of multimedia streaming
Kai and Min [23]	√		Not specified	Energy consumption-reliability	Not compared	The energy consumption is reduced by using the proposed energy prediction mechanism
LEAR [25]	√		NS-2	Throughput	AODV	The protocol finds possible disjoint paths or partial disjoint paths for multimedia traffic faster than AODV
MLAF [26]	√		Opnet	Energy consumption-PRR	LAF	Showing good result in energy consumption, reliability, and end to end delay
ASAR [7]	√		NS-2	queuing delay, PRR, and dropped rate	Traditional ant-based-Dijkstra-DD	Select the optimal paths to meet their individual QoS requirements. Thus improving network performance
Rahman et al. [8]	√		Java	Delay-jitter	Not compared	M-IAR shows good performance which achieves acceptable delay, jitter, and energy consumption
ALCOLBR [9]	√		NS-2	Delay-node life time-PRR	AGRA and M-IAR	ACOLBR has a better adaptability; it can achieve load balancing, reduce the end to end delay, and prolong the network lifetime
Ke et al. [10]	—	—	—	—	—	—
TPGF [12]	√		NetTopo	Delay-no. of found paths	GPSR	Holes can be efficiently bypassed compared to (GPSR), suitable for multimedia transmission
GEAMS [13]	√		OMNeT++	Delay-lost packet-energy distribution	GPSR	More suitable for WMSNs than GPSR as it ensures uniform energy consumption and meets the delay and packet loss constraint