978-1-4673-1239-4/12/$31.

00 c 2012 IEEE
Performance Modeling of Delay Tolerant Network Routing via Queueing Petri Nets
Rajkishan Gunasekaran, V. Mahendran, and C. Siva Ram Murthy
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
Email: rajkishang@gmail.com, mahendra@cse.iitm.ac.in, and murthy@iitm.ac.in
AbstractWith the advent of wireless technologies such as
Wi-Fi Direct and Near Field Communication (NFC), Peer-to-
Peer (P2P) content sharing among mobile devices is set to
become more ubiquitous. Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTNs)
with their rudimentary direct delivery routing protocolcan be
leveraged to provide seamless connectivity in such scenarios. To
the best of our knowledge, little has been done to understand
the performance of DTNs under realistic settings involving
the interplay of diverse factors such as bundle fragmentation,
scheduling, and buffer spacing.
In this paper, we present a Queueing Petri Net (QPN)
abstraction of DTNs that enables us to evaluate the underlying
networks performance. Our model is novel in its ability to
capture bundle fragmentation, scheduling, and buffer spacing
put together. We proceed to evaluate the veracity of the model
by involving QPN evaluation using the SimQPN tool and
simulation of the underlying DTN using the ONE simulator.
We nd that the model successfully predicts the performance
of the underlying network to a high degree of accuracy.
I. INTRODUCTION
Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTNs) [1] have been envisaged
to provide connectivity in disrupted environments. With the
increasing percolation of smartphones, there is a growing
interest in infrastructure-less Peer-to-Peer (P2P) communi-
cation. DTNs could be leveraged to compensate for the
intermittent connectivity that is typical of these devices.
DTN routing protocols circumvent intermittent connectivity
using the store, carry and forward mechanism [1] wherein
the nodes store bundles locally and forward them as and
when they come into contact with another node. If the re-
cipient node also happens to be the destination, this transfer
mechanism is called the direct transmission routing protocol
in DTN routing parlance. This simple routing protocol nds
application in a wide range of scenarios ranging from satel-
lite communication to providing connectivity in rural areas.
In the latter case, nodes in rural areas deposit data to a single
node, which is typically a smartphone running the DTN
protocol stack. This node in turn acts as a mule, physically
carrying the data to a location with Internet connectivity
before forwarding it to its destination via the web. Now,
with the advent of P2P-friendly wireless technologies such
as WiFi Direct and NFC, P2P content sharing applications
are set to become more ubiquitous. Android Beam, a popular
close proximity le sharing protocol is one such example,
that employs the NFC technology for data transfer. DTNs,
with their rudimentary direct transmission routing protocol
could nd a prominent role in such applications. Our ability
to predict the performance of DTNs in terms of the physical
parameters of the network is therefore critical, especially
considering the limited resources available at the disposal
of smartphones.
To the best of our knowledge, analysis of DTN routing
protocols in the literature has seldom taken into account real-
istic factors such as bundle fragmentation, buffer scheduling
and buffer spacing. Our goal therefore is to come up with
a unied characterization of the network, that takes into
account these important factors and accurately predicts the
network performance.
To this end, we look at Queueing Petri Nets (QPNs) as
a candidate framework for coming up with such a generic
model of DTNs. QPNs offer a natural way of representing
and analyzing stochastic distributed systems. However, for
the QPN model to be effective, it should be detailed enough
to capture the different parameters that impact performance.
In this context, a major contribution of this paper is an
intuitive scheme of representing DTN as a QPN that takes
aforementioned all realistic factors into account, for the
direct transmission routing protocol. A major factor that
severely limits the scalability of QPNs is tractability. Large
models lead to state space explosion rendering the Petri
Net (PN) analytically intractable. We deal with this using
the discrete event simulation tool proposed in SimQPN [2].
We next verify the validity of the model via simulations
using the Opportunistic Network Environment (ONE) sim-
ulator [3].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
section II, we provide an overview of the capabilities of the
state-of-the-art DTN performance models vis-a-vis QPNs.
We provide a brief on the QPN background and system
model under consideration in Section III. The crux of this
paper, DTN modeling via QPN is detailed in Section IV. The
evaluation methods (including QPN model) are described
in Section V and their results are discussed in VI. We
nally conclude this paper in section VII, by providing some
directions toward the future extension of this work.
II. RELATED WORK
Performance study of a number of DTN routing protocols
in the literature has largely been done either by analysis
with minimal settings or by mere simulations. The authors
in [4] and [5] use a Continuous Time Markov Chain (CTMC)
model to study the propagation of a single bundle in the
network. The authors in [5] go further and study the buffer
space occupied by a single copy (via its replica) in the
network. This is done by approximating the node as a
G/G/ queue and the results derived from CTMC are used
to compute the buffer space. The authors in [6] study the
impact of different buffer scheduling policies via simulation.
In a similar approach, the authors in [7] use simulation
to study the impact of various fragmentation techniques
on the network performance. In our earlier work [8], we
study buffer spacing of the node by using Large Deviations
Theory (LDT) to quantify the buffer size for a specic
network setting. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is
the rst to model the network performance by incorporating
all the signicant factors involved in a comprehensive way.
III. BACKGROUND
A. DTN Model
The system model under consideration consists of a
number of mobile nodes that move within a bounded terrain.
Their mobility is governed by a known pattern such that
the expected IMTs (Inter-Meeting Time) and CTs (Contact
Time) are Independent and Identically Distributed (IID)
across every pair of nodes. All nodes are identical in terms of
the resources available to them (such as buffer capacity, radio
range, and link bandwidth). Every node generates bundle
destined for another node selected uniformly at random.
This bundle generation rate is same across all nodes. The
source node carries all bundles until it physically meets
the destination (a.k.a. direct transmission routing). In this
model, we focus on a typical pair of source-destination
nodes. Since all node-pairs are identical, we argue that the
model automatically scales for the entire DTN.
B. Queueing Petri Nets
In this section, we provide an overview of QPNs. The
basic Petri Nets (PNs) are bi-partite graphs with two kinds
of vertices, namely places and transitions that are connected
by directional arcs. An arc connects a place to a transition
or vice-versa and is respectively called as input/output arc.
Each arc has an cardinality associated with it; unless other-
wise stated, the cardinality is 1. The transitions are of two
types, namely timed transitions and immediate transitions,
characterized by the time delay after which they re. A
transition is said to be enabled (or red), if its associated
input place has sufcient number of tokens satisfying the
cardinality of the connecting input arc. Once enabled, an
immediate transition res the token to each of its connected
output arcs (according to their cardinality). A timed tran-
sition starts its timer and res the token after it expires.
If a timed transition res at an exponential rate, then the
resultant PN is called Stochastic Petri Net (SPN). A PN with
exponentially red timed transitions and immediate transi-
tions is called Generalized SPN (GSPN). Furthermore, the
places can also have colored tokens (used to denote different
classes of service) with different transition modes for each
color. And hence named as Colored GSPN (CGSPN).
QPNs are extensions of CGSPNs, wherein the places
are of two types: (i) ordinary places and (ii) queueing
places. Queueing places integrate queues into places. Once
the tokens are served in the queue, they are placed in the
depository
1
and ready to be used. At a high level, our
model abstracts the node-level aspects of the DTN. Differ-
ent stochastic realizations of the DTN from a node-level
perspective, such as bundle generation and node mobility
are abstracted via QPN formalisms.
IV. DTN PERFORMANCE MODELLING VIA QPN
FORMALISM
As described in the earlier section, we build a QPN
model that represents the interactions that happen between a
source-destination pair of nodes in the network. Through the
lifetime of the DTN, for a given pair of source-destination
nodes, the following phenomena are of interest from a
modeling perspective:
Bundle generation - Bundles are generated at the source
node as per a known stochastic process and are accom-
modated in a nite buffer until the node comes within
transmission proximity of the destination.
Mobility - Movement of nodes is governed by the
underlying stochastic process of a known mobility
model. From a node-level perspective, this boils down
to the sequence of IMTs and CTs over time.
Bundle transmission - When a source node is in contact
with its destination node, bundles get transmitted at a
rate determined by the link bandwidth. It is possible
that a bundle in ight gets fragmented when the contact
breaks midway. DTNs handle this via fragmentation.
In this paper, we focus on proactive fragmentation,
wherein the source node chooses to break a few ran-
domly chosen bundles into smaller fragments at xed
boundaries before the transmission begins.
Figure 1 shows the abstraction of a DTN node com-
munication model from a source nodes perspective. The
corresponding QPN notation can be referred from Table I.
A. Bundle Generation
Bundles are generated at BG, with the generation rate
as determined by the service distribution of the queue in
BG. Each token represents a bundle. A generated bundle is
kept ready in BR, waiting to be accommodated in the nodes
buffer denoted as SBUF.
The niteness of the nodes buffer size is modeled with
the help of memory pool (POOL). The initial number of
1
A depository in queueing place can be visualized as an ordinary place
where queue served tokens are placed.
CT IMT
MOBILITY
BUNDLE GENERATION
BG BR SBUF LINK
POOL
UP
DBUF
FR
n
n
BUNDLE TRANSMISSION
PFG
DOWN
Figure 1: DTN node communication model. The blue shaded portions indicate the paths exclusively meant for the fragments
and black shaded portions indicate the path used by either fragments, bundles, or other tokens as in the case of MOBILITY
part of the model.
Table I: Notation used
Notation Place type Meaning
IMT Queue abstracts Inter-Meeting Time
CT Queue abstracts Contact Time
UP Ordinary denotes contact UP event
DOWN Ordinary denotes contact DOWN event
BG Queue abstracts Bundle Generation process
BR Ordinary denotes Bundle Ready for storage
SBUF Ordinary abstracts Source nodes BUFfer
DBUF Ordinary abstracts Destination nodes BUFfer
LINK Queue abstracts LINK transmission
POOL Ordinary abstracts the node buffer size
FR Ordinary collects the no. of Fragments Received
tokens in POOL decides the total buffer size of the node.
For each bundle generated, a token from POOL is consumed.
In a similar manner, a token is restored in POOL when a
bundle is successfully transferred to its recipient.
Now, the tricky part here is modeling proactive frag-
mentation, where the source node, foreseeing connection
breakage, breaks up bundles into smaller fragments of xed
size. We abstract this by using the notion of colors in the
PN. Two different colors denote full bundle and fragmented
bundle respectively. Correspondingly, the common imme-
diate transition at the output arcs of both BR and POOL
BR
POOL
SBUF
Full bundle transmission
n
Fragment transmission
Figure 2: Multi-transmission mode of an immediate transi-
tion at the fragment generation point.
has two transition modes for each color that re with equal
probability. As shown in Fig. 2, the full bundle transmission
mode places one token (of full bundle color) in SBUF,
whereas fragment transmission mode places n tokens (of
fragment bundle color) into SBUF. The fragmentation ratio n
denes the number of slicings to be made from the original
bundle. Note that in POOL one token is equivalent to a full
bundle. In the case of fragmentation, the consumed token
from POOL would decompose into n multiple fragment-
colored tokens (as shown in Fig. 2, the cardinality of output
arc to the place SBUF is set to n from the fragment
transmission mode).
At SBUF the bundles are scheduled in First Come First
Served (FCFS) manner. Furthermore to demonstrate the
support of different bundle scheduling strategies provided
by the QPNs, we perform priority scheduling (parametrized
with bundle-level information) by exploiting the notion of
color in the PN. The bundles that have been generated are
categorized as short-lived and long-lived (an application-
specied requirement). The two types of bundles are color-
shaded accordingly, this enables the priority scheduler at
SBUF to schedule high-priority short-lived packets rst.
B. Mobility
Though the mobility model is characterized by the node
speed, terrain size, etc., from the node-level perspective, this
boils down to the occurrence of IMTs and CTs in tandem
over time. The physical parameters of the network can be
abstracted out by the stochastic processes that govern these
two variables. For instance, in the Random Waypoint (RWP)
mobility model the IMTs are exponential distributed.
Our point of interest lies in the time when two nodes are in
contact (i.e., CTs). As the literature seldom studies the statis-
tical properties of CTs in mobility models, we log the CTs of
a given model from simulations through the ONE simulator
and statistically t these logs to standard distributions and
choose the distribution that best ts the empirical logs. As
shown in Fig. 1, the IMT and CT are queueing places with
their respective service time distributions governed by these
empirical traces. In case the CTs do not t with any standard
distributions, the QPN is fed with an empirical CDF of these
distributions directly built from the traces of the simulation.
The places ON/OFF denote the respective contact
up/down event with the destination node.
C. Bundle Transmission
The actual bundle transmission between nodes happens
when they remain in contact, which is indicated by a
token in ON. The transmission bandwidth is abstracted by
the queueing place LINK, whose service time distribution
represents the link bandwidth. Without loss of generality,
we assume a xed link bandwidth for the settings. This
is corroborated by the fact that DTN systems are sparse
in nature (causing meagre interference) and the short radio
range of the nodes (as is the case with Bluetooth and NFC
radios).
To support fragmentation, the LINK supports two separate
queues for full bundles and fragmented bundles. It is obvious
that the former queue has a service time that is n times the
service time of the latter.
To denote successful bundle transmission (full or frag-
ment) and facilitate recycling of buffer space at the source
node, a transition places a token back to the sender nodes
memory pool POOL after depositing a bundle at the receiv-
ing nodes buffer RBUF. As shown in Fig. 3, the place FR
collects n fragments, coalesces them and places one token
back in the POOL and DBUF, respectively. The place DBUF
is the destination nodes buffer, in which case FR plays the
role of fragment reassembly point.
LINK
FR
POOL
DBUF
n
Full bundle transmission
Fragment transmission
Figure 3: Multi-transmission mode at the fragment receiving
point.
In case of contact breakage in the middle of bundle
transmission, (indicated by DOWN), the current in-ight
bundle or fragment is immediately returned to the source
buffer SBUF.
V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The objective of the QPN model is to accurately predict
the performance of the DTN, given the physical parameters
of the network. The performance metrics under consider-
ation are end-to-end latency (delivery delay) and delivery
ratio. We rst obtain the performance metrics from the QPN
model and compare them with the results obtained from
simulations via the ONE simulator.
A. QPN Model Evaluation via SimQPN
The delivery delay can be derived analytically by solving
the reachability graph
2
that is deduced from the under-
lying QPN. However, we choose to evaluate the model
via a discrete-event simulation methodology proposed in
SimQPN [2], due to the ability of this tool to circumvent
the state space explosion problem.
We use the technique of probing in SimQPN that may be
used to specify a region of interest in a PN over which data
collection needs to be done. This approach directly gives
the distribution of the token residence times in each place
of the QPN. The delivery latency is derived by probing the
QPN region from BG to RBUF. The delivery ratio at any
time is directly inferred from the number of tokens received
at RBUF with respect to the tokens generated at BG.
B. Simulation via ONE Simulator
We next perform simulations using the ONE simulator
for the network setup mentioned above. Our settings across
the ONE simulator and the QPN model are tightly coupled
to each other. For instance, the CT traces obtained from
the ONE simulator for different mobility models are fed to
queueing places that abstract mobility in the QPN model.
2
A reachability graph is a realization of the QPN model from its initial
token settings (a.k.a. markings).
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
Low load - FCFS scheduling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
High load - FCFS scheduling
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
Low load - Priority scheduling
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
25 MB
QPN
50 MB
No fragmentation
High load - Priority scheduling
Figure 4: Delivery ratio and delivery delay for RWP mobility model.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

r
a
t
i
o
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
Low load - FCFS scheduling
0
5
10
15
20
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
High load - FCFS scheduling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
Low load - Priority scheduling
0
5
10
15
20
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
3

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Buffer size (x10
3
in MBs)
ONE
1 MB
QPN
5 MB
No fragmentation
High load - Priority scheduling
Figure 5: Delivery ratio and delivery delay for MBM mobility model.
VI. NUMERICAL RESULTS
We compare the performance of the network across the
two evaluation frameworks (i.e., SimQPN and ONE simu-
lator) and hence verify the validity of the proposed QPN
model. We envisage a variety of scenarios for evaluating
network performance in order to bring out the ability of the
QPN model to capture these variations. We consider two
different mobility models for our experiments, the Random
Waypoint model (RWP) and a Map Based Mobility model
(MBM). For the latter, we consider a map of the city of
Helsinki, where the nodes perform a random walk along
the roads dened in the map. For each mobility model, we
consider two different bundle scheduling policies at a nodes
buffer, namely FCFS and a priority scheduling scheme. For
the latter, we consider a binary priority model wherein a
higher priority is attributed to short lived bundles (with a
lower TTL). Now, for each scheduling policy, we evaluate
network performance for a low load scenario and a high
load scenario, the load being determined by the bundle
generation rate. Table II shows the simulation settings under
consideration for both mobility models. The link bandwidth
is obtained from observing the data transfer rate of two
Android phones kept 20 meters apart (the assumed radio
range in the settings) communicating over WiFi, in an
isolated environment to avoid interference.
Figure 4 and Fig. 5 show the delivery ratio and delivery
Table II: Simulation settings
Parameters
Values
RWP MBM
Terrain size (in mm) 400 400 5000 5000
Radio WiFi
Radio range (in m) 20
Bundle size (in MB) 100 25
Fragments size (in MB) 25, 50 1, 5
Bundle generation frequency
15min, 1hr 1.5min, 15min
(Heavy load, Low load)
Bundle TTL (in hrs) 2, 4 6, 12
Link bandwidth (in Mbps) 32
Node buffer size (in MB) 500 to 2500 100 to 500
Scheduling FCFS, Priority scheduling
Simulation time (in days) 1
delay of the network for RWP and MBM mobility models,
respectively. The rst observation is that the performance of
both the frameworks corroborate each other across all the
scenarios, showing the validity of the QPN model. Also, as a
general trend, latency and delivery ratio increase on increas-
ing buffer size up until a saturation point that varies with
varying fragment size of bundles. The link bandwidth and
node contact durations serve as limiting factors that cause
this saturation. The higher latency for smaller fragments,
though seemingly counter-intuitive, can be explained based
on the fact that smaller fragments can be accommodated in
the buffer for a longer amount of time before being delivered
(as is clear from the higher delivery ratio). The latency,
which is measured only from those bundles that have been
successfully delivered is hence pushed up by these fragments
that have been sitting at the buffer for a long period of
time. On the other hand, having very small fragments can be
detrimental to the overall performance. This is the case in the
MBM mobility with high network load scenario where the
delivery ratio remains comparable for all the three fragment
sizes, but the latency is much higher when the fragment
size is 1 MB. This can be explained from the fact that the
destination node has to wait for every fragment to reach
before it can successfully reconstruct the bundle, the low
probability of which in turn has an adverse effect on the
overall delivery ratio. Finally, the priority scheduling scheme
slightly improves the delivery ratio in some cases where
short lived bundles that would not have been delivered in the
FCFS scenario are now delivered. But the latencies remain
comparable to FCFS because long lived bundles are now
forced to remain in the buffer in favor of the high priority
short lived bundles.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have developed a QPN model that char-
acterizes DTNs for the special case of direct transmission
routing. This model is able to accurately predict the perfor-
mance of the network in terms of the delivery delay and
delivery ratio, by taking into account realistic factors such
as buffer scheduling and bundle fragmentation. This can
be seen from our validation scheme involving simulations
via the SimQPN framework and the ONE Simulator. The
QPN model can be further enhanced to incorporate multi-
hop routing and bundle replication. Analytical expressions
for the delay may be obtained by constructing the underlying
reachability graph of the QPN by making certain simplifying
assumptions to curtail the state space. These extensions are
left for future work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Department of Science
and Technology, New Delhi, India.
REFERENCES
[1] V. Cerf, S. Burleigh, A. Hooke, L. Torgerson, R. Durst,
K. Scott, K. Fall, and H. Weiss, RFC 4838, delay-tolerant
networking architecture, IRTF DTN Research Group, 2007.
[2] S. Kounev and A. Buchmann, SimQPN: A tool and method-
ology for analyzing queueing petri net models by means of
simulation, Performance Evaluation, vol. 63, pp. 364394,
2006.
[3] A. Kernen, J. Ott, and T. Krkkinen, The ONE simulator
for DTN protocol evaluation, in SIMUTools 09: Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation Tools and
Techniques, 2009.
[4] Y. Li, P. Hui, D. Jin, L. Su, and L. Zeng, Performance evalu-
ation of routing schemes for energy-constrained delay tolerant
networks, in ICC 11: Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Communications, 2011, pp. 15.
[5] T. Matsuda and T. Takine, (p,q)-epidemic routing for sparsely
populated mobile ad hoc networks, IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 783 793, 2008.
[6] A. Lindgren and K. Phanse, Evaluation of queueing policies
and forwarding strategies for routing in intermittently con-
nected networks, in COMSWARE 06: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Communication System Software
and Middleware, 2006, pp. 110.
[7] M. Pitkanen, A. Keranen, and J. Ott, Message fragmentation
in opportunistic DTNs, in WoWMoM 08: Proceedings of
International Symposium on World of Wireless, Mobile and
Multimedia Networks, 2008, pp. 17.
[8] V. Mahendran, T. Praveen, and C. S. R. Murthy, Buffer dimen-
sioning of delay-tolerant network nodes - A large deviations
approach, in ICDCN 12: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, 2012,
pp. 502512.