Comparative Study for Performance Analysis of VOIP Codecs Over WLAN in Nonmobility Scenarios

International Journal of Information Technology, Modeling and Computing (IJITMC) Vol. 4, No.4, November 2016
DOI: 10.5121/ijitmc.2016.4402 1
COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR PERFORMANCE
ANALYSIS OF VOIP CODECS OVER WLAN IN NON-
MOBILITY SCENARIOS
Shreekant Gurrapu1
,Dr. Saurabh Mehta2
and Prof.Shraddha Panbude3
1,2 &3
Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, Vidyalankar institute of
Technology, Mumbai India.
ABSTRACT
Voice over IP (VoIP) applications such as Skype, Google Talk, and FaceTime are promising technologies
for providing cheaper voice calls to end users over extant networks. Wireless networks such as WiMAX and
Wi-Fi focus on providing perfection of service for VoIP. However, there are numerous aspects that affect
quality of voice connections over wireless networks [13]. The adoption of Voice over Wireless Local Area
Network is on tremendous increase due its relief, non-invasive, economicexpansion, low maintenance cost,
universal coverage and basic roaming capabilities. However, expansion Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) over Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) is a challenging task for many network specialist and
engineers. Voice codec is one of the most critical components of a VoIP system. In this project, we evaluate
the performance analysis of various codecs such as G.711, G.723 and G.729 over Wi-Fi networks. NS2 Wi-
Fi simulation models are designed. Performance metrics such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS), average
end-to-end latency, and disconcert are evaluated and discussed [13].
1. In this paper, our area of interest is to compare and study the performance analysis of VoIP
codecs in Non-mobility scenarios by changing some parameters and plotting the graphs
throughput, End to end Delay, MOS, Packet delivery Ratio, and Jitter by using Network
Simulator version.
2. In this paper we analyze the different performance parameters, Recent research has focused on
simulation studies with nonmobility scenarios to analyze different VoIP codecs with nodes up to
5. We have simulated the different VoIP codecs in non-mobility scenario with nodes up to 300.
KEYWORDS:
Voice over Internet Protocol, Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), Codecs, throughput, delay.
INTRODUCTION:
The recent Voice over IP (VOIP) applications such as Skype, Google Talk, and Face Time have
changed the way people communicate to each other. Due to the low cost, people find VOIP as an
alternative to the expensive traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). VOIP has
set of parameters that defined its Quality of Service (QoS) such as end to delay, jitter, packets
loss, Mean Opinion Score (MOS, and throughput[13]. The existing wireless networks such as Wi-
Fi offer flexibility to support such applications. At the time the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) technology
showed great success as cheap wireless internet access. The Motive of this survey paper is to
analyse of Qos in VOIP [13].

2
1. VOIP
Voice over IP (VoIP) is the real-time application that is probably the most widely-spread on
today's networks. I'll provide here some basic facts related to VoIP. Figure below shows the end-
to-end path as needed for VoIP communication (a similar path exists in the opposite sense for a
bi-directional connection). An audio input device, such as a microphone, is required at the
sending end. The audio signal is appeared into digital form by an analog-to-digital converter. Due
to the packet-switched nature of computer networks, voice data has to be packetized and encoded
prior to being transmitted. Encoding (as well as decoding) is done by codecs that transform
sampled voice data into a specific network-level representation and back. Most of the codecs are
defined by standards of the International Telecommunication Union, the Telecommunication
division (ITU-T) [14].
Each of them has different properties regarding the amount of bandwidth it requires but also the
comprehend quality of the encoded speech signal. After binary information is encoded and
packetized at the sender end, packets enclose voice data can be pass on the network. Voice
packets interact in the network with other application packets and are routed through shared
relation to their destination. At the receiver end they are decapsulated and decode. Decode may
include other steps as well, the most typical being dejittering. Other examples are defect
improvement and packet loss niche. The flow of digital data is then converted to analogue form
again and played at an output device, usually a speaker [14].
2. WI-FI
Wi-Fi is commonly used in residential, business, and public areas. It is notable that the perceived
throughput in Wi-Fi does not match the real throughput. Also, all users share the access to the
channel which is very critical for all real time traffic in general and especially VoIP. The
Wificonnection with low capacity has serious impact on Qos. Beside the high traffic generated by
users, both protocols, VoIP and Wi-Fi, create large headers which result in high drawback on
VoIP performance [14].
Fig.1 End-to-end data path for VoIP communication[13]
3. QOS ISSUES OF VOIP APPLICATION
Quality of Service (QoS) is what determines if a technology can successfully deliver high value
services such as voice and video. QoS is referred as the ability to control the mixture of
bandwidth, delay, jitter, and packet loss in a network in order to deliver a network service
Ensuring high voice call quality over VoIP traffic. QoS for VoIP is defined using different
parameters. The BE class which is used for data stream with no support for latency and PDR. In

3
this paper, the quality of services for VoIP is measured in terms of end to end latency, jitter and
data loss. Latency is defined as the time required for a frame or a packet to travel from the source
to its final destination [13].
The main source of delay is categorized into: Devolution Delay and receiver processing delay,
efficiency calculation inoperable or inadequate, technological impact, sequencing the packets
which outcomes queuing delay etc. An absolute value of delay difference between
shortlistedpackets to arrive at receiver is called as jitter. It is not guaranteed that all the packets
will follow similar route and confrontation the similar routes to reach the target over the network,
and added with the backlogin the network normally resulting in data frames outcomeof order and
with shift latency. No disconcert means a network with constant latency and no modification. The
amount of data that can actually be pass over the movement channel is called flow capacity. It is
used to Estimate the competence of network. The ratio between the quantum of information and
the sum of use data, control data and retransmitted data if error is concluded as throughput of a
network [10].
Nowadays, people get advantage of the existing data networks by enjoying various ways of
communication e.g. text messages, voice calls, and video calls. The traditional phone networks
cannot compete with these type of services due to low equipment’s and operating cost, and the
ability of integrating voice and data in applications. The QoS for VoIP can be measured by
evaluating three performance metrics: Mean Opinion Score (MOS), Jitter, and end-to-end delay
[18].
3.1 MEAN OPINION SCORE (MOS):
MOS is a scale from 1 to 5 which measures the quality of the voice.
Table 1 Mean Opinion Score (MOS)[13]
Quality Scale Score Listening effort Scale
Excellent 5 No effort required
Good 4 No appreciable effort required
Fair 3 Moderate effort required
Poor 2 Considerable effort required
Bad 1 No meaning understood with reasonable effort
3.2 JITTER:
The variation in arrival time of consecutive packets is called jitter. In Predecoding, packets should
get deliver and some are not deliver in particular size buffered. Jitter should determine by latency
of packets over a interval of time.
3.3 PACKET END-TO-END DELAY:
The amount of packet sent from source to destination which has measured in interval of time.It
includes network latency, code and decode delay and data shrinkage.

4
Table 1 shows the guidelines for voice quality measurement for both jitter and end-to- end delay
as it is provided by ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T).
Table 2 Guideline for the Voice Quality Measurement [1]
Network Parameter Good Acceptable Poor
Delay(ms) 0-150 150-300 >300
Jitter(ms) 0-20 20-50 >50
3.4 THROUGHPUT:
The throughput corresponds to the amount of data in bits that is transmitted over the channel per
unit time. Generally the throughput measured in bits per second (bps).
4. SIMULATION:
Table 3. Comparison of Various Network Simulators
Sr
No
Parameter OPNET OMNeT++ QualNet NS2
1 License Commercial Open Source Commercial Open Source
2 Support
OPNET has
Integrated, GUI-
based debugging
and analysis for
the users.
OMNeT++ has a
well- designed
simulation engine
and powerful GUI,
Includes Graphical
and command line
interfaces for
simulation
execution In terms
of commercial
simulator,
Qualnet has
complete
GUI provided,
Ns-2 is most
popular
simulator for
academic
research
Graphical as well
as command line
interface
3 Platform
C,C++,Opnet
modeler
software
Linux,mac-os,unix Linux
Unix,mac-OS
Microsoft
window
Cygwin
4 Specific type Castalia Nsrlsensorsim Viptos SensorSim
5 Mobility Yes No No Yes
6
Language
/Programming
C++/Java object-
oriented
C++ /C++(Highly
portable with
Windows,Linu x
and Mac OSX
Parsec C++/
Parsec
(Simulation
language
Derived
from C)
C++/OTCL
Object oriented
extension of Tcl
and C++

5
7
Type Of
Simulation
Parallel Discrete
Event Simulation
(OPNET
Modeler
Wireless suite
version 16.0)
Discrete Event
Simulation
Parallel
Discrete
Event
Simulation
Discrete Event
Simulation
8 Developed By
OPNET Inc.
Now it is being
taken over by
Riverbed
OMNet++
Developers Group
Scalable-
Technologies
DARPA. But
currently
development
being done with
SAMAN and
through NSF
with CONSER
with other
researchers
including ACIRI
4.1 NETWORK SIMULATOR 2:
Network Simulator NS-2 (Network Simulator) [8] is a discrete event driven simulator used for
implementation and simulations of various network protocols.NS-2 was developed in the year
1989 and it’s freely distributed, open source. It is a de facto standard in networking research. NS-
2 is used for modelling network component like • Transport protocols: TCP and UDP • multi-
cast, ad-hoc routing, Drop tail etc • Link layer: Point to point connection, Local Area Networks,
wireless connections used in infrastructure for tracing, visualization, error models and to modify
or create our own modules. This tool for implementation of this paper because of its modular and
open architecture.
The simulation that’s why we have used the NS2 in our project due to easy to learning, user
friendly, GUI as well as command line, open source, Linux based also real time and large number
source capability.
Fig 3. Basic Structure of NS-2 Simulation [8]
NS-2 is totally based on Object Oriented (OO)The simulator framework uses a two-language
programming approach, OTcl and C++. OTcl is used for network components and description of
simulation scenarios.It is used globally in academia. It can run on Solaris and even windows via
use of third party software called Cygwin. The latest version is 2.36 [24]. The earlier versions of
network simulator-2 architecture did not support wireless communication; they only supported
wired stationary nodes. Later on different research groups added wireless nodes and channels
with a focus on wireless ad-hoc networks. The framework allows a very detailed modeling of

6
wireless communication using radio prorogation models, Antennas, link layer, ARP, MAC layer
protocols (e.g. IEEE 802.11), as well as ad-hoc routing protocols like AODV, DSR, DSDV etc.
Simulation Topology and Environment Following simulation parameters were adopted to test the
validity of the modified approach [8,10].
5. SIMULATION SET UP:
Exponential traffic voice (created packet while talk period for 1.00ms and no packet is created
during 1.3ms of silent period) is a scenario in the implementation using SIP to fulfill sending
voice packet from end to end nodes.
6. TOPOLOGY
Considering that, the network topology consists of 1 main base station, along with node for
sending voice n_voice and node for receiving call is n_null for each server, which means
n_voice1, n_voice2, n_null1 and n_null2. In addition, one node for testing, cooperating with each
server is attached with sending or receiving node (n_test1 and n_test2).
Fig 4. Topology
7. FLOW CHART:

7
Fig 5. Project Structure Steps
8. RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
In this Section, we compare the capabilities of the three VOIP codec’s studied in this paper. To
evaluate more reliable performance of G.711, G.723 and G.729 VoIP codec’s in same simulation
environment (50 to 300 mobile nodes). Performance metrics are calculated from trace file, with
the help of AWK program. The simulation results shown in the following section in the form of
line graph with description. The result shows the comparison between the three codecs on
different QoS parameters in a VoIP network with Non-mobility scenarios.
GRAPHS OF NON-MOBILITY SCENARIO IN WI-FI:
8.1 NON-ADAPTATION:
8.1.1 DELAY
From the below figure and table Delay was gained at destination node against various dimension
of networks and varied the simulation time uniformly for each codec. This data may be delivered
over a physical or logical link, or pass through a certain network node. It is clear that G.729 gives
less delay when the nodes are less. G.711 and G.723 codecs gives less delay. G.729 had a high
delay. From these graphs it is clear that delay increase with increase in non-mobility nodes.
Fig. 6 Delay vs Number of nodes
0
10
0 2 4 6
Delay
(ms)
No Of Nodes
Delay
G.711
G.723
G.729

8
Delay
No of Nodes G.711 G.723 G.729
1 0.00517975 0.00520132 0.00520509
2 0.00611273 0.00634488 0.00634488
3 0.00632576 0.006492 0.006492
4 0.0059831 0.0061244 0.0061244
5 5.70636 5.17704 5.17704
Table 4:Readings of Delay vs Number of nodes
Average end to end delay metric is shown in fig above G.729 presents the best performance with
respect to other codes. These results are due to transfer rate and packet size. The low packets
transfer and the larger packet size, the more time is required to process them. The relatively high
transfer rate (8 kbps) and low packet size (20 bytes) for G.729 make G.729 makes ideal codecs.
Otherwise, G.723 and G.711 suffered highest delay than G.729 for the reason that it has the
lowest bit rate (5.3 kbps for G.723) and larger packet size (160 bytes for G.711). In turn, the end
to end delay is increased with transfer rate and packet size.
8.1.2 MOS
Fig.7 MOS vs Number of nodes
MOS
1 4.1 3.9 3.92
2 4.1 3.9 3.92
3 4.1 3.9 3.92
4 4.1 3.9 3.92
5 7.71111 7.351 7.371
Table 5 Readings of MOS vs Number of nodes
The most widely used QoS metric in VOIP applications is MOS. The MOS value describes the
voice perception quality. The average MOS value for the three codecs is represented in figure
above. Codecs G.711 and G.729 have acceptable MOS value G.723 and G.729, respectively. On
the other hand, the MOS value for G.711 is 4.1 which indicate that the quality of service is good
if this codec is used.
8.1.3 PACKET DELIVERY RATIO
0
10
0 2 4 6
MOS
No of nodes
MOS
G.711
G.723
G.729

9
Figure below figure and table describes the average voice PDR comparison using different
codecs. From the figure, the variation of the codec is minimum and approximately varying
throughout the simulation. The average voice throughput variation in case of codec G.711 is
lower than the other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation. The throughput variation in case
of G.729 lies between two other audio codecs. So audio codec G.711 gives better results than
audio codecs G.723 and G.729 respectively.
Fig.8 PDR vs Number of nodes
Table 6 Readings of PDR vs Number of nodes
Packet Delivery ratio
1 100 100 100
2 100 100 100
3 100 84.7495 86.105
4 100 64.8694 69.1432
5 99.9068 78.35 74.4644
8.1.4 THROUGHPUT
Figure below figure and table describes the average voice throughput comparison using different
codecs. From the figure, the variation of the codec is minimum and approximately varying PDR
the simulation. The average voice throughput variation in case of codec G.711 is higher than the
other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation. But after some time it falls down. The
throughput variation in case of G.723 lies between two other audio codecs. So audio codec G.729
gives better results than audio codecs G.711 and G.723 respectively.
Fig.9 Throughput vs Number of nodes
0
200
0 2 4 6
Packet
delivery
ratio(packets/by
tes)
No. of nodes
G.711
G.723
G.729
0
100000
0 2 4 6
THroughput
(bps)
No of nodes
Throughput
G.711
G.723
G.729

10
Throughput
1 18029.9 18588.6 19784.5
2 29114.8 28454.4 28454.4
3 30741 28931.3 28931.3
4 37863.3 38280.2 38280.2
5 44130.3 50565 50565
Table 7 Readings of Throughput vs Number of nodes
8.1.5 JITTER
Fig.10 Jitter vs Number of node
Table 8Readings of Jitter vs Number of nodes
Jitter
1 0.3162 0.30886 0.29013
2 0.195503 0.20146 0.20146
3 0.185009 0.19794 0.19794
4 0.150133 0.14956 0.14956
5 0.128761 0.11322 0.11322
Figure above figure and table describes the average voice jitter comparison using different
codecs. From the figure, the variation of the codec is minimum and approximately constant
throughout the simulation. The average voice jitter variation in case of codec G.711 is higher than
the other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation. But after some time it falls down. The jitter
variation in case of G.723 lies between two other audio codecs. The voice jitter threshold for
smooth communication in VOIP network is about 1ms so audio codec G.729 gives better results
than audio codecs G.711 and G.723 respectively. So there high increase in jitter as audio codecs
G.711 and G.723 are added to the network. This increase in voice jitter makes the voice difficult
to understand due to arriving packets at different time. The use audio codec G.729 will make the
jitter less and best performance of VOIP application in Integrating Wireless LAN.
Average voice traffic sent and received is presented in Figure above. Any network to be more
efficiency these two traffic must be equal. The traffic received by the network with codec G.729
is less deviated from the traffic sent comparatively with codec G.723 and G.711. This analysis
indicates that the noise added in the G.729 network is less when compared to the other networks,
so this codec is more efficient.
0
0.5
0 2 4 6
Jitter(s)
No of nodes
Jitter
G.711
G.723
G.729

11
8.2 ADAPTATION:
8.2.1 DELAY
From the below figure and table Delay was gained at destination node against various dimension
of networks and varied the simulation time uniformly for each codec. This data may be delivered
over a physical or logical link, or pass through a certain network node. it is clear that G.729 gives
more delay when the nodes are more. G.711 and G.723 codecs gives less delay. G.729 had a high
delay. From these graphs it is clear that delay decrease with increase in non-mobility nodes.
Fig.11 Delay vs Number of nodes
Table 9 Readings of Delay vs Number of nodes
8.2.2 MOS
Fig.12 MOS vs Number of nodes
0
50
0 200 400
Delay(ms)
No Of Nodes
Delay
G.711
G.723
G.729
0
20
40
0 200 400
MOS
No of nodes
MOS
G.711
G.723
G.729
Delay
50 10.006 27.1402 27.0985
100 12.9204 21.8371 21.9207
150 12.9789 19.7138 19.6157
200 11.5245 18.402 18.0957
250 11.7394 19.312 19.1733
300 11.4341 18.1266 18.0227

12
MOS
50 14.4266 16.8844 16.7141
100 14.8738 18.1194 18.0848
150 13.8938 18.5201 18.5863
200 14.0479 19.086 19.1325
250 15.7118 18.8408 18.8946
300 16.6547 19.3664 19.3738
Table 10 Readings of MOS vs Number of nodes
The most widely used QoS metric in VOIP applications is MOS. The MOS value describes the
voice perception quality. The average MOS value for the three codecs is represented in figure
above. From the graph it is observed that MOS value increases as the nodes increases. Codecs
G.711 and G.723 have acceptable MOS value G.723 and G.729, respectively. On the other hand,
the MOS value for G.729 is 19.3738 which indicate that the quality of service is good if this
codec is used.
8.2.3 PDR
Fig.13 PDR vs Number of nodes
50 14.7053 4.2897 14.4356
100 7.04911 6.16613 5.97557
150 3.96553 3.79713 4.18666
200 2.05143 2.14277 2.0679
250 1.50003 1.5714 1.53505
300 0.885652 1.14652 1.17401
Table 11 Readings of PDR vs Number of nodes
Figure above figure and table describes the average voice PDR comparison using different
codecs. From the figure, the variation of the codec is minimum after 100 nodes and
0
20
0 100 200 300 400
Packet
delivery
ratio(packets/byt
es)
No. of nodes
G.711
G.723
G.729

13
approximately varying throughout the simulation. The average voice throughput variation in case
of codec G.723 is lower than the other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation. The PDR
variation in case of G.729 lies between two other audio codecs. So audio codec G.723 gives
better results than audio codecs G.711 and G.729 respectively.
8.2.4 THROUGHPUT
Figure below figure and table describes the average voice throughput comparison using different
codecs. From the figure, the variation of the codec is minimum and approximately varying
throughout the simulation. The average voice throughput variation in case of codec G.711 is
higher than the other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation.But after some time it falls
down. The throughput variation in case of G.723 lies between two other audio codecs.
Fig.14 Throughput vs Number of nodes
Table 12 Readings of Throughput vs Number of nodes
Throughput
50 146976 118617 121296
100 101554 73229.2 73132.1
150 80945.3 62387.5 67257.9
200 59712.1 51735.5 48410.9
250 46505.4 39101.3 38431.8
300 28917.1 30617.7 30371.3
So audio codec G.729 gives better results than audio codecs G.711 and G.723 respectively.
8.2.5 JITTER
From the below figure and table, the variation of the codec is minimum and approximately
constant throughout the simulation. The average voice jitter variation in case of codec G.711 is
higher than the other two codecs at the earlier time of simulation. But after some time it falls
down. The jitter variation in case of G.729 lies between two other audio codecs. The voice jitter
threshold for smooth communication in VOIP network is about 1ms so audio codec G.729 gives
better results than audio codecs G.711 and G.723 respectively.
0
200000
0 100 200 300 400
THroughput(bps)
No of nodes
Throughput
G.711
G.723
G.729

14
Fig.15 Jitter vs Number of nodes
Table 13 Readings of Jitter vs Number of nodes
Jitter
50 0.00833 0.008498 0.008088
100 0.007473 0.008641 0.008145
150 0.008015 0.008401 0.00785
200 0.009502 0.009492 0.009489
250 0.012755 0.012794 0.012794
300 0.019217 0.014816 0.014902
9. COMPARISON OF VOIP CODECS.
Table 14 Comparison of different Codecs
CONCLUSION:
In this project, we evaluated the performance of three different VoIP codecs over Wi-Fi networks.
The VoIP performance is measured in three scenarios using NS2 MOS, jitter, and average end-to-
end delay are analysed as performance parameters which define QoS in VoIP. G. 711 codec
showed the better codec for VoIP over Wi-Fi.
0
0.05
0 100 200 300 400
Jitter(ms)
No. of nodes
Jitter
G.711
G.723
G.729

15
FUTURE WORK:
This project considered voice calls from fixed nodes. The impact of mobility on VoIP
performance is suggested as future research. Also, for future study, various codecs must be
investigated on Wi-Fi networks to observe the performance of VoIP and the QoS parameters
should be improved to get the maximum throughput and PDR, minimum delay and jitter.
REFERENCES:
[1] A. M. Noll, Cybernetwork technology: issues and uncertainties," Commun. ACM, vol. 39, pp.
27{31, dec 1996.
[2] A survey of quality of service in IEEE802.11 Networks,HUA ZHU, MING LI, IMRICH
CHLAMTAC, AND B. PRABHAKARANTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS.
[3] A new method for VoIP Quality of Service control using combined adaptive sender rate and priority
marking, ZizhiQiao, Lingfen Sun, Nicolai Heilemann and Emmanuel Ifeachor.
[4] Adaptive QoS Control Approaches for VoIP Over Multi-Rate WLANs, H. Kazemitabar, A. Md.
Said UniversitiTeknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia.
[5] E. Haghani and N. Ansari, Voip traffic scheduling in wimax networks," in Global
Telecommunications Conference, 2008. IEEE GLOBECOM 2008. IEEE, pp. 1 {5, 30 2008-dec. 4
2008.
[6] H. Kazemitabar, A. Md. Said UniversitiyTechnology PETRONAS hanieh80@gmail.com Adaptive
QoS Control Approaches for VoIP Over Multi-Rate WLAN’s.
[7] I. Adhicandra, Measuring data and voip traffic in wimax networks," CoRR, vol. abs/1004.4583,
2010.
[8] ITU-T
[9] J. Yu and I. Al-Ajarmeh, Call admission control and traffic engineering of voip," in Digital
Telecommunications, 2007. ICDT '07. Second International Conference on, p. 11, july 2007.
[10] M. I. Tariq, M. A. Azad, R. Beuran, and Y. Shinoda, Performance analysis of voip codecs over be
wimax network," 3rd International Conference on Computer and Electrical Engineering (ICCEE
2010), pp. 47{51, November 2010.
[11] M. A. Qureshi, A. Younus, M. Saeed, F. A. Sidiqui, N. Touheed, and M. S. Qureshi, Comparative
study of voip over wimax and wi_," International Journal of Computer Science, vol. 8, pp. 433{437,
May 2011.
[12] Priority Based Dynamic Rate Control for VoIP Traffic, Fariza Sabrina CSIRO ICT Centre, Sydney,
Australia.
[13] Performance Analysis of VoIP Codecs over WiMAX, Khaled Alutaibi
[14] Performance Analysis Of VOIP Codec’s With QoS, Parameters, Priyanka Grover1, Meenakshi
Chawla2 Dept. of Computer Engineering, TIT&S, Bhiwani.
[15] PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF VOIP TRAFFIC OVER INTEGRATING WIRELESS LAN
AND WAN USING DIFFERENT CODECS, Ali M. Alsahlany.
[16] Performance Analysis of various Codecs Schemes of VOIP over WiMAX, M-Tech Student#1 ,Assit.
Prof. *2 & Dept. of CSE., ManavRachna International University, Faridabad, Haryana, India.
[17] Performance Analysis of VOIP Codes under Different Mobility Pattern,Manpreet Kaur.
[18] Performance Evaluation of The Quality of VoIP Over WLAN Codecs, H.A. Ifijeh, F.E. Idachaba,
and I.B. Oluwafemi
[19] R. S. Ramakrishnan and P. V. kumar, Performance analysis of different codecs in voip using sip," in
Mobile and Pervasive Computing (CoMPC2008), August 2008.
[20] S. Islam, M. Rashid, and M. Tarique, Article: Performance analysis of WiMax/WiFi system under
different codecs," International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 18, pp. 13{19, March 2011.
Published by Foundation of Computer Science.
[21] S. Jadhav, H. Zhang, and Z. Huang, Performance evaluation of quality of voip in wimax and umts.,"
in PDCAT, pp. 375{380, IEEE Computer Society, 2011.

16
[22] V. Toncar, Voip basics: Overview of audio codecs," April 2012. Available:
http://toncar.cz/Tutorials/VoIP/VoIP Basics Overview of Audio Codecs.html. Voip codecs," April
2012. Available: http://www.voip-sip.org/voip-codecs.
[23] VoIP codec adaptation algorithm in multirate 802.11 WLANs, Anna Sfairopoulou, Carlos Macilan,
Boris Bellalta.
[24] VoIP over Wireless LAN Survey, RăzvanBeuran,Internet Research Center Japan Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology (JAIST).
AUTHORS
Shreekant Gurrapu is working as Network Architect in Tech Mahindra Limited, India
and I am student of VIT, Engineering College Mumbai, India. My research is focus on
Performance Analysis of VOIP codec’s over WLAN, Network management.
Dr. Saurabh Mehta is Professor and Head Department of EXTC, VIT Engineering
College Mumbai, India and his area of specializations includes a core wireless network,
Sensor Network. His wireless and NS2 ideas helps me lot in this research paper.
Prof. Shraddha Panbude is working in VIT Engineering College Mumbai, India and she
is my guide of Master’s project.

Comparative Study for Performance Analysis of VOIP Codecs Over WLAN in Nonmobility Scenarios

More Related Content

Similar to Comparative Study for Performance Analysis of VOIP Codecs Over WLAN in Nonmobility Scenarios (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparative Study for Performance Analysis of VOIP Codecs Over WLAN in Nonmobility Scenarios