Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Performance Comparison of Mobile Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols in Terms of Mobility Model Patterns

Performance Comparison of Mobile Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols in Terms of Mobility Model Patterns

Ratings:

3.0

(1)
|Views: 65 |Likes:
Journal of Computing, eISSN 2151-9617, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2012, http://www.journalofcomputing.org
Journal of Computing, eISSN 2151-9617, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2012, http://www.journalofcomputing.org

More info:

Published by: Journal of Computing on Jul 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Performance Comparison of MobileAd hoc Network Routing Protocols in Termsof Mobility Model Patterns
Muhammad Adil, Huma Javed, Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saqib, Muhammad Shahzad
Abstract
A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a wireless network in which nodes can at liberty move and dynamically self-forming in terms of topological variations. Mobile nodes can communicate with each other deprived of any need of predefinedsetup. But Mobile nodes are provided with limited bandwidth and limited battery power. Owing to these features, the MANETsare finest matched for military operations, Ruin relief and Salvage procedures.Mobility model selection is critical for specificzones, because the moving style of a mobile node should be natural. Shifting the mobility model, permits changes in routingperformance of a routing protocol. This research paper evaluates performance of routing protocols for MANETs i.e GPSR, FSRand AODV in terms of Mobility Models. For investigational purposes, this research considers three scenarios using RandomWaypoint Mobility Model and Modified Random Direction Mobility Model. Experimental outcomes demonstrate the performanceof the routing protocols. Different parameters like number of nodes; number of sources and metrics are utilized.
Index Terms
Mobile Ad hoc Network, Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing, Fisheye State Routing, Ad hoc On-demand VectorRouting.
——————————
 
 
——————————
 
1 I
NTRODUCTION
he decentralized nature of wireless ad-hoc net-works makes them suitable for a variety of ap-plications such as Military Operations or Disas-ter Relief Operations where central nodes can't be trustedon, and may improve the scalability of wireless ad-hocnetworks.Slight configuration and quick deployment make adhoc networks suitable for emergency situations like statedabove. The ad-hoc networks are designed swiftly becauseof dynamic routing protocols enables. Changing MobilityModels patterns affects the mobile nodes physical ar-rangements as well as routing protocol performance. Alsoarranging mobile nodes in different patterns enforces re-straint on their power capacity, transmission range etc.This research tends to figure out the effects of mobilitypatterns routing performance.
2
 
R
ELATED
 W 
ORK
 
Effect of AODV routing protocol using Random Way-point mobility Model, Random Walk with Wrapping Mo-bility Model and Random Walk with Reflection MobilityModel was evaluated by S Gowrishankar and S.K Sarkar
 
[1]. According to that research AODV gives highest Pack-et Delivery Ratio using Random Waypoint Model whichsignificantly drops with time than other protocols. AlsoRandom Walk with Wrapping produces highest Delayand less Routing Overhead than the others.
A hybrid routing protocol “Landmark Guided Forwar
d-
ing (LGF)” was presented by
Meng How Lim and AdamGreenhalgh [2]. Their research analyzed LGF alongsideGPSR, AODV and DSDV routing protocols using Ran-dom Waypoint Model. The out come of that researchshowed that GPSR has got some highest delays then oth-ers. LGF turned out to be powerful and scalable routingprotocol regarding Lowest Average Packet Delay andmoderate Routing Overhead using several mobility pat-terns. AODV exhibited highest Routing Overhead thanothers.Tracy Camp and Jeff Boleng [3] examined variousmobility Models for Mobile Ad hoc networks for exampleEntity Mobility Models and Group Mobility Models mo-bility patterns using DSR. Research used performancemetrics like Average End-to-End Delay, Average HopCount, Data Packet Delivery Ratio etc. Consequences ofthat research showed that Random Waypoint Modelgives high Data Packet Delivery Ratio, lowest ControlOverhead and Average End to End Delay than GroupMobility Models. Conclusion of the research showedRandom Direction Mobility Model does not scale fit indisplaying Throughput, Average End-to-End Delay andHop count.
T
 __________________________ 
 
 Muhammad Adil is with Department of Computer Sciences, Iqra Universi-ty Peshawar, Pakistan
 
 
Huma Javed is with Department of Computer Sciences, University of Peshawar 
 
 Muhammad Arshad is with Department of Computer Sciences,City Uni-versity of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan
 
 Muhammad Saqib is with Department of Computer Sciences,City Univer-sity of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan
 
 Muhammad Shahzad is with Department of Computer Sciences, Institue of  Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputingWWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG38
 
 
3.
 
A
N
O
VERVIEW OF
MANET
S
M
OBILITY
M
ODELS
 
3.1 Random Waypoint Model (RWP)
RWP is described by Johnson and Maltz [11]. It is mostfrequently used mobility model. Here all the nodes arespread around the simulation area. Each node picks arandom destination and travels towards it with a velocityuniformly distributed over [0,
max]. At the destination,each node waits for a precise pause time before selectinga new random direction. RWP is differentiated by suddenstopping and sudden mobility. Until the simulation is onthis process is performed again and again.
3.2 Modified Random Direction Mobility Model(MRD)
Advancement in Random Direction Model [12] is Modi-fied Random Direction Model [12]. In this model, nodeschoose a direction degree like before, but they may picktheir destination anywhere along that direction of travel.They are not required to go all the way to the boundary[12]. In this improved version, mobile nodes continue toselect random directions but they are no longer obligatoryto travel to the simulation boundary before discontinuingchanging direction. In its place, a mobile node chooses arandom direction and selects a destination anywhere
along that direction of travel [13]. This modification yields
movement patterns that could be simulated by the Ran-dom Walk Mobility Model with pause times[3].
4.
 
A
N
O
VERVIEW OF
MANET
S
R
OUTING
P
ROTOCOLS
C
ONSIDERED FOR
R
ESEARCH
 
4.1. AODV
The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [5] al-gorithm enables dynamic, self-starting, multi-hop routingbetween partaking mobile nodes desiring to create anduphold an ad hoc network. Bellman-Ford Algorithm isused in AODV for resolving the issue of count-to-infinity.Every single node keeps a destination sequence numberfor every route entry. Each node updates its availabilityby sending the Hello packets to its neighboring nodes atpredefined time interval. Every time, a node wants todiscover a route to the destination, expired route or bro-ken link, Route discovery process is executed. RREQ mes-sages are broadcast while the Route Discovery Process isheld; these messages are forwarded node to node up tothe destination. When the proposed destination receivesthe RREQ message, it replies with RREP message. RREPmessages follow a reverse path than RREQ messages. Allnodes within AODV network maintain a Routing Tableand also deal with Route Table Management.
4.2
 
GPSR
Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) is a Geo-graphical Assisted Routing Protocol, in which each noderecognizes the geographical location of other nodes withthe help of Global Positioning System (GPS). Every nodebroadcasts beacon frames, which delivers all nodes with
their neighbor’s situations.
All nodes preserve a tablecalled neighbor table, which stocks the locations or ad-dresses of their single-hop radio neighbors. This table
offers all states vital for GPSR’s forwarding decisions,
beyond the state in the packets themselves [8]. Here, twoprocedures are used for Greedy forwarding and Perime-ter mode. The packets are to be forwarded to the nodesthat are geographically the nearest nodes using greedyforwarding method. In perimeter mode, Right hand rulesolves the problem of packet forwarding greedy forward-ing. But Right hand rule does not remove crossed linksand works with crossed edges.
4.3 FSR
Fisheye State Routing (FSR) is a table-driven or proactiverouting protocol [6].
It uses the “fisheye” technique pr
o-posed by Kleinrock and Stevens [6][7], The techniquereduces the size of information required to representgraphical data. The fisheye scope is described as the set ofnodes that can be reached within a given number of hops[6]. FSR is comparable to Link State Routing Protocol, buta difference is that, link state messages are not floodedbut dispersed and received by local neighbors only, everytime a node detects change in topology [6].
5.
 
A
NALYSIS OF
P
ERFORMANCE
 
5.1 Simulation Environment
NS-2 [14] is used for simulating GPSR [8], FSR [6] andAODV [5]. Research simulations and scenarios are pro-duced using Scenario Generation tool and NS-2 Simula-tor. In this simulation, the used simulation parameters aresimilar to those used by S Gowrishankar [1]. These re-search simulations are for networks of 5, 10, and 20 nodeswith 802.11 WaveLAN radios. Radio propagation rangefor each node is 250 meters. The nodes are firstly engageduniformly at random in a rectangular area. All nodesmove according to the Random Waypoint Model MobilityModel [11] and Modified Random Direction MobilityModel [12], with a maximum velocity ranges between 10and 20 m/s. Pause times of 0, 2, 5, and 10 seconds and atCBR source flows of 5, 10 and 20 with varying mobilitypatterns are used. Each CBR flow sends 64-byte packets ata rate of 4 and 10 packets/second. The simulation area is500 x 500 meter square. S. Gowrishankar used the pausetime of 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 seconds and the 800 x500 meter area and simulation time of 900 seconds. Eachsimulation executed for 300 seconds.
5.2 Performance Metrics
The following metrics are used to compare the differ-ent routing protocols
(i) Packet Delivery Fraction
 
It is de-
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputingWWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG39
 
 
fined as the ratio between the data packets delivered tothe CBR sinks to those generated by the CBR sources. (ii)
Normalized Routing Load
 
the ratio of the number of rout-ing packets transmitted per data packet received at thedestination. (iii)
Routing Overhead
 
The total number ofrouting packets transmitted during the simulation.(iv)
 Average End-to-End Delay
 
Includes all possible de-lays caused by buffering during route discovery latency,queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays atthe MAC, propagation and transfer times.
 
6.
 
R
ESEARCH
O
UTCOMES
 
6.1 Scenario 1
Here, 5 mobile nodes are simulated with 5 CBR sources ata rate of 10 packets/second. Simulation area is 500m x500m. All the nodes are paused for 0, 2, 5 and 10 secondsand move with maximum velocity of 10 m/s. After thesimulation and analyzing the trace files, research pro-duced the following graphs:
6.1.1 Packet Delivery Fraction
 
(a)
RWP for CBR=5
 
(b)
MRD for CBR=5
 
Fig 1. Packet Delivery fraction for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pausetime
 
6.1.2 Normalized Routing Load
(a)
RWP for CBR=5
 
(b)
MRD for CBR=5
 
Fig 2. Normalized Routing Load for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pausetime
 
6.1.3. Routing Overhead Details
(a) RWP for CBR=5 (b) MRD for CBR=5
Fig 3. Routing Overhead for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Simulationtime
 
6.1.4. Average End to End Delay Details.
 
 
5 nodes CBR sources = 5
0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.50002510
Pause time
   A  v  e  r  a  g  e   E  n   d   t  o  e  n   d   D  e   l  a  y   (  s  e  c  o  n   d  s   )
GPSR-RWPFSR-RWP AODV-RWP
5 nodes CBR sources = 5
0.00000.50001.00001.50002.00002.50003.00000 2 5 10
Pause time
   A  v  e  r  a  g  e   E  n   d   t  o  e  n   d   D  e   l  a  y   (  s  e  c  o  n   d  s   )
GPSR-MRD-UDFSR-MRD-UD AODV-MRD-UD
 (a)
 
RWP for CBR=5
 
(b)
 
MRD for CBR =5
Fig 4. Average End to End Delay for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs.Pause time
In this scenario, from Figure 1 it can be clearly under-stood that the Packet Delivery fraction of GPSR andAODV is high up to 100% and 95% with the pause time of2 seconds than FSR using Random Waypoint. Figure 2and Figure 3 exposed that Normalized Routing Load andRouting Overhead of AODV is highest among others us-ing Modified Random Direction. Figure 4 exhibited thatGPSR showed highest Average End to End Delay thanthe others at pause time of 0 seconds using RandomWaypoint.
7.2. Scenario 2
Now, 10 mobile nodes move with the velocity of 10 m/sbefore they are paused for 0, 5 and 10 seconds. The of-fered load is varied up to 20 CBR sources at rate of 4packets/second. The simulation produced the followinggraph:
7.2.1. Packet Delivery Fraction Details
(a)
RWP for CBR=20 (
b)
MRD for CBR=20
Fig 5. Packet Delivery fraction for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pausetime
 
7.2.2. Normalized Routing Load Details.
 
(a)
 
RWP for CBR=20
(b)
MRD for CBR=20
Fig 6. Normalized Routing Load for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause
 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputingWWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG40

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->