Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Convergence Time Evaluation of AODV and AODV+G in MANETs

Convergence Time Evaluation of AODV and AODV+G in MANETs

Ratings:

1.0

(1)
|Views: 584 |Likes:
Published by ijcsis
Wireless mobile ad-hoc networks are characterized as networks without any physical connections. In these networks there is no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes, interference, mulitpath propagation and path loss. Hence a dynamic routing protocol is needed for these networks to function properly. Many routing protocols have been developed for accomplishing this task. Selecting most appropriate routing protocol for a particular network scenario is the critical issue. Most attempts made at evaluating these algorithms so far have focused on parameters such as throughput, packet delivery ratio, overhead etc. An analysis of the convergence times of these algorithms is still an open issue. The work carried out fills this gap by evaluating the algorithms on the basis of convergence time. In this paper we present and examine the convergence time evaluation of routing protocols AODV and AODV+G . The algorithm performances are compared by simulating them in ns2. Tcl is used to conduct the simulations, while perl is used to extract data from the simulation output and calculate convergence time. After extensive testing we observed that AODV+G converged well in all situations than AODV. The paper also evaluates the algorithms using the rudimentary metrics-throughput and packet delivery ratio.
Wireless mobile ad-hoc networks are characterized as networks without any physical connections. In these networks there is no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes, interference, mulitpath propagation and path loss. Hence a dynamic routing protocol is needed for these networks to function properly. Many routing protocols have been developed for accomplishing this task. Selecting most appropriate routing protocol for a particular network scenario is the critical issue. Most attempts made at evaluating these algorithms so far have focused on parameters such as throughput, packet delivery ratio, overhead etc. An analysis of the convergence times of these algorithms is still an open issue. The work carried out fills this gap by evaluating the algorithms on the basis of convergence time. In this paper we present and examine the convergence time evaluation of routing protocols AODV and AODV+G . The algorithm performances are compared by simulating them in ns2. Tcl is used to conduct the simulations, while perl is used to extract data from the simulation output and calculate convergence time. After extensive testing we observed that AODV+G converged well in all situations than AODV. The paper also evaluates the algorithms using the rudimentary metrics-throughput and packet delivery ratio.

More info:

Published by: ijcsis on Sep 05, 2010
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

11/19/2012

pdf

text

original

 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August 2010
1
Convergence Time Evaluation of AODV andAODV+G in MANETs
Annapurna P Patil Harish.R 
Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
 
M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology,Bangalore-54,India.annapurnap2@yahoo.comwrcharish@gmail.com
 Abstract -
Wireless mobile ad-hoc networks are characterizedas networks without any physical connections. In these networksthere is no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes,interference, mulitpath propagation and path loss. Hence adynamic routing protocol is needed for these networks tofunction properly. Many routing protocols have been developedfor accomplishing this task. Selecting most appropriate routingprotocol for a particular network scenario is the critical issue.Most attempts made at evaluating these algorithms sofar have focused on parameters such as throughput, packetdelivery ratio, overhead etc. An analysis of the convergencetimes of these algorithms is still an open issue. The work carriedout fills this gap by evaluating the algorithms on the basis of convergence time.In this paper we present and examine the convergencetime evaluation of routing protocols AODV and AODV+G . Thealgorithm performances are compared by simulating them inns2. Tcl is used to conduct the simulations, while perl is used toextract data from the simulation output and calculateconvergence time. After extensive testing we observed thatAODV+G converged well in all situations than AODV. Thepaper also evaluates the algorithms using the rudimentarymetrics-throughput and packet delivery ratio.Keywords- Routing Protocols, MANETS, Convergence Time.
I. INTRODUCTIONA Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a self-configuring network of mobile nodes connected by wirelesslinks, to form an arbitrary topology. The nodes are free tomove randomly. Thus the network's wireless topology may beunpredictable and may change rapidly. Minimalconfiguration, quick deployment and absence of a centralgoverning authority make ad hoc networks suitable for emergency situations like natural disasters, military conflicts,emergency medical situations etc .Every device in a MANET is also a router because itis required to forward traffic unrelated to its own use. Almostevery year, the world is struck by numerous catastrophicnatural disasters, such as earthquake, hurricane, typhoon,tsunami, etc. In such a situation communication systems,fixed or mobile, were usually down due to various reasons.The loss of communication systems as well as informationnetworks made the rescue operation extremely difficult.WiFi-ready notebook PCs( MANET nodes) owned by rescuevolunteers themselves to construct a MANET to support sucha need.MANET can be classified based on thecommunication pattern or the devices used, the variants of MANETs on the type of devices are sensor and ad hocnetworks. Routing is one of the critical issue in MANET.Selecting the energy efficient routing protocols improves the performance of the communication. The routing protocols areclassified into three types. Proactive protocols maintainrouting information for all the destinations, and keep updatingthis information through periodic updates, an example for this protocol is DSDV[1],OLSR[3]. Reactive protocols don’tmaintain information for all the destination, rather theydiscover the route to a destination on demand, an example for this protocol is AODV[2]. Hybrid protocols attempt tocombine the advantage of both proactive and reactive protocols, an example for this protocol is TORA[5], ZRP[4],MPOLSR[6]. AODV+G[7] reduces unnecessary traffic willeffectively improve the efficiency of those mobile nodes innetwork.AODV and AODV+G protocols performs differentlyunder different network scenarios. One protocol might perform better than others in specific situation. These protocols are compared in terms of convergence time touncover in which situations these types of algorithms havetheir strengths and weaknesses.II. RELATED WORK There are many other works which are related to our work in evaluating routing algorithms. [7] AODV andAODV+G has been compared in terms of Average delay,Packet delivery ratio, Normalized routing load and Routingload reduction, but not in terms of convergence time. [8]AODV and DSDV has been compared in terms of convergence time. Many papers have compared AODV withother routing algorithms. In [9] AODV and DSDV have beencompared with average throughput, packet loss ratio, androuting overhead as the evaluation metrics, [10] has comparedAODV and DSDV in terms of delay and drop rate, [11]compares AODV and DSDV in terms of throughput, packetsreceived, delay and overload. Similarly, [12] compares
175http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August 2010
2AODV, DSDV and DSR in terms of throughput, delay, droprate.III. PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONThis section gives the small presentation of two protocols we evaluate in this paper.
 A. AODV 
 
The Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)routing protocol is designed for use in ad-hoc mobilenetworks. AODV is a reactive protocol: the routes are createdonly when they are needed. It uses traditional routing tables,one entry per destination, and sequence numbers to determinewhether routing information is up-to-date and to preventrouting loops.An important feature of AODV is the maintenanceof time-based states in each node: a routingentry not recentlyused is expired. In case of a route is broken the neighbourscan be notified. Route discovery is based on query and replycycles, and route information is stored in all intermediatenodes along the route in the form of route table entries. Thefollowing control packets are used: routing request message(RREQ) is broadcasted by a node requiring a route to another node, routing reply message (RREP) is unicasted back to thesource of RREQ, and route error message (RERR) is sent tonotify other nodes of the loss of the link. HELLO messagesare used for detecting and monitoring links to neighbours
.
 
 B. Gossiping & AODV+G
The basic gossiping protocol is simple. A sourcesends the routing request with probability 1. When a nodefirst receives a routing request, with probability
 p
it broadcasts the request to its neighbors and with probability 1 – 
 p it 
discards the request; if the node receives the same routrequest again, it is discarded. Thus, a node broadcasts a givenroute request at most once. [7] proposes GOSSIP(
 p,k,m),
anextension to the basic gossiping, and suggests that:A node broadcasts with probability 1 for the first
hops before continuing to gossip with probability
 p.
If a node with n neighbors receives a message and does not broadcast it, but then does not receive the message from atleast
m
neighbors within a reasonable timeout period, it broadcasts the message to all its neighbors [7].Hass et al. implements GOSSIP(
 p,k,m)
in Ad HocOn-Demand Distance Vector protocol (AODV) [18], a typicaland well-studied on-demond routing algorithm suited for mobile nodes routing in ad hoc network. We refer this gossip- based AODV as AODV+G. The experiments in [7] showsthat gossiping can reduce control traffic up to 35% whencompared to flooding and the most significant performance of GOSSIP is achieved by taking
 p=
0.65
 , k=
1 and
m=
1.In AODV+G, if the expanding-ring search with asmaller radius fails, rather than flooding to the wholenetwork, here GOSSIP3(.65,1,1) is used. The timeout periodof GOSSIP3 should be big enough to allow neighboringnodes to gossip. The NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME parameter of AODV is a conservative estimate of the average one hoptraversal time for packets that includes queuing delays,interrupt processing times and transfer times. GOSSIP3 is notused in the expanding-ring search with a smaller radius, sinceflooding is more efficient than gossiping for zone with smallradius because of the back-propagation effects[17]. Thevariant of AODV that uses GOSSIP3 is called AODV+G.IV SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
 A. Environment and AssumptionSimulator chosen :
The proposed algorithms are simulated on NS2(version 2.33)[13].
 
 NS2 is popularly used in thesimulation of routing and multicast protocols, among others,and is heavily used in ad-hoc networking research. nssupports an array of popular network protocols, offeringsimulation results for wired and wireless networks alike. Itcan be also used as limited-functionality network emulator. Itwas necessary to use available implementations of algorithmsrather than implement them freshly ourselves, as it isimportant for the acceptance of an evaluation that theimplementation used for evaluation has been scrutinized andaccepted as correct by the community. Else the evaluationresults will not be accepted as doubt will exist about thecorrectness of the implementation of the algorithms
 Algorithms chosen :
Here in this paper we have selected tosimulate and evaluate the performance of AODV andAODV+G protocols. AODV is a reactive routing protocol andAODV+G is variant of AODV routing protocol withGOSSIP3. Further experiments can be built based on theresults of this project, to compare convergence time performance of algorithms within the same category as well.
Mobility model 
 
:
The Random Waypoint model is the mostcommonly used mobility model in research community. Atevery instant, a node randomly chooses a destination andmoves towards it with a velocity chosen randomly from auniform distribution [0,V_max], where V_max is themaximum allowable velocity for every mobile node. After reaching the destination, the node stops for a duration defined by the 'pause time' parameter. After this duration, it againchooses a random destination and repeats the whole processuntil the simulation ends.
 
To create Mobile node Movement Scenario files, thecommand line that needs to be run under directory : ns-allinone-2.33/ns-2.33/indep-utils/cmu-scen-gen/setdest :./setdest [-n num_of_nodes] [-p pausetime] [-s maxspeed] [-tsimtime] [-x maxx] [-y maxy] > [output-file][14].
176http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 5, August 2010
3
Traffic pattern :
 
Moreover, traffic sources may generate packets at constant bit rate (CBR), or at variable bit rate(VBR). The CBR class is commonly used for voice and dataservices. In this context, the data rate and the delay remainconstant during the packet transmission. More particularly,CBR traffic sources provide a constant flow of data packets of 512 bytes with a transmission rate of 4 packets per second.All CBR traffic scenarios ar 
e
generated using cbrgen.tcl
 
in NS-2To create CBR traffic scenario files, under directory:ns-allinone-2.33/ns-2.33/indep-utils/cmu-scen-gen/cbrgen.tcl./ns cbrgen.tcl [-type cbr|tcp] [-nn nodes] [-seed seed] [-mcconnections] [-rate packet/second for one connection] >[output-file][14].
 Network scenario :
The simulations are conducted using thenetwork simulator ns2 [14]. Random Waypoint mobilitymodel is used. The physical layer simulates the behavior of IEEE 802.11 (as included with ns2). Each node has a radiorange of 250 meter, and uses TwoRayGround as the radio propagation model.All the scenarios are based on the following basic parameters:cbr (constant bit rate) traffictopology of size 500 m x 500 mmaximum speed of each node 20 m/ssimulation time 180stransmission rate (packet rate) 10 m/sThe number of nodes is varied in the range [10,100] in stepsof 10 (to represent 10 node densities). Pause time is varied inthe range [0,180] in steps of 20 (to represent 10 pause times).
 B. Performance Metric
A trace file contains a lot of information which may not berequired to analyze the performance of the protocol. We arealways interested in some amount of information that issufficient to predict the efficiency of the protocol. Thefollowing performance metric is needed to be taken intoconsideration in order to analyze and compare the performance of AODV and AODV+G
Convergence Time :
In [15], convergence time has beendefined as the time between detection of an interface beingdown, and the time when the new routing information isavailable. [16] defines a route convergence period
 
as the period that starts when a previously stable route to somedestination becomes invalid and ends when the network hasobtained a new stable route for. Similarly, we defineconvergence time as the time between a fault detection, andrestoration of new, valid, path information.
 
[15] calculates convergence time in the IP backbone.The authors arrive at the value of convergence time bydeploying entities called ‘listeners’, which listen to every link state PDU being sent by the is-is protocol. The time when thefirst ‘adjacency down’ packet is observed is taken as the timeof detection of an interface being down. This failure event issaid to end when the listener receives link state PDUs from both ends of the link.We arrive at the convergence time by measuring theinterval between the detection of route failure and successfularrival of a packet at the destination over the newly computedroute. This includes not only the routing convergence time, but also the time taken for the packet to traverse the network from the source to the destination over the newly discovered path. Since this is a comparative analysis, and both therouting protocols use shortest distance with number of hops asthe metric for distance calculation, both protocols will arriveat the same new route, and the time taken to reach thedestination over this new route will be the same (since all physical characteristics are the same). Hence this extra timemeasured does not affect the comparative analysis.In any case, the time taken for a packet to travel fromthe source to the destination is negligible when compared tothe time taken for the algorithm to discover the new route,either through route request – route reply sequences as inreactive protocols, or by waiting for an update that containsnew route information as in proactive protocols. Also, thisautomatically verifies that the new path calculated is correct.The cycle of invalidation of old path and discoveryof a new path might occur many times, and for many source-destination pairs over the course of the simulation. Hence theaverage value of these times is taken as the convergence timeof that algorithm for that scenario.This procedure has been carried out in perl.
Throughput :
If y number of packets delivered within t timeat a node then the throughput at the node could be defined asy/t. By definition, the throughput needs to be calculated at the bottleneck node, not sender. For the throughput calculation, ingeneral divide the successfully received packets by thesimulation time will give the answer. In the trace file there aredifferent levels of received packets such as the RTR or AGTlevel. The packets received by the node in its AGT level will be the real received packets. Here these packets are filteredfrom the trace file using perl script.
 Packet Delivery Ratio :
The ratio between the number of  packets successfully received by the application layer of adestination node and the number of packets originated at theapplication layer of each node for that destination.V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTSGraphs are one of the ways to analyze and comparethe results of the trace file. Other methods can also be usedfor comparison like tabular form showing required outputdata of the trace file. Simple MS Excel or MATLAB alsowork for plotting graphs. In this paper the graphs are plottedusing xgraph in NS2.
177http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Firmansyah Wh liked this
Maria Benamar liked this
Sơn Cù liked this
sanneisdeisep liked this
Joe John liked this
drmukeshji liked this
Sulav Paudel liked this

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)//-->