(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2011
The new scheme is adopting the better and less busyroute. It avoids the congested nodes during route discoveryand later on during transmissions makes use of all availableless busy nodes. In this way our scheme is shifting thetraffic load form busier nodes to less busy nodes. Newproposed scheme not using the certain nodes for entiretraffic but sharing traffic load with all available nodes thatcan take part in communication as in shown in figure 2.As long as a particular node remains busy means it has totransmit or forward more packets to its neighboring nodes.With transmission of each data and control packet node isconsuming energy (power). Mobile node relies on batteriesand battery life decrease with the forwarding of each andevery packet.So, more load means lesser life time of the node andlesser network life intern. To calculate the node’s load sharewe calculate number of packets forward by that particularnode and compare that number against each other and thenetwork. Our proposed protocol give more even loadbalancing in MANET then existing load balancing protocols.IV.
We implemented basic and our load balancing algorithmin NS2 . NS2 is discrete event simulator for thesimulation of wireless ad hoc networks. It supports Two RayGround propagation and Random Way Point mobilitymodels those are required for the implementation of ourwork. We used the following performance metric to evaluatethe performance of our load balancing algorithm againstbasic AODV algorithm.
Average end to end delay:
This is the average overall delay occurs for a packet totravel from a source node to a destination node. Thisincludes all possible delays caused by buffering during routediscovery, queuing at the interface-queue, contention andretransmission delays at the MAC layer, and propagation andtransfer times.
It is defined as the total number of packets transmitted ina given time period.
Traffic load Distribution:
It is the total number of packets that are forwarded by anode during transmission. Because each forwarded packetconsume node’s power that reduce node life.
The radio propagation model  that is considered forthe protocol is the Two-Ray Ground and Random way pointmobility model is used in our implementation of protocol.The table I shows complete detail of parameter used inour simulation setting.
Channel type Channel/Wireless ChannelRadio-propagation model Propagation/TwoRay GroundNetwork interface Phy/WirelessPhyMAC type Mac/802_11Interface queue Queue/Drop Tail/PriQueueLink layer type LLAntenna model Antenna/Omni AntennaMax packet in ifq 25Packet size 1024Number of mobile nodes 20Simulation time 150 seconds
The results are compared and presented in graphical formafter implementing Enhanced load balancing AODV routingprotocol. We analyzed the results by taking pause time on x-axis and performance metric throughput and end to enddelay on Y-axis and for load distribution number of forwarded packets on y-axis and Node ID on x-axis.
Throughput at different time interval is compared asshown in figure 5.
Figure 3. Throughput vs Pause time.
Total number of packets transmitted by AODV is lesser thenLoad balanced AODV and with passage of time throughputof load balanced AODV is increasing as more packets aretransmitting in given time.
Average end to end delay:
Average end to end delay of load balanced is round about18 mille seconds at the start of transmission and astransmission goes on it becomes 10 mille second but forAODV its minimum value is 14 mille seconds. It meansaveraged end to end delay is reduced in greater extend. Thisreduction in delay improves throughput that means nowsource node is sending packets more quickly to thedestination then basic AODV.