JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

50

Analysis of AODV, DSR and DYMO Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network
M. M. Chandane, S. G. Bhirud and S.V. Bonde
AbstractWireless Sensor Networks (WSN) are large collection of resource constrained, battery operated tiny sensor nodes. These nodes are densely deployed over a distributed environment and are specifically designed to gather and disseminate the sensed phenomena either through single hop or multi-hop communication. Energy consumption is a major challenge in wireless sensor networks therefore this work provides the feasibility study of AODV, DSR and DYMO routing protocols for WSN using IEEE 802.15.4 star topology. Qualnet 4.5 is used for detailed simulation based performance analysis with reference to throughput, total energy consumption, average end-to-end delay, jitter and duty cycle. Performance of all three routing protocol is analyzed for 802.15.4. Result shows that AODV performs better than DSR and DYMO for scalability, varying traffic loads in star topology with beacon enabled mode. Index TermsWireless Sensor Networks, IEEE 802.15.4, ZigBee, QualNet4.5, Ad-Hoc network, Routing Protocol, Quality of Service.

1 INTRODUCTION
ireless Sensor Network is a collection of small, lightweight sensor nodes deployed in large numbers to monitor the ambient conditions. WSNs are increasingly attractive tools to detect, monitor and control environmental conditions. It can be used to bridge the gap between physical and virtual world. WSNs have a variety of applications such as medical, home security, machine diagnosis, military Information, environmental monitoring, agriculture, etc. WSN have numerous advantages however energy consumption is a major challenge in WSN [1]. WSN is emerged from the fusion of AdHoc Network and the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems [1][2]. WSN derives the networking characteristics of ad-hoc network and combines it with the hardware facilities of tiny sensors. Once a sufficient number of nodes have been deployed, the sensor network can be used to fulfill its task. Fig. 1 shows the working concept of WSN. Sensor node is the basic building block of a WSN and is a self contained modular low cost electronic system that consists of three major functional units such as sensing, computation, and communication, packed in a small unit about 1 inch in diameter[1]. The sensing unit is designed to monitors a variety of ambient conditions, characteristics of objects and their motion. The computation unit includes data analysis such as summation, aggregation etc whereas the communication unit consists of RF transmission and reception between different nodes within the vicinity of the transmission range. Many WSN application demands thousands of sensor

nodes that are deployed in remote locations where human intervention is difficult or sometimes almost impossible. This makes battery replacement impractical. Since the nodes are battery operated, nodes may get power deflated if not handled properly. Traditional routing algorithms are not designed as per the requirement of WSN. Therefore, energy efficient routing paradigms are an area of active research. [3]. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents literature review. Experimental setup and performance matrices are given in section 3. Results are discussed in section 4 and finally we conclude our work in Section 5.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Many routing protocols have been developed that support establishing and maintaining multi hop routes between source and destination. Fig 2 shows the brief classification of routing protocol [6].

M M Chandane is with the Department of Computer Technology, VJTI, Mumbai, India. S.G. Bhirud is with the Department of Computer Technology, VJTI, Mumbai, India. S.V. Bonde is with the Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, SGGSIE&T, Nanded, India.

Fig. 1 Working of WSN

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

51

node, a RREQ packet with following fields is flooded

Fig. 2 Classification of Routing Protocols

In on-demand (reactive) protocols, routes between source and destination are discovered only when the need arises. This supports for reduced overhead of communication and scalability of the network. In table-driven (proactive) protocols, routing tables are generated and maintained continuously irrespective of the need. Latency for route acquisition is less for proactive approach. This might be necessary for certain applications but the cost of communication incurred might not be feasible for some networks like WSN. Also, this approach needs more memory due to significant increase in the size of routing tables. Proactive protocols are useful in situations where the mobility is low. These characteristics of proactive routing put limits on size and density of the network.

2.1 Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR)

DSR is one of the well known routing algorithms for ad hoc network [5], originally developed by Johnson Maltz, and Broch. DSR uses source routing technique in which source node determines the complete routing paththrough which the data packets are to be forwarded. The source has to explicitly include the set of nodes forming the routes in the packets header. This helps in identifying the address of the next hop to which data is to be forwarded. Whenever a source node has a data to send, a source node first searches its route cache to see if it already has a route to the destination. If it does not, it then initiates a route discovery process. This is done by sending a Route Request Message (RREQ). Whenever some intermediate node gets RREQ message, it searches its own cache to see if it has a route to the destination. If it does not, it then appends its id to the packet and broadcasts the packet. This process continues until either a node containing route to the destination is encountered or the destination node itself receives the RREQ packet. In either case, the node sends a RREP packet that contains a list of nodes that have forwarded RREQ packet. Source node uses this newly discovered route to send data to the destination.

through the network. The root request ID is incremented every time the source node sends a new RREQ so the pair (source address, request ID) identifies a RREQ uniquely. On receiving a RREQ message each node checks the source address and root request ID. If the node has already received a RREQ with the same pair of parameters the new RREQ packet is discarded else If the processing node is the destination, reply is send back through Root Reply (RREP) packet, else if the processing node is the intermediate node then the RREQ packet is forwarded. There is an optimization of AODV using an expanding ring (ESR) technique when flooding RREQ messages. Every RREQ carries a time to live (TTL) value that specifies the number of times this message should be rebroadcasted. This value is set to a predefined value at the first transmission and increased at every retransmission. Retransmissions occur if no replies are received. TTL used for controlling the flooding is large enough so as to reach to all nodes in the network and guarantee successful route discovery in only one round of flooding. However this low delay time approach causes high overhead and unnecessary message broadcasts. The route reply (RREP) process is depicted in fig 4. The RREQ recipient node, either a destination or any intermediate node with valid route to the destination uncasts RREP back to the source. This RREP message has the following format:

2.2 Ad-Hoc on-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV) The AODV [7] protocol determines routing paths between source and destination using route request (RREQ) process.
AODV is capable of both unicast and multicast routing [6]. Routes are obtained on demand and are maintained as long as they are needed by the source node. Fig 3 shows the RREQ process. Whenever a node has data to send and route is not available to destination

Fig. 3 Route Request Process

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

52

Fig. 4 Route Reply Propagation

Reverse path setup: While forwarding RREQ messages through the network, every node keetps the record of reverse path to the source. Reverse path built so is used by RREP so no more broadcasts are needed Forward path setup: Whenever a broadcast RREQ packet arrives at a node having a route to the destination, the reverse path is used for sending a RREP message. While sending RREP message, the forward path is created. Data packets waiting to be transmitted are buffered locally in a FIFO-queue and are sent to the destination using forward path created during RREP. In case of receipt of duplicate RREP, the new one is either discarded or forwarded depending on its destination sequence number. If the new RREP has a greater destination sequence number then the RREP is forwarded so as to update the route. If the previous and new RREP has same sequence numbers but the new RREP has a smaller hop count then also the RREP is forwarded to get the optimised route. In all other cases, newRREPs are discarded.

2.3 The DYMO Routing Protocol

The Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) routing protocol is a successor of the AODV [7] and operates similar to AODV, currently defined in an IETF Internet-Draft [8] in its sixth revision. DYMO does not add extra features or extend the AODV protocol, but rather simplifies it, while retaining the basic mode of operation. Similar to all other reactive protocols, DYMO consists of two basic operations: route discovery and route maintenance. Routes are discovered on demand i.e as and when required. Whenever a node has data packet to send and a route to the destination is not available in its cache, a route request (RREQ) message is flooded in the network. When RREQ packet reaches to its destination or any intermediate node containing route to the destination, a reply message is sent back containing the discovered and accumulated path. Each entry in the routing table consists of the following Fields: Destination Address, Sequence Number, Hop Count, Next Hop Address, Next Hop Interface, Is Gateway, Prefix, Valid Timeout and Delete Timeout Route Discovery: Whenever a source node S wishes to communicate with a destination node D, it initiates a RREQ message. The sequence number maintained by the node is incremented before it is added to the RREQ. Refer fig 5 to understand route discovery process. In fig 5, con-

sider that node 2 is a source node (S) and wants to communicate with destination node (D) 9. In the RREQ message, node 2 include its own address and sequence number, which is incremented before it is added to the RREQ. Finally, a hop count for the originator is added with the value 1. Then information about the target destination 9 is added. The most important part is the address of the target. If the originating node knows a sequence number and hop count for the target, these values are also included. The message builds so is flooded in the network using broadcast. RREQ travels in the network with a controlled manner i.e. every node forwards an RREQ only once. The sequence number is used to detect this. Each node forwarding an RREQ append its own address, sequence number, prefix, and gateway information to the RREQ similar to the originator node. Upon sending the RREQ, the originating node waits for RREP message from the destination node. If no RREP is received within RREQ WAIT TIME, the source node again repeats the process In fig5, the nodes 4, 5 and 6 append their formation to the RREQ before they broadcasts the RREQ. When a node 9 receives RREQ, it processes the addresses and associated information found in the message. RREP message is then created as a response to the RREQ, containing information about node 9, i.e., address, sequence number, prefix, and gateway information, and then the RREP message is sent back along the reverse Path using unicast. Route Maintenance: Whenever path break occurs, route maintenance is initiated. To maintain paths, nodes continuously monitor the active links and update the Valid Timeout field of entries in its routing table while receiving and sending data packets. Any node along the active path, receives a data packet for a destination, and not having a valid route to the destination, it must initiate Route Error (RERR) message and send back to source node through broadcast. When creating the RERR message, the node makes a list containing the address and sequence number of the unreachable node. In addition, the node adds all entries in the routing table that is dependent on the unreachable destination as next hop entry. The purpose is to inform about additional routes that are no longer available. Refer fig 5 to understand this process. Suppose that a link between node 6 and node 9 breaks and node 6 receives a data packet for node 9. When we say a link is broken; it could just be that the time stamp in the route table entry for a node timed out and the entry has become invalid. Node 6 generates an RERR message, which is propagated backwards towards node 2.

Fig. 5 Working of DYMO

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

53

3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The Qualnet 4.5[4] Network Simulator is used for the analysis. Fig 6 shows the experimental setup whereas its animation view is shown in fig 7. The IEEE 802.15.4, a standard for wireless sensor network is used as the MAC and Physical layer protocol. Constant Bit Rate (CBR) data traffic is applied over User Datagram Protocol (UDP) connection between source and destination. Two different star topologies are used, first one with varying number of CBRs (10, 20, 30, 40, and 50) for study of scalability and second one with 15 CB applications to analyse QoS parameters. Performance is measured for QoS using network scalability and varying traffic load. The results are shown in figures from 8 to 14. The simulation parameters are shown in table1.

Fig. 6 Experimental Setup

Fig. 7 Animation View

Performance Metrics: Following performance metrics are used for the analysis study of routing protocols for Ad-Hoc Network: Throughput: It is defined as the total number of packets received at the sink node divided by the simulation time. It is generally measured in bits/Sec (bit/sec or bps). Network lifetime: It is defined as the time elapsed until the first node (or the last node) in the network depletes its energy (dies). Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): PDR is defined as the number of packets received at sink node divided by the number of packets sent by the source node. Average End-to-End delay: It indicates the length of time taken by the packet to travel from the source to destination. Delays due to route discovery, queuing, propagation and transfer time are included in the delay metric. It indicates the average data delay an application experiences during transmission of data. Average Jitter: Jitter is the variation time in packet arrival. It is different from the delay and caused due to congestion, topology change etc. in network. It is expected to be low for better performance in ad-hoc networks. It becomes a matter of concern if it is more than the threshold

value which is different for each type of transmission as data, voice or video. Energy Consumption (mJoule): It is the amount of energy consumed by MICAZ Mote devices during the periods of transmitting, receiving, idle and sleep. The unit of energy consumption used in the simulations is mJoule. Percentage of time in Sleep mode: This parameter is indirectly relates to the duty cycle. The more is the percentage of time in sleep mode, less is the duty cycle. It is mainly useful in WSN applications which demand low duty cycle.

4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

This section presents the simulation results of various metrics for performance evaluation of reactive routing protocols such as ADOV, DSR and DYMO on IEEE 802.15.4 using star topology for varying data rate and scalability of the network. Fig 8 shows the throughput for varying number of nodes. The successful Packet delivery is observed with increasing MAC based CBR traffic load over UDP. It is observed that AODV performs better than both DSR and DYMO. Fig 9 shows the obtained throughput for varying traffic load. AODV performs reasonably well for all cases of data rate specifically for low data rate, the performance of AODV is much better than other two protocols. This particular range of data rate is most suitable for sensor network application. Fig 10 shows the performance of average end-to- end delay for different traffic loads. The average end- to- end delay of a packet depends on

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

54

delays at each hop comprising of queuing, channel access and transmission delays, the number of hops and route discovery latency. The overall average end-to-end delay performance of AODV is better than DSR and DYMO however the average end to end delay is almost same for all three protocols at data rate of 1 packet per second. Fig.11 shows the jitter with varying traffic load. It is observed that for high data rate; jitter for all protocol is almost same whereas for low data rate it is high for AODV as compared to other two protocols. Packet delivery ratio with varying data rate is shown in fig 12. For all types of traffic load, AODV has high PDR than other two however towards low data rate i.e. from 5 to 15 PPS, The PDR of AODV is increased significantly from 40% to 65%. Fig 13 presents the performance of percentage of time in sleep mode for varying traffic loads. It clearly shows that for high data rate, all three protocols have almost same duty cycle. Towards low data rate, DSR and DYMO has slightly lower duty cycle. This may be because of low PDR of DSR and DYMO during this period. Fig 14 shows the performance of total energy consumption of all three routing protocols for varying traffic loads. The total energy consumption is the energy consumption in transmission, reception and idle mode. The total energy consumption of three routing protocols is almost same at high data rate. Towards low data rate, AODV has slightly high energy consumption. This may be because of slightly high duty cycle and high throughput produced by AODV compared to other two.

Fig. 10 End TO End Delay Verses Data Rate

Fig. 11 Jitter Verses Data Rate

Fig. 8 Throughput verses Number of Nodes

Fig. 12 Packet Delivery Ratio Verses Data Rate

Fig. 9 Throughput Verses Data Rate Fig. 13 Duty Cycle Verses Data Rate

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

55

[6]

[7]

[8]

Elizabeth M. Royer and C-K Toh. A Review of current Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Mobile Wireless Networks, IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 46-55, April 1999. Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer, Ad Hoc OnDemand Distance Vector Routing, in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Syslems and Applications, Feb. 1999, pp. 90-100. Ian D. Chakeres and Charles E. Perkins. Dynamic MANET ondemand (DYMO) routing protocol. Internet-Draft Version 4, IETF, March 2006. Draft-ietf-manet-dymo-04.txt, (Work in Progress).

Fig. 14 Total Energy Consumed Vs Data Rate

5 CONCLUSION
It is observed that the performance of reactive routing protocol depends upon the scenario. In general, AODV performs better than DSR and DYMO. In this work, we observed that AODV has better performance than DSR and DYMO, for the given constrained situation of several CBR traffic sources leading to same destination like star topology, suitable for most of the sensor network applications. In this paper, simulation study for performance analysis of quality of service parameters of IEEE 802.15.4 for star topology with beacon enabled mode is investigated. QualNet 4.5 is used for performance analysis of AODV, DSR and DYMO. Quality of service parameters are observed for different data rate values. From the simulation results of our studies and analysis, it can be concluded that the performance of reactive routing protocol depends upon the scenarios. In general AODV performs better than DSR and DYMO. AODV shows its superiority over other two protocols specifically for low traffic loads, which suit WSN applications; but at high traffic loads all three routing protocols nearly behave same. However, the overall performance of these three protocols for IEEE 802.15.4 is not appealing. This may be because these protocol are specifically designed for adhoc network and do not consider the unique features of WSN. Result indicates that new routing protocol needs to be designed to incorporate the requirements of WSN.

REFERENCES
[1] Eiko Yoneki, Jean Bacon, A Survey of Wireless Sensor Network Technologies: Research Trends and Middlewares Role, University of Cambridge, Sep 2005. Suraiya Tarannum, B Aravinda, L Nalini, K.R. Venugopal, and L. M. Patnaik, Routing Protocol for lifetime Maximization of Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE Explore, PP.401-406, 2006. M. Bani Yassein, A. Al-zou'bi, Y. Khamayseh, W. Mardini, Improvement on LEACH Protocol of Wireless Sensor Network (VLEACH), International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications Volume 3, Number 2, June 2009. Qualnet Simulator www.scalable-networks.com David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz, Dynamic source routing in adhoc wireless networks, in Mobile computing, T. lmielinski and H. Kmh, Eds, Kluwer Academic, 1996, ch.5

[2]

[3]

[4] [5]