JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.

com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

38

Performance Comparison of Mobile Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols in Terms of 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 selfforming in terms of topological variations. Mobile nodes can communicate with each other deprived of any need of predefined setup. But Mobile nodes are provided with limited bandwidth and limited battery power. Owing to these features, the MANETs are finest matched for military operations, Ruin relief and Salvage procedures.Mobility model selection is critical for specific zones, because the moving style of a mobile node should be natural. Shifting the mobility model, permits changes in routing performance of a routing protocol. This research paper evaluates performance of routing protocols for MANETs i.e GPSR, FSR and AODV in terms of Mobility Models. For investigational purposes, this research considers three scenarios using Random Waypoint Mobility Model and Modified Random Direction Mobility Model. Experimental outcomes demonstrate the performance of 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 Vector Routing.

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION
he decentralized nature of wireless ad-hoc networks makes them suitable for a variety of applications such as Military Operations or Disaster Relief Operations where central nodes can't be trusted on, and may improve the scalability of wireless ad-hoc networks. Slight configuration and quick deployment make ad hoc networks suitable for emergency situations like stated above. The ad-hoc networks are designed swiftly because of dynamic routing protocols enables. Changing Mobility Models patterns affects the mobile nodes physical arrangements as well as routing protocol performance. Also arranging mobile nodes in different patterns enforces restraint on their power capacity, transmission range etc. This research tends to figure out the effects of mobility patterns routing performance.

T

Model was evaluated by S Gowrishankar and S.K Sarkar [1]. According to that research AODV gives highest Packet Delivery Ratio using Random Waypoint Model which significantly drops with time than other protocols. Also Random Walk with Wrapping produces highest Delay and less Routing Overhead than the others. A hybrid routing protocol “Landmark Guided Forwarding (LGF)” was presented by Meng How Lim and Adam Greenhalgh [2]. Their research analyzed LGF alongside GPSR, AODV and DSDV routing protocols using Random Waypoint Model. The out come of that research showed that GPSR has got some highest delays then others. LGF turned out to be powerful and scalable routing protocol regarding Lowest Average Packet Delay and moderate Routing Overhead using several mobility patterns. AODV exhibited highest Routing Overhead than others. Tracy Camp and Jeff Boleng [3] examined various mobility Models for Mobile Ad hoc networks for example Entity Mobility Models and Group Mobility Models mobility patterns using DSR. Research used performance metrics like Average End-to-End Delay, Average Hop Count, Data Packet Delivery Ratio etc. Consequences of that research showed that Random Waypoint Model gives high Data Packet Delivery Ratio, lowest Control Overhead and Average End to End Delay than Group Mobility Models. Conclusion of the research showed Random Direction Mobility Model does not scale fit in displaying Throughput, Average End-to-End Delay and Hop count.

2 RELATED WORK
Effect of AODV routing protocol using Random Waypoint mobility Model, Random Walk with Wrapping Mobility Model and Random Walk with Reflection Mobility
__________________________  Muhammad Adil is with Department of Computer Sciences, Iqra University Peshawar, Pakistan  Huma Javed is with Department of Computer Sciences, University of Peshawar  Muhammad Arshad is with Department of Computer Sciences,City University of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan  Muhammad Saqib is with Department of Computer Sciences,City University 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) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

39

3. AN OVERVIEW OF MANETS MOBILITY MODELS
3.1 Random Waypoint Model (RWP)
RWP is described by Johnson and Maltz [11]. It is most frequently used mobility model. Here all the nodes are spread around the simulation area. Each node picks a random destination and travels towards it with a velocity uniformly distributed over [0, Vmax]. At the destination, each node waits for a precise pause time before selecting a new random direction. RWP is differentiated by sudden stopping and sudden mobility. Until the simulation is on this process is performed again and again.

3.2 Modified Random Direction Mobility Model (MRD)
Advancement in Random Direction Model [12] is Modified Random Direction Model [12]. In this model, nodes choose a direction degree like before, but they may pick their 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 to select random directions but they are no longer obligatory to travel to the simulation boundary before discontinuing changing direction. In its place, a mobile node chooses a random direction and selects a destination anywhere along that direction of travel [13]. This modification yields movement patterns that could be simulated by the Random Walk Mobility Model with pause times[3].

recognizes the geographical location of other nodes with the help of Global Positioning System (GPS). Every node broadcasts beacon frames, which delivers all nodes with their neighbor’s situations. All nodes preserve a table called neighbor table, which stocks the locations or addresses 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, two procedures are used for Greedy forwarding and Perimeter mode. The packets are to be forwarded to the nodes that are geographically the nearest nodes using greedy forwarding method. In perimeter mode, Right hand rule solves the problem of packet forwarding greedy forwarding. But Right hand rule does not remove crossed links and works with crossed edges.

4.3 FSR
Fisheye State Routing (FSR) is a table-driven or proactive routing protocol [6]. It uses the “fisheye” technique proposed by Kleinrock and Stevens [6][7], The technique reduces the size of information required to represent graphical data. The fisheye scope is described as the set of nodes that can be reached within a given number of hops [6]. FSR is comparable to Link State Routing Protocol, but a difference is that, link state messages are not flooded but dispersed and received by local neighbors only, every time a node detects change in topology [6].

5. ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE
5.1 Simulation Environment
NS-2 [14] is used for simulating GPSR [8], FSR [6] and AODV [5]. Research simulations and scenarios are produced using Scenario Generation tool and NS-2 Simulator. In this simulation, the used simulation parameters are similar to those used by S Gowrishankar [1]. These research simulations are for networks of 5, 10, and 20 nodes with 802.11 WaveLAN radios. Radio propagation range for each node is 250 meters. The nodes are firstly engaged uniformly at random in a rectangular area. All nodes move according to the Random Waypoint Model Mobility Model [11] and Modified Random Direction Mobility Model [12], with a maximum velocity ranges between 10 and 20 m/s. Pause times of 0, 2, 5, and 10 seconds and at CBR source flows of 5, 10 and 20 with varying mobility patterns are used. Each CBR flow sends 64-byte packets at a rate of 4 and 10 packets/second. The simulation area is 500 x 500 meter square. S. Gowrishankar used the pause time of 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 seconds and the 800 x 500 meter area and simulation time of 900 seconds. Each simulation executed for 300 seconds.

4. AN OVERVIEW OF MANETS ROUTING PROTOCOLS CONSIDERED FOR RESEARCH
4.1. AODV
The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [5] algorithm enables dynamic, self-starting, multi-hop routing between partaking mobile nodes desiring to create and uphold an ad hoc network. Bellman-Ford Algorithm is used in AODV for resolving the issue of count-to-infinity. Every single node keeps a destination sequence number for every route entry. Each node updates its availability by sending the Hello packets to its neighboring nodes at predefined time interval. Every time, a node wants to discover a route to the destination, expired route or broken link, Route discovery process is executed. RREQ messages are broadcast while the Route Discovery Process is held; these messages are forwarded node to node up to the destination. When the proposed destination receives the RREQ message, it replies with RREP message. RREP messages follow a reverse path than RREQ messages. All nodes within AODV network maintain a Routing Table and also deal with Route Table Management.

4.2 GPSR
Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) is a Geographical Assisted Routing Protocol, in which each node

5.2 Performance Metrics
The following metrics are used to compare the different routing protocols (i) Packet Delivery Fraction – It is de-

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

40

fined as the ratio between the data packets delivered to the CBR sinks to those generated by the CBR sources. (ii) Normalized Routing Load –the ratio of the number of routing packets transmitted per data packet received at the destination. (iii) Routing Overhead – The total number of routing packets transmitted during the simulation. (iv) Average End-to-End Delay — Includes all possible delays caused by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC, propagation and transfer times.

6.1.4. Average End to End Delay Details.
5 nodes CBR sources = 5
Average End to end Delay (seconds)
Average End to end Delay (seconds)
3.500 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 0 2 5 10
GPSR-RWP FSR-RWP AODV-RWP

5 nodes CBR sources = 5
3.0000

2.5000

2.0000
GPSR-MRD-UD FSR-MRD-UD AODV-MRD-UD

1.5000

1.0000

0.5000

0.0000 0 2 5 10

Pause time

Pause time

(a) RWP for CBR=5

(b) MRD for CBR =5

6. RESEARCH OUTCOMES
6.1 Scenario 1
Here, 5 mobile nodes are simulated with 5 CBR sources at a rate of 10 packets/second. Simulation area is 500m x 500m. All the nodes are paused for 0, 2, 5 and 10 seconds and move with maximum velocity of 10 m/s. After the simulation and analyzing the trace files, research produced the following graphs:

Fig 4. Average End to End Delay for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

6.1.1 Packet Delivery Fraction

In this scenario, from Figure 1 it can be clearly understood that the Packet Delivery fraction of GPSR and AODV is high up to 100% and 95% with the pause time of 2 seconds than FSR using Random Waypoint. Figure 2 and Figure 3 exposed that Normalized Routing Load and Routing Overhead of AODV is highest among others using Modified Random Direction. Figure 4 exhibited that GPSR showed highest Average End to End Delay than the others at pause time of 0 seconds using Random Waypoint.

7.2. Scenario 2
Now, 10 mobile nodes move with the velocity of 10 m/s before they are paused for 0, 5 and 10 seconds. The offered load is varied up to 20 CBR sources at rate of 4 packets/second. The simulation produced the following graph:

(a) RWP for CBR=5 (b) MRD for CBR=5
Fig 1. Packet Delivery fraction for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

7.2.1. Packet Delivery Fraction Details

6.1.2 Normalized Routing Load

(a) RWP for CBR=20 (b) MRD for CBR=20 (a) RWP for CBR=5 (b) MRD for CBR=5
Fig 2. Normalized Routing Load for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time Fig 5. Packet Delivery fraction for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

7.2.2. Normalized Routing Load Details.

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. Simulation time

(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) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

41

7.2.3. Routing Overhead Details.

Pause time

8.3.3. Routing Overhead Details.

(a) RWP for CBR=20 (b) MRD for CBR=20
Fig 7. Routing Overhead for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

(a) RWP for CBR=10 (b) MRD for CBR=10
Fig 11. Routing Overhead for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

7.2.4. Average End to End Delay Details.
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 10
GPSR-RWP FSR-RWP AODV-RWP

8.3.4. Average End to End Delay Details.
9 7 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 1 0
GPSR-RWP FSR-RWP AODV-RWP

Average End to end Delay (seconds)

Average End to end Delay (seconds)

5

6 5

Average End to end Delay (seconds)

4
GP SR-M RD-UD

Average End to end Delay (seconds)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 1 0
GPSR-M RD-UD FSR-M RD-UD AODV-M RD-UD

3 2 1 0

FSR-M RD-UD A ODV-M RD-UD

0

5

1 0

Pause time

Pause time

Pause time

Pause time

(a) RWP for CBR=20 (b) MRD for CBR=20
Fig 8. Average End to End Delay for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

(a) RWP for CBR=10 (b) MRD for CBR=10
Fig 12. Average End to End Delay for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pause time

Figure 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 showed the result of this scenario. AODV and FSR had amplified Packet Delivery fraction up to 60% than GPSR using Random Waypoint Model. Considering Normalized Routing Load and Overhead of AODV, it is supreme among the others using any Mobility Model particularly using Modified Random Direction. Again GPSR suffered from increased Average Delay than other.

8.3. Scenario 3
In this scenario, 20 nodes were simulated with offered load of 10 CBR sources at constant rate of 4 packets/second. Now the nodes move with maximum velocity of 15 m/s. After the simulation and analyzing the trace files, the research has produced the following graphs: 8.3.1. Packet Delivery Fraction Details.

Figure 11, 12 shows the result of this scenario. The Packet Delivery fraction of GPSR and AODV is higher i.e. up to 51% and 50% than FSR using Random Waypoint Model, but FSR tends to behave well in terms of Packet Delivery fraction at CBR sources load of 20 than the others. AODV gives highest Normalized Routing Load and Overhead than all using Modified Random Direction Model. FSR offered high and consistent Routing Overhead than AODV as number of nodes increases up to 20 using Random Waypoint Model. GPSR has got increased delay than the others using Random Waypoint Model.

9. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The main purpose of the research was to analyze the ad hoc routing protocols by varying traffic and mobility patterns. Research compared the performance of three different types of ad hoc routing protocol i.e. On–Demand, Hierarchical and Geographical assisted routing protocols. The results showed these routing protocols behave contrarily by varying nodes, traffic and mobility patterns. It is examined in the results that AODV Routing or Control Overhead linearly increases as network size increases because Hello packets and Route discoveries contributed to increase Control Overhead. FSR outperforms AODV in terms of Routing Overhead because link state packets are exchanged with neighbors only. But Control overhead increases linearly as the node’s mobility rate increases with interval and also due to Scope level. While, GPSR offers more delay because it keeps the data packet for much longer time. However, AODV and FSR keep the undelivered packet for a short period of time that results in lowering the delay. By comparing GPSR, FSR and AODV using different Mo-

(a) RWP for CBR=10 (b) MRD for CBR=10
Fig 9. Packet Delivery fraction for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs. Pauus time

8.3.2. Normalized Routing Load Details.

(a) RWP for CBR=10 (b) MRD for CBR=10
Fig 10. Normalized Routing Load for GPSR, FSR and AODV vs.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

42

bility patterns, it can be concluded that even by increasing network size and traffic sources GPSR and AODV best suited for Random Waypoint Model, but constraint on GPS (in case of GPSR), whereas FSR did well in terms of Routing Overhead and Delay using Modified Random Direction Model. Using Modified Random Direction Model, all protocols Throughput drastically falls over period of time. This indicates that the simulation results serve as a good reference for considering a protocol(s) for a particular Mobility Model pattern. In future, analysis of the effect of Ad hoc Routing Protocols using Group Mobility Models can be performed.

Muhammad Adil is an Assistant Professor at Iqra National University, Peshawar Pakistan. He has done his M. Sc. Computer Science from Peshawar University and MS (Networking and Telecommunication) from Iqra University, Karachi Pakistan. He is associated with academics for more then 9 years, and has been awarded "Best teacher of the Year" twice. His main areas of research interest are MANETs, VANETs, Wireless Networks and Web Services Email: m_aadil@hotmail.com Dr Huma Javed has done her BSc and MSc in computer science from university of Peshawar in 1986-87 and 1990 respectively. She did her PhD from Liverpool John Moores university UK in 2009 in Middleware in WSN. She has been teaching in university of Peshawar for the last two decades and also has taught in UK. Her research interest in middleware, wireless sensor networks, embedded systems. She has published in many reputed international journals. Email: humajaved15@upesh.edu.pk Dr. Muhammad Arshad, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, City University of science & Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan. He received his PhD degree in Computer Science from Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool UK and he has more than 8 years of experience in research and academics. He has more than 12 research publications and supervised number of research student. He is currently HEC Approved Supervisor for MS/PhD. His areas of expertise are Peer-to-Peer networks, Networked Appliances, Quality of Service, Network Security, Web Services and Home Network. Email: m.arshad@cusit.edu.pk Muhammad Saqib Awan, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, City University of Science & Information. MCS from IQRA University, Karachi and MS-IT degree from IMSciences, Peshawar. He has more than 6 years of experience of research and academics. He has 06 research publications and his areas of expertise are: Data Warehouse and Data Mining. Email: muhammadsaqib@cusit.edu.pk Muhammad Shahzad Ali, Member Visting Faculty at Institute of Management Science, Hayatabad, Peshawar. Done his MS-IT and has more than 10 years of experience of academics. His area of expertise is Computer Networks and MANETs. Email: shoziali@yahoo.com

REFERENCES
[1] S Gowrishankar, T G Basavaraju and Subir Kumar Sarkar, “Effect of Random Mobility Models Pattern in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, June 2007 [2] Meng How Lim, Adam Greenhalgh, Julian Chesterfield, Jon Crowcroft, “Landmark Guided Forwarding: A hybrid approach for Ad Hoc routing” University of Cambridge, March 2005. [3] Tracy Camp, Jeff Boleng and Vanessa Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research”, Dept. of Math and Computer Sciences Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 10 September 2002 [4] Guangyu Pei Mario Gerla Tsu-Wei Chen, “Fisheye State Routing: A Routing Scheme for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”, University of California Los Angeles. [5] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing,” in WMCSA, February 1999 [6] Mario Gerla and Xiaoyan Hong, “Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks”, Internet-draft <draft-ietf-manet-fsr-03.txt> [7] L. Kleinrock and K. Stevens, “Fisheye: A Lenslike Computer Display Transformation,” Technical report, UCLA, Computer Science Department, 1971. [8] B.Karp and H.T.Kung. “GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks”. In Proceedings of 6th Annual Internation Conference on Mobile computing and Networking (MobiCom 2000), Boston, MA, USA, pages 243--254, Feb 2000 [9] Gabriel, K., And Sokal, R. “A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis”. Systematic Zoology 18 (1969), 259–278. [10] Toussaint, G. “The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set”, Pattern Recognition 12, 4 (1980), 261–268. [11]Random Waypoint http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~esa/java/rwp/rwpmodel.shtml Model,

[12] Elizabeth M. Royer, P. Michael Melliar-Smithy and Louise E. Moser, “An Analysis of the Optimum Node Density for Ad hoc Mobile Networks“, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [13] Vanessa Ann Davies “Evaluating Mobility Models within an Ad Hoc Network”. Copyright by Vanessa A. Davies 2000 [14] “The network simulator ns-2. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns2,”

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful