You are on page 1of 97

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK (MANET):
A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) consists of a number of mobile battery
powered energy constraint nodes communicating with each other in single or multiple
hops over wireless links. They are temporary and infrastructure less without any central
controller. Every node generates its own data traffic and cooperatively forwards others
which are not in direct communication range of each other i.e. acts both as an end
terminal and router. Due to the mobility and dynamic addition/deletion of nodes,
topology changes frequently and on-demand routing protocols are required. MANETs
should be capable of handling these topology changes through network reconfigurations.
Routing protocols for MANET should be adaptive to the topology changes and be
capable of discovering new routes when old routes becomes invalid due to such change.
The number of nodes in MANET changes with time so the routing protocols should be
scalable.
A mobile ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes that are
dynamically and arbitrarily located in such a manner that the interconnections between
nodes are capable of changing on a continual basis. There are some unique characteristics
of mobile ad hoc networks.

1.1.1 CLASSIFICATION OF MOBILE AD HOC NETWORK
Current researches classify mobile ad hoc networks into two categories. The first
one is called a managed environment, where a common, trusted authority exists to
provide certain services, such as a certificate authority. Another is called open
environment, where a common authority that regulates the network does not exist.

1

It is also referred as full self-organization environment, namely the network has
the ability to work without any external management and configuration. Extensive work
has been done recently in both areas.
The routing protocols can be roughly divided into three categories: proactive
(table driven routing protocols), reactive (on-demand routing protocols), and hybrid. The
primary goal of such an ad hoc network routing protocol is to provide correct and
efficient route establishment between pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered in
time. Cluster Based Routing Protocol (CBRP) is a routing protocol designed for use in
mobile ad hoc networks. The protocol divides the nodes into a number of overlapping or
disjoint clusters in a distributed manner. A cluster head is elected for each cluster to
maintain cluster membership information. Inter-cluster routes are discovered dynamically
using the cluster membership information kept at each cluster head. By clustering nodes
into groups, the protocol efficiently minimizes the flooding traffic during route discovery
and speeds up this process as well.

1.1.2 WHAT IS MOBILE AD HOC NETWORK?
Mobile Ad-hoc network is a set of wireless devices called wireless nodes, which
dynamically connect and transfer information. Wireless nodes can be personal computers
(desktops/laptops) with wireless LAN cards, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), or other
types of wireless or mobile communication devices. Figure 1.1 illustrates what MANET
is. In general, a wireless node can be any computing equipment that employs the air as
the transmission medium. As shown, the wireless node may be physically attached to a
person, a vehicle, or an airplane, to enable wireless communication among them.

2

FIG 1.1 OVERVIEW OF MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK
In MANET, a wireless node can be the source, the destination, or an intermediate
node of data transmission. When a wireless node plays the role of intermediate node, it
serves as a router that can receive and forward data packets to its neighbor closer to the
destination node. Due to the nature of an ad-hoc network, wireless nodes tend to keep
moving rather than stay still. Therefore the network topology changes from time to time.
Wireless ad-hoc network have many advantages:

Low cost of deployment: Ad hoc networks can be deployed on the fly; hence no

expensive infrastructure such as copper wires or data cables is required.
Fast deployment: Ad hoc networks are very convenient and easy to deploy since

there are no cables involved. Deployment time is shortened.
Dynamic Configuration: Ad hoc network configuration can change dynamically
over time. When compared to configurability of LANs, it is very easy to change
the network topology of a wireless network.

MANET has various potential applications. Some typical examples include
emergency search-rescue operations, meeting events, conferences, and battlefield
communication between moving vehicles and/or soldiers. With the abilities to meet the
new demand of mobile computation, the MANET has a very bright future.

3

some of the other issues in ad hoc networks are described:  Distributed network: A MANET is a distributed wireless network without any fixed infrastructure. This thesis focuses mainly on routing issues in ad hoc networks. Thus one of the most important issues is routing. the routing protocols designed for such networks  must also be adaptive to the topology changes. Dynamic topology: The nodes are mobile and hence the network is selforganizing. and hence each node is effectively a router. Consequently. which avoids any duplicate addresses.1. Security: Security in an ad hoc network is extremely important in scenarios such as a battlefield. this solution is not suitable for ad hoc network. 1. In this section. Security issues in MANETs are discussed in Chapter III. all the nodes cooperate with each other to forward the packets in the network. confidentiality. The five goals of security – availability.are difficult to achieve in MANET. That means no centralized server is required to  maintain the state of the clients. Because of this. Addressing scheme: The network topology keeps changing dynamically and hence the addressing scheme used is quite significant. integrity authenticity and non-repudiation .2 CURRENT CHALLENGES In a mobile ad hoc network. A dynamic network topology requires a ubiquitous addressing scheme.  hence. Mobile IP is being used. mainly because every node in the network participates equally in routing packets. In wireless WAN environments. the topology of the network keeps changing over time. Because the static home agents and foreign agents are needed.3 OBJECTIVE: 4 .

5 . 1. ROUTING PROTOCOLS BENEFITS 1. 1. use “local repair” to reduce route acquisition delay and new route discovery traffic suggest a solution to use uni-directional links A lot of research is currently going on in moiled-hoc networks. Evaluate CBRP through simulation compare with different design alternatives compare against other MANET protocols. Chief occurs being to develop an efficient routing protocol which provides for efficient communication with minimum energy requirement. scalable. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:   Respective amount of data for maintenance.To study various cluster based routing schemes in mobile ad-hoc networks and schemes in mobile ad-hoc networks and implement distributed weighted cluster based implement distributed weighted cluster based routing algorithm.1 TABLE-DRIVEN (PROACTIVE) ROUTING This type of protocols maintains fresh lists of destinations and their routes by periodically distributing routing tables throughout the network. Slow reaction on restructuring and failures.5. Design a routing protocol for MANET that is Efficient.4 MOTIVATION: Major design decision use clustering approach to minimize on-demand route discovery traffic. distributed and simple to implement.5.

does not increase with the number of routes being created.FIG 1.  Babel RFC 6126  Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV) BENEFITES  Being a proactive protocol.2: OLSR-OVERVIEW EXAMPLES OF PROACTIVE ALGORITHMS ARE:  Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Optimized Link State Routing Protocol RFC 3626. routes to all destinations within the network are known and maintained before use.  The routing overhead generated. Having the routes available within the standard routing table can be useful for some systems and network applications as there is no route discovery delay associated with finding a new route. 6 . while generally greater than that of a reactive protocol.

The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:  High latency time in route finding. The connection setup delay is lower.5. Network routes are something reactive protocols do not currently execute well. Default and network routes can be injected into the system by HNA messages allowing for connection to the internet or other networks within the OLSR MANET cloud. 1.  Excessive flooding can lead to network clogging. 7 . Examples of on-demand algorithms are:  Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) (RFC 3561}  Dynamic Source Routing (RFC 4728)  Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing  Power-Aware DSR-based BENEFITS  The main advantage of this protocol is having routes established on demand and that destination sequence numbers are applied to find the latest route to the destination.2 ON-DEMAND (REACTIVE) ROUTING This type of protocols finds a route on demand by flooding the network with Route Request packets.  Timeout values and validity information is contained within the messages conveying information allowing for differing timer values to be used at differing nodes.

3 HYBRID (BOTH PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE) ROUTING This type of protocol combines the advantages of proactive and reactive routing. Any route to a destination that is within the same local zone is quickly established from the sources proactively cached routing table by IARP. Since this table is already stored. EXAMPLES OF HYBRID ALGORITHMS ARE:  ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) ZRP uses IARP as pro-active and IERP as reactive component. if the 8 . BENEFITS:  What is called the Intra-zone Routing Protocol (IARP). The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:   Advantage depends on number of other nodes activated.5. The choice of one or the other method requires predetermination for typical cases. this is considered a  proactive protocol. Therefore. IERP uses a reactive protocol. multiple RouteReply packets in response to a single RouteRequest packet can lead to heavy control overhead. or a proactive routing protocol. Another disadvantage of AODV is unnecessary bandwidth consumption due to periodic beaconing. is used inside routing zones. IARP uses a routing table. or a reactive routing protocol. One disadvantage of this protocol is that intermediate nodes can lead to inconsistent routes if the source sequence number is very old and the intermediate nodes have a higher but not the latest destination sequence number. What is called the Inter-zone Routing Protocol (IERP). thereby  having stale entries. Reaction to traffic demand depends on gradient of traffic volume. 1. is used between routing zones. Also.

If the destination is not a member of this local zone. Most existing proactive routing algorithms can be used as the IARP for ZRP. If the destination is a member of the local zone.source and destination of a packet are in the same zone. In ZRP a zone is defined around each node. the destination address and a unique sequence number. The source node uses the path saved in the route reply packet to send data packets to the destination 9 . Each border node checks its local zone for the destination. route discovery happens reactively. containing its own address. which consists of all nodes within k hops of the node. the border node adds its own address to the route request packet and forwards the packet to its own border nodes. called the node's k-neighborhood. For routes beyond the local zone. The source node sends a route request to the border nodes of its zone. the packet can be   delivered immediately. it sends a route reply on the reverse path back to the source. Border nodes are nodes  which are exactly k hops away from a source node.

game theory provides a good basis to analyze the networks. The choice for one or the other method requires proper attributation for respective levels.4.4.1. Work has been going on to introduce the fundamental concepts of game theory  and its applications in telecommunications.1 APPLICATION USED ON ADHOC:  To understand their application we have to see what they offer and how they  establish Establishing this type of networks requires mobile devices with the right  communicating chip on. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding on the lower levels.  therefore. While they could ideally be deployed at any where or in other words  instantaneous deployment. Crisis management services applications 1.5.  Reaction to traffic demand depends on meshing parameters.5. The cooperation of the users is necessary to the operation of ad-hoc networks. EXAMPLES OF HIERARCHICAL ROUTING ALGORITHMS ARE:  CBRP (Cluster Based Routing Protocol)  FSR (Fisheye State Routing protocol) 1.5.4 HIERARCHICAL ROUTING PROTOCOLS With this type of protocol the choice of proactive and of reactive routing depends on the hierarchic level in which a node resides.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES 10 . The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:  Advantage depends on depth of nesting and addressing scheme.

Routing information in not dully used. All nodes move according to the random way point mobility model. LAR. OLSR.1: Protocol Advanages and Disadvantages PROTOCO L Proactive ADVANTAGES     Upto date routing information Quick establishments of routes Small Delay A route to every other node in the network is always. 50 and 75 nodes moving over a rectangular 1500 m × 1500 m space and operating over 30 seconds of simulation time. 25. Table 1. FSR. The study has been done to compare the efficiency of the various categories of routing protocols: DSDV. Simulations have been run using a mobile ad hoc networks composed of 10. and ZRP. More resource for large size zones. Not always up to date routes Large delay Control traffic and overhead cost Arbitrary proactive schemes within zones.2: Traditional Routing Protocols 11 . Inter zone routing latencies. The overall goal of our simulation study is to analyze the behavior and performance of the protocols under a range of various scenarios. 15. DISADVANTAGES     Reactive Hybrid    Reduction of routing load Saving resources Loops-free     Scalability Limited search cost Up-to date routing information within zones      Slow convergence Tendency of creating loops Large amount of resource are needed. AODV.Table 1. STAR.

It uses a link state routing algorithm and falls into the group of interior routing protocols.  Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is an adaptive routing protocol for Internet Protocol (IP) networks. network policies and/or rule-sets. Table 1. but makes routing decisions based on path. except CBRP Determined when 12 Hybrid Mostly hierarchical Depends on the . it is more appropriately termed a reachability protocol rather than routing protocol.1. if Reactive Mostly flat. It maintains a table of IP networks or ‘prefixes’ which designate network reach-ability among autonomous systems (AS).5. operating within a single autonomous system (AS). It is described as a path vector protocol. BGP does not use traditional Interior Gateway Protocol(IGP) metrics.3 TRADITIONAL ROUTING PROTOCOLS:  Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol backing the core routing decisions on the Internet.4. For this reason.3: Routing Property Routing property Routing structure Route availability Proactive Both flat and hierarchical Always available.

Due to its nature of dynamic network topology. There are various studies and many researches in this field in an attempt to propose more secure protocols. It is understandable that most security threats target routing protocols – the weakest point of the mobile ad-hoc network.6 THESIS TARGET The mobile ad hoc network is a new model of wireless communication and has gained increasing attention from industry. AODV uses local route discovery Usually lower than proactive protocols Delay level Some all routes are predetermined Higher than proactive Scalability level to perform efficient routing Usually up to 100 nodes Source routing protocols up to few 100 nodes point to point may scale higher Storage requirements location of the destination Mostly lower than proactive and reactive Usually more than one path may be available Usually depends on the size of each cluster For local destination small. since inter zone may be as large as reactive protocols.the nodes reachable needed Traffic control Usually high Low Mobility handling effects usually updates occurs based on mobility at fixed intervals High ABR introduced LBQ. As in a general networking environment. there is not a complete routing protocol that can secure the operation of an entire network 13 . routing in mobile ad-hoc network plays a vital role for the performance of the networks. Designed for up to 1000 or more nodes 1. mobile ad-hoc networks have to deal with various security threats. However.

Typically a “secure” protocol is only good at protecting the network against one specific type of attacks. Following the Introduction Chapter (I). 1. etc. Many researchers have been done to evaluate the performance of secure routing protocols in comparison with normal routing protocols. I have implemented two secure routing protocols: a secure version of the dynamic source routing . I will also create malicious scenarios by implementing several attacks in the simulation environments. One of the objectives of this research is to examine the additional cost of adding a security feature into non-secure routing protocols in various scenarios. Chapter II classifies the routing protocols. Instead. The working description of two reactive protocols is provided. a new node announces its presence and listens for announcements broadcast by its neighbors. In ad hoc networks. Each node learns about others nearby and how to reach them. they have to discover it: typically. It is well known that the real-world network does not operate in an ideal working environment. meaning that there are always threats and malicious actions affecting the performance of the network.7 THESIS OUTLINE This thesis is composed of six chapters. The chapter is concluded with a summary. and may announce that it too can reach them. nodes are not familiar with the topology of their networks. the low rate of data packets over the total packets sent. 14 . studying the performance of secure routing protocols in malicious environments is needed in order to effectively evaluate the performance of those routing protocols.DSR (OLSR) and Secure Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol (SAODV) in the OPNET simulation environments. The additional cost includes delay in packet transmission. Thus. In the thesis.in every situation.

A summary concludes the chapter. OLSR-INRIA.Chapter III discusses security issues in MANETs with a focus on secure routing in MANETs. Chapter V discusses the simulation approach employed to study the performance of routing protocols in MANETs. Routing protocols in mobile ad hoc network helps to communicate source node with 15 . Chapter VI forms the core of this thesis and discusses the experiments carried out to analyze the performance of DSR. A brief description of the OPNET Modeler simulator environment is provided. Chapter IV discusses the system Architecture employed to study the performance of routing protocols in MANETs. independently and randomly. It focuses on the attacks and exploits that are possible in an ad hoc wireless network. ZRP and SAODV. AODV. It explains the working mechanism of four of the state-of-the-art routing protocols including OLSR and Secure Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocols. The scenarios. metrics and the issues faced are explained. metrics and the issues faced are explained. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY 2. The scenarios. A brief description of the OPNET Modeler simulator environment is provided. The experimental results and their analyses follow the experiments.1 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS BASED ON IPV4 AND IPV6 FOR MANET Ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes where wireless radio interface connects each device in a MANET to move freely. A summary concludes the chapter. Chapter VII concludes this thesis along with suggestions for future work in the area of mobile ad hoc networks.

destination node by sending and receiving packets. Many authors have compared various routing protocols such as AODV.0. Changing the speed and mobility. DYMO. Military application. secure and reliable multicast communication with support for real time traffic. Ad hoc networks can be built around any wireless technology. OLSR etc in the past. we have analyzed the behavior of three routing protocols AODV (Ad hoc on demand distance vector). To test competence and effectiveness of all three protocols under IPV4 & IPV6. In other words. In section 2 we have discuss three routing protocols taken for 16 . The primary challenge in building a MANET is equipping each device to continuously maintain the information required to properly route traffic. Collaborative & Distributed Computing. Each node must forward traffic unrelated to its own use. and OLSR (Optimized link state routing) in the network protocol IPV4 & IPV6 and compared the performance of these protocols using Qualnet5. Wireless Mesh Network and the routing protocol should be able to provide quick. each node is equipped with a transmitter and a receiver to communicate with other nodes. Therefore. Finally results are scrutinized from different scenarios to provide qualitative assessment of the applicability of the protocols. Individual nodes are responsible for dynamically discovering other nodes that they can directly communicate with. TORA. DSR. but has no fixed infrastructure and no predetermined topology of wireless links. DYMO Dynamic MANET On demand). radio frequency (RF). Usually. Due to the limitation of signal transmission range in each node. The paper is distributed as follows. nodes are required to relay packets on behalf of other nodes in order to deliver data across the network. In this paper. Average Jitter.2 simulator. not all nodes can directly communicate with each other. A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self. DSDV. including infrared.configuring network of mobile devices connected by wireless links. Packet Delivery Ratio & Total Packets Received. and will therefore change its links to other devices frequently. Emergency Operation. Each node in a MANET is free to move independently in any direction. and therefore be a router. and so on. a MANET is a collection of communication nodes that wish to communicate with each other. The performance metrics are Throughput. global positioning system (GPS).

DYMO have better throughput than AODV and OLSR with IPV6. routing functionality will be incorporated into mobile nodes. OLSR have better average packed received and broadcast packet received than  AODV and DYMO with IPV4. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF OLSR. 2. Sections 5 describe conclusion and future scope. OLSR have better packet delivery ratio than DYMO and AODV with IPV4. load. GRP AND TORA USING OPNET A MANET is an autonomous collection of mobile users that communicate over relatively bandwidth constrained wireless links. OLSR have low jitter and average end to end delay corresponds to high efficiency  than DYMO and AODV with IPV4.2. WE CONCLUDE THAT FOR IPV4 AND IPV6:    DYMO have better throughput than AODV and OLSR with IPV4. We also conclude that IPV6 performs better than IPV4.. GRP and TORA for mobile ad hoc network are compared on the basis of delay. In this paper routing protocols OLSR. the network topology may change rapidly and unpredictably over time..comparison. i. media access delay and throughput. OLSR have better packet delivery ratio than DYMO and AODV with IPV6. Section 3 gives the details of simulation environment. OLSR have better average packed received and broadcast packet received than  DYMO and AODV with IPV6. 17 . The network is decentralized. Since the nodes are mobile. where all network activity including discovering the topology and delivering messages must be executed by the nodes themselves.e. The simulation results are shown in section 4. SIMULATION RESULTS. OLSR have low jitter and average end to end delay corresponds to high efficiency    than DYMO and AODV with IPV6.

Reactive protocols find the routes when they are needed And finally hybrid routing protocols offer an efficient framework that can simultaneously draw on the strengths of proactive and reactive routing protocols. Deepak Rohila and Vikas Laura. TORA and OLSR is done by Ashish Shrestha and Firat Tekiner. throughput and routing overhead. TORA and GRP are evaluated on the basis of four parameters : delay. three MANET routing protocols . so topology may change and this event is unpredictable [6]. AODV and OLSR performed pretty well.Proactive protocols are table driven protocols and find routes before they need it. Comparison of OLSR and TORA has been done by Pankaj Palta and Sonia Goyal in. Simulation and analysis of GRP routing protocol has been done by kuldeep vats. However. ROUTING PROTOCOL: The performance investigation of reactive and proactive MANET routing protocols. in which mobile devices with limited energy can move arbitrary. routing is a critical issue and an efficient routing protocol needs to be chosen to make the MANET reliable [2]. The most popular routing protocols [3] in MANET are OLSR (proactive) and TORA(reactive) and GRP(hybrid) . DSR. Mandeep Dalal .Simulation results show 18 . namely AODV. Because of these characteristics. load. MANET is a self-configurable network without infrastructure in which nodes are free to move randomly. AODV showed better efficiency to deal with high congestion and it scaled better by successfully delivering packets over heavily trafficked network compared to OLSR and TORA.They have concluded that OLSR is better in those scenario where bandwidth is large as OLSR always updated their nodes so large bandwidth is used than TORA on same conditions. They have concluded that with regards to overall performance. In this paper.OLSR.MANET is a dynamic distributed network [1].

5 for simulation. They also concluded that OLSR is best in overall performance followed by GRP.OLSR performs best in terms of load and throughput. and GRP were deployed using FTP traffic analyzing. These protocols were tested with QOS parameters. Manijeh Keshtgary and Vahide Babaiyan. This paper describes the performance analysis and comparison of CBR and TCP traffic over conventional AODV and multicast AODV. the OLSR outperforms others in overall performance and GRP has least media access delay and delay.Krishan Saluja in. which insist its performance analysis using traffic patterns TCP/FTP and UDP/CBR with routing protocol generally implemented in a mobile ad-hoc environment. such as throughput. packet delivery ratio and average 19 . DSR.that GRP protocol has better performance in terms of delay . The reliability and capability of routing protocols can be determined using different traffic scenarios. total traffic sent and received routing traffic sent and received in packet and bit form .3.GRP performs best in terms of delay and routing overhead. The performance metrics. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS AD HOC NETWORK BASED ON TRAFFIC PATTERN WITH VARYING NODE MOBILITY Data and information transmission in a wireless mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET) mainly relies on the performance of the traffic pattern (application traffic agent and data traffic) used in a network. performance of three routing protocols namely OLSR. From their analysis. GRP and TORA was analyzed . 2. In this paper. OLSR. Monica Sachdeva and Dr . This result is verified by Kuldeep Vats. The simulation study for MANET network under routing protocols AODV.packet copy. packet created and packet destroyed. used OPNET 14.

virtual classrooms. The mobile ad-hoc network is a self-configuring infrastructure less network without the need of any central administration. and many other emergency services. they are well suited for the environments as earthquake prone areas. The source node primarily spreads out a multicast data to multiple multicast member nodes that want to receive that data and join the multicast group. The information is delivered to each of the links only once. transfer information and data efficiently between two nodes. thus creating an optimal distribution path. End2End delay with varying node speed over two traffics. and copies are created when the link to the destination splits. The Average End2End Delay of MAODV is lesser than that of AODV for both traffics. The analysis has been carried out with two traffic types. From experimental analysis it is concluded that in low density and in low speed the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) is high for both TCP and CBR. In the same scenario the End2End 20 . AODV is a protocol which is capable of unicast and multicast transmission. From the analysis it is concluded that MAODV performs slightly better than AODV in terms of Packet Delivery Ratio. Multicasting in a wireless network is a diverse technique through which the message can be transferred to multiple nodes simultaneously using fewer links. unicast AODV and multicast MAODV has been analysed over different scenarios. Therefore. The study of performance of two protocols. military battlefield operation. The average end to end delay of CBR/UDP for MAODV and AODV is lesser than TCP/FTP. The results follow these trends over a wide range of simulations based on node mobility.end to end delay is used for comprehensive performance analysis. for multicast transmissions there are two types of nodes. In general. TCP/FTP and CBR/UDP. source node and multicast member node. Each node in the network also acts as a router. forwarding data packets for other nodes. TCP and CBR. A big challenge in the design of ad hoc networks is the development of dynamic routing protocols that can find routes.

PROTOCOLS. various ad hoc routing protocols have been proposed and compared based on some metrics. By evaluating the performance of these two protocols over different scenarios. In future the analysis may be extended to analyze the performance with node density.Delay for CBR traffic is lower than TCP traffic for both protocols.0. 21 . AODV. With mobility model it is also concluded that MAODV performs better than AODV for both TCP and CBR traffic patterns. 2. OLSR and GRP for two applications namely ftp and email. packet generation rate. high-capacity links. We present the analytical simulation results of routing protocols DSR. On the other hand Mobile Ad-hoc Network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes which dynamically forms a temporary network without the use of any existing network infrastructure or centralized administration. These networks need efficient routing protocols. it will help in designing a new protocol or improvement in the existing protocol.4. AD HOC WIRELESS NETWORKS: ANALYSIS. using the network simulator OPNET 14. ARCHITECTURE AND TOWARDS CONVERGENCE Traditional routing protocols were developed to support user communication in networks with a fixed infrastructure with reliable. varying pause time etc.

thus a node may forward packets between other nodes as well as run user applications. each node seeks the assistance of its neighboring nodes in forwarding packets and hence the nodes in an ad-hoc network can act as both routers and hosts.Traditional routing protocols were developed to support user communication in networks with a fixed infrastructure with reliable. business associates sharing information during a meeting. These nodes generally have a limited transmission range and. AODV. GEOGRAPHIC ROUTING PROTOCOL (GRP) GRP is a kind of position-based protocol which belongs to Proactive Routing Protocol. At the same time. high-capacity links. As far as the present results are concerned in the given scenario the protocols are ordered in the increasing order of their performance as DSR. Each position of the node will be marked by GPS and flooding will be optimized by quadrants. It is evident from Table 6 that the performance of DSR for all parameters is worst as compared to the other protocols. by means of route locking a node can return its packet to the last node when it can’t keep on sending the packet to the next node. AD-HOC ON DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR (AODV) 22 . in the mobile ad hoc network. Flooding position updates on distance the node moved and neighborhood crossings. so. Some examples of the possible uses of ad hoc networking include students using laptop computers to participate in an interactive lecture. soldiers relaying information for situational awareness on the battlefield and emergency disaster relief personnel coordinating efforts after a hurricane or earthquake. A hello protocol will be exchanged between nodes to identify their neighbors and their positions. the network infrastructure is dynamically changing. However. On the other hand OLSR is performing well for all parameters. and the links are wireless with less capacity and more prone to errors. GRP and OLSR. The performance of GRP is also very close to OLSR but not better than it.

AODV relies on routing table entries to propagate an RREP back to the source and. In this paper. 2.5. one entry per destination. 23 . TORA & OLSR ROUTING PROTOCOLS An ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without the use of any pre-existing network infrastructure. An important feature of AODV is the maintenance of timer-based states in each node. Temporally Ordered Routing Protocols (TORA) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) by varying the number of nodes. A number of ad hoc routing protocols have been developed during the time. to route data packets to the destination. Without source routing. AODV uses sequence numbers maintained at each destination to determine freshness of routing information and to prevent routing loops. scalability is an open issue in all routing protocols. we presented our observations regarding the scalability comparison of the three MANET routing protocols. Therefore.AODV discovers routes on an as needed basis via a similar route discovery process. SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV. subsequently. However. AODV adopts a very different mechanism to maintain routing information. but none of these is able to produce efficient routing of packets in large number of nodes due to their own limitations. All routing packets carry these sequence numbers. It uses traditional routing tables. A routing table entry is expired if not used recently. regarding utilization of individual routing table entries. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV).

These networks can only work in the environment where a fixed infrastructure exists. TORA and OLSR to evaluate their scalability and then compared them. The entire collection of nodes is interconnected in many different ways. All available nodes are aware of all other nodes within range. Hence. OLSR protocol outperformed the AODV and TORA protocols and has least network latency. Ad-hoc means “for one specific purpose only”. Although. Hence. This comparative analysis 24 .In last three decades. the performance of the OLSR protocol was far better than the AODV and TORA in terms of throughput. This form of network is known as infrastructure network. these networks are formed when needed. HTTP heavy browsing is used for traffic generation. wireless network has grown enormously. wireless network has eased the information sharing and communication but we have to setup static links before we can start the communication between two systems. this paper concludes that the OLSR protocol in highly scalable with reference to varying network size. However. Average end to end delay and throughput are considered as the performance evaluation parameters. AODV performance was average during the simulation however. The simulation results conclude that on increasing the number of nodes there is performance degradation in all protocols. The topology of such networks changes very rapidly because the nodes in ad hoc network are mobile and independent of each other. but it varies from protocol to protocol. In case of network throughput too. Whereas. As the number of nodes increased the network average end to end delay also increased for all three routing protocols. we have performed simulations of three MANET routing protocols AODV. This motivates the need of infrastructure less networks which are known as ad hoc networks. TORA performed worst even it uses the localization. however the AODV protocol is almost equally scalable but less than OLSR. In this research study. Simulation is done using the OPNET Modeler 14.5. it is observed that on varying the number of nodes performance of TORA protocol was very poor. it reduces the routing overhead to great extent and reacts quickly during its operation. In the research work. This makes the routing very difficult.

NS2 Metrics Average End to Parameters Number of End Delay. pause time AODV Yogesh et al. DSR. DSR GLOMOSIM Normalized routing overhead. End Delay. Transmission Packet Delivery Power. Speed. AODV. Routing Load. End to nodes. Ratio Packet Delivery Number of Ratio.is done to identify the suitable protocols according to the network size. Speed.1: ANALYZING METHOD Author Name Protocols Used Simulator Performance Variable References Guntupalli et al. so that the routing could be more efficient and cost effective. Normalized pause time. DSDV. nodes. TABLE 2. 25 .

Delay Packet Delivery AODV. AODV NS2 et al. Routing Movement Overhead. End to End Time Delay and Shaily et al. DSDV. End Delay Packet Delivery Number of Ratio. Average DeLay Packet Delivery Speed Ratio. DSDV. TORA Throughput. DSR NS2 al. NS2 26 Throughput. G. Optimality. Average Delay. Traffic Loads. Speed. AODV. Average End to End Delay and Li Layuan st al. Average Nodes. Path Patterns. Packet Delivery Pause Time Traction. ZRP Qual Net Throughput. Normalized Routing Overhead and Average End to Vijayalaskhmi DSDV. Packet Loss. MAC load and average End to End Birdar et al.Chenna et al. Jayakumar et AODV. NS2 DSR. . AODV. AODV. Routing Overhead. DSR Pause Time Ratio. Routing Overhead. Network Size.

Throughput and Connectivity CHAPTER 3 SYSTEM ANALYSIS In MANET the wireless links between adjacent nodes are subject to interference from external sources. The cumulative effect of all these factors results in low link capacity and reliability. DSR and ZRP to select the most reliable path amongst multiple available paths based on its SNR value. TORA Jitter. After this updating the RREQ packets are further broadcasted in the immediate neighborhood. In literature Kumar et al modifies the MANET routing protocols to reduce network congestion without taking into account the reliability of wireless links. it compares the SNR value of each path to the source which is above a certain threshold (10dB in our method). The ROUTE_MIN_SNR field of the RREQ packets received by the neighborhood nodes is updated with the SNR value of the link from the physical layer.DSR. When the destination node receives the RREQ packets. The reliability of a path is the minimum SNR value of the wireless links constituting the path as it defines the weakest portion of the path. During the initial stages of the route discovery process the source node broadcasts RREQ packets to its immediate neighborhood. It resulted in an only traffic load aware routing to reduce congestion. intra and inter transmission in the network. In our work we have modified the route discovery process of OLSR-INRIA. This process continues until the RREQ packets reaches destination node . to store the minimum SNR value among all the path links. Ghosh et al considered the status of wireless links in DSR and achieved good results. Here also the wireless link status is not considered. ambient noise in the system and jamming signals from malicious nodes. 27 . It gives us a measure of the path reliability. On the other hand Vijayavani et al modifies and compares various routing protocols in MANET based on network size. reliability with minimum delay. Loss Ratio. density and node mobility. Among the possible paths one with the maximum SNR value is selected as it gives the maximum throughput. The structure of the RREQ packet is modified to include an additional field known as ROUTE_MIN_SNR. Routing Load.

ERS. What about choice of evaluation technique? Real world observations are not possible because there is no large scale manet.1 CHALLENGE:  Qualify and quantify the effects of Node misbehavior on the overall performance    of the routing system.HOW TO ANALYZE (MOBILE AD HOC) NETWORKS? FIG 3. Security. TABLE 3. 250 NODES 28 . QoS. We would like to see how the system behaves.1: ADHOC NODE 3.1: SUMMARY RESULT FOR TEST AODV.     and it would be expensive to set up a new one. Emulation / Tested experiments are possible but in a small scale. Simulation studies are being conducted.

Modeling adhoc networks.2 ROUTING DEPENDABILITY IN AD HOC NETWORKS   The effects of node misbehavior. our concern is Routing system. For instance what if there are some nodes that do not want to cooperate? Or some other problems related proximity to each other. 29 . 3. Recall that in ad hoc networks.It is for sure that there are many issues need to be handled if an optimized ad hoc network needs to be implemented which does not seem possible with today's technology. there is mobility. dynamic situations. There might be cases that the protocols that we have discussed cannot help out. Some might behave as malicious and etc. In this part.

1 NODE MISBEHAVIOR A node in the middle may keep the message and not forward to package. Well-behaving nodes: that works. Besides that. forwards the packet.2: ROUTING SYSTEM 3. It has been proven that if the number of selfish nodes increases the packet loss in the network increases linearly as well.2. if there are many selfish nodes in the network we need to incerase the number of control messages ( to keep the track of what is going on in the network .FIG 3. There are three different nodes. Selfish nodes: the ones that receives the packet but do not forward it. 30 . It can affect the overall performance of the system. in case of AODV. and reestablish route if a node does not forward the packet ) . 2. 1. It results in increase of routing overhead. Malicious nodes: the ones that inject false information into messages or remove them completely from the network (black holes).

2. 31 .3 SYSTEMATIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION  Performance analysis = analysis + computer systems  System = any collection of hardware + software  Metrics = the criteria used to evaluate the system performance  Workloads = the requests made by the users of the system You need to know what you want to characterize in your system. There is no such thing as general model. Goals -> correct metrics. methodology. However if something goes wrong in between.2. Your performance evaluation should represent the actual usage of the system.3. You need to have a proper goal first. everything can be affected in a negative way. workloads. UNDERLYING PROBLEMS    Induced by mobility : High topology dynamics Induced by wireless communication Induced by node misbehavior ( we might want to add some extra mechanisms to overcome this) 3.2 ROUTING DEPENDABILITY PROBLEMS Most ad hoc routing algorithms assume only well-behaving nodes to support multi-hop operation of the network.

3 HIERARCHY OF AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS 32 .3.TABLE 3.3 AD HOC WIRELESS ROUTING PROTOCOLS 3.2: SYSTEMATIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 3.1 CLASSIFICATION OF BASIC ROUTING PROTOCOLS Routing protocols in ad hoc mobile wireless network can generally be divided into three groups (Figure 3.2): FIG 3.

In source routing. This saves a lot of network bandwidth. during which the network is not being used. a node simply maintains routes to active destination that it needs to send data. That is. Communication between nodes in different zones will rely on the on-demand or source-initiated protocols.4 DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING PROTOCOL (DSR) The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol is one of the on-demand routing protocols. the nodes don’t have to periodically broadcast their routing tables to the neighboring nodes. This kind of routing protocols roughly works the same way as that of routing protocols for wired networks.  Source initiated (or demand driven): In this type of routing. The routes to active destinations will expire after some time of inactivity. and is based on the concept of source routing. Thus. when a node needs to send data packets. there is no delay for discovering the route throughout the network. The two phases of the DSR operation are described below: 33 . Besides. Nodes belonging to a particular geographical region or within a certain distance from a concerned node are said to be in the routing zone and use table driven routing protocol. In the rest of this chapter. Table driven: Every node in the network maintains complete routing information about the network by periodically updating the routing table.  Hybrid: This type of routing protocols combines features of the above two categories. a sender node has in the packet header the complete list of the path that the packet must travel to the destination node. every node in the path just forwards the packet to its next hop specified in the header without having to check its routing table as in table-driven routing protocols. I will give an overview of two of the most common routing protocols used in mobile ad hoc network: Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) and Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol (AODV) 3.

However. Each entry in the table is a <initiator.3. Each of the neighbor nodes that has received the RREQ broadcast then checks the packet to determine which of the following conditions apply: (a) Was this RREQ received before ? (b) Is the TTL (Time To Live) counter greater than zero? (c) Is it itself the destination of the RREQ? (d) Should it broadcast the RREQ to its neighbors? The request ids are used to determine if a particular route request has been previously received by the node. It then drops both of them and broadcasts the previously received RREQ packet to its neighbors. the source node searches a route by broadcasting route request (RREQ) packets to its neighbors. Figure 3. The other nodes follow the same procedure. C and D as shown in the figure. A route cache is maintained at every node so that. Each node maintains a table of RREQs recently received. 34 .2 shows an example of the route discovery phase. the destination node sends a reply packet (RREP) on the reverse path back to the sender. When node A wants to communicate with node G. This RREP contains the recorded route to that destination. The destination node unicasts the best route (the one received first) and caches the other routes for future use. it initiates a route discovery mechanism and broadcasts a request packet (RREQ) to its neighboring nodes B. request id> pair. it sends a RREP packet itself instead of broadcasting it further. When the packet reaches node G. whenever a node receives a route request and finds a route for the destination node in its own cache. If two RREQs with the same <initiator. When the RREQ packet reaches the destination node. it inserts its own address and reverses the route in the record and unicasts it back on the reversed path to the destination which is the originator of the RREQ. This mechanism also prevents formation of routing loops within the network. node C also receives the same broadcast packets from nodes B and D.1 ROUTE DISCOVERY PHASE In this phase.4. request id> are received by a node. it broadcasts only the one received first and discards the other.

a route error packet (RERR) is sent by the intermediate node back to the originating node. A broken link can be detected by a node by either passively monitoring in promiscuous mode or actively monitoring the link. As shown in Figure 3. DSR benefits from source routing since the intermediate nodes do not need to maintain up-to-date routing information in order to route the packets that they receive. when a link break (F-G) happens.FIG 3. There is also no need for any periodic routing advertisement messages.2 ROUTE MAINTENANCE The route maintenance phase is carried out whenever there is a broken link between two nodes. It also removes any route entries it may have in its cache to that destination node.4: ROUTE DISCOVERY IN DSR 3. The source node re-initiates the route discovery procedure to find a new route to the destination.4.3. 35 .

the AODV routing protocol uses a reactive approach and to identify the most recent path it uses a proactive approach. 3. That is.5: ROUTE MAINTENANCE IN DSR 3. When a RREQ packet is received by an intermediate node. RREQ packets are transmitted by the source node in a way similar to DSR. the destination sequence number (DSeq). The components of the RREQ packet include fields such as the source identifier (SId). it uses the route discovery process similar to DSR to find routes and to compute fresh routes it uses destination sequence numbers. the destination identifier (DId).5.1 ROUTE DISCOVERY In this phase. the source sequence number (SSeq). and TTL. The two phases of the AODV routing protocol are described below. the broadcast identifier (BId). it could either forward the RREQ packet or prepare a Route Reply (RREP) packet if there is an available valid route to the destination in its 36 .FIG 3.5 AD-HOC ON-DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR (AODV) ROUTING PROTOCOL To find routes.

A timer associated with every entry is also maintained by the node in an attempt to delete a RREQ packet in case the reply has not been received before it expires. whereas in the source routing. While transmitting a RREQ packet. This plays a role of a “forward pointer” to the destination node. By doing it. every intermediate node enters the previous node’s address and its BId.6: ROUTE DISCOVERY IN AODV 37 .cache. each node contains only the next hop information. all the intermediate nodes on the route towards the destination are stored. the (SId. BId) pair is used. To verify if a particular RREQ has already been received to avoid duplicates.5 depicts an example of route discovery mechanism in AODV. Suppose that node A wishes to forward a data packet to node G but it has not an available route in its cache. FIG 3. C and D). the information of the previous node is also stored in it in order to forward the packet to it as the next hop of the destination. It then initiates a route discovery process by broadcasting a RREQ packet to all its neighboring nodes (B. When a node receives a RREP packet. Figure 3.

38 .6 OLSR-INRIA The Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol was designed by the French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA) for mobile adhoc networks. The reduction in the size of the link state packets is made by declaring only a subset of the links in the link state updates which are assigned the responsibility of packet forwarding known as Multipoint Relays. C and D. node C gets a route to G in its cache and its DSeq is greater when compared with that in the RREQ packet. and TTL fields are inserted in the RREQ packet. It replies to the source node with a RREP packet consisting of the route to the destination in the case the DSeq in the RREQ packet is greater. DId. DSeq. In Figure 2.All the SId. 3. BId. One by reducing the size of the control packets and other by reducing the number of links that are used for forwarding link state packets. they forward the RREQ to their neighbors. There is a two way optimization. No control packet is generated on the event of a link break or addition of a new link by the link state update mechanism which achieves higher efficiency when operating in a highly dense network. In the case where no route is available. It is a proactive routing protocol that employs an efficient link state packet forwarding mechanism called multipoint relaying on its way to optimize pure link state routing protocol.4. these nodes immediately search their respective route caches for an existing route. Periodic link state updates are facilitated by the optimization done by multipoint relaying facilities. SSeq. otherwise a comparison is made between the destination sequence number (DSeq) in the RREQ packet and the DSeq in its corresponding entry in the route cache. When RREQ packet reaches to nodes B.

FIG 3.7: ROUTE OLSR.

39

3.7HYBRIDS - ZRP

FIG 3.8: ZONES A PRO-ACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOL IS USED WHILE A
RE-ACTIVE PROTOCOL IS USED BETWEEN ZONES.
Hybrid protocols seek to combine the proactive and reactive approaches. An
example of such a protocol is the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). ZRP divides the
topology into zones and seek to utilize different routing protocols within and between the
zones based on the weaknesses and strengths of these protocols. ZRP is totally modular,
meaning that any routing protocol can be used within and between zones. The size of the
zones is defined by a parameter r describing the radius in hops. Figure 3.6 illustrates a
ZRP scenario with r set to 1. Intra-zone routing is done by a proactive protocol since
these protocols keep an up to date view of the zone topology, which results in no initial
delay when communicating with nodes within the zone. Inter-zone routing is done by a
reactive protocol. This eliminates the need for nodes to keep a proactive fresh state of the
entire network.
ZRP defines a technique called the Border cast Resolution Protocol (BRP) to
control traffic between zones. If a node has no route to a destination provided by the

40

proactive inter-zone routing, BRP is used to spread the reactive route request.
Figure 3.7 illustrates the different components of ZRP.

FIG 3.9: THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE ZONE ROUTING
PROTOCOL.

3.8 SECURITY AWARE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
MANETs have certain unique characteristics that make them vulnerable to several
types of attacks. Since they are deployed in an open environment where all nodes cooperate in forwarding the packets in the network, malicious nodes are difficult to detect.
Hence, it is relatively difficult to design a secure protocol for MANET, when compared
to wired or infrastructure-based wireless networks. This section discusses the security
goals for an ad hoc network. Sample attacks and threats against existing MANET routing
protocols are then discussed. I then discuss the working of two secure routing protocols
to address these threats, OLSR and SAODV.
3.8.1 SECURITY GOALS
To secure the routing protocols in MANETs, researchers have considered the
following security services: availability, confidentiality, integrity, authentication and
non-repudiation

41

because the information might be valuable for enemies to locate their targets in a battlefield.  Authentication enables a node to ensure the identity of the peer node. network partitioning. integrity. thus gaining access to sensitive information. rendering certain nodes inaccessible. an adversary could jam the physical communication channels. The networking environment in wireless schemes makes the routing protocols vulnerable to attacks ranging from passive eavesdropping to active attacks such as impersonation. Without authentication. Routing information must also remain confidential in some cases. A message could be corrupted because of channel noise or because of malicious attacks on the network. Non-repudiation is important for detection and isolation of compromised nodes. authentication and non-repudiation. Availability guarantees the survivability of the network services despite attacks. Nodes roaming in an ad hoc environment 42 . an attacker could masquerade as a normal node. On the media access control layer. etc. A Denial-of-Service (DoS) is a potential threat at any layer of an ad hoc network. message replay.  Integrity ensures that a message that is on the way to the destination is never corrupted. an attacker could bring down high-level services like key management service. On the network layer disruption of the routing operation may result in a partition of the network.  Non-repudiation ensures that the originator of a message cannot deny that it is the real originator.  Confidentiality ensures that certain information be never disclosed to unauthorized entities. Eavesdropping is a threat to confidentiality and active attacks are threats to availability. It is of paramount importance to strategic or tactical military communications. On higher levels. message littering.

10: CLASSIFICATION OF ATTACKS ON MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS CHAPTER 4 43 . Figure 3. the attacks on routing protocols can generally be classified as routing disruption attacks and resource consumption attacks. some non-cooperative or selfish nodes may try to inject false packets in order to consume network bandwidth.8. in resource consumption attacks. FIG 3. they can be used as starting points to launch attacks against the routing protocols. Both of these attacks are examples of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.1. 3.1 ATTACKS AND EXPLOITS ON THE EXISTING PROTOCOLS In general.1 depicts a broader classification of the possible attacks in MANETs. In routing disruption attacks. the attacker tries to disrupt the routing mechanism by routing packets in wrong paths. Once the nodes are compromised.with poor physical protection are quite vulnerable and they may be compromised.

11.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH:  Uses the Open Access Research Test bed for Next-Generation Wireless Networks (ORBIT). GPRS and 3G/WCDMA. radio forwarding nodes (FN) and access points (AP). [This project involves collaboration with Semandex Networks.  Cross-layer approaches to MAC. 802.) of multiple radio link technologies such as Bluetooth. to evaluate different approaches both in terms of protocol functionality and software performance. Princeton. which consists of open API wireless terminals.  Theoretical analysis of the capacity and scaling properties of the three-tier hierarchical hybrid wireless network.  Global Control Plane (GCP) approach to help disseminate control information among ad-hoc nodes and facilitate cross-layer algorithms such as the integrated routing/MAC scheduling algorithm and cross-layer transport protocol. switches and routers.  Self-organizing ad-hoc network protocols for discovery and routing. and system evaluation for an 802.  Content delivery techniques for mobile users.SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE 4. etc. routing and transport in ad-hoc network scenarios. including those based on proactive Infostations caching and novel semantic routing techniques. handoff. with particular focus on a hierarchical 802.  Compatible upgrades to WLAN protocols for service features such as flow QoS and multicasting. access points. NJ 44 . interworking (global roaming.11b architecture consisting of mobile nodes (MN).11-based hierarchical network. forwarding nodes.

45 . content caching.1: INTERNET SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE 4. With the emergence of various new shortrange and medium-range wireless data networks (such as Bluetooth and WLAN). these protocols were used in the context of homogeneous vertical architectures in which a single service such as GSM or 3G is provided to large numbers of mobile users. etc.FIG 4. QoS. multicasting. there is a need for a more horizontal network architecture that accommodates heterogeneous radio links and permits evolution of mobile network services to include basic mobility features as well as newer requirements such as self-organization.2 TECHNICAL RATIONALE: Mobile networks have traditionally been designed via extensions of existing fixed network protocols to support key mobility functions such as location management. ad-hoc routing. Typically. authentication and handoff.

multimedia. and data traffic over a single IPbased core network will be the main focus of 4G. Ubiquitous computing is enabled with enhanced system mobility and portability support. and location-based services and support of ad hoc networking are expected. 4G is all about an integrated global network based on an open-systems approach. Integrating different types of wireless networks with wireline backbone networks seamlessly and the convergence of voice. multimedia services can be supported efficiently.Such “4G” wireless networks can be realized with an IP-based core network for global routing along with more customized local-area radio access networks that support features such as dynamic handoff and ad-hoc routing. With the availability of ultrahigh bandwidth of up to 100 Mbps. The illustration below shows the networks and components within the 4G network architecture. 46 .

3 STRUCTURE CHART AD-Hoc Mobile routing protocols Table Driven proactive Hybrid 47 On demand driven reactive .FIG 4.2: 4G NETWORK ARCHITECTURE 4.

3. with broadband access with an 802.1 PURE GENERAL PURPOSE MANET The mostly discussed application scenario for pure general-purpose MANET is Battlefield or disaster-recovery networks. a mesh network introduces a hierarchyin the network architecture by adding dedicated nodes (called mesh routers) that communicate wirelessly to construct a wireless backbone. Unlike pure MANETs. 4. 4. Opportunistic Networking (Delay Tolerant Networking) (I)POCKET SWITCHED NETWORKS IN THE HAGGLE PROJECT 48 .11b-based wireless network backbone infrastructure.3: MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS Survey of applications of MANET : We shall now get an overview of different types of MANET and their uses.3.2 MESH NETWORKS Mesh networks are built upon a mix of fixed and mobile nodes interconnected via wireless links to form a multihop ad hoc network.DSDV WRP ZRP CGSR STAR ABR DSR CBRP RDMBR TORA AODV FIG 4. However. An example is MIT Roofnet providing the city of Boston. these kinds of networks have not yet achieved the envisaged impact in terms of real world implementation and industrial deployment.

The communications include data from the roadside and from other cars.e. VANET research aims to supply drivers with information regarding obstacles on the road and emergency events. i. These nodes are active devices with computing and communication capabilities that not only sample real world phenomena but also can filter. The general process of creating a simulation can be divided into several steps:- 49 . and operate on the data they sense. and warnings about traffic conditions. wireless.It targets solutions for communication in autonomic/opportunistic networks. combine. smart sensor nodes. It focuses on tracking wild species to deeply investigate their behavior and understand the interactions and influences on each other.g.. In this framework. researchers are studying the properties of Pocket Switched Networks (PSNs). (IV) WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS (WSN) Benefit from the advances in computing technology. (II)WILDLIFE MONITORING Wildlife monitoring is an interesting application field for opportunistic networks. opportunistic networks that can exploit any possible encountered device (e. (III)VEHICULAR AD HOC NETWORKS VANETs use ad hoc communications for performing efficient driver assistance and car safety. cell phones and PDAs that users carry in their pockets) to forward messages. which led to the production of small. share.. VANET can be used to communicate premonitions. battery powered. as well as their reaction to the ecosystem changes caused by human activities. notification of emergencies. mainly due to line-of-sight limitations and large processing delays.

Performance analysis:.Models set their default values (for example. most of the time this is done using  helpers. data requested by the user is  logged.Models are added to simulation (for example. applications). ns-3 has a system of containers and helpers that facilitates this  process. UDP. This data can then be statistically analysed with  tools like R to draw conclusions. Topology definition:.After the simulation is finished and data is available as a time-stamped event trace. Graphical Visualization:.To ease the creation of basic facilities and define their interrelationships. pointto-point devices and links. 4. most of  the time this is done using the attribute system.4 FRONT END DESIGN Start Broadcast Packets (BP) Authentication Neighbor discovery and exchange of ID 50 . the size of packets sent by an application or MTU of a point-to-point link). Execution:.Raw or processed data collected in a simulation can be graphed using tools like Gnuplot. matplotlib or Xgraph.Simulation facilities generate events. Model usage:. Xgraph is the plotting tool bundled with many of the installation packages. IPv4. Node and link configuration:.

SAODV assumes that each ad hoc node has a signature key pair from a suitable asymmetric cryptosystem.Cluster maintenance by detecting events Received NBR Info ? Data aggregation at CH & Upload at BP Create neighbor table Wait for Time T (stop) Wait for Time T (boostrap) Transmit CH Compute counter weight values Receive CH &join Selected CH by CH Counter Expired Stop FIG 4. SAODV is an extension of the AODV routing protocol. Further. authentication and nonrepudiation. A key 51 . and it can be used to protect the route discovery mechanism by providing security features like integrity. each node is capable of securely verifying the association between the address of other node and the public key of that node.4: FLOW CHART OF ROUTING PROTOCOL The Secure Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (SAODV) protocol was proposed to answer the challenge of securing a MANET network.

Two mechanisms are used to secure the AODV messages:   Digital signatures to authenticate the non-mutable fields of the messages. According to the author. Route error messages are protected in a different manner because of a big amount of mutable information.1: HASH FUNCTION Value 0 1 2 3 – 127 128 – 255 Hash function Reserved MD5HMAC96 SHA1HMAC96 Reserved Implementation dependent 4. The RREQ and RREP have the following extension fields TABLE 4. authentication can be performed in a point-to-point manner. but the techniques cannot be applied to the mutable information. Therefore. The important information is that a neighbor node is informing other nodes that it is not able to route messages to certain destinations anymore. and Hash chains to secure the mutable hop count field of the message. every node (generating or forwarding a route error message) uses digital signatures to sign the whole RERR message and that any neighbor that receives RERR verifies the signature.management scheme is needed for SAODV. it is not important which node started the route error and which nodes are just forwarding it.5 ROUTE DISCOVERY 52 . For the non-mutable fields.

so all the nodes on the return path buffer the error but do not process it until it is authenticated. In order to avoid the injection of invalid route errors (RERR) into the network by any node other than the node that sees a broken link. AODV. The RERR contains six fields FIG 4.5: ROUTE REQUEST AND ROUTE REPLY 4. the node that saw the broken link discloses the key and sends it over the return path.2: SURVEYING DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES WE DEFINE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TECHNIQUES Techniques Advantages/ Merits Disadvantages /Future Improvement MANET. extension of existing AODV the performance of this Trust Model routing protocol for creating protocol is not sufficient secure route for communication. Later. The proposed approach is the Direction Using simulation results. it 53 .5. On the other hand TESLA authentication is delayed.TESLA handles the authentication of RERR messages in a way similar to how the RREQ messages are handled.1 CHARACTERISTIC OF MANET TABLE 4. In the future. justified. which enables nodes on that path to authenticate the buffered error message. each node on the return path to the source node just forwards the RERR. Trusted Networks.

The results show that AODVsec The AODVsec still has hoc Networks. IEEE 802. As routing on ensuring security. As a a future work. eliminate the malicious node as well as they can establish a best trusted route between source and DAAODV. They presented a secure ad hoc This protocol doesn't use Routing Protocol routing protocol which can TTP.Proposed modifications are in will be incorporate with acceptable limit. Ad. and adopt a new efficient grained construction of signing and verifying scheme the routing software. we can easily protocols. vertex cut simulation. The efficient security algorithm MANE. AODVsec outperforms traditional multipath some imperfect points. attacker cannot to focus on designing the intercept all the paths. and traffic analysis work is to make a fine- attacks. and doesn't add prevent most attacks including much overhead in ns-2 worm-hole attacks.11b4 ES-AODV enhances the security 54 The routing protocol performs Does not better . so it improves problem . Multipath Routing. the design of DAAODV on software level is a little coarsegrained. AODVsec synchronization control avoids maliciously accessing a mechanism to solve this entire data packet. it will need common case.. system's security with negligible routing overhead. WirelessSsecurity1. In future attacks. Secure destination. as preventing DoS attacks. With this other MANET routing minimum overhead.

In the implementation of such In future it will require Security routing protocols. extension . MANET. Routing. to both mobility and network size. TABLE 4. routing overhead demands an intensive optimization in both the protocols. it concludes that the in the network. SecureAODV This paper. than the existing secure According to the analysis of the AODV routing protocol results obtained from extensive with increased mobility simulation. It should secure routing solution scales well be improve in future MANET. Every mobile agent computes the transmission capacity of all the nodes so that Routing Agent System (RAS) can take the efficient reliable decision which routing path is more efficient and reliable.3: COMPARISON BETWEEN MANET-PROTOCOL 55 .in ad hoc wireless networks. to improve in future. To minimize digital signatures to the associated overhead like delay. implement the security. presents the protocol The transmission being proposed which utilizes the capacity factor into the dual cooperative mobile agents networking as MANET and stationary agents for routing of the protocol will need in dynamic networks as MANET. the need is to more specifically eliminate the shortcoming of these SAODV to decrease the protocols by evaluating processing requirements performance of them on a to tackle hash chains and simulation platform.

56 .

FIG 4.6: SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE OF THE AODV The component called AODV defines the main flow of control inside the AODV routing daemon. and reception of route requests on the ASL socket. Possible actions include sending out packets. 57 . The set of possible events include reception of routing control packets. The daemon program is essentially a big select() loop which monitors various file descriptors for the events and takes the appropriate actions. expiration of various timers. This component also initializes ASL by calling the functions int route_add() and open\_route\_request(). setting new timers and updating various data structures. The control flow is based on an event-driven design.

hello timer and rreq retransmission timer. We call this the source forwarding function. the TimerQueue component maintains various AODV timers including reboot timer. Finally. which are induced by source forwarding. by storing a list of recently seen RREQ packets.The RREQ. i. different to modify. It also maintains a route cache using the aodv-helper module through the corresponding API function query_route_idle_time_aodv(). route replies and route error packets respectively. due to the inseparable forwarding and routing functions..e. 58 . The Local Repair component attempts to repair links locally and the Blacklist component takes care of routing in the presence of uni-directional links.5. need to be flexible and can reside in user-space.2 A SPLIT DESIGN As we have explained earlier. The Forward Route Request component ensures that a node does not process a particular RREQ packet multiple times. and a complete user-space approach. The idea is to segregate the forwarding and routing functions to some extent. 4. should be as efficient as possible and reside inside the kernel. to send a data packet to the next-hop based on its DSR header. The Pending Route Request component (rreqPendingList) implements the expanding ring search and RREQ retransmission features of the AODV routing protocol. as explained in the next subsection. but an inkernel approach is different to maintain. In our implementation. periodic refresh timer. We believe that the core of the source-routing based forwarding activities. Both approaches have pros and cons. we attempt a split-system approach. A complete user-space approach will be inefficient for the forwarding function. The Routing Table component (routeTable) handles updates to the aodv routing table as well as to the kernel routing table. The majority of other source routing activities. RREP and RERR components take care of both generating as well as processing incoming route requests. there are usually two ways to implement such protocols: a complete in-kernel approach. and different to port to other operating systems. even though they are intermixed in the protocol design.

FIG 4.7: SPLIT DESIGN 59 .

such as NS-2.CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 5. process editor. Interface Control Information editor. Node and Process models. OPNET also provides rich data analysis features. OPNET Modeled was chosen as a simulation environment because it is one of the leading environments for network modeling and simulation. OPNET. and probability density function editor. devices. node editor. its programming library helps researchers to easily modify the network elements and measure their performance in the simulation environment. etc. and applications. It supports large number of built-in industry standard network protocols. and graphical editors for editing the Network. GLOMOSIM. Fortunately. external system editor. Specifically. link model editor. 5.2 OPNET ARCHITECTURE OPNET provides a comprehensive environment to model and do performance evaluation of networks and distributed systems. My thesis is heavily based on the implementation and experiments in the OPNET simulation environment. packet format editor. there are several editors in OPNET: project editor. Those tools fall into three categories corresponding to the three phases of modeling and simulation projects: Specification.1 SIMULATION TOOL One common method to conduct research in the networking and security fields is to simulate and evaluate the protocol(s) in various scenarios. and Analysis. These phases should necessarily be in sequence and form a simulation cycle as in Figure 4. 60 .1. In addition. The OPNET package includes numbers of tools. OPNET uses the concept of modeling domains to represent its modeling environments. there are various computer simulation applications that are available for doing those tasks. Simulation and Data Collection.

The communicating entities are called nodes.FIG 5. Network domain is created by using the Project editor tool of the OPNET modeler.1: SIMULATION CYCLE IN OPNET Network Domain is used to define the network topology of a communication network. External System specifies the interfaces to the models provided by other simulators running concurrently with an OPNET simulation (a co-simulation). Node Domain describes nodes’ internal architecture in terms of functional elements in the node and data flow between them. specified using infinite state machines and an extended high-level language. Process defines the behavior of processes. algorithms and application. including protocols. 61 .

The Network simulator alone is only intended for stationary networks with wired links.5. An overview of how a simulation is done in Ns The current version of the Network simulator does not support mobile wireless environments. and multicast protocols. This implementation of AODV is compatible with NAM and therefore gives a good picture of how 62 .3 NETWORK SIMULATOR Network simulator 2 is the result of an on-going effort of research and development that is administrated by researchers at Berkeley. Ns uses an Otcl interpreter towards the user. Routing. throughput etc) and to visualize the simulation with a program called Network Animator (NAM). destinations. It provides substantial support for simulation of TCP. The simulator is written in C++ and a script language called OTcl2. This script is then used by ns during the simulations. We also started to implement the AODV protocol. type of traffic) and which protocols it will use. NAM is a very good visualization tool that visualizes the packets as they propagate through the network. It is a discrete event simulator targeted at networking research. The result of the simulations is an output trace file that can be used to do data processing (calculate delay. See Appendix C for a screenshot of NAM. This caused us some problems in the beginning of this master thesis. the traffic in the network (sources. links). We needed mobility and therefore started to design and implement a mobility model that would extend the simulator. This means that the user writes an OTcl script that defines the network (number of nodes.

3. These changes that affect the unicast routing part is primarily: • Reduced or complete elimination of hello messages. These extensions had everything that we wanted from a n extension. About two months later. • Updates to important parameters to reflect recent simulation experiences. 5. To be able to test how the hello messages and link layer support affects the behavior of the protocol we have implemented three versions: • AODV with only IP-based hello messages • AODV with only Link Layer notification of broken links • AODV with both IP-based hello messages and Link layer notification of broken links 63 . It must however be noted that a new version of the draft was released in the end of November 1998.1 AODV We have implemented the AODV protocol The implementation is done accord to the AODV draft released in August 1993. It is very easy to follow for instance the route discovery procedure. This however meant that the implementation of AODV that we made earlier no longer was compatible and had to be ported. in August 1998. so we decided to use one of them. two separate mobility extensions were released.AODV behaves. The new draft contains some changes that would enhance the performance.

The DSR implementation that was included in the mobility extension used a sendbuffer that buffered all packets that the application sent while the routing protocol searched for a route. The parameters that can be adjusted for AODV and the values we have used is . broken links can only be detected when actually sending something on the broken link. The hello messages add overhead to the protocol. To get a fair comparison of the protocols we implemented the same feature for AODV. First of all AODV with only MAC-layer support will not get the routes to the neighbors installed in the routing table. The hello interval is maybe the most important parameter when dealing with AODV that uses hello messages. It must however be noted that the removal of hello messages somewhat changes the behavior of the AODV protocol. Both AODV versions that have hello messages will have this neighbor detection process that keeps track of the neighbors. neither will it update the routes to the neighbor who forwarded a message to you. Removing the hello messages makes the protocol completely on-demand. Some of these parameters are very important and affects the performance of the protocol in drastic ways.The implementation of the different versions lias some major differences that will affect the performance. but also give us some prior knowledge of link breakages. Without this support buffering of the packets may be necessary while a request is sent out in search for a node that could be a neighbor. This buffer can hold 64 packets and packets are allowed to stay in the buffer for 8 seconds. link breakages would not be detected 64 . If the interval is too long. This means that the protocols with this feature will have more information in the routing tables.

Most of the parameters in Table 3 are obvious. which means that the protocol learns information from packets that it overhears. as a response to the first data packet and if the node keeps receiving data packets after that.fast enough. Parameter Value Hello interval 1. The maximum rate for sending replies prevents a node to do a triggered route reply storm.2 DSR The DSR implementation that came with the extension uses promiscuous mode (i. TABLE 5. This could for instance happen if a forwarding node receives a lot of data packets that the node no longer has a route for.e. In this case the node should only send a triggered RREP. In a real case scenario we will probably have some sort of 65 . but if the interval is to short.5 s Active route timeout 300 s Route reply lifetime 300 s Allowed hello loss 2 Request retries Time between retransmitted requests 3s Time to hold packets awaiting routes 8s 5. eavesdropping). The question is how realistic this is in a real environment. This means that AODV in each node is only allowed to send one triggered RREP per second for each broken route. a great amount of extra control overhead would be added. a triggered RREP is only allowed to be sent once per second.3.1: CONSTANTS USED IN THE AODV IMPLEMENTATION .

encryption.2: CONSTANTS USED IN THE DSR Parameter Value Time between retransmitted requests 500 ms Size of source route header carrying n 4n + addresses Timeout for no propagating search Time to hold packets awaiting routes 4 bytes 30 ms 30 s 5. The send buffer in the DSR can hold 64 packets and the packets are allowed to stay in the buffer for 30 seconds FIG 5.1 FLOODING We have implemented a simple flooding protocol that simply floods all user data packets to all nodes m the network. The no propagating timeout is the time a node waits for a reply for a no propagating search. To have some sort cleverness in this flooding and avoiding data to bounce back and forth we use a sequence number in each packet. A no propagating search is a request that first goes to the neighbors.3. The parameters that are configurable for DSR are shown in These values are the values specified in the DSR draft and have not been changed. We have made some small change to DSR that makes it possible to turn the eavesdropping feature on and off. probably IP-Sec that uses IP-Sec tunneling to transport messages. 66 . a new request that will be forwarded by the neighbors will be sent. If the neighbors do not answer in this specified amount of a tune. This sequence number is incremented for each new packet.2.

architects. 67 . including MAC. Ultra Wide Band. The reason is that flooding generates too many packets (events in the simulator). 802. Wireless network planners. sequence number) for all destinations and does not process a packet if the packet has a sequence number smaller than the stored sequence number.Each node keeps track of (source IP. including a broad range of powerful technologies. and more effectively design technologies such as MANET. tune network performance. and applications.4 OPNET MODELER WIRELESS SUPPORT The Wireless module in OPNET provides a flexible and scalable wireless network modeling environment. and Transformational Communications systems. and evaluate growth scenarios for revenuegenerating network services. Bluetooth. including handover The wireless module has rich protocol model suites to optimize the R&D processes. The simulations took too long to complete. 802. 3G/4G.11. fading. The idea was to do the simulations on the flooding protocol and compare the results with the results for the routing protocols. The Wireless module integrates OPNET’s full protocol stack modeling capability. with the ability to model all aspects of wireless transmissions. and operations professionals can analyze end-toend behavior.16. including:  Radio Frequency propagation (path loss with terrain diffraction. After some initial simulations on flooding this plan was abandoned. 5. and    atmospheric and foliage attenuation) Interference Transmitter/receiver characteristics Node mobility. routing. higher layer protocols.

We can use the C/C++ language to implement/modify the behavior of a module. OLSR and SAODV). OLSR and SAODV are respectively based on the DSR and AODV protocols. in the OPNET Modeler simulation environment. If the security conditions are not met. FIG 5. These conditions are defined by each specific protocol and added at the processing phase of the routing process. otherwise they accept the packets and proceed to next appropriate processing phase. which are supported in OPNET.2 (Add security features into new protocols) is further concretized in Figure 5.5. OPNET provides quite a large library with over 400 predefined functions and procedures . I duplicate the original protocols (DSR and AODV) and then add security features to turn them into the secure versions (that is.2 shows steps to add new secure routing protocols OLSR and SAODV into the OPNET Modeler.3. so that each wireless node can be easily switched back and forth between the normal mode and the malicious mode. For easy development.4.2: STEPS TO ADD NEW SECURE ROUTING PROTOCOLS INTO OPNET Step 2 in Figure 5. using the Application Programming Interface functions of the OPNET development kit and the embedded C language.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PROTOCOLS IN THE OPNET MODELER In this thesis. At the origin nodes that generate the routing packets. The malicious feature of a wireless node is integrated into the routing protocol model. the nodes will discard the routing packets. SAODV and OLSR. so I did not have to re-implement the whole protocols. Instead. These security fields will be verified against the secure conditions at the intermediate nodes and at the destination node. the security fields are added into the routing packets at the packet creation phase of the routing process. Figure 5. I have implemented two secure routing protocols. 68 .

3: HASH CHAIN FUNCTION Function Name Purpose initialize_hash (<arguments>) Convert a string into an array of bytes generate_hash_chain (<arguments>)) Hash an array for a given number of times generate_signature (<arguments>)) Generate a digital signature based on the private/public key pair of a wireless node publickey_extraction (<arguments>)) Get the public key of a wireless node (to verify_signature (<arguments>)) verify_hop_count (<arguments>)) be sent to other nodes) Verify the signature of a routing packet Verify the hop count field contained in a initialize_mac (<arguments>)) routing packet Generate a hash value based on the MD5 OLSR_generate_hash (<arguments>)) algorithm Generate a hash value for the OLSR OLSR_verify_hash (<arguments>)) protocol Verify the hash values in an OLSR routing packet 69 .FIG 5.3: SECURE CONDITIONS AT THE INTERMEDIATE NODES TABLE 5.

it will process the routing packets as a normal node. Each wireless node. Figure 4. otherwise. during the routing process. it will turn on the appropriate attacking process. FIGURE 5. If it is.3 RUNNING SIMULATIONS IN COLLECTING EXPERIMENT RESULTS 70 THE OPNET MODELER AND . the attack models are implemented as part of the routing process. will check if it itself is a malicious node.4.5.4 illustrates how attack models are integrated into the routing processes.4: PROCEDURE TO INTEGRATE ATTACK MODELS IN THE ROUTING PROCESS 5.4.2 IMPLEMENTING THE ATTACK MODELS IN THE OPNET MODELER In the simulation.

4: IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX OF ROUTING ATTACK MODELS. There are two ways to collect the experimental data from OPNET. The first approach is to use the OPNET Statistic Analysis tool. This is a medium group that represents some of the typical scenarios. PROTOCO L DSR OLSR AODV SAODV ATTACK-1 Route Drop Route Drop Route Drop Route Drop ATTACK-2 Route modification Route modification Route modification Route modification ATTACK-3 Route Fabrication Route Fabrication Impersonation Impersonation 5.. This scalar file needs to be converted into a text file to be readable by other tools. etc. such as a rescue team working in a disastrous area. are collected by this tool.Figure 5.5 SCENARIO SETUP In this thesis. Values such as average number of routing packets.5: THE FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATING THE PROCESS OF RUNNING SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS AND COLLECTING EXPERIMENTAL DATA TABLE 5.5 shows the steps to run experimental scenarios in OPNET. a group of moving 71 . I set up a network with 25 wireless nodes moving at random. Other values like average number of end-to-end delay of data packets are dumped into a scalar file. FIG 5. each with various speed between 1 and 10 meters per second. which is the average speed of a walking person or a running vehicle. number of data sent or received over various points during the simulation time.

vehicles in the city. The simulation scenario is summarized below: - Mobility Model: Random Waypoint - Simulation time: 400 seconds - Network setup: o Number of nodes: 25 o Mobility model: random mobility o Simulation Area: 4000m x 4000 m o Node speed : 1-10 m/second o Mobility pause time values (seconds): 0. and then change its direction at random and move again. 80. 22. o Number of data source: 10 nodes–node 8. 40. The number of data source nodes is chosen based on the assumption that a half of the nodes send the data and a half of the nodes receive the data. 11. 20. 90.24 o Traffic pattern:  Type of traffic: Constant Bit Rate (voice)  Packet size: 512 bytes (or ~ 4096 bits)  Sending frequency: 4 packets/second  Traffic destination: random 72 . a squad of soldiers or armored vehicles in an army operation. 9. 30. 15. 13. 23 . or a place of an event. The traffic pattern models the voice data transferred from one node to the other. 70. Each of the objects can move at a random direction. 10. 50. 14. The pause time values represent the movement of the objects. stop for some time (per the pause time). 17. 60. 100. The data is sent at a rate of 2 kbps to represent compressed voice data. The destination of data is determined at random to mimic the real situations.

1 RESULT ANALYSIS: 73 . The attacks are launched separately with various numbers of malicious nodes. node 3. node 7. given different number of malicious nodes. Table 4.To create the malicious environments.2 shows the nodes assigned to implement the attacks. CHAPTER 6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 6. node 16 node 24.5 MALICIOUS NODE ASSIGNMENTS Number of malicious nodes 1 2 3 4 5 Malicious nodes assigned node 24 node 24. node 16. node 7 node 24. node 7. node 3. node 3. five nodes are selected to launch the attacks discussed in the previous section. node 3 node 24. node 18 The order in which malicious nodes are involved in attacking the network remains the same for each protocol’s evaluation. TABLE 5.

DESTINATION TRAFFIC PAIRS. NETWORK SCENARIO COMPRISING OF 52 MOBILE NODES AND 7 DIFFERENT SOURCES . This can be attributed to the fact by taking only links with high SNR value we ensure reliability. We have taken the packet size to be 512 bytes. (28. (55.We have considered two different network scenarios with the first one having 52 nodes with 7 different source and destination pairs (Figure 6. (13. 41). increased throughput and security. 74 . 16) respectively as shown in figure 2 over randomly deployed 72 nodes in the deployment area. 27). (17. Jamming and interfering signals from intruder or malicious nodes lowers a link's SNR ratio and provides a good indication about its reliability and security FIG 6. In the second scenario similarly CBR traffic is applied between seven source destination node pairs namely (2.2) respectively. (19. 31). 40). (19. 30). Qualnet 4. 47).5 network simulator is used to extensively simulate the above mentioned scenarios. (23. In the first scenario CBR traffic is applied between seven source destination node pairs namely (3. 49). 38). 29) and (65. (12. 35) and (39. 46).1. (5. It gives a list of various simulation parameters. We have enhanced both security and throughput at the same reducing end-to-end delay and jitter in our proposed schemes. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is used as the transport layer protocol and Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic is used as the application layer protocol applied between the source and destination. (45.1) and the second one having 72 nodes with 7 different source and destination pairs (Figure 6. In both the scenarios Random Waypoint (RWP) mobility model is considered. 07) respectively as depicted in figure 1 over randomly deployed 52 nodes in the deployment area. 39).

In order to obtain representative values for the performance metrics. The average values of these 11 simulation runs are then calculated for the two metrics and used as a baseline to evaluate the performance of routing protocols in malicious environments.6.2 EXPERIMENTS IN THE BEGIN ENVIRONMENT In this phase. This scenario is run 11 times with 11 different values of the mobility pause time ranging from 0 to 100 seconds. A scenario is set up for data collection. data flow. moving direction of the nodes. congestion at a specific node. such as node speed. we decided to take the average values of multiple simulation runs. AODV and SAODV) are collected. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the performance of a protocol by directly comparing the acquired metrics from individual scenarios. 75 . the performance data of four routing protocols (DSR. the destination of the traffic. the actual values of the performance metrics in a given scenario are affected by many factors. OLSR. etc. The data is collected according to two metrics – Packet Delivery Fraction and Normalized Routing Load. In general.

PAUSE TIME VALUES IN 76 .FIG 6.3: PACKET DELIVERY FRACTION VS.2 CLUSTERING CREATION AND NODE DISTRIBUTED FIG 6.

Hence. this delay depends on the simulation running machine and is not high enough to make the significant difference for the PDF metric. In respect to the protocol design. In MANETs. and both methods exhibit superior performance (~90% in general). simply saves the RERR message. while this number is 3 seconds for AODV and SAODV. The situation is even worse for OLSR. the percentage of packets delivered in AODV and SAODV is fairly close to each other. the generation and verification of digital signatures depends on the power of the mobile nodes and causes a delay in routing packet processing. the packet delivery fraction in DSR and OLSR are 20-40% lower than that of AODV/SAODV across the board given different mobility pause times. mainly because OLSR relies on the delayed key disclosure mechanism of TESLA when authenticating packets. In the benign environment of our experiments.1. The source node keeps sending the data until the second route error is triggered. In the simulation environments.3. DSR and OLSR store the complete path to the destination. however. the nodes are mobile. The source node. if any node moves out of the communication range. The major difference between AODV and DSR is caused by difference in their respective routing algorithms. the default expiry timer of cached route for DSR and OLSR is 300 seconds. it sends a RERR message to the source node of the data packet. Furthermore. because it has not yet received from the intermediate node the key needed to authenticate the route error. Actually. When an intermediate node in OLSR notices a broken link.1 for details). in high mobility and/or stressful data transmission scenarios. The security features in SAODV lower the performance a little bit. and another RERR 77 . It was reported by other researchers that. the whole route becomes invalid.BENIGN ENVIRONMENT As shown in Figure 6. AODV outperforms DSR. On the other hand. Without being aware of most recent route changes. so route change frequently occurs. The reason is that DSR heavily depends on the cached routes and lack any mechanism to expire stale routes. including the RERR packets (see section III. these values are kept unchanged through all the simulation scenarios.

This explains the worse performance of OLSR in comparison with DSR and other protocols. and the broken link not be used any more.4: NORMALIZED ROUTING LOAD 78 . Only then would the previous route error be authenticated.is received. FIG 6.

01 SAODV 92.41% 1. A low PDF value (for example. 6.00% 0. the NRL metric is.FIG 6.1) corresponds to a high NRL value (Figure 5.58 AODV 93.2). which lists the average values of the two metrics over 11 simulation runs for each of the four protocols.1).5: NORMALIZED ROUTING LOAD VS.2. in general.1 THE “BASELINE” METRICS OF THE FOUR PROTOCOLS Packet Normalized Delivery Routing Fraction (%) Load DSR 68.45% 1.70% 2. OLSR in Figure 5. This relationship between PDF and NRL is further illustrated in Table 5. PAUSE TIME VALUES IN BENIGN ENVIRONMENT As shown in Figure 5.72 OLSR 54. inversely proportional to the PDF metric (Figure 5.98 Pause Time (seconds) 79 .1.

Comparision of Jitter for OLSR-INRIA & SOLSR-INRIA. In the next section. DSR & SDSR and ZRP & SZRP for 52 & 72 Nodes.7.The comparison between the normal routing protocols (DSR and AODV) and their respective secure version (that is.6: THROUGHPUT 80 Fig 6. OLSR and SAODV) in benign environments has been extensively conducted by other researchers. FIG 6. I will discuss the performance of the protocols in various malicious environments. .

live telecast and others. The overall end to end delay is reduced which is an important QoS in applications such as video streaming. 81 . In case of the end-to-end packet delay is calculated as the elapsed time interval when the packet is sent by the source to the time when it is received at the destination node. The modified protocols exhibits a low end to end delay every source destination pair and on the average as well. A considerable improvement in average throughput is observed in both the scenario for all routing protocol. A significant reduction in average end to end delay is observed which makes this type of modified protocol suitable for video streaming operations.1 THROUGHPUT We have measured end to end throughput in Kbits/sec for each source destination pair over both the network scenarios. The result obtained can be attributed to the fact that due to the selection of the path having highest SNR value the impact of interference and jamming signals are less and path bandwidth is increased which is reflected as higher throughput that is desirable for almost every envisaged application of MANET.6. This can be attributed to the fact due to the selection of high SNR value paths offering high bandwidth resulting in lower queuing delay at the intermediate nodes. A high individual and average throughput is observed in all the cases by the modified protocols.2. Fig 6 shows the end to end delay for scenario 1 and scenario 2 as well.

As well as for SZRP the End-to-End Delay is decreased by 32% for the first scenario and 95% for the second scenario. and packets arrive at the destination with a wide range of inter-arrival times. such as conflicts with other packets wishing to use the Figure 6. DSR & SDSR and ZRP & SZRP for 5 Nodes.2 THROUGHPUT End-to-End Delay (In Sec) OLSR-INRIA SOLSR-INRIA DSR SDSR ZRP SZRP 52 Nodes Scenario 0.727 0. unavoidable jitter is introduced by the network due to the variable queuing and propagation delays.178 0.2. The jitter increases at switches along the path of a connection due to many factors. In case of SDSR the End-to-End Delay is decreased by 87% for the first scenario and 83% for the second scenario.329 01.126 72 Nodes Scenario 0. generates an evenly spaced stream. 82 . Comparison of End-to-End Delay for OLSR-INRIA & SOLSR-INRIA.48 0.8 .235 04.404 0.131 1.2 END TO END DELAY PERFORMANCE In case of SOLSR-INRIA the End-to-End Delay is decreased by 59% for the first scenario and 81% for the second scenario.171 6.6.04 0.818 0.185 0.

In our modified protocol average jitter decreases for SOLSR-INRIA. . In case of SDSR the Jitter is decreased by 84% for the first scenario and 75% for the second scenario. As well as for SZRP the Jitter is decreased by 68% for the first scenario and 76% for the second scenario TABLE 6.3: END TO END DELAY Jitter (In Sec) OLSR-INRIA SOLSR-INRIA DSR SDSR ZRP SZRP 52 Nodes Scenario 0.264 0.120 0.497 0.067 0. and nondeterministic propagation delay in the data-link layer.same links. In case of SOLSR-INRIA the Jitter is decreased by 52% for the first scenario and 67% for the second scenario.059 0. SDSR and as well as for SZRP.124 0.112 0.493 0.077 0.036 0.061 .021 83 72 Nodes Scenario 0.

FIG 6.9: DELAY VS TIME 84 .

Fig 6.3 EVALUATION RESULT: 85 .10: Delivery Ratio 6.

and (4) Average latency of the transmitted packets.1 NUMBER OF RREP PACKETS SENT BY NODE 2 (MALICIOUS NODE) 86 . which is one of the most powerful tools used to simulate wired and wireless network protocols. three simulation scenarios were considered: in the first one the simulation was carried out in normal conditions. In the second scenario. (3) Accuracy on attack detection.3. all the nodes participated correctly in the routing functions. one of the nodes was a malicious node which accomplished the sequence number attack. For our case of study. The metrics that we used to evaluate the attack detection module performance are the following: (1) Packet delivery ratio or percentage (considered as our most important metric). FIG 6. an attack detection module was proposed and it was incorporated in the AODV protocol and simulated again. in other words. (2) Number of RREP packets sent by node number 2 (the malicious node).The AODV protocol performance was evaluated with the "Network Simulator 2" (ns–2). In the third scenario.11: PACKET DELIVERY RATIO VS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS 6.

FIG 6. Nevertheless. and both under attack conditions. This is normal since a great number of traffic connections in the network provides a greater chance to the malicious node to send RREP packets. Figures 9 and 10 depict the number of sent RREP packets versus the number of connections without or with the module incorporated. 87 .It shows the number of RREP packets sent by node 2 (the malicious node) versus the number of connections in normal conditions. In order to evaluate this metric and observe the behavior of the curves. respectively.12: NUMBER OF RREP SENDS BY NODE 2 VS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS The three graphics show a proportional behavior between the number of connections and the number of RREP packets sent by node 2. when the attack takes place the number of sent RREP messages (false messages in this case) is much bigger than the number of messages sent under normal conditions. we have placed the respective graphics on separate figures.

which is continuously sending route requests. In that moment there is not an available route for the source node. and that explains the increment on the number of RREP.13: NUMBER OF RREP SENDS BY NODE 2 VS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS UNDER ATTACKS 88 .This is because the attack is implemented in such a way that the malicious node replies with a false RREP to any route request that reaches it. this is because there is a moment in which the source node discards any RREP it receives (due to broken links or increments in the sequence number). FIG 6. With the detection module incorporated the number is even bigger.

89 . only those that are delivered to their destinations.2 TRANSMITTED PACKETS AVERAGE DELAY It show the graphics obtained when analyzing the packets' average delay versus the number of connections and the node mobility for every simulation scenario. the MAC layer's transmission delay and the time for transferring. FIG 6.6. We are including here the possible delays due to buffering during the route discovering delay. the interface queue.3. that is. When the detection module is incorporated there is a light increasing on the average delay due to the time used by the source node in determining whether it is being attacked or not.14: AVERAGE DELAY VS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS It shows that there is a decrease on the average delay when the protocol in under attack (compared with the normal operation). It is important to mention that in this case the average is obtained from a fewer quantity of packets.

15: AVERAGE DELAY VS MAX SPEED OF NODE MOVEMENTS 90 .FIGURE 6.

AODV. in which the performance of DSR. in the OPNET simulation environment.5 network simulator. Intrusion detection methods may be incorporated in the route discovery phase of OLSRINRIA. DSR and AODV. I have also simulated four popular network attack models that exploit the weakness of the protocols. OLSR. As a future work other mobility models and data traffic might be considered. DSR and ZRP for detection of malicious nodes to enhance network reliability. DSR and ZRP in both the scenarios. With three different attack models for each of the protocols. based on their respective underlying protocols. The modified protocols avoid malicious nodes and noisy links by choosing the highest SNR path which increases overall network reliability. Random Waypoint (RWP) mobility model is considered as it encompasses most of the envisaged application areas of MANETs.CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK CONCLUSION From the simulation results it can be concluded that for SOLSR-INRIA. SDSR and SZRP average throughput increases while average end-to-end delay and jitter decreases considerably as compared to OLSR-INRIA. 91 . The attack models are used to make malicious wireless nodes and create various malicious environments. I have implemented two secure routing protocols. We have extensively simulated our methods using QualNet 4. totally 65 scenarios are created to evaluate the four protocols. OLSR and SAODV. In this thesis. and SAODV are evaluated. and with the number of malicious nodes varying from one to five.

we conclude that. are used to evaluate the protocols. Another conclusion is that the mobility model of the malicious nodes affects the number of data packets to the destinations. even under attacks. For the secure versions of the routing protocols (OLSR and SAODV). The collected metrics are compared with the respective baseline values. the impacts of attacks upon the routing protocols are then studied. they are still able to deliver the data to the destinations.The ultimate goal of a routing protocol is to efficiently deliver the network data to the destinations. Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF) and Normalized Routing Load (NRL). hence. two metrics. the number of received data packets decreases. However. Second. The procedure is summarized below: First. they are designed to detect the changes in routing packets. in order to maintain the normal operation. Through the collected evaluation metrics from the various scenarios. In other words. in order to collect baseline values for the metrics. each of the protocols is evaluated in various simulated malicious environments. That is the key management center for SAODV and the secure cached routes for OLSR. The differences amongst baseline values of the protocols are also discussed in order to get better understanding of each protocol’s operation. in all the malicious environments. When the number of malicious nodes increases. in order to assess the impact of a particular network attack on the protocol operation. the data is redirected or discarded due to the attacks on the routing protocol. therefore. Based on the results we’ve collected. normal routing protocols (DSR and AODV) can not guarantee to deliver data to the destinations as well as in the benign environments. under specific attacks like route fabrication attack for OLSR and impersonation attack for SAODV. each scenario is run eleven times in order to calculate the average value for the two evaluation metrics. Preliminary analysis and discussions of this issue can be found in Chapter VI 92 . the four protocols are used in a benign environment. In order to get the accurate experimental results. in which there is no network attack. the protocol requires the existence of a specific security mechanism.

such as certificate-based authentication. in order to verify the binding between the node’s identity and  its public key. A public key verification mechanism. More research is needed in the mobility of the nodes in order to comprehensively evaluate the impact of the malicious nodes’ movement on the protocol’s performance.FUTURE WORK More research is needed in the following issues:  The OLSR protocol needs to be improved in order for the cached route feature to  be secure and effective in malicious environments. 93 . is needed for SAODV.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC
[1] T.H Clausen, G.Hansen, L.Christensen, G. Behrmann, “ The Optimised Link State
Routing Protocol Evaluation Through Experiments and Simulations”, Proceedings of
IEEE Symposium on Wireless Personal Mobile Communications, 2001, September 2001.
[2] D.B Johnson, D.A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”,
Mobile Computing, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, vol. 353, pp. 153-181.
[3] D. Sivakumar, B. Suseela, R. Varadharajan, “A Survey of Routing Algorithms for
MANET”, IEEE International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and
Management (ICAESM), March 30-31, 2012, pp. 625- 640. Available in IEEE Explore.
4] V.Jha, K. Khetarpal, M.Sharma, “A Survey of Nature inspired Routing Algorithms for
MANETs”, IEEE 3rd International Conference on Electronics, Computing Technology
(ICECT), April 8-10, 2011, pp. 1-4. Available in IEEE Explore.
[5]

S.Weber, J.G Andrews, N. Jindal, “An Overview of Transmission Capacity of

Wireless Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. 58, Issue. 12, 2010, pp.
3593-3604.
[6] Royer E M, Toh C K, “A review of current routing protocols for Adhoc mobile
wireless networks” IEEE Journal of Personal Communications, Dec. 2006, vol. 6(2), pp.
46- 55.
[7] Z.J Haas, “The Routing Algorithm for the Reconfigurable Wireless Networks”,
Proceedings of ICUPC 1997, vol. 2, pp. 562-566, October 1997.
[8] P. Nand, and S.C. Sharma, “Performance study of Broadcast based Mobile Ad hoc
Routing Protocols AODV, DSR and DYMO”, Proc. International Journal of Security and
Its Applications, Vol. 5, No. 1, January, 2011, pp. 53-64.

94

[9] D.B. Johnson, D.A. Maltz and J. Borch, “DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, Computer Science Department
Carnegie

Mellon

University

Pittsburgh,

PA15213-3891,

Dec.

2009.

http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu.
[10] J. Liy, H. Kameday and Y. Panz, “Study on Dynamic Source Routing Protocols for
MANET”, Institute of Information Science and Electronics, University of Tsukuba,
Japan. Department of CS, Georgia State University. University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303,
USA.
[11] Scalable Networks Technologies: Qualnet Simulator 4.5

http://www.scalable-

networks.com .
[12] Saurav Ghosh, Chinmoy Ghorai, “ Evaluating the Performance of Modified DSR in
Presence of Noisy Links using QUALNET Network Simulator in MANET”, Proc.
International Journal of Smart Sensors and Ad Hoc Networks (IJSSAN) ISSN No. 22489738 Volume-1, Issue-2, 2011, pp. 35-40.
[13] Arun Kumar B. R., Lokanatha C. Reddy, Prakash S. Hiremath, “Performance
Comparison of Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols” International
Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.8 No.6, June 2008, pp.337343.
[14] G.R Vijayavani, G. Prema, “Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols
with Mobility Model derived based on Realistic Mobility Pattern of Mobile Nodes”,
IEEE Conference on Advanced Communication, Control and Computing Technologies
(ICACCCT) 2012, pp. 32- 36. Available in IEEE Explore.
[15] Zygmunt J. Haas and Marc R. Pearlman and Prince Samar, “The Intrazone
Routing Protocol (IARP) for Ad Hoc Networks”, Draft-ietf-manet-zone- iarp-01.txt,
June 2001.

95

[16] Zygmunt J. Haas and Marc R. Pearlman and Prince Samar, “The Interzone
Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks”, Draft-ietf-manet-zone- ierp 02.txt July
2002.
[17]. M.N. SreeRangaRaju and Dr. Jitendranath Mungara, “Optimized ZRP for MANETs
and its Applications”, proceedings of International Journal of Wireless & Mobile
Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2011.
[18]. DSR, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- manet-dsr-10 .
[19]. AODV, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- manet-aodv-09 .
[20]. ZRP, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manet- zone-zrp-04.txt .
[21].

ZRP

patch,

http://magnet.daiict.ac.in/magnet_members/MTech/2007/PatelBr

ijesh/Simulation.html#Sec_2.
[22].ZRP

Agent

Implementation

documentation,

http://magnet.daiict.ac.in/magnet_members/MTech/2007/PatelBr
jesh/Thesis_files/MyZRP/ZRPManual.pdf .
[23]. Yinfei Pan, “Design Routing Protocol Performance Comparison in NS2: AODV
Comparing to DSR as Example”, Deptt of CS, SUNY Binghamton, Vestal NY 13850.
[24].NS2 Trace format - http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/NS-2_Trace_Formats .
[25].The ns Manual (formerly ns Notes and Documentation) by Kevin Fall, Kannan
Varadhan. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/ns_doc.pdf
[26]. NS Simulator for beginners, http://wwwop.inria.fr/members/Eitan.Altman/COURS-NS/n3.pdf.

96

97 .