This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No.

1, April 2010

**QoS Routing For Mobile Adhoc Networks And Performance Analysis Using OLSR Protocol
**

K.Oudidi

Si2M Laboratory National School of Computer Science and Systems Analysis, Rabat, Morocco k_oudidi@yahoo.fr A.Hajami Si2M Laboratory National School of Computer Science and Systems Analysis, Rabat, Morocco Abdelmajid_hajami@yahoo.fr M.Elkoutbi Si2M Laboratory National School of Computer Science and Systems Analysis, Rabat, Morocco elkoutbi@ensias.ma

Abstract-- This paper proposes a novel routing metrics based on the residual bandwidth, energy and mobility index of the nodes. Metrics are designed to cope with high mobility and poor residual energy resources in order to find optimal paths that guarantee the QoS constraints. A maximizable routing metric theory has been used to develop a metric that selects, during the protocol process, routes that are more stable, offer a maximum throughput and prolong network life time. The OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing) protocol, which is an optimization of link state protocols designed for MANETs (Mobile Ad hoc Networks) is used as a test bed in this work. We prove that our proposed composite metrics (based on mobility, energy and bandwidth) selects a more stable MPR set than the QOLSR algorithm which is a well known OLSR QoS extension. By mathematical analysis and simulations, we have shown the efficiency of this new routing metric in term of routing load, packet delivery fraction, delay and prolonging the network lifetime.

categories of MANET routing protocols: Proactive (table-driven), Reactive (on-demand) and Hybrid. Proactive protocols build their routing tables continuously by broadcasting periodic routing updates through the network; reactive protocols build their routing tables on demand and have no prior knowledge of the route they will take to get to a particular node. Hybrid protocols create reactive routing zones interconnected by proactive routing links and usually adapt their routing strategy to the amount of mobility in the network. In this paper we reiterate our proposed mobility metric. Based on the use of this mobility metric we propose a new composite metric, to find the optimal path given the QoS constraints. The objective of the composite metric is to find an optimal stable path with maximum available bandwidth and to prolong network life time. Using the OLSR Protocol, we show that our proposed Index Terms— Mobile Ad hoc networks, quality of service, routing metric selects stable MPR Set rather than the QOLSR protocol, routing metric, mobility, residual energy. algorithm which is a well known OLSR QoS algorithm for MANETs. I. INTRODUCTION This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of the original OLSR protocol. Section 3 summarizes the state of the art dealing with QoS support in MANETs and describes the QoS routing problems Section 4 presents our proposed composite metric based on mobility, residual energy and bandwidth as QoS parameters. In Section 5, simulations and results are discussed. The last part of this paper concludes and presents some future work. II. OPTIMIZED LINK STATE ROUTING PROTOCOL A. Overview OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing) protocol [2-3] is a proactive table driven routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks and it is fully described on RFC 3626 (Thomas Clausen & Philippe Jacquet, (October 2003)). As a link state routing protocol, OLSR periodically advertises the links building the network. However, OLSR optimizes the topology information flooding mechanism, by reducing the amount of links that are advertised and by reducing the number of nodes forwarding each topology message to the set of MPRs only. Information topology is called Topology Control (TC) message

A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of mobile nodes working on a dynamic autonomous network. Nodes communicate with each other over the wireless medium without need of a centralized access points or a base station. Since there is no existing communication infrastructure, adhoc networks cannot rely on specialised routers for path discovery and routing. Therefore, nodes in such a network are expected to act cooperatively to establish routes instantly. Such a network is also expected to route traffic, possibly over multiple hops, in distributed manner, and to adapt itself to the highly dynamic changes of its links , mobility and residual energy patterns of its constituent nodes. Providing QoS in MANETs [1] is a tedious task. It’s known that combining multiple criteria in the routing process is a Hard problem (NP-Complet) A complete QoS model in MANETs will span multiple layers, however the network layer plays a vital role in providing the required support mechanisms. The goal of QoS routing is to obtain feasible paths that satisfy end-system performance requirements. Most QoS routing algorithms present an extension of existing classic best effort routing algorithms. There are three main

138

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

and exchanged using broadcasted into the network. TC messages are only originated by nodes selected as Multipoint Relays (MPRs) by some other node in the network. MPRs are selected in such a way that a minimum amount of MPRs, located one-hop away from the node doing the selection (called MPR Selector), are enough to reach every single neighbour located two-hops away of MPR selector. By applying this selection mechanism only a reduced amount of nodes (depending on the network topology) will be selected as MPRs[18]. Every node in the network is aware of its one-hop and two-hop neighbours by periodically exchanging HELLO messages containing the list of its one-hop neighbours. On the other hand, TC messages will only advertise the links between the MPRs and their electors. Then, only a partial amount of the network links (the topology) will be advertised, also MPRs are the only nodes allowed to forward TC messages and only if messages come from a MPR Selector node. These forwarding constrains considerably decrease the amount of flooding retransmissions (Figure 1). This example shows the efficiency of the MPR mechanism because only eight transmissions are required to reach all the 23 nodes building the network, which is a significant saving when compared to traditional flooding mechanism where every node is asked to retransmit to all neighbours.

Based on the above notations, the standard algorithm for MPR selection is defined as follows (figure 2-b): OLSR uses hop count to compute the shortest path to an arbitrary destination using the topology map consisting of all its neighbours and of MPRs of all other nodes. Number of hop criterion as a routing metric is not suitable for QoS support as a path selected based on the least number of hops may not satisfy the required QoS constraints.

Figure 2-b: MPR Selection Algorithm III. RELATED WORK A. Qos Support in a Manet In this section we discuss the recent work done to provide QoS functionality in Manets. INSIGNIA, [7], is an adaptation of the IntServ Model to the mobile ad hoc networks. QoS guarantee is done by per-flow information in each node that is set up by the signalling/reservation protocol. The destination statistically measures QoS parameters (e.g. packet loss, delay, average throughput,etc.) and periodically sends QoS reports to the source. Based on those reports, the source node can adapt realtime flows to avoid congestion. SWAN, [13], Service differentiation in stateless Wireless Ad-hoc Network, is an adaptation of the DiffServ Model to the mobile ad-hoc networks. Nodes do not need to keep per-flow information in order to handle packets. QoS guarantee is provided according to the class of the flow once it has been accepted. FQMM, [11], Flexible Qos Model for MANET, has been introduced to offer a better QoS guarantee to a restricted number of flows whereas a class guarantee is offered to the other flows. FQMM is a hybrid approach combining per-flow granularity of IntServ for high priority classes and perclass granularity of DiffServ for low priority classes. G. Ying et al [8] have proposed enhancements that allow OLSR to find the maximum bandwidth path. The heuristics

Figure 1: Flooding with MPR mechanism B. MPR Selection Algorithm The computation of the MPR set with minimal size is a NPcomplet problem [14-16]. For this end, the standard MPR selection algorithm currently used in the OLSR protocol implementations is as follows:

Figure 2-a- Example of MRRset calculation. For a node x, let N(x) be the neighborhood of x. N(x) is the set of nodes which are in the range of x and share with x a bidirectional link. We denote by N2(x) the two-neighborhood of x, i.e, the set of nodes which are neighbors of at least one node of N(x) but that do not belong to N(x) (see Figure 2-a).

139

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

are based on considering only bandwidth as a QoS routing constraint and revisions to the MPR selection criteria. They identify that MPR selection is vital in optimal path selection. The key concept in the revised MPR selection algorithm is that a “good bandwidth” link should never be omitted. Based on this three algorithms were proposed: OLSR_R1, R2 and R1. The research group at INRIA [9],[10] proposed a QoS routing scheme over OLSR. Their technique used delay and bandwidth metric for routing table computation. Such metrics are included on each routing table entry corresponding to each destination. QOLSR [11] and work presented in [9] enhance OLSR with QoS support. Both propose a solution providing a path such that the bandwidth available at each node on the path is higher than or equal to the requested bandwidth. Furthermore, QOLSR considers delay as a second criterion for path selection. However, all of these solutions do not take into account at all mobility and energy parameters induced by the nature of Manet Network. B. Qos Routing Problems One of the key issues in providing end-to-end QoS in a given network is how to find a feasible path that satisfies the QoS constraints. The problem of finding a feasible path is NPComplete if the number of constraints is more than two, it cannot be exactly solved in polynomial time and mostly dealt with using heuristics and approximations. The network layer has a critical role to play in the QoS provision process. The approaches used by the QoS routing algorithms follow a tradeoff between the optimality of paths and the complexity of algorithms especially in computing multiconstrained path. A survey on such solutions can be found in [14]. The computation complexity is primarily determined by the composition rules of the metrics [16]. The three basic composition rules are: additive (such as delay, delay jitter, logarithm of successful transmission, hop count and cost), multiplicative (like reliability and probability of successful transmission) and concave/min-max (e.g. bandwidth). The additive and multiplicative metric of a path is the sum and multiplication of the metric respectively for all the links constituting the path. The concave metric of a path is the maximum or the minimum of the metric over all the links in the path. Otherwise, if M i; j is the metric for link {i, j} and P is the path between (i, j, k,..1,m) nodes, the QoS metric M(P) is defined as [14-15]:

• Additive : M(P) =

• Concave

: M(P) = min M i; j , M i;k ,..., M l;m

{

}

The proof of NP-Completeness relies heavily on the correlation of the link weight metrics. QoS Routing is NPComplete when the QoS metrics are independent, real numbers or unbounded integers. In general, QoS routing focuses on how to find feasible and optimal paths that satisfy QoS requirements of various voice, video and data applications. However, based on maximizable routing metrics theory [16], it is shown that two or more routing metrics can be combined to form a composite metric if the original metrics are bounded and monotonic. Before we proceed to the mathematical proof, we give definitions of maximal metric tree and the properties desired for combining metrics i.e. bounded- ness and monotonicity.

Definition 1: Routing Metric A routing metric for a network N is six-tuple (W,Wf, M, mr, met, R ) where:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

M is a set of metric values Wf is a function that assigns to each edge {i, j} in N a weight Wf( {i, j}) in W W is a set of edge weights mr is a metric value in M assigned to the root. met is a metric function whose domain is MxW and whose range is M (it takes a metric value and an edge value and returns a metric value). R is a binary relation over m, the set of metric values that satisfy the following four conditions of irreflexivity,

Definition 2: Maximum Metric Tree

A spanning tree of N is called a maximum metric tree with respect to an assigned metric iff every rooted path in T is maximum metric with respect to the assigned metric. In simple words every node obtains its maximum metric through its path along a maximum metric tree.

Definition 3: Boundedness A routing metric (W, Wf, M, mr, met, R ) is bounded iff the

**following condition holds for every edge weight w in W and every metric value m in M. met (m,w) R m ∨ met(m,w) = m
**

Definition 4: Monotonicity A routing metric (W,Wf, M, mr, met, R ) is monotonic iff the

following condition holds hue for every edge weight w in W and every pair of metric values m and m’ in M: m R m’ ⇒ (met (m,w) R met (m’,w) ∨ met (m,w) = met (m’,w))

(W,Wf, M, mr, met, R ) is called strict monotonic iff m R m’ ⇒ met (m,w) R met (m’,w) Theorem 1 (Necessity condition of Boundedness)

M i ; j + M i;k +…+ M l ;m

• Multiplicative : M(P) =

M i ; j x M i;k x…x M l ;m

If a routing metric is chosen for any network N, and if N has maximal spanning tree with respect to the metric, then the

140

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

**routing metric is bounded
**

Theorem 2 (Necessity condition of Monotonicity)

If a routing metric is chosen for any network N, and if N has maximal spanning tree with respect to the metric, then the routing metric is monotonic Theorem 3 (sufficiency of Boundedness and Monotonicity) If a routing metric is chosen for any network N, and if N has maximal spanning tree with respect to the metric, then the routing metric is monotonic. IV. OUR IMPROVEMENT A. Presentation of the solution Our solution can be summarized as follows. Bandwidth is one of the most important factors required and requested by customer’s applications. Mobility and energy are crucial problem in MANETs, and up to now, the majority of routing protocols have shown some weaknesses to face a high mobility and poor energy resources in the network. Our objective consists in positively manage the network bandwidth taking into account the constraints of energy and mobility, in order to adapt and improve the performance of manet routing protocol and prolog network life time. Initially, we start by giving the results of comparing our approach based solely on mobility parameter. Thus we evaluate the modified OLSR (Mob-OLSR) that uses our proposed mobility metric [4]. Mob-OLSR is then compared to the standard version of the OLSR protocol (without QoS extension) and QOLSR (The well known OLSR QoS extension for Manets). Simulations results conduct us to think to use mobility parameters to fulfil QoS requirements. So, we focus on maximizing the bandwidth based on the parameters of mobility. In this regard, two metrics are proposed. The first is based on the sum criteria and the second is based on the product criteria. We have processed in the performance comparison between the OLSR protocol using the MPR standard algorithm, and the two modified OLSR protocols: SUM-OLSR and PRDOLSR protocols. The SUM-OLSR protocol is related to the sum criteria, and the PRD-OLSR protocol is related to the product criteria. By the end we have eliminated the sum criteria for his hard cost in terms of PDR (comparing to product critéria). However, it is important to mention that the eliminated criteria (the sum) also perform well comparing to QOLSR protocol. In a second step, and in order to maximize bandwidth while taking into account the constraints of energy, a new generalized metric is presented. The proposed metric (EN-OLSR) will be compared to different proposed metrics so called PRD-OLSR and OLSR-

Mob QOLSR To the best of our knowledge, this work is amongst the first efforts to consider nodes with mobility and energy constraints in Manets. B. Proposed criterion Our goal is to select the metric to maximize network throughput taking into account taking into account the key constraints of MANET environment (mobility, energy). The idea behind the composite metric is that a cost function is computed locally at each node during the topology information dissemination during the flooding process. Once the network converges, each node runs a shortest path algorithm based on the calculated composite metric to find the optimal route to the destination. An underlying implication of this is that each node should also be able to measure or gather the information required. Bandwidth, mobility and remaining energy information’s are available and could simply be gathered from lower layers. This paper is mainly focused on solving the routing issues based on the assumption that an underlying mechanism is there to gather the necessary information about the individual metrics. We suggest the simple solutions already proposed in [7] can be used to get bandwidth. Mobility estimation will be based on our lightweight proposed mobility measure cited [4-6] due to its simplicity and lightweight. Energy information is derived from the energy model used in NS2 simulator at MAC Layer [4]. Individual metrics must be combined according to the following dependencies: • Nodes with no energy must be rejected in the process of route discovery and maintenance • Nodes with a high degree of mobility should be avoided in the process of routes construction. • Tolerate a slight decrease in throughput in order to maximize other performance parameters (delay, collisions, NRL) • Nodes start with a maximum energy and bandwith ressources. The residual energy decreases over time depending on node’s states (transmitting/receiving, in idle/transition mode, etc.). Based on these results, the proposed relationship for the composite metric is given below:

141

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Where BW : Available Bandwidth in kilobits per second E : residual energy of node (number in range 0 to 5; 0 refers no energy for node to perform) The constants K0, K1, K2, will be set by the administrator based on network nature. For example, in a very dynamic environment, and to give more importance to the mobility of nodes, we can fix K0 to 0, K1 to 1 and K2 to 10. Constant k3 is not null and is used to indicate if the environment takes into account the energy or not. Thus, an important value of K3 indicates that energy is important in the process of routing. Composite metric scales Bandwidth metric with following calculations: BW = 106 / available bandwidth The proposed metric reflects a real dynamic environment where nodes have limited energy resources, and bandwidth constraints are crucial (streaming application). The idea behind the proposed metric is that in Manets environments, durable-stable link with optimal bandwidth should never be omitted. C. Proprieties of the proposed metrics In this subsection we prove that each of the individual metrics satisfies the conditions of houndness and monotonicity conditions then we prove the proposed metric. Node and Link Available Bandwidth: The bandwidth metric represents the available bandwidth at the link. A simple technique proposed in [17], which computes available bandwidth based on throughput can be used to measure the bandwidth on any given node (respect. link L(i,j)). Available bandwith “ α ” for each node could be estimated by calculating the percentage of free time TL which is then multiplied by the maximum capacity of the medium Cmax as follows [17]:

starting from root, the metric is non-increasing. The metric relation is given by: met {m,W(i,j)}. Given m is the metric of the root. It is evident that this meets the boundedness and that monotonicity conditions hold for the selected metric. The available bandwidth is always positive, hence for any node located at distance “d” from the root W(i,j) would always be less than or equal to the metric value at the root. Since the bandwidth is always positive and greater than zero hence it satisfies the boundedness and monotonicity conditions. Mobility & energy: The mobility metric represents the rate of changes in the neighbouring of a node at time t compared to the previous state at time t − ∆t . In a previous work [18], We define the mobility degree of a mobile node i at a time t by the following formula: NodesOut( t ) NodesIn( t ) M iλ ( t ) = λ + (1 − λ ) (7) Nodes( t − ∆t ) Nodes( t ) Where: NodesIn( t ) : The number of nodes that joined the

communication range of i during the interval [t − ∆t,t ] .

NodesOut( t ) : The number of nodes that left the

communication range of i during the interval [t − ∆t,t ] .

Nodes( t ) : The number of nodes in the communication range of i at time t. λ : The mobility coefficient between 0 and 1 defined in advance. For example, in an environment where the number of entrants is large relative to the number of leavers, we can encourage entrants taking λ = 0.25 Many simulations have been done for different values of λ ( λ =0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1). Simulation result [4] shows that for λ =0.75 the network performs well (in term of delay, Packet delivery fraction and throughput). For this reason, we consider λ =0,75 in the rest of this work.

Let Wij =

M

L (i, j )

be the edge weight on the link L(i,j). The

α = TL * C max

(4)

Let Bav (i,j) represent available bandwidth of the link then,

link mobility between two nodes A and B is defined as the average mobility of the involved nodes (see Figure 4), as showed in following equation:

λ M L ( A,B ) = λ λ M A (t ) + M B (t ) 2

Bav (i , j) = min{Bav (i ); Bav ( j )}

(5)

(8)

Where Bav (i ) is the available bandwidth of the node i Also let Wi,j be the edge weight on the link L(i,j). Wi,j can be estimated from the following relationship given below.

Wi , j =

1 Bav (i, j )

Figure 4. Link mobility estimation example: M L ( A; B ) = 45%

(6)

The condition of boundness implies that along any path

As node’s mobility reflects how likely it is to either corrupt or drop data. It could be considered as reliability metrics [15].

142

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Because the reliability metric is bounded and strictly monotonic, it may be sequenced with the partial metric while preserving boundedness and monotonicity. Moreover, residual energy function is monotonic and bounded its value decreases (depending on the state of the node: transmission / reception, transition/sleep mode,etc.) from a maximum value (ex 200) to 0. it also reflects how likely it is to either corrupt or drop data. Consequently, it can be sequenced with the partial metric while preserving boundedness and monotonicity. Energy consumption parameters are derived from the energy model defined in NS2 [19] as follows : Pt_consume= 1.320 (~ 3.2W drained for packet transmission); Pr_consume= 0.8 (2.4W drained for reception); P_idle=0.07, P_sleep =06; P_transition=0.5 The edge weight estimated

By exchanging Hello messages, every node is aware of its neighbor nodes and can simply compute its Cost-to-Forward value (i.e. to forward packet). The Cost-to-Forward function (F(i)) for each of the four models can be defined as shown in figure 6. To motivate the nodes to reveal their exact Cost-to-Forward value during the cluster head election and the MPR selection, a reputation-based incentive mechanism using the VCG mechanism could be used [20]. The nodes participating truthfully to these processes see their reputation to increase. Since the network services are offered according to the reputation of the nodes, they would benefit to participate honestly. V. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS In this section we have compared the performance of the original OLSR protocol based on the MPR selection standard algorithm, and the two modified OLSR protocols related to different proposed model: : bandwidth model (QOLSR) , mobility model (MobOLSR), sum_bandwidth-mobility Model (Sum-OLSR), prd_bandwidth-mobility model (prd-OLSR) and bandwidth-energy-mobility model(EN-OLSR). A. Performance metrics

**E ij for the link L(i,j) (see figure 5) can be
**

the following relationship:

from

Eij = Min ( E i , E j ) .

Where Ei : the remaining energy for the node i and

Ei =0

means that the node i have drained out its energy. Thus, routing protocol should omit such node in the process of learning routes.

**Figure 5. Link energy estimation example: E L (i ; j ) = 200
**

To validate the robustness and efficiency of the proposed Metrics , we use four models: bandwidth model , mobility model, sum_bandwidth-mobility Model, prd_bandwidthmobility model and bandwidth-energy-mobility model.

(9) (10)

(11)

Figure 6: the proposed metrics for QoS Metrics serves as Cost-to-Forward function. In OLSR, metrics will be used as criterion in MPR selection algorithm.

For comparison process, we have used the most important metrics for evaluating performance of MANET routing protocols during simulation. These considered metrics are: Normalized Routing Overhead (NRL): It represents the ratio of the control packets number propagated by every node in the network to the data packets number received by the destination nodes. This metric reflect the efficiency of the implemented routing protocols in the network. Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF): This is a total number of delivered data packets divided by total number of data packets transmitted by all nodes. This performance metric will give us an idea of how well the protocol is performing in terms of packet delivery by using different traffic models. Average End-to-End delay (Avg-End-to-End): This is the average time delay for data packets from the source node to the destination node. This metric is calculated by subtracting ”time at which first packet was transmitted by source” from ”time at which first data packet arrived to destination”. This includes all possible delays caused by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC layer, propagation and transfer times. Collision: It represents the number of interfered packets during simulation time. It occurs when two or more stations attempt to transmit a packet across the network at the same time. This is a common phenomenon in a shared medium . Packet collisions can result in the loss of packet integrity or can impede the performance of a network

143

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Avg_throughput: is the average rate of successful message delivery over a communication channel. Throughput and quality-of-service (QoS) over multi-cell environments are two of the most challenging issues that must be addressed when developing next generation wireless network standards B. Simulation environment For simulating the original OLSR protocol and the modified OLSR protocols related to our proposed criterions, we have used the OLSR protocol implementation which runs in version 2.33 of Network Simulator NS2 [19-22]. We use a network consisting of 50 mobile nodes to simulate a high-density network. These nodes are randomly moved in an area of 800m by 600m according to the Random Waypoint (RWP) mobility model [21]. Moreover, to simulate a high dynamic environment (the worst case), we have consider the RWP mobility model with a pause time equal to 0. nodes can move arbitrarily with a maximum velocity of 140km/h. All simulations run for 100s. A random distributed CBR (Constant Bit Rate) traffic model is used which allows every node in the network to be a potential traffic source and destination. The CBR packet size is fixed at 512 bytes. The application agent is sending at a rate of 10 packets per second whenever a connection is made. All peer to peer connections are started at times uniformly distributed between 5s and 90s seconds. The total number of connections and simulation time are 8 and 100s, respectively. For each presented sample point, 40 random mobility scenarios are generated. The simulation results are thereafter statistically presented by the mean of the performance metrics. This reduces the chances that the observations are dominated by a certain scenario which favors one protocol over another. As we are interested in the case of high mobility (i.e. high link status and topology changes) we have reduced the HELLO interval and TC interval at 0.5s and 3s, respectively, for quick updates of the neighbors and topology data bases. C. Results and discussion To show how the modified versions of the OLSR protocol are more adapted to the link status and topology changes comparing to the original OLSR protocol, we have made several performance comparison based on the five performance metrics cited in Section 5-A. Moreover, with the supposed configuration cited above, we have run simulations in different mobility levels by varying maximum speed of nodes between 0km/h (no mobility) to 140km/h (very high mobility) in steps of 10km/h. To maximize performances we have chosen the mobility coefficient equal to λ =0.75. a) Comparing MobOLSR to OLSR and QOLSR Figure 7-a shows that Mob-OLSR and QOLSR protocols

ensure a good enhancement in terms of delay when compared to the original OLSR protocol for all maximum speeds. Precisely, the QOLSR and MobOLSR protocols delay is around 1.25 seconds (enhancement by 0.4s comparing to he original OLSR) with higher mobility rate (maximum speed equal to 140km/h) and decreases to almost 1.25 seconds (enhancement by 0.1sec comparing to he original OLSR) with static topology conditions. For the original OLSR protocol the delay gets more than twice as large being almost 2.1 sec for high mobility and surprisingly increasing to over 1.4 seconds when the mobility is decreased. For the intermediate speed (from 40m/s to 100m/s) a lightweight difference between MobLSR and QOLSR is noticed (enhancement by 0.1sec for MobOLSR when compared to QOLSR for maximum speeds (0m/s and 30m/s)) . This allows us to conclude that MobOLSR performs well than QOLSR for intermediate speed. According to the Figure7-b, the original OLSR and MobOLSR protocols ensure in the whole the same packet delivery fraction for all maximum speeds with a slight improvement for the original OLSR for all maximum speed.

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR 2.5

De lay

2 delay (s) 1.5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 pause time(s)

Figure 7-a. Comparison of the three versions of the OLSR protocol in term of delay. Indeed, it can be seen that the number of packets dropped along the path is quite similar for all maximum speed being approximately 45% at worst for the original OLSR and MobOLSR and 35% for QOLSR. Moreover, the ratio is worse for a continuously changing network (i.e. high maximum speed) than for the static path conditions, because the number of link failures grows along with the mobility. However, it is interesting to notice that even with static topology conditions, sending nodes do not achieve 100% packet delivery but only 85%-89%. This clearly shows the impact of the network congestion and packet interference as the load on the network increases. Moreover, when comparing MobOLSR and original OLSR to QOLSR, QOLSR protocol presents a remarkable degradation in PDF for all

144

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

maximum speeds. This is because QOLSR does not take into account the state of links in MPR selection process. In summary, we can say that the MobOLSR protocol is more adapted to all levels of mobility from 0m/s (no mobility) to 40m/s (very high mobility).

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR

maximum speed. Figure7-d illustrates the normalized routing load (NRL) introduced into the network for the three versions of OLSR protocol, where the number of routing packets is normalized against sent data packets. A fairly stable normalized control message overhead would be a desirable property when considering the performance as it would indicate that the actual control overhead increases linearly with maximum speed of nodes due to the number of messages needed to establish and maintain connection. The original OLSR protocol and MobOLSR protocol produces the lowest amount of NRL when compared to QOLSR protocol during all maximum speed values. Moreover, original OLSR and MobOLSR protocol produce the sme routing load for all the maximum speed. In the worst case (at the maximum speed value equal to 40m/s), the NRL increases to 2.1% for QOLSR protocol and 1.3% for the original OLSR. Precisely, comparing to QOLSR protocol, the MobOLSR and original OLSR protocols produce twice less routing packets. This explains that our proposed criterion based on mobility parameter request less routing packets to establish and maintain routes in the network.

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR 2.5

90

75

rate (%)

60

45

30 0 20 40 pause time 60 80 100

Figure 7-b. Comparison of the three versions of the OLSR protocol in terms of packet delivery fraction. Figure7-c, shows the average throughput for the three version of protocols. The original OLSR and MobOLSR protocols ensure in the whole the same average throughput for all maximum speeds being approximately 125 kbps at worst. The ratio is worse for a continuously changing network than for the static conditions. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that even with static topology conditions, the network average throughput does not reach the channel capacity (5Mbps) but only 230 kbps. This clearly shows the impact of the network congestion and packet interference as the load on the network increases.

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR

NRL

2

rate (%)

1.5

1

0.5

Avg Throughput

0 0 20 40 60 pause time (s) 80 100

230

Figure 7-d. Comparison of the three versions of the OLSR protocol in term of NRL

200

170

140

Collision is a common phenomenon in a shared medium. Packet collisions can result in the loss of packet integrity or can impede the performance of a network especially qualtity of service sensed by the end user. Interference and quality-ofservice (QoS) over multi-cell environments are two challenging issues that must be addressed when developing next generation wireless network standards.

0 20 40 60 pause time (s) 80 100

110

Figure 7-c. Comparison of the three versions of the OLSR protocol in term of throughput. Thus, QOLSR ensures an enhancement by 10kbps comparing to MobOLSR and the original OLSR for all

Figure 7-e, shows that the original OLSR produces the lowest amount of collision packet comparing to MobOLSR and QOLSR. However, we can see that our proposed protocol MobOLSR ensures an enhancement by 56% comparing to QOLSR, The well known OLSR QoS extension for Manets. The average number of collision packet for QOLSR (respct

145

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

MobOLSR and the Original OLSR) is 30000 (respect 17000, and 11000) for all maximum speed.

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR

**OLSR QOLSR Sum-OLSR Prd-MET
**

90

Collision

75

35000 30000 25000 Nbre (#) 20000 15000

60

45

30

10000 5000 0 0 20 40 pause time 60 80 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

paus e tim e

Figure 8-b. Comparison of the proposed versions of the OLSR protocol in terms of delay

Figure 7-e. Comparison of the three versions of the OLSR protocol in term of collision. b) Comparing Sum-OLSR and Prd-OLSR to QOLSR Figure8-a illustrates the average end to end delay for the proposed protocols (Sum-OLSR and OLSR Met2 MOBOLSR and QOLSR). Comparing to QOLSR, it is interesting to notice that our proposed protocols MOBOLSR and Prd-OLSR perform well in a dynamic topology (enhancement by 0.5 sec for maximum speed 40m/s to 80m/s). Furthermore, we can see that (figure8-b) Prd-OLSR performs well in term of PDF, when compared to the other proposed protocol (Sum-OLSR MOBOLSR and QOLSR) for all maximum speed. Precisely, Prd-OLSR gets more than twice as large comparing to QOLSR.

OLSR QOLSR Sum -OLSR Prd-OLSR

2,5 Delay

However , we notice that Prd-OLSR performs well comparing to MomOLSR and Sum-OLSR. This is because Prd-OLSR select stable routes offering an optimal bandwidth. This is confirmed by the improvement seen in the PDF parameter. MobOLSR protocol produces the lowest amount of NRL when compared to Sum-OLSR and Prd-OLSR protocols during all maximum speed values (figure8-d). Moreover, we notice that Sum-OLSR and Prd-OLSR protocols produce less amount of NRL compared to QOLSR for all the maximum speed.

OLSR QOLSR Sum -OLSR Prd-OLSR

Avg Throughput

230

200

170

140

2 delay

110 0 20 40 60 80 100 pause tim e

1,5

Figure 8-c. Comparison of the proposed versions of the OLSR protocol in terms of throughput

1 0 20 40 60 80 100 pause tim e

Figure 8-a. Comparison of the proposed versions of the OLSR protocol in terms of delay.

This explains that our proposed criterion based on mobility parameter request less routing packets to establish and maintain routes in the network.

A lightweight degradation in average throughput for PrdOLSR protocol is shown in figure8-c comparing to QOLSR.

146

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

**OLSR QOLSR Sum -OLSR Prd-OLSR
**

2,5

NRL

**OLSR QOLSR Sum-OLSR Prd-OLSR
**

35000

Collision

2

30000 25000 20000

1,5

1

15000 10000 5000

0,5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 pause tim e

pause tim e

Figure 8-d. Comparison of the proposed versions of the OLSR protocol in terms of NRL

Figure 8-e. Comparison of the proposed versions: Collision

Figure8-e, shows that the original QOLSR produces the highest amount of collision packet comparing to the others proposed protocols. The average number of collision packet for QOLSR (respct Sum-OLSR and Prd-OLSR) is 33000 (respect 25000) for all maximum speed. QOLSR produces an interfered environment in comparison with our proposed protocols. ENOLSR uses the composite metric with energy constraints, from figures 9-a we notice that the proposed ENOLSR find a compromise between bandwidth, energy and mobility. Our proposed protocol selects stable routes providing an optimum bandwidth while prolonging the lifetime of the network.

OLSR provides the worst delay when compared to the proposed protocols. Precisely, the QOLSR and ENOLSR protocols delay is around 1.65 seconds (enhancement by 0.3sec comparing to the original OLSR) with higher mobility rate (maximum speed equal to 140km/h) and decreases to almost 1.25 seconds (enhancement by 0.1sec comparing to he original OLSR) with static topology conditions. This allows us to conclude that ENOLSR and QOLSR protocols ensure in the whole the same delay. However, it is interesting to notice that all of the proposed protocols perform well than the original OLSR protocol in term of delay. A tolerable degradation in throughput is shown for our QOLSR protocol provides the worst amount of RNL when compared to the others protocols. ENOLSR ensures an optimal NRL. It exceeds the NRL induced by OLSR and MobOLSR and performs QQLSR . In the worst case (at the maximum speed value equal to 40m/s), the NRL increases to 2.1% for QOLSR protocol, 1.3% for the original OLSR and 1.6% for ENOLSR,MOBOLSR and Sum-OLSR&2. In addition, QOLSR ensures the worst PDF when compared to the proposed protocols. An enhancement of 10% (resp 65%) when comparing to the Original OLSR protocol (resp MobOLSR) is noticed.

147

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Figure 9-a. Performance comparison of the proposed versions of the OLSR protocol private information revealed by the nodes. Selfish nodes can misbehave and reveal false information if this behavior can

OLSR QOLSR MOBOLSR Prd-MET EN_OLSR

35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 20 40 60 paus e tim e 80 100 Collision

save their energy and mobility degree. Moreover, one of the main drawback of the classical OLSR is the malicious use of the broadcast TC messages A malicious compromised node can flood the network with fake TC messages. In order to increase the network lifetime, ENOLSR protocol use the node residual energy for the routing process (equation 1). In particular, for the following sub-sections, simulation run for 70 sec. Nodes are nodes moves randomly according to the Random Waypoint (RWP) mobility model [22]. Nodes velocity can reach 40m/s and the pause time is equal to 10sec. We choose the energy model defined in NS to model nodes energy consumption with (Pt_consume= 3 ; Pr_consume= 2; P_idle=0.07, P_sleep =06; P_transition=0.5). Nodes initial energy is fixed to 160. For comparison, we measure the average energy for nodes in MPRSet for both OLSR and ENOLSR protocols. Figure10 shows that energy consumption for original OLSR is linear. For the ENOLSR protocol network life time

Figure 9-b. Comparison of the ENOLSR protocol : collision c) Prolonging network life time Selfish nodes can have a major impact on the performance of the solutions presented in Section VI. In some extreme cases, these malicious nodes can cause serious denials of service. The main problem comes from the fact that the MPRs and the optimal network paths are selected based some

148

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

is prolonged. Indeed, for the original OLSR (resp ENOLSR) the first node dies after 17sec (resp 43s). This is because during the normal process of selecting the MPR used by standard OLSR protocol, the MPRs are selected based on the parameters of reachebality (number of node they can reach in level 2 : 2 hop neighbors). This induces a loss of energy for the nodes that have been elected several times as MPRs.

OLSR EN_OLSR MPR_Set Avg_Residual_energy

[2] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, A. Qayyum, A. Laouiti, L. Viennot, T. Clauseen, "Optimized Link State Routing Protocol draft-ietf-manet-olsr-05.txt", INTERNETDRAFT, IETF MANET Working Group

180 150 120 ene rg y 90 60 30 0 0 27 5 .7 2 1 9.9 1 2.7 1 7.2 2 4.5 2 3.9 2 8.4 3 2.1 3 9.7 3 8.5 4 2.6 4 7.7 4 9.5 5 1.1 5 6.3 60 6 4.3

time

Figure 10 : MPRSet average residual energy for OLSR & ENOLSR

Contribution appears clearly in an environment where the nodes are intelligent and therefore does not revel true information during the process of MPR selection for fear they lose their energy. So, the generalized criterion is designed to cope with selfish nodes. VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK Satisfying QoS requirements of the traffic in MANETs are the key functions for transmission required for multimedia applications. In this paper we have discussed the different approaches used to provide QoS functionality in OLSR. Our proposed metric is an attempt to make use of the available resources and find the most optimal path based on multiple metrics taking into account mobility and energy parameters. The proposed metric selects the most stable path based on mobility and energy information and QoS requirements on bandwidth. Our proposed approaches are , totally or partially, based on a mobility degree, residual energy and available bandwidth that is quantified and evaluated in time by each mobile node in the network. The proposed metric is expected to efficiently support realtime multimedia traffic with different QoS requirements. Simulation results show that the proposed protocols perform well when compared to the QOLSR protocol which is a well known OLSR QoS extension. The next step is to extend the proposed approaches to Wireless Sensor Network routing protocols. REFERENCES

[1] IETF Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (manet) Working http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html, 2004. Group.

[3] T. Clausen (ed) and P. Jacquet (ed). “Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR)”. RFC 3626 Experimental, October 2003. [4] K.oudidi, N.enneya, A. Loutfi, and M.Elkoutbi ’Mobilité et Routage OLSR’, In Proceedings of African Conference on Research in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics CARI’08, pp. 646-657, October 2008, Rabat, Morocco. [5] A. Laouiti, P. Muhlethaler, A. Najid, E. Plakoo, ”Simulation Results of the OLSR Routing Protocol for Wireless Network”, 1st Mediterranean Ad-Hoc Networks workshop (Med-Hoc-Net), Sardegna, Italy, 2002. [6] Nourddine Enneya, Kamal Oudidi, and Mohammed El Koutbi, "Enhancing Delay in MANET Using OLSR Protocol", International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security IJCSNS", vol. 9, No. 1, 2009. [7] S-B. Lee, G-S. Ahn, X. Zhang, A.T. Campbell: INSIGNIA: An IP-Based Quality of Service Framework for Mobile ad Hoc Networks, in Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, n.60, pp. 374-406, 2000. [8] Ying Ge Kunz, T. Lamont, L. ‘’Quality of service routing in ad-hoc networks using OLSR ‘’ Commun. Res. Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada; Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’03). [9] H. Badis, A. Munareto, K. A1 Agba, “QoS for Ad Hoc Networking Based on Multiple Metrics: Bandwidth and Delay” The Fifth IEEE International Conference on Mobile and Wireless Communications Networks (MWCN 2003) Singapore - October, 2003 [10] A. Munareto H. Badis, , K. AI Agba, “A Linl-state QoS Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks” IEEE Conference on Mobile and Wireless Communications Networks - MWCN 2002 Stockholm, Suede - September, 2002 [11] H. Badis and K. A. Agha. Internet draft draft-badis-manetqolsr- 01.txt: Quality of service for ad hoc Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (QOLSR). IETF MANET working group, September 2005. [12] Nauman Aslam', William Phillips', William Robertson' composite metric for quality of service routing in OLSR IEEE Conference 2004 - CCECE 2004CCGEI 2004, Niagara Falls, May/mai 2004 – [13] G.-S. Ahn, A. Campbell, A. Veres, L.-H. Sun, SWAN: Service Differentiation in stateless Wireless Ad hoc Networks, INFOCOM’2002, New York, New York, June 2002.

149

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

F.A. Kuipers, T. Korkmaz, M. Krunz, P. Van Mieghem, “Performance evaluation of constraint-based path selection algorithms”, IEEE Network 18 (5) (2004) 16–23 [14] S. Yilmaz, I. Matta, “Unicast Rotuing: Cost- Performance Tradeoffs” Technical Report BUCSTR- 2002 [15] G. Mohammad, S. Marco, “Maximizable Routing Metrics” IEEE/ACM Transactions, Volume 11, Issue 4 (August 2003), Pages: 663 - 675. [16] Cheikh SARR « De l’apport d’une évaluation précise des ressources de la qualité de service des réseaux ad hoc basés sur IEEE802.11 » thèse de doctorat, Institut Nationale des Sciences Appliquées de Lion, année 2007. [17] A. Qayyum, L. Viennot and A. Laouiti. “Multipoint relaying for flooding broadcast messages in mobile wireless networks”. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’02), Big Island, Hawaii, January 2002. [18] P. Anelli & E. Horlait «NS-2: Principes de conception et d'utilisation» [19] Luzi Anderegg, Stephan Eidenbenz, “Ad hoc-VCG: a truthful and costefficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks with selfish agents”, Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, San Diego, CA, USA, 2003 [20] C. Bettstetter, G. Resta, and P. Santi. The Node Distribution of the Random Waypoint Mobility Model for Wireless AdHoc Networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2(3):257–269, 2003. [21] http://isi.edu/nsnam/ns AUTHORS PROFILE K.Oudidi Born in 1976 at Marrakech Morocco. Completed his B. Tech and M. Tech. from Faculty of Sciences, My Ismail University - Errachidia in 1995 and 1999, respectively. He is a Ph.D. Student at the University of Mohammed –V- National School of Computer Science and Systems Analysis, His present field of interest is the mobility and Qos routing in mobile ad hoc networks.

150

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500