Prof.S.P. Setti et. al.

/ International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

Implementation of Fuzzy Priority Scheduler

for MANET and Performance Analysis with
Reactive Protocols

S
S
Prof.S.P. Setti Vijay Kumar D V Nagendra Prasad G S M Narasimha Raju K

CS&SE Dept., AU College of Engineering, Andhra University, India

E
ABSTRACT

R
In this paper, we analyze the performance of a fuzzy based Priority Scheduler in wireless Adhoc networks, with real
time traffic. An Adhoc network is composed of mobile nodes connected by wireless links without any preexisting
infrastructure. The network’s dynamic topology poses challenging problems for QoS routing. Hence a scheduling

P
discipline can be used to transmit the packets before its expiry, which improves the QoS of the network. The
performance of the scheduler is studied using QUALNET5.0 and is evaluated in terms of the quantitative metrics
such as Packet delivery ratio, through put and average end-to-end delay. The results are verified for the reactive
routing protocols such as Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) and Adhoc on demand distance vector routing
protocol (AODV) and they prove that inclusion of the scheduler improves the Packet delivery ratio, through put and
IN
reduces the end-to-end delay.

Keywords: MATLAB fuzzy tool, Fuzzy Priority Scheduler, QUALNET5.0, AODV, DSR, MANETs.

1. Introduction
S

Mobile Adhoc network [1] is an autonomous system of mobile nodes connected dynamically in an arbitrary manner
by wireless links. Since the mobile nodes in the network dynamically establish routing among themselves to form
LE

their own network, the adhoc network is also called infrastructureless network. All nodes of these networks behave
not only as hosts but also as routers, forwarding packets to other mobile nodes in the network that may not be within
direct wireless transmission of each other.

Adhoc networks are characterized by multihop wireless connectivity, frequently changing network topology and the
need for efficient adaptive routing protocols. By the very nature of Adhoc networks mobile nodes wander around,
changing their network location and link status on a regular basis. New nodes may unexpectedly join the network
IC

and existing nodes may leave or turned off. The routing algorithms develop a route minimizing the time required to
converge and bandwidth overhead at the same time enabling proper routing. Once the route is established, a
scheduler schedules the packets on packet-by-packet basis. The simplest possible scheduling discipline is first in
first out (FIFO). The disadvantage of this technique is that it cannot differentiate among connections. Hence the
choice of scheduling algorithm to determine which queued packet to process next will have a significant effect on
T

overall end-to-end performance. The effects of scheduling algorithms on two different protocols are studied: DSR
and AODV [2],[3],[4],[5]. DSR is an on demand, nongeographic routing protocol and AODV is on demand
variation of distance vector protocol. DSR has the advantages of source routing and the unique feature of AODV is
R

route expiry. Both deal with best effort traffic only. In DSR as route is part of the packet itself, routing loops, either
short or long lived, cannot be formed as they can be immediately detected and eliminated. This property opens up
the protocol to a variety of useful optimizations. AODV uses destination sequence numbers to determine the
A

freshness of routing information.

Scheduling algorithms determine which packet is served next among the packets in the queues [5] . The scheduler
used in DSR and AODV is a priority scheduler, which gives priority to control packets over data packets and serves
data packets in FIFO order reduces the average delay compared to no priority scheduler. Along with the three inputs,

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3635
 Prof.S.P. Setti et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

viz. expiry time of packet, queue length and data rate, we found that packet delivery ratio improves, minimizing the
delay because it is possible to schedule the packets at the verge of expiry.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the salient features of the DSR and AODV
protocols. Section 3 details the scheduling algorithms studied. Section 4 describes the Fuzzy scheduler. In section 5,
we explain the methodology and metrics used and the simulation results of the proposed scheduler. Section 6 details

S
our conclusions.

2. PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION

S
Reactive routing techniques, also called on-demand routing. Routes are only discovered when they are actually
needed. When a source node needs to send data packets to some destination, it checks its route table to determine

E
whether it has a route. If no route exists, it performs a route discovery procedure to find a path to the destination.
Hence, route discovery becomes on-demand. The route discovery typically consists of the network-wide flooding of
a request message. Once a route has been established, it is maintained by some form of route maintenance procedure
until the destination becomes inaccessible or until the route is no longer desired. Reactive routing protocol includes

R
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol, Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol.

2.1 DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING PROTOCOL (DSR)

P
 
DSR is an on-demand, source routing protocol. Transmitting nodes discover the route to their destination nodes on
demand. This route is included in the data packets as the route header. The DSR protocol consists of two phases –
Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. When a source node A wants to send a packet to a destination node B, it
first checks if it already has a route to B stored in its cache. If the route is not stored, a Route Request (RREQ)
IN
packet is broadcast with the address of node A in the route record. An intermediate receiving node checks if its route
cache has a route to the destination node. In that case, it appends the route in the route record and sends back a Route
Reply (RREP) packet by using the reverse route (assuming symmetrical links). If the intermediate receiving node
does not know the route, it appends its own address to the route record and broadcasts another RREQ packet. Using
the route cache helps conserve network resources by limiting the number of route discovery packets.
S

2.2 AD-HOC ON DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR ROUTING PROTOCOL (AODV)

LE

AODV is an on demand distance vector protocol and it is and on demand variation of the distance vector protocols
AODV uses destination sequence numbers to determine the freshness of routing information. In AODV, flooded
requests are used to create routes, with the destination responding to first such request, much as in DSR. However
AODV maintains routes in distributed fashion, as routing table entries, on all intermediate nodes on the route. Nodes
forwarding queries remember the earlier hop taken by the query packet. This hop is used to forward the reply packet
IC

back to the source. AODV advocates use of early quenching of request packets, i.e., any node having a route to the
destination can reply to a request. AODV also uses a technique called route expiry, where a routing table expires
after a predetermined period, after which fresh route discovery must be initiated.

3. SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS
T

For improving the performance of the mobile ad-hoc networks, a scheduler can be used. Scheduling algorithms
determine which packet is served next among the packets in queues. The scheduler is positioned between the routing
R

agent and above the MAC layer. In general, control queues have higher priority than data queues. And among data
queues, the proposed scheduler is experimented.

The drop tail policy is used as queue management algorithm in all scheduling algorithms. No-priority scheduling
A

services both control and data packets in FIFO order. This scheduling algorithm contrasts with the effect of giving
high priority to control packets. In priority scheduling, control and data packets are maintained in separate queues in
FIFO order and it gives high priority to control packets. Currently, only this scheme is used in mobile ad-hoc
networks [1], [6]. Considering the suitability of the different types of scheduling methods for MANET, several
scheduling schemes were studied in literature.

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3636
 Prof.S.P. Setti et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

Due to the distributed nature of the ad-hoc networks, nodes may not be able to determine the next packet to be
transmitted [7]. Consequently, the nodes actually possessing the highest priority packet is unaware that this is the
case, nor are other nodes with lowest priority packets aware that they should defer access. In multihop Ad-hoc
networks, in which packets are forwarded across multiple broadcast regions, it becomes increasingly challenging to
satisfy a flow's end to end QoS target.

S
The proposed scheduler based on fuzzy logic to find the priority of the packets, which has to be scheduled next. The
application of fuzzy logic to find the priority index of the packet is found to be suitable in improving the overall
performance of MANET. This led to the design of a fuzzy based priority scheduler.

S
4. THE FUZZY SCHEDULER

E
Fuzzy logic implements human experiences and preferences via membership functions and fuzzy rules. The fuzzy
scheduler proposed [8], [9], [10] here, calculates the priority index of each packet. The fuzzy scheduler uses three
input variables and one output variable. The three input variables to be fuzzified are the expiry time and data rate of

R
the packet and Queue length of the nodes to which the packet is associated with. The inputs are fuzzified,
implicated, aggregated and defuzzified to get the crisp value of the output.

P
The linguistic variables associated with the input variables are low (L), medium (M), and high (H). For the output
variable, priority index, five linguistic variables are used. They are very low (VL), low (L), medium (M), high (H)
and very high (VH).

The table 1 shows the fuzzy conditional rules for the fuzzy scheduler. The three input variables have 27
IN
combinations (3*3*3) and the corresponding output is shown in the tabulation. The rule base is split into three tables
and the first table gives out the rule base for Expiry time low and nine combinations of the other two input variables.
The Table gives out the rule base for Expiry time medium and the third for expiry time high. To illustrate one rule
in the first table, the first rule can be interpreted as, if (Expiry time is low) and (Date rate is low) and (Queue length
is low), then priority index is low. Since in this rule, Data rate and Queue length are low and packets are associated
with low delay, the priority index is set to be low. In the Table, for medium expiry time when data rate and queue
length both are high, the priority index is set to be medium as seen from the last column of the table. Similarly the
S

other rules are framed.

The output priority index, if very low, indicates that packets are attached with a very high priority and should be
LE

immediately scheduled. Similarly, if the priority index is very high, it indicates that packets are attached with least
priority and will be scheduled only after all high priority packets are scheduled.

D/Q L M H

Expiry time (low)

IC

L L L VL
M VL VL VL
H L VL VL
Expiry time (medium)
L M M L
T

M M M L
H M M M
Expiry time (high)
R

L VH VH H
M H M M
H H H M
A

Table 1: Fuzzy Rule Base

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3637
 Prof.S.P. Setti et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The simulation for evaluating the fuzzy scheduler was implemented within the QualNet library. The simulation
package QualNet version 5.0 is used to analyze and evaluate the performance of the proposed fuzzy scheduler. The
QualNet version 5.0 [11], [12], a software that provides scalable simulations of Wireless Networks. In this
simulation, we consider a network of 20, 40, 60, 80, 120 and 150 nodes (one source and one destination) placed in a

S
dimension of 1000m x 1000m area. Each simulation is run for 600 seconds of simulation time. Multiple simulations
run with different seed values were conducted for each scenario and collected data was averaged over those runs.
Table 2 lists the simulation parameters.

S
5.1 Performance Metrics
The following metrics are used to evaluate the effect of fuzzy scheduler. The metrics were derived from one

E
suggested by the MANET working group for routing protocol evaluation.

Simulation Environment

R
Area 1000m x 1000m
Simulation Time 600 Sec

P
Nodes 20, 40, 60, 80, 120, 150
Nodes Placement Random
Path loss Model Two Ray
Mobility Model INRandom Way Point
Pause Time 30 Sec
Maximum Speed 10mps
Traffic CBR
Packet Size 512 bytes
MAC layer 802.11
S

Table 2: Simulation parameters

Average end-to-end delay: End-to-end delay indicates how long it took for a packet to travel from the source to the
LE

application layer of the destination.

Packet Delivery Ratio: Packet delivery ratio is the ratio of the number of data packets actually delivered to the
destination to the number of data packets supposed to be received. This number presents the effectiveness of the
protocol.
IC

Throughput: This is measured in bytes per sec, which also serve as the performance measure for the scheduler.
T
R
A

Figure 1: DSR Average End-to-End Delay

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3638
 Prof.S.P. Setti et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

S
S
 

E
Figure 2: AODV Average End-to-End Delay

R
P
IN  

Figure 3: DSR Packet Delivery Ratio 

S
LE
IC

Figure 4: AODV Packet Delivery Ratio

T
R
A

Figure 5: DSR Throughput  

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3639
 Prof.S.P. Setti et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(8), 2010, 3635-3640

S
S
 

Figure 6: AODV Throughput

E
6. CONCLUSION

R
In this paper, we have analyzed the performance of the fuzzy-based priority scheduler for data traffic and evaluated
the effect of inclusion of this scheduler with reactive routing protocols DSR and AODV. We have addressed a
fuzzy-based priority scheduler for data packets, which improves the quality-of-service parameters in mobile ad hoc

P
networks. The fuzzy scheduler attaches a priority index to each packet in the queue of the node. Unlike the normal
sorting procedure for scheduling packet, a crisp priority index is calculated based on the inputs such as queue length,
data rate, and expiry time of packets, which are derived from the network. The membership functions and rule bases
of the fuzzy scheduler are carefully designed and the output is verified using Matlab7.0 fuzzy logic toolbox with FIS
editor. Then the inputs are identified in the library of Qualnet5.0 and the fuzzy scheduler is attached. This work can
IN
be also extended with inclusion of this fuzzy scheduler with different underlying multicast routing protocols with
different mobility models.

References
[1] Charles. E.Perkins, “ Introduction to Adhoc networking”, Addison Wesley, Dec 2001.
[2] C.E.Perkins and E.M.Royer, “ Adhoc on demand distance vector routing ” in Proc IEEE WMCSA’99, New Orleans, LA, Feb 1999 pp 90 –
100.
S
[3] J.Broch. D.B.Johnson and D.a. Maltz, “ The dynamic Source routing protocol for mobile adhoc networks” Internet draft, draft-ietf-manet-
dsr-00.txt, Mar 1998.
[4] E.M.Royer and C.K. Toh,,” A review of current protocols for adhoc mobile wireless networks”, IEEE Pers. Commn., Vol 6, no.2, pp 46-55,
LE

April 1999.
[5] S.R.Das, C.E.Perkins and E.M.Royer, “ Performance comparison of two on demand routing protocols for adhoc networks”. in Proc. IEEE
INFOCOM’2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, Mar 2000, pp 3-12.
[6] Byung-Gon Chun and Mary Baker,” Evaluation of Packet scheduling algorithms in mobile adhoc networks ” , in Mobile Computing and
communication review, Vol. 6, No.3, pp 36 – 49.
[7] V.Kanodia, C.Li, A.Sabharwal, B.Sadeghi and E.Knightly,“Distributed Priority Scheduling and Medium access in Adhoc networks”, in
ACM wireless networks, Vol 8, Nov. 2002.
[8] Prof.S.P.Setti, Vijay Kumar D V and Nagendra Prasad G S M, “Application of Fuzzy Priority Scheduler for supporting QoS in MANET for
IC

DSR Protocl”, International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security , Vol. 1, No.5 , July 2010.
[9] C. Gomathy and S. Shanmugavel, “Supporting Qos in manet by a fuzzy priority scheduler and performance analysis with multicast routing
protocols” in EURASIP journal on wireless communications and networking, 2005:3, 426-436.
[10] C. Gomathy and S. Shanmugavel, “Performance evaluation of a novel Fuzzy based Priority Scheduler formobile AdHoc networks and its
effect onMAC protocols,” in Proc. 12th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication (ADCOM ’04), Ahmedabad,
Gujarat, India, December 2004, at IEEE Gujarat section.
T

[11] QualNet Network Simulator; Available: http://www.scalable-networks.com.

[12] QualNet documentation, “QualNet 5.0 Model Library: Advanced Wireless”; Available: http://www.scalable-networks.com/products/
qualnet/download.php#docs.
R
A

 
ISSN: 0975-5462 3640