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

9, December 2010

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN ADHOC WIRELESS NETWORKS
N.Veena1*
Research Scholar, Dept. of CSE, Research Scholar, A N University, Guntur. veenanayani@gmail.com

A.VinayaBabu
Professor, Dept. of CSE, JNTU College of Engineering, Hyderabad,

K.Madhukar

B.Sujatha

Professor, Nizam College Lecturer in Computers Osmania University Dept. of CSE Hyderabad Nizam College Hyderabad

B.Anandkumar
Research Scholar, Dept. of CSE, Rayalasima University, Kurnool.

S.Nagaprasad
Research Scholar, Dept. of CSE, Aacharya Nagarjuna University Guntur configuring without relaying on existing networks. Mobile nodes cooperative with each other for forwarding the packets over multiple hops between nodes that with in commutation range [1]. DSR protocol special designed for MANET applications, which are runs on wireless ad-hoc network. The very important feature of DSR is every data packet is follow the sources route stored in the header. The route gives clear address of each node through which packet should forwarded in order to reach the destination. Each node on the path has a routing role and must transmit the packet to the next hop identified in the source route. Each node maintains a route cache. When a node needs to send a data packet it first checks its route cache for a source route and destination, if route not found it attempts with discovery mechanism. A monitoring mechanism is called route maintains, it is used each operation along route [2]. Determining source routes requires accumulating the address of each device between the source and destination during route discovery. The accumulated path information is cached by nodes processing the route discovery packets. The learned paths are used to route packets. To accomplish source routing, the routed packets contain the address of each device the packet will traverse. This may result in high overhead for long paths or large addresses, like IPv6. To avoid using source routing, DSR optionally defines a flow id option that allows packets to be forwarded on a hop-by-hop basis. [3] 3 DSDV (Destination- Sequenced Distance vector). DSDV is one the early algorithm. This DSDV is one suitable for the small and less numbers of wireless ad hoc of nodes. Since there is no formal specification of this algorithm there is no commercial implantation. Many improved forms this algorithm have been suggested. DSDV

Abstract: The majority of applications are in the areas where
rapid deployment and dynamic reconfiguration are necessary and a wire line network is not available. These include military battlefields, emergency search and rescue sites, classrooms, and conventions, where participants share information dynamically using their mobile devices. Well established routing protocols do exist to offer efficient multicasting service in conventional wired networks. These protocols, having been designed for fixed networks, may fails to keep up with node movements and frequent topology changes in a MANET. Therefore, adapting existing wired multicast protocols as such to a MANET, which completely lacks infrastructure, appear less promising. Providing efficient multicasting over MANET faces many challenges, includes scalability, quality of service, reliable service, security, Address configuration, Applications for multicast over MANET. The existing multicast routing protocol do not addresses these issues effectively over Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANET).

1 Introduction In the last five years there is lot of research and of attention improved in the MANET network. To commutative in the MANET network we have two different types of protocols they are DSDV (Destination- Sequenced Distance vector) and DSR (Dynamic Sources Routing). For the last five years research there is no commercial implementation of DSDV, and also DSR is better performance then DSDV. 2 DSR (Dynamic Sources Routing) DSR simple algorithm based on source routing. As the described by (Mr. D. Johnson y. Hu & Maltz 2004), DSR is a simple and an efficient active routing protocol that designed especial for use of wireless mobile ad hoc networks. It is designed for high quality wireless network like more than 300 nodes. It incurs very low overhead but reacts very quickly to change the network. DSR protocol allows an ad hoc network to be self-organizing and self-

200

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

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010

is regular update of the routing table and which uses a small amount of batter power and small amount of bandwidth even when the network is idle. When ever the topology of the network changes, a new sequence number is necessary before the network re-coverage. And DSDV is not suitable for high dynamic networks. As in all distance-vector protocols, this does not perturb traffic in regions of the network that are not concerned by the topology change. Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) is a table-driven routing scheme for ad hoc mobile networks based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm [4]. The main contribution of this algorithm is routing loop problem. Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, the sequence numbers are generally even if a link is present; else, an odd number is used. The number is generated by the destination, and the emitter needs to send out the next update with this number [5]. In DSDV a sequence number is linked to a distention node, and usually is originated by the node. The only case that non owner updates the sequence number of route is when it detects link brake on that route. Owner node is always uses an even sequence numbers and non owner always uses an odd numbers. With the addition of sequence numbers, routes for the same destination are selected based on the following rules: 1) a route with a newer sequence number is preferred; 2) in the case that two routes have a same sequence number, the one with a better cost metric is preferred. [4] DSDV uses both full and incremental updates of routing tables to reduce the routing overhead. The main advantage of proactive routing protocol is that a route to any destination is available even if it is not needed. 4 Previous Work: One of the popular wireless network architecture is mobile ad hoc network MANET which can be deployed almost any environment, without any underlying backbone and infrastructure. Mr. Rafi U Zamam is proposed an efficient DSDV protocol for Ad hoc network. Eff-DSDV overcomes the problem of stale routes, and thereby improves the performance of regular DSDV. This proposal protocol is implemented in the NCTUcs simulator for the comparisons of DSDV and DSR protocol. He considered the performance issues of Packet-delivery ratio, and the end to end delay of packets, dropped packets, and routing overhead. [5]

The result of the simulation indicates that performance is better of standard DSDV. In this analysis they found that if there is it is better efficiency when the nodes range from 10 to 30. If the range is increased to beyond 35 the performance of the proactive protocol degenerates due to that the fact of a lot of control packets are generated in the form of incremental or full dump of the routing update/table in the sub net mask. Even they observed that the proposed protocol is even better performance comparing regular DSDV protocol and verifying better speed in mobile ad hoc network. Even they observed that the better performance of proposed protocol comparison then DSR protocol like packet delivery of ratio and end to end delay. The region of the performance to set drop at 25 nodes at and in some case for nodes speed is due to verging sources and destination nodes and the placement of barrier in the network topology. In the feature, the performance comparison can be done with proposed protocol and the other class of the ad hoc routing protocol with the different simulation parameter and matrices. After their analysis they got clear information that the proposed protocol is even better performance and better end to end delay comparison of regular DSDV protocol. Table 1: Route update table at host Neighbor C E G I No. of Hops 2 2 3 3 Via node H F E A Update time 1765 1860 1050 805

Figure: Example of linking nodes

The proposed protocol is designed by Mr. Bikas. The objective of Mr. Bikas is implementing two different DSDV and DSR routing protocols by using network simulators and run those protocols in different nodes. The compared two routing protocols are studies in different senior on the basis of packet delivery ratio and routing load. [6] DSDV is proactive getaway discovery algorithm where the getaway periodically broadcasts a gateway advertisement message which is transmitted after expiration of the gateways timer.DSR is reactive getaway discovery algorithm where a mobile device of MANET connects by the getaway only when it is needed. He implemented the Destination Sequence Distance Vector Dynamic Source routing protocols in TCL and integrated modules with network simulator 2. The performance comparison of these protocols is measured with packet end to end delivery and packets end to end delay. Simulation ware carried out with identical topology and running different protocols on the mobile node. The performance result indicates that the DSR is better then DSDV protocol. It is also they observed that the performance is better when PAUSE time is low. And the Dynamic Source Routing delivery is better even when the network is higher and each other. And they observed that DSR is a Reactive gateway discovery algorithm where a mobile device of MANET connects by gateway only when it is needed. There is performance depends up on different

201

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

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 9, December 2010

senior.The protocol is proposed by Mr. Jean-pierre.guedon, z.issaka and Salima Hamma. The proposed is performance compression between proactive and reactive routing protocols by using Network simulator 2. They haves considered that qualities and quantities criteria. They considered the first one is operation, loop-freedom, security, sleep period operation and the second is second are used to assess performance of different routing protocols presented in this paper. We can list end-to-end data delay, jitter, packet delivery ratio, routing load, activity distribution. [7] The performance analysis is for proactive and reactive routing protocol by using network simulators 2. After this analysis they observed that the proactive routing protocol is better performance for CBR sources given that it guaranties lowest delay and jitter and it consumes more bandwidth. Periodically the proactive protocol sends routing packets to discover and to maintain routes to all destinations. The number of delivered packets decreases when the numbers of nodes are increases. For the less number connections the packet delivery ratio is 53%. The reactive routing protocols are more adapted for data services. They guarantee the 80% packet delivery for the more then 60 connections. There is no clear winner among the proactive and reactive routing load delay and jitter and quite identical. The proposed protocol is implemented by Mr. Samyak Shah1, Amit Khandre2, Mahesh Shirole3 and Girish Bhole. The project implanted for the comparison of on demand reactive routing protocol of DSR along with the AODV with tradesanal proactive DSDV routing protocol. A simulation model with MAC and physical layer models is used to study interlayer interactions and their performance implications. Ondemand routing protocols, AODV and DSR performance is better then table driven DSDV routing protocol. [5] The AODV and DSR having similar behavior, but differences in the protocol mechanics can lead to significant performance differentials. And a verity of workload and scenario, as characterized by the mobility, load and size of the ad hoc network were simulated. The performance differential analyzes varying network load mad mobility and network size. [8] The project performance is compared for the DSDV and DSR and AODV protocols by using network simulator 2. They observe that simulation is that for application oriented matrices such as a packet delivery fraction and delay AODV, outperforms DSR in more “stressful” situation. They found that when the smaller number of nodes and lower load or mobility, with widening performance gaps with increasing stress. More load, higher mobility. Any ho they found that DSR produces less routing load comparing with AODV protocol. The poor performance of DSR mainly attributed to aggressive use of caching and lack of any mechanism to expire stale routes or determine the freshness of routes when multiple choices are available. And they found that the aggressive cache helps DSR to make low routing loads and make better performance. They found that better performance of DSR and AODV comparing with DSDV. And they found that when the network more then 30 nodes the DSDV routing protocol is more routing load on the network, and it is

observe that the DSR having less routing load on network. And they observe that the comparing with DSR better performance then DSDV routing protocol. DSR and AODV both use on -demand route discovery, but with different routing mechanics. In particular, DSR uses source routing and route caches, and does not depend on any periodic or timer-based activities. DSR exploits caching aggressively and maintains multiple routes per destination. AODV, on the other hand, uses routing tables, one route per destination, and destination sequence numbers, a mechanism to prevent loops and to determine freshness of routes. [8] CONCLUSION: In this paper I compared of DSDV with on-demand routing protocol DSR. With these reviews I found that DSR is better performance then DSDV. And second is that when for less no of wireless nodes in the network the performance of DSDV is better, while wireless nodes increases in the network the performance goes poor for DSDV routing protocol. The performance of DSDV is poor in the MANET because of routing load on network. DSR is better performance comparing to DSDV protocol, because of DSR having less routing load on network. Another thing that they observed that when no of wireless nodes are increased there is poor performance for both protocols. But DSR is better performance then DSDV. REFERENCES: [1] Johnson, D., Y. Hu & Maltz, D. 2004, The Dynamic Sour ce Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile Ad hoc Networks for IPv4, RFC 4728. [2] Feeney, L.M. 1999, A taxonomy for routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks, Swedish Institute of Computer Science. [3] D. Johnson, D. Maltz, and J. Broch. DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. In Ad Hoc Networking, C. Perkins (ed), Chapter 5, pages 139–172, 2001. [4] C.E. Perkins & P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination Sequence-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers”, Computer Communication Review, vol. 24, no.4, 1994, pp. 234-244. [5] Mr.Rafi U Zamam “An Efficient DSDV Routing Protocol for Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and its Performance Comparison http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/EMS. 2008.11” [6] Mr Bikas: Implementing and comparing dsr and dsdv routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networking.” http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/1131/1/bikas.pdf” http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm [7] Jean-pierre.guedon , z.issaka and Salima Hamma hal00275330, version 1 23 Apr 200. “http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm” [8] Samyak Shah1, Amit Khandre2, Mahesh Shirole3 and Girish Bhole http://tifac.velammal.org/CoMPC/articles/35.pdf page 167 to 171.

202

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful