ISSN:2229-6093

Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

A Study of Performance Comparisons of Simulated Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols

Amandeep Verma, Lecturer in Computer Science, Punjabi University Regional Centre for IT & Mgmt., Mohali vaman71@gmail.com Abstract
Security has become a prime concern so as to present protected communication in Wireless as well as wired environment. Ad hoc networks are illustrated by multi-hop wireless connectivity and recurrently changing network topology which have made them infrastructure less. The wireless links in this network are very error prone and can go down frequently due to mobility of nodes, interference and less infrastructure. A routing protocol is needed whenever a packet needs to be transmitted to a destination via number of nodes and numerous routing protocols have been proposed for such kind of ad hoc networks. It is advantageous to know the performance of various protocols under different scenarios for various metrics. This paper describes a simulation evaluations conducted of several routing protocols tailored specifically for mobile ad hoc networks. A routing protocol is needed whenever a packet needs to be transmitted to a destination via number of nodes and numerous routing protocols have been proposed for such kind of ad hoc networks. These protocols find a route for packet delivery and deliver the packet to the correct destination. Each mobile node operates not only as a host but also as a router and forwards packets for other mobile nodes in the network that may not be within direct transmission range of each other. The wireless links in this network are highly error prone and can go down frequently due to mobility of nodes, interference and less infrastructure. Therefore, routing in MANET is a critical task due to highly dynamic environment. In recent years, several routing protocols have been proposed for mobile ad hoc networks. Different routing protocols are suitable for different network characteristics. For this purpose different types of protocols for MANET have been designed such as DSDV, AODV, TORA, DSR, ZRP, and OLSR and many others. Generally, routing protocols are classified into two main categories: Table-driven routing protocols and source initiated on-demand driven routing protocols. The table driven routing protocols maintain consistent and up-to-date routing information from each node to the rest of the nodes in the network in one or more routing tables regardless of the need of such routes. The source initiated ondemand routing protocols are developed and employed in mobile ad-hoc networks and initiates routing activities only when needed. In another classification these protocols generally fall into one of two categories: proactive or reactive. Proactive routing attempts to maintain optimal routes to all destinations at all times, regardless of whether they

Keywords: Ad hoc Networks, Routing Protocols,

Performance metrics

1. Introduction
Security has become a primary concern in order to provide protected communication in Wireless as well as wired environment. An adhoc network is a temporary infrastructure less network, formed dynamically by mobile devices without turning to any existing centralized administration. Ad hoc networks are characterized by multi-hop wireless connectivity and frequently changing network topology which have made them infrastructure less.

565

ISSN:2229-6093
Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

are needed. To support this, the routing protocol propagates information updates about a networks topology throughout the network. In contrast, reactive or on-demand routing protocols determine routes to given destinations only when there is data to send to those destinations. If a route is unknown, the source node initiates a search to find one. Proactive routing protocols have the advantage of having short routes available at all times, thereby avoiding the delay of searching for a route on demand. Reactive routing protocols have the advantage of only generating routing overhead to find routes when routes are needed, independent of network topology changes. This paper describes a simulation evaluations conducted of several routing protocols tailored specifically for mobile ad hoc networks. The intended readers for this paper are those who are looking for the effects of various ad hoc networking protocols on performance metrics. The various performance metrics to be considered while evaluating the protocols are also listed. In order to make a selection of simulator, the comparative studies are also quoted. The paper is organised as follows. The section 2 presents a tabular visualisation of the studies. The section 3 lists down the performance metrics. The section 4 is about the Simulators. The section 5 gives the analysis of the studies. The section 6 provides the conclusion and future work.

Adhoc Networks Routing Protocols and Mobility [3]

WRP, FSR, DSR, AODV, ABR and LAR DSDV, TORA, DSR, AODV

GloMoSim, mobility and propagation model,

Data Reception Rate, Consumed Energy, Overhead, Weighted Path Optimality, Networks Load Deviation, Average end-to-end delay, Jitter Collision, Throughput , latency rate and Packet Loss/Drop

Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks [18]

Ns-2, CBR traffic source, movement model based on pause time

Performance Analysis of DSR & Extended DSR Protocols [1]

DSR and Extended DSR

GloMoSim, Random waypoint mobility model, CBR traffic source

Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Using NS2 Simulation [14]

AODV, DSR and DSDV

Ns-2, CBR traffic source, random waypoint model

Packet delivery fraction, Average End-to-end delay and normalized routing load

2. Review of Literature
Study Performance of mobile ad hoc networking routing protocols in realistic scenarios [5] Performance Evaluation of DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks [15] Simulation Comparison of Four Wireless Ad hoc Routing Protocols [13] Protocols AODV, OLSR, DSR and ZRP Simulator/ Parameter QualNet, model realistic scenarios Performan ce metrics Packet delivery ratio, latency and jitter of data packets Packet delivery fraction and throughput Conclusion AODV is overall better as compared to other Performance Comparison of Two Anycast based reactive Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks [12] ARDSR and A-AODV Ns-2.23, random waypoint model, CBR traffic source Packet Delivery fraction, Average end-to-end delay of data packets, Routing load and Energy consumptio n Average Routing Overhead, Packet Delivery Ratio, Average End-to-end delay

DSR and DSDV

Ns-2.29 , Random waypoint model

DSR is better than DSDV

network, AODV overall best Mobility cause more packet loss, latency, congestion and energy consume DSDV is best in Path Optimality, DSDV and AODV in delay, DSR in load balancing and DSDV in jitter Tradeoff between delay and collisions results in less packet drops and slightly better throughput then traditional DSR. AODV and DSR perform equally for packet delivery fraction, DSDV is better than other for average end- to end delay ARDSR better performanc e in PDF and e-e delay at low mobility, AODV better at high mobility

DSDV, TORA, DSR, AODV

nodes move according to the random way point model

delay, control packet overhead, route acquisition, throughput

DSDV suitable for small networks with limited topology, TORA is good for highly mobile and dense

Performance Evaluation and Simulation of Mobile Adhoc Network Routing Protocols [16]

AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR

Two different scenarios files

Performance

DSR and

Ns-2

Packet

AODV performs better in terms of packet delivery ratio. DSDV is better in case of overhead and DSDV and AODV performs quite same in end-to end delay DSR

566

ISSN:2229-6093
Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

Comparison of Two Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks [19]

AODV

delivery fraction, Average end-to-end delay

A Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Security Issue In Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks [6] Performance Comparisons of AOMDV and OLSR Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Network [9] An Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols in Multi Hop Ad Hoc Networks [10] A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of Routing Protocol on Mobile Adhoc Network [11]

DSR and TORA

OPNET 10.0

Throughput media access delay, Traffic sent and Down Load response time Packet loss rate, average end-to-end delay and normalized routing load

outperforms AODV when smaller no. of nodes, less mobility and lower load otherwise AODV DSR performanc e affected by proxy as compared to TORA

delivered data packets. This metric provides an indication of the extra bandwidth consumed by overhead to deliver data traffic. It is crucial as the size of routing packets may vary. The routing overhead describes how many routing packets for route discovery and route maintenance need to be sent in order to propagate the CBR packets.

Packet D elivery R atio/ P acket D elivery Fraction/Throughput

Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets received by the destination through the number of packets originated It specifies the packet loss rate, which limits the maximum throughput of the network. The better the delivery ratio, the more complete and correct is the routing protocol.

AOMDV and OLSR

OLSR, BATMA N [2] and Babel [7]

Ns-2, random waypoint mobility model file transfer application of TCP for traffic -----

OLSR outperforms AOMDV

Average End-To-End Delay

Babel better throughput less routing overhead, performanc e of OLSR and BATMAN are almost same DYMO best in PDF, OLSR and ZRP good in average e-e delay, ZRP better than others in throughput AODV outperforms DSR and DSDV in PDF, AODV and DSDV outperforms in average e-e delay, DSR is better than AODV and DSDV in packet loss

Hop Count, Expected Transmissi on Count [4]

AODV, DYMO, ZRP, OLSR.

Performance Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks [17]

DSR, AODV and DSDV

Qualnet 4.5, CBR traffic source, two-ray propagation path loss model, mobility based on pause time Ns-2, generate scenario files for simulation

Packet Delivery Fraction, Average End-to-end delay, Jitter, Throughput

Average End-to-End delay (seconds) is the average time it takes a data packet to reach the destination. 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, propagation and transfer times.

Packet Loss/Drop
Packet loss describes an error condition in which data packets appear to be transmitted correctly at one end of a connection, but never arrive at the other. There might be different reasons like corrupted packets will be dropped by nodes; the link/route between nodes is not working, insufficient bandwidth, etc.

Packet Delivery Ratio, Average e-e delay, Packet Loss and Routing Overhead

Latency Rate
When source node sends a data packet towards destination node, it takes some time to deliver and this time is called latency rate/delay or transmission time.

3. Performance Metrics
Routing Overhead
Average routing overhead is the total number of routing packets divided by total number of

Normalized routing load

The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination. Each hop-wise transmission of a routing packet is counted as one transmission.

567

ISSN:2229-6093
Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

Route acquisition time

The time it takes a source node to find a route to a destination node

Expected Transmission Count

The expected transmission count metric (ETX) [4], which finds high-throughput paths on multi-hop wireless networks. ETX minimizes the expected total number of packet transmissions (including retransmissions) required to successfully deliver a packet to the ultimate destination. ETX calculates the probability of successful transmissions in both directions over a wireless link. To determine these statistics, every node periodically broadcasts a configured number of probes. Receivers calculate the number of probes received; against the number expected. As links are asymmetric, it is important to measure the success rate of probes in both directions. To obtain this information, each node will place its own ETX values in the probes sent.

to be different simulation environment in these studies as the metrics used for comparison are almost same. Most of the studies use ns-2 for simulation purposes. But some recent studies show other simulators better than ns-2 as it is complex mixture of Tcl and C/C++code. Even ns3 outperform ns2. OPNET modeler and QualNet which is commercial version of GloMoSim also very much in use for simulation purposes. JiST/SWANS performed well but it is not much in use, this might be due to nongraphical interface.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

The overall performance of AODV is better than the other protocols, but every protocol has its better in some domain. The future work is to compare simulators for different protocols.

4. Simulators
Simulations play a vital role in the development and testing of ad-hoc networking protocols. However, the simulation of large networks is still a tedious task that consumes a lot of computing power, memory, and time. The study [8], compare protocols and models implemented in SWANS to the corresponding implementations in ns-2. Using identical input parameters show results are comparable and analyze reasons for differences. By showing that results achieved with JiST/SWANS are equivalent to those of ns-2, support the usage of JiST/SWANS. As ns-2 performance problems when simulating hundreds or thousands of nodes and the complex mixture of Tcl and C/C++ code in ns-2, JiST/SWANS could be an interesting alternative. In the paper [20] reported a performance comparison study by implementing an identical simulation set-up in five simulators, namely ns-2, OMNet++, ns-3, SimPy and JiST/SWANS.

References
[1] Ahmad S., Awan I., Waqqas A. and Ahmad B., (2008), Performance Analysis of DSR & Extended DSR Protocols, Proceedings of Second Asia International Conference on Modeling and Simulation, pp. 191-196 [2] Axel Neumann, Corinna Aichele, and Marek Lindner (2008), Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.), IETF Draft [3] Djamel Djenouri, Abdelouahid Derhab and Nadjib Badache, (2006), Adhoc Networks Routing Protocols and Mobility, The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 126-133 [4] Douglas S. J. De Couto , Douglas S. J. De , Couto Daniel , Robert Morris , Daniel Aguayo , John Bicket, (2003), A High-Throughput Path Metric for Multi-Hop Wireless Routing, Proceedings of ACM MobiComm conference, [5] Hsu J., Bhatia S., Takai M., Bagrodia R. and Acriche M.J., (2003), Performance of mobile ad hoc networking routing protocols in realistic scenarios, Proceedings of IEEE conference on military communications, Vol. 2, pp. 1268-1273 [6] Jha, R.K., Limkar, S.V. and Dalal, U.D., (2010), A Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Security Issue In Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology, pp. 825-830

5. Analysis
The studies revealed that AODV, DSR, TORA and OLSR protocols are under study. The performance metrics like packet delivery function, Average end-to-end delay, throughput and routing load are used for comparisons. Some of the studies even contradict in results. The reason for that seems

568

ISSN:2229-6093
Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

[7] Juliusz Chroboczek, (2009), The Babel Routing Protocol, Internet-Draft. [8] Kargl Frank and Schoch Elmar, (2007), Simulation of MANETs: a qualitative comparison between JiST/SWANS and ns-2, Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on System evaluation for mobile platforms, pp. 41-46 [9] May Zin Oo and Mazliza Othman, (2010), "Performance Comparisons of AOMDV and OLSR Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Network" Proceedings of Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, vol. 1, pp.129133 [10] Murray D., Dixon M. and Koziniec T., (2010), An Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols in Multi Hop Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of Australasian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference, pp. 159-164. [11] Rahman M A , Anwar F, Naeem J and Abedin M S M, (2010), A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of Routing Protocol on Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering, pp. 1-5 [12] Saeed A., Khan L., Shah N. and Ali H., (2009), Performance Comparison of Two Anycast based reactive Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer, Control and Communications, pp. 1-6 [13] Samba Sesay, Zongkai Yang, Biao Qi and Jianhua He, (2004), Simulation Comparison of Four Wireless Ad hoc Routing Protocols, International Journal on Information Technology by Asian Network for Scientific Information, No. 3, Vol. 3, pp. 219-226.

[14] Shah Samyak, Khandre Amit, Shirole Mahesh and Bhole Girish, (2008), Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Using NS2 Simulation, Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile and Pervasive Computing, pp. 167-171 [15] Singh Rajeshwar, Singh Dharmendra K. and Kumar Lalan, (2011), Performance Evaluation of DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks International Journal Advanced Networking and Applications, Volume: 02, Issue: 04, pp: 732-737 [16] Singla Vikas, Singla Rakesh and Kumar Ajay, (2009), Performance Evaluation and Simulation of Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocols, International Journal of Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1 [17] Tyagi S S and Chauhan R K, (2010), Performance Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 1, No. 14, pp. 27-30. [18] Vahid Nazari Talooki & Koorush Ziarati,(2006), Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, pp. 1-5 [19] Wang Lin-zhu, Fang Ya-qin and Shan Min, (2009), Performance Comparison of Two Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of WASE International Conference on Information Engineering, pp. 260-262 [20] Weingartner E., vom Lehn H. and Wehrle K., (2009), A performance comparison of recent network simulators, Proceedings of IEEE International conference on Communications, pp. 1-5

569