2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence

A Comparative Performance Analysis of MANETs

Routing Protocols in Trust-based models
Raihana Ferdous, Vallipuram Muthukkumarasamy
School of Information and Communication Technology
Griffith University
Queensland, Australia
e-mail: ferdousraihana@gmail.com, v.muthu@griffith.edu.au

Abstract—Mobile ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of au-
tonomous mobile nodes without any centralized control. These
mobile nodes move arbitrarily within the self-configurable
MANET environment. Each of these mobile nodes can act as
a router while receiving and forwarding information. Secure
routing is an important issue in MANET as mobile nodes
are prone to attacks from malicious nodes and the overall
performance of the network depends on it. In this setting, three
routing protocols have been analyzed and compared: OLSR, DSR
and AODV. The metrics are being used are Packet Delivery Ratio,
Delay and Throughput. Network Simulator (NS2) has been used
as tool for the experiments. The performance analysis of these
protocols also compared for power usage using two trust-based
models: Node based Trust Management (NTM) Scheme and
TLEACH. Simulation results show that OLSR protocol performs
well compared to AODV and DSR.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Mobile ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are self-configuring
systems where mobiles nodes are connected through wireless
interfaces. Nodes in MANETs have features like dynamic
topologies, limited battery life and low physical security. The
dynamic topology makes complex routing protocol design.
There are three types of routing protocols: Proactive Protocols,
Reactive Protocols and Hybrid Protocols. Proactive protocols
are table-driven that constantly update lists of destinations
and routes. Reactive protocols respond on demand where as
Hybrid protocols combine the features of both Reactive and
Proactive protocols. The main goal of routing protocols is
to minimize delay, maximize network throughput, maximize
network lifetime and energy efficiency and to discover a
secured path from source to the destination.
Data packets which are routed via intermediate nodes, can be
dropped by malicious nodes without being forwarded to the
destination. This introduces not only a much bigger end-to-end
delay, but also rapid energy deplete of the nodes. The energy
constraint of the nodes and the attacks of malicious nodes
are the prominent reasons for path failure. This path failure
causes frequent route discovery which affects the performance
of overall routing protocol. Nodes have to share routing
information with their neighboring nodes to find the route to
the destination. This requires nodes to trust each other. In this
setting we state that trust is a key concept in secure routing
mechanisms.
The rationale behind using trust models is to find a route
quickly and to have a good response time between the trusted
nodes. In trust-based models central trust authority of the
Cluster Heads is a superfluous requirement.
In this paper we have analyzed and compared the performance
of three routing protocols - AODV, DSR and OLSR in two
trust-based frameworks - NTM and TLEACH. In the Node-
based Trust Management (NTM) framework, the trust of every
node is calculated by the interaction history and Cluster Head
(CH) recommendation [8]. In trust-based LEACH (low energy
adaptive clustering hierarchy) or TLEACH (Trusted-LEACH)
protocol provides secure routing, while preserving the essential
functionality of the original protocol [1]. These frameworks
provide feasible approach to meet the trust requirements of
data packets.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II introduces the
relevant literature survey. Section III discusses the routing
protocols used for this research. Section IV presents the trust
models that we used to compare the performance of the routing
protocols. Section V describes the performance metrics and
section VI provides the performance analysis on the basis
of metrics mentioned in above section. Finally section VII
concludes the paper.
II. R ELATED W ORKS
Many researchers have proposed different methods to secure
the routing protocols [2] [4] [5]. At this setting, we focus on
securing AODV, DSR and OLSR routing protocols for this
survey.
A performance evaluation of reactive (AODV, DSR) and
proactive (OLSR, DSDV, TORA) routing protocols was con-
ducted based on the performance criteria i.e. packet delivery
ratio (PDR), average end to end delay (Delay), routing over-
head and throughput under various mobility model (RPGM,
CMM, RWP) using the network simulator NS-2 in Nitiket et al
[11]. The authors here concluded that mobility pattern of node
has significant impact on routing and the reactive protocols
performed well with respect to PDR, Delay, Normalized
routing load (NRL) and throughput. The delay is greater in
DSR as compare to AODV. In AODV throughput and PDR
are high when the number of nodes was increased.
The performance of DSR and AODV on demand reactive
routing protocols for MANET are analyzed using varying
time, packet delivery ratio, throughput and end-to-end delay

978-1-5090-5510-4/16 $31.00 © 2016 IEEE 876

880
DOI 10.1109/CSCI.2016.170
using NS-2 by Goyal et al [12] as well as [13]. They focused
that jitter and end-to-end delay was low. They observed that
the overall performance for AODV degrades as node density
increases.
The performance of two prominent routing protocols in
MANET: OLSR and AODV are compared in the paper [17]
with Freeway Mobility model. According to this paper, the
AODV protocol will perform better in the networks with
static traffic. It uses fewer resources than OLSR, because the
control message size is kept small requiring less bandwidth
for maintaining the routes and the route table is kept small
reducing the computational power. The AODV protocol can
be used in resource critical environments. The OLSR protocol
is more efficient in networks with high density and highly
sporadic traffic. But the best situation is when there are a large
number of hosts. OLSR requires that it continuously has some
bandwidth in order to receive the topology update messages.
Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) has
motivated the design of several other protocols which try to
improve upon the cluster head selection process by considering
the residual energy of the nodes [6]. Although LEACH is able
to increase the network lifetime, there are still a number of
issues about the assumptions used in this protocol. LEACH
assumes that all nodes can transmit with enough power to
reach the Base Station if needed and that each node has
computational power to support different MAC protocols.
Therefore, it is not applicable to networks deployed in large
regions. It also assumes that nodes always have data to send
and nodes located close to each other have correlated data. It
is not obvious how the number of predetermined cluster heads
is going to be uniformly distributed throughout the network.
Therefore, there is a possibility that the elected cluster heads
may be concentrated in one part of the network. This may lead
to some nodes not having any Cluster head in their vicinity.
Trusted-LEACH or TLEACH [9] is a trust-based version of the
data-centric routing protocol LEACH [7]. Trust management
in TLEACH uses both direct and indirect trust. TLEACH
works in tight intervals, dividing the operation of the network
to a well-orchestrated and synchronized beat of data retrieval
and monitoring. TLEACH selects about 5% of the nodes
as cluster-heads, who are responsible for forwarding data
from the nodes in the cluster towards a sink. Cluster-heads
are elected based on trust. Nodes in the cluster monitor the
transmissions of each other as well as the transmissions of
the cluster-head (depending on how much the node trusts the
cluster-head). This monitoring provides the nodes with direct
trust information. Indirect trust about other nodes is provided
only by the cluster-heads to the nodes in its cluster.
Ferdous et al. [8], presented a cluster head selection algorithm
based on an efficient trust model. After deployment, the nodes
broadcast their ID and trust value to their neighbors along
with the REQ/REPLY flag. When the participating nodes
have discovered their neighbors, they exchange information
about the number of one hop neighbors. The node which
has maximum neighbors from the trust interaction table is
selected as the Trusted Authority(TA) and other nodes become
881
877
members of that Cluster or local nodes.
III. ROUTING P ROTOCOLS
MANET protocols are used to create routes between multi-
ple nodes in mobile ad hoc networks. The routing protocol is
required whenever the source needs to transmit and delivers
the packets to the destination.
A. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
The AODV routing protocol is a reactive routing protocol;
therefore, routes are determined only when needed [18]. The
operation of AODV comprises of two main processes i.e. route
discovery and route maintenance. Each node in the network
maintains a routing table with the routing information entries.
When a source has data to transmit to an unknown destination,
it broadcasts a Route Request (RREQ) for that destination. At
each intermediate node, when a RREQ is received, a route
to the source is then created. If the receiving node has not
received this RREQ before, or is not the destination or does not
have a current route to the destination, it will then rebroadcasts
the RREQ. If the receiving node is the destination or has a
current route to the destination, it generates a Route Reply
(RREP). The RREP is unicast in a hop-by-hop fashion to
the source. As the RREP propagates, each intermediate node
creates a route to the destination. When the source receives
the RREP, it records the route to the destination and can begin
sending data.
If additional copies of the same RREQ are later received, these
packets are discarded. The reply is sent using the reverse
path. For route maintenance, when a source node moves, it
can re-initiate a route discovery process. If any intermediate
node moves within a particular route, the neighbor of the
drifted node can detect the link failure and sends a link failure
notification to its upstream neighbor. Route maintenance is
based on the periodic transmission of HELLO messages [3].
AODV can handle low, moderate, and relatively high mobility
rates of the nodes in MANET, as well as a variety of data
traffic levels. AODV is designed for use in networks where
the nodes can all trust each other, either by use of pre-
configured keys, or because it is assumed that there are no
malicious intruder nodes. AODV has been designed to reduce
the dissemination of control traffic and eliminate overhead on
data traffic, in order to improve scalability and performance.
Each forwarding node keeps track of its interaction history to
its next hops as well as the list of neighboring nodes that have
transmitted Hello messages during the last interaction.
B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol is also a reactive
routing protocol designed specifically for use in multi-hop mo-
bile wireless ad hoc networks [10]. DSR allows the network to
be completely self-organizing and self-configuring, without the
need for any existing network infrastructure or administration.
The protocol allows multiple routes to any destination and
allows each sender to select and control the routes used in
routing its packets, for example for use in load balancing
or for increased robustness. Other advantages of the DSR
protocol include easily guaranteed loop-free routing, support
for use in networks containing unidirectional links and very
rapid recovery when routes in the network change. The DSR
protocol is designed mainly for mobile ad hoc networks of
up to about two hundred nodes, and is designed to work well
with even very high rates of mobility.
Unlike AODV, in DSR the intermediate nodes do not maintain
routing information in order to route the pockets they receive.
This protocol comprises of three components namely routing,
route discovery and route maintenance. Routing of packets is
performed as follows. The node which has a data to send will
dynamically discover a source route. Each packet will carry
in its header the complete list of nodes through which the
data must pass to reach the destination. There is no periodic
transmission of router advertisements, link status, updating of
routing information etc. But in the packet header, the complete
source route from a source node to a desired destination is
available. This source route can be cached by the intermediate
nodes for future use.
If the source route is not available, the node will initiate a route
discovery process. The source node will broadcast a route
request message to all of its neighbors. Each route request
is identified with a unique id number generated by source
node. It contains the details of source and destination. Also
it contains a record of addresses of each intermediate nodes
through which the data has been forwarded. At the source
node, the route record is empty.
It should be noted that when a node encounters a fatal
transmission problem at its data link layer, it generates a Route
Error packet. When a node receives a route error packet, it
removes the hop in error from it’s route cache. All routes that
contain the hop in error are truncated at that point. Acknowl-
edgment packets are used to verify the correct operation of
the route links. This also includes passive acknowledgments
in which a node hears the next hop forwarding the packet
along the route.
C. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol(OLSR)
OLSR is a proactive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc
networks [14] [16]. The protocol inherits the stability of a
link state algorithm and has the advantage of having routes
immediately available when needed due to its proactiveness.
OLSR is an optimization over the classical link state protocol,
tailored for mobile ad hoc networks. OLSR minimizes the
overhead from flooding of control traffic by using only selected
nodes, called MPRs, to retransmit control messages. This
technique significantly reduces the number of retransmissions
required to flood a message to all nodes in the network.
Secondly, OLSR requires only partial link state to be flooded
in order to provide shortest path routes. The minimal set of link
state information required is that all nodes, selected as MPRs,
MUST declare the links to their MPR selectors. Additional
topological information, if present, MAY be utilized e.g., for
redundancy purposes. Each node selects a set of its neighbors
as multipoint relay (MPR). OLSR only selected as MPR nodes
882
878
are only allowed to carry the information.
Advantages of OLSR protocol are it does not need central
administrative system to handle its routing process, the link is
reliable for the control messages, since the messages are sent
periodically and the delivery does not have to be sequential
and OLSR is suitable for high density networks. Whereas the
main disadvantages are OLSR protocol periodically sends the
updated topology information throughout the entire network
and It allows high protocol bandwidth usage.
IV. T RUST M ODEL A NALYSIS
Security is not taken into consideration in the initial design
of OLSR, neither is in AODV nor in DSR. These routing
protocols do not protect the routing packets in networks, so
an attacker can easily modify them without being detected. In
this paper our motivation is to secure the overall MANET en-
vironment by using the trust models like NTM and TLEACH.
A. Node-based Trust Management System(NTM)
The Node-based Trust Management (NTM) Framework is
based on a Clustered mobile sensor network with backbone
[8]; it introduces a trust of a node within local management
strategy with help from the mobile agents running on each
node. That is, a node‘s trust-based information is stored as a
history on the node itself and managed by the local mobile
agent of the node. The goal is to provide nodes with a
mechanism to evaluate the trust level of its direct neighbors
as shown in Figure-1.
Figure 1. NTM node in MANET
A trust network graph G is formed where nodes are
connected if they are one hop away in terms of physical
transmissions. It is considered that every node has a trust
value between the range [0, 1] where 1 for full trust and 0
for no trust with the trust rating, T nij [0, 1] on every other
node. In this voting scheme T nij = 1 represents completely
positive trust rating node i has on node j, T nij = 0
represents completely negative trust rating. Trust relations
are asymmetric, i.e T nij = T nji . In the voting rule suppose
node i is the target of trust evaluation, all the opinion values
on i from neighbors will be aggregated to form a trust value.
Since the recommender itself may be a misbehaving node,
instead of just using summation as aggregation, the main
purpose of this research is to provide an effective voting
scheme on the basis of dynamic Trust rating.
In NTM scheme, Trust Evaluators (TEs) can be computed by
grasping the TRUST-VALUE from equation 4. This scheme
draws ideas from the Watchdog and Pathrater schemes [15],
which has been utilized for cooperation of nodes in ad-hoc
networks. Therefore, a node ni ’s trust on another node nj
can be defined as:
T nij = α1ni Tsnj + α2ni T nj o (1)
In the above equation, T nij is evaluated as a function of
two parameters:
nj
• ni Ts : Node ni ’s self evaluated trust on nj ; ni computes
this by directly monitoring nj .
n
• ni T j o: Weighted sum of every other nodes’ trust on nj
evaluated by ni .
B. Trusted-LEACH(TLEACH)
Trust-based Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierar-
chy(TLEACH) is a Wireless Sensor Networks(WSNs) trust
protocol [1]. TLEACH contains two main components, the
Monitoring Module and the Trust Evaluation Module. Each
node also maintains a Neighbor Situational Trust Table
(NSTT) filled with trust value entries for each pair of node
ids and situational operations. Situational operations, such
as data sensing and routing, each have an individual trust
value because nodes may not behave maliciously for all
operations. Whenever a monitoring node detects misbehavior,
the Monitoring Module les a misbehavior report tallying the
number of misbehavior and good behaviors. The trust update
slot allows the Cluster head to share its trust values with
its cluster members. TLEACH losses less data than LEACH
because half of all data sent by cluster members is received by
the gateway. TLEACH is, however, unable to stop the constant
loss of data because of the lack of monitoring on the cluster
head.
V. M ETRICS FOR P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON
MANET has number of qualitative and quantitative metrics
that can be used to compare ad hoc routing protocols. This
paper has considered the following metrics to evaluate the
performance of ad hoc network routing protocols. The trust-
based models ensure authentication and integrity of the routing
messages that satisfy the following conditions as no interaction
can be made unless the node‘s current trust information is
revealed by the recommendation and a trusted node can be
selected as a Cluster Head by its battery life and good repu-
tation. The fairness of node‘s energy usage is measured using
the standard deviation of the energy consumed per node. This
is calculated by the square root of difference between energy
consumed at each node and the average energy consumed per
node.
All the tests are done on the basis of the following Perfor-
mance metrics:
• Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): It is the ratio of the packets
successfully received by the destination node from the
883
879
source node. PDR =(Packet received/Packet sent) The
more accurate the results, the better performance
• Average end to end delay: This is the time taken for a
packet to be transmitted across a network from source to
destination. The delay experienced by the packet from it
was sent by the source to destination till it was received
at the destination. This whole process depends on packet
size, the interval and the route length as well. This
includes all possible delays caused by buffering during
route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,
retransmission delays at the MAC, and propagation.
Delayend−end = Links[Delaytransition + Delaypropagation
+Delayprocess ]
(2)
• Throughput: It is the average rate of successful packet delivery.
The throughput is usually measured in bits per seconds or
packets per time slot.
• Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic has been used. Time intervals
between packets are exchanged between nodes with varied
number of nodes i.e. 50 and 100 nodes. It should be noted
that different transmit data rates can be achieved by varying
CBR parameters. CBR has been used as it limits the maximum
number of packets that need to be sent from source to sink.
• Loss Monitor has been used to measure the throughput at the
sink, over a given time window.
• Battery Power:Battery power, P ower can be expressed as-
U plink Downlink
P ower = 1 − − (3)
U ploadvolume Downloadvolume
VI. A NALYZING S IMULATION
The performance measures of three protocols i.e. DSR,
AODV and OLSR have been conducted in the NS2. The
simulation has been spanned for 300 seconds for each test.
The initial and final 30 seconds (60 seconds in total) of
simulation has been excluded from throughput measurement.
This is to ensure that the system was in steady state. The
network dimensions are 500m × 500m with transmission
range of 250m for each node. In low density network we
deploy 50 nodes whereas in high density network it is 100
nodes.
From the above analysis of routing protocols, the OLSR
outperforms the both AODV and DSR protocols in terms of
End-to-end Delay, Packet Delivery and Throughput for 50 as
well as 100 mobile nodes as shown in Figures 2 - 6.
In Figure-6, it is evident from the results that the delay is
higher in AODV and less in OLSR among the proactive
protocols and in reactive protocols delay is less in DSR.
But in increase in density of nodes from 50 to 100, when
compared, OLSR has got the higher efficiency in delay.
In Figure-7 we have performed a power consumption
comparison for DSR, AODV and OLSR Protocols in NTM
and TLEACH for 50 and 100 Nodes in MANET. It shows
that there is no significant impact on using different trust
models for the routing protocols. We model power use based
on the experimental results for power consumption using
802.11g link assuming a mobile node has full battery power
at the start of the simulation. It should be noted that uplink
uses more power than the downlink.
In this simulation, energy consumption for nodes varies from
5mA in idle mode, up-to 200mA in receiving mode and up-to
300mA in transmitting mode. Initial energy of each node is
1000 Joules. We have evaluated the following performance
indexes-

• Overall energy consumed in NTM and TLEACH mod-

els(in Joules)
• the routing protocols(packet types)

Figure 5. Threshold comparison Protocols for 100 Nodes in MANET

Figure 2. Comparison for Packet Loss for 50 Nodes in MANET

Figure 6. End to end delay comparison Protocols for 100 Nodes in MANET

Figure 3. Comparison for Protocols Packet Delivery for 100 Nodes in

MANET

Figure 7. Power consumption comparison Protocols in NTM and TLEACH

for 50 and 100 Nodes in MANET

Figure 4. Threshold comparison Protocols for 50 Nodes in MANET
VII. C ONCLUSION
The OLSR outperforms both AODV and DSR protocols in
terms of packet delivery and throughput in 50 mobile nodes.
The AODV puts low load than OLSR and DSR respectively.
In 100 mobile nodes OLSR is again showing good results
in data loss, packet delivery and throughput than AODV and
DSR respectively. AODV offer good results in offering low

884
880
load on the network than OLSR and DSR respectively. High
network load affects the MANET routing control packets.
Therefore in terms of analyzing routing protocols, the OLSR
outperforms the both AODV and DSR protocols in terms
of Delay, Packet Delivery and Throughput for both 50 and
100 mobile nodes respectively. Results also show that the
NTM trust model can induce more secure routing environment
than the TLEACH approach. We conclude that the type of
traffic affects the performance of the routing protocols whereas
mobility pattern does not have any impact on the performance
of the routing protocols. Trust models also have less impact on
the performance of the routing protocols. Future work should
include efforts to improve the robustness of security issues for
improving the overall performance of the system like the way
that the message authentication between intermediate Cluster
heads are treated, where there can be a delay in identifying a
malicious neighboring node.
[14] T. Clausen and P. Jaqcquet, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)
Protocol, RFC 3626, IETF Networking Group, October 2003.
[15] S. Marti, T.J. Giuli, K. Lai, and M. Baker. Mitigating Routing Misbe-
havior in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Mobicom 2000, August 2000, pp.
255-265.
[16] D. Kaur, N. Kumar, Comparative Analysis of AODV, OLSR, TORA, DSR
and DSDV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, in International
Journal of Computer Network and Information Security(IJCNIS), vol. 5,
no.3, pp.39,2013
[17] S. Gowrishankar, T. G. Basavaraju, M Singh and Subir Kumar Sarkar,
Scenario based Performance Analysis of AODV and OLSR in Mobile
Ad hoc Networks, In Proceeding of the 24th South East Asia Regional
Computer Conference, 2007.
[18] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer, and S. Das. Ad hoc On Demand
Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, RFC 3561, July 2003.

R EFERENCES
[1] F. Song and B. Zhao. Trust-Based LEACH Protocol for Wireless Sensor
Networks, In Proceedings of the 2008 Second international Conference
on Future Generation Communication and Networking - Volume 01
(December 13 - 15, 2008). FGCN. IEEE Computer Society, Washington,
DC, pp-202-207.
[2] A.Mishra. Security and Quality of Service in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,
Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008.
[3] S.Misra, I.Woungang, and S.Misra, Guide to Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,
Springer Science + Business Media, London, 2009.
[4] E.Cayirci and C.Rong. Security in Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks,
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publication,2009.
[5] R.Gupta. Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANETS): Proposed solution to Secu-
rity Related Issues. Indian Journal of Computer Science and Engineering
(IJCSE), Vol - 2, Issue - 5, pp. 738-746, 2011.
[6] M. J. Handy, M. Haase, and D. Timmermann. Low energy adaptive
clustering hierarchy with deterministic cluster-head selection, In Proc. 4th
IEEE International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Communications
Network (MWCN 2002), Stockholm, Sweden, September 2002, pp. 368-
372.
[7] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energy-
efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks, Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, pp. 1-10 vol. 2, Jan. 2000.
[8] R. Ferdous, V. Muthukkumarasamy, E. Sithirasenan, Determining Similar
Recommenders using Improved Collaborative Filtering in MANETs, In
the 12th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy
in Computing and Communications (IEEE TrustCom-13). Melbourne,
Australia, 16-18 July, 2013, pp. 110-117
[9] F. Song and B. Zhao. Trust-Based LEACH Protocol for Wireless Sensor
Networks, In Proceedings of the 2008 Second international Conference
on Future Generation Communication and Networking - Volume 01
(December 13 - 15, 2008). FGCN. IEEE Computer Society, Washington,
DC, pp-202-207.
[10] D. B. Johnson, D. A Maltz, The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt, Feb.
2002
[11] N. M. Nitiket And P. B. Nilesh, Performance Evaluation of AODV
and DSR On-Demand Routing Protocols with Varying MANET Size,
International Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 4,
No. 1, February 2012, pp. 183-196.
[12] N. Goyal, N. Hemrajani, Comparative Study of AODV and DSR Routing
Protocols for MANET: Performance Analysis, International Journal of
Communication and Computer Technologies Volume 01 No.57 Issue:
06, Aug 2013, pp 198-202.
[13] C. Singh, V. Sharma, Comparative Performance Analysis of Study of
Routing Protocols for Adhoc Networks, International Journal of Advanced
Research in Computer Engineering and Technology (IJARCET) Volume
4 Issue 9, September 2015, pp 3494-3498.

885
881