This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
2, ISSue 2, June 2011
ISSN : 2229-4333(Print) | ISSN : 0976-8491(Online)
Efficiency Evaluation of Routing Protocol in MANET
Dept. of CSE, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India.
Abstract A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is characterized by dynamic nature without any physical infrastructure and centralizes access point. Routing in Ad-hoc networks is a challenging due to mobility of nodes. In this paper, a detailed simulation based performance analysis has been carried out of Ad- Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic MANET On-Demand (DYMO), and Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) based on different network scenario of network size, node mobility and pause time. Performance matrix includes parameters like packet delivery fraction, throughput, average delay, routing overhead, and packet loss using ns-2.34 as network simulator. Keywords MANET, AODV, DYMO, DSDV, DSR, NS-2.34. I. Introduction MANET [1 - 4] is a collection of dynamic self-organized nodes which communicate among each other in multi-hop fashion. These set of nodes form a temporary network without any centralized authority. In the initial days of networking wired network was the only mean of communication. But due the limitation of portability and setup cost, focused has changed to wireless ad-hoc network. In MANET each node communicates via other nodes as illustrated in Fig. 1. Mobility nature of node makes topology of MANET highly dynamic. Each node participates in topology discovery and thus acts as a router for other nodes. In order to select optimum route for data transmission many routing algorithms have been proposed. Routing
Neeraj Kr. Shakya, 2Gopal Singh Kushwah, 3Sandeep Singh Sengar
simulation is to study the working of routing protocol and evaluate the condition under which the protocols work better. The organization of this paper is as follows. In next section II, we will discuss the routing protocols used. Section III describes the simulation model used and performance metric of simulation. Section IV depicts the simulation result and analysis. Finally section V concludes the paper. II. Routing Protocols This section depicts the working of routing protocols used in simulation analysis. 1. AODV AODV is a reactive routing protocol. Reactive protocols are those which create route to destination only if the source is required to transmit data to destination. AODV avoids the counting-toinfinity problem unlike other distance vector protocols by using sequence number for each route. In AODV, all nodes maintain a routing table containing the entry for each destination node. Each entry includes the next hop, sequence number and number of hops requires for reaching destination node. Source node starts path discovery process when it has data to send and does not have route to destination. Path discovery is accomplished by flooding the Route Request (RREQ) packet, when RREQ arrive at the destination or the intermediate node having route to destination, it send off a Route Reply (RREP) packet in unicast mode. Since the nature of MANET is dynamic, link failure can be occurs due to movement in-between nodes. In such case link failure message is sent to the source node by the neighbor nodes affected by the link failure. On getting failure message source node re-initiate path discovery process. Finally, the source node receives the RREP packet and start sending the data. 2. DSDV DSDV Routing is a proactive routing protocol based on idea of Bellman-Ford algorithm. Each node maintain a routing table which contain all the possible destination reachable by node along with number of hop required to reach destination and sequence number assigned by destination. This sequence number helps in finding fresh route and prevents loop formation. A node always selects a route with higher sequence number which indicates the freshness of route. A response to topology changes occurs in two incremental updates. In full update the whole ways, first by sending full updates or routing table is send to neighbor whereas in incremental update only the information changed since the last update is send. When a network is more stable incremental update are occurs more frequently and when network is changing then full update occur. 3. DYMO DYMO is a reactive routing protocol and its working is similar to AODV but in more enhanced way. DYMO has implemented the concept of path accumulation, removes gratuitous RREP and determines routes in a unicast way among DYMO nodes. In addition, the Internet connectivity is also defined in the DYMO Internet-Draft . Each node maintains a routing table with information about nodes. Each entry in the routing table consists of a destination address, next hop address, hop count, sequence
w w w. i j c s t. c o m
Fig. 1: MANET Network algorithms are basically categorized into proactive and reactive category. Proactive routing protocols maintain a routing table and keep tracks of all the routes available. Reactive routing table determines route on demands and thus having less routing overhead. Performance comparisons of some routing protocols have been performed like between AODV and DSR , AODV and DSDV , AODV and TORA , AODV and DYMO  and between STAR, AODV and DSR . In this paper we have evaluate the performance of AODV , DYMO , DSDV , DSR , in three different mobility model using ns-2.34  as network simulator on various parameters. The goal of
InternatIonal Journal of Computer SCIenCe and teChnology
DSDV. NS-2 is an objectoriented simulator written in C++ and OTCL. efficient routing protocols must have greater throughput. III. On receiving the RRER. • Relative Routing overhead: The routing overhead is the total amount of control data packets sent by the routing protocol throughout the duration of the simulation. second one based on the pause time of mobile nodes and third one is based on speed of nodes. valid timeout. When an intermediate node receives the packet and not having route to destination in its cache. Simulation Result and Analysis The simulation of algorithms has been performed on three mobility models.34) Protocols Traffic Source Channel Type Grid Size Mobility Model w w w. delete timeout shows time after which the entry will be deleted and gateway field shows if the destination node is internet gateway or not. On getting RREP message source node starts sending message. Secondly. DSR DSR is on demand routing protocol but the difference between DSR and other on demand routing protocols is that in DSR source node completely specify the route to be taken by packet between source and destination. During this propagation process. a source node broadcast a RREQ message in network. June 2011 number. then delay in network will increase. The DYMO protocol consists of two operation route discovery and route maintenance. In route maintenance process. It is an essential performance metric of routing protocols. The DSR protocol consists of the two main operation of route Discovery and Route Maintenance. delete timeout and gateway flag. AODV. • End to end delay: it is the average delay experienced by the data packets throughout the simulation experiment. source node re-initiate route discovery if still has packets to send. It is calculated as the time taken between generation of data packet and the arrival of last bit at destination. 2: NAM Window IV. ISSue 2. InternatIonal Journal of Computer SCIenCe and teChnology 319 . • Packet delivery ratio: The packet delivery ratio is expressed as the percentage of number of received packets by destination node to the number of packets sent by all the sources nodes within the period of simulation.DYMO. DSR is beacon-less and thus does not require transmissions of periodic hello packet (beacon). which a node uses to inform its neighbors of its existence. of Nodes Minimum Velocity Maximum Velocity Pause Time Queue Length Topology Source data pattern 300 seconds 512 bytes 5 to 70 0 meters/seconds 25 meters/seconds 0 to 100 sec 50 Random 4 packets / sec The performance of algorithms has been evaluated based on the following metric . each intermediate node records a route to the source node. route maintenance is the process of responding to changes in topology due to node disassociation that happens after a route has been initially created. A source node initiate a route discovery process by broadcast a RREQ message in its locality. Table I: Simulation Parameters PARAMETER VALUE Simulator NS-2 (2. In case no RREP is received within valid time the node may yet again strive to determine a route by issuing another RREQ. It is measured in bytes/sec or bits/sec.  has been chosen to carryout the simulation process. We have used Random Waypoint (RWP) model with Continuous Bit Rate (CBR) traffic sources. lower would be the delay in network. 4. the link break and topology changes related things are being done. Valid timeout indicates the time at which route entry is no longer.DSR CBR Wireless Channel 670 m X 670 m Random waypoint Fig. of packet generated during the simulation time. 2 show a snapshot of NS2 containing routing nodes. Source node adds its address and target address in the RREQ packet. reply containing the accumulated list of intermediate nodes address which RREQ has traversed. Fig.ISSN : 2229-4333(Print) | ISSN : 0976-8491(Online) IJCSt Vol. the destination node throw a RREP message back to the source node. DSR limit the congestion consumed via control packets in ad MANET by eliminating the periodic table-update messages necessary in the table-driven approach and thus increases throughput. Various parameters that are considered for simulation are listed given below in Table: 1. As soon as the RREQ packet arrives at the destination node. Upon sending the RREQ. First model depends on the number of nodes. appends its own address in RREQ packet and broadcast. • Throughput: it is define as the total of data transferred over the given period of time. c o m Simulation Time Packet Size No. • Packet drop fraction: it is define as the no. Furthermore. i j c s t. If more control packets are sent by routing agents. 2. the originating node waits for a RREP message from the destination. the role of sequence number is same as in AODV. Lower the packet drop. In such case a Route Error (RRER) message is sent to source node indicating the route is no longer valid. of packet drop to the total no. In route discovery process. Simulation Model and Performance Metric The NS2  network simulator with the CMU extensions by Johnson et al.
AODV and DSR having almost same overhead whereas the DYMO shows greater routing overhead then others when number of nodes reaches 70. All four except DSDV shows almost 100% delivery fraction till the number of nodes is 30. ISSue 2. throughput of all the protocols initially increases sharply. Varying the speed of node This mobility model depicts the effect of node speed on the performance of protocols. Fig. 4: Throughput Vs No. The average delay from source to destination is shown in fig 6: DSDV always shows the delay of less than one seconds and DYMO shows an only fraction of delay. DSR and AODV having almost 100% of packet deliver ratio whereas DSDV packet delivery fraction decreases as the pause time increases. Fig. As the number of nodes increase routing overhead is also increase. Varying the pause time The pause time of nodes varies from 10 seconds to 100 seconds.IJCSt Vol. of nodes Fig 3: Overhead Vs No. From Fig. 2. 12 and DYMO is the most effective as having the least delay. of nodes increases. 7 show the packet drop percentage of routing protocols. it can be seen that other protocols. 13 shows that as the speed of nodes increases the packet delivery decreases in case of DSDV and DYMO but AODV and DSR shows no effect in the delivery ratio. 6: End to end delay Vs No. 5: Packet delivery fraction Vs No. AODV shows greater delay as shown in Fig. but after reaching 30 nodes it becomes constant and when the number of nodes reaches 60 throughputs of all protocol decreases. of node increases to double. 15 it can be verified that throughput of DSDV decreases as the nodes speed increases whereas AODV and DSR give constant throughput. DSR. of nodes Fig. DYMO and DSR. 2. 17 show the packet drop in the network. 3 show the effect of number of nodes on the routing overhead. c o m . of nodes Fig. Fig. Fig. It can be seen from Fig. initially DYMO shows the least delay than AODV and DSR but as the speed decreases DYMO delay increases. the drop percentage of AODV and DSR increases. i j c s t. Packet delivery fraction reduces to half when the no. 7: Packet drop fraction Vs No. Fig. 14 indicates that DSR having greater overhead than AODV. Varying the number of nodes The number of nodes in the simulation setup varies from 10 to 20. Fig. DSDV shows better delivery fraction than others as the no. Fig. of nodes 320 InternatIonal Journal of Computer SCIenCe and teChnology w w w. Fig. 16 give the details analysis of delay. of nodes Fig. Fig. 3. When the numbers of nodes are less DSDV drops more packets but as the number increases. and DYMO having much lower packet drop ratio. 4 shows the throughput. DSDV shows the highest drop ratio and least effective in term of packet loss. Fig. 9 show the overhead. AODV and DSR shows constant throughput. 10 illustrate the packet delivery ratio of routing protocols. DSR and AODV shows almost same throughput whereas DYMO throughput decreases rapidly as the number reaches 30. Fig. 8 shows effect of pause time on the throughput of protocols. Fig. June 2011 ISSN : 2229-4333(Print) | ISSN : 0976-8491(Online) 1. 5 show the packet delivery fraction. AODV and DSR show constant overhead irrespective of pause time. 11 that AODV.
As the mobility speed increases. we can simulate more routing protocol like ESAODV . 13: Packet delivery fraction Vs Node speed Fig. Simulation result shows that as the number of nodes increase. 15: Throughput Vs Node speed Fig.ISSN : 2229-4333(Print) | ISSN : 0976-8491(Online) IJCSt Vol. In future. 14: Overhead Vs Node speed Fig. 12: End to end delay Vs pause time Fig. delay and overhead of routing protocols also increase whereas throughput decreases. the performance of routing protocols decrease. Conclusion This paper carried out the detailed analysis of AODV. w w w. DSDV and DSR. DYMO. Nodes mobility affects the performance of routing protocol most. 8: Throughput Vs pause time Fig. 17: Packet drop fraction Vs Node speed V. DYMO performance improves as the pause time increase. 11: packet drop fraction Vs pause time Fig. ISSue 2. 9: Overhead Vs pause time Fig. June 2011 Fig. c o m InternatIonal Journal of Computer SCIenCe and teChnology 321 . 10: Packet delivery fraction Vs pause time Fig. 2. i j c s t. 16: End to end delay Vs Node speed Fig. WRP . and TORA  as well as establish the best condition under which a particular routing algorithm performs best.
. In Proc. A.. I. html. Royer. ISSue 2. (Dec. Belding-Royer. degree in Information Security at Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology. Ismail. Sandeep Singh Sengar received the B. 1405-1413. 2. Joseph P.  Mandala. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications.. S. Steenstrup. Japan. 2. Neeraj Kumar Shakya received B. Cheon.txt.  Kum. 322 InternatIonal Journal of Computer SCIenCe and teChnology w w w. D. org/html. Bhagwat. “A Performance Comparison of Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”. draft-ietf-manetdymo-17. 2010. Macker. Proc. 9-14.  MURTHY. pp. Ngadi. In Proc. Maltz. “Mobile Ad-hoc Networking and the IETF”.. No. D. 2004). D. Das.. No. June 2011 ISSN : 2229-4333(Print) | ISSN : 0976-8491(Online) References  Ramanathan. J.Tech degree in computer science and engineering from Uttar Pradesh Technical University. R. of the SIGCOMM 1994 Conference on Communications Architectures. Ambedkar University Agra.Tech degree in computer science from Motilal Nehru Nation Institute of Technology.  Park. Mobile Computing and Communications reviews 1999. “CMU Monarch extensions to the NS-2 simulator”. 2008. His research interests are in the area of ad hoc networking. In Communications in Computer and Information Science Springer. “Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) Routing”. .. J. You-Ze. Allahabad. i j c s t.J.Tech degree in computer science and engineering from Madhav Institute of Technology and Science. Jin-Su.. M. Corson. Johnson. ACM SIG MOBILE. RFC 2501. IETF Working Group Charter. Corson. Zou. c o m . IETF MANET Working Group. A.  Wei.. M.. M. “A survey of routing techniques for mobile communications networks”. In Proc.  Macker. Part 1.. Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Communication and Network. Charles E.vehicle Ad hoc Networks”. Hong. “Dynamic MANET On-Demand (DYMO) Routing”.J. in 2008. Vol. J. B. April 1997. A..  Corson. His research interests are in the area of ad hoc networking. Cho.. He is now pursuing the M..cmu. Scott 1997). IEEE.  Jiang. “A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks”. S. Qingting. IEEE transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2004. A. ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. B. 1994.  Chakeres. S. Protocols and Applications.  Johnson. and Wi-Fi networks. Perkins. He is currently interested in Telecommunication Technology Standards. [Online] Available: http://www. “Performance comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks”. J.  Broch.. html. IETF Internet-Draft. He is now pursuing the M.. Joseph P. of CCNC 2010 on Consumer Communication and Networking. “The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)”. GARCIA-LUNA-AVECES. L. Journal of Mobile Networks and Applications. Scott. S. Scott. V. “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”.E..Tech. [Online] Available : http://www. 5. Allahabad. Recent Trends in Wireless and Mobile Networks". Park. IETF RFC 3561. M. “A Routing Protocol for Radio Packet Networks”. 4. “Efficiency Evaluation and Comparison of Routing Protocols in MANETs”.  Blum. Oct. M.ietf.. on Mobile computing and networking. pp.IJCSt Vol. Perkins. November.  Macker. J. His research efforts are focused primarily on the WiMAX and LTE Networks. of ISISE-2008 Vol. IETF RFC 4728. C. Y. specifically routing in interconnected wireless/ wired network. Allahabad. Hu.J. “Performance Evaluation of AODV and DYMO Routing Protocols in MANET”.Sc. C.  Das. Corson. C. “Challenges of inter. E. 2001.H.edu/nsnam/ns/ tutorial/. 1. S.. 87-98. Lucknow in 2009.. Vol. Y-C. Available: http://monarch. Dong-Won. A.edu/cmuns. Eskandarian. pp. vol. M. Hoffman. 234-244. of IEEE INFOCOM 2000 Vol. D. UP in 2005 and MCA degree from UP Technical University. 3. pp.isi. 1995..charters/manet-charter. Mobile ad hoc networks (MANET). 2. H.. Volume 84. 8695. Jetcheva. Proc. D.S (2010). 1996. E.  Perkins.  CMU Monarch Group.. He is now pursuing the M.  Perkins. ByoungYoon (2010).  NS-2. R. E. Abdullah. 2. “Performance Comparison of Three Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks”. degree in Mathematics from Dr.cs. Hu. S. Maltz. “Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations”. INFOCOM'97. In Proceedings of MOBICOMM ’98.Tech degree in computer science from motilal nehru national Institute of Technology. “A Variant of Merkle Signature Scheme to Protect AODV Routing Protocol. Gopal Singh Kushwah received B. Pravin.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.