* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Simulation was carried out with the help of ns 2.29
Survey
Document related concepts
Asynchronous Transfer Mode wikipedia , lookup
Backpressure routing wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Multiprotocol Label Switching wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Wake-on-LAN wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
List of wireless community networks by region wikipedia , lookup
Packet switching wikipedia , lookup
Peer-to-peer wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
International Conference On Emerging Trends In Engineering, 14th October 2012 ICETIE/154 Performance Evaluation of Reactive Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Network Harish Rohil1, Seema Nandal2 Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Application Chaudhary DeviLal University, Sirsa1 Research Scholar Mtech., Department of Computer Science and Application Chaudhary DeviLal University, Sirsa2 [email protected] ,[email protected] Abstract- Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of mobile nodes that are arbitrarily located so that the interconnections between nodes are dynamically changing. In MANET mobile nodes forms a temporary network without the use of any existing network infrastructure or centralized administration. A routing protocol is used to find routes between mobile nodes to facilitate communication within the network. The main goal of such an ad hoc network routing protocol is to establish correct and efficient route between a pair of mobile nodes so that messages delivered within the active route timeout interval. Route should be discovered and maintained with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. Routing is a critical issue in MANET. Most of the on demand routing protocols for Manets namely AODV and DSR perform well with uniform output under low network load, mobility, traffic sources. This paper presents performance evaluation of each of these protocols under large number of traffic sources, greater mobility with lesser pause time and varying offered load. Also the metrics taken into account are: Average throughput, End to end delay, Packet delivery ratio. On the basis of the obtained results the performances of the above-mentioned on demand routing protocols for Manet is compared using network simulator-2 (NS2). Index Terms- MANET, DSR, AODV, Throughput, Average end-to-end delay, Packet delivery ratio I. INTRODUCTION Mobile Ad-hoc networks (MANETs) consist of a set of mobile nodes operating without centralized administration communicating over a wireless interface. The field of mobile ad-hoc networking grew out of packet radio networks. In MANETs, the nodes are selforganized; they may move and join or leave the network without central controlling entities (e.g. access points or base stations). In MANETs multihop scenario occurs, where the packets sent by the source host reaches destination host through several intermediate hosts. Dynamic discovery is done by individual node so for direct communication with other node. MANET applications are now a days used especially in military and in emergencies, entertainments and outdoor business environments where centralized administration is difficult and expensive to install. One of the important research areas in MANET is establishing and maintaining the ad hoc network through the use of routing protocols. Though there are so many routing protocols available, this paper considers DSR and AODV for performance comparisons due to varying offered load. The purpose of simulation is to observe that how these protocols affect the performance of networks in Random way point model. Performance evaluation of these protocols is carried out with respect to parameters – Throughput, Packet delivery ratio, End to End delayand the effect of varying number of mobile nodes is also considered in the evaluation since no such analysis is available in the literature. II. RELATED WORK Shrestha, F. Tekiner et al [3] used Random mobility and scalability aspects to analyze the performance of the AODV, OLSR and TORA routing protocol. OPNET modeler 14.5 is used for simulation. Throughput analysis of the selected protocols concluded TORA shows poor throughput than AODV and OLSR. AODV resulted in good efficiency over heavy traffic than OLSR and TORA. Ashish K. Maurya, Dinesh Singh et al [4] evaluated performance of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocol with respect to pause time. AODV shows best performance when compared with DSR and ZRP in terms of packet delivery ratio and throughput. AODV delivers more than 60 percent of all CBR packets when network is presented as a function of pause time. Performance may vary by varying the network and can ICETIE/154 International Conference On Emerging Trends In Engineering, 14th October 2012 show different results when compared with different network scenarios. S. Sathish, K. Thangavel and S. Boopathi et al [6] presented a performance comparison of DSR, AODV, FSR and ZRP routing protocols for mobile Ad-hoc networks as a function of pause time. DSR shows best performance than AODV, FSR and ZRP in terms of packet delivery ratio and throughput as a function of pause time. FSR show lowest end-to-end delay and ZRP has less average jittering than DSR, AODV and FSR. DSR and AODV performed the worst in case of average jitter and ZRP performed the worst in case of throughput. Samir R. Das and Jiangtao Yan et al [7] evaluate several routing protocols for manet with respect to fraction of packets delivered, end-to-end delay, and routing load for a given traffic and mobility model. The proactive, shortest path protocols provide excellent performance in terms of end-to- end delays and packet delivery fraction, however, at the cost of higher routing load. The ondemand protocols suffer from suboptimal routes as well as worse packet delivery fraction because of more dropped data packets. However, they are significantly more efficient in terms of the routing load. III. OVERVIEW OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS Proactive (table driven) Routing Protocols Proactive routing protocols maintain the routing information of all the participating nodes and update their routing information frequently irrespective of the routing requests. Proactive routing protocols transmit control messages to all the nodes and update their routing information even if there is no actual routing request. This makes proactive routing protocols bandwidth deficient, though the routing itself is simple having this prior updated routing information. The major drawback of proactive protocols is the heavy load created from the need to flood the network with control messages. Reactive (On demand) Protocols Reactive protocols establish the route only when it is required unlike the proactive protocols these protocols do not update their routing information frequently and will not maintain the network topology information. Reactive protocols use the connection establishment process for communication. Few pitfalls are noticed in these reactive protocols such as these generally have high latency in searching the network. In finding the routes if there is excessive flooding over the network with route request packets it may result in network clogging. a. Dynamic Source Routing Dynamic source routing protocol (DSR) is a reactive protocol that is known as simple and efficient, specially designed for the multi-hop mobile ad hoc network. Often called “On-demand” routing protocol as it involves determining the routing on demand unlike the pro- active routing protocols that has periodic network information. Network nodes use multiple- hops to communicate, DSR protocol plays a key role in determining and maintaining all the routing automatically as the number of hops needed changes at anytime and the mobile nodes involved may leave or join the network. DSR protocol involves two major mechanisms to establish the routing process. These are route discovery and route maintenance. Route Discovery Route discovery is the process of DSR uses to find the route and to transmit the data from a source to destination where the source node is unaware of the destination route. Initially source node transmits 'RREQ' (Route Request) will usually be received by all the participating nodes in the network. This Route request contains information about the source and the destination along with unique request identification. RREQ even maintains the information about all the intermediate nodes passed by while reaching the destination. ‘RREP’ contains a copy of the route information of the RREQ then the source cache information to use in further communication process. Route Maintenance DSR protocol implements the route maintenance mechanism while communicating the packets from source to destination. But when the communication link between the source and the destination is broken or else a change in network topology is noticed. It will lead to failure of the communication between source node and destination node. If the route maintenance fails to find an alternative known route to establish the communication then it will invoke the route discovery to find the new route to destination. b. AODV(Ad-hoc on demand distance vector) International Conference On Emerging Trends In Engineering, 14th October 2012 ICETIE/154 AODV is an on-demand routing protocol. The AODV algorithm gives an easy way to get change in the link situation. For example if a link fails notifications are sent only to the affected nodes in the network. This notification cancels all the routes through this affected node. It builds unicast routes from source to destination and that’s why the network usage is least. Since the routes are build on demand so the network traffic is minimum. AODV does not allow keeping extra routing which is not in use. If two nodes wish to establish a connection in an ad hoc network then AODV is responsible to enable them to build a multihop route. AODV uses Destination Sequence Numbers (DSN) to avoid counting to infinity that is why it is loop free. This is the characteristic of this algorithm. When a node send request to a destination, it sends its DSNs together with all routing information. It simply means that the AODV not blindly forwarded every message. The number of hops of routing messages in ad hoc network is determined by Time-To-Live (TTL) in the IP header. This information will be used to make a reverse path for RREP message from the destination node. When a link is failed an RERR message is generated. RERR message contains information about nodes that are not reachable. IV. SIMULATION RESULT AND ANALYSIS Simulation was carried out with the help of ns 2.29 simulator. Three scenarios were considered to analyze Average Throughput, End-to-End delay and packet delivery ratio with varying traffic load and network load. Each of the mobile nodes select a random destination at the specified time and moves towards it. The simulation ends just one second before the total simulation time, which is taken to be 400 seconds. When the packet size was further increased to 2048 bytes, there was a lot of network congestion and both of the protocols failed to deliver any results. Following table gives a glance of the simulator parameters. Mobility Model Random way point Simulation time 400s Protocols DSR,AODV No. of Mobile Nodes 40,80,100 No. of Traffic sources 20,27,30 Type of traffic TCP Nodes Speed (0-20) m/s Table 1. a. Packet Delivery Ratio: Packet delivery ratio is the fraction of packets sent by the application that are received by the receivers and is calculated by dividing the number of packets received by the destination through the number of packets originated by the application layer of the source. For better performance of a routing protocol, it should be better [16]. Packet delivery ratio decreases as the packet size increases. AODV shows better results than DSR as the packet size increases. Figure 1 b. Average Throughput The throughput is defined as the total amount of data a receiver receives from the sender divided by the time it takes for the receiver to get the last packet. The throughput is measured in bits per second (bit/s or bps) [15]. One can clearly notice that the average throughput of generating packets for AODV increases as the packet size keeps increasing. International Conference On Emerging Trends In Engineering, 14th October 2012 ICETIE/154 REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] Figure 2. c. End-to-End delay: End-to-end delay indicates how long it a packet takes to travel from the CBR source to the application layer of the destination. [14]. This graph shows that average simulation end to end delay of DSR goes on increasing as the packet size increases. V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE On the basis of result, it was concluded that as the packet size is increased the end-to-end delay of AODV is lesser than that of DSR for larger number of nodes; average throughput of generating packets for DSR is larger than that of AODV for larger number of Nodes and traffic sources. However the average throughput of generating packets for AODV is greater when the numbers of nodes are 40 and 80. Delay is an important metric which decides the efficiency of the routing protocol. DSR (Dynamic source routing) protocol is not a winner when it comes to the large size of the network. The end-to-end delay is increased when the packet size is increased. The degraded performance might be because of the aggressive use of caching. We need to evaluate these protocols AODV, DSR using different mobility models: Reference Point Group Mobility, Freeway, Manhattan. Also none of these protocols have any mechanism for load balancing, so there is much scope related to this work. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] C.Sivaram murthy, B.S.Manoj, “Adhoc wireless networks: Architectures, and protocols”, Pearson Education, 2004. D. Johnson, D. Maltz and Yih-Chun Hu. “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,”http://www.ietf.org/internetdrafts/draftietfmanet- DSR- 09.txt, IETF Internet draft, Apr. 2003. F. Tekiner, A. Shrestha, "On Manet Routing Protocols for Scalability and Mobility", PDCAT ,911 Hiroshima, Japan, December 2009. Ashish K. Maurya , Dinesh Singh, “Simulation based Performance Comparison of AODV, FSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET ”, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 12– No.2, November 2010. Ayyaswamy Kathirvel, and Rengaramanujam Srinivasan “Analysis of Propagation Model using Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”, International Journal of Research and Reviews in Computer Science (IJRRCS), Vol. 1, No. 1,2007. S. Sathish, K. Thangavel and S. Boopathi, “Performance Analysis of DSR, AODV, FSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET”, MES Journal of Technology and Management, 2010. Samir R. Das, Robert C. and Jiangtao Yan, “ Simulation-based performance evaluation of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks”, Mobile Networks and Applications 179–189, 2000. Idris Skloul Ibrahim A. Etorban Dr Peter J.B King, “Multipath Distance Vector Zone Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks MDVZRP,” PGnet 2008, John Moores University, pages 171-176, July 2008. T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, “A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research,” Wireless Communication and Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Research, Trends and Applications, vol. 2, no. 5,pp. 483–502, 2002. NS -2, The ns Manual, Available at http: //www. isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc. David Oliver Jorg, “Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network Sizes”, Computer Science Project, Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics.