Download a novel approach of aodv for stability and energy efficient routing for

ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
A NOVEL APPROACH OF AODV FOR STABILITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENT
ROUTING FOR MANET USING IPV6
Shival Chadda
Mritunjay Kumar Rai
Department of Computer Science
Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, Punjab, India
Email: [email protected]
Department of Computer Science
Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, Punjab, India
Email: [email protected]
Abstract---In a mobile ad hoc network
(MANET), the topology of the network may change
rapidly and unexpectedly due to mobility of nodes. Thus,
setting up routes that meet high reliability is a very
challenging issue. Another important problem in the
MANETs is the energy consumption of nodes. This paper
presents experiments on the performance and stability of
the AODV protocol (Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector
protocol) in multi-hop ad hoc networks. We study the
network performance such as throughput, delivery ratio,
and end-to end delay. After this experimental study of the
problems that may arise in this type of communication
and its origins, we conclude that better performance is
possible with the modification of some of the protocol´s
parameters, without modifying the protocol algorithm.
Applying these changes, experimental tests show an
improvement in the performance of the protocol.
Keywords----Mobile
Ad-hoc
Networks,
Routing
Protocols, Energy efficiency, Stability, AODV, IPv6.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A mobile ad hoc network lacks a fixed
infrastructure and has a dynamically changing
topology. The nodes move freely and independently
of one another. Ad hoc networks are heavily used in
emergency situations where no infrastructure is
available, for e.g. battle fields, disaster mitigation etc.
The main limitation of ad-hoc systems is the
Availability of power. In addition to running the
onboard electronics, power consumption is governed
by the number of processes and overheads required to
maintain connectivity [1].
With the rapid development in wireless
communications in recent years, the necessity for
sufficient Internet protocol (IP) addresses to meet the
demand of mobile devices, as well as flexible
communications without infrastructure, are especially
considerable. The next-generation IP, Internet
Additionally, most current mobile devices are
equipped with IEEE 802.11 wireless local area
network (WLAN) interface cards. IEEE 802.11
WLAN supports two operating modes: infrastructure
mode and ad hoc mode. The infrastructure mode
requires all mobile devices to directly communicate
to the access point (single-hop communication). In
the ad hoc mode, mobile devices dynamically form a
mobile ad hoc network (MANET) with multi-hop
routing. Clearly, the ad hoc mode allows for a more
flexible network, but its aim is not to connect to the
Internet. In this paper, we address the issue of
connecting MANETs to global IPv6 networks while
supporting IPv6 mobility with AODV.
Much attention has been paid to IP address auto
configuration and IPv6 extension for MANETs [3]–
[5] in recent years. IPv6 auto configuration
mechanism [3], [4] allows a node to generate a linklocal IP address. Extension has also been made to be
suitable for MANET [5]. However, global
connectivity for a mobile node is not supported in
[5]. Later on, [6] and [7] address how to provide
global connectivity for an IPv6-enabled MANET. In
these works, a MANET node can acquire a global
IPv6 address from an Internet gateway, and then
access to the Internet through the gateway. Routing in
MANETs and the IPv6 network is based on existing
protocol.
The next-generation IP, Internet Protocol version
6 (IPv6) [14], [15], provides sufficient IP addresses
to enable all kinds of devices to connect to the
Internet and promotes mobile wireless commerce (mcommerce). The IPv6-enabled network architecture
will become the future standard. Additionally, most
current mobile devices are equipped with IEEE
802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN) interface
cards. IEEE 802.11 WLAN supports two operating
modes: infrastructure mode and ad hoc mode.
Protocol version 6 (IPv6) [1], [2], provides
sufficient IP addresses to enable all kinds of devices
to connect to the Internet and promotes mobile
wireless commerce (m-commerce). The IPv6-enabled
network architecture will become the future standard.
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
1071
ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
Fig 1: A self-organizing, self-addressing, self-routing IPv6-based
MANET.
The routing protocols that are available for
MANET comprise proactive (table driven), reactive
(on demand) and hybrid routing protocols. Popular
proactive routing protocols are highly dynamic
Destination- Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and
Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR)
while reactive routing protocols include Ad hoc on
demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic
Source Routing (DSR). An example of a hybrid
routing protocol is Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP).
AODV meets the MANET requirements for dynamic,
self-starting, multi-hop routing between participating
mobile nodes wishing to establish and maintain an ad
hoc network [8].
AODV is an on demand routing protocol,
that is, it builds routes between nodes only as desired
by source nodes. It maintains these routes as long as
they are needed by the sources [9]. Nodes maintain a
route cache and use a destination sequence number
for each route entry. The fact that a node in AODV
seeks information about the network only when
needed reduces overhead since nodes do not have to
maintain unnecessary route information while the use
of a sequence number ensures loop freedom. This
paper discusses the effects of packet size on the
AODV routing protocol implementation in
homogenous and heterogeneous MANET.
Rest of the paper is organized as: Section-II, related
work. Section-III provides methodology, Section IV
provides simulation results and observation and
Section-V concludes the paper with future work.
II. RELATED WORK
other nodes in the network to find route. The RREQ
is broadcasted to entire network so every neighbor
nodes will receive and process it. All the nodes which
receive the RREQ for the first time check its routing
table for route. If there is route, it unicasts the RREP
to the source, else it will rebroadcast the RREQ to its
neighbors. If the RREQ is not the first time, it will
silently discard the RREQ and If the node is the
destination, it unicasts the RREQ to the source. When
the source node gets the RREP, it starts sending the
packet to the destination. When a route has been
established, it is being maintained by the source node
as long as the route is needed. If any of the
intermediate nodes losses connectivity, the RERR
will be sent to the source and the source sends
packets through the alternate paths or it will restart
the route discovery process. Thus the route discovery
process leads to energy consumption in all nodes.
Fig 2: Route discovery process
AODV specifies two different ways in
which a link break can be detected. Either all nodes
regularly broadcast a „hello‟ message to its one-hop
neighbors, which makes it possible for them to verify
the link operation, or it is detected by a link signaling
mechanism when the link is used. When a link break
is detected the end nodes (source and destination) are
informed and it is up to them to find a new path.
To reduce the route request broadcast storms the
route discovery can be performed using an expanding
ring search. In an expanding ring search the route
discovery area is limited by the Time to live (TTL)
field in the IP header. A sequence of route requests
are performed with increasing TTL until the
destination is found or a set limit is reached. If a state
route to the destination is available that hop count can
be used as an initial TTL limit.
There has been significant work on routing in
MANETs [3] [4]. AODV is an on-demand driven
protocol which finds routes between a source
destination pair only when it is required. Traditional
AODV extensively uses blind flooding for
forwarding the RREQ packets from source to all
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
1072
ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
Table 1: Simulation Settings
III. METHODOLOGY
The tests were carried out using the AODV protocol
using Opnet 14.5.We apply changes in the AODV
parameters in different scenarios. We study the
network performance such as throughput, delivery
ratio, and end-to end delay.
A. Performance Metrics
In order to evaluate the performances of
three MANET protocols, several metrics need to
consider. These metrics reflect how efficiently the
data is delivered. In epidemic routing, multiple copies
may be delivered to the destination. According to the
literatures [10], [11], [12] and [13], some of these
metrics are suggested by the MANET working group
for routing protocol evaluation.
(a) Packet Delivery Ratio
The ratio between the number of packets
originated by the application layer CBR sources and
the number of packets received by the CBR sink at
the final destination.
(b) Average End-to-end Delay
This includes all the possible delays caused
by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing
at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the
MAC, and propagation and transfer times.
(c) Packet Dropped
The routers might fail to deliver or drop
some packets or data if they arrive when their buffer
are already full. Some, none, or all the packets or data
might be dropped, depending on the state of the
network, and it is impossible to determine what will
happen in advance.
(d) Routing Load
The total number of routing packets
transmitted during the simulation. For packets sent
over multiple hops, each transmission of the packet
or each hop counts as one transmission.
(e) Throughput
The total successfully received packet to the
destination. In the other words, the aggregate
throughput is the sum of the data rates that are
delivered to all nodes in a network.
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
Parameter
Simulation time
Number of nodes
Data rate
Environment size
Traffic type
Minimum Speed
Maximum Speed
Packet size
Network protocol
Transport Protocol
Propagation Model
MAC protocol
Value
1000 sec
20,50,100
2 Mbps
100*100 meters
Constant
Bit
(CBR)
0 sec
10,15,20
512
IP
TCP
Random Way
Model
802.11
Rate
Point
B. Simulation Parameters
The simulation parameters that have been
used can be divided to two types that are: general
simulation parameters and simulation parameters for
every protocol. All of this parameters are common
parameters and been used by many researcher. We do
some modification in these parameters and
simulation shows better results.
We have used network simulator OPNET
for simulation. We simulated network in order to
compare performance of routing protocols between
AODV and improved AODV ipv6. We have used
average throughput as performance parameters while
varying various network parameter such as number of
nodes and TTL parameters, node speed in 100*100
meter environment.
IV SIMULATION RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
We have analyzed the performance of a
AODV by creating different scenario in Opnet
Modeler 14.5. Traffic of the AODV is evaluated in
presence source and destination on the same distance
of both scenarios. For the experimental results 20,
50,100 nodes are configured in these scenarios. Two
mobility nodes are configured in both scenarios to
represent mobile Ad-hoc network. In these scenarios
we give IP address of source and destination node.
Other nodes having auto IP
We have done simulation work for our
approach for AODV in OPNET 14.5. The simulation
result shows that our approach gives more efficient
than the existing.
1073
ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
We have three scenarios as shown in the figure and
we apply our approach on all these according to the
number of nodes. The simulation shows better results
and also as number of nodes increasing throughput
increases.
the network is increase as compare to fewer nodes
used in network with our approach of using ipv6 and
changing parameters.
A Simulation Environments
(a) 20 nodes
(a) 20 nodes
(a) 50 nodes
(b) 50 nodes
(c ) 100 nodes
(c) 100 nodes
Fig 3: OPNET simulate in the area of 100x100 m
2
B. Throughput
Throughput is number of bits transmitted between
source and destination per unit time. To be able to
relate this number to the desired outcome the
throughput is presented as a ratio between transmitted
packets and delivered packets. Simulation results
show that in each scenario our approach with ipv6
gives better result than the conventional AODV. In
these scenarios routing traffic sent by AODV in
bit/sec is gathered. In these scenarios we analyzed the
when we used large node in network throughput of
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
Fig 4: Simulation of Average WLAN Throughput in the area of
100x100 m2
C. Average end to end delay
There is minor improvement in average end to end
delay as simulation result
shows.
Fig 5: Simulation of Average end to end delay
1074
ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
D. Route Discovery Time
say when we used large nodes in network routing
load also increase in that network.
Route discovery time decreases as nodes increases
F. Average Packet Dropped
(a) 20 nodes
Fig 8: Simulation of Average WLAN Load
Average packed dropped as simulation result shows
with increasing number of nodes.
V CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
(b) 50 nodes
Fig 6: Simulation of Route Discovery Time
E. Average WLAN Load
In simulation the analysis of AODV with
ipv6 and changing parameters of using different
network size in Opnet 14.5 gives improved result.
But throughput and routing load is preferable in large
network size. We concluded our approach AODV
works better than existing AODV and giving more
lifetimes to the network. We observe that an increase
in network size and number of nodes has similar
impact on all protocols under various environments..
In this simulation study, we have not used
large no of nodes and simulation time was 1000s.
Increasing both of them will increase computational
time which was limited due to various reasons. Thus,
in future we will carry out more vigorous simulation
so as to gain better understanding of such networks
and subsequently helps in development of new
protocols or modification in existing protocols.
.
(a) 50 nodes
REFERENCES
[1]
S. Deering and R. Hinden, “Internet protocol, version 6
(IPv6) specification,” IETF, RFC 2460, 1998.
[2]
Hinden, R. Hindon, and S. Deering, “Internet protocol
version 6 addressing architecture,” IETF, RFC 3513, 2003.
[3] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and W. Simpson, “Neighbor
discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6),” IETF, RFC2461, 1998.
(b) 100 nodes
Fig 7: Simulation of Average WLAN Load
In all scenarios we observed that routing
load is decreases in improved AODV parameters
with increase of traffic and ipv6. In other words we
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
[4]
S. Thomson and T. Narten, “IPv6 stateless address
autoconfiguration,” IETF, RFC 2462, 1998.
[5] C. Perkins, J. Malinen, R. Wakikawa, E. Belding-Royer, and
Y. Sun, “IP address autoconfiguration for ad hoc networks,” IETF
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-autoconf-01.txt, 2001.
1075
ISSN:2229-6093
Shival Chadda et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 3 (3), 1071-1076
[6]
R. Wakikawa, J. Malinen, C. Perkins, A. Nilsson, and A.
Tuominen, “Global connectivity for IPv6 mobile ad hoc
networks,” IETF Internet Draft, draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv603.txt, 2003.
[7] I. K. Park, Y. H. Kim, and S. S. Lee, “IPv6 address allocation
in hybrid mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Workshop
Softw. Technol. Embedded Ubiquitous Comput. Syst., May 2004,
pp. 58–62.
[8]
A.B. Malany , V.R.S. Dhulipala, R.M.Chandrasekaran ,
“Throughput and Delay Comparison of MANET Routing
Protocols”, Int. J. Open Problems Compt. Math., ICSRS
Publications , ISSN 1998-6262,Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2009, pp.
461-468.
[9]
M. Ramakrishnan, M.A. Baghyavenil, S. Shanmugavell,
“Dynamic Reconfigurable Routing for High throughput in
MANET”, IEEE - ICSCN 2007, 22-24 February 2007, MIT
Campus, Anna University, Chennai, India, pp.541-544.
[10] Josh Broach, David A.Maltz, David B.Johson, Yih-Chun Hu
and Jorjeta Jetcheva (1998). A Performance Comparison of Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols. Proc. of
MobiCom. Texas. USA,1998.
[11] Sampo Naski” Performance of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols:
Characteristics and Comparison”, Seminar on Internetworking.
Helsinki University of Technology,2004.
[12] Mamoun Hussein Mamon (2007). “Important Characteristic
of Differences between DSR and AODV Routing Protocol”. MCN
Conference,2007.
[13] Bu Sung Lee, Mai Ngoc San, Teck Meng Lim, Chai Kiat
Yeo & Boon Chong Seet (2006). “Processing Delay as a New
Metric for On-Demand Mobile Ad Hoc”,2006.
[14]
S. Deering ,R. Hinden, “Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6)
specification,” IETF, RFC 2460, 1998.
[15] Hinden, R. Hindon, , S. Deering, “Internet protocol version 6
addressing architecture,” IETF, RFC 3513, 2003.
IJCTA | MAY-JUNE 2012
Available [email protected]
1076