Evaluating the performance of manet routing protocols

Uploaded on


  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEMECOMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print)ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online)Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), pp. 125-130 IJECET© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijecet.aspJournal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5930 (Calculated by GISI) ©IAEMEwww.jifactor.com EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS Saloni Singla1, Tripatjot Singh Panag2 1 (Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, RIMT-IET, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, INDIA,singla.saloni@gmail.com) 2 (Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering ,Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, INDIA, tripatjot.singh@bbsbec.ac.in) ABSTRACT A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self-constructing network of wireless devices connected by wireless links without any infrastructure. Every device that is involved in a MANET simulation is free to move independently in any direction of its choice. MANET nodes mounted on moving vehicles, wearable devices & as personal medical devices are showing significant applications in the field of ubiquitous healthcare. Performance of MANETs largely depends upon the routing mechanism & nature of mobility. The aim of this paper is to analyze the performance of various Manet routing protocols. Two reactive protocols (AODV, DSR), a proactive protocol (OLSR), a hybrid protocol (ZRP) have been evaluated by considering the Random walk mobility model. Simulations are carried out using OPNET simulator to evaluate the performance on the basis of throughput, Media access delay, and network load and retransmission attempts. Our experimental results show that ZRP protocol has optimized results as compared to other protocols. Keywords: AODV, DSR, MANET, OLSR, ZRP. 1. INTRODUCTION Mobile Ad Hoc Networks are autonomous and decentralized wireless systems. MANETs consist of mobile nodes that are free in moving in and out in the network. Nodes are the systems or devices that are participating in the network. These nodes can act as host/router or both at same time. These nodes have the ability to configure themselves and because of their self-configuration ability, they can be deployed urgently without the need of any infrastructure [1].That means the nodes themselves act as routers and new nodes can join, and other nodes can leave the network [2]. There are a number of studies which looked at the 125
  • 2. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEMEevaluation of a number of MANET routing protocols. [3] Compared DSR and TORA inOPNET where DSR performed better than TORA. The performance investigation ofreactive and proactive MANET routing protocols, namely AODV, DSR, TORA andOLSR is done [4]. It has been concluded that with regards to overall performance, AODVand OLSR performed pretty well. Effect of various mobility models on the performanceevaluation of MANET routing protocols is studied [5] and three random based mobilitymodels such as Random waypoint, Random walk and Random Directions wereimplemented. Based on the observations, it is suggested that AODV routing protocol canbe used under high mobility since it outperforms DSDV, TORA and DSRprotocols.Various ad hoc routing protocols have their unique characteristics. Hence, inorder to find out the most adaptive and efficient routing protocol for the highlydynamic topology in ad hoc networks, the routing protocols behavior has to beanalyzed using various metrics. Thus, the goal is to carry out a systematicperformance comparison of ad hoc routing protocols under Random walk mobilitymodel.Paper is organized as follow: section 2 introduces the random walk mobility model.Section 3 discusses the routing protocols used in the analysis. Section 4 describes theperformance metrics. Simulation parameters, results and discussions are given in section5 and finally section 6 presents the conclusion.2. RANDOM WALK MOBILITY MODEL In this mobility model, an MN moves from its current location to a new locationby randomly choosing a direction and speed in which to travel. The new speed anddirection are both chosen from pre-defined ranges, [speedmin, speedmax] and [0,2π]respectively [5]. Each movement in the Random Walk Mobility Model occurs in either aconstant time interval t or a constant distance traveled d, at the end of which a newdirection and speed are calculated. If an MN which moves according to this modelreaches a simulation boundary, it “bounces” off the simulation border with an angledetermined by the incoming direction. The MN then continues along this new path.3. ROUTING PROTOCOLS Routing is the act of moving information from a source to a destination in aninternetwork. Routing protocols use several metrics to calculate the best path for routingthe packets to its destination. Routing is mainly classified into static routing and dynamicrouting [6] and further classified into three major categories as proactive, reactive andhybrid protocols. Proactive or table-driven protocols attempt to maintain consistent up-to-date routing information from each node to every other node in the network. Reactive oron demand protocols creates routes only when a node requires a route to a destination, itinitiates a route discovery process, which ends when the route is found. Hybrid Routing[7][8] Protocols combine proactive protocols with reactive protocols. Temporary OrderedRouting Algorithm (TORA), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) are the examples of HybridProtocols. 126
  • 3. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEME3.1 AODV: The Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol is a reactiveprotocol based upon the distance vector algorithm. Whenever a node wants to try andfind a route to another node it broadcasts a Route Re-quest (RREQ) to all itsneighbors[9]. The RREQ propagates through the network until it reaches thedestination or the node with a fresh enough route to the destination. Then the routeis made available by uncasing a RREP back to the source.3.2 DSR: Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) belongs to the class of reactive protocols andallows to dynamically discovering a route across multiple network hops to anydestination. DSR uses no periodic routing of messages, thereby reducing networkbandwidth overhead, conserving battery power and avoiding large routing updatesthroughout the ad-hoc network [5].3.3 OLSR: Optimized Link State routing is a proactive link-state routing protocol, inwhich routes to all destinations within the network are known and maintained before use.Having the routes available within the standard routing table can be useful for somesystems and network applications as there is no route discovery delay associated withfinding a new route. The routing overhead generated, while generally greater than that ofa reactive protocol, does not increase with the number of routes being used.3.4 ZRP: The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) combines the advantages of both reactive andpro-active protocols into a hybrid scheme, taking advantage of pro-active discoverywithin a nodes local neighborhood, and using a reactive protocol for communicationbetween these neighborhoods.4. PERFORMANCE METRICSThe following performance metrics have been chosen to evaluate the performance.4.1 Throughput (bits/sec): This represents the total number of bits (in bits/sec) forwardedfrom wireless LAN layers to higher layers in all WLAN nodes of the network. It is thenumber of packets passing through the network in a unit of time.4.2 Media Access Delay (sec): When a packet is generated by a node, it takes some timeto place it on the transmission media. Media Access Delay is a time taken by a node toplace a packet on the transmission carrier 4.3 Network Load (bits/sec): This statistic represents the total data traffic (in bits/sec)received by the entire WLAN BSS from the higher layers of the MACs that is acceptedand queued for transmission.4.4 Retransmission Attempts (packets): Total number of retransmission attempts by allWLAN MACs in the network until either the packet is successfully transmitted or it isdiscarded as a result of reaching short or low retry limit. 127
  • 4. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEME5. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT In this section Simulations carried out by the OPNET [10] are presented .OPNET isan Object Oriented environment that is most powerful general purpose network simulator.5.1 Simulation parameters: Table 1 gives the wireless LAN simulation parameters: TABLE 1: Wireless LAN Parameters parameter Value parameter valueSimulation time 60 min (3600 s) Packet size 2048 bits Terrain area 1000 x 1000 m2 Fragmentation 1024 bits thresholdNumber of nodes 20 Routing protocols AODV,DSR,ZRP, OLSR Traffic type FTP Node placement Random5.2 Simulation Results5.2.1 Throughput: Simulation results in Fig. 1 show that ZRP gives the highest throughputbecause of its hybrid nature. For the neighbor nodes, ZRP act as a reactive protocol and forthe nodes other than the neighbor nodes, it works like the proactive protocol. AODV andDSR shows the least throughput because of their reactive nature in random walk since for thismodel, mobility is high and thus has to send more control packets to cache roots. Proactiveprotocol OLSR performs better than reactive protocol since it has prior routing tables and cansend more data packets in unit time.5.2.2 Retransmission attempts: In Random walk mobility model all the nodes movevigorously so the performance of OLSR degrades or has the max average retransmissionattempts. It is seen that the performance of AODV is also worse since it has to find the routeson demand. Each time nodes have to create routes to send data packets and most of the timethe timer (TTL) associated with each packet gets expired during the route creation. So thenode has to make another attempt to send the same packet. Although being reactive protocol,as shown in Fig.2 DSR has less retransmission attempts as compared to AODV because it hasa route maintenance mechanism in case of link failure and thus the no of attempts to sendpackets is reduced. ZRP outperforms all the protocols because of its hybrid nature since everynode has a route cache.5.2.3 Network Load: It has been seen that the hybrid protocol such that ZRP gives themaximum network load as shown in Fig. 3. ZRP protocol is able to deliver more data packetsto the destination than any other protocol due to its hybrid nature. Rest of the protocols suchas AODV, OLSR and DSR are outperformed by ZRP protocol.5.2.4 Media access Delay: Fig. 4 depicts that OLSR, as it is a proactive protocol the routesare predefined so it takes least time to place the packets on to the medium. AODV being areactive protocol possess higher delay than OLSR due to reinitializing the route floodingprocess every time while discovering new routes and determining changes in topology.Similarly DSR experiences even higher average delay as compared to AODV. ZRP beinghybrid in nature stood in the middle of both reactive and proactive protocols 128
  • 5. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEME Figure 1: Throughput Figure 2: Retransmission attempts Figure 3: Network load Figure 4: Media access delay6. CONCLUSION This paper studied the performance of the four widely used MANET routing protocols(AODV, DSR, OLSR, and ZRP) for Random walk mobility model. Results indicate that theHybrid protocol ZRP outperforms other protocols considering throughput, Retransmissionattempts and network load. Taking into account Media access delay proactive protocolperforms better than other protocols. Thus when delay is to be a minimized proactiveprotocol can be used.REFERENCES 1. V.Tolety “Load Reduction in Adhoc Networks UsingMobile Server”. Master Thesis, Colorado School of Mines 1999. 2. AzzedineBoukerche, “Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Adhoc Wireless networks”, Mobile Networks and Applications 9, p 333-342, 2004. 129
  • 6. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEME 3. Kaosar, Md. Golam; HafizmAsif, Tarek R. Sheltami, Ashrof S. Hasan Mahmoud – “Simulation – Based Comparative Study of on Demand Routing Protocols for MANET.” Department of Computer Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahvan 31261, USA 4. AshishShrestha and FiratTekiner, “On MANET Routing Protocols for Mobility and Scalability.” In International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies, p.p. 451-456, November 2009. IEEE Computer Society. 5. M.K. Jeya Kumar and R.S. Rajesh, “Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols in Different Mobility Models.” In IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, p.p. 22-29, VOL.9 No.2, February 2009. 6. FahimMaan, NaumanMazhar “MANET Routing Protocols vs. Mobility Models: Performance Analysis” , p.p. 179-184, 2011 7. Madhusudan Singh1, San Gon Lee, Dhananjay Singh3 Hoon Jae Lee”Impact and Performance of Mobility Models in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks” Fourth International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology 2009 8. Bas¸ak Oztas, Tolga Kurt, Emin Anarım “A Survey of Social Based Mobility Models for Ad hoc Networks” 2011 9. Samir. R. Das, R. Castaneda and J.Yan. “Simulation based Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”ACM/Baltzer Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), pp 179-189, 2000. 10. Xinjie Chang, “NETWORK SIMULATIONS WITH OPNET.” In Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference, Pages 307-314, 1999 11. Sunita Kushwaha, Bhavna Narain, Deepti Verma and Sanjay kumar, “Effect Of Scenario Environment On The Performance Of Manets Routing Protocol: AODV” International journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 33 - 38, Published by IAEME. 12. Rakesh Kumar, Dr Piush Verma and Dr Yaduvir Singh, “A Review And Comparison Of Manet Protocols With Secure Routing Scheme Developed Using Evolutionary Algorithms” International journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 167 - 180, Published by IAEME. 13. Shah Vrutik, Dr.Nilesh Modi and Patani Ashwin, “AODVGAP-An Acknowledgment Based Approach To Mitigate Selective Forwarding Attacks In Manet” International journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 458 - 469, Published by IAEME. 14. S.Sridhar and P.Chandrasekar, “A Survey On Trust Based Routing In Manet” International journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 213 - 222, Published by IAEME. 130