• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Performance analysis of manet routing protocol in presence
 

Performance analysis of manet routing protocol in presence

on

  • 686 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
686
Views on SlideShare
686
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Performance analysis of manet routing protocol in presence Performance analysis of manet routing protocol in presence Document Transcript

    • International Journal of Computer Engineering (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print), International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEMEand Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print) IJCETISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), pp. 160-165 ©IAEME© IAEME, http://www.iaeme.com/ijcet.html PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOL IN PRESENCE OF HYBRID TRAFFIC Archana Chougule Sr.Lecturer Army Institute of Technology Pune E-Mail: archanachougule2004@gmail.com Dr.Vijay Wadhai Professor & Dean of Research MITSOT, MAE Pune ABSTRACT: In this study we tested the average end to end delay and packet loss performance of Mobile Adhoc network (MANET) under hybrid traffic. Hybrid traffic is tested here which represent multimedia application. As data and voice are constant bit rate traffic (CBR) and video is variable bit rate traffic. So traffic used here is combination of variable bit rate (VBR) and CBR. Performance is compared by increasing vbr traffic sources. So average end to end delay is less when aodv routing protocol is used under hybrid traffic case. Also routing protocol aodv shows slightly large packet delivery ratio than other. Comparison of the protocols is done under different mobility condition with hybrid traffic. Keyword: Hybrid traffic, MANET, CBR, VBR 1. INTRODUCTION: As nodes are mobile in a MANET, links are created and destroyed in an unpredictable way, which makes quite challenging determination of routes between a pair of nodes that wants to communicate with each other. In this context large number of routing protocols have been proposed [2] [8][9].Such routing protocols are classified as proactive and reactive routing protocols. 160
    • International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print),ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEME In proactive protocols routing table is updated periodically and reactive protocolsare on demand when source wants to send data to destination then it finds the route.DSDV is proactive protocol and AODV, DSR are reactive protocol [2][8][7]. In this paper comparison of three routing protocols in MANET in the context ofhybrid traffic is shown. Hybrid traffic represents multimedia application which containsCBR and also VBR data. As CBR class is commonly used for voice and data services andVBR used for video. Here VBR video is artificially generated using on-off sources [4].These sources transmit at fixed rate during on periods and are silent during off period.The rest of paper is organized as follows: In section 2 parameters to implement network are explained. Section 3 presentssimulation results and analysis. Where as section 4 gives concluding remarks.2. PARAMETERS FOR THE NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION Network considered for simulation consist of 50 nodes that move over an area500 * 500 m2. The MAC layer protocol considered is 802.11b.The propagation modelused at the physical layer is Two-ray ground propagation. Request to send signal is kepton at MAC layer. Two important variable parameters are considered in network modelformation, one is node mobility and traffic type. The node mobility includes the nodes maximum and minimum speeds, speedpattern and pause time. Speed pattern determines whether node moves with constantspeed or speed is constantly varying. Pause time determines the length of time each noderemains stationary between each period of movement. In this work we have set speedbetween 0 to 20 m/s. Pause time takes value as 0 and 20 ms. To complete the model,number of sources, type of traffic and data rate of traffic is specified. Here traffic isgenerated by 20 sources. Traffic generated by these sources is varied as follows i) All twenty sources generate constant bit rate traffic ii) 50% sources generate constant bit rate traffic and 50 % sources generate variable bit rate traffic iii) 75% sources generate variable bit rate traffic and 25 % sources generate constant bit rate traffic iv) All twenty sources generate variable bit rate traffic 161
    • International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print),ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEMEAll cbr & vbr traffic has packet size 210 bytes.3. SIMULATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS To evaluate the impact of mobility and traffic on performance of protocol,simulation is carried out using ns-2.34. Performance of three protocols AODV, DSDV,DSR is checked under hybrid traffic. Quality of service parameter used to check theperformance of these protocols is average end to end delay and packet delivery ratio.Three set of experiments are carried out for two different pause time 0, 20 ms. In first setrouting protocol used by each node is AODV and performance parameter are measuredfor following traffic: i) 100% cbr, ii) 50% vbr +50 % cbr iii) 75% vbr+25% cbr iv) 100% vbr. In second set DSDV routing protocol is used and experiment carried out withabove four data traffic. Third set of experiment carried out in similar way with DSRprotocol.Average end to end delay: This parameter is measured in both cases pause time 0 & pause time 20 ms for 20traffic sources.Figure1 shows average end to end delay for pause time 0.Under cbr traffic delay provided by dsr protocol is less but as vbr sources increases in thenetwork average end to end delay due to aodv protocol is less. 162
    • International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print),ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEME Figure 1 Average end to end delay in pause 0 case Figure 2 shows the result for pause time 20.Under cbr traffic delay provided bydsr protocol is less. And as vbr sources increase within network aodv protocol transmitsdata with less delay. Figure 2 Average end to end delay in pause 20 caseWith increase in vbr sources in the network, significant increase in delay is observed.Performance of aodv under high mobility is better than low mobility.Packet delivery ratio: It is ratio of total data packet received successfully and total data packettransmitted. Here how packet delivery ratio varies according to data traffic type for 163
    • International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print),ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEMEparticular routing protocol within network is observed and which protocol give betterperformance is noted. Figure 3 shows the packet delivery ratio for pause time 0. Both reactive protocolsgives better packet delivery ratio for cbr traffic but packet delivery ratio due to dsr goeson decreasing as vbr traffic increases. Aodv gives better packet delivery ratio at high vbrtraffic. Figure 3 Packet delivery ratio in pause 0 case By varying the mobility of node simulation is carried out for packet deliveryparameter. Figure 4 shows the result for pause time 20 ms with low mobility. Figure 4 Packet delivery ratio in pause 20 case Packet delivery ratio of aodv is high compared to other two protocols in both lowand high mobility case for hybrid traffic. 164
    • International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print),ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online) Volume 1, Number 2, Sep - Oct (2010), © IAEME4. CONCLUSION: In this study we evaluated the performance of MANET using simulations withconstant bit rate traffic and variable bit rate traffic which is artificially generated video.The result shows the performance of aodv is consistent in both cbr, vbr traffic and also itis comparable in case of hybrid traffic. Also performance of aodv is comparable in lowand high mobility case with hybrid traffic. Still packet delivery ratio under hybrid trafficis very less so modification is required in aodv protocol.REFERENCES:1. A. Chaplot(2002), “A Simulation Study of Multi-Hop Wireless Network”, IEEE International Conference on Personal wireless Communications, pp. 86- 89,December 15-17.2. H. Tafazolli(2007), “A Survey of QoS Routing Solutions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 50–70.3. Ronald Beaubrun and Badji Molo(2010), “Using DSR for routing multimedia traffic in MANET”,International Journal of computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) vol.2, No.1.January4. Mehmet Özdem(2007), “Performance of distribution networks under VBR video traffic “, 1-4244-1029-0/07 IEEE.5. M. U. Chowdhury, D. Perera, T. Pham(2004), “A Performance Comparison of three Wireless Multi-hop Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocols when Streaming MPEG-4 Traffic”, In Proceedings of the 8th International Multitopic Conference, pp. 516-521 December 24-26 .6. T.D.Dyer (2003),”On routing Web and Multimedia traffic in mobile Ad hoc Networks”, In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences (HICSS03) -, Island of Hawaii, pages 10,January 6-8, 2003.7. “Ad hoc On Demand Distance vector (AODV) Routing protocol”, RFC 3561, WWW.irtf.org.8. Arun Kumar B. R., Lokanatha C. Reddy, Prakash.S.Hiremath (2008), “ A Survey of Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols” Journal of Intelligent System Research, 1(1) January-June 2008; pp. 49-64, Serials Publications, New Delhi. 165