Gi3112131218
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Gi3112131218

  • 401 views
Uploaded on

IJERA (International journal of Engineering Research and Applications) is International online, ... peer reviewed journal. For more detail or submit your article, please visit www.ijera.com

IJERA (International journal of Engineering Research and Applications) is International online, ... peer reviewed journal. For more detail or submit your article, please visit www.ijera.com

  • 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

Views

Total Views
401
On Slideshare
401
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218 Simulation of energy consumption analysis of multi-hop 802.11 wireless ad-hoc networks on reactive routing protocols Dharam Vir*, Dr. S.K.Agarwal**, Dr. S.A.Imam*** *(Research Scholar, Department of Electronics Engineering, YMCA UST, Faridabad, India) ** ( Professor, Department of Electronics Engineering, YMCA UST, Faridabad, India) ***(Astt. Professor, Department of Electronics & Comm. Engineering, JMI, New Delhi, India)ABSTRACT In this paper we compare energy destination node is multi-hop away from the source.consumption in multi-hop IEEE 802.11 wireless Thus each node here acts as a router when thead-hoc networks using different routing protocols situation demands. In an ad hoc network, one of theand various TCP/IP topologies. The performance major concerns is how to decrease the power usagecosting of three MANET routing protocols: such or battery depletion level of each node among theas STAR, RIP and OLSR based on multi-hop network so that the overall lifetime of the networkIEEE 802.11 through simulator. When a source can be stretched as much as possible. So while thenode has data to send to a destination node, if data packets are sent from source to destination,does not have the same route, than it will initiate special routing strategies need to be adopted toa broadcast route-query process. The minimize the battery depletion level of theimplementation was achieved over a real-world intermediate nodes. This paper addresses theconsidering some vital metrics with application, comparison of different routing protocols at physicalMAC and physical layer model to define the layer of TCP/IP in network layers using omniperformance effectiveness of routing protocols. directional antenna and considers the battery powerPerformance is analyzed and compared on of each node as important criteria while determiningperformance measuring metrics like average the route for data packet transmission. We focus onjitter, throughput, average end to end delay, the energy performance measuring metrics likeEnergy consumed (mjules) in transmit, received Energy consumed ( in mjules) in transmit mode,and ideal modes, in different mobility models Energy consumed (in mjules) in recived mode,with varying CBR traffic load and then their Energy Consumed (in mjules) in ideal mode inperformance is compared using QualNet 5.0 different mobility with varying CBR traffic loadnetwork simulator. depletion of the nodes. Evaluating the winner performer among onKeywords - Ad hoc network, STAR, RIP, OLSR demand routing protocols STAR, RIP and OLSRQualNet 5.0 based on IEEE 802.11 through simulation different mobility models and varying CBR nodes results areI. INTRODUCTION scrutinized to provide qualitative assessment of the The Wireless Sensor Networks are a applicability of the protocols. The mobility modelvaluable technology to support countless uses the File, Group and random waypoint model inapplications in different areas, such as: monitoring, a rectangular field where 30 nodes are placedenvironmental, habitat, surveillance, indoor climate randomly over the region of 1500m x1500m. To testcontrol, structural monitoring, medical diagnostics, competence and effectiveness of all three routingmapping and disaster management and so on. All of protocols comparison is done by means differentabove defined as special type of multi-hop ad-hoc mobility models varying number of Nodes andnetworks (MANETs) [1], since they share a number different mobility.of common characteristics. MANETs are wirelessnetworks also known as”networks without a A. Factors affecting performance of MANETnetwork” since they do not use any fixed Bandwidth constraints and variable linkinfrastructure. Participating nodes in these networks capacity: Wireless link usually has lower capacityare typically battery operated, and thus have access than wired link. Due to multi path fading, noise andto a limited amount of energy. Besides being power signal interference, wireless link is very unstable.constrained, network nodes often have exhibit Obstacles in environments also affect the wirelessadditional constrains, e.g., they typically have a link. Error always bursts on wireless link as opposedlimited processing, storage and communications to flat bit error rate on wired link [3].capabilities [2].The mobile hosts depends on the Dynamic topology: [4] [5] Because of node mobilityassistance of the other node in the network to a node can join, stay and leave the network. Soforward a packet to the destination in case the network topology should be adaptive to current 1213 | P a g e
  • 2. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218location of nodes. Depletion of battery capacity can applications such as email and web browsing alsoalso cause node failure. As all nodes adjust their make assumptions that are inappropriate for thepower level dynamically, some new links between MANET environment.two nodes are established and some old ones are One exception is that analyzes an energy conservingbroken. Thus the network topology should be MAC protocol for ad hoc networks. In simulation,constructed on the fly depending on all these facts. the protocol provides energy savings of 10–70%.Topology management is a hard issue in MANET. Further work [6].Mobility: The mobility of the nodes affects thenumber of average connected paths, which in turn A. OVERVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOLSaffect the performance of the routing algorithm, Routing is the process of finding a pathnode density and length of data paths. Density is from a source to some arbitrary destination on theincreased the throughput of the network shall network. The broadcasting [10] [11] is inevitableincrease [6]. and a common operation in ad-hoc network. It Energy constraints: The major affects consists of diffusing a message from a source nodeenergy because nodes are battery operated and to to all the nodes in the network. Broadcast can beminimize the total energy consumption of the nodes. used to diffuse information to the whole network. ItPerformance of the nodes increases when minimize is also used for route discovery protocols in ad-hocthe total energy consumption as well as minimize networks. The routing protocols are classified asthe total number of collision [7]. follows on the basis of the way the network Multi-hop communication: Another issue information is obtained in these routing protocols.because of transmission power limit, a node willcommunicate with the nodes outside its transmission 1) Table Driven Routing Protocols:range via intermediate nodes [8]. It is also known as proactive routing Limited physical security: Wireless protocols. In these protocols the routing informationnetwork is less secure than wired network in natural. is stored in the form of tables maintained by eachLacks of central authority and there are limited node. These tables need to be updated due tocomputation and power capacity in each node [8] frequent change in the topology of the network.[9]. These protocols are used where the route requests This paper compares the performance of are frequent. For example Destination sequencedreactive routing protocols under the effect of Distance vector routing (DSDV), Source Treemobility. To find the effect of Reactive routing Adaptive Routing (STAR), RIP, OLSR etc [12].protocols in various mobility model such as group,file and random waypoint mobility models are 2) On Demand Routing Protocols:considered. The rest of this paper is organized as It is also known as reactive protocols.follows: in section II brief introductions related These protocols start the routing process whenever awork to various routing protocols techniques is node requires otherwise the network is ideal. Thesediscussed. In section III Simulation setup and are generally considered efficient, where the routeplatform used in this work is discussed. In section discovery is required to be less frequent. This makesIV the results of the performance evaluation are them more suitable to the network with light trafficthoroughly discussed. Conclusion and Future work and low mobility. For example Ad-Hoc On-demandof paper given in section V. Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) etc [9].II. RELATED WORKS AND OVERVIEWOF ROUTING PROTOCOLS 3) Hybrid Routing Protocols: Although energy consumption is agreed to This protocol combines the advantages ofbe of importance in the design of MANET routing the two routing protocols in order to obtain higherprotocols, there is no work that examines the energy efficiency. In these a network is divided in to theconsumption of well-known protocols. In fact, very zones, if the routing is to be carried out within thelittle has been published about the energy zone than table driven routing is used otherwise onconsumption of wireless network interfaces. The demand routing is preferable. For examplevalues used here are based on experiments reported Temporally ordered routing algorithm (TORA),in [10] and extended in [11]. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [9] [13]. Most proposed energy management These classes of routing protocols arestrategies for wireless networks rely on base station reported but choosing best out of among them issupport [3] [5]. Low level energy management very difficult as one may be performing well in onestrategies that explicitly or implicitly assume that type of scenario the other may work in other type ofthe mobile node communicates only with a scenario. In this paper it is observed with theresources base station are often not applicable in the simulation of STAR, RIP and OLSR routingMANET environment. High-level energy protocols. These three protocols are brieflymanagement strategies supporting common described below. The characteristic summary of 1214 | P a g e
  • 3. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218these routing protocols is also presented in thispaper in table 2. a) Different Operating Modes; The STAR routing protocol operates in twoIII. ROUTING PROTOCOLS UNDER different mechanisms but chooses one at a time. ItCONSIDERATION may work either in the Optimum Routing ApproachA. Optimized link state Protocol (OLSR): (ORA) mode or, Least Overhead Routing Approach It is a proactive non-uniform Link State (LORA) mode this routing protocol attempts torouting approach. In OLSR, every node transmits its update routing tables as quickly as possible toneighbor list using periodical beacons. So, all nodes provide paths that are optimum with respect to acan know their multi-hop neighbors. OLSR uses an defined metric whereas in LORA mode it tries toextraction algorithm for multipoint relay (MPR) provide shortest route as per performance and delayselection [6]. The multipoint relay set of a node P is metrics [13].the minimal (or near minimal) set of P’s one-hopneighbors such that each of P’s two-hop neighbors IV. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT ANDhas at least one of P’s multipoint relays as its one- METHODOLOGYhop neighbor. In OLSR, each node selects its MPR The simulator used in this paper is QualNetindependently and only the knowledge of its two- 5.0, [14] this is developed by Scalable Networkhop neighbors is needed. When a node broadcasts a Technologies. The simulation parameters are asmessage, all of its neighbors will receive the shown in Table.1. It consists of total 30 number ofmessage. Only the MPRs, which have not seen the nodes in the Terrain area of 1500 m *1500 m, themessage before, rebroadcast the message. Therefore, CBR of packet size is 512, the simulation timethe overhead for message flooding can be greatly chosen over here is 30 seconds, the mobility is File,reduced. Group, Random way point. Further increase in these values increases the time taken for completingB. Routing Information Protocol (RIP): simulation, to a limit which is not feasible due to It is an Interior Gateway Protocol used to various constraints. It shows the performance ofexchange routing information within a domain or various protocols such as STAR, RIP and OLSRautonomous system. It is based on the Bellman- with respect to physical and application layer modelFord or the distance-vector algorithm. This means to define the performance effectiveness of routingRIP makes routing decisions based on the hop count protocols. Performance is analyzed and comparedbetween a router and a destination. RIP does not on performance metrics of average jitter,alter IP packets; it routes them based on destination throughput, average end to end delay, energyaddress only. A router in the network needs to be consumed in transmit, received, and ideal modes. Inable to look at a packet’s destination address and this simulation we performed by increasing the no.then determine which output port is the best choice of node 1 to 30 in equal 29 simulation linearly withto get the packet to that address. The router makes in the simulation area 1500x1500. The source nodesthis decision by consulting a forwarding table transmit 1000 byte data packets per second at a[8][13]. constant bit rate (CBR) across the establishedC. Source Tree Adaptive Routing (STAR): routefor the entire simulation time 30 second. Fig 1 This Protocol for ad-hoc network is a shows the snapshot of running scenario of 30 nodesproactive table driven routing protocol. This using STAR routing.protocol works on below mechanism [10].a) Route Discovery & Maintenance Table 1 Simulation Setup Parameters Each node builds a shortest path tree Parameters Value(source tree) and stores preferred path to destination Simulator QALNET 5.0and so each node discovers and maintains Number of Nodes 30information related tonetwork topology. STAR Simulation Time 30sprotocol uses two different techniques to neighbor Simulation Area 1500 X 1500discovery using hello or update messages. It is File Mobilityenergy saving protocol in the sense that every node Mobility Model Group Mobilityof it updates about only the changes to its source Random Waypoint Mobilityrouting tree when they found changes or breakage in Energy Model Mica-Motesthe links. If over a given period of time a node Traffic Type Constant-Bit Ratedoesn’t receive any such message, it assumes that Node Placementeither node is out of its range (node may be dead) or Random Modellink is broken. Within the finite time frame all the Battery Model Linear Modelchanges like link failures, new neighbor Antenna Model Omni directionnotifications etc. are processed and send to Total packet sent 24neighbors in their order of occurrences and one at Packet Size 12288 Bytestime. 1215 | P a g e
  • 4. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218A. Snapshot and transfer the channel. It measured in second. End to End Delay Vs Mobility Model 0.45 0.4 0.35 End to End Delay 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILEFig. 1 Snapshot of simulation scenario 30 nodes for OLSR 0.3871709 0.36857072 0.26857072STAR routing STAR 0.18579994 0.23653407 0.13653407 RIP 0.28801251 0.29805244 0.19805254 Fig. 4 End to End Delay for different routing protocols vs. mobility’s. Fig. 4 shows the impact of mobility models on the End to End Delay taking routing protocol as parameter. Following assumption can be made:  The OLSR presents highest values of End to End Delay for Random waypoint as well asFig. 2 Snapshot of simulation scenario representing Group mobility.CBR between nodes 1 to node 18.  The RIP presents least value of End to End Delay for all three mobility models.V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C. Impact on ThroughputA. Impact on Average Jitter Throughput: Average rate of successful Average Jitter: It is the alteration in arrival data packets received at destination is calledtime ofthe packets and caused due obstruction, throughput. It is precise in bps (bit/s)topology changes. It is measured in second (s). Throughput Vs Mobility Model 100000 Average Jitter Vs Mobility Model 90000 0.035 80000 70000 0.03 Throughput 60000 0.025 50000 Average Jitter 40000 0.02 30000 0.015 20000 10000 0.01 0 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILE 0.005 OLSR 90351 71177 61155 STAR 55098 51799 41766 0 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILE RIP 43131 44067 44073 OLSR 0.033053872 0.023884724 0.013884724 STAR 0.018488477 0.009100886 0.012176452 0.022997928 0.011176452 0.012997947 Fig. 5 Throughput for different routing protocols vs. RIP using different mobility models.Fig. 3 Average jitter for different routing protocolsvs. using mobility models. Fig. 5 shows the impact of mobility models on the Throughput taking routing protocol as parameter.Fig. 3 shows the impact of mobility models on the Following statement can be made:Average Jitter taking routing protocol as parameter.  The OLSR presents highest values ofFollowing assumption can be made: Throughput for Random waypoint, File and The OLSR presents highest values of Average Group mobility models. Jitter for Random waypoint and group  The RIP presents least value of the average mobility. jitter for all three mobility models. The RIP presents least value of the average jitter for all three mobility models. D. Impact on Energy consumed in Transmit Mode:B. Impact on Average End to End Delay The mobility, effective scalability, End-to-End Delay: Delays due to buffering efficiency, lifetime, sampling frequency andduring the interface queues, route discovery process, response time of nodes, all these parameters of the 1216 | P a g e
  • 5. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218MANET depend upon the power. In case of powerfailure the network goes down break therefore F. Impact on Energy consumed in Ideal Mode:energy is required for maintaining the individual Energy Consumed in Ideal Mode Vs Routing Protocolshealth of the nodes in the network, during receiving 0.007the packets and transmitting the data as well. 0.006 Energy Consumed in Ideal Mode Energy Consumed in Transmit Mode Vs Routing Protocols 0.005 0.05 0.004 0.045 Energy Consumed in Transmit Mode 0.04 0.003 0.035 0.002 0.03 0.025 0.001 0.02 0 0.015 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILE 0.01 OLSR 0.004936 0.0028195 0.0028195 0.005 STAR 0.001334 0.00405711 0.002405711 RIP 0.005888 0.00493 0.00493 0 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILE Routing Protocols OLSR 0.00991 0.0131934 0.0121934 STAR 0.031386 0.045549 0.035549 Fig. 8 Energy Consumed in Ideal Mode for different RIP 0.0203163 0.0351977 Routing Protocols 0.0235917 routing protocols using different Mobility models.Fig. 6 Energy consumed in transmit mode for Fig. 8 shows the impact of mobility models on thedifferent routing protocols using different Mobility Energy Consumed in Ideal Mode taking routingmodels. protocol as parameter. Following interference can beFig. 6 shows the impact of different mobility models made:on the Energy Consumed in Transmit Mode taking  The RIP presents highest energy consumed inrouting protocol as parameter. Following Ideal mode in Random waypoint mobilityinterferencecan be made: model. The STAR presents highest energy consumed  The OLSR consumes moderate energy for all in all mobility models. three mobility models. The RIP consumes moderate energy for all three mobility models. TABLE II OVERALL COMPARISION OF OLSR, STAR AND RIP ROUTING PROTOCOLS The OLSR consumes least energy in Random Performanc OLSR STAR RIP waypoint, File and Group mobility models. e Metrics Routing Routing Routing Protocol Protocol ProtocolE. Impact on Energy consumed in Received Efficient Good WorstMode: Average Constantly Energy Consumed in Received Mode Vs Routing Protocol Jitter Low 0.006 Average Good Average Low Energy Consumed in Received Mode 0.005 0.004 End to End 0.003 Delay 0.002 Throughput Constantly Good Efficient Good Decreases 0.001 at Random 0 RANDOM WAY POINT GROUP FILE way point OLSR 0.00125236 0.003617 0.003233 STAR 0.003348 0.004772 0.00463 & Group RIP 0.00529 0.001726 0.00162 Routing ProtocolFig. 7 Energy consumed in received mode for Energy Most Average Poordifferent routing protocols using Mobility models. consumed efficient in TransmitFig. 7 shows the impact of mobility models on the ModeEnergy Consumed in Received Mode taking routing Energy Good at Average Good atprotocol as parameter. Following interference can be consumed random randommade: in Received way point way point The RIP presents highest energy consumed in Mode low at file average at received mode in Random waypoint mobility & group file, group model. mobility mobility The STAR consumes moderate energy for all three mobility models. The OLSR consumes least energy in Random Energy Efficient Good Average waypoint mobility model. consumed 1217 | P a g e
  • 6. Dharam Vir, Dr. S.K.Agarwal, Dr. S.A.Imam / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 1, January -February 2013, pp.1213-1218 in Ideal [7] Sabina Barakovic and Jasmina Barakovic, Mode "Comparative Performance Evaluation of Mobile Ad Hoc Routing Protocols." In theVI. CONCLUSION proceeding of MIPRO, p.p. 518-523, 24-28 The above result shows a major impact of May, 2010.mobility on the performance metric of OLSR, [8] Ahmed S. and Alam M. S., “PerformanceSTAR and RIP protocols. Simulation results have Evaluation of Important Ad Hoc Networkindicated that the comparative ranking of routing Protocols”. EURASIP Journal on Wirelessprotocols may depend upon mobility model which Com. and Networking. Vol. 2006. Issue 2.we have used and analyzed performance shown in pp.1-11.table II. The comparative ranking also depends on [9] E Royer and C.K Toh, "A Review ofthe node speed as the presence of the mobility Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hocimplies repeated link failures and each routing Mobile Wireless Networks", IEEE Personalprotocol reacts differently during link failures. Table Communications pp no 46-55, April 1999.II shows the overall comparison of the three reactive [10] Amrit Suman, Ashok Kumar Nagar, Swetarouting protocols. The results can be very useful for Jain and Praneet Saurav, “ Simulationresearchers while designing a new routing protocol Analysis of STAR, DSR and ZRP infor MANET. Presence of Misbehaving Nodes in MANET.” November, 2009. Future work proposed in a mobility model [11] Hong Jiang, “Performance Comparison ofwhere the nodes are forced to move along Three Routing Protocols for Ad Hocpredefined pathways the different on demand Networks”, IEEE Journal on Computerrouting is observed to generate less control traffic in Communication and Networks, Volume 3,comparison with the RWP, File and Group mobility PP.547-554, August 2002.and pattern. [12] Subir Kumar Sarkar, T,G. Basavaraju, and C. Puttamadappa, "Ad Hoc MobileREFERENCES Wireless Networks: Principles, Protocols [1] J.Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y.ch and Applications", Auerbach Publications, and hu and J. Jetcheva, “A performance US, 2008. comparison of Multi – hop wireless sensor [13] Royer, E., and Chai-Keong, O. A review ad-hoc for mobile ad-hoc networks” in of current routing protocols for ad hoc proc. 4th annual IEEE/ACM International mobile wireless networks. IEEE Personal Conference on Mobile Computing and Communications 6, 2 (Apr 1999), 46-55. Networking, Dallas, Texas, US Oct. 1998, [14] QualNet Simulator Version 5.0.1 Scalable pp. 85-97. Network Technologies, www.scalable- [2] Q. Jiang and D. Manivannan, “Routing networks.com techniques in wireless sensor networks:a survey,” CCNC ’04, pp. 93 – 98, 2004. [3] F. Bai, A. Helmy, “A Survey of Mobility Modeling and Analysis in Wireless Adhoc Networks” in Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks,Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004 . 33-40. [4] A. Boukerche, Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Mobile Networks and Applications 9, Netherlands, 2004, pp. 333- 342 [5] Samir R.Das, Charles E.Perkins, Elizabeth .Royer , Performance Comparison of Two On-demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks. IETF RFC, No. 3561, Jul.2003. [6] Muktadir A.H.A. 2007. “Energy Consumption study of OLSR and DYMO MANET Routing Protocols” in Urban Area, National Conference on Communication and Information Security, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp.133-136. 1218 | P a g e