scenario based pause time analysis of aodv, dsdv and dsr ...lnse.org/papers/13-d0029.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Abstract—These Mobile Adhoc Network (MANET) is
self-managing and governing network with their unique
infrastructure less feature. There are many routing protocols
have been proposed for the needs for research in MANET .The
objective of this paper is to analyze and compare the behavior of
three most popular routing protocols i.e. Ad-hoc On-demand
Distance Vector (AODV), Destination-Sequenced Distance
Vector routing protocol (DSDV) and Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR) using Network Simulator-ns-2 which is a discrete event
open source simulator targeted at wired and wireless
networking research .Here evaluation based on performance
metrics such as packet-delivery-fraction (PDF) ,average
end-to-end delay of data packets and data packet loss by
keeping different pause time.
Index Terms—AODV, DSDV, DSR, MANET, ns-2.
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad-Hoc network is a kind of wireless network and
self-managing network of moving routers which dynamically
forms a momentary network without the use of any existing
network infrastructure or centralized administration
associated with wireless network. There are different
interesting topics of research due to the presence of dynamic
topology of the network, intermittent connectivity etc. [1]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) activity has
standardized several routing protocols for MANET. Routing
protocols are the backbone to provide efficient services in
MANET, in terms of performance and reliability. These
protocols are basically divided into nine categories [2] based
on their underlying architectural framework as follows
1) Reactive or on-demand or Source-initiated
2) Pro-active or Table-driven
3) Hybrid
4) Location-aware (Geographical)
5) Multipath
6) Hierarchical
7) Multicast
8) Geographical Multicast
9) Power-aware
There are various Routing protocols exists such as Ad-hoc
On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source
Routing (DSR) are falls under the Reactive or
Source-initiated routing protocol and Destination-Sequenced
Distance Vector routing protocol (DSDV) is one of the
Manuscript received September 14, 2012; revised November 8, 2012.
The authors are with the National Institute of Technology, Agartala
799055 India. (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]).
researchers and have been shown to perform well under
various testing scenarios.
II. WIRELESS ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In this section our main focus is to highlight the features of
AODV, DSDV, DSR routing Protocol.
A. AODV
AODV is a state-of-the-art source-initiated routing
protocol that espouses a purely reactive strategy. It sets up a
route on-demand at the start of a communication session, and
uses till it breaks, after which a new route setup is initiated.
AODV adopts a very different type of mechanism to maintain
routing information. It uses traditional routing tables, one
entry per destination [3]. AODV routing protocol is basically
one of the flat routing or uniform routing algorithms rather
we can say it is a well-studied-non-position [4] routing
protocol. This protocol is basically used the simple flooding
technique. AODV relies on the routing table entries to
propagate route reply back to the source and subsequently to
route data packets to the destination. This protocol uses
sequence numbers which is maintained at each destination to
prevent routing loops and to define the newness of routing
information in the table. Regarding utilization of individual
routing table entries AODV has important features which is
hop-by-hop routing maintenance of timer based states in each
intermediate node.
B. DSDV
The methodology in proactive routing protocols is here
every node keeps its routing related information to every
other node (or nodes located in a specific part) in the network.
The routing information is usually kept in a number of
different tables and these tables are time-by-time updated
and/or if there is a change in the network topology. The
differences between these protocols exist in the way the
routing related information is updated, detected and the types
of information kept at each routing table. Furthermore, each
routing protocol may maintain different number of tables
[5].One of the popular and the oldest proactive routing
protocol is Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV)
introduced by Perkins and Bhagwat [6]. DSDV relies on the
Bellman-Ford algorithm where each and every mobile node
maintains a routing table which contains the possible
destinations in the network together with their distance in hop
counts. Each entry also stores a sequence number are
assigned by the destination and also used in the identification
of stale entries and the avoidance of loops. In order to
maintain routing table consistency, routing updates are
periodically forwarded throughout the network. Basically
Scenario Based Pause Time Analysis of AODV, DSDV
and DSR over CBR Connections in MANET
Anupam Jamatia, Tribid Debbarma, Mrinal Kanti Debbarma, and Swapan Debbarma
Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013
57DOI: 10.7763/LNSE.2013.V1.13
Pro-active or table-driven routing have been discussed by the
two types of updates are possible; full dump and incremental.
A full dump sends the entire routing table to the neighbors
and can require multiple network protocol data units.
Incremental updates are smaller which must fit in a single
packet and are used to transmit those entries from the routing
table which have changed since the last full dump update. In
stable network, incremental updates are forwarded and full
dump are usually infrequent. On the other hand, in dynamic
network full dumps will be more frequent. In addition to the
routing table information, each route update packet contains
a distinct sequence number assigned by the transmitter. The
route labeled with the most recent (highest number) sequence
number is used. The shortest route is chosen if any two routes
have the same sequence number [2] [7]-[10].
C. DSR
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a reactive type routing
protocol which is specifically designed for use in multi hop
wireless Adhoc networks. This protocol is built on two
mechanisms of route discovery and route maintenance [10]
[11].As AODV and DSR both are reactive type routing
protocol there is a similarities both forms a route on-demand
when a transmitting computer requests one. DSR uses source
routing instead of relying on routing table of each
intermediate node. [12]-[13]
During the route discovery it requires to gathering the
address of each node between the source and destination to
determine source routes. The accumulated path information
is cached by nodes in its route cache for processing the route
discovery packets. If a source node cannot find a route in its
route cache, the source node starts a route discovery
mechanism by broadcasting a request packet to its neighbors
[14]. The learned paths are used to route packets. As the
routed packets contain the address of each device or node the
packet will traverse this may result in high overhead for long
paths or large addresses to accomplish source routing. As the
amount of overhead increased in the large network this
protocol is not very effective [5].To avoid using source
routing, optionally DSR can defines a flow id option which
allows packets to be forwarded on a hop-by-hop basis. The
major difference between this and the other reactive routing
protocols is that it is beacon-less and hence does not require
periodic hello packet or beaconing transmissions therefore to
save the considerable amount of bandwidth nodes can switch
to sleep node [5], which are used by a node to inform its
neighbors of its presence.
III. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
In this section we are particularly described the design and
implementation of pause time analysis of AODV, DSDV and
DSR routing protocol using different performance metrics
such as packet delivery fraction, average end to end delay,
packet loss [15].The advantage of simulation in research of
different protocol is that, it allows almost perfect
experimental control with simulation of a model. In the
simulation it is not possible to exactly recreate the entire
world inside a computer model, so when creating a
simulation some factors must be statistically or otherwise
approximated. Incorrect results can be obtained if proper
capturing behaviors of factors are failed. Proper measure
should be taken for this purpose.
For Simulation purpose we have used ns- 2.35 version on
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Kernel version 3.2.0. To measure the
different performance metrics for the above protocol we used
random waypoint mobility model.
To carry out this project, we have used Tcl (Tool
Command Language) scripts to defining the parameters for
different network topology and communication model and
also used awk scripts to get the data from the simulation. We
have used gnuplot tool to plot the graph from the generated
data.
A. Generating Traffic and Mobility Models
To carry out our experiments we have to generate traffic
and also have to make mobility models and for this
Continuous Bit Rate (CBR) traffic sources are used. The
source-destination pairs are spread randomly over the
network. Traffic models were generated for 50 nodes with
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic sources, with maximum
connections of 10 at a rate of 8kbps. (Rate 2.0: in 1 second, 2
packets are generated. The packet size is 512 byte. Therefore
the rate is 2 × 512 × 8=8kbps). The packet sending rate in
each pair and the number of source-destination pairs is varied
to change the offered load in the network. The mobility
model uses here is the random waypoint model in a
rectangular terrain area with the field configurations used is
1200 m x 400 m with 50 nodes. Here, each packet starts its
journey from a random source to a random destination with a
uniformly distributed in 20m/s randomly chosen speed.
Another random destination is targeted after a pause once the
destination is reached. Here for the experimental purpose we
keep the varied pause time which affects the relative speeds
of the mobiles. We have taken different pause time such as 0,
100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 .Simulations run
for 900 simulated seconds. Identical mobility and traffic
models generated only once to gather fair results for this
project. To generate large number of nodes and their
positions and movements including moving directions &
speeds we have used a CMU tool called "setdest" in ns-2.
B. Performance Metrics
We have focuses on three performance metrics such as
packet-delivery-fraction (PDF) and Average end-to-end
delay of data packets and Data packet loss. [16]-[17]
1) Packet-delivery-fraction (PDF)
The Ratio of the number of data packets delivered to the
destinations to those generated by the CBR Sources.
PDF = Receive Packet/Sent Packet * 100.
The higher the value gives the use the better results. This
metric characterizes both the completeness and correctness of
the routing protocol also reliability of routing protocol by
giving its effectiveness.
2) Average end-to-end delay of data packets
There are possible delays caused by buffering during route
discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,
retransmission delays at the MAC and propagation and
transfer times. The thesis use Average end-to-end delay.
Average end-to-end delay is an average end-to-end delay of
Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013
58
Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013
59
data packets. It also caused by queuing for transmission at the
node and buffering data for detouring. Once the time
difference between every CBR packet sent and received was
recorded, dividing the total time difference over the total
number of CBR packets received gave the average end-to-end
delay for the received packets. This metric describes the
packet delivery time: the lower the end-to-end delay the better
the application performance.
3) Data Packet Loss (Packet Loss)
Mobility-related packet loss may occur at both the network
layer and the MAC layer. Here packet loss concentrates for
network layer. When a packet arrives at the network layer the
routing protocol forwards the packet if a valid route to the
destination is known. Otherwise, the packet is buffered until a
route is available. A packet is dropped in two cases: the buffer
is full when the packet needs to be buffered and the time that
the packet has been buffered exceeds the limit.
IV. SIMULATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Packet Delivery Fraction is the ratio between the number of
packets originated by the application layer sources and the
number of packets received by the sinks at the final
destination. It will describe the loss rate that will be seen by
the transport protocols such as TCP, IP, and UDP which in
turn affects the maximum throughput that the network can
support. This simulation chooses 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500,
600, 700, 800 and 900 seconds pause time. This simulation
generates 50 nodes. Fig. 1 below shown at pause time 0
seconds (high mobility) environment, DSR outperforms
AODV and DSDV in high mobility environment, topology
change rapidly and AODV can adapt to the changes quickly
since it only maintain one route that is actively used. DSDV
deliver less data packet compare to AODV because in rapid
change topology it is not as adaptive to route changes in
updating its table. DSR does not have mechanism in knowing
which route in the cache is stale; data packet is forwarded to
broken link.
Fig. 1. Pause-time vs. packet delivery fraction
The delay is affected by high rate of CBR packets as well.
The buffers become full much quicker, so the packets have to
stay in the buffers a much longer period of time before they
are sent. This can be seen at the DSDV routing protocol has
the highest value at the 0 mobility. Refer to the Fig. 2 below,
at the 200 and 700 pause time the delay is high for DSR
protocol. The connection setup delay is less. DSDV,
whenever the topology of the network changes, a new
sequence number is necessary before the network
re-converges.
Fig. 2. Pause-time vs. average-end-to-end delivery
In the given below Fig. 3, show not much packet loss on
AODV and DSR side. For DSDV, show the packet loss higher
than DSR and AODV because the route maintenance
mechanism does not locally repair a broken link at that
particular time period.
Fig. 3. Pause-time vs. packet loss
V. CONCLUSION
We can get the observation from the above simulation
result is that if there is a less packet loss then the Protocol is
the highest efficiency. So here DSR and AODB are much
more efficient than DSDV. For application oriented matrices
such as Packet-Delivery-Fraction and End-to-End Delay DSR
and AODV performs better than DSDV with respect to
various Pause-Time and AODV consistently generates less
routing loads than other two protocols. Changes of network
load and topology have the greater impact on the performance
of routing protocol. Since from the last 25 years, field of
Mobile ad hoc network is growing and latest developments
are coming day by day but still there are many more
challenges to be met. We shall consider the comparison of
above three protocols along with the more two protocol such
as TORA and PUMA with varying packet size and speed of
nodes in our future work.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Kathiravelu and S. Sivasuthan “A Hybrid Reactive Routing
Protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” in Proc. of 6th IEEE
International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems,
August 2011, pp. 222-227.
[2] A. Boukerche, B. Turgut, N. Aydin, M. Z. Ahmad, L. Bölöni, and D.
Turgut, “Routing protocols in ad hoc networks:A survey,” Journal
Computer Networks:The International Journal of Computer and
Telecommunications Networking archive, vol. 55, no. 13, September,
2011, pp. 3032-3080.
Anupam Jamatia is an Assistant Professor at the
Computer Science and Engineering Department of
National Institute of Technology, Agartala, India. He
received his B.E. in Computer Science and
Engineering at University College of Engineering,
Burla, Orissa, India in May 2000 and Currently
Pursuing M.Tech. in Computer Science and
Engineering at National Institute of Technology,
Agartala, India. His research interests include Routing
Protocol in Wireless Networking and Mobile Computing. He is a member of
IEEE.
Tribid Debbarma was born on the 17th November
1978 in khowai, Tripura, India. He received the B.E.
degree in Computer Science & Engineering from
Tripura Engineering College (presently- National
Institute of Technology Agartala), Agartala, Tripura,
India, in the year 2003. Currently pursuing M.Tech. in
Computer Sc. & Engineering Department of National
Institute of Technology, Agartala, India. He is working
as Assistant Professor in Computer Science & Engineering Department of
National Institute of Technology Agartala, India since 2006.
Mrinal Kanti Debbarma is presently working as an
Assistant Professor at Computer Science & Engineering
Department of National Institute of Technology
Agartala, India. He received B.Tech (IET, Lucknow),
M.Tech (MNNIT, Allahabad), currently pursuing
Ph.D.(Information Technology) at Assam University.
His research interest include in , MANET Routing
Protocols, Wireless Sensor Networks ,Software
Engineering with special interest in Software metrics analysis and
Regression testing. He has 12 years of academic and 5 years Industrial
experience. He has published more technical papers in various International
Journals and Conferences.Mr. Debbarma is a member of IAENG, IACSIT.
Swapan Debbarma was born in India, in the state
called Tripura on 4th Oct. 1978. He is an Assistant
Professor in Computer Science & Engineering
Department at National Institute of Technology Agartala,
Tripura, INDIA. He has 12 years of academic experience.
He obtained his Bachelor of Technology in Computer
Science & Engineering from NERIST, Arunachal
Pradesh, India and M.Tech. in CSE from Tripura
University, Agartala, India. At present pursuing Ph.D. from NIT Agartala in
the area of Nanotechnology. He also has interest in OS and Networking.
Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013
60
[3] A. A. A. Radwan, T. M. Mahmoud, and E. H. Houssein, “Evaluation
comparison of some ad hoc networks routing protocols,” Egyptian
Informatics Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2011, pp. 95–106.
[4] H. D. Trung and P. M. Duc, “Performance evaluation and comparison
of different ad hoc routing protocols,” Computer Communications,
2007, vol. 30, pp. 2478-96.
[5] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki, and E. Dutkiewicz, “A review of routing
protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 2, no. 1,
January 2004, pp. 1–22.
[6] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers,” in
Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Communications
Architectures, Protocols and Applications, Oct. 1994, pp. 234-244.
[7] N. Qasim, F. Said, and H. Aghvami, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Simulations Using Routing Protocols for Performance Comparisons,”
in Proceedings of the WorldCongress on Engineering (WCE), 2008 vol.
I, London, UK. July 2-4, 2008.
[8] T. Larson and N. Hedman “Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad-hoc
networks- A simulation Study,” Masters Thesis in Computer Sc. &
Engineering, Switch Lab Erricson, Stockholm, 1998.
[9] A. Boukerche, Algorithms and Protocols for Wireless, Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2008.
[10] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, B. David, H. Johnson, C. Yi, and J. Jetcheva, “A
Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network
Routing Protocols,” in Proceeding of the 4th annual ACM/IEEE
international conference on Mobile computing and networking
MobiCom '98, pp. 85 – 97.
[11] J. Broch, D. B. Johnson, and D. A. .Maltz, “The dynamic source
routing for mobile adhoc networks,” IETF Internet-draft,
draft-ietf-manet-dsr-00.txt, 1998.
[12] N. S. M. Usop, A. Abdullah, and A. F. A. Abidin, ”Performance
Evaluation of AODV,DSDV & DSR Routing Protocol in Grid
Environment,” International Journal of Computer Science and
Network Security (IJCSNS), 2009, pp. 261-268.
[13] K. A. Gupta, H. Sadawarti, and K. A. Verma, “A Review of Routing
Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” WSEAS Transactions on
Communications, ISSN: 1109-2742, vol. 10, no. 11, November 2011,
pp. 331-340.
[14] L. Layuan, Y. Peiyan, and L. Chunlin, “Performance evaluation and
simulations of routing protocols in Adhoc networks,” Computer
Communications, vol. 30, pp. 1890-1998, 2007.
[15] S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, and E. M. Royer, “Performance comparison of
two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks,” in Proc. of
Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
Communications Societies. Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 3-12.
[16] P. C. Reddy and P. C. Reddy, “Performance Analysis of Adhoc
Network Routing Protocols,” Academic Open Internet Journal, ISSN
1311-4360, vol. 17, 2006.
[17] S. M. Said, M. M. Ibrahiem, E. Emary, and S. Kadim, “Comparative
study between the performance of proactive and reactive mobile ad-hoc
networks (MANET) routing protocols with varying mobility,”
Academic Journals, Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 6, no. 6, pp.
1256-1274, 18 March, 2011.