INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), IAEME

ISSN 0976 6464(Print) ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), pp. 125-130 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijecet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5930 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJECET
IAEME

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

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), IAEME

evaluation of a number of MANET routing protocols. [3] Compared DSR and TORA in OPNET where DSR performed better than TORA. The performance investigation of reactive and proactive MANET routing protocols, namely AODV, DSR, TORA and OLSR is done [4]. It has been concluded that with regards to overall performance, AODV and OLSR performed pretty well. Effect of various mobility models on the performance evaluation of MANET routing protocols is studied [5] and three random based mobility models such as Random waypoint, Random walk and Random Directions were implemented. Based on the observations, it is suggested that AODV routing protocol can be used under high mobility since it outperforms DSDV, TORA and DSR protocols.Various ad hoc routing protocols have their unique characteristics. Hence, in order to find out the most adaptive and efficient routing protocol for the highly dynamic topology in ad hoc networks, the routing protocols behavior has to be analyzed using various metrics. Thus, the goal is to carry out a systematic performance comparison of ad hoc routing protocols under Random walk mobility model. 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 the performance metrics. Simulation parameters, results and discussions are given in section 5 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 location by randomly choosing a direction and speed in which to travel. The new speed and direction are both chosen from pre-defined ranges, [speedmin, speedmax] and [0,2] respectively [5]. Each movement in the Random Walk Mobility Model occurs in either a constant time interval t or a constant distance traveled d, at the end of which a new direction and speed are calculated. If an MN which moves according to this model reaches a simulation boundary, it bounces off the simulation border with an angle determined 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 an internetwork. Routing protocols use several metrics to calculate the best path for routing the packets to its destination. Routing is mainly classified into static routing and dynamic routing [6] and further classified into three major categories as proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols. Proactive or table-driven protocols attempt to maintain consistent up-todate routing information from each node to every other node in the network. Reactive or on demand protocols creates routes only when a node requires a route to a destination, it initiates a route discovery process, which ends when the route is found. Hybrid Routing [7][8] Protocols combine proactive protocols with reactive protocols. Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) are the examples of Hybrid Protocols.

126

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), IAEME

3.1 AODV: The Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol is a reactive protocol based upon the distance vector algorithm. Whenever a node wants to try and find a route to another node it broadcasts a Route Re-quest (RREQ) to all its neighbors[9]. The RREQ propagates through the network until it reaches the destination or the node with a fresh enough route to the destination. Then the route is made available by uncasing a RREP back to the source. 3.2 DSR: Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) belongs to the class of reactive protocols and allows to dynamically discovering a route across multiple network hops to any destination. DSR uses no periodic routing of messages, thereby reducing network bandwidth overhead, conserving battery power and avoiding large routing updates throughout the ad-hoc network [5]. 3.3 OLSR: Optimized Link State routing is a proactive link-state routing protocol, in which 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 some systems and network applications as there is no route discovery delay associated with finding a new route. The routing overhead generated, while generally greater than that of a 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 and pro-active protocols into a hybrid scheme, taking advantage of pro-active discovery within a node's local neighborhood, and using a reactive protocol for communication between these neighborhoods. 4. PERFORMANCE METRICS The 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) forwarded from wireless LAN layers to higher layers in all WLAN nodes of the network. It is the number 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 time to place it on the transmission media. Media Access Delay is a time taken by a node to place 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 accepted and queued for transmission. 4.4 Retransmission Attempts (packets): Total number of retransmission attempts by all WLAN MACs in the network until either the packet is successfully transmitted or it is discarded as a result of reaching short or low retry limit.

127

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), IAEME

5. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT In this section Simulations carried out by the OPNET [10] are presented .OPNET is an Object Oriented environment that is most powerful general purpose network simulator. 5.1 Simulation parameters: Table 1 gives the wireless LAN simulation parameters: parameter Simulation time Terrain area Number of nodes Traffic type TABLE 1: Wireless LAN Parameters Value parameter 60 min (3600 s) 1000 x 1000 m2 20 FTP Packet size Fragmentation threshold Routing protocols Node placement value 2048 bits 1024 bits AODV,DSR,ZRP, OLSR Random

5.2 Simulation Results 5.2.1 Throughput: Simulation results in Fig. 1 show that ZRP gives the highest throughput because of its hybrid nature. For the neighbor nodes, ZRP act as a reactive protocol and for the nodes other than the neighbor nodes, it works like the proactive protocol. AODV and DSR shows the least throughput because of their reactive nature in random walk since for this model, mobility is high and thus has to send more control packets to cache roots. Proactive protocol OLSR performs better than reactive protocol since it has prior routing tables and can send more data packets in unit time. 5.2.2 Retransmission attempts: In Random walk mobility model all the nodes move vigorously so the performance of OLSR degrades or has the max average retransmission attempts. It is seen that the performance of AODV is also worse since it has to find the routes on demand. Each time nodes have to create routes to send data packets and most of the time the timer (TTL) associated with each packet gets expired during the route creation. So the node 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 has a route maintenance mechanism in case of link failure and thus the no of attempts to send packets is reduced. ZRP outperforms all the protocols because of its hybrid nature since every node has a route cache. 5.2.3 Network Load: It has been seen that the hybrid protocol such that ZRP gives the maximum network load as shown in Fig. 3. ZRP protocol is able to deliver more data packets to the destination than any other protocol due to its hybrid nature. Rest of the protocols such as 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 routes are predefined so it takes least time to place the packets on to the medium. AODV being a reactive protocol possess higher delay than OLSR due to reinitializing the route flooding process every time while discovering new routes and determining changes in topology. Similarly DSR experiences even higher average delay as compared to AODV. ZRP being hybrid in nature stood in the middle of both reactive and proactive protocols
128

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 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 delay

6. 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 the Hybrid protocol ZRP outperforms other protocols considering throughput, Retransmission attempts and network load. Taking into account Media access delay proactive protocol performs better than other protocols. Thus when delay is to be a minimized proactive protocol 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

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 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 LeeImpact and Performance of Mobility Models in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks Fourth International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology 2009 8. Basak Oztas, Tolga Kurt, Emin Anarm 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 NetworksACM/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