International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No.

11

Simulation Based Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols in Presence of Malicious Node for Manet
Kavita Kanathey1 Asst. Professor, MCA Dept., LNCT, Bhopal M.P., kavita.kanathey@gmail.com Alka Gulati2 Associate Professor, CSE Dept., LNCT, Bhopal M.P., gulati.alka@gmail.com Dr. Binod Kumar3 HOD & Associate Professor, MCA Dept., LNCT, Bhopal, binod.istar.1970@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Mobile ad hoc networks rely on the cooperation of all participating nodes to provide the elementary operations such as routing and data forwarding. Malicious nodes may not follow the cooperation paradigm and cause a serious affect due to their selfish or malfunctioning intention on network performance. This intention could significantly degrade the performance of MANET because most existing routing protocols in MANET aim at finding most efficient path. In this paper performance analysis of the effects of malicious nodes on MANET routing protocols has been simulated. For performance analysis, three different routing protocols, AODV (Ad-Hoc On demand Distance Vector) protocol, DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) protocols ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) are simulated using Qualnet simulator (5.0). The network performance is shown in terms of throughput, packet delivery ratio, average end to end delay and average jitter under varying pause time with and without malicious node. Keywords - Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET), AODV, DSR, ZRP, Throughput, Packet Delivery Ratio, Average end to end delay, Average Jitter.

1. INTRODUCTION
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a set of wireless mobile nodes that do not rely on a predefined infrastructure to keep the network connected. So the operations of Mobile ad hoc networks are highly dependent on the trust and co-operation between all participating nodes. Nodes help each other in conveying information about the topology of the network and share the responsibility of managing the network [2].Most important networking operations include routing and data forwarding. The main objective of routing protocols in MANET is to establish optimal path for data forwarding with minimum routing overhead and minimum bandwidth consumption so that packets are delivered in a timely manner. There is no guarantee that a communication path is free from malicious or compromised nodes which deliberately wish to disturb the network communication. Protection of mobile ad hoc network from malicious node is very important and challenging task as it degrades the network performance.

2. MANET ROUTING PROTOCOL

In MANET, routing protocols can be divided into proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols, depending on the routing topology [4]: Proactive routing protocols: In proactive routing protocols, consistent and up-to-date routing information to all nodes is maintained at each node. When there is a change in network topology updating has to be made throughout the network. Example FSR, DSDV etc. Reactive or On-Demand routing protocols: In On-Demand routing protocols, the routes are created as and when required. Example - AODV, DSR etc. Hybrid routing protocols: These routing protocols combine the strengths of proactive and reactive schemes. Example ZRP

85

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No. 11

2.1 Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) protocol

Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) protocol is an on demand routing protocol as it determines a route to the destination only when a node wants to send data to that destination[2][3]. In AODV, nodes discover routes in request-response cycles. A node requests a route to a destination by broadcasting an ROUTE REQUEST (RREQ) message to all its neighbors. When a node receives an RREQ message but does not have a route to the requested destination, it in turn broadcasts the RREQ message. Also, it remembers a reverse-route to the requesting node which can be used to forward subsequent responses to this RREQ. This process repeats until the RREQ reaches a node that has a valid route to the destination. This node (which can be the destination itself) responds with an ROUTE REPLY (RREP) message. This RREP is unicast along the reverse-routes of the intermediate nodes until it reaches the original requesting node. Thus, at the end of this request-response cycle a bidirectional route is established between the requesting node and the destination. When a node loses connectivity to its next hop, the node invalidates its route by sending an ROUTE ERROR (RERR) to all nodes that potentially received its RREP.

2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) is a simple and efficient on demand ad hoc network routing protocol [3]. Unlike AODV, DSR is based on source route approach. In this approach, each packet carry in its header the source route which contains the complete, ordered list of nodes through which the packet must pass. DSR consists of two parts: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. Route Discovery is the process to find a route from source to destination. To perform a Route Discovery, the source node broadcasts a RREQ packet that is flooded through the network in a controlled manner and is responded by a RREP packet from either the destination node or another node that knows a route to the destination. To reduce the cost of Route Discovery, each node maintains a cache of source routes it has learned or overheard. Route Maintenance is the process by which a packets sender detects if the network topology has changed. When Route Maintenance indicates a source route is broken, sender is notified with a RERR packet. The sender can then attempt to use any other route to destination already in its cache or can invoke Route Discovery again to find a new route.

2.3 Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)

The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) can be classed as a hybrid reactive/proactive routing protocol as it aims to address the problems by combining the best properties of both reactive and proactive approaches[1][3]. ZRP is proposed to reduce the control overhead of proactive routing protocols and decrease the latency caused by routing discover in reactive routing protocols. ZRP defines a zone around each node consisting of its k-neighborhood (e. g. k=2). In ZRP, the distance and a node, all nodes within -hop distance from node belongs to the routing zone of node. ZRP is formed by two sub-protocols, a proactive routing protocol: Intra- zone Routing Protocol (IARP), is used inside routing zones and a reactive routing protocol: Inter-zone Routing Protocol (IERP), is used between routing zones, respectively. A route to a destination within the local zone can be established from the proactively cached routing table of the source by IARP; therefore, if the source and destination is in the same zone, the packet can be delivered immediately. Most of the existing proactive routing algorithms can be used as the IARP for ZRP. For routes beyond the local zone, route discovery happen reactively. The source node sends a route requests to its border nodes, containing its own address, the destination address and a unique sequence number. Border nodes are nodes which are exactly the maximum number of hops to the defined local zone away from the source. The border nodes check their local zone for the destination. If the requested node is not a member of this local zone, the node adds its own address to the route request packet and forwards the packet to its border nodes. If the destination is a member of the local zone of the node, it sends a route reply on the reverse path back to the source. The source node uses the path saved in the route reply packet to send data packets to the destination.

86

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No. 11

3. MALICIOUS NODE
Malicious nodes are the nodes that pretend to be alright and cooperative but drops the data which is meant to pass on, also it gives an impression that it has performed the task appropriately and efficiently. If malicious nodes are present in a MANET, they may attempt to reduce network connectivity (and thereby undermine the network's security) by pretending to be cooperative but in effect dropping any data they are meant to pass on. These actions may result in defragmenter networks, isolated nodes, and drastically reduced network performance.

4. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
The simulation is done using Qualnet (5.0) simulator [8], to analyze routing protocol performance with and without malicious node by varying pause time. The Simulation parameters are summarized in table1.Fig. 3 show the snapshot of the network.
Table1: Simulation Parameter

Parameter Simulation time Transmission Range Terrain Area Maximum no. of packets Packet size Data Rate Number of Mobile Nodes Mobility Model Traffic Generator model Node Mobility Pause Time No. of malicious node

Value 200 sec. 250 m 1500x1500 m 100 512 bytes 2 packet/sec. 50 Random Way Point Constant Bit Rate(CBR) 10 m/s 30s,60s,90s,120s, 5,10,15,20,25

Figure 3 Snapshot of network in Qualnet Simulator

4.1 PERFORMANCE METRICS

4.1.1 Packet Delivery Ratio: - The ratio between the number of packets originated by the application layer CBR sources and the number of packets received by the CBR server at the final destination. 4.1.2 Throughput: - Throughput is the amount of data transferred over the period of time expressed in bits per second (bits/sec). 4.1.3 Average End-to-End Delay: - This is the average delay between the sending of packets by the source and its receipt by the receiver. This includes all possible delays caused during data acquisition, route discovery, queuing, processing at intermediate nodes, retransmission delays, propagation time, etc. 4.1.4 Average Jitter: - This is the delay in the inter packet gap of subsequent data packets as they arrive over a network.

87

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No. 11

5. SIMULATION RESULTS
Following graphs Fig. 5(a) to 5(d) are plotted to show the effect of pause time on different routing protocols on the basis of parameters packet delivery ratio, throughput, average end to end delay and average jitter without considering any malicious node respectively. From fig. 5(a), it can observe that without malicious node both AODV and DSR deliver 85 to 95 percent of all CBR packets initiated by source while ZRP deliver only 30 to 50 percent of all CBR packets with varying pause time. As the pause time increases the delivery ratio increases. Similarly from fig. 5(b) we can observe that AODV, DSR and ZRP achieves better throughput when pause time varies. As the pause time increases the throughput also increases. From fig.5(c), we can see that average end to end delay decreases when pause time increases in AODV and DSR while delay increases in ZRP as pause time increases. From fig 5(d), average jitter delay decreases in DSR and AODV but in ZRP it is slightly increases as pause time increases. Our simulation results show that when pause time increases, average jitter delay decreases. For AODV and ZRP average jitter delay is below 0.2 second while for DSR is 0.035 second.

Packet Delivery Ratio(%)

Throughput(bits/sec)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 30 60 90 120

AODV DSR ZRP

100 80 60 40 20 0 30 60 90 120
AODV DSR ZRP

Pause Time(sec)

Pause Time(sec)

Fig. 5(a) Packet Delivery Ratio (%) Vs Pause time

Fig. 5(b) Throughput (bits/sec.) Vs Pause time

AODV

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 30 60 90 120 Pause Time(sec)

AODV DSR ZRP

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 30 60 90 120 Pause Time(sec)

Average End to End Delay(sec)

Average Jitter(sec)

DSR ZRP

Fig. 5(c) Average End to End Delay (sec) Vs Pause Time

Fig. 5(d) Average Jitter (sec) Vs pause time

Following graphs Fig. 5(e) to 5(h) shows the network performances when pause time is 30 with varying malicious node. From 5(e), it can observe that with malicious node packet delivery ratio drastically decreases in AODV, DSR and ZRP. We can see that the PDR in AODV and DSR decreases from 90% to 50% while in ZRP, it decreases from 35% to 10% of all CBR packets. Similarly we can observe from fig. 5(f) that throughput rapidly decreases with varying no. of malicious node. It has been observed from Fig 5(g) that average end to end delay decreases due to the variation in malicious node. This is because malicious node does not check its routing table and silently drops the packet. It has been observed from Fig 5(h) that average jitter decreases when malicious node varies. AODV and ZRP have minimum delay as compared to DSR.

88

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No. 11

Packet Delivery Ratio(%)

80 60 40 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of malicious node

AODV DSR ZRP

Throughput(bits/sec)

100

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of malicious node

AODV DSR ZRP

Fig. 5(e) Packet Delivery Ratio (%) Vs No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(f) Throughput (bits/sec.) Vs No. of malicious node

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 5 10 15 20 25

Average Jitter(sec)

Average End to End Delay(sec)

AODV DSR ZRP

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

AODV DSR ZRP

10

15

20

25

No. of malicious node

No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(g) Average End to End Delay (sec) Vs No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(h) Average Jitter (sec) Vs No. of malicious node

Following graphs Fig. 5(i) to 5 (l) shows the network performances when pause time is 120 with varying malicious node. We have done study on pause time varying from 60 and 120s with malicious node. We can observe that, when pause time varies 60 to 120, the simulation results are slightly varied.

Packet Delivery Ratio(%)

100 80 60 40 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of malicious node

AODV DSR ZRP

Throughput(bits/sec)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of malicious node

AODV DSR ZRP

Fig. 5(i) Packet Delivery Ratio (%) Vs No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(j) Throughput (bits/sec.) Vs No. of malicious node

89

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, November 2011 Vol. 2, No. 11

Average End to End Delay(sec)

Average Jitter(sec)

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of malicious node

AODV DSR ZRP

0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

AODV DSR ZRP

10 15 20 25

No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(k) Average End to End Delay (sec) Vs No. of malicious node

Fig. 5(l) Average Jitter (sec) Vs No. of malicious node

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we studied AODV, DSR and ZRP in detail. We analyze the effects of malicious node on routing protocol performance for MANET. The simulation results show that the packet delivery ratio and throughput increases as pause time increases while average end to end delay and average jitter decreases in AODV and DSR but in ZRP, slightly increases without malicious node. Simulation results also show that when the number of malicious nodes increases the throughput and packet delivery ratio decreases drastically because malicious node doesnt forward packets anywhere. We observed that the average endto-end delay and average jitter decreases rapidly with varying malicious node.

REFERENCES
[1] Shaily Mittal Prabhjot Kaur Performance comparision of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocols in MANET, International Conference on Advances in Computing, Control, and Telecommunication Technologies, pages 165 168,28-29 Dec. 2009 [2] Latha Tamilselvan, Dr. V Sankaranarayanan Prevention of Blackhole Attack in MANET,The 2nd International Conference on Wireless Broadband and Ultra Wideband Communications (AusWireless 2007),0-7695-2842-2/07. [3] C.E. Perkins, S.R. Das, and E. Royer, Ad-Hoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV), March 2000, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet [4] Mohammed Bouhorma, H. Bentaouit and A.Boudhir, Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols AODV and DSR, 978-1-4244-3757-3/09 IEEE. [5] Abdelaziz Babakhouya,Yacine Challal ,Abdelmadjid Bouabdallah, A Simulation Analysis of Routing Misbehavior in Mobile Ad hoc Networks, The Second International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services, and Technologies, pages 592-597,2008. [6] Yogesh Chaba Yudhvir Singh Manish Joon, Simulation based Performance Analysis of On-Demand Routing Protocols in MANETs,2010 Second International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation, 978-0-7695-3941-6/10,IEEE. [7] Mishra, D. Jain, Y.K. Agrawal, Behavior analysis of Malicious Node in the Different Routing Algorithms in Mobile Ad Hoc Network(MANET),International Conference on Advances in Computing, Control, & Telecommunication Technologies, ACT '09, pages 621-623, 28-29 Dec. 2009. [8] The Network Simulator Qualnet 5.0, www.scalable network.com

90