Random Waypoint Mobility Model based Performance ... - IEEE Xplore

Random Waypoint Mobility Model based Performance Estimation of On-Demand Routing Protocols in MANET for CBR Applications Ashish K. Maurya1, Dinesh Singh2, Ajeet Kumar3, Ritesh Maurya4 1, 3, 4

Department of Computer Science & Engineering Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, U.P., India 2 Computer Science & Engineering Department Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India 1 [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract— A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is formed by a cluster of mobile nodes (hosts) and can be quickly deployed without any predetermined infrastructure. The network topology in MANET may keep changing arbitrarily. A routing protocol is used to discover routes between mobile hosts to facilitate communication inside the network with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. Various routing protocols have been proposed by researchers for mobile ad-hoc networks in the recent past. This paper presents performance evaluation and comparison of three different On-Demand routing protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks i.e. Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and DYnamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) protocols in variable pause times. We have used random waypoint mobility model to design the network and performed simulations by using QualNet version 5.0 Simulator from Scalable Networks for CBR traffic in MANET. Performance of AODV, DSR and DYMO are evaluated based on Average end-to-end delay, Packet delivery ratio, Throughput and Average Jitter. Keywords— MANET, AODV, DSR, DYMO, Random Waypoint Mobility Model, CBR

I.

INTRODUCTION

According to the dependence on the fixed infrastructure, mobile wireless networks can be classified into infrastructure networks and infrastructure-less networks. Mobile Ad Hoc Networks are infrastructure-less networks i.e. do not rely on a permanent infrastructure and have the ability of quick deployment in response to application requirements. These networks are autonomously self-organized and self-configured mobile wireless networks [1]. Hosts of the MANETs function as routers and routers determine and maintain routes to other hosts in the network. Routing is one of the active research areas for mobile ad hoc networks. Due to issues involved in MANET such as mobility of nodes, resource constraints (limited battery life, limited processing power, limited bandwidth, etc.), hidden and exposed terminal problems, routing protocols used in wired network cannot be used in MANETs. Hence MANETs require specific routing protocols that address the above issues. Routing protocols for MANETs can be classified into numerous types based on different

c 978-93-80544-12-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

criteria. One of the most popular criteria to make a distinction among mobile ad hoc network routing protocols are based on how routing information is acquired, updated and maintained by mobile hosts. Using this criterion routing protocols for MANET can be divided into proactive (table-driven) routing, reactive (on-demand) routing and hybrid routing. In proactive routing protocols, every host maintains the network topology information by periodically exchanging routing information. Examples of such protocols are DSDV, WRP, OLSR, FSR, GSR, HSR, TBRF, STAR, and CGSR, etc [2]-[4]. In reactive routing protocols, routing paths are searched only when required i.e. on-demand. Examples of such protocols are AODV, DSR, TORA, ABR, CBRP, LAR, ARA, DYMO, ANODR, SSA, and PLBR, etc [2]-[4]. Hybrid routing protocols combine the qualities of both table-driven and ondemand routing protocols and conquer their shortcomings. ZRP, ZHLS, DST, DDR and CEDAR, etc are some hybrid routing protocols [2]-[4]. In this paper we study three reactive (on-demand) routing protocols of mobile ad-hoc network i.e. AODV, DSR, and DYMO and then evaluated the performance of these routing protocols as a function of pause time. A. AODV The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [5], [6] routing protocol is a reactive routing protocol uses an ondemand approach for discovering routes. It established routes between hosts only when desired by source hosts for transmitting data packets; therefore, it is also known as source initiated routing protocol. It uses destination sequence numbers to ensure the freshness of the routes. AODV mainly involves two processes, one is path detection and other is path maintenance. Path detection process involves path discovery, reverse-path setup and forward-path setup. The path discovery process begins whenever a source host wants to communicate with another host for which it has no routing information in its table. A host sequence number and a broadcast ID is maintained by every host. The source host initiates path discovery by broadcasting a Route REQuest (RREQ) message across the network. RREQ contains source address, source sequence number, broadcast-id, destination address, last destination sequence number known to the source and hop-

835

count. The pair broadcast-id and source address uniquely identifies an RREQ. Each neighbour host either re-broadcast the RREQ to its own neighbours after increasing hop-count if they are not destination host or satisfies the RREQ by replying through Route REPly (RREP) message back to the source host if they are destination host. If an intermediate host receives duplicate copies of same RREQ, it keeps only one copy of RREQ and does not rebroadcast it again. When a route request packet travels from source to destinations, all hosts sets up a reverse path towards source by recording the address of the neighbour host from which they received the first copy of the route request packet. After this a RREP packet travels back from destination to the source host through intermediate hosts and each host on this path sets up a forward pointer towards the host from which they received RREP packet. A RREP packet contains source address, destination address, latest destination sequence number, hop count and lifetime of packet. When a source host receives first RREP, it begins data transmission and updates its routing information whenever a RREP with greater destination sequence number than previous is received. A route remains active if data packets periodically travel from the source host to the destination host along that route. The HELLO messages are used by the hosts to know about the active neighbors and the Route ERRor (RERR) messages are used to propagate the information of link failures to the source host. Whenever a source host receives RERR packet, it may reinitiate route discovery process. B. DSR Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [7] protocol uses a reactive approach that reduces the periodic table update messages which are required in table-driven routing protocols [8]. This protocol is different from other reactive routing protocols that it doesn’t require periodic hello packets transmissions to know about active neighbors. DSR involves two phases, one is route discovery and other is route maintenance. In route discovery phase, a source host obtains a route to the destination host. If a source host doesn’t have any route to the destination in its route cache and wants to send a data packet to the destination host, it creates a Route REQuest (RREQ) packet and floods this packet into the network. Each route request packet includes the source address, target address, a unique request identifier number and a route record listing the addresses of each intermediate host through which this particular copy of the RREQ has been forwarded. When source host initiates route discovery the route record is an empty list. Upon receiving RREQ, each host appends its own address to the route record of the route request packet. Every host checks the request ID on the RREQ packet before forwarding it and forwards the packet only if it is not forwarded with the received request ID otherwise discards the packet. In route discovery phase, all hosts except the target host forward the RREQ packet. Whenever a destination host receives first RREQ, it replies back to the source host by sending a Route REPly (RREP) packet. The RREP packet contains a copy of route record listing the addresses of each intermediate host from source to the target. After receiving this route reply packet, the source host records this route in its route cache for data transmission to the target. This complete

836

route is included in the header of data packet when source host sends a data packet to the target host. Each host in the path ensures that the packet is received by the next host and each packet is only forwarded once by a host. The route maintenance phase begins, when an intermediate host founds that the link to its next host along the path towards target host is broken. The intermediate host then removes this broken link immediately from its route cache and sends a Route ERRor (RERR) message to the source host. After receiving RERR packet, the source can choose another route to destination from its route cache and sends data packet immediately using this new route. Otherwise, it may reinitiate discovery process to find a new route to the destination host. C. DYMO The Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) [9] is a reactive routing protocol standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and mainly used for multi-hop wireless communication in MANET. It uses an on-demand approach to establish unicast path between routers within the network. Digital Signature and hash functions are used to ensure the correctness of DYMO. This protocol involves two processes, one is route discovery and other is route maintenance. In route discovery process, when a source host wants to send data packets to destination hosts, source host creates a Route REQuest (RREQ) packet and broadcast it into the network. After broadcasting RREQ, the source host waits for a response from the destination host. If the source host doesn’t received any response from the destination host within RREQ waiting time, the source host may again starts route discovery process by issuing another RREQ. RREQ includes the source address, destination address, sequence number, hop limit and more optional field to its immediate neighbors in the range. Upon receiving RREQ, each host sets up a backward path towards the source host and adds its own address to the RREQ packet. DYMO uses path accumulation function to reduce the routing overhead by reducing the number of RREQ packets transmission in further route discovery. In route discovery process, all hosts except the destination host forward the RREQ packet to its neighbors. Whenever a destination host receives first RREQ, it replies back to the source host by sending a Route REPly (RREP) packet. Upon receiving RREP packet, each intermediate host adds its own address to the RREP packet before forwarding, similar to the RREQ dissemination. The route is established when the source host receives the route reply packet. In route maintenance process, all hosts continuously monitor the active links for route maintenance and when an intermediate host founds that the link to its next host along the route from source host to destination host is broken, it informs the source host that the current route is no longer available by sending a Route ERRor (RERR) packet to the source host. The RERR packet includes a list of addresses and sequence numbers of unreachable host. After getting the RERR packet, the source host may start route discovery process again.

2014 International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom)

II.

SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

We performed simulations on QualNet 5.0 [18] for the performance comparison and evaluation of AODV, DSR, and DYMO routing protocols. In our simulation, we consider a space of 1500m X 1500m in which 50 nodes are placed randomly to form a network. Here each packet begins its trip from a random source location to a random destination. The simulation runs for 300 seconds with mobility patterns generated for four different pause times. For simulation we have used a mobility model that is random waypoint and traffic source for network is Constant Bit Rate (CBR) [10][11][12]. The simulation parameters are summarized in table 1. TABLE I.

SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Simulation Parameters Dimension of space No. of nodes Minimum velocity (v min) Maximum velocity (v max) Simulation Time Traffic Sources Item size Source data pattern Node Placement Strategy Mobility Model Pause time No. of simulations

Values 1500m X 1500m 50 10 m/s 20 m/s 300 sec CBR 512 bytes 4 packets/sec Random Random Waypoint 30s, 60s, 90s, 120s 12

rate are the same for CBR applications. This type of traffic is predictable and can easily handle by the network. B. Random Waypoint mobility model Due to simplicity and extensive availability, this model is generally used to evaluate the performance of routing protocols in MANET. In this model, a mobile node selects any random location as a destination and travel towards it in a straight line at a constant velocity that is randomly selected from a range. When a node reaches at destination, it stops for a duration defined by the pause time. The node repeats this process, throughout the simulation [13]. III.

SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

To compare the performance of AODV, DSR, and DYMO routing protocol, we used four different parameters i.e. average end to end delay, packet delivery ratio, throughput and average jitter. In this section, simulation results for the selected protocols in term of performance parameters are elaborated. A. Average End to End Delay End-to-end delay is the delay for a packet when it travels from the CBR source to the application layer of the destination [14]. It includes all likely delays caused by buffering, queuing, retransmission, propagation and transfer of packets. The average end-to-end delay for AODV, DSR and DYMO routing protocols from the source to the destination are shown in figure 2. 3.5 AODV DSR DYMO

A v e ra g e e n d -t o - e n d d e la y

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 30

40

50

Fig. 2.

Fig. 1.

Snapshot of network in QualNet5.0 Simulator

A. Constant Bit Rate (CBR) A constant-bit-rate (CBR), or a fixed-rate, involves a data rate that does not change. The peak data rate the average data

60

70 80 Pause Time

90

100

110

120

Average End-to-End delay for 50 nodes

According to our simulation results, AODV shows best performance among all protocols in terms of end-to-end delay. In AODV, the nodes along the path from source to destination sets up the forward and reverse path pointer by storing the address of neighbor nodes from which they receives the packet of route request and route reply rather than storing the address of nodes in RREQ and RREP as in DSR and DYMO protocols.


837

B. Packet Delivery Ratio Packet delivery ratio (PDR) is the fraction of packets sent by the CBR application that are successfully received by the receivers and is calculated by dividing the number of successfully delivered packets through the total number of transmitted packets by the application layer of the source [15]. The packet delivery ratio for AODV, DSR and DYMO routing protocols are shown in figure 3.

results, DSR gives worst performance for smaller pause times but when pause time increases, Jitter decreases i.e. performance of DSR increases with the increase in pause times. For pause time less than 60 seconds, AODV performs better than other routing protocols. But for pause time greater than 90 seconds, DSR performs better. 4000

1 3500

0.9 0.8 P a c k e t d e liv e r y r a t io ( P D R )

3000 T h ro u g h p u t

0.7 2500

0.6 0.5

2000

0.4 AODV DSR DYMO

1500

0.3

AODV DSR DYMO

0.2

1000

0.1 0 30

500 30 40

50

60

70 80 Pause Time

90

100

110

40

50

60

120

Fig. 4.

According to our simulation results, DYMO performs better than AODV and DSR because DYMO uses path accumulation function which reduces the number of route request packets transmission and increases the reception of delivered packets. Initially, AODV delivers more than 70 percent of all CBR packets but its delivery rate suddenly decreases when pause time increases from 30 seconds to 60 seconds. Packet delivery rate of CBR packets for all protocols increases when pause time increases from 60 seconds. Due to maintenance of route cache, DSR has lower performance than AODV and DYMO protocols. C. Throughput The throughput is defined as the total amount of data a receiver receives from the sender divided by the time it takes for the receiver to get the last packet. The throughput is measured in bits per second [16]. The throughput for AODV, DSR and DYMO routing protocols are shown in figure 4. According to our simulation results, AODV shows better performance than DSR and DYMO when pause time is less than 90 seconds. After that throughput of DYMO increases as it reduces routing overhead through path accumulation function. D. Average Jitter Jitter is the difference in the delay between packets arriving, caused by congestion in the network, timing drift, or route changes. For better performance of routing protocols, jitter should be small [17]. According to our simulation

838

90

100

110

120

Throughput for 50 nodes

Packet Delivery Ratio for 50 nodes 0.45 AODV DSR DYMO

0.4 0.35 0.3 A v e r a g e J it te r

Fig. 3.

70 80 Pause Time

0.25 0.2

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 30

40

50

60

Fig. 5.

70 80 Pause Time

90

100

110

120

Average Jitter for 50 nodes

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, a performance comparison of AODV, DSR, and DYMO routing protocol for mobile ad-hoc networks is presented as a function of pause time. Performance of AODV, DSR, and DYMO routing protocol is evaluated with respect to four performance metrics such as average end to end delay, packet delivery ratio, throughput and average jitter. AODV and DYMO show better performance in terms of average end-toend delay and packet delivery ratio than other routing protocols


respectively. AODV also gives better throughput than other routing protocols for pause time less than 90 seconds. DYMO delivers more than 70 percent of all CBR packets when network is presented as a function of pause time. DSR shows worst performance for packet delivery ratio and average endto-end delay. In DSR, average jitter decreases with the increase in pause times i.e. DSR gives better results in terms of jitter when pause time is greater than 90 sec. In future, different node placement strategy, different mobility models, multiple sources, additional metrics such as TTL based average hop count, routing overhead may be used.

[15] Jorjeta G.Jetcheva and David B. Johson; “A Performance Comparison of On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks,” School of Computer Science, Computer Science Department, Pittsburgh, 2004. [16] U. T. Nguyen and X. Xiong; “Rate-adaptive Multicast in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” IEEE International Conference on Ad hocand Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob 2005), Monreal, Canada, 2005. [17] Talooki, V. N.; Ziarati, K.; , “Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Asia-Pacific Conferrence on Communicatios (APCC ‘06), pp. 1-5, 2006. [18] Qualnet5.0. Available. [Online]. http://www.scalable-networks.com

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3]

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Elizabeth, Royer, Chai-Keong, Toh: “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks,” IEEE Personal Communications, April 1999. C. Siva Ram Murthy, B.S. Manoj; “Ad hoc Wireless Networks: Architectures and Protocols,” Pearson Education. Subir Kumar Sarkar, T.G. Basavaraju, C. Puttamadappa; “ Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Principles, Protocols, and Applications,” Auerbach Publications. George Aggelou, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networks from wireless LANs to 4G Networks,” Tata McGraw Hill. Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer. "Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing." Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 90-100, New Orleans, LA, February 1999. Chakeres, I.D.; Belding-Royer, E.M.; "AODV routing protocol implementation design," Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW’04), pp. 698- 703, 23-24 March 2004 David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu, “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR)”, IETF: The Internet Engineering Taskforce RFC 4728, July 2004. S. R. Das, R. Castaneda and J. Yan, “Simulation Based Performance Evaluation of Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols,” In Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN’98), 1998. Rolf Ehrenreich Thorup “Implementing and Evaluating the DYMO,” February 2007. Ashish K. Maurya, Dinesh Singh, "Simulation based Performance Comparison of AODV, FSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET," International Journal of Computer Applications, Volume 12, No. 2, pp. 23-28, November 2010. Ashish K. Maurya, Dinesh Singh, Ajeet Kumar, "Performance Comparison of DSR, OLSR and FSR Routing Protocols in MANET using Random Waypoint Mobility Model," International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering, Volume 3, No. 5, pp. 440-443, September, 2013. Dinesh Singh, Ashish K. Maurya, Anil K. Sarje, "Comparative Performance Analysis of LANMAR, LAR1, DYMO and ZRP Routing Protocols in MANET using Random Waypoint Mobility Model," 3rd IEEE International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology (ICECT 2011), 8-10 April 2011, Kanyakumari, India. Bettstetter, C.; Resta, G.; Santi, P.; “The node distribution of the random waypoint mobility model for wireless ad hoc networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp257- 269, 2003. David Oliver Jorg; “Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network Sizes”, Computer Science Project, Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (RVS), University of Berne, Switzerland, 2003.


839