Scenario-based Performance Comparison of Reactive ... - IEEE Xplore

2012 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI -2012), Jan. 10 – 12, 2012, Coimbatore, INDIA

Scenario-based Performance Comparison of Reactive, Proactive & Hybrid Protocols in MANET Savita Gandhi SMIEEE1, Nirbhay Chaubey MIEEE2, Naren Tada3, Srushti Trivedi3 1 Department of Computer Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 2 Institutes of Science and Technology for Advanced Studies and Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India 3 M.Tech Students, Department of Computer Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India E-mail : [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] Abstract- This paper presents a comprehensive simulation study of well known On-demand routing protocols Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector (AODV), Table-driven routing protocol Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Hybrid routing protocol Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) in different mobility scenarios generated by Random Waypoint model. The performance of the three routing protocols is analyzed with respect to Average End-to-End Delay, Average Jitter, Average Throughput, Normalized Routing Load (NRL) and Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF). The major goal of this study is to analyze the performance of popular MANETs routing protocol. Keywords-- MANETs, Routing Protocols, AODV, DSDV, ZRP

I. INTRODUCTION Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET) are collections of wireless mobile nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without the use of any pre-defined network infrastructure or centralized administration [1]. A central challenge in the design of ad hoc networks is the development of dynamic routing protocols that can efficiently find routes between two communicating nodes. The routing protocol must be able to keep up with the high degree of node mobility that often changes the network topology drastically and unpredictably [2]. Several protocols exist and those can be divided into three main categories, Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Protocols. Reactive protocols are characterized by nodes acquiring and maintaining routes on-demand. Proactive protocols are categorized by all nodes maintaining routes to all destinations in the network at all times. They are also called table driven protocols. This paper is structured as follows: Section II discusses related work. In Section III we briefly review MANETs routing protocols. Section IV provides details of performance metrics, Section V gives Simulation Set up. Finally, in Section VI Results are discussed followed by the conclusions.

978-1-4577-1583-9/ 12/ $26.00 © 2012 IEEE

II. RELATED WORK In [3] Prokopios C. Karavetsios and Anastasios etc. evaluated the performance comparison of distributed routing algorithms in Ad-Hoc Mobile Networks. They demonstrated in AODV and DSDV protocols using NS2. In [4] Sree Ranga Raju and Jitendranath Mungara presented performance evaluation of AODV, DSR and ZRP using QualNet Simulator and concluded that ZRP performed poorly throughout all the simulation sequences. In [5] V. Kanakaris, D. Ndzi and D. Azzi focus on AODV, DSDV, DSR and TORA using NS-2. AODV and DSR produce high-quality results, AODV has an excellent throughput in all the scenarios but TORA performs poorly. In [6] Zygmunt J. Hass, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince Samar described and demonstrated Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). They said that the ZRP protocol is suitable for highly versatile networks. The performance of different proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols have been analyzed by different researchers in different scenario. In [7] Guntupalli and Vyavahare has proved that AODV performance is better than DSDV when transmission power is increased, At higher transmission powers AODV routing load is increased.

III. MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS Routing protocols for wireless ad hoc networks can be classified into the three categories: On-demand (or Reactive), Table-driven (or Proactive), and Zone based (or Hybrid). On-demand (reactive) protocols: In contrast to table driven routing protocols, on demand compute the route to a specific destination only when needed, so a routing table containing all the nodes as entries does not have to be maintained in each node. When a source wants to send packet to a destination, it invokes a route discovery mechanism to find the path to the destination. The route remains valid till the destination is reachable or until the route is no longer needed. Examples are AODV, DSR .


Table driven (proactive) protocols: Proactive (tabledriven) protocols maintain the routing information consistently up-to-date from each node to every other node in the network. The main function of proactive routing protocol maintains its table in order to store routing information. Up on changing in the network topology caused by anything just need to be reflected to this table and propagate the updating information throughout the network Hybrid protocols: These types of protocols combine the advantages of proactive and of reactive routing. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. The choice for one or the other method requires predetermination for typical cases. Example is ZRP . Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV): The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) algorithm enables dynamic, self-starting, multi-hop routing between participating mobile nodes wishing to establish and maintain an ad hoc network. AODV allows mobile nodes to obtain routes quickly for new destinations, and does not require nodes to maintain routes to destinations that are not in active communication [8].

Route Discovery - (i) RREQ (ii) RREP [9] AODV allows mobile nodes to respond to link breakages and changes in network topology in a timely manner. The operation of AODV is loop-free, and by avoiding the Bellman-Ford "counting to infinity" problem offers quick convergence when the ad hoc network topology changes. Route Requests (RREQs), Route Replies (RREPs), and Route Errors (RERRs) are the message types defined by AODV. AODV builds routes using a route request / route reply messages. When a source node seeks a route to a destination for which it does not already have a route, it broadcasts a route request (RREQ). Packets across the network nodes receiving this packet update their information for the source node and store the information in the routing table. This depicted in figure 1(i). In addition to the source node's IP address, current sequence number, and broadcast ID, the RREQ also contains the

most recent sequence number for the destination of which the source node is aware. A node receiving the RREQ may send a route reply (RREP) if it is either the destination or if it has a route to the destination with corresponding sequence number greater than or equal to that contained in the RREQ. Which is depicted in figure 1(ii) Destination node sends the reply to source node. If this is the case, it unicasts a RREP back to the source. Otherwise, it rebroadcasts the RREQ. Nodes keep track of the RREQ's source IP address and broadcast ID [10]. Problem of AODV: AODV does not discover a route until a flow is initiated. This route discovery latency result can be high in large-scale networks. The messages can be misused for insider attacks including route disruption, route invasion, node isolation, and resource consumption AODV lacks an efficient route maintenance technique. The routing info is always obtained on demand, including for common case traffic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV): Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) is a table-driven routing scheme for ad hoc mobile networks based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm. It was developed by C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat in 1994. The main contribution of the algorithm was to solve the Routing Loop problem. Each entry in the routing table contains a sequence number, the sequence numbers are generally even if a link is present else an odd number is used. The number is generated by the destination, and the emitter needs to send out the next update with this number [11]. Routing information is distributed between nodes by sending full dumps infrequently and smaller incremental updates more frequently. DSDV was one of the early algorithms available. It is quite suitable for creating ad hoc networks with small number of nodes. Since no formal specification of this algorithm is present, there is no commercial implementation of this algorithm. Many improved forms of this algorithm have been suggested. DSDV requires a regular update of its routing tables, which uses up battery power and a small amount of bandwidth even when the network is idle . Whenever the topology of the network changes, a new sequence number is necessary before the network re-converges. Thus, DSDV is not suitable for highly dynamic networks. (As in all distance-vector protocols, this does not perturb traffic in regions of the network that are not concerned by the topology change). Problem of DSDV: Periodically updating the network topology increases bandwidth overhead. Periodically updating route tables keeps the nodes awake and quickly exhausts their batteries. Many redundant route entries to the specific destination needlessly take place in the routing tables.


Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP): The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) [6] in contrast to other MANET routing protocols, integrates both proactive and reactive routing components into a single protocol to maintain valid routing tables without too much overhead. Around each node, ZRP defines a zone whose radius is measured in terms of hops. Each node utilizes proactive routing within its zone and reactive routing outside of its zone. Hence, a given node knows the identity of and a route to all nodes within its zone. When the node has data packets for a particular destination, then it checks its routing table for a route. If the destination lies within the zone, a route will exist in the route table. Otherwise, if the destination is not within the zone, a search to find a route to that destination is needed. For intrazone routing, ZRP defines the Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP). IARP is a link-state protocol that maintains up-to-date information about all nodes within the zone. For any given node X, X’s peripheral nodes are defined to be those nodes whose minimum distance to X is the zone radius. ZRP utilizes the Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) for discovering routes to destinations outside of the zone. For route discovery, the notion of bordercasting is introduced. Once a source node determines the destination is not within its zone, the source bordercasts a query message to its peripheral nodes. During the bordercast, the query message is relayed toward these peripheral nodes using trees constructed within the intrazone topology. After receiving the message, the peripheral nodes, in turn, check whether the destination lies within their zone. If the destination is not located, the peripheral nodes in turn bordercast the query message to their peripheral nodes. This process continues until either the destination is located, or until the entire network is searched. Once a node discovers the destination, it unicasts a reply message to the source node. Problem of ZRP: The Limitation of this protocol is that for large value of routing zone the protocol can behave like a pure proactive protocol, while for small values it behaves like a reactive protocol and it often creates overlapping zones.

IV. PERFORMANCE METRICS

3.

4.

5.

route changes. Average Throughput: It is the rate of successfully transmitted data packets in a unit time in the network during the simulation. Normalized Routing Load (NRL): The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination. Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF): The ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the CBR sources.

V. SIMULATION SETUP The simulations were performed using Network Simulator 2 (NS-2.33) [12], [13] in Linux Red hat Enterprise. The mobility model uses ‘random way-point model’ in a rectangular field of 1000m x 1000m with 25 nodes to 200 nodes with 20m/sec as a maximum speed and pause times zero(0). Different network scenario for different number of nodes for 5 connections and 10 connections are generated. We generate 10 scenario file and run the simulation. The detailed trace file created by each run is stored to disk. Also the packet size for the simulation remain 512 byte with the data traffic as CBR(UDP). Simulation time for the whole scenario was 100sec. NS-2 [13] is chosen as the simulation tool among the others simulation tools because NS-2 supports networking research and education. NS-2 is suitable for designing new protocols, comparing different protocols and traffic evaluations. NS-2 is developed as a collaborative environment. It is distributed freely and is open source. .

VI.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this Section, we compare the three routing protocols. To evaluate performance of AODV, DSDV & ZRP routing protocols in same simulation environment (25 to 200 mobile nodes), simulations results are collected from total of 60 scenarios of the three protocols. We use AWK program to calculate performance metrics from trace file. The simulation results are shown in the following section in the form of graphs.

In this paper, we consider following five performance metrics to compare the AODV, DSDV and ZRP routing protocol. 1.

2.

Average End-to-End Delay: This includes all possible delays caused by buffering during routing discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays, propagation and transfer times. Average Jitter: It is the variation in the time between packets arriving at destination node, caused by network congestion, timing drift, or

Average End-to-End Delay vs. Number of Nodes


Average End-to-End Delay vs. Number of Nodes

Average Throughput vs. Number of Nodes

From the Figure 2 and 3, average end to end delay is very less and remains almost same for all the nodes in case of DSDV. The performance of AODV has less end to end delay compared to ZRP but degrades with increase in the number of nodes. Overall, we can say that ZRP has higher end to end delay compared to other two protocols.

Average Throughput vs. Number of Nodes From the above Figure 6 and 7 we notice that the AODV gives best throughput. DSDV has lower performance in < 75 nodes compared to ZRP. From the graph we have observed that Average throughput of ZRP decreases when the no of nodes increase in network. Average Jitter vs. Number of Nodes

Average Jitter vs. Number of Nodes

Normalized Routing Load vs. Number of Nodes

From the Figure 4 and 5, it can be easily seen that AODV has an excellent performance over DSDV and ZRP. Average jitter of ZRP becomes quite high as network size increases. It is also observed that average jitter of ZRP degrades in high density of network.

Normalized Routing Load vs. Number of Nodes


From the Figure 8 and 9 we observed that NRL for ZRP consistently increases with increase of number of nodes in the network.

AODV and DSDV have same performance as number of nodes increase. From simulation result, it is observed that ZRP has poor performance in PDF and frequency of received packets is very low. AODV being the most promising, our future work will focus on standardization of security mechanism using AODV.

REFERENCES [1].

[2].

Packet Delivery Fraction vs. Number of Nodes [3].

[4].

[5].

[6].

Packet Delivery Fraction vs. Number of Nodes From Figure 10 and 11 we notice that the data packet delivery fraction of AODV is the best as compared to DSDV and ZRP. Further, we observed that PDF of ZRP degrade consistently with increase of number of nodes in the network.

VII.CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The simulation results bring out some important characteristic of three routing protocols AODV, DSDV and ZRP. The performance varies widely across different network sizes and results from one scenario cannot be applied to other scenario. The presence of high mobility implies frequent link failures and each routing protocol reacts differently during link failures. Overall, AODV performs well in all parameters. Average end-to-end delay is the least for DSDV and does not change if numbers of nodes are increased. Thus, we find that AODV is viable for MANETs though NRL for

[7].

[8]. [9]. [10].

[11].

Samir M. Said, Ibrahiem M. M. El Emary and Shatha Kadim “Comparative study between the performance of proactive and reactive mobile ad-hoc networks(manet) routing protocols with varying mobility” Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 6(6), pp. 1256-1274, March 2011 Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer, Samir R. Das and Mahesh K. Marina, “Performance comparison of two ondemand routing protocols for ad hoc networks” IEEE Personal Communications pp 16-28, February 2001 Prokopios C. Karavetsios and Anastasios A. Economides, “Performance comparison of distributed routing algorithms in ad hoc mobile networks” International Conference on TELEINFO - Mobile Computing and Mobile Networks, WSEAS Transactions on Communications, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 1215, May 2004. Sree Ranga Raju and Jitendranath Mungara “Performance evaluation of zrp over aodv and dsr in mobile adhoc networks using qualnet” European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X Vol.45 No.4 , pp.658-674, 2010 V. Kanakaris, D. Ndzi and D. Azzi “Ad-hoc networks energy consumption: a review of the ad-hoc routing protocols” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 3 (1), pp 162167, 2010 Zygmunt J. Hass, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince Samar “The Zone Routing protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/I-D/draft-ietf-manetzone-zrp-04.txt Guntupalli Lakshmikanth, Mr. A. Gaiwak, Dr. P .D. Vyavahare “Simulation based comparative performance analysis of adhoc routing protocols” TENCON 2008 - IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp 1 – 5, 19-21, November 2008 C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, S. Das, “RFC3561 of ad hoc ondemand distance vector (aodv) routing” University of Cincinnati, July 2003 Xiaojun Hei, Jian Ni http://www.ee.ust.hk/~heixj/publication/comp660g/ EEE Department, HKUST. Nor Surayati Mohamad Usop, Azizol Abdullah and Ahmad Faisal Amri Abidin “Performance evaluation of aodv, dsdv & dsr routing protocol in grid environment” IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.9 No.7, July 2009 Perkins C.E. and Bhagwat.P. “Highly dynamic destinationsequenced distance-vector routing (dsdv) for mobile computers” ACM, SIGCOMM '94 Proceedings of the conference on Communications architectures, protocols and applications pp.234 – 244, 1994