Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR, and DSDV MANET Routing Protocols under CBR Traffic

Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR, and DSDV MANET Routing Protocols under CBR Traffic

Nirupa Mohd. Dr. N. C Barwar

Assistant professor Associate Professor,

Department of Computer Department of Computer

Science and Engineering, Science and Engineering,

JIET group of Institution, Jai Narain Vyas Univrcity,

Jodhpur (Raj.), India Jodhpur (Raj.), India.

Abstract:- A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of wireless mobile nodes forming a temporary network without using any centralized access point or administration. MANET protocols have to face high challenges due to dynamically changing topologies, low transmission power and asymmetric links of network. The widely accepted existing routing protocols designed to accommodate the needs of such self-organized networks do not address possible threats aiming at the disruption of the protocol itself. In this paper an attempt has been made to compare the performance of two On-demand reactive routing protocols namely AODV and DSR and a proactive routing protocol namely DSDV in different scenarios under CBR traffic patterns considering End-to-End delay, Packet Delivery Ratio, and Throughput metrics for performance analysis and the simulator used is NS-2 in Ubuntu operating system(Linux).The simulations are carried out by varying the packet size, number of maximum connecting nodes, varying number of nodes and the results are analyzed

Keywords: – MANET, DSDV, AODV, DSR, CBR.

I. INTRODUCTION

An Ad-Hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without the use of existing network infrastructure or centralized administration [1][2]. MANET is a kind of wireless network and self configuring network of moving routers associated with wireless network. The routers are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily, thus, the network's wireless topology may change rapidly and unpredictably [1][3]. Main challenges to maintain the Mobile Ad-Hoc network are: No central controlling authority, limited power ability, continuously maintain the information required to properly route traffic.

This infra-structure less network is managed using the routing protocols. Routing is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send data or physical traffic. Routing directs the passing of logically addressed packets from their source toward their ultimate destination through intermediary nodes. So routing protocol is the routing of packets based on the defined rules and regulations. Every routing protocol has its own algorithm on the basis of

which it discovers and maintains the route. In every routing protocol, there is a data structure which stores the information of route and modifies the table as route maintenance is requires. A routing metric is a value used by a routing algorithm to determine whether one route should perform better than another. Metrics can cover such information as bandwidth, delay, hop count, path cost, load, reliability and communication cost. The routing table stores only the best possible routes while link-state or topological databases may store all other information as well [3][7][9].

The main objective of ad-hoc routing protocols is to deliver data packets among mobile nodes efficiently without predetermined topology or centralized control. The various mobile ad-hoc routing protocols have been proposed and have their unique characteristics. Hence, in order to find out the most efficient routing protocol for the highly dynamic topology in ad-hoc networks, the behaviour of routing protocols has to be analyzed under different traffic patterns respect to their metrics [4].

1. MOBILE AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS

   There are two main approaches for routing process in ad- hoc networks[10]. The first approach is a proactive approach which is table driven and attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date routing information from each node to every other node in the network. Proactive protocols present low latency, but high routing overhead, as the nodes periodically exchange control messages and routing- table information in order to keep up-to-date route to any active node in the network. The second approach is re- active, source-initiated or on-demand. Reactive protocols create routes only when desired by the source node. When a node requires a route to a destination, it initiates a route discovery process within the network. Reactive protocols do not maintain up-to-date routes to any destination in the network and do not generally exchange any periodic control messages. Thus, they present low routing overhead, but high latency as compared to proactive protocols. The DSDV is a proactive protocol and AODV, DSR, and TORA are reactive protocols. The mobile ad-hoc routing protocols considered in this study are AODV, DSR, and DSDV [4].

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROTOCOL

   1. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) DSDV [3][4][7] is considered to be successor of Distance Vector in wired routing protocol and guarantees a loop free path to each destination. It is based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm for calculation of shortest path. For this protocol, every node maintains routing table which contains all available destinations with associated next hop towards destination, distance and destination sequence number. Destination sequence number presents improvement of DSDV routing protocol compared to distance vector routing, and it is used to distinguish stable routes from fresh ones and avoid formation of route loops.

      In order to maintain the consistency in dynamic environment, each node periodically broadcasts its routing table to its neighbors. Broadcasting of the information is done in Network Protocol Data Units (NPDU) in two ways: full dump and incremental dump. Full dump requires multiple NPDUs, while incremental requires only one NPDU to fit in all the information, to minimize the number of control messages disseminated in the network. When an information packet is received from another node, node compares the sequence number with the available sequence number for that entry. If the sequence number is larger, entry will be updated with the routing information with the new sequence number, else if the information arrives with the same sequence number, metric entry will be required. If the number of hops is less than the previous entry, new information will be updated. Update is performed periodically or when significant change in routing table is detected since the last update. If network topology frequently changes, full dump will be carried out, since incremental dump will cause less traffic in stable network topology. When such updating takes place each update is broadcasted in the network, which leads to a heavy network load situation and affects the bandwidth. With more number of nodes, traffic load increases. DSDV takes into account only bidirectional links between nodes.

   2. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

      Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [3][4] is an on-demand routing protocol, which is based on the concept of source- based routing. DSR is a simple pure on-demand reactive protocol that does not periodically exchange any control packets. The main concept of the DSR protocol is source routing, in which source nodes place the complete route that the packet must follow from a source to a destination in the header of a packet. DSR applies two on-demand processes, route discovery and route maintenance. The route discovery process is used to discover new routes and maintain them in the cache of nodes. The route maintenance process detects link failures, then repair route or fnd alternate route. Each node caches the routes to any destination it has recently used, or discovered by overhearing its neighbors transmission. When there is not such route, a route discovery process is initiated. DSR applies on demand schemes for both route discovery and

      route maintenance. There by reducing network bandwidth overhead, conserving battery power and avoiding large routing updates throughout the mobile ad-hoc network. DSR is a loop free protocol and supports unidirectional links.

   3. Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)

   Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector [11][13] is a reactive routing protocol, which mixes the properties of DSR and DSDV. Routes are discovered as on-demand basis and are maintained as long as they are required. Each node of AODV maintains a routing table but unlike the DSDV protocol it does not necessarily maintain route for any possible destination in network. However, its routing table maintains routing information for any route that has been recently used within a time interval; so a node is able to send data packets to any destination that exists in its routing table without flooding the network with new Route Request (ROUTE_REQ) messages.

   Like DSDV it maintains a sequence number, which it increases each time it finds a change in the topology of its neighborhood. This sequence number ensures that the most recent route is selected for execution of the route discovery. All routing packets carry these sequence numbers. AODV stores routing information as one entry per destination in contrast to DSR, which cashes multiple entries per destination. Without source routing, AODV relies on routing table entries to propagate an ROUTE_REPLY back to the source and, subsequently, to route data packets to the destination. AODV supports for both unicast and multicast routing, and also supports both bidirectional and unidirectional links.

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT

   The objective of our work is to compare the performance of three routing protocols based on Table Driven and On-demand behavior, namely Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), for wireless ad hoc networks based on the performance. The comparison has been made on the basis of their properties like throughput, packet delivery ratio (PDR), End to End Delay with respect to three different scenarios out by varying the packet size, number of maximum connecting nodes, varying number of nodes and the results are analyzed

4. PERFORMANCE METRICES CONSIDERED

   FOR STUDIES

   1. Average end-to-end delay of data packets: It is defined as the average end-to-end delay of data packets within a network. The sum of all time differences between the packet sent and received divided by the number of packets, gives the average end-to-end delay. The lower the end-to-end delay the better the application performance[1][14].

      AED= (Received time sent time)/Total data packets received

   2. Average Throughput: It is measured as the ratio of amount of received data to the amount of simulation time and tells about how soon an end user is able to receive data. A higher throughput implies better QoS of the network [1].

      Average Throughput = Total Received Bytes / Elapsed Time

   3. Packet Delivery Ratio

   Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets received at the destination by the number of packets originated at the source. For the best performance packet delivery ratio of routing protocol should be as high as possible [2]. If the ratio is 1, it will be the best delivery ratio of the routing protocol.

   PDR= No. Of received packets/No. Of sent packets

5. SIMULATION RESULTS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

   Two On-demand (Reactive) routing protocols namely Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and one Table-driven (Proactive) namely Destination Sequenced Demand Vector (DSDV) is used. The mobility model used is Random waypoint mobility model because it models the random movement of the mobile nodes.

   Table 1: Simulation Setup

   Platform	Ubuntu
   NS version	Ns-allinone-2.35
   Pause time	0,40,80,120,160,200
   Simulation time	200ms
   Number of nodes	10,30
   Traffic pattern	CBR(Constant Bit Rate)
   Transmission Range	250m
   Simulation Area Size	500 * 500
   Node speed	20 m/s
   Mobility model	Random way point
   Interface type	LL

   Scenario 1: In this scenario, number of nodes connected in a network at a time is varied and thus varying the number of connections, through which the comparison graphs of AODV, DSDV and DSR is obtained.

   PARAMETER	VALUE
   Number of Nodes	100
   Simulation Time	50 sec
   Routing Protocol	AODV,DSDV,DSR
   Simulation Model	Two Ray Ground
   MAC Type	802.11
   Link Layer Type	LL
   No. of connection	20,40,60,80,100
   Interface Type	Queue
   Traffic Type	CBR
   Packet size	512 MB
   Queue Length	50
   Pause Time	00 sec
   Node speed	20 m/s

   PARAMETER	VALUE
   Number of Nodes	100
   Simulation Time	50 sec
   Routing Protocol	AODV,DSDV,DSR
   Simulation Model	Two Ray Ground
   MAC Type	802.11
   Link Layer Type	LL
   No. of connection	20,40,60,80,100
   Interface Type	Queue
   Traffic Type	CBR
   Packet size	512 MB
   Queue Length	50
   Pause Time	00 sec
   Node speed	20 m/s

   TABLE 2: Various parameters used while varying number of connections.

   Figure 2(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying number of connection.

   Average End to End Delay: The performance of DSR first decrease and then increases with increasing number of nodes. It also degrades with increasing nodes for network but at coming to the end both remains the same with decreasing the number of nodes for AODV the delay is low at first than it increase with the increasing the number of nodes. AODV shows better performance than DSDV & DSR.

   Figure 2(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying number of connection.

   Throughput: DSR outperforms the other two protocols but AODV shows the better performance than DSDV protocol. AODV & DSR performs same for less number of nodes which decrease with increasing nodes for DSR network. Overall DSR shows the highest throughput and outperforms the other protocol.

   Figure 2(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying number of connection.

   Packet Delivery Ratio: performance of AODV & DSR remains constant for increasing number of nodes, Where as DSDV perform the increase with decrease then remains with increasing the number of nodes.

   Scenario 2: In this scenario, total number of nodes in the network at a time remains fixed and thus varying speed of the node with which they are moving in the network.

   Table 3: Various parameters used while varying mobility of the nodes i.e. speed of the nodes in the network

   PARAMETER	VALUE
   Number of Nodes	100
   Simulation Time	100 sec
   Routing Protocol	AODV,DSDV,DSR
   Simulation Model	Two Ray Ground
   MAC Type	802.11
   No. of connection	50
   Link Layer Type	LL
   Interface Type	Queue
   Traffic Type	CBR
   Packet size	512 MB
   Queue Length	50
   Pause Time	10 sec
   Node speed	10,30,50,70,90 m/s

   Figure 3(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying speed of the node in the network.

   Average End To End Delay: AODV & DSR performs almost same, where as DSDV shows least performance and DSR performs constantly when the speed of nodes changes. Whereas AODV performs better than DSDV.

   Figure 3(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying speed of the node in the network.

   Throughput: AODV & DSR performs constantly in all condition where as for DSDV the speed of the nodes is low with increasing number of nodes. AODV & DSR performs better than DSDV routing protocol.

   Figure 3(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying speed of the node in the network.

   Packet Delivery Ratio: DSDV performs with decrease in increasing with the speed of nodes and AODV & DSR performs constantly in all condition where as AODV performs better than both DSDV & DSR routing protocols.

   Scenario 5: In this scenario, total number of nodes in the network at a time remains fixed and thus parameter values for varying the packet size with which they are moving in the network.

   Table 4: Parameter Values For Varying The Packet Size.

   PARAMETER	VALUE
   Number of Nodes	30
   Simulation Time	50 sec
   Routing Protocol	AODV,DSDV,DSR
   Simulation Model	Two Ray Ground
   MAC Type	802.11
   No. of connection	10
   Link Layer Type	LL
   Interface Type	Queue
   Traffic Type	CBR
   Packet size	28,38,48,98,128 MB
   Queue Length	50
   Pause Time	00 sec
   Node speed	20 m/s

   Figure 4(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying packet size in the network.

   Average End To End Delay: The performance of AODV, DSDV & DSR remains constant for increasing packet size but AODV performs and show better than DSR & DSDV.

   Figure 4(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying packet size in the network.

   Throughput: AODV performs better than DSR & DSDV. The performance of all the three routing protocols remains almost constant with decrease and slight increase with packet size.

   Figure 4(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying packet size in the network.

   Packet Delivery Ratio: the performance of DSR shows better than DSDV & AODV as AODV & DSR performs constantly with the increase with packet size and DSDV performs decrease with increase with packet size.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

   AODV shows the best performance with its ability to maintain connection by periodic exchange of information required for TCP network. AODV perform best in case of varying packet size and packet delivery fraction. DSDV outperform other in case of throughput. At higher node mobility AODV is worst in case of end to end delay but performs best in packet delivery fraction. DSDV performs better than AODV for higher node mobility. In case of throughput DSR performs best but overall AODV outperforms DSDV and DSR as a high mobility environment topology change rapidly and AODV can adapt to the changes, but with taking everything in to account DSDV is better than other. Hence for real time traffic DSDV is preferred over DSR and AODV.

   Finally, from the above research work performance of AODV is considered best for real time and TCP network. In all the parameters AODV outperforms other than two DSDV and DSR routing protocols. In this research work only three scenarios and three parameters are taken for the comparison of the ad hoc routing protocols.

   In future many scenarios and parameters can be used to compare the performance of the Ad Hoc routing protocols used in the TCP network. Simulation tools other than NS2 can be used and the windows platform can be used for implementing the simulation instead of linux.

7. REFERENCES

1. S.Vanthana, Dr.V.Sinthu Janita Prakash Comparative Study Of Proactive and Reactive AdHoc Routing Protocols Using Ns2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 978-1-4799-2876- 7/13 © 2013 IEEE.

2. Prof. Mohit Dua1, Prof. Virender Ranga,Ms. Krishma Mehra, Mr. Pawan Kardam, Ms. Snehal Mohan Bahsakhetre Performance Evaluation Of AODV, DSR, DSDV Mobile Adhoc Protocols On Different Scenarios: An Analytical Review. Department Of Computer Engineering National Institute Of Technology, Kurukshetra (India).

3. Asma Tuteja, Rajneesh Gujrl and Sunil Thalia, Comparative Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET using NS2, International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering, 2010.

4. S Sumathy, Beegala Yuvaraj, E Sri Harsha Analysis of Multicast Routing Protocols: Puma and Odmrp International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) ,Vol.2, Issue.6, Nov-Dec. 2012, pp-4613-4621.

5. Aiswarya Antony, Swarna Parvathi , Akshaya Venkatesan,Experimental Analysis Of Streaming Over Mobile Adhoc Networks Using PUMA,Indian jounal of engineering

   ,volume 2 ,number 3,ISSN 2319-7757, January 2013.

6. Fasee Ullah, Muhammad Amin and Hamid ul Ghaffar,Simulating AODV and DSDV For Adynamic Wireless Sensor Networks IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.10 No.7,July 2010.

7. Baldev Ram Mali, N.C. Barwar, Performance of MANET Routing Protocols considering Impact of Node Density under Different Traffic Patterns, Special Issue of International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887) on Wireless Communication and Mobile Networks, No.6. Jan.2012.

8. Md. Arafatur Rahman, Farhat Anwar, Jannatul Naeem and Md. Sharif Minhazul Abedin, A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of Routing Protocol on Mobile Ad-hoc Network (Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid),International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering (ICCCE 2010), 11-13 May 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

9. Sapna S. Kaushik1 & P.R.Deshmukp, Comparison of effectiveness of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management , Volume 2, No. 2, July-December 2009.

1. Uma Mani, Ramasamy Chandrasekaran and V.R. Sarma Dhulipala, Study And Analysis Of Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1519-1525, 2013.

2. Kapang Lego,Pranav Kumar Singh,Dipankar Sutradhar Comparative Study Of Adhoc Routing Protocol AODV, DSR And DSDV In Mobile Adhoc Network Kapang Lego et. al. / Indian Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 4 364-371

3. S. Corsonts, J. Macker Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations Naval Research Laboratory, January 1999

4. Rashmi Rohankar, Rinkoo Bhatia, Vineet Shrivastava, Deepak Kumar Sharma Performance Analysis of Various Routing Protocols (Proactive and Reactive) for Random Mobility Models of Adhoc Networks. 1st Intl Conf. on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |

5. David Oliver Jorg, Performance Comparison Of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network Sizes, University of Berne, Switzerland, 2003.

6. 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