International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND ISSN 0976

6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)

ISSN 0976 6464(Print) ISSN 0976 6472(Online) Special Issue (November, 2013), pp. 182-189 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijecet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.8896 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJECET
IAEME

A Detailed Study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using Qualnet Simulator
Alka Chaudhary1, V N Tiwari2, Anil Kumar3
1Ph.D

Scholar Computer Science Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India 2Electronics & Communication, Manipal University Jaipur, India 3Computer Science Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India

1alkachaudhary0207@gmail.com, 2vivekanand.tiwari@jaipur.manipal.edu, 3anil.kumar@jaipur.manipal.edu

ABSTRACT: Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are opened new paradigm for communication
in many areas such as battle field, disaster relief, neighborhood area networks, virtual class rooms, and multiuser games etc. because in MANET, there is no need of pre existing network infrastructure for managing the communication between the nodes. Overall communications are based on routing protocols in these types of networks. Routing protocols are fully responsible to send data packets between two nodes. Due to the dynamic nature of MANETs, Routing protocols play a critical task to manage the communication. So there are basically three classes of unicast routing protocols such as flat, hierarchical and Geographic Position Assisted Routing protocols. This paper is going to focus on the performance under different mobile and stationary nodes of all routing protocol classes. The performance evaluation is based on the metrics such as Average Jitter, Average end to end delay and throughput using Qualnet simulator 6.1.

KEYWORDS: MANETs, routing protocols, simulation, Qualnet 6.1, Average Jitter, Average end
to end delay and throughput.

I.

INTRODUCTION

MANETs form a network without the help of pre defined infrastructure. In this network collection of mobile node can communicate or send data packets freely to each other with the help of routing protocols. Mobile nodes can join and leave the network at any time due to the wireless links. The range of the MANETs applications can be static small area networks to highly dynamic area networks. The main challenge of designing MANETs is to develop scalable routing protocol which can help to communication between mobile nodes [1]. Due to the dynamically changing topology, wired network routing protocols cannot be directly apply on ad hoc networks. So that ad hoc networks have required the need of dynamic mechanism of routing protocols [2]. Consideration of mobility in the network may influence the performance of routing protocols because nodes that forward and receive the data packets through the routing protocol may go out of range to each other thats why link breakage is happened over
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India October 18-20, 2013 Page 182

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

any time. In this case Manets require to search or establish a new optimum route. As a result, the quick route discovery mechanism should be the aim of the routing protocols. It is helpful to detailed study of the various performance metrics for understanding and usage of routing protocol. In this paper, we evaluated the performances of various proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols such as Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing (AODV), Location Aided Routing (LAR) and Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) using Qualnet simulator 6.1[3] under 45 stationary (without mobility) and mobile nodes. Other sections of this paper are organized as follows: In section II, Describes the classification and techniques of routing protocols which is in this work specially implemented using Qualnet 6.1. In section III, elaborates the comparison between various routing protocols- OLSR, DSR, AODV, LAR and ZRP. In section IV, evaluates the performances under different metrics which is related to MANETs. Finally, Section V concludes the paper on the bases of simulation results.

II.

CLASSIFICATION AND TECHNIQUES OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

A. Classification of Routing Protocols On the bases of classification, Unicast routing protocols can classify into three classes: flat, hierarchical and Geographic Position Assisted Routing protocols which is depicted in fig.1. Further flat routing protocols can classify in two types such as: proactive and reactive [4].

Fig. 1: Classification of routing protocols A.1 Proactive Routing Protocols Proactive routing is also known as table - driven routing protocol. In this type of routing each node maintain the routing table for containing the latest route information of any node in the network. All proactive protocols have different method in the way of propagating information through all the nodes at the time of topology changes. These types of routing protocols are not suitable for larger networks because each node table maintains the entry of all nodes. These types of routing protocols are: Destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV), Optimized link state protocol (OLSR), Bellman ford protocol, etc [7]. A.2 Reactive Routing Protocols It is also known as on- demand routing protocol. Here, in this type of protocols are discovered the route on-demand bases when a node want send data packet to other node. By the flooding route request packet are disseminate throughout the network in the route discovery phase.
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India October 18-20, 2013 Page 183

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

Examples of reactive routing protocols are Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Location Aided Routing (LAR) [8]. A.3 Hierarchical Routing Protocols Hierarchical routing protocols are known as hybrid routing protocols because these protocols are based on the combination of proactive and reactive routing protocol. Actually combination is based on the merits of both types (proactive, reactive) routing protocols. The hybrid routing protocols examples are zone routing protocol (ZRP), CGSR (Clusterhead-Gateway Switch Routing), and HSR (Hierarchical State Routing). A.4 Geographic Position Assisted Routing As suggest the name of this routing protocol used for proving the correct location of a node in the ad networks. Global Positioning System (GPS) to make possible to this work within the few meters range. All GPS equipped nodes use the same universal clock for global synchronization between the GPS nodes but there must be additional concern taken on the mobile environment. Due to mobility, given location information may or may not be incorrect. Examples of Geographic Position Assisted Routing are: GPSR (Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing), LAR (Location Aided Routing) etc. B. Techniques used in Routing Protocols Under the process of routing protocols mobile nodes can able to send data packet in the multihop wireless links because in MANETs there are no pre infrastructure so that all nodes form network through wireless links. In another way we also can say that with help of routing protocols two mobile nodes are capable to share data when both nodes are not in the range of each other. Each node acts as a router in the network the data packet for data forward to other nodes. Each routing protocol are having a different way to discover the route and maintain the routing table but basically in literature there are two methods are used: Distance vector and state link. Distance vector in this method each node are restricted to maintain vector table distance vector to their direct neighbors on the bases of cost of each path and periodically exchange the routing update even if there are no change in topology [5]. State link- in this method, each node are exchanged information periodically from all neighbors for maintaining the routing table based on shortest path Dijkstra algorithm [6].

III.

COMPARISON AMONG OLSR, DSR, AODV, ZRP AND LAR ROUTING PROTOCOLS

A. Optimized Link State Protocol (OLSR) This protocol is based on proactive routing protocols. It is an enhanced version of link state routing. OLSR used two types of control messages: HELLO message and topology control message i.e. one for used to get link status information and topology change message used to get broadcast information regarding own neighbors which is already include in MPR selector list. MPR (multipoint relay) protocol is used for reducing the overhead in the network which happened due to flooding the topological information in the topological change phase [7].
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India October 18-20, 2013 Page 184

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) DSR routing protocol are not relay on the routing table actually its based on the source routing. Source determines the complete followed sequence by node to send the data packets. DSR is having two phases such as discovery and maintenance. In discovery phase all nodes flood the RREQ message with unique identification number with in the wireless transmission range and in maintenance phase used, when no route is available due to the topology change then it may invoke the discovery phase again. In the routing entry DSR make the entry of each intermediate node instead of next hop [9]. C. Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV) This protocol is considered the combination of DSDV and DSR routing protocols. It is based on DSR two mechanism i.e. route discovery and maintenance. In this protocol routing table have the update only own next hop not the all intermediate node. This protocol establishes the route only demand bases. It is used three types of control message RREQ for route request, RREP for route reply and RERR for route error due to link failure or topology change [10]. D. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) This protocol comes in hierarchical based class routing protocol. The aim of this protocol is to overcome the issues of proactive and reactive routing protocols. So that it is a combination of proactive and reactive protocols. IN ZRP each node maintain the routing table of only own zone because update are propagated locally in the single zone. A node knows its zone through the Intra zone Routing Protocol (IARP) and Inter zone Routing Protocol (IERP) is used to reactively discovery route to destination form outside of routing zone [11]. E. Location-Aided Routing (LAR) Location-Aided Routing (LAR) comes in geographic Position Assisted Routing protocol class but it is an on demand protocol which is based on source routing. The operation used in LAR is similar to DSR routing. LAR perform the new route discovery using location information for request zone and only request zone nodes forwards the route request[12].

IV.

SIMULATION PARAMETER AND RESULTS

A. Performance Metrics used in This Work Average Endto-End Delay: It is also known as latency or response time. The response time is the delay time to between transmission and reception of a data packet. For average End-toEnd delay, the total delay time of all received packets divide by the total received packets. Average Jitter: A packet jitter represents the difference between transmission delay of current packet to transmission delay of previous packet and for calculation of average jitter, the total packet jitter of all received packets divide by the number of packet received. Throughput: Represent the how many number of UDP packet reached at destination within the simulation time.

International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India

October 18-20, 2013 Page 185

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

B. Simulation parameters: The description of used parameter during the simulation is mentioned in the table which is given below:
Mac Type Routing protocols Antenna No. Of Channels Channel frequency Packet size Radio type Energy Model Path loss model Pause time Battery model Simulation time Battery Charge Monitoring Traffic type Simulation area Number of nodes Mobility Mobility speeds Simulator IEEE 802.11 OLSR, DSR, AODV, LAR & ZRP Omni directional One 2.4 GHz 512 bytes 802.11b Generic Two Ray 30 second Linear model 300 second Interval 60 Sec. CBR 1500m X 1500m 45 nodes None Random Way Point None 0 to 10 mps Qualnet 6.1.

Table 1: Simulation parameter C. Analysis of Simulation Results This work is carried out by using Qualnet simulator 6.1 under the 45 stationary (without mobility) and mobile (with mobility) nodes. In fig.2 Snapshot shows the discovery mechanism for new route by routing protocols. The traffic source are used CBR (constant bit rate). Random waypoint mobility model are used for mobility of mobile nodes.

Fig. 2: Simulation scenario snapshot in route discovery phase

International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India October 18-20, 2013 Page 186

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

C.1 Average End-to-End delay

Average end to end delay (seconds)

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 45 Nodes (Without Mobility) 45 Nodes (With mobility) AODV DSR LAR OLSR ZRP

Fig. 3: Variation in Average End- to-End delay for fixed and mobile nodes
Routing protocols End to End delay (without mobility) End to End delay (with mobility ) AODV 0.0188423 0.0261787 DSR 0.0411631 0.0352116 LAR 0.0258453 0.0130685 OLSR 0.0223695 0.0165612 ZRP 0.046926 0.0750054

Table 2: Average End-to-End delay C.2 Average Jitter (s)

Average Jitter (seconds)

0.003 0.002 0.001 0 45 Nodes (Without Mobility) 45 Nodes (With mobility)

AODV DSR LAR OLSR ZRP

Fig. 4: Variation in Average jitter (s) for fixed and mobile nodes
Routing protocols Average jitter (without mobility ) Average jitter (with mobility) AODV DSR 0.000861715 0.00238085 0.000794998 0.00202068 LAR 0.00105521 0.00133932 OLSR ZRP 0.000512437 0.000664386 0.00064611 0.000798068

Table 3: Average jitter C.3 Throughput

6000
Throughput (bits/second)

4000 2000 0 45 Nodes (Without Mobility) 45 Nodes (With mobility)

AODV DSR LAR OLSR

International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India

October 18-20, 2013 Page 187

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME

Fig. 5: Variation in throughput for fixed and mobile nodes

Routing protocols Throughput( without mobility ) Throughput( with mobility ) AODV 4150.9 4142.71 DSR 4104.97 3858.44 LAR 123.713 1669.78 OLSR 1100.64 780.732 ZRP 247.482 566.182

Table 4: Throughput D. Explanation of Results In the case of fixed and mobile node topology, AODV showed the better performance in fixed node topology from the other protocols in average end-to-end delay which is depicted in the graph fig.3 and table 2 but after including mobility in the scenario LAR And OLSR performs better from AODV. DSR and ZRP routing protocols have high average delay in both scenario topology. On the bases of average jitter performance, we analyzed from the result fig. 4 and table 3 in both the phase (fixed and mobile topology) level of performance of all (considered) routing protocol are same i.e. OLSR and ZRP routing protocols have high jitter calculated value, DSR having low average jitter value. AODV routing protocol analyzed from the fig. 5 and table 4, which has the overall better throughput from all other routing protocols because AODV has the property to avoid the routing loops and freshness of routes.

V.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have been evaluated the performance of proactive (OLSR), reactive (AODV, DSR, LAR) and hybrid (ZRP) routing protocols under the density of 45 nodes with fixed node topology and mobile node topology in mobile Ad hoc networks using Qualnet simulator 6.1. From the simulation results, we noticed that based on the theoretical perspective simulation results are fully satisfied with expected results. In Reactive routing protocols, AODV performed better than DSR. ZRP, LAR and OLSR routing protocols need more time to route discovery and route maintenance so that these protocols are best suited for large range MANETs applications. However, DSR routing protocol are Preferred for small and low mobility networks while AODV preferred where node density and mobility considers high.

REFERENCES
[1] N. Vetrivelan and A.V.Reddy, Performance Analysis of Three routing Protocols for Varying MANET Size, Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 2008. [2] M.Uma and G.Padmavathi, A Comparative Study and Performance Evaluation of Reactive Quality of Service Routing Protocols in MANETs, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2009, pp. 223-229. [3] QualNet Network Simulator; Available: http://www. scalable-networks.com. [4] Xiaoyan Hong, Kaixin Xu, Mario Gerla , Scalable Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Network, IEEE Volume:16 , Issue: 4 , 2002, pg 11-21, [5] JAdjih, C., Baccelli, E. et Jacquet, P, Link state routing in wireless ad-hoc networks, Military Communications Conference, MILCOM IEEE , 2003. International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India October 18-20, 2013 Page 188

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN 0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), IAEME [6] Kamal Beydoun, Conception dun protocole de routage hierarchique pour les rseaux de capteurs sans fil, LU.F.R des sciences et techniques de luniversit de FRANCHE-COMTE, 2009 [7] Philippe Jaquet, Paul Muhlethaler and Amir Qayyum, Optimized Link State Routing Protocol, IETF Draft, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-06.txt, 2001. [8] Syed Basha Shaik, S. P. Setty, Performance Comparison of AODV, DSR and ANODR for Grid Placement Model International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887), Volume 11, No.12, 2010, 6-9. [9] D.Johnson, D.Maltz and Yih, Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft ietf manet-DSR-09.txt, IETF Internet draft, 2003. [10] Ya Xu, John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin, Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing, In Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Mobile Computing and networking (MobiCom'01), New York, USA, 2001, pages 70_84. [11] SreeRangaRaju and Jitendranath Mungara, Performance Evaluation of ZRP over AODV and DSR in Mobile Adhoc Networks Using Qualnet European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 45, No.4. 2010, pg 658-674. [12] Y.-B. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, Location-aided routing(LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks, in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom98), 1998, pages 66-75.

BIOGRAPHY
Alka Chaudhary received her MCA degree from Institute of Technology and Science (ITS), Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad in 2010. Currently, she is pursuing Ph.D (Full Time) in Computer Science from Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ), Rajasthan. Her research interests include information security, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Neural network, Fuzzy Logic, intrusion detection/prevention, and Network Security.

Prof. (Dr.) V N Tiwari received his Ph.D degree from IIT, BHU, Varanasi in 1997.He is Currently Working as a HOD of Electronic and Communication Department in Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ), Rajasthan. He has published more than 35 research papers in National/International Journals and Conferences. He has 20 years of R & D and Teaching Experience. His research interests include Microwave Technology, Antennas and Radar. Prof. (Dr.) Anil Kumar received his Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim (India). He is currently working as a Professor in Department of CSE, Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ). He is an IEEE Senior Member and he is currently guiding 3 Full Time and 3 Part Time Research Scholars. His research interests include Image processing algorithm, Cryptography, Artificial Intelligence, Signal and System, Neural System and Genetic Algorithm. He has published more than 70 research papers in international journal and conferences.

International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013) B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India

October 18-20, 2013 Page 189