MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp.

47-50 ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

47

Performance Analysis of Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network using NS-2

Associate Professor, Moradabad Institute of Technology, Moradabad. Email:anurag_malik@rediffmail.com

Anurag Malik

Assistant Professor, Moradabad Institute of Technology, Moradabad. Email: rshivanshu1145@gmail.com

Shivanshu Rastogi

System Administrator, Koutons Retail India Ltd. New Delhi. Email: Saajvoice@gmail.com

Sajendra Kumar

Abstract- The MANET routing protocols DSDV, DSR and AODV are the most promising routing protocols. They can be used in MANET to route packets between mobile nodes. The main objective of this paper comparing the performance of DSDV, DSR and AODV routing protocols under different performance metrics like Throughput, Packet delivery ratio, Path optimality, Packets Delay (Jitter), Packets lost, etc. This paper also shows the performance results of simulation done under different network conditions.

Keywords:

MANET, ROUTING PROTOCOLS, DSDV, DSR, AODV.

1. INTRODUCTION
A Network is defined as the group of people or systems or organizations who tend to share their information collectively for their business purpose. In Computer terminology the definition for networks is similar as a group of computers logically connected for the sharing of information or services (like print services, multi-tasking, etc.). Initially Computer networks were started as a necessity for sharing files and printers but later this has moved from that particular job of file and printer sharing to application sharing and business logic sharing. A computer networks can be understood as a system for communication between computers. These networks may be fixed (cabled, permanent) or temporary and wired or wireless.

friendly manner to engaging themselves in multihop forwarding. The nodes in the network not only act as hosts but also as routers that route data to/from other nodes in network. In mobile ad-hoc networks where there is no infrastructure support as is the case with wireless networks, and since a destination node might be out of range of a source node transmitting packets; a routing procedure is always needed to find a path so as to forward the packets appropriately between the source and the destination. Within a cell, a base station can reach all mobile nodes without routing via broadcast in common wireless networks. In the case of ad-hoc networks, each node must be able to forward data for other nodes. This creates additional problems along with the problems of dynamic topology which is unpredictable connectivity changes.

3. PROBLEMS IN MANET ROUTING 3.1 ASYMMETRIC LINKS

Most of the wired networks rely on the symmetric links which are always fixed. But this is not a case with ad-hoc networks as the nodes are mobile and constantly changing their position within network. For example consider a MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc Network ) where node B sends a signal to node A but this does not tell anything about the quality of the connection in the reverse direction. A. Routing Overhead: In wireless adhoc networks, nodes often change their location within network. So, some stale routes are generated in the routing table which leads to unnecessary routing overhead. B. Interference: This is the major problem with mobile adhoc networks as links come and go depending on the transmission characteristics, one transmission might interfere with another one and node might overhear transmissions of other nodes and can corrupt the total transmission. C. Dynamic Topology: This is also the major problem with ad-hoc routing since the topology is not constant. The

2. ROUTING IN MANETS
An ad-hoc network [3] is a collection of wireless mobile hosts forming a temporary network without the aid of any stand-alone infrastructure or centralized administration. Mobile Ad-hoc networks are self-organizing and selfconfiguring multihop wireless networks where, the structure of the network changes dynamically. This is mainly due to the mobility of the nodes. Nodes in these networks utilize the same random access wireless channel, cooperating in a

MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50 ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

48

mobile node might move or medium characteristics might change. In ad-hoc networks, routing tables must somehow reflect these changes in topology and routing algorithms have to be adapted. For example in a fixed network routing table updating takes place for every 30 sec. This updating frequency might be very low for ad-hoc networks.

Table 1: Performance Comparison

Protocol property Loop Free Multicast Route Distributed Unidirectional Link Multicast Qos Support Route Maintain IN Reactive

DSR Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Route Cache Yes

DSDV Yes No Yes No No Yes No No

AODV Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes

4. PROTOCOL COMPARISON
The MANET routing protocols DSDV [7] and DSR are two of the promising routing protocols. They can be used in MANET to route packets between mobile nodes. The main objective of this paper comparing the performance of DSDV, AODV [5,6] and DSR routing protocols under following metrics : A.

Periodically Broadcast No

Route table Route table

Throughput: It is defined as total number of packets

Normalised Routing Load

received by the destination. It is a measure of effectiveness of a routing protocol. Finally what matters is the number of packets delivered successfully.

Pause-Time vs Routing Load 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 Pause-Time

Fig. 1: Packet Delivery fraction for AODV, DSR and DSDV

B.

Packet delivery ratio: the ratio between the number

of packets received by the TCP sink at the final destination and the number of packets originated by the application layer sources. It is a measure of efficiency of the protocol.

C.

Routing overhead: The total number of routing

DSDV AODV DSR

Normalised Routing Load

packets transmitted during the simulation. For packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the packet (each hop) counts as one transmission. Since End-to-end Network Throughput (data routing performance) is defined as the external measure of effectiveness, efficiency is considered to be the internal measure. To achieve a given level of data routing performance, two different protocols can use differing amounts of overhead, depending on their internal efficiency, and thus protocol efficiency may or may not directly affect data routing performance. If control and data traffic share the same channel, and the channels capacity is limited, then excessive control traffic often impacts data routing performance.

30

40

P a u s e -T im e v s R o u tin g L o a d 2 .5 2 1 .5 1 0 .5 0 0 10 20 P a u s e -T im e 30 40 DSDV AODV DSR

D.

Path optimality: The difference between the number

of hops a packet took to reach its destination and the length of the shortest path that physically existed through the network when the packet was originated.

E.

Packets lost: it is a measure of the number of packets

dropped by the routers due to various reasons. The reasons we have considered for evaluation are Collisions, time outs, looping, errors.

Fig. 2: Packet Routing load for AODV, DSR and DSDV

MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50 ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

49

Pause-Time vs End to End Delay 25

End to End Delay (ms)

20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 Pause-Time 30 40 DSDV AODV DSR

Fig. 3 End-to-End delay for AODV, DSR and DSDV

Fig. 4: Packets dropped for AODV, DSR and DSDV

F.

Packets Delay (Jitter): It is a metric which is

very significant with multimedia and real-time traffic. It is very important for any application where data is processed online.
Throughput

Pause-Time vs Average Throughput 120 100 80 60 40 20 DSDV AODV DSR

G.

Power consumption: The total consumed energy

divided by the number of delivered packet.

5. PERFORMANCE RESULT
The graphs below shows the performance of the routing protocol with respect to different metric considered above. The X- Axis shows the pause times of the nodes and the y axis shows the Metric considered for simulation. In terms of PDF with respect to varied pause time, DSR performs well when the number of nodes is less, which is shown in following Fig. 1. The performance of AODV is consistently uniform and DSDV performance is poor than reactive protocols. In terms of Routing Load with respect to varied pause time, DSR is found to be less when compared to AODV and DSDV because of DSR aggressive caching techniques, which is observed in Fig. 2. In terms of end-to-end delay, DSDV is the best performer. As routing information is constantly updated in the proactive protocols, routes to every destination are always available and up-to-date, and hence end-to-end delay can be minimized as shown in Fig. 3. In terms of packets dropping, DSDV performance is worst when mobility is high. This is because of the reason that it keeps only one route per destination. Therefore lack of alternate routes and presence of stale routes in routing table when nodes are moving at higher rate leads to packet drops, which is shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5, with respect to varied pause time, throughput decreases comparatively in DSDV as it needs to advertise periodic updates and even-driven updates. If the node mobility is high then occurrence of even driven updates are more.

0 0 10 20 Pause-Time 30 40

Fig. 5: Average throughput for AODV, DSR and DSDV

With regard to throughput versus time, DSR consumes considerable power and gives lower throughput due to network failure, which is shown in Fig. 6. (Since we started the simulation with very low battery power).

6. CONCLUSION
In this paper we examined simulation studies and also compared the On-Demand (DSR and AODV) and Table Driven (DSDV) routing protocols [1,2,4] by varying the pause time and measured the metrics like end-end delay, dropped packets, routing overhead, power efficiency etc. The results indicate that the performance of the two on demand protocols namely DSR and AODV is superior to the DSDV. It is also observed that DSR outperforms AODV in less stressful situations, i.e. smaller number of nodes. AODV outperforms DSR in more stressful situations. The poor delay and packet delivery ratio of DSR is mainly due to caching and lack of mechanisms to expire stale routes. The routing overhead is consistently low for DSR and AODV than in comparison with DSDV especially for large number of nodes. This is due to the fact that in DSDV the routing table exchanges would increase with larger number of nodes. The results indicate that as the number of nodes in the network increases DSDV would be better with regard to the packet delivery ratio, but it may have considerable routing overhead. As far as packet delay and dropped packets ratio are

MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50 ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

50

concerned, DSR/AODV performs better than DSDV with large number of nodes. Hence for real time traffic AODV is preferred over DSR and DSDV. For less number of nodes and less mobility, DSDV performance is superior.

REFERENCES
[1] Yasser Kamal Hassan, Mohamed Hashim Abd El-Aziz, and Ahmed Safwat Abd El-Radi, Performance Evaluation of Mobility Speed over MANET Routing Protocols, in International Journal of Network Security, Vol.11, No.3, pp. 128, 138, Nov. 2010. [2] Abdul Hadi Abd Rahman and Zuriati Ahmad Zukarnain, Performance Comparison of AODV, DSDV and I-DSDV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X Vol.31 No.4 (2009), pp. 566-576. C. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, New York: Addison Wesley, 2000. S.R. Das, C.E. Perkins, and E.E. Royer, Performance Comparison of Two On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks, Proc. INFOCOM, 2000, pp. 3- 12. C.E. Perkins, E.M. Belding-Royer, and S. Das. Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. RFC 3561, July 2003. C.E. Perkins and E.M. Royer. The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Protocol. In C.E. Perkins, editor, Ad hoc Networking, pages 173219. Addison- Wesley, 2000. C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 94, pp. 234-244, 1994.

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

Fig. 6. Throughput Vs Time for AODV, DSR and DSDV

[7]