JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 12, DECEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

164

Comparison of AdHoc Routing Protocols on the Basis of Goodput and Routing Load
Rahul Malhotra
Professor, ECE Deptt. Adesh Institute of Engineering and Technology, Faridkot

Sangeeta Monga
Assistant Professor, ECE Deptt. Adesh Institute of Engineering and Technology, Faridkot

Gurmeet Kaur
Research Scholar, ECE Deptt. Adesh Institute of Engineering and Technology, Faridkot Abstract During the last few years, continuous progresses in wireless communications have opened new research elds in computer networking, aimed at extending data networks connectivity to environments where wired solutions are impracticable. The research in wireless Adhoc networks, that provides a communication between different Adhoc or Temporary nodes. This paper compares the two protocols Adhoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) both having nonuniform routing protocols that manage mobile nodes and different routing functions. Further, these protocols implemented in network simulator (NS2) that supports Mobile adhoc networks. The protocol works on MAC layer and properly transmitted the packet to the upper layer called Network Layer over 802.11 networks. In the implementation of these protocols using at both end i.e. sender side and receiver side uses TCP Reno protocol because the packet loss should be minimum. To minimize the delay and bandwidth therefore using RTS-CTS signal in the implementation so that no hidden nodes access the bandwidth. In this work, each mobile node works as a specialized router and obtained routing information when needed. It provides a loop free route while repairing links when it was broken. Keywords: AODV; DSDV; NS2 1. Introduction A network is collection of devices in arranged manner, which shares the information using some transmission media. A network can be wired or wireless. Wired network uses fixed topology, but in wireless network nodes can move in any direction at any time. Wireless networks are gaining importance in our life because of flexibility and reduced cost. Wireless network having IEEE standard 802.11 is categorized into two types. First is network with fixed infrastructure and second is adhoc network. Network with fixed infrastructure uses access point to control mobile devices within network. Access point is central controller like base station to control all activities within network [5]. Adhoc network is collection of mobile nodes forming a temporary network without any central controller. Each node acts as router and has information of whole network. Adhoc networks are convenient for emergency operations like in military battlefield, commercial sector, hospitals and personal area network. Mobile ad hoc networks are self- organizing and self -configuring multihop wireless networks. In MANET efficient routing protocols are required for route discovery and route maintenance to reduce end-to-end delay and to increase throughput. As topology of MANET is not fixed, there are many problems related to routing. Routing table must be able to note down these topology changes. Basically proactive or table-driven routing and reactive or on-demand routing algorithms are used in MANET for routing. In proactive routing nodes in MANET continuously evaluate routes to all reachable neighbor nodes after fixed time period. Proactive routing updates the table continuously,

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 12, DECEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

165

whether the network topology changes or not. Proactive routing provides route immediately if needed by one. Examples for proactive routing protocols are WRP, DSDV, and FSR. In reactive routing paths are searched only when needed. There is no need for continuous route updating. Reactive routing requires less overhead because there is no wastage of bandwidth due to control messages. But reactive routing suffers from long delays for route searching. Examples of reactive routing are AODV and DSR. 1.1 DSDV Protocol DSDV is a reactive unicast MANET routing protocol, based upon Bellman-Ford algorithm. In DSDV each node maintains a route to every other node in network and thus routing table is formed [13]. Each node in DSDV maintains the entries for destination, next hop, cost metric and sequence number. Sequence number is used to distinguish stale routes from fresh routes and avoid the formation of route loops [9]. Even sequence number is used to represent new route and odd for old route. If sequence number is same as in already in the table, then route with better metric is used. DSDV is suitable for creating adhoc networks with small number of nodes [7]. DSDV requires a regular update of its routing table, which uses the more battery and large amount of bandwidth when network is idle. 1. 2 AODV Protocol AODV is a reactive protocol based on distance -vector algorithm. In AODV routes are created only when needed. Important feature of AODV is to maintain the time-based state in each node [8]. AODV allows mobile nodes to respond to link breakages and changes in network topology. Whenever a route is available from source to destination, it does not add any overhead to the packets. In this way AODV reduces the effects of stale routes as well as the need for route maintenance for unused routes [10]. Whenever a node needs to find route to destination, it broadcasts route request (RREQ) message to all its neighbors. At destination the route is maintained by Route reply (RREP) message back to source on reverse path. Neighbors are detected by periodically broadcasting HELLO messages to near by nodes. AODV saves the bandwidth as well as storage energy. Un-cooperative nodes like selfish nodes and malicious nodes affect performance of AODV; Selfish nodes can drop packets at any time and malicious nodes are nodes, which are not able to follow the protocol standards. 2. Previous Work Several studies have been published comparison of AODV and DSDV protocols using different simulators, mobility models and different performance metrics. Comparative study of adhoc routing protocols was done in Monarch project at CMC and aims at evaluation based on quantitative metrics.Yi Fu, Kwang-Mien Chan and Kean-Soon Tan published the results on AODV and DSDV separately using different metrics [3] but these results are difficult to compare because of different metrics. A paper by Bikash Rath compares a large number of protocols [11]. However link level details and MAC interference is not modeled. All this previous work does not give information about data rate and traffic rate. Yogesh Chaba and Yudhvir Singh presented the AODV, which also uses a demand approach of route establishment; various simulated results and combined the proactive and reactive approaches, but limit the scope of proactive procedure only to initiators local neighborhood [8]. Aim of this paper is to compare the AODV and DSDV based one metrics like goodput and routing load.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 12, DECEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

166

3. Scenario used: The implemented scenario consists of three nodes works on AODV as well as DSDV protocols. Each node having topography (x, y and z) is 500,400 and 150. Each node in the mobility model or scenario show in the figure has been using TCP Reno Protocol that provides End 2 End Connectivity. The mobility model starts at 0.01 and ends at 150.01. The FTP is running in this scenario for providing the connectivity.

Figure 3.1: Screenshot of an AODV NAM window.

The simulator parameters were varied in two dimensions: (1) Throughput of Adhoc Protocols in sending and receiving end. (2) Goodput of Adhoc Protocols. 4. Simulation Statistics of AODV Protocol and DSDV protocol: The following Table represents the simulation statistics of AODV protocols i.e. run in NS2 simulator by using Trace graph support with the help of MATLAB Environment.
Table: 1 Simulation Statistics of AODV Protocol and DSDV protocol

SNO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Parameter Simulation length Number of nodes Number of sending nodes Number of receiving nodes Number of generated packets Number of sent packets Number of forwarded packets Number of dropped packets Number of lost packets Minimal Packet Size

Value 139.79804 ms 3 3 2 8860 Bytes 8856 Bytes 8829 Bytes 15 8 32 Bytes

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 12, DECEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

167

11 12

Maximal Packet Size Average packet size

1060 Bytes 555.8394 Bytes

5. Results of AODV and DSDV Protocols 5.1.Goodput of AODV and DSDV Protocols.

Figure 1.1: Goodput of AODV and DSDV Protocols.

The Figure 1.1, Represents the goodput of Adhoc networks means goodput of AODV and DSDV Protocols. The goodput means when sender sends the packet to the receiver and how many errors occurred during the transmission. The total data packet sent and how many packets transmitted in the network calculate this. Where the goodput is higher in the case of DSDV due to re-transmission of the packets, which has been lost due to noise, error and some congestion. If the retransmission of the packets then TCP Reno comes in the role they wait for three packet lost then again the whole segments/packets are transmitted on the network. 5.2. Load of AODV and DSDV Protocols:

Figure 1.2: Routing Load of AODV and DSDV Protocols

The Figure 1.2, Represents the Routing load in Adhoc networks. This graph calculated from X-graph, which has been run under the simulator NS2. It represents that the total routing load of packet in AODV protocol higher than of DSDV protocol. The routing load defined as the total bytes of routing load vs. Total bytes transmitted in the network. This means the chances of congestion has been more in the case of AODV protocol because if the sender send the packets and that has been transmitted into the network, if the packets not received by the receiver then the chances of congestion was more. 6. Conclusion

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 12, DECEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

168

The goodput is higher in the case of DSDV as compare to AODV due to re-transmission of the packets, which has been lost due to noise, error and some congestion. The total routing load of packet in AODV protocol higher than of DSDV protocol. This means the chances of congestion has been more in the case of AODV protocol because if the sender send the packets and that has been transmitted into the network, if the packets not received by the receiver then the chances of congestion was more. The Algorithm used in this paper states that the distances are updated according to the time stamp or sequence number assigned by the node originating the update. 7. Future Work This paper can be further extended with multi hop networks in Adhoc networks. The distance vector routing protocol has been used in this work further some improvements so that AODV performed well over wireless networks because of more advantages over DSDV protocol. Another concept i.e. Fisheye State Routing (FSR) link states rather than distance vectors are propagated. Moreover, like in Linked State Routing (LSR), a full topology map is kept at each node and shortest paths are computed using this map. In a wireless environment, a radio link between mobile nodes may experience frequent disconnects and reconnects. 8. References
[1] Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Misra and Anil K. Sarje, A Proactive Load-Aware Gateway Discovery in Ad Hoc Networks for Internet Connectivity, International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol. 2, No. 5, Sept. 2010, [2] M.Geetha, Dr. R. Umarani, R.Kitruthika, A Comparative Study of Gateway Discovery Protocol in MANET, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol.11, No.2, Dec. 2010. [3] Yi Fu, Kwang-Mien Chan, Kean-Soon Tan and Boon-Sain YeO, Multi-Metric Gateway Discovery for MANET, IEEE, 9 June 2006, Page(s):0-7803-9392. [4] Xu zhanyang, Han xiaoxuan, Zhang shunyi, A Scheme of Multipath Gateway Discovery and Selection for MANET Using Multi-Metric, The 1st International Conference on Information Science and Engineering IEEE, 7 Sept. 2009, Page(s): 978-0-7695-3887. [5]Li Liu, Yu Liu, A Resource Discovery Algorithm Based on Mobile Ad hoc Network and Its Implementation,IEEE,2 Oct.2010,Page(s): 9781-4244-3709. [6] A.Saika, R. El Kouch, A.Najid, M. M. Himmi, Implementation and performances of the protocols of routing AODV and OLSR in the Ad hoc networks, IEEE.8 Oct. 2010, Page(s): 978-1-4244-5998. [7] Xin LI, Zhe LI, A MANET accessing Internet routing algorithm based on dynamic gateway adaptive selection, Front. Comput. Sci. China 2010. [8] Yogesh Chaba, Yudhvir Singh, Manish Joon, Simulation based Performance Analysis of On-Demand Routing Protocols in MANETs , IEEE,6 Oct. 2010,Page(s): 978-0-7695-3941. [9] Rajeshwar Singh, Dharmendra K Singh, Lalan Kumar, Performance Evaluation of DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications, Vol. 2, 21 Oct. 2010, Page(s) : 732-737. [10] P. Manickam, T. Guru Baskar , M.Girija, Dr.D.Manimegalai P. Manickam1, T. Guru Baskar 2, M.Girija 3, Dr.D.Manimegalai, International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2011. [11] Bikash Rath , Implementing and Comparing DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, 2009.