SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT FOR DYNAMIC COGNITIVE RADIO

NETWORK ARCHITECTURE: A SURVEY

Alan Yudhahutama1, A.K.M Muzahidul Islam 2, and Nafees Mansor3
1

School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics (SEEI)

Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia
2,3
Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
1
alan.yudha@hotmail.com, 2akmmislam@ic.utm.my, 3nafees@nafees.info

ABSTRACT

Due to the growing interest on Cognitive Radio Network

(CRN), researchers have started spending much time on
determining a suitable network simulator to verify their
developed system architecture, protocols, etc. Sometimes, it
requires even months to determine a simulator which could
server the best after trying a number of simulators. In this
paper, we study and compare network simulators. Based on
our primary study outcome, we further provide a deeper
comparison between NS-2 and OMNeT++ simulators since
their behaviors towards CRN are similar. It is observed that
so far there is no best network simulator to serve CRN.
However, OMNeT++ could be the best available network
simulator to choose for CRN.
Keywords Cognitive Radio Network, Dynamic
Architecture, Simulation, Simulator, NS-2, NS-3,
OMNetT++, TOSSIM, J-SIM.

1. INTRODUCTION
The research of Wireless Network is undergoing a paradigm
shift from the traditional usage of computation network to a
smart-and-adaptable radio network, mostly known as
cognitive radio network (CRN) [14]. Combining a dynamic
architecture [12] into a CRN is estimated as the new
solution for cognitive implementation for mobile devices and
disaster-ready network [14]. As the research goes through
the final phase, the theorem needs to be verified using
simulation. This kind of Network Simulation is usually done
in a network simulator [14].
However, as the area of dynamic CRN research is still
considerably new, there is lack of reference available for
deciding which network simulator should be used. Most of
the researchers end up spending a lot of time by trying each
simulator before coming up to a conclusion.
In this paper, we discuss details of network simulator
regarding cognitive-related protocol capabilities, especially
for a dynamic network. The contribution of this paper is as
follows:

It investigates the general specification of CR node

and dynamic CRN simulation
- It investigates the CR-related ability and
comparison for each simulator
- It proposes network simulators for dynamic CRN
- It develops a framework for dynamic CRN in
OMNeT++/MiXiM
The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the
general dynamic CRN simulation specification which is
mostly used for CRN architecture [8], [13]. Section III
describes different kinds of network simulator and shows
comparisons between them. Section IV describes and
compares framework that can be developed through NS-2
and OMNeT++. The development of CR Framework is
further discussed in Section V. Finally, the conclusion is
drawn in Section VI.
2. GENERAL DYNAMIC CRN SPESIFICATION
To determine which network simulator should be used, a
classification of several simulation characteristic in dynamic
CRN should be made in order to be traced and compared.
Classification begins by detailing the desired parameter and
simulation specification of this kind of network, which are
the dynamic network and the CR node.
The specification of the dynamic network simulation is
described as follows:
Flexibility in implementing custom routing protocol
Ability to simulate more than thousand nodes
effectively
Supported by GUI, for debugging method
Ability to determine efficiency, in terms of time,
power, message transfer, and delivery result.
The specification of the CR node simulation is describe as
follows:
Flexibility in implementing custom PHY and MAC
algorithm
Ability to implement custom sensing algorithm
Support default communication protocol
Supported Cognitive

1.

Consider that there are randomly spread nodes in a

given area. The number of the nodes is an input
from the user. Nodes are then connected with each
other if they are in each others range.
2. There are four types of nodes:
a. DCBS (Dynamic Cognitive Base Station)
b. CH (Cluster Head)
c. GW (Gateway)
d. CM (Cluster Member)
3. Every nodes that has connection with the DCBS
becomes CH
4. The rest of the rules are similar to dynamic
clustering shown in the Section IV [12].

3. NETWORK SIMULATOR COMPARISON

Network simulator which will be used for comparison here
is the one which popular among research of
telecommunication networks. Comparison was made with
the aim to provide a brief description and pursed the
network simulator which will be discussed later. Table
below shown the result based on the comparative study of
literature:
Table 1. General Comparison
Aspect

NS-2 [1]

NS-3[1]

TOSSIM
[11]

J-SIM
[11]

OMNeT++[
2]

Cognitve
Framework

Yes,
CRCN

No

No

No

Can be
developed

IEEE
802.22
Module

No

No

No

No

No

Radio
Energy

No, focus
on radio
energy

Yes, with
Power
TOSSIM

Radio
Channel
and
Power
Comsu
mptions

Radio
Channel and
Power
Consumption
s

General

General

Specific

General

General
Simulator
Yes, for
educationpurpose only

Parameter

General/Sp
ecific
Simulator/
Emulator
Open
Source

Languages

Platform

GUI

Simulator

Simulator

Emulator

Simulat
or

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NesC

Mahema
tical
Modelli
ng
Languag
e

C++

Linux,
Unix

Yes

C++ /
Phyton

Linux,
Mac OS,
Unix
Yes

Linux, Unix

Yes

Java

Yes

Accuracy

Low

High

Ability to
implement
new
protocol

Yes, but
difficult

Yes, but
difficult

Application
Only

Yes, but
difficult

NED & C++

Fig.1. Dynamic Topology of Simulation

The simulation is done in OMNeT++ and NS-2. It
gives following result:
Table 2. Simulation Result

Linuc, Mac
OS X,
Windows

Number of Nodes

Sim Time OMNeT++

(s)

Sim Time NS-2 (s)

100

0,257

0,951

200

1,031

2,824

300

2,957

5,025

400

6,437

7,796

500

11,73

13,588

Yes
High

Yes

Based on the table shown above (Table 1), it is clearly

described that OMNeT++ and NS-2 are custom best-suited
for CR development. Both of them have a CR-related
framework that can be developed for later use. However,
the above comparison is general and not related to point of
efficiency in large network simulations. Thus, a deeper
comparisons need to be made in term of efficiency. It needs
to know how efficient both of simulator tools when
simulating large number of nodes. Efficiency in this case
means time taken when simulating a network cases.
To get information about this point, a dynamic topology and
scenario are tested in both simulator tools. The dynamic
architecture is based on the development of paper [12] and
has the rules shown below:

Fig.2. Graph Showing the Simulation Result

.

4. NS-2 CRCN AND OMNET++/MIXIM

Platform

Both simulators need additional frameworks to do CRN

related simulation. Unfortunately, both of them have several
concerns as shown below:
a.

b.

NS-2 with CRCN (Cognitive Radio Cognitive

Network) [5]
1. MAC layer is not aware of multiple channels
created for each radio. Channel selection must be
made in routing layer instead of MAC layer, which
is conflict with most current MAC protocol
designs. Thus, additional work is required
in MAC to support multiple channels in MAC,
which can be found in next section.
2. MAC layer address confliction is introduced by the
related works.
3. Since channels are created in the same way, these
radios and channels have the same radio and
spectrum characteristic, which is not sufficient to
support the simulation in heterogeneous CR
network.
4. The radio and channel number are equal. Some
routing and MAC algorithms simulations such as
common control channel based algorithms are not
supported if we only adopt the previous
contribution work alone.
5. CRCN comes with a quite fixed packaging and
only compatible with old version of NS-2, means it
needs quite development for implementing custom
algorithm.
Omnet++ with MiXim, INET, or MATLAB
1. Doesnt specially made for CR simulation, thus
need to create own CR framework based on the
desired node architecture.
2. Best suited for implementing cognitive protocol in
lower layer. [6]

Both simulator tools have ability to accomplish objective

statement. The table below shows more comparison of other
features and properties for both simulator tools outside the
objective statement. This table made for giving a deeper
insight in doing development on the simulator.
Table 3. Properties of Each Simulator
Properties

NS2

OMNeT++

GUI

Yes, called NAM and it's Yes, OMNeT++ has Tk GUI

installed along with NS2.
by default.

IDE

No, no default IDE

Yes, built with Eclipse by

default

License

Free

Academic license (free) and

commercial license

Linux OS, Cygwin

Languages Tcl:

Windows, Unix/Linux, Mac

OS X
NED:

deploy nodes and

setup links to form
a network
set topology of the
network
assign type of
nodes
in
the
network (router,
host, and others)
set up network
scenario that will
be used

C++:

deploy nodes and

setup links to form
a network
set topology of the
network
set parameters of
the network and
its components
assign type of
nodes
in
the
network (router,
host, and others)

C++:

control behavior of
types of nodes
create
new
communication
protocols

control behavior of
types of nodes
create
new
communication
protocols
can be used to set
network scenario

5. CR FRAMEWORK IN MIXIM
As the study of desired cognitive radio network developed,
a new challenge is newly recognized. Here are several
challenges in the desired cognitive radio network:
1) The desired standard network for cognitive radio is
IEEE 802.22. However, OMNeT++/MiXiM dont support
that module. As the searching for the network simulator that
can support that module going, an unfortunate fact is
revealed: no network simulator currently supports that
module.
2) The desired cognitive simulation is very customable
while no network simulator provides a very customizable
framework for cognitive radio development. NS-2 provide
CRCN frame for cognitive radio, but it is used for older
version for NS-2 and its latest update is at 2009 which
means several protocol are still need to be developed. Also,
there are many several limitations in CRCN which has been
reviewed in the chapter IV. This means a new framework
must be made. As a new framework is choosen as current
best solution, 802.11 is used for the main protocol
development. It means that the framework is not built from
scratch, but from the development of 802.11. IEEE 802.11
is choosen because of three reasons :
a) OMNeT++/MiXiM already support that module.
b) It is based on wireless protocol, which is closest to
the desired CR network.
c) IEEE 802.11k support channel sensing template.
The CR Framework in the OMNeT++/MiXiM is then made
based on reference [10]. Figure 3 shows the architecture of
CR Node which will be implemented in OMNeT++/MiXiM.

c.

Flexibility
in
simulating
heterogeneous
cognitive network.
NS-2 CRCN comes with a fixed packaging while
OMNeT++ comes with flexible cognitive
development. Hence, since the CRN protocol
algorithms are not developed yet, it will be safer to
use OMNeT++ as the simulator.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is partially supported by MJIIT Research Grant,
with Vote No. 4J044, Ministry of Higher Education
(MoHE) of Technology (MJIIT) of Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM) Year 2012-2013.

Fig.3. CR Node Architecture

REFERENCES

Here is what it looks like in the OMNeT++ implementation:

Fig.4. CR Node Implementation

6. CONCLUSION
Based on the result, the recommended simulator to be used
in simulating CRN is OMNeT++ because of the following
three reasons:
a.

Supported developer environment

NS-2 comes with no IDE and OMNeT++ comes
with Eclipse including plugin for OMNeT++. Some
features in Eclipse for OMNeT++ (like code
snippet, pop-up documentation, etc.) make coding
with OMNeT++ far easier than in NS-2
b. High efficiency in simulating large network
In simulating a large network, it is clear from the
result above that OMNeT++ far more efficient than
NS-2 in term of simulation time.

[1] NS official website, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/

[2] OMNeT++ official website, http://www.omnetpp.org
[3] OMNeT++
User
Manual
version
4.2.1,
http://inet.omnetpp.org/doc/inet-manual-DRAFT.pdf
[4] MiXiM official website, http://mixim.sourceforge.net/
[5] CRCN Official Website, http://stuweb.ee.mtu.edu/
[6] OMNet++ Google Groups,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/omnetp
[7] Silvius Mark D., Rangnekar Rohit, et al, The Smart Radio
Channel Change Protocol, Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Crowncom, 2009
[8] Tassetto Dimitri, Bovelli Sergio, et al, A Novel Simulation
Framework for Wireless Cognitive Networks: Application to
Cooperative Spectrum Sensing
[9] Sundman Dennis, A Simulator for Cognitive Radio,
Masters Degree Project KTH Electrical Engineering, 2008
[10] Marinho J.H., Monteiro Edmundo, Cognitive Radio
Simulation based on OMNet++ / MiXim, 11st Conference
Sobre Redes de Computadores, CRC, November 2011
[11] Yu Fei, Jain Raj, A Survey of Wireless Sensor Network
Simulation Tools
[12] Jiro Uchida, A.K.M. Muzahidul Islam, Yoshiaki Katayama,
Wei Chen, and Koichi Wada, Construction and maintenance
of a novel cluster-based architecture for ad hoc sensor
networks", Journal of Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless Networks,
Vol. 6 No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 1-31.
[13] Chen Tao, Zhang Honggang, et al, CogMesh: A Clusterbased Cognitive Radio Network, Italy, 2007
[14] Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.com