You are on page 1of 6

Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols based on Node Mobility

J. K. Mandal , Khondekar Lutful Hassan Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Kalyani, Kalyani, Nadia-741235, West Bengal, India, Email- jkm.cse@gmail.com * A.K.C. School of I.T University of Calcutta Kolkata, West Bengal, India, Email- klhassan@yahoo.com Reactive routing protocol (on demand): This type of protocols defines routes on-demand. When a route is required it starts route discovery procedure. This way, a route request packet starts the process. Once this route is discovered, some management procedure is followed to make the route active. As the arrival of a packet requesting a route occurs randomly in time, these protocols do not trade messages in a regular basis, what saves bandwidth and battery. However, these protocols cause higher delay in times. Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV): AODV [6] is a combination of on demand and distance vector i.e. hop-to-hop routing methodology. When a node needs to know a route to a specific destination it creates a route request. Route request is forwarded to intermediate nodes which also create a reverse route for itself. When the request reaches a node with route to destination it creates again a reply which contains the number of hops that are required to reach the destination Dynamic Source Routing (DSR): [6] The protocol is composed of the two main mechanism of Route Discovery and Route Maintenance, work together to allow nodes for discover and maintain routes to arbitrary destinations in the ad hoc network. All aspects of the protocol operate entirely ondemand, allowing the routing packet overhead of DSR to scale automatically which needed to react to changes in the routes currently in use. The protocol allows multiple routes to any destination and allows each sender to select and control the routes used in routing its packets, for example for use in load balancing or to increase robustness. Other advantages of the DSR protocol includes guaranteed loop-free routing, support for use in networks containing unidirectional links, use of only soft state in routing, and very rapid recovery when routes in the network change. The DSR protocol is designed mainly for mobile ad hoc networks of up to two hundred nodes, and is designed to work well with even very high rates of mobility. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV):[6] DSDV is a hop-by-hop distance vector routing protocol requiring each node to periodically broadcast routing updates based on the idea of classical Bellman-Ford Routing

#1

*2

Abstract This paper depicted critical performance analysis of Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Routing protocol(AODV),[3] Dynamic Source Routing(DSR) protocol and Destination Sequenced Distance Vector(DSDV) routing protocols of Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)[1][2] based on various rate of node mobility. There is no fixed topology in MANET because of node mobility, mobility of the various nodes make the situation more complicated and which also affect the performance of routing protocols. So, percentage of node mobility is taken as prime parameter for analysis of delay over time, average delay, packet generation and loss, and throughput of these routing protocols. NS2.33 [5]is taken as simulation tools for the purpose and NS2 visual trace analyzer 0.2.72 is used for analysis. Extensive analysis shows consistent performance of AODV even in 80% node mobility. Keywords Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET), Ad-hoc On Demand distance Vector routing protocol (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol, Destination Sequenced Distance Vector(DSDV), NS2, trace analyzer.

I. INTRODUCTION MANET [6] is defined as a set of self configuring infrastructureless mobile nodes connected through wireless links. As mobility is one of the main characteristics of MANET so each node move independently in any direction and will change its link to adjacent devices frequently. In MANET each node act as router. The role of routing protocol is to define the route of destination node of any packet to move. MANET route is more difficult than fixed topology based network(wired) because of its dynamic nature. MANET routing protocol can be classified into three categories namely proactive and reactive [4]. Proactive routing protocol (table driven): This type of protocols initiates continuously to evaluate the routes so that when a packet needs a root it can be used immediately. In this case, nodes keep tables with information about the network and react in topology changes, propagating updates in order to maintain the network consistency.

algorithm. Each node maintains a routing table listing next hop for each reachable destination, number of hops to reach destination and the sequence number assigned by estimation node. The sequence number is used to distinguish stale routes from new ones and thus avoid loop formation. Rest of the paper is organized as follows. Simulation environment has been described in section II. Simulation results and analysis is given in section III. Conclusions are drawn in section IV and references are given at end.
throughput (Bytes/s)

III.a. Performances on 20% node Mobility In this case 20 % of total nodes are considered as mobile. Simulation results of throughput of received packets at node 1 for AODV, DSR and DSDV are shown as pictorial form in the figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sim ulation tim e (m s) 8 9 10 11 tcp ack

Figure 1. Throughput of received packet at node 1 for AODV in KB/sec

II. SIMULATION ENVIROMENT Network Simulator 2 (NS2.33) [5] is taken as a tool for simulation purpose. The Network Simulator 2 is a tool of discrete event simulation in the network, and capable of simulating various types of networks. NS2 consists of two languages, C++ and Otcl. C++ defines the internal mechanism of the simulation object, and Otcl set up simulation by assembling and configuring objects as well as scheduling discrete events. To simulate NS2, a (.tcl) script file is required. After simulation it will create two types of file, one is trace file (tr) and another is (.nam) file. Trace file is used for calculation and statistical analysis, and .nam file is used to visualize the simulation process. NS2 Visual trace Analyzer 0.2.72 is taken for analysis of the trace files and to generate the graphs. There is no definite answer regarding best protocol in all respect as, protocol performance depends on network conditions and environment the present experiment encompassed various situations based on some real time situations using NS2 under Linux to obtain optimal performance on various rate of node motilities.
throughput (Bytes/s)

36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sim ulation tim e (m s) 8 9 10 11

tcp DSR ack

throughput (Bytes/s)

Figure 2 Throughput of received packet at node 1 for DSR in KB/s


60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 simulation time (ms) 7 8 9 10 tcp [FlowID=-1] m essage [FlowID=0]

Figure 3. Throughput of received packet at node 1 for DSDV in Bytes/s

From the statistical results obtained regarding throughputs of AODV, DSR and DSDV at node 1 it is seen that average throughput of AODV and DSR are about 30 to 40 KB/s. On the other hand throughput of DSDV is only about 320 Bytes/sec. On 20% node mobility the delays at node 1 for AODV, DSR and DSDV protocols are given in figure 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
1.2 1.1 1 ack 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 sim ulation tim e (m s) 7 8 9

delay (Milliseconds)

III. SIMULATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

For the purpose of simulation six parameters are taken as common in each case. These are given in table 1.
delay (Milliseconds)

Figure 4. Delay over time at node 1 for AODV In ms


2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 sim ulation tim e (m s) 6 7 8 9 ack

TABLE I Table 1: Various parameters for simulations

Routing protocols Number of nodes Value of X axis Value of Y axis Maximum packets in IFQ Speed of the nodes Time of simulation

AODV, DSR and DSDV 20 1541 1029 50 100 m/s 10 sec Figure 5. Delay over time at node 1 for DSR in ms
0.001 0.001 0.001 m essage [FlowID=0]

delay (Mil iseconds)

0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 sim ula t ion t im e (m s) 0.44 0.46

Figure 6. Delay over time at node 1 for DSDV in ms

Variable parameter of the simulation is percentage of node mobility for all routing protocols. 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% node mobility are considered. Section III.A to III.C. discussed the analysis of the same

The above three graphs represent the delay over time in all there protocols individually in node1. Delay of DSDV is very less than AODV and DSR as 0.1 millisecond and 0.2 millisecond is taken for interval of Y axis when trace is created. On the other hand 0 .001 is taken as the minimum

interval of Y axis in DSDV. As nodes are moving with a high speed (100m/s), DSDV is unable to create its routing table the duration of the graph show only 0.46 millisecond here. Comparisons of generated and lost packets of three protocols under 20% node mobility is shown in fig. 7.
throughput (Bytes/s)

26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sim ulation tim e (m s) 8 9 10 11 tcp DSR

Figure 9. Throughput of receive packet at node 1 for DSR in KB/s


60 55 50 m essage [FlowID=0]

throughput (Bytes/s)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 simulation time (ms) 7 8 9 10

Figure10. Throughput of receive packet at node 1for DSDV in Bytes/sec figure 7. Comparision of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV on 20% node mobility Table. 2. Comparison on five attributes in simulation results for different protocols when 20% nodes are mobile Protocol Packet Generated 279 250 41 Packet Lost 43 41 0 Avg. Delay (Sec) 0.2131 0.3863 0.0011 Avg. Throughput Transferred 34 KB/S 31 KB/S 320 B/S Avg. Throughput Generated 40 KB/S 36 KB/S 320 B/S

The above three graphs show the throughput of received packet at node 1. It is seen from simulation that performance of DSDV is very low compared to AODV and DSR respectively. Performance of DSDV has also decreased a little compared to the performance of 20% node movement. Delay over time for AODV, DSR and DSDV are shown as pictorial form in the figures 11, 12, and 13 at node 1.
0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 simulation time (ms) 7 8 9 tcp ack

DSDV

delay (Milliseconds)

The above figure7 and table 2 shows that during the duration of whole simulation AODV and DSR has generatetd 279 and 250 packets respectively but DSDV generated only 41 packets. So rate of packet generation in DSDV under 20% mobility is very low compaire to othe protocols. On the other hand both protocol has the packet loss of about 43 and 41 respectively but DSDVhas no packet loss. Average delay of AODV and DSR is 0.2131 sec and 0.3863 sec respectively but DSDV has a minimum delay. In case of throughput, tranfered of AODV and DSR has about 34KB/s and and 31 KB/s respectively, but throughput trasferred of DSDV is only 320Bytes/s. Same sitituation is happening in the case of generation of throughput. The facts are substantiated in table 1.
delay (Milliseconds)

delay (Milliseconds)

AODV DSR

Figure 11. Delay over time at node 1 for AODV in ms


1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 simulation time (ms) 6 7 8 9 DSR

Figure 12. Delay over time at node 1 for DSR in ms


0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 simulation time (ms) 0.44 0.46 m essage [FlowID=0]

III. b. Performance on 40% node mobility In this case 40 % of total nodes are considered as mobile. Simulation results of throughput of received packets at node 1 for AODV, DSR and DSDV are shown as pictorial form in the figures 8, 9, and 10.
12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 simulation time (ms) 8 9 10 11 tcp ack

Figure 13. Delay over time at node 1 for DSDV in ms

Figure 8. Throughput of receive packet at node 1 for AODV KB/s

Figure 14. Comparision of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV when 40% nodes are moving.

Table.3: Simulation result of protocols when 40% nodes are moving


delay (Milliseconds)

0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 sim ulation tim e (m s) 7 8 9

DSR

Protocols AODV DSR DSDV

Packet Generated 228 224 41

Packet Lost 45 47 0

Avg. Delay(Sec) 0.2089 0.6959 0.0011

Avg. Throughput Transferred 26 KB/S 25 KB/S 320 B/S

Avg. Throughput Generated 33 KB/S 32 KB/S 320 B/S


delay (Mil iseconds)

Figure 19. Delay over time at node 1 for DSR in ms


0.001 0.001 0.001 m essage [FlowID=0]

From the table 3. it is seen that average delay in DSR has changed from 0.3863 see to 0.6959 sec. Throughput of AODV and DSR also has decresed. But DSDV continuing its low performance again. III. c. Performance on 60% node mobility Here 60 % of total nodes are considered as mobile. Simulation results of throughput of received packets at node 1 for AODV, DSR and DSDV are shown as pictorial form in the figures 15, 16, and 17.
550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 simulation time (ms) 8 9 10 11 tcp ack

0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 sim ula t ion t im e (m s) 0.44 0.46

Figure 20. Delay over time at node 1 for DSDV in ms

Figuure 21. Comparision of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV when 60% nodes are moving

Figure 15. Throughput of receive packets for AODV in KB/sec


6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 simulation time (ms) 8 9 10 11 tcp DSR ack

Table. 4 Simulation result of protocols when 60% nodes are moving.


Packet Generat ed 363 298 41 Pack et Lost 59 61 0 Avg. Delay (sec) 0.148 0.311 0.0011 Avg. Throughput Transferred 45 KB/S 38 KB/S 320 B/S Avg Throughput Generated 53 KB/S 44 KB/S 320 B/S

Protocol AODV DSR DSDV

Figure 16. Throughput of receive packets for DSR in KB/sec


60 55 50 message [FlowID=0]

throughput (Bytes/s)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 simulation time (ms) 7 8 9 10

From the graphs and charts and data from table 4 it is seen that packet generation, lost of packets, throughput transferred and throughput generated has been increased increase but average delay has been decreased AODV and DSR but performance of DSDV remain unchanged. III. d. Performance on 80% node mobility In this case 80% of total nodes are considered as mobile. Simulation results of throughput of received packets at node 1 for AODV, DSR and DSDV are shown as pictorial form in the figures 22, 23, and 24.
3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sim ulat ion t im e (m s) 8 9 10 11 tcp ack

Figure 17. Throughput of receive packets for DSDV in Byte/sec

Effect of delay for 60% node mobility has also been extensively studied and observed experimentally. These are shown graphically in following figures 18, 19 and 20 for AODV, DSR and DSDV for node 1 respectively. Comparison of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV when 60% nodes are moving are also shown in figure 21. Corresponding results are given in table 4.
throughput (Bytes/s)
7 6.5 6 5.5 tcp ack

Figure 22. Throughput of receive packets at node1 for AODV in KB/sec

delay (Milliseconds)

5 4.5 4 3.5 3
850 800 750 700 650 DSR

throughput (Bytes/s)

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 sim ulation tim e (m s) 7 8 9

600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Figure 18. Delay over time at node 1 for AODV in ms

5 6 7 sim ula t ion t im e (m s)

10

11

Figure 23. Throughput of receive packets at node 1 for DSR. In KB/sec in

60 55 50

m essage [FlowID=0]

throughput (Bytes/s)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 simulation time (ms) 7 8 9 10

node mobility. But performance of DSDV is unchanged. Compared to AODV and DSR, performance of AODV is better than DSR even in node mobility of 80%.

Figure 24. Throughput of receive packets at node 1 for DSDV in KB/Sec

The delay for 80% mobile modes under various protocols have been shown in figures25, 26 and 27 for of AODV, DSR and DSDV protocols respectively. Simulation results for node 1 is given as pictorial form only. Chart in figure 28 represent the comparision of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV when 80% nodes are moving. Average output regarding throughput, delay and lost of packets along with other statistice are given in table 5.
2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 sim ulation tim e (m s) 7 8 9 tcp ack

Table 6. Simulation reslut of protocols with node mobility of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%

Proto cols

delay (Milliseconds)

%of node mov eme nt 20%

Packe t Gener ated 279 228 363 340 250 224 298 261 41 41 41 41

Pack et Lost 43 45 59 62 41 47 61 46 0 0 0 0

Avg. Delay (Sec) 0.2131 0.2089 0.148 0.1969 0.3863 0.6959 0.311 0.5297 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011

Avg. Through put Transferr ed 34 KB/S 26 KB/S 45 KB/S 40 KB/S 31 KB/S 25 KB/S 38 KB/S 31 KB/S 320 B/S 320 B/S 320 B/S 320 B/S

Avg. Throug hput Genera ted 40 KB/S 33 KB/S 53 KB/S 49KB/S 36 KB/S 32 KB/S 44 KB/S 37 KB/S 320 B/S 320 B/S 320 B/S 320 B/S

Figure 25. Delay over time at node 1 for AODV in ms


0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 sim ula t ion t im e (m s) 7 8 9 DSR

A O D V

40% 60% 80% 20%

delay (Mil iseconds)

Figure 26. Delay over time at node 1 for DSR in ms


0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 sim ula t ion t im e (m s) 0.44 0.46 m essage [FlowID=0]

delay (Mil iseconds)

D S R

40% 60% 80% 20%

Figure 27. Delay over time at node 1 for DSDV in ms

D S D V

40% 60% 80%

Figure 28. Comparision of number of generated and lost packets of AODV, DSR and DSDV when 80% nodes are moving

It is seen from table 6 that the performance of AODV in terms of packet generation, throughput transfer, and generated are higher and packet loss and average delay are less than the performance of DSR. Performance of DSDV is very low and unchanged in any condition of node mobility IV. CONCLUSIONS From the above simulation results we can achieve into some conclusions that the performance of DSDV is very low compared to AODV and DSR. As DSDV is a proactive routing protocol so it requires a regular update of its routing tables. Whenever the topology of the network changes, a new sequence number is necessary before the network reconverges; thus, DSDV is not suitable for highly dynamic networks. Compared to AODV and DSR, performance of AODV is better than DSR in highly dynamic networks. Delay over time of the DSR protocol is proportional to the rate of mobile node.

Table. 5 Simulation result of protocols when 80% nodes are moving.


Protocols Packet Generate d 340 261 41 Packet Lost Avg. Delay (sec.) 0.1969 0.5297 0.0011 Throughpu t Transferre d 40 KB/S 31 KB/S 320 B/S Throughp ut Generated 49KB/S 37 KB/S 320 B/S

AODV DSR DSDV

62 46 0

If we compare the results with 60% node movement it is seen from the above graphs and tables that packet generation for AODV and DSR have decreased. But average delay and throughputs are increased in both cases compared to 60%

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors express deep sense of gratuity towards the Dept of CSE University of Kalyani and the IIPC Project AICTE, (Govt. of India), of the department where the computational recourses are used for the work. REFERENCES
[1] Tuteja, A., Gujral, R., Thalia, S.: Comparative performance analysis of DSDV, AODVand DSR Routing protocols in MANET using NS2. In: 2010 International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering, pp. 330333. IEEE Comp. Society (2010) S. Mohapatra and P. Kanungo "Comparative Performance Analysis of MANET Routing" CIIT 2011, CCIS 250, pp. 731736, 2011. C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer, and S. R. Das, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing Protocols Using NS2 Simulator", IETF, RFC 3561. Cludia J.B. Abbas and L.J. Garca Villalba "A Simulation-Based Performance Analysis of Dynamic Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks"DOI10.1007/978-3-540-30121-9_87, SpringerLink, july 2004 pp. 914-922 http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]