Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

by Md Maruf Ilahi

Supervised by Dr Sahar Al-Sudani

August, 2011



By Md Maruf Ilahi

A dissertation submitted to City of London College in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Degree of Masters in Computing (Computer Networks) Awarded by University of Wales

Supervisor: Dr Sahar Al-Sudani

August, 2011

2


Author Declaration I hereby confirm that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my understanding and credence, it contains no content previously published or written by any another person (except where explicitly defined in the references), nor material which to a considerable extent has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institution of higher education.

_________________________ Md Maruf Ilahi

3


“To my Mother Rawson Ara Begum for her inspiration and faith upon me” Md Maruf Ilahi

4


Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 8 Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 10 Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... 11 List of Abbreviation........................................................................................................ 12 I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 13

1.1

Aim of the Research ......................................................................................... 13

1.2

Motivation and Research question ................................................................. 14

1.3

Project outline .................................................................................................... 15

Summery ........................................................................................................................ 16 II.

Overview & Literature Research ......................................................................... 17

2.1

Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)................................................................... 17 Proactive Routing Protocols ........................................................................ 18

2.1.1 2.1.1.1

Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) ................................................... 19

2.1.1.2

Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) ................................ 19

2.1.1.3

Global State Routing (GSR) .................................................................... 19 Reactive Routing Protocols.......................................................................... 19

2.1.2 2.1.2.1

Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) ......................... 20

2.1.2.2

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) ............................................................. 20

2.1.2.3

Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) .................................. 21 Hybrid Protocols ............................................................................................ 21

2.1.3 2.1.3.1

Zone Routing protocol (ZPR) ................................................................... 21 Related Work ................................................................................................. 21

2.1.4

Summery ........................................................................................................................ 25 III.

Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network ................................................................. 26

3.1

Routing in MANET............................................................................................. 26

3.1.1

Distance Vector Routing Algorithm ............................................................. 26

3.1.1.1

Routing Mechanism in AODV .................................................................. 27

3.1.1.2

Advantages of AODV ................................................................................ 31

3.1.2 3.1.2.1

Link State Routing Algorithm ....................................................................... 32 Multipath Relay mechanism in OLSR .................................................... 32

5


3.1.2.2

Advantages to OLSR ................................................................................ 33 Source Routing Algorithm ............................................................................ 34

3.1.3 3.1.3.1

Route discovery in DSR ........................................................................... 34

3.1.3.2

Route Maintenance in DSR ..................................................................... 34

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 35 IV.

Research Methodology..................................................................................... 36

4.1

Methodology used in Research....................................................................... 36

4.2

Simulator used in Research............................................................................. 37

4.3

Justification for using OPNET Simulation ...................................................... 38

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 38 V.

Network Design and Simulation .......................................................................... 39

5.1

Performance Metrics ......................................................................................... 39

5.1.1

Throughput ..................................................................................................... 39

5.1.2

Network Load ................................................................................................. 39

5.1.3

Delay ............................................................................................................... 40

5.2

Simulation Environment ................................................................................... 40

5.2.1

Network design & Simulation Model ........................................................... 40

5.2.2

Performance Parameter ............................................................................... 43

5.3

List of Scenarios ................................................................................................ 44

Summery ........................................................................................................................ 45 VI.

Analyse and Compare Results ........................................................................ 46

6.1

Simulation Results for small network ............................................................. 46

6.1.1

Scenario 01 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds) ......... 46

6.1.2

Scenario 02 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)............ 48

6.1.3

Scenario 03 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds) ......... 49

6.2

Comparative Analysis of scenario 01, 02 and 03 (Small Network) ........... 50

6.2.1

Throughput comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03 ................................... 50

6.2.2

Delay comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03.............................................. 51

6.2.3

Load comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03 ............................................... 52

6.3

Simulation Results for Large Network ............................................................ 53

6.3.1

Scenario 04 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds) ......... 53

6.3.2

Scenario 05 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)............ 54

6


6.3.3

Scenario 06 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds) ......... 55 Comparative Analysis of scenario 04, 05 & 06 (Large Network) ............... 56

6.4 6.4.1

Throughput comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06 ................................... 56

6.4.2

Delay comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06.............................................. 57

6.4.3

Load comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06 ............................................... 58

6.5

Overall Comparison of Routing Performance ............................................... 59

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 61 V.

Conclusion and Future Work ............................................................................... 62

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 62 Future Work.................................................................................................................... 63 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 64 APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................. 68 Additional Screenshots for chapter 5 ......................................................................... 68

7


List of Figures

FIGURE 1: PROJECT OUTLINE

16

FIGURE 2: CLASSIFICATION OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

18

FIGURE 3: “ROUTE REQUEST” (RREQ) MECHANISM IN AODV

28

FIGURE 4: “ROUTE REPLY” (RREP) TECHNIQUE IN AODV

29

FIGURE 5: “ROUTE ERROR (RERR)” MECHANISM IN AODV

30

FIGURE 6: AN ILLUSTRATION OF MULTIPATH RELAY (MPR) IN OLSR

33

FIGURE 7: ROUTE DISCOVERY IN DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING

34

FIGURE 8: ROUTE MAINTENANCE IN DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING

35

FIGURE 9: SIMULATION MODEL WITH 15 NODES IN OPNET 16.0

40

FIGURE 10: SIMULATION MODEL WITH 30 NODES IN OPNET 16.0

41

FIGURE 11: NODE MODEL ARCHITECTURE

42

FIGURE 12: AODV (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE DELAY, LOAD AND 47

THROUGHPUT)

FIGURE 13: DSR (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT) 48 FIGURE 14: OLSR (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE LOAD, DELAY AND 49

THROUGHPUT)

FIGURE 15: THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 15 NODES 50 FIGURE 16: THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 15 NODES 51 FIGURE 17: NETWORK LOAD ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 15 NODES 52 FIGURE 18: AODV (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT)

53

FIGURE 19: DSR (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT)

54

8


FIGURE 20: OLSR (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT)

55

FIGURE 21: THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 30 NODES 57 FIGURE 22: DELAY ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 30 NODES

57

FIGURE 23: NETWORK LOAD ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 30 NODES 58 FIGURE 24: OVERALL SCENARIO OF THROUGHPUT (MANET PERFORMANCE 59

COMPARISON) FIGURE 25: OVERALL SCENARIO OF DELAY (MANET PERFORMANCE

60

COMPARISON)

FIGURE 26: OVERALL SCENARIO OF LOAD (MANET PERFORMANCE COMPARISON) 60 FIGURE 27: AODV PARAMETER

68

FIGURE 28: DSR PARAMETER

69

FIGURE 29: OSLR PARAMETER

70

FIGURE 30: APPLICATION ATTRIBUTES

71

FIGURE 31: PROFILE ATTRIBUTES

72

9


Abstract This research is aim to analyse the performance of routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network, a network consists of individual nodes connecting with each other creating a infrastructure less network. Routing in MANET is the most challenging process as constant topology changes occur during the transmission. A number of protocols are designed to cope with MANET routing issue. In MANET each node acts as a host and router while communicating with each other, routing is one of the core concept in computer networking, so various routing algorithm inherited by different MANET protocols. In this Research three protocols were evaluated using Discrete Event Simulator OPNET 16.0. These protocols, (AODV, DSR and OLSR) use different routing mechanism which is supported by OPNET. A number of scenarios have been carried out to measure the performance of these protocols; throughput, delay and load were used as a performance metrics. Two different size of network were implemented in OPNET to compare the performance. The results shows that OLSR performs better in both scenario with high traffic load, on the hand AODV performance became the second best protocol and DSR in most case became the least performing protocols. Detail of this performance evaluation is carried out in the chapters.

10


Acknowledgements I would like to take the opportunity to give gracious appreciation to those people have given me enormous support and encouragement during this process. Firstly, I would like to thank my Supervisor Dr Sahar Al-Sudani for constant supervision, comments and guidance from the start till the end of this Research. Without her contribution this research would have impossible to achieve to this extent. I also like to thank those people whose publication and materials I have used to carry out my research. I would like thank all my colleagues for their support and encouragement while choosing my topic for the research. At last I would like thank my Parent specially my Mother for their love, care, inspiration and trust upon me which is greatly appreciated.

Md Maruf Ilahi August, 2011

11


List of Abbreviation AODV CBR OPNET DSDV DSR GSR MAC MANET MPR OLSR AODV-BR TCP RERR RREP RREQ SARP SP TORA ZRP NS2/3 BATMAN

Ad hoc on-demand distance vector Continuous bit rate Optimized Network Engineering Tools Destination sequence distance vector Dynamic source routing Global Source Routing Medium access control Mobile ad hoc network Multi-point relay Optimised link state routing AODV-Back Route Transmission Control Protocol Route error Route reply Route request Scalable ad hoc routing Node speed Temporary ordered routing algorithm Zone routing protocol Network Simulator 2/3 Better Approach to Mobile Ad hoc Network

12


ONE I. Introduction Technology changes considerably throughout the last ten centuries, in the tenth or twelve century, people have remarkable advance in field of science and medical innovation. The twenty first century became the century of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Space Science. One of the core computer system concepts is computer networking. This is the age computer network and internet. The internet most commonly a collection various networks collaborating and connecting to create a world wide area network also called the Information Super Highway. Computer Network consists of two fundamental network concepts, wired network and wireless network. Wired Network is a type of network where wire cables are used to design and implement in certain network. A wired network consists of node, server and link component. On the other hand wireless network is consists of node, server and frequency link component. Two type of wireless network can be categorised, Infrastructure Network and Infrastructure less network, also called Mobile Ad-hoc network or MANET. The prime objective of this research to carry out a simulation based performance evaluation MANET routing protocols. Three protocols were chosen to carry out the research. More detail will be available in the later chapters.

1.1

Aim of the Research

This thesis is aim to get in depth understanding about the performance of routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network and to design, simulate such network with specific hardware and protocols. MANET has a number of routing protocols and there a number of protocols are on their way or under development. Each and every protocol has its own characteristics and performance level, each protocol has diverse mechanism can be suited in different MANET

13


environment. In this thesis one of the key objectives is to investigate various routing algorithms and identify the best performing protocols.

Detail outlined objectives as follow, 

Investigate available literature



Understanding the routing protocols and algorithm



Design the simulation environment



Analyzing results and performance comparison

1.2

Motivation and Research question

MANET routing is one of most popular subject area for researcher to identify the key routing protocols to be adopted in different scenario, a number of publications and research were carried out and a wide variety of key elements is pointed out to provide an idea that which protocol will be best suited in different environment. MANET is a type of network where topology changes randomly and no infrastructure is available for the network to establish an active connection the routing is a vital issue. Most of the research carried out to determine the performance and security of these protocols and in numerous researches shows that MANET protocol performance not constant, it is more ever variable due high mobility, network load and network size. Also the simulation play vital role in the research as different result shows that simulation environment generate different outcome as it is need to be configure properly to achieve high level of simulation efficiency. The main objective of this research is to identify key protocols which can be used to determine the performance. So the selection criteria will be one of the most important factors behind a successful simulation and comparative analysis. The research questions involves a number of factors as follow, 

How protocol performance will be affected by random change of topology?



How network load and mobility can be a key issue for different MANET protocols?



What factors will influence constant algorithm development for MANET protocols?



How different simulation engine can manipulate research outcome?

14


1.3

Project outline

This project is organised as follows, Chapter 1: Introduction In this chapter a brief description about MANET networking, research aim and objectives and motivation were discussed. This chapter also contain full project outline with a diagram. Chapter 2: Overview and Literature Research Overview and reviewing earlier literature about the topic will be the key points of discussion for this chapter. In chapter 3 details about the routing protocols and in depth review will be carried out. Chapter 3: Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network Detail about routing algorithm, advantages, and disadvantages of various routing techniques and brief comparison will be added in this chapter. From this chapter it can be decided which protocols will be involved in this performance research. Chapter 4: Research Methodology In chapter 2 in depth discussion about different Research Methodology will be carried out. And also the selected methodology with justification will be added. Chapter 5: Network Design and Simulation In chapter 5 a design view of simulation environment will be presented, with configuration detail of simulation engine and also performance parameter, other simulation variables will be taken into consideration. Chapter 6: Analyze and Compare Results Simulation results with numerous graphs, charts and tables will be presented with a in depth comparative analysis will be carried out in this chapter. Chapter 7: Conclusion and Future work A brief summary of the whole research along with a summary of results and future research ideas will be discussed in this chapter. This chapter also contain the finishing note for this dissertation.

15


Figure 1: Project outline

Summery In this chapter an overview of research topic were discussed, aims and objectives and detail project outline were shown is figure 1. In the next chapter an overview of MANET and routing protocols will be provided.

16


TWO II. Overview & Literature Research Computer Network was always the key element of today‟s technological advancement. In previous chapter a brief introduction and detail project outline were discussed. This chapter is aim to provide an initial of overview of Mobile Ad-hoc network, which is the topic area for this research and also a literature analysis will be carried out containing similar previous research materials and outcomes of those researches.

2.1 Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Mobile Ad-hoc Network is a term which describes an infrastructure less network consisting of both fixed node and mobile nodes exchange data with each other without any centralised infrastructure or base station. An as a result transitional node behaves like router to transmit data to nodes not in range. The technology is so far very sophisticated and for its dynamic nature as well as the mobility, it‟s regarded as one of the most challenging network to design and deploy. Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is more complicated than the traditional wired network because the topology changes and the mobility of the nodes make it more difficult to route the transmission. As a result the MANET is considered one of the most expensive networks, and makes it critically unusable within public network structure. MANET is widely used in Defence networks, Search and Rescue operation for example a soldier transfers information about the situation in battlefield or a rescue operation passing detail information from flood or hurricane affected area. MANET does not contain any infrastructure and each node within the network acts as a router to form their own network, with these characteristics MANET networks sometimes called infrastructure less network. Mobile Ad-hoc Network has a number of protocols for difference types of MANET. These 1

protocols are classified as Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid .

1

Hybrid protocols are the combination of both proactive and reactive protocol algorithm. 17


Figure 2: Classification of MANET Routing Protocols

2.1.1

2

Proactive Routing Protocols

Proactive routing protocols use similar approaches as used in some wired network infrastructure. Proactive routing maintains a number of route table also called vector to store route information which needs to be updated in regular interval. Every node has the following node information in the network or subnet along with the node range. But when topology changes in a network table driven protocols acts differently, but some exceptions can be found where routing table constantly updated by different protocols. As a results these protocols needs to maintain few different routing table for each nodes in the network suggests these protocols are not designed for large MANET as they have to keep information about every nodes in the network. (Ade & Tijare, 2009) Network topology changes is one of the key issue in proactive routing as these protocols needs to maintain up to date topology information as the network topology change happens, update need to be propagated to the entire network to notify the changes occurs. Most of the proactive routing protocols use the some mechanisms which are derived from wired network backbone. So a number of modification and improvements has been carried out to cope with the dynamic nature of mobile ad hoc network. One of the key characteristics of MANET proactive protocols is to maintain route update whether any traffic exist or not in the network, that‟s make the network load high which can be seen as a 2

This image originated from IEEE research magazine>>>> 18


disadvantages of proactive protocols. Some popular proactive protocols are Optimised Link State Routing, Destination Sequence Distance Vector and Global Source Routing which are described below. (Liu and Kaiser, 2005)*

2.1.1.1 Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Optimized Link State Routing or OLSR is MANET routing protocols uses conventional link 3

state algorithm . The mechanism used in link state is as simple as the protocols uses link state messages to keep updates about nodes and topology inside the network. One of the key techniques used by OLSR is MPR or Multi Path Relay which is described in detail in chapter 3. (Ablohasan, Wysocki & Dutckiewicz, 2003)

2.1.1.2 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) DSDV is one of oldest routing protocols developed for dynamic network MANET which inherited classical Bellman-Ford algorithm. The nodes in the network always look for all possible routes to any destination throughout the network and save this information in their routing table. Each node broadcasts messages which contain route to destination and hops sequence number to reach its destination. New sequence number is produced for each new route in the network by each node. (Talooki & Rodri, nd)

2.1.1.3 Global State Routing (GSR) Global Source Routing also based on traditional Link State algorithm but uses some further developed techniques to broadcast the control messages, unlike other Link State protocols GSR only broadcast control messages to its neighbour rather than broadcasting to the whole network, which reduces the amount of control messages transmitted throughout the network. As a results the message size became relatively larger than other messages format used in other Link State protocols and as the network size get bigger these message get bigger size which uses high amount of bandwidth to transmit the update messages. (Ablohasan, Wysocki & Dutckiewicz, 2003)

2.1.2

Reactive Routing Protocols

Unlike proactive protocols reactive protocols not always try to search for routes and does not broadcast control messages in regular interval, reactive protocols search for new routes as required basis, it also called on demand as the route discovery based on demand. A 3

More detail provided about link state algorithm in later chapter.

19


route discovery operation carried out when requested by the source node and the operation terminates as new route discovered or unavailability of routes in the network. Sometimes an active node connection failure occurred due to mobility of nodes in the network, so route maintenance operation is the key in reactive protocols, one of the main advantages of reactive protocols that they transmit less control message comparing to proactive protocols. But in reactive approach source node often experienced long transmission delay for on demand route discovery. Two of main reactive protocols are Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm, Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector and Dynamic Source Routing. (Liu & Kaiser, 2005)

2.1.2.1 Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) AODV is a simple, effective, reactive routing protocol based on DSDV routing techniques. It can be said that AODV is combination of DSR and DSDV routing protocol but a more advanced features included. It is designed by a group IETF scientist in 2000 and presented 4

5

in IETF RFC in 2001. AODV uses limited bandwidth for wireless communication. It‟s inherited on demand route discovery and route maintenance mechanism from DSR and node sequence number technique from DSDV which makes this protocol more versatile and advanced. It‟s the second most used algorithm after OLSR, More detail on AODV algorithm and routing mechanism were discussed in later chapters. (Royer & Perkins)*

2.1.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is an on demand routing protocol which uses source routing algorithm as a core concept of routing. In DSR nodes are maintain a route caches to store route information which is constantly updated when new route information arrives on the node. The protocol is based two algorithm route request approach is determines route discovery mechanism and route caching determines route maintenance mechanism. When a node needs to send packet to a destination initially it will look at the route cache for available route to destination, if these route already expires it will initiate route discovery operation broadcasting a route request message to its entire neighbour. This Route Request (RREQ) message consists of source node address, destination address and an unique identification number. All nodes which receive this RREQ check whether they have the route in their cache if not they store this route record into their cache and forward the message on the outgoing link. A node only will send a RREQ if the route is unknown and

4 5

International Engineering Task Force Request for Comments

20


no other route request were broadcast to discover this route which can be identified with the unique number to eliminate duplicate messages. (Royer & Toh, 1999)

2.1.2.3 Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) TORA is one of the advanced protocol which uses link reversal algorithm based on distributed routing. It is an on demand routing protocol, only allow route discovery when required. One of the key feature is it can discover route quickly with low number of control message delivered to discover a route.

TORA uses longer routes to minimize control

overhead while discovering newer route. (Broch, Maltz, et al, nd)

2.1.3

Hybrid Protocols

Hybrid routing protocols often characterised a combination of reactive and proactive protocols to eliminate the both routing drawbacks. These protocols are applied in hierarchical network architecture, but different proactive and reactive approaches are used in different hierarchy of the network level. Zone Routing protocol (ZRP) is considered a hybrid routing; further discussion is added in section 2.1.3.1. (Liu and Kaiser, 2005)

2.1.3.1 Zone Routing protocol (ZPR) Zone Routing Protocol is a MANET hybrid routing protocol developed using proactive and reactive mechanism, it can maintain a routing table without transmitting so many control messages. ZRP in a term not only a protocol but it can be described as routing framework, available to be added or reduced features to an existing protocol. (Schaumann, 2000, p-04)

2.1.4

Related Work

A number research were conducted by fellow researchers and students in the field of Wireless Ad-hoc routing performance and a few improvement were proposed to make the routing more efficient and secure in MANET. MANET routing protocols is one of the most popular subject area for postgraduate Computer Science and Telecommunication students in recent years. MANET routing protocols are different with difference performance level when size and environment varies and these protocols need to be dynamic in nature to adopt the environment which the protocols deployed. A number of studies are outlined as follow in a form of table to provide greater understanding about MANET Protocol performance and reliability.

21


Table 2.1: A list of research carried out about MANET protocol performance.

Author

Implementation

Protocols

Summary of Results

S. Ade &

AODV, DSDV,

DSDV performs better with low

P. Tijare, 2010

DSR

node mobility.

M. Rahman et al,

AODV, DSDV,

2009

DSR is the most efficient protocol

DSR

W. Lol, 2008

OPNET Modeller

AODV, DSR,

OLSR wins the race

OLSR, TORA A. Zaballos, et al,

AODV, DSR,

2003

OLSR, TORA

Johnson,

Maltz,

& Broch, 2001

Real life

DSR

Result varies

Low routing overhead in random

Implementation

mobility

. A group of researcher (Johnson, Maltz, & Broch, 2001) carried out experimental simulation involving Dynamic Source Routing protocol to measure the performance and security with a real life case study designed to measure performance in rapid mobility environment. DSR 6

performs well in multi-hop wireless ad hoc network, as the simulation results with a real life ad hoc network of car driving and routing within the network, with low routing overhead and its ability to accurately transmit all originated data packets, even with continues, random motion of all devices in the network DSR provides excellent results. (Johnson, Maltz, & Broch, 2001)

Recent study in 2010 (Ade & Tijare, 2010) shows the simulation outcomes concur with predictable findings based on theoretical investigation. As expected reactive routing 7

protocol AODV performs better in the view that it is capable to continue the connection in 8

any interruption while transmitting data packets, which is needed in TCP connection-based traffic. AODV predictably deliver all packets virtually at low node mobility and not capable to maintain connection at increased mobility. On the other hand DSR is preferred the best protocol in all mobility rates and the speed is quite similar to DSDV, But DSDV is costly in increased mobility compare to DSR. In comparison to on demand (AODV, DSR) with table 6

Simulation is imitation of some real things, state of affair or process. Ad hoc on demand distance vector, A MANET Routing Protocol. 8 TCP means Transmission Control Protocol, an important protocol for TCP/IP protocol Suite. 7

22


driven (DSDV) measuring the metrics like end to end delay and data dropped rate DSDV performs better in any network with small number of nodes while DSR/AODV performance is relatively superior in a network with large number of nodes. (Ade & Tijare, 2010)

Another comparative study (Rahman, Islam & Talevski, 2009) shows similar results as packet dropping rate for DSR is less than DSDV and AODV indicating its highest efficiency. The authors simulated only three protocols (AODV, DSR and DSDV) and concluded the best performing protocols in high mobility is AODV and DSR while DSDV provide better performance in low mobility with fewer nodes in the network. High mobility responses with link failure and data overhead while updating all nodes with available routing information which can be found much more in DSDV than AODV and DSR. A general conclusion can be reached while observing the application oriented metrics like packet delivery fraction and delay, Performance of DSR is much better than DSDV and AODV and also the routing load is low in DSR than the other two protocols. (Rahman, Islam & Talevski, 2009)

In 1999 a review was published by Royer and Toh (1999) concerning various routing protocols and their performance and uses in Mobile ad hoc network. The review provides information about protocols and their features. It‟s also included algorithm used by those protocols and advantages and disadvantages of each protocols. The authors stated in the paper as each and every protocols has their own characteristics and features for different scenario and each protocol can perform well in their most suited scenario, The author conclusion are as follow, “Finally, we have identified possible applications and challenges facing ad hoc mobile wireless networks. While it is not clear that any particular algorithm or class of algorithm is the best for all scenarios, each protocol has definite advantages and disadvantages, and is well suited for certain situations”. (Royer & Toh, 1999)

In a study of MANET protocols in 2003 a group of researcher (Zaballos, Vallejo, Corral, Abella, 2003) point out few key performance issue of four different routing protocols (AODV, OLSR, DSR, TORA) At a first glance, the results indicates that proactive protocols initiate a minor delay in the network, as their route discovery is on demand. However, due to the fact that they constantly try to explore new routes to all feasible destinations, packet overhead in routing is high. In contrast, reactive protocols do not retain vacant routes and look for new routes when necessary. This process increases the delay suffered by packets, because they are in the buffer queue waiting to be transmitted. Usually they produce fewer control traffic than the proactive routing protocols.

23


9

The study also suggested OLSR performance varies in term of high mobility with large number of nodes interacts in the network. Firstly is it so unlikely that OSLR would be able to discover the routes quickly, so the coverage time increases. Secondly it continuously searches the routes for all probable destinations in the network and causes high control traffic. Finally OLSR is recommended in an environment with low mobility and small number of nodes to get the best result out of it. But in terms of other protocols such as AODV the study indicates that these protocols can provide best all around performance and also its development over DSDV and DSR protocols will make it a highly resourceful and adaptive protocols to apply in MANET. Similarly DSR performs in high data load scenario but causes relatively high delay while network size increased. In such environment, route length become longer and increase the size of packet length constantly which results the uses of this protocols to be restricted to small and medium wireless network. But in Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) the main advantage is that it can generate multiple alternate routes to destination, which is supported in multicast environment. But in some Wireless ad hoc network cases TORA

10

is vulnerable to crumple in the network, which will

results a protocol collapse. Notably the simulation results suggested that TORA performance is worse because it produce large number of traffic which indicates it is not one of the recommended protocols where critical level of performance ensures network efficiency. But the results also suggests that in a network with large number of nodes involves TORA does not underperform and could minimize network delay. (Zaballos, Vallejo, Corral, Abella, 2003)

According to a recent study (Lol, 2008) by one of the graduate student from the Auckland University of Technology New Zealand shows some rather improved results of four MANET routing protocols (AODV, DSR, OLSR, TORA), the research suggested that in highly demanding environment with medium number of nodes AODV perform well but when the mobility get higher this protocol may not able to survive the pressure. Likewise the simulation results indicate that TORA can be an option to implement in small network when mobility is high and in medium size network with high mobility and traffic load. (Lol, 2008) In most network in term of size where mobility is rather low, OLSR adopt really well in most of the cases, the type of data traffic used is vital for this kind of positive results. The study (LOL, 2010) also point out that OLSR performs exceptionally well with CBR

11

traffic, which

is the only traffic used by the author to simulate OLSR. Finally the author concluded that for small network DSR might be the best option, AODV can be the option for medium network and for large number of node involvement TORA can be the winning protocols, while OLSR

9

Optimized Link State Protocol, A MANET Link State protocol Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm, A MANET Routing Protocol

10

11

Constant Bit Rate or CBR traffic 24


predominantly the best routing protocols for any network in term of size, traffic load and mobility, but in some cases OLSR underperform due to mobility and traffic load.

So while reviewing the above study (Lol, 2008) results a final solution can be reached that within a small network with high mobility DSR and OLSR loose performance while TORA and AODV gain reliability, but it react opposite while number of node decreased. So overall the best protocols for all size of networks still need to developed or redeveloped.

Summery In this chapter in depth literature review is provided. A initial overview of MANET and Protocols are also discussed. In the next chapter detail routing algorithm will be discussed.

25


Three III. Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network In the previous chapter an overview about MANET routing provided with an in depth literature research has been carried out to achieve common understanding about similar research done by different student and researcher. This chapter focused on more detail understanding about MANET routing algorithm and a selection protocol mechanism will be discussed which later will be used as a experimental protocols for this research. 3.1 Routing in MANET One of the core concepts in networking is routing no matter the network is wireless, wired or other architecture. A number of protocols were designed for MANET in last decades to cope with network challenges in MANET and some of them were really popular and extensively used for MANET. Distance Vector routing and Link state routing are both dynamic routing widely used in wired network. These algorithm is used to design MANET routing protocols, this two are described in below in detail with the MANET associated protocols.

3.1.1

Distance Vector Routing Algorithm

Distance Vector routing algorithm is on e of the core routing algorithm used in both wired and wireless network based on classical Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. Distance Vector uses a vector to store the routing information for its neighbour. The router passes distance information with its neighbour in regular interval to update the routing table. These distance determined by the actual hop number between each node as well as queue length and delay occurred in the transmission. This algorithm always tries to use the shortest path if there is a number of routes involves between two nodes. One of the main disadvantages of this algorithm is the coverage is low which leads to a “count to infinity” problem. (Liu & Kaiser, nd). The most well known protocol which uses distance vector algorithm is Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector designed for MANET which is an updated version of DSDV protocol. (Liu & Kaiser, nd)

26


3.1.1.1 Routing Mechanism in AODV AODV uses DSDV mechanism for routing and consists of few key contents in the routing algorithm, detail of these algorithm are listed below, Sequence Number A sequence number is used to eliminate expired route information from the network. It also helps to avoid the loop problem for distance vector protocols. A sequence number is stored in the routing table for each destination the node keep for possible route. If one node receive a greater sequence number than it has stored in its routing table it‟s automatically update the sequence number to the greater one. A host node can always change a sequence number if it finds a new destination route for the same destination. One node can always keep its own sequence number which must be updated before the host broadcast the Route Request message or when the host passes a route reply message replying the RREQ. The sequence number is must be an unassigned integer number so that a possible rollover can happen. (Liu & Kaiser, nd)

Route Request In AODV, when a host node try to send a message to another node but there is no route information available which leads to a Route Discovery operation. In Route discovery operation the host node will broadcast a RREQ message to its neighbours, which includes source destination address and broadcast ID, a unique identifier. It also contains up to date sequence number of the routes. As shown in the figure 3 there are five nodes involved in this example A, B, C, D and E. In the figure node a wants to sends a message to node C but does not have the route to node C, so node A generate a RREQ and broadcast to its neighbour node B and D. Node B and D receive the RREQ and updates its routing table if the sequence number new or greater than the number it has have in its table and the route is known. From the figure it can be said that the RREQ message contains both source and destination number, also have a ID and lifespan which is 3. So both neighbours node B and D gets the RREQ but only B has the route to the destination to C, so B will generate a Route Reply message for A includes the route hop count and will create a RREQ for node to have a possible route to its destination if these route not even known by node B. On other hand the other neighbour node D which is not in range to the destination can try to get an alternative through broadcasting a RREQ to node E. In the figure 4 a detail Route Reply operation is discussed.

27


Figure 3: “Route Request” (RREQ) Mechanism in AODV

Route Reply From the above figure 3 it can be said that node A finds an active route to node C through node B. When node B sends a RREP to node A it‟s also sends RREQ to node C to get the route. In AODV all the route information is kept on the route table in a vector. So when node C receives a route request from node B as seen in figure 4 below, it will update its own route table with path to node A via node B. It also generates a route reply for node B to let the node know that a route path is discovered to node A which will enable an active connection. From the figure 4 it can be seen the RREP message format which includes source node, destination node, hope count and ID. On the other hand node D finds out that the route to node C is not reachable from this node so node D just rebroadcast the message to its neighbour node E. This whole operation establishes an active connection between node A and C. (C. Liu & J. Kaiser)

28


Figure 4: “Route Reply” (RREP) technique in AODV

Route Error In AODV, node uses Hello message to get touch with its neighbours. In regular interval each node broadcast a hello message to notify the neighbour its existence. If there is a problem in connection or disconnection occurs the nodes generate a Route Error message and will broadcast it to let the neighbour know about the connection problem. From the figure 5 it can be seen that node B want to send a message to node C but there is no active connection, and gets a Route Error (RERR) message from node C which indicates a possible connection failure between two nodes. This connection failure can be repaired using another techniques called local repair, which is a distinctive feature of AODV algorithm. (C. Liu & J. Kaiser)

29


Figure 5: “Route Error (RERR)” mechanism in AODV

Local Repair

Local repair is a type of routing operation when link with other nodes broken and the host node need to repair it if the target node nearest hope as specified in the route table. The host node tries to repair it generating RREQ message with an increased sequence number and broadcast the message to the destination host.

TTL and IP header need to be

measured because the repair operation must not extent through the whole network. During the process of repair after sending RREQ to the target the host node waits until it gets the RREP message from the target node if no respond received with certain amount of time it will update its routing table with the value invalid or it will update the hop count after receiving the reply. Sometime the hop count is greater than it‟s already been in the routing table than a new RERR with that hop count will be broadcasted. This link repair process always considered as proactive repairing where target node route is unavailable before data can be sent locally.

Use of “Hello” message in AODV “Hello” message is a well known approach with the distance vector routing algorithm. AODV uses Hello message to get update from the neighbour about the route in specific time interval. Every time a node broadcast a HELLO message for the neighbour so that the neighbour will the topology the host node are at the moment with detail route update.

30


Multicast Routing Multicast routing also supported in AODV which makes it a versatile protocol for MANET. Multicast routing concept includes the routing where the IP addresses a sequence numbers are kept. It can also record the hop count and leader IP addresses. RREQ messages are used to link with multicast groups in the network and RREP messages are used to make respond by the nodes. In multicast routing a source node can receive a number of RREP from different nodes in the network but the source node will choose the shortest path route to the destination via using a number of node within the route. In a multicast group tree an MACT (Multicast ACTvation) message used to send activation link into the branch. Sometimes there are no RREP received by source which anticipates that there are no active nodes connected in the multicast tree. A multicast RREP consists of IP address, group leader and hop count of the neighbouring nodes. When group node get RREP messages from two different group leaders which involves a tree connection between two trees. Within connected in a multicast group a member can leave the group tree anytime but it has to generate a MACT o for the branch it belongs, otherwise it has to continue serving as a group member.

3.1.1.2 Advantages of AODV The most significant advantage of AODV that it supports both Unicast and Multicast routing mechanism. Other advantages are it uses flat routing techniques which are not belonging to any central control process to manage routing. AODV is a reactive protocol which can reduce significant number of traffic flow and manage to discover new route. Additionally the size of the control message is relative smaller, because if routing table has available information about the route to destination, there is no need to create any new control message to discover the route. In multicast routing AODV uses shortest path first techniques which can reduce transmission delay. RREQ and RREP messages are used to discover route which can control the number of overhead transmitted through network. (Huhtonen, 2004) AODV respond promptly when topology changes in a network, using RERR messages it will update the route table only for the specific nodes which were involved in topology change. On the other hand Hello messages which are used to maintain active routes generate limited overhead for unnecessary traffic. One of the advantages of traditional Distance vector algorithm is that it supports LOOP FREE technique to tackle “Count to Infinity” issue. Sequence number is used to support LOOP FREE techniques. AODV reacts relatively quickly to the topological changes in the network and updating only the hosts that may be affected by the change, using the RRER message. The Hello

31


messages, which are responsible for the route maintenance, are also limited so that they do not create unnecessary overhead in the network. The AODV protocol is a loop free and avoids the counting to infinity problem, which were typical to the classical distance vector routing protocols, by the use of the sequence numbers. (Huhtonen, 2004)

3.1.2

Link State Routing Algorithm

Link State routing uses Dijkstra‟s algorithm, which uses different metrics to calculate the route information. Notification messages were sent by each router to the other routers in the network with updated link and topology information. When a router receives a notification messages from a router it will update routes with the new topology information. This is how a router will be keep updated about the whole network scenario. Different metrics are used to compare the route information for example, number of hops, link speed and traffic congestion. Link State routing uses Shortest Path technique to transmit data messages. Optimize Link State Routing (OLSR) one of the popular Link State algorithm based protocol.

3.1.2.1 Multipath Relay mechanism in OLSR Optimized Link State Routing protocol is designed for MANET, which will easily adopted with MANET for its behaviour to eliminate unnecessary control message and maintain small number of overhead flowing control message. OLSR uses Link State algorithm which maintain updated route information so whenever needed route is available to transmit data immediately. OLSR is optimized with an adaptation feature for the MANET routing. (Munaretto, Badis et al, nd)

OLSR constantly maintain the link information of the whole network and update the routing table, this can cause a large number of overhead traffic throughout the network. This reduce the control messages OLSR use Multi Path Relay technique, in MPR within the network a small number of MPR nodes are chosen to maintain link traffic in the network. That means it create a MPR network within a set proximity to reach the nearest proximity. Application used in OLSR is designed to reduce long delay during transmission of packets. In the small network proximity OLSR tries to obtain low number of MPR sets as possible which will maintain low route traffic. But one disadvantage of this protocol is it tries to keep updated routing table for the whole network, which is both similar for small or large network, but when the number of nodes increases the overhead of control messages goes up. (Ade & Tijare, 2010)

32


An illustration of Multipath Relay in OLSR shown in Figure 6 below,

Figure 6: An Illustration of Multipath Relay (MPR) in OLSR

3.1.2.2 Advantages to OLSR One of the main advantages of OLSR is its added reactiveness feature; it can be customised optimizing the time interval for broadcasting the HELLO messages. It is also suitable for MANET rapid changes of source and destination pairs. Other advantage of unlike AODV it is not necessary for OLSR to carry out a route discovery operation for the original data transmission. So OSLR need not loose extra bandwidth for on demand route discovery operation. But one drawback of OLSR its continues bandwidth uses while transmitting the link information. (Huhtonen, 2004) Other advantages of OSLR are the link route is always available in the routing table while AODV discover the route on demand. It will maintain a constant quality of routes, which can extend the QoS feature for overhead. (Huhtonen, 2004)

.

33


3.1.3

Source Routing Algorithm

Source routing uses transmission data to maintain route information, each node uses the original message header to send the route data to other nodes. A node receiving any route request will add its own source address to the responding route reply and forward the packet to the originating node. So in that way the source node gets up to date route information for its routing table. In this algorithm also helps to reduce the loop by identifying the packet header. DSR is one of the well known Source Routing protocol.

3.1.3.1 Route discovery in DSR When DSR receives any data packets, it checks the route table for available routes, if routes found it will add routes to the header of data packets to transfer the data. If not it will release route request messages for discovery operation. The RREQ messages received by all nodes will check their own route table and later will concentrates on partial routes. Then will send a RREP messages with route addresses to the reverse path. (Yui & Li, nd)

A diagram showing Route Discovery in DSR shown in Figure 7 below,

Figure 7: Route Discovery in Dynamic Source Routing

3.1.3.2 Route Maintenance in DSR In DSR route maintenance is one of the important operation, it will send successful packet information about the available routes. Successful data packets are needed to check if its reaches to the destination. Otherwise it will unicast packets to neighour nodes with address specified. Failed packets can cause a Route Error message sent to the source node and the destination node will update the route table as the source is information is invalid. (Yui & Li, nd)

An illustration of Route Maintenance is DSR shown figure 8 below,

34


Figure 8: Route Maintenance in Dynamic Source Routing

Summary This chapter concentrates on detail routing algorithm of MANET protocols. Some figure will help to understand the routing approaches. The next chapter will elaborates research methodology for this research.

35


Four IV. Research Methodology In the previous chapter a detail routing techniques for MANET were discussed and some examples were presented. In this chapter the methodology which will be used to carry out the research will be the main focus. A number of simulator and its main characteristics will be observed. This chapter is divided into 3 sections, in the first section research methodology will be discussed, a number of simulation models will be shown in section 2 and in the third section a justification of using such methodology will be discussed.

4.1 Methodology used in Research Research are categorised in differently depends on what kind of research or the topic area or the environment. There are two type of basic methodology for theoretical research, quantitative and qualitative. But in terms of network design and implementation different research model is proposed and used by different researchers. A methodology in the research is determines the type of data collected or the type of data collected by using any method, and those data can be presented as a evidence of assumptions or justification for certain research outcome. In computer science or scientific research a simulation based methodology is used to carry out research objectives as to collect different type of data to analyse and provide solution. Simulation based research are very popular in Computer Network, Electrical Engineering and Telecommunication research. A Simulation is actually imitation of certain real life objects to get perfect understanding about any particular system or process. In Computer Network Science a number of Simulation Based research model is available for researchers, students, commercial professionals and other independent bodies. These simulation engine is varies in different event and environment. One of the popular simulations for networks is OPNET (Optimized Network Engineering Tools) Modeller which is widely used by different organisations and educational bodies. But the most popular simulator is called NS2 (Network Simulator) or new release NS3 which is a Discrete Event Simulator, fully open source based on Linux kernel platform, also can be used in windows 36


using different modules. Other notable simulators are GloMoSim also a DES Open Source, QualNet, OmNet++. Most of these simulators are developed with C++ or C so C++ compiler is necessary runs the modules integrated in these highly effective programs. A number of well known simulation engine is listed in the table below

Table 4.1: List of Different Network Simulators and their Functions Simulator

OPNET

Commercial

Educational

Simulation

Protocol Supported

/Open Source

Support

Type

Commercial

Yes

DES, Object

ATM, MANET, FDDI,

Oriented

WiFi, TCP, Wireless etc

GloMoSim

Open Source

Yes

Library Based

Wireless Network

Parallel QualNet

OmNet++

Commercial

Open Source

No

Yes

Distributed and

Wired, Wireless,

Parallel

WLAN etc

DES Modular

Wireless Network

Component Based NS-3

Open Source

YES

DES, Object

Multicast routing,

Driven

TCP, MANET, Wireless etc

4.2 Simulator used in Research In this research computer simulation technique is used to measure the performance of MANET protocols. Computer simulation can provide real life protocol performance results by analysing those results with few assumption one can validate performance comparison. Computer simulation has variety of processes and models to carry out simulation for different protocols and technology. In the table chart above five most widely used simulation engine were listed with their functionalities and support area. The most popular simulator above all NS2 which is replaced by newly release NS3 a Linux based Discrete Event Simulation engine developed with C++ and available with open source documentation. It supports most of the network and communication protocols and object 37


driven functionality makes it a versatile network R&D engine. The other most used simulator is OPNET (Optimized Network Engineering Tools) is another Discrete Event Simulator with object oriented functionalities. Between NS2 or NS3 and OPNET consideration can made because these two simulators was commonly used to simulate MANET protocols in recent years. Especially for this project OPNET Modeller is selected for its distinct behavioural characteristics. Justifications to choose OPNET Modeller are as follow,

4.3 Justification for using OPNET Simulation To choose between OPNET and NS3 was a difficult procedure, a number of proven functionalities were taken into account while choosing the simulator, firstly OPNET supports most of the effective MANET protocols, it‟s a DES based simulator which supports parallel processing. OPNET has number of core element with huge amount of documentation available for general purpose uses. Core component includes Model Library, Model Documentation and tutorials. OPNET is commercial network R&D system which can be integrated with various event -driven models available in its library. But network modelling in OPNET sometimes expensive than other simulator which open source and available free of cost functioning similar process. But OPNET uses Windows platform and it has user friendly graphical user interface with a number of supported protocols. Installation of OPNET is fairly easy with the C++ compiler is integrated in newly released version 16.0 which will be used in the simulation. Most the universities get OPNET education release free of cost and OPNET technologies are encouraging student to use the simulation for their research purpose.

Summary In this chapter the concept of computer research methodology were discussed, then a number of simulator engine is listed in a table. These simulators later described and a simulation engine is chosen to carry out the research. OPNET Modeller 16.0 is chosen to use to simulate the protocols AODV, DSR and OLSR. In the next chapter using OPNET a different network models and simulation will be discussed.

38


Five V.

Network Design and Simulation

In previous chapter the research methodology is discussed with detail of simulation tool is presented. In this chapter firstly the performance metrics will be discussed and secondly network model will be presented. The performance metrics are in one part and the network model with detail scenario and configuration will be discussed in another part.

5.1

Performance Metrics

The performance metrics is used to determine the performance of a routing protocol. These metrics measure a network performance using standard units. To measure a protocol performance in a network a number of metrics are used, in this research the selected metrics are Average Throughput, Average Network Load, End to end delay.

5.1.1

Throughput

Throughput determines the average rate of packets arrived over a transmission channel and the unit it‟s measured in bit per second (bits/second). It‟s also measures the efficiency and effectiveness of the protocol performance and determines the network performance from one node to destination. It‟s also analyzed the quality of route and the capacity of routing algorithm over network load.

5.1.2

Network Load

Network load is the routing loads which can be define as the number of routing traffic is being transmitted over the number of data packet transmitted from a source to its destination. It also determines the numbers of overhead packet are being transmitted through the network. In other words the traffic overhead is the number of control message transmitted to destination. Network load is measured with bits/sec unit.

39


5.1.3

Delay

The delay can be measured in different ways; firstly the duration a packets spends at the queue during transmission. It also determines the buffer time and propagation time delay. Delay can be categorised as the network efficiency while using maximum resources by a network protocol.

5.2

Simulation Environment

The simulation is carried out using Discrete Event Simulation (DES) tools called OPNET Modeller 16.0, which already discussed in the research methodology chapter (Chapter 4). The simulation is divided into 6 scenario based on network sizes on three MANET protocols AODV, OLSR and DSR, the first three scenario consisting 15 nodes with random mobility and high network load, and the remaining three scenario consisting 30 nodes with the same configuration.

5.2.1

Network design & Simulation Model

Two types network model shown in figure 6 and 7 consisting 15 and 30 nodes respectively. More detail is provided later parts in this chapter.

Figure 9: Simulation Model with 15 nodes in OPNET 16.0

40


Figure 10: Simulation Model with 30 nodes in OPNET 16.0

As shown in the figure 9 and 10 examples network models were presented with 15 and 30 wireless LAN nodes, Application Configuration, Profile Configuration, Mobility Configuration and a Wireless LAN server. In each scenario these objects were configured with the protocols used in the scenario. Simulation model consists of 5 different types of objects as detailed below, 

Node Model: Node model consists of 15 Wireless LAN advanced node which are configured with each protocols used in the experiments. A node is a simple wireless device which also acts as a router in MANET. A node model architecture is shown on figure 11 below,

41


Figure 11: Node Model Architecture

 Application Configuration: Application configuration used to set number of application used in the network with set of data packet type, FTP is used as default data packet type in the simulation for data traffic.



Profile Configuration: Profile Configuration determines the creating a profile for the application created in the application configuration. For example FTP application is created in application configuration for data type used as traffic, so an ftp profile is created in the profile configuration for that application.



Mobility Configuration: Mobility configuration determines the mobility constrains of the network, in this project default mobility was set to random mobility way point. Screenshots are provided in the appendix section.

 Wireless LAN Server: Wireless LAN server the only server which is configured with each protocol used and with FTP data packets for transmission. This server

42


serves all the nodes in the network involving a number of configurations. A screenshot is provided in the appendix section for detail.

5.2.2

Performance Parameter

A number of parameter for network simulation model is listed below shown in different tables, Table 5.1: Common Parameter used in simulation Parameter

Value

Area

1000 x 1000 sq meter

Network size

15 & 30

Data Rate

11 Mbps

Mobility Model

Random Waypoint

Network Interface Type

Wireless Physical Layer

Link Layer Type

Data Link layer

Large packet processing

Fragment

Wireless LAN

IEEE 802.11e capable

Data type

FTP

Simulation Time

1800 Seconds

Mobility speed

10 m/s

Table 5.2: Protocol Parameter for AODV Parameter

Values

Route Request retries (Route discovery)

5

Route request rate limit (pkt/sec)

10

Hello interval (second)

(uniform) (1,11)

Route error rate limit (pkt/sec)

10

Time out buffer

2

Node traversal time (sec)

0.04 sec

Net diameter

35

Allowed hello loss

2

Active route time out

3

Local repair

Enabled

43


Table 5.3: Protocol parameter for OLSR and DSR OLSR

Parameter Willingness

DSR Value default

Parameter

Value

Request Table size (node)

64

Hello interval (Sec)

2.0

Maximum Request table identifier

16

TC interval (sec)

5.0

Maximum request period (sec)

10

Neighbour hold time (sec)

6.0

Initial request period (sec)

0.5

Topology hold time (sec)

15.0

Non propagation request timer (sec)

0.03

Duplicate message hold time (sec)

30.0

Gratuitous route reply timer (sec)

1

Maximum buffer size (pkt)

50

Maintenance Hold off time (sec) Maximum maintenance retransmission Maintenance acknowledgement

5.3

0.25 2 0.5

List of Scenarios

A number of scenarios were created and simulated for this project, but only a list of 6 successful scenarios is presented in the paper, each scenario consists of few different experiments in term of protocols versus performance metric. These scenarios are shown in a table below,

Table 5.4: List of Scenario involves in the simulation Scenario

01

02

03

Description In this scenario the protocol employed was AODV with 15 nodes and 1800 seconds of simulation time. The maximum range was 1000 x 1000 meters with random mobility configured. The ftp traffic load was set in High Load. Three performance metrics Throughput, Load and Delay were set for the results to compare the performance. This scenario involving DSR having 15 nodes with 1800 seconds of simulation time. The range is the same as AODV as the load is high. Performance is measured with WLAN Throughput, Load and Delay. The only difference in scenario 3 is the protocol used is OLSR, so the network is configured as with OLSR parameter. Earlier these parameters were discussed in a form of table in this chapter.

44


04

Scenario 4 involves AODV again but with changed configuration, where the network size increased but the simulation time is less now which is 30 nodes and 900 seconds respectively. The performance parameter is same as previous scenario. In this scenario more advanced network configuration is used to cope with the bigger size of the network.

05

Same configuration used in this scenario with different protocol DSR used as main routing mechanism. All other values are same as scenario 4.

06

In this scenario the default protocol used for routing is OLSR, so the configuration needs to change to cope with OLSR protocols.

Summery In this chapter detail about the simulation environment is provided in form of detail writing, figures and tables. This chapter is one of the key chapters in this project as it‟s the start point of the main practical experiments which will follow in the next chapter.

45


Six VI. Analyse and Compare Results In the previous chapter a detail simulation setup were presented with full detail of parameter used and list of scenario shown in the chart. In this chapter all results from the simulation will be analysed and comparative performance evaluation will be carried out. This chapter is divided into three different section with section 1 involves scenario 1, 2 & 3 scenario 4, 5 & 6 in section 2 and comparative analysis of all scenarios in section 3.

6.1 Simulation Results for small network The simulation results were collected from the simulation engine OPNET 16.0, all the results are obtained as graphs and data which need to be analysed with accurate description to have in depth understanding about the performance. The results are presented in term of each scenario simulated in OPNET. Simulation Time is abbreviated as ST in the results section. In the small network section each protocol were experimented with 15 mobile nodes and simulation process runs 1800 seconds of simulation time. Duplicate scenarios were used to set up each protocol. Results are collected after the simulation will be analysed in this chapter.

6.1.1

Scenario 01 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

In the graph below shows the average throughput, Delay and load of the network where AODV is used as protocol, in the graph three different graph is shown for each metrics, In the figure 12 the Y axis is stands for delay (sec), load (bits/sec) and throughput (bits/sec) rates and the X axis represents duration (minutes) of the simulation.

46


Figure 12: AODV (15 node) results (Average Delay, Load and Throughput)

As shown in the above graph the AODV protocol get good results as the delay started from just below 0.015 seconds decrease gradually and till the end of the simulation, the average delay is just 0.02 seconds. On the other hand network Load started from 600,000 bits/sec but decline steadily to a rate of 100,000 which is the average Load AODV protocol. And the throughput starts from high at over 600,000 and finished at near 50,000 bits/sec which can be said as constant 70,000 in average. Detail data were presented in the table below,

Table 6.1: Scenario 01 (AODV, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 01 Performance Metrics

Start at

Finish at

Results (Average)

Throughput (bits/sec)

620,000

50,000

70,000

Delay (sec)

0.013

0.01

0.002

Load (bits/sec)

600,000

40,000

50,000

47


6.1.2

Scenario 02 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

The next graph shows the results of DSR protocols throughput, Load and Delay in figure consisting of three different graphs. Scenario 02 involving DSR protocol with 15 nodes in the network, the Simulation Time is set to be 1800 sec with high load traffic.

Figure 13: DSR (15 node) results (Average Delay, Load and Throughput)

In the graph above its can be said for when using DSR in the network results indicate high rate of throughput about 600,00 bits/sec at the start of the simulation but decreases as time passes and reach the average at about 70,000 bits/sec. On the other hand Network Load is quite similar as throughput as seen in the graph but same result happens as it decreases average level of 50,000 bits/sec at the end of the simulation. At the start the Delay was at 0.026 sec but get average about 0.08 sec at the end of the simulation. DSR gets low number of delay as time passes at simulation. But results indicate AODV gets lesser rate of delay than DSR.

48


Table 6.2: Scenario 02 (DSR, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 02 Performance Metrics

Started at

Finished at

Results (Average)


>600,000

>50,000

60,000

Delay (sec)

0.026

0.05

0.08

Load (bits/sec)

600,000

40,000

60,000

6.1.3

Scenario 03 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

Scenario 03 involves OLSR with 15 nodes simulated around 1800 seconds to get the results for the research; the graph below shows the results following a table with detail,

Figure 14: OLSR (15 node) results (Average Load, Delay and Throughput)

From the graph above it can be determined that OLSR get better throughput results than both AODV and DSR, starts from below 600,000 bits/sec but keep good rate at about 200,000 at the end of the simulation, gets about 250,000 bits/sec in

average. Similar

results can be seen for delay and where OLSR achieve an average of below 0.001 sec delay and 50,000 bits/sec Load comparing to other two the results represents that OLSR performs better. Detail of the results presented in table below,

49


Table 6.3: Scenario 03 (OLSR, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 03 Performance Metrics

Start at

Finish at

Results (Average)


550,000

150,000

200,000

Delay (sec)

0.015

0.001

<0.001

Load (bits/sec)

450,000

70,000

35,000

6.2 Comparative Analysis of scenario 01, 02 and 03 (Small Network) Some overlaid images of single graphs with multiple lines are produces during simulation; these graphs can be useful to perform comparative analysis for these protocols. These graphs are presented in different metrics form for example average throughput as shown below,

6.2.1

Throughput comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

Average Throughput analysis were done involving MANET protocols AODV, DSR and OLSR 15 nodes respectively, the results are shown in the graph following a table below,

Figure 15: Throughput Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 15 nodes

From the above graph it can be seen that three coloured lines represents throughput of three protocols, blue colour symbolize AODV, red stands for DSR and OLSR can be seen

50


in colour green. The average throughput of OLSR is far better that the other two protocol as OLSR uses link state algorithm, while AODV with distance vector and DSR with a combination of link state and source routing algorithm. OLSR starts with rather low rate of throughput at the start comparing to other two but keep a good rate till the end as the other two AODV and DSR loose the throughput rate gradually at a low rate at the end. OLSR achieve over 200,000 bits/seconds of throughput comparing 70,000 bits/sec and 60,000 bits/sec for AODV and DSR respectively. A table of chart is included below to make the comparison more constructive, From the graph the average throughput for OLSR is 200,000 far better than other two above, so it can be said that OLSR performance is better for small size network with 15 nodes, high load traffic, random mobility and 1800 seconds of simulation time. More detail analysis will be available at the end of this chapter.

6.2.2

Delay comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

In the first section of this chapter average delays were presented with other metrics, in this section only delay will be shown with different protocols (AODV, DSR & OLSR) involved, in figure 16 these three protocol delays are revealed and analysed,


51


6.2.3

Load comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

Figure 17: Network Load Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 15 nodes

Table 6.4: Comparison of MANET protocols in term of Average Throughput, Delay and Load

Scenario 01, 02 & 03 (AODV, DSR & OLSR = 15 nodes & ST = 1800 seconds) Protocol

Average Throughput (bits/sec)

Average Delay (Sec)

Average Load (bits/sec)

AODV

<70,000

>0.002

>50,000

DSR

>60,000

<0.008

<60,000

OLSR

>200,000

>0.001

<35,000

From the above comparison table it can be anticipated that OLSR has the highest of average throughput and the average delay is less than the other two, OLSR also has lowest number of average Load comparing to other two AODV and DSR. On the other hand between DSR and AODV, AODV transmitted the most number of successful data packets through the network as the throughput is a bit if compare with DSR and AODV has low delay and low amount of network load.

52


6.3 Simulation Results for Large Network Further results are collected designing large network adding 30 nodes with each protocol are configured to set the right parameter. Simulation duration remain same earlier scenarios which is 1800 sec with high load traffic. The first scenario which is scenario 04 designed with AODV protocol, scenario 05 with DSR protocol and scenario number 06 involves OLSR protocol.

6.3.1

Scenario 04 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 18: AODV (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

Figure 18 shows some significant different in performance of AODV when a number of nodes increased to 30 with high load traffic. The throughput starts at about 1,100,000 and within 5 minutes of ST it‟s gone down to below 500,000 mark. Delay remain quite similar as previous AODV experiments with 15 nodes, average delay recorded below 0.005 and Load increases as expected because the number of node increased in the network. The statistics are listed in table 6.5.

53


Table 6.5: Scenario 04 (AODV, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 04 Performance Metrics

Start at

Finish at

Results (Average)


>1,100,000

<400,000

>580,000

Delay (sec)

<0.013

<0.002

>0.005

Load (bits/sec)

<780,000

>200,000

<420,000

6.3.2

Scenario 05 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 19: DSR (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

In scenario 5 figure 19 indicates more significant changes in DSR with large network size, the average throughput recorded is just below 270,000 which is much greater than previous DSR experiments as expected, and also the delay went up a bit caused by network size, which is 0.017 in average. Average Load collected 220,000 which are quite normal in large network. In table 6.5 the statistics of DSR scenario 5 experimental shown. The table 6.6 below shows the average throughput, delay and load in a listed way, 54


Table 6.6: Scenario 05 (DSR, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 05 Performance Metrics

Start at

Finish at

Results (Average)


<1,200,000

>150,000

<270,000

Delay (sec)

<0.046

<0.009

>0.017

Load (bits/sec)

>1,056,000

<130,000

>220,000

6.3.3

Scenario 06 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 20: OLSR (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

In scenario 6 OLSR protocol with 30 (figure 20) node experiments are done. A number of performance statistics collected and shown in table 6.5. Average throughput recorded over

55


one millions packet were successfully transmitted through the network which is quite remarkable results for OLSR, although the network size gets bigger this time. The Average load was 210,000 quite improved load compared with high amount of throughput. And 0.002 seconds of average delay which is standard better performance in protocol delay. Table 6.6 Shows the statistics collected from OPNET 16.0 as follow,

Table 6.6: Scenario 06 (OLSR, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results Scenario 06 Performance Metrics

Start at

Finish at

Results (Average)


>1,500,000

>850,000

>1,000,000

Delay (sec)

<0.012

<0.001

>0.002

Load (bits/sec)

<950,000

>160,000

<210,000

6.4 Comparative Analysis of scenario 04, 05 & 06 (Large Network) Comparative studies of last 3 scenarios are discussed below representing multiple graphs and tables. The comparison are shown in terms of the metrics Throughput, delay and Load for the three different protocols in a single graph with overlaid coloured lines as follow,

6.4.1

Throughput comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

Figure 21 shows an image with three different coloured lines representing three different protocols, Blue colour stands for AODV, while DSR represented by red and OLSR carrying colour green respectively. In this graph throughput comparison is analysed with different protocols. From the figure it can assume that OLSR get high number of throughput than AODV and DSR, while AODV get 2

nd

highest as the DSR get the least number of

throughput comparing to all. OLSR performance gets better when node number increased and packet loss decreased as large number of successful packet delivered.

56



6.4.2

Delay comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

In the figure 22 a number of improvements in performance can be seen, OLSR get lesser delay than other two protocols but AODV gets more delay rate second comparing to DSR which is a significant improvement for DSR with increased node number. DSR average delay much better less than AODV.

Figure 22: Delay Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 30 nodes

57


6.4.3

Load comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

When network size gets bigger most of protocol performance changes, in figure 23 average load can be anticipated, DSR and OLSR gets high number of Load comparing to AODV, where AODV made much improvement reduced its load when network size gets bigger. In the table 6.7 below shows overall comparison of remaining 3 scenarios in terms of Average Load, throughput and Delay.

Figure 23: Network Load Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 30 nodes

Table 6.7: Comparison of MANET protocols in term of Average Throughput, Delay and Load

Scenario 04, 05 & 06 (AODV, DSR & OLSR = 30 nodes & ST = 1800 seconds) Protocol

Average Throughput (bits/sec)

Average Delay (Sec)

Average Load (bits/sec)

AODV

>230,000

>0.003

<360,000

DSR

>260,000

<0.010

<260,000

OLSR

>800,000

>0.001

<250,000

58


6.5 Overall Comparison of Routing Performance The overall comparison includes the entire project together in a single graph for each performance metrics. A collection of overlaid figure was collected from OPNET 16.0 which has multiple coloured lines indicating a simple comparison graph between different metrics values over specific time period involves three protocols simulated in the process. Three graphs are presented as a reference of the overall comparison.

Figure 24: Overall scenario of Throughput (MANET performance Comparison)

In the above graph 6 different scenarios is added which makes a comparison graph, from previous statistics in terms of throughput it can be said that for small network OLSR performance were best among three protocols, 2

nd

best performance shown by AODV, in

increased node OLSR performance get even better with high number of throughput. AODV has done slightly better than DSR. So it can be anticipated that in small network environment OLSR will perform better with high throughput, even better in large number of nodes involves.

59


Figure 25: Overall scenario of Delay (MANET performance Comparison)

As per as network delay concern again OLSR gets low delay rates than any other in the same network, Also AODV gets much less delay than DSR in the network. DSR became the least performing protocols in terms of delay and throughput.

Figure 26: Overall scenario of Load (MANET performance Comparison)

60


But from figure 26 some improvement in DSR can be seen, when DSR gets less number of load when increased network environment. But in small network environment DSR still underperform in term of network Load. On the other hand OLSR performance affected when it get most number of Load in the comparison scenario with 30 nodes network. Also AODV underperform in the same large network.

Above all the scenario is clearly judged and a number statistics were provided as evidence in performance comparison, different size networks were used to compare the same protocols, a conclusion can be reached as OLSR become the number 1 protocol in both small and medium sized network. The reason behind OLSR performance is its reactive protocol which uses Multipath Routing technique. So traffic over can be reduced which can minimize network load in the network. But in some network where network size get bigger OLSR can produce problem as the Load is really high as seen in the simulation results. On the other hand AODV gets good performance review in both small and large network, distance vector routing algorithm remain one of the most vital protocol suite for routing in MANET. But in some area AODV get lower results than DSR and OLSR as both of these protocols can reduce the overhead using different algorithm. DSR was least performing protocol above all of them in both small and large network model. But in some cases DSR can reduce Network Load and can perform better.

Summary In this chapter a number of graphs and statistic charts were presented produce better performance review. OLSR performance is better as shown from those results. The next will be the end note of this process where a number of key points will be discussed; also a future research concept will be shared.

61


Seven V.

Conclusion and Future Work

The previous chapter outlines a number of MANET experimental scenarios results which indicates a performance comparison between three MANET routing protocols (AODV, DSR and OLSR). In this chapter a summary of the whole project will be included with a future research proposal will be discussed.

Conclusion The test results shows for small size network AODV and DSR outperforms compare to OLSR, the throughput rate is really high of OLSR protocols in small size network of 15 nodes with high ftp traffic. OLSR achieve a extensive value of performance from this research, OLSR gets better results in all three performance parameter. Because it is a reactive routing protocol when using advanced MPR technique to relay the route request, it is found effective in both of the OLSR scenario in this research. OLSR can identify multiple MPR nodes in a neighbour network and will use shortest path to the destination choosing from multiple path in the network. AODV and DSR also had shown good performance in both small and large network, but comparing with OLSR these protocols nowhere near to beat the link state algorithm based protocol. In some cases OLSR performance not up to the standard but in most of the cases it has great level performance in MANET based network. AODV and DSR based on Distance vector and Source Routing can perform better in small network with low load network traffic but in high load traffic they underperform, one of the reason behind AODV because its proactive nature, periodical HELLO message transmission which affect on network Load and can produce end to end delay. Also DSR performance in under the water because DSR uses same kind of technique to discover route in the network.

62


Future Work The future research area is based on different AODV OLSR reproduced algorithm, As AOVD-BR (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector – Backup Route) is the new breed of AODV algorithm. This new algorithm has integrated back up routing mechanism which can be compared with alternative route exist in OLSR. Other research topic can be under developed BATMAN protocol which will replace OLSR in near future. BATMAN stands for Better Approach to Mobile Ad-hoc Networking is a Linux kernel 2.6.38 based which is a part of Lurgo-Mesh Project. It uses an intelligence technique to discover the route. It is still under development will be available to research later on. A simulation based on Linux platform can be performed which focuses on the performance and stability will level in challenging Mobile Ad-hoc Network.

63


REFERENCES 1. Lee, S. and Gerla, M. (2000) "AODV-BR: Backup routing in ad hoc networks." Proceedings of IEEE WCNC 2000, (September) Chicago, pages 1311-1316.

2. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, P. and Qayyum, A. (2002) "Optimized Link State Routing Protocol", IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-olsr-10.txt. 3. Royer E. and Toh. C., (1999) “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, April 1999, pp. 46-55. 4. Das, S. R., Perkins, C. E. and Royer, E. (2000) “Performance comparison of two ondemand routing protocols for ad hoc networks”. Proceedings of the IEEE InfoCom, March 2000. 5. Tanenbaum, A. (1998) “Computer Networks”, 4th edition, Prentice Hall. 6. Perkins, C. and Royer, E. (nd) “Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing”, Technical report, Sun Micro Systems Laboratories, Advanced Development Group, USA.

7. Vincent D. Park and M. Scott Corson. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) version 1: Functional specification. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-tora-spec-00.txt, July 2001

8. Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T., and Dutkiewicz, E. (2003) “A review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks”. Technical report, Telecommunication and Information Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522; Motorola Australia Research Centre, 12 Lord St., Botany, NSW 2525, Australia. 9. Broch, J., Maltz, D., Johnson, D., Hu, Y. and Jetcheva, J. (1998) “A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols”, Proc. MOBICOM, pp - 85-97.

64


10. Park, V. and Corson, S. (1997) “Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Version 1 Functional Specification”, IETF Internet draft. 11. Haas, Z. and Pearlman, M. (1998) “The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for ad hoc networks”, IETF Internet draft, August.

12. Carson, J. (2005) "Introduction to modelling and simulation," presented at the Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 16-23.

13. Liu, J., Yougu, Y., Nicol, D., Gray, R., Newport, C., Kotz, D. and Perrone, L. (2004) "Simulation validation using direct execution of wireless ad-hoc routing protocols," presented at the 18th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS'04) pp. 7-16.

14. Huhtonen, A. (2004) Comparing AODV and OLSR Routing Protocols. Helsinki University of Technology, Telecommunication Software and Multimedia Lab, pp. 3 – 4

15. Giannoulis, S., Antonopoulos, C., Topalis, E. and Koubias, S. (2005) "ZRP versus DSR and TORA: A comprehensive survey on ZRP performance," presented at the 10th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA '05), pp. 1-8.

16. Jiang, H., Aceves, G. and California Univ Santa Cruz Dept Of Computer. (2001) "Performance comparison of three routing protocols for ad hoc networks," presented at the Tenth International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, October, pp. 547–554

17. LOL, W. (2008) “An Investigation of the Impact of Routing Protocols on MANETs using Simulation Modelling” Master Thesis, School of Computing and Mathematical Science, Auckland university of Technology. Auckland, New Zealand [Online]. Available at: http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10292/718/5/LolGW_a.pdf 18. Schauman, J. (2002) “Analysis of the Zone Routing Protocol” Technical report, December. [Online]. Available at: http://www.netmeister.org/misc/zrp/zrp.pdf

65


19. Talooki, V and Ziarati, K. (nd) “Performance comparison of routing protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, Asia-Pacific conf. on Comm., APCC_06.

20. Webb, J. (2005) “Analysis of packet flows in simulated Ad-hoc networks using standard network tools” Master‟s thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, USA. [Online].

Available

at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.7593&rep=rep1&type=p df 21. Rangarajan, H. (2006) “Robust loop-free on-demand routing in Ad- hoc networks” PhD Dissertation, (June) University of California, USA. [Online]. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.61.8458&rep=rep1&type=pd f 22. Mosko, M. (2004) “Routing in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, PhD dissertation, (June) University

of

California,

Santa

Cruz,

USA.

[Online].

Available

at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.5144&rep=rep1&type=pdf

23. OPNET

Inc,

(2006),

“OPNET

University

Program,”,

[Online].

Available

at:

http://www.opnet.com/university_program/research_with_opnet/ [Accessed: June 01, 2010]

24. CCNA., (nd) Routing protocols and concepts, CCNA exploration companion guide. „„Introduction to dynamic routing protocols‟‟. Chapter three pages 148 to 177. 25. Gowrishankar, S., Basavaraju, T., Singh, M. and Sarkar, S. (nd) „„Scenario based Performance Analysis of AODV and OLSR in Mobile Ad hoc Networks‟‟, Jadavpur University, Acharya Institute of Technology India 26. Rahman. M., Islam. M., Talevski. A., (2009) „„Performance Measurement of Various Routing Protocols in Ad-hoc Network‟‟. Proceeding the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists IMECS (March 18 – 20, Vol - I) Hong Kong. 27. Bertocchi, F., Bergamo, P., Mazzini, G. and Zorzi, M. (nd) „„Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks‟‟, DI, University of Ferrara, Italy.

66


28. Ade, S. and Tijare, P. (2010) Performance Comparison of AODV, DSDV, OLSR and DSR Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. International Journal of Technology and Knowledge Management, Vol – 2 (July - December), pp – 545 – 548

29. Suri, P., Soni, M. and Tomar, P. (2010) Cluster based QoS Routing Protocol for MANET. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol – 2 (October). 30. University of Texas. (2010) Format Guideline for Doctoral Dissertation and Dissertation Abstracts. University of Texas Graduate School (September 2010) 31. OPNET Technology, Inc. (2007) How To: Design Mobile Ad –hoc Network and Protocols. Best Practice Approaches for Accelerating Network R&D, OPNET Technology Incorporated (January) 32. Hogie, L., Bouvry, P. and Guinand, F. (2006). An Overview of MANET Simulation. University of Luxemburg.

67


APPENDIX A Additional Screenshots for chapter 5

Protocol Parameter Screenshot

Figure 27: AODV Parameter

68


Figure 28: DSR Parameter

69


Figure 29: OSLR Parameter

70


Figure 30: Application Attributes

71


Figure 31: Profile Attributes

72

Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

Recommend Documents