Energy Based Performance Comparison of Multi-hop routing ... · Energy Based Performance Comparison of Multi-hop routing protocol with IEEE 802.11 ... Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume-40 Number-3 - October 2016

ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 133

Energy Based Performance Comparison of Multi-hop routing protocol with IEEE 802.11

MAC for mobile Ad-hoc networks

Ashwini V. Biradar#1 # Assi. Prof. ,I.T. Dept., M S.Bidve Engineering college,Latur, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract — Path routing and protocol selection are the primary steps to design any wireless network. In Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) protocol should be best in terms of energy consumption, data delivery, data integrity, fewer networks overhead and less data loss. Therefore the performance analysis of the protocols is the most important step before choosing a particular protocol. This paper gives the performance analysis of Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocols using NS2 simulator. The energy consumption, packet delivery ratio control overhead and packet loss are the four common measures used for the comparison of the performance of above protocols. Keywords — Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Routing protocols, NS2 (Simulator), energy consumption, packet delivery ratio, control overhead , packet loss.

I. INTRODUCTION Mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) consist of hosts

interconnected by mobile nodes acts as router without a fixed infrastructure and can be arranged dynamically. Significant work has been done in the growth of routing protocols in various types of ad hoc networks like MANETs, WMNs, WSNs, and VANETS etc [1]. The main objective of MANET is to support robust and efficient operation in wireless networks by including routing functionalities at each mobile node. To support mobility, a mobile host must be able to communicate with other mobile hosts which may not lie within its radio transmission range. Therefore routing protocols will need to perform four important functions as determination of network topology, maintaining network connectivity, transmission scheduling and channel assignment, and packet routing. Hence Routing protocols in MANETs were developed based on the design goals of minimal network overhead, minimal energy consumption, and multi hop routing capability, dynamic topology maintenance and loop prevention [2]. Routing Protocols classified based on routing policy in the network. Based to routing policy the routing protocols can be classified as table-driven or proactive and source-initiated or reactive or on-demand routing. Therefore the performance analysis of these protocols

can be performed to know its behaviour and work in that environment. We have to considerable impact on network scalability due to Network size, control overhead, and traffic intensity, may result in unpredictable variations in the overall network performance. The main purpose of this paper is to estimate and measure the effects of various factors that may change the network performance. We highlight on the performance metrics of energy consumption, packet delivery ratio control overhead and packet loss. The above metrics are validated for variable pause time, variable mobility speed, and variable network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size. Brief overview of different routing protocols used for performance analysis is given in Section 2. The simulation methodology and performance metrics are given in Section 3. Section 4 gives the simulation results and design analysis followed by section 5 gives the conclusion and future work.

II. MANET ROUTING PROTOCOL This section, gives the brief description and features

of the AODV, DSDV and DSR protocols studied in our simulations. Reactive, proactive and Hybrid protocols are classified on the basis of routing strategy the protocols uses, as shown in Fig.1.

Fig.1 Classification of MANET routing protocol.

An On-demand routing routes are discovered when they are really needed. Hence, a node that wants to send a packet to another node, reactive protocols



searches for the route and establishes a connection for transmission of packet. Flooding technique is used for route discovery using request packets. Proactive routing protocol each node constantly maintain route between nodes. Therefore route creation and maintenance is performed by using periodic and event-triggered routing updates calculated from distance-vector or link-state algorithm. Both these algorithm have some advantages as well as some disadvantages and can be examined from its performance metrics as discussed in next section [2],[3]. In this paper, we focused on AODV and DSR as reactive protocol and DSDV as link-state proactive protocol.

A. The Ad hoc on demand Distance Vector (AODV) AODV protocol [3], [4], [5], [6] is a reactive

routing protocol which finds route to destination when required. AODV consists of routing table which helps to distinguish between stale and fresh routes. The routing table contains the sequence number and next hop information. The working of protocol is consists of two phases: route discovery and route maintenance. In route discovery process, the source node generate RREQ packet, if the path to destination is not stored in the routing table, and floods it to the neighbouring nodes. The neigh boring nodes will flood to their neighbour and so on. When the packet reaches the destination node, it then generates RREP (Route Reply) packet and send back to the source node. Thus the path is established between source and destination. In route maintenance process, the source node is being notified by RERR (Route Error) message in case of broken link. Also the connectivity between the nodes is maintaining using Hello messages.

B. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) DSDV is a hop-by-hop distance vector routing

protocol requiring each node to periodically broadcast routing updates based on the idea of classical Bellman-Ford Routing algorithm [7]. Each node maintains a routing table listing the “next hop” for each reachable destination, number of hops to reach destination and the sequence number assigned by destination node. The sequence number is used to distinguish stale routes from new ones and thus avoid loop formation. The stations periodically transmit their routing tables to their immediate neighbours. A station also transmits its routing table if a significant change has occurred in its table from the last update sent. So, the update is both time-driven and event-driven. The routing table updates can be sent in two ways: a “full dump” or an “incremental” update.

C. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) DSR is a simple and efficient routing protocol

designed specifically for use in multi hop wireless ad-hoc networks of mobile nodes [8]. It allows nodes to dynamically discover a source route across multiple network hops to any destination in the ad-hoc network.

Each data packet sent then carries in its header the complete ordered list of nodes through which the packet must pass, allowing packet routing to be a trivially loop free and avoiding the need for up-to-date routing information in the intermediate nodes through which the packet is forwarded. With the inclusion of this source route in the header of each data packet, other nodes forwarding or overhearing any of the packets may easily cache this routing information for future use.

III. SIMULATION METHODOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE METRICS.

Network simulator-2 is popularly used for ad-hoc networking community. It is the open source software for evaluating the performance of the existing network protocols and evaluates new network protocols.

The Routing protocols were compared based on 4 parameter metrics given below by using seven different scenarios as shown in Table I and the common simulation parameters are shown in Table II.

Table I Seven different scenarios

Sr. No.

Scenario Various values

1 Pause Time (Sec)

30,50,60,and 70 sec.

2 Node movements Speed(m/s)

0,1,10,15,20,and 25 m/s.

3 Number of Nodes

40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90.

4 Number of Sources

20, 30, 40, 50, and 60.

5 Simulation Area Sizes (m.)

500m x 500m, 750m x 750m, 1000m x 1000m, and 1250m x 1250m.

6 Sending Rate(Kbps)

48, 64, 80, 96, 112, and 128 kbps.

7 Packet size(bytes)

100,200,300,400 and 500 bytes

Table II. Common simulation parameters

Parameter Value Simulator NS 2.34 Operating System Linux (Fedora 13) Protocols AODV, DSDV and

DSR Simulation Time 1500 Sec Moment Model Random way point

mobility model MAC Layer IEEE 802.11 Traffic Type CBR Energy Model 3000 Jules

A. Parameters Monitored

1) Consumed energy: it is subtraction of initial energy and energy left.



Consumed energy (CE) = Initial energy (IE) ––Energy left (EL).

2) Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): It is the ratio of the total data bits received to total data bits sent from source to destination.

3) Network overhead: it is total number of control packet in the network.

4) Packet Loss in the network: it is total number of packet dropped in the network.

IV. THE SIMULATION RESULTS AND DESIGN ANALYSIS

In this work the performance analysis is carried out in an ad-hoc network by varying seven parameters i.e. variable pause time, variable mobility speed, variable network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size while keeping other parameters constant. Three protocols i.e. AODV, DSR and DSDV are considered for the comparison purpose on the above performance [9], [10], [11], [12], [14].

Table III. Common simulation parameters for Varying Pause Times Parameter Value

Pause time values 30, 50, 60, and 70 sec Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m. Number of nodes 50 Node sending rate 90 Kbps Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table IV. Common simulation parameters for Varying Node

Mobility Speed Parameter Value

Node mobility Speed values 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 m/s

Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m. Number of nodes 50 Node sending rate 90 Kbps Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table V. Common simulation parameters for Varying number nodes

Parameter Value Number of nodes 20,30,40,50 and 60 Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m. Node sending rate 90 Kbps Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table VI.Common simulation parameters for Varying number of

sources Parameter Value

Sources 20,30,40,50 and 60. Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m.

Node sending rate 90 Kbps

Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table VII. Common simulation parameters for Varying Area Sizes Parameter Value

Flat Area sizes(m2) 500m x 500m,7500m x 7500m,100m x 1000m and 1250m x 1250m

Number of nodes 50 Node sending rate 90 Kbps Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table VIII.Common simulation parameters for Varying sending rate Parameter Value

Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m.

Number of nodes 50 Node sending rate 48, 64, 80, 96, 12,

and 128 kbps Packet size 1024 bytes.

Table IX.Common simulation parameters for Varying Packet Sizes Parameter Value

Area size (mm2) 500m x 500m.

Number of nodes 50

Node sending rate 90 Kbps

Packet size 100,200,300,400 and 500 bytes.

A. Comparison based on Consumed Energy As mentioned in earlier paragraph, all the three

routing protocol are evaluated in terms of consumed energy by varying seven parameters i.e. variable pause time, variable mobility speed, variable network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size.

The simulation parameters values are listed in Table I to Table IX.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

30 50 60 70

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Pause Time (Sec.)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 2 By varying pause time of the nodes



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 5 10 15 20 25

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Speed(m/s)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 3 By varying node mobility Speeds (m/s)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

20 40 60 80

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Number of Nodes

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 4 By varying numbers of Nodes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

20 30 40 50 60

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y( J

oule

s)

Number of sources

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 5 By varying numbers of Sources

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

500m x500m 750mx750m 1000m x1000m

1250m x1250m

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Area size(m2)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 6 By varying Area size (mxm)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

48 64 80 96 112

Con

sum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Sending Rate(kbps)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 7 By varying Sending Rate (kbps)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100 200 300 400 500

Cou

nsum

ed E

nerg

y (J

oule

s)

Packet Size (Bytes)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 8 By varying Packet Size (Bytes)

The speed and pause time defines mobility of nodes, both are inversely proportional to each other, Fig 2-3 shows that DSR consumes less energy as compared to AODV and DSDV protocol. As shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5 increasing the number of nodes and sources produces an increment of routing packets and an increment of consumed energy, here also DSR consumes less energy as compared to AODV and DSDV.As we increase area size nodes require more energy to transmit packet as well as to received packet form longer distance, as shown in Fig.6 result shows that as area size increases energy consumption also increases. As shown in Fig.7 DSR consumes less energy when the sending rate is less and energy consumption increases as sending rate increases. It is well known fact that node consumes more energy with increase in the sending rate of that node because it utilizes more battery power as we increase sending rate. As shown in Fig.9 that as we increase packet size protocol require less energy to process packet i.e. adding header to data and transfer, smaller the size of packet require more processing power and here also DSR consumes less energy as compared to other two protocol.

B. Comparison based on Packet Delivery Ratio As mentioned in earlier paragraph, all the three

routing protocol are evaluated in terms of packet delivery ratio by varying seven parameters i.e. variable pause time, variable mobility speed, variable



network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size.


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

30 50 60 70

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Ratio

Pause Time (Sec.)

AODV

DSDV

DSR


0

0.5

1

1.5

0 1 5 10 15 20 25

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Ratio

Speed(m/s)

AODV

DSDV

DSR


As shown in Fig.9-10, when the number of pause

time increases DSR gives good packet delivery ratio as compared to AODV and DSDV. By considering other scenarios also result shows that Fig. 11-15 DSR protocol gives higher packet delivery ratio as compared to other protocol.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

20 40 60 80

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Rat

io

Number of Nodes

AODV

DSDV

DSR


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

20 30 40 50 60

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Rat

io

Number of Source

AODV

DSDV

DSR


0

0.5

1

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Rati

o


0

0.5

1

48 64 80 96 112

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Rat

io

Sending Rate(kbps)

AODV

DSDV

DSR

Fig. 14 By varying Sending Rate(kbps)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Pack

et D

eliv

ery

Rat

io)




C. Comparison based on Network Overhead As mentioned in above paragraph, all the three

routing protocol are evaluated in terms of Network overhead by varying seven parameters i.e. variable pause time, variable mobility speed, variable network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)

Fig. 16 By varying pause time of the nodes.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 5 10 15 20 25

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)


2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)


2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)


1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)

Fig. 20 By varying Area size (m x m)

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead

(Pac

kets

)


500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Net

wor

k O

verh

ead(

Pack

ets)




As it can be seen from the above results, the control overhead is varied by varying the number of nodes and speed of the nodes .Fig.16 and Fig.17 it is clear that DSDV have huge control overhead because its periodic routing table updates in the network. DSR have lower control overhead then two other routing protocols. As shown in Fig.18 to Fig.19 as we increase number of nodes and number of sources in the network, control packet in the network automatically increases so network overhead also increases, result shows that DSR gives less network overhead as compare to other two. As we increase area size, sending rate and packet size, all protocol giving considerable amount of network overhead shown in Fig.20 to Fig.22.

D. Comparison based on Packet Loss As mentioned in above paragraph, all the three

routing protocol are evaluated in terms of Packet Loss in the Network by varying seven parameters i.e. variable pause time, variable mobility speed, variable network node, variable number of sources, variable network size, variable sending rate and variable packet size.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

30 50 60 70

Pack

ets

Loss

in th

e N

etw

ork

Pause Time (Sec.)

AODV

DSDV

DSR


0

200

400

600

0 1 5 10 15 20 25

Pack

ets

Loss

in t

he n

etw

ork

Speed(m/s)

AODV

DSDV

DSR


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

20 40 60 80

Pack

ets

Loss

in th

e ne

twor

k

Number of Nodes

AODV

DSDV

DSR


1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Pack

ets

Loss

in th

e ne

twor

k


2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Pack

ets

Loss

in t

he n

etw

ork


3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Pack

ets

Loss

in th

e ne

twor

k




1000

1500

2000

2500

Pack

ets L

oss i

n th

e ne

twor

k


Packet loss is nothing but total number of packets

dropped during the simulation time. Packets may be dropped if there is no enough storage space in the buffer and if the time limit is exceeded. It may also get dropped due to network congestion, if the channel is so busy and the time to live (TTL) value is expired. If the interfacing queue is full, any incoming packets will get dropped.

Total packet loss of DSDV decreases with the increase of pause time, as shown in the graph Fig.23. However DSDV increases the amount of packet loss while comparing the on-demand routing protocols i.e. AODV and DSR. By considering other factors also DSDV protocol packet loss increases with increasing mobility speed, node, number of sources, area size and sending rate as shown in Fig. 24 to Fig.28 as compared to AODV and DSR. DSDV packet loss decreases as we increase packet size but still more as compared to other protocol as shown in Fig.29.

V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

AODV, DSDV and DSR have been simulated with various parameters and compared using NS-2.34 network simulator. It may be noted that the DSR shows better performance in terms of consumed energy, packet delivery ratio, network overhead and packet loss in the network than the existing AODV and DSDV under all scenarios. Therefore, DSR protocol proves to be the best one as it requires less energy consumption, good packet delivery ratio and reduces network overhead with minimum packet loss to find and maintain routes. In future it is planned to implement energy aware DSR protocol for the above presented scenarios and to upgrade AODV protocol as bandwidth efficient protocol.

REFERENCES [1] Sarkar S, Basavaraju T.G. and Puttamadappa C., “ Ad Hoc

Mobile Wireless Networks: Principles, protocols and applications,” Auerbach Publications, 2008.

[2] Royer E.M.and Toh C., “A review of current routing protocols for adhoc mobile wireless networks,” IEEE personal communications, pp. 46–56, 1999.

[3] D. Sharma and A Kush, “Performance comparison of energy efficient AODV protocols,” Int. J. Computing and Business Research (IJCBR), vol. 2, issue 1, 2011.

[4] C. Perkins, E.Royer, and S. Das, "Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing," in IETF RFC 3561, July 2003.

[5] J. H. Song, V. W. S. Wong, and V. C. M. Leung, “Efficient on demand routing for mobile adhoc wireless access networks,” IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1374-1383, 2004.

[6] C. E Perkins and E. M. Royer ,”Ad-hoc OnDemand Distance Vector Routing,” Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, New Orleans, LA, pp-90- 100, February1999.

[7] K.Khan, A.Reddy, R. Zaman, K. Reddy and T. Harsha “An efficient DSDV routing protocol for wireless mobile ad-hoc networks and its performance comparison,” IEEE Int. conf. on Second UKSIM European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation, pp.506-511, 2008.

[8] D. Johnson, D. Maltz, and Y.-C. Hu, “The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks (DSR),” in ZETF drafc, July 2004.

[9] Tuteja A, Gujral A, Thalia A, “Comparative Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET using NS2,” IEEE Computer Society, pp. 330-333,2010.

[10] M. Vijayalaxsmi, A. Patel, and L. Kulkarni, “QOS parameter analysis on AODV and DSDV protocols in a wireless network,” Int. J. Communication Network and Security, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 62-70, 2011.

[11] V. K. Taksande and K. D. Kulat, “Performance comparison of DSDV, DSR, AODV protocol with IEEE 802.11 MAC for chain topology for mobile Ad-hoc network, using NS-2,” Int. J. Computer Applications(IJCA) Sp. Issue on 2nd National Conf. on CCSN, pp. 26-31, 2011.

[12] S. A. Ade and P. A. Tijare, “Performance comparison of AODV, DSDV, OLSR and DSR routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc networks,” Int. J. Inf. Tech. and Knowledge Management (IJITKM), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 545-548, 2010.

[13] L. Layuan, L. I. Chunlin, and Y. Peiyan, “Performance evaluation and simulations of routing protocols in adhoc networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 30, issue 8, pp. 1890-1898, 2007.

[14] Narendra Singh Yaday, R.P.Yadav,” Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” Int. J. of Information and Communication Engineering, vol. 12, no. 12, 2008.

Documents

Energy Based Performance Comparison of Multi-hop routing ... · Energy Based Performance Comparison of Multi-hop routing protocol with IEEE 802.11 ... Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)