Upload
amitoj-kaur
View
332
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET
ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS
AD-HOC NETWORKS USING G-SENSE
INTRODUCTION
Importance of networking
Computer network – system for communication between computers (fixed, temporary)
History starts with Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1962
1969 the beginning of ARPANet which connected University of LA, SRI, University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah
Ethernet developed in 1980
In 1994, Bluetooth proposed by Ericsson to develop a short-range, low-power, low complexity, and inexpensive radio interface
WLAN 802.11 spec. is proposed in 1997
AD-HOC NETWORKS
Need of Ad-Hoc Networks Setting up of fixed access points and backbone infrastructure is
not always viable
Infrastructure may not be present in a disaster area or war zone
Infrastructure may not be practical for short-range radios; Bluetooth (range ~ 10m)
Do not need backbone infrastructure support
Are easy to deploy
Useful when infrastructure is absent, destroyed or impractical
AD-HOC NETWORKS
Characteristics of an AD-HOC network
Collection of mobile nodes forming a temporary network
Network topology changes frequently and unpredictably
No centralized administration or standard support services
Each host is an independent router
Hosts use wireless RF transceivers as network interface
Number of nodes 10 to 100 or at most 1000
TYPES OF WIRELESS NETWORKS
Two types of wireless network:
Infrastructured
the mobile node can move while communicating
the base stations are fixed
as the node goes out of the range of a base station, it gets into the range of another base station
Infrastructureless or ad-hoc
the mobile node can move while communicating
there are no fixed base stations
all the nodes in the network need to act as routers
CELLULAR AND AD-HOC NETWORKS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CELLULAR AND AD-HOC NETWORKS
CELLULAR WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORK NETWORK
MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS (MANET) Self-creating, self-organizing and self-administrating without deploying any kind of
infrastructure.
Wide application in military, commercial and educational environments where fixed
infrastructure is not easily acquired.
Two nodes communicate directly or via a multi-hop route with the cooperation of
other nodes
Formed by wireless hosts which may be mobile
Without (necessarily) using a pre-existing infrastructure
To find a multi-hop path to another nodes, each MANET node widely use flooding or
broadcast
MANET
APPLICATIONS OF MANET
Personal area networking
cell phone, laptop, ear phone, wrist watch
Military environments
soldiers, tanks, planes
Civilian environments
taxi cab network
meeting rooms
sports stadiums
boats, small aircraft
Emergency operations
search-and-rescue
policing and fire fighting
CHALLENGING ISSUES
Limited wireless transmission range
Broadcast nature of the wireless medium
Packet losses due to transmission errors
Mobility-induced route changes
Mobility-induced packet losses
Battery constraints
Potentially frequent network partitions
Ease of snooping on wireless transmissions (security hazard)
CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET
Proactive (table driven) Require each node to maintain one or more tables to store routing
information
Each node responds to changes in network topology by propagating updates throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent network view
DSDV, OLSR (Optimized Link State Protocol)
Reactive protocols (source initiated) Creates routes only when desired by the source node
Once a route has been established, it is maintained by a route maintenance procedure until either the destination becomes inaccessible along every path from the source or until the route is no longer desired
DSR, AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector)
AD HOC MOBILE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Ad-Hoc Mobile Routing Protocols
Table Driven/ Proactive
DSDV WRP
CGSR STAR
Hybrid
ZRP
On Demand Driven/ Reactive
ABR DSR
TORA AODV
CBRP RDMAR
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
Sender S broadcasts data packet P to all its neighbors
Each node receiving P forwards P to its neighbors
Sequence numbers used to avoid the possibility of forwarding the same packet more than once
Packet P reaches destination D provided that D is reachable from sender S
Node D does not forward the packet
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
Represents that connected nodes are within each other’s transmission range
Z
Y
Represents a node that has received packet P
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
Represents transmission of packet P
Represents a node that receives packet P forthe first time
Z
YBroadcast transmission
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
• Node H receives packet P from two neighbors:potential for collision
Z
Y
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
• Node C receives packet P from G and H, but does not forwardit again, because node C has already forwarded packet P once
Z
Y
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
Z
Y
M
• Nodes J and K both broadcast packet P to node D• Since nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their
transmissions may collide => Packet P may not be delivered to node D at all,
despite the use of flooding
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
Z
Y
• Node D does not forward packet P, because node Dis the intended destination of packet P
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
• Flooding completed
• Nodes unreachable from S do not receive packet P (e.g., node Z)
• Nodes for which all paths from S go through the destination Dalso do not receive packet P (example: node N)
Z
Y
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
IK
• Flooding may deliver packets to too many nodes(in the worst case, all nodes reachable from sender may receive the packet)
Z
Y
M
N
L
FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY: DISADVANTAGES
Potentially, very high overhead
Data packets may be delivered to too many nodes who do not need to receive them
Potentially lower reliability of data delivery
Flooding uses broadcasting -- hard to implement reliable broadcast delivery without significantly increasing overhead
Broadcasting in IEEE 802.11 MAC is unreliable
In our example, nodes J and K may transmit to node D simultaneously, resulting in loss of the packet
in this case, destination would not receive the packet at all
AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL
AODV = Ad Hoc On-demand Distance VectorSource floods route request in the network.
Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route request.
Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
Source floods route request in the network.
Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).
AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
Uses hop-by-hop routing.
Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).
Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route request.
AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
Route reply forwarded via the reverse path.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
Route reply is forwarded via the reverse path … thus forming the forward path.
The forward path is used to route data packets.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
ROUTE EXPIRY
Unused paths expire based on a timer.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
AODV – OPTIMIZATION
Useful optimization: An intermediate node with a route to D can reply to route request.
Faster operation.
Quenches route request flood.
Above optimization can cause loops in presence of link failures
AODV
At most one route per destination maintained at each node
After link break, all routes using the failed link are erased.
Expiration based on timeouts.
Use of sequence numbers to prevent loops.
Optimizations
Routing tables instead of storing full routes.
Control flooding (incrementally increase ‘region’)
MINI-PROJECT
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORKS
USING G-SENSE
Simulation Model
The network simulations have been carried out using G-Sense Simulator and its associated tools for animation and analysis of results.
This simulator was originally designed for wired networks and has been subsequently extended to support simulations in mobile wireless (and MANET) settings.
GRAPHICAL INTERFACE FOR SENSE SIMULATOR ( G-SENSE)
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Simulation Parameters Values
Simulator G-Sense Simulator
Protocols Simple Flooding, AODV
Layer Network Layer
Stop Time (seconds) 10, 20, 30
Number of Nodes 5, 15, 25
Terrain Size (meters) 1500m, 2000m, 3000m
Number of Source nodes 20, 30, 40
Packet Size (KB) 10, 30, 50
Interval (seconds) 2, 3, 4
SIMULATION RESULTS
Simple Flooding Graphic at 5 nodes
SIMULATION RESULT
AODV Graphic at 5 nodes
SIMULATION RESULT In this project, we have attempted to compare Simple Flooding
and Ad-Hoc on demand Distance Vector Protocol.
For all the simulations, the same movement models were used, the number of nodes was fixed at 5, 15 and 25, the stop time was varied as 10, 20 and 30s.
As shown in figures 1 and 2, we observe that, regardless of network size or mobility rate, AODV performed better than Simple Flooding in delivering over 90% of data packets.
Same figures show a uniform distribution of Average end-to-end Delay in Simple Flooding and AODV in which AODV performed well than Simple Flooding.
Throughput for AODV was slightly higher as compared to Simple Flooding.
Network size and network load have lead to increasing the throughput for the two protocols.
PRESENT CONCLUSION
In this project, AODV and Flooding routing protocols using different parameter metrics have been simulated and analyzed
Simulation results show that performance parameters of the routing protocols may vary depending on network load, mobility and network size.
Under G-Sense Model, AODV experience the highest Packet Delivery Fraction and Throughput with the increase of nodes stop time, and mobile nodes number.
AODV and Simple Flooding performance is due to their on demand characteristics to determine the freshness of the route. And it is proved also that AODV has a slightly higher Average end-to-end Delay than Simple Flooding.
NOTE:- Further in the project we will study the comparison between other
MANET protocols like DSR, DSDV and AODV in different software and analyse them and would conclude in our study.
REFERENCES Performance Comparison Of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network
Sizes Computer Science Project David Oliver Jörg Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (RVS) University of Berne, Switzerland 2003 head: Prof. Dr. Torsten Braun assisted by:Marc Heissenbüttel.
Simulation Analysis of Routing Protocols using Manhattan Grid Mobility Model in MANET Youssef Saadi1, Said El Kafhali1, 2, Abdelkrim Haqiq1, 2, BouchaibNassereddine , Computer Networks, Mobility and Modeling laboratory Department of Mathematics and Computer FST, Hassan 1st University, Settat, Morocco 2 e-NGN Research group, Africa and Middle East.
Efficient Flooding in Ad hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study Yunjung Yi and Mario Gerla, Computer Science Department, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095
Wireless Ad-hoc Networks, Lu Han, October 8, 2004
Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs. Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik, University of California, Santa Cruz, Computer Engineering Department. kumarv,[email protected], [email protected]
REFERENCES
Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems, By C.-K. Toh- Ph.D
Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks, Subir Kumar Sarkar, T G Basavaraju, C Puttamadappa
AD HOC NETWORKS Technologies and Protocols. Edited by PRASANT MOHAPATRA, University of California‚ Davis. SRIKANTH V. KRISHNAMURTHY, University of California‚ Riverside
Enhancing the Performance of Ad Hoc Wireless Networks with Smart Antennas Somprakash Bandyopadhyay, Siuli Roy, Tetsuro Ueda.
Mobile ad hoc networking: imperatives and challenges. ImrichChlamtac a, Marco Conti b, Jennifer J.-N. Liu. School of Engineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. Istituto IIT, ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA.