View
5.035
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks by Abid Afsar Khan Malang Palsapi
Citation preview
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
By
Abid Afsar Khan Malang Palsapi
فی) س ل نگ ف ل سر خان م د اف (عاب
This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of the Computing Griffith College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Computing
Under the supervision of Dr. Faheem Bukhatwa
October 2012
Dublin, Leinster
Copyright 2012,Abid Afsar
i
Table of Contents
Sr.
No.
TITLE Page
No.
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Definition 2
1.3 Motivation for Current Work 3
1.4 Research Question 4
1.5 Research Methodology 5
1.6 Aims and Objectives 7
1.7 Assumption 8
1.8 Thesis Contribution 8
1.9 Related work 9
1.10 Organization of the Thesis 9
Summary 10
2. Routing Protocols in IP-Datagram Networks 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Routing 11
2.3 Proprieties of Routing Protocols 12
2.4 Classification of Routing Protocol 12
2.5 Goals of Routing Protocol 15
2.6 Conventional Routing Protocols 16
2.6.1 Adaptive Routing Protocols 16
2.6.2 Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) 17
ii
Sr.
No.
TITLE Page
No.
2.7 Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) 22
2.7.1 Link-state-based Routing 22
2.8 Border Gateway Protocol or Path Vector- based Routing 24
2.9 Advance Routing Approaches 26
2.9.1 Self-Adjusting Routing Protocols 26
Summary 30
3. Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad-Hoc and Sensor Network 31
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Classification of Wireless Network 31
3.3 Conventional Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol 33
3.3.1 Optimal Source Routing (OSR) 34
3.3.2 Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) 39
3.3.3 Global State Routing (GSR) Protocol 40
3.4 Wireless Sensor Network (WSNs) 41
3.4.1 Network Characteristics, Design Objectives 41
3.4.2 Network Design Objectives 43
3.4.3 WSNs Network Design Challenges 45
3.5 Routing 47
3.5.1 Routing in Wireless Sensor Network 47
3.5.2 Classification of Wireless Senor Network Routing Protocols 49
Summary 68
4 Design of Simulation Experiments 69
4.1 Introduction 69
iii
Sr.
No.
TITLE Page
No.
4.2 Scalable Ad-Hoc Network Simulator (ShoX) 70
4.3 Architecture of ShoX 71
4.4 ShoX Key Features 74
4.5 ShoX Configuration 75
4.6 Metrics 76
4.6.1 Simulation Parameters 77
4.7 Experimentation Design and Setup parameters 78
4.7.1 Experiment No.1 –Design of Small Network Topology 78
4.7.2 Experiment No.2 – Design of Medium Network Topology 80
4.7.3 Experiment No.3- Design of Large Network Topology 82
4.7.4 Experiment No. 4- Design of Simulation Time variation 84
4.7.5 Experiment No. 5- Design of Nodes Deployment Area variation 85
4.7.6 Experiment No. 6- Design of Interference Handler Model Variation 86
Summary 87
5 Implementation and Results Analysis 88
5.1 Introduction 88
5.2 Implementation 88
5.3 Experiment 1: Small Nodes Scenario 88
5.3.1 Case 1, 2, 3 & 4: Measurement of packet drop ratio in small number
of stationary and mobile nodes using OSR and Rumor routing
protocols
89
5.4 Experiment 2- Medium Nodes Scenario 92
iv
Sr.
No.
TITLE Page
No.
5.4.1 Case 1, 2, 3 & 4: Measurement of packet drop at hop in 25 stationary
nodes using OSR and rumor routing algorithm
93
5.5 Experiment 3- Large Nodes Scenario 96
5.5.1 Case 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop at hop in 49
stationary nodes using OSR and rumor routing algorithm
97
5.6 Experiment No. 4- Simulation Time Variation 100
5.6.1 Case 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of drop packet ratio/rate at
stationary topology using OSR and rumor routing algorithm
101
5.7 Experiment No. 5- Network Deployment Area Variation 105
5.7.1 Case 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of drop packet ratio/rate at
stationary topology using OSR and rumor routing algorithm
105
5.8 Experiment No. 7- Interference Handler Model Variation 109
5.8.1 Case 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop ratio at stationary
topology using OSR and rumor routing algorithm
109
5.9 Simulation Results and Performance Analysis 113
Summary 116
6 Conclusion And Future Work 117
6.1 Introduction 117
6.2 Conclusion 117
6.2.1 Reflection of our work on research question 118
6.3 Future Work 120
Bibliography 121
v
Sr. No. List of Tables Page
No.
3.1 Seven WSN’s routing protocols categories 50
4.1 Simulation Parameters Table 77
4.2 Parameters Table-Exp 1- Case 1: Rumor Routing Stationary Nodes 79
4.3 Parameters Table Experiment 1- Case 2: Rumor Routing Mobile Nodes 79
4.4 Parameters Table -Experiment 1- Case 2: Rumor Routing Mobile Nodes 79
4.5 Parameters Table -Exp1- Case 2: Rumor Routing Mobile Nodes 80
4.6 Parameters Table -Exp 2- Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumor routing 81
4.7 Parameters Table -Exp 2- Case 2: Mobile nodes using rumor routing 81
4.8 Parameters Table -Exp 2- Case 3: Mobile nodes using rumor routing 81
4.9 Parameters Table -Exp 2- Case 4: Mobile nodes using rumor routing 82
4.10 Parameters Table -Exp 3- Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumor routing 83
4.11 Parameters Table -Exp 3- Case 2: Mobile Nodes using rumor routing 83
4.12 Parameters Table -Exp 3- Case 3: Stationary Nodes using OSR routing 83
4.13 Parameters Table -Exp 3- Case 4: Mobile Nodes using OSR routing 83
4.14 Parameters Table -Experiment 4- case 1-Simulation Time 84
4.15 Parameters Table -Experiment 4- case 2-Simulation Time 84
4.16 Parameters Table -Experiment 4- case 3-Simulation Time 84
4.17 Parameters Table -Experiment 4- case 4-Simulation Time 84
4.18 Parameters Table -Experiment 5- case 1-Deployement Area 85
vi
Sr. No. List of Tables Page
No.
4.19 Parameters Table -Experiment 5- case 2-Deployment Area 85
4.20 Parameters Table -Experiment 5- case 3-Deployment Area 85
4.21 Parameters Table -Experiment 5- case 4-Deployment Area 85
4.22 Parameters Table Experiment 6- Case 1- Interference handler model 86
4.23 Parameters Table -Experiment 6- Case 2- Interference handler model 86
4.24 Parameters Table -Experiment 6- Case 3- Interference handler model 86
4.25 Parameters Table -Experiment 6- Case 4- Interference handler model 86
5.1 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 91
5.2 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 95
5.3 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 98
5.4 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 103
5.5 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 107
5.6 Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards 111
vii
Sr. No. List Of Figures Page
No.
1.1 Typical WSNs Components overview 1
1.2 (a) Represent small topology, ( b) Represent medium topology, (c)
represent large topology
4
1.3 (a) Represents dense network in a smaller area, while figure (b)
Represents sparse network of the same size but in large area
5
1.4 Bar chart representation of simulation pause time 6
1.5 Represent interference and communication range 6
2.1 Classsfication of routing proctols startegies in IP-Datagram networks 13
2.2 Shortest path finding mechanism 18
3.1 Block diagram of wireless network classification 33
3.2 Ad-hoc routing protocols classification chart 34
3.3 OSR single node movements 36
3.4 Classification of spinal routing algorithm 39
3.5 Hierarchical diagram of WSNs routing protocols classification 49
3.6 Rumor routing chart representation 52
3.7 Query is originated and query source is looking for the path to reach
to the event
53
3.8 Agents aggregating to multiple events 54
3.9 Represents the greedy approach from node x to node y, because
these are located in close neighborhood.
60
3.10 In Greedy Forwarding Routing the data packet is forwarded to a
neighbor that which is located in a close proximity
60
viii
Sr. No. List Of Figures Page
No.
3.11 When greedy routing gets stuck in topology 61
3.12 When there is a hole in the network 61
3.13 Generic view of different faces of planner graph 62
3.14 Generic view of source and destination at planner graph 62
3.15 Represents base station, cluster head, and cluster 67
3.16 Different level of hierarchies 68
4.1 ShoX starting view 70
4.2 ShoX Configuration Panel 71
4.3 ShoX Architectural View 72
4.4 Network topology of 10 nodes 78
4.5 Network topology of 25 nodes 80
4.6 Network topology of 49 nodes 82
5.1 Relative performance comparison in small stationary topology of 10
mobile nodes
92
5.2 Relative performance comparison in small mobile topology of 10
nodes
92
5.3 Relative performance comparison in small stationary topology of 25
nodes
96
5.4 Relative performance comparison in small mobile topology of 25
nodes
96
5.5 Relative performance comparison in large stationary topology of 49
nodes
100
5.6 Relative performance comparison in large mobile topology of 49
nodes
100
5.7 Relative performance comparison at different simulation time 104
ix
Sr. No. List Of Figures Page
No.
5.8 Relative performance comparison at different simulation time 104
5.9 Relative performance comparison at deployment area of 300 x 400
m2
108
5.10 Relative performance comparison at deployment area of 300 x 400
m2
108
5.11 Relative performance comparison at minimum SNR interference
model
112
5.12 Relative performance comparison at minimum SNR interference
model
112
Sr. No. List of Equations Page
No.
3.1 Relation between Radio Range and Grid Size
r 2
+ (2r)2 ≤ R
2
Where r ≤ R∕√5 [8]
56
Disclaimer
I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of
study leading to the Degree of Masters of Science in Computing at Griffith College
Dublin, is entirely my own work and has not been submitted for assessment for an
academic purpose at this or any other academic institution other than in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of that stated above.
Signed: _____________________ Date: ___________________
x
Abstract
Modern wireless sensor network can be expanded into large geographical areas via cheap
sensor devices which can sustain themselves with very a low power usage. The networking
capability enables these sensor nodes to incorporate, collaborate and coordinate with each
other and this is a fundamental shift in the field of networks which differentiates sensor
network nodes form other networks such as IP-datagram, Ad-Hoc and so on.
Currently, routing in the wireless sensor network faces multiple challenges, such as new
scalability, coverage, packet loss, interference, real-time audio and video real time streaming,
harsh weather environments, energy constraints and so forth. Network routing can be called
an amalgamation of routing protocol and routing algorithm. The job of the routing protocols
is to provide a cohesive view of network nodes topology while routing algorithm provides the
intelligence in terms of optimal path calculation.
We set out to conduct a detailed study of routing protocols in a IP-datagram, wireless ad-hoc
and sensor network, and also accomplished routing protocols comparison against the chosen
network performance factor dropped packet ratio.
Routing protocols play an important role in modern wireless communication networks.
Routing protocols’ performance can be measured by a number of factors such as packet
dropped rate and so forth.
Rumour and Optimal Spinal Routing algorithms are compared using ShoX simulation and the
results and analysis are based upon the simulation experiments.
xi
Dedication
I dedicate my thesis to my beloved family, especially
To my late father:
Haji. Muhammad Imran Khan ( Mamaan Khan),
To my mother,
To my late grandfather and grandmother,
To my uncles:
Haji. Muhammad Afsar Khan
Haji. Muhammad Irshad Khan
Haji. Tahir Muhammad Khan
xii
Acknowledgments
In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.
First of all, I would like to offer my special thanks to Allah for the guidance and assistance in
this thesis.
I wish to offer my special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Faheem Bukhatwa for his advice and
support during the writing of this thesis.
I would like to pay special thanks to my family for their prayers and encouragement during
my studies.
Finally, I would like to give special thanks to my all weather friends Kalpesh Nahire (Nasik
India), M. Tahir Azam (Chakwal Pakistan), Sumit Walia (Delhi India), Asif Ali (Derby UK),
Dr. M. Asim ( JMU Liverpool UK), Shah Fahad (Swat Pakistan), and M. Imran Akhtar
(Haripur Pakistan).
Abid Afsar Khan Malang Palsapi
Griffith College Dublin
October 2012
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Background
Wireless communication is rapidly growing in our day to day life because it is easy to
deploy and is more flexible. In particular, the wireless sensor network (WSN‟s) is one of the
latest innovations in the field of wireless communication. It consists of tiny mote which hold
a small battery, CPU and sensor. Today, sensor motes are widely used by the military in the
battle field as a means to closely monitor enemy activities. Sensor networks are also used in
healthcare, wide-life, temperature monitoring and many other applications. A diagrammatic
components overview of WSNs is shown below,
Figure 1.1. Typical WSNs components overview
The above diagram represents a number of WSNs components, such as sensor node
architecture, base station, deployment area, and sensor nodes event region which are
represented in blue and green colours. Routing is an important issue in a wireless sensor
network and a number of routing protocols were proposed however, an efficient routing
algorithm remains an issue
The recent development of a wireless sensor network has led us to an innovative use of
small sensory nodes which operate with a very low power in extreme environmental
conditions. The group of small sensory nodes are randomly deployed in a sensor field.
Theses nodes have the ability to organise themselves automatically and to detect
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
2
neighbouring nodes to from an ad-hoc network. The nodes of the WSNs can plan what sort
of sensing data to receive, send, or query some particular event. The query concept in sensor
networks leads us to new ways of routing, for instance clustering sensor nodes, redundancy,
and so forth.
Today, there are number of sensor motes commercially with low prices ranging from 50$ to
100$ per single mote. It is further expected that the price will go down in the next five years.
One of the leading manufacturers is the Crossbow Inc., which makes Intel motes. There are
number of development projects is in progress, such as Smart Dust Project which are going
to optimise a large number of motes into a single chip, operating system called TinyOS
which is currently freely available and being developed for a senor network. A
programming language called EmStar is used for the development of sensor nodes, a
communication interface called NesC is developed for sensor nodes and finally a database
called TinyDB was developed to transfer data between heterogeneous sensor networks.
1.2. Problem Definition
The rationale of this thesis is to investigate efficient routing protocols which can
successfully deliver data packets in sensor network. Wireless network protocols which are
currently in place have suffered from a number of issues such as drop packets, address table
overhead, topology convergence, throughput, data packets delay, routing overhead and so
on. In WSNs there are number of issues which pose new challenges for the wireless sensor
network. As we are aware that WSNs mote consist of a small battery with limited power
and because of this limitation it gives birth to a new set of problems such as routing, and
scalability in WSNs.
The motes perform their operations by the sensor on board but it‟s quite challenging to route
data when the intermediary motes lose battery power at transit or have low power, and it
further leads to problems such as topology adjustment, mote data recovery and back-up and
so forth. Therefore we believe that to route sensing data properly we need to have intelligent
WSNs routing protocols which give better strategies in terms of energy and scalability
WSNs routing is still a challenging area for the researcher. One problem is the energy in
WSNs, so there is an open option to make routing decisions on the basis of energy
awareness. The core issue involved with wireless senor network routing is related to
rigorous resource constraints allocation in terms of computation, storage and energy
consumption which make it not only interesting but challenging.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
3
In the event of a problem the associated routing algorithm does not have an intelligence to
adjust them dynamically and it is also termed as non-adaptive routing protocols.
In carrying out our research we found that a large amount of work has been done in the area
of routing in WSNs, but these are largely individual contributions on specific routing
protocols. We feel that there is a need for a detailed level of study in the area of WSNs
routing protocols. There are a number of routing protocols proposed for WSNs routing but
unfortunately the consideration and need for an efficient, intelligent routing mechanism was
not taken on board.
1.3. Motivation for Current Work
• Routing is an important research area in wireless communication networks and
particularly needs more research interest due to emerging technologies such as a
wireless sensor network, network on chip and so on
• The wireless sensor network brought new opportunities and challenges, because of its
non-infrastructure-based network, and can be deployed in a large territory having harsh
environmental conditions, where sensory devices can be left unattended. We can also
study environment-related events in real time with more precision and accuracy
• The WSNs-based network is further evolving towards a multimedia-based network
which involves heavy traffic, such as live video monitoring of a remote event and so on.
Therefore, the WSN is facing significant new challenges such as drop packet, routing
overhead, packet delay, and so forth
• number of routing algorithms were proposed but there is an urgent need for a comparative
study on these protocols which will be used as a guide tool for researcher and developer in
the routing domain.
1.4. Research Questions
The research is focused on the comparison between some routing protocols. After some
search and studies the choice of protocols was narrowed down to two: Rumour and OSR
protocols. The research question can be outlined by one main question and further clarified
by four sub-questions. The main question for this research is the following:
Q. Which of the two routing protocols: rumour protocol or OSR protocol, performs better
under different circumstances?
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
4
The main research question is further defined as,
Q1. Which protocol performs better in small, medium, and large network topology?
Figure 1.2. (a) Represent small topology, (b) represent medium topology, (c) represent large
topology
Q2. Which protocol performs better with a different sized deployment area?
The node deployment area variants are explained with the help of the following two
scenarios, where the geographical areas are different but the number of nodes remains the
same.
(a) (b)
(c)
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
5
Figure 1.3. (a) represents a dense network in a smaller area, while figure (b) represents a
sparse network of the same size but in a larger area
Q3. Which protocol performs better at different simulation times?
The different variant of simulation times, such as 20, 60, and 100 seconds and so on
Figure 1.4. Bar chart representation of simulation time
(a) (b)
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
6
Q4. Which protocol suffers more from interference?
The interference between nodes A, C and B is illustrated as,
Figure 1.5. Represents interference and communication range
Moreover, the drop packet ratio will be used as a network performance evaluation metric for
the aforesaid scenarios.
1.5. Research Methodology
Initially, we start our research by investigating the wire network routing protocol in detail
which is detailed in Chapter 2. But later on we stick to wireless network routing protocols
because it is an area which is rapidly expanding due to their low cost, high mobility,
scalability, easy deployment and so forth.
Furthermore, our work consists of two parts. First, we design some proposed network
scenarios and stimulate these by using the Scalable Ad-Hoc Network Simulator (ShoX) for
the OSR routing algorithm and observe the performance and behaviour of OSR alone.
Second, we apply the same network model to rumour routing algorithm using the ShoX
simulator and judge the performance and behaviour of rumour alone. Furthermore, with
respect to the evaluation comparison of OSR and rumour this is based on a metric such as
the dropped packet ratio. ShoX simulator is used for the evolution and comparison of
proposed protocols.
1.6. Aims and Objectives
The main aim of this thesis is to research the problem of routing in wireless communication
networks particularly wireless sensor networks, and the constraints involved with routing
such as packet drop, for example.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
7
Our second aim is to perform a detailed study of routing protocols which are either deployed
or proposed for WSNs.
Third, a comparative study and analysis of routing protocols can be done by means of
network simulator. Network performance can be measured against metric like the dropped
packet ratio using ShoX simulator. Furthermore, we also aim to provide a precise guideline
tool to the developer and researcher with regard to a selection of efficient routing protocols
in the future.
1.7. Assumption
Our assumption is based on routing protocols and their use in wireless sensor network
application, which is listed as,
• We further assume that our sensor network is homogenous by nature, where all nodes
are of equal size
• WSNs nodes assume that they know their local information, and are aware of their close
neighbours for the purpose of packet forwarding.
• Wireless sensor routing protocols assume that they know the destination address in
advance
• WSNs nodes can be mobile and stationary depending on the sensor application scenario.
• WSN motes for sensor application can be placed an unattended environment and we also
assume that these nodes have the features of being self-organising and fault-tolerant.
• WSN nodes are deployed in an outdoor plain environment and environmental and
atmospheric conditions are assumed at a normal level.
• WSN nodes transceivers use single channel and wireless antenna, are Omni-directional
and propagate isotropic signals in all direction
• We also assume that mobile nodes choose their speed randomly
• We further assume that the collision model we use is CSMA, 802.11g
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
8
1.8. Thesis Contribution
The core contributions of this thesis are as follows:
First, the thesis provides a detailed study of routing protocols which includes wireless
routing protocols and their architecture, design challenges, and other constraints.
Second, a comparative study of routing algorithms wireless sensor network can be presented
for the selected list of protocols in the WSN routing domain.
Third, an extensive number of simulation experiments and analysis can be performed using
ShoX simulation.
Fourth, the thesis would be a guideline tool for the selection of an efficient routing protocol
and would alleviate the work of the developer and researcher in the routing domain in the
near future.
1.9. Related Work
The routing has a significant function in computer networks both in terms of resource
management, traffic management and routing. There are a number of routing strategies
which are used such as the shortest path algorithm, optimal routing and so forth. The
network‟s performance level depends on the number of routing factors such as throughput,
packet overhead, delay, congestion, and so on. [AX5]
Routing has been an interesting subject for last twenty years or more and significant
material is available on the subject. Routing has experienced different types of loops such as
forwarding loop, information loop and trace-rout loop and many of the routing algorithms
have a pre-avoiding loops mechanism. [AX6]
The wireless senor network consists of tiny sensory nodes and these have the capability to
maintain the network topology dynamically. The sensory nodes can be mobile but this
depends on their application. Routing in a wireless sensor network is challenging because it
does not involve a proper infrastructure. Energy, hardware and software resources are
limited which makes routing difficult. The network performance can be measured by a
number of factors such as throughput, network delay and so on. A number of routing
protocols was proposed for the wireless sensor network such as AODV, OLSR, DYMO and
many more. [AX7]
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
9
1.11. Organization of the Thesis
Our work is broadly planned as follows the thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter 1
presents the background of the thesis and problem definition. Chapter 2 presents the IP-
datagram routing protocols in detail. Chapter 3 presents routing protocols in a wireless
sensor network. Chapter 4 discusses design and simulation. Chapter 5 presents the
simulation results and analysis and finally Chapter 6 presents the conclusion of the whole
thesis, future work and bibliography.
Summary
In this chapter we introduced our project and the main statements of our research question
and an overview to wireless sensor network. In the next chapter we will discuss IP-datagram
protocols in details.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
10
Chapter 2
Routing Protocols in IP-Datagram Networks
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a detailed study of routing protocols in the context of a best effort IP
network.
2.2. Routing
Routing is the product of routing protocols and routing algorithms. The routing protocol
gives the overview of the topology of the entire network while the routing algorithm adds
the power of intelligence to how one computes the path between multiple network nodes.
[swapnil]
Firstly, we will perform a detailed study of routing protocols. In the literature there is an
abundance of material available on routing and it is an extensive area of study in itself. In
data communication routing is the core feature of guiding and directing in large networks.
Furthermore, routing provides an optimal path according to the metrics mentioned.
Routing is broadly divided into two main classes: adaptive routing and non-adaptive
routing.
In static routing a route is not maintained automatically and needs to be updated manually.
In a situation where the algorithm fails to update, the only way to recover it is to restart (?)
the algorithm manually in order that it can accommodate itself within the specified network
link requirements.
In addition, there are more routing classes such as delta routing, multi-path routing and
hierarchal routing and so on.
2.3. Properties of Routing Protocols
There are a number of properties which routing protocols possess and they have a wide
impact on today‟s inter-connection networks. The author discusses this under the following
headings:
Connectivity: It is the responsibility to assign a route for a packet coming from a source
node to a destination node.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
11
Adaptivity: The property guarantees that there should be an alternative path for each
and every packet in case of link or network device failure.
Fault Tolerance: The property sates that the fault tolerance can be attained by applying a
storing-and–forwarding technique to some nodes in two or more phases, while it can
also be accomplished through adaptivity but it is not always applicable and true.
Deadlock or live-lock freedom: The property states that there should be no blockade and
superfluous traffic in the network.
2.4. Classification of Routing Protocols
A „routing algorithm‟ can be defined as a methodology through which a node makes a
decision about its neighbouring route for the purpose of sending a packet to an expected
destination. A Routing Table stores the local link information and is updated from time to
time.
Ignasi Paredes Oliva defines the routing as “Driving packets from source node to destination
node in a network”. Routing algorithms play a pivotal role in today‟s computer networks.
And also with the exponential increase in computer networks and distributed systems and
other web applications it is obvious that the network traffic management and routing are the
core issues. [BX5] The central job of the routing algorithm is to generate a path for the
network packets. There are a number of routing algorithms mentioned in the literature, but
our study will focus on the routing algorithms which are of particular use for computer
inter-connection networks. We also focus on those routing algorithms which are important
for future studies in relation to modern computer inter-connection networks.
Jose, Sudhakar, Lionel state that routing algorithms can be classified in many ways; broadly
classify the routing algorithms according to the number of destination packets which need to
be delivered. A packet can be sent uni-cast or multi-cast.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
12
Figure 2.1. Classsfication of routing proctols startegies in IP-Datagram networks
In data communication networks a routing algorithm can be classified as uni-cast,
broadcast, multi-cast and any-cast.
Alternatively, Sharam classifies routing algorithms as flooding, static and dynamic routing.
1. Uni-cast Routing
In a uni-cast routing algorithm a packet is destined only for one specific destination from a
source.
2. Broadcast Routing
In broadcasting a message is broadcast to all available links in the network, the reason being
that the medium of communication is shared between all the network nodes.
The N point-to-point algorithm is a broadcast algorithm and it sends packets to every
destination. The limitation is that it wastage of bandwidth and have the pre-knowledge of all
destinations.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
13
The next broadcast algorithm is „flooding‟. The packet is sent to every host in the network.
There is a strong likelihood that some hosts will receive dual packets and because of this
mechanism the duplication arises in the network but the algorithm can detect the
duplication of packets.
3. Multi-cast Routing
The main goal in the multi-cast routing is to send packets to a designated number of network
hosts but not all.
4. Any-cast Routing
The main goal in the any-cast routing is to send packets to a particular single designated
computer in the network.
According to Mischa Schwarz the routing algorithm is divided into four classes,
Firstly, the routing path selection function and routing table creation can be performed in a
centralised and decentralised or distributed approach.
Secondly, the routing mechanism can follow an adaptive approach. n this approach the
routing path information is updated when changes occur in the network topology. The
routing mechanism adapts itself according to the topological, traffic changes taking place in
the network. It dynamically responds to all sorts of traffic conditions happening in the
network.
Thirdly, a class of routing algorithm uses cost as a metric to link nodes for the purpose of
routing path selection. In regard to cost calculation there are a number of parameters usually
used such as network link bandwidth, link length, speed, expected delay, latency, level of
security and so on. The cost can be a combination of multiple parameters such as link
bandwidth and delay.
Fourthly, it is one of the best known and popular types of routing algorithms studied in the
literature which works on the basis of performance and it is called „least-cost path
algorithm‟ or „shortest-path algorithm‟. In the shortest path algorithmic approach the least
cost path can be defined as the linear sum of the hops between source and destination.
Furthermore, it also involves adaptive routing which includes full adaptive and partial
adaptive algorithms because in these algorithms the link cost can be dynamically changed
due to delay, error condition or speed and so on. The shortest path algorithmic mechanism is
widely used in the routing of datagram communication networks.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
14
In performance base routing algorithms the next category involves the use of a number of
techniques to mitigate the time delay, network utilization and also use an estimated metric
between source and destination. It further evaluates the performance between source and
destination by using multiple paths.
2.5. Goals of Routing Protocols
[Tanenbaum], suggested that the following properties in relation to routing algorithms need
to be taken into consideration in order to reach a solution to the routing problem:,
Correctness: The property states that an algorithm should be able to accommodate itself
within topological variation and network problematic conditions. The algorithm should
also be able to find the optimal path in any circumstances for the network.
Simplicity: The property states that an algorithm needs to be simple, efficient and easy
to implement.
Robustness: It is crucial that the network should have the capability to work in a
situation like node failure, path congestion, like failure and so forth.
Stability: The property states that after specified runs of the time-frame window an
algorithm needs to be in a stable position.
Fairness: The property states that for the delivery of a packet, the packet delivery time
schedule must be followed.
Optimality: The property states that an optimal path should be found from a source to
destination. The optimal path depends on the network parameter. It is not compulsory
that an optimal must always be the shortest path, for instance a longest path can be
considered an optimal path because of less buffer delay for example.
Scalability: The property states that an algorithm needs to be capable of improving and
giving its best performance as the network resources expand and traffic grows.
In the commuter network literature the routing algorithm can also be classified into non-
adaptive routing and distributive adaptive routing.
We further categorise the routing algorithm into two main groups, which are stated as,
There are a number of routing algorithms which exist in the network routing domain but our
research focuses on the set of conventional routing algorithms and an advance self-adjusting
Q- learning routing algorithm and routing algorithm.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
15
2.6. Conventional Routing Protocols
2.6.1. Adaptive Routing Protocols
In today‟s global computer networks two routing algorithms are used, the shortest path and
distance vector. These algorithms provide the foundation for many routing protocols which
are deployed on the internet today. The routing information protocol (RIP) and interior
gateway routing protocol (IGRP) are built upon the distance vector algorithm‟s updated
version. OSPF are built on the basis of the shortest path algorithm while EIGRP is the basis
of the on dual routing algorithm. BGP is also based on path vector algorithm which is an
improved version of distance vector algorithm.
2.6.2. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
The Open shortest path first (OSPF) is a link state routing protocol. The protocol was
developed on the basis of Dijikstra shortest path first algorithm. The link state routing
strategy is also used in the IS-IS routing protocol. In the link-state base routing each
network node develops its own map of network topology.
OSPF is an intra-domain routing protocol and operates inside a single autonomous system
and is the most dominant interior gateway protocol and is largely used in large
organizational networks. OSPF is compatible with the variable link subnet mask VLSM and
CIDR IP-subnet addressing mechanism.
The core concept in OSPF is that every network node has knowledge of the whole network
topology.
OSPF Areas
OSPF divides the network routing domain into several areas and the initial area is called
Area 0. A backbone is required when a packet is forwarded into another routing area.
OSPF Network Classes
The OSPF routing protocol divides the network into a number of classes such as non-
broadcast multi-access, multi-access, point to point and so on.
OSPF Timers
OSPF uses a number of timers, for instance if links are down for less than 30 seconds and
then recovered again so in this case it is not noticed. When a link goes down for half or less
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
16
than half an hour, then in this case OSPF floods LSA for both events including both the up
and down status of a link.
The advantages and disadvantages are described as follows:
1. Advantages
• Performs fast convergence.
• Provides loop free routing paths.
• It is scalable and does not restrict network to hop counts limits.
• Updates occur every 30 seconds and there are no other updates.
• OSPF sends hello packets for the purpose of checking the status of the link and does
not send a full routing table.
2. Drawbacks
• OSPF is very expensive in terms of memory and computational power.
2.6.1.1. Shortest Path Routing Algorithm
There are a number of algorithms in the network literature for finding the shortest path
algorithm, but our study will only focus on the Dijiksta algorithm in this shortest path
algorithm domain. Let s is source and u is the destination, and the shortest path from s to u
can be described as,
Figure 2.2: shortest path finding mechanism
1. Dijikstara Algorithm
The Dijaskrta algorithm in the literature is also termed as the shortest path or Greedy
Algorithm. It is the most accepted algorithm because of its enormous use in today‟s internet
and because of its simplicity and ease of use. In terms of its route computation it uses cost
metric. The cost metric differs as it can be computed by a number of distinct metrics such as
delay, bandwidth, data rate and financial cost and so forth. The route optimization is the
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
17
core functionality of the Dijikstar algorithm. It optimises the routing to an optimal path by
performing computation at each node of network. [Firat]
Furthermore, a known limitation of the Dijikstara algorithm is that it selects an optimal path
irrespective of the future network needs such as congestion on a path or link failure and it is
obvious that current global networks are dynamic and distributive in nature. For example, if
there is a queue of packets at of the middle network node buffer, and as a result the packets
are delayed for a particular destination, in this situation it would be better to go for an
alternative path but there is no guarantee that an alternative path would be the shortest and
as a result it can achieve the shortest time delivery but not the shortest path. [F. Tekiner
et al].
Graphical Representation of Dijikstra Algorithm
The Dijikstra algorithm can be graphically represented as; in the networks each node
computes its routes to other connected nodes. The scenario is represented with a diagram
where each node is considered as an edge and link as a vertex, a vertex connecting two
edges. In relation to the cost of the vertices it is taken as non-negative.
Let us consider that V is the set of all edges in the digraph, the array of the cost metrics of
the vertices is c[s, w], and the array to least cost path for any node is D[w] which is to be
computed. In the first step, the value for the shortest path to any edges in the digraph can be
assumed as infinity i.e. D[w] =∞. Furthermore, let us consider that there are no edges in the
digraph and every edge s starts its computation for the shortest path cost D[w] to connect to
other neighbour w ∈ (V-s), with a minimal c[s, w] value. Next, it computes the routes for
the other edges v ϵ (V-s-w), and is a neighbour of w, consequently the resultant equation
becomes:
D[v]= min(D[v], D[w]+c[w, v])
Where c[w, v] is the vertices cost metric connected to w, the relaxing nodes process is
continued until all the digraph edges are visited. On completion of the process all the edges
have the shortest path to each other node in the network.
Furthermore, to make sure not to recalculate the path for visited nodes, for this purpose
these edges are marked to mitigate the chance of recalculation of the path. In case there is
an e number and n number of vertices in the digraph the computational complexity for the
Dijikstra shortest path algorithm is:
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
18
O(e log N), and N is the number of Nodes. [Firat][F. Tekiner et al].
Dijikstra Algorithm Pseudo-code
Merin stated the Pseudo-code for Dijikstra algorithm is: which are quoted as “
Procedure Dijsktra (V: set of vertices 1... n {Vertex 1 is the source}
Adj[1…n] of adjacency lists;
EdgeCost(u, w): edge – cost functions;)
Var: sDist[1…n] of path costs from source (vertex 1); {sDist[j] will be equal to
the length of the shortest path to j}
Begin:
Initialize
{Create a virtual set Frontier to store i where sDist[i] is already fully solved}
Create empty Priority Queue New Frontier;
sDist[1]←0; {The distance to the source is zero}
forall vertices w in V – {1} do {no edges have been explored yet}
sDist[w]←∞
end for;
Fill New Frontier with vertices w in V organized by priorities sDist[w];
End Initialize;
repeat
v←DeleteMin{New Frontier}; {v is the new closest; sDist[v] is already correct}
for all of the neighbors w in Adj[v] do
if sDist[w]>sDist[v] +EdgeCost(v,w) then
sDist[w]←sDist[v] +EdgeCost(v,w)
update w in New Frontier {with new priority sDist[w]}
endif (end of?)
endfor (one word or two?)
until New Frontier is empty”. [Merin].
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
19
2.6.1.2. Related Algorithm
1. A* Algorithm
A star is an algorithm from a graph tree class and it computes the path from a source node to
a destination node and for the computation of a path it uses a heuristics estimate h(x). It
computes the best path to a given node on the basis of these estimates. It visits every node to
find the best path to fulfil the heurists estimate criteria.
2. Prime Algorithm
A prime algorithm is also termed a DJP algorithm. I, it computes the minimum shortest path
in a connected weighted graph. It works on the concept of searching for subset edges that to
make a tree in order to minimize total weighted edges in the tree. [Merin]
2.7. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)
EIGRP is an interior gateway routing protocol and was developed by Cisco. The EIGRP
protocol is built on the basis of a Diffusion Update Algorithm (DUAL). EIGRP does
optimization in terms of topological changes, computational power and memory
consumption.
EIGRP Tables
Neighbours Table: In this table it stores the routing information associated with their close
neighbours interface.
Advantages
i. Provides a fast convergence mechanism
ii. Guaranteed loop-free routing path
Diffusion Update Algorithm (DUAL)
J.J.Garcia Luna Aceves developed the DUAL algorithm at the Stanford Research Institute.
The DUAL algorithm has the capability to respond dynamically to topological changes and
automatically adjust the routing table entries on each individual router. The DUAL
algorithm performs diffusion computation and guarantee loop free routing.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
20
2.7.1. Link-state-based Routing
The link state routing algorithm is the replacement of the distance vector routing algorithm
in the early 1970‟s by ARPANET. Distance vector routing has suffered from two major
problems which are delays and count-to-infinity problems. Today, a number of variants of
the link state routing algorithm are widely deployed in internetworks.
Tenanbuam describes central points and the philosophy of the link state algorithm as,
First, LS algorithms discover the location of the neighbour node and like to learn their
address.
Second, calculate the cost or delay to each of its neighbours.
Third, to build a packet and inform the other neighbours what it has learned.
Fourth, distribute the packet to all other neighbour routers.
Fifth, calculate the shortest path to each neighbour.
ink state routing algorithm works on a mechanism, a router or node advertising its local
links to its neighbour unlike the distance vector algorithm‟s incremental distance
computation.
Furthermore, the link state algorithm uses a topological database. It is also termed as a
routing table. The topological database is the core source for network mapping; it further
forms a graph of the interconnected networks. In the graph each node and its interconnected
link is represented in the network. In the network each node retains and tallies its routing
table entries with the neighbour router, and attached links.[Firat]
It uses Dijikstra Shortest path algorithm for the least cost path computation, and looks after
the routing table or topological database. In regards to LSA exchanges it uses a static
algorithm called flooding; it sends the incoming packets to each outgoing link except its
own link. The known disadvantage of the conventional flooding algorithm is the duplication
of packets; an alternative technique for more practical flooding is also used and is called
„selective flooding‟. [Tenanbuam].
Link-state Routing Protocols Pseudo-code
Firtat et al (No reference?) describes the pseudo-code for the link state algorithm which is
quoted as,
Set Dij to infinity for all j not equal to i
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
21
Loop N
Find the node K not in N for which Dik is smallest
Add K to N
For each j not in N
If Dik + Dkj < Dij then
Set Dij to Dik+ Dkj
Set next_hop(i,j) to next_hop(i,k) concattensted with link from k to j
2.8. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) or Path Vector- based Routing
The Path vector routing algorithm was the replacement for the previous DARPANET
distance vector algorithm. The core reasons for the development of the path vector
algorithm were to use the vector to eradicate the problem of the loop unlike the distance
vector algorithm. It belongs to a class of inter-domain routing algorithms, in relation to
routing p; the border gateway protocol (BGP) is built on the base over path vector routing
algorithm.
In BGP the best-path algorithm always received a multiple number of paths to the same
destination, then further the best-path algorithm making decision on which path must be
installed in the routing table.
Path vector algorithm mechanics
Firstly, of all BGP choose the valid path as is the best path and then further compare it with
the path that comes first in the list and continue until the valid path is finished.
Next it follows the rules stated for the election of best path, which are the following:
Rule 1: Pick the path with the highest weight
Rule 2: Choose the path with the highest local preference LOCAL_PREF
Rule 3: Preference will be given to the path that was locally originated via a network
Rule 4: Preference would be given to the path which has the shortest autonomous path
AS_PATH
Rule 5: Preference would be given to the shortest path which has the lowest origin type
Rule 6: Preference would be given to the path which has the lowest multi-exit discriminator
(MED)
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
22
Rule 7: Preference would be given to eBGP over iBGP paths
Rule 8: Preference would be given to the path which has the lowest BGP metric to the
subsequent BGP hop.
Rule 9: In case of multi-path make certain that if is there is any need for installation in the
IP routing table for multiple paths.
Rule 10: In a case where if both are external paths then preference would be given to the
path which came first in the order.
Rule 11: Preference will be given to the path which comes from the BGP router and has the
lowest router ID.
Rule 12: In the case where the router ID is similar for multi-path, then preference will be
given to the path which has a minimum cluster list length.
Rule 13: Preference would be given to the path which has a lowest neighbour address.
BGP beast Path selection routing algorithm flow chart representation:
Limitation of Path Vector Routing Problem
Analysis and measurement showed that a packet forwarding loop exists in the inter-domain
routing. But the exact reason behind the looping problem has not yet been discovered
because of the size and convolution of the internet. Paxion performed a number of end-to-
end trace-route experiments in 1994 and 1995 and found that a transient loops exists in the
internet.
2.9. Advance Routing Approaches
2.9.1. Self-Adjusting Routing Protocols
The core disadvantage of a conventional routing algorithm is that of human intervention or
algorithm designer supervision in the case of some unusual event or occurrence in the
operation of an algorithm such as failure or link congestion and so forth and consequently,
these algorithms are not able to adjust dynamically.
Moreover, the conventional routing algorithm has a lack of intelligence and it needs human
help and supervision for adjustment in problematic conditions and network topological
changes.
The problems of routing have been studied in the research domain for a long time. The
routing problem comes within the scope of the NP-complete problem. The problem is very
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
23
similar to sale-man route optimization problem. The need for an intelligence routing
algorithm to adapt and adjust changes dynamically is introduced. With this approach not
only does it boost the performance presentation of an algorithm it also improves the
adaptability for associated changes in the network.
With an advance learning routing approach the algorithm can automatically adopt and
maintain its performance for an event which is not described by the algorithm designer. This
routing learning base algorithm is more appropriate for a communication network where
topological variances are unforeseen and unpredictable. Nevertheless, the introduction of
this sort of algorithm involves a couple of constraints such as, more time is needed for
learning and also in terms of memory storage.
2.9.1.1. Reinforcement Learning Routing Protocols
Reinforcement learning (RL) is a form of learning in which we interact with an environment
by carrying out some action and as a result learn from that action. In this regard it is the
opposite of the traditional teaching method. Furthermore, RL is a form of learning where an
agent undertakes trial and error and trail interaction in a dynamic environment. Although,
RL is an old field but it has attracted much attention in the last decade from machine
learning and the artificial intelligence domain.
The central concept of RL is the methodology of an agent reward and punishment approach.
There is no pre-information stored for an agent, but it learns an input from interaction with
the environment and after processing the input data it returns the output to the environment.
As a result the state of the environment is updated. There is a possibility that an agent may
take further action, but this is totally dependent upon the input. The aforesaid methodology
is very useful in a situation where there is no supervised learning for an agent.
The RL mechanism would not be called an algorithm or protocol but in reality this is a very
powerful initiative for the solution of some particular class of problems. The RL
methodology can be further divided into two main streams of mechanisms i.e. a genetic
algorithm and genetic programming, and statistical techniques and dynamic programming.
[David Kelley].
In addition, a reinforcement learning base routing algorithm does not require the pre-
knowledge of the network topology and network traffic pattern and is even capable of
working out the best routing policy without the need for any centralised routing control
system. [Michael Littman et al].
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
24
However, the approach of reinforcement learning can be very highly-priced in terms of
space and storage but there are different variants of reinforcement learning algorithms
available. The one that we are selecting is the Q-learning algorithm and, in terms of space, it
requires a little bit more space for the representation of a full routing policy. [Michael
Littman et al].
2.9.1.1.1. Q- Routing Protocols
The Q-learning is a mechanism of solving a problem on the basis of the reinforcement
learning philosophy; it is used for the solution of the problem which involves a poly-
hierarchy of decisions. Q-learning can also be called an incremental edition of dynamic
programming for the aforesaid problem.
In relation to an adaptive routing problem, the Q-learning mechanism working in a model
base make-up and the routing organizer does not have pre-knowledge of the topology in this
type of environment. Meanwhile the routing organiser has the priority to minimise the
average packet delivery timeframe and particularly in the case of a dynamic environment
where changes always occur it is extremely difficult to work out an optimal routing policy.
In Q-routing each individual in the network is a configured Q-routing algorithm mechanism.
Q-Routing Protocols Mechanics
The core steps of algorithm are quoted from David Kelly‟s research paper, and are as
follows:
Step 1: Initialization with 0‟s or random values
Q(s,a) for all s S and for all a A(s)
Step 2: Reiterate for each occurrence
Step 3: Initialise
Step 4: Reiterate for each step occurrence
Step 5: Choose a from s using a policy derived from Q
Step 6: Take action a, observe resultant state s‟ and the reward r
Step 7: Q(s,a) Q(s,a) + [r + maxa‟Q(s‟,a‟)- Q(s,a)]
Step 8: s s‟; Until s is terminal.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
25
2.9.1.2. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) Routing Approach
Three are numerous insects living on the surface of the earth and one of them is the ant
family. Ant species‟ categories are numbered at 9000. These ants have unique intelligence
and smart characteristics which enable them to live in large groups in vast numbers, and
they can literally be found everywhere across the globe. An Ant Colony Optimization
Algorithm (ACO) is an algorithmic technique through which we can work out the reduced
path in the graphs.
In the recent past, the ant‟s model of organization and its associated interaction with the
environment were researched and computer scientist and engineers. The focus of attention
was the ant‟s unique features, such as their distributed control mechanism, fault tolerance
approach, environment base interactive communication, individual level automaticity, and
self-organization, strategies for collectivism and cooperation and the emergence complex
behaviours, and a set of unique skills at each individual ant level. The aforesaid features of
the ant societies make them an inspiration for a new multi-agent system and a way forward
for the developments of new algorithms. [Gianni Di Caro]
2.9.2.1.1. Ant-Net Adaptive Routing Protocol
The protocol is useful for situation where there are simultaneous changes occurring in the
network topology such as in the internet. The Ant-Net is an adaptive routing algorithm and
is based on the ant colony optimization techniques. The Ant-Net algorithm uses the concept
of stigmergy. While stigmergy is a communication mechanism where communication is
taking place between the individuals and the local environment it is also being modified
during the communication timeframe. To find the shortest path real ants make their routing
policy and decisions on the basis of local information which in this case is the pheromone
path dropped by the ants which has already passed through the same path.
Ant Net Protocol Mechanics
The Ant-Net uses two same groups of mobile artificial agents, which are forward and
backward.
Step 1: A forward agent is issued at regular intervals from source node S and a destination
node D is picked at arbitrary way, and the destination node fully meets the quality
requirements of the traffic pattern.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
26
Step 2: The forward and select function-making decisions on the basis of information
available in the routing table, and the selection of a node is based on the associated
probability, decency, and in the case where if all neighbours are visited then a random
uniform approach is followed for the selection of the next hop neighbour and is irrespective
of the local queue.
Step 3: In a situation where a link is not accessible, then forward waits in a local queue and
is served on the basis of FIFO. [BX16]
Summary:
In this chapter we discussed both conventional and advance routing protocols in terms of IP-
datagram routing protocols. In next chapter we will discuss routing protocols in terms of
wireless Ad-hoc and sensor network in details.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
27
Chapter 3
Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad-Hoc and Sensor Network
3.1. Introduction
The chapter presents wireless ad-hoc and sensor routing protocols in detail. Study involves
both conventional and advance routing algorithm. Our study will focus on routing
mechanisms and different strategies.
3.2. Classification of Wireless Network
Data communication networks are rapidly evolving. In the past decade the wireless network
has begun to reach its peak point because of its consistent usage in several applications, and
products. Peter et al further classify the evolving network into four categories which are,
peer-to-peer, mobile Ad-hoc and wireless sensor network.
Wireless Ad Hoc Network
The ad-hoc networks fulfil both definitions, because they can be prepared from resources
which are currently available and are structured according to the need of each specific user.
Ad-hoc networks are also called „mesh networks‟ for the reason that the structure of the
network is organised in a manner designed to discover a pathway for a data to be routed
from source to expected destination.
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANET)
MANET can be considered a type of Ad Hoc wireless network. This MANET type of
network does self-configuration of mobile routers and the related hosts with their connected
links. As a result, it makes an arbitrary topology, and the routers are fully independent at
times and accommodate themselves in an arbitrary environment where the wireless network
topology is rapidly and unpredictably changing.
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)
WSN is a collection of small sensor nodes which are dispersed in a large geographical area
for the purpose of monitoring and recording real world physical events and the nodes send
collected data consistently to their central base station. Nowadays, this is widely used for
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
28
measuring environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, pressure, air speed and
many more.
Mobile Wireless Sensor Network
It is a version of the wireless sensor network and the nodes in this sort of network are
mobile.
Ad-Hoc Wireless Sensor Network
It is a version of wireless sensor network in which the nodes can organise themselves
automatically when any change occurs in the topology.
Peer-to-Peer Network
A type of computer network having no consideration of clients and server and the same
equal nodes can function both as server and client. [CX2].
The above listed networks types and their interconnection with other networks is
diagrammatically represented below:
Figure 3.1. Block diagram of wireless network classification
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
29
3.3. Conventional Routing Algorithm in Ad-Hoc Network
Wireless Routing protocols can be classified in a number of ways, such as, node centric,
geocentric, data-centric, and QoS routing protocols. They can also be classified as reactive
or proactive. [CX10]
Wireless ad-hoc network protocols consist of two main classes which are „wireless sensor‟
and „Mobile Ad-Hoc Network‟ (MANET). In wireless networking the routing can be node-
centric. The argument is that the destination is investigated by calculating the number of
nodes. It is also important to note that communication in a wireless sensor network is not
always node-centric. The wireless sensor network is found to be more geo-centric or data-
centric. [CX10]
Furthermore, we are investigating distinct routing protocols which are related to wireless
networks as a whole. Below is a chart representation of traditional ad-hoc and WSNs
routing protocols.
Figure 3.2. Ad-hoc routing protocols classification chart
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
30
3.3.1. Optimal Spine Routing (OSR) Algorithm
3.3.1.1. Introduction
The spine based routing algorithm was developed to minimise the overheads involved with
the shortest path routing algorithm and non-optimal routes computation in an on-demand
routing algorithm.
OSR is a spine-based routing algorithm and it stores global routing information in spinal
nodes and computes the shortest path between any two nodes. When a link comes alive an
add wave is generated while when a link comes off, as a result a delete wave is propagated.
The add wave effect is propagated but involves a slight delay while a delete wave is
propagated without delay. When a delete wave is in process and at the same time an add
wave is generated automatically so they cancel each other out and their effect is not
propagated. Consequently, the joint effect of add and delete waves ensures only stable
information is passed to spinal nodes. The OSR can be classified as the minimum weight
path routing algorithm. [CX24]
3.3.1.2. OSR Detail
To find an optimal path OSR use a spine (virtual backbone) and the routes are kept up-to-
date using query requests to sources. However, due to high overhead OSR is not a practical
solution to the problem of routing.
The topology is represented using undirected graphs G= (V,E), in conjunction with m edges
and n nodes where V represents hosts in an ad-hoc network and E represents the wireless
radio transmission range between the hosts. When changes occur in the topology, the
changes are associated with either V or E. Topological changes occur usually when a node
is inserted, deleted, or when an edge is inserted or deleted. A node can move from one part
of G to another part of G.
OSR collects global topological information on the spine graph G and the information is
passed to all spine nodes which further trigger the computation of the shortest path which is
based on the local knowledge of the spine graph G. Typically, the path is computed by
means of spine nodes which do not go across the spine. In OSR the spine is constructed
using an approximation algorithm called a minimum connection domination set (MCDS),
while MCDS findings path comes under NP-Complete problem. The MCDS algorithm we
are using for spine construction is distributive in nature. There is a possibility that MCDS
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
31
nodes can be unknowingly the interior nodes of a maximum leaf spanning tree. Spine can be
considered as the interior nodes of the tree.[CX24]
For instance, OSR single node movements using MCDS are calculates as,
Figure 3.3. OSR single node movements
The figure shows that the MCDS algorithm computes that nodes 3 and 6 are in the minimal
domination set (MDS) and a further MST connects to node 5 to sub-graph C. Further, we
assume that nodes know their id and their neighbours id, connect edges and the degree
involves.[CX24]
3.3.1.3. Generic key phases involves in any spine base routing algorithm
Phase 1-Spine Construction
The whole network consists of a single spine which is computed on the basis of global
topological latest information or maybe partial information.
Phase 2 -Aggregation of states into spine nodes
The aggregation consists of two steps, first non-spine nodes aggregated to their relevant
denominators and secondly, spine nodes aggregated with other spine nodes in the spine.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
32
Phase 3 -Route Discovery
Route discovery can be performed in three ways, first fully localised information, second,
use a probe based technique and third a combination of both stated techniques.
Phase 4 -State Maintenance
Sate maintenance is consist of two steps, first, maintenance can be done by means of even
based updates , second, maintenance can be done by means of periodic updates. [CX24]
3.3.1.4. OSR Routing Algorithm Mechanics
First calculate the spine C, where C⊆ V.
Second, collect information from non-spine nodes and pass it to spine nodes.
Third, broadcast the resulting topology to all spine nodes.
Fourth, compute the shortest path by using global topology information received in step
three.
Fifth, all the sources receive latest routes updates.
Sixth, an event-related update is broadcast for the purpose of performing maintenance in a
situation like node insertion or deletion.
Seventh, periodic updates are broadcast to make sure that the topology has the latest
information available.[CX24]
3.3.1.5. Core Issues with Spine-Based Routing
• Spine maintenance (at global level)
The spine maintenance issue determines how the spine is constructed and how the spine can
be maintained during spine nodes movements or during mobility
• State level maintenance (at node level)
State level maintenance determines what information is collected form the whole domain
and what information is broadcast to spine nodes.
• Route Discovery
Route discovery determines that the discovery of routes involves only local information or
that/if it is probe-based. [CX 24]
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
33
3.3.1.6. Uses of spine
1. To track changes in the topology and compute the routes
2. To offer short-term back up to fault-tolerant routes
3. To offer multi-cast backbone for multi-cast routes
3.3.1.7. Spine- Based Routing Algorithm are Classification
Figure 3.4. Classification of spinal routing algorithm
3.3.2. Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP)
WRP is uni-cast routing protocol for the Mobile Ad-Hoc NETwork (MANET). The WRP
protocol belongs to a group of routing table-based protocols. It holds and maintains whole
network link information in the routing table. It is a proactive protocol and belongs to a
class of path finding algorithm. In relation to nodes existence, the nodes learn about their
neighbour by means of acknowledgment receipt and some other messages. In a situation
where no messages have been padded so in this scenario the nodes are required to send at
least „Hello‟ messages in an episodic manner for the purpose of ensuring network
connectivity.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
34
3.3.3. Global State Routing (GSR) Protocol
Global state routing (GSR) is a based on a proactive, steady and topological precise routing
mechanism. It works on the mechanics of link state algorithms in which each neighbour
passes their routing table update, whenever changes happen in the network topology.
Furthermore, each adjacent network nodes episodically send the complete routing table to
their closest neighbour. The link state topological table consists of most recent local node
connectivity updates and also its contemporary link state up-to-date information about the
full complete network topology. In terms of destination table entry, an entry is checked
according to sequence number. When a received sequence number is greater than the current
the entry is updated in the destination topological table. And for the shortest path algorithm
to determine a shortest path for each entry in the routing table and further, it depends upon
the topological table information and to perform this task a shortest path algorithm called
Dijikstra, is selected.
To narrow our research further we would particularly focus on the wireless sensor network
in more detail;
3.4. Wireless Sensor Network
A wireless senor network is the latest and fastest growing technology and is expected to
revolutionise a wide range of applications in terms of its quality and availability in the near
future. The technology has arrived because of the huge advancements over the past decades,
particularly in the field of embedded microprocessors, MEMS sensor and wireless
communication [CX9].
Is a wireless computer network which can be formed in a large span of space , having
distributed autonomous devices which consist of sensors so as to monitor the physical
environmental condition, meaning pressure, temperature, motion and so forth at a remote
location. Furthermore, according to ad-hoc network classification, WSNs can be called
infrastructure-less networks. [ K. E. Kannammal et al]
A wireless sensor network is a group of network nodes which collaborate with each other in
a sophisticated fashion. In WSNs each node has its own sort of „poly sort of memory‟, such
as data and flash memories, program; and it also accommodates devices, for instance a
microcontroller, CPU or DSP chips. It also consists of an RF transceiver and this typically
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
35
involves a single –Omni-direction. Moreover, nodes in WSNs have their own power source
such as batteries and solar cells and they also host a number of sensors and accumulators.
Today, a modern wireless sensor network can be expanded to large geographical areas via
cheap sensor devices which can sustain themselves with very a low power usage. The
networking capability enables these sensor nodes to incorporate, collaborate and coordinate
with each other and this is a fundamental shift in the field of networks which differentiates
sensor network nodes form other networks. It is expected that in the twenty-first century our
lives will be more impacted by the advances in wireless sensor network technology because
of the elegant work which has been done particularly in the field of sensing,
microelectronics, digital signal processing, analog, and wireless sensor wireless technology
by researchers in recent years.
The adoption of a different design paradigm followed by wireless senor network makes it
different from the conventional network paradigm such as the internet. The wireless sensor
network is application specific; hence it is designed and deployed for a particular rationale.
[F. Akyildiz]
The network architecture of a wireless sensor network is broadly divided into two types of
single-hop and multi-hop architecture.
3.4.1. Network Characteristics, Design Objectives
It is obvious that due to the non-infrastructure nature of WSNs and their application
specification has a huge impact on the network characteristics, design and performance.
3.4.1.1. Network Characteristics
WSNs have a different set of characteristics in comparison with conventional wireless
communication networks such as MANET, cellular, and so on, and these are listed as,
• Dense sensor node deployment
In WSNs the nodes are densely deployed and in terms of levels of magnitude, are far higher
than those of MANET and others.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
36
• Battery-powered sensor nodes
The WSNs‟ nodes or motes are deployed in a non-friendly environment where there is no
possibility for recharging or replacement of battery
• Severe energy, computation, and storage constraints
In WSNs there is a limited amount of energy, computation and storage available because of
the size and capability of sensor motes
• Self-configurable
The sensor motes deployed in the field are mostly on a random basis and these sensor motes
have the capability to configure themselves dynamically whenever connected to a sensor
network.
• Unreliable Sensor Nodes
The WSNs motes are highly vulnerable to error and fault, because of their deployment in a
harsh or non-friendly environment
• Data Redundancy
The sensor motes are deployed in a specific area for a particular sensing task, so at the same
time multiple sensor motes are sensing data from the same area or region and as a result
there are appointed tolerable levels of redundancy
• Application Specific
WSNs motes are widely deployed for a particular application and the network design
specification is altered with an expected application.
• Many-to-one traffic pattern
In a typical sensor network application many source nodes transmitting data to a sink node
and the resultant data traffic represents a many-to-one traffic pattern.• Frequent Topology
Change
The sensor network topology is rapidly changing because of number issues such as channel
fading, node failure and damage, addition, and energy depletion.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
37
3.4.2. Network Design Objectives
WSNs are conventionally application specific and the design objectives of the network
change from an appellation to application and therefore the subsequent objectives need to be
chosen for WSNs design,
•Small node size
WSNs networks nodes are usually deployed in a non-friendly environment and the size
minimization can give us advantages, such as node cost reduction, and easy deployment,
and less power consumption.
• Low node cast
It is crucial to keep the cost of the overall network as low as possible and the nodes in
WSNs are not reusable because they are deployed in a hostile environment where access to
a sensor field is not possible
• Low Energy Consumption
In WSNs it is important to reduce per node energy consumption for the purpose of
extending the life of nodes and the overall sensor network; due to the nature of network
deployment it is not easy to recharge or replace the battery
• Reliability
It is important that the network protocol should be able to present data integrity and error
correction methodology, and reliable data transmission on an error-susceptible, and time-
altering wireless channels• Self-configurability
It is crucial that WSNs can automatically configure themselves in the event of node failure
or damage, and receive topological updates that preserve a proper connectivity
• Adaptability
WSNs are highly susceptible to node failure or in the case of joining and moving would
result in topology changes and so the routing protocol should be capable of successfully
dealing with the aforementioned situation
• Channel utilization
It is crucial that the routing protocols should be capable of utilizing the bandwidth in a most
cost-effective way because the resources in WSNs are limited so as to achieve better
utilization of a channel.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
38
• Fault Tolerance
WSNs are typically installed in a hostile environment in an unattended way and are highly
susceptible to error and failure, so it is crucial that sensor nodes should be capable of having
auto-configuration, auto-recovery, auto-repairing, auto-testing and auto-calibrating
• Security
In WSNs it is crucial to have security procedures to secure data from any authorised attacks
and ensure the integrity of the data in a node or network
• QoS Support
In WSNs the quality of the service depends on the application used and each specific
application has its own set of QOS requirements such as packet loss and delivery latency so
it is crucial that the communication protocol should keep these requirements under
consideration for each particular application.
3.4.3. WSNs Network Design Challenges
The design of the WSNs‟ routing protocols is a painstaking job due to the nature of the
network because of the counted resources and as a result WSNs are faced with a number of
constraints, such as energy consumption, CPU, bandwidth, and memory storage. The
challenges are as follows,
• Limited energy capacity
The WSNs‟ mote consists of small battery which has limited energy capacity. In an
environment which is unfriendly or hostile battery power sustenance is a serious challenge
and gaining access to sensor motes is almost impossible. When a sensor node reaches a
specific threshold value it considers the sensor motes faulty. Ultimately these motes have an
impact on the overall efficiency of the sensor network. Consequently, it is vital that routing
protocol must have intelligence to improve the overall life span and performance of the
sensor network.
• Sensor location
Sensor location management is also a known issue in the designing of routing protocols.
Modern routing protocols usually use the global positioning system (GPS) for location
learning or alternatively using some other location learning mechanism
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
39
• Limited hardware resources
WSNs have limited hardware resources such as computational processing power, memory
and energy capacity and due to these resource constraints software development and the
designing of routing protocol for WSNs becomes a difficult task
• Massive and random node deployment
WSNs nodes are typically deployed in a random fashion in large numbers in an unfriendly
environment and rely on application; furthermore it also has an impact on the routing
protocols‟ performance and overall functionality. The sensor nodes are usually dropped over
an enemy territory on a large scale and if the sensor nodes are not operating in a consistent
manner then clustering of sensor s nodes is a viable option for the purpose of saving energy
and improving the performance of overall WSNs.
• Network characteristics and unreliable environment
The WSN is consistently prone to topology changes because it is highly susceptible to node
failure, node damage, energy depletion, link failure, node addition, deletion and so on. In
addition it is also vulnerable to noise, time-inconsistency and errors. Consequently, in order
to find an optimal path it is crucial that a network-routing protocol is capable of maintaining
the topological changes and increasing the size of the network, and energy consumption
level, sensor nodes mobility and their related issues such as connectivity and coverage and
application specific requirements.
• Data Aggregation
In WSNs the redundancy of the data packets is a major concern. Therefore, it is crucial that
the same packets generated from a number of nodes can be aggregated for the sake of
downplaying the extra overhead of transmission traffic. Today a number of routing
protocols use data aggregation techniques to optimise the level of transmission and also to
improve the energy efficiency.
• Diverse sensing application requirements
WSNs are used for an unlimited number of applications and each individual application has
its own specification and constraints. Currently, there is no such routing protocol which can
fully qualify or work for every application but the task of a routing protocol is to compute
an optimal path and forward data as well as ensure the accuracy to the sink node.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
40
• Scalability
In WSNs scalability is crucial because the network size may rapidly grow so the network
routing protocol needs to be able to work consistently where there is no proper
infrastructure, limited sensor nodes energy resources, nodes failure or damage, unreliable
wireless link, energy depletion and so on. Furthermore, there may be a situation where
communication is asymmetric and symmetric is not possible so it is important to keep these
factors in mind when designing the routing protocol.
3.5. Routing
A wireless sensor network (WSNs) is built up from a number of small sensor network nodes
and they are connected to each other via a wireless link which does not require a fixed
network infrastructure. In regard to the nodes structure of WSNs nodes structure it has a
short transmission range, small processing power and storage capacity and also has
inadequate energy resources. WSNs routing protocols have a crucial responsibility to
ensure there is a reliable, multi-hop communication between the nodes. WSN‟s require
sophisticated routing algorithms because energy is the core issue in these networks and low
power wireless devices are necessary to ensure that there is a low consumption of
energy.[CX10]
3.5.1. Routing in Wireless Sensor Network
Initially topology-based routing techniques were used in the wireless network. In the past a
number of proposals were based on a proactive routing mechanism that used to collect
information about all the available network paths, although those paths links were certainly
not used. Furthermore, in dynamics network topologies proactive routing does not
accommodate itself properly. An alternative technique was developed called „reactive
routing‟ which only keeps those paths which are presently in use. Recently, location aware
routing is introduced in which protocols know the physical location. Furthermore, a number
of geographic- or position-based routings are also proposed. Information about physical
location is required in advance; it can be taken from GPS or on the basis of a distance
estimation of incoming signals. Geographic routing and topology-based routing also address
the centric routing algorithm. There is another class of routing algorithm called data-centric
and it is an important routing paradigm for the wireless senor network. The data-centric
algorithm uses queries for the routing operation and the queries are written out by the sink
node in order to acquire the requested data.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
41
Moreover, the routing algorithm in a wireless sensor network can also be classified
according to the usage of messages. A single path routing mechanism is used when there is
merely one instance of a message existing in the network at any given time. There are some
more routing algorithm techniques for WSNs such as partial flooding and multiplexing. In
addition to single path, a multi-path, partial, flooding-based routing strategy there is a
mechanism which is called the „guaranteed delivery routing algorithmic technique‟. The
routing algorithm can also be classified according to the nodes requirements for the
management of ongoing tasks in the state information and in the literature it is known as
memorization.[CX10]
Furthermore, WSN‟s routing algorithm is broadly divided into three main classes which are
flat routing, hierarchal routing and location-based routing.[ Emmanuel Sifakis]
The algorithm used for the wireless senor network is mostly borrowed from the Ad-Hoc
network. In the early days of the wireless sensor network a number of routing protocols
were taken from the wireless ad-hoc networks and mobile wireless networks. It is evident
that these protocols were built for a general wireless network and it involves no concern for
precise communication patterns of WSNs. Hence, the developments of WSNs-oriented new
routing techniques, and the customization of existing routing protocols represent a
significant area for future research.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
42
3.5.2. Classification of Wireless Senor Network Routing Protocols
Diagrammatical classification of a routing algorithm is shown here:
Figure 3.5. Hierarchical diagram of WSNs routing protocols classification
Wireless sensor network routing protocols are completely different from conventional
wireless routing protocols because the network is more vulnerable to issues like abrupt
change network topology, sensor node failure or damage, unreliable wireless network link,
energy depletion and so on. Furthermore, the routing protocols of WSNs are obliged to
follow cost-effective and strict energy requirements in order to fulfil the needs of overall
routing.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
43
WSNs routing protocols are broadly divided into seven categories which are stated in a
tabular form as follows,
Routing Category List of Routing Protocols
Flat/ Data centric Routing Protocols Rumour, information direct, EAD,
COUGAR, ACQUIRE, Directed
Diffusion, Gradient based routing, Home
agent based Dissemination, SPIN
Hierarchical Protocols TEEN, HEED, LEACH, PEGASIS,
APTEEN
Mobility Protocols Data MULES, TTDD, SEAD, Dynamic
Tree based Data Dissemination, Joint
Mobility and Routing
Multipath Protocols Braided Multipath, N to 1 Multipath
Discovery, Sensor Disjoint Mutipath
Heterogeneity Protocols CHR, IDSQ, CADR
Quality of Service (QoS)Protocols Energy aware routing, SPEED, SAR
Geographic Routing Protocols GAF, GPSR, GEAR, energy aware
routing
Table 3.1. Seven Categories of wireless sensor routing protocols
The objective behind the development of the routing algorithm is not only to reduce
overheads, increase throughput and minimise end-to-end delay but the other important goal
is the consumption of energy usage in a wireless sensor network.[M.Hadjila and M. Feham ]
Routing is one of the significant tasks in a wireless sensor network, and for this reason a
large amount of research material is available on this topic. The routing algorithm
constructed for IP networks and MANET is not working properly in the wireless sensor
network domain in comparison with the IP network that sends packets in a wire connection
and there is a slight chance the packet could be damaged but in the wireless sensor network
it is not the same. ire-less sensor network is one of the most significant technological
advances in this century. In the past decade it received an enormous focus from academia
and the industry across the globe. [Sshio et al]. The Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is a
form of distributed wireless network. It is an amalgamation of a number of the latest
technologies, such as micro-mechanical technologies, distributed signal processing and an
embedded system, integrated microprocessor and wireless communication, ad-hoc
networks‟ routing protocols and so forth. [Shio et al.]
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
44
The wireless sensor network technology consists of self–organised nodes which are widely
deployed in environmental conditions, wireless communication, military purpose, data
processing and so forth at a very low price. Nevertheless, WSN‟s technology requires a
capable mechanism for data processing and forwarding.
The core philosophy of WSN is that each node in the network has limited power which is
sufficient for the whole proposed project, for instance a node is sensing for military
surveillance or environmental monitoring and so forth.
In WSN routing protocols find the route between nodes and ensure the consistent
communication between the nodes in the network. The nodes are deployed in an ad-hoc
structure irrespective of vigilant planning and engineering. [Shio et al].
In WNS networks the routing contradicts the approaches taken in conventional wireless
communication networks. The reason behind this is that it does not have a proper
communication infrastructure, the node link is unreliable and on top of all these issues, there
is a tight energy consumption constraint and the routing protocol needs to work under these
adverse conditions. Currently, a number of wireless routing protocols are being developed in
the wireless communication domain. The routing protocols for the wireless sensor network
can be divided into seven categories which we will now discuss.
3.5.2.1. Rumour Routing
3.5.2.1.1. Basics
Rumour routing algorithm transmits queries when an event occurs in the network and data
can be retrieved from that particular node, while the routing mechanism is independent of
geographic information or addressing scheme such as IP addressing and so on. Rumour
routing is a trade-off between flooding overhead and delivery consistency and can also be
adjusted to other parameters. Rumour routing can be used in a situation where geographic
routing is not applicable or the coordinates don‟t match.[CX25]
An event is a sort of an abstract form of information from a specific group of sensor nodes
and furthermore an event is considered to be a localised phenomenon in a precise region.
A query can be explained as being a request for information for the purpose of accumulating
data. When a query arrives at its destination the gathered data is passed to the query
originator and when the query originator is satisfied with the collected data then the shortest
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
45
path can be discovered between source and destination. [CX 25]. Rumour routing can be
useful if it fulfils a certain threshold which is shown in the graph below:
Figure 3.6. Rumour routing chart representation
Nevertheless, finding the shortest path is not a priority for some applications. The specific
application may be interested in taking a small amount of data or may be interested in doing
some more attentive sensing at some targeted nodes. So for the stated situation, flooding
each query would not be an efficient option in comparison with delivering it on a non-
optimal path. On the other hand, flooding can be more useful in a situation where a
particular application involves a smaller number of events and loads of queries.
Additionally, the cost of flooding cannot be reduced when the queries per event generate a
high amount of data.[CX25]. The query origination and query source path finding
mechanism is shown in the image as,
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
46
Figure 3.7. Query is originated and query source is looking for the path to reach to the event
3.5.1.1.2. Rumour path finding mechanism
Rumour routing use agents to find the path to an event area. On finding the path agents store
the path at nodes as a state. An event node creates agents by the allocation of a path of
length 0 to themselves. The agents are created probabilistically the reason is that many
nodes watching the same event and trying to creating path to event node which as a result
create huge overhead. The agents travelling to limited number of hops. On returning agents
amalgamate their own routing table with the event table of visited nodes. To find a path to
multiple events the agents‟ priority is to find an aggregate path to both events. [CX25]
Figure 3.8. Agents aggregating to multiple events
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
47
3.5.1.2. Related Routing Algorithm
3.5.1.2.1. Data-Centric and Flat Architecture Protocols - Flooding and Gossiping
In WSNs the flooding and gossiping are the known two approaches used for routing and it
flooding performs routing operation which does not require any particular routing algorithm
or topological adjustment. In the flooding routing mechanism broadcasting is the core
technique used. Each and every sensor node on receiving a data packet immediately
broadcasts to their neighbouring sensor nodes and the process does not stop until the packet
reaches its final destination or the data packet maximum threshold value reaches its
designated limit.
Gossiping works on a slightly different basis from its flooding counterpart. It is a modified
version of the flooding mechanism. On receiving a data packet a sensor node randomly
selects one of its neighbours and the data packet is forwarded to that neighbour only and
next the node which received data packet selects and forwards the packet to another node
and the process continues.
In relation to implementation the flooding mechanism is quite easy to implement. But at the
same time it has a number of drawbacks, such as implosion which is usually caused due to
the duplication of packets, overlap which is caused when two neighbours in the same region
send packets to the same sensor node and it is resource blind because there is no appropriate
consideration in regards to energy usage and so it guzzles a huge amount of energy. On the
other hand the gossiping mechanism mitigates the implosion problem in a random fashion to
select a neighbour‟s sensor nodes and then it forwards the packets to its neighbour.
Moreover, due to the aforementioned approach it causes a delay in the propagation of data
in the wireless senor network nodes.
3.5.1.3. Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF) Routing Protocol
The GAF is a location-based and an energy aware routing protocol, initially developed for
an ad-hoc network but it is also widely used for wireless sensor networks. In the literature it
is also coined as a position-based routing protocol.
The goal of the GAF is to provide an optimised performance to a wireless sensor network by
means of assessment of the similar nodes according to their forward packets.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
48
GAF Operations Mechanism
In GAF the network is divided into virtual grids, and to locate each node on the grids a GPS
-based information is required and nodes which are equivalent in terms of their position in
the grid and are assumed to have the same cost for packet routing. Furthermore, in order to
save energy in the case of nodes which have the same cost for packet routing some of them
are put to sleep in a specified grid. Therefore, the GAF obviously boosts the network life
span in regards to energy usage. Meanwhile, the GAF algorithm can also be assumed to be a
hierarchical routing algorithm.
In terms of nodes communication in the grid, in each particular grid a single node can be
represented as a leader which is involved in communication with the base station on behalf
of the other nodes.
Optimal Path Calculation
The GAF calculates the optimal path on the basis of residual or cost energy cost level. And
the optimal is used for the data transmission. In location-based routing the routing
information is predicted from the strength of the signal. The GAF algorithm assumes that all
nodes existing in the same grid are equal in terms of data routing cost.
Moreover, GAF divides the grid into a sub-, small, equal size grid according to the condition
of the power and radio transmitters used by the sensor.
Furthermore, the election process decides which node can remain active and which nodes
have to be turned off. The nodes which are in sleeping mode can be awakened at any time
when required to perform duties like monitoring of communication jobs such as data
delivery to base station and so on. Data aggregation is not permissible particularly when the
data passing operation is in progress between two different grids. [BX17].
Relation between Radio Range and Grid Size
Suppose R is radio ranges which cover up the entire size of a grid. And in a virtual grid let r
is the square unit size; the longest possible distance between the two adjacent grids is the
longest diagonal linking two grids. Our resultant equation becomes
r 2 + (2r)
2 ≤ R
2 --------------------------Equation 3.1
Where r ≤ R∕√5 [8]
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
49
GAF Operational States
The GAF consists of three operational states for a node inside the grid,
Discovery State
In this state GAF discovers neighbours within a grid
Active State
In this state, GAF nodes participates in the routing process
Sleep State
In this state GAF, some of the nodes which project the same cost in the grid are put into the
sleeping state. As a result the radio transceiver module of the node is turned off and an
amount of energy is conserved.
In GAF a node stays active for a time Ta and in time Ta active node in the grid broadcasting
to other correspondent nodes. The time for sleeping Ts depends on active node time Ta. And
in the discovery state each node sending packets at regular intervals Td. [CX5]
The GAF transition states and routing table are visually illustrated stated as,
GAF Pseudo-code
Step 1: Divide Grid into sub-virtual grid
Step 2 Switch to discovery mode (node?)
Step 3: Discovery of all neighbours
If (neighbour node are equivalent) then
Select single active node (leader) and put remaining nodes in sleep mode
Endif
Step 2: Perform routing operation on active nodes (leader)
Path finding (join active nodes)
If (active node fail) then
Change sleeping node to active state in the grid
Endif
Step 3: loop back to Step 1 for next grid
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
50
Step 4: connect to base station
Step 5: exit
Advantages
1. GAF conserves energy during sleeping mechanism
Disadvantages
1. Only then the active node participates in communication and ultimately this can
influence the accuracy of the data.
2. GAF depends on information from GPS which can limit their functionality where
GPS is not available
3. If a grid consists of a single node then energy conservation cannot be balanced, and
if there is a packet with low energy virtual grids then the network may suffer from
network partitioning problem.[CX6]
4. It does not provide a data aggregation feature which typically exists in hierarchal
routing algorithms.
3.5.1.4. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing Protocol (GPSR)
Introduction
GPSR is a beacon-based routing geographic algorithm. In GPRS the neighbour routing table
is updated via periodic beacon messages. The GPRS routing mechanism is based on the
position of a node and the destination of the packet in order to take routing packet
forwarding decisions.
Protocol Details
GPSR protocol functions in two modes which are greedy and perimeter. In greedy mode,
GPRS makes greedy forwarding decisions in the network topology on the basis of its
immediate neighbours‟ available information, while in perimeter mode it is required of
GPRS particularly in a situation where a packet is passed on to a region where the greedy
forwarding mechanism is not achievable then the algorithm recovers the region by routing
all around the perimeter of the region. The phenomenon is called „face routing‟.
The neighbourhood table is constructed by means of periodic beacon broadcast messages,
which comprises an ID and sending node position.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
51
The B is a beacon interval parameter, and it is assumed that the time between two beacon
messages would be uniformly distributed when the B values is in the range of 0.5B, and
1.5B respectively. Furthermore, a time out interval is set as 4.5B, which is four times of the
maximum time interval, and a node is deleted from the neighbourhood table after it reaches
the time out interval i.e. 4.5B. It further clarifies, that a node can be deleted from the
neighbourhood table if it misses the beacon message three times in a row.
GPRS also includes an explicit beacon; if it is a scheduled regular data packet it delays the
number of bacons because of a piggy-backing service.
It is necessary for network interfaces to operate in a promiscuous mode, for the purpose that
every node in the transmission territory can receive packets apart from its associated
receiver and so forth.
In addition, on the sending of data packet a node resets the beacon timer. And the greedy
mode can be used when the node is found nearer to the destination D in the neighbourhood
table. Conversely, when a node is away from destination D as a result the perimeter mode is
used which works on the concept of face routing and the routing process would be
continued until a node reaches a point which is closer to D than the node P which is already
inside the perimeter mode. In regard to perimeter mode operation, it can be operated in both
graphs which are the Relative Neighbourhood and Gabriel.
3.5.1.4.1. Modes of GPSR Protocol - Greedy Forwarding
There are number of strategies which exist for routing such as single-path, multi-path,
flooding and so on. It uses local information for the routing of a packet and in each repeat
step the packet is nearer and nearer to the destination. Each node forwards the packet to a
node which is more optimal according to the local information available. The more optimal
node would be a node which is closer to the destination and involves minimum distance and
whole phenomenon which can be called a „greedy approach‟.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
52
Figure 3.9. Represents the greedy approach from node x to node y because these are located
in a close neighbourhood.
Figure 3.10. In Greedy Forwarding Routing the data packet is forwarded to a neighbour that
is located in close proximity
•Drawback
The known drawback of a „greedy routing strategy‟ is it fails in a situation where there is no
close neighbour exist to the destination and the forwarding node is stuck and not able to
move ahead. To recover from this problem it uses a strategy called „perimeter mode‟ or
„face routing‟, or it simply goes back to step one to commence a successful greedy routing
strategy.
There are number of variants of greedy forwarding strategy such as nearest forwarding
progress(NFP), most forwarding progress within a radius (MFR), and the minimum angle
between neighbour and destination node is termed as compass routing(CR). The different
variants of greedy strategy are stated as in figure,
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
53
Figure 3.11. When greedy routing gets stuck in topology
Figure 3.12. When there is a hole in the network
3.5.1.4.2. Modes of GPSR Protocol - Face Routing
When the greedy forwarding strategy failed it was necessary to find a new one for the
recovery and smooth transmission of a packet to its destination. new strategy was devised
in 1999 which is called face routing. In face routing a packet is forwarded on the face of
nodes beside the incident edge in conjunction with the incident edge through implying (I
don‟t know what this means). On the implementation of the right or left hand rule in the
network graph then a successor node can be found to search out in clockwise order
subsequent to the predecessor node.[CX13] Face routing uses a planner graph and also uses
different faces of the graph from source s to destination t
Figure 3.13: Generic view of different faces of planner graph
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
54
Figure 3.14: Generic view of source and destination at planner graph
Advantages
Face routing uses the local information rule and it guarantees data delivery on the planner
graph by using the local position-based rule and furthermore it does not require any
maintenance of state information. The aim of planning a network on a planner graph is to
ensure the data delivery guarantees otherwise it is vulnerable to loops. [CX13].
Disadvantages
It is vulnerable to loops if a network topology is not planned properly on a planner graph.
[CX13]. It completely fails when there is no possible way to go from a source s to
destination t which can be graphically represented as,
The pseudo code for combined greedy forwarding and face routing are quoted as,
“A Combined Greedy/Face-Routing Algorithm
(GFG with sooner-back procedure [15])
Variables: previous hop p, current node u, target t, first edge in recovery
mode er and distance to target dr in rec. mode
if packet in greedy mode
select next hop v according to the greedy rule
if no such neighbour exists
select next hop v in ccw. direction from (u; t)
switch packet to recovery mode
store current distance to the destination dr
and er (u;v) in the packet header
endif
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
55
else (packet is in recovery mode)
if there is a neighbour v with jjv�tjj < dr
switch packet to greedy mode
or else
select next hop v in ccw. direction from (u; p)
(using only nodes of a GG or RNG sub-graph)
if (u;v) equals the first edge er in recovery mode
drop packet; return
endif
endif
endif
forward packet to v “ [3]
3.5.1.5. Geographic Energy Aware Routing (GEAR)
GEAR is an energy aware routing protocol and it proposes energy and geographic
information is a factor for the selection of a neighbour‟s nodes to route packets to its final
destination (sink). [DX19] The GEAR protocol further proposes that the localisation of
modules need to be installed on the sensor board such as the global positioning system
(GPS) feature or maybe some other localisation mechanism can be used for finding a
location. GEAR also has the pre-knowledge of its neighbour‟s energy residual and its
location. In addition, GEAR uses energy as a main factor for the routing decision to route
packets to a destination region. And inside geographic regions, GEAR uses a geographic
recursive forwarding algorithm to broadcast the packet to expected destination
regions.[CX20]
GEAR Working Mechanism
To route a packet to a target region the sensor node uses two types of cost, namely the
estimated cost and learning cost. The estimated cost can be defined as the expected distance
to destination node and the outstanding amount of energy on the sensor node. On the other
hand, the learning cost is the adapted version of an estimated cost and is solely responsible
for routing where there is a hole in the sensor network. The hole problem occurs in the
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
56
sensor network where there is no close neighbour available for a sensor node in the direction
of the target destination and when no hole exists in the sensor network then an estimated
cost is identical to the learning cost. However, in comparison with the Diffusion Protocol,
the GEAR protocol limits its interest only to the targeted region, where in diffusion its
interest is not limited to a single region.
GEAR Packet Forwarding Stages
Stage 1:
In the first stage packets are routed towards a destination. On the reception of packets by the
node then it looks around for the nodes which are located in a close proximity with the
destination node and finally the neighbour‟s node is chosen as the next hop. In this
scenario, where more than one qualified node exists then a hole would exist in the network,
so in this situation one node would be selected on the basis of learning cost techniques.
Stage 2:
In the second stage, the data packets are already forwarded inside in the targeted region and
on receiving the packets inside the region the packets are then broadcast using a recursive
geographic forwarding algorithm or a restricted flooding mechanism. In this case, a scenario
where sensor nodes are densely populated, then restricted flooding is used as a preferred
method. On the other hand in a scenario where sensor nodes are densely populated then a
recursive geographic algorithm can be used.
With regard to a geographic flooding algorithm, it divides the targeted region into four sub-
geographic regions and the same process continues until a single node is left per region.
[CX21].
Advantages
1. GEAR extends the battery life span of sensor nodes and the overall network as
compared with non-energy aware routing protocols
Disadvantages
The mechanism proposed by the GEAR protocol involves high packet overheads,
therefore its implementation in a real time environment is not a considerable
option.[CX19]
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
57
3.5.1.6. Flooding
In WSNs the flooding is a routing protocol and performs the routing operation while it does
not require a topological adjustment. The flooding routing mechanism for broadcasting is
the core technique used. Each and every sensor node, on receiving a data packet, it is
immediately broadcast to their neighbouring sensor nodes and the process does not stop
until the packet reaches the final destination or the data packet maximum threshold value
reaches its designated limit.
However, with regard to the implementation of the flooding mechanism it is quite easy to
implement. But at it the same time it has a number of drawbacks, such as implosion which is
usually caused due to the duplication of packets, and overlap which is caused when two
neighbours in the same region send packets to the same sensor node, and it is also resource
blind because there is no appropriate consideration in regards to energy usage and so it
consumes a huge amount of energy.
This is an enhanced version of the direct diffusion routing algorithm. It is mainly used for a
situation where geographic routing algorithms are not applicable. In a directed diffusion
routing algorithm, typically it floods the query to the whole network particularly if there are
no geographical parameters given for a diffuse task. Another approach is followed called a
„rumour routing algorithm‟. Rumour routing is particularly useful for a situation to tolerate
flooding routing mechanism, unless the amount of events is small and the number of queries
is large. Moreover, rumour routing can be placed in the middle of event flooding and query
flooding.
The rumour routing algorithm was proposed by Braginsky and Estrin and the core idea is to
pass on user queries to a node that examines specific and certain events, instead of flooding
the whole network to obtain information on the subject of happening events.[ N.
NARASIMHA DATTA AND K. GOPINATH] [Kemal Akkaya , Mohamed Younis].
However, there are a number of limitations in the routing algorithm which need to be
explored, such as the random nature of the path finding approach. Alternatively, another
approach is to use local information for finding interesting events in a faster and more
efficient manner. The next alternative is to use a probabilistic parameter which takes local
information so as to find an optimal performance or by studying the entire system hierarchy
for the particular events pattern in a mentioned timeframe.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
58
3.5.1.7. LEACH
The LEACH is a cluster-based routing protocol and was developed by Hienzelman. It
performs the cluster heads election by the use of a probabilistic approach for the purpose of
rotating among each other so as to guarantee a good local energy balancing mechanism.
The cluster heads collect data from their associated nodes, and before transmission to the
base station it makes sure that data integration and fusion function is performed over the
data. In terms of data collection it uses a periodic approach in a centralised style.
Furthermore, the LEACH is principally tailored to an application which involves consistent
monitoring in a wireless sensor network. In spite of LEACH‟s achievements in terms of
network age increase and extension, at the same time it involves a few restricted
conjectures. In this regards, one of the conjectures which LEACH presents states that every
node transmits with satisfactory power to the anticipated bas station. Consequently, LEACH
is not tailored for larger network regions. [Emmanuel Sifakis]. The network model and
cluster head (CH) and cluster member (CM) are represented as below,
Figure 3.15. Represents base station, cluster head, and cluster
The different level of hierarchy involved in routing in LEACH is represented in the figure
below, as,
Figure 3.16. Different level of hierarchies
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
59
3.5.1.8. TEEN
The TEEN is abbreviated for Threshold Energy Senor Network protocols. TEEN is a
modified version of APTEEN routing protocols. In regard to its operation, members of
cluster heads receive a hard threshold from cluster heads, and this threshold is used for
sensed variables. In addition, the soft threshold makes a minute change in a sensed variable
value, and the aforementioned threshold value prompts the sensor to correspond with the
value calculated. And particularly the hard threshold in the case of a reduction in
transmission numbers it directly corresponds to the data and also ensures that the sensor
parameters are on a specific region. On the other side, a soft energy threshold only makes a
reduction in communication transmission, and only when some changes are received. In
relation to its limitations the core disadvantage is when no threshold is prompted is a result
no communication happens between the nodes. [Emmanuel Sifakis].
Summary
In this chapter we discussed routing protocols in ad-hoc and sensor network in details and in
the next chapter we will construct design for our proposed experiments.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
60
Chapter 4
Design of Simulation Experiments
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter presents detailed study of a proposed simulation and evaluation of the
experiments which we will perform using the simulation.
Simulation is a scientific technique which can give us particular results, advance behaviour
of a particular operation in the real world system over time. Simulation is a built-in tool
which can show the real behaviours of the proposed system model. With simulation we can
evaluate the performance and other features of the system by investigating the interior
architecture of the system which is used for overall optimization. However, with simulation
we can observe, estimate, and assume the convolution of the real world system from the
results of the simulation.
Furthermore, an extensive simulation work for the evaluation of proposed routing algorithm
performance. It can be done through a number of simulation scenarios based on different
network metrics and topologies.
A number of network simulators are currently in the networking research filed. A survey has
been conducted by Akhtar and has noted a number of 42 network simulators such as
(Scalable ad-hoc network simulator) ShoX, OMNeT++, NS2 , OPNET, GloMoSim, J-Sim,
SENS, SENSE,Qual-Net.[M.Hadjila et al]. Nevertheless, we propose to use ShoX which is
a discreet event-driven simulator for the evaluation of routing algorithm performance in
sensor networks.
As we mentioned above there are number of simulation available for modelling of systems
and among these ShoX for further thesis study.
4.2. Scalable Ad Hoc Network Simulator (ShoX)
ShoX is an intelligent tool used for the simulation of a large heterogeneous network. ShoX
hosts some specific ad-hoc and WSNs protocols. ShoX is developed on the basis of a
discrete event system (DES) and it stimulates the behaviour of the system in the form of a
model and further processes it into a user-stated process. Moreover, ShoX provides a wide
and rich resourceful simulation environment for the modelling of a system, and can be
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
61
analysed in terms of discrete event system. ShoX is developed in Java programming
language while XML language can be used for network configuration. ShoX source code
and libraries are openly available. ShoX can be used for the evaluation of routing algorithms
under different network parameters such as packet drop rate, hop count and so on.
ShoX starting display screen and configuration panel are shown in the following screen-
shots,
Figure 4.1: ShoX starting view
Figure 4.2: ShoX Configuration Panel
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
62
4.3. Architecture of ShoX
ShoX is a discrete event simulator and is available in a single package which does not
require a manual package installation like other network simulations. The architectural
view of ShoX is stated in the map as,
Figure 4.3: ShoX Architectural View
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
63
ShoX architecturally consists of the following components
Event Queue
Event queue is an event queue at global level where all network events such as packets,
messages, nodes movements; timers and so on are placed.
Simulation Manger
Simulation manager is the core module of the ShoX, where it manages events queues and
assigning events to be delivered on the basis of their priority to the specified network nodes.
It is also responsible for updating of simulation time of upcoming events.
Packets
ShoX packets are considered as special events, when a packet is created at some further
layer further it is sent down the stack until it reaches the physical layer.
Event
vent can be any action in ShoX, like node movements, update messages, timers, packets and
so forth. Each event has its own time stamp, while it specifies the delivery time and, unique
id.
Layer
ShoX supports all OSI layers, and there is a special artificial layer in ShoX which exists
down the physical layer called AirModule. It can further support new layers in the stack.
Air Module
Air module manages radio signal propagation particularly receiving, listening, and sleeping,
off states at nodes
Interference Handler
It is an abstract class and making decision based on its implementation, while it has the
ability to completely ignore the interference or on the other side it will discard packets on
occurrence of interference.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
64
Movement manager
Movement manager is responsible for the mobility of nodes whether it is stationary or
mobile. There are number of mobility models which exist in ShoX such as NoMovement,
RandaomWalk and so forth.
Energy Model
nergy model manages the consumption of energy for different network events such as the
sending and receiving of packet transmission, optimal path finding, and so on. There are
number of energy models available in ShoX, the most basic energy model is
BasicEnergyManger. BasicEnergyManger is an abstract class and is solely responsible for
energy consumption at ShoX
Physical Model
hysical model deals with communication taking place at a physical layer. There are a
number of physical models available in ShoX, such as SimplePhysics, UnitDisck and so on
Node
ode is a network node which can be a small wireless sensor node, or another device used in
a wireless sensor network
Traffic Generator
raffic generator module is responsible for traffic generation in ShoX. There are a number of
traffic generators available in ShoX, such as OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator,
RandomTraffic, ExponentialRandomTraffic and so on
4.4. ShoX Key Features
First, house wireless sensor routing protocols, and also vendor devices models with source
code.
Second, it provides an integrated GUI-based debugging and analysis.
Third, it supports discrete event, hybrid and optional analytical simulation.
Fourth, it is based on object-oriented modelling.
Fifth, it provides an interface for integrating external objects files, and libraries
Sixth, it provides a hierarchical modelling environment.
Seventh, it provides realistic application modelling and analysis.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
65
Eighth, it provides a fully parallel kernel simulation for 32-bit and 64-bit
Ninth, ShoX is freely available for universities and colleges for the purpose of academic
research and development.
4.5. ShoX Configuration
Initially, ShoX simulation can be configured with proposed simulation scenarios. ShoX is
composed of the following configuration model,
ShoX GUI configuration panel can be accessed from a class i.e. net.sf.shox.visual.ShoX.
The ShoX configuration can be found in ShoX/conf directory. The proposed test bed can be
added to ShoX by clicking on „project‟ by choosing run and the java application. The core
file of the simulator is net.sf.shox.simulator.kernal.Simulator.
Network topology
Network topology panel of ShoX can generate a number of nodes to be deployed in the
wireless sensor field. The deployment area can also be configured using SVG file or
alternatively it can be manually configured. The network topology panel provides a
configuration option called „initial node distribution‟ where we can specify node distribution
option senor nodes in a number of ways such as random node distribution and so on.
Node Behaviour
Node behaviour panel specifies a configuration level of senor node mobility but the sensor
nodes may also be set to static. The node behaviour configuration panel also specifies the
levels of application traffic.
Node Architecture
Node architecture panel represents a configuration option for a number of network layers
such as, application layer, operation layer (transport layer),network layer, data link layer
(logical link control layer, medium access control layer) and physical layer. Each network
layer has its own list of parameters which need to be set during the configuration phase of
ShoX.
Signal Propagation
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
66
Signal propagation panel of ShoX configures the signal propagation and its associated
parameters, such as reachable distance and interference distance. The signal propagation
panel also configures the level of interference during packet transmission.
Simulation Time
Simulation time panel configures the time for which simulation can be run to perform the
task. The time is measured in seconds. The simulation time panel also configures simulation
granularity which shows a number of simulation steps done in per second amount of time.
Simulation time panel can also be set in advance configuration option.
4.6. Metrics
The evaluation of a proposed routing algorithm such as rumour routing algorithm, and
Spine Optimal routing algorithm (SOR) in wireless sensor networks can be tested for the
following metrics,
Dropped Packet Ratio/Rate
Packet loss is the ratio of lost packets and sent packets. It occurs when a packet fails to
reach its destination.
Where Pkt fail represents failed packets, while Pkt sent represents packets sent
Average Drop Packet Ratio/Rate
Where Pkt fail represents failed packets, while Pkt sent represents packets sent
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
67
4.6.1. Simulation Parameters
Our simulation parameters for the proposed experiments are shown in the table as,
S.No Parameters Details
1 Area of Simulation 100 x 100 / 300 x 400 m2
2 Node Deployment Random
3 Mobility Model No Movement/ Random Walk
4 Routing Policy Rumour/ Optimal Spine Routing (OSR)
5 Traffic Type One time random traffic generator
6 Number of nodes 50: 10, 25, 49
7 Node Transmission Range 30 meter (maximum indoor ), 250 meter
(maximum outdoor) [DX5][Dx6]
8 Interference Queue Type Threshold packet manger
9 Simulation Time 20 / 60/80/100/120 seconds
Table 4.1: Simulation Parameters Table
4.7. Experimentation Design and Set-up parameters
The proposed routing algorithm can be tested against the selected network metrics, which
are packet drop rate and hop count. The network N nodes combinations chosen for the
experiments are {10, 25, 49} which can be distributed using a model randomStartPosition
in a simulated field of 100 x 100 m2
, 300 x 400 m2 (square meters). The radio signal
propagation model chosen for the experiments are UnitDisc model and Simple Physics,
where each and every node can sends packets within a range of 5 m (meter). The stationary
and mobility nodes model for the experiments used are noMovement, and RandomWalk. The
application level traffic can be generated using a random traffic model i.e
OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator.
4.7.1. Experiment-1: Design of Small Network Topology
first scenario is based on smaller network topology and two different routing protocols
which rumour and OSR routing algorithm are evaluated for performance. And a smaller size
network topology is chosen and all other factor are set uniform and the metrics for
performance evaluation under which routing protocols can be tested are packet drop ratio,
and hop count. An addition, a list of simulation parameters is also suggested for the
aforementioned experiments which are, number of nodes with a given value 10, and
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
68
simulation time with a given value of 20 seconds, simulation granularity time with a given
value of 10,000 seconds and finally the mobility model is random walk and no
Movement.
Figure 4.4: Network topology of 10 node
4.7.1.1. Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumour routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
10 Random Start
Position
No Movement One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.2: Exp 1- Case 1: Rumour Routing Stationary Nodes
4.7.1.2. Case 2: Mobile nodes using rumour routing
No. Of
Nodes
Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility
Model
Application
Traffic
Signal Propagation
model
10 Random
Start Position
Random
Walk
One time
random
traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.3: Experiment 1- Case 2: Rumour Routing Mobile Nodes
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
69
4.7.1.3. Case 3: Stationary nodes using OSR routing
No. Of
Nodes
Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility
Model
Application
Traffic
Signal Propagation
model
10 Random
Start Position
No
Movement
One time
random
traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.4: Experiment 1- Case 2: Rumour Routing Mobile Nodes
4.7.1.4. Case 4: Mobile nodes using OSR routing
No. Of
Nodes
Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility
Model
Application
Traffic
Signal Propagation
model
10 Random
Start Position
Random
Walk
One time
random
traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.5: Exp1- Case 2: Rumour Routing Mobile Nodes
4.7.2. Experiment -2 – Medium Network Topology
The second experiment is based on medium size network topology. In this experiment two
routing algorithms which are the rumour and OSR routing algorithms, are evaluated at a
medium-sized network topology and other network factors are constant. The evolutional
metrics under which the algorithms are tested are drop packet rate and hop count. The
simulator parameters suggested for the experiment are a number of nodes with a given value
of 25, while the simulation time is 20 seconds; a simulation granularity time with a given
value of 10,000 seconds and finally the mobility model is selected as the random way point
algorithm.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
70
Figure 4.5: Network topology of 25 nodes
4.7.2.1. Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumour routing
No. Of
Nodes
Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility
Model
Application
Traffic
Signal Propagation
model
25 Random
Start Position
No
Movement
One time
random
traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.6: Exp 2- Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumour routing
4.7.2.2. Case 2: Mobile odes using rumour routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
25 Random Start
Position
Random Walk One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.7: Exp 2- Case 2: Mobile nodes using rumour routing
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
71
4.7.2.3. Case 3: Stationary nodes using OSR routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
25 Random Start
Position
No Movement One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.8: Exp 2- Case 3: Mobile nodes using rumour routing
4.7.2.4. Case 4: Mobile nodes using OSR routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
25 Random Start
Position
Random Walk One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.9: Exp 2- Case 4: Mobile nodes using rumour routing
4.7.3. Experiment 3- Large Network Topology
The third experiment is based on a large network topology. In this case two routing
algorithms are evaluated at network topology size and other factors are constant. The
evolutional metrics under which the algorithms are tested are the drop packet rate and hop
count. The simulator parameters suggested for the experiment a number of nodes with a
given value 49, the simulation time is 50 seconds; simulation granularity time with a given
value of 10,000 seconds and finally the mobility model is selected as a random way point
algorithm.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
72
Figure 4.6: Network topology of 49 nodes
4.7.3.1. Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumour routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
49 Random Start
Position
No Movement One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.10: Exp 3- Case 1: Stationary nodes using rumour routing
4.7.3.2. Case 2: Mobile nodes using rumour routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
49 Random Start
Position
Random Walk One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.11: Exp 3- Case 2: Mobile Nodes using rumour routing
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
73
4.7.3.3. Case 3: Stationary nodes using OSR routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
49 Random Start
Position
No Movement One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.12: Exp 3- Case 3: Stationary Nodes using OSR routing
4.7.3.4. Case 4: Mobile nodes using OSR routing
No. Of Nodes Initial Nodes
Distribution
Mobility Model Application
Traffic
Signal
Propagation
model
49 Random Start
Position
No Movement One time
random traffic
generator
Simple Physics
Parameters Table 4.13: Exp 3- Case 4: Mobile Nodes using OSR routing
4.7.4. Experiment No 4- Simulation Time Variation
In this experiment we changed the simulation time and all other parameters remain the same
as previous experiments in order to investigate the effect on routing with respect to the
network metric such as dropped packet rate and hop count. The experiment involves four
different cases two for each routing protocol.
4.7.4.1. Case 1: Rumour routing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Simulation time Mobility Model
49 40,60,80, 100 seconds No Movement
Parameters Table 4.14: Experiment 4- case 1-Simulation Time
4.7.4.2. Case 2: Rumour routing with mobile nodes
Number of nodes Simulation Time Mobility Model
49 40,60,80,100 seconds Random Walk
Parameters Table 4.15: Experiment 4- case 2-Simulation Time
4.7.4.3. Case 3: OSR routing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Simulation Time Mobility Model
49 40,60,80,100 seconds No Movement
Parameters Table 4.16: Experiment 4- case 3-Simulation Time
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
74
4.7.4.4. Case 4: OSR routing having mobile nodes
Number of nodes Simulation Time Mobility Model
49 40,60, 80,100 seconds Random Walk
Parameters Table 4.17: Experiment 4- case 4-Simulation Time
4.7.5. Experiment No 5- Nodes Deployment Area variation
In this experiment we changed the nodes deployment area and all other parameters are the
same. To investigate there is any effect on routing with respect to a network metric such as a
dropped packet rate and hop count.
4.7.5.1. Case 1: Rumour routing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Deployment Area Mobility Model
49 300 x 400 m2 No Movement
Parameters Table 4.18: Experiment 5- case 1-Deployement Area
4.7.5.2. Case 2: Rumour outing having mobile nodes
Number of nodes Deployment Area Mobility Model
49 300 x 400 m2 Random Walk
Parameters Table 4.19: Experiment 5- case 2-Deployment Area
4.7.5.3. Case 3: OSR outing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Deployment Area Mobility Model
49 300 x 400 m2 No Movement
Parameters Table 4.20: Experiment 5- case 3-Deployment Area
4.7.5.4. Case 4: OSR outing having mobile nodes
Number of nodes Deployment Area Mobility Model
49 300 x 400 m2 Random Walk
Parameters Table 4.21: Experiment 5- case 4-Deployment Area
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
75
4.7.6. Experiment No 6- Interference Handler Model Variation
In this experiment we changed the interference handler model and all other parameters
remain the same to investigate if there is any effect on routing with respect to a network
metric such as a dropped packet rate and hop count. The experiment involves four different
cases two for each routing protocol.
4.7.6.1. Case 1: Rumour routing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Mobility model Interference handler model
49 No Movement Minimum Signal to Noise
Ratio ( SNR)
Parameters Table 4.22: Experiment 6- Case 1- Interference handler model
4.7.6.2. Case 2: Rumour routing having mobile nodes
Number of nodes Mobility Model Interference Handler model
49 Random Walk Minimum Signal to Noise
Ratio ( SNR)
Parameters Table 4.23: Experiment 6- Case 2- Interference handler model
4.7.6.3. Case 3: OSR routing having stationary nodes
Number of nodes Mobility Model Interference Handler model
49 No Movement Minimum Signal to Noise
Ratio ( SNR)
Parameters Table 4.24: Experiment 6- Case 3- Interference handler model
4.7.6.4. Case 4: OSR routing having mobile nodes
Number of nodes Mobility Model Interference Handler Model
49 Random Walk Minimum Signal to Noise
Ratio ( SNR)
Parameters Table 4.25: Experiment 6- Case 4- Interference handler model
Summary
In this chapter we described Scalable Ad-Hoc Network Simulator (ShoX) simulation,
metrics, designing and parameters settings for the proposed experiments which are, Design
of small network topology, design of medium network topology, design of large network
topology, design of simulation time variation, design of nodes deployment area variation,
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
76
and design of interference handler model variation. In the next chapter we will perform
implementation of our proposed experiments.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
77
Chapter 5
Implementation and Results Analysis
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter we are articulating implementation details for each experiment which include
both OSR and rumour routing protocols.
5.2. Implementation
The routing protocols rumour and OSR which we are comparing are already implemented in
the ShoX simulator. We made slight modifications to the simulator parameters using XML
code for our proposed experiments. ShoX simulator was specifically developed for wireless
sensor and ad-hoc routing protocols. We are using the same java code which is already
written for OSR and rumour routing protocols.
The goal of our study is to compare the relative performance of the proposed routing
protocols with respect to different size of topologies, and mobility. To fairly compare each
of the proposed protocols therefore pre-generated XML-based scenarios were ported to
ShoX with an identical set of configurations. The performance metrics are drop packet rate,
average drop packet, hop count, average hop count and bit rate. Seven experiments were
performed for each routing protocol with respect to different cases and so on. The
experiments are stated as,
5.3. Experiment 1: Small Nodes Scenario
In this experiment we implemented OSR and rumour routing protocols at a small nodes
topology. Furthermore, network topology was tested for both stationary and mobile node
movement conditions. The experiment consisted of four cases, so two cases for stationary
nodes, and two cases for mobile nodes.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
78
5.3.1. Case 1, 2, 3 & 4: Measurement of packet drop ratio in small number
of stationary and mobile nodes using OSR and Rumour routing protocols
5.3.1.1. Network Model
5.3.1.1.1 Network Topology
The small node scenario i.e. cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 consists of 10 nodes which are randomly
deployed in a two dimensional simulation field 100 meter square. Initially nodes are
randomly distributed using
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX.
5.3.1.1.2. Network Behaviour
The node behaviour for cases 1 and 3 were chosen as stationary which used the ShoX
stationary model net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameter was
adjusted as static.
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 was stationary which used the ShoX mobile model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The simulation parameter was adjusted as
static.
The traffic model implemented for cases 1 and 3 was
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. The traffic model consists of
parameters like generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic is adjusted as
low, medium and high.
5.3.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model is implemented. The first application layer was implemented using the
model:
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer.
The rumour application layer is the model used for rumour routing algorithm configuration,
and it also used a parameter such as distinctValues and hold value 5.
Second, the operating system layer which was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. Operating system
layer is an abstract super-class and is used for the implementation of an operating system, and
it used the parameter such as serviceManger and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
79
Thirdly, the network layer was implemented using the ShoX model, such as
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
Fourth, the logical link control (LLC) layer is implemented for logical link control
management and it is the upper sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI model. LLC is
responsible for the multiplexing mechanism, and it also deals with flow control, the
automatic repeat request error mechanism and so on. LLC is implemented using super class
i.e. net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing
protocols.
Fifth, the medium access layer (MAC) is the lower sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI
model. The MAC layer for rumour and OSR is implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The Rate Adaption method used is AARF. The number of consecutive
successful bit rate is before raising the bit rate is 10 (Unclear). The consecutive number of
transmission fails allowed before lowering the bit rate is 2. After a premature increase in bit
rate the erroneous bit rate for AARF is 2. The time out raised up bit rate is 0.1.
Sixth, the physical layer is the lower layer which deals with the transmission and transmitting
raw bits. IEEE802.11 implements wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameters
are shown in the table below,
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(M
HZ)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulati
on
Allowa
ble
MIMO
stream
s
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and
DSSS
1 250 meter
[DX5,6]
Table 5.1: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
5.3.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
First, the signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer and it calculates the
reach of sender and receiver, and a given signal strength. The simple physics model is
implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
80
Second, the interference handler model is also a part of the physical layer and is responsible
for handling the interference in the transmission channel. The interference model
implemented is thresh-old packet mangler and can be accessed from:
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. The threshold packet mangler
specifies a signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold value as a parameter. The SNR shows the
ratio of signal power and noise power. The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e.
SNR ≥ 1.
5.3.1.1.5. Simulation Time
Simulation time is measured in seconds and the time set for cases 1 and 3 was set at 20
seconds.
Secondly, simulation granularity is the time in which we fixed the number of steps to be
performed by the simulation in per second time. The simulation granularity set for cases 1
and 3 was implemented as 10,000 steps per second.
5.3.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained from cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in charts as below,
Figure 5.1: Relative performance comparison in small stationary topology of 10 mobile
nodes
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
81
5.4. Experiment 2- Medium Scenario
In this experiment we implemented OSR and rumour routing protocols at medium size nodes
topology. Furthermore, network topology is tested for both stationary and mobile node
movement condition. The experiment consisted of four cases, two cases for stationary nodes,
and two cases for mobile nodes.
5.4.1. Cases 1, 2, 3 & 4: Measurement of packet drop at hop in 25
stationary nodes using OSR and rumour routing algorithm
5.4.1.1. Network Model
5.4.1.1.1. Network Topology
The medium node scenarios i.e. cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 consisted of 25 nodes which were
randomly deployed in a two dimensional simulation field i.e. X and Y in 100 meter square.
Initially nodes were randomly distributed using
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX.
Figure 5.2: Relative performance comparison in small mobile topology of 10 nodes
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
83
5.4.1.1.2. Network Behaviours
The node behaviour for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was stationary using the ShoX stationary model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameter was adjusted as
static.
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 were stationary using the ShoX mobile model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The simulation parameter was adjusted as
static.
The traffic model implemented for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. The traffic model consisted
of parameters like generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic was
adjusted as low, medium and high.
5.4.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model is implemented, first application layer was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer
model. Application Layer was the model used for rumour routing algorithm configuration,
and it also used parameter such as distinctValues.
Second, the operating system layer was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. The operating system
layer is an abstract super-class and is used for the implementation of the operating system,
and it used the parameter such as serviceManger and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.
Third, the network layer was implemented using the ShoX model, such as
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
Fourth, the logical link control (LLC) layer was implemented for logical link control
management and it is the upper sub-layer of the data link layer in OSI model. The LLC is
responsible for the multiplexing mechanism, and it also deals with flow control, the
automatic repeat request error mechanism and so on. The LLC is implemented using super
class i.e. net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing
protocols.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
84
Fifth, the medium access layer (MAC) is the lower sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI
model. The MAC layer for rumour and OSR is implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The Rate Adaption method used was AARF. The number of consecutive
successful bit rate before raising the bit rate was 10. The consecutive number of transmission
fails before lowering the bit rate was 2. After a premature increase in the bit rate the
erroneous bit rate for AARF was 2. The time out raised up bit rate was 0.1.
Sixth, the physical layer is the lower layer which deals with the transmission and transmitting
raw bits. IEEE802.11 implements wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameters
are shown in the table,
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(M
HZ)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulati
on
Allowa
ble
MIMO
stream
s
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and
DSSS
1 250 meter
[DX5,6]
Table 5.2: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
5.4.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
First, the signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer and calculates the
reach-ability of sender and receiver, and a given signal strength. The simple physics model
was implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
Second, the interference handler model is also a part of the physical layer, and is responsible
for handling the transmission channel. The interference model implemented was the
threshold packet mangler and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. hreshold packet mangler specify
signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold value as a parameter. The SNR shows the ratio of signal
power and noise power. The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e. SNR ≥ 1.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
85
5.4.1.1.5. Simulation Time
The simulation time was measured in seconds, and the time set for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was set
at 20 seconds.
Secondly, the simulation granularity is the time in which we fixed the number of steps to be
performed by the simulation in per second time. The simulation granularity set for cases 1, 2,
3 and 4 was implemented at 10,000 steps per second.
5.4.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained from cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in the charts below,
Figure 5.3: Relative performance comparison in small stationary topology of 25 nodes
Figure 5.4: Relative performance comparison in small mobile topology of
25 nodes
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
86
5.5. Experiment 3- Large Nodes Scenario
The experiment implemented OSR and rumour routing protocols at a large sized nodes
topology. Furthermore, the network topology was tested for both stationary and mobile node
movement condition. The experiment consisted of four cases, so two cases for stationary
nodes and two for mobile nodes.
5.5.1. Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop at hop in 49
stationary nodes using OSR and rumour routing algorithm
5.5.1.1. Network Model
5.5.1.1.1. Network Topology
The medium node scenario i.e. cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 consisted of 49 nodes which were randomly
deployed in a two dimensional simulation field i.e. X and Y in 100 meter square. Initially
nodes were randomly distributed using
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX.
5.5.1.1.2. Network Behaviours
The node behaviour for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was stationary which used the ShoX stationary
model net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameters were adjusted
as static.
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 was stationary and the ShoX mobile model was
employed - net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The simulation parameters were
adjusted as static.
The traffic model implemented for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. The traffic models consist of
parameters like generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic was adjusted
to low, medium and high.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
87
5.5.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model was employed and the first application layer was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer
model. The rumour application layer is the model used for rumour routing algorithm
configuration, and it also used parameters such as distinctValues and holds value 5.
Second, the operating system layer was implemented using the
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. The operating system
layer is an abstract super-class and is used for the implementation of the operating system,
and it used the parameters from serviceManager and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.
Third, the network layer was implemented using the ShoX model,
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
Fourth, the logical link control (LLC) layer is implemented for the logical link control
management and it is the upper sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI model. LLC is
responsible for the multiplexing mechanism, and it also deals with flow control, the
automatic repeat request error mechanism and so on. LLC is implemented using super class
i.e. net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing
protocols.
Fifth, the mmedium access layer (MAC) is the lower sub-layer of the data link layer in OSI
model. The MAC layer for rumour and OSR is implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The Rate Adaption method used was AARF. The number of consecutive
successful bit rate before raising the bit rate was 10. The consecutive number of transmission
fail before lowering the bit rate is 2. After a premature increase in bit rate the erroneous bit
rate for AARF was 2. The time out raised up bit rate was 0.1.
Sixth, the physical layer is the lower layer which deals with the transmission and transmitting
raw bits. IEEE802.11 implements wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameters
are shown in the table,
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
88
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(MH
Z)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulatio
n
Allowa
ble
MIMO
streams
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and DSSS
1 250 meter
[DX5,6]
Table 5.3: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
5.5.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
First, the signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer, and calculates the
reach-ability of sender and receiver, and a given signal strength. The simple physics model
was implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
Second, the interference handler model is also a part of the physical layer, and is responsible
for handling inference in the transmission channel. The interference model implemented
was the threshold packet mangler and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. This model specifies a signal to
noise ratio (SNR) threshold value as a parameter. The SNR shows the ratio of signal power
and noise power. The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e. SNR ≥ 1.
5.5.1.1.5. Simulation Time
The simulation time was measured in seconds and the time set for cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 was set
to 20 seconds.
Secondly, the simulation granularity is the time in which we fixed the number of steps to be
performed by the simulation in per second time. The simulation granularity set for cases 1, 2,
3 and 4 was implemented at 10,000 steps per second.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
89
5.5.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained from case 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in the charts below,
Figure 5.6: Relative performance comparison in large mobile topology of 49 nodes
Figure 5.5: Relative performance comparison in large stationary topology of 49 nodes
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
90
5.6. Experiment No 4- Simulation Time variation
The experiment implements OSR and rumour routing protocols at large size nodes topology
and at different simulation pause time. Furthermore, network topology was tested for both
stationary and mobile node movement. The experiment comprised four cases, namely two
cases for stationary nodes and two for mobile nodes.
5.6.1. Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop at stationary
topology using OSR and rumour routing algorithm
5.6.1.1. Network Model
5.6.1.1.1. Network Topology
The medium node scenario was used for cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 and consisted of 49 nodes which
were randomly deployed in a two dimensional simulation field i.e. X and Y in 100 x 100
meter square. Initially the nodes were randomly distributed using
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX
5.6.1.1.2. Network Behaviour
The node behaviour used for cases 1, 2, 3 and was stationary which used the ShoX stationary
model net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameters were adjusted
to static.
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 was mobile using ShoX mobile model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The simulation parameter was adjusted as
static. Is this not contradictory? Sorry maybe I‟m missing something but it seems to
contradict the first sentence.
The traffic model implemented for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. The traffic model consisted
of parameters like generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic was set at
low, medium and high.
5.6.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model was implemented and the first application layer was ted
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer
model. The Rumour Application Layer is the model used for rumour routing algorithm
configuration, and it also used parameter such as distinctValues.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
91
Second, the operating system layer was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. The operating system
layer is an abstract super-class and is used for the implementation of operating system, and it
used the parameter such as serviceManger and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.
Thirdly, the network layer was implemented using the ShoX model
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
Fourthly, the logical link control (LLC) layer was implemented for logical link control
management and it is the upper sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI model. LLC is
responsible for the multiplexing mechanism, and it also deals with the flow control, the
automatic repeat request error mechanism and so on. LLC was implemented using super class
i.e. net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing
protocols.
Fifth, the medium access layer (MAC) is the lower sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI
model. The MAC layer for rumour and OSR is implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The Rate Adaption method was AARF. The number of consecutive successful
bit rate permissible before raising the bit rate was 10. The consecutive number of
transmission fails allowed before lowering the bit rate was 2. After a premature increase in
the bit rate the erroneous bit rate for AARF was 2. The time out raised up bit rate was 0.1.
Sixth, physical layer is the lower layer which deals with the transmission and transmitting
raw bits. IEEE802.11 implemented wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameter
are shown in the table,
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(M
HZ)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulati
on
Allowa
ble
MIMO
stream
s
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and
DSSS
1 250 meter
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
92
Table 5.4: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
5.6.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer and calculates the reach-
ability of sender and receiver, and a given signal strength. The simple physics model was
implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
interference handler model is also a part of physical layer, and is responsible for handling
inference in the transmission channel. The interference model implemented was threshold
packet mangler and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. threshold packet mangler specifies
the signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold value as a parameter. The SNR shows the ratio of
signal power and noise power. The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e. SNR ≥ 1.
5.6.1.1.5. Simulation Time
imulation time is calculated in seconds, and the time set here for cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 was set
at 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 seconds.
Simulation granularity is the time in which we fixed the number of steps to be performed by
the simulation in per second time. The simulation granularity set for cases 1,2, 3 and 4 was
implemented at 10,000 steps per second.
5.6.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in the charts below,
Figure 5.7: Relative performance comparison at different simulation time
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
93
5.7. Experiment No 5- Network Deployment Area Variation
The experiment implements OSR and rumour routing protocols at a large sized nodes
topology and at a different network deployment area. Furthermore, the network topology was
tested for both stationary and mobile node movement. The experiment consisted of four
cases, two cases for stationary nodes and two for mobile nodes.
5.7.1. Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop at stationary
topology using OSR and rumour routing algorithm
5.7.1.1. Network Model
5.7.1.1.1. Network Topology
The network scenarios consisted of 49 nodes which were randomly deployed in a two
dimensional simulation field i.e. 300 x 400 meter square. Initially nodes were randomly
distributed using net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX.
5.7.1.1.2. Network Behaviour
The node behaviour for the four cases was stationary and the ShoX stationary model was
employed, net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameters were
static.
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 was mobile using the ShoX mobile model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The parameters were static.
The traffic model implemented was
Figure 5.8: Relative performance comparison at different simulation time
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
94
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. Their parameters are listed
as, generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic was measured at low,
medium and high.
5.7.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model was implemented and the first application layer was used with:
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer
model. The rumour application layer was the model used for rumour routing algorithm
configuration and it also used parameters such as distinctValues.
Operating system layer was employed using:
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. perating system layer
is an abstract super-class used for the implementation of operating system. It used the
parameter serviceManger which can be accessed from:
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.Thirdly the network layer was
implemented using ShoX model, such as
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
logical link control (LLC) layer was implemented for logical link control management and it
is the upper sub-layer of the data link layer in the OSI model. LLC is responsible for
multiplexing mechanism, and it also deals with flow control, and automatic repeat request
error mechanism and so on. LLC is implemented using super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing protocols.
Fifth, the mss layer (MAC) is the lower sub-of data link layer in OSI model.MAC layer for
rumour and OSR was implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The rate adaption method was AARF. The number of consecutive successful
bit rates allowed before raising the bit rate was 10. The consecutive number of transmission
fails before lowering the bit rate was 2. After a premature increase in the bit rate the
erroneous bit rate for AARF was 2. The time out raised up bit rate was 0.1.
Sixth, physical layer is the lower layer which deals with the transmission and transmitting
raw bits. IEEE802.11 implemented wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
95
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameters
are shown in the table,
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(M
HZ)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulati
on
Allowa
ble
MIMO
stream
s
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and
DSSS
1 250 meter
[DX5,6]
Table 5.5: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
5.7.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
First, the signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer, and calculates the
reach-ability of sender and receiver, and a given signal strength. The simple physics model
was implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
interference handler model is also a part of the physical layer, and is responsible for handling
inference in the transmission channel. The interference model implemented threshold packet
mangler and can be accessed from:
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. The threshold packet mangler
specifies a signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold value as a parameter. The SNR shows the
ratio of signal power and noise power. The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e.
SNR ≥ 1.
5.7.1.1.5. Simulation Time
This is measured in seconds and the time set for the four cases was 20 seconds.
Next simulation granularity is the time which we fixed for the number of steps to be
performed by the simulation in per second time. The simulation granularity set for 10,000
steps per second.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
96
5.7.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained from cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown below,
Figure 5.9: Relative performance comparison at deployment area of 300 x 400 m2
Figure 5.10: Relative performance comparison at deployment area of 300 x 400 m2
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
97
5.8. Experiment No 6 - Interference Handler Model Variation
This experiment implements OSR and rumour routing protocols at large size nodes topology
and with a different interference handler model. Furthermore, the network topology was
tested for both stationary and mobile node movement. The experiment looked at four cases,
so two cases for stationary nodes and two cases for mobile nodes.
5.8.1. Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4: Measurement of packet drop at stationary
topology using OSR and rumour routing algorithm
5.8.1.1. Network Model
5.8.1.1.1. Network Topology
The network scenarios of cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 consisted of 49 nodes which were randomly
deployed in a two dimensional simulation field i.e. 100 x 100 meter square. Initially the
nodes were randomly distributed using
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomStartPositions model of ShoX.
5.8.1.1.2. Network Behaviour
The node behaviour for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was stationary which used ShoX stationary model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.NoMovemen. The simulation parameters were adjusted as
static. (Again it‟s contradictory – I thought it was two cases for each.)
The node behaviour for cases 2 and 4 were chose as mobile which used ShoX mobile model
net.sf.shox.simulator.movement.RandomWalk. The simulation parameter was adjusted as
static.
The traffic model implemented for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was
net.sf.shox.simulator.traffic.OneTimeRandomTrafficGenerator. The traffic models consisted
of the parameter like generator, traceFileName, traceFileMode. The speed of traffic was low,
medium and high.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
98
5.8.1.1.3. Node Architecture
The six layer model was implemented with the first application layer using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.datamanagement.rumor.RumorEvaluationApplicationLayer
model. The Rumour Application Layer model was used and it also used parameters such as
distinctValues and hold value 5.
operating system layer was implemented using
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.BasicOperatingSystemLayer model. The operating system
layer is an abstract super-class and it used parameters such as serviceManger and can be
accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.os.serviceManager class.
Third, network layer was implemented using the ShoX model, such as
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.OptimalSourceRouting. Optimal source routing is a class
used for routing in ShoX.
logical link control (LLC) layer was used for logical link control management. It is
responsible for the multiplexing mechanism and it also deals with flow control, and automatic
repeat request error mechanism and so on. LLC was implemented using super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.LogLinkDebug for both rumour and OSR routing protocols.
Fifth, m The MAC layer for rumour and OSR was implemented using a super class i.e.
net.sf.shox.simulator.node.user.MAC_IEEE802_11bg_DCF. The maximum number of retries
MAC do is 10. The Rate Adaption method used was AARF. The number of consecutive
successful bit rate before raising the bit rate was 10. The consecutive number of transmission
fail before lowering the bit rate was 2. After premature increase in bit rate the erroneous bit
rate for AARF was 2. The time out raised up bit rate was 0.1.
Sixth, pIEEE802.11 implemented wireless local area network (WLAN) standards b and g
using distributed coordination function (DCF) technique, and their implemented parameters
are shown in the table,
802.11
Protocol
Power Bandwidth(MH
Z)
Frequen
cy
(GHZ)
Modulatio
n
Allowa
ble
MIMO
streams
outdoor range
g 100m
W
2.4 20 OFDM
and DSSS
1 250 meter
[DX5,6]
Table 5.6: Parameters of IEEE802.11g WLAN standards
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
99
5.8.1.1.4. Signal Propagation
signal propagation model is the sub-layer of the physical layer and calculates the reach-
ability of sender and receiver and a given signal strength. The simple physics model was
implemented and can be accessed from net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.SimplePhysics.
interference handler model is also a part of the physical layer and is responsible for handling
interference in the transmission channel. The interference model implemented was the
threshold packet mangler and can be accessed from
net.sf.shox.simulator.physical.ThresholdPacketMangler. The signal to noise ratio (SNR)
threshold value was a parameter. The SNR shows the ratio of signal power and noise power.
The SNR value should be greater or equal to 1 i.e. SNR ≥ 1.
5.8.1.1.5. Simulation Time
is measured in seconds and the time set for every case was 20 seconds.
S The simulation granularity set for cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was implemented at 10,000 steps per
second.
5.8.1.1.6. Results
The results obtained are shown in the charts below,
Figure 5.11: Relative performance comparison at different SNR levels
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
100
5.9. Simulation Results and Performance Analysis
Figure 5.1 shows that when the number of nodes is increasing so the ratio of dropped packets
is also on the rise. To achieve an optimal performance the ratio of dropped packets needs to
be low. From figure 5.1 we observed that the OSR routing protocol drops slightly more
packets than the rumour. The reason is that OSR involves high routing overheads during the
path discovery phase which results in a negative effect on the OSR performance. The
Rumour routing protocol drop packets is in the range of 2% and 15% drop packet ratio in
stationary nodes which is lower than OSR.
We analyse from the figure 5.2, that the drop packets ratio is slightly increased due to mobile
nodes movements in comparison with stationary nodes. OSR shows an increase in drop
packets ratio due to nodes movements, routing path discovery overhead because it gathers
global topological information for full topology, while rumour routing also shows a slight
increase in its dropped packets ratio due to nodes mobility but is still lower than OSR. The
nodes moments effect the performance of both routing protocols. The optimal performance is
closely associated with the lower drop packet ratio.
Furthermore, igure 5.3 demonstrates that in stationary nodes the OSR routing performance
further deteriorates by 25% in the drop packet ratio, while on the other hand in rumour
routing performance is still found to be uniform and is unaffected by an increase in the
number of nodes or network resources. We analyse that as the network resources increase the
performance of OSR is further worsening.
Figure 5.4 explains that in mobile topology the drop packet ratio in both OSR and rumour
shows a slight rise. We observed that due to mobility mode OSR routing performance is
Figure 5.12: Relative performance comparison at minimum SNR levels
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
101
further tainted due to an increase in network resources. OSR requires more storage to store
global topological information. Conversely, rumour routing creates a path only when an event
occurs, so consequently it minimises the routing overheads at the queue interface and boosts
its performance in situations where there is heavy network traffic and so on.
Moreover, igure 5.5 depicts that in a large stationary topology the total number of nodes
increased to 49. Rumour routing protocol starts drop packets earlier than OSR, while overall
rumour packets dropping ratio is less than OSR routing. OSR routing protocol facing more
packet drop which is round about 20%, it‟s due to routing overheads during the path
discovery phase in the spine. Rumour routing is observed to be scalable in terms of node
modification and network resource changes.
Figure 5.6 shows that in large stationary topology first rumour protocol begins to drop
packets because rumour uses a query to discover a path to an event which took place
somewhere in topology. When rumour failed to find a path to an event then it resubmits the
query with TTL (time to live), and floods it to the whole network which increases routing
overheads with the result of dropped packets. In dropping packets OSR protocol begins after
rumour, but the percentage of OSR drop packet ratio is greater than the rumour as the
network resources grow and to adjust and update global routing information table involves
large routing traffic and overhead at interface queue and consequently dropped packets. As
we analyse that in a condensed stationary large network OSR suffers more than rumour,
while rumour performance is not an optimal but better than OSR in terms of routing.
Figure 5.6 shows the placement of 49 nodes in a mobile condense network. The performance
of OSR routing protocol is further worsened and drop packets at percentage of greater than
25% because nodes are moving around in different positions which affects the transmission
path to the target node (sink), and there is a strong possibility that some nodes move out of
the wireless transmission range and the current path will no longer be able to reach the
destination node. Therefore, the discovery path operation is re-performed. Rumour routing
protocols drop packets ratio is recorded as 20% at maximum number of nodes. As an
average drop packet ratio of rumour is between 10 to 15 % at 10 to 45 nodes. We observed
that the rumour routing protocol performs better in terms of drop packet ratio, path discovery,
and route maintenance at mobile nodes.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
102
Figure 5.7 illustrates that in stationary nodes with different simulation time. When simulation
time is increased on the other hand the drop packets ratio is noted as uniform. We observed
that OSR was not affected by a different simulation time. Similarly, the rumour routing
protocol was also not affected by a different simulation time because the simulation is even
discrete simulator and each event happening at particular time.
Figure 5.8 shows mobile nodes with a different simulation time slot in a dense sensor
network. With the OSR routing algorithm it was noted that their drop packet ratio is uniform
at different simulation times. The OSR routing operation is not affected by different
simulation time and the overall drop packet ratio is between 25 to 30 %.
Figure 5.9 shows different field area with respect to stationary topology. The sensor nodes are
stationary in all these different sizes of a simulation field area. It is analysed as the simulation
expands the drop packet ratio was noted uniform both in rumour and OSR. The nodes are
randomly deployed so the probability of network partition cannot be ignored, and the path
discovery mechanism also fails due to network partition. As the area size of the network
increases the distance between the nodes and sink is also increased.
Figure 5.10 exhibits the results of WSNs mobile topology different field area. The drop
packet ratio in rumour was not uniform at stationary topology. While OSR‟s performance is
further worsened with nodes mobility and rumour is approximately uniform in mobile and
stationary topology, even if there is a slight increase in the drop packet ratio. The OSR
routing phase involves the construction of a virtual spinal back bone for the purpose of
providing a back-up and maintenance path, and gathering full topological information as
result the packet at interface queue increases which ends up with dropping packets. On the
other side at rumour with mobile nodes different positions the network performance in terms
of dropping packets is better than OSR because rumour routing agents discovered path and
there is a possibility that multiple optimal path is available to an event which minimise drop
packets and shows flexibility with nodes random movements.
Figure 5.11 shows sound-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels at stationary nodes. The network is
densely populated and consists of 49 nodes at 100 x 100 m2
outdoor environment. We
observed that at SNR lower level 1 the drop packets ratio at OSR was noted as 25% because
the nodes are densely populated at close proximity and the signal overhead and interference is
higher, while on at rumour protocol performance in terms of drop packet ratio was found 5%
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
103
lower. As the SNR level is increases the performance of both OSR and rumour was varies
positively.
Figure 5.12 illustrates sound-to-noise ratio (SNR) different levels at mobile topology. Mobile
topology consisted of 49 nodes and was densely populated at 100 x 100 m2
outdoor
environment. andom walk mobility model is in place for nodes movements. As we analysed
that at SNR level 1 drop packet ratio was noted greater that 25% at OSR because the nodes
moved at a random speed between 0 to 360 degree and this had an obvious impact on the
routing operation. As we increased the SNR level the drop packet ratio decreased in both the
OSR and rumour routing protocol. In terms of performance rumour performed better in a
dense network while OSR had slightly more interference and signal overhead.
Summary
In this chapter we described the implementation of the experiments which are, Experiment 1-
Small Nodes Scenario, Experiment 2- Medium Nodes Scenario, Experiment 3- Large Nodes
Scenario, Experiment No. 4- Simulation Time Variation, Experiment No. 5- Network
Deployment Area Variation, Experiment No. 7- Interference Handler Model Variation and
finally done the performance analysis of simulation results.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
104
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Future Work
6.1. Introduction
Routing in the wireless sensor network (WSNs) is an emergent research area. The reason for
this high interest is the abrupt changes in the network topology and the network does not have
particular infrastructure. A number of routing protocols were proposed for WSNs but the
majority of them were tested for a limited number of scenarios and network performance
metric. To find out the best routing protocols in terms of performance under different
circumstances, is necessary to test it for a number of network performance metrics. In this
chapter we present the conclusions of our thesis, pointing out our contribution and stating
future work.
6.2. Conclusion
Routing Protocols play an important role in the wireless sensor networks and have a vivid
impact on the performance of the overall network. hesis presents novel routing protocols for
wireless sensor networks.
rop packet ratio is our core metric for measuring the rumour and OSR routing protocols
performance. We performed different simulated experiments under different conditions like
an increase in the number of nodes, density of network, simulation pause time variation,
interference SNR levels.
Furthermore, we investigated by means of ShoX simulation based experimentation that when
we have small number of stationary dense topology so we observed that both OSR and
rumour have a very slight variation in terms of performance against the packet drop ratio
metric. Conversely, while in mobile topology OSR and rumour drop packet ratio is noted
between 16-18%, so OSR performance deteriorates slightly in mobile topology due to abrupt
topological link updates and routing table maintenance.
In medium stationary dense topology, we observed that 25% of packets are dropping in case
of OSR routing protocol. On the other side, in rumour at mobile topology drop packet ratio
measurement is lower and overall rumour performs better at mobile nodes.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
105
6.2.1. Reflection of our work on main research question
The sub-research questions which we set out to answer are the following:
Q1. Which protocol performs better in small, medium, and large network topologies?
After running hundreds of simulations for OSR and rumour routing protocols, we concluded
that rumour protocol performs better at both stationary and mobile topologies. Rumour
routing average drop packet ratio in small, medium and large topologies was lower than its
counterpart OSR routing protocol. In addition, the rumour routing protocol is more scalable
and less suffered from routing overhead in case of topological updates.
Q2. Which protocol performs better with different size of deployment area?
We conclude from our experiment, that when the area size of topology was increased from
100 m2 to 400 m
2. e observed that the deployment area size effect the routing operation. As
we analysed the enlargement of the field size, we found that the ratio of drop packets was
raised in both OSR and rumour routing protocols. In terms of performance rumour shows
better because the overall ratio at different deployment size is lower than OSR. It shows that
rumour is more adaptable and compatible with a different area size but condensed network.
Rumour packet drop ratio shows that rumour does not suit well for the environment where it
involves long routing path and scalability is important. On the other side, OSR can be used
for small networks with an undersized deployment area. As the size of the area grows OSR
drops more packets because OSR is a proactive protocol, and requires complete global
information of topology in case of updates such as link failure, nodes movements and so on.
Q3. Which protocol performs better at different simulation time?
We conclude that different simulation time at rumour and OSR performed at uniform level.
The input used during simulation time was the same so we observed that simulation times has
not shown an impact on protocols performance.
Q4. Which protocol suffers more from interference?
We observed that signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) has an impact on the operation of the routing
protocol. As we analysed that with different SNR level the ratio of drop packets varies. As
the level of SNR increases the rate of interference decreases and signal taking more strength.
As with strong signal the chances of path loss, re-routing was found in decline as result less
number of packets are dropped. OSR and Rumour routing protocol both show a uniform
decrease as the SNR level increased from 1 to 2. In stationary topology rumour dropped
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
106
fewer packets while in mobile topology rumour and OSR perform similar at SNR level 2 but
differ at SNR level 1 and 1.5 and at SNR level 1 at OSR drop packet ratio is noted as 27%.
The main question which was needed to be answered in this thesis is the following:
Q. Which of the two routing protocols: rumour protocol or OSR protocol performs better
under different circumstances?
We proved that rumour shows better performance under different circumstances such as
different nodes density, deployment area, and signal-to-noise ratio but in terms of rumour
limitation it does not perform well in sparse sensor network both at stationary and mobile
topologies. We also proved that OSR performance was degraded under different
circumstances such as different nodes density, deployment area. Meanwhile, OSR
performance was satisfactory in terms of signal-to-noise ratio threshold different values. In
terms of simulation times both rumour and OSR performance was found uniform under
different simulation time for the same set of inputs.
David Brahinsky, Deborah Estrin states that their simulation results shows that rumour
routing protocol gives an efficient delivery rate in large dense network under different
circumstances, and the algorithm also provides best fault tolerant mechanism at failure rate
of 20 % . [DX8]
Raghupathy et al., 1998, states that OSR routing protocol is suffering from large routing
overhead and therefore it is not a practical solution for ad hoc networks. [CX24]
The core contribution of our work can be broken into four parts;
First, the thesis provides a detailed study of routing protocols which includes wireless routing
protocols and their architecture, design challenges and other constraints.
Second, a comparative study of routing algorithms wireless sensor network can be presented
for the selected list of protocols in the WSN routing domain.
Third, an extensive number of simulation experiments and analysis were performed using
ShoX simulation.
Fourth, the thesis would be a guideline tool for the selection of an efficient routing protocol
and would alleviate the work of the developer and researcher in the routing domain in the
near future.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
107
6.3. Future Work
Our results assessments shows two routing protocols rumour and OSR, which further need to
be for other network performance metrics such as end-to-end delay, energy consumption, and
so on. From our simulation observation we analysed that proactive routing protocols such as
OSR suffers from more drop packets at both dense and sparse networks because it involves
large routing overhead during updating topology. While reactive protocols such as rumour
performed better but some time suffer due to large flooding. Next, the presented wireless
sensor routing protocols can be deployed on real hardware with realistic performance
parameters for further investigation of their merits and de-merits routing protocols in a real
environment.
Our simulation observations did not involve the security aspect of rumour and OSR, so it
would be interesting to study security aspects of the stated routing protocols.
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
108
Bibliography
[AX1].Encyclopaedia Britannica, Accessed on 30th July 2012
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/364287/Guglielmo-Marconi#4594.toc.>
[AX2]. Kirill Levchenko, 2008, XL: A Communication -Efficient Routing Algorithm, Phd
Thesis, University of California, San Diego
[AX3]. Anonymous, Routing in Data Networks, Chapter 5, p 366-377
[AX4]. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 4th Edition
[AX5]. Todor Stoilov, Krasimira, Routing Algorithm in Computer Networks, 2005,
CompSysTech
[AX6]. Vern Paxson, End-to-End Routing Behaviour in the Internet, Network Research
Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
[AX7]. Boshir Ahmad, 2011, Simulation, Analysis and Performance Comparison among
different Routing Protocols for wireless sensor network, Department of computer science and
engineering, Rajshahi University of engineering and technology, Rajshahi Bangladesh.
[BX1]. Data Communication and Computer Networks 2nd edition by Brijendra Singh
[BX2]. XL. „A Communication Efficient Routing Algorithm‟, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis
University of California, San Diego p. 13-17
[BX3]. Tanenbaum „Computer Network‟ 4th edition
[BX4]. Sam Halabi „Internet Routing Architectures‟ 2nd edition, p. 21-22
[BX5]. Selected Topics in Communication Networks and Distributed System-P.343
[BX6].Routing in Data Networks-p.12
(http://web.mit.edu/dimitrib/www/Routing_Data_Nets.pdf).
[BX7]. Ignasi Paredes Oliva, 2007, A Survey on Routing Algorithms, July 2007, Polytechnic
University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. Accessed on 01/07/2012 <
http://www.slideshare.net/iparedes/a-survey-on-routing-algorithms>
[BX8]. Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard
University Press. 1920. Accessed on 01/07/2012
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
109
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook
%3D8%3Achapter%3D99%3Asection%3D1
[BX9]. J Gregory Sidak, 1994, Governing the Postal Service, Accessed on
http://books.google.ie/books?id=0RgdSuhzz1AC&pg=PA61&dq=history+of+postal+system
&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SfDxT6SuDIjd8QOb1d34DA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=his
tory%20of%20postal%20system&f=false
[BX10]. Jeanne Bendick, 2009, „Herodotus and the Road to History‟ accessed on
09/07/2012-
http://books.google.ie/books?id=GHJuTaiDgqwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=road+history&h
l=en&sa=X&ei=t_bxT4r7GYjO8QPniLiUDQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=road
%20history&f=false
[BX11]. Rajashree.V.Biradar , V.C .Patil , Dr. S. R. Sawant , Dr. R. R. Mudholkar,
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPARISON OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS
SENSOR NETWORKS, Special Issue on Ubiquitous Computing Security Systems, UbiCC
Journal – Volume 4
[BX12].Sharam Hekmat, Communincation Network, 2005 , PragSoft Corporation
[BX13]. Dr. Dheeraj Sanghi, Computer Networks (CS425), Accessed on 19/07/2012
[BX16]. Haifeng Zhu., Comparison Between Pre-Computation and On-Demand Computation
QoS Routing with ,Different Link State Update Algorithms, accessed on 19/07/2012
< http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/dheeraj/cs425/lec11.html/lec12.html >
[BX17]. F.Tekiner, Z. Ghassemlooy, 2005, Improved ANTNET Routing Algorithm for
Packet Switching, university of Manchester
[CX1]. Andrea Goldsmith, Wireless Communication
[CX2]. Peter A. Boncz et al, P2P, Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks - All the Different or All the
Same?
[CX3]. http://vega.cs.kent.edu/~mikhail/classes/aos.f01/l21dsdv.pdf
[CX4]. Emmanuel Sifakis ,Thesis, Routing Protocols for Wireless Networked Sensing and
Control Systems
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
110
[CX5]. [M. Hadjila1 & M. Feham2], A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE WIRELESS
SENSOR NETWORKS ROUTING PROTOCOLS SCALABILITY
[CX6]. Boshir Ahmed et al, Simulation, Analysis and Performance Comparison among
Different Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network
[CX7]. Kemal Akkaya and Mohamed Younis, An Energy-Aware QoS Routing Protocol for
Wireless Sensor Networks
[CX8]. http://www.opnet.com/solutions/network_rd/modeler.html
[CX9]. Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Fernando Ord´o˜nez , Analysis of Energy-Efficient, Fair
Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks
Through Non-linear Optimization
[CX10] Sudip Misra et al, 2009, Guide to Wireless Sensor Network, springer
[CX11]. Sriram V. Pemmaraju, 2008, Geometric Embeddings of Unit Disk
Graphs,Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa
[CX12]. Presented by Aggelos Vlavianos,Jorge Mena, survey on routing protocols for
wireless sensor networks, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Osaka
University
[CX13]. Stefan R¨uhrup, 2009, Theory and Practice of Geographic Routing, Department of
Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Germany
[CX14]. Petteri Kuosmanen, Classification of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols,
Finnish Defence Forces,Naval Academy,Helsinki, Finland
[CX15]. Presenter Sheetal Agarwal,Energy Aware Routing Protocol for Sensor Networks,
www.csee.umbc.edu/.../SheetalSensorNetworks. accessed on: 30/07/2012
[CX16]. SHILPA DHAR,THEIS ON ENERGY AWARE TOPOLOGY CONTROL
PROTOCOLS FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS, B.TECH., UNIVERSITY OF
CALCUTTA, INDIA
[CX17]. Ye Ming Lu, 1999, Multipath Routing Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks, B.
Eng. Ecole Ploytechnique de Montr´eal
[CX18]. Ya Xu et al,Topology Control Protocols to Conserve Energy in Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks
Comparative Performance Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
111
[CX19]. P.T.V.Bhuvaneswari and V.Vaidehi, Location Aided Energy Efficient Routing
Protocol in Wireless Sensor Network
[CX20]. Shio Kumar Singh et al, Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network - A survey,
Maintenance Engineering Department(Electrical),Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand,
India
[CX21]. Debnath Bhattacharyya et al, 2010, A Comparative Study of Wireless Sensor
Networks and Their Routing Protocols, Hannam University, Daejeon, Korea
[CX22]. Jamal N. Al-Karaki, Ahmad E. Kamal, Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor
Networks: A Survey, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, USA
[CX23]. Brad Karp, H.T. Kung, GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless
Networks, Harvard University
[CX24]. Raghupathy et al., 1998, Spice Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Coordinated Science
Laboratory, University of Illinois-page 24
[CX25]. Aleksi Ahtiainen, Summary of Rumour Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks,
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
[DX1]. M. Hadjila, M. Faham, A Comparative Study of the Wireless Sensor Networks
Routing Protocols Scalability, Abou-Baker Belkaid University, Tlemcen
[DX5] 802.11g Transceivers Modules, RFMTM
inc. Accessed on 08 October 2012-.
http://www.rfm.com/tools/WSN802G_compare1.pdf
[DX6]. Yitao Wu, Biao Li, 2011, Perfromance Evaluation of Key 802.11 MAC Protocols,
Simon Fraser University, Canada
[DX7]. Johannes Lessmann et al., Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, University
of Paderborn, Germany
[DX8]. David Brahinsky, Deborah Estrin, Rumor Routing Algorithm for sensor network,
Computer Science Department, university of California- page 27