Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols under Mobility Models in Mobile Ad Hoc NetworksNaveen Bilandi* and Aamna Gupta**

Abstract: In recent years, many researchers have done a lot of work in different field of aspects in MANET. Mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is a collection of nodes which consist of infrastructure less and are designed to communicate with each other. Routing protocol send data from source to destination that discover the optimal path between the two nodes and describe how routers communicate between each other in order to complete this task. In this paper we focus on the three categories on the basis of the performance of the routing protocols OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing), AODV(Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector) and Geographical Routing Protocol (GRP) under mobility models i.e. Vector Mobility and Random Direction model. The comparison is done based on metrics such as throughput, packet delivery ratio and average end-to-end delay by using the OPNET simulator. The simulation based results are based on varying node density and network pause time.

Keywords: MANET, AODV, OLSR, GRP and OPNET.

1. INTRODUCTIONThe telecommunications networks are growing very rapidly in the last decade. With the advancement of technology, applications rates are growing rapidly. MANET consist of various advantages over traditional network such as cost, fault tolerance as routing is performed individually by the other intermediate nodes to perform the packets. Two nodes are directly communicate by transmission range otherwise via multiple route. Nodes in the network should able to discover the routes [1]. The main problem is the limited bandwidth and topological changes. Therefore routing in Ad-Hoc wireless network play an important role for data forwarding [3]. There is always an possibility that target nodes may go outside the source nodes to transmit the packets. There are having many issues which consist of reliability of Ad hoc networks such as centralisation of structure as each node act as a host and router to deliver the packets which requires performance of routing task consist of memory and battery [1] Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing protocols are traditionally divided into two classes (Reactive and Proactive) depending on when nodes acquire a route to a destination [4]. Reactive protocols are characterized by node acquire and maintain routes on demand, i.e. route to a destination is not acquire by anode until packet is not received by a destination node [6]. Proactive protocols are characterized by all nodes maintain route.

1.1. Routing ProtocolsWhen we need to transfer the data from source to destination, we need a path or a route. The routing protocol must able to response quickly in topological change in the node. The main drawback is asymmetric links, routing overhead and topological change.

A. Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) ProtocolAd hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Protocols is a reactive protocols, which means it works on demand [5]. It allows the mobile nodes to obtain the routes that are in active mode for new destination. It does not * Department of Computer Science and Engineering, DAV University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India. naveen.bilandi@davuniversity.org** Department of Computer Science and Engineering, DAV University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India. aamnagupta@yahoo.in

I J C T A, 9(23) 2016, pp. 463-472© International Science Press

464 Naveen Bilandi and Aamna Gupta

maintain the routes that are not participated in active communication. Source node and intermediate nodes store the next hop information. AODV uses a destination sequence number to determine path to destination that is up to date [3]. It consist of low utilization which ensure loop free. If there are multiple routes from the request sender to the destination then sender takes the route with highest sequence number.

B. Geographical Routing Protocol (GRP)Geographic routing protocol is based on position-based information. Source node sends a message to geographic location of the destination instead of network address. Each node finds out its own location and information sent to the source about location of destination by broadcasting the “HELLO” message. For the broadcast purpose, sender node sends the “HELLO” message to the destination node [2]. If destination node responds back, then sender transmits the data packets over all networks. A Packet “Destination Query” (DQ) is used by the source node and then sent to the destination through the network. As DQ packet consists of Network Information Gathering (NIG) used by router in the network [7].

C. Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) ProtocolOptimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol is a proactive routing protocol and employs a mechanism known as Multipoint Relaying. Optimisation can be done by two methods: by reducing the size of control packet and by reducing the number of links i.e. used to forward the data packets. OLSR works on three mechanism: neighbouring sensing, flooding and optimal route using the shortest path. The Multi Point Relays (MPRs) eliminate the traffic congestions by distributed data packets over network. In this approach, data packets from source node to destination [4]. MPR selector enables sender to send data packets to the destination node when the destination node is ready[1].

2. RELATED WORKMany researchers have done the analysis of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols by the different performance metrics under the different mobility models and used different simulators for this purpose.

Zhou et al. [8] propose a joint scheduling algorithm. Each multicast session has its own source and destinations and sends identical information to the destinations. Liu et al.[9]investigated the scaling laws of throughput and average delay in a mobile ad hoc network with correlated mobility. Wang et al. [10] has an investigation of the impact of adaptive-rate communication model under some mobility models and derived the optimal delay. Gupta et al. [11] evaluated the effect of mobility on the routing protocol i.e. AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR in terms of packet delivery ratio, average end-to-end delay and normalized routing load. Proactive routing protocols deliver less packets as compared to their reactive protocol. Mohan et al.[12] evaluated the performance of two routing protocols Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol (AODV)and Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) based upon different mobility models scenarios: Random Waypoint, Reference Group Point Mobility, Freeway and Manhattan models. Performance comparison has been made on the basis of the varying Node Speed with fixed Network size. Is mail et al. [13]evaluate the performance of AODV in different mobility speed through the simulation method. In the simulation, node mobility speed has a large impact on throughput in wireless environment so as on PDR. The result shows as the node mobility speed increase, the throughput and PDR decrease. Sonia et al. [14] compared and evaluated performance of four MANET routing protocols under various CBR and TCP traffic patterns. The performance is evaluated based on the metrics like Delivery Rate, End-to-end Delay and Throughput and concluded that for CBR traffic, AODV (reactive) protocol performs better while for TCP traffic, OLSR (proactive) protocol performs. Divecha et al. [15] shown the effects of various mobility models on the performance of two routing Protocols i.e. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector(DSDV) and considered four mobility scenarios: Random

465Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols under Mobility Models in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Wayward Mobility, Group Mobility, Freeway and Manhattan models. Comparison has been made on the basis of varying node densities and number of hops. It has been observed that the both AODV and DSDV gives a good performance with the Reference Point Group Mobility Model. While AODV has high Throughput and Low End to End Delay comparing to DSDV Protocol. Packet Delivery Ratio for both AODV and DSDV is relatively same.

3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Simulation SetupIn simulation setup, the main goal is to investigate the performance of routing protocols under the mobility model. We use OPNET simulator tool. As OPNET consists of high level user interface which is constructed from source codes. It simulates the behavior and performance of any type of network. The simulator has a lot of potentiality work, but there exists typically a lack of the recent wireless systems. OPNET version 14.5 can be used as a network design/analysis tool, technologies and protocols.

3.2. Scenario

Table 1 Simulation Parameters

Statistic ValueSimulator OPNET 14.5

Routing Protocols AODV,OLSR and GRPData rate 11 Mbps for 802.11

MANET Nodes 50 nodesScenario Size 3.5 × 3.5 km

Voice frames per packets OneSimulation Time 15 minutes

Application Traffic MultimediaChannel Type IEEE 802.11 Wireless channel

Performance Parameters Throughput, Delay, Network Load, Retransmission Attempts

and Data Dropped

3.3. Performance MetricsThis paper analyzed the following important performance parameters for compared the AODV, OLSR and GRP routing protocols:

3.3.1. ThroughputIt describes the average number of messages successfully delivered per unit time.

Throughput = (number of delivered packet × packet size)/Total duration of simulation.

3.3.2. Average end-to-end DelayIt represents how the delay is encountered between the sending and receiving of the packets. It is the time from the transmission of data packet at a source node until packet delivery to a destination which includes possible delays.

466 Naveen Bilandi and Aamna Gupta

3.3.3. Network Load (NL)Number of total data traffic (in bits/sec) received by the entire WLAN BSS from the higher layers of the MACs that is accepted and queued for transmission.

3.3.4. Data DroppedData dropped shows how many number of packets successfully sent and received across the network and also explains the number of packet dropped during the transmission.

3.3.5. Retransmission AttemptsRetransmission attempts are the resending of packets which have been either damaged or lost. Protocols which provide reliable communication over such networks use a combination of acknowledgments.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIn this section we analyze the performance of various routing protocol which is based on the results obtained after simulation experiments are conducted on routing protocols. The main target of this paper is to evaluate the performance and behavior of each routing protocol with respect to the effect of varying the number of nodes.

1. ThroughputAccording to Figure 1 OLSR is having the highest throughput under vector mobility model and gives better results than random Way Point Model. GRP under Vector Mobility starts with a burst but after sometimes it performance decreases.

Figure 1. Throughput (bits/sec) comparison of 50 nodes

467Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols under Mobility Models in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Because OLSR always have up-to-date topology information and new routes can be calculated immediately. AODV and GRP will have to first discover a route before the actual information can be transmitted.

Table 1 Throughput comparison of 50 nodes

ThroughputAODV OLSR GRP

Random Vector Random Vector Random Vector900,000 900,000 1400,000 2300,000 700,000 800,000

2. DelayAgain in Figure 2 OLSR outperforms both AODV and GRP in terms of end to end delay experienced in the network. OLSR is having the lowest delay because of network size.

Figure 2. Delay comparison of 50 nodes

When a packet arrives at a node, it can immediately be forwarded or dropped because OLSR protocol proactively holds routes to all destinations in its table. Delay is largest for GRP in vector mobility model.

Table 2 Delay comparison of 50 nodes

DelayAODV OLSR GRP

Random Vector Random Vector Random Vector0.0033 0.0027 0.009 0.009 0.0037 0.0046

468 Naveen Bilandi and Aamna Gupta

3. Network LoadIn Figure 3 OLSR gives the best performance in Random way point mobility because VBR files have variable output data per time segment.

Figure 3. Network Load comparison of 50 nodes

VBR permits more complex segment models as of media files due to variable bit rate encode the sound or video data more correctly the bits available are used more flexibly due to which the throughput of OLSR comes out to be best among the two other protocols. In vector mobility model GRP.

Table 3 Network Load comparison of 50 nodes

Network LoadAODV OLSR GRP

Random Vector Random Vector Random Vector450,000 420,000 420,000 540,000 370,000 440,000

4. Data DroppedWe observe that the GRP is having the highest data dropped in AODV and OLSR under the random mobility model. AODV is having the least data dropped because a route discovery process has to be activated and has no available route when needed. This may be explained by the fact that OLSR, is a hybrid protocol and has a faster processing at intermediate nodes.

Table 4 Data Dropped comparison of 50 nodes

Data DroppedAODV OLSR GRP

Random Vector Random Vector Random Vector10,000 8,000 34,000 22,000 37,000 25,000

469Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols under Mobility Models in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Figure 4.Data Dropped comparison of 50 nodes

5. Retransmission AttemptsGRP is having the highest retransmissions in both AODV and OLSR under the random way point mobility model. Retransmission attempts of AODV routing protocol has been lowest than OLSR and GRP because packets have to be saved. Therefore, AODV routing protocol has lowest retransmission attempts.

Figure 5. Retransmission Attempts comparison of 50 nodes

470 Naveen Bilandi and Aamna Gupta

Table 5 Retransmission comparison of 50 nodes

Retransmissions Attempts

AODV OLSR GRPRandom Vector Random Vector Random Vector

0.5 0.3 0.7 1 3.3 1.8

5. CONCLUSIONSimulation results shows that the effect of various network desity on to compare the performance of three protocols AODV, OLSR and GRP under the Random Way Point Mobility and Vector Mobility Models with varying network density. This comparison shows that the AODV protocol performed the best in Random Way Point Mobility model. OLSR performs almost similar to GRP in terms of different performance metrices. In Vector Mobility Model scenario when we compared GRPis good in throughput, Delay than AODV and OLSR. When we increase the network density all the protocols are affected in accordance with mobility models.

References1. R.J. Mohsin, “Density and mobility impact on MANET routing protocols in a maritime environment”, in proceeding of

Science and Information Conference (SAI), 28-30 July 2015.2. A. Pramanik, “Simulative study of random waypoint mobility model for mobile ad hoc networks”, in proceeding of IEEE

Transactions On Communications Technologies, 23-24 April 2015.3. A. Ambhaikar, H.R. Sharma and V.K. Mohabey,“Scalability Performance of MANET Routing Protocols with Reference

to Variable Pause Time,” in proceeding of International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering(IJCSE), Vol. 02, No. 09, 2010.

4. S. Kumar, S.C. Sharma and B. Suman, “Impact of Mobility Models with Different Scalability of Networks on MANET Routing Protocols”, in proceeding of International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 2, Issue 7, July-2011.

5. K. Jain and R. R. Tewari, “ Influence of Mobility Models in Performance Evaluation of MANET Routing Protocols”, in proceeding of International Journal of Computer Applications, 2012.

6. S. Zhou and L. Ying, “On Delay Constrained Multicast Capacity of Large-Scale Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, in proceeding of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, Vol. 61, No.10, October 2015.

7. J. Liu, N. Kato, J.Ma, and T. Sakano, “Throughput and Delay Tradeoffs for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks With Reference Point Group Mobility”, in proceeding of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, Vol. 14, No. 3, March 2015.

8. C. Wang, X.Y. Li, C. Jiang, and H. Yan, “The Impact of Rate Adaptation on Capacity-Delay Tradeoffs in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, in proceeding of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING”, Vol. 13, No.11, November 2014.

9. P. Gupta, S. Gupta, “Performance Evaluation of Mobility Models on MANET Routing Protocols”, in proceeding of 2012 Third International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies.

10. R. Mohan, C. Rajan, Dr. N. Shanthi , “A Stable Mobility Model Evaluation Strategy for MANET Routing Protocols”, in proceeding of International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer.

11. Z. Ismail, R. Hassan, “A Performance Study of Various Mobility Speed on AODV Routing Protocol in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous MANET”, in proceeding of 2011 17th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), 2nd – 5th October 2011.

12. S.J. Soni, J.S. Shah, “Evaluating Performance of OLSR Routing Protocol for Multimedia Traffic in MANET using NS2”, in proceeding of 2015 Fifth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies.

13. B. Divecha, A. Abraham, C. Grosanand S. Sanyal,“Analysis of Dynamic Source Routing and Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Protocols for Different Mobility models”, in proceeding of School of Technology and Computer Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.

14. E.A. Bojd, N. Moghim, F.N. Mofakham, N. Movahedinia, “A New Reactive Routing Algorithm to Improve Capacity and Average End-to-End Delay in MANETs”, Springer, November 2014.

471Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols under Mobility Models in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

15. R. Suraj, S. Tapaswi1,S. Yousef, K. K. Pattanaik, M. Cole, “Mobility prediction in mobile ad hoc networks using a lightweight genetic algorithm”, Springer, Science Business Media New York 2015.

16. D. Macone,, G. Oddi, A. Pietrabissa, “MQ-Routing: Mobility-, GPS- and energy-aware routing protocol in MANETs for disaster relief scenarios”, Elseiver.

17. M. Ahmad, Z. Khan, Q. Chen, and M.N. Islam,“On the Performance Assessment of the OLSR Protocol in Mobile Ad hoc Networks Using TCP and UDP”, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015.

18. A. Daas, K. Mofleh, E. Jabr, S. Hamad, “Comparison between AODV and DSDV Routing protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)”, 2015 IEEE.

19. Z. Wang, Y. Chen, C. Li, “PSR: a Light-Weight Proactive Source Routing Protocol For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, 2013 IEEE.

20. M. Ahmad, Z. Khan, Q. Chen, and M. N. Islam,“On the Performance Assessment of the OLSR Protocol in Mobile Ad hoc Networks Using TCP and UDP”, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27293-1_26, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015.

21. A. Daas, K. Mofleh, E.J abr, S. Hamad, “Comparison between AODV and DSDV Routing protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)”, 2015 IEEE.

22. A. Pal, J.P. Singh , P. Dutta, “Path length prediction in MANET under AODV routing: Comparative analysis of ARIMA and MLP model,” Egyptian Informatics Journal (2015), Elsevier.

23. S. Kumar, S.C. Sharma, B. Suman, “Impact of Mobility Models with Different Scalability of Networks on MANET Routing Protocols” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011.