Effect of using different propagations on performance of olsr and dsdv

Effect of Using Different Propagations on Performance of OLSR and DSDV Routing Protocols

1Norrozila Sulaiman, Ghaidaa M. Abdulsahib1,2, Osamah I. Khalaf1,3, and Muamer N. Mohammed1,4

1Faculty of Computer Systems & Software Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang, 26300, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia 2Faculty of Computer Engineering, University of Technology, 10066Al-Sina’a Street, Baghdad, Iraq

3Faculty of Information Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, 10072 Al-Jadriyah, Baghdad, Iraq 4State Company for Internet Services, Ministry of Communications, 10001 Abo Nuwas, Baghdad, Iraq

[email protected], and {Usama81818, gh961, muamer.scis}@yahoo.com

Abstract—The performance of Ad hoc routing protocol always has been measured by using free-space model and Two-ray ground model. But these two models are very simple and can't represent real world propagation, because they ignored the effect of obstacles in their environment representation. So the most real models is shadowing propagation model which has taken all these factors in account. This paper explains the effect of using two types of propagation models which are: Two Ray Ground model and shadowing model for two important protocols such as Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Optimized Link Status Routing (OLSR), which are considered a proactive and Table Driven routing protocols and then different performance metrics has been measured. The simulations results have shown that the type of the propagation model has great impact on routing protocol, and it has effected severely on its performance.

Keywords — Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Two Ray Ground Shadowing Model, Routing Protocols Metrics Analysis, , DSDV simulation and OLSR Simulation.

I. INTRODUCTION An ad-hoc network is a collection of mobile nodes which

are connected in arbitrary form as shown in Figure1, and it can form a temporary network without needing to any type of stable infrastructure. In this network the nodes which are connected may be laptop, mobile phones, and PDA, etc. and any node can be worked as a router which is received and send a packets [1].In Ad- hoc network selection the type of routing protocol is an important part for increasing network performance and, it also plays an important role in data transfer control [2]. There are many types of multi path routing protocols for Ad Hoc Networks [3]. These routing protocols are either table-driven routing protocols (Proactive routing protocols) or on-demand routing protocols (reactive routing protocols). Many routing protocols are hybrid which contained a combined attributes of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. The proactive routing protocols update their routing tables periodically, when there is a request to forward message the routes which are available in the routing table.

Fig.1. Ad-Hoc network Four Terminus

But in case of reactive routing when there is a request for

a route the searching process will be done to find a route. In the route search operation the reactive routing protocols, find multiple paths for the same source and destination pair. One out of these multiple route has been selected to forward messages to the destination node. Figure2 shows as routing protocols classification.

Fig. 2. Classification of Ad-hoc Routing

This paper mainly studied only one type of these routing protocols which is a table driven routing protocol (proactive)

2014 Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation

2166-0662/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/ISMS.2014.99

540

and two protocols from this type : DSDV and OLSR because these protocols are well suited for the application which does not allow the long delays in the transmission of the data packets and all the previous studies focus on only the other protocols like AODV,DSR and there is no study measured the QoS parameters in DSDV and OLSR ,so that this paper aimed to study these two types and also study impact of the different propagation models like: Two Ray Ground, Shadowing on performance on these two protocols. These models are used to predict the received signal power of each packet. At the physical layer of each wireless node, there is a receiving threshold. When a packet is received, if its signal power is below the receiving threshold, it is marked as error and dropped by the MAC layer [4].

II. RELATED WORKS Sangeetha et. al [5] proposed a routing protocol which is

able to discover a backup routes in order to improve the Packet Delivery Ratio in Shadow-Fading. These routes can keep and transfer the packets when the active route failure occurs. This protocol has implemented with a technique of having backup routes and the simulation has been carried out using Network Simulator 2 (NS2) and done by using both node disjoint and link disjoint paths. Ramandeep et. al [6] measured the performance of three protocols AODV, DSDV and OLSR. They used NS-3 to measure the packet delivery ratio and calculate the performance of Ad hoc network of these three protocols by depending on this parameter. Dhrupad et al [7] adapted thewell known shadowing model and investigated the performance of Ad-hoc network in this shadowing model. And they also proposed three solutions to minimize the shadowing effects. NS-2 results show that these three solutions can be used to minimize the shadowing effects on Ad-hoc network. Md. Anwar et al [8] was presented a new analytical model to calculate the effects of shadowing on the Ad-hoc network performance. This model is verified using NS-2.they proposed two solution s to reduce the shadowing effects the first solution is a physical layer solution and the other is a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer solution. .

III. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. Table-driven routing protocol it is one type of Ad-hoc network routing protocols Based

on the periodically sending the routing information to the different nodes, each node builds its own routing table which it can use to find a path to a destination. This routing protocol has the ability to change routing if link between nodes are broken by modification the information of all nodes in the network. When the topology of the network changes, the nodes distribute update messages across the whole network [9].All nodes can select the shortest way to reach to the destination nodes On the basis of update of routing information between the different nodes, every node will be built and design own routing table which it can use

to find a path to a destination. The table-driven ad hoc routing is similar to the connectionless algorithm of forwarding packets, with no regard to when and how frequently such routes are desired. It depends on an underlying routing table update mechanism which contained the stable transferring of routing information[10].there are many examples of this type of routing protocols like, Destination Sequenced Distance Vector routing protocol(DSDV), optimized link status routing protocol(OLSR), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP), Cluster-Head Gateway Switch Routing protocol and Source Tree Adaptive Routing protocol (STAR)[11]. B. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) It is a table driven routing protocol .It Adds Sequence number to distance-vector routing and it keeps all short duration changes. In this protocol each node transfers its own routing table updates and important link status changes and its sequences number to other nodes periodically. When two routes to a destination node has received from two different nodes. it will be select the one with highest destination sequence number but if the two numbers are equal, it will be selected the smaller hop count. DSDV always reduce the overhead of control by Incremental update and settling time. In DSDV the routes are maintained by periodic exchanges which have been made to routing table, always the settling time and incremental dumps is used to reduce overhead of DSDV control[12].DSDV maintains only the best path instead of maintaining multiple paths to every destination. With this, the amount of space in routing table is reduced it can used to avoid extra traffic with incremental updates instead of full dump updates. The problem of count to infinity is also reduced in DSDV [13].

C. Optimized Link Status Routing(OLSR) In this protocol each node transfers its own routing table

updates and important link status changes and its sequences number to other nodes periodically [14].In OLSR protocol, there are four main steps to create a route table: sensing the neighbor nodes, MPR ((Multi-Point Relay) selection, MPR information declaration and route table calculation. In the neighbor sensing the node send HELLO message to its neighbor node to tell them the information about the node and its link status. Each neighbor node updates its table route when it has received HELLO message. Then each node can select it’s MPR independently from another neighbor nodes according to the MPR selection scheme. OLSR has less average end to end delay from other protocols. Its design is user-friendly because its simplicity in using interfaces and it is easy to merge with other routing protocols which are available in the existing operating systems without needing to change the format of the header of the IP messages. OLSR does not need to central administrative system and its suitable with a rapid changes ad hoc network. The main disadvantages of OLSR that it needs more time re-discovering a broken link, its wider delay distribution, It

541

requires more processing power when discovering an alternate route because it has maintained routes to all nodes even if these nodes are not necessary and it suffers from a lack of security [15]. D. Propagation Model Types:

Free space model: It is one type of propagation models that are used for short distance. Free space model can only influence by noise of the source only. The free space propagation model assumes the ideal propagation condition that there is only one clear line-of-sight path between the transmitter and receiver. The free space model basically represents the communication range as a circle around the transmitter. If a receiver is within the circle, it receives all packets. Otherwise, it loses all packets.

The following equation is used to calculate the received signal power in free space at distance d from the transmitter

� ��(1)�

Where: The received signal power in free space at distance d.

is the transmitted signal power. and are the antenna gains of the transmitter and the receiver.

is the wavelength. It is common to select. d is the distance. L (L�1) is the system loss.

�� Two-Ray Ground Model: It is another type of

propagation that is used with the long distance because it is an accurate in prediction and giving excellent results. Two-Ray Ground can be influenced by the noise from the source and noise of the earth (Ground). Two-Ray ground is evaluated by:

(2) Where:

The received power at distance (d) . and are the antenna gains of the transmitter and the

receiver. are the heights of the transmit and receive

antennas respectively. d is the distance. L (L � 1) is the system loss [4].

�� Shadowing Model: Shadowing model is more realistic model. Because shadowing model influenced by noise from of source, destination, obstacles and air. The shadowing model is represented by the following function[16]:

(3) Where:

The received power at distance (d) in db.

The received power at close-in distance ( ) . is called the path loss exponent. is a Gaussian random variable with zero mean in db .

IV. NETWORK SIMULATION This study is to measure the performance of

Destination Sequared Distance Vector(DSDV) and Optimize Link State Routing(OLSR) , and compare between Two Ray Ground Model and Shadowing Model on the basis of QoS parameters like packet delivery ratio (PDR), average throughput, End to End Delay, and Number Of dropped Packets. The simulations were performed using network simulator-NS2 with the CBR (continuous bit-rates) as a traffic sources .The source-destination nodes has been moved randomly over the network. The mobility model has been used a square area of (800mx800m) with10, 20, 60 nodes. The simulation time is 150 seconds. The model parameters that have been utilized in this work are shown in Table.1

TABLE.I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Simulation Parameters Value Routing Protocol Type OLSR Simulation Time(sec) 150

Nodes Number 10,20,60 Simulation Area(m) 500*500

Name of Traffic CBR MAC Type 802.11

Simulation Model Two Ray ground, Shadowing Packet Size(bytes) 512

Simulator NS2

Performance Metrics �� Packet delivery ratio: It is defined as the ratio between

the total delivered data packet number and the sent data packet number. This ratio is used to illustrate the level of delivered data to the destination node. � Total Number of packet receive / � Total Number of packet send. When the packet delivery ratio is great it means that the protocol successes in delivering all packets to the destination node so it indicates that the performance of the protocol is good [17].

�� Average Throughput: It's defined as the ratio of a received data to the simulation time. This data may be transferd over a logical or a physical or , or push through a network node. It always measured in data packets/second or data packets /time slot.

�� End-to-End Delay: This is defined as the time which has been taken by the data packets to be reached to the destination nodes. It can be calculated by divided The summation of all time differences between sending and receiving of packets, low average end to end delay in

542

network is a good indicator for performance of the routing protocol.

�� Number of Dropped Packets: in a network layer when a packet has reached, it is forwarded to the destination is known this case happened when a valid route is available, otherwise it is buffered until it reaches the destination if the buffer is full A packet will be dropped [18].

V. SIMULATION RESULTS A. Optimized Link Status Routing (OLSR) �� Packet Delivery Ratio: The packet delivery ratio of

Shadowing model is the better than packet delivery ratio of Two Ray Ground model. Even in case of increasing number of nodes in OLSR the packet delivery ratio will be also increased so shadowing model performs better than Two Ray Ground model in context to packet delivery ratio, As shown in Table.2 Figure3.

TABLE II. PACKET DELIVER RATIO IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING

No. of Nodes Two Ray Ground Shadowing 10 85.64 92.22 20 86.79 94.10 60 91.32 97.77

Fig. 3. Packet delivery ratio for OLSR using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

�� Throughput: The throughput of Two Ray Ground model is the greater than Shadowing and it increased when the number of nodes increased but in Shadowing model if the number of nodes increased the throughput will be decreased and vice versa, As shown in Table.3 Figure4.

TABLE III. THROUGHPUT IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING


Fig. 4. Throughput for OLSR using Two Ray Ground and Shadowing

�� End-to-End Delay: As shown in Table.4 Figure5, The

least end to end delay can be obtained in Two Ray Ground model, but the differences between shadowing and Two Ray Ground model is slight not great difference in value.

TABLE IV. END TO END DELAY IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING


Fig. 5. End-To-End delay for OLSR using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

�� Number of dropped Packets: In Two Ray Ground model and Shadowing model if the number of nodes increased the number of dropped packets decreased and vice versa, but the number of dropped packets in shadowing is higher than that in Two Ray Ground model. Table5 and Figure 6.

TABLE V. NUMBER OF DROPPED PACKETS IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING

No. of Nodes Two Ray Ground Shadowing 10 9 22 20 7 19 60 3 8

543

Fig. 6. Number of dropped packets for OLSR using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

B. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) �� Packet Delivery Ratio: In case of great number of

nodes the packet delivery ratio of Shadowing model is the better than packet delivery ratio of Two Ray Ground model. When the number of nodes in DSDV has increased the packet delivery ratio will be also increased so DSDV with shadowing propagation give a high performance in context to packet delivery ratio, As shown in Table.6 Figure 7.

TABLE VI. PACKET DELIVER RATIO IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING


Fig. 7. Packet delivery ratio for DSDV using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

�� Throughput: In case of Two Ray Ground model the throughput has increased when the number of nodes increased but in Shadowing model if the number of nodes increased the throughput will be decreased so the highest throughput can be obtained in greater number of nodes in Two Ray Ground propagation model, as shown in Table.7 Figure8.

TABLE VII. THROUGHPUT IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING


Fig. 8. Throughput for DSDV using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

�� End-to-End Delay: As shown in Table.8 Figure9, in both cases of Two Ray Ground and shadowing model the End to End delay increased as the number of nodes decreased and vice versa, but when a comparison between Two Ray Ground and Shadowing has made the shadowing propagation model gives the least End To End delay as compared to Two Ray Ground propagation model.

TABLE VIII. END TO END DELAY IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING


Fig.9 End-To-End delay for DSDV using Two Ray Ground and Shadowing

�� Number of dropped Packets: In both cases of Two

Ray Ground and shadowing model the number of dropped packets is increased as the number of nodes increased and vice versa but the number of dropped

544

packets in the Two Ray Ground is least than that in shadowing model. Table9 and Figure10.

TABLE IX. NUMBER OF DROPPED PACKETS IN TWO RAY GROUND AND SHADOWING

No. of Nodes Two Ray Ground Shadowing 10 17 27 20 26 35 60 36 62

Fig. 10. Number of dropped packets for OLSR using Two Ray Ground and

Shadowing

VI. CONCLUSIONS This paper is based on study two propagation models

which are two ray ground model and shadowing model and their effects on DSDV and OLSR Ad-hoc routing protocols. The simulations results have shown that the type of the propagation model has great impact on routing protocol, and it has effected severely on its performance. All the previous works didn’t studied the effect of the propagation on table driven routing protocols, they had studied effect of propagation on AODV, DSR only so this paper has concluded that the shadowing improved the performance of these two protocols by increasing the number of packets delivery ratio and the End to End delay in Shadowing is slightly higher than the Two Ray Ground but Two Ray Ground is shown a good performance in terms of throughput and number of dropped packets. So when take all the factors into account the Shadowing model is better than the Two Ray Ground because it represent a real world propagation and its performance is better than Two Ray Ground in context to Packet delivery ratio.

REFERENCES [1] WAN Chunfeng."An Introduction on Ad-Hoc Networks",Wiely

Publisher,2006,pp.15. [2] T. Sangeetha,K. K. Venkatesh, Rajesh, M. S. K. Manikandan,"QoS

Aware Routing Protocol to Improve Packet Transmission in Shadow-

Fading Environment for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", Scientific Research Publishing,vol.5, No.3B,2013, pp.611-617.

[3] H.-W. Tsai, T.-S. Chen and C.-P. Chu, “An On-Demand Routing Protocol with Backtracking for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", Vol.3, 2004,pp.1557-1562.

[4] Johann Lopez, Jose M. Barcelo and Jorge Gracia Vidal. "Analyzing the Overhead in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network with a Hierarchical Routing Structure", cite seer publishing,2004,pp.5.

[5] R. Shi and Y. Deng, “An Improved Scheme for Reducing the Latency of AODV in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” 9th International Conference for Young Computer Scientists, IEEE Computer Society, 2008, pp. 594-598.

[6] Ramandeep Kaur and Chandan Sharma,"Review paper on performance analysis of AODV, DSDV, OLSR on the basis of packet delivery", IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE), Vol.11, No.1, 2013, PP 51-55 .

[7] Dhrupad Debnath, Chowdhury Akram Hossain, Rumana Islam, Mohammed Tarique and Indira Kalyan Dutta, " Minimizing Shadowing Effects on Mobile Adhoc Networks", Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Telecommunications (JSAT),201,pp.46-51.

[8] Md. Anwar Hossain, Mohammed Tarique and Rumana "SHADOWING EFFECTS ON ROUTING PROTOCOL OF MULTIHOP AD HOC NETWORKS",Internasional Journal of adhoc, sensor and ubiquitous computing, vol.1,2010,pp.12-28.

[9] Misra,S.,DHURANDHER K., M. S.Obaidat,A.Nangia,N. Bhardwaj, P. Goyal, S. Aggarwal,"Node Stability-Based Location Updating in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks", IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, 2008, pp. 237-247.

[10] Narendra Singh Yadav, R.P.Yadav , "Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks", International Journal of Information Technology Volume 4, No. 2 PP.101-109, 2000.

[11] C. Siva Ram Murthy and B.S. Manoj., "Ad-Hoc wireless network architecture and protocols", 2007, pp.9-21.

[12] Kumar Manoj, Parmanand S., Sharma and Singh S., "Performance of QoS Parameter in Wireless Ad hoc Network (IEEE 802.11b)", Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, Vol.1, ,2009,pp.978-988.

[13] K. Gorantala, “Master thesis of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” 2006, p.14.

[14] jolaSpaho, Makoto Ikeda, Leonard Barolli, FatosXhafa, Muhammad Younasand Makoto Takizawa "Performance of OLSR and DSDV Protocols in a VANET Scenario: Evaluation UsingCAVENET and NS3", Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA), Seventh International Conference on,2012, pp. 108 - 113.

[15] Dilpreet Kaur,Naresh Kumar," Comparative Analysis of AODV, OLSR, TORA, DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks'',International Journal of Computer Network and Information, Vol. 5, No. 3,2012, PP.39-46.

[16] Yahia, M.,Biro J."Behavior of TCP algorithms on ad-hoc networks based on DifferentRouting Protocols(MANETs) and propagation models",Wireless and Mobile Communications International Conference onIEEE.2006,,pp.40,65.

[17] Vijaya, Amiya kumarRath, PinakBhusan Mishra, AmulyaRatna Dash, 2nd international conference on Emerging Applications of Information technology, IEEE, Second International Conference on Emerging Applications of InformationTechnology,2011,pp.340-344.

[18] Nor Surayati Mohamad Usop, Azizol Abdullah and Ahmad Faisal AmriAbidin, “Performance Evaluation of AODV, DSDV & DSR Routing Protocol in Grid Environment”, IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.9 NO.7, July 2009,pp.261-269.

545