Comparison of different MANET routing protocols in wireless ADHOC

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET

ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS

AD-HOC NETWORKS USING G-SENSE

INTRODUCTION

Importance of networking

Computer network – system for communication between computers (fixed, temporary)

History starts with Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1962

1969 the beginning of ARPANet which connected University of LA, SRI, University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah

Ethernet developed in 1980

In 1994, Bluetooth proposed by Ericsson to develop a short-range, low-power, low complexity, and inexpensive radio interface

WLAN 802.11 spec. is proposed in 1997

AD-HOC NETWORKS

Need of Ad-Hoc Networks Setting up of fixed access points and backbone infrastructure is

not always viable

Infrastructure may not be present in a disaster area or war zone

Infrastructure may not be practical for short-range radios; Bluetooth (range ~ 10m)

Do not need backbone infrastructure support

Are easy to deploy

Useful when infrastructure is absent, destroyed or impractical

AD-HOC NETWORKS

Characteristics of an AD-HOC network

Collection of mobile nodes forming a temporary network

Network topology changes frequently and unpredictably

No centralized administration or standard support services

Each host is an independent router

Hosts use wireless RF transceivers as network interface

Number of nodes 10 to 100 or at most 1000

TYPES OF WIRELESS NETWORKS

Two types of wireless network:

Infrastructured

the mobile node can move while communicating

the base stations are fixed

as the node goes out of the range of a base station, it gets into the range of another base station

Infrastructureless or ad-hoc

the mobile node can move while communicating

there are no fixed base stations

all the nodes in the network need to act as routers

CELLULAR AND AD-HOC NETWORKS

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CELLULAR AND AD-HOC NETWORKS

CELLULAR WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORK NETWORK

MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS (MANET) Self-creating, self-organizing and self-administrating without deploying any kind of

infrastructure.

Wide application in military, commercial and educational environments where fixed

infrastructure is not easily acquired.

Two nodes communicate directly or via a multi-hop route with the cooperation of

other nodes

Formed by wireless hosts which may be mobile

Without (necessarily) using a pre-existing infrastructure

To find a multi-hop path to another nodes, each MANET node widely use flooding or

broadcast

APPLICATIONS OF MANET

Personal area networking

cell phone, laptop, ear phone, wrist watch

Military environments

soldiers, tanks, planes

Civilian environments

taxi cab network

meeting rooms

sports stadiums

boats, small aircraft

Emergency operations

search-and-rescue

policing and fire fighting

CHALLENGING ISSUES

Limited wireless transmission range

Broadcast nature of the wireless medium

Packet losses due to transmission errors

Mobility-induced route changes

Mobility-induced packet losses

Battery constraints

Potentially frequent network partitions

Ease of snooping on wireless transmissions (security hazard)

CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

Proactive (table driven) Require each node to maintain one or more tables to store routing

information

Each node responds to changes in network topology by propagating updates throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent network view

DSDV, OLSR (Optimized Link State Protocol)

Reactive protocols (source initiated) Creates routes only when desired by the source node

Once a route has been established, it is maintained by a route maintenance procedure until either the destination becomes inaccessible along every path from the source or until the route is no longer desired

DSR, AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector)

AD HOC MOBILE ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Ad-Hoc Mobile Routing Protocols

Table Driven/ Proactive

DSDV WRP

CGSR STAR

Hybrid

ZRP

On Demand Driven/ Reactive

ABR DSR

TORA AODV

CBRP RDMAR

FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY

Sender S broadcasts data packet P to all its neighbors

Each node receiving P forwards P to its neighbors

Sequence numbers used to avoid the possibility of forwarding the same packet more than once

Packet P reaches destination D provided that D is reachable from sender S

Node D does not forward the packet


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

Represents that connected nodes are within each other’s transmission range

Z

Y

Represents a node that has received packet P

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

Represents transmission of packet P

Represents a node that receives packet P forthe first time

Z

YBroadcast transmission

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

• Node H receives packet P from two neighbors:potential for collision

Z

Y

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

• Node C receives packet P from G and H, but does not forwardit again, because node C has already forwarded packet P once

Z

Y

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

Z

Y

M

• Nodes J and K both broadcast packet P to node D• Since nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their

transmissions may collide => Packet P may not be delivered to node D at all,

despite the use of flooding

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

Z

Y

• Node D does not forward packet P, because node Dis the intended destination of packet P

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

• Flooding completed

• Nodes unreachable from S do not receive packet P (e.g., node Z)

• Nodes for which all paths from S go through the destination Dalso do not receive packet P (example: node N)

Z

Y

M

N

L


B

A

S E

F

H

J

D

C

G

IK

• Flooding may deliver packets to too many nodes(in the worst case, all nodes reachable from sender may receive the packet)

Z

Y

M

N

L

FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY: DISADVANTAGES

Potentially, very high overhead

Data packets may be delivered to too many nodes who do not need to receive them

Potentially lower reliability of data delivery

Flooding uses broadcasting -- hard to implement reliable broadcast delivery without significantly increasing overhead

Broadcasting in IEEE 802.11 MAC is unreliable

In our example, nodes J and K may transmit to node D simultaneously, resulting in loss of the packet

in this case, destination would not receive the packet at all

AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL

AODV = Ad Hoc On-demand Distance VectorSource floods route request in the network.

Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route request.

Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).

A

S E

F

B

C

G D

AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY

A

S E

F

B

C

G D

Source floods route request in the network.



A

S E

F

B

C

G D

Uses hop-by-hop routing.


Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route request.


Route reply forwarded via the reverse path.

A

S E

F

B

C

G D


Route reply is forwarded via the reverse path … thus forming the forward path.

The forward path is used to route data packets.

A

S E

F

B

C

G D

ROUTE EXPIRY

Unused paths expire based on a timer.

A

S E

F

B

C

G D

AODV – OPTIMIZATION

Useful optimization: An intermediate node with a route to D can reply to route request.

Faster operation.

Quenches route request flood.

Above optimization can cause loops in presence of link failures

AODV

At most one route per destination maintained at each node

After link break, all routes using the failed link are erased.

Expiration based on timeouts.

Use of sequence numbers to prevent loops.

Optimizations

Routing tables instead of storing full routes.

Control flooding (incrementally increase ‘region’)

MINI-PROJECT

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORKS

USING G-SENSE

Simulation Model

The network simulations have been carried out using G-Sense Simulator and its associated tools for animation and analysis of results.

This simulator was originally designed for wired networks and has been subsequently extended to support simulations in mobile wireless (and MANET) settings.

GRAPHICAL INTERFACE FOR SENSE SIMULATOR ( G-SENSE)

SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Simulation Parameters Values

Simulator G-Sense Simulator

Protocols Simple Flooding, AODV

Layer Network Layer

Stop Time (seconds) 10, 20, 30

Number of Nodes 5, 15, 25

Terrain Size (meters) 1500m, 2000m, 3000m

Number of Source nodes 20, 30, 40

Packet Size (KB) 10, 30, 50

Interval (seconds) 2, 3, 4

SIMULATION RESULTS

Simple Flooding Graphic at 5 nodes

SIMULATION RESULT

AODV Graphic at 5 nodes

SIMULATION RESULT In this project, we have attempted to compare Simple Flooding

and Ad-Hoc on demand Distance Vector Protocol.

For all the simulations, the same movement models were used, the number of nodes was fixed at 5, 15 and 25, the stop time was varied as 10, 20 and 30s.

As shown in figures 1 and 2, we observe that, regardless of network size or mobility rate, AODV performed better than Simple Flooding in delivering over 90% of data packets.

Same figures show a uniform distribution of Average end-to-end Delay in Simple Flooding and AODV in which AODV performed well than Simple Flooding.

Throughput for AODV was slightly higher as compared to Simple Flooding.

Network size and network load have lead to increasing the throughput for the two protocols.

PRESENT CONCLUSION

In this project, AODV and Flooding routing protocols using different parameter metrics have been simulated and analyzed

Simulation results show that performance parameters of the routing protocols may vary depending on network load, mobility and network size.

Under G-Sense Model, AODV experience the highest Packet Delivery Fraction and Throughput with the increase of nodes stop time, and mobile nodes number.

AODV and Simple Flooding performance is due to their on demand characteristics to determine the freshness of the route. And it is proved also that AODV has a slightly higher Average end-to-end Delay than Simple Flooding.

NOTE:- Further in the project we will study the comparison between other

MANET protocols like DSR, DSDV and AODV in different software and analyse them and would conclude in our study.

REFERENCES Performance Comparison Of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network

Sizes Computer Science Project David Oliver Jörg Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (RVS) University of Berne, Switzerland 2003 head: Prof. Dr. Torsten Braun assisted by:Marc Heissenbüttel.

Simulation Analysis of Routing Protocols using Manhattan Grid Mobility Model in MANET Youssef Saadi1, Said El Kafhali1, 2, Abdelkrim Haqiq1, 2, BouchaibNassereddine , Computer Networks, Mobility and Modeling laboratory Department of Mathematics and Computer FST, Hassan 1st University, Settat, Morocco 2 e-NGN Research group, Africa and Middle East.

Efficient Flooding in Ad hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study Yunjung Yi and Mario Gerla, Computer Science Department, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095

Wireless Ad-hoc Networks, Lu Han, October 8, 2004

Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs. Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik, University of California, Santa Cruz, Computer Engineering Department. kumarv,[email protected], [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

REFERENCES

Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems, By C.-K. Toh- Ph.D

Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks, Subir Kumar Sarkar, T G Basavaraju, C Puttamadappa

AD HOC NETWORKS Technologies and Protocols. Edited by PRASANT MOHAPATRA, University of California‚ Davis. SRIKANTH V. KRISHNAMURTHY, University of California‚ Riverside

Enhancing the Performance of Ad Hoc Wireless Networks with Smart Antennas Somprakash Bandyopadhyay, Siuli Roy, Tetsuro Ueda.

Mobile ad hoc networking: imperatives and challenges. ImrichChlamtac a, Marco Conti b, Jennifer J.-N. Liu. School of Engineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. Istituto IIT, ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA.

Comparison of different MANET routing protocols in wireless ADHOC

Engineering

Transcript of Comparison of different MANET routing protocols in wireless ADHOC