Performance Analysis of TDRP and EDRP for Voice and Video Services in MANET.pdf

7/26/2019 Performance Analysis of TDRP and EDRP for Voice and Video Services in MANET.pdf

1/15

1

Performance Analysis of TDRP and EDRP for Voice and

Video Services in MANET

Abstract The center of attention of this research paper isabout the performance analysis of TDRP (table driven routing

protocol) and EDRP (event driven routing protocol) by using

voice and video traffic in MANET (mobile Adhoc network).

Particularly OLSR (table driven) and DSR (Event driven)

routing protocols are focused. The nodes of MANET establish

the connections with each other energetically, and move freely in

any direction. In mobile Adhoc network environment event

driven and table driven protocols have significant subject matter

of study. There is a mobility issue which affects the services

performance due to breakage and renewal of links of mobile

nodes. Protocols performances have significance on overall

performance of MANET. The aim of this paper is to present the

performance analysis of selected routing protocols by varying the

node densities and varying WLAN physical characteristics. The

voice and video traffic applications are configured discretely by

using OLSR and DSR in scenarios. Moreover, for the

performance observation the parameters are, jitter, trafficreceived, traffic sent, end-to-end delay, traffic load, and

throughput. The simulation have been carried out through

OPNET 14.5 modeler tool, and results have been analysed.

KeywordsMANET, TDRP, EDRP, METRICS, OPNET.

I. INTRODUCTION

An important wireless network environment which is underresearch is MANET (Mobile Adhoc Network). It is flavor of

mobile wireless communication technology. The Wirelessmobile Adhoc network has an important position in the fieldof networking. MANET depicted as self organized and self

configured network layout in that situation where fixednetwork could not be deployed. In the MANET environmentall nodes automatically establish connectivity and develop

wireless mobile network infrastructure. In this network eachnode without restraint move independently. In this modern eraof advancement of technology the MANET offers bestnetwork environment and offers services. But there are many

issues, gaps, flaws, problems in the MANET. Obviously whendevices are moved independently there is Mobility issue. Aswell there is security problem also scalability issue in

MANET, It has been observed that there are many problems

in mobile wireless technology, The security flaws is due tovulnerability of security protocols that degrade the

performance of MANET services that also affect the mobilityand the scalability. Apparently in MANET there are issues inrouting protocols which affects the MANET services. The

connectivity flaws of Nodes degrade the MANET services.These issues occur because of the routing protocols ofMANET which establish the links between nodes. The goal ofthis IS; to check the performance with the fidelity of table

driven and event driven protocols by using voice & videoapplication in MANET. Throughput and delay parameter willbe focused. This helps to know the trustworthiness by

changing the applications. That helps how mobility affected inthe scenario of different environment.

II.

PROBLEMSTATEMENT

There are two flavors of routing protocols in MANET. Oneflavor is the table driven and another flavor is the event drivenrouting protocols. Hence in this study the table driven protocol

OLSR and event driven protocol TORA or DSR performancewill be analyzed by using voice application G.729 and G.711codec and video applications like video conferencing in

MANET environment through simulation. The QoSparameters throughput and delay will focus and develop thescenario with different set of nodes density with dynamic

mobility. Lasly the results of table driven and event drivenprotocols compared by using voice and video applicationscenarios and will be discussed accordingly. Also

recommendation will be provided for improvements.

III. RELATEDWORK

MANET is wireless self organized network technology which

is most efficient for that geographical area where fixednetwork cannot be deployed. MANET provides the vibrantinfrastructure where it dynamically deploys in self organized

and self configured manner [1].M.L Sharma et al analyzedAODV and DSR protocols and using FTP traffic in different

Haque Nawaz#1

#Department of Computer Science, SZABIST Karachi, Pakistan

#Department of Computer Science, Sindh Madressatul Islam University,Karachi, [email protected]

Hasnain Mansoor Ali*2*Assistant Professor

*Department of Computer Science, SZABIST Karachi, Pakistan

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

2

scenarios and found different results according to the natureof traffic. Also the results of simulation of the DSR routing

protocol observed better as compared to the AODV routingprotocol in terms of special traffic parameters. Obviouslyproactive protocols have good performance having theparameter of routing message overhead and end to end delay[2]. Jahangir khan et al evaluated framework of QoS andfound issues between intermediate nodes during the packet

delivery [3]. Also Mashri et al has assessed OLSR as weakprotocol in terms of time of packet delivery [4]. Singla et althe AODV, DSDV and TORA routing protocols compared by

CBR traffic pattern and TCP applications. The resultscompared by parameters average end to end delay and packetdelivery ratio. The AODV is found best from DSDV [5].

Haque Nawaz et al, have been observed that there are manyarchitecture issues in the MANET; also there is power drawbacks, scalability flaws, mobility flaws, security problems in

MANET [6]. Kavita Pandey et al presented the analysis ofDSDV, DSR, AODV and ZRP protocols on the basis ofaverage delay, throughput, routing overhead, and packets

dropped by using ns-2 simulator [7]. Subramanya Bhat.M et alfocused on proactive and reactive and hybrid protocols(OLSR, AODV, DSR,LAR and ZRP) on the basis of average

jitter, average end to end delay and packet delivery ratio byusing qualnet simulator. OLSR performs better in densenetwork [8]. P.Kuppusamy et al have given the descriptive

comparison of AODV, TORA and OLSR in light of end toend delay, routing overhead and packet delivery ratio metricsand the analysis shows TORA and AODV perform betterthan OLSR [9]. Naveen B. and Harsh K.V focused on OLSRand AODV on the basis of default and varied metricsevaluated that the performance is varied by node densities,

tool OPNET modeler had used [10]. M. Palaniammal and M.Lalli has presented an overview of prominent protocolsincluding AODV, DSR and TORA in MANET, pros and cons

of these protocols has been described comparatively and it ismentioned that which one is best it is hard to make decision[11]. Ashish S. and Firat T. have compared selected protocols

of MANET by changing network size and analyzed thescalability and mobility during routing process. AODVobserved better as compared to OLSR and TORA [12].Sharma Shelja and Kumar Suresh have proposed modificationof OLSR in light of table maintenance that results improvedversion of OLSR as compared to existing one. It has been

proposed to add one additional field message sequencenumber to the topology table. [13]. V. Saravanan andVijayakumar examined the trajectories of reactive and

proactive protocols with delay and throughput metrics byusing OPNET modeler 16.0. and showed analysis that reactiveprotocols are better for MANET [14]. Muhammad Shaffatul

Islam et al evaluated different codec of voice like G.729,G.728, G.726, G.723, G.711, GSM-HR and GSM-EFR withsimilar load of interactive voice has been analyzed. It has been

mentioned in this study the G.711 is best solution for smallnetwork and GSM-EFR codec is best for large network [15].Savita Gandhi et al presented the evaluation of DSR, OLSRand ZRP by using ns-2 Simulator, and illustrated DSR

performed better as compared to other protocols[16].Meenakshi Sharma et al presented the analysis of AODV,

DSDV and ZRP by using ns-2 and illustrated that ZRP isbetter than AODV and DSDV in terms of metrics which hasbeen used like throughput [17]. Salman Naseer et al usingmultimedia application analyzed the TORA, AODV and

OLSR by help of opnet [18]. Pragya Gupta evaluated themobility effect of manet routing protocols in terms of packet

delivery ratio and end to end delay by using ns-2 simulator,and observed AODV perform better [19]. Muhammad AliMustafa et al has reviewed proactive and reactive routingprotocols by using FTP traffic, and three parameters end toend delay , load and throughput analyzed with opnet modeler[20]. Md. Manzur Morshed et al evaluated the DSDV and

AODV protocols with QoS metrics by using ns-2 simulatorand concluded AODV is efficient as compared to DSDV [21].Arun Kumar B.R. et al have highlighted the issues and

simulator tools and metrics which have been used in Manetand presented that scalability and reliability are major issuesfor manet implementation [22]. Basu D. S. et al have

compared the proactive and reactive protocols, DSDV, AODVand DSR on the basis of protocol parameters properties indescriptive form [23]. Harmanpareet kaur and Er. Jaswinder

singh compared the OLSR, TORA and GRP on the basis ofload, delay and throughput and observed TORA performworst as compared to OLSR and GRP by using OPNET

modeler [24].

IV. MANET PROTOCOLS

The Mobile Adhoc network have two flavours of routing

protocols that perform the routing during communication.

A. Table Driven Routing Protocols (TDRP)

These routing protocols provide the routing information ofeach node which available on network. each node maintains

their routing information individually. These protocols sendthe control message periodically for updating the routing table

for every node [9]. In table driven mechanism nodes keeptrack of all possible destination routes [19]. There are twoprominent protocols which working under the umbrella oftable driven method means by updating their routing table. a)

OSLR (Optimized Link State Routing Protocol) b)DSDV(Destination sequence Distance Vector). OSLR worksas a link state routing algorithm, which is capable to flood theinformation of links frequently. On the other hand the DSDV

perform their operation like bellman ford algorithm, it iscapable to compute the shortest path from single source vertex

to all other vertices. Here in this IS OSLR protocol isconsidered for performance analysis.

B. Event Driven Routing Protocols (EDRP)

These routing protocols provide the routing information whenneeded, therefore these protocols are also known as ondemand routing protocols. when a source node wants tocommunicate or send packet to destination node. The eventdriven routing protocols invoke the mechanism of discoveryof route and know the destination route. The route remainsactive till the communication session is needed [9]. The node

when needed route, on demand it is discovered [19]. Thereare few prominent event driven routing protocols. a)

AODV( Adhoc On demand Distance Vector), b)DSR(Dynamic Source Routing) c) TORA( Temporary orderedRouting Algorithm). The AODV routing protocol algorithmoffers route to the nodes when the source node request the

route . It help the nodes to easily enter and leave the network


3/15

3

when needed. AODV Supports both unicost and multicastmechanism by performing distance vector routing. DSR is the

EDRP based routing protocol. It has two mechanisms one isthe route discovering and other is route maintenance. Thesemechanisms perform function together and allow the mobilenodes to discover the route and maintain the connectivity inmobile Adhoc network. In this IS, the DSR selected forperformance analysis with OLSR protocol.

V. MANET APPLICATIONS

The MANET easily add the devices and remove devices andmaintain the connectivity. It can be deployed anywhere, whereinfrastructure of network is not available, inconvenient or

existing. Initially MANET developed and derived for themilitary application, for the purpose of network survivabilityand easy development. There are few mobile Adhoc network

application which has been given below.

MWB (Military War/ Battlefield)

LL (Local Level)

CL (Commercial Level)

WMN (Wireless Mesh Network)HWN (Hybrid Wireless Network)

During war in battlefield military can easily develop their

mobile network by using MANET platform and easilymaintain their communication between troops, companies andwith headquarter. LL suppose , a mobile network that can

develop for hospitals, stadiums, boats like wise and itmaintains communication for temporary time being that isalso an important application of mobile Adhoc network. CLcan be helpful during disaster and emergency for reliefoperation during earthquake, flood and fire where fixedinfrastructure of network is unavailable , in this condition

MANET play an important role of establishingcommunication on temporary basis between peoples NGOsand Government to recover and cope with the situation. WMN

is an important application through which without spectrumreuse and planning to provide a separate infrastructure thathelp the people on their residence locations and business

locations as alternate solutions where cellular networksometimes does not support. HWN is the flavour and solutionof mobile ad hoc networking which supports the applicationslikewise; ITS (Intelligent transport system), LE, CN andcommunication.

VI. MANET METRICS

A. Transmission Range

The power constraint is limited the transmission range

parameter due to reuse of frequency and effects of channel[22]. Transmission range depends on the transmit power. Ithas been derived from mathematical formula which is given

below.

Equation: 1

The power value which has been used = 0.005 watt, Thetransmission range is required, the above formula shows thatD is the transmission range.Hence the transmissionrange canbe calculated by deriving the above equation.

Equation: 2

The following transmission ranges has been calculated byusing above formula:

Transmit Power (w) Transmission Range(m)

0.000805876 100

0.001813221 150

0.003223504 200

0.005036725 250

0.007252885 300

0.009871982 350

0.012894017 400

0.016318991 450

0.020146902 500

0.024377751 550

Table 1: Transmission range

B. Transmit Power

The transmit power is a feature of Wireless LAN(WLAN)which impact on communication directly and by increasingthe Transmit power the transmission range will be increased inMANET. Moreover it is proved through Mathematical

formula of transmission range by increasing transmit power

which directly impact on transmission range. It indicates thattransmission power directly impact on the performance ofMANET protocols.

C. Jitter

The packet arrival time variation is known as jitter [9].

Thedelay or latency variations or the packet arrival time variations

are known as jitter. For the better performance the delay orjitter should be minimum [21].

C. Packets sent

The data traffic sent by all mobile nodes using routingprotocols in MANET during transmission or total number ofpackets sent by mobile nodes from source to destination.[19]

D. Packet Received

The data traffic received by the destination nodes during

communication from source node. The received packets canbe measured by subtracting lost packets and dropped packetsfrom sent packets [19]

E. Packets Dropped

The data traffic in the form of packets sent to the destinationfrom source nodes but it could not reach towards the

P = 2 *10-11.1

=POWER((4*3.14*B1/0.12476),2)*POWER(10,-11.1)


4/15

4

destination due to error condition that is known as Packetdropped [19]-[21].

F. Media Access Delay

The time required to access a media to mobile node or mobilework station for packet transmission is known as mediaaccess delay. initially when packet is sent to physical layer the

delay has been recorded for each packet [9]. Media AccessDelay may occur because of the network congestion [25].

G. Network Load

The network load corresponds to total number of bps

assigned to WLAN layers for higher layers to all nodes ofWLAN in the network [15]

H. End to End Delay

It is a metric or parameter that shows how much time isneeded to a packet travel from one end to another end. End to

end delay having all probable delay due to buffering in routediscovering latency, propagation delay queuing delay allmeasured in seconds. To calculate the sent time and receive

times of packets difference is known as end to end delay [9] -[21]. The packet end to end delay is an average time that apacket has been acquired in transit from source to destination.

End to end delay is a gauge which shows the routingprotocols reliability using all constraints of the MANET[20].

I. Throughput

The ratio of data amount reaches from source to destinationwith respect of time taken the destination received last packet

that referred to throughput[9]. The throughput can beexpressed in bps or packets per second. The phenomenon oftopology change frequently affect this metric in MANET [9].It has been analyzed in different MANET wirelessenvironment with different metrics. The data packets

successfully reached at destination, the average rate is knownas throughput. Throughput is measured in bps [9].

VII. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology or approach for to accomplish this

task OPNET tool has been used. In this manuscript,performance have been analyzed by evaluating the Table

driven (OLSR) and event driven (DSR) MANET protocols byusing voice and video traffic applications. A flow chart shows

the series of activities which performed in a sequence for thisresearch paper.

Flow Chart:1

VIII. EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND DISCUSSION

For experimental work, 2 (two) scenarios have beendeveloped with 14, 28 nodes. The TDRP (OLSR) and EDRP

(DSR) has been configured in both scenarios. The WirelessLAN physical characteristics standard 802.11a has beenconfigured first by using voice traffic. After simulation,

collected the results. Then the Wireless LAN physicalcharacteristics standard 802.11 a has been configured withvideo traffic. Then run the simulation and collected the results.

Similarly, 802.11g configured, and carried out the simulationand obtained the results. The Scenarios Main Characteristicshas been given below table 1 and table 2.

Scenarios Parameters Scenario Values

Simulation tool PNET 14.5

MANET Protocols OLSR, DSR

Campus Network Scenario Size 1000x1000 m

Number of Mobile Nodes 14, 28

Data Rate 54 Mbps

Application Name Voice and Video Traffic

Wireless LAN Phy Characteristics 802.11a and 802.11g

Network Protocol IP

Mobility model Random Waypoint

Scenario Simulation Time 30 min

Table: 2


5/15

5

The Wireless LAN attribute Values has been given below.

Wireless LAN Parameters Wireless LAN Parameters Values

Channel Setting Auto assigned

Transmitter Power 0.005 Watt

Transmission Range 250 m

Fragmentation Threshold 1024 bytes

Buffer Size 1024000 bits

Mobile Node Speed 10 m/s

Table: 3

The following 2 scenarios developed by using aboveparameters, values and attributes having 14 and 28 nodesaccording to given tabular values.

A.Experimental Work Simulation Scenarios 1.

Fig:1 Scenario 1

By using simulator campus network has been designed withconfiguration 1000x1000 meters. 2 scenarios has beendeveloped by drag and drop the network nodes from objectpalette of MANET model, the network nodes including,

profile definition, mobility configuration, applicationdefinition server and mobile workstations dragged fromobject palettes and dropped at the workplace . Moreover the

application definition configured with voice and video trafficseparately, First of all changed the name of applicationdefinition than application attributes voice having codec

G.729 and video conferencing application configured withhigh resolution description. After that configured the profiledefinition, similarly, the name has been changed and FTP and

HTTP services configured and application Voice and videoconferencing configured. The mobility configurationconfigured with random way point, also name updated. The

server has been configured, initially name changed thanMANET protocols event driven (DSR) and table driven(OLSR) has been configured with default setting. However,

server application support profile configured and updated thesupported services. Here y using Wireless LAN PhysicalCharacteristics, features, parameters has been configured. The

physical characteristics of WLAN 802.11a configured withparameters as, data rate 54 mbps configured, auto assignedchannel setting, (0.005 watt) transmitter power, 1024

fragmentation threshold and 1024000 bits buffer size

configured. The scenario 1 simulation time 30 minutes havebeen configured. After this configuration simulation started

after completion of the simulation the results has been

collected. Similarly, same scenario 1 having 14 nodes havebeen configured with same values and same parameters by

changing video traffic application then run the simulation aftercompletion of the simulation the results has been collected.Now change the WLAN physical environment of thescanerio1 from 802.11a to 802.11g by configuring the datarate 54 mbps configured, auto assigned channel setting, (0.005watt) transmitter power, 1024 fragmentation threshold and

1024000 bits buffer size configured. The scenario 1simulation time 30 minutes have been configured. Aftersimulation the results has been collected.

Fig:3 Voice Traffic Jitter

In the above Fig. 3 it has been observed that in WLAN

802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR protocol has jittervalue 0.012 sec and OLSR protocol has jitter value is 0.05 sec.On the other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voice

traffic DSR has jitter value 0.017 sec and OLSR protocol hasjitter value 0.013 sec.

Fig:4 Voice Traffic Packet Delay Variations

In the above Fig.4 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere for voice traffic DSR protocol has Packet

Delay Variations 5 sec and OLSR protocol has Packet DelayVariations 4 sec. On the other hand in WLAN 802.11gatmosphere for voice traffic DSR has Packet Delay Variations

85 sec and OLSR protocol has Packet Delay Variations 182sec. In 802.11a atmosphere packet delay variations of OLSRis lower than DSR and contrary in 802.11g atmosphere packetdelay variations of OLSR is greater than DSR.


6/15

6

Fig:5 Voice Traffic Packet End to End Delay

Fig. 5 it has been observed that in WLAN 802.11a

environment for voice traffic packet end to end delay of DSRhas 9.5 sec and OLSR protocol has 1.5 sec packet end to enddelay. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment DSR

has 14 sec packet delay and OLSR has 13.5 sec packet end toend delay. DSR has greater packet delay to OLSR.

Fig:6 Voice Traffic Sent

In the above Fig.6 it has been observed that in WLAN

802.11a atmosphere the voice traffic sent by DSR is 70 kilobytes/ sec or 560 kbps, and OLSR protocol has sent 71 kilobytes/ sec or 568 kbps. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g

atmosphere for voice traffic sent by DSR is 85 kilo bytes/sec

or 680 kbps and OLSR protocol has sent 83 kilo bytes/sec or664 kbps .

Fig:7 Voice Traffic Received

In the above Fig. 7 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere the voice traffic received by DSR is 8.2

kilo bytes/ sec or 65.6 kbps, and OLSR protocol has received23.5 kilo bytes/ sec or 188 kbps. On other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for voice traffic received by DSR is 11.2kilo bytes/sec or 89.6 kbps and OLSR protocol has received

12.5 kilo bytes/sec or 100 kbps.

Fig:8 Voice Traffic Load

In the above Fig. 8 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic network load of DSR is

5 mbps, and OLSR protocol has 2 mbps network load. Onother hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voice trafficnetwork load of DSR is 5.5 mbps and OLSR protocol has 2

mbps network load. In both WLAN physical characteristicsthe DSR protocol has greater network load as compared toOLSR.

Fig 9. Voice Traffic Media Access Delay

In the above Fig. 9 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment media access delay of DSR is 5 sec, andOLSR has 0.7 media access delay. on other hand in WLAN

802.11g environment DSR has 12 sec media access delay andOLSR has 9 sec media access delay. it has been observedDSR has lower media access delay in both physical

characteristics of WLAN.


7/15

7

Fig:10 Voice Traffic Data Dropped

In the above Fig. 10 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR has dropped data2.7 mbps and OLSR protocol dropped data 0.1 mbps. On theother hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for video traffic

DSR has dropped data 4.25 mbps and OLSR protocol hasdropped the data 0.75 mbps. The DSR protocol has greaterdata dropped as compared to OLSR protocol.

Fig:11 Voice Traffic Throughput

In the above Fig. 11 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR has 2.2 mbpsthroughput and OLSR protocol have 2 mbps throughput. Onother hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voice traffic

DSR has 1.2 mbps throughput and OLSR protocol has 1.22mbps.

Fig:11 Video Traffic Packet Delay Variations

In the above Fig.11 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere for video traffic DSR protocol has PacketDelay Variations 0.4 sec and OLSR protocol has Packet

Delay Variations 0.1 sec. On the other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for video traffic DSR has Packet DelayVariations 19 sec and OLSR protocol has Packet DelayVariations 7 sec. In video traffic packet delay variations ofOLSR is lower than DSR in both WLAN physicalcharacteristics.

Fig:12 Video Traffic Packet End to End Delay


802.11a environment for video traffic packet end to end delayof DSR has 0.96 sec and OLSR protocol has 0.2 sec packet

end to end delay. On other hand in WLAN 802.11genvironment DSR has 1.37 sec packet end to end delay andOLSR has 0.15 sec packet end to end delay. The DSR hasgreater packet end to end delay as compared to OLSR.


8/15

8

Fig:13 Video Traffic Sent


802.11a atmosphere the video traffic sent by DSR is 12.3mega bytes/ sec or 98.4 mbps, and OLSR protocol has sent9.4 mega bytes/ sec or 75.2 mbps. On other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for video traffic sent by DSR is 18.2

mega bytes/sec or 145.6 mbps and OLSR protocol has sent12.8 mega bytes/sec or 102.4 mbps .

Fig:14 Video Traffic Received

In the above Fig.14 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere the video traffic received by DSR is 800

kilo bytes/ sec or 8.4 mbps, and OLSR protocol has received300 kilo bytes/ sec or 2.4 mbps. On other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for video traffic received by DSR is 200kilo bytes/sec or 1.6 mbps and OLSR protocol has received

1500 kilo bytes/sec or 12 mbps.

Fig:15 Video Traffic Load

In the above Fig. 15 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic the network load of

DSR is 96 mbps, and OLSR protocol has 65 mbps networkload. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voicetraffic network load of DSR is 186 mbps and OLSR protocol

has 70 mbps network load. The DSR protocol has greater

network load to OLSR.

Fig 16. Video Traffic Media Access Delay


802.11a environment for video traffic media access delay ofDSR is 0.3 sec, and OLSR has 0.21 sec media access delay.

on other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for videotraffic DSR protocol has 1.55 sec media access delay andOLSR has 0.5 sec media access delay. it has been observedDSR has greater media access delay in both physicalcharacteristics of WLAN.


9/15

9

Fig:17 Video Traffic Data Dropped

In the above Fig. 17 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic DSR has dropped data70 mbps and OLSR protocol dropped data 40 mbps. On theother hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for video traffic

DSR has dropped data 178 mbps and OLSR protocol hasdropped the data 47 mbps. The DSR protocol has greater datadropped as compared to OLSR protocol in both WLANenvironment.

Fig:18 Video Traffic Throughput

In the above Fig. 18 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic DSR has 23.8 mbps

throughput and OLSR protocol have 28 mbps throughput. Onother hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for video traffic

DSR has 10.8 mbps throughput and OLSR protocol has 22.3

mbps. The performance compared OLSR protocol has greaterthroughput as compared to DSR.

B.Experimental Work Simulation Scenarios 2.

Fig: 19 Scenario 2

Scenario 2 configured by using same process of Scenario 1configuration, by changing the node density from 14 to 28.Then run the simulation and after completion of the simulationthe results has been collected.

Fig:20 Voice Traffic Jitter


802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR protocol has jittervalue 0.019 second OLSR protocol has jitter value is 0.007sec. On the other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for

voice traffic DSR has jitter value 0.019 sec and OLSRprotocol has jitter value 0.028 sec.


10/15

10

Fig:21 Voice Traffic Packet Delay Variations

In the above Fig. 21 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere for voice traffic DSR protocol has PacketDelay Variations120 secand OLSR protocol has Packet Delay

Variations100 sec. On the other hand inWLAN 802.11gatmosphere for voice traffic DSR has Packet DelayVariations280sec and OLSR protocol has Packet Delay

Variations 440 sec. In 802.11a atmosphere packet delayvariations of OLSR is lower than DSR and contrary in802.11g atmosphere packet delay variations of OLSR isgreater than DSR.

Fig:22 Voice Traffic Packet End to End Delay


802.11a environment for voice traffic packet end to end delayof DSR has 22 sec and OLSR protocol has 8 sec packet endto end delay. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment

DSR has 31 sec packet end to end delay and OLSR has 34.5sec packet end to end delay. Here in LAN 802.11aenvironment OLSR has lower packet end to end delay as

compared to DSR. Moreover in WLAN 802.11g environmentOLSR has greater packet end to end delay as compared to

DSR.

Fig:24 Voice Traffic Sent


802.11a atmosphere the voice traffic sent by DSR is 53 kilobytes/ sec or 424 kbps, and OLSR protocol has sent 54.5 kilo

bytes/ sec . On other hand in WLAN 802.11g atmosphere forvoice traffic sent by DSR is 54 kilo bytes/sec or 432 kbps andOLSR protocol has sent 54.4 kilo bytes/sec.

Fig:25 Voice Traffic Received


802.11a atmosphere the voice traffic received by DSR is 8kilo bytes/ sec or 64 kbps, and OLSR protocol has received18 kilo bytes/ sec or 144 kbps. On other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for video traffic received by DSR is 8

kilo bytes/sec or 64 kbps and OLSR protocol has received 8.2kilo bytes/sec or 65.6 kbps.


11/15

11

Fig:26 Voice Traffic Load


802.11a environment for voice traffic the network load ofDSR is 5.2 mbps, and OLSR protocol has 2.2 mbps networkload. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voicetraffic network load of DSR is 4.8 mbps and OLSR protocol

has 1.9 mbps network load. In both WLAN physicalcharacteristics the DSR protocol has greater network load as

compared to OLSR.

Fig 27. Voice Traffic Media Access Delay

In the above Fig. 27 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic media access delay ofDSR is 14 sec, and OLSR protocol has 4 sec media access

delay. on other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voicetraffic media access delay of DSR and OLSR protocol has

20.1 sec media access delay.it has been observed OLSR haslower media access delay as compared to DSR, in bothphysical characteristics of WLAN.

Fig:28 Voice Traffic Data Dropped

In the above Fig. 28 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR has dropped data3.3 mbpsand OLSR protocol dropped data 0.7 mbps. On theother hand inWLAN 802.11g environment for video trafficDSR has dropped data 3.7 mbps and OLSR protocol has

dropped the data 0.2 mbps. The DSR protocol has greater datadropped as compared to OLSR protocol.

Fig:29 Voice Traffic Throughput

In the above Fig. 29 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for voice traffic DSR has 17mbpsthroughput and OLSR protocol have 21 mbps

throughput. On other hand inWLAN 802.11g environment forvideo traffic DSR has 11.2 mbps throughput and OLSR

protocol has 12 mbps throughput. The performance comparedOLSR protocol has greater throughput as compared to DSRprotocol in both WLAN physical characteristics.


12/15

12

Fig:30 Video Traffic Packet Delay Variation


802.11a atmosphere for video traffic DSR protocol has PacketDelay Variations 88 secand OLSR protocol has Packet DelayVariations 1 sec. On the other hand inWLAN 802.11gatmosphere for voice traffic DSR has Packet Delay Variations72 sec and OLSR protocol has Packet Delay Variations 3 sec.The OLSR has lower packet delay variations than DSR in

both WLAN physical characteristics.

Fig:31 Video Traffic Packet End to End Delay

In the above Fig. 31 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic packet end to end delay

of DSR has 13.2 sec and OLSR protocol has 0.2 sec packetend to end delay. On other hand in WLAN 802.11genvironment DSR has 7.8 sec packet end to end delay and

OLSR has 0.9 sec packet end to end delay. The DSR hasgreater packet end to end delay as compared to OLSR in bothWLAN physical characteristics.

Fig:32 Video Traffic Sent

In the above Fig. 32 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere the video traffic sent by DSR is 29 megabytes/ sec or 232 mbps, and OLSR protocol has sent 21mega

bytes/ sec or 168 mbps. On other hand in WLAN 802.11gatmosphere for video traffic sent by DSR is 37mega bytes/secor 296 mbps and OLSR protocol has sent 38mega bytes/sec

or 304 mbps.

Fig:33 Video Traffic Received

In the above Fig. 33 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a atmosphere the video traffic received by DSR is 80

kilo bytes/ sec or 640 mbps, and OLSR protocol has received280 kilo bytes/ sec or 2.24 mbps. On other hand in WLAN802.11g atmosphere for video traffic received by DSR is 140

kilo bytes/sec or 0.84 mbps and OLSR protocol has received40 kilo bytes/sec or 320 mbps.


13/15

13

Fig:34 Video Traffic Load


802.11a environment for video traffic the network load ofDSR is 270 mbps, and OLSR protocol has 95 mbps networkload. On other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for voicetraffic network load of DSR is 370 mbps and OLSR protocol

has 230 mbps network load. In both WLAN physicalcharacteristics the DSR protocol has greater network load as

compared to OLSR.

Fig 35.Video Traffic Media Access Delay

In the above Fig. 35 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic media access delay ofDSR is 2.5 sec, and OLSR has 0.7 sec media access delay. on

other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for video trafficDSR protocol has 2.43 secmedia access delay and OLSR has

1.35 sec media access delay.it has been observed DSR hasgreater media access delay in both physical characteristics ofWLAN.

Fig:36 Video Traffic Data Dropped


802.11a environment for video traffic DSR has dropped data255 mbpsand OLSR protocol dropped data 70 mbps. On theother hand inWLAN 802.11g environment for video trafficDSR has dropped data 355 mbps and OLSR protocol has

dropped the data 215 mbps. The DSR protocol has greaterdata dropped as compared to OLSR protocol.

Fig:37 Video Traffic Throughput

In the above Fig. 37 it has been observed that in WLAN802.11a environment for video traffic DSR has 10.5 mbpsthroughput and OLSR protocol have 23 mbps throughput. On

other hand in WLAN 802.11g environment for video trafficDSR has 14 mbps throughput and OLSR protocol has 18mbps. The performance compared OLSR protocol has greater

throughput as compared to DSR protocol.


14/15

14

X. CONCLUSIONS

This research paper providing the comprehensive performanceanalysis of TDRP (OLSR) and EDRP (DSR) of Mobile Adhoc

Network using voice and video application services anddifferent node densities with different WLAN physicalcharacteristics such as; WLAN 802.11a and WLAN 802.11g.It has been observed when the voice application used inMANET plate form; the OLSR and DSR performance variedin WLAN 802.11a and 802.11g environment, the analysis

shows that the OLSR, voice traffic received and throughput isgreater than DSR. Moreover, the traffic load, media access

delay and data dropped is grater in DSR as compared toOLSR. From this observation it has been concluded that

OLSR has better performance than DSR but it is TDRP. Bychanging the node density from 14 nodes to 28 nodes the

behavior of protocol analyzed, and the behavior of working is

observed same and little varied. For the observation ofcomprehensive analysis the results tables are given havingdetail. When the video applications has been used with same

setting in MANET platform; the OLSR and DSRperformance varied as compared to voice application. Theseprotocols perform better in high load. The throughput is

greater in video traffic as compared to voice traffic. Similarly;OLSR perform better in terms of throughput in both WLAN802.11a and 802.11g environment. WLAN 802.11g providingbetter platform to TDRP and EDRP to provide better services

as compared to 802.11a. The TDRP and EDRP metricsperformance varied; it depends on the application type,

WLAN physical characteristics and number of nodes. In thisway these protocols behavior has been changed. Thetransmission power and transmission range also have impacton these protocol performance

IX. RESULTS ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK OF SCENARIO 1 AND SCENARIO 2

Data Traffic Type Voice Traffic

WLAN Physical Characteristics WLAN 802.11a WLAN 802.11g WLAN 802.11a WLAN 802.11g

Protocol DSR OLSR DSR OLSR DSR OLSR DSR OLSR

Node Density 14 28

Transmit Power (w)0.005 (W) 0.005 (W)

Transmission Range 250 (m) 250 (m)

Jitter 0.012 sec 0.05 sec 0.017 sec 0.013 sec 0.019 sec 0.007 sec 0.019 sec 0.028 sec

Packet Delay Variations 5 sec 4 sec 85 sec 182 sec 120 sec 100 sec 280 sec 440 sec

Packet End to End Delay 9.5 sec 1.5 sec 14 sec 13.5 sec 22 sec 8 sec 31 sec 34.5 sec

Voice Traffic Sent 560 Kbps 568 kbps 680 kbps 664 kbps 424 kbps 440 kbps 432 kbps 440 kbps

Voice Traffic Received 65 kbps 184 kbps 88 kbps 104 kbps 63.2 kbps 140 kbps 64 kbps 65.6 kbps

WLAN Traffic Load 5 mbps 2 mbps 5.5 mbps 2 mbps 5.2 mbps 2.2 mbps 4.8 mbps 1.9 mbps

WLAN Media Access Delay 5 sec 0.7 sec 12 sec 9 sec 14 sec 4 sec 23.3 sec 20.1 sec

WLAN Data Dropped 2.7 mbps 0 mbps 4.25 mbps 0.75 mbps 3.3 mbps 0.7 mbps 3.7 mbps 0.2 mbps

WLAN Throughput 2.2 mbps 2 mbps 1.2 mbps 1.22 mbps 17 mbps 21 mbps 11.2 mbps 12 mbps

Table: 4

Data Traffic Type Video Traffic

WLAN Phy Characteristics WLAN 802.11a WLAN 802.11g WLAN 802.11a WLAN 802.11g

Protocol DSR OLSR DSR OLSR DSR OLSR DSR OLSR

Node Density 14 28

Transmit Power (w) 0.005 (W) 0.005 (W)

Transmission Range 250 (m) 250 (m)

Packet Delay Variations 0.4 sec 0.1 sec 19 sec 7 sec 88 sec 1 sec 72 sec 3 sec

Packet End to End Delay 0.96 sec 0.2 sec 1.37 sec 0.15 sec 13.2 sec 0.2 sec 7.8 sec 0.9 sec

Video Traffic Sent 12.3 mbps 9.4 mbps 18.2 mbps 12.8 mbps 29 mbps 21 mbps 36 mbps 38 mbps

Video Traffic Received 0.82 mbps 0.3 mbps 0.2 mbps 1.5 mbps 80 kbps 280 kbps 139 kbps 40 kbps

WLAN Traffic Load 96 mbps 65 mps 186 mbps 70 mbps 270 mbps 95 mbps 370 mbps 230mbps

WLAN Media Access Delay 0.3 sec 0.21 sec 1.55 sec 0.5 sec 2.5 sec 0.7 sec 2.43 sec 1.35 sec

WLAN Data Dropped 70 mbps 40 mbps 178 mbps 47 mbps 255 mbps 70 mbps 355 mbps 215 mbps

WLAN Throughput 23.8 mbps 28 mbps 10.8 mbps 22.3 mbps 10.5 mbps 23 mbps 14 mbps 18 mbps

Table: 5


15/15

15

XI. FUTUREWORK

In MANET there is architecture issues, and so many otherissues which could be focused like transmit power issue,

mobility issue, scalability issue and security issue, the routingprotocol algorithms could be improved for the betterperformance. These are wast areas through which research

can be carried out and Mobile Adhoc Network can beimproved

XII.REFERENCES

[1] Puneet Dadral, Rajan Vohra and Ravinder Singh Sawhney Metrics

Improvement of MANET Using Reactive Protocols Approach

International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing,

IEEE, 2012.

[2] M.L Sharma, Noor Fatima Rizvi, "Performance Evaluation of

MANET Routing Protocols under CBR and FTP traflic classes", Int.

1. Compo Tech. Appl. ISSN: 2229-6093, Vol 2 (3), 392-400.

[3] Jahangir khan, Syed Irfan Hyder and Khisro khan, "Efficiency and

Performance Analysis of On demand Routing Protocols in

Autonomous System",Australian Journal of Basic and Applied

Sciences, 5(6): 1619-1631, 2011.

[4] A. Al-Maashri, M. Ould-Khaoua, "Performance analysis of MANET

routing protocols in the presence of self-similar traffic", In

Proceedings of the 31 st IEEE Conference on Local Computer

Networks, 2006, 14-16 November 2006, pages pp. 801-807, Tampa,

Florida, USA.

[5] V. Singla and P. Kakkar, 'Traffic pattern based performance

comparison of reactive and proactive protocols of mobile ad-hoc

networks", International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 -

8887) Volume 5- No.IO, August 2010.

[6] Haque Nawaz and Hasnain Mansoor Ali Analysis of Routing

Protocol Metrics in MANET 20thNational Research Conference

Department of Computer Science and engineering, Management

Sciences and 20th

National Research Conference at SZABIST,Karachi on 10th May, 2014.

[7] Kavita Pandey , Abhishek Swaroop A Comprehensive Performance

Analysis of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid MANETs Routing

Protocols IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues,

Vol. 8, Issue 6, No 3, November 2011, pp.432 -441.

[8] Subramanya Bhat.M, Shwetha.D and Devaraju.J.T A Performance

Study of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols using

Qualnet Simulator International Journal of Computer Applications,

Volume 28No.5, August 2011, pp.10-17.

[9] P.Kuppusamy, K.Thirunavukkarasu and B.Kalaavathi A Study and

Comparison of OLSR, AODV and TORA Routing Protocols in Ad

Hoc Networks Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering,

Vivekananda College of Engineering for Women Namakkal, India,2011, IEEE, pp-143-147.

[10] Naveen Bilandi, Harsh K Verma Comparative Analysis of Reactive

and Proactive Routing Protocols in MANETs Using Throughput,

Delay and Network Load International Journal of Advanced and

Innovative Research, Volume 1, Issue 1, June 2012, pp: 1-6.

[11] M. Palaniammal and M. Lalli Comparative Study Of Routing

Protocols For Manets International Journal of Computer Science

and Mobile Applications, Vol.2 Issue. 2, February- 2014, pg. 118-127.

[12] Ashish Shrestha and Firat Tekiner On MANET Routing Protocols

for Mobility and Scalability 2009 International Conference on

Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies,

IEEE, 2009, pp-451-456.

[13] Sharma Shelja and Kumar Suresh Performance Improvement of

OLSR Protocol by Modifying the Routing Table Construction

Mechanism 2014 International Conference on Reliability,

Optimization and Information Technology - ICROIT 2014, MRIU,

India, Feb 6-8 2014, pp-182-187.

[14] V. Saravanan and D.Vijayakumar Performance Of Reactive And

Proactive MANET Routing Protocols With Trajectories

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

Vol. 1 Issue 8, October - 2012 , pp-1-11.

[15] Md. Shaffatul Islam, Md. Nazmul Islam, Md. Shah Alam, Md.

Adnan Riaz, and Md. Tanvir Hasan Performance evaluation of

various vocoders in Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) 6th

International Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering

December 2010, Dhaka, IEEE, pp-670-673.

[16] Savita Gandhi SMIEEE, Nirbhay Chaubey MIEEE, Pathik Shah and

Madhvi Sadhwani Performance Evaluation of DSR, OLSR and ZRP

Protocols in MANETs International Conference on Computer

Communication and Informatics, Coimbatore, INDIA, IEEE, 2012

[17] Meenakshi Sharma, Navdeep Kaur and Gurjeevan Singh Network

traffic based assessment of reactive, proactive and hybrid MANET

protocols IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication

Engineering (IOSR-JECE) Volume 9, Issue 2, 2014), PP 82-86

[18] Salman Naseer, S.A Hussain, I Raza, S R Chaudry, J. S. Mirza and M.

H. Raza Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocols: A

Simulation and Performance Analysis Using Multimedia traffic

Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Dalhousie

University Halifax, NS, Canada 2012. pp- 9925-9930

[19] Pragya Gupta, Sudha Gupta Performance Evolution of Mobility

Models on MANET Routing Protocols Third International

Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication

Technologies, IEEE, 2013, pp:248-253

[20] Mohammad Ali Mostafavi, Ayyoub Akbari Moghanjoughi & Hamid

Mousavi A Review and Performance Analysis of Reactive and

Proactive Routing Protocols on MANET Published by Canadian

Center of Science and Education, Network and CommunicationTechnologies; Vol. 1, No. 2; 2012, pp 48-58

[21] Md. Monzur Morshed and Md. Habibur Rehman Performance

Evaluation of DSDV and AODV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc

Networks Department of computer science & engineering, Dongguk

University, South Korea, pp-399-403

[22] Arun Kumar B.R, Lokantha C. Reddy and Prakash S. Hiremath

Mobile Adhoc Networks: Issues, Research Trends and

ExperimentsDravidian University, Kuppam, India, IETECH Journal

of Communication Techniques, vol:2, No: 2, pp-57-63.

[23] Basu Dev Shivahare, Charu Wahi and Shalini Shivhare Comparison

of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc

Network Usin Routing Protocol Property Noida (U.P), International

Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, vol: 2,issue 3, 2012, pp-356-359.

[24] Harmanpreet Kaur and Er. Jaswinder singh Performance

Comparison of OLSR, GRP and TORA using OPNET Punjab

University, Patiala, India, International Journal of Advanced

Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, vol 2,

Issue 10, 2012, pp-260-267.

[25] Le Minh Duong , Zitoune, L. and Veque, V. A Medium Access

Delay MAC aware metric for Multihop Wireless NetworksWireless

Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC),

IEEE, 2012 ,Limassol, pp:475-480
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Le%20Minh%20Duong.QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:38488742900&newsearch=truehttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Zitoune,%20L..QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:37320465400&newsearch=truehttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Veque,%20V..QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:37320469700&newsearch=truehttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6299140http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Veque,%20V..QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:37320469700&newsearch=truehttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Zitoune,%20L..QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:37320465400&newsearch=truehttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithin=p_Authors:.QT.Le%20Minh%20Duong.QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:38488742900&newsearch=true

Performance Analysis of TDRP and EDRP for Voice and Video Services in MANET.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Performance Analysis of TDRP and EDRP for Voice and Video Services in MANET.pdf