Performance Comparison and Implementation of Distance Based Routing Protocol in MANET Using NS-2 V.Gowri¹, V.Seethalakshmi², Dr.G.Mohankumar³, 1 PG Scholar, Shri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore-641062 2 Associate professor/ece, Shri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore-641062 3 Principal, Park College of Engineering and Technology, Kaniyur, Coimbatore-641059 Abstract A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a collection of wireless mobile nodes communicating with each other using multi-hop wireless networks. One of the main challenges of MANET is the design of robust routing algorithms that adapt to the frequent and randomly changing network topology.. This feature leads to frequent path failures and route reconstructions, which causes an increase in the routing control overhead. A variety of routing protocols have been proposed and several of them have been extensively simulated or implemented as well. Existing distance based routing protocols like Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV) routing protocol, which is a multipath routing protocol, Destination sequence distance vector (DSDV) routing protocol, Distance Routing Effect Algorithm For Mobility (DREAM), Secure Efficient Distance Vector Routing For Mobile Wireless Ad Hoc Networks (SEAD),and Polarized Gossip Protocol (PGP) are analyzed and concluded that PGP performs well compared to other protocol mentioned above. In proposed work the position-based routing features combined into on-demand routing protocols and propose an distance based routing protocol (EDRP) in the absence of positioning service to improve the route discovery. Keywords- Ad-hoc, routing protocols, AOMDV, DSDV, DREAM, SEAD, PGP, EDRP, Simulation I. INTRODUCTION In a mobile wireless ad hoc network, computers nodes in the network cooperate to forward packets for each other, due to the limited wireless transmission range of each individual node. The network route from some sender node to a destination node may require a number of intermediate nodes to forward packets to create a multi hop path from the sender to the destination. The role of the routing protocol in an ad hoc network is to allow nodes to learn such multi hop paths. Since the nodes in the network may move at any time, or may even move continuously, and since sources of wireless interference and wireless transmission propagation conditions may change frequently, the routing protocol must also be able to react to these changes and to learn new routes to maintain connectivity. The area of ad hoc networking has been receiving increasing attention among researchers in recent years, as the available wireless networking and mobile computing hardware bases are now capable of supporting the promise of this technology. Over the past few years, a variety of new routing protocols targeted specifically at the ad hoc networking environment have been proposed, but little performance information[1,2] on each protocol and no detailed performance comparison between the protocols has previously been available. This paper provides a realistic, quantitative analysis by comparing the performance of DSDV, AOMDV, DREAM, SEAD and PGP protocols. The results of detailed simulations showing the relative performance of following ad hoc routing protocols like DSDV, DREAM,AOMDV,SEAD and PGP. PGP performs well compared to other existing protocols DSDV, AOMAV, SEAD, DREAM.This paper also proposes a new routing algorithm based on distance to reduce the routing overhead compared to other existing protocols discussed above. II. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING PROTOCOLS 2.1 Ad-hoc On-demand Multi path Distance Vector Routing (AOMDV) Ad-hoc On-demand Multi path Distance Vector Routing (AOMDV) [3] protocol is an extension to the AODV protocol for computing multiple loop-free and link disjoint paths. It is based on the distance vector concept and uses hop-by-hop routing approach. Moreover, AOMDV also finds routes on demand using a route discovery procedure. 517
In AOMDV, RREQ propagation from the source towards the destination establishes multiple reverse paths both at intermediate nodes as well as the destination. Multiple RREPs traverse these reverse paths back to form multiple forward paths to the destination at the source and intermediate nodes. In particular, it does not employ any special control packets. In fact, extra RREPs and RERRs for multipath discovery and maintenance along with a few extra fields in routing control packets (i.e., RREQs, RREPs, and RERRs) constitute the only additional overhead in AOMDV relative to AODV. 2.2 Destination Sequence Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) The DSDV described is a table-driven proactive protocol, based on the classical Bellman-Ford routing mechanism. The basic improvements made include freedom from loops in routing tables, more dynamic and less convergence time. Every node in the MANET maintains a routing table which contains list of all known destination nodes within the network along with number of hops required to reach to particular node. Each entry is marked with a sequence number assigned by the destination node. The sequence numbers are used to identify stable routes thus avoiding formation of loops. To maintain consistency in routing table data in a continuously varying topology, routing table updates are broadcasted to neighbour s periodically or when significant new information is available. 2.3 A Distance Routing Effect Algorithm For Mobility (DREAM) DREAM is not an on demand routing protocol [4]. Instead, each MN (mobile node) in this proactive protocol maintains a location table for all other nodes in the ad hoc network. To maintain the table, each MN transmits location packets to nearby MNs in the ad hoc network at a given frequency and to faraway MNs in the ad hoc network at another lower frequency. Since faraway MNs appear to move more slowly than nearby MNs, it is not necessary for an MN to maintain up-todate location information for faraway MNs. Thus, by differentiating between nearby and faraway MNs, DREAM attempts to limit the overhead of location packets. 2.4 Secure Efficient Ad hoc Distance Vector (SEAD) Secure Efficient Ad hoc Distance Vector (SEAD) is a proactive routing protocol, based on the design of Destination Sequenced Distance Vector routing protocol (DSDV) [5]. Nodes maintain distances to destination and keep information about the next hop in the optimal path to a destination. 518 SEAD routing tables maintain a hash value for each neighbour to prevent an attacker to forge better metrics or sequence numbers. The characteristic of SEAD is that it uses a one way hash function. When a node detect that its next-hop link to some destination is broken, the node does not increment the sequence number for that destination in its routing table when it sets the metric in that entry to infinity.instead, the node flags its routing table entry for this destination to not accept any new updates for this same sequence number, effectively preventing the possible routing loop and traditional distance vector counting to infinity problem that could otherwise occur in this case. 2.5 Polarized Gossip Protocol (PGP) In the PGP protocol, the gossiping probability of a node is determined by the difference between the distance to the destination of itself and the distance to the destination of its previous node. An important application of the PGP algorithm is when used for path discovery in MANET. In this case the polarizing node corresponds to a destination node. The distinguishing feature of the PGP is the use of beacons as a mean to approximately localize the destination. Two variants are used in this algorithm. In the first case, only the beacon is sent. We call this protocol biased gossip with No Look ahead. In the second variant the beacon sent by a node i piggy backs all hints the node computes for all the other nodes, i.e., the values hij for any j 5 i. In this case the receiving node stores the hints into a Hint Table, whose entries have lifetime a DTs. III.PROPOSED ALGORITHM In MANET devices are free to join or leave the network and they will move randomly, possibly resulting in rapid and unpredictable topology changes. This feature leads to frequent path failures and route reconstructions, which causes an increase in the routing control overhead. To reduce the overhead of route discovery in the design of routing protocols of MANET an Estimated Distance based Routing Protocol (EDRP) is designed. Contribution of the proposed protocol: a)the estimated geometrical distance (EGD), which is based on the change regularity of the received signal strength (RSS) at the contact time of two nodes to estimate the future geometrical distance after the nodes have parted from each other. b) Estimated Topological Distance (ETD): This is a topology-based EstD to refine the inaccurate estimation of the EGD when it grows large. By using the EstD, we divide the entire network area into three zones: a) src- Zone; b) dst-zone; and c) other-zone.
In each different zone, we adopt a different strategy to forward RREQ packets. c) The computational process of the EGD used to evaluate the quality of link between neighbors and then exclude the weak links. This is very important for routing protocols because it can reduce the frequency of path failures and route discoveries. EstD = min {EGD, ETD}. IV. METHODOLOGY In the existing system, different distance based routing protocols in MANETs are compared by many researchers. In the proposed system, various routing protocols such as DSDV, AOMDV, SEAD, DREAM and PGP are compared with respect to more metrics and a new routing algorithm is designed.this new routing protocol can estimate the distance of two nodes more accurately without positioning service to more efficiently steer the Route Request packet to the destination node and avoid RREQ packet to the entire network compared to PGP. Routing protocols are analyzed in terms of packet delivery ratio, throughput, end to end latency, packet loss, overhead, energy consumption. V. SIMULATIONS USING NS-2 Network Simulator (NS)-2 in used for the evaluation. The NS-2 is a discrete event driven simulator developed at UC Berkeley. NS-2 is suitable for designing new protocols, comparing different protocols and traffic evaluations. It is an object oriented simulation written in C++, with an OTcl interpreter as a frontend. Simulation of protocols is performed on Linux operating system using ns-2.35.we have different simulations run in all over. Every simulation runs from 0s to 100s. Random waypoint mobility in a rectangular field of 1000m *1000m is used. Traffic and mobility files are imported in TCL script at the time of execution. VI. METRICS B.Throughput Throughput is the ratio of number of packets received to the time seconds. C.End To End Latency The average time taken by a data packets to arrive in the destination. Lower value of end to end delay means the better performance of the protocol. D.Packet Loss Total number of packets dropped during the simulation. Lower value of packet loss means better performance of the protocol. E.Overhead The total number of routing packets transmitted during the simulation. For packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the packet (each hop) counts as one transmission. F.Energy consumption: It is the ratio of Average energy consumed in each node to the total energy. 6.2 Testing Model Time model is used for simulation, which is defined below. Time model means varying time but node s speed, transmission rate, number of flows and number of nodes is kept constant. Simulation environment used for this model is shown in table 1. TABLE I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS In comparing the protocols, the following metrics are chosen for evaluation. 6.1 Simulation Parameters A. Packet Delivery Ratio It is the ratio of data packets delivered to the destination to those generated by the sources. It is calculated by dividing the number of packet received by destination through the number of packet originated from source. Parameters Values Routing Protocols DSDV,AOMDV,SEAD,DREAM,PGP,EDRP Number of nodes 100 Simulation Time 100 sec Time 0,20,40,60,80 Environment Size 1000*1000 Traffic Type Constant Bit Rate Mobility Model Random Way Point Model Antenna Type Omni Antenna Protocol TCP 519
VII. SIMULATION RESULT AND ANALYSIS Results for the above mentioned simulation is presented here with help of graphs. Graphs are generated for time model and number of nodes. Here six graphs generated for time model and five graphs for number of nodes using performance metrics packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, throughput, packet loss and routing overhead. The main aim of these simulations is to analyze the EDRP protocol by comparing it with other protocols (DSDV, AOMDV, SEAD, DREAM and PGP) for its efficiency in terms of energy consumption, latency, packet delivery ratio, packet lost, throughput and overhead. 1) Packet Delivery Ratio: Fig.7.1 shows the comparison of packet delivery ratio versus time for AOMDV, DSDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. Packet delivery ratio is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV, DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD, blue colored line indicates PGP,yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. Fig.7.2 Throughput versus Time 3) End To End Latency: Fig.7.3 shows the comparison of end to end latency versus time for AOMDV, DSDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. End to End latency is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV,DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD, blue colored line indicates PGP, yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. Fig.7.1 PDR versus Time 2) Throughput:Fig.7.2 shows the comparison of throughput versus time for AOMDV,DSDV,PGP,SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. Throughput is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV,DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD, blue colored line indicates PGP, yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. Fig.7.3 End To End Latency versus Time 4) Packet Drop: Fig.7.4 shows the comparison of packet drop versus time for AOMDV, DSDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. Energy consumption is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV, DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD, blue colored line indicates PGP, yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. 520
The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD,blue colored line indicates PGP,yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. Fig.7.4 Packet drop versus Time 5) Overhead: Fig.7.5 shows the comparison of overhead versus time for AOMDV, D SDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. Overhead is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV, DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. The red colored line in the graph below indicates DSDV, green colored line indicates SEAD, blue colored line indicates PGP, yellow colored line indicate DREAM and violet colored line indicates AOMDV. Fig: 7.6 Energy consumption versus time Fig.7.7 shows the comparison of packet delivery ratio versus number of nodes for PGP and EDRP. Packet delivery ratio is maximum in EDRP compared to PGP protocol. The red colored line in the graph below indicates PGP, green colored line indicates EDRP protocol. Fig.7.5 Overhead versus Time 6) Energy consumption: Fig7.6 shows the comparison of energy consumption versus time for AOMDV, DSDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM using 66 nodes. Energy consumption is minimum in PGP compared to AOMDV, DSDV, SEAD, DREAM protocols. Fig.7.7 Comparison of PDR versus number of nodes for EDRP and PGP Fig.7.8 shows the comparison of throughput versus number of nodes for PGP and EDRP. Throughput is maximum in EDRP compared to PGP protocol. The red colored line in the graph below indicates PGP, green 521
Fig.7.10 Comparison of Packet drop versus number of nodes for EDRP and PGP Fig.7.8 Comparison of Throughput versus number of nodes for EDRP and PGP Fig.7.9 shows the comparison of end to end delay versus number of nodes for PGP and EDRP. Latency is minimum in EDRP compared to PGP protocol. The red colored line in the graph below indicates PGP green Fig.7.11 shows the comparison of overhead versus number of nodes for PGP and EDRP. Overhead is minimum in EDRP compared to PGP protocol. The red colored line in the graph below indicates PGP green Fig.7.11 Comparison of Routing overhead versus number of nodes for EDRP and PGP VIII. CONCLUSION Fig.7.9.Comparison of End to End delay versus number of nodes for EDRP and PGP Fig.7.10 shows the comparison of packet drop versus number of nodes for PGP and EDRP. Packet drop is maximum in EDRP compared to PGP protocol. The red colored line in the graph below indicates PGP, green This paper evaluated the performance of AOMDV, DSDV, DREAM, SEAD and PGP routing protocols and implementation of new distance based routing protocol using ns-2.35. The proposed EDRP to reduce the routing control overhead by restricting the propagation range of RREQ packets. The EstD is a combination of EGD and ETD. We use the EstD to divide the network area to 3 zones, and in each different zone we adopt a different strategy to forward RREQ packets. The EGD uses the change regularity of RSS to estimate the future distance after a node leaves the transmission range of another node, and thus, it can reflect the future information to a certain extent. 522
The EGD has two functions: 1) to estimate the future distance after two nodes leave each other and 2) to evaluate the LQ when the two nodes are close to each other. This protocol can estimate the distance of two nodes more accurately without positioning service to more efficiently steer the RREQ packet to the destination node and avoid RREQ packet to the entire network. Comparison was based on packet delivery ratio, overhead, throughput, end to end latency and packet drop.pgp performs better than DSDV, DREAM, SEAD, and AOMDV in time model when it comes to overhead, throughput, end to end latency and packet drop. Then the result compared with the EDRP protocol. EDRP shows the better performance compared to DSDV, AOMDV, PGP, SEAD and DREAM. REFERENCES [1] R.Jainetal Comparative study of 3 mobile ad hoc network routing protocols under different traffic source IEEE International conference on communication system and network technology.2011 [2] Matthew Britton and Andrew Coyle Performance Analysis of the B.A.T.M.A.N. Wireless Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocol with Mobility and Directional Antennas 2011 The University of Adelaide [3] M.K.Marina and S.R.Das, On-Demand multipath distance vector routing in ad hoc networks in: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001. [4] S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V.R. Syrotiuk, and B.A. Woodward, A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM), in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom), 1998, pp.76 84. [5] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, SIGCOMM Conference on Communications Architectures, Protocols and Applications, Aug. 1994, pp. 234-244. [6]H. Dubois-Ferriere, M. Grossglauser, and M. Vetterli, Age matters: Efficient route discovery in mobile ad hoc networks using encounter ages, in Proc. ACM MobiHoc, 2003, pp. 257 266. 523