COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE ADHOC NETWORKS USING QUALNET6.1

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE ADHOC NETWORKS USING QUALNET6.1 B.A.S Roopa Devi 1, J.V.R Murthy 1, G.Narasimha 2, R.Hyndavi 3, R.Avataram 3 1 Department of CSE, JNTUK, Kakinada, A.P, India anasuyabhima@gmail.com mjonnalagedda@gmail.com 2 Department of CSE, JNTUH, Karimnagar, A.P, India narsimha06@gmail.com 3 Department of ECE, JNTUK, Kakinada, A.P, India reddy.hyndavi@gmail.com avataram.akki@gmail.com ABSTRACT A mobile Ad-hoc network (MANET) is a dynamic multi hop wireless network established by a collection of mobile nodes in which there is no centralized administration. Due to the node mobility and dynamic network topology, the routing is one of the most important challenges in ad-hoc networks. All the nodes in the network should be cooperative so that the exchange of information would be successful. This cooperation process is called as routing. Election of routing protocols in MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Network) is a great challenge, because of its frequent topology changes and routing overhead. In this paper, the performance of reactive (AODV and DSR) and hybrid (ZRP) routing protocols has been compared. The performance differentials are analyzed on the basis of Packet Delivery Ratio, Throughput and End to End Delay simulated in qualnet6.1. KEYWORDS- AODV, DSR, ZRP, MANET. I. INTRODUCTION A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) [1], sometimes called a wireless ad hoc network or a mobile mesh network is a wireless network, comprised of mobile computing devices (nodes) that use wireless transmission for communication, without the aid of any established infrastructure or centralized administration such as a base station in cellular network or an access point in wireless local area network. The nodes are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily; thus, the network s wireless topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. Unlike traditional mobile wireless networks, mobile ad hoc networks do not rely on any central coordinator but communicate in a self organized way. Figure 1 [21] shows an example of mobile ad hoc network and its communication technology. Fig 1: Mobile Ad hoc networks 94

Mobile nodes that are within each other s radio range communicate directly via wireless links, while those far apart rely on other nodes to relay messages as routers. In ad hoc network each node acts both as a host (which is capable of sending and receiving) and a router which forwards the data intended for some other node. Hence it is appropriate to call such networks as multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks. The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as In section 2 we discussed the related work of the comparison of MANET routing protocols. II. In section 3 the basic approaches in routing protocols of Mobile ad hoc networks is discussed. In sections 4, 5, 6 briefly discussed about the approaches of routing protocols in MANETs. On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). In sections 7, 8, 9, 10 discussed about the simulation results of reactive and hybrid routing protocols simulated in qualnet6.1. RELATED WORK A number of routing protocols have been proposed and implemented for MANETs in order to enhance the bandwidth utilization, higher throughputs, lesser overheads per packet, minimum consumption of energy and others. All these protocols have their own advantages and disadvantages under certain circumstances. A lot of simulation studies were carried out in the papers [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [22] [23] to review the quantitative properties of routing protocols. III. ROUTING APPROACHES IN MANET S A Table-driven or Proactive Protocols: Proactive routing protocols attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date routing information between every pair of nodes in the network by propagating, proactively, route updates at fixed intervals. Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Table-Driven or Proactive On-Demand or Reactive Hybrid DSDV CGSR WRP OLSR DSR AODV TORA ABR ZRP ZHLS Fig 2: Classification of Ad hoc Routing Protocols B On-demand or Reactive Protocols: Reactive protocols, unlike table-driven ones, establish a route to a destination when there is a demand for it. C Hybrid Routing Protocols: Purely proactive or purely reactive protocols perform well in a limited region of network setting. IV. AD HOC ON-DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR Protocol Overview 95

Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [8] is a reactive routing protocol. It minimizes the number of broadcasts by creating routes based on demand. When any source node wants to send a packet to a destination, it broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet. The neighbouring nodes in turn broadcast the packet to their neighbors and the process continues until the packet reaches the destination. During the process of forwarding the route request, intermediate nodes record the address of the neighbour from which the first copy of the broadcast packet is received. This record is stored in their route tables, which helps for establishing a reverse path. If additional copies of the same RREQ are later received, these packets are discarded. The reply is sent using the reverse path. For route maintenance, when a source node moves, it can re-initiate a route discovery process [9]. If any intermediate node moves within a particular route, the neighbour of the drifted node can detect the link failure and sends a link failure notification to its upstream neighbour. This process continues until the failure notification reaches the source node. Based on the received information, the source might decide to re-initiate the route discovery phase. In Fig 3, S1 is the source node and S7 is the destination node. The source initiates the route request and the route is created based on demand. Route reply is sent using the reverse path from the destination. V. DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING Protocol Overview Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [10], allows nodes in the MANET to dynamically discover a source route across multiple network hops to any destination. In this protocol, the mobile nodes are required to maintain route caches or the known routes. The route cache is updated when any new route is known for a particular entry in the route cache. Routing in DSR is done using two phases: route discovery and route maintenance. When a source node wants to send a packet to a destination, it first consults its route cache to determine whether it already knows about any route to the destination or not [11]. If already there is an entry for that destination, the source uses that to send the packet. If not, it initiates a route request broadcast. This request includes the destination address, source address, and a unique identification number. Each intermediate node checks whether it knows about the destination or not. If the intermediate node does not know about the destination, it again forwards the packet and eventually this reaches the destination. A node processes the route request packet only if it has not previously processed the packet and its address is not present in the route record of the packet. A route reply is generated by the destination or by any of the intermediate nodes when it knows about how to reach the destination. The destination gets the request through two paths. It chooses one path based on the route records in the incoming request packet and accordingly sends a reply using the reverse path to the source node. S2 S2 S5 S7 S5 S7 S1 S1 S4 S6 S4 S6 S3 S3 (a) (b) Fig 3: (a) Source node broadcasting the route request packet. (b) Route reply is sent by the destination using the reverse path. 96

2 7 2 7 S 1 5 S 1 5 3 8 3 8 D D 4 6 4 6 (a) Fig 4: (a) Route discovery (b) Using route record to send the route reply At each hop, the best route with minimum hop is stored. In Fig 4, S1 is the source node and S8 is the destination node. The source initiates the route discovery and the route is created Using route record to send the route, route reply is sent using the reverse path from the destination. VI. ZONE ROUTING PROTOCOL Protocol Overview Zone routing protocol (ZRP) [12], is a hybrid routing protocol that combines the advantages of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. In this protocol [13], each node proactively maintains routes within a local region, which is termed as routing zone. A routing zone is defined for every node in the network. Route creation is done using a query-reply mechanism. For creating different zones in the network, a node first has to know who its neighbours are. A neighbour is defined as a node with whom direct communication can be established, and that is within one hop transmission range of a node. Size of a zone affects the network performance. The large routing zones are appropriate in situations where route demand is high and / or the network consists of many slowly moving nodes. On the other hand, the smaller routing zones are preferred where demand for routes is less and /or the network consists of a small number of nodes that move fast relative to one another. Proactive routing protocol works within the zone whereas; reactive routing protocol works between the zones. ZRP consists of two components: 1) The proactive Intra zone routing protocol (IARP) [14]. 2) The reactive Inter zone routing protocol (IERP) [15]. Each component works independently of the other and they may use different technologies in order to maximize efficiency in their particular area. The main role of IARP is to ensure that every node within the zone has a consistent updated routing table that has the information of route to all the destination nodes within the network. The work of IERP gets started when destination is not available within the zone. It relies on border cast resolution protocol in the sense that border nodes will perform on-demand routing to search for routing information to nodes residing outside the source node zone. VII. SIMULATION DESIGN Simulation has been done with pause time 0.0ms, which is considered as by default value, whereas each simulation takes 500sec time to complete. We implemented the Random waypoint mobility model for the random motion of the nodes and the numbers of mobile nodes considered are 70. Simulated network area is 1000m 1000m. Traffic type between the nodes is CBR (Constant Bit Rate) with packet size of 512-bytes and packet-sending rate is 4 packets per second. CBR has selected in this simulation, because it provides fair performance comparison between two reactive and proactive 97 (b)

ad hoc routing protocols. Variable bit rate makes the traffic load unpredictable that will not provide the best simulation result so we choose Constant bit rate (CBR). The common parameters utilized in the simulation are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Simulation parameters Parameter Value Mac protocol IEEE 802.11 Propagation model Two-ray ground Transmission range 250m Mobility model Random way point Number of nodes 70 Simulation time Traffic type 500sec Constant bit rate(cbr) VIII. PERFORMANCE METRICS The standard common parameters in all four scenarios are Packet delivery ratio, Throughput, End-toend Delay versus variable number of mobile nodes. A. Packet Delivery Ratio: The ratio of the number of delivered data packet to the destination. This illustrates the level of delivered data to the destination. Packet delivery ratio = Number of packets receive / number of packet send The greater value of packet delivery ratio means the better performance of the protocol. B. Throughput: is the amount of data that is successfully received at the receiving node by sending node through the network. C. End-to-end Delay: The average time taken by a data packet to arrive in the destination. It also includes the delay caused by route discovery process and the queue in data packet transmission. Only the data packets that successfully delivered to destinations that counted. End-to-end Delay = (arrive time-send time) / number of connections The lower the value of end to end delay means the better performance of the protocol. IX. SCENARIO DIAGRAM Fig 5: Scenario diagram for 70 nodes 98

X. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Experimental results of reactive and hybrid mobile ad hoc routing protocols which are obtained using Qualnet v6.1 [20] Fig 6.1 shows that the performance of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocols for 70 nodes in Packet Delivery Ratio. AODV Protocol performs well than other two protocols DSR, ZRP when packet delivery ratio is considered. Fig 6.1: Packet Delivery Ratio for 70 nodes of AODV DSR and ZRP respectively Fig 6.2 shows that the performance of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocols for 70 nodes in Throughput. For this AODV performance is better than other two protocols. Fig 6.2: Throughput for 70 nodes for AODV, DSR and ZRP respectively Fig 6.3 shows that the performance of AODV DSR and ZRP routing protocols for 70 nodes in End to End Delay Ratio. For this ZRP performance is better than other two protocols. Fig 6.3: End-to-end Delay for 70 nodes of AODV, DSR and ZRP respectively 99

XI. DISCUSSIONS This work can be also be extended by comparing the study of proactive routing protocol and it would be significant to consider other performance parameters like energy consumption,routing overhead, number of hop counts, path length etc. XII. CONCLUSION The performance evaluation of reactive (AODV, DSR) and hybrid (ZRP) routing protocols with number of mobile nodes 70 is simulated using Qualnet6.1 network simulator. From the results it can be observed that reactive routing protocols AODV and DSR are suited for applications where high packet delivery ratio and throughput are required. AODV performs well and remains consistent in Packet Delivery Ratio and Throughput as it supports high level of mobility. It produces latency for route selection having less chance of packet loss, but end-to-end delay increases when numbers of nodes are increased. DSR also performs well as Packet Delivery Ratio and Throughput remains stable. End-to-end delay of DSR increases when mobility increases, which degrades its performance. ZRP need sufficient time to establish route discovery and route maintenance, hence for large range mobile applications they are best suited. ZRP is consistent with Packet Delivery Ratio and throughput, but it performs well in case of End-to-end delay, but decreases when numbers of nodes are increased. REFERENCES [1] International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering (IJSCE) ISSN: 2231-2307, Volume-2, Issue-3, July 2012 Simulation and Comparison of AODV, DSR and AOMDV Routing Protocols in MANETs. [2] An Energy-Efficient Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, Vol. 6, Issue 2, December 2012 [3] Study of Zone Based Multicast Routing Protocols in MANETs Indumathi.G, Sindhuja.A. International journal of advanced research in computer and communication engineering Vol.1, issue 6, August 2012 [4] Haseeb Zafar, NancyAlhamahmy, David Harle and Ivan Andonovic Survey of Reactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (IJCNIS) Vol. 3, No. 3, December 2011. [5] Sunil Taneja, Ashwani Kush, A Survey of Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, August 2010. [6] S.R. Birdar, Hiren H D Sarma, Kalpana Sharma, Subir Kumar Sarkar, Puttamadappa C, Performance Comparison of Reactive Routing Protocols of MANETs using Group Mobility Model, International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, 2009. [7] Titeja Asma, Gujral Rajneesh, Thalia Sunil, Comparative Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET Using NS2, Advances in Computer Engineering (ACE), 2010 International Conference on, Page(s): 330-333, 2010 [8] M. Marina and S. Das, On-Demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Proc. Ninth Int l Conf. Network Protocols (ICNP 01), pp. 14-23, Nov. 2001. [9]. AODV, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-aodv-09. [10] S.R. Birdar, Hiren H D Sarma, Kalpana Sharma, Subir Kumar Sarkar, Puttamadappa C, Performance Comparison of Reactive Routing Protocols of MANETs using Group Mobility Model, International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, 2009. [11]DSR, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10. [12] World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2010 Vol I WCECS 2010, October 20-22, 2010, SanFrancisco, USA Simulation based Overhead Analysis of AOMDV, TORA and OLSR in MANET Using Various Energy Models [13]. ZRP, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manet-zone-zrp-04.txt. [14] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R., Samar, P.: Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP), June 2001, IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-iarp-01.txt [15] Haas, Zygmunt J., Pearlman, Marc R., Samar, P.: Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP), June 2001, IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-ierp-01.txt [16] Mohammed Bouhorma, H.Bentaouit and A.Boudhir, Performance comparison of Ad hoc Routing protocols AODV and DSR,IEEE 2009. [17] Guntupalli Lakshmikanth Mr A. Gaiwak and Dr. P. D. Vyavahare, Simulation Based Comparative Performance Analysis of Adhoc Routing Protocols, TENCON 2008-2008 IEEE Region 10 Conference. 100

[18] A text book of Guide to Wireless Ad Hoc Networks by Sudip Misra, PhD, Isaac Woungang, PhD, Subhas Chandra Misra, PhD. [19] A text book of AD HOC & SENSOR NETWORKS Theory and Applications Carlos de Morais Cordeiro Dharma Prakash Agrawal. [20] Qualnet simulator Version 3.1 User s Manual 2000, 2001 by Scalable Network Technologies, Inc. Los Angeles, California, 90025. [21] http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/11/4/4438. [22] Subramanya Bhat.M, Shwetha.D, Devaraju.J.T A Performance Study of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols using Qualnet Simulator,International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887) Volume 28 No.5, August 2011. [23] 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. AUTHORS B.A.S Roopa Devi, has completed her B.Tech in Computer Science & Engineering, J.N.T University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year 2004, M.Tech in Software Engineering, J.N.T University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year 2006, Currently pursuing her Ph.D in Computer Science and Engineering, J.N.T. University Kakinada. J.V.R Murthy, has completed his B. E in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, J.N.T University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year1982, M.Tech in Computer Science and Data Processing, I.I.T Kharagpur, India in the year 1990, Ph.D in Computer Science and Engineering, J.N.T. University Hyderabad in the year 2005. G.Narasimha has completed his B. E in Electronics and Communication Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year1996, M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year 1999, Ph.D in Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University Hyderabad, A.P. India in the year 2009 R.Hyndavi has completed her B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering, shri Vishnu engineering college for women, JNTUK, Bhimavaram,A.P. India in the year 2010. She is currently pursuing her M.Tech in Computers and Communication background. R.Avataram has completed his B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering, Maharaj vijayaram Gajapathi Raj college of engineering, JNTUK, Vijayanagaram, A.P. India in the year 2010. He is currently pursuing his M.Tech in Computers and Communication background. 101