PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR DATABASE AND VOICE DATA IN MANETS VIKAS GOYAL 1, SHAVETA RANI 2, PARAMJIT SINGH 3 1,2,3 Giani Zail Singh Punjab Technical University Campus, BATHINDA (P.B), India Abstract: MANET is Mobile Ad-Hoc Network which has been self-configured and infrastructure less using dynamically nature. MANET consists of mobiles nodes that are routers with host nodes and wireless communication devices. In the MANET, the transmitter and receiver nodes communicate using antennas which may be omnidirectional for broadcast purpose. In this paper, we compare the performance of routing protocols are - Geographical Routing Protocol (GRP) and Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Routing Protocol. The performance is evaluated by using OPNET MODELER 14.5 Simulator. The simulation performance parameters are Traffic Received, Traffic Sent, Jitler, Voice MOS Value, Packet Delay Variation, Data Dropped, Network Load and Throughput for comparing protocols. Keywords: GRP, TORA, MANET AND OPNET 1. INTRODUCTION Wireless Ad hoc Networks consists of mobile nodes communicating over shared wireless links. MANET does not have any base station. In the MANET, the automatic configuration helps to Ad hoc networks flexibility through possibility when mobile devices are connected to each other in the coverage (Transmission range). The mobile nodes have movement with respect to location velocity and acceleration [1] in the MANET through mobility model. During mobility and limited resources in the wireless networks, each layer in the TCP/IP model needs redefinition and modification [2]. decided by various routing protocols. In this paper, we have proposed the GRP and TORA routing protocols. 2.1 Geographical Routing Protocols (GRP) Geographic routing is a routing protocol that is based on position-based information. It is a wireless network routing protocol, in which the source node sends a message to geographic location of the destination instead of network address [3]. Each node finds out its own location and information is sent to the source about location of destination and associated neighbors, by broadcasting the HELLO message. Each node knows its location by global positioning system. By using Location Aided Routing (LAR) [4] limit search for a new route Request Zone. From the sender node to the destination node sends the HELLO message for the broadcast purpose. If destination node responds back, then sender transmits the data packets over all networks. The control message [5] is used to minimize overhead for fast transmission. The intermediate node uses the next hop geographic forwarding process. Gathering--based Routing protocol [6] is used to quickly collect network information source node and control overhead. By using intermediate neighbors and control packets, there is no need for creation and maintenance of routing tables for the routing purpose when there is lack of route creation. The data traffic conditions and node s own requirements [7] are adjusted by the protocol parameter values independently. Location Based Routing Protocol (LBRP) [8] is used for optimum topology quickly destination applying for routing. Geographic Routing localizes information for explicit node location to make forward decisions [9]. Figure 1: Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) 2. MANET ROUTING ROTOCOLS When we need to transfer data packets from source to destination, we need a dedicated path or a route that is 2.2 Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Protocol Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm is based on demand routing when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. Every node in the network has own copy of TORA which runs for each destination. The height term is answering a query and destination field. In TORA, when any node wants to communicate to broadcast the query request to all other nodes which contains address of destination it requires query packets. When a node detects height, its issues a CLR (clear) packet. The CLEAR packets consist of reference level and destination id. As the query response propagates back, Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 326
each intermediate node updates its TORA table with the route and height to the destination node [10]. The main advantage of this protocol is that failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route [11], [12]. Hierarchical-TORA (Hi-TORA) [13] is hierarchical routing scheme based on clustering scheme. The localization and selective node [14] approach has been used to improve TORA. It initializes and maintains a location portion of network by localization approach, by selecting a subset of node for participation as network by selective participation approach. A node can spread its MAC Layer Information [15] to its neighbor by modification Internet MANET Encapsulation Protocol (IMEP). When node has multiple paths to reach destination, then MAC Information and route hop count are used to calculate route selection probability. 3.8 Throughput (bits/sec): The ratio of total data received by receiver from sender over the network is known as Throughput. 4. OPNET SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT In this paper, the network is created by using OPNET Modeler 14.5 simulator, a wireless Ad hoc network with size 2500 2500 Meters scale Office type. In the figure 2, the project setup consists of 85 mobile nodes (workstations), Application Configuration, Profile Configuration, Wireless LAN Server (Mobile), Mobility Configuration (Default Random Waypoint Mobility). There are two scenarios for Database and two scenarios for Voice data. 3. PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS 3.1 Traffic Received (pakets/sec): When data packets have been transmitted from source to destination node, then the quantity of traffic received by source node to destination node by using intermediate node is known as Traffic Received. 3.2 Traffic Sent (pakets/sec): When data packets have been transmitted from source to destination node, then the amount of traffic have been sent by source node to destination node by using intermediate node is known as Traffic Sent. 3.3 Jitler (sec): To define the variation to reach packet that is caused by network congestion or route changes is known as Jitler. 3.4 Mean Opinion Score (MOS) value: Mean Opinion Score value gives a numerical indication of perceived quality of media received after being transmitted [16]. 3.5 Packet Delay Variation: Difference in End-to-End Delay between selected packets in a flow is known as Packet Delay Variation 3.6 Data Dropped (bit/sec): When source node transfers data then how many data packets have been successfully sent and received by the receiver and also data dropped in the way `before reaching destination node due to interruption of another devices is known as Data Dropped. 3.7 Network Load (bits/sec): When there is excess traffic in the network which is unable to be controlled is known as Network Load. When all higher layers [17] in WLAN nodes have load of the whole network, it is called Network Load. Figure 2: Simulator setup having 60 Mobile nodes Table 1: Simulation Parameters Simulation Parameters Values Simulator Version Opnet Modeler 14.5 Network Scale Network Size Technology Used Routing Protocols Number of Mobiles nodes 85 Traffic Type Simulation Time Physical characteristics Data Rate (bps) Office Type 2500 2500 Meters MANET GRP and TORA Database With High Load and Voice With GSM Quality and Silence Suppressed 500 Sec Direct Sequence 11 bps Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 327
5. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS In this paper, we have analyzed the performance of protocols-grp and TORA w.r.t Database and Voice Data Service. 5.1 Wireless LAN Database When the source node sends the database query to destination node through Database Service, it enables the Database server to responsd the query that is sent by the sender node is known as Database service. The Wireless LAN performance parameters are as following: 5.1.1 DB Query Traffic Received (packets/sec) Figure 3, represents the graph of DB query Traffic Received for GRP and TORA routing protocols. In the GRP routing protocol, the peak value of Traffic Received is almost 4.4 packets/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of DB query Traffic Received is almost 0.35 packets/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 0.1 bits/sec and last value of DB Query Traffic Received is 0.01 packets/sec. The peak value of DB Query Traffic Received of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. Figure 3: DB Query Traffic Received for Database 5.1.2 DB Query Traffic Sent (packets/sec) Figure 4, represents the graph of DB query Traffic Sent for GRP protocol, the peak value of DB query Traffic Sent that is almost 13.1 packets/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of DB query Traffic Sent is almost 1.5 packets/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 1 packet/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of DB Query Traffic Sent of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. Figure 4: DB Query Traffic Sent for Database 5.1.3 Data Dropped (bits/sec) Figure 5, represents the graph of Data Dropped for GRP protocol, the peak value of Data Dropped is almost 20000 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 4000 bits/sec and last value of Data Dropped is 1800 bits/sec peak value of data dropped is almost 4300 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Data Dropped of TORA is lower than GRP, when TORA protocol failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route. Figure 5: Data Dropped for Database 5.1.4 Network Load (bits/sec) Figure 6, represents the graph of Network Load for GRP protocol, the peak value of Network Load is almost 399900 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 49900 bits/sec and last value of Network Load is 651000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Network Load is almost 149900 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Network Load of TORA is lower than GRP, when TORA protocol failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route. Figure 6: Network Load for Database 5.1.5 Throughput (bits/sec) Figure 7, represents the graph of Throughput for GRP protocol, the peak value of Throughput is almost 5200000 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 52000 bits/sec and last value of Throughput is 1500200 bits/sec peak value of Throughput is almost 250000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Throughput of GRP is Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 328
higher than TORA, because each node has known its location by global positioning system. Figure 8: Jitler for Voice Data Figure 7: Throughput for Database In the Table 2, the performance comparison of routing protocols GRP and TORA w.r.t Database is done. The performance parameters are: DB Query Traffic Received, DB Query Traffic Sent, Data Drpped, Network Load and Throughput etc. The peak value of each parameter is approximation value. TABLE 2: Performance Comparison for Database Parameters Protocols 5.2.2 MOS Value Figure 9, represents the graph of MOS Value for GRP and TORA routing protocols. In the GRP routing protocol, the peak value of MOS Value is almost 3.58 and it gradually drops down to almost 1.7 after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of MOS Value is almost 3.59 and it gradually drops down to almost 3.05 after 500 seconds. The peak value of MOS Value of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. GRP TORA DB Query Traffic 4.4 0.35 Received (packets/sec) DB Query Traffic Sent 13.1 1.5 (packets/sec) Data Dropped 20000 4300 Networks Load 399900 149900 Throughput 5200000 250000 5.2 Wireless LAN Voice Data When the source node wants to send the multimedia data that is voice to destination node through Voice Service, it enables the Voice server to process the voice data and take necessary action. That data sent by the sender node is known as Voice service. The Wireless LAN performance parameters are as following: 5.2 Wireless LAN Voice When the source node sends the voice data to destination node through Voice Service, it enables the Voice server to process the voice data that is sent by the sender node is known as Voice service. The Wireless LAN performance parameters are as following: 5.2.1 Jitler (Sec) Figure 8, represents the graph of Jitler for GRP and TORA routing protocols. In the GRP routing protocol, the peak value of Jitler is almost 0.125 after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Jitler is almost 0.01 and it gradually drops down to almost -0.01 after 500 seconds. The peak value of Jitler of TORA is lower than GRP, when TORA protocol failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route. Figure 9: MOS Value for Voice Data 5.2.3 Packet Delay Variation Figure 10, represents the graph of Packet Delay Variation for GRP protocol, the peak value of Packet Delay Variation is almost 88 and it gradually drops down to almost 69 after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Packet Delay Variation is almost 15 after 500 seconds. The peak value of Packet Delay Variation of TORA is lower than GRP, when TORA protocol failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route. Figure 10: Packet Delay Variation for Voice Data Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 329
5.2.4 Voice Traffic Received (packets/sec) Figure 11, represents the graph of Traffic Received for GRP protocol, the peak value of Traffic Received is almost 220 packets/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 158 packets/sec and last value of Traffic Received is 159 packets/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Traffic Received is almost 100 packets/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 78 packets/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Traffic Received of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. peak value of Data Dropped is almost 5000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Data Dropped of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. Figure 13: Data Dropped for Voice Data Figure 11: Traffic Received for Voice Data 5.2.5 Voice Traffic Sent (packets/sec) Figure 12, represents the graph of Traffic Sent for GRP protocol, the peak value of Traffic Sent is almost 2399 packets/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Traffic Sent is almost 1810 packets/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Traffic Sent of TORA is lower than GRP, because when node discovers the route then it follows the Directed Acyclic Graph DAG technique used to loop-free multipath routing. 5.2.7 Network Load (bits/sec) Figure 14, represents the graph of Network Load for GRP protocol, the peak value of Network Load is almost 390000 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 50000 bits/sec and last value of Network Load is 850000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. In the TORA routing protocol, the peak value of Network Load is almost 180000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Network Load of TORA is lower than GRP, when TORA protocol failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route. Figure 14: Network Load for Voice Data Figure 12: Traffic Sent for Voice Data 5.2.6 Data Dropped (bits/sec) Figure 13, represents the graph of Data Dropped for GRP protocol, the peak value of Data Dropped is almost 20000 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 4520 bits/sec and last value of Data Dropped is 42500 bits/sec 5.2.8 Throughput (bits/sec) Figure 15, represents the graph of Throughput for GRP protocol, the peak value of Throughput is almost 5400000 bits/sec and it gradually drops down to almost 490000 bits/sec and last value of Throughput is 490000 bits/sec peak value of Throughput is almost 390000 bits/sec after 500 seconds. The peak value of Throughput of TORA is lower than GRP, because each node knows its locations by global positioning system. Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 330
Figure 15: Throughput for Voice Data In the Table 3, the performance comparison of routing protocols GRP and TORA w.r.t Voice Data is done. The performance parameters are: Jitler, MOS Value, Packet Delay Variation, Voice Traffic Received, Voice Traffic Sent, Data Dropped, Network Load and Throughput etc. The peak value of each parameter is approximation value. TABLE 3: Performance Comparison for Voice Data Parameters Protocols GRP TORA Jitler (sec) 0.125 0.01 MOS Value 3.58 3.59 Packet Delay Variation 88 15 Voice Traffic Received 220 100 (packets/sec) Voice Traffic Sent 2399 1810 (packets/sec) Data Dropped 20000 5000 Networks Load 390000 180000 Throughput 5400000 390000 6. CONCLUSION In this paper, we have analyzed performance evaluation of routing protocols GRP and TORA with Database and Voice Data. In case of Database, TORA routing protocol has performed best in term of performance parameters: DB Query Traffic Received, DB Query Traffic Sent, Data Dropped and Network Load. GRP routing protocol has performed best in term of performance parameter: Throughput. In case of Voice, TORA routing protocol has performed best in term of performance parameters: Jitler, MOS Value, Packet Delay Variation, Voice Traffic Received, Voice Traffic Sent, Data Dropped and Network Load. GRP routing protocol has performed best in term of performance parameter: Throughput. References [1] Vijayavani, G.R. and Prema, G. MEPCO Schlenk Eng. Coll., Sivakasi, India Performance comparison of MANET routing protocols with mobility model derived based on realistic mobility pattern of mobile nodes Advanced Communication Control and Computing Technologies (ICACCCT), International Conference on 2012 [2] Mehran Abolhasan, Tadeusz Wysocki and Eryk Dutkiewicz A review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks Elsevier : Ad Hoc Networks Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 1 22 [3] A. Tamizhselvi and Dr. R.S.D. Wahida Banu Performance Evaluation of Geographical Routing Protocol under Different Traffic Scenario International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2012 [4] Young-Bae Ko and Nitin R. Vaidya Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks Springer: Wireless Networks 6 (2000) 307-321 [5] Kuldeep Vats, Mandeep Dalal, Deepak Rohila, Vikas Loura, OPNET Based Simulation and Performance Analysis of GRP Routing Protocol in International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2012 [6] Chang Wook Ahn Gathering-based routing protocol in mobile ad hoc networks Elsevier: Computer Communications Volume 30, Issue 1, 15 December 2006, Pages 202 206 [7] Upasna, Jyoti Chauhan, Manisha Minimized Routing Protocol in Ad-Hoc Network with Quality Maintenance Based on Genetic Algorithm: A Survey International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153 [8] RAJ, E.G.D.P. ; SELVAKUMAR, S. AND LEKHA, J.R. DEPT. OF COMPUT. SCI. & ENG., BHARATHIDASAN UNIV., TIRUCHIRAPALLI, INDIA LBRP: GEOGRAPHIC ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MANETS RECENT TRENDS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (ICRTIT), INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 2011 [9] FOTOPOULOU-PRIGIPA, S. AND MCDONALD, A.B. INTRACOM S.A., ATHENS, GREECE GCRP: GEOGRAPHIC VIRTUAL CIRCUIT ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR AD HOC NETWORKS MOBILE AD-HOC AND SENSOR SYSTEMS, IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 2004 [10] G.Vijaya Kumar, Y.Vasudeva Reddyr and Dr.M.Nagendra Current Research Work on Routing Protocols for MANET: A Literature Survey (IJCSE) International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE) Vol. 02, No. 03, 2010, 706-713 [11] Sunil Taneja and Ashwani Kush A Survey of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, August 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248 [12] Tamilarasan and Santhamurthy A Quantitative Study and Comparison of AODV, OLSR and TORA Routing Protocols in MANET IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 9, Issue 1, No 1, January 2012 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 331
[13] Ohta, T. ; Fujimoto, M. ; Inoue, S. ; and Kakuda, Y. Dept. of Comput. Eng., Hiroshima City Univ., Japan Hi-TORA: a hierarchical routing protocol in ad hoc networks High Assurance Systems Engineering, Proceedings. 7th IEEE International Symposium on 2002. [14] KWAN HUI LIM AND DATTA, A. SCH. OF COMPUT. SCI. & SOFTWARE ENG., UNIV. OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, CRAWLEY, WA, AUSTRALIA ENHANCING THE TORA PROTOCOL USING NETWORK LOCALIZATION AND SELECTIVE NODE PARTICIPATION PERSONAL INDOOR AND MOBILE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS (PIMRC), IEEE 23RD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON 2012 [15] QIANG LIU HUA WANG ; JINGMING KUANG ; ZHENG WANG AND ZHIMING BI DEPT. OF ELECTRON. ENG., BEIJING INST. OF TECHNOL., BEIJING WSNP1-1: M- TORA: A TORA-BASED MULTI-PATH ROUTING ALGORITHM FOR MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE GLOBECOM '06. IEEE CONFERENCE 2006 [16] Sumit Mahajan, Vinay Chopra Performance Evaluation of MANET Routing Protocols with Scalability using QoS Metrics of VOIP Applications International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013 ISSN: 2277 128X. [17] Suhaimi Bin Abd Latif, M.A. Rashid, F.Alam, Profiling Delay and Throughput Characteristics of Interactive Multimedia Traffic over WLANs using OPNET, School of Engineering Institute of Technology & Engineering, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand. Paramjit Singh received PhD from BITS, Pilani in 2009, M.S (Software System) from BITS, Pilani in 2002 & B.Tech (CSE) from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Longowal in 1998. He is currently working as Assistant Professor C.S.E Department Giani Zail Singh Punjab Technical University Campus, Bathinda. His research area is Networking, Software Systems and Computer Graphics. He has to her contribution International Journals: 11, National Journals: 02, International Conferences: 12 and National Conferences: 30. AUTHORS: Vikas Goyal received B.Tech (CSE) from Malout Institute of Management & Information Technology, Malout in 2009 and currently pursuing M.Tech (CSE) from Giani Zail Singh Punjab Technical University Campus, Bathinda. His research area is Adhoc Networks routing Protocols MANET. Shaveta Rani received PhD from BITS, Pilani in 2009, M.S (Software System) from BITS, Pilani in 2002 & B.Tech (CSE) from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Longowal in 1998. She is currently working as Assistant Professor C.S.E Department Giani Zail Singh Punjab Technical University Campus, Bathinda. Her research area is Internetworking, Image Processing and Software Systems. She has to her contribution International Journals: 11, National Journals: 02, International Conferences: 12 and National Conferences: 29 Volume 2, Issue 4 July August 2013 Page 332