A RELATIVE ANALYSIS OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS DSDV AND AOMDV USING NS2 M.SWATHI 1, CH.V.PRASANTHI 2 and K.HARISH 3 1 Assistant professor, LENDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Vizianagaram, India 2,3 Student, Department of CSE, LENDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Vizianagaram, India Abstract Mobile Ad-hoc network is a sovereign system of mobile routers connected by wireless links which in turn need routing protocols for communication between the routers. In this paper, we have performed the comparative analysis of Destination sequence distance vector (DSDV), a Proactive protocol and Ad-hoc on demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV), a Reactive protocol. From the Study, AOMDV has given superior performance than DSDV protocol. The Simulation results of both the protocols are analyzed using Network Simulator version 2(NS2) by taking into consideration the metrics such as End-to-End delay, Packet delivery ratio and Routing load. Keywords: DSDV, AOMDV, Network Simulator (NS2), MANETS 1. INTRODUCTION A Mobile Ad-hoc network is an autonomous collection of mobile devices that communicate with each other through wireless links. MANET [1], [2], [3] is the current emerging technology which enables users to communicate without any physical infrastructure regardless of their geographical location, that s why it is sometimes referred to as a infrastructure less network. The mobile nodes that are within range communicate directly with each other but the nodes which are out of range require the assistance from intermediate nodes to route packets. MANETs can work at any place as they are fully dispensed.figure1 shows simple ad-hoc network with 4 nodes. The node 1 and node 3 are far away from each other and therefore they are out of range. There is no direct communication between these nodes. The node 2 and node 4 are intermediate nodes used to forward packets between node 1 and node 3. Figure1: Example of Mobile ad-hoc network There exist multiple paths: 1. Node 1---Node 2---Node 3 2. Node 1---Node 4---Node 3 3. Node 1---Node 2---Node 4---Node 3 The routing protocols play a prominent role in selection of the route. These protocols must be able to decide best path between the nodes. 1.1 OUTING PROTOCOLS Routing protocols are required for the predetermined understanding for communication between routers and transfer of packets between mobile nodes in the network. These particularize the selection of routes and also used to effectively learn routing information so the routers are aware of the destinations to which the packets are to be delivered. Routing protocols are configured on serial interfaces. Routing protocols are characterized into 3 categories; Proactive routing protocols, Reactive routing protocols and Hybrid routing protocols. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 400
Figure 2: Classification of MANET routing protocols 1.1.1 Proactive routing protocols Proactive routing protocols [4] are Table driven which means each and every node in the network maintains a routing table for the transfer of the data packets to the destination. The routing table maintains fully furnished routing information of every node in the network. A sequence number generated by the destination node labeled to the routing entry. For each new route that has established contains its own routing table periodically from time to time. The routing table maintains the information about number of hops required for a data packet to reach its destination. Sequence number generated by the destination node and the address of destination. Proactive protocols are meant only for less number of nodes in the network, these are not apt for dense networks. Routing overhead problem is the main cause in it. Consumption of bandwidth is more in routing table. Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV) is a proactive routing protocol. 1.1.2 Reactive routing protocols Reactive routing protocols [4] are on demand which means it searches for routes in an on demand manner and establish a between source node and destination node to send packets from source and receives packet at destination. These have lower overhead as they hire flooding concept. The nodes in the network are autonomous and don t carry any information of the nodes adjoining to them as well as other nodes. They work only when a data is delivered to them so as to maintain the route to the destination contains only information of the route through which data has to be delivered so these pass packets to next node. Ad-hoc on demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) is a reactive protocol. 1.1.3 Hybrid routing protocols Hybrid routing protocol(hrp) [5] is a network routing protocol that integrate Distance vector routing protocol (DVRP) and Link state routing protocol (LSRP) characteristics. These govern optimal network destination router and report network topology data modification. HRP is further classified into: 1. Proactive Hybrid routing protocol 2. Reactive Hybrid routing protocol Zonal routing protocol(zrp) is a proactive Hybrid routing protocol Optimized link state routing (OLSR) is a reactive Hybrid routing protocol 1.2 DESTINATION SEQUENCE DISTANCE VECTOR (DSDV) Destination Sequence Distance Vector [6], [7] is reworked from conventional routing information protocol and also rest on Bellman-Ford algorithm to compute paths. Each and every node in the network sustain a routing able consists of destination to be reached next hop it has to progress on. The metrics, the number of hops it takes for the packet to hit its destination and the sequence number which is progress generated by destination. Using these routing table stored in each mobile node. The packets are transmitted between the nodes of the network. When there is a unforeseen alteration occurred in the network topology, each mobile node publicize routing information using broadcasting or multicasting a routing table update packets. This process will be iterated until all the nodes in the network have received a copy of update packet with its corresponding metric. The elements in the routing table of each mobile node change vigorously to keep consistency with dynamically changing topology of an ad-hoc network. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 401
To reach consistency, the routing information must be quickly and often updated. Upon the updated routing information, each node has to relay data packet to other nodes upon request in the dynamically created ad-hoc network. Figure 3: Example for DSDV protocol with four nodes Table 1: Routing table for node A 1.3 AD-HOC ON-DEMAND MULTIPATH DISTANCE VECTOR (AOMDV) Ad-hoc On-demand multipath Distance vector (AOMDV) [8],[9] is an add-on of Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) used to locate multiple loop-free and link disjoint paths between source and destination. A list of next hops along with suited hop counts is accommodated by the routing entries for each destination. All the next hops have the same sequence number. This helps in retaining track of the route. The advertised hop count, which is defined as maximum hop count of all the paths are serviced at each destination. Loop freedom is assured for a node by accepting alternate paths to destination if it has less hop count then the advertised hop count for that destination. It can be used to find node disjoint and link disjoint routes. 1.3.1 PATH DISCOVERY PROCESS Figure 4: path discovery in AOMDV AOMDV builds routes by using a route request (RREQ)/route reply (RREP) query cycle. When a source node require route to its corresponding destination for which there is no existed route, it broad casts RREQ packet in the network to establish new route. The source node broadcasts RREQ packets to its neighbors for initiating path discovery. The process is repeated until the RREQ packet reaches the destination. The destination generates an RREP packet after receiving RREQ packet. RREP packet is propagated back to the source in the same path. A node chooses fresh node out of two different routes. If both the routes are discovered at the same time, then the node with fewer hops is preferred. 2. METRICS FOR PERFORMANCE COMPARISION MANET has number of qualitative and quantitative metrics that can be used to assess the performance of ad hoc routing protocols. This paper has been considered the following metrics to evaluate the performance of ad hoc network routing protocols. 2.1 End to end Delay: The average time taken by a data packet to reach its destination. It also includes the delay triggered by route discovery process and the queue in the data packet transmission. Only the data packets that such victoriously delivered to destinations were counted. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 402
AED= (Received time sent time)/total data packets received 2.2 Packet Delivery Ratio: It is the ratio of the packet sent from source to the number of packet received at the destination. PDR is determined as: PDR = (Pr/Ps) X 100 Where Pr is the total packets received and Ps is the total packets sent. 2.3 Routing Load: Routing load is the number of routing control packet transmitted for each data packet delivered at the destination. Routing load is determined as: RL = Pc / Pd Where Pc is the total control packets sent and Pd is the total packets sent. 3. SIMULATION SETUP AND ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Network Simulator: According to dictionary, Simulation can be defined as reproduction of essential features of something as an aid to study or training. In simulation, we can construct a mathematical model to reproduce the features of a phenomenon, system, or process often using a computer in order to information or solve problems. Nowadays, there are many network simulators that can simulate the MANET. In this section we will introduce the most commonly used simulators. We will compare their advantages and disadvantages and choose one to as platform to implement reactive/proactive protocol land conduct simulations in this project. The objective of this work is to simulate and analyzed the performance evaluation of various routing protocols by using Network Simulator 2(NS-2) tool. A simulation can be serviceable because it is attainable to scale the networks easily and therefore to extinguish the need for time consuming and costly real world experiments. While the simulator is a powerful tool, it is important to remember that the ability to do forecast about the performance in the real world is dependent on the accuracy of the models in the simulator. The parameters were different routing protocols like as DSDV and AOMDV are chosen for simulation using the performance metrics such as Packet Delivery Ratio, Routing Load and End-to-end Delay in different scenarios i.e., for 50,75 and 100 nodes. 3.2 PARAMETER VALUES: Table 1: simulation parameters Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 403
3.3 RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS: As already outlined we have taken On-demand (Reactive) routing protocols, namely table driven (Proactive) Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing (AOMDV). Packet delivery ratio, end to end delay and routing load are calculated for AOMDV and DSDV. The results are analyzed below with their corresponding graphs. Table 2: Acquired results of DSDV and AOMDV While performing the analysis of the two Routing protocols DSDV and AOMDV for the metrics End-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and routing load, the above outcomes are viewed by considering 50,75 and 100 nodes and their related Xgraphs are generated below. End to end delay: Figure 1: Comparison of End To End Delay in DSDV and AOMDV Packet delivery ratio: Figure 2: Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio in DSDV and AOMDV Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 404
Routing Load: Figure 3: Comparison of Routing Load in DSDV and AOMDV As per our simulation results we observed that AOMDV routing protocol produces effective and practical results for maximum number of nodes, End-to-end delay and packet delivery ratio. For general Routing load the protocol which produces the best is DSDV. The graphs that are shown above are used to evaluate the performance of disparate routing protocols DSDV and AOMDV. 4. CONCLUSION We have contrasted two routing protocols DSDV, a proactive routing protocol and AOMDV, a reactive routing protocol. Using NS-2 simulator, the simulation of these protocols has been carried out. The parameters like End-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and routing load are taken into consideration to assess the performance of these routing protocols. So, we can conclude that if the MANET has to lay out for compact networks DSDV should be adopted for its low routing load and AOMDV preferred for dense networks as it provides multiple paths and it is high at its packet delivery ratio and low at End-to-End delay. The two protocols Destination sequence distance vector (DSDV) and Ad-hoc On-Demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) have been compared using simulation, it would be enthusiastic to record the behavior of these protocols. In this study the network parameters such as end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and routing load are taken into consideration to perceive the behavior of these two protocols by departing these network parameters. REFERENCES [1] Jeroen Hoebeke, Ingrid Moerman, Bart Dhoedt and Piet Demeester--An Overview of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Applications and Challenges, Session 4. [2] Dr. S. S. Tyagi, Aarti--Study of MANET: Characteristics, Challenges, Application and Security Attacks, IJARCSSE International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, VOL-3, Issue 5, May 2013 ISSN: 2277 128X. [3] B.Cameron Lesiuk-Routing in Ad-hoc networks of Mobile hosts, MECH 590: Directed studies with Dr.Gerard Mc Lean. [4] Basu Dev Shivahare1,Charu Wahi, Shalini Shivhare--Comparison Of Proactive And Reactive Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad-hoc Network Using Routing Protocol Property, IJETAE International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, ISSN 2250-2459, VOL-2, Issue 3, March 2012. [5] www.techopedia.com/definition/26311/hybrid-routing-protocol-hrp. [6] www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/538030/k02/papers/03-guoyou.pdf. [7] www.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets/papers/narra-cheng-cetinkaya-rohrer-sterbenz-zou.pdf. [8] Vivek B.Kute, M.U.Kharat, Analysis of Quality of Service for the AOMDV Routing Protocol, ETASR - Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 3, _o. 1, 2013, 359-362. [9] Manveen Singh Chadha, Rambir Joon, Sandeep--Simulation and Comparison of AODV, DSR and AOMDV Routing Protocols in MANETs, International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering (IJSCE) ISSN: 2231-2307, VOL-2, Issue-3, July 2012. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 405
hn International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM) AUTHOR Mugada Swathi received her B.Tech degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India, in 2009 and M.Tech degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India in 2011. She is currently working as an Assistant Professor, in the Department of Computer science and Engineering in Lendi Institute of Engineering & Technology. Ch.v.Prasanthi, presently doing her Batch in Computer Science Engineering from Lendi Institute of Engineering and Technology (LIET), Completed Intermediate from Narayana Junior College, Visakhapatnam. Completed schooling in 2008 from Catherine Public School, Bheemili. K.Harish, presently doing his B.Tech in Computer Science Engineering from Lendi Institute of Engineering and Technology (LIET), Completed Intermediate from Narayana Junior College, Visakhapatnam. Completed schooling in 2008 from Abhudaya Convent and High school, Bobbili. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014 Page 406