Comparison of MANET and Sensor in Ad hoc Network

Comparison of MANET and Sensor in Ad hoc Network Tejeswar Raju V Vineeth V Sneha Raju tejeswarrajuv@gmail.com vineeth.381994@gmail.com sneharaju666@gmail.com Ajina Jaya Professor C.S.E department ajinajaya@gmail.com Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sir M Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India Abstract: MANET, Mesh and Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) are the three classes of the wireless Ad hoc networks with resource constraints. In this paper we present types, classification and comparison of routing protocols in MANET and WSN. We analyze the design issues for these networks. This comparison reveals the important features that need to be taken into consideration while designing and evaluating new routing protocols for Ad hoc wireless networks. Key words: WSN, MANET, Routing protocol, Ad hoc wireless networks etc., deployment requires realistic solutions to different problem, including support for QoS provisioning and real-time applications, pricing, cooperative functioning, energyefficient relaying, load balancing, and support for multicast traffic. The limitation and challenges of Ad hoc wireless network is things become much more difficult without a central infrastructure, lack of central entity for organization available, limited range of wireless communication, Mobility of participants, Battery-operated entities. 1. Introduction Ad hoc wireless network is an Infra structure less multihop wireless link with distributed routing in packet switched network. Main aim of routing in Ad hoc wireless network is to find paths with minimum overhead and also quick reconfiguration of broken paths. Ad hoc wireless network is a collection of mobile nodes with a dynamic network infrastructure forming a temporary network. Manet technology is designed for the establishment of a network anywhere and anytime, without any fixed infrastructure to support the mobility of the users in the network. The unique features of this network are automatic discovery, self-stabilization and multicast a message to many users efficiently of the network. Even with all the promises that are offered by Ad hoc wireless networks, successful commercial Figure1. Ad hoc wireless network 1.1 Applications Rescue operation Military Home networks Conferencing Law enforcement and Security operation. 340

In this paper the next section, we discuss the different types of MANET, the characteristics and its routing protocols. In Section3, we discuss the different types of WSN, the characteristics and its routing protocols. In Section 4 we summarized the comparison of MANET and WSN. Finally, Section 4 concludes the paper. 2. MANET MANET consists of a set of mobile hosts that can communicate with each other without the assistance of base stations. Manets are heterogeneous mix of different wireless and mobile devices, ranging from little handheld device to laptops. Some parameters that affected the quality of service like residue power, link stability between two nodes, error count and hop count. MANET nodes are equipped with wireless transmitters and receivers using antennas which may be omnidirectional (broadcast), highly-directional (point-topoint), possibly steerable, or some combination thereof. At a given point in time, depending on the nodes' positions and their transmitter and receiver coverage patterns, transmission power levels and cochannel interference levels, a wireless connectivity in the form of a random, multihop graph or "ad hoc" network exists between the nodes. This ad hoc topology may change with time as the nodes move or adjust their transmission and reception parameters. Two popular types of MANET are VANET (Vehicular Ad-hoc network) A vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) uses cars as mobile nodes in a MANET to create a mobile network. imanet (Internet based Mobile adhoc networks). Internet-based Mobile Ad Hoc Networking is an emerging technology that supports self- organizing, mobile networking infrastructures, and is one which appears well-suited for use in future commercial and military applications. 2.1 Characteristics Route caching Number of Routes RREQ Flooding Energy Saving Mobility Reliability 2.2 Routing Protocol for MANET Sl.no Protocol Property 1 Network Overhead 2 Multihop Wireless Support 3 Network Suitable for 4 Routing Overhead 5 Packet Size DSDV DSR AODV High Low Medium Yes Yes Yes Less number of nodes Up to 200 nodes Medium Low Uniform Non Uniform Table 2.2: Comparison of DSDV, DSR and AODV Highly Dynamic High Uniform In Proactive (table driven) routing every node in the network has one or more routes to any possible destination in its routing table at any given time. The proactive protocols are appropriate for less number of nodes in networks, as they need to update node entries for each and every node in the 341

routing table of every node. It results more routing overhead problem. There is consumption of more bandwidth in routing table. Proactive routing protocols are DSDV (destination sequenced demand vector), OLSR (optimized link state routing protocols). DSDV attempt to maintain consistent, up-todate routing information of the whole network. It minimizes the delay in communication and allows nodes to quickly determine which nodes are present or reachable in the network. OLSR is a proactive link state routing protocol, which uses hello and topology control (TC) messages to discover and then disseminate link state information throughout the mobile ad-hoc network. Individual nodes utilize this topology information to work out next hop destinations for all nodes in the network using shortest hop forwarding paths. OLSR is moreover a flat routing protocol. It does not need central administrative system to handle its routing process. In Reactive routing protocols every node in the network obtains a route to a destination on a demand fashion. Reactive protocols do not maintain up-to-date routes to any destination in the network and do not generally exchange any periodic control messages. Reactive protocol searches for the route in an on-demand manner and set the link in order to send out and accept the packet from a source node to destination node. It has lower overhead since routes are determined on demand. Reactive Protocols are AODV (ad-hoc on demand distance vector), DSR (distance vector routing) and ABR (Associatively Based Routing) protocols. AODV establishes a route to a destination only on demand.it is capable of unicast, broadcast and multicast routing. AODV have some join feature of DSR and AODV. AODV avoids the counting to-infinity problem of other distance-vector protocols by using sequence numbers on route updates. In DSR the route paths are discovered after source sends a packet to a destination node in the ad-hoc network. The source node initially does not have a path to the destination when the first packet is sent. The DSR has two functions first is route discovery and the second is route maintenance In Hybrid routing protocols every node acts reactively in the region close to its proximity and proactively outside of that region, or zone. It was proposed to reduce the control overhead of proactive routing protocols and also decrease the latency caused by route discovery in reactive routing protocols. Hybrid routing protocols are ZRP (Zone routing protocol) and TORA (Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm). ZRP divides the topology into zones and seek to utilize different routing protocols within and between the zones based on the weaknesses and strengths of these protocols. ZRP is totally modular, meaning that any routing protocol can be used within and between zones. ZRP defines a technique called the Border cast Resolution Protocol (BRP) to control traffic between zones. If a node has no route to a destination provided by the proactive inter-zone routing, BRP is used to spread the reactive route request. The TORA is a highly adaptive loop-free distributed routing algorithm based on the concept of link reversal. TORA is proposed to operate in a highly dynamic mobile networking environment. It is source-initiated and provides multiple routes for any desired source/destination pair. The key design concept of TORA is the localization of control messages to a very small set of nodes near the occurrence of a 342

topological change. To accomplish this, nodes need to maintain routing information about adjacent (one-hop) nodes. The protocol performs three basic functions of Route creation, Route maintenance, and Route erasure. 3. Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) WSN benefit from the advances in computing technology, which led to the production of small, wireless, battery powered, smart sensor nodes. These nodes are active devices with computing and communication capabilities that not only sample real world phenomena but also can filter, share, combine, and operate on the data they sense. Low-rate low-power consumption and low-cost communication are the key points that lead to the specification of the IEEE 802.15 standard. Sensor network nodes are limited with respect to energy supply, restricted computational capacity and communication bandwidth. 3.1 Types of WSNs There are five types of WSNs. They are 1. Terrestrial WSN, 2. Underground WSN 3. Underwater WSN 4. Multi-media WSN 5. Mobile WSN Terrestrial WSNs typically consist of hundreds to thousands of inexpensive sensor nodes deployed in a given region, either in an ad hoc or in a pre-planned manner. In ad hoc deployment, sensor nodes can be dropped from a plane and randomly placed into the target area. In pre-planned deployment, there is grid placement, optimal placement, 2-d and 3-d placement models. Reliable communication in a dense environment is very essential in a terrestrial WSN. Sensor nodes must be able to successfully communicate with the base station in terrestrial WSN, while battery power is a limited. In any case, it is essential for sensor nodes to conserve energy. Energy of sensor nodes can be conserved with multi-hop optimal routing, short transmission range, in-network data aggregation, reducing data redundancy, minimizing delay and using low duty-cycle operations in terrestrial WSN. Underground WSNs in which sensor node covered underground, basically it used for detect used to monitor underground situation. And sink node are used for transmit information to the sensor node to the base station. In terms of equipment, deployment, and maintenance is more costly in underground WSN as compared to terrestrial WSN. Underground sensor nodes are expensive because proper components must be used for reliable communication through soil, rocks, water, and other mineral contents. The underground environment makes wireless communication a challenge due to signal losses and high levels of attenuation. An underground WSN requires careful planning energy and cost considerations during deployment to increase network lifetime. Fig 3.1 Underground WSN Underwater WSNs consist of a number of sensor nodes and vehicles deployed underwater unlike terrestrial WSNs, underwater sensor nodes are more costly and less dense. Independent 343

underwater vehicles are used for searching or gathering data from sensor nodes. Sensor nodes communicate via acoustic waves in underwater WSN. Acoustic communication is a challenge in underwater due to limited bandwidth, long propagation delay, and signal fading problem. And also node failure. Sensor node in wireless sensor network has a capability to take a harsh ocean environment condition. Sensor node have limited battery power which cannot be recharges and replace. For energy conservation, underwater WSNs involve developing efficient underwater communication and networking techniques. design are challenges in multi-media WSNs. Multimedia content such as video stream needs high bandwidth in order to content to be delivered. Therefore, energy consumption is high for high data rate. High bandwidth and low energy consumption transmission techniques have to be developed. QoS is difficult to preserve in a multi-media WSNs due to variable delay and variable channel capacity. It is essential to get a certain level of QoS for reliable content delivery. In network processing, filtering, and compression of contents can significantly improve network performance by filtering and extracting redundant information and merging contents. Similarly, cross-layer interaction between the layers can improve the processing and the delivery process. Fig.3.2Underwater WSN Multi-media WSNs are used to monitoring and tracking of events in the form of multimedia. Multi-media WSNs consist of a number of low cost sensor nodes equipped with cameras and microphones. These sensor nodes communicate with each other for data retrieval, process, correlation, and compression over a wireless connection. Multimedia sensor nodes are deployed in a pre-planned manner into the atmosphere for coverage guarantee. High bandwidth demand, high energy consumption, quality of service (QoS) condition, data processing and compressing techniques and cross-layer Fig.3.3 Multi-media WSN Mobile WSNs is a collection of sensor nodes that can move on their own and interact with the physical environment. Mobile nodes have the ability of sensing, computing, and communication like static nodes. A key difference is mobile nodes have the ability to change the position and organize itself in the network. A mobile WSNs can start with some initial 344

deployment and nodes can then spread out to gather information. A mobile node can communicate to another mobile node when they are within the range of each other and transfer gathered information. Another key difference is data distribution. In mobile WSNs, data can be distributed using dynamic routing while fixed routing or flooding is used in static WSNs. Sensor nodes deployment, localization, selforganization, navigation and control, coverage, energy, maintenance, and data process are challenges in mobile WSNs. Mobile WSNs applications include environment monitoring, target tracking, search and rescue, and real-time monitoring of hazardous material etc. Mobile sensor nodes can achieve a higher degree of coverage and connectivity compared to static sensor nodes. 3.2 Routing in WSN Protocol Classification Description application power consumption Flat Habit Limited network Monitoring routing Hierarchical routing Location based routing Direct diffusion SPIN RUMOR LEACH TEEN and APTEEN Energyaware routing for cluster-based sensor network SPEED GAF GEAR all nodes in the sensor network have equal roles in gathering information nodes will play different role in the network find the geographical position of node and then transmit the packet Table 3.2 Classification based on the network structure Health monitoring Military monitoring high low advantages simple, load balancing Scalability, consume less energy and efficient communication balancing of traffic load and energy 3.3 Characteristic requirements for WSNs Quality of service Fault tolerance Lifetime Scalability Wide range of densities Programmability Maintainability 4. Comparison of MANET and WSN Many commonalities between MANET and WSN such as Self-organization, energy efficiency, wireless multi-hop. Similarly it has many differences such as 1. Applications- equipment: In MANETs more expensive equipment assumed, often human in the loop -type applications, higher data rates, more resources 345

2. Application-specific: In WSNs depend much stronger on application specifics but MANETs comparably uniform 3. Environment interaction: It is core of WSN but absent in MANET 4. Scale: WSN might be much larger (although contestable) 5. Energy: WSN tighter requirements, maintenance issues 6 Dependability/QoS: in WSN, individual node may be dispensable and QoS different because of different applications. 7. Mobility: different mobility patterns like (in WSN, sinks might be mobile, usual nodes static). Conclusion In this paper, we overviewed the challenges and promising system concepts in MANETs and WSNs. We discussed various types and routing in MANET and WSN. They have many similarities and many differences, but both require new types of architectures & protocols, compared to traditional wired/wireless network. References: 1. Harjeet Kaur, Varsha Sahni, Dr. Manju Bala A Survey of Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 4 (3), 2013, 498-500. 2.Morigere Subramanya Bhat, Shwetha.D, Manjunath.D and DevarajuJ.T. Scenario Based Study of on denmand Reactive Routing Protocol for IEEE-802.11 and 802.15.4 Standards ISSN: 2249-57 Vol1(2), 128-135 published in Octobernovember 2011. AODV Routing Protocol with increasing the MANET Nodes and it s effects on QoS of Mobile Ad hoc Networks 2012 International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies. 4 Xu Huang, Muhammad Ahmed and Dharmendra Sharma Protecting from Inside Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks 2011 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing. 5. Jennifer Yick, Biswanath Mukherjee, Dipak Ghosal Wireless sensor network survey Computer Networks 52 (2008) 2292 2330 6. I.F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, A survey on sensor networks, IEEE Communications Magazine 40 (8) (2002) 104 112. 7. G. Simon, M. Maroti, A. Ledeczi, G. Balogh, B. Kusy, A. Nadas, G. Pap, J.Sallai, K. Frampton, Sensor network-based countersniper system, in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (Sensys), Baltimore, MD, 2004. 8 J. Yick, B. Mukherjee, D. Ghosal, Analysis of a Prediction-based Mobility Adaptive Tracking Algorithm, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Second International Conference on Broadband Networks (BROADNETS), Boston, 2005. 3.Ashish Bagwari,Raman Jee,Pankaj Joshi,Sourabh Bisht Performance of 346