Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 Simulation Based Performance Analysis of, and Routing Algorithm in Wireless Personal Area Network Using NS-2 Shivlal Mewada 1*, Pradeep Sharma 2, S.S. Gautam 1, Sarita Sharma 2, Priyanka Agiwal 2 and Arti Shrivastava 2 1* Department of Computer Science, MGCGV Chitrakoot, Satna, INDIA 2 Department of Computer Science, Govt. Holkar Science College, Indore, INDIA shiv.mewada@gmail.com Abstract Available online at: www.isca.in Received 29 th July 215, revised 7 th November 215, accepted 1 th January 216 The IEEE 82.15.4 is a standard for low rate-wireless personal area network which provides a low cost and very less complicated solution. The targeted applications are WSN, interactive games, house automation and remote controls. ZigBee is a new technology invented by ZigBee Alliance, enabling WPAN. ZigBee is the name of a specification for a suite of high range communication protocols using small, low-power digital radios based on the ZigBee Alliance standard. The main aim of this paper is to establish the communication in short-range by using wireless technology and using IEEE 82.15.4. It is designed to meet the needs for low cost, low power, simple and short range wireless networking. It does performance analysis of IEEE 82.15.4 topologies (mesh, star, cluster tree) of wireless personal area network (WPAN) using different parameters like good put, end-to-end delay, throughput with respect to, and, routing protocol using NS-2. Simulation result verifies that gives the better performance in mesh topology whereas in cluster tree and star topology. Keywords: WPAN, Topologies,,,. Introduction Wireless personal area network (WPANs) are used to convey information over short distances among a private, intimate group of participant devices 1. Here we are using IEEE 82.15.4/Zigbee is a short range wireless technology in WPAN and Zigbee technology is simpler (and less expensive) than Bluetooth. ZigBee is a specification for a suite of high-level communication protocols used to create personal area networks built from small, low-power digital radios. ZigBee is based on an IEEE 82.15.4 standard. Its low complexity, low cost, low power consumption limits transmission distances to 1 1 meters line-of-sight, depending on power output and environmental characteristics. ZigBee devices can transmit data over long distances by passing data through a mesh network of intermediate devices to reach more distant ones. ZigBee is typically used in low data rate applications that require long battery life and it s secured by 128 bit symmetric encryption keys.) Zigbee developed by Zigbee Alliance, it one of the newest technologies and its plays very important roles in networking. The main objectives of anlow rate-wireless personal area network like Zigbee are ease of installation, shortrange operation, reliable data transfer, extremely low cost, and a reasonable battery life, while maintaining a simple and flexible protocol. Zigbee offers three types of unlicensed frequency bands are 2.4 GHz, 915MHz and 866MHz 2. Here using data rate 25kbps and 16 channels at 2.4GHz bands. IEEE 82.15.4 has three types of topologies like mesh, cluster and star. The main aim of our paper to analyze performance of Zigbee topologies based network by measuring goodput, throughput and end-toend delay with respect to routing protocol, and using NS2. Related Work Prativa P. Saraswala 2 described the wirelessnetwork nodes supported by ZigBeeand the basic routing protocols used in the wireless ZigBee network. It s protocols to improve the network performance. Swati V. Birje 3 described a short overview of IEEE 82.15.4 and analyzed performance of IEEE 82.15.4 through measurements of end-to-end delay and packet dropped parameter with respect to AODV protocol using NS2. A Narmada and P. Sudhakara Rao 4 described the different type of routing protocols forwireless and Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols (, AODV and DYMO) For Zigbee Wpan. Arvind Kumar and Chanpreet Singh 5 analyzed the existing routing protocols for wireless mesh networking based on random waypoint mobility model and then try to proposed new ideas for this model. Colmie N., Cypher D. and Rebala O. 6 discussed what wireless technologies can be used for medical applications and how well they perform in a healthcare/hospital environment. We focused International Science Congress Association 1
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 on scalability issues and the need to support tens of communicating devices in a patient's hospital and improved the overall network performance that is measured in terms of packet loss, good put, and access delay. It also evaluated the performance of 82.15.4 devices under interference conditions caused by other 82.15.4 devices and by wireless local area networks using IEEE 82.11b. Chiara Buratti 7 described the mathematical model for the cap and tree-based topology. We purposed a mathematical model for the beacon-enabled mode of the IEEE 82.15.4 mediumaccess control (MAC) protocol. Umesh Kumar Singh, Shivlal Mewada, Lokesh Lddhani and Kmala Bunkar 8 described the fundamental problems of ad hoc network by giving its related research background including the concept, features, status, and vulnerabilities of MANET. This paper presents an overview and the study of the routing protocols. Also included the several challenging issues, emerging application and the future trends of MANET. Here they analyzes different multiple topologies like Cluster- Tree, Mesh and Star with various scenarios to compare the different performance metrics such as traffic sent, throughput, traffic received, delay etc. In this analysis it was found that Cluster-Tree topology was best as compared to Star and Mesh topologies because it take 45% and 2% load greater as compared to Star and Mesh Topology respectively. Similarly its delay, throughput, traffic sent and traffic received were better than the other two topologies 1,9. Proposed Work IEEE 82.15.4/Zigbee is a newly developed wireless protocol which build s the higher layers of communication stack known as OSI (Open Systems Interconnection), using the lower layers of IEEE 82.15.4 as a basis which are designed considering the factors low-cost and low-power. These lower layers are termed as Medium Access Control sub layer (medium access control) and the Physical layer (PHY). The following figure1 shows the architecture of IEEE 82.15.4 1,3. Figure-1 IEEE 82.15.4/Zigbee Architecture and protocol stack International Science Congress Association 2
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 In above architecture, the physical layer is responsible for data transmission and reception using a certain radio channel according to a specific modulation and spreading techniques. This layer supports the three types of topologies are cluster tree, mesh, star topology and IEEE 82.15.4 having three nodes are PAN coordinator, Router and End Device. PAN coordinator is a network master and it s controlled by network communication. Routers are mediator to two nodes and communication directly to PANC and End Devices. End Devices are cannot communicate directly, but they communication through PANC. Mesh topology is robust and flexible; it is decentralized network all devices can communicate directly with each other within its range. Cluster tree is formed by parent-child relationship, each coordinator as a cluster head and multiple devices as leaf nodes. In star topology, communication controlled by PANC in the network1,2,3. Medium Access Control Layer forwarding of medium access control frames through physical channel and manages accessing of physical channel and network beaconing. Medium Access Control layer provides time synchronization and frame validation. The Medium Access Control protocol supports two operational modes that can be selected by a central controller of the Person Area Network (PAN), called PAN Coordinator and two modes are Beacon-enabled mode and Non Beacon-enabled mode. It controls frame validation, guarantees time slots and handle node associations. Here we are using network layer for packet forwarding and routing. Here using two types of routing protocols are proactive and reactive, are reactive routing protocols, on the other hand invoke a route determination procedure on demand only. Thus when a route is needed, some sort of global search procedure is employed. and are proactive routing protocol attempts to continuously the route within the network, so that when a packet needs to be forward the route is already known and can be immediately used1,2,4. Performance Evaluation Simulation of wireless as well as wired network functions and protocols can be done using NS2. The main aim of our paper using network simulator to analyse performance of IEEE 82.15.4 topologies are mesh, star, cluster tree of WPAN using different performance metrics like good put, throughput, end-toend delay with respect to routing protocol, and. Figure-2 show the design of the simulation. In this paper consider IEEE 82.15.4 topologies of WPAN using maximum data rate 25kbps in operating frequency of 2.4GHz. Here using Omni directional antenna for communication, two-ray ground propagation model and the queuing model used is drop tail queue. The routing is based on, and. In this paper consider the following three parameters metrics to compare IEEE 82.15.4 topologies with four routing protocol. Throughput: It is the rate of data packets successfully transmitted in a unit of time in the network during the simulation. Goodput: It is a ratio between total delivery time and the delivered amount of information. End-to-end delay: It is defined as propagate from source to destination the average time taken by the data packets. Figure-2 Simulation Design and Flow chart of for 82.15.4/ ZigBee Network International Science Congress Association 3
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 Simulation parameters are Simulator is NS2.35, Simulation area is 5X5, MEDIUM ACCESS CONTROL model is IEEE 82.15.4, Simulation time 1 milliseconds, Channel frequency is 2.4Ghz, Traffic type is FTP and Packet size is 5 bytes, Propagation model is Two-Ray model. Simulation Results We consider the results by using Network Simulator (Ns2.35) software simulation. We calculate the Performance metrics by using trace file, with help of AWK program. The simulation results are shown figures in the form of bar graphs. Graph show the comparison between routing protocols with IEEE 82.15.4 topologies of wireless personal area network. The Figure-3, 4, 5 show the Star topology of performance metrics, and the figure-6, figure-7 and figure-8 show the Cluster topology of performance metrics respectively, throughput, goodput and end-to-end delay with the values of, and routing protocols compared. Here throughput and goodput was maximum amount of TCP packets are sent and receive from source to destination in terms of routing protocol. The advantage of these protocols is that a path to a destination is immediately available, because it is a proactive protocol, so here no delay for route discovery. Here gives the better performance than other protocols. Goodput[kbps] 1 8 6 4 2 4 7 Figure-3 Goodput of Star topology 9 Throughput[kbps] 6 3 4 7 Figure-4 Throughput of Star topology International Science Congress Association 4
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 1.5 End-to-End Delay[Kbps].99.975.96.945 4 7 Figure-5 End-to-End Delay of Star topology 12 Goodput[kbps] 9 6 3 8 11 Figure-6 Good put of Cluster tree topology 15 Throughput[kbps] 1 5 8 11 Figure-7 Throughput of Cluster tree topology International Science Congress Association 5
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 1.5 End-t-End Delay.99.975.96.945 8 11 Figure-8 End-to-End Delay of Cluster tree topology Goodput[Kbps] 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 Figure-9 Good put of Mesh topology 4 Throughput[kbps] 3 2 1 1 2 Figure-1 Throughput of Mesh topology International Science Congress Association 6
Research Journal of Computer and Information Technology Sciences ISSN 232 6527 1.1 End-to-End Delay[Kbps] 1.5 1.95.9 1 2 Figure-11 End- to- End Delay of Mesh topology The Figure-9, 1, 11 show the mesh topology of performance metrics respectively goodput, throughput and end-to-end delay with values of, and routing protocols compared. Here goodput and throughput was maximum amount of TCP packets are sent and receive from source to destination in terms of routing protocol, because of less traffic, node density and free of channel. Here gives better performance than other protocols. Conclusion So, there was a need for a standard based interoperable wireless technology that addresses the unique needs of low data rate wireless control networks. In this regard, 82.15.4/zigbee has become the global monitoring and control network standard. We have evaluated, analyzed and simulated the performance of 82.15.4/zigbeewith respect to End-to-End Delay, Goodput and Throughput parameters and using, and routing protocol with IEEE 82.15.4 topologies of wireless personal area network. Finally, we conclude that we got good performance in cluster tree and star topology with routing protocol and mesh topology with routing protocol. References 1. Arpitha EM and Ramesh TM (214). Performance Analysis of Low Rate WPAN Topologies, International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(5), ISSN: 232-981 2. Prativa P. Saraswala (213). A Survey on Routing Protocols in ZigBee Network, International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) 2(1), ISSN: ISSN: 2319-5967 3. Swati V. Birje and Mahesh Kumbhar (213). Performance Analysis of IEEE 82.15.4, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3(3). ISSN: 2277 128X 4. A. Narmada and P. Sudhakara Rao (211). Performance Comparison Of Routing Protocols For ZigbeeWpan, International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(6), ISSN:1694-814 5. Arvind Kumar and Chanpreet Singh (211). Comparison of AODV, and TCRP Protocols for Routing Algorithms in WSNs for IEEE 82.15.4 Standard Based Devices, International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 2(6), 2-26. ISSN: 247-3338 6. Golmie N., Cypher D. and Rebala O. (25). Performance analysis of low rate wireless technologies for medical applications, Elsevier, Journal of Computer Communications, 28(1), 1266-1275. ISSN: 14-3664, doi: 1.116/j.comcom.24.7.21 7. Chiara Buratti (21). Performance Analysis Of IEEE 82.15.4 Beacon-Enabled Mode, IEEE Transactions On Vehicular Technology, 59(4), 231-245. 8. Umesh Kumar Singh, Shivlal Mewada, Lokesh Laddhani and Kamal Bunkar (211). An Overview and Study of Security Issues in Mobile Adhoc Networks, Int. Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS) USA, 9(4), 16-111. 9. Cunha A., Polytech. Inst. of Porto Porto, Koubaa A., Severino R. and Alves M. (27). Open-ZB: An Open Source Implementation Of The IEEE 82.15.4/ Zigbee Protocol Stack On Tiny OS, IEEE International Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems-7, 1 12, E-ISBN :978-1-4244-1455-, DOI: 1.119/MOBHOC.27.442862 International Science Congress Association 7