A Study of MANET Routing Protocols: Joint Node Density, Packet Length and Mobility - SEMINAR
1. INTRODUCTION
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a collection of wireless
mobile nodes that are communicating with each other using multi-hop wireless
links without a centralized network infrastructure. Such networks are being
deployed for many diverse applications, such as military network environments
in the battle fields, disaster operations, search and rescue operations,
conference rooms, and also in commercial applications such as vehicle ad hoc
networks used in taxi service operation .Because the nodes in a MANET are
mobile, the physical network topology changes frequently and unpredictably. In MANETs,
there is no stationary infrastructure such as access points (APs), therefore
each node has to act as router for forwarding packets to other nodes .Various
MANET routing protocols have been developed by network researchers and
designers primarily to improve the MANET performance with respect to establishing
correct and efficient routes between a pair of nodes for packet delivery.
In Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET),
nodes communicate with one another through shared, limited radio channel in
peer to peer fashion that makes MANET to be an infrastructure-less network
shown in Fig.1. Moreover each mobile node or intermediate node in the network
operates as routers forwarding packet to other nodes in order to establish
end-to-end communication
In
a flat ad-hoc routing protocol, no node or address hierarchy exists and all
nodes perform equivalent routing roles within the network, operating according
to the same routing protocol. This category of protocols is further subdivided
into reactive and proactive routing protocols.
Fig.1 A
Proactive
protocols set up routing tables at each node and keep them updated regardless
of the actual communication needs of the node. In other words, a proactive
protocol will maintain routes to destinations that are not currently used for
packets sent by the node. Link-state based algorithms are commonly used to
implement proactive protocols. In this case, routing information is exchanged
via broadcast with neighboring nodes periodically or as a result of network
events. The primary advantage of proactive protocols is the fast connection
setup. When a node needs to transmit a packet to a given destination node,
there is a high probability that a route to that node already exists in the
routing table. Thus, packets do not experience the higher delay that would be
caused by an expensive route discovery process. Furthermore, if changes to the
topology are infrequent, a node will have a fairly accurate view of the current
network topology, including the costs (e.g. latency, bandwidth) associated with
the paths it chooses. Unfortunately, their proactive nature represents an
unnecessary overhead in lightly loaded networks, as routing table updates are
exchanged regardless of existing communication needs.
Given
the mobile nature of nodes and their limited resources, additional traffic will
further drain a node’s battery. It may be difficult to define an adequate
trade-off between the frequency of routing table updates, in order to maintain
an accurate view of the current topology, and preservation of already scarce
resources. Prominent examples of proactive protocols for MANETs include DSDV
and OLSR.
Reactive protocols provide another alternative for flat ad-hoc routing.
A reactive protocol avoids unnecessary maintenance traffic by discovering
routes on demand. In other words, when a source node wishes to send a packet to
a given destination node, the underlying reactive routing protocol will
initiate a process to discover the path between both nodes. Discovered routes
are cached at each node and removed from the routing table after a certain
period of inactivity. The obvious advantage of reactive protocols is that they
limit maintenance traffic to that which is required by currently used routes.
This offers a scalable solution if a node tends to communicate with the same
set of nodes and node mobility is limited, allowing a route to be discovered
once and maintained for a long period of time. Additionally, nodes can better
leverage power saving periods in lightly loaded networks given the lack of
periodic route updates. Disadvantages include the time required to setup a
route before a packet can be sent which will impact the latency of the first
packet in a connection. The overhead incurred by route discovery may also make
reactive protocols unsuitable if a node must communicate with an ever changing
set of nodes. AODV and DSR are the most representative examples of reactive
protocols.
Examples of popular MANET routing protocols are:
Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR). Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV),
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and Temporally Ordered (TORA).
AODV, DSR, are reactive routing protocols, share the on-demand behaviors and
find the route only when packets to be transmitted. However, the routing
mechanisms for these reactive protocols are quite different.
For example, AODV uses table-driven approach and
destination sequence.DSR uses a source initiated routing, whereas AODV, DSR in Performance of a MANET routing protocol
depends on various factors, including the complex interplay of protocol mechanisms
and their specific settings with node density ,mobility, packet length (i.e. traffic
intensity) and the behavior of wireless nodes used. A good understanding of the
joint effect of node density, packet length and mobility on the performance of
a typical IEEE 802.11 ("802.11") MANET is required for an efficient
design and deployment of such systems. The combined effect of node density and
packet length; node density and mobility on the performance of two different
MANET routing protocols is investigated.
We address the following
research question:
What impact do different routing protocols (AODV, DSR)
have on a typical 802.11 MANET for varying node density and packet length; node
density and mobility concurrently? To answer the question posed we carry out a
systematic performance analysis (by simulation) for two typical MANET routing protocols,
which include two on-demand routing protocols, AODV, DSR. These routing
protocols were selected based on their popularity, published results, and
interesting characteristics and features.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
"Performance improvement of dynamic source routing
protocol for multimedia services in mobile ad hoc network”.
N. Taing,
Routing
scheme for multimedia services called Modified Dynamic Source Routing (MDSR)
protocol. The MDSR selects the shortest path by using power level. It provides
better delays and number of hop paths hop paths from source to destination than DSR. The idea is
to select a shortest path for delay-sensitive traffic using larger power level.
For delay insensitive traffic, MDSR uses smaller power level.
Data transmissions is separated into two groups.
- Priority transmission of real-time data stream which is delay sensitive
data such as on-demand multimedia stream, videoconference etc. When this
kind of traffic is applied and in order to reduce query response time,
MDSR protocol uses larger transmission power level or in other words, the
number of nodes in the range of the source is increased. Therefore,
- Source node can select one fastest node to forward route request. It
is non-real time data transmission, which allows delay while transmitting.
When this kind of traffic is applied smaller transmission power level is
used so that energy can be saved.
"Study
of distance vector routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,"
L. Yi, W. Weichao, Z.
Yuhui, and B. Bhargava
A MANET routing protocol called
Congestion Aware Distance Vector (CADV) to improve network performance in terms
of packet delivery and routing load. CADV integrates congestion avoidance
strategy into a proactive routing protocol such as Destination Sequence Distance
Vector (DSDV).
Four performance metrics are
measured by varying the maximum speed of mobile hosts, the number of
connections, and the network size. It is observed that network congestion is the dominant reason
for packet drop for both AODV,DSR protocols. A new routing protocol,
congestion-aware distance vector(CADV), to address the congestion issues. CADV
out performs AODV in delivery ratio by about 5%, while introduces less protocol
load. The result demonstrates that integrating congestion avoidance mechanisms
with proactive routing protocols is a promising way to improve performance.
The following quantitative metrics are used
to assess the performance:
- Packet
Delivery Ratio: The ratio of the data delivered to the
destinations (i.e., throughput) to the data sent out by the sources.
- Average
End-to-end Delay: The average time it takes for a packet
to reach the destination. It includes all possible delays in the source
and each intermediate host, caused by routing discovery, queuing at the
interface queue, transmission at the MAC layer, etc. Only successfully
delivered packets are counted.
- Normalized
Protocol Load: The routing load per unit data successfully delivered to
the destination. The routing load is measured as the number of protocol
messages transmitted hop-wise (i.e., the transmission on each hop is
counted once). A unit data can be a byte or a packet.
"HAODV:
a New Routing Protocol to Support Interoperability in Heterogeneous MANET,"
H. Safa, H. Artail, M.
Karam, H. Ollaic, and R. Abdallah,
Current AODV routing protocol
becomes inefficient when used in a network formed of heterogeneous devices.
Indeed AODV in its nature search the paths between homogeneous devices and
ignore the ones between heterogeneous devices. A
Routing protocol called Heterogeneous AODV (HAODV), optimizes existing AODV to
support routing in heterogeneous networks (e.g. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth nodes).
HAODV determines an optimum route not only based on path with the lowest
hop-count but also with the low traffic and high stability.
HAODV
uses a method called Convert to delegate the conversion procedure to the interoperability
model.
"DOA:DSR over AODV routing for mobile ad hoc
networks,"
R.
Bai and M. Singhal
A lightweight hierarchical routing
model, Way Point Routing (WPR), in which a number of intermediate nodes on a
route are selected as waypoints and the route is divided into segments by the
waypoints. Waypoints, including the source and the destination, run a
high-level intersegment routing protocol, while the nodes on each segment run a
low-level intra segment routing protocol. One distinct advantage of this model
is that when a node on the route moves out or fails, instead of discarding the
whole original route and discovering a new route from the source to the
destination, only the two waypoint nodes of the broken segment have to find a
new segment. This model is lightweight
because it maintains a hierarchy only for nodes on active routes.
Instantiation of WPR, is to use DSR as the intersegment routing protocol and
AODV as the intra-segment routing protocol. This instantiation is termed DSR
over AODV (DOA) routing protocol. Thus, DSR and AODV two well-known on-demand
routing protocols for MANETs are combined into one hierarchical routing
protocol and become two special cases of this protocol. The two novel
techniques for DOA: one is an efficient loop detection method and the other is
a multitarget route discovery.
A Routing protocol called DOA (DSR
over AODV), focusing on route maintenance. DOA implements two levels of route
repair: intra-segment and inter segment .If a route fails, an intra-segment
fixes it by using alternative routes within one segment
"A review of
current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks,"
E. M. Royer and C. K.
Toh,
In MANET the routing protocols may
generally be categorized as:
- Table-driven
- Source-initiated
(demand-driven)
Table-Driven Routing
Protocols
Table-driven routing protocols
attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date routing information from each node
to every other node in the network. These protocols require each node to maintain
one or more tables to store routing information, and they respond to changes in
network topology by propagating updates throughout the network in order to
maintain a consistent network view. The areas in which they differ are the number
of necessary routing-related tables and the methods by which changes in network
structure are broadcast. The following sections discuss some of the existing
table-driven ad hoc routing protocols.
1.
Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector Routing
2. Cluster head Gateway
Switch Routing
Source-Initiated On-Demand
Routing
A different approach from table-driven routing is
source-initiated on-demand routing. This type of routing creates routes only
when desired by the source node. When a
node requires a route to a destination, it initiates a route discovery
process within the network. This process is completed once a route is found or
all possible route permutations have been examined. Once a route has been
established, it is maintained by a route maintenance procedure until either the
destination becomes inaccessible along every path from the source or until the
route is no longer desired.
1. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector Routing
2. Dynamic Source Routing
The table-driven ad hoc routing
approach is similar to the
connectionless approach of forwarding packets, with no regard to when and how
frequently such routes are desired. It relies on an underlying routing table
update mechanism that involves the constant propagation of routing information.
This is not the case, however, for on-demand routing protocols. When a node
using an on-demand protocol desires a route to a new destination, it will have
to wait until such a route can be discovered. On the other hand, because
routing information is constantly propagated and maintained in table-driven
routing protocols, a route to every other node in the ad hoc network is always
available, regardless of whether or not it is needed. This feature, although
useful for datagram traffic, incurs substantial signaling traffic and power
consumption. Since both bandwidth and battery power are scarce resources in
mobile computers, this becomes a serious limitation.
3.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The combined effect of node density,
packet length and mobility is to be examined on AODV and DSR for performance of a typical
802.11 MANET. combined node density and mobility has a significant effect on
network throughput and packet delays for two routing protocols studied. Experimentation
is done by simulation and through obtained results can give the effect of node
density and mobility on network throughput and packet delays. And how packet
length effects the network throughput and packet delay.
Which protocol is suitable for
different network scenarios can be known by simulation .Simulation is performed
on two popularly used MANET routing protocols AODV (Adhoc on demand distance
vector routing), DSR (Dynamic source routing).
4. PROPOSED
METHODOLOGIES
Previous research on MANET routing
protocols have focused on simulation study by varying network parameters, such
as network size (node density), pause times ,hop count independently still problem arises in
measuring the effective performance of MANET routing protocols.
Simulation
model is used to analyze the performance of AODV, DSR. In this simulation
considers
- A small network
with N <=10 nodes
- A medium
sized network with 10 >N<=50 nodes and
- A denser
network with 50> N <=100 nodes
The
four performance metrics:
1.
End-to-end packet delay,
2.
Throughput,
3.
Routing load and
4.
Retransmission
were
used for performance study of AODV and DSR.
The end-to-end packet delay is
defined as the average time (measured in seconds) required in sending a packet
from source to a destination. This includes buffering during route discovery,
queuing at the interface queue, retransmission at the medium access control
(MAC), propagation and packet transmission time.
The throughput (measured in bps) is
the average rate of successful packet delivery.
The routing load is the number of
routing control packets transmitted for each data packet delivered at the
destination.
The retransmission is defined as the
resending attempts of packets which have been lost or damaged due to link
failure.
5. CONCLUSION
[1] N. Taing,
[2] E.
M. Royer and C. K. Toh, "A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc
mobile wireless networks,"
IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 6,no. 2, pp. 46- 55, 1999.
[3]
L. Yi,
[4]
H. Safa, H. Artail, M. Karam, H.
Ollaic, and R. Abdallah, "HAODV: a New Routing Protocol to Support
Interoperability in Heterogeneous MANET," presented at the IEEE/ACS
International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA ' 07),
May 13-16 2007, pp. 893-9 00.
[5]
R. Bai and M. Singhal,
"DOA:DSR over AODV routing for mobile ad hoc networks," IEEE
Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 14 03-1416, 2006.
[6]
C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, S. R.
Das, and M. K. Marina, "Performance comparison of two on-demand routing
protocols for ad hoc networks," IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 8, no.
1, pp. 16-28,2001.
[7]
M. F. Sjaugi, M. Othman, M. Rasid,
and A. Fadlee, "A new route maintenance strategy for dynamic source
routing protocol," presented atthe International Conference on Information
Networking (ICOIN' 08) 2008, pp. 1-4.
[8]
K.
Khamforoosh, A. M. Rahmani, and A. Sheikh Ahmadi, "A new multipath AODV
routing based on distance of nodes from the network center," presented at
the Mosharaka International Conference on Communications, Propagation and
Electronics (MIC-CPE ' 08), 2008, pp. 1- 5.
[9]
R. Bai and M. Singhal, "DOA:
DSR over AODV routing for mobile ad hoc networks," IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, no. 14 03-
1416,2006.
[10]
S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, and E. M.
Royer, "Performance comparison of two
on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks," presented at the Nineteenth
Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies
(INFOCOM ' 00), Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000, pp. 3-12
[11] H. Pucha, S. M. Das, and Y. C. Hu,
"The performance impact of traffic patterns on routing protocols in mobile
ad hoc networks," Computer Networks, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 359 5-3616,
2007.
[12] E. Huang, W. Hu, 1. Crowcroft, and I.
Wassell, "Towards commercial mobile ad hoc network applications: a radio
dispatch system," presented at the 6th ACM International Symposium on
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, 2005, pp. 355-365.
Comments
Post a Comment