COMPARE AND CONTRAST OF AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL WITH E-AODV FOR WIRELESS MOBILE ADHOC NETWORK

(1)

Ranjana Kukkar, Kulbhushan Rassewatt and Rahul Malhotra ijesird , Vol. II (VII) January 2016/466

COMPARE AND CONTRAST OF AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL WITH E-AODV FOR

WIRELESS

MOBILE ADHOC NETWORK

1Ranjana Kukkar, ²Kulbhushan Rassewatt, ³Rahul Malhotra

GTB KHALSA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, IK GUJRAL PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, JALANDHAR

1[email protected], ²[email protected],³[email protected]

ABSTRACT:-Wireless networks are becoming the foremost choice because it allows the user to roam anywhere and anytime during the communication and these networks can be deployed easily and quickly. Users can roam around while staying connected to the network. In both military and civilian systems these networks can play vital role because of its so many features over the wired networks. In this paper, through broad simulation we evaluated the potential of AODV and compare the performance of AoDV with our designed E-AoDV on the basis of Comparison of End to End Delay, Packet Delivery Ratio, and Normalised Route delivery ratio on how far it can react to network topology change in Mobile adhoc Networks. Our performance study demonstrates that by applying the existing AODV Mobile adhoc Networks, the results show a, it can be concluded that the overall performance of EAODV is much better than the existing AODV in all respects. In future this can be analyzed or implemented using other network software. The other wireless protocols can also be virtually analyzed for deep understanding of current research work.

I INTRODUCTION

Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) are self-configuring networks of nodes connected via wireless without the need of centralized administration. In MANETs, each node acts both as host and as router, so it must be capable of forwarding data to other nodes. As the users in a wireless network can move anywhere anytime causing the network topology ever changing and unpredictable. This is the reason to develop new routing protocols to discover, maintain and manage the routes, because traditional routing protocols for wired networks cannot work efficiently in MANETs. For MANET’s, routing protocols should work in such a way that with minimum time, maximum data must be transferred from source to destination, with lowest value of overheads, as

bandwidth and power both are the constraints for MANET’s.

Many MANET routing protocols have been proposed in the past. Previous work focused on designing new protocols, comparing existing protocols, or improving protocols before standard MANET routing protocols are defined. Most research in this field is based on simulation studies of the routing protocols of interest in random networks with certain traffic patterns. However, the simulation results from different research groups are not consistent because of the lack of consistency in MANET routing protocol models and application environments including traffic patterns. That’s why, simulation environments used in past studies are not unbiased for all protocols and their conclusions cannot be generalized. At the same time, it is not possible for onto choose appropriate routing protocol for a given MANET application. Network components in a wireless network communicate with others using wirelesschannels. Different radio frequency (RF) spectrum ranges are used in wireless networks,for example, 27.5-29.5 GHz for the Local Multipoint Distribution System (LMDS), 2.5-2.7 GHz for the Multipoint Multichannel Distribution System , and 5.15- 5.35GHz and 2.4-2.58 GHz for IEEE 802.11a and 802.11b, respectively.

Because radio range is usually limited and the network components may have some mobility, the topology of a wireless network can vary with time. According to the relative

(2)

Ranjana Kukkar, Kulbhushan Rassewatt and Rahul Malhotra ijesird , Vol. II (VII) January 2016/467 mobility of hosts and routers, there are three

different types of wireless networks.

1. Fixed wireless network : Fixed hosts and routers use wireless channels to communicate with each other and form a fixed wireless network. For example a wireless network formed by fixed network devices using directed antennas.

2. Wireless network with fixed access points:

Mobile hosts use wireless channels to communicate with fixed access points, which may act as routers for those mobile hosts, to form a mobile network with fixed access points. Example for this is a number of mobile laptop users in a building that access fixed access points.

3. Mobile ad hoc network: A mobile ad hoc network is formed up by mobile hosts. Some of these mobile hosts are willing to forward packets for its neighbors. Examples include vehicle-to-vehicle and ship-to-ship networks that communicate with each other by relying on peer-to-peer routings.

II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Routing protocols traditionally classified as proactive protocols, reactive protocols, or hybrid of the two, based on the way they find new routes or update existing ones. Proactive routing protocols keep routes continuously updated, while reactive routing protocols react on demand. Routing protocols can also be classified as link state protocols or distance- vector protocols. Routers using link state routing protocol maintain a full or partial copy of the network topology and costs for all known links. Routers using a distance-vector protocol keep only information about next hops to adjacent neighbors and costs for paths to all

known destinations. Generally speaking, “link state routing protocols are more reliable, easier to debug and less bandwidth-intensive than distance-vector” protocols. Link state protocols are also more complex and more compute- and memory-intensive.

Proactive routing protocols: In proactive routing protocols, routing tables store one or more routes to any possible destination. When data is ready for transmission, at least one route to the destination is already in the node’s routing table. Proactive protocols present low latency, but medium to high routing overhead, as the nodes periodically exchange control messages and routing-table information in order to keep up-to-date routes to any active node in the network. Proactive protocols can also address better security vulnerabilities, because of the periodic exchange of control messages and routing-table information.

Reactive routing protocols: In reactive routing protocols, when the upper transport Layer has data to send, and if that route is not already existed then protocol initiates a route discovery process. Reactive protocols do not maintain up- to-date routes to any destination in the network and do not generally exchange any periodic control messages. So, they present low routing overhead, but high latency as compared to proactive protocols. Reactive protocols are more vulnerable to security attacks, as any loss or modification of route discovery and maintenance messages may have severe consequences for network performance.

Hybrid routing protocols: In hybrid routing protocols, each node acts reactively in the region close to its proximity and proactively outside of that region, or zone. Hybrid protocols enjoy advantage of both reactive and proactive protocols, but may require additional hardware, such as GPS, separated or integrated into the communication device.

(3)

III. AD HOC ON-DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR ROUTING (AODV)

The Ad hoc on-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is a reactive MANET routing protocol. As in DSR, AODV broadcasts a route request to discover a route in a reactive mode. The difference is that in AODV, numbers of hops are counted in the route record. Each intermediate router sets up a temporary reverse link in the process of a route discovery. This linkpoints to the router that forwarded the request. It helps to find the back path of the source node. When midway routers receive the reply, they can also set up corresponding forward routing entries. To avoid the stale routing information being used as a reply to the latest request, a destination sequence number issued in the route discovery packet and the route reply packet. A higher sequence number indicates fresher route request.

IV.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS PAPER The objectives achieved from this proposed work are:

[1] To do in-depth study of the open AODV Protocol in MANET.

[2] To devise and execute EAODV (Upgraded adhoc on demand distance vector routing) under various network sizes.

[3] To compare EAODV protocol with existing AODV protocol for high QoS using

parameters viz. Packet Delivery Ratio, No of Hops/route, Retransmission Attempts, End to End Delay, Normalized Routing Load.

V. SIMULATION SETUP

Using OPNET 14.5 simulator, we have designed Ad-hoc wireless network having 60 nodes with vector mobility within simulation area of 1*1 km²; also the high load FTP network traffic is used

during simulation interval of 5 minutes as shown in figure 1 & Table1. Mobility model used is random waypoint model with mobility of 1000 meters, the performance of the reactive ad-hoc routing ADOV protocol is evaluated by implementing different scenarios.

Figure 1: Model of IEEE 802.11g MANET using OPNET Simulator

The buffer size of data is set to 2024 Kbps for each mobile workstation at data rate of 54 Mbps with IEEE 802.11g PHY layer & DCF MAC Protocol implementation. The traffic flows randomly between different Voice applications workstations placed at different distances as shown in Figure 4.1.

Performance Comparison of optimized AODV (EAODV) with Existing AODV in IEEE 802.11g MANET Networks:

43.2 Simulation Setup

Using OPNET 14.5 simulator, we have designed MANET networks having 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 nodes with vector mobility within different simulation area in different scenarios with AODV and EAODV reactive routing protocols; also the high FTP network traffic is used during simulation interval of 5 minutes. Mobility model used is random waypoint model with mobility of 500 meters. The performance enhancement of EAODV

&- AODV MANET networks are performed by implementing Reactive Ad-hoc Routing Protocol schemes AODV &- EAODV in different scenarios.

(4)

Table 1: Simulation Parameters- IEEE 802.11g MANET

Routing Protocol AODV, EAODV

Network Size Varying 20- 100

Physical Characteristics IEEE 802.11g (OFDM)

Data Rates(bps) 54 Mbps

Transmit Power 0.005

RTS Threshold 256

Packet- Reception Threshold -95

Mobility Speed Uni[5.50-8.25] km/hr

Buffer Size(bits) 2024 kbps

Table 2 indicates the simulation parameters of AODV and EAODV

Table 2: Simulation Parameters- AODV & EAODV

Routing Protocol AODV EAODV

Routing Lifetime(sec) 3 21

Link Maintenance Interval

(sec) 1,1.1 1.3, 1.5

Hello Loss 2 2

Timeout Buffer 2 2

VI. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

In this work the overall performance of variety of QoS parameters such as Throughput, End-to-End Delay, Route Discovery time, number of hops per route, Network Load for MANET network have been determined.

Table 3 :- Comparitive analysis of End to End Delay for Aodv and EAodv at various nodes

No Of Nodes

AoDV (ms) E-AoDV (ms)

20 0.4 0.5

40 0.7 0.8

60 2.7 2.9

80 1.5 2.9

100 1.2 4.7

Table 3 shows the Comparitive analysis of End to End Delay for Aodv and EAoDV at various nodes.Figure 2 shows the Comparitive analysis of End to End Delay for Aodv and EAoDV at various nodes.

0.4

0.7

2.7

1.5

1.2 0.5

0.8

2.9 2.9

4.7

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

20 40 60 80 100

AoDV E-AoDV Comparitive analysis of

End to End Delay for Aodv and EAodv at various nodes.

Figure 2: End-to-End b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density

(5)

Table4:- Delivery ratio b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density

No Of Nodes AoDV (ms) E-AoDV (ms)

20 0.87 0.98

40 0.84 0.95

60 0.76

0.94

80 0.75 0.96

100 0.77 0.89

Table 4 shows the Delivery ratio b/w AODV

& EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density for Aodv and EAoDV at various nodes.Figure 2 shows the Comparitive analysis of Delivery ratio b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density.

Fig:3:- Delivery ratio b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density

Table 5 shows the Normalized Routing Load b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density for Aodv and EAoDV at various nodes.Figure 4 shows the Comparitive analysis of Normalized Routing Load b/w AODV & EAODV

in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density for Aodv and EAoDV at various nodes

No Of Nodes

AoDV E-AoDV

20 25 20

40 43 25

60 45

24

80 62 39

100 75 33

Table 5:- Normalized Routing Load b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density

Figure 4: Normalized Routing Load b/w AODV & EAODV in IEEE 802.11g w.r.t Node Density

From all the comparison and analysis, it can be concluded that the overall performance of EAODV is much better than the existing AODV in all respects. In future this can be analyzed or implemented using other network software. The other wireless protocols can also be virtually analyzed for deep understanding of current research work.

(6)

Ranjana Kukkar, Kulbhushan Rassewatt and Rahul Malhotra ijesird , Vol. II (VII) January 2016/471 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE

Adhoc network plays an important role in setting up the communication network at a fly without any fixed infrastructure requirement lending them to be a potential candidate for handling emergency and defense application.

Multicasting in mobile adhoc is a special group communication protocol which allows communication within a small group (Point-to multipoint) suitable for mutual group discussion and conferencing like application. Routing is a vital design issue for the mobile adhoc networks, as these protocols have to work within some limited resource constraints like limited power to maintain the wide movability and life sustenance of such network.

The presented work concentrated to compare & analyze the recommend optimal EAODV protocol with existing AODV protocol for high QoS under varying network sizes using OPNET Modeler 14.5 and MATLAB. These routing protocols are compared in terms of End-to- End Delay, Retransmission Attempt, No of hops/route, Packet delivery ratio and normalized routing load. Simulation results shows that EAODV (upgrade adhoc on demand distance vector routing) protocol performs better than existing AODV in all parameters used for the evaluation under varying network sizes.

From all the comparison and analysis, it can be concluded that the overall performance of EAODV is much better than the existing AODV in all respects. In future this can be analyzed or implemented using other network software. The other wireless protocols can also be virtually analyzed for deep understanding of current research work.

REFERENCES:-

[1] Yiannis Siakoulis et al,” The Impact of Simulation Duration on the Performance of the OLSR, AODV and DSDV Protocols, in a Heavy-Loaded Ad-Hoc Wireless Mobile Environment” IEEE 2014.

[2] Zafar Mehmood et al, “Comprehensive Experimental Performance Analysis of DSR, AODV and DSDV Routing Protocol for Different Metrics Values with Predefined

Constraints” I.J. Information Technology and Computer Science, 07, 24-31,2014.

[3] Naresh Kumar et al,” Comparative Analysis of AODV, OLSR, TORA, DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks ” I. J. Computer Network and Information Security, 2013, 3, 39-46.

[4] Harsukhpreet Singh et al,” Performance evaluation of reactive routing protocols in MANET networks using GSM based voice traffic applications ” Elsevier GmbH 2012.

[5] S. Mohapatra et al,” Performance analysis of AODV, DSR,OLSR and DSDV Routing Protocols using NS2 Simulator, International Conference on Communication Technology and System Design 2011,Procedia Engineering, Volume 30, 2012, Pages 69-76

[6] Basu Dev Shivahar , Charu Wahi , Shalini Shivhare, “ Comparison Of Proactive And Reactive Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad-hoc Network Using Routing Protocol Property”, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 3, ISSN 2250-2459,2012.

[7] Tuteja A, Gujral A, Thalia A, “Comparative Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET using NS2”, IEEE Comp. Society, 2010, pp. 330- 333.

[8] Hicham Zougagh, et al.” Mitigating Black Hole attack in MANET by Extending Network Knowledge” (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 10, 2010

[9] Hassan K et al. “Performance Evaluation of Mobility Speed over MANET Routing Protocols,” International Journal of Network Security, vol.11, No.3, pp.128-138, 2010.

[10] Mamatha S et al, “Analyzing the MANET Variations, Challenges, Capacity and Protocol Issues,” International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES), vol.1, No.1 pp. 14-21, 2010.