International Journal of Computer Networking, Wireless and Mobile Communications (IJCNWMC) ISSN 2250-1568 Vol.

2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 27-36 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SINGLE PATH AND MULTIPATH ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR MANET
1 1

MINESH THAKER, 2YOGESH KOSTA & 3S B SHARMA

Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Indus Institute of Technology and Engineering, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
2 3

Director, Integrated campus, Marwadi Institute of education, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.

Director Indus Institute of Technology and Engineering, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT
This paper is focused on the evaluation of two extensively used routing protocols AODV and AOMDV for mobile ad hoc network. In this paper, we have considered two experiments to compare the performance measures of AODV and AOMDV rigorously in view with the energy as constraint. The objective was to measure the life time of route, end-to-end delay, throughput, energy consumption versus pause time and packet delivery fraction in single path environment and multipath environment with and without energy field in the dynamic and reactive routing protocol. These all criteria are chosen as to measure overall performance of both reactive routing protocols and to observe the research opportunity by improving existing routing protocol.

KEYWORDS: Performance Measures, Life Time of Route, Energy Consumption, Packet Delivery Fraction, Multi Path
Environment, Dynamic and Reactive Routing Protocol

INTRODUCTION
Since the birth of the packet radio network (1970s) later widely known as Ad hoc network , research is going on to improve Wireless technology. The popularity has drawn the attention of researchers in doing research in most immerging research area as mobile wire-less ad hic network. The wireless technology can be mainly categorized into two. Infrastructure-less and Infrastructured wireless networks.[16] Infra structured networks are mainly known as single hop communication and they have fixed base stations connected to other through wired gateways and mobile node communicate through base stations ,exchanges or gateways, fixed routers, etc. These networks are permanent network most of the time. GSM networks are example of this infrastructured wireless networks. Whereas in the infrastructure less networks, base stations, fixed routers are not required .They communicate within their radio range directly through the antenna. These networks are self configurable and temporary, most of the time. As this is known as mobile ad hoc networks. The mobile as hoc network has more challenges to design and implement. They includes spectrum allocation and purchase, media access ,routing, multicasting ,energy efficiency, TCP performances, service locations ,provision & access and security & privacy. In the absence of infrastructure, each node will be working as router. The existing routing protocols in MANET are many and among them the most widely used and popular in research community is the reactive routing protocol Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector routing protocol for single path and its multi path variant AOMDV[5]. The AODV [2.3] is birthed from mainly two routing protocol DSDV[1] and DSR[4]. The good properties are

28

Minesh Thaker, Yogesh Kosta & S B Sharma

taken from these two protocols. The sequence numbers from DSDV and on demand request of DSR made AODV most popular in industry and became accepted standard. Till today many research has been done on the AODV protocol. But still this protocol is not without problems. Also as an energy constraint, how these two protocols ADOV and AOMDV do show their performance is also one view point. Keeping these in mind, in this paper, we did some experiments using NS2 simulator and evaluated the performance of routing protocols. This paper is organized in five sections. The first section covers the introduction whereas second section contains the conceptual comparison of AODV and AOMDV as single path and multipath routing protocol respectively. The third section contains the performance measures, fourth session contains the experimental evaluation and result and final section contains the conclusion and future work.

THE COMPARISON: SINGLE PATH AND MULTIPATH ROUTING PROTOCOL

AODV combines the use of destination sequence numbers as in DSDV [1] with the on-demand route discovery technique in DSR [2] to formulate a loop-free, on-demand, single path, distance vector protocol.[3] In contrast to DSR, AODV uses hop-by-hop routing instead of source routing. Below we review some of the key features of AODV to provide sufficient background for AOMDV described here after. Route Discovery of AODV and AOMDV A route discovery process will be started When a source needs a route to required destination. Route discovery typically involves broadcast of a route request (RREQ) for the destination and waiting for a route reply (RREP) as response. Source ID and broadcast id are used to detect the redundant RREQ. These unnecessary duplicated RREQs will be discarded coming from the various Path. An intermediate node receiving a non-duplicate RREQ first sets up a reverse path to the source using the previous hop of the RREQ as the next hop on the reverse path. If a valid route is available, then the intermediate node generates a RREP, else the RREQ is rebroadcast.[5,7] But in MULTI PATH environment the duplicate RREQ cannot be simply neglected as duplicated RREQs may come from different path. For making multiple reverse path these redundant RREQs play major role. So they need to be examined every then and now whether they are coming from same or different path as these each duplicate may define alternate route. These initially route discovery is an extra overhead for AOMDV then AODV But also it reduces the calculation of new path when one route fails out of available other paths new path is selected. Sequence Numbers Strategy of AODV and AOMDV The beauty of DSDV was destination sequence number to avoid the loop during route forming. This property is taken in AODV. Every node maintains the increasing destination sequence number for itself and also maintains the highest known sequence number for the each destination in the routing table. For preventing routing loops, only highest and latest sequence numbers in the routing updates will be considered. AOMDV also provide loop freedom as in the AODV but the techniques is different. The basic structure of a routing table entry in the AOMDV in comparison with AODV is altered. There are two main differences: (i) the hop-count is replaced by advertised hop-count in the AOMDV and (ii) the nexthop is replaced by the route list. The route list is simply the list of nexthops and hop-counts corresponding to different paths to the destination. The advertised hop-count represents the maximum of the hop counts of each of those multiple paths so long as a strict route update rule is followed.[2]

Experimental Evaluation of Single Path and Multipath Routing Protocol for MANET

29

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Following are the some performance measures for measuring routing protocol performance. Packet Delivery Ratio Calculation The packet delivery ratio is expressed as the percentage of CBR data traffic that has been received by all destinations (sinks) over the total number of packets sent by all the sources within the period of simulation. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) = The packet delivery ratio can be interpreted as the loss ratio that will be experienced at the routing layer which in turn has an impact on the overall throughput of what the network can support. It is a fundamental characterization of the performance of routing protocols.[6] Network Delay Calculation Network delay is defined as the average delay observed by all connections throughout the simulation experiment. Each data transmission between a source and a destination will experience a network delay in the network. The delay is defined as the difference in time the moment all transmission of packets is delivered and the time these packets are all actually received. The aggregate of all such connections delays is found and averaged over the total number of transmission connections pairs. Delay is a significant factor due to the necessity to provide low latency applications such as video on-demand and other time-sensitive applications, e.g., IP telephony. It typifies the suitability of using certain routing protocols to support these applications.[8,13] Network Delay = Routing Overhead Calculation The routing overhead is the total amount of control data packets sent by the routing protocol throughout the duration of the simulation. Each time a packet is forwarded over multiple hops, routing overhead is counted as many packets as there are hops. The amount of routing overhead is a significant factor to determine the efficiency of the routing protocol. Highly efficient routing protocols have lower routing overheads so as to maintain faster route convergence, and thereby, lower overall delay. Such protocols whose routing overheads are low will enable the protocol to scale better and consume less energy. If more control packets are sent by routing agents, the chance of collision for the transmission channels increases, and thus causes the delay of the application to increase indirectly.[7,8,11] Energy Consumption During the introduction of this thesis, we have highlighted the importance of power availability in a mobile ad hoc networking environment. Mobile nodes will most likely run on batteries and there will not be a constant, permanent source of power supply as in the case of fixed nodes. The energy consumption by the communication protocol at the routing layer is our primary concern. The energy model in a node has a initial value which is the level of energy the node has at the beginning of the simulation. For every packet the node transmits and receives, a certain amount of power is consumed. Transmit power consumes more power than receiving information and therefore is given a bigger value. When the energy level at the node drops to zero, no more packets can be received or transmitted by the node and the node is essentially turned off. We define the Total System Energy as the sum of energy levels of each of the nodes within the system. In some

30

Minesh Thaker, Yogesh Kosta & S B Sharma

cases, we consider the Final System Energy state which is defined as the total energy of all the nodes combined at the final state when the simulation duration has ended. Mathematically, we express, Total System Energy at time t = Final System Energy = Throughput Throughput is calculated as the number of data bytes delivered to all destinations during the simulation.

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION & RESULTS

We have evaluated the performance of multi path routing protocol AOMDV with respect to single path routing protocol AODV using ns-2 simulations under a wide range of pause time and energy consumption scenarios. The goal is to address the following issues. In single Path and Multipath environment what will be end-to-end delay and packet delivery fraction when pause time varies? In single Path and Multipath environment what will be energy consumption throughput for various pause times? ` In this paper, we have considered two experiments to compare the performance measures of AODV and AOMDV

rigorously. Our objective was to measure the life time of route, end-to-end delay, throughput, energy consumption and packet delivery fraction in single path environment and multipath environment with and without energy field in the dynamic and reactive routing protocol. Hence, in the first experiment we have considered plain AODV and AOMDV. We have observed End-to-End delay throughput and packet delivery fraction in it. In second experiment, we have taken AODV and AOMDV with energy as parameter to observe the effect on life time of route. To find the facts we have considered energy consumption criteria. Experiment 1 In this simulation case, we consider a map size of 500m by 500m. Two routing protocols are simulated: AODV and AOMDV. Number of Nodes is varying up to 50. The nodes Maximum speed is 25m/s (90 km/h fast vehicular speed). Each node has a pause time of 20s. The traffic type is CBR, the application agent is sending at a rate of 10 packets per second (data) continuously. The entire simulation run lasts for 100s. Table 4.1 summarizes the simulation parameters. Table 1: Simulation Parameter Nodes Area size Simulation time Mobility model Mac Max No. of Connections Traffic source Packet size Pause Time Max Node Speed Routing protocol 10 to 50( with increment of 10) 1000*1000 100 seconds Random way point 802.11 8 CBR 512 20 25 AODV and AOMDV

Experimental Evaluation of Single Path and Multipath Routing Protocol for MANET

31

Result: End to End Delay - AOMDV and AODV.

Figure 1: End to End Delay Vs Nodes Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes (10 to 50 in block of ten ) and number of connection 8 which shows that the end to end delay for AOMDV is much lesser then compare to AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the end to end delay is much batter in AOMDV. We could see that AOMDV is outperforming 15.66% better than AODV. So we can say that AOMDV is much QOS aware than the AODV. Result: Throughput - AOMDV and AODV.

Figure 2: Throughput V/S Nodes Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes (10 to 50 in block of ten ) and number of connection 8 which shows that the throughput for AOMDV is closer to AODV but little lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the first computation for multi path reduce the throughput in AOMDV.

32

Minesh Thaker, Yogesh Kosta & S B Sharma

Result: Packet Delivery Fraction - AOMDV and AODV

Figure 3: PDF V/s Nodes Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes (10, 20, 30, 40, 50) and number of connection 8 which shows that the PDF for AOMDV is closer to AODV but little lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the first computation for multi path reduce the PDF in AOMDV. Experiment 2 In this simulation case, we consider a map size of 1000m by 1000m. Two routing protocols are simulated: AODV and AOMDV. Number of Nodes are 100. The nodes Maximum speed is 20m/s (75 km/h fast vehicular speed). Each node has a varying pause time of 0 to 50 with increment of 10. The traffic type is CBR. The entire simulation run lasts for 100s. Some assumptions are taken as follows. 1. 2. 3. Data transfer between single source and single destination. Area having higher no. of nodes. ideal 100. Bandwidth is same for all links. Table 2: Simulation Parameters Nodes Area size Simulation time Mobility model Traffic source 100 1000*1000 100 Seconds RWP Packet size Pause Time Max Node Speed Routing protocol CBR 512 0 to 50 (with Increment of 10) 20 AODV and AOMDV

Experimental Evaluation of Single Path and Multipath Routing Protocol for MANET

33

Result of End to End Delay - AODV, AOMDV

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0

End to End delay

AOMDV AODV

20 40 Pause time

60

Figure 4: End to End Delay V/s Pause Time Here the Red line shows AOMDV and Green line shows AODV, the result here taken for different Pause Time (10 to 50 with increment of 10) and number of nodes 100, and the result conclusion shows that the end to end delay for AOMDV is much lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the end to end delay is much batter compare to others. Result of Energy Consumption AODV, AOMDV
3000
Energy consumption

2500 2000 1500

AOMDV

1000 500 0 0 20 40 Pause Time 60

AODV

Figure 5: Energy Consumption V/s Pause Time Here the Red line shows AOMDV and Green line shows AODV, the result here taken for different Pause Time (10To 50 with increment of 10) and number of nodes 100, and the result conclusion shows that the Energy Consumption for AOMDV is closer to AODV. Here the result shows that for less pause time the energy consumption is less compare to AODV but as pause time increases the energy consumption increases compare to AODV.

CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

We have studied the performance through experiments on well known and accepted simulator NS2 for multipath routing and single path routing AOMDV and AODV respectively under a wide range of pause time scenarios.

34

Minesh Thaker, Yogesh Kosta & S B Sharma

In general, AOMDV always offers a superior overall routing performance than AODV in a variety of mobility and traffic conditions. But when pause time varies especially when energy as constraint AOMDV and AODV performs almost very closely but little inferior then the AODV. We want to focus here in AOMDV as energy saving become significant because of the limited resources of MANET.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank all my friends who have helped me directly or indirectly, the management of Indus University who supported and motivated for the research and my family members without whose support this research would have not been possible.

REFERENCES
1. C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat. Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) forMobile Computers. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, pages 234244, August 1994. 2. C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer. Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pages 90100, Feb 1999. 3. C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, and S. R. Das. Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-aodv-07.txt, Nov 2000. IETF Internet Draft 4. D. Johnson and D. Maltz. Dynamic Source Routing in Ad HocWireless Networks. In T. Imielinski and H. Korth, editors, Mobile computing, chapter 5. Kluwer Academic, 1996 5. M K. Marina S R. Das On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing in Ad Hoc Networks 1092-1658/01 IEEE 2001 6. S. R. Das, R. Castaneda, J. Yan, and R. Sengupta. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Mobile, Ad hoc Networks. In Proceedings of the 7th Intl. Conf. on Computer Communications and Networks (IC3N), pages 153161, 1998. 7. M. K. Marina and S. R. Das. Performance of Route Caching Strategies in Dynamic Source Routing. In Proceedings of the Intl Workshop on Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (WNMC) in conjunction with Intl Conf on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 425432, Apr 2001 8. Cidon, R. Rom, and Y. Shavitt. Analysis of Multi-Path Routing. IEEE Transactions on Networking, 7(6):885 896, Dec 1999. 9. S. Vutukury and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves. MDVA: A Distance-Vector Multipath Routing Protocol. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 2001. to appear. 10. W.T. Zaumen and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves. Shortest multipath routing using generalized diffusing computations.In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, March 1998. 11. Lauer G. Packet-radio routing. In Routing in Communication Networks, chapter 11, Steenstrup M (ed.). Prentice Hall: Hertfordshire, UK, 1995.

Experimental Evaluation of Single Path and Multipath Routing Protocol for MANET

35

12. N.Jaisankar and R.Saravanan , An Extended AODV Protocol for Multipath Routing in MANETs, IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, No.4, August 2010, ISSN: 1793-8236 13. Yuhua Yuan, Huimin Chen, And Min Jia, An Optimized Ad-Hoc On-Demand Multipath Distance Vector(Aomdv) Routing Protocol, Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, Perth, Western Australia, 3 - 5 October 2005 IEEE. 14. V. D. Park and M. S. Corson. A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for MobileWireless Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, April 1997. 15. S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, and E. M. Royer. Performance Comparison of Two On-demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, pages 312, 2000. 16. D Bertsekas and R. Gallager. Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, 1992.