research on performance of routing protocols in manet

Australian Journal of Asian Country Studies

SCIE Journals

Australian Society for Commerce Industry & Engineering

www.scie.org.au

72

Research on Performance of Routing Protocols in MANET

Chia-Sheng Tsai 1*

Chih-Yang Lu 1

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Tatung University, Taipei, Taiwan

* E-mail of the corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

MANET is a kind of network that can transmit data without fixed infrastructures. Nodes can come in or

out freely. If nodes which are in the network want to send messages to destination nodes, they can use

nodes which are in the network as intermediate nodes. In a network, a routing protocol plays an

important role for the performance. Not only routing protocols, we also added another factors：Speed.

In this paper, we will introduce MANET first, and then we will explain how AODV, DYMO, OLSR,

ZRP, DSR and LAR1 work. We will describe our simulation parameters in section 3, such as routing

protocols, node speed and map size, etc. We will put our simulation results in section 4. Our mainly

compare targets are Total Number of Packet Received and Average End-to-End Delay. We hope users

can refer our simulation results to choose an appropriate routing protocol in the future.

Keywords: MANET, Routing Protocols

1. Introduction

Wireless network can be divided into two types：infrastructure mobile networks and non-infrastructure

mobile networks. MANET (mobile ad hoc network) belongs to non-infrastructure mobile networks.

There is no specific router and server in MANET, and the network constructed by a group of mobile

nodes. Every node could be a router. Data are sent by using multi-hop. The mobile node can transmit

data with the help of other in the absence of the base station. It can not only maintain the reliability of

communications between mobile nodes but also retain the characteristic of random moving to increase

the application of mobile nodes.

In this paper, comparing MANET‘s transmission performance in several kinds of situation is the main

purpose. We considered many situations. Such as speed of nodes, number of nodes and routing

protocols. Using these factors we mentioned above to simulate. Then we compared MANET‘s

performance in several kinds of situation with results of simulations.

2. Related Work

2.1 MANET

MANET has following features：

Autonomous and infrastructureless

Multi-hop routing

Dynamic network topology

Device heterogeneity

Limited physical security

Network scalability

Self-creation, self-organization and self-administration

Table 1. MANET applications

Tactical networks Military communication and

operation

Automated battlefield

Emergency service Search and rescue operations

Disaster recovery

Replacement of fixed

infrastructure in case of

environmental disaster

Policing and fire fighting

Supporting doctors and nurses

ACEI

Typewritten Text


SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

73

in hospitals

Commercial and civilian

environments

E-commerce：electronic

payments anytime and

anywhere

Business：dynamic database

access, mobile offices

Vehicular services：road or

accident guidance, transmission

of road and weather conditions,

taxi cab network, inter-vehicle

networks

Sports stadium, trade fairs,

shopping malls

Networks of visitors at airports

Sensor networks Home application：smart

sensors and actuators

embedded in consumer

electronics

Body area networks (BAN)

Data tracking of environmental

conditions, animal movements,

chemical/biological detection

Coverage extension Extending cellular network

access

Linking up with the internet,

intranets, etc.

2.2 Routing Protocols

2.2.1 AODV

The full name is Ad-hoc On-demand Vector Routing (Bhatt et al. 2014). It is reactive routing protocol.

When source node wants to send messages to destination node source node will broadcast Rout REQest

packet (RREQ) to other nodes which are nearby. These nodes will record the route that back to the

source node then continue broadcasting RREQ. When the destination node is found destination node

will send back Route REPly (RREP) packet. When source node receives RREP packet a route between

the source node and the destination node will come out.

2.2.2 OLSR

The full name is Optimizes Link State Routing (Jain & Shiwani 2014). It is the one of proactive routing

protocol. The basic principle is similar to broadcast link-state message to every nodes in the network.

That makes it possible to construct the entire network. OLSR gets the goal of optimize message

flooding by choosing Multipoint Relaying (MPR) and broadcasting route maintaining messages to

reduce unnecessary repeat transmission.

2.2.3 DYMO

The full name is Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing (Gupta et al. 2013). It is evolved from AODV,

so it is also called AODVv2. DYMO also has RREQ and RREP, but DYMO has an additional message

packet：Route Error (RRER). RRER is mainly used to mark invalid paths. Operations of DYMO can

be divided into Route Discovery and Route Maintenance.

Route Discovery：

DYMO is almost the same with AODV basically. But, DYMO‘s RREQ adds sequence numbers of

nodes and then compares merits of sequence numbers. DYMO has a special feature. When a node has

low power, the node will not forward RREQ to make sure this node will not become the one of path‘s

nodes.

Route Maintenance：

If a link of the path is disconnected, the node would broadcast RRER and delete this link. If the source


SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

74

node wants to send messages when the link is disconnected, it must do Route Discovery again. When a

link between node 2 and node6 is disconnected, it will look for a new path. After comparing merits of

sequence numbers, the new path will transmit from node 2 to node 6 through node 5.

2.2.4 ZRP

ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) is the one of hybrid protocols (Kachal & Suri 2014). ZRP is constructed

by three sub-protocols：IARP (Intrazone Routing Protocol), IERP (Interzone Routing Protocol) and

BRP (Bodercast Resolution Protocol).

IARP：

IARP is primarily responsible for transmission within the zone. Every node will update its routing table

by periodic broadcast. When a packet will be send, it just check routing table. It doesn‘t need to find a

new path again. Moreover, IARP will periodically update Link-State Table to ensure the path which is

recorded in the table is new and valid. But there will be a broadcast storm, if nodes are too close. It will

waste network resources.

IERP：

IERP is mainly used to transmit between zones. When the source node cannot find the destination node

in the zone, ZRP will use IERP to transmit. The source node will send IERP RouteRequest, and the

source node will use the table of IARP and BRP to send the packet to the peripheral node of the zone.

When IERP finds the destination node, destination node will send IERP Route Reply back to the source

node. Then the path finding will finish and start transmitting data.

BRP：

To get more efficiency to broadcast, ZRP uses BRP to help transmitting IERP RouteRequest when

using IERP to transmit messages between zones.

BRP will build a Bordercast tree. BRP can use Bordercast tree to transmit messages to all peripheral

nodes by multicasting.

2.2.5 DSR

The full name is Dynamic Source Routing (Shankar et al. 2014)(Sharma & Rani 2014). DSR is similar

to DYMO, but it has Route Cache. Route Cache is proposed for optimizing DSR. For example, A->X-

>B, when A wants sending data to B. The path to B is already stored in the cache of X, and then X will

reply the path to A. The advantage is that can reduce transmitting number of RREQ to speed up the

searching time of path. But on the other hand, the size of RREQ may be too big, because it contains

sequence number. And the path which is in the cache may not be correct.

2.2.6 LAR1

The full name is Location Aided Routing Scheme 1 (Kumar & Dr. Kumar 2013). It is a kind of routing

protocol which uses location information of nodes to limit flooding area. LAR1 gets the location

information by GPS. As shown in, LAR1 uses two geographic areas as basis for control packets

sending： Expected Zone and Request Zone.

Expected Zone：

Expected Zone is the area where the destination node is predicted by the source node. Assuming the

source node S gets the location of the destination node D in time t0. Now, the time is t1, and the average

speed of D is v. Then the radius of the Expected Zone is v(t1-t0). But, if the source node S doesn‘t know

the location of the destination node D, the source node S will put the entire network considered the

Expected Zone.

Request Zone：

Request Zone is the smallest rectangle area that contains the source node S and the Expected Zone. Its

sides parallel to X axis, Y axis respectively. Nodes which are only in this area are allowed to transfer

RREQ, otherwise it will ignore these packets.

3. Simulation


SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

75

Table 2. Simulation Parameters

Parameters Values

Routing Protocol AODV, OLSR, DYMO, ZRP, DSR, LAR1

Number of Nodes 10, 20, 50, 100

Simulation Time(s) 3600

Area Size(m*m) 3000*3000

Movement Model Random Waypoint Model

Speed(m/s) Min=0, Max=2.78, 13.89 & 27.78

Traffic Type CBR

4. Results

4.1 Total Number of Packets Received

We discuss total number of packets received at destination. We sent packets from second 1 and every

packet is 512 bytes. So in the ideal situation, the total number of packets must be 1842688 bytes.

Figure 1. Total number of packets in 2.78(m/s)


SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

76




SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

77

4.2 End-to-End Delay

End-to-End Delay refers to time taken for a packet to be transmitted from source to destination. Packets

sometimes will take a few extra seconds. Because the transmission path might be reselect. The lower

value means better performance.

Figure 4. End-to-End Delay in 2.78(m/s)



SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

78


5. Conclusion

We divided into two area to discuss：Total packet received and average End-to-End delay.

There is no difference between total packets received when the number of nodes is not much and speed

is not so fast. As the number of nodes and speed are increased, reactive routings have significant

different from proactive routings in these three area. But there have two exceptions：DSR and LAR1.

The performance of DSR is similar to AODV and DYMO in low speed, but the performance of DSR is

significantly reduced when the the number of nodes is up to 100. The performance of LAR1 is low in

reactive routings.

In average End-to-End delay, we do not discuss DSR and LAR1 because the value of average End-to-

End delay of DSR and LAR1 almost are greater than one second. Compare to other routings, these

values are too big. Therefore, we didn‘t consider them. We can see performance of proactive routing：OLSRv2 and hybrid routing：ZRP are better than reactive routing：AODV and DYMO.

We defined three scenarios： 2.78(m/s), 13.89(m/s) and 27.78(m/s). Our paper‘s contribution is

comparison of appropriate routing protocols to meet each situation requirement. Also, it could be a

useful referred material for future other dedicated studies.

Acknowledgement

Part of this work was supported by Tatung University, Taipei, Taiwan, under grant B103-I01-031.

References

U. R. Bhatt, A. Dangarh, A. Kashyap and A. Vyas, ―Performance Analysis of AODV & DSR Routing

Protocols for MANET,‖ 2014 Fourth International Conference on Communication Sstems and Network

Technologies, pp.254-258, April 2014

T. Jain and S. Shiwani, ―Analysis of OLSR, DSR, DYMO Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc

Networks using Omnet++ Simulation,‖ Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 14,

No. 1-E, 2014

A. K. Gupta, H. Sadawarti and A. K. Verma ―Implementation of DYMO Routing Protocol,‖ Modeling

and Computing(IJITMC) International Journal of Information Technology, Vol1.1, No.2, May, 2013

R. Kachal and S. Suri, ―Comparative Study and Analysis of DSR, DSDV and ZRP in Mobile Ad-Hoc

Networks,‖ International Journal of Computer Siences and Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 148-152, May 2014

S. Shankar, G. Varaprasad and H. N. Suresh, ―Importance of On-demand Modified Power Aware

Dynamic Source Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,‖ Antennas & Propagation IET

Microwaves, Vol. 8, Issue 7, pp.459-464, May 2014


SCIE Journals


www.scie.org.au

79

G. Sharma and M. Rani, ―Advancement in Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for MANETs,‖

International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, Vol. 3, Issue 5, pp. 428-433, May

2014

P. Kumar and Dr. A. Kumar, ―Simulation Based Analysis of DSR, LAR and DREAM Routing Protocol

for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,‖ International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology,

Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 58-62, August 2013