Get documents about "The Impact of Speed on the Performance of Dynamic Source Routing in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks
Shared by: ijcsis
Categories
Tags
IJCSIS, call for paper, journal computer science, research, google scholar, IEEE, Scirus, download, ArXiV, library, information security, internet, peer review, scribd, docstoc, cornell university, archive, Journal of Computing, DOAJ, Open Access, November 2010, Volume 8, No.8, Impact Factor, engineering, international, proQuest, computing, computer, technology
-
Stats
- views:
- 331
- posted:
- 12/4/2010
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 6
Document Sample
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
The Impact of Speed on the Performance of Dynamic Source Routing in Mobile Ad-
Hoc Networks
Naseer Ali Husieen, Osman B Ghazali, Suhaidi Hassan, Mohammed M. Kadhum
Internetworks Research Group
College of Arts and Sciences
University Utara Malaysia
06010 UUM Sintok, Malaysia
naseerali@internetworks.my|{osman|suhaidi|kadhum}@uum.edu.my
Abstract— Ad-hoc networks are characterized by Reactive Protocols: In this type of protocols such as
multihop wireless connectivity, frequently changing DSR, AODV, the routes are created when it’s required to
network topology and the need for efficient dynamic send data packets from the source to the destination [1].
routing protocols plays an important role. Due to We have determined the impact of four factors on the
mobility in Ad-hoc network, the topology of the performance of DSR by using Random waypoint
network may change rapidly. The mobility models mobility model in our previous paper [2] in press. These
represent the moving behavior of each mobile node in factors pause time, network size, number of traffic
the MANET that should be realistic. This paper sources and routing protocol. We examine the impact of
concerns performance of mobile Ad-hoc network these factors on four performance metrics: packet
(MANET) routing protocol with respect to the effects delivery ratio, average end-to-end delay, normalized
of mobility model on the performance of DSR routing load and protocol overhead. In this paper, we use
protocol for the purpose of finding the optimal Random waypoint as mobility model on DSR protocol to
settings of node speed. In this paper, we evaluate the study the effect of node speed with other factors in order
performance of DSR protocol using Random to find the optimal setting for the node speed parameter
Waypoint Mobility Model in terms of node speed, with different scenarios. For this performance study, we
number of connections, and number of nodes. use Network Simulator 2 (ns-2) version 2.34.
Keywords-MANET, Mobility Models, Routing Protocol,
DSR Protocol. II. DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING ( DSR )
DSR is reactive and efficient protocol. It determines
I. INTRODUCTION the correct path only when a packet wants to be
With existing advances in technology, wireless forwarded. The node broadcast the network with a route
networks are growing in popularity. Wireless networks request and builds the essential path from the responses
permit users the freedom to move from one position to it receives. DSR allows the network to be fully self
another without break of their computing services. Ad- configuring with no need for any existing network
hoc networks is one of the subset of wireless network infrastructure or administration. The DSR protocol is
that dynamically forming a temporary network without composed of two main mechanisms that work together to
using any existing network infrastructure or centralized allow the discovery and maintenance of source routes in
administration. A major problem in ad hoc network is the ad-hoc network. All aspects of protocol operate
how to send data packets among mobile nodes efficiently entirely on demand allowing routing packet overhead of
without fixed topology or centralized control, which is DSR to scale up automatically [3] [4].
the most important goal of ad hoc routing protocols.
Therefore, it is necessary a high-quality routing protocol Route Discovery: The example for route discovery
in order to establish the link between the nodes, since the shown in Figure 1. When a source node 1 wants to send
mobile node can vary their topology regularly. In ad-hoc data packets to the destination node 8, node 1 will
network the routing protocol is one of the important broadcast Route Request Packet (RREQ) to all the
issue and most challenging research area, since mobile neighbor nodes 2, 3, 4. After intermediate nodes receive
ad-hoc network vary their topology frequently. theses packets will rebroadcast these packets to the
Generally, the major task of routing in a network is to destination if there is no route in the route cache. When
detect and keep the best path to send data packets the destination node 8 will receive RREQ, node 8 will
between source and target through intermediate nodes. inform the source node 1 by sending the Route Reply
There are two categories of routing protocols in ad hoc Packet (RREP). The source node will start sending the
networks: Protocols: In this type of protocols such as data packets to the destination through the intermediate
DSDV, OLSR, consistent and up to-date routing nodes. This process mechanism called route discovery.
information to all nodes is maintain at each node. ii.
228 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
Route Maintenance: This mechanism contains two
packets; Route Error Packet (RERR) and ACKs packets.
Route error packet generated when there is changing in
the network or node out of the transmission range which
causes link failure. Intermediate node will send RERR
to the source node. Source will check if there is route in
the route cache to send the packets to the destination, if
there is no alternative route. Source node will reinitiate
route discovery process again. These processes will take
long delay to re-establish again in order to send the data
packets to the destination [5].
Fig.2. Traveling pattern of an MN using the Random Waypoint
Mobility Model
IV. RELATED WORK
In the recent years, several works has been done by
Perkins, Hughes and Owen [7] shows that some
parameters such as pause time, node speed, increasing
the number of nodes, and increase the number of
sources can have an effect on the routing protocols
Fig.1. DSR Route Discovery
performance. In their work Random waypoint model
has been used, but employed Global Mobile System
III. RANDOM WAY POITN MODEL Simulator (GloMoSim) rather than ns-2.
The Random waypoint model is widely and simply Azzedine Baoukerche has comparing four routing
used to evaluate the performance of ad hoc routing protocols such as (AODV, PAODV, DSR, and CBRP)
protocols. The implementation of this model in the [8]. The simulation parameters were tested in his paper
network simulator (ns-2) is as follows: each mobile node with maximum number of nodes 25 and low traffic with
arbitrarily selects one position in the simulation field as maximum speed 20 m/s. However, our work tested with
the target, then moves towards this target with fix various numbers of nodes (10, 20, 40, and 80) with
velocity selected uniformly and randomly from [0, different source connections (4, 8, 30, and 40) which
Vmax], where the parameter Vmax is the maximum can make high traffic and various speed 20, 40, 60, and
velocity for each mobile node [6]. The velocity and path 80.
of the nodes are selected separately from of other nodes. Yogesh, Yudhvir, and Manish, they have compared
When will reaching the target, the node stops for a and analysis two reactive routing protocols such as
period of time defined by the ‘pause time’. AODV, DSR [9]. The main objective in their paper to
In the Random waypoint model, velocity and pause evaluate the performance of these two protocols based
time are two key parameters that determine the mobility on the packet delivery fraction, end –to-end delay, and
performance of nodes. When the pause time is long and normalized routing load. The simulation parameters
velocity is small the topology of ad-hoc network were tested increasing number on nodes and various
becomes stable. On the other hand, when the mobile pause times with fixed maximum speed (0-25 m/s
node moves fast and the pause time is small; the only). While our work with various maximum speeds in
topology is likely to be highly dynamic. Random order to select the optimal setting for maximum speed.
waypoint model can create different mobility scenarios
with different levels of node speed. In Figure 2, shows V. SIMULATION SETUP
that node movement in the Random waypoint.
The MANET network simulations are implemented
using Random waypoint model which can generate by
using movement tool (setdest) in ns-2 simulator. The
simulation period for each scenario is 200 seconds and
the simulated mobility network area is 1000 m x 500 m
rectangle. Simulation runs are made with the number of
random traffic Constant Bit Rate (CBR) which can
generate by using (cbgen.tcl). Figure 2, it shows that the
229 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
simulation methodology for our implementation. The Average end to end delay: this is defined as the average
rest of simulation parameters shown in the Table below. delay in transmission of a packet between two nodes and
is calculated as follows:
TABLE I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
n
Time packet receivedi – time packet senti
AED = ∑
Parameters Value i=0 Total number of packets received
Simulation Time 200 s
No. of Nodes 10, 20, 40, 80 Equation.2 AED
No. of connections 4, 8, 30, 40
Pause Time 40 s A higher value of end-to-end delay means that the
Simulation Area 1000 x 500 m network is congested and hence the routing protocol
Traffic Type Constant Bit Rate (CBR) does not perform well. The upper bound on the values of
Maximum Speed 20 ,40,60,80 m/s end-to-end delay is determined by the application.
Mobility Model Random Waypoint
Routing Protocol DSR Protocol Control Overhead: This is the ratio of the
number of protocol control packets transmitted to the
MAC Type 802.11 number of data packets received.
Normalized routing load: this is calculated as the ratio
between the numbers of routing packets transmitted to
the number of packets actually received (thus accounting
for any dropped packets):
Equation.3 NRL
This metric gives an analysis of routing protocol
efficiency, since the number of routing packets sent per
data packet gives an idea of how well the protocol
maintains the routing information updated. The lower
of NRL, the lower the overhead of routing protocol and
consequently the higher the efficiency of the protocol.
Fig.3. Simulation Methodology VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, details of the simulation results in term
VI. PERFORMANCE METRICS of packet-delivery fraction, average end to end delay,
protocol overhead, and normalized routing load. All the
We have consider packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, results were obtained by averaging 5 times over the
protocol control overhead and normalized routing load simulation for every scenario in order to select the
as a metrics during our simulation in order to evaluate optimal setting for the maximum speed.
the performance of the DSR protocol.
i. Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF)
Packet Delivery Fractions (PDF): the packet delivery
ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets This metric with high packet delivery ratio, routing
received by the destination through the number of protocol will be more efficient. Figure 4, shows that
originates packets by the application layer of the initiator. packed delivery ratio is decreased in first scenario
PDF is specifying the loss packets rate, which limits the whenever increasing node speed. As above stated, it
maximum throughput over the entire network. The more has been taken four main scenarios and each of this
complete and correct routing protocol, the better packet main contains four sub-scenarios which means 4x4 =
delivery ratio. 16 scenarios have been taken in this experiment. In
each of these experiments of sub-scenarios, the node
speed increases while other parameters are constant. In
Figure 4, shows that the optimal setting is 20 speeds
among all of the four scenarios in term of packet
delivery ratio.
Equation.1 PDF
230 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
Speed vs Packet Delivery Fraction
120 iii. Routing Protocol Overhead
Packet Delivery Fraction (%) 100
In Figure 6, it shows the overhead result which
80
generated by the routing protocols to achieve this level
60 of data packet delivery. Figure 6, shows that overhead is
40 direct proportional to the number of sending packets, in
20
the first scenario with low mobility overhead increased
whenever node speed increased. With normal speed 20
0
m/s in first scenario overhead decreased. The rest of
20 40 60 80
scenarios with high mobility overhead is expect to
Speed (m/s)
increase and decrease because there are more
Scenario1: 10 nodes Scenario2: 20 nodes
destinations to which the network must maintain
Scenario3: 40 nodes Scenario4: 80 nodes
working routes.
Fig.4. Speed vs. Packet Delivery Fraction
Speed vs Routing overhead
ii. Average End-to-End Delay 4000
The average end-to-end delay is affected when the 3500
Routing overhead
traffic Constant Bit Rate (CBR) is high rate of 3000
packets as well. The buffers become filled much 2500
2000
faster, so the packets have to wait in the buffers a
1500
much longer period of time before they are sent.
1000
Figure 5, shows that effect of node speed on the end
500
to end delay. In the first scenario 10 nodes with 4
0
connections CBR, there is less delay with 20 speeds
20 40 60 80
comparing with others sub –scenario 40, 60, and 80 Speed (m/s)
speeds. In addition when the number of mobile nodes Scenario1: 10 nodes Scenario2: 20 nodes
(MNs) is increased to 80 nodes and 40 CBR Scenario3: 40 nodes Scenario4: 80 nodes
connections with respect increase node speed up to
80 m/s the end to end delay increases because of the Fig.6.Speed vs. Routing overhead
time consumed for route discovery and the increasing
number of packets in the buffer. However, when the iv. Normalized Routing Load (NRL)
pause time is 40 s and speed 20 m/s, the network is
stable and the end to end delay decreases. With In figure 6, the value of normalized routing load versus
normal speed, the end to end delay is low because the node speeds are plotted. From the figure 7, this is clear
network is not congested. that DSR protocol performs well in the first scenario
with node speed 20 m/s. Because of the NRL direct
proportional with overhead and sending packets.NRL
Speed vs Average end to end Delay
represents the number of routing packets transmitted per
7000
Average end to end Delay
data packet delivered at the destination. This metrics
6000
checks the efficiency of the DSR protocols, meaning
5000 that with low NRL, DSR perform well.
4000
3000
Speed vs Normalized routing load
Normalized routing load (NRL )
2000 3.5
1000 3
0 2.5
20 40 60 80 2
Speed (m/s) 1.5
Scenario1: 10 nodes Scenario2: 20 nodes 1
Scenario3: 40 nodes Scenario4: 80 nodes 0.5
0
Fig.5.Speed vs. Average end to end delay 20 40 60 80
Speed (m/s)
Scenario1: 10 nodes Scenario2: 20 nodes
Scenario3: 40 nodes Scenario4: 80 nodes
Fig.7.Speed vs. Normalized routing load
231 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
VIII. CONCLUTION AND FUTURE WORK AUTHORS PROFILE
The most important parameter of a mobility model
is a node speed, either in the form of a constant value Naseer Ali Husieen,
or in the form of a certain distribution. In this paper, received his B.Sc. degree in
we have present our work on evaluating performance Computer Science from Al-
of DSR protocol under widely and simplest mobility Rafedain University, Iraq
model which called Random Waypoint with respect and, his M.Sc. degree in
to the effect of node speed for different scenarios. Computer Science focusing
Simulation result shows that node speed has on Computer Network and
significant on the performance of DSR protocol Communications from
because mobility models are characterized by the Hamdard University, Delhi
movement of their constituents. The nature of (Faculty of Computer
movement its speed, direction, and rate of change Science), India. Naseer
can have a dramatic effect on protocols and systems currently attached to the InterNetWorks Research Group,
designed to support mobility. The Mobile nodes College of Arts and Sciences at the Utara University
(MNs) randomly select the next destination in the Malaysia. He is currently pursuing his PhD research in
simulation area and choose a speed uniformly Ad-hoc Mobile networking as a doctoral researcher. His
distributed between the minimum and maximum current research interest is on Ad-hoc mobile network
speed and travels with a random speed which is routing protocol.
chosen uniformly. In addition, results shows that
average optimal setting for our scenarios is when
node speed is 20 m/s. The experimentation suggests Osman Ghazali, Ph.D. a
that several parameters such as maximum speed, Senior Lecturer in the
node density pause time and traffic source of nodes Department of Computer
also affect the routing performance and need to be Science for Postgraduate
investigated with various mobility models. Studies, Northern University
of Malaysia (Universiti
Utara Malaysia). He
REFERENCE received his BIT, Master
[1] Elizabeth Belding –Royer,” Routing approaches inn mobile ad and PhD in Information
hoc networks”, in: S.Basagni, M.Conti, S.Giordano, Technology from Northern
I.Stojemenvoic (Eds), Ad Hoc Networking, IEEE Press Wiley,
New York, 2003. University of Malaysia in
[2] Naseer,Osman, Suhaidi, Kadhum “Effect of Pause Time on the 1994, 1996, and 2008. He
Performance of Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols”. in published a number of papers in international
IEEE 4International Conference on Inteligent Information conferences.
Technology Application (IITA 2010), China, 2010, in press
[3] D.B. Johnson, D.A. Maltz, Y Hu, Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (DSR),
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt,
July 2004.
[4] David B. Johnson David A. Maltz Josh Brooch, “DSR: the Associate Professor Suhaidi
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Hassan is currently the
Ad Hoc Networks”, http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu/.
Assistant Vice Chancellor of
[5] The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc
Networks, “http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet- the College of Arts and
dsr-03.txt, IETF Internet draft, Oct. 1999. Sciences, Universiti Utara
[6] L. Breslau, D. Estrin, K. Fall, S. Floyd, J. Heidemann, A. Helmy, Malaysia (UUM). He is an
P. Huang, S. McCanne, K. Varadhan, Y. Xu, and H. Yu, associate professor in
Advances in network simulation, in IEEE Computer, vol. 33, no. Computer Systems and
5, May 2000, pp. 59--67.
Communication Networks
[7] D. Perkins, H. D. Hughes, and C. B. Owen, “Factors affecting the
performance of ad-hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE and the former Dean of the
International Conference on Communications (ICC),Electronic Faculty of Information
Publication: Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs),2000.
Technology, Universiti Utara Malaysia. Dr. Suhaidi
[8] Azzedine Boukerche,” Performance Evaluation of Routing
Protocols for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”, Kluwer Academic Hassan received his B.Sc. degree in Computer Science
Publishers. Manufactured in the Netherlands Mobile Networks from Binghamton University, New York (USA) and his
and Applications 9, 333–342, 2004. MS degree in Information Science (concentration in
[9] Yogesh, Yudhvir, and Manish,” Simulation based Performance Telecommunications and Networks) from the University
Analysis of On-Demand Routing Protocols in MANETs, Second
international Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA). He received his PhD
232 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010
degree in computing (focusing in Networks Performance
Engineering) from the University of Leeds in the United
Kingdom. In 2006, he established the ITU-UUM Asia
Pacific Centre of Excellence (ASP CoE) for Rural ICT
Development, a human resource development initiative of
the Geneva-based International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) which serves as the focal point for all rural
ICT development initiatives across Asia Pacific region by
providing executive training programs, knowledge
repositories, R &D and consultancy activities. Dr. Suhaidi
Hassan is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in which he actively
involved in both the IEEE Communications and IEEE
Computer societies. He has served as the Vice Chair
(2003-2007) of the IEEE Malaysia Computer Society. He
also serves as a technical committee for the Malaysian
Research and Educational Network (MYREN) and as a
Council Member of the Cisco Malaysia Network
Academy.
Mohammed M. Kadhum,
Ph.D. is an assistant
professor in the Graduate
Department of Computer
Science, Universiti Utara
Malaysia (UUM) and is
currently attached to the
InterNetWorks Research
Group at the UUM College
of Arts and Sciences as a
research advisor. He had
completed his PhD research
in computer networking at Universiti Utara Malaysia
(UUM). His research interest is on Internet Congestion
and QoS. He has been awarded with several medals for
his outstanding research projects. His professional
activity includes being positioned as Technical Program
Chair for NetApps2008 and NetApps2010, a technical
committee member for various well known journal and
international conferences, a speaker for conferences, and
a member of several science and technology societies.
To date, he has published a number of papers including
on well-known and influential international journals.
233 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
Related docs
Other docs by ijcsis
Comparative Analysis between Split and HierarchyMap Treemap Algorithms for Visualizing Hierarchical Data
Views: 39 | Downloads: 0
Non-Preemptive Multi-Constrain Scheduling for Multiprocessor with Hopfield Neural Network
Views: 5 | Downloads: 0
Reliable Multipath Routing Protocol (RMRP) For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using Adaptive Video Compression
Views: 22 | Downloads: 1
Single CCTA-Based Four Input Single Output Voltage-Mode Universal Biquad Filter
Views: 71 | Downloads: 0
