Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

comparative-study-of-single-path-vs-multi-path-routing-protocols-case-study-of-aodv-and-aomdv

 comparative-study-of-single-path-vs-multi-path-routing-protocols-case-study-of-aodv-and-aomdv

Mobile Ad hoc networks are infrastructure less and versatile networks of nodes that require no
centralized administration. MANETs are typically used in areas where there’s no existing
infrastructure or where setting up one is extremely difficult.
Nodes in a MANET are mobile and standalone and routing is done either on-demand or pro-
actively to allow information to be exchanged between nodes.
Single-Path routing protocols establish the path between 2 communicating nodes before
transmitting the packets whereas Multi-Path routing protocols compute different alternative paths
between communicating nodes when sending packets to allow quick or instant recovery in case of
network failure.
In this study we evaluate the throughout, average end-to-end delay and packet delivery ratio of the
different protocols and how they perform with varying network sizes.

Ir Nahayo Ndindayino

September 02, 2017
Tweet

More Decks by Ir Nahayo Ndindayino

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. Comparative Analysis of Single-path Vs Multipath routing: a Case Study

    of AODV and AOMDV Protocols Nahayo NDINDAYINO Blaise-Patrick Supervisors: Dr Prof Narendra Singh Yadav Dr Prof Naveen Hemrajani July-August 2017
  2. Abstract Mobile Ad hoc networks are infrastructure less and versatile

    networks of nodes that require no centralized administration. MANETs are typically used in areas where there’s no existing infrastructure or where setting up one is extremely difficult. Nodes in a MANET are mobile and standalone and routing is done either on-demand or pro- actively to allow information to be exchanged between nodes. Single-Path routing protocols establish the path between 2 communicating nodes before transmitting the packets whereas Multi-Path routing protocols compute different alternative paths between communicating nodes when sending packets to allow quick or instant recovery in case of network failure. In this study we evaluate the throughout, average end-to-end delay and packet delivery ratio of the different protocols and how they perform with varying network sizes.
  3. Acknowledgment First and foremost I’d like to thank the Almighty

    God for the gift of life that we receive each and every day because of his never ending love. Secondly, my parents and siblings for their immense love and support. Also, my supervisors, Dr Prof Naveen Hemrajani and Dr Prof Narendra Yadav whose technical guidance, mentorship has made this exchange experience a one of a kind full of learning and concept sharing. Last but not least, IAESTE LC JECRC and JECRC University for this great opportunity that helped me appreciate India and Indians as a people full of diversity, laughter and love; forever will I be grateful.
  4. Declaration This project, which is my original work represent my

    original thoughts, has not been presented for an academic award in any other University and No part of this project may be reproduced without prior written permission of the author and/or JECRC University. --------------------------------------------- Student’s Name ---------------------------------------------- Supervisor’s Name
  5. Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgment..................................................................................................................................3 Declaration...........................................................................................................................................4 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................7 1.1.Mobile Ad hoc Networks............................................................................................................7

    1.2.Network Simulation....................................................................................................................9 2.Routing protocols In MANETs........................................................................................................12 3.Simulation results and Performance metrics...................................................................................13 3.1.Overview..................................................................................................................................13 3.2.Simulation settings...................................................................................................................14 3.3.Performance metrics.................................................................................................................14 4.Tools................................................................................................................................................16 5.Recommendations...........................................................................................................................18 6.Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................18 References..........................................................................................................................................19
  6. Illustration Index Illustration 1: NS2 architecture...........................................................................................................11 Illustration 2: routing protocols

    in MANETs.....................................................................................12 Illustration 3: Juja area road network.................................................................................................14 Illustration 4: Network simulation of Juja road network....................................................................14 Index of Tables Table 1: Throughput comparison........................................................................................................15 Table 2: Average end-to-end delay comparison..................................................................................16 Table 3: Packet delivery ratio comparison.........................................................................................16
  7. 1. Introduction 1.1. Mobile Ad hoc Networks a) Overview A

    Mobile Ad hoc Network is a collection of independent mobile nodes that can communicate to each other via radio waves. The mobile nodes that are in radio range of each other can directly communicate, whereas others need the aid of intermediate nodes to route their packets. Each of the nodes has a wireless interface to communicate with each other. These networks are fully distributed, and can work at any place without the help of any fixed infrastructure as access points or base stations [1] A mobile ad hoc network or MANET is generally defined as a network that has many free (autonomous) nodes, often composed of mobile devices that can arrange themselves in various ways and operate without strict administration or centralized infrastructure. There are many different types of setups that could be called MANETs and the potential for this sort of network is still being studied. Characteristics of MANETs:  Distributed operation: There is no background network for the central control of the network operations; the control of the network is distributed among the nodes. The nodes involved in a MANET should cooperate with each other and communicate among themselves and each node acts as a relay as needed, to implement specific functions such as routing and security.  Multi hop routing: When a node tries to send information to other nodes which is out of its communication range, the packet should be forwarded via one or more intermediate nodes.  Autonomous terminal: In MANET, each mobile node is an independent node, which could function as both a host and a router.  Dynamic topology: Nodes are free to move arbitrarily with different speeds; thus, the network topology may change randomly and at unpredictable time. The nodes in the MANET dynamically establish routing among themselves as they travel around, establishing their own network.  Light-weight terminals: In maximum cases, the nodes at MANET are mobile with less CPU capability, low power storage and small memory size.
  8.  Shared Physical Medium: The wireless communication medium is accessible

    to any entity with the appropriate equipment and adequate resources. Accordingly, access to the channel cannot be restricted. Advantages:  They provide access to information and services regardless of geographic position.  Independence from central network administration.  Self-configuring network, nodes are also act as routers.  Less expensive as compared to wired network.  Scalable—accommodates the addition of more nodes.  Improved Flexibility.  Robust due to decentralize administration.  The network can be set up at any place and time Disadvantages:  Limited bandwidth: Wireless link continue to have significantly lower capacity than infrastructure networks. In addition, the realized throughput of wireless communication after accounting for the effect of multiple access, fading, noise, and interference conditions, etc., is often much less than a radio’s maximum transmission rate.  Dynamic topology: Dynamic topology membership may disturb the trust relationship among nodes. The trust may also be disturbed if some nodes are detected as compromised. 3) Routing Overhead: In wireless adhoc networks, nodes often change their location within network. So, some stale routes are generated in the routing table which leads to unnecessary routing overhead.  Hidden terminal problem: The hidden terminal problem refers to the collision of packets at a receiving node due to the simultaneous transmission of those nodes that are not within the direct transmission range of the sender, but are within the transmission range of the receiver.  Packet losses due to transmission errors: Ad hoc wireless networks experiences a much higher packet loss due to factors such as increased collisions due to the presence of hidden terminals, presence of interference, uni-directional links, frequent path breaks due to mobility of nodes.  Mobility-induced route changes: The network topology in an ad hoc wireless network is highly dynamic due to the movement of nodes; hence an on-going
  9. session suffers frequent path breaks. This situation often leads to

    frequent route changes.  Battery constraints: Devices used in these networks have restrictions on the power source in order to maintain portability, size and weight of the device.  Security threats: The wireless mobile ad hoc nature of MANETs brings new security challenges to the network design. As the wireless medium is vulnerable to eavesdropping and ad hoc network functionality is established through node cooperation, mobile ad hoc networks are intrinsically exposed to numerous security attacks b) Types  Vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs) are used for communication between vehicles and roadside equipment. Intelligent vehicular ad hoc networks are a kind of artificial intelligence that helps vehicles to behave in intelligent manners during vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, accidents.  Smart phones ad hoc networks (SPANs) leverage the existing hardware (primarily Blue tooth and Wi-Fi) in commercially available smart phones to create peer-to-peer networks without relying on cellular carrier networks, wireless access points, or traditional network infrastructure  Internet based MANET is a type of wireless ad hoc network that supports Internet protocols such as TCP/UDP and IP. The network uses a network-layer routing protocol to link mobile nodes and establish routes automatically.  Military or tactical MANETs are used by military units with emphasis on data rate, real-time requirement, fast re-routing during mobility, data security, radio range, and integration with existing systems. 1.2. Network Simulation a) Overview In Data communication and computer networks, network simulation is a technique whereby a software program models the behavior of a network either by calculating the interaction between the different network entities (routers, switches, nodes, access points, links etc.). Most simulators use discrete event simulation - the modeling of systems in which state variables change at discrete points in time. The behavior of the network and the various applications and services it supports can then be observed in a test lab; various attributes of the environment can also be
  10. modified in a controlled manner to assess how the network

    / protocols would behave under different conditions. b) Advantages  Open source : means it’s opened and accept contributions from the community to better the platform, but there are also commercial versions of network simulators.  Free (no money)  Supported protocols : most of the protocols are supported and implemented in most of network simulators  Modularity : most network and packet simulation tools are subdivided into different subcomponents that are pieced together.  Popular : increasingly popular in academia and the research community  Documentation : most tools are properly documented c) Disadvantages  Complicated structure : this is partly due to the implementation structure. Some modules are coded in C++ and Otcl respectively making difficult to alter for thy own use  Bugs : developers support is independently accounted for  Unreliable : some modules are partially developed and not maintained on regular basis  Simulation validation  Patching &Extending  Unrealistic abstraction : doesn’t necessarily represent the real-world representations.  Speed &Memory
  11. d) Network Simulator architecture NS2 provides users with executable command

    ns which takes on input argument, the name of a Tcl simulation scripting file. Users are feeding the name of a Tcl simulation script (which sets up a simulation) as an input argument of an NS2 executable command ns. In most cases, a simulation trace file is created, and is used to plot graph and/or to create animation.  Nam: Network animator is a Tcl/TK based animation tool for viewing network simulation traces and real world packet traces. It supports topology layout, packet level animation, and various data inspection tools.  Xgraph: is an X-Windows application that includes an interactive plotting and graphing, animation and derivatives. Illustration 1: NS2 architecture
  12. 2. Routing protocols In MANETs Ad-Hoc network routing protocols are

    commonly divided into three main classes; Proactive, reactive and hybrid protocols as shown in figure 1. Classification of MANET routing protocols a) Proactive Protocols: Proactive, or table-driven routing protocols. In proactive routing, each node has to maintain one or more tables to store routing information, and any changes in network topology need to be reflected by propagating updates throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent network view. Example of such schemes is the conventional routing schemes: Destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV). b) Reactive Protocols: Reactive routing is also known as on-demand routing protocol since they do not maintain routing information or routing activity at the network nodes if there is no communication. If a node wants to send a packet to another node then this protocol searches for the route in an on-demand manner and establishes the connection in order to transmit and receive the packet. The route discovery occurs by flooding the route request packets throughout the network. Examples of reactive routing protocols are the Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR). c) Hybrid Protocols: They introduce a hybrid model that combines reactive and proactive routing protocols. The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is a hybrid routing protocol that divides the network into zones. ZRP provides a hierarchical architecture where each node has to maintain additional topological information requiring extra memory. Illustration 2: routing protocols in MANETs
  13. 3. Simulation results and Performance metrics 3.1. Overview Illustration 3:

    Juja area road network Illustration 4: Network simulation of Juja road network
  14. 3.2. Simulation settings The simulation environment consists of different number

    of nodes in a rectangular region of varying size: ▪ Propagation: TwoRayGround ▪ Radio range of a node: 150 m ▪ Channel capacity: 2 Mb/sec ▪ Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol: IEEE802.11 Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) ▪ Traffic pattern: 1 FTP/TCP ▪ Size of data packet: 512 bytes ▪ Data rate: 1 packet/sec ▪ Number of nodes: 91 ▪ Maximum speed: 5m/s, 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s ▪ Simulation time: 90 seconds 3.3. Performance metrics a) Throughput  Description It is the number of packets/bytes received by source per unit time in Kbs  Comparison Table 1: Throughput comparison Nodes AODV AOMDV 2 681.54 663.27 10 679.95 657.02 100 679.79 603.30 b) Average end-to-end delay  Description Data packets delay between 2 nodes within a network. Can be buffering, queuing, retransmission, propagation or transfer times in milliseconds.  Comparison
  15. Table 2: Average end-to-end delay comparison Nodes AODV AOMDV 2

    73.3094 78.9504 10 72.2567 65.0721 100 64.0834 68.9908 c) Packet delivery ratio  Description It’s the actual ratio of actual packets delivered to total packets sent between communicating nodes taking into consideration the packets dropped  Comparison Table 3: Packet delivery ratio comparison Nodes Generated packets Received packets AODV AOMDV 2 4737 4710 99.43 99.4136 10 16611 16591 99.8796 99.8752 100 16280 16260 99.8796 99.8639
  16. 4. Tools To effectively carry out these simulations the following

    tools were used: a) NS2: Network simulator 2 is a discrete event simulator for networking research that simulates at packet level with substantial support to simulate many protocols like wired and wireless network and is primarily UNIX based. It has many advantages that make it a useful tool, such as support for multiple protocols and the capability of graphically detailing network traffic. Additionally, NS2 supports several algorithms in routing and queuing. LAN routing and broadcasts are part of routing algorithms. Queuing algorithms include fair queuing, deficit round-robin and FIFO. NS2 started as a variant of the REAL network simulator in 1989[1]. REAL is a network simulator originally intended for studying the dynamic behavior of flow and congestion control schemes in packet-switched data networks. Currently NS2 development by VINT group is supported through Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with SAMAN and through NSF with CONSER, both in collaboration with other researchers including ACIRI (see Resources). NS2 is available on several platforms such as FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS and Solaris. NS2 also builds and runs under Windows. b) SUMO: is a free and open traffic simulation suite which is available since 2001. SUMO allows modeling of intermodal traffic systems including road vehicles, public transport and pedestrians. Included with SUMO is a wealth of supporting tools which handle tasks such as route finding, visualization, and network import and emission calculation. SUMO can be enhanced with custom models and provides various APIs to remotely control the simulation[2] The simulation platform SUMO offers many features:  Microscopic simulation - vehicles, pedestrians and public transport are modeled explicitly  Online interaction – control the simulation with TraCI  Simulation of multimodal traffic, e.g., vehicles, public transport and pedestrians  Time schedules of traffic lights can be imported or generated automatically by SUMO  No artificial limitations in network size and number of simulated vehicles  Supported import formats: OpenStreetMap, VISUM, VISSIM, NavTeq  SUMO is implemented in C++ and uses only portable libraries Applicability SUMO has been used within several projects for answering a large variety of research questions:
  17.  Evaluate the performance of traffic lights, including the evaluation

    of modern algorithms up to the evaluation of weekly timing plans.  Vehicle route choice has been investigated, including the development of new methods, the evaluation of ecology-aware routing based on pollutant emission, and investigations on network-wide influences of autonomous route choice.  SUMO was used to provide traffic forecasts for authorities of the City of Cologne during the Pope’s visit in 2005 and during the Soccer World Cup 2006.  SUMO was used to support simulated in-vehicle telephony behavior for evaluating the performance of GSM-based traffic surveillance.  SUMO is widely used by the V2X community for both, providing realistic vehicle traces, and for evaluating applications in an on-line loop with a network simulator. c) OSM (OpenStreetMaps): OpenStreetMap is a free, editable map of the whole world that is being built by volunteers largely from scratch and released with an open- content license. Allows free (or almost free) access to the map images and all of the underlying map data. The project aims to promote new and interesting uses of this data[3] OSM is primarily:  Community driven : diverse community of contributors including mappers, GIS professionals, engineers running the OSM servers, humanitarians mapping disaster-affected areas, etc.  Open data: free to use for any purpose as long as OpenStreetMap and its contributors are credited.  Local knowledge: this refers to the contributions made by using aerial imagery, GPS devices and low-tech field maps to make sure that OSM is accurate and updated.
  18. 5. Recommendations This work is presented as is and possible

    investigations include but not limited to: a) Developing custom protocols b) Simulating MANETs within the university setting or within the Jaipur area c) Investigating into different real-world applications and their parallel development d) Collaboration with research and development institutions for future work 6. Conclusion Single path and multipath routing protocols Packet delivery ratio is high irrespective of the network size, however, average end-to-end delay increases for Multipath routing because of route discovery requests. Finally Single-path routing protocols experience high throughput due to proactive routing whereas multipath routing experience low throughput as the number of nodes increases.
  19. References [1] Network Simulator 2: a Simulation Tool for Linux

    | Linux Journal. (n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2017, from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5929 [2] DLR - Institute of Transportation Systems - SUMO – Simulation of Urban MObility. (n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2017, from http://www.dlr.de/ts/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid- 9883/16931_read-41000/ [3] About OpenStreetMap - OpenStreetMap Wiki. (n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2017, from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/About_OpenStreetMap