Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

Analyzing MANET Routing

Performance Using OPNET Simulation

by

Md Maruf Ilahi

Supervised by

Dr Sahar Al-Sudani

August, 2011

Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

Analyzing MANET Routing

Performance Using OPNET Simulation

By

Md Maruf Ilahi

A dissertation submitted to

City of London College

in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Degree of

Masters in Computing (Computer Networks)

Awarded by University of Wales

Supervisor: Dr Sahar Al-Sudani

August, 2011

2


Author Declaration

I hereby confirm that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of

my understanding and credence, it contains no content previously published

or written by any another person (except where explicitly defined in the

references), nor material which to a considerable extent has been submitted

for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other

institution of higher education.

_________________________

Md Maruf Ilahi

3


4

“To my Mother Rawson Ara Begum for her inspiration

and faith upon me”

Md Maruf Ilahi


Contents

List of Figures.................................................................................................................8

Abstract..........................................................................................................................10

Acknowledgement........................................................................................................11

List of Abbreviation.......................................................................................................12

I. Introduction............................................................................................................13

1.1 Aim of the Research.........................................................................................13

1.2 Motivation and Research question.................................................................14

1.3 Project outline....................................................................................................15

Summery.......................................................................................................................16

II. Overview & Literature Research.........................................................................17

2.1 Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)..................................................................17

2.1.1 Proactive Routing Protocols........................................................................18

2.1.1.1 Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)...................................................19

2.1.1.2 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)................................19

2.1.1.3 Global State Routing (GSR)....................................................................19

2.1.2 Reactive Routing Protocols.........................................................................19

2.1.2.1 Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV).........................20

2.1.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR).............................................................20

2.1.2.3 Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)..................................21

2.1.3 Hybrid Protocols............................................................................................21

2.1.3.1 Zone Routing protocol (ZPR)..................................................................21

2.1.4 Related Work.................................................................................................21

Summery.......................................................................................................................25

III. Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network.................................................................26

3.1 Routing in MANET............................................................................................26

3.1.1 Distance Vector Routing Algorithm............................................................26

3.1.1.1 Routing Mechanism in AODV.................................................................27

3.1.1.2 Advantages of AODV...............................................................................31

3.1.2 Link State Routing Algorithm.......................................................................32

3.1.2.1 Multipath Relay mechanism in OLSR....................................................32

5


3.1.2.2 Advantages to OLSR................................................................................33

3.1.3 Source Routing Algorithm............................................................................34

3.1.3.1 Route discovery in DSR...........................................................................34

3.1.3.2 Route Maintenance in DSR.....................................................................34

Summary.......................................................................................................................35

IV. Research Methodology....................................................................................36

4.1 Methodology used in Research......................................................................36

4.2 Simulator used in Research............................................................................37

4.3 Justification for using OPNET Simulation......................................................38

Summary.......................................................................................................................38

V. Network Design and Simulation..........................................................................39

5.1 Performance Metrics........................................................................................39

5.1.1 Throughput....................................................................................................39

5.1.2 Network Load................................................................................................39

5.1.3 Delay..............................................................................................................40

5.2 Simulation Environment...................................................................................40

5.2.1 Network design & Simulation Model..........................................................40

5.2.2 Performance Parameter...............................................................................43

5.3 List of Scenarios...............................................................................................44

Summery.......................................................................................................................45

VI. Analyse and Compare Results.......................................................................46

6.1 Simulation Results for small network.............................................................46

6.1.1 Scenario 01 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds).........46

6.1.2 Scenario 02 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)............48

6.1.3 Scenario 03 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)..........49

6.2 Comparative Analysis of scenario 01, 02 and 03 (Small Network)............50

6.2.1 Throughput comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03....................................50

6.2.2 Delay comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03..............................................51

6.2.3 Load comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03...............................................52

6.3 Simulation Results for Large Network............................................................53

6.3.1 Scenario 04 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds).........53

6.3.2 Scenario 05 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)............54

6


6.3.3 Scenario 06 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)..........55

6.4 Comparative Analysis of scenario 04, 05 & 06 (Large Network)................56

6.4.1 Throughput comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06....................................56

6.4.2 Delay comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06..............................................57

6.4.3 Load comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06...............................................58

6.5 Overall Comparison of Routing Performance...............................................59

Summary.......................................................................................................................61

V. Conclusion and Future Work...............................................................................62

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................62

Future Work...................................................................................................................63

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................64

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................68

Additional Screenshots for chapter 5.........................................................................68

7


List of Figures

FIGURE 1: PROJECT OUTLINE 16

FIGURE 2: CLASSIFICATION OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS 18

FIGURE 3: “ROUTE REQUEST” (RREQ) MECHANISM IN AODV 28

FIGURE 4: “ROUTE REPLY” (RREP) TECHNIQUE IN AODV 29

FIGURE 5: “ROUTE ERROR (RERR)” MECHANISM IN AODV 30

FIGURE 6: AN ILLUSTRATION OF MULTIPATH RELAY (MPR) IN OLSR 33

FIGURE 7: ROUTE DISCOVERY IN DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING 34

FIGURE 8: ROUTE MAINTENANCE IN DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING 35

FIGURE 9: SIMULATION MODEL WITH 15 NODES IN OPNET 16.0 40

FIGURE 10: SIMULATION MODEL WITH 30 NODES IN OPNET 16.0 41

FIGURE 11: NODE MODEL ARCHITECTURE 42

FIGURE 12: AODV (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE DELAY, LOAD AND

THROUGHPUT) 47

FIGURE 13: DSR (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT)

48

FIGURE 14: OLSR (15 NODE) RESULTS (AVERAGE LOAD, DELAY AND

THROUGHPUT) 49

FIGURE 15: THROUGHPUT ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 15 NODES 50


FIGURE 17: NETWORK LOAD ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 15 NODES

52

FIGURE 18: AODV (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT) 53

8


FIGURE 19: DSR (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT) 54

FIGURE 20: OLSR (30 NODE) RESULTS (DELAY, LOAD AND THROUGHPUT) 55


FIGURE 22: DELAY ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 30 NODES 57

FIGURE 23: NETWORK LOAD ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR WITH 30 NODES

58

FIGURE 24: OVERALL SCENARIO OF THROUGHPUT (MANET PERFORMANCE

COMPARISON) 59

FIGURE 25: OVERALL SCENARIO OF DELAY (MANET PERFORMANCE

COMPARISON) 60

FIGURE 26: OVERALL SCENARIO OF LOAD (MANET PERFORMANCE COMPARISON)

60

FIGURE 27: AODV PARAMETER 68

FIGURE 28: DSR PARAMETER 69

FIGURE 29: OSLR PARAMETER 70

FIGURE 30: APPLICATION ATTRIBUTES 71

FIGURE 31: PROFILE ATTRIBUTES 72

9


Abstract

This research is aim to analyse the performance of routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network, a

network consists of individual nodes connecting with each other creating a infrastructure

less network. Routing in MANET is the most challenging process as constant topology

changes occur during the transmission. A number of protocols are designed to cope with

MANET routing issue.

In MANET each node acts as a host and router while communicating with each other,

routing is one of the core concept in computer networking, so various routing algorithm

inherited by different MANET protocols. In this Research three protocols were evaluated

using Discrete Event Simulator OPNET 16.0. These protocols, (AODV, DSR and OLSR)

use different routing mechanism which is supported by OPNET. A number of scenarios

have been carried out to measure the performance of these protocols; throughput, delay

and load were used as a performance metrics. Two different size of network were

implemented in OPNET to compare the performance.

The results shows that OLSR performs better in both scenario with high traffic load, on the

hand AODV performance became the second best protocol and DSR in most case became

the least performing protocols.

Detail of this performance evaluation is carried out in the chapters.

10


Acknowledgements

I would like to take the opportunity to give gracious appreciation to those people have given

me enormous support and encouragement during this process.

Firstly, I would like to thank my Supervisor Dr Sahar Al-Sudani for constant supervision,

comments and guidance from the start till the end of this Research. Without her contribution

this research would have impossible to achieve to this extent.

I also like to thank those people whose publication and materials I have used to carry out

my research. I would like thank all my colleagues for their support and encouragement

while choosing my topic for the research.

At last I would like thank my Parent specially my Mother for their love, care, inspiration and

trust upon me which is greatly appreciated.

Md Maruf Ilahi

August, 2011

11


List of Abbreviation

AODV Ad hoc on-demand distance vector

CBR Continuous bit rate OPNET Optimized Network

Engineering Tools DSDV Destination sequence

distance vector DSR Dynamic source routing GSR Global Source RoutingMAC Medium access control MANET Mobile ad hoc network MPR Multi-point relay OLSR Optimised link state routing AODV-BR AODV-Back Route TCP Transmission Control

ProtocolRERR Route error RREP Route reply RREQ Route request SARP Scalable ad hoc routingSP Node speed TORA Temporary ordered routing

algorithm ZRP NS2/3BATMAN

Zone routing protocolNetwork Simulator 2/3Better Approach to Mobile Ad hoc Network

12


ONEI. Introduction

Technology changes considerably throughout the last ten centuries, in the tenth or twelve

century, people have remarkable advance in field of science and medical innovation. The

twenty first century became the century of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence,

Robotics and Space Science.

One of the core computer system concepts is computer networking. This is the age

computer network and internet. The internet most commonly a collection various networks

collaborating and connecting to create a world wide area network also called the

Information Super Highway.

Computer Network consists of two fundamental network concepts, wired network and

wireless network.

Wired Network is a type of network where wire cables are used to design and implement in

certain network. A wired network consists of node, server and link component.

On the other hand wireless network is consists of node, server and frequency link

component.

Two type of wireless network can be categorised, Infrastructure Network and Infrastructure

less network, also called Mobile Ad-hoc network or MANET.

The prime objective of this research to carry out a simulation based performance evaluation

MANET routing protocols. Three protocols were chosen to carry out the research. More

detail will be available in the later chapters.

13


1.1 Aim of the Research

This thesis is aim to get in depth understanding about the performance of routing in Mobile

Ad-hoc Network and to design, simulate such network with specific hardware and protocols.

MANET has a number of routing protocols and there a number of protocols are on their way

or under development. Each and every protocol has its own characteristics and

performance level, each protocol has diverse mechanism can be suited in different MANET

environment. In this thesis one of the key objectives is to investigate various routing

algorithms and identify the best performing protocols.

Detail outlined objectives as follow,

Investigate available literature

Understanding the routing protocols and algorithm

Design the simulation environment

Analyzing results and performance comparison

1.2 Motivation and Research question

MANET routing is one of most popular subject area for researcher to identify the key

routing protocols to be adopted in different scenario, a number of publications and research

were carried out and a wide variety of key elements is pointed out to provide an idea that

which protocol will be best suited in different environment.

MANET is a type of network where topology changes randomly and no infrastructure is

available for the network to establish an active connection the routing is a vital issue. Most

of the research carried out to determine the performance and security of these protocols

and in numerous researches shows that MANET protocol performance not constant, it is

more ever variable due high mobility, network load and network size. Also the simulation

play vital role in the research as different result shows that simulation environment generate

different outcome as it is need to be configure properly to achieve high level of simulation

efficiency.

The main objective of this research is to identify key protocols which can be used to

determine the performance. So the selection criteria will be one of the most important

factors behind a successful simulation and comparative analysis.

The research questions involves a number of factors as follow,

How protocol performance will be affected by random change of topology?

How network load and mobility can be a key issue for different MANET protocols?

14


What factors will influence constant algorithm development for MANET protocols?

How different simulation engine can manipulate research outcome?

1.3 Project outline

This project is organised as follows,

Chapter 1: Introduction

In this chapter a brief description about MANET networking, research aim and objectives

and motivation were discussed. This chapter also contain full project outline with a diagram.

Chapter 2: Overview and Literature Research

Overview and reviewing earlier literature about the topic will be the key points of discussion

for this chapter. In chapter 3 details about the routing protocols and in depth review will be

carried out.

Chapter 3: Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network

Detail about routing algorithm, advantages, and disadvantages of various routing

techniques and brief comparison will be added in this chapter. From this chapter it can be

decided which protocols will be involved in this performance research.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

In chapter 2 in depth discussion about different Research Methodology will be carried out.

And also the selected methodology with justification will be added.

Chapter 5: Network Design and Simulation

In chapter 5 a design view of simulation environment will be presented, with configuration

detail of simulation engine and also performance parameter, other simulation variables will

be taken into consideration.

Chapter 6: Analyze and Compare Results

Simulation results with numerous graphs, charts and tables will be presented with a in

depth comparative analysis will be carried out in this chapter.

Chapter 7: Conclusion and Future work

15


A brief summary of the whole research along with a summary of results and future research ideas will be discussed in this chapter. This chapter also contain the finishing note for this dissertation.

Figure 1: Project outline

Summery

In this chapter an overview of research topic were discussed, aims and objectives and

detail project outline were shown is figure 1. In the next chapter an overview of MANET and

routing protocols will be provided.

16


TWOII. Overview & Literature Research

Computer Network was always the key element of today’s technological advancement. In

previous chapter a brief introduction and detail project outline were discussed. This chapter

is aim to provide an initial of overview of Mobile Ad-hoc network, which is the topic area for

this research and also a literature analysis will be carried out containing similar previous

research materials and outcomes of those researches.

II.1 Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)

Mobile Ad-hoc Network is a term which describes an infrastructure less network consisting

of both fixed node and mobile nodes exchange data with each other without any centralised

infrastructure or base station. An as a result transitional node behaves like router to

transmit data to nodes not in range. The technology is so far very sophisticated and for its

dynamic nature as well as the mobility, it’s regarded as one of the most challenging network

to design and deploy. Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is more complicated

than the traditional wired network because the topology changes and the mobility of the

nodes make it more difficult to route the transmission. As a result the MANET is considered

one of the most expensive networks, and makes it critically unusable within public network

structure. MANET is widely used in Defence networks, Search and Rescue operation for

example a soldier transfers information about the situation in battlefield or a rescue

operation passing detail information from flood or hurricane affected area. MANET does not

contain any infrastructure and each node within the network acts as a router to form their

own network, with these characteristics MANET networks sometimes called infrastructure

less network.

Mobile Ad-hoc Network has a number of protocols for difference types of MANET. These

protocols are classified as Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid1.

1 Hybrid protocols are the combination of both proactive and reactive protocol algorithm.

17


Figure 2: Classification of MANET Routing Protocols2

II.1.1 Proactive Routing Protocols

Proactive routing protocols use similar approaches as used in some wired network

infrastructure. Proactive routing maintains a number of route table also called vector to

store route information which needs to be updated in regular interval. Every node has the

following node information in the network or subnet along with the node range. But when

topology changes in a network table driven protocols acts differently, but some exceptions

can be found where routing table constantly updated by different protocols. As a results

these protocols needs to maintain few different routing table for each nodes in the network

suggests these protocols are not designed for large MANET as they have to keep

information about every nodes in the network. (Ade & Tijare, 2009)

Network topology changes is one of the key issue in proactive routing as these protocols

needs to maintain up to date topology information as the network topology change

happens, update need to be propagated to the entire network to notify the changes occurs.

Most of the proactive routing protocols use the some mechanisms which are derived from

wired network backbone. So a number of modification and improvements has been carried

out to cope with the dynamic nature of mobile ad hoc network. One of the key

characteristics of MANET proactive protocols is to maintain route update whether any traffic

2This image originated from IEEE research magazine>>>>

18


exist or not in the network, that’s make the network load high which can be seen as a

disadvantages of proactive protocols. Some popular proactive protocols are Optimised Link

State Routing, Destination Sequence Distance Vector and Global Source Routing which

are described below. (Liu and Kaiser, 2005)*

II.1.1.1 Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR)

Optimized Link State Routing or OLSR is MANET routing protocols uses conventional link

state algorithm3. The mechanism used in link state is as simple as the protocols uses link

state messages to keep updates about nodes and topology inside the network. One of the

key techniques used by OLSR is MPR or Multi Path Relay which is described in detail in

chapter 3. (Ablohasan, Wysocki & Dutckiewicz, 2003)

II.1.1.2 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)

DSDV is one of oldest routing protocols developed for dynamic network MANET which

inherited classical Bellman-Ford algorithm. The nodes in the network always look for all

possible routes to any destination throughout the network and save this information in their

routing table. Each node broadcasts messages which contain route to destination and

hops sequence number to reach its destination. New sequence number is produced for

each new route in the network by each node. (Talooki & Rodri, nd)

II.1.1.3 Global State Routing (GSR)

Global Source Routing also based on traditional Link State algorithm but uses some further

developed techniques to broadcast the control messages, unlike other Link State protocols

GSR only broadcast control messages to its neighbour rather than broadcasting to the

whole network, which reduces the amount of control messages transmitted throughout the

network. As a results the message size became relatively larger than other messages

format used in other Link State protocols and as the network size get bigger these message

get bigger size which uses high amount of bandwidth to transmit the update messages.

(Ablohasan, Wysocki & Dutckiewicz, 2003)

II.1.2 Reactive Routing Protocols

Unlike proactive protocols reactive protocols not always try to search for routes and does

not broadcast control messages in regular interval, reactive protocols search for new routes

3 More detail provided about link state algorithm in later chapter.

19


as required basis, it also called on demand as the route discovery based on demand. A

route discovery operation carried out when requested by the source node and the operation

terminates as new route discovered or unavailability of routes in the network. Sometimes

an active node connection failure occurred due to mobility of nodes in the network, so route

maintenance operation is the key in reactive protocols, one of the main advantages of

reactive protocols that they transmit less control message comparing to proactive protocols.

But in reactive approach source node often experienced long transmission delay for on

demand route discovery. Two of main reactive protocols are Temporally-Ordered Routing

Algorithm, Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector and Dynamic Source Routing. (Liu & Kaiser,

2005)

II.1.2.1 Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)

AODV is a simple, effective, reactive routing protocol based on DSDV routing techniques. It

can be said that AODV is combination of DSR and DSDV routing protocol but a more

advanced features included. It is designed by a group IETF scientist in 2000 and presented

in IETF4 RFC5 in 2001. AODV uses limited bandwidth for wireless communication. It’s

inherited on demand route discovery and route maintenance mechanism from DSR and

node sequence number technique from DSDV which makes this protocol more versatile

and advanced. It’s the second most used algorithm after OLSR, More detail on AODV

algorithm and routing mechanism were discussed in later chapters. (Royer & Perkins)*

II.1.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is an on demand routing protocol which uses source

routing algorithm as a core concept of routing. In DSR nodes are maintain a route caches

to store route information which is constantly updated when new route information arrives

on the node. The protocol is based two algorithm route request approach is determines

route discovery mechanism and route caching determines route maintenance mechanism.

When a node needs to send packet to a destination initially it will look at the route cache for

available route to destination, if these route already expires it will initiate route discovery

operation broadcasting a route request message to its entire neighbour. This Route

Request (RREQ) message consists of source node address, destination address and an

unique identification number. All nodes which receive this RREQ check whether they have

the route in their cache if not they store this route record into their cache and forward the

message on the outgoing link. A node only will send a RREQ if the route is unknown and

4 International Engineering Task Force5 Request for Comments

20


no other route request were broadcast to discover this route which can be identified with

the unique number to eliminate duplicate messages. (Royer & Toh, 1999)

II.1.2.3 Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)

TORA is one of the advanced protocol which uses link reversal algorithm based on

distributed routing. It is an on demand routing protocol, only allow route discovery when

required. One of the key feature is it can discover route quickly with low number of control

message delivered to discover a route. TORA uses longer routes to minimize control

overhead while discovering newer route. (Broch, Maltz, et al, nd)

II.1.3 Hybrid Protocols

Hybrid routing protocols often characterised a combination of reactive and proactive

protocols to eliminate the both routing drawbacks. These protocols are applied in

hierarchical network architecture, but different proactive and reactive approaches are used

in different hierarchy of the network level. Zone Routing protocol (ZRP) is considered a

hybrid routing; further discussion is added in section 2.1.3.1. (Liu and Kaiser, 2005)

II.1.3.1 Zone Routing protocol (ZPR)

Zone Routing Protocol is a MANET hybrid routing protocol developed using proactive and

reactive mechanism, it can maintain a routing table without transmitting so many control

messages. ZRP in a term not only a protocol but it can be described as routing framework,

available to be added or reduced features to an existing protocol. (Schaumann, 2000, p-04)

II.1.4 Related Work

A number research were conducted by fellow researchers and students in the field of

Wireless Ad-hoc routing performance and a few improvement were proposed to make the

routing more efficient and secure in MANET. MANET routing protocols is one of the most

popular subject area for postgraduate Computer Science and Telecommunication students

in recent years. MANET routing protocols are different with difference performance level

when size and environment varies and these protocols need to be dynamic in nature to

adopt the environment which the protocols deployed.

A number of studies are outlined as follow in a form of table to provide greater

understanding about MANET Protocol performance and reliability.

21


Table 2.1: A list of research carried out about MANET protocol performance.

Author Implementation Protocols Summary of Results

S. Ade &

P. Tijare, 2010

AODV, DSDV,

DSR

DSDV performs better with low

node mobility.

M. Rahman et al,

2009

AODV, DSDV,

DSR

DSR is the most efficient protocol

W. Lol, 2008 OPNET Modeller AODV, DSR,

OLSR, TORA

OLSR wins the race

A. Zaballos, et al,

2003

AODV, DSR,

OLSR, TORA

Result varies

Johnson, Maltz,

& Broch, 2001

Real life

Implementation

DSR Low routing overhead in random

mobility

.A group of researcher (Johnson, Maltz, & Broch, 2001) carried out experimental simulation

involving Dynamic Source Routing protocol to measure the performance and security with a

real life case study designed to measure performance in rapid mobility environment. DSR

performs well in multi-hop wireless ad hoc network, as the simulation6 results with a real life

ad hoc network of car driving and routing within the network, with low routing overhead and

its ability to accurately transmit all originated data packets, even with continues, random

motion of all devices in the network DSR provides excellent results. (Johnson, Maltz, & Broch,

2001)

Recent study in 2010 (Ade & Tijare, 2010) shows the simulation outcomes concur with

predictable findings based on theoretical investigation. As expected reactive routing

protocol AODV7 performs better in the view that it is capable to continue the connection in

any interruption while transmitting data packets, which is needed in TCP8 connection-based

traffic. AODV predictably deliver all packets virtually at low node mobility and not capable to

maintain connection at increased mobility. On the other hand DSR is preferred the best

protocol in all mobility rates and the speed is quite similar to DSDV, But DSDV is costly in

increased mobility compare to DSR. In comparison to on demand (AODV, DSR) with table

6 Simulation is imitation of some real things, state of affair or process.7 Ad hoc on demand distance vector, A MANET Routing Protocol.8 TCP means Transmission Control Protocol, an important protocol for TCP/IP protocol Suite.

22


driven (DSDV) measuring the metrics like end to end delay and data dropped rate DSDV

performs better in any network with small number of nodes while DSR/AODV performance

is relatively superior in a network with large number of nodes. (Ade & Tijare, 2010)

Another comparative study (Rahman, Islam & Talevski, 2009) shows similar results as packet

dropping rate for DSR is less than DSDV and AODV indicating its highest efficiency. The

authors simulated only three protocols (AODV, DSR and DSDV) and concluded the best

performing protocols in high mobility is AODV and DSR while DSDV provide better

performance in low mobility with fewer nodes in the network. High mobility responses with

link failure and data overhead while updating all nodes with available routing information

which can be found much more in DSDV than AODV and DSR. A general conclusion can

be reached while observing the application oriented metrics like packet delivery fraction and

delay, Performance of DSR is much better than DSDV and AODV and also the routing load

is low in DSR than the other two protocols. (Rahman, Islam & Talevski, 2009)

In 1999 a review was published by Royer and Toh (1999) concerning various routing

protocols and their performance and uses in Mobile ad hoc network. The review provides

information about protocols and their features. It’s also included algorithm used by those

protocols and advantages and disadvantages of each protocols. The authors stated in the

paper as each and every protocols has their own characteristics and features for different

scenario and each protocol can perform well in their most suited scenario, The author

conclusion are as follow,

“Finally, we have identified possible applications and challenges facing ad hoc mobile

wireless networks. While it is not clear that any particular algorithm or class of algorithm is

the best for all scenarios, each protocol has definite advantages and disadvantages, and is

well suited for certain situations”. (Royer & Toh, 1999)

In a study of MANET protocols in 2003 a group of researcher (Zaballos, Vallejo, Corral,

Abella, 2003) point out few key performance issue of four different routing protocols

(AODV, OLSR, DSR, TORA) At a first glance, the results indicates that proactive protocols

initiate a minor delay in the network, as their route discovery is on demand. However, due

to the fact that they constantly try to explore new routes to all feasible destinations, packet

overhead in routing is high. In contrast, reactive protocols do not retain vacant routes and

look for new routes when necessary. This process increases the delay suffered by packets,

because they are in the buffer queue waiting to be transmitted. Usually they produce fewer

control traffic than the proactive routing protocols.

23


The study also suggested OLSR9 performance varies in term of high mobility with large

number of nodes interacts in the network. Firstly is it so unlikely that OSLR would be able to

discover the routes quickly, so the coverage time increases. Secondly it continuously

searches the routes for all probable destinations in the network and causes high control

traffic. Finally OLSR is recommended in an environment with low mobility and small number

of nodes to get the best result out of it. But in terms of other protocols such as AODV the

study indicates that these protocols can provide best all around performance and also its

development over DSDV and DSR protocols will make it a highly resourceful and adaptive

protocols to apply in MANET. Similarly DSR performs in high data load scenario but causes

relatively high delay while network size increased. In such environment, route length

become longer and increase the size of packet length constantly which results the uses of

this protocols to be restricted to small and medium wireless network. But in Temporally

Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) the main advantage is that it can generate multiple

alternate routes to destination, which is supported in multicast environment. But in some

Wireless ad hoc network cases TORA10 is vulnerable to crumple in the network, which will

results a protocol collapse. Notably the simulation results suggested that TORA

performance is worse because it produce large number of traffic which indicates it is not

one of the recommended protocols where critical level of performance ensures network

efficiency. But the results also suggests that in a network with large number of nodes

involves TORA does not underperform and could minimize network delay. (Zaballos,

Vallejo, Corral, Abella, 2003)

According to a recent study (Lol, 2008) by one of the graduate student from the Auckland

University of Technology New Zealand shows some rather improved results of four MANET

routing protocols (AODV, DSR, OLSR, TORA), the research suggested that in highly

demanding environment with medium number of nodes AODV perform well but when the

mobility get higher this protocol may not able to survive the pressure. Likewise the

simulation results indicate that TORA can be an option to implement in small network when

mobility is high and in medium size network with high mobility and traffic load. (Lol, 2008)

In most network in term of size where mobility is rather low, OLSR adopt really well in most

of the cases, the type of data traffic used is vital for this kind of positive results. The study

(LOL, 2010) also point out that OLSR performs exceptionally well with CBR11 traffic, which

is the only traffic used by the author to simulate OLSR. Finally the author concluded that for

small network DSR might be the best option, AODV can be the option for medium network

and for large number of node involvement TORA can be the winning protocols, while OLSR

9 Optimized Link State Protocol, A MANET Link State protocol 10 Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm, A MANET Routing Protocol11 Constant Bit Rate or CBR traffic

24


predominantly the best routing protocols for any network in term of size, traffic load and

mobility, but in some cases OLSR underperform due to mobility and traffic load.

So while reviewing the above study (Lol, 2008) results a final solution can be reached that

within a small network with high mobility DSR and OLSR loose performance while TORA

and AODV gain reliability, but it react opposite while number of node decreased. So overall

the best protocols for all size of networks still need to developed or redeveloped.

Summery

In this chapter in depth literature review is provided. A initial overview of MANET and

Protocols are also discussed. In the next chapter detail routing algorithm will be discussed.

25


ThreeIII. Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network

In the previous chapter an overview about MANET routing provided with an in depth

literature research has been carried out to achieve common understanding about similar

research done by different student and researcher. This chapter focused on more detail

understanding about MANET routing algorithm and a selection protocol mechanism will be

discussed which later will be used as a experimental protocols for this research.

III.1Routing in MANET

One of the core concepts in networking is routing no matter the network is wireless, wired

or other architecture. A number of protocols were designed for MANET in last decades to

cope with network challenges in MANET and some of them were really popular and

extensively used for MANET. Distance Vector routing and Link state routing are both

dynamic routing widely used in wired network. These algorithm is used to design MANET

routing protocols, this two are described in below in detail with the MANET associated

protocols.

III.1.1 Distance Vector Routing Algorithm

Distance Vector routing algorithm is on e of the core routing algorithm used in both wired

and wireless network based on classical Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. Distance Vector

uses a vector to store the routing information for its neighbour. The router passes distance

information with its neighbour in regular interval to update the routing table. These distance

determined by the actual hop number between each node as well as queue length and

delay occurred in the transmission. This algorithm always tries to use the shortest path if

there is a number of routes involves between two nodes. One of the main disadvantages of

this algorithm is the coverage is low which leads to a “count to infinity” problem. (Liu &

Kaiser, nd). The most well known protocol which uses distance vector algorithm is Ad-hoc

On-demand Distance Vector designed for MANET which is an updated version of DSDV

protocol. (Liu & Kaiser, nd)

26


III.1.1.1 Routing Mechanism in AODV

AODV uses DSDV mechanism for routing and consists of few key contents in the routing

algorithm, detail of these algorithm are listed below,

Sequence Number

A sequence number is used to eliminate expired route information from the network. It also

helps to avoid the loop problem for distance vector protocols. A sequence number is stored

in the routing table for each destination the node keep for possible route. If one node

receive a greater sequence number than it has stored in its routing table it’s automatically

update the sequence number to the greater one. A host node can always change a

sequence number if it finds a new destination route for the same destination. One node can

always keep its own sequence number which must be updated before the host broadcast

the Route Request message or when the host passes a route reply message replying the

RREQ. The sequence number is must be an unassigned integer number so that a possible

rollover can happen. (Liu & Kaiser, nd)

Route Request

In AODV, when a host node try to send a message to another node but there is no route

information available which leads to a Route Discovery operation. In Route discovery

operation the host node will broadcast a RREQ message to its neighbours, which includes

source destination address and broadcast ID, a unique identifier. It also contains up to date

sequence number of the routes. As shown in the figure 3 there are five nodes involved in

this example A, B, C, D and E. In the figure node a wants to sends a message to node C

but does not have the route to node C, so node A generate a RREQ and broadcast to its

neighbour node B and D. Node B and D receive the RREQ and updates its routing table if

the sequence number new or greater than the number it has have in its table and the route

is known. From the figure it can be said that the RREQ message contains both source and

destination number, also have a ID and lifespan which is 3. So both neighbours node B and

D gets the RREQ but only B has the route to the destination to C, so B will generate a

Route Reply message for A includes the route hop count and will create a RREQ for node

to have a possible route to its destination if these route not even known by node B. On

other hand the other neighbour node D which is not in range to the destination can try to

get an alternative through broadcasting a RREQ to node E. In the figure 4 a detail Route

Reply operation is discussed.

27


Figure 3: “Route Request” (RREQ) Mechanism in AODV

Route Reply

From the above figure 3 it can be said that node A finds an active route to node C through

node B. When node B sends a RREP to node A it’s also sends RREQ to node C to get the

route. In AODV all the route information is kept on the route table in a vector. So when

node C receives a route request from node B as seen in figure 4 below, it will update its

own route table with path to node A via node B. It also generates a route reply for node B to

let the node know that a route path is discovered to node A which will enable an active

connection. From the figure 4 it can be seen the RREP message format which includes

source node, destination node, hope count and ID. On the other hand node D finds out that

the route to node C is not reachable from this node so node D just rebroadcast the

message to its neighbour node E. This whole operation establishes an active connection

between node A and C. (C. Liu & J. Kaiser)

28


Figure 4: “Route Reply” (RREP) technique in AODV

Route Error

In AODV, node uses Hello message to get touch with its neighbours. In regular interval

each node broadcast a hello message to notify the neighbour its existence. If there is a

problem in connection or disconnection occurs the nodes generate a Route Error message

and will broadcast it to let the neighbour know about the connection problem. From the

figure 5 it can be seen that node B want to send a message to node C but there is no active

connection, and gets a Route Error (RERR) message from node C which indicates a

possible connection failure between two nodes. This connection failure can be repaired

using another techniques called local repair, which is a distinctive feature of AODV

algorithm. (C. Liu & J. Kaiser)

29


Figure 5: “Route Error (RERR)” mechanism in AODV

Local Repair

Local repair is a type of routing operation when link with other nodes broken and the host

node need to repair it if the target node nearest hope as specified in the route table. The

host node tries to repair it generating RREQ message with an increased sequence number

and broadcast the message to the destination host. TTL and IP header need to be

measured because the repair operation must not extent through the whole network. During

the process of repair after sending RREQ to the target the host node waits until it gets the

RREP message from the target node if no respond received with certain amount of time it

will update its routing table with the value invalid or it will update the hop count after

receiving the reply. Sometime the hop count is greater than it’s already been in the routing

table than a new RERR with that hop count will be broadcasted. This link repair process

always considered as proactive repairing where target node route is unavailable before

data can be sent locally.

Use of “Hello” message in AODV

“Hello” message is a well known approach with the distance vector routing algorithm.

AODV uses Hello message to get update from the neighbour about the route in specific

time interval. Every time a node broadcast a HELLO message for the neighbour so that the

neighbour will the topology the host node are at the moment with detail route update.

30


Multicast Routing

Multicast routing also supported in AODV which makes it a versatile protocol for MANET.

Multicast routing concept includes the routing where the IP addresses a sequence numbers

are kept. It can also record the hop count and leader IP addresses. RREQ messages are

used to link with multicast groups in the network and RREP messages are used to make

respond by the nodes. In multicast routing a source node can receive a number of RREP

from different nodes in the network but the source node will choose the shortest path route

to the destination via using a number of node within the route. In a multicast group tree an

MACT (Multicast ACTvation) message used to send activation link into the branch.

Sometimes there are no RREP received by source which anticipates that there are no

active nodes connected in the multicast tree. A multicast RREP consists of IP address,

group leader and hop count of the neighbouring nodes. When group node get RREP

messages from two different group leaders which involves a tree connection between two

trees. Within connected in a multicast group a member can leave the group tree anytime

but it has to generate a MACT o for the branch it belongs, otherwise it has to continue

serving as a group member.

III.1.1.2 Advantages of AODV

The most significant advantage of AODV that it supports both Unicast and Multicast routing

mechanism. Other advantages are it uses flat routing techniques which are not belonging to

any central control process to manage routing. AODV is a reactive protocol which can

reduce significant number of traffic flow and manage to discover new route. Additionally the

size of the control message is relative smaller, because if routing table has available

information about the route to destination, there is no need to create any new control

message to discover the route. In multicast routing AODV uses shortest path first

techniques which can reduce transmission delay. RREQ and RREP messages are used to

discover route which can control the number of overhead transmitted through network.

(Huhtonen, 2004)

AODV respond promptly when topology changes in a network, using RERR messages it

will update the route table only for the specific nodes which were involved in topology

change. On the other hand Hello messages which are used to maintain active routes

generate limited overhead for unnecessary traffic. One of the advantages of traditional

Distance vector algorithm is that it supports LOOP FREE technique to tackle “Count to

Infinity” issue. Sequence number is used to support LOOP FREE techniques.

31


AODV reacts relatively quickly to the topological changes in the network and updating only

the hosts that may be affected by the change, using the RRER message. The Hello

messages, which are responsible for the route maintenance, are also limited so that they

do not create unnecessary overhead in the network. The AODV protocol is a loop free and

avoids the counting to infinity problem, which were typical to the classical distance vector

routing protocols, by the use of the sequence numbers. (Huhtonen, 2004)

III.1.2 Link State Routing Algorithm

Link State routing uses Dijkstra’s algorithm, which uses different metrics to calculate the

route information. Notification messages were sent by each router to the other routers in

the network with updated link and topology information. When a router receives a

notification messages from a router it will update routes with the new topology information.

This is how a router will be keep updated about the whole network scenario. Different

metrics are used to compare the route information for example, number of hops, link speed

and traffic congestion. Link State routing uses Shortest Path technique to transmit data

messages. Optimize Link State Routing (OLSR) one of the popular Link State algorithm

based protocol.

III.1.2.1 Multipath Relay mechanism in OLSR

Optimized Link State Routing protocol is designed for MANET, which will easily adopted

with MANET for its behaviour to eliminate unnecessary control message and maintain small

number of overhead flowing control message. OLSR uses Link State algorithm which

maintain updated route information so whenever needed route is available to transmit data

immediately. OLSR is optimized with an adaptation feature for the MANET routing.

(Munaretto, Badis et al, nd)

OLSR constantly maintain the link information of the whole network and update the routing

table, this can cause a large number of overhead traffic throughout the network. This

reduce the control messages OLSR use Multi Path Relay technique, in MPR within the

network a small number of MPR nodes are chosen to maintain link traffic in the network.

That means it create a MPR network within a set proximity to reach the nearest proximity.

Application used in OLSR is designed to reduce long delay during transmission of packets.

In the small network proximity OLSR tries to obtain low number of MPR sets as possible

which will maintain low route traffic. But one disadvantage of this protocol is it tries to keep

updated routing table for the whole network, which is both similar for small or large network,

but when the number of nodes increases the overhead of control messages goes up.

(Ade & Tijare, 2010)

32


An illustration of Multipath Relay in OLSR shown in Figure 6 below,

Figure 6: An Illustration of Multipath Relay (MPR) in OLSR

III.1.2.2 Advantages to OLSR

One of the main advantages of OLSR is its added reactiveness feature; it can be

customised optimizing the time interval for broadcasting the HELLO messages. It is also

suitable for MANET rapid changes of source and destination pairs.

Other advantage of unlike AODV it is not necessary for OLSR to carry out a route discovery

operation for the original data transmission. So OSLR need not loose extra bandwidth for

on demand route discovery operation. But one drawback of OLSR its continues bandwidth

uses while transmitting the link information. (Huhtonen, 2004)

Other advantages of OSLR are the link route is always available in the routing table while

AODV discover the route on demand. It will maintain a constant quality of routes, which can

extend the QoS feature for overhead. (Huhtonen, 2004)

33


.

III.1.3 Source Routing Algorithm

Source routing uses transmission data to maintain route information, each node uses the

original message header to send the route data to other nodes. A node receiving any route

request will add its own source address to the responding route reply and forward the

packet to the originating node. So in that way the source node gets up to date route

information for its routing table. In this algorithm also helps to reduce the loop by identifying

the packet header. DSR is one of the well known Source Routing protocol.

III.1.3.1 Route discovery in DSR

When DSR receives any data packets, it checks the route table for available routes, if

routes found it will add routes to the header of data packets to transfer the data. If not it will

release route request messages for discovery operation. The RREQ messages received by

all nodes will check their own route table and later will concentrates on partial routes. Then

will send a RREP messages with route addresses to the reverse path. (Yui & Li, nd)

A diagram showing Route Discovery in DSR shown in Figure 7 below,

Figure 7: Route Discovery in Dynamic Source Routing

III.1.3.2 Route Maintenance in DSR

In DSR route maintenance is one of the important operation, it will send successful packet

information about the available routes. Successful data packets are needed to check if its

reaches to the destination. Otherwise it will unicast packets to neighour nodes with address

specified. Failed packets can cause a Route Error message sent to the source node and

the destination node will update the route table as the source is information is invalid. (Yui &

Li, nd)

34


An illustration of Route Maintenance is DSR shown figure 8 below,

Figure 8: Route Maintenance in Dynamic Source Routing

SummaryThis chapter concentrates on detail routing algorithm of MANET protocols. Some figure will

help to understand the routing approaches. The next chapter will elaborates research

methodology for this research.

35


FourIV. Research Methodology

In the previous chapter a detail routing techniques for MANET were discussed and some

examples were presented. In this chapter the methodology which will be used to carry out

the research will be the main focus. A number of simulator and its main characteristics will

be observed. This chapter is divided into 3 sections, in the first section research

methodology will be discussed, a number of simulation models will be shown in section 2

and in the third section a justification of using such methodology will be discussed.

IV.1Methodology used in Research

Research are categorised in differently depends on what kind of research or the topic area

or the environment. There are two type of basic methodology for theoretical research,

quantitative and qualitative. But in terms of network design and implementation different

research model is proposed and used by different researchers.

A methodology in the research is determines the type of data collected or the type of data

collected by using any method, and those data can be presented as a evidence of

assumptions or justification for certain research outcome.

In computer science or scientific research a simulation based methodology is used to carry

out research objectives as to collect different type of data to analyse and provide solution.

Simulation based research are very popular in Computer Network, Electrical Engineering

and Telecommunication research.

A Simulation is actually imitation of certain real life objects to get perfect understanding

about any particular system or process.

In Computer Network Science a number of Simulation Based research model is available

for researchers, students, commercial professionals and other independent bodies. These

simulation engine is varies in different event and environment. One of the popular

simulations for networks is OPNET (Optimized Network Engineering Tools) Modeller which

is widely used by different organisations and educational bodies. But the most popular

simulator is called NS2 (Network Simulator) or new release NS3 which is a Discrete Event

Simulator, fully open source based on Linux kernel platform, also can be used in windows

36


using different modules. Other notable simulators are GloMoSim also a DES Open Source,

QualNet, OmNet++. Most of these simulators are developed with C++ or C so C++ compiler

is necessary runs the modules integrated in these highly effective programs.

A number of well known simulation engine is listed in the table below

Table 4.1: List of Different Network Simulators and their Functions

Simulator Commercial

/Open Source

Educational

Support

Simulation

Type

Protocol Supported

OPNET Commercial Yes DES, Object

Oriented

ATM, MANET, FDDI,

WiFi, TCP, Wireless

etc

GloMoSim Open Source Yes Library Based

Parallel

Wireless Network

QualNet Commercial No Distributed and

Parallel

Wired, Wireless,

WLAN etc

OmNet++ Open Source Yes DES Modular

Component

Based

Wireless Network

NS-3 Open Source YES DES, Object

Driven

Multicast routing,

TCP, MANET,

Wireless etc

IV.2Simulator used in Research

In this research computer simulation technique is used to measure the performance of

MANET protocols. Computer simulation can provide real life protocol performance results

by analysing those results with few assumption one can validate performance comparison.

Computer simulation has variety of processes and models to carry out simulation for

different protocols and technology. In the table chart above five most widely used

simulation engine were listed with their functionalities and support area. The most popular

simulator above all NS2 which is replaced by newly release NS3 a Linux based Discrete

Event Simulation engine developed with C++ and available with open source

documentation. It supports most of the network and communication protocols and object

37


driven functionality makes it a versatile network R&D engine. The other most used

simulator is OPNET (Optimized Network Engineering Tools) is another Discrete Event

Simulator with object oriented functionalities. Between NS2 or NS3 and OPNET

consideration can made because these two simulators was commonly used to simulate

MANET protocols in recent years. Especially for this project OPNET Modeller is selected

for its distinct behavioural characteristics. Justifications to choose OPNET Modeller are as

follow,

IV.3Justification for using OPNET Simulation

To choose between OPNET and NS3 was a difficult procedure, a number of proven

functionalities were taken into account while choosing the simulator, firstly OPNET supports

most of the effective MANET protocols, it’s a DES based simulator which supports parallel

processing. OPNET has number of core element with huge amount of documentation

available for general purpose uses. Core component includes Model Library, Model

Documentation and tutorials. OPNET is commercial network R&D system which can be

integrated with various event -driven models available in its library. But network modelling

in OPNET sometimes expensive than other simulator which open source and available free

of cost functioning similar process. But OPNET uses Windows platform and it has user

friendly graphical user interface with a number of supported protocols.

Installation of OPNET is fairly easy with the C++ compiler is integrated in newly released

version 16.0 which will be used in the simulation. Most the universities get OPNET

education release free of cost and OPNET technologies are encouraging student to use the

simulation for their research purpose.

Summary

In this chapter the concept of computer research methodology were discussed, then a

number of simulator engine is listed in a table. These simulators later described and a

simulation engine is chosen to carry out the research. OPNET Modeller 16.0 is chosen to

use to simulate the protocols AODV, DSR and OLSR. In the next chapter using OPNET a

different network models and simulation will be discussed.

38


FiveV. Network Design and Simulation

In previous chapter the research methodology is discussed with detail of simulation tool is

presented. In this chapter firstly the performance metrics will be discussed and secondly

network model will be presented. The performance metrics are in one part and the network

model with detail scenario and configuration will be discussed in another part.

5.1 Performance Metrics

The performance metrics is used to determine the performance of a routing protocol. These

metrics measure a network performance using standard units. To measure a protocol

performance in a network a number of metrics are used, in this research the selected

metrics are Average Throughput, Average Network Load, End to end delay.

5.1.1 Throughput

Throughput determines the average rate of packets arrived over a transmission channel

and the unit it’s measured in bit per second (bits/second). It’s also measures the efficiency

and effectiveness of the protocol performance and determines the network performance

from one node to destination. It’s also analyzed the quality of route and the capacity of

routing algorithm over network load.

5.1.2 Network Load

Network load is the routing loads which can be define as the number of routing traffic is

being transmitted over the number of data packet transmitted from a source to its

destination. It also determines the numbers of overhead packet are being transmitted

through the network. In other words the traffic overhead is the number of control message

transmitted to destination. Network load is measured with bits/sec unit.

39


5.1.3 Delay

The delay can be measured in different ways; firstly the duration a packets spends at the

queue during transmission. It also determines the buffer time and propagation time delay.

Delay can be categorised as the network efficiency while using maximum resources by a

network protocol.

5.2 Simulation Environment

The simulation is carried out using Discrete Event Simulation (DES) tools called OPNET

Modeller 16.0, which already discussed in the research methodology chapter (Chapter 4).

The simulation is divided into 6 scenario based on network sizes on three MANET protocols

AODV, OLSR and DSR, the first three scenario consisting 15 nodes with random mobility

and high network load, and the remaining three scenario consisting 30 nodes with the same

configuration.

5.2.1 Network design & Simulation Model

Two types network model shown in figure 6 and 7 consisting 15 and 30 nodes respectively.

More detail is provided later parts in this chapter.

Figure 9: Simulation Model with 15 nodes in OPNET 16.0

40


Figure 10: Simulation Model with 30 nodes in OPNET 16.0

As shown in the figure 9 and 10 examples network models were presented with 15 and 30

wireless LAN nodes, Application Configuration, Profile Configuration, Mobility Configuration

and a Wireless LAN server. In each scenario these objects were configured with the

protocols used in the scenario.

Simulation model consists of 5 different types of objects as detailed below,

Node Model: Node model consists of 15 Wireless LAN advanced node which are

configured with each protocols used in the experiments. A node is a simple

wireless device which also acts as a router in MANET. A node model architecture

is shown on figure 11 below,

41


Figure 11: Node Model Architecture

Application Configuration: Application configuration used to set number of

application used in the network with set of data packet type, FTP is used as default

data packet type in the simulation for data traffic.

Profile Configuration: Profile Configuration determines the creating a profile for

the application created in the application configuration. For example FTP

application is created in application configuration for data type used as traffic, so an

ftp profile is created in the profile configuration for that application.

Mobility Configuration: Mobility configuration determines the mobility constrains

of the network, in this project default mobility was set to random mobility way point.

Screenshots are provided in the appendix section.

Wireless LAN Server: Wireless LAN server the only server which is configured

with each protocol used and with FTP data packets for transmission. This server

42


serves all the nodes in the network involving a number of configurations. A

screenshot is provided in the appendix section for detail.

5.2.2 Performance Parameter

A number of parameter for network simulation model is listed below shown in different

tables,

Table 5.1: Common Parameter used in simulation

Parameter Value

Area 1000 x 1000 sq meter

Network size 15 & 30

Data Rate 11 Mbps

Mobility Model Random Waypoint

Network Interface Type Wireless Physical Layer

Link Layer Type Data Link layer

Large packet processing Fragment

Wireless LAN IEEE 802.11e capable

Data type FTP

Simulation Time 1800 Seconds

Mobility speed 10 m/s

Table 5.2: Protocol Parameter for AODV

Parameter Values

Route Request retries (Route discovery) 5

Route request rate limit (pkt/sec) 10

Hello interval (second) (uniform) (1,11)

Route error rate limit (pkt/sec) 10

Time out buffer 2

Node traversal time (sec) 0.04 sec

Net diameter 35

Allowed hello loss 2

Active route time out 3

Local repair Enabled

43


Table 5.3: Protocol parameter for OLSR and DSR

OLSR DSR

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Willingness

Hello interval (Sec)

TC interval (sec)

Neighbour hold time (sec)

Topology hold time (sec)

Duplicate message hold time (sec)

default

2.0

5.0

6.0

15.0

30.0

Request Table size (node)

Maximum Request table identifier

Maximum request period (sec)

Initial request period (sec)

Non propagation request timer (sec)

Gratuitous route reply timer (sec)

Maximum buffer size (pkt)

Maintenance Hold off time (sec)

Maximum maintenance retransmission

Maintenance acknowledgement

64

16

10

0.5

0.03

1

50

0.25

2

0.5

5.3 List of Scenarios

A number of scenarios were created and simulated for this project, but only a list of 6

successful scenarios is presented in the paper, each scenario consists of few different

experiments in term of protocols versus performance metric. These scenarios are shown in

a table below,

Table 5.4: List of Scenario involves in the simulation

Scenario Description

01

In this scenario the protocol employed was AODV with 15 nodes and 1800 seconds of simulation time. The maximum range was 1000 x 1000 meters with random mobility configured. The ftp traffic load was set in High Load. Three performance metrics Throughput, Load and Delay were set for the results to compare the performance.

02This scenario involving DSR having 15 nodes with 1800 seconds of simulation time. The range is the same as AODV as the load is high. Performance is measured with WLAN Throughput, Load and Delay.

03The only difference in scenario 3 is the protocol used is OLSR, so the network is configured as with OLSR parameter. Earlier these parameters were discussed in a form of table in this chapter.

44


04

Scenario 4 involves AODV again but with changed configuration, where the network size increased but the simulation time is less now which is 30 nodes and 900 seconds respectively. The performance parameter is same as previous scenario. In this scenario more advanced network configuration is used to cope with the bigger size of the network.

05Same configuration used in this scenario with different protocol DSR used as main routing mechanism. All other values are same as scenario 4.

06In this scenario the default protocol used for routing is OLSR, so the configuration needs to change to cope with OLSR protocols.

Summery

In this chapter detail about the simulation environment is provided in form of detail writing,

figures and tables. This chapter is one of the key chapters in this project as it’s the start

point of the main practical experiments which will follow in the next chapter.

45


SixVI. Analyse and Compare Results

In the previous chapter a detail simulation setup were presented with full detail of

parameter used and list of scenario shown in the chart. In this chapter all results from the

simulation will be analysed and comparative performance evaluation will be carried out.

This chapter is divided into three different section with section 1 involves scenario 1, 2 & 3

scenario 4, 5 & 6 in section 2 and comparative analysis of all scenarios in section 3.

VI.1 Simulation Results for small network

The simulation results were collected from the simulation engine OPNET 16.0, all the

results are obtained as graphs and data which need to be analysed with accurate

description to have in depth understanding about the performance. The results are

presented in term of each scenario simulated in OPNET. Simulation Time is abbreviated as

ST in the results section. In the small network section each protocol were experimented

with 15 mobile nodes and simulation process runs 1800 seconds of simulation time.

Duplicate scenarios were used to set up each protocol. Results are collected after the

simulation will be analysed in this chapter.

VI.1.1 Scenario 01 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

In the graph below shows the average throughput, Delay and load of the network where

AODV is used as protocol, in the graph three different graph is shown for each metrics,

In the figure 12 the Y axis is stands for delay (sec), load (bits/sec) and throughput (bits/sec)

rates and the X axis represents duration (minutes) of the simulation.

46


Figure 12: AODV (15 node) results (Average Delay, Load and Throughput)

As shown in the above graph the AODV protocol get good results as the delay started from

just below 0.015 seconds decrease gradually and till the end of the simulation, the average

delay is just 0.02 seconds. On the other hand network Load started from 600,000 bits/sec

but decline steadily to a rate of 100,000 which is the average Load AODV protocol. And the

throughput starts from high at over 600,000 and finished at near 50,000 bits/sec which can

be said as constant 70,000 in average. Detail data were presented in the table below,

Table 6.1: Scenario 01 (AODV, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 01

Performance Metrics Start at Finish at Results (Average)

Throughput (bits/sec) 620,000 50,000 70,000

Delay (sec) 0.013 0.01 0.002

Load (bits/sec) 600,000 40,000 50,000

47


VI.1.2 Scenario 02 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

The next graph shows the results of DSR protocols throughput, Load and Delay in figure

consisting of three different graphs. Scenario 02 involving DSR protocol with 15 nodes in

the network, the Simulation Time is set to be 1800 sec with high load traffic.

Figure 13: DSR (15 node) results (Average Delay, Load and Throughput)

In the graph above its can be said for when using DSR in the network results indicate high

rate of throughput about 600,00 bits/sec at the start of the simulation but decreases as time

passes and reach the average at about 70,000 bits/sec. On the other hand Network Load is

quite similar as throughput as seen in the graph but same result happens as it decreases

average level of 50,000 bits/sec at the end of the simulation. At the start the Delay was at

0.026 sec but get average about 0.08 sec at the end of the simulation. DSR gets low

number of delay as time passes at simulation. But results indicate AODV gets lesser rate of

delay than DSR.

48


Table 6.2: Scenario 02 (DSR, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 02

Performance Metrics Started at Finished at Results (Average)

Throughput (bits/sec) >600,000 >50,000 60,000

Delay (sec) 0.026 0.05 0.08

Load (bits/sec) 600,000 40,000 60,000

VI.1.3 Scenario 03 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 15, ST = 1800 seconds)

Scenario 03 involves OLSR with 15 nodes simulated around 1800 seconds to get the

results for the research; the graph below shows the results following a table with detail,

Figure 14: OLSR (15 node) results (Average Load, Delay and Throughput)

From the graph above it can be determined that OLSR get better throughput results than

both AODV and DSR, starts from below 600,000 bits/sec but keep good rate at about

200,000 at the end of the simulation, gets about 250,000 bits/sec in average. Similar

results can be seen for delay and where OLSR achieve an average of below 0.001 sec

delay and 50,000 bits/sec Load comparing to other two the results represents that OLSR

performs better. Detail of the results presented in table below,

49


Table 6.3: Scenario 03 (OLSR, Node = 15 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 03


Throughput (bits/sec) 550,000 150,000 200,000

Delay (sec) 0.015 0.001 <0.001

Load (bits/sec) 450,000 70,000 35,000

VI.2 Comparative Analysis of scenario 01, 02 and 03 (Small Network)

Some overlaid images of single graphs with multiple lines are produces during simulation;

these graphs can be useful to perform comparative analysis for these protocols. These

graphs are presented in different metrics form for example average throughput as shown

below,

VI.2.1 Throughput comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

Average Throughput analysis were done involving MANET protocols AODV, DSR and OLSR

15 nodes respectively, the results are shown in the graph following a table below,

Figure 15: Throughput Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 15 nodes

From the above graph it can be seen that three coloured lines represents throughput of

three protocols, blue colour symbolize AODV, red stands for DSR and OLSR can be seen

50


in colour green. The average throughput of OLSR is far better that the other two protocol as

OLSR uses link state algorithm, while AODV with distance vector and DSR with a

combination of link state and source routing algorithm. OLSR starts with rather low rate of

throughput at the start comparing to other two but keep a good rate till the end as the other

two AODV and DSR loose the throughput rate gradually at a low rate at the end. OLSR

achieve over 200,000 bits/seconds of throughput comparing 70,000 bits/sec and 60,000

bits/sec for AODV and DSR respectively. A table of chart is included below to make the

comparison more constructive,

From the graph the average throughput for OLSR is 200,000 far better than other two

above, so it can be said that OLSR performance is better for small size network with 15

nodes, high load traffic, random mobility and 1800 seconds of simulation time. More detail

analysis will be available at the end of this chapter.

VI.2.2 Delay comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

In the first section of this chapter average delays were presented with other metrics, in this

section only delay will be shown with different protocols (AODV, DSR & OLSR) involved, in

figure 16 these three protocol delays are revealed and analysed,


51


VI.2.3 Load comparison for Scenario 01, 02 & 03

Figure 17: Network Load Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 15 nodes

Table 6.4: Comparison of MANET protocols in term of Average Throughput, Delay and Load

Scenario 01, 02 & 03 (AODV, DSR & OLSR = 15 nodes & ST = 1800 seconds)

Protocol Average Throughput

(bits/sec)Average Delay (Sec) Average Load (bits/sec)

AODV <70,000 >0.002 >50,000

DSR >60,000 <0.008 <60,000

OLSR >200,000 >0.001 <35,000

From the above comparison table it can be anticipated that OLSR has the highest of average throughput and the average delay is less than the other two, OLSR also has lowest number of average Load comparing to other two AODV and DSR. On the other hand between DSR and AODV, AODV transmitted the most number of successful data packets through the network as the throughput is a bit if compare with DSR and AODV has low delay and low amount of network load.

52


VI.3 Simulation Results for Large Network

Further results are collected designing large network adding 30 nodes with each protocol

are configured to set the right parameter. Simulation duration remain same earlier

scenarios which is 1800 sec with high load traffic. The first scenario which is scenario 04

designed with AODV protocol, scenario 05 with DSR protocol and scenario number 06

involves OLSR protocol.

VI.3.1 Scenario 04 (Protocol = AODV, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 18: AODV (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

Figure 18 shows some significant different in performance of AODV when a number of

nodes increased to 30 with high load traffic. The throughput starts at about 1,100,000 and

within 5 minutes of ST it’s gone down to below 500,000 mark. Delay remain quite similar as

previous AODV experiments with 15 nodes, average delay recorded below 0.005 and Load

increases as expected because the number of node increased in the network. The statistics

are listed in table 6.5.

53


Table 6.5: Scenario 04 (AODV, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 04


Throughput (bits/sec) >1,100,000 <400,000 >580,000

Delay (sec) <0.013 <0.002 >0.005

Load (bits/sec) <780,000 >200,000 <420,000

VI.3.2 Scenario 05 (Protocol = DSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 19: DSR (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

In scenario 5 figure 19 indicates more significant changes in DSR with large network size,

the average throughput recorded is just below 270,000 which is much greater than previous

DSR experiments as expected, and also the delay went up a bit caused by network size,

which is 0.017 in average. Average Load collected 220,000 which are quite normal in large

network. In table 6.5 the statistics of DSR scenario 5 experimental shown. The table 6.6

below shows the average throughput, delay and load in a listed way,

54


Table 6.6: Scenario 05 (DSR, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 05


Throughput (bits/sec) <1,200,000 >150,000 <270,000

Delay (sec) <0.046 <0.009 >0.017

Load (bits/sec) >1,056,000 <130,000 >220,000

VI.3.3 Scenario 06 (Protocol = OLSR, Node = 30, ST = 1800 seconds)

Figure 20: OLSR (30 node) results (Delay, Load and Throughput)

In scenario 6 OLSR protocol with 30 (figure 20) node experiments are done. A number of

performance statistics collected and shown in table 6.5. Average throughput recorded over

one millions packet were successfully transmitted through the network which is quite

remarkable results for OLSR, although the network size gets bigger this time. The Average

55


load was 210,000 quite improved load compared with high amount of throughput. And

0.002 seconds of average delay which is standard better performance in protocol delay.

Table 6.6 Shows the statistics collected from OPNET 16.0 as follow,

Table 6.6: Scenario 06 (OLSR, Node = 30 and ST = 1800 seconds) Results

Scenario 06


Throughput (bits/sec) >1,500,000 >850,000 >1,000,000

Delay (sec) <0.012 <0.001 >0.002

Load (bits/sec) <950,000 >160,000 <210,000

VI.4 Comparative Analysis of scenario 04, 05 & 06 (Large Network)

Comparative studies of last 3 scenarios are discussed below representing multiple graphs

and tables. The comparison are shown in terms of the metrics Throughput, delay and Load

for the three different protocols in a single graph with overlaid coloured lines as follow,

VI.4.1 Throughput comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

Figure 21 shows an image with three different coloured lines representing three different

protocols, Blue colour stands for AODV, while DSR represented by red and OLSR carrying

colour green respectively. In this graph throughput comparison is analysed with different

protocols. From the figure it can assume that OLSR get high number of throughput than

AODV and DSR, while AODV get 2nd highest as the DSR get the least number of

throughput comparing to all. OLSR performance gets better when node number increased

and packet loss decreased as large number of successful packet delivered.

56



VI.4.2 Delay comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

In the figure 22 a number of improvements in performance can be seen, OLSR get lesser

delay than other two protocols but AODV gets more delay rate second comparing to DSR

which is a significant improvement for DSR with increased node number. DSR average

delay much better less than AODV.

Figure 22: Delay Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 30 nodes

57


VI.4.3 Load comparison for Scenario 04, 05 & 06

When network size gets bigger most of protocol performance changes, in figure 23 average load can be anticipated, DSR and OLSR gets high number of Load comparing to AODV, where AODV made much improvement reduced its load when network size gets bigger.

In the table 6.7 below shows overall comparison of remaining 3 scenarios in terms of Average Load, throughput and Delay.

Figure 23: Network Load Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR with 30 nodes

Table 6.7: Comparison of MANET protocols in term of Average Throughput, Delay and Load

Scenario 04, 05 & 06 (AODV, DSR & OLSR = 30 nodes & ST = 1800 seconds)

Protocol Average Throughput

(bits/sec)Average Delay (Sec) Average Load (bits/sec)

AODV >230,000 >0.003 <360,000

DSR >260,000 <0.010 <260,000

OLSR >800,000 >0.001 <250,000

58


VI.5 Overall Comparison of Routing Performance

The overall comparison includes the entire project together in a single graph for each

performance metrics. A collection of overlaid figure was collected from OPNET 16.0 which

has multiple coloured lines indicating a simple comparison graph between different metrics

values over specific time period involves three protocols simulated in the process. Three

graphs are presented as a reference of the overall comparison.

Figure 24: Overall scenario of Throughput (MANET performance Comparison)

In the above graph 6 different scenarios is added which makes a comparison graph, from

previous statistics in terms of throughput it can be said that for small network OLSR

performance were best among three protocols, 2nd best performance shown by AODV, in

increased node OLSR performance get even better with high number of throughput. AODV

has done slightly better than DSR.

So it can be anticipated that in small network environment OLSR will perform better with

high throughput, even better in large number of nodes involves.

59


Figure 25: Overall scenario of Delay (MANET performance Comparison)

As per as network delay concern again OLSR gets low delay rates than any other in the

same network, Also AODV gets much less delay than DSR in the network. DSR became

the least performing protocols in terms of delay and throughput.

Figure 26: Overall scenario of Load (MANET performance Comparison)

60


But from figure 26 some improvement in DSR can be seen, when DSR gets less number of

load when increased network environment. But in small network environment DSR still

underperform in term of network Load. On the other hand OLSR performance affected

when it get most number of Load in the comparison scenario with 30 nodes network. Also

AODV underperform in the same large network.

Above all the scenario is clearly judged and a number statistics were provided as evidence

in performance comparison, different size networks were used to compare the same

protocols, a conclusion can be reached as OLSR become the number 1 protocol in both

small and medium sized network. The reason behind OLSR performance is its reactive

protocol which uses Multipath Routing technique. So traffic over can be reduced which can

minimize network load in the network. But in some network where network size get bigger

OLSR can produce problem as the Load is really high as seen in the simulation results.

On the other hand AODV gets good performance review in both small and large network,

distance vector routing algorithm remain one of the most vital protocol suite for routing in

MANET. But in some area AODV get lower results than DSR and OLSR as both of these

protocols can reduce the overhead using different algorithm.

DSR was least performing protocol above all of them in both small and large network

model. But in some cases DSR can reduce Network Load and can perform better.

Summary

In this chapter a number of graphs and statistic charts were presented produce better

performance review. OLSR performance is better as shown from those results. The next

will be the end note of this process where a number of key points will be discussed; also a

future research concept will be shared.

61


SevenV. Conclusion and Future Work

The previous chapter outlines a number of MANET experimental scenarios results which

indicates a performance comparison between three MANET routing protocols (AODV, DSR

and OLSR). In this chapter a summary of the whole project will be included with a future

research proposal will be discussed.

Conclusion

The test results shows for small size network AODV and DSR outperforms compare to

OLSR, the throughput rate is really high of OLSR protocols in small size network of 15

nodes with high ftp traffic.

OLSR achieve a extensive value of performance from this research, OLSR gets better

results in all three performance parameter. Because it is a reactive routing protocol when

using advanced MPR technique to relay the route request, it is found effective in both of the

OLSR scenario in this research. OLSR can identify multiple MPR nodes in a neighbour

network and will use shortest path to the destination choosing from multiple path in the

network.

AODV and DSR also had shown good performance in both small and large network, but

comparing with OLSR these protocols nowhere near to beat the link state algorithm based

protocol. In some cases OLSR performance not up to the standard but in most of the cases

it has great level performance in MANET based network.

AODV and DSR based on Distance vector and Source Routing can perform better in small

network with low load network traffic but in high load traffic they underperform, one of the

reason behind AODV because its proactive nature, periodical HELLO message

transmission which affect on network Load and can produce end to end delay.

Also DSR performance in under the water because DSR uses same kind of technique to

discover route in the network.

62


Future Work

The future research area is based on different AODV OLSR reproduced algorithm, As

AOVD-BR (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector – Backup Route) is the new breed of

AODV algorithm. This new algorithm has integrated back up routing mechanism which can

be compared with alternative route exist in OLSR.

Other research topic can be under developed BATMAN protocol which will replace OLSR in

near future. BATMAN stands for Better Approach to Mobile Ad-hoc Networking is a Linux

kernel 2.6.38 based which is a part of Lurgo-Mesh Project. It uses an intelligence technique

to discover the route. It is still under development will be available to research later on. A

simulation based on Linux platform can be performed which focuses on the performance

and stability will level in challenging Mobile Ad-hoc Network.

63


REFERENCES

1. Lee, S. and Gerla, M. (2000) "AODV-BR: Backup routing in ad hoc networks."

Proceedings of IEEE WCNC 2000, (September) Chicago, pages 1311-1316.

2. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, P. and Qayyum, A. (2002) "Optimized Link State Routing

Protocol", IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-olsr-10.txt.

3. Royer E. and Toh. C., (1999) “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc

Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, April 1999,

pp. 46-55.

4. Das, S. R., Perkins, C. E. and Royer, E. (2000) “Performance comparison of two on-

demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks”. Proceedings of the IEEE InfoCom,

March 2000.

5. Tanenbaum, A. (1998) “Computer Networks”, 4th edition, Prentice Hall.

6. Perkins, C. and Royer, E. (nd) “Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing”,

Technical report, Sun Micro Systems Laboratories, Advanced Development Group,

USA.

7. Vincent D. Park and M. Scott Corson. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm

(TORA) version 1: Functional specification. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-tora-spec-

00.txt, July 2001

8. Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T., and Dutkiewicz, E. (2003) “A review of routing protocols

for mobile ad hoc networks”. Technical report, Telecommunication and Information

Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522; Motorola

Australia Research Centre, 12 Lord St., Botany, NSW 2525, Australia.

9. Broch, J., Maltz, D., Johnson, D., Hu, Y. and Jetcheva, J. (1998) “A performance

comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols”, Proc.

64


MOBICOM, pp - 85-97.

10. Park, V. and Corson, S. (1997) “Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)

Version 1 Functional Specification”, IETF Internet draft.

11. Haas, Z. and Pearlman, M. (1998) “The Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) for ad hoc

networks”, IETF Internet draft, August.

12. Carson, J. (2005) "Introduction to modelling and simulation," presented at the Winter

Simulation Conference, pp. 16-23.

13. Liu, J., Yougu, Y., Nicol, D., Gray, R., Newport, C., Kotz, D. and Perrone, L. (2004)

"Simulation validation using direct execution of wireless ad-hoc routing protocols,"

presented at the 18th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS'04)

pp. 7-16.

14. Huhtonen, A. (2004) Comparing AODV and OLSR Routing Protocols. Helsinki

University of Technology, Telecommunication Software and Multimedia Lab, pp. 3 –

4

15. Giannoulis, S., Antonopoulos, C., Topalis, E. and Koubias, S. (2005) "ZRP versus

DSR and TORA: A comprehensive survey on ZRP performance," presented at the

10th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA

'05), pp. 1-8.

16. Jiang, H., Aceves, G. and California Univ Santa Cruz Dept Of Computer. (2001)

"Performance comparison of three routing protocols for ad hoc networks," presented

at the Tenth International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks,

October, pp. 547–554

17. LOL, W. (2008) “An Investigation of the Impact of Routing Protocols on MANETs

using Simulation Modelling” Master Thesis, School of Computing and Mathematical

Science, Auckland university of Technology. Auckland, New Zealand [Online].

Available at: http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10292/718/5/LolGW_a.pdf

18. Schauman, J. (2002) “Analysis of the Zone Routing Protocol” Technical report,

65

http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10292/718/5/LolGW_a.pdf


December. [Online]. Available at: http://www.netmeister.org/misc/zrp/zrp.pdf

19. Talooki, V and Ziarati, K. (nd) “Performance comparison of routing protocols for

Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, Asia-Pacific conf. on Comm., APCC_06.

20. Webb, J. (2005) “Analysis of packet flows in simulated Ad-hoc networks using

standard network tools” Master’s thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, USA.

[Online]. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.115.7593&rep=rep1&type=pdf

21. Rangarajan, H. (2006) “Robust loop-free on-demand routing in Ad- hoc networks”

PhD Dissertation, (June) University of California, USA. [Online]. Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?


22. Mosko, M. (2004) “Routing in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, PhD dissertation, (June)

University of California, Santa Cruz, USA. [Online]. Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?


23. OPNET Inc, (2006), “OPNET University Program,”, [Online]. Available at:

http://www.opnet.com/university_program/research_with_opnet/ [Accessed:

June 01, 2010]

24. CCNA., (nd) Routing protocols and concepts, CCNA exploration companion guide.

‘‘Introduction to dynamic routing protocols’’. Chapter three pages 148 to 177.

25. Gowrishankar, S., Basavaraju, T., Singh, M. and Sarkar, S. (nd) ‘‘Scenario based

Performance Analysis of AODV and OLSR in Mobile Ad hoc Networks’’, Jadavpur

University, Acharya Institute of Technology India

26. Rahman. M., Islam. M., Talevski. A., (2009) ‘‘Performance Measurement of Various

Routing Protocols in Ad-hoc Network’’. Proceeding the International Multi

Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists IMECS (March 18 – 20, Vol - I)

Hong Kong.

27. Bertocchi, F., Bergamo, P., Mazzini, G. and Zorzi, M. (nd) ‘‘Performance

66

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.5144&rep=rep1&type=pdf






http://www.netmeister.org/misc/zrp/zrp.pdf


Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks’’, DI, University of Ferrara,

Italy.

28. Ade, S. and Tijare, P. (2010) Performance Comparison of AODV, DSDV, OLSR and

DSR Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. International Journal of

Technology and Knowledge Management, Vol – 2 (July - December), pp – 545 –

548

29. Suri, P., Soni, M. and Tomar, P. (2010) Cluster based QoS Routing Protocol for

MANET. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol – 2

(October).

30. University of Texas. (2010) Format Guideline for Doctoral Dissertation and

Dissertation Abstracts. University of Texas Graduate School (September 2010)

31. OPNET Technology, Inc. (2007) How To: Design Mobile Ad –hoc Network and

Protocols. Best Practice Approaches for Accelerating Network R&D, OPNET

Technology Incorporated (January)

32. Hogie, L., Bouvry, P. and Guinand, F. (2006). An Overview of MANET Simulation.

University of Luxemburg.

67


APPENDIX A

Additional Screenshots for chapter 5

Protocol Parameter Screenshot

Figure 27: AODV Parameter

68


Figure 28: DSR Parameter

69


Figure 29: OSLR Parameter

70


Figure 30: Application Attributes

71


Figure 31: Profile Attributes

72

Analyzing MANET Routing Performance Using OPNET Simulation

Documents

dr sahar al

md maruf ilahi

popular subject

global source

ordered routing

link state

link state

zone routing