Ex36918926

Jitender Grover et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 3, Issue 6, Nov-Dec 2013, pp.918-926

RESEARCH ARTICLE

www.ijera.com

OPEN ACCESS

Impact of Connectionless & Connection Oriented Communication
with Variable Transmission Range and Mobility on Routing
Protocols Over Manets
Jitender Grover*, Jony and Jitender**
*(Assistant Professor, Computer Science & Engineering Department M. M. University, Sadopur, Ambala,India)
** (M.Tech Student, Computer Science & Engineering Department M. M. University, Sadopur, Ambala, India)

ABSTRACT
Effective transmission power control is a critical issue in the design and performance of wireless ad hoc
networks. Today, the design of packet radios and protocols for wireless ad hoc networks are primarily based on
common-range transmission control. Connection oriented (TCP) and Connectionless (UDP) transmission also
affects the performance of the networks. In this paper, we have analyzed AODV, DSDV & DSR with varying
transmission range, connection type, number of nodes & different mobility speeds in a collective environment.
We analyzed QoS parameters such as packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, routing overhead and throughput.
The proposed work has been simulated using NS-2.34.
Keywords - MANETs, QoS, Transmission range, TCP, UDP.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a
collection of wireless mobile nodes and connected in
dynamic manner. Nodes forming a temporary & shortlived network without any fixed infrastructure where
all nodes are free to move. Nodes must behave as
routers; take part in discovery and maintenance of
routes for other nodes in the network [1]. The goal of
QoS provisioning is to achieve a more deterministic
network behaviors, so that information carried by the
network can be better delivered and network resources
can be better utilized. The QoS parameters differ from
application to application e.g. in case of multimedia
application bandwidth, jitter and delay are the key
QoS parameters [2].
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is
one of the most widely used end -to-end transport
layer protocol in the Internet today. The TCP ensure
reliable data transfer over unreliable networks. The
TCP is a complex protocol and it performs congestion
and flow control algorithms. The TCP establishes a
connection between two applications and once
connection is established between two applications, it
provides many useful services to the application layer
such as reliable delivery of data packets, end-to-end
connection [3]. On the other hand, User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) is a connectionless protocol. UDP has
less complex mechanism than TCP because there in
no connection establishment phase in UDP. Generally
UDP is used to send less number packets to the
destination like one or two. Packets in UDP do not
follow a fixed path from source to destination so
congestion control in UDP is not very easy. UDP is
less reliable than TCP in the absence of
acknowledgement.
www.ijera.com

Power control affects the performance of the network
layer. A high transmission power increases the
connectivity of the network by increasing the number
of direct links seen by each node but this is at the
expense of reducing network capacity. The type of
power control used can also affects the connectivity
and performance of the network layer. Choosing a
higher transmission power increases the connectivity
of the network. In addition, power control affects the
signalling overhead of routing protocols used in
mobile wireless ad hoc networks. Higher transmission
power decreases the number of forwarding hops
between source-destination pairs, therefore reducing
the signalling load necessary to maintain routes when
nodes are mobile. Existing routing protocols discussed
in the mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) working
group of the IETF [5] are designed to discover routes
using flooding techniques at common-range maximum
transmission power. These protocols are optimized to
minimize the number of hops between source
destination pairs. Modifying existing MANET routing
protocols to promote lower transmission power levels
in order to increase network capacity and potentially
higher throughput seen by applications, is neither a
trivial nor viable solution [6]. For example, lowering
the common transmission power forces MANET
routing protocols to generate a prohibitive amount of
signalling overhead to maintain routes in the presence
of node mobility. Similarly, there is a minimum
transmission power beyond which nodes may become
disconnected from other nodes in the network.
Because of these characteristics MANET routing
protocols do not provide a suitable foundation for
capacity-aware and power-aware routing in emerging
wireless ad hoc networks.
918 | P a g e

II.

RELATED WORK

In [7], authors compared AODV, DSDV and
DSR using NS-2 simulator. It is observed that because
of high mobility speed, frequent link failures occurred
and the overhead in updating all the nodes with new
routing information also increases. AODV performed
best out of all three protocols compared. Evaluation of
four routing protocol DSDV, AODV, TORA and DSR
is done in [8] using NS-2 with varying pause time.
Performance proactive routing protocol DSDV is
poor, indicating that it is not suitable for adhoc
network. DSR on demand use of cache memory
performs better than all the remaining protocols. In
[9], authors analyzed the performance of AODV,
DSDV and DSR with varying pause time and
scalability in the network using NS-2. On the basis of
scalability, for smaller networks DSR performed best
but for bigger networks DSDV outperformed DSR and
AODV. In [10], authors compared the performance of
AODV, DSDV and DSR with varying pause time and
number of connections in the network using NS-2. It
is observed that the DSR and AODV protocol
performed well because of the reactive nature of these
protocols having less routing overhead. The
performance of AODV and DSR routing protocols in
wireless sensor network with varying load by varying
number of sources and mobility speeds on 50 and 100
nodes scenario has been simulated in [11]. Their
results indicate AODV perform better than DSR when
node density and traffic load is low otherwise DSR
delivers good performance. In [12] a simulation based
performance comparison of DSDV and DSR routing
protocols with variation in number of nodes with fixed
transmission range 250m has been analyzed and it has
observed from their results that DSR outperforms
DSDV. The throughput and delay comparison of
AODV, FISHEYE, DYMO and STAR routing
protocols with varying number of nodes has been
simulated in [13]. Their results show that AODV,
DYMO and Bellman ford protocols are having higher
end to end delays than others. A simulation based
performance analysis on AODV, TORA, OLSR and
DSR routing protocols for voice communication
support over hybrid MANETs has been conducted in
[14]. The result shows that overall performance of
OLSR is best as all QoS parameters has favorable
results. The performance of TORA is less than OLSR
and AODV but its performance is better than the
performance of DSR. DSR protocol has minimum
throughput and maximum end-to-end-delay with
highest jitter and all these factors make this protocol
unsuitable for voice transmission. The impact of
mobility with all parameters on DSR and DSDV by
varying mobility speeds and number of nodes with
250m transmission range has been analyzed in [15].
The result shows that DSR outperforms DSDV in all
QoS parameters. The performance of AODV, DSDV
and DSR routing protocols by varying pause time and
mobility speed is analyzed in [16]. The observations
of simulation analysis show that AODV is preferred
www.ijera.com

www.ijera.com

over DSR and DSDV. In [17] impact of scalability on
QoS Parameters such as packet delivery ratio, end to
end delay, routing overhead, throughput and jitter has
been analyzed by varying number of nodes, packet
size, time interval between packets and mobility rates
on AODV,DSR and DSDV has been analyzed.
The performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR
routing protocols in different mobility speeds with
fixed nodes has been analyzed in [18]. After analyzing
in different situations of network, it is observed that
AODV performs better than DSDV and DSR. In [19]
the performance of AODV and DSDV routing
protocols by varying transmission range and
simulation time has been analyzed. It is observed that
the transmission range as a system parameter affects
the overall energy consumption of wireless ad hoc
networks. In [20] the performance comparison of
AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols by varying
number of nodes, pause time, mobility speed and fixed
transmission range 250m has been evaluated. The
result shows that AODV and DSR are proved to be
better than DSDV. In [21] the performance of
transport layer protocols TCP and UDP on AODV,
DSDV, TORA and DSR routing protocols in multicast
environment by varying pause time with 50 nodes
scenario has been simulated. The result indicates that
TCP is not appropriate transport protocol for highly
mobile multi hop networks and UDP is preferred. In
this paper, we have analyzed the impact on certain
QoS parameters by taking variation in transmission
range, mobility and number of nodes on routing
protocols (AODV, DSR and DSDV).The rest of this
paper is organized as follows. Section 2 covers an
overview of routing protocols, Section 3 describes
QoS based performance metrics, Section 4, simulation
analysis and result discussion is presented and Section
5 concludes this paper with discussions.

III.

OVERVIEW OF ZONE ROUTING
PROTOCOLS

Routing protocols for MANETs have been
classified according to the strategies of discovering
and maintaining routes into three classes: proactive,
reactive and Hybrid [22].
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV):
DSDV [23] is a proactive or table-driven routing
protocol. In DSDV, each node maintains a routing
table that has an entry for each destination in the
network. The attributes for each destination are the
next hop ID, hop count metric and a sequence number
which is originated by the destination node. DSDV
uses both periodic and triggered routing updates and
guarantees loop freedom. Upon receiving a route
update packet, each node compares it to the existing
information regarding the route. Routes with old
sequence numbers are simply discarded.
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR): The
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [24] protocol is an
919 | P a g e

on-demand routing protocol based on source routing.
In the source routing technique, a sender determines
the exact sequence of nodes through which to
propagate a packet. The list of intermediate nodes for
routing is explicitly contained in the packet’s header.
In DSR, every mobile node in the network needs to
maintain a route cache where it caches source routes
that it has learned. When a host wants to send a packet
to some other host, it first checks its route cache for a
source route to the destination. In the case a route is
found, the sender uses this route to propagate the
packet. Otherwise the source node initiates the route
discovery process. In route discovery, the source
floods a query packet through the ad-hoc network, and
the reply is returned by either the destination or
another host that can complete the query from its route
cache. Upon reception of a query packet, if a node has
already seen this ID (i.e. it is a duplicate) or if it finds
its own address already recorded in the list, it discards
the copy and stops flooding; otherwise, it appends its
own address to the list and broadcasts the query to its
neighbours. For route maintenance when a route
failure is detected the node detecting the failure sends
an error packet to the source, which then uses the
route discovery protocol to find a new route.
Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing
(AODV): The AODV [25] is a reactive protocol,
which combines both DSR and DSDV characteristics.
AODV borrows the basic route discovery and routemaintenance of DSR as well as hop-by-hop routing,
sequence numbers and beacons of DSDV. When a
source node desires to establish a communication
session, it initiates a route discovery process by
generating a route request (RREQ) message, which
might be replied by the intermediate nodes in the path
to destination or the destination node itself with the
route reply (RREP) message contains the whole path
to destination. Failure of a link can be detected via
hello messages. Failure to receive three consecutive
HELLO messages from a neighbor is taken as an
indication that the link to the neighbor in question is
down.

IV.

QOS BASED PERFORMANCE METRICS

The performance metrics includes the QoS
parameters such as Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR),
Throughput, End to End Delay, Routing Overhead and
Jitter.
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): PDR also known as
the ratio of the data packets delivered to the
destinations to those generated by the CBR sources.
This metric characterizes both the completeness and
correctness of the routing protocol.

www.ijera.com

Average End to End Delay: Average End to End
delay is the average time taken by a data packet to
reach from source node to destination node. It is ratio
of total delay to the number of packets received.
 (CBRrecetime  CBRsenttime)
n

Avg _ End _ to _ End _ Delay 

1
n

 CBRrece
1

Throughput: Throughput is the ratio of total number
of delivered or received data packets to the total
duration of simulation time.
 CBRrece
n

Throughput 

1

simulationtime

Normalized Protocol Overhead/ Routing Load:
Routing Load is the ratio of total number of the
routing packets to the total number of received data
packets at destination.
Routing _ Load 

V.

 RTRPacket
 CBRrece

SIMULATION RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION

The performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR
has been analyzed with varying transmission range,
connection type (TCP, UDP), mobility and number of
nodes. The parameters used for simulation are
summarized in Table 1 and positioning of 75 and 100
nodes is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The
performance metrics comprises of QoS parameters
such as packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, routing
overhead and throughput.
TABLE I.
Simulation Parameters
Parameters
Values
No of Node
75,100
Simulation Time
100 sec
Environment Size
1200x1200
Traffic Type
CBR (Constant Bit
Rate)
Queue Length
50
Source Node
Node 0
Destination Node
Node 7
Mobility Model
Random Waypoint
Antenna Type
Omni Directional
Connection Type
TCP, UDP
Simulator
NS-2.34
Mobility Speed
10,20, 30, 40 ,50 m/s
Transmission Range (in
200, 300 and 400
meters)
Operating System
Linux Enterprise
Edition-5

n

PDR 

 CBRrece
1
n

 CBRsent

*100

1

www.ijera.com

* 100

920 | P a g e


www.ijera.com

Fig 4 Impact of Varying Transmission Range and
Mobility Rate on the Packet Delivery Ratio for 300
Transmission Range with 75 nodes.
Fig 1 Initial Positioning of 75 Nodes

Fig 2 Initial Positioning of 100 Nodes.
A Packet Delivery Ratio
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) of all routing
protocols is shown in Figure 3-5 for 75 nodes and in
Figure 6-8 for 100 nodes. It has been observed that
AODV with TCP & UDP both is having the highest
packet delivery ratio as compared to other protocols
DSR and DSDV. On the other hand DSDV shows
poorest PDR in the simulated environment. Result
shows that as Mobility speed is increasing PDR is
increasing for all the protocols. In most cases
performance of UDP is better than TCP for all three
protocols. DSR with UDP performed best when
transmission range and mobility speed is set to
maximum.

www.ijera.com


921 | P a g e


B End to End delay
End to End delay of all routing protocols is
shown in Figure 9-11 for 75 nodes and in Figure 1214 for 100 nodes. It has been observed that Average
End to End delay of DSDV with TCP & UDP protocol
remains very high for almost all transmission ranges
and mobility speeds in both 75 and 100 nodes
scenario. In AODV with TCP & UDP protocol it is
lower than the other protocols in both 75 and 100 node
scenario. For 75 nodes DSR with TCP protocol shows
high average end to end delay on range 200m. DSR
with TCP & UDP protocol shows low average end to
end delay on all ranges from 200m to 400m. In 100
nodes scenario DSR protocol shows very low average
end to end delay on range 400m in highly mobile
environment. It is observed that Average Delay with
TCP is better than UDP for all the protocols.

Mobility Rate on the Average End to End Delay for
200 Transmission Range with 75 nodes.

www.ijera.com

www.ijera.com




922 | P a g e

C Throughput
Throughput of all routing protocols is shown
in Figure 15-17 for 75 nodes and in Figure 18-20 for
100 nodes. The results analyzed indicate that with
highest mobility and 500m transmission range AODV
with TCP & UDP having the highest average
throughput as compared to DSDV and DSR routing
protocols in both 75 nodes and 100 nodes scenario. It
is analysed that in most cases DSDV performed worst
out of all three protocols compared. Figure 20 shows
that DSR with UDP performed best with maximum
transmission range. In most cases Throughput of
DSDV with UDP is poorest as compared to DSDV
with TCP otherwise in other two protocols
performance with UDP is better than TCP.

www.ijera.com

Mobility Rate on Throughput for 200Transmission
Range with 100 nodes.




www.ijera.com

D Routing Overhead
Routing Overhead of all routing protocols is
shown in Figure 21-23 for 75 nodes and in Figure 2426 for 100 nodes. The results analyzed indicate that in
both 75 nodes and 100 nodes scenario we can see that
DSDV TCP & UDP Protocol has highest routing
overhead unless it uses transmission range more than
400m. DSR is better than DSDV because it is reactive
but shows high routing overhead as compared to
923 | P a g e

AODV. On different protocols the routing overhead
depending on their internal efficiency and thus
protocol efficiency may or may not directly affect data
routing performance. If control and data traffic share
the same channel and the channels capacity is limited,
then excessive control traffic often impacts data
routing performance. Routing overhead in AODV
Protocol is inversely proportional to transmission
range. When the transmission range is highest, routing
overhead is minimum and at lowest transmission
range routing overhead in maximum. In most cases we
can analyse that routing overhead with UDP is lesser
than TCP for AODV and DSDV but not in the case of
DSR.

Mobility Rate on Routing Overhead for 200





VI.

www.ijera.com

www.ijera.com

CONCLUSION

The transmission range, connection type,
mobility and different number of nodes as a system
parameter affects the overall energy consumption and
performance of wireless ad-hoc networks. The
performance of these three routing protocols shows
some differences by varying transmission range,
mobility speed and number of nodes. From our
experimental analysis we conclude that AODV with
TCP & UDP has maximum packet delivery ratio and
maximum throughput and it is directly proportionate
to transmission range. AODV has lesser routing
overhead than DSR and DSDV but average end to end
924 | P a g e

delay is maximum in AODV for both TCP & UDP
which decreases its performance to some extent. DSR
with TCP & UDP is the best protocol as compared to
AODV and DSDV protocols when transmission range
is 500m with highest mobility. DSR with TCP & UDP
has maximum routing overhead except highest or
lowest transmission range. Performance of DSDV is
poor throughout because of its table driven approach
and periodic table exchange. We compare the three
protocols in the analyzed scenario, we found that
overall performance of AODV is better than DSR and
DSDV routing protocols. The performance enhanced
with higher transmission range and higher mobile
environment. It is also analysed that the performance
of connectionless communication (UDP) is better than
connection oriented communication (TCP). Our
results can be used to determine the proper radio
transmission range in different mobility speed
environments for the proactive routing protocol such
as DSDV and reactive routing protocols such as
AODV and DSR in wireless ad hoc networks without
degrading a system performance.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Vijay Kumar1 and Ashwani Kush. “A New
Scheme for Secured on Demand Routing”
IISTE Network and Complex System, Vol 2,
No.2, 2012. ISSN 2224-610X(Paper), 22250603 (Online).
Mr. Rajneesh Gujral, Dr. Anil Kapil “Secure
QoS Enabled OnDemand Link-State
Multipath
Routing
in
MANETS”
Proceeding of BAIP 2010, SPRINGER
LNCS-CCIS, Trivandrum, Kerala, India,
March 26-27, 2010, pp. 250-257.
S.R. Biradar et al. / (IJCSE) International
Journal on Computer Science and
Engineering Vol. 02, No. 03, 2010, 593-599.
World Applied Sciences Journal 20 (7): 910916, 2012 ISSN 1818-4952
MANET. IETF mobile Ad-hoc Network
Working
Group,
MANET.
http://www.ietf.org /html.charters /manet charter.html.
J. Gomez. “Energy-Efficient Routing and
Control Mechanisms for Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks”,
Ph.D.
Thesis,
Columbia
University, NewYork, December 2002.
I.Vijaya and Pinak Bhusan Mishra,
“Influence of Routing Protocols in
Performance of Wireless Mobile Adhoc
Network”, 2011 Second International
Conference on Emerging Applications of
Information Technology, 978-0-7695-43291/11
$26.00
©
2011
IEEE,
DOI:10.1109/EAIT.2011.65.
P. Cheena Reddy and P. ChandraSekhar
Reddy, “Performance Analysis of Adhoc
Network Routing Protocols”, 1-4244-07311/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.

www.ijera.com

www.ijera.com

[9]

Julia Rahman, Md. Al Mehedi Hasan and
Md. Khaled Ben Islam, “Comparative
Analysis the Performance of AODV, DSDV
and DSR Routing Protocols in Wireless
Sensor Network”, 2012 7th International
Conference on Electrical and Computer
Engineering, 20-22 December, 2012, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 978-1-4673-1436-7/12/$31.00
©2012 IEEE
[10] N. Karthikeyan, B. Bharathi and S. Karthik,
“Performance Analysis of the Impact of
Broadcast Mechanisms in AODV, DSR and
DSDV”,
Proceedings
of
the
2013
International
Conference
on
Pattern
Recognition, Informatics and Mobile
Engineering, February 21-22, 978-1-46735845-3/13/$31.00©2013 IEEE.
[11] Vivek Thaper, Bindyia Jain, and Varsha
Sahni, “Performance analysis of ad hoc
routing protocols using random waypoint
mobility model in wireless sensor networks”,
International Journal on Computer Science
and Engineering (IJCSE), August 2011.
[12] Rajeshwar Singh, Dharmendra K Singh and
Lalan Kumar, “Performance Evaluation of
DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for
Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, International
journal of Advanced Networking and
Applications, vol.2 (4),2011, pp.732-737.
[13] Boomarani Malany,A.,Sarma Dhulipala,
V.R.,
and
Chandrasekaran,
RM
,
“Throughput and Delay Comparison of
MANET Routing Protocols” ,International
Journal of Open Problems Compt. Math, vol.
2(3), September 2009.
[14] Rajneesh Kumar Gujral, and Manpreet
“Performance Analysis of Ad hoc Routing
Protocols for Voice Communication Support
over Hybrid MANETs”, International Journal
of Computer Applications(IJCA), vol. 22(3),
May 2011.
[15] Bhavyesh Divecha, Ajith Abraham, Crina
Grosan and Sugata Sanyal, “Impact of Node
Mobility on MANET Routing Protocols
Models”, Journal of Digital Information
Management, vol. 5(1), February 2007.
[16] Anurag Malik, Shivanshu Rastogi and
Sajendra Kumar, “Performance Analysis of
Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network
using NS-2”, MIT International Journal of
Computer
Science
&
Information
Technology Vol. 11, January. 2011, pp. 4750.
[17] Rajneesh Kumar Gujral, Manpreet Singh
"Analyzing the Impact of Scalability on
QoS Aware Routing for MANETs "
International Journal of Computer Science
Issues (IJCSI), vol. 8(3), May 2011, pp no.
487-495.

925 | P a g e

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

www.ijera.com

Anil Kumar Sharma and Neha Bhatia, “
Behavioral Study of MANET Routing
Protocols by using NS-2”, IJCEM
International Journal of Computational
Engineering & Management, vol. 12, April
2011.
Arivubrakan P. and Sarma Dhulipala V.R.,
“QoS Enhancement by varying Transmission
Range in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks”,
International
Journal
of
Computer
Applications (0975 – 8887), vol. 37(9),
January 2012.
Tyagi S.S. and Chauhan R.K., “Performance
Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing
Protocols
for
Ad
hoc
Networks”,
International
Journal
of
Computer
Applications, vol. 1(14), 2010.
Karthiga G., Benitha Christinal J., Jeban
Chandir Moses, “Performance Analysis of
Various Ad hoc Routing Protocols in
Multicast Environment”, IJCST vol. 2(1),
March 2011.
Abolhasan, M., T. Wysocki, and E.
Dutkiewciz, “A review of routing protocols
for mobile ad hoc networks” Elsevier journal
of Ad hoc networks, vol. 12(1), 2004, pp. 122.
David .B Johnson, David. A. Maltz, and Josh
Broch, “ Dynamic Source Routing protocol
for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” In
Ad Hoc Networking, edited by Charles E.
Perkins Addison-Wesley, chapter 5, 2001,
pp. 139-172.
S.R. Das, R. Castaneda, J. Yan, R. Sengupta,
“Comparative Performance Evaluation of
Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc
Networks,” Proceedings of the international
Conference On Computer Communications
and Networks (ICCCN 1998), 1998, pp.153161.
Charles E. Perkins and Parvin Bhagwat,
“Highly dynamic
destination-sequenceddistance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile
computers”, Technical report, IBM Research
and University of Maryland, USA.
David B.
Johnson, David A.
Maltz,
“Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless
Networks”, Computer Science
Department, Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 152133891, dbj@cs.cmu.edu, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1996.
C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc ondemand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”,
in MANET Working Group. IETF, Internet
Draft, draft-ietf-manet-aodv-12.txt, Nov
2002.

www.ijera.com

926 | P a g e

Ex36918926

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Ex36918926 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ex36918926