Performance analysis of aodv with the constraints of varying terrain area and pause time in wireless sensor networks using ns 3 simulator
2 likes202 views
The paper analyzes the performance of the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) under varying terrain areas and pause times using the NS-3 simulator. Key performance metrics such as packet delivery ratio, average end-to-end delay, and throughput were evaluated across different simulation scenarios. Results indicate that AODV performs well in high mobility environments but shows a decline in metrics as terrain size increases.
![Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804)
Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015
71
Performance Analysis of AODV with the constraints of
Varying Terrain Area and Pause Time in Wireless Sensor
Networks using NS-3 Simulator
By
1st
Pramod Sharma, 2nd
Prof. S .K. Sharma, 3rd
Dr. Ravindra Gupta3
1st
Research Scholar, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, Udaipur, India
2nd
Professor, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, Udaipur, India
3rd
Professor, MIT, Bikaner, India
1st
pramodsharma@engineer.com, 2nd
sharmasatyendra_03@rediffmail.com,3rd
rpg2710@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are wireless networks,
where there is no requirement for any infrastructure support to
transfer data packets between mobile nodes. These nodes
communicate in a multi-hop mode; each mobile node acts
both as a host and router. The main job of Quality of Service
(QoS)[1][2] routing in MANETs is to search and establish
routes among different mobile nodes for satisfying QoS
requirements of wireless sensor networks as PDR, Average
end-to-end delay, Average Throughput. The QoS routing
protocols efficient for commercial, real-time and multimedia
applications are in demand for day to day activities[2].
Keywords: MANETs; AODV; PDR; Average Throughput;
Average End to End Delay.
1. INTRODUCTION
MANETs are wireless networks, which do not need
infrastructure support for sending and receiving data packets
between various mobile nodes, it can be an access point or a
base station. Each mobile node acts both as a host as well as a
router. The limitations in conventional wireless networks are
more probable in MANETs due to varying topological
changes, the energy constraint, limitation of bandwidth and
the lack of information for a current network state.
A wide range of applications exist for Ad Hoc networks
among them are distributed computing, disaster recovery,
mobile access Internet, military applications, vehicles
communication, healthcare providers, sensor networks and
multimedia applications are some examples. AODV and DSR
are Reactive Routing Protocols; here we are analyzing
AODV.
2. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Protocol.
Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [3] is a reactive
routing protocol enables dynamic, self-starting. AODV allows
mobile nodes to select routes quickly and respond to link
breakages and changes in the network topology efficiently.
AODV uses destination sequence number for each route entry
and contains four different packets HELLO, Route Request
(RREQ), Route Reply (RREP), and Route Error (RERR).
These control messages (packets) are received via UDP and
IP header processing.
Fig. 1 RREQ propagation of AODV routing protocol.
When source nodes wish to determine a route to a destination
node. It broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet to all its
neighboring nodes with packet id and the destination sequence
number. The RREQ packet is flooded through the network
through the neighboring nodes until it reaches the destination
nodes. Once the destination receives the RREQ, the
destination node reply with RREP packet back through the
source node through the neighboring nodes as updated in the
routing table by each mobile node. The Fig 1 and Fig 2
systematically depict the RREQ and RREP packets
propagation mechanism of AODV routing protocols. Upon
the reception of RREP packet, the source node starts
transmitting data to the destination node with minimal hop
count.
Fig. 2 RREP propagation of AODV routing protocol.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/performanceanalysisofaodvwiththeconstraintsofvaryingterrainareaandpausetimeinwirelesssensornetworksu-151004030719-lva1-app6892/85/Performance-analysis-of-aodv-with-the-constraints-of-varying-terrain-area-and-pause-time-in-wireless-sensor-networks-using-ns-3-simulator-1-320.jpg)
![Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804)
Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015
72
2.1 Performance Metrics
In this paper, the performance matrix includes the following
QoS parameters.[4,5]
2.1.1 Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR):
It is the ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations
to those generated by the CBR sources. The PDR shows the
efficiency of a protocol to deliver packets from source to
destination. The higher value give us better results.
2.1.2 Average End to End Delay:
It is the average time utilized by a data packet to reach from
source to destination node. First total delay is calculated by
subtracting the time taken by the packets from reaching
source to destination. Then we find the ratio of total delay to
the number of packets received.
2.1.3 Throughput:
It is the ratio of total number of data packets delivered or
received to the total duration of simulation time.
2.1.4 Normalized Routing Load: The Normalized Routing
Load is the ratio of all routing control packets send by all
source nodes to a number of received data packets at the
destination nodes.
3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENTS
3.1 Mobility Model
Mobility model describes changes in the stations velocity and
acceleration over time and their movement. Basic parameters
related to node movement are mobility speed, the number of
nodes, sending rate, pause time, the number of connections,
simulation duration. Mobility models can be categorized in
two types group and entity models. The motions of mobile
stations in entity models are independent from each other, but
in group models the movements of stations are dependent on
each other [6].
In our article we chose the Random Waypoint Mobility,
generated by the software Bonn Motion [7]. It is an entity
model. A station in this can select any random velocity and
any random destination. The station begins moving towards
the chosen destination station. After obtaining the destination
station, the station stops for a small amount of time defined by
the “Pause Time” attribute and again the station repeats the
process until the simulation stops.
3.2 Simulation Parameters:
We elaborate the experiments for the evaluation of the
performance of ad hoc routing protocols AODV, with
varying Pause Time and Terrain Area in NS-3[8]. We have 45
simulations run in total out of which 45 trace files are
generated for Random Waypoint Mobility each. We studied
all performance metrics in our simulation under varying Pause
Time (20 Sec to 100 Sec) and Terrain Area
(250x250,500x500, 1000x1000) and while other attributes are
fixed. Table 1 presents the simulation parameters adapted to
our simulation.
Table 1. Simulations parameters
Parameter Value
Simulator NS – 3 .17
Number Of Nodes 100
Simulation Time 100 Sec
Simulation Area 250 X 250 ;500 X 500;
1000X1000
Packet Size 1000 Bytes
Packet Rate 5 packet/sec
Mobility Model Random Way Point Mobility
Model
Routing Protocol AODV
Node Speed 20 m/s
Pause Time 20 Sec,40 Sec,60 Sec,80 Sec,100
Sec
Table 2. PDR for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area
Pause Time(sec)→
Topology ↓
20 40 60 80 100
250 M ˣ 250 M 96 96 96 96 96
500 M ˣ 500 M 97.0 97.0 97.0 96.5 96.5
1000 M × 1000 M 96 95 95 94 94
Fig. 3. PDR for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area.
Table 3. Average throughput for varying Pause Time and
Terrain Area
Pause Time(sec)→
Topology ↓
20 40 60 80 100
250 M x 250 M 4873 4547 4584 4639 4739
500 M x 500 M 4998 4951 4947 4878 4863
1000 M × 1000 M 4410 4403 4408 4405 4401
Fig. 4.Average throughput for varying Pause Time and
Terrain Area .](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/performanceanalysisofaodvwiththeconstraintsofvaryingterrainareaandpausetimeinwirelesssensornetworksu-151004030719-lva1-app6892/85/Performance-analysis-of-aodv-with-the-constraints-of-varying-terrain-area-and-pause-time-in-wireless-sensor-networks-using-ns-3-simulator-2-320.jpg)
![Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804)
Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015
73
Table 4. Average Delay for varying Pause Time and
Terrain Area
PauseTime(sec)→
Topology ↓
2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
250 M ˣ 250 M 0.0258894 0.0260785 0.0258000 0.0257813 0.025880
500 M ˣ 500 M 0.0126093 0.0126199 0.0126172 0.0163440 0.017649
1000 M×1000 M 0.00124358 0.00124223 0.00124151 0.0013455 0.001597
Fig.5. Average Delay for varying Pause Time and
Terrain Area.
4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this paper, the comparison is based upon the different
parameters and performance metrics. We examine that PDF
for small terrain areas is nearly constant and decreases with
larger terrain area. Average throughput for varying Pause
Time and Terrain Area decreases with larger terrain area.
Average Delay for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area for
small terrain areas is nearly constant and decreases with larger
terrain area. In protocol performance, AODV has better
performance in networks with high mobility and size. For real
time traffic AODV is preferred over DSR and DSDV.
5 REFERENCES
[1] Pramod Sharma, Dr.R.P.Gupta, Dr. S.k.Sharma, “Quality
of Service (QoS) Parameters and Challenges in Wireless
Sensor Networks”, Proceedings of International Conference
BICON-13,at Biyani International Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Jaipur, Vol.1, ISBN: 978-93-83343-01-0, pp
264-269, 22 September, 2013.
[2]Adam M. Saad ,Hassan Rosilah , Delay aware Reactive
Routing Protocols for Qos in MANETs : a Review, Journal of Applied
Research and Technology ,Vol 11,issue -6,pp 844-850, 11 Dec , 2013.
[3] C.E. Perkins, E.M. Royer, Ad-hoc on-demand distance
vector routing Second IEEE Workshop (1999), pp. 90–100 in
WMCSA'99.
[4] A. Ade and P. A. Tijare, “Performance Comparison of
AODV, DSDV, OLSR and DSR Routing Protocols in Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Knowl. Manag., vol.
2, no. 2, pp. 545–548, 2010.
[5] R. Kaur, M. T. Student, C. Sharma, and P. D. Candidate,
“Review paper on performance analysis of AODV , DSDV ,
OLSR on the basis of packet delivery,” IOSR-Journal
Comput. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 51–55, 2013.
[6] Valentina Timcenko, Mirjana Stojanovic, Slavica
Bostjancic Rakas (2009), “MANET Routing Protocols vs.
Mobility Models: Performance Analysis and Comparison”,
Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on
Applied Informatics and Communications (AIC '09).
[7] BonnMotion: A mobility scenario generation and analysis
tool, Available at http://sys.cs.uos.de/bonnmotion/
[8] Pramod Sharma, Dr.R.P.Gupta, Dr. S.k.Sharma, “A
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NS-2 AND NS-3”,
International Journal of Scientific Research and Development,
Vol.2, Issue -3, ISSN: 23210613, May 2014.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/performanceanalysisofaodvwiththeconstraintsofvaryingterrainareaandpausetimeinwirelesssensornetworksu-151004030719-lva1-app6892/85/Performance-analysis-of-aodv-with-the-constraints-of-varying-terrain-area-and-pause-time-in-wireless-sensor-networks-using-ns-3-simulator-3-320.jpg)
Performance analysis of aodv with the constraints of varying terrain area and pause time in wireless sensor networks using ns 3 simulator
- 1. Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804) Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015 71 Performance Analysis of AODV with the constraints of Varying Terrain Area and Pause Time in Wireless Sensor Networks using NS-3 Simulator By 1st Pramod Sharma, 2nd Prof. S .K. Sharma, 3rd Dr. Ravindra Gupta3 1st Research Scholar, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, Udaipur, India 2nd Professor, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, Udaipur, India 3rd Professor, MIT, Bikaner, India 1st pramodsharma@engineer.com, 2nd sharmasatyendra_03@rediffmail.com,3rd rpg2710@gmail.com ABSTRACT Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are wireless networks, where there is no requirement for any infrastructure support to transfer data packets between mobile nodes. These nodes communicate in a multi-hop mode; each mobile node acts both as a host and router. The main job of Quality of Service (QoS)[1][2] routing in MANETs is to search and establish routes among different mobile nodes for satisfying QoS requirements of wireless sensor networks as PDR, Average end-to-end delay, Average Throughput. The QoS routing protocols efficient for commercial, real-time and multimedia applications are in demand for day to day activities[2]. Keywords: MANETs; AODV; PDR; Average Throughput; Average End to End Delay. 1. INTRODUCTION MANETs are wireless networks, which do not need infrastructure support for sending and receiving data packets between various mobile nodes, it can be an access point or a base station. Each mobile node acts both as a host as well as a router. The limitations in conventional wireless networks are more probable in MANETs due to varying topological changes, the energy constraint, limitation of bandwidth and the lack of information for a current network state. A wide range of applications exist for Ad Hoc networks among them are distributed computing, disaster recovery, mobile access Internet, military applications, vehicles communication, healthcare providers, sensor networks and multimedia applications are some examples. AODV and DSR are Reactive Routing Protocols; here we are analyzing AODV. 2. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Protocol. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [3] is a reactive routing protocol enables dynamic, self-starting. AODV allows mobile nodes to select routes quickly and respond to link breakages and changes in the network topology efficiently. AODV uses destination sequence number for each route entry and contains four different packets HELLO, Route Request (RREQ), Route Reply (RREP), and Route Error (RERR). These control messages (packets) are received via UDP and IP header processing. Fig. 1 RREQ propagation of AODV routing protocol. When source nodes wish to determine a route to a destination node. It broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet to all its neighboring nodes with packet id and the destination sequence number. The RREQ packet is flooded through the network through the neighboring nodes until it reaches the destination nodes. Once the destination receives the RREQ, the destination node reply with RREP packet back through the source node through the neighboring nodes as updated in the routing table by each mobile node. The Fig 1 and Fig 2 systematically depict the RREQ and RREP packets propagation mechanism of AODV routing protocols. Upon the reception of RREP packet, the source node starts transmitting data to the destination node with minimal hop count. Fig. 2 RREP propagation of AODV routing protocol.
- 2. Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804) Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015 72 2.1 Performance Metrics In this paper, the performance matrix includes the following QoS parameters.[4,5] 2.1.1 Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): It is the ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the CBR sources. The PDR shows the efficiency of a protocol to deliver packets from source to destination. The higher value give us better results. 2.1.2 Average End to End Delay: It is the average time utilized by a data packet to reach from source to destination node. First total delay is calculated by subtracting the time taken by the packets from reaching source to destination. Then we find the ratio of total delay to the number of packets received. 2.1.3 Throughput: It is the ratio of total number of data packets delivered or received to the total duration of simulation time. 2.1.4 Normalized Routing Load: The Normalized Routing Load is the ratio of all routing control packets send by all source nodes to a number of received data packets at the destination nodes. 3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENTS 3.1 Mobility Model Mobility model describes changes in the stations velocity and acceleration over time and their movement. Basic parameters related to node movement are mobility speed, the number of nodes, sending rate, pause time, the number of connections, simulation duration. Mobility models can be categorized in two types group and entity models. The motions of mobile stations in entity models are independent from each other, but in group models the movements of stations are dependent on each other [6]. In our article we chose the Random Waypoint Mobility, generated by the software Bonn Motion [7]. It is an entity model. A station in this can select any random velocity and any random destination. The station begins moving towards the chosen destination station. After obtaining the destination station, the station stops for a small amount of time defined by the “Pause Time” attribute and again the station repeats the process until the simulation stops. 3.2 Simulation Parameters: We elaborate the experiments for the evaluation of the performance of ad hoc routing protocols AODV, with varying Pause Time and Terrain Area in NS-3[8]. We have 45 simulations run in total out of which 45 trace files are generated for Random Waypoint Mobility each. We studied all performance metrics in our simulation under varying Pause Time (20 Sec to 100 Sec) and Terrain Area (250x250,500x500, 1000x1000) and while other attributes are fixed. Table 1 presents the simulation parameters adapted to our simulation. Table 1. Simulations parameters Parameter Value Simulator NS – 3 .17 Number Of Nodes 100 Simulation Time 100 Sec Simulation Area 250 X 250 ;500 X 500; 1000X1000 Packet Size 1000 Bytes Packet Rate 5 packet/sec Mobility Model Random Way Point Mobility Model Routing Protocol AODV Node Speed 20 m/s Pause Time 20 Sec,40 Sec,60 Sec,80 Sec,100 Sec Table 2. PDR for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area Pause Time(sec)→ Topology ↓ 20 40 60 80 100 250 M ˣ 250 M 96 96 96 96 96 500 M ˣ 500 M 97.0 97.0 97.0 96.5 96.5 1000 M × 1000 M 96 95 95 94 94 Fig. 3. PDR for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area. Table 3. Average throughput for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area Pause Time(sec)→ Topology ↓ 20 40 60 80 100 250 M x 250 M 4873 4547 4584 4639 4739 500 M x 500 M 4998 4951 4947 4878 4863 1000 M × 1000 M 4410 4403 4408 4405 4401 Fig. 4.Average throughput for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area .
- 3. Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ISSN: 2347 - 2804) Volume No. 3 Issue No. 3, June 2015 73 Table 4. Average Delay for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area PauseTime(sec)→ Topology ↓ 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 250 M ˣ 250 M 0.0258894 0.0260785 0.0258000 0.0257813 0.025880 500 M ˣ 500 M 0.0126093 0.0126199 0.0126172 0.0163440 0.017649 1000 M×1000 M 0.00124358 0.00124223 0.00124151 0.0013455 0.001597 Fig.5. Average Delay for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area. 4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS In this paper, the comparison is based upon the different parameters and performance metrics. We examine that PDF for small terrain areas is nearly constant and decreases with larger terrain area. Average throughput for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area decreases with larger terrain area. Average Delay for varying Pause Time and Terrain Area for small terrain areas is nearly constant and decreases with larger terrain area. In protocol performance, AODV has better performance in networks with high mobility and size. For real time traffic AODV is preferred over DSR and DSDV. 5 REFERENCES [1] Pramod Sharma, Dr.R.P.Gupta, Dr. S.k.Sharma, “Quality of Service (QoS) Parameters and Challenges in Wireless Sensor Networks”, Proceedings of International Conference BICON-13,at Biyani International Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur, Vol.1, ISBN: 978-93-83343-01-0, pp 264-269, 22 September, 2013. [2]Adam M. Saad ,Hassan Rosilah , Delay aware Reactive Routing Protocols for Qos in MANETs : a Review, Journal of Applied Research and Technology ,Vol 11,issue -6,pp 844-850, 11 Dec , 2013. [3] C.E. Perkins, E.M. Royer, Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing Second IEEE Workshop (1999), pp. 90–100 in WMCSA'99. [4] A. Ade and P. A. Tijare, “Performance Comparison of AODV, DSDV, OLSR and DSR Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Knowl. Manag., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 545–548, 2010. [5] R. Kaur, M. T. Student, C. Sharma, and P. D. Candidate, “Review paper on performance analysis of AODV , DSDV , OLSR on the basis of packet delivery,” IOSR-Journal Comput. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 51–55, 2013. [6] Valentina Timcenko, Mirjana Stojanovic, Slavica Bostjancic Rakas (2009), “MANET Routing Protocols vs. Mobility Models: Performance Analysis and Comparison”, Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications (AIC '09). [7] BonnMotion: A mobility scenario generation and analysis tool, Available at http://sys.cs.uos.de/bonnmotion/ [8] Pramod Sharma, Dr.R.P.Gupta, Dr. S.k.Sharma, “A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NS-2 AND NS-3”, International Journal of Scientific Research and Development, Vol.2, Issue -3, ISSN: 23210613, May 2014.