TRANSMISSION POWER AND QUALITY OF SERVICE IN MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN), Vol.14, No.4, August 2022
DOI:10.5121/ijwmn.2022.14402 19
TRANSMISSION POWER AND QUALITY OF
SERVICE IN MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Ratna R. Sarkar and Mohammad Zahidur Rahman
Department of Computer science and Engineering,
Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Bangladesh
ABSTRACT
Wireless communication is significantly influenced by the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET), which
consists of nodes like mobile phones, tablets, computers, or other devices that can connect with one
another. MANET is a decentralized network that communicates without using any specified infrastructure.
The lack of battery power in this multihop network with no infrastructure is problematic. As a result,
proper transmission power utilization must be considered. Transmission power significantly impacts the
data dissemination of different routing protocols used in this MANET environment. By taking this issue into
account, the performance of routing protocols is examined based on different transmission power settings.
The packet delivery ratio (PDR), packet loss (PL), jitter, and Dealy all play a role in determining network
service quality. This study investigates how transmission power impacts MANET routing protocols’ quality
of Service (QoS). The MANET routing protocols investigated in this study include AODV, OLSR, DSDV,
and DSR. NS3 is used to create the simulation environment. According to this analysis, AODV outperforms
other routing protocols in overall performance.
KEYWORDS
MANET, Routing Protocols, Transmission Power, QoS, PDR, Jitter.
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) is a self-originating network and comprises nodes with
autonomous nature. Deployment costs are low, and no special infrastructure is needed for data
distribution. Each node can determine paths for data packet dissemination as they can work both
as node and router. MANETs are used in a variety of applications, including natural disaster
rescue missions, military domains, emergency network formation, event like conferences etc. [1].
Nodes mobility and transmission power are vital factors for data dissemination in MANET.
Topology in the case of MANET is not fixed because of nodes’ mobility. Sometimes this issue
makes data dissemination challenges. As previously said, MANET suffers from node mobility.
For successful data dissemination, MANET does not require end to- end connectivity or no
predefined communication channel. Moreover, MANET suffers from the scarcity of bandwidth,
dynamicity of network topology, insufficient transmission power, security of data dissemination,
etc. [2]. Predominantly the nodes in MANET suffer from limited battery power which reduces
the longevity and overall performance of the network.
Transmission power during data dissemination should be taken into concern. Proper transmission
power and routing protocol management can lead to efficient performance. Reactive, proactive,
and hybrid are the three types of MANET routing protocols, with each type employing various
processes for route discovery and management [3]. Since nodes in an AdHoc network are mobile,
their state is constantly changing. Scalability consequently presents a serious security risk.

20
Dynamic topology is one of MANET's most significant problems. If certain nodes are revealed to
be compromised, the confidence could be destroyed. Using distributed and adaptive security
techniques, this dynamic behavior may be more safely protected. MANET nodes have low-
capacity data dissemination links. It also makes this Ad Hoc network environment more
challenging. MANET has some security difficulties, such as availability (access to services when
needed), confidentiality (only authorized staff can access data), integrity (only authorized
personnel can modify, delete, and create data), authentication, authorization, and so on.
Traditional security measures for wired networks are challenging to apply to wireless networks.
MANET has become much more vulnerable to attacks as a result. Nodes in a mobile Ad Hoc
network must deal with a limited power supply, which can cause a range of problems. When a
node in this network realizes that its power source is limited, it may act selfishly. In the case of
data dissemination, proper transmission power utilization should be considered. This may help to
strengthen the network’s resilience. QoS refers to the employment of techniques or technologies
on a network to control traffic and guarantee the performance of critical applications with
constrained network capacity. Packet delivery ratio (PDR), Packet loss (PL), jitter, and Delay can
be considered as the evaluation metrics of QoS. The performance of multiple MANET reactive
and proactive routing protocols is examined on different transmission power levels, and the QoS
is also tested in this paper.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
By modifying the settings, the number of sources, and the transmission power, the authors
contrast the functionality of the reactive routing protocols AODV and DSR. The findings
demonstrate that, in the case of PDR, AODV outperforms the DSR routing protocol, and that
performance increases when mobility diminishes [4]. The authors investigate three reactive
routing protocols, AODV, DSR, and TORA, corresponding to transmission power values. They
apply transmission power at high mobility. All of the results show that the TORA protocol
outperforms the AODV and DSR routing protocols [5]. The authors examine the influence of
transmit power on MANET routing protocols using three protocols in the NS3 simulator: AODV,
DSDV, and OLSR. This analysis resultant an increase in performance for all protocols with the
rise in transmission power [6]. A. Nabou, M. D. Laanaoui, and M. Ouzzif, the effect of transmit
power on MANET routing protocols using AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR in NS3, vol. 915.
Springer International Publishing, 2019.Variable packet size and transmission are used to analyze
the performance of the AODV routing protocol. When the transmission power of nodes is high,
the throughput is high [7]. [8] Analyze the performance of MANET on the different routing
protocols and found DSR and OLSR as the best performers than other routing protocols along
with the increase of transmission power.
3. MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Routing protocols govern the data distribution across the network. As was already noted,
MANET uses three different types of routing protocols: reactive, proactive, and hybrid. A
proactive routing strategy employs a table-driven method, a reactive routing protocol generates a
path when data transfer is required, and a hybrid routing protocol combines reactive and
proactive routing strategies. The effects of transmission power on reactive and proactive
protocols are discussed in this work.

21
3.1. Reactive Routing Protocols
When the data transfer is required, a routing path is established in the reactive routing approach.
The reactive routing protocols AODV and DSR belong to this category. In these two routing
protocols, the routing paths are created on-demand.
 Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV): [9] suggested AODV is a reactive routing
protocol that includes both unicast and multicast communication, according to [10].
Node information needs to be addressed in the subsequent hop because this
protocol does not keep track of the entire route. AODV has two primary
mechanisms: route search and route maintenance, according to Corson. et.al [11].The
data-sending node will broadcast the RREP packet to neighboring nodes to locate the
destination node. As a result, the RREQ package (which includes information such as the
sender and destination node addresses, the hop counter, the source and destination
sequence numbers, and the broadcast ID [12] is used to start building the destination
route. The broadcast ID will rise with each RREQ transmission.
 Dynamic source routing (DSR): DSR [13] allows for minimal loop-free routing and
eliminates the necessity for upto- date intermediate node routing information. DSR, like
AODV, uses route discovery and maintenance methods for data dissemination, according
to Corson.at.el [11]. The routing characteristic established by the origin node, which
retains all routing information, is the primary difference between DSR and AODV.
3.2. Proactive Routing Protocols
The data routing route is predefined in a proactive routing strategy, and the routing information is
updated regularly. This strategy is also known as a table-driven strategy. Proactive-based routing
protocols include DSDV and OLSR.
 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV): The DSDV is a distance vector routing
protocol that works from hop to hop. [14]. The Bellman-Ford routing algorithm [15] is
mainly used for periodically broadcasting routing updates for each node. Each node in the
network must inform its neighbors about its routing table entries, according to the DSDV
protocol. The advertisement must be sent regularly to guarantee that any new or mobile
nodes can discover one other. The routing database includes information about the next hop,
the number of hops for each reachable destination, and a sequence number preventing loop
formation. [16] [17] [18] [19]. Each node maintains this routing table and shares it to its
neighbors at the same time [8] [20].
 Optimized link-state routing protocol (OLSR): OLSR is a proactive routing protocol that
regularly exchanges topology information with other nodes. [21]. OLSR employs the
concept of multipoint relays. Multipoint relay nodes have chosen nodes responsible for
forwarding routing messages during the flooding process. Multipoint relay nodes can reduce
the message overhead transmitted in classic flooding systems by reducing redundant
retransmissions in the same spot. OLSR uses a hello message and a topology control
mechanism for overall forwarding processing.
4. SIMULATION SETUP
The MANET environment is generated by using the NS3 [22] simulator. The impact of
transmission power on several MANET routing protocols is investigated in this study. This
experiment considers AODV, DSR, DSDV, and OLSR as MANET routing protocols. As
previously stated, these routing protocols are classified into respectively reactive and proactive

22
routing methods. The packet delivery ratio (PDR), packet loss (PL), jitter, and Delay are
employed as network QOS measuring factors in this study.
 PDR, which is measured in percentages, represents the ratio of the total received data
packets to total transmitted data packets. A routing protocol’s PDR should be high in order
to obtain decent performance.
 The total number of packets lost throughout the network during data dissemination is
referred to as packet loss. The number of lost packets is lower with an efficient routing
protocol.
 The difference in latency between each data packet received is referred to as jitter. The
volatility in packet arrival time should be minimal in a Mobile AdHoc Network to improve
performance.
 The average time it takes a data packet to reach its destination is called delay. For overall
efficient routing protocol performance, the delay should be reduced.
Many mobility models are utilized to determine MANET node mobility, one of which is the
Random waypoint model [23]. This mobility model is being used to detect node mobility in this
study. The random waypoint model determines the location, velocity, and acceleration of nodes
using a time-varying model. In this mobility model, nodes are randomly distributed throughout
the network and wait for a pause time. The node then travels at random to its destination, which
is a waypoint. The propagation model estimates the magnitude of received signal power at a
given distance from the transmitter [10]. In this simulation environment, the Friis propagation
loss model is applied. When there is no barrier between the transmitter and receiver, this model is
used to estimate the strength of the received signal. The received power is determined by the
transmission power, antenna gain, and the distance between the transmitter and receiver. The
received signal power is computed using the equation below [24].
Pr(dis)=Pt (GtGrλ2
)/((4πdis)2
L) (1)
Here Pr − The strength of the signal received (Watts).
Pt − The transmitted signal power (Watts).
dis − The distance between the transmitter and receiver (Meters).
λ − The carrier wavelength (meters).
L − Miscellaneous losses.
Table 1. Simulation Setup.
Parameters Values
Network Simulator NS-3.29
Number of node 50
Simulation Time (s) 200
Speed (ms) 20
Mobility Model Random Way Point Mobility Model.
Transmission Power (dBm) 3.5,5.5,7.5,10.5.
Propagation Loss Model Friis propagation Loss Model .
Data Transmission Rate(bps) 2048 .

23
5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section shows the simulation results for different transmission powers of reactive (AODV,
DSR) and proactive (DSDV, OLSR) routing protocols. The primary purpose of this analysis is to
assess the effect of transmission power variances. Different transmission powers are used in the
MANET environment to conduct the overall performance. Figure 1 depicts the performance of
several routing protocols based on transmission power vs PDR parameters. According to the
simulation results, the protocols’ performance improves as transmission power increases.
Throughout the experiment, the AODV protocol performs consistently. As a result, transmission
power has no discernible impact on performance. In the case of OLSR, the PDR grows as
transmission power increases. The PDR is low at the start of the experiment, but as the
transmission power grows, it increases. With a lower transmission power than OLSR, the
performance of DSDV improves as well. Overall, AODV outperforms the others when it comes
to PDR.
Figure 1. Transmission Power Vs PDR.
Figure 2 shows the performance of different routing protocols based on the metrics of
transmission power vs Packet Loss. The total number of packet losses should be lower to achieve
efficient performance by a network. The simulation results show that AODV has a lower number
of packet losses than other routing protocols. In the case of OLSR, the number of packet losses
increases between the transmission power 3 dBm to 5.5 dBm. But it started decreasing at the
transmission power 7.5 dBm and then rapidly decreases during the simulation. In the case of
DSDV, the number of packet loss is started increasing between the transmission power 3 dBm to
5.5 dBm. But it started decreasing at the transmission power 5.5 dBm and then rapidly decreases
during the simulation.

24
Figure 2. Transmission Power Vs Packet Loss.
transmission power vs Jitter. AODV has a lower jitter value than other routing protocols. At the
beginning of the simulation, the jitter value of OLSR is lower but it started increasing at the
transmission power of 5.5 dBm and achieve the highest jitter value at 7.5 dBm and then decreases
rapidly. In the case of DSDV, the overall jitter increases with the increasing transmission power.
Figure. 3. Transmission Power Vs Jitter.
transmission power vs delay for AODV the transmission power does not have a significant effect
on delay and almost remains the same throughout the simulation. The delay is started to be higher
from the transmission power of 3.5 dBm and gets the highest value at 7.5 dBm and then
decreases rapidly. On the other hand, for OLSR the delay increases with the increase of
transmission power. In this overall simulation scenario, the performance of DSR for these four-
performance metrics is almost zero. For routing, DSR uses the source routing approach, which
means that all routing data is kept at the nodes which have mobility. In this source routing
approach, the sender node determines the node through which the packet must disseminate. DSR
can properly work in such a network where nodes have lower mobility. This protocol uses a route
maintenance mechanism but this mechanism does not properly rebuild the intermittently

25
connected or broken links. These features may degrade the performance of this routing protocol
for this simulation scenario.
Figure. 4. Transmission Power Vs Delay.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of various MANET routing protocols is examined throughout a wide
transmission power range. For this investigation, the transmission power range is 3.5 dBm to 10.5
dBm. Multi-hop routing systems provide acceptable performance only for specified transmission
powers. As previously stated, transmission power is a critical issue in MANET because nodes
have limited power resources. Transmission power has a substantial impact on the network’s
overall QoS. PDR, Packet loss (PL), jitter, and delay are all considered while determining QoS.
According to the findings, PDR increases as transmission power increases, and AODV
outperforms all other routing protocols in consistency and performance. Packet loss, jitter, and
Dealy are all lower with AODV. In this study, AODV outperformed other routing protocols in
overall performance. The entire investigation also revealed that transmission power has a
substantial impact on routing protocol performance and network QoS. As a result, the
transmission power of each node should be considered in order to achieve overall high MANET
performance.
REFERENCES
[1] Cheng, L., Bourgeois, A., Yu, B. H. (2005). Power management in wireless ad hoc networks using
AODV. In Sixth international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking,
and parallel/ distributed computing and first ACIS international workshop on self-assembling
wireless networks (SNPD/SAWN’05).
[2] Goyal, P., Parmar, V.: MANET: vulnerabilities, challenges, attacks, application. IJCEM Int. J.
Comput. Eng. Manag. 11 (2011).
[3] Patel, A., Patel, S., Verma, A.: A review of performance evaluation of AODV protocol in Manet with
and without black hole attack. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2 (2012).
[4] Panda, B.K., Swain, J., Mishra, D.P., Sahu, B.: Analysis of Effect of Mobility and Transmission
Power on AODV and DSR in Mobile Adhoc Network. IEEE, 978-1-4799- 3156-9/14 (2014).
[5] Nawaz, H., Mansoor Ali, H.: Analysis of routing protocol metrics in MANET. J. Indep. Stud. Res.
Comput. 12 ,2014.
[6] Lakshman Naik, L., Khan, R.U., Mishra, R.B.: Analysis of transmit power effects in ad-hoc network
protocols using network simulator-3. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET) 03 ,2016.
[7] Fatima, M., Tiwari, A.: Node transmission power value optimization in MANET. Int.J. Innov. Res.
Comput. Commun. Eng. 5, 2017.

26
[8] A. Nabou, M. D. Laanaoui, and M. Ouzzif, the effect of transmit power on MANET routing protocols
using AODV, DSDV, DSR and OLSR in NS3, vol. 915. Springer International Publishing, 2019.
[9] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer. Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing. In Proc. 2nd IEEE
Workshop on Mobile Computing System. and Applications (WMCSA ’99), pages 90–100, 1999.
[10] H. Sharma and T. Jayavignesh, ”Comparative analysis and applicability of routing protocols in
VANETs,” International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer, and
Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT), Mysuru, pp. 1-8, 2017.
[11] M. S. Corson and A. Ephremides. A Distributed Rout-ing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks.
In ACM J. Wireless Networks, page 61–81, 1995.
[12] E. E. Akkari Sallum, G. dos Santos, M. Alves and M. M. Santos, ”Performance analysis and
comparison of the DSDV, AODV and OLSR routing protocols under VANETs,” 16th International
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems Telecommunications (ITST), Lisboa, 2018, pp. 1-
7, 2018.
[13] Perkins C.E. Adhoc Networking. In Chapter-5, Pearson, US, 2000.
[14] Perkins C.E and Bhagwat P. “Highly dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance- Vector Routing
(DSDV)for Mobile Computers”. In SIGCOMM ACM, pages 234– 245, 1994.
[15] R. Bellman, “On a routing problem,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 16, no. 1. pp.87–90,
1958.
[16] A. K. B, Y. Alhwaiti, A. Leider, and C. C. Tappert, Advances in Information and Communication,
vol. 70. Springer International Publishing, 2020.
[17] D. K. Mishra, X. Yang, and A. Unal, Data Science and Big Data Analytics: ACM-WIR 2018, vol. 16.
Springer Singapore, 2018.
[18] A. A. Chavan, D. S. Kurule, and P. U. Dere, “Performance Analysis of AODV and DSDV Routing
Protocol in MANET and Modifications in AODV against Black Hole Attack,”Procedia Comput. Sci.,
vol. 79, pp. 835–844, 2016.
[19] F. T. Al Dhief, N. Sabri, M. S. Salim, S. Fouad, and S. A. Aljunid, “MANET Routing Protocols
Evaluation: AODV, DSR and DSDV Perspective,”MATEC Web Conf., vol. 150, no. January, 2018.
[20] H. Narra, Y. Cheng, E. C， etinkaya, J. Rohrer, and J. Sterbenz, “Destination-Sequenced Distance
Vector (DSDV) Routing Protocol Implementation in ns3,” no. March, 2012.
[21] Clausen T and Jacquet P ”Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)”RFC 3626-, 2003.
[22] R. Manual, G. N. U. Texinfo, B. Pdf, G. N. U. General, P. License, F. S. Foundation, W. a. N. Y. W.
Ranty, F. For, and P. P. See, “ns-3 Tutorial,” System, no. January, pp. 1–46, 2011. [Online].
Available: www.nsnam.org.
[23] Bettstetter C., Hartenstein H. and P´erez-Costa X. Stochastic Properties of the Random Waypoint
Mobility Model. In Wireless Networks, 10,, pages 555–567, 2004
[24] Mathuranathan Viswanathan ,Wireless Communication Systems in Matlab (second edition), ISBN:
979-8648350779.
AUTHORS
Ratna R. Sarkar received M. Sc in Computer Science and Engineering from BRAC
University, Bangladesh and she did B. Sc in computer science and Engineering from
Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh. Currently,
she is pursuing her PhD in Computer Science and Engineering at Jahangirnagar
University, Bangladesh. Her research interests include Pocket Switched Networks, Ad-
hoc Networks, internet of things (IOT), Telemedicine.
Mohammad Zahidur Rahman received PhD from University Malaya, Malaysia. He did
M. Sc in Computer Science and Engineering and B. Sc in Electrical and Electronics from
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Bangladesh. Currently,
he is working as a professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Jahangirnagar
University, Bangladesh. His research interest includes E-Commerce, Computer Security,
E-Governance, Communication.

TRANSMISSION POWER AND QUALITY OF SERVICE IN MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

More Related Content

Similar to TRANSMISSION POWER AND QUALITY OF SERVICE IN MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

TRANSMISSION POWER AND QUALITY OF SERVICE IN MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS