that can be used for evaluating the performance of MANET routing protocols. We have used the following metrics for evaluating the performance of two on-demand reactive rout- ing protocols like AOMDV and proposed AOMDV with DREAM Protocol.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 261
ISSN 2229-5518
A Location based Scheme for Improving the
Performance of AOMDV Routing Protocol
Servesh Kumar, Piyush Singh
Abstract—It is needless to say that reducing of control overheads is extremely important for efficient reactive routing protocols. New route discovery is needed only when the primary paths is fail. In Multipath protocol AOMDV if the link failures in the primary path, through which major data transmission takes place, cause the source to switch to an alternate path instead of initiating another route discovery process. A new route discovery process becomes necessary only when all pre-computed paths break. This reduces both route discovery latency and routing overheads. Using location awareness through location based DREAM (Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility) protocol the nodes in network are aware about the location information of nodes. In this paper we proposed protocol to minimize the flooding of the control packets in the direction of the destination node. Moreover we have also used shortest as well as alternate paths for transmission of the data packets to improve the performance of the routing protocol. The performance of AOMDV with DREAM protocol tends to increase with some issues like node density (at higher node densities), a greater number of alternate paths are available it means these issues are degrades the routing performance. This approach results in reducing end-to-end delay since packets do not need to be buffered at the source when an alternate path is available and if the location information is available then the proposed AOMDV with DREAM routing provides the better results as compare to normal AOMDV.
Index Terms— AOMDV, DREAM, Routing, Mobility, delay, Loacation, multipath
—————————— ——————————
Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork (MANET) is a collection of wireless mobile hosts forming a temporary network without the aid of any stand-alone infrastructure or cen- tralized administration [1]. Mobile Ad-hoc networks are self- organizing and self-configuring multihop wireless networks where, the structure of the network changes dynamically. This is mainly due to the mobility of the nodes. Nodes in these networks utilize the same random access wireless channel, cooperating in a friendly manner to engaging themselves in multihop forwarding. The node in the network not only acts as hosts but also as routers that route data to/from other nodes in network. Each device in a MANET is free to move independently in any direction, and will therefore change its links to other devices frequently. Each must forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router. Routing in ad-networks has been a challenging task ever since the wire- less networks came into existence. The major reason for this is the constant change in network topology because of high de- gree of node mobility. A number of protocols have been de-
veloped for accomplish this task.
Routing [2] is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send network traffic. In packet switching networks, routing directs packet forwarding, the transit of logically ad- dressed packets from their source toward their ultimate desti- nation through intermediate nodes.
————————————————
• Piyush Singh is currently Asst. Prof in Computer Scienc and Engineering
in R.G.P.V University (M.P), India. E-mail: piyushsingh071@gmail.com
An ad hoc routing protocol is a convention, or standard, that controls how nodes decide which way to route packets be- tween computing devices in a mobile ad-hoc network. Several routing protocols [2, 3] have been proposed for Mobile Ad hoc networks. In such protocols, nodes build and maintain routes as they are needed. Also, frequent route breaks cause the in- termediate nodes to drop packets because no alternate path to the destination is available. This reduces the overall through- put and the packet delivery ratio. Moreover, in high mobility scenarios, the average end-to-end delay can be significantly high due to frequent route discoveries. Multipath protocols [4] try to improve these problems by computing and caching mul- tiple paths obtained during a single route discovery process. The link failures in the primary path, through which data transmission is actually taking place, cause the source to switch to an alternate path instead of initiating another route discovery. A new route discovery occurs only when all pre- computed paths break.
The location information refers to the geographic coordinates that can be obtained from and by the use of the location based routing. The location based protocol specifically considered here is the Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility or DREAM [5]. The DREAM protocol can be considered proac- tive in the sense that a mechanism is defined for the dissemi- nation and updating of location information. When the sender node S needs to send a message to the destination node D, it uses the location information for D to obtain D’s direction, and transmits the message to all its one hop neighbors in the direc- tion of D. The subsequent nodes repeat the same procedure until the destination node is reached. This effectively results in using a reactive approach, as individual nodes in the path de- termine the next hop in an on-demand.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 262
ISSN 2229-5518
The AOMDV (Ad hoc On demand Multi-path Distance Vector routing) [6] AOMDV extends AODV to provide multiple paths. In AOMDV each RREQ and respectively RREP defines an alternative path to the source or destination. Multiple paths are maintained in routing entries in each node. The routing entries contain a list of next-hops along with corresponding hop counts for each destination. To ensure loop-free paths AOMDV introduces the 'advertised hop count' value at node i for destination d. This value represents the maximum hop- count for destination d available at node i. Consequently, al- ternate paths at node i for destination d are accepted only with lower hopcount than the 'advertised hop count' value. Node- disjointness is achieved by suppressing duplicate RREQ at intermediate nodes. .Multipath on-demand protocols try to alleviate these problems by computing and caching multiple paths obtained during a single route discovery process. The performance of these protocols tends to increase with node density; at higher node densities, a greater number of alternate paths are available. In such protocols, link failures in the pri- mary path, through which data transmission is actually taking place, cause the source to switch to an alternate path instead of initiating another route discovery. A new route discovery oc- curs only when all pre-computed paths break. This approach can result in reduced delay since packets do not need to be buffered at the source when an alternate path is available.
The previous work that has been done in this field is explained in this section. Here the current research is observed to find the new routing scheme in location based routing.
This paper proposes [7] a Network Coding in Ad Hoc network multipath routing protocol. It is typically proposed in order to increase the reliability of data transmission, and by applying network coding, which allows packet encoding at a relay node. We will also implement the performance difference be- tween multipath routing based on fresnel zone routing (FZR), and Energy aware Node Disjoint Multipath Routing (ENDMR) protocol in a factor of two of wide range of move- ment and communication models.
In this paper [8] an attempt is made to consolidate reported works that streamline geographical location attributes for routing in WSN. Usually, the routing schemes are formulated to address specific purposes and depending upon a particular application the elements of WSN, namely MCH, CH and motes may be stationary or mobile. It has been observed that geographical location based localization of nodes are more effective methods as it consumes less energy to convey requi- site measures from many sensor nodes to a sink. When it comes to storing the measured or conveyed data, different storage policies are used and reported. In general, these stor- age policies can be classified into three types: local storage, external, and data centric storage.
The proposed protocol [9] is a variant of the single path AODV routing protocol. The proposed multipath routing pro- tocol establishes node disjoint paths that have the lowest de- lays based on the interaction of many factors from different
layers. Other delay aware MANETs routing protocols don’t consider the projected contribution of the source node that is requesting a path into the total network load. The implication is that end to end delay obtained through the RREQ is not ac- curate any more. On the contrary of its predecessors, the pro- posed protocol takes into consideration the projected contribu- tion of the source node into the computation of end to end delay. To obtain an accurate estimate of path delay, the pro- posed multipath routing protocol employs cross-layer com- munications across three layers; PHY, MAC and Routing lay- ers to achieve link and channel-awareness and creates an up- date packet to keep the up to date status of the paths in terms of lowest delay. The performance of the proposed protocol investigated and compared against the single path AODV and multipath AOMDV protocols.
This work [10] proposed a node-disjoint location based multi- path routing protocol (Location-BMP) for mobile ad hoc net- works to reduce the number of broadcast multi-path route discoveries and the average hop count per path from the source to the destination. During route discovery process, the intermediate nodes include their location information along with the distance in the Route-Request (MP-RREQ) packet. The destination node selects a set of node disjoint paths from the MP-RREQ packet received and sends a Route-Reply (MP- RREP) packet on each of the node-disjoint paths.
This work [11] proposes a novel Geographic Location Aware Adaptive Routing (GLAAR) protocol to reduce the computa- tion and communication requirement for selection of next node (hop) for packet forwarding. Proposed protocol fetches the node location information using GPS and follows the ro- bust, adaptive and efficient routing algorithm to ensure com- munication occurs with minimum no’s of hops and computa- tions GLAAR is adaptable to the moving destination whether destination node moves towards/ or away from the source node as shown using different case scenarios, thus it imparts efficiency in terms of route discovery, bandwidth utilization and resource usage. Simulation results enhance the perfor- mance analysis of GLAAR in terms of throughput and jitter tolerance for the packet transmission over the network.
In this paper [12], we considered to a very important position based routing protocol, named Greedy. In one of it's kinds, named MFR, the source node or the intermediate packet for- warder node, sends packet to its closest neighbor to destina- tion node. Using distance deciding metric in Greedy is not suitable for all conditions. If closest neighbor to destination has high speed (in comparison with source node or the inter- mediate packet forwarder node speed) or has very low re- mained battery power, then packet loss probability is in- creased. We can use other deciding metrics in addition to dis- tance metric, to improve Greedy and increase its reliability. The metrics like power, velocity similarity. The proposed strategy uses combination of (tradeoff between) metrics dis- tance-velocity similarity-power, to deciding about to which neighbor, the given packet should be forwarded. This strategy has lower lost packets average than Greedy, so it has more reliability.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 263
ISSN 2229-5518
TABLE 1
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Number of Nodes | 30 |
Dimension of simulated area | 800×800 |
Routing Protocol | AOMDV |
Simulation time (seconds) | 100 |
Location based Protocol | DREAM |
Transmission Range | 250m |
Traffic type | CBR 3pkts/s |
Packet size (bytes) | 512 |
Agent type | TCP, UDP |
Number of traffic connections | 20 |
Maximum Speed (m/s) | 30 |
Nodes Mobility | Random way point |
Mobile Ad Hoc network are maintained dynamic topology with random mobility by that we can't identify the location of nodes. Multipath protocols have definitely sort the problem of single path by providing alternative route in between sender and receiver. It means, if the existing route is break than in that case the alternative route is available but it is not provid- ing the location of mobile nodes. AOMDV has more message overheads during route discovery due to increased flooding and since it is a multipath routing protocol, the destination replies to the multiple RREQs those results are in longer over- head. The overhead enhancement are increases the delivery of routing packets in network by that the data delivery are af- fected and end to end delay in the is also increases.
If We design the algorithm for multipath routing protocol after that we follow next algorithm for destination location estimation, here very first we create mobile node and then set all parameter like routing protocol as AOMDV and each layer header then broadcast the routing packet, that time we check next hop information like multipath and connectivity of next neighbor node is found so we add this node into the routing table and send routing packet till the destination reach condi- tion through above mechanism if destination found so desti- nation node reply through routing acknowledgement packet to the source node, and after that sender node send’s actual data packet to the destination. But certain time communicator and intermediate node move due to mobility nature and exist- ing route break down so that case we apply DREAM module and minimize routing overhead of the network that also min- imize delay as compare to other existing routing protocol.
Set node = N; // m number of mobile node
Set Sender = S1;// s € m s sender that belong into m node
Set receiver = R1;// r € m s receiver that belong into m node
Set protocol = AOMDV; // Routing protocol
Set RR = 250m // maximum radio range of node
Route_RREQ (S,R,rr) // broadcast route request packet
If (rr<= 250 && nexthop==”true”)
{ next hop find ;
r-table = create route table;
Work until destination search;
If (more than one route S to R)
{ find (shortest path)
{Shortest path find
Send (R1,S1, route table, ack) // sends acknowledgement
}}
Else {Route not exist;
Not in route; }
Else {destination out of range or not find ;}
DREAM Algorithm
That module runs for destination location estimation if com-
munication breaks down in certain time Receiver sends infor-
mation of location to the source node. in that module we find
the speed of the node, current distance between sender to
destination and particular time and then send that infor-
mation to the sender node time to time for location table gen- eration if destination node update our location and communi- cation path break so sender node retrieve information through location table of the destination node and initiate routing dis-
covery process and send routing packet in calculated direction that minimize the routing overhead and also minimize west full energy utilization of each node on the network.
Speed of R1 = Sr // speed of receiver
Location Packet sending time = T 0 //last time
Distance S1 to R1 = DRS //current distance between receiver to source
Send (Sr , T 0, DR1S1, S, R)
{ Sender receives location information from receiver; Current Time = T 1
//Calculate new distance and direction of receiver; Time gap = T 1 – T 0 ; // time gap in second
Radius = ( Sr * Time Gap ));
New Distance = (DR1S1 + ( Sr * Time Gap));
// Direction of Receiver
}
Route request packet send only calculated direction
NS2 [14] is an open-source event-driven simulator designed specifically for research in computer communication net- works. Since its inception in 1989, NS2 has continuously gained tremendous interest from industry, academia, and government. Having been under constant investigation and enhancement for years, NS2 now contains modules for nu- merous network components such as routing, transport layer protocol, application, etc. To investigate network performance, researchers can simply use an easy-to-use scripting language to configure a network, and observe results generated by NS2. NS-2 stands for Network Simulator version 2, ns-2.28, 2.31. The simulation parameters are given in table 1 considered for simulation.
RFC2501 [13] describe a number of quantitative metrics
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 264
ISSN 2229-5518
that can be used for evaluating the performance of MANET routing protocols. We have used the following metrics for evaluating the performance of two on-demand reactive rout- ing protocols like AOMDV and proposed AOMDV with DREAM Protocol.
It is the ratio of data packets delivered to the destination to those generated by the sources. It is calculated by dividing the number of packet received by destination through the number packet originated from source.
PDF = (Pr/Ps)*100
Where Pr is total Packet received & Ps is the total Packet
sent.
It is the total number of control or routing (RTR) packets generated by routing protocol during the simulation. All packets sent or forwarded at network layer is consider routing overhead.
Overhead = Number of RTR packets
Number of routing packets “transmitted” per data packet “delivered” at destination. Each hop-wise transmission of a routing is counted as one transmission. It is the sum of all con- trol packet sent by all node in network to discover and main- tain route.
This includes all possible delay caused by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, re- transmission delay at the MAC, propagation and transfer time. It is defined as the time taken for a data packet to be transmitted across an MANET from source to destination.
D = (Tr –Ts)
Where Tr is receive Time and Ts is sent Time.
The performances of both the protocols are measured here on the basis of performance matrices and the performance of Transport layer protocols like TCP and UDP. The performance of proposed AOMDV with DREAM is better as compare to normal AOMDV routing protocol.
This graph represents the Packet Delivery Fraction Analysis in case of Simple AOMDV protocol and in case of AOMDV with DREAM. Here we clearly visualized that the performance of proposed protocol are better as compare to simple AOMDV protocol in MANET. Here the PDF in case of AOMDV proto- col is about 100% at time about 8 sec. due to their multipath behavior but after that the performance are equal to 87% , up to end of simulation with little up and down. Now if we measure the performance of AOMDV with DREAM then in that case, from the beginning of simulation the performance of proposed protocol is nearly about 97%. It means that location based DREAM protocol enhanced the performance of AOMDV routing protocol.
Fig.1. PDF Analysis in case of AOMDV and AOMDV with
DREAM
This graph represents the Normal Routing Load (NRL) in case of AOMDV and AOMDV with DREAM. Here we recog- nize that in case of AOMDV more number of routing packets are delivered in network as compare to AOMDV with DREAM. Now in case of AOMDV every time node want to established connection means flooding routing packets in network but if the location of destination is known to sender then in that case less number of routing packets are deliver in network then definitely the routing load in case of proposed AOMDV with DREAM are less. Here in case of AOMDV rout- ing protocol is about 4500 packets are deliver in network but in case of proposed protocol is only about 3000 packets are deliver in network it means that, the difference of routing packets is of about 1500, this overhead are reduces by using DREAM protocol and also the more number of packets are send in network with lower packet loss..
Fig.2. NRL Analysis in case of AOMDV and AOMDV with
DREAM.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 265
ISSN 2229-5518
Throughput is also one of the important parameter to measure the network performance in case of AOMDV and AOMDV with DREAM. The throughput is measure on the basis of number of packets sends or receives in per unit of time in network. In this graph the throughput is measured on the ba- sis of receiving in each time unit. The AOMDV protocols are provides the better routing techniques in network as compare to unipath protocol but the DREAM location based protocol are provides the better performance as compare to normal AOMDV. In case of AOMDV the numbers of packets are send in network in per unit of time is about 800 but in case of AOMDV with DREAM is about 930 packets are received in network in per unit of time in network. The location based DREAM protocol with AOMDV are proving the better receiv- ing and improves the network performance.
Fig.4. UDP Packet Loss Analysis in case of AOMDV and
AOMDV with DREAM
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is the connection orient- ed reliable protocol because of presence of acknowledgement (ACK) mechanism. the transmission of next TCP data or TCP congestion window is depend on the ACK of previous conges- tion window. It means if the data is loss in first transmission then in that case the next transmission are through from send- er. In this graph the maximum size of TCP congestion window in case of proposed scheme is about 34 but in case of normal multipath routing the maximum size of TCP congestion win- dow is about 14. The difference of 20 TCP packets is observed in case of previous and proposed scheme. It means that due to aware about the position of mobile nodes the routing perfor- mance of network is improved.
Fig.3. Throughput Analysis in case of AOMDV and AOMDV with
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is the connection less unrelia- ble protocol because of absence of acknowledgement mecha- nism. In UDP Protocol the sender sends data to receiver with- out any confirmation by that if the receiver is busy in any communication activity then the data is loss. In this graph we evaluate the performance of UDP packet loss in case of normal AOMDV and AOMDV with DREAM. In case of proposed routing scheme the packet loss is about only 40 packets but in case of normal multipath routing the packet loss is about more than 900 packets. The location based routing protocol are re- duces the heavy UDP packet loss and improves network per- formance. In UDP performance if the network condition is favorable then in that case the performance of this protocol is also provides the better results but in network the possibility of uniform communication is almost negligible.
Fig.5. TCP Packet Loss Analysis in case of AOMDV and
AOMDV with DREAM
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May-2014 266
ISSN 2229-5518
The performances summery of both the protocol are men- tioned in table 2. Each performance matrices are showing the better result in case of proposed scheme and improving the network performance.
TABLE 2
OVERALL SUMMERY
Parameters | AOMDV | DREAM with AOMDV |
SEND | 6844.00 | 6561.00 |
RECV | 5686.00 | 6372.00 |
ROUTINGPKTS | 4613.00 | 3036.00 |
83.08 | 97.12 | |
NRL | 0.81 | 0.48 |
Average e-e de- lay(ms) | 242.02 | 193.95 |
No. of dropped data (packets) | 1158 | 189 |
Each node itself in MANET acts as a router for forwarding and receiving packets to/from other nodes. Routing in ad- networks has been a challenging task ever since the wireless networks came into existence. The major reason for routing is the regular change in network topology, location because of high degree of node mobility. The multipath routing protocols like AOMDV are having a capability to providing the alterna- tive path if the existing path are not able to send data packets to destination due to higher node mobility and heavy load. But in case of high mobility the DREAM protocol has identi- fied the location of mobile nodes in network with respect to destination and each and every node has maintained their location table to reduce the overhead to because of frequently routing update. These researches have combined the two ap- proaches and simulate the results of normal AOMDV and AOMDV with DREAM routing protocol. A. Proposed work is effective and better than normal AOMDV. The performance of network is measured on the base of performance metric. The location based protocol are improves the routing capability of AOMDV protocol. The performance parameter is showing the better result than normal AOMDV
[1] C. Siva Ram Murthy and B. S. Manoj, “Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Architectures and Protocols”, Second Edition, Low price Edition, Pearson Education, 2007.
[2] M. Tarique, K.E. Tepe, S. Adibi, S. Erfani, “Survey of multipath rout- ing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 32, No. 6, , pp. 1125–1143, 2009.
[3] By Saleh Ali K.Al-Omari, Putra Sumari, “An overview of mobile ad- hoc network for the existing protocol and application”, International journal on application of graph theory in wireless ad hoc network and SN.Vol2,No.1,March 2010.
[4] E. M. Royer, and C-K. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols
for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Personal Communica- tions, April 1999, pp. 46-55
[5] S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V.R. Syrotiuk, B.A. Woodward, A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM), in: Proceedings of the ACM MOBICOM, pp. 76–84, October 1998.
[6] M. Marina and S. Das, “On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Rout- ing in Ad Hoc Networks”, in Proceedings of the International Con- ference for Network Procotols (ICNP), Riverside, Nov. 2001.
[7] Hua Chen, Hui Xu, Ting Zhang, Baolin Sun “Performance of Net- work Coding in Ad Hoc Network Multipath Routing Protocol” IEEE
2nd International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communica- tions and Networks (CECNet), pp. 1960 – 1964, 21-23 April 2012.
[8] Pramod Kumar, Ashvini Chaturvedi, M. Kulkarni, “Geographical Location Based Hierarchical Routing Strategy for Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE International Conference on Devices, Circuits and Systems (ICDCS), pp. 9 – 14, 15-16 March 2012.
[9] Mu’ath Obaidat, M. A. Ali, M.S. Obaidat and Suhaib Obeidat “A Novel Multipath Routing Protocol for MANET” IEEE 7th Interna- tional Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM), pp. 1-6, 23-25 Sept. 2011.
[10] Indu Kashyap & R.K. Rathy “An Efficient Location based Reactive Multi-path Routing Protocol for MANET” International Journal of Computer Applications (IJCA) (Volume 40– No.9, pp. 24-29, Febru- ary 2012.
[11] Nisha Arora, Ajay Jangra “ GLAAR: Geographic Location Aware Adaptive Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)” Interna- tional Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 50– No.22, July 2012.
[12] Mahboobeh Abdoos, Karim Faez, and Masoud Sabaei “Position Based Routing Protocol with More Reliability in Mobile Ad Hoc Network” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, pp. 304-307, 2009.
[13] S.Corson and J.Macker, “Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation considerations”, RFC2501, IETF Network Working Group, January 1999.
[14] NS documentation is available in html, Postscript, and PDF formats.
See http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ns-documentation.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org