performance comparison of manet routing protocols (olsr ... · a mobile ad-hoc network (manet) is...

www.ijemr.net ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

475 Copyright © 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Volume-6, Issue-3, May-June 2016

International Journal of Engineering and Management Research

Page Number: 475-484

Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols (OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA) Considering Different Network Area Size

Gouri M. Patil1, Ajay Kumar2, A. D. Shaligram3

1Department of Computer Science, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, INDIA 2Jayawant Technical Campus- Jayawant Institute of Business Studies, Pune, INDIA

3

Department of Electronic Science, Savitribai Phule University, Pune, INDIA

ABSTRACT

The need, popularity and easy deployment of MANET with less cost has increase its application areas from military to day-to-day life and research to business. The application uses MANET need best performance. MANETs are autonomous and infrastructureless in which nodes are free to move arbitrary, makes network topology unstable and the routing become complex in such dynamic nature of topology. The set of applications for MANETs is diverse, ranging from small to large-scale networks. The network area scalability is an important consideration while measuring the performance of MANET routing protocols. This paper evaluates the performance of MANET Routing Protocols OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA on varying network area size using OPNET simulator. The performance of these routing protocols are measured and compared on ‘Average Routing Load’, ‘Average end-to-end delay’ and ‘Average Throughput’ metrics. The performance rank tables give insight to select better then the best routing protocol for application scenario. Keywords---- AODV, DSR, GRP, OLSR, TORA, End-to-End Delay, MANET, Routing Load, Throughput.

I. INTRODUCTION

A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is an autonomous system composed of the mobile nodes, which communicates through wireless links without any preexisting infrastructure. In MANET, each mobile node is free to move independently in any direction, and frequently changes its links to other mobile nodes. The MANET is highly dynamic network [3][16] in that topology changes frequently and unpredictable. Ad hoc network have no fixed routers and all nodes are mobile in which they are

connected dynamically in an arbitrary manner. Mobile nodes in ad-hoc networks function as a router and can dynamically establish routes among themselves by means of a routing protocol. The primary challenge in building a MANET is equipping each mobile node to continuously maintaining the destination node reachability information for properly routing the traffic. The MANET could be used in situations where no infrastructure is available. The set of application for MANETs is diverse, ranging from small to large scale networks. Due to its flexibility, mobility and portability MANET is widely accepted for different application scenario and day-by-day its usability and popularities are increasing. A few examples of its applications are rescue operations for earthquake prone areas, emergency services, battlefield applications and a remote construction site where local coverage must be deployed quickly. Some other applications are exchanging data or playing electronic games; ship-to-ship communication; civilian environment like taxicab, sports stadium, boat and small aircraft, virtual classrooms etc. There are lots of ‘Routing Protocols’ have been proposed in the literatures to solve the routing problem in MANETs and. The routing algorithm are classified as proactive (table driven), reactive (on-demand), geographical (position based routing) and hybrid (combination of best feature of proactive and reactive) [6][9]. Different Routing Protocols are suitable for different application scenarios having different conditions and environments like ‘terrain or topography’, ‘node speed’, ‘pause time of nodes’, ‘Number of Nodes in a network’, ‘variable capacity wireless links or transmission range’, ‘transmission data rates’, ‘maximum connections for an instant’ and ‘bandwidth’ [6][10][20][24]. Thus, selecting efficient MANET routing protocol for a realistic environment is the challenge. The IETF, MANET working group had accepted



five MANET routing protocols as experimental standard that are OLSR, AODV, DSR, TORA and GRP. In this study, these experimental standard routing protocols have been considered for performance evaluation and comparison to understand the suitability routing protocol in a particular application scenario. The simulation experimental study has been performed for three different network area sizes of 500 x 500 square meters, 1000 x 1000 square meters and 2000 x 2000 square meters using NS-2 simulator. It is worth to study the MANET performance for such square network area size scalable on one, two and four folds because the maximum transmission range of node is 250 meters in MANET. The performance of these routing protocols are measured and compared on ‘Average Routing Load’, ‘Average end-to-end delay’ and ‘Average Throughput’ metrics. The performance rank tables give insight to select better then the best routing protocol for application scenario.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW (P. Manickam, 2011) [19], analyzed the performance of AODV, DSR and DSDV MANET routing protocol for 50, 75 and 100 nodes, the observation was that in case of DSR protocol the overheads get changed due to topology change. For on demand nature of AODV the end-to-end delay was higher but performs better for packet delivery ratio. The end-to-end delay is lower as compare to AODV and DSR in DSDV. (Mona N., 2014) [14], Survey analysis shows that AODV has higher routing overhead due to routing control packets but DSDV routing overhead is negligible and has route stability. The analysis for DSR is that it performs well than of AODV and DSDV in ordinary situations while, DSDV is better in case of stressful situations and also best performer in real life situations. In [8] (G. Jose, 2012), evaluated the performance of AODV, DSR and DSDV with constant bit rate (CBR) traffic and is effective for scalable performance with 40 nodes. AODV and DSR outperforms compared to DSDV for Constant Bit Rate traffic. The behavioral analysis on two parameters Packet delivery fraction and Average end-to-end delay on three routing protocols AODV, DSR and DSDV have been performed by (Parul Sharma, 2012) [18]. Increase in the density of nodes yields an increase in the mean End-to-End delay and increase in the pause time leads to a decrease in the mean End-to-End delay is the observation in this study. The simulation study shows that AODV has the best all round performance. DSR is suitable for networks with moderate mobility rate. It has low overhead that makes it suitable for low bandwidth and low power requirement networks. DSDV is suitable for large mobile networks having dense population of nodes and support for multiple routes and multicasting. TCP based traffic required the ability to maintain

periodic connection by exchange information, which is supported by AODV is the work of (S. Tamilarasan, 2011) [23], and found that AODV performs best. DSR was very good at low and high mobility rates and any kind of speeds. DSR and DSDV both perform well which requires the transmission of many routing overhead packets. In case of packet delay and dropped packets ratio, DSR and AODV perform better than DSDV on large nodes. Hence, for real time traffic AODV is preferred over DSR and DSDV routing protocols. In case of less number of nodes and low mobility DSDV routing protocol performance is superior than AODV and DSR. The [7] (Gagangeet, 2013), comparative study of routing protocols (AODV, DSR, GRP, OLSR and TORA) is studied for video conferencing application of MANET. The results shows that AODV has high throughput with low load and low data dropped but poor delay, GRP protocol has low delay, good throughput. OLSR protocol has poor performance for 30 nodes but its performance increases with increase in number of nodes. OLSR protocol is good choice for 90 nodes but AODV is best protocol for this scenario. The GRP protocol shows low delay, low load but low throughput and data drop also increases. The overall study shows that AODV is best suited protocol for video conferencing for lower number of nodes and OLSR is can be used as a replacement as its performance degrades for high number of nodes. TORA shows poor results followed by DSR. (Harpreet Singh, 2013) in [9] have done comparative study on routing protocols AODV, TORA and OLSR for HTTP application with scalability on the metrics Average end-to-end delay and throughput are considered as the performance evaluation parameters. The OLSR protocol outperformed the AODV and TORA protocols for network latency. In case of network throughput on varying the number of nodes performance of TORA protocol is very poor, whereas, the performance of the OLSR protocol is far better than the AODV and TORA in terms of throughput. This comparative analysis is done to identify the suitable protocols according to the network size, so that the routing could be more efficient and cost effective.

III. PROBLEM STATEMENT

In the last few decades, adoption of Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is growing day-by-day for different applications due to its simplicity, immediate deployment and cost-effectiveness. Depending upon applications the network area size can be small or large or varying. The adoption of ad-hoc networks has drawn an attention to find the performance of scalable network. Because of multi-hop nature of the ad-hoc networks, the scalability [4] is directly related to the routing protocol performance. The performance of MANET routing protocols under constant set of nodes with area size scalability [13] is important to understand before a



MANET deployment in terms of throughput, delay and network load.

IV. OBJECTIVE To study the performance standard MANET routing protocols in varying network area size and compare on network load, delay and throughput metrics.

V. ROUTING PROTOCOL

Routing protocols has the functions of selection of routes and delivery of messages to specific destination. The different criteria are used to classify the routing protocols. MANET routing protocols are classified as proactive or table driven, reactive or on demand and hybrid. OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA are the proactive, reactive and hybrid standard simulation experimental protocols define by the IETF MANET Group. Ad-hoc On Demand Vector protocol (AODV) is a reactive routing protocol. It is also refer as Source-initiated On-demand protocol [11]. It has minimum number of required broadcasts by creating routes on demand basis instead of maintaining a complete list of routes [5]. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [14] is reactive protocol operating as on-demand basis and allows mobile nodes to dynamically discover a source route across multiple network nodes to any destination within the ad hoc network. All nodes involved in packet transmission can cache this routing information for later use [5]. Optimized Linked State Routing (OLSR) is a proactive or table driven link-state routing protocol. In this routing protocol detection and then announcement of link state information throughout the mobile ad-hoc network is perform using hello and topology control (TC) messages [1]. Gathering-based Routing Protocol (GRP) offers an efficient framework that has strengths of proactive routing protocol and reactive routing protocol that collects network information at a source node at an expense of a small amount of control overheads [15][21]. The advantage of this protocol is that routes can be altered node by node and packet by packet simply by considering additional Quality-of-Services parameters. One of the major disadvantages of GRP is its complexity and overhead required for a distributed location database service [12]. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) was developed by Park and Corson is highly adaptive, loop-free, distributed routing algorithm based on the concept of link reversal. TORA involves four major functions: creating, maintaining, erasing and optimizing routes. TORA is a reactive routing protocol with some proactive enhancements where a link between nodes is established creating a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) of the route

from the source node to the destination [17]. DAG enables TORA to provide better route aid for networks with dense, large population of nodes [2]. TORA has main feature of propagation of control messages only around the point of failure when a link failure occurs.

VI. SIMULATION SETUP

The comparative performance analysis of MANET routing protocol of type proactive, reactive and hybrid is studied with the following simulation parameters. a) Simulation Setup and Parameters: The performance analysis of MANET routing protocol OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA for network area size of 500 X 500 square meters, 1000 X 1000 square meters and 2000 X 2000 square meters with 50 numbers of nodes is carried out for the study by the researcher. The MANET deployment scenario is shown in Figure-3.1 for the light video conferencing application in the campus area. The Transmission Data Rate of a node, the transmission power of a node, the nodes moves with the speed Pause time and simulation of time are depicted in Table-1. OPNET modeler 14.5 simulator is used for this experimental study. The MANET deployment scenarios are given in Figure-1, Figure-2 and Figure-3.

Table-1: Parameters considered for simulation of three scenarios.

Parameter Scenario-1

Scenario-2 Scenario-3

Simulator OPNET OPNET OPNET

Simulation

600 seconds

600 seconds

600 seconds

Area of

Campus-500 X 500 square meters



Number of nodes 50 50 50 Pause time Constant

(100) seconds

Constant (100) seconds

Constant (100) seconds

Speed of Uniform (0,10) meters/sec

Uniform (0,10) meters/sec

Uniform (0,10) meters/sec



Transmission Data rate

11 mbps 11 mbps 11 mbps

Mobility

Random Way Point

Random Way Point

Random Way Point

Figure-1: MANET deployment scenario for 500 x 500

square meters for 50 nodes.

Figure-2: MANET deployment scenario for 1000 x

1000 square meters for 50 nodes

Figure-3: MANET deployment scenario for 2000 x

2000 square meters for 50 nodes

b) Performance metrics for evaluation: The performance of the simulated results is analyzed using following performance metrics[22]:

1) Throughput: It is rate of successful data transfer in the network and measured as the ratio of total bytes in a packet received at destination and with time taken. Throughput is expressed in terms of bytes per second or bits per second.

𝑇𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡 = ∑𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅

𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 −𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 (1)

(bytes/sec or bits/sec) 2) Avg. End-to-End Delay (E2E): Average time taken by a

specific packet is the time to travel from source to destination in a network. It is measure as the total number of time taken for each packets divided by total number of packet received at the destination, is expressed in terms of seconds.

𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟.𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅 − 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 − 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅 𝐷𝐷𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷(𝐸𝐸2𝐸𝐸)

= ∑( 𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 −𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 )

∑(𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ) (2)

3) Normalized Routing Load (NRL): The ratio of Number

of Routing Packets Received to the Number of Data Packets Received is bits per second (bits/sec).

Normalized Routing Load (NRL) = 𝑁𝑁𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟

𝑁𝑁𝐷𝐷𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟 (3)

Where, NRpr is the Number of Routing Packets Received and NDpr is the Number of Data Packets



Received.

VII. SIMULATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

After simulation of three scenarios, OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocols performance results are tabulated and presented through graphs for further analysis and comparison on three different area sizes separately. The performance of individual routing protocols in the scenarios of 500 x 500 square meters, 1000 x 1000 square meters and 2000 x 2000 square meters network area size are analyzed and compared.

Scenario-1) Performance Comparison of Routing protocols (OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA) for the area size of 500 X 500 square meters.

The simulation results on average ‘Network load’, ‘End-to-end delay’ and ‘throughput’ for the routing protocols proactive (OLSR), reactive (AODV, DSR) and hybrid (GRP, TORA) are in the Table-2, Table-3 and Table-4. The Figure-4, Figure-5 and Figure-6 are for comparative analysis on network load, end-to-end delay and throughput respectively.

Table-2: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘Network Load’ for routing protocols considered with area size

of 500 x 500 square meters

Sr.

No.

Routing

protocols

Network Load (mbps)

Average Maximum Minimum

1 OLSR 4.67 7.48 0.04

2 AODV 2.05 6.22 0.00

3 DSR 0.95 6.26 0.00

4 GRP 4.89 7.12 0.004

5 TORA 0.22 0.75 0.009

Figure-4: Comparison of Network Load for OLSR,

ODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 500 x 500 square meters area.

Table- 3: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘End-to-End delay’ for routing protocols considered with area

size of 500 x 500 square meters

Sr. No.

Routing protocols

End-to-End delay (second) Average Maximu

m Minimu

m 1 OLSR 1.91 2.70 0.0004 2 AODV 6.77 13.25 0.01 3 DSR 23.97 32.22 0.02 4 GRP 1.20 1.79 0.0003 5 TORA 35.81 65.71 0.01

Figure-5: Comparison of End-to-End delay OLSR,

AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 500 x 500 square meters area.



Table- 4: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘Throughput’ for routing protocols considered with

area size of 500 x 500 meters Sr. No.

Routing protocols

Throughput (mbps)

Average Maximum Minimum 1 OLSR 6.29 7.73 2.21 2 AODV 8.71 14.11 0.00 3 DSR 1.06 5.99 0.00 4 GRP 5.05 6.57 0.20 5 TORA 0.39 0.83 0.018

Figure-6: Comparison of Throughput OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 500 x 500

square meters area.

Observations: From the Figure-4 it is observed that after 100 second of simulation all these protocols network loads start increasing. After 10 minutes of simulation time it is observed that TORA network load is consistent all the time and it is better than OLSR, AODV, DSR and GRP. The network load for DSR and AODV are moderate but GRP and OLSR network load are high compared to TORA. The researcher observation from above Table-3 and Figure-5 is that the routing protocol OLSR and GRP are the best options for the application where minimum delay is the requirement. The average and maximum end-to-end delay for OLSR is 1.91 and 2.70 seconds. For GRP average and maximum delay is 1.20 and 1.79 seconds. From Figure-5 it is observed that after simulation of 10 minutes TORA and DSR protocols performance is under perform for a small network area size of 25x104

The Performance of OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA under the network area size of 500 x 500

square meters are ranked (1-highest and 5-lowest) in the Table-5 for the comparison on the Performance Metrics.

square meters with 50 nodes randomly distributed. From Table-4 and Figure-6 it is observed that AODV performance in terms of throughput is highest compared to other routing protocols OLST, DSR, GRP and TORA. The routing protocol OLSR and GRP will perform moderately in this scenario.

Table-5: Performance comparison of Five MANET Routing Protocols for network Area size 500 X 500

square meters Performance

Metrics Routing protocols

OLSR AODV DSR GRP TORA Network Load

4 3 2 5 1

End-to-End Delay

2 3 4 1 5

Throughput 2 1 4 3 5 The application scenarios with network area size of 500 x 500 square meters in which, low network load is required TORA routing protocol is the best, minimum end-to-end delay is required GRP is the choice, highest throughput is important AODV is the best selection.

Scenario-2) Performance Comparison of Routing protocols (OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA) for the area size of 1000 x 1000 square meters.

The performance metrics network load, end-to-end delay and throughput are tabulated in Table-6, Table-7 and Table-8. After simulation the obtain results of network load, end-to-end delay and throughput are presented in Figure-7, Figure-8 and Figure-9 for the comparative analysis of routing protocols OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA.

Table- 6: Minimum, Maximum and Average Network Load’ for routing protocols considered with area size

of 1000 meters x 1000 meters Sr. No. Routing

protocols

Network Load (mbps)

Average Maximum

Minimum

1 OLSR 4.78 6.92 0.04 2 AODV 2.14 6.50 0.00 3 DSR 0.98 6.03 0.00 4 GRP 4.89 7.40 0.004 5 TORA 0.22 0.43 0.01



Figure-7: Comparison of Network Load for OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for

1000 x 1000 square meters area.

Table- 7: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘End-to-End delay’ for routing protocols considered with area

size of 1000 x 1000 square meters Sr. No.

Routing protocols

End-to-End Delay (second)

Average Maximum

Minimum


Figure-8: Comparison of ‘End-to-End delay’ for

OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 1000 x 1000 square meters area.

Table-8: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘Throughput’ for routing protocols considered with

area size of 1000 meters x 1000 meters Sr. No.

Routing protocols

Throughput (mbps)


Figure-9: Comparison of Throughput OLSR, AODV,

DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 1000 x 1000 square meters area.

Observations: In case of 106 square meters network area the average network load is lowest for TORA and highest for GRP and OLSR as per above Figure-7. From Table-6 it is observed that the OLSR, AODV, DSR and GRP maximum network load value is very high compared to TORA. From Table-7 the average and maximum end-to-end delay for GRP is 1.29 seconds 1.96 seconds followed by OLSR having average delay of 1.51 seconds and maximum delay 2.22 seconds. These two protocols is best compared to AODV, DSR and TORA in case of delay sensitive applications for the network area size of 106 square meter. From Figure-8 it is also observed that GRP and OLSR end-to-end delay values are almost same for the entire simulation time of 10 minutes. From Table-8 it is observed that the average and maximum throughput is 8.09 mbps and 13.59 mbps for AODV routing protocol. OLSR and GRP throughput is moderate; and DSR and TORA throughput is very low. The average simulation graph from Figure-9 shows that throughput are gradually increasing for AODV, OLSR and GRP and after 10 minutes of simulation time and the average throughput value for these protocols are 8.09 mbps, 6.49 mbps and 5.04 mbps but DSR and TORA average throughputs consistently remains low for entire simulation.



The Performance of OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA under the network area size of 1000 x 1000 square meters are ranked (1-highest and 5-lowest) in the Table-9 for the comparison on the Performance Metrics.

Table-9: Performance comparison of Five MANET Routing Protocols for network Area size 1000 x 1000

square meters Performance

Metrics Routing protocols

OLSR AODV DSR GRP TORA Network Load

4 3 2 5 1

End-to-End Delay

2 3 4 1 5

Throughput 2 1 4 3 5 The application scenarios with network area size of 1000 x 1000 square meters in which, low network load is required TORA routing protocol is the best, minimum end-to-end delay is required GRP is the choice, highest throughput is important AODV is the best selection.

Scenario-3) Performance Comparison of Routing protocols (OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA) for the area size of 2000 x 2000 square meters.

The performance metrics network load, end-to-end delay and throughput are tabulated in Table-10, Table-11 and Table-12. After simulation the obtain results of network load, end-to-end delay and throughput are presented in Figure-10, Figure-11 and Figure-12 for the comparative analysis of routing protocols OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA.

Table-10: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘Network Load’ for routing protocols considered with area size of

2000 x 2000 square meters Sr.

No.

Routing

protocols

Network Load (mbps)


1 OLSR 4.81 6.81 0.44

2 AODV 2.28 6.65 0.00

3 DSR 0.91 6.17 0.00

4 GRP 4.85 7.38 0.004

5 TORA 0.28 1.53 0.006

Figure-10: Comparison of Network Load for OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for


Table-11: Minimum, Maximum and Average ‘End-to-End delay’ for routing protocols considered with area

size of 2000 x 2000 square meters Sr. No.

Routing protocols

End-to-End delay (second)



Figure-11: Comparison of End-to-End delay for

OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for 2000 x 2000 square meters area.

Table- 12: Minimum, Maximum and Average

‘Throughput’ for routing protocols considered with area size of 2000 x 2000 square meters

Sr. No.

Routing protocols

Throughput (mbps)




Figure-12: Comparison of Throughput for OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA routing protocol for


Observations: From Figure-10 it is observed that for entire simulation time of 10 minutes TORA average network load is consistent and it is 0.28 mbps from Table-10 but in case of GRP and OLSR network load is gradually increasing and settle after 10 minutes of simulation with the values 4.85 mbps and 4.81 mbps. From table-10 the maximum load is observed for OLSR, AODV, DSR and GRP. Figure-11 depicts that the OLSR and GRP having the lowest average end-to-end delay which is almost constant throughout the simulation of 10 minutes and are the best choice for applications required fast transmission. Whereas Table-11 indicates that the TORA has the highest average and maximum end-to-end delay of 31.67 and 59.63 compared to DSR. Fair delay is for AODV. Table-12 and Figure-12 clearly describes that AODV routing protocols outperforms for 4x106

Performance Metrics

square meters with average and maximum throughput of 9.13 mbps and 14.93 mbps. Average and maximum throughput of OLSR is 6.54 mbps and 7.96 mbps, and GRP is 5.04 mbps and 6.64 mbps which are moderate compared to AODV. The DSR and TORA have poor performance in terms of throughput. The Performance of OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA under the network area size of 2000 x 2000 square meters are ranked (1-highest and 5-lowest) in the Table-13 for the comparison on the Performance Metrics.

Table- 13: Performance comparison of Five MANET Routing Protocols for network Area size 2000 x 2000 square meters

Routing protocols OLSR AODV DSR GRP TORA

Network Load

4 3 2 5 1

End-to-End Delay

1 3 4 2 5

Throughput 2 1 4 3 5

The application scenarios with network area size of 2000 x 2000 square meters in which, low network load is required TORA routing protocol is the best, minimum end-to-end delay is required OLSR is the choice, highest throughput is important AODV is the best selection.

VIII. CONCLUSION

With the fortification in MANET technology the society lifestyle are changing and giving new height to business world also. The applications of MANET is spreading and becoming important area of study with changing scenarios where various factor are affecting the performance of MANET routing protocol. However, it is challenge to find the performance of a network for an application in which network area size is dynamic. The performance of such networks is defined on routing load, end-to-end delay and throughput. In this study the performance of MANET routing protocols OLSR, AODV, DSR, GRP and TORA has been considered to understand the performance with varying network area size. The study results shows that if network load is important factor, then routing protocol TORA is the best choice followed by DSR, AODV, OLSR and GRP for scalable network area size up to 2000 x 2000 square meters. Similarly, if end-to-end delay is the important factor for the applications scenario, the GRP protocol gives better performance if network area size is up to 106 square meters and OLSR is the first option for 4x106

[3] Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, “Survey of Network Traffic Models”, /cse567-06/ftp/traffic_models3, pg.1-8,

square meters. The MANET applications need maximum throughput then AODV can be the first preference.

REFERENCES [1] Amit K. Chaturvedi, Jitendra K. Khemani, “Analysis of Mobility Models in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, International Journal of Computer Applications, 2014, National Seminar on Recent Advances in Wireless Networks and Communications (NWNC-2014), pg. 5-9, ISSN 0975-8887. [2] A. K. Gupta, H. Sadawarti, and A. K. Verma, “Performance analysis of AODV, DSR & TORA Routing Protocols”, IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol.2, vo.2, April 2010.

http://www.cse.wustl.edu /~jain/cse567-06/ ftp/traffic_models3/ index.html [4] Dhobale J V, Kalyankar N V, Khamitkar S D, “Computer Network Performance evaluation based on Network scalability using OMNeT++ Simulation Environment”, Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications, Volume 5, Issue 5, 2014, Pg 2041-2045, ISSN : 0975-0290.

http://www.cse.wustl.edu/�



[5] Ejiro .E. Igbesoko, Thaddeus Onyinye Eze, Mona Ghassemian , “Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols over Different Mobility Models”, pg. 1-4. [6] Gabriel Ioan Ivascu, Samuel Pierre, Alejandro Quintero, “QoS routing with traffic distribution in mobile ad hoc networks”, ELSEVIER, Computer Communications 32 (2009), pg. 305-316, ISSN 0140-3664. [7] Gagangeet Singh Aujla, Sandeep Singh Kang “Comprehensive Evaluation of AODV- DSR-GRP, OLSR and TORA Routing Protocols with varying number of nodes and traffic applications over MANETs”, IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE), Volume 9, Issue 3 (Mar. - Apr. 2013), pg. 54 -61, e-ISSN: 2278-0661, ISSN: 2278-8727. [8] G. Jose Moses, D. Sunil Kumar, P.Suresh, Varma N.Supriya, “A Simulation Based Study of AODV, DSR, DSDV Routing Protocols in MANET Using NS-2”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2012, pg. 43-51, ISSN: 2277 128X. [9] Harpreet Singh, Manpreet Kaur , “Simulation and Performance Analysis of AODV- TORA -OLSR Routing Protocols”, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), Volume-2, Issue-5, November 2013, pg. 66-70, ISSN: 2277-3878. [10] Jayanti, V. Nandal, "Routing Protocols in MANET: Comparative Study" International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, Vol.3 Issue.7, July- 2014, pg. 119-125, ISSN 2320-088X. [11] Karmveer Singh, Vidhi Sharma, “Performance Analysis of MANET with Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols and Mobility Models”, International Journal For Research In Applied Science And Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Vol. 2 Issue V, May 2014, ISSN: 2321-965, pg. 304-31. [12] Kuldeep Vats Mandeep Dalal Deepak Rohila Vikas Loura, “OPNET Based Simulation and Performance Analysis of GRP Routing Protocol”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2012, pg. 118-122, ISSN: 2277 128X. [13] Lovekesh Kumar, “Scalability Performance of AODV, TORA and OLSR with Reference to Variable Network Size”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), Vol. 2, 6 November-December 2012, pg .087-092, ISSN: 2248-9622. [14] Mona N., Haifaa A., Soha S., “A Comparative Study of MANET Routing Protocols”, IEEE-2014, pg. 178-182, ISBN: 978-1-4799-3166-8. [15] Naveen Bilandi, Harsh K Verma, Suryakant, “Comparative Analysis of GRP and TORA Manet Routing Protocols using OPNET”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012, pg. 34-37, ISSN: 2277-128X.

[16] Narinder Kaur Panesar, Darshan Singh Sidhu, “Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols using Traffic Models”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2014, pg. 717-723, ISSN: 2277-128X. [17] Park VD, Corson MS (1997) “A highly adaptive distributed routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks.” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 1997, Volume 3, ISSN: 1405-1413. [18] Parul Sharma, Arvind Kalia, Jawahar Thakur, “Performance Analysis Of AODV, DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET)”, Journal of Information Systems and Communication, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pg. 322-326, ISSN: 0976-8742 & E-ISSN: 0976-8750. [19] P. Manickam, T. Guru Baskar, M.Girija, D.Manimegalai, “Performance Comparisons Of Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2011, pg. 98-106. [20] Rahul Desai, B P Patil, “Analysis of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks”, International Conference on Circuits, Systems, Communication and Information Technology Applications (CSCITA), 2014, pg. 111-115, 978-1-4799-2494-3/14/, IEEE 2014. [21] Suchita Baxla, Rajesh Nema, “Performance Analysis Of AODV, OLSR, DSR and GRP Routing Protocol Of Mobile Adhoc Network - A Review”, International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, IJCSMC, Vol. 2, Issue. 6, June 2013, pg. 359-362, ISSN 2320-088X. [22] Sunita Swain, Sanku Sinha, “Comparison of AODV and ZRP Routing Protocols: A Simulation Based Analysis”, International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, Volume 03, Issue 03, May 2014, pg. 676-679, ISSN: 2279-0764. [23] S. Tamilarasan, “A Performance Analysis of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols in MANET”, (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 2(5), 2011, 2141-2146, ISSN: 0975-9646. [24] V. Rajeshkumar, P. Sivkumar, “Comparative Study of AODV, DSDV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET Using Network Simulator-2”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol.2, Issue-12, December 2-13, ISSN-2319-5940.

performance comparison of manet routing protocols (olsr ... · a mobile ad-hoc network (manet) is...

Documents