2011 7th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA)
Evaluation Study on Routing Information Protocol and Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-Hoc Network Zeyad Ghaleb Al-Mekhlafi and Rosilah Hassan Network and Communication Technology, Faculty of Information Science and Technology Universiti of Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract—In the recent years, the Ad-Hoc networks have been the focus of many researches especially in the routing protocols which include Proactive and Reactive routing. The strategy of forwarding the data packets from the source to the destination is the ultimate goal of routing protocols. Hence, the difference between these protocols is based on searching, maintenance and recovering the route path. The potential problem in Ad-Hoc networks is how to determine the optimum routing protocol that satisfies the needs of the application regarding to some criteria. This work will present the evaluation of proactive routing protocol Routing Information Protocol (RIP) and reactive routing protocol Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) based on the QualNet simulation. Moreover, the performance of these routing protocols will be measured based on the throughput, delay, average jitter and energy consumption metrics. The present paper shows that the routing information protocols (RIP) have better evaluation performance compared to DSR in the scenario. Keywords- Ad-Hoc network; Routing Protocols; Proactive; Reactive; RIP; DSR; Average Jitter; End-to-End Delay; Throughput; Energy Consumption;
I. INTRODUCTION The recent advancements in wireless technology have led to the development of a new wireless system which is Called Ad-hoc Networks. Ad-hoc hoc Network enables wireless devices to directly communicate with each other. In Ad-Hoc network, each node plays a dual role at the same time and functions as a host in the sense. Then, it obtains some information concerning the surrounding network and deals with algorithm which functions to control the process of sending and receiving data packages. The combination of both functions is known as a routing protocol. Ad-Hoc networks have gained lots of attention in researches especially in the routing protocols either as Proactive or Reactive routing. Therefore, the strategy of forwarding the data packets from the source to the destination is the ultimate aim of routing protocols. Hence, the difference between these protocols is based on searching, maintenance and recovering the route path. The decision for choosing the best routing protocol must take into account some issues like mobility of nodes, type of data, cost of path, application type,
978-1-61284-130-4/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
number of nodes, type of traffic and Quality of Services (QoS). II.
AD-HC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
The routing protocol determines the path of a packet from the source to the destination. To forward a packet, the network protocol needs to know the next node in the path as well as the outgoing interface on which to send the packet[1]. A routing protocol computes such routing information as well as the homogeneous MANET and heterogeneous MANET [2]. In general, routing protocols can be divided into two categories: proactive routing protocols (table driven) and on-demand (reactive) routing protocols. Popular proactive routing protocols are highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) [3], Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)[4-5] and routing information protocol (RIP)[6] while reactive routing protocols include Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)[7] and Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector (AODV) [8]. A. Routing Information Protocols (RIP) RIP is defined as a routing protocol which is as dynamic as OPSF, but it is widely used in both local and wide area networks, and it is categorized as an interior gateway protocol (IGP) which makes a use of the distance -vector routing algorithm. This initial definition of RIP was proposed by[9]. Since then, RIP has been extended and updated to RIP Version 2[6]. It is indicated by [10] that both RIP versions are still being used today, but they have been technically supported by more advanced techniques such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and the OSI protocol IS-IS. Moreover, RIP has been updated to IPv6 networks, which is known as a standard RIP next generation (RIPng). One of the advantages in employing RIP is that, it is easy to understand and configured as it is capable of being supported by all routers, support load balancing, and in general, it is free from loop. However, it is pointed out that it is not efficient, slow when it is used in large networks due to its configuration, supports equal –cost load balancing, its congestion raises a problem and its scalability is limited since it is only measured as 15 hop maximum. B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) DSR is defined by [11] as a routing protocol which is still on demand and in which the sender of the data can determine
2011 7th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA) exactly the needed sequence of the nodes to propagate a packet. This packet header includes a number of intermediate nodes for routing. Each node functions to maintain the route cache which cashes the source route being learned. It is stated that “Route Discovery and Route Maintenance” are the two main components of DSR in which together function to determine and maintain routes to random destinations. The purpose of designing such protocol is to make restrictions to the large consumption of bandwidth caused by control packets in ad hoc wireless networks. This process is done by deleting the messages of the periodic updates required and which usually appears in the table-driven approach[12].
A. Simulation Tools The objectives of this QualNet Version 5 simulation are to evaluate the study of proactive (RIP) routing protocol and reactive (DSR) routing protocol in Ad-Hoc networks in scenario. It has 5 experiences with different number of nodes. The evaluation metrics used are throughput, end to end delay, average jitter and energy consumption.
The possibility of establishing a route when necessary makes the sender to be able to choose and control routes by reducing the load of data and including routing which is free from loop containing unidirectional links in networks which are all the main advantages of DSR. However, DSR has some disadvantages. First, it may lead to significant overheads because the source route has to be included with each packet. It uses cashing excessively and lacks mechanisms by which it can detect the freshness of the routes which causes delay and reduction hence, the route mechanism for maintenance is unable to repair a broken link locally. Therefore, this makes the delay of the connection setup higher than it is found to be in table-driven protocols[13].
The number of nodes ranges from 50 to 210 nodes which will be divided into 50, 90, 130, 170 and 210. We will be implemented our work in five reasons experiences with different number of nodes.
III.
EVALUATION METRICS
Evaluation metrics [14] can be used in evaluating quantitatively MANET routing protocols. Such quantitative measurement is useful as a prerequisite for assessing or evaluating the performance of network or even to compare the performance using different routing protocols. This evaluation study employs the following performance metrics: A. Average End-To-End Delay This refers to the interval taking place between the data packet generation time and the time of the arrival of the last bit at the destination. That is, the average amount of time taken by a packet to move from source to destination. The process includes all possible delays which happen due to buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC and propagation and transfer times[15]. B. Average Jitter Average Jitter is known as the time variation measured between the arrival of the packets due to the congestion of the network, the drift in timing, or changing of the route[16]. C. Throughput Throughput is the number of delivered packets per unit of time[17]. D. Energy Consumption It is defined as the amount of energy consumed in a process or system, or by an organization or society. It is the summation of the idle mode, transmit mode and receive mode.
IV.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
B. Simulation Environments In this QualNet simulation, we will generate to implement our work. The work is using an 802.11 MAC. The parameters setup shows in table 1. It summarizes the parameters in the simulation such as number of nodes, time of simulation and type of traffic.
TABLE I. Parameter Number of nodes Simulation time Simulation area Routing protocols Transmission range Transmission Power Item Size PHY Type of traffic Date Rate Speed(min-max) Program simulation
PARAMETERS SETUP Value 50,90,130,170,210 1200sec(20Min) 800Х1200m RIP and DSR 270m 25.0 512bytes 802.11b CBR 11Mbps (10-100) m/s QualNet V5
V. EVALUATION OF RESULTS Result is obtained after the experiments have been conducted. The aim of this paper is to present the evaluation performance of each routing protocol with respect to the effects of the number of nodes. The evaluation metrics considered for average jitter, end-to-end delay, throughput and energy consumption. The tests highlight the evaluation performance of RIP and DSR in Ad-Hoc network. A. Average End to End Delay Figure 1 shows the influence of the number of nodes on network average end to end delay for two routing protocols. The average end to end delay value increases accordingly to the number of nodes for DSR. The maximum average end to end delay gains simulation with 130 numbers of nodes from DSR and the minimum average end-to-end delay gains from simulation 170 number of nodes from DSR. The average end to end delay values the increase and the decrease accordingly to the number of nodes for RIP. The maximum average endto-end delay gains simulation with 90 numbers of nodes from RIP and the minimum average end-to-end delay gains from simulation 170 number of nodes from RIP. From the graph, it is very clear that RIP out performs DSR for scenario of varying pause time, varying simulation time, varying speed
2011 7th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA) and varying number of nodes. In case of DSR delay time increases very sharply with increasing number of nodes. However, a sharp decrease is seen when the number of nodes is 170. RIP on the other hand increased and then decreased with increasing number of nodes. It is important to note here that RIP gives a low end to end delay compared to DSR.
C. Average Jitter The two kinds of routing protocols have the different jitter with the increased number of nodes, as shown in Figure 3. As a whole, RIP has better jitter than the DSR especially when the number of nodes is 90. In detail, RIP shows a better jitter than DSR when the number of nodes is greater than 50 while DSR shows the better jitter than RIP, when the number of nodes is 90 but when the number of nodes is above 90, the RIP gives a better jitter than DSR.
Figure 1. Average End to End Delay between RIP and DSR
B. Throughput Figure 2 shows the influence of the number of nodes on network throughput for two routing protocols (RIP, DSR). The throughput values increase accordingly to number of nodes for RIP while in DSR it first increased when the number of nodes rises to 50after which it starts to decrease very sharply with increasing number of nodes. The maximum throughput was gained from simulation with 210 nodes for RIP and the minimum throughput was gained from simulation with 130 nodes. The maximum throughput was gained from simulation with 50 nodes from DSR and the minimum throughput has gained from simulation with (90,130,170,210) numbers of nodes. RIP have higher throughput value compared to DSR.
Figure 3. Average Jitter between RIP and DSR
D. Energy Consumption The Energy consumption increases for two routing protocols at the start of our work, as shown in Figure. 4. DSR has a longer consumption than RIP. So RIP has the better Energy consumption than DSR except when the number of nodes is 50 nodes.
Figure 4. Energy Consumption between RIP and DSR
VI. Figure 2. Throughputs between RIP and DSR
CONCLUSION
In this paper, analysis and investigations were carried out on acquired simulation results of two routing protocols RIP and DSR using QualNet V5. RIP is selected as representative
2011 7th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA) of proactive routing protocol while DSR are the representative of reactive routing protocols. DSR is designed up to two hundred nodes. It shows effective number of nodes between RIP and DSR. Routing Information Protocol preformed better than DSR for all evaluation matrixes. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are deeply grateful to Ahmed M. Shamsan Almshreqi for his time, help, and guidance in QualNet especially during my graduate studies. Please visit our Network and Communication Technology Group in the website http://www.ftsm.ukm.my/network.
[7]
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
[13]
REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3]
[4] [5] [6]
Md. Junayed Islam, et al., "Simplified XOR Based Approach for Reducing Broadcast Redundancy with Fast Network Coverage in Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks," in 5th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA'07), 2007. Zahian Ismail and R. Hassan, "Evaluation of Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol in HetMAN Architecture," Journal of Computer Science, vol. 6, pp. 830-836, 2010. Charles E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, "Highly dynamic destinationsequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 24, pp. 234-244, 1994. J Moy, "RFC2328: OSPF Version 2," RFC Editor United States, 1998. R Coltun, et al., "RFC 5340, OSPF for IPv6," IETF. July, vol. 24, 2008. G Malkin, "RFC2453: RIP Version 2," RFC Editor United States, 1998.
[14] [15]
[16]
[17]
David B. Johnson, et al., "DSR: The dynamic source routing protocol for multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks," Ad hoc networking, vol. 5, pp. 139–172, 2001. Charles E.Perkins, et al., "Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)," Request For Comments (RFC), vol. 3561, 2003. CL Hedrick, "RFC1058: Routing information protocol," RFC Editor United States, 1988. G Malkin, "Ripng for ipv6," RFC 2080January 1997. David B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, "Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks," Mobile computing, pp. 153-181, 1996. Gergely Acs, et al., "Provably secure on-demand source routing in mobile ad hoc networks," Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 5, pp. 1533-1546, 2006. M.Uma and Dr.G.Padmavathi, "A Comparative Study and Performance Evaualtion of Reactive Quality of Service Routing Protocols Mobile ADHOC Networks," Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, vol. 6, p. 2, 2009. S.Corson and J.Macker, "Mobile ad hoc networking (manet): Routing protocol peformance issues and evaluation considerations," 1999. S.S.Tyagi and R.K.Chauhan, "Performance Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks," International Journal of Computer Applications(0975 – 8887), vol. Volume 1 – No. 14, 2010. Layuan, et al., "Performance evaluation and simulations of routing protocols in ad hoc networks," Computer Communications, vol. 30, pp. 1890-1898, 2007. Namit.Mishra, et al., "Selection of Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols by Performance Analysis," Proceedings of 2nd National Conference on Challenges & Opportunities in Information Technology, 2008.
