Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2nd – 5th October 2011 | Sutera Harbour Resort, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Abstract— Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) is a and associated hosts connected by wireless links. It does
dynamic network without fixed infrastructure due to not require a fixed network infrastructure due to its
their wireless nature and can be deployed as multi-hop wireless nature and can be deployed as a multi-hop
packet networks. It is a wireless network and has packet network both rapidly and with low expense [1].
dynamic topology due to its node mobility. Networks MANET has its own routing protocols which can be
are being used in various areas and the demand of users compromised with frequent route exchange, dynamic
nowadays has motivated the emergence of the topology, bandwidth constraint and multi-hop routing.
heterogeneous MANET. Compared to homogeneous
MANET, heterogeneous MANET is more open to other
An ad hoc routing protocol is a convention, or standard,
types of network for example wireless LAN, cellular that controls how nodes decide which way to route
network and fixed network. In MANET, the concern is packets between computing devices in a mobile ad hoc
more to configuration and one of the important network [2]. The routing protocols that are available for
elements in configuration is routing. Ad hoc On MANET comprise proactive (table driven), reactive (on
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) is one of the routing demand) and hybrid routing protocols. Popular
protocols in MANET which can compromise with proactive routing protocols are highly dynamic
MANET characteristics. The aim of this research is to Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and
assess the performance of AODV in different mobility Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR) while
speed for homogeneous MANET and heterogeneous
reactive routing protocols include Ad hoc On demand
MANET through the simulation method. The
simulation scenarios derived from the HetMAN Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing
architecture (as been discussed in previous work) have (DSR). An example of a hybrid routing protocol is Zone
been developed in the OMNeT++ network simulator. Routing Protocol (ZRP).
The results achieved from the test have been evaluated AODV meets the MANET requirements for
using the metrics assigned; throughput and packet dynamic, self-starting, multi-hop routing between
delivery ratio (PDR). The tests show that, as the speed participating mobile nodes wishing to establish and
increase, the throughput and PDR decrease for both maintain an ad hoc network [3]. AODV is an on demand
homogeneous and heterogeneous MANET. From the routing protocol, that is, it builds routes between nodes
test also, we can conclude that the performance in
homogeneous MANET is better than in heterogeneous
only as desired by source nodes. It maintains these
MANET. routes as long as they are needed by the sources [4].
Nodes maintain a route cache and use a destination
Keywords-components; Homogeneous MANET, sequence number for each route entry. The fact that a
Heterogeneous MANET, Mobility Speed, AODV, node in AODV seeks information about the network
Throughput and PDR. only when needed reduces overhead since nodes do not
have to maintain unnecessary route information while
the use of a sequence number ensures loop freedom.
I. INTRODUCTION
There are two types of MANET [6];
MANET is a group of wireless computing devices open MANET (heterogeoues MANET) and
like laptop, mobile phone, Personal Digital Assistant closed MANET (homogeneous MANET)
(PDA), or similar devices which can communicate In previous work, we have design an architecture as
directly with one another without a central coordinator. we call it HetMAN [7]. In HetMAN architecture, there
A MANET is an autonomous system of mobile routers are homogeneous MANET and heterogeneous
638
TABLE 1. PARAMETERS SETUP
Parameter Value
Simulation Parameters
Number of nodes 5, 7, 8
Simulation time 3000s
Playground Size 500m2
Transmitter 2mW
Power
Transmission 250 meters
Range
Radio bit rate 54Mbps
A. Performance Metrics
639
the channel capacity used for useful transmission scenarios. Packet loss is due to the highest routing
selection of a destination at the beginning of the overhead when changing the node direction and speed.
simulation i.e., information whether data packets were The routing overhead also are increasing when the
correctly delivered or not [9]. Furthermore, many
number of speed average are increasing [13].
MANET applications benefit from increased throughput
[10]. Throughput is defined as the average rate of
successful message delivery over a communication PDR: Figure 6 indicates the influence of the node
channel. This data may be delivered over a physical or mobility speed on network PDR for the three scenarios.
logical link, or pass through a certain network node [11].
Throughput = total number of packets received by the
destination node over a communication channel.
Throughput is measured in bits per second (bps).
B. Simulation Results
Figure 6. PDR for scenario I, scenario II and scenario III
Throughput: Throughput is the main performance metric in 1000Bytes packet size and 500m2 playground size
for the test scenario. It is a measure of effectiveness of
the routing protocol. Figure 5 shows the influence of the Scenario I have 5% higher PDR than scenario II
node mobility speed on network throughput for the three and 46% higher PDR than scenario III. The graph
shows that homogeneous MANET has higher PDR than
scenarios.
heterogeneous MANET. The PDR for scenario I and II
are extremely higher than PDR for scenario III but
individually, the PDR for each of the scenario is
decreases as the speed increases. High speed mobility
causes the nodes to highly move and it effects the
packet transmission. Scenario III have more nodes
compared to scenario I and scenario III. The increase of
the number of nodes and node mobility speed causes
the collision during packet transmission which affects
the PDR value in scenario III. That’s explained scenario
III have very low PDR compared to scenario I and
scenario II.
Figure 5. Throughput for scenario I, scenario II and scenario In the future, this work will tend to increase the
III in 1000Bytes packet size and 500m2 playground size number of nodes so as to measure the performance of
AODV in different node mobility speed on the large
Scenario I have 21% higher throughput than scale network. The future works could involve the
comparison of the AODV routing protocol with other
scenario II and 38% higher throughput than scenario III.
routing protocols like DSR, DSDV, OLSR or ZRP in
The graph shows that homogeneous MANET has higher homogeneous and heterogeneous MANET. In addition,
throughput than heterogeneous MANET. According to we will try to use larger packet size with different
simulation for scenario I, II and III, the throughputs are measurement to determine the performance of the
decrease as the speed increase because of packet loss. network in different packet size and node mobility
Packet loss affects the throughput gain for the three speed.
640
Overall, this research shows that the performance REFERENCES
of the AODV routing protocol in homogeneous
MANET is better compared to heterogeneous MANET. [1] Z. Ismail, R. Hassan, A. Patel, R. Razali, A Study
These tests prove that the current AODV routing of Routing Protocol for Topology Configuration
protocol is less adaptable in a wireless heterogeneous Management in Mobile Ad Hoc Network,
MANET environment. Studies of the performance of International Conference on Engineering,
the AODV routing protocol can lead to the Electrical and Informatics (ICEEI 09), 5-7
development of an optimal enhanced AODV protocol August 2009, Bangi, Malaysia, pp. 412-417.
which can maximize routing performance, particularly [2] S. Mittal, P. Kaur, Performance Comparison of
in heterogeneous networks and overcome the limitation AODV, DSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in
of the existing AODV protocol. It is possible to expand MANET’s, 2009 International Conference on
the implementation of HetMAN architecture especially Advances in Computing, Control and
to consider a cellular network in the work. If possible, Telecommunication Technologies (ACT 2009),
the testbed can be developed to extend the test for 28-29 December 2009, Trivandrum, Kerala,
homogeneous MANET and heterogeneous MANET. India, pp. 165-168.
The possible future works include the further [3] E. M. Royer, C. E. Perkins, An Implementation
improvement of the AODV routing protocol to develop Study of AODV Routing Protocol, IEEE
an enhanced AODV which can match with the Wireless Communications and Networking
characteristic of MANET and hopefully the new Conference (WCNC 2000), 23-28 September
AODV will improve the performance of routing both in 2000, Chicago, pp. 1003-1008.
homogeneous and heterogeneous MANET. [4] S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, E. .M. Royer, M. K.
Marina, Performance Comparison of Two On-
V. CONCLUSION demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc
Networks, IEEE Personal Communications
AODV is one of routing protocols available for Magazine Special Issue on Ad hoc Networking,
MANET. It is on demand routing protocol which mean it February 2001, pp: 16-28.
is reactive to the demand of the network requirements. In [5] H.A. Amri, M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki,
this paper, we assessed the performance of AODV in Scalability of MANET Routing Protocols for
different mobility speed for homogeneous MANET and Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Networks,
heterogeneous MANET through the simulation method. International Conference on Signal Processing
In the simulation, node mobility speed has a large impact and Communication Systems (ICSPCS 2007),
on throughput in wireless environment so as on PDR. 17-19 December 2007, Gold Coast, Australia.
The result shows as the node mobility speed increase, the [6] S. Hashmi, J. Brooke, Authentication
throughput and PDR decrease. The studies of the Mechanisms for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks and
performance of AODV routing protocol hopefully can Resistance to Sybil Attack, Second International
lead to the new finding of a new optimal enhance AODV Conference on Emerging Security Information,
protocol which can maximize the routing performance Systems and Technologies, SECURWARE
and overcome the limitation of existing AODV protocol. 2008, 25-31 August 2008, Cap Esterel, France,
Overall, this research shows that the performance of pp. 120-126.
the AODV routing protocol in homogeneous MANET is [7] Z. Ismail, R. Hassan, Network Architecture for
better compared to heterogeneous MANET. These tests Heterogeneous Mobile Ad Hoc Network, 5th
prove that the current AODV routing protocol is less National Conference on Programming Science
adaptable in a wireless heterogeneous MANET 2009 (ATUR ’09), 10 December 2009,
environment. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
[8] A. Varga, R. Hornig, An overview of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OMNeT++ Simulation Environment,
http://www.omnetpp.org/doc/workshop2008/om
This research was carried out by the Network netpp40-paper.pdf [access: 5 January 2011]
Management Group, Faculty of Information Science & [9] A.B. Malany , V.R.S. Dhulipala,
Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). R.M.Chandrasekaran , Throughput and Delay
For more details, please feel free to visit our website at Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols, Int.
http://www.ftsm.ukm.my/network. Any opinions, J. Open Problems Compt. Math., ICSRS
findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed Publications , ISSN 1998-6262,Vol. 2, No. 3,
in this material are those of the authors. Special thanks September 2009, pp. 461-468.
go to Mr. Zulkiflee Kusin for his valuable guidance on [10] M. Ramakrishnan, M.A. Baghyavenil, S.
OMNeT++. Shanmugavell, Dynamic Reconfigurable
641
Routing for High throughput in MANET, IEEE - Eurecomm Seminar Series 2007, 18 January
ICSCN 2007, 22-24 February 2007, MIT 2007, Sophia-Antipolis, France, pp: 1-10.
Campus, Anna University, Chennai, India, [13] M. I. M. Saad and Z.A. Zulkarnain, Performance
pp.541-544. Analysis of Random-Based Mobility Models in
[11] Z. Ismail, R. Hassan, Evaluation of Ad Hoc On MANET Routing Protocol. Europian Journal of
Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol in Scientific Research, Vol. 32, No. 4 (2009), pp.
HetMAN Architecture, Journal of Computer 444-454.
Science (JCS), Vol.6 Issue 7 (2010), pp.830-836.
[12] J. Harri, F. Filali, C. Bonnet, On Meaningful
Parameters for Routing in VANETs Urban
Environments Under Realistic Mobility Patterns,
642