On-Demand Multicasting in Ad-hoc Networks: Performance Evaluation of AODV, ODMRP and FSR

IJCSI International Journal of Com puter Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org 478 On-Demand Multicasting in Ad-hoc Networks: Performance Evaluation of AODV , ODMRP and FSR Rajendiran. M 1 * Srivatsa. S. K 2 1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sath yabama University, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600119, India 2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, St. Josephs College of Engineering, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600119, India Abstract Adhoc networks are characterized by connectivity through a collection of wireless nodes and fast changing network topology. Wireless nodes are free to move i ndependent of each other which makes routing much difficult. This calls for the need of an efficient dynamic routing protocol. Mesh-based multicast routing technique establishes communica tions between mobile nodes of wireless adhoc networks in a faster and efficient way. In this article the performance of prominent on-demand routing protocols for mobile adhoc networks such as ODMRP (On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol), AODV (Adhoc on Demand Distance Vector) and FSR (Fishey e State Routing protocol) was studied. The parameters viz., average throughput, packet delivery ration and end- to-end delay were evaluated. From the simulation results and analysis, a suitable routing protocol can be chosen for a speci fied network. The results show that the ODMRP protocol performan ce is remarkably superior as compared with AODV and FSR routing protocols. Keywords: MANET, Multicast Routing, ODMRP, AODV, FSR. 1. Introduction One of the basic inte rnet tasks is routing between various nodes. It is nothing other t han establishing a path bet ween the source and the destination. However in l arge and complex networks routing is a difficult process because of the possible intermediate hosts it has to cross in reaching its final destination. In order to reduce th e complexity, the network is considered as a collect ion of sub domains and each domain is considered as a separate entity. This helps routing easy [1]. However basi cally there are three routing protocols in ad hoc networks nam ely proact ive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols. Of t hese reactive routing protocols establis h and maintai n routes based on demand. The reactive routing protocols (e.g. AODV) usually use distance-vector routing algorithm s that keep only information about next hops to adjacent neighbors and costs for paths to all known de stinations [2]. The reactive routing protocols (e.g. AODV) usually use distance-vector routing algorit hms that keep only informati on about next hops to adjacent neighbors a nd costs for paths to all known destinations [2]. On the other hand hybrid routing protocols com bine the advantages of both proactive and reactive protocols. Reliable m ulticast in m obile network was proposed by Prakash et al, [3]. In their solution th e multicast message is flooded to all the nodes over reliabl e channels. The nodes then collectively ensured t hat all mobile nodes belonging to the multicast group get the message. If a node moves from one cell to another while a multicast is in prog ress, delivery of the me ssage to the node was guaranteed. Tree-based multicast routing provides fast and most efficient way of routing establishment for the comm unications of mobile nodes in MANET [4]. The authors described a way to improve the t hroughput of the system and reduce the cont rol overhead. When network load increased, MAODV ensures network performance and improves protocol robustness. Its PDR was found to be effective with reduced latency and network control overhead. On Demand Mult icast Routing Protocol is a multi cast routing prot ocol(ODMRP) designed for ad hoc networks with m obile hosts [5]. M ulticast is not hing but communication between a single send er and multiple receivers on a network and it transmits a single message to a select group of recipients [6]. Multicast is comm only used in stream ing video, in whic h many m egabytes of data are sent over the network. The major advantage of multicast is that it saves band width and resou rces [7]. Moreover multicast data can still be d elivered to the destination on altern ative paths even when the route breaks. It is an extensi on to Internet architecture supporting multiple clients at network layers. The fundamental m otivation behind IP multicasting is to save IJCSI International Journal of Com puter Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org 479 network and b andwidth resour ce via transmitting a single copy of data to reach multiple receivers. Single packets are copied by the network and sent to a specifi c subset of network addresses. These addresses point to the destination. Protocol s allowing point t o mult ipoint efficient distribution of packet s are frequently used in access grid applications. It greatly reduces the transmission cost when se nding the sam e packet to multiple destinations. A primary i ssue in managing m ulticast group dynamics is the routing path built for data fo rwarding. Most existing ad hoc multicast ing protocols can be classified as tree- based or mesh-based. The tree-based protocol, a t ree-like data forwarding path is built with th e root at the source of the multicast session. The mesh-based protocol [eg. ODMRP], in contrast, pr ovide multiple routes between any pair of source and destination, int ended to enrich the connectivity among group me mbers for better resilience against topology changes. 2. Literature Survey A lot of work has been done t o evaluate the performance of routing protocols in ad hoc networks. Thom as Kunz et al. [8] compared AODV and ODMRP in Ad-Hoc Networks. Yadav et al. [9] studied the effects of speed on the Performance of Routi ng Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Corson et al.[10] discussed the Routing protocol in M ANET with performance issues and evaluation considerations. Guangyu et .al. [11] presented the application layer rou ting as Fisheye State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In view of need t o evaluate the performance of ODMRP with other com mon routing protocols used now days, si mulati on based experiments were perform ed by evaluating Packet Delivery Rat io, End to End delay and average t hroughput. Many researchers have evaluated multicast routing performance under a variety of mobility patterns [12-13]. The fisheye State Routing (FSR) algorithm for ad hoc networks intro duces the notion of multi-level “scope” to reduce routing update overhead in large networks [14]. A node stores the link state for every destinat ion in the network. It periodi cally broadcasts the l ink state update of a destination to its nei ghbors with a frequency that depends on the hop distance to that destinati on. Pei et al. [15] studied the routing accu racy of FSR and identified that it was comparable with an ideal Link State. FSR is more desirable for large mobile networks where mobility is high and the bandwidth is l ow. It has proved as a flexible solution to the cha llenge of maintaining accurate routes in ad hoc environment s. 3. Experimental Setup Evaluation of the performance of different rout ing techniques such as ODMRP , AODV and FSR was carried out through sim ulation using the GloMoSim v2.03 simulator [16]. The channel capacity of mobile hosts was set at 2Mbps. For each si mulation, 60 nodes were randomly placed over a square field whose length and width is 1000 m eters. Nodes comm unicate using MAC and CSMA for the routing protocols ODMRP, AODV and FSR. Each multicast source uses a Constant Bit Rate (CBR) flow. These parameters were chosen from “config.in” file with in the simulator. Based on the requirements the values were adjusted and then it was executed. Monitored param eters were average throughput, end to end delay and packet delivery ratio (PDR). 4. Results and Discussion The performance of the three routing protocol s, i.e. ODMRP, AODV and FSR were eval uated under varying simulati on conditions. The evaluation of perform ance was done on the basis of monit ored parameters, average throughput, end to end delay and packet delivery ratio. 4.1 Average Throughput Average throughput signifies the rate of packets comm unicated per unit tim e. The average throughput at a unit tim e (sim ulation tim e of 200 seconds) under varying number of nodes and mobility for all the sim ulated routing protocols are indicated in the Figure 1 (a-b). It can be observed that under most of nodal conditions the throughput of ODMRP is 4276.25 which are remarkably higher to throughput of AODV (3125.50) and throughput of FSR (487.25). (a) under varying nodes IJCSI International Journal of Com puter Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org 480 (b) under varying mobility Figure 1 Average throughput under various input conditions The FSR topology m aintains up-to-dat e informati on received from neighbori ng nodes. The topology information is exchanged between neighbors via Unicast. Each node mai ntains network topology m ap for distance calculations and when network size increases, the amount of periodic routing informat ion could become l arge. However the routing packets are not flooded. FSR captures pixels near the focal point with high det ail. The details decrease as the distance from the focal point increase. When the mobility increases the rou tes to remote destinations become less accurate. The route table size still grows linearly wi th network size [14]. Hence throughput of FSR could here been lower than AODV and ODMRP. Similarly for different mob ility conditions too, ODMRP routing protocol displa ys increased performance as compared to the other two. The ODMRP average throughput with node mobility is 5276.75 bytes per simulati on time as against AODV’s 3024.00 and FSR’s 298.75. The same reasons as stated for the im proved performance of ODMRP under differing num ber of nodes can be given here too. The same behavior is experienced in the previous studies too under similar conditions [12]. (a) under varying nodes (b) under varying mobility Figure 2 Packet delivery ratio under various input conditions It can be observed that the PDR of AODV routing protocol is higher than the ODMRP and Fisheye stat e routing protocols. Higher the PDR, higher is t he number of legitimate packets delivered without any errors. This shows that AODV exhibits a better delivery system as compared with the other two. The reasons for the higher PDR ratio of AODV can be attribut ed to its good performance in large networks with lo w traffic and low mobility. It discovers routes on -demand, and effectively uses available bandwidth. Also i t is highly scalabl e and minim izes broadcast and transm ission latency. Its efficient algorithm provi des quick response to link breakage in active routes. Moreover the ability o f a routing algo rithm to cope with the changes in routes is identified by varyin g the mobility. In this too the PDR of AODV protocol is higher as compared to the other two. Th e same reasons for the better PDR ratio of AODV under changing number of nodes can be given here too. 4.3 End-to-End Delay The total laten cy between the sou rce and destination experienced by a legitimate packet is given by end-to-end delay. It is calcul ated by sum ming up the tim e periods experienced as processing, packet, transm ission, queuing and propagation delays. The speed of delivery i s an important parameter in the present day competitive circumstances. Higher end- to –end delay values imply t hat the routing protocol is not fully efficient and causes a congestion in the network. The values of end- to- end delay for the protocols ODMRP, AODV and FSR simulated at different number of nodes and differi ng mobility values are indicated in Figure 3. As against the other two protocols studied ODMRP exhibi ts lesser values of end-to-end delay . This implies that for ad hoc networ ks, the multicast IJCSI International Journal of Com puter Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org 481 routing protocol ODMR P exhibits a better performance than AODV and FSR. (a) under varying nodes (b) under varying mobility Figure 3 End-to-End Delay under various input conditions 5. Conclusions Performance of the various routi ng protocols such as ODMRP, AODV and FSR were evaluated in this study. The following conclusions were drawn.  Both under varying number of nodes and di ffering values of mobility Average throughput is higher for the routing protocol ODM RP. The maxi mum throughput of ODMRP is 43% higher than the maxim um of AODV and FSR under varying nodes condition.  AODV has a higher ratio of legitimate packet delivery as compared with the ot her routing protocols evaluated, ODMRP and FSR. The maximum packet delivery of AODV is 38% higher than the maximum of ODMRP and FSR under varying nodes condition.  ODRMP performs bett er in avoiding network congestion as compared to AODV and FSR. The better your paper looks, the bet ter the Journal looks. Thanks for your cooperation and contribut ion. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowle dge Dr.P.Chinnadurai, Secretary & Correspondent, Panim alar Engineering College, Chennai for his encouragem ent and cont inuous support. They also appreciate the help rendered by Dr.L.Karthikeyan. References [1] Nadjib Badache, Djamel Dj enouri and Abdelouahid Derhab “ Mobility Impact on Mobile Ad hoc Routing Protocols” In ACS/IEEE International Conf. on AICCSA’03, July 2003. [2] Ian D.Chakeres and Elizabeth M.Belding-Royer “AODV Routing Protocol Implementa tion Design” International Conf. on Distributed Computing Sysmtes(ICDCSW’04) IEEE, vol.7 2004 [3] Ravi Prakash, Andre Schiper and Mansoor Mohsin “Reliable Multicast in Mobile Networ ks” Proc. of IEEE 2003(WCNC) [4] Weiliang Li and Jianjun Hao “Research on the Improvement of Multicast Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector in MANETS” IEEE Vol.1 2010 [5] M.Gerla et al., “On-demand multicast routing protocol (ODMRP) for ad hoc networks”. Internet draft,,(2000) [6] Shapour Joudi Begdillo, Me hdi Asadi and Haghighat.A.T. “Improving Packet Delivery Ratio in ODMRP with Route Discovery”, International Jour. Of Computer Science and Network Security, Vol.7 No.12 Dec 2007. [7] Gu Jian and Zhang Yi, “A Multi-Constrained multicast Routing Algorithm based on Mobile Agent for Ad Hoc network” International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing, IEEE 2010. [8] Thomas Kunz, and Ed Cheng, “On Demand Multicasting in Ad hoc Networks: Comparing AODV and ODMRP”, Proc, of the 22nd IEEE International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems(ICDCS’02),Vol-2, pp 1063-6927(2002) [9] Narendra Singh Yadav and R.P.Ya dav, “The Effects of Speed on the Performance of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, Int. Journal of Elect ronics, Circuits and Systems, Vol. 1, No.2, pp 79-84 (2009) [10] S. Corson, J. Macker, “Mobile ad hoc networking (MANET) :Routing protocol performance issues and evaluation considerations”, Internet Draft(1999) [11] Guangyu pei, Mario Gerla, Tsu-Wei Chen, “Fisheye State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Proc. Of IEEE ICC’00 (2000) [12] Yudhvir Singh,Yogesh Chaba,M onika Jain and Prabha Rani “Performance Evaluation of On-Demand Multicas ting Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks” IEEE International Conf. on Recent Trends in Information,Telecomm and Computing 2010. [13] Samir R.Das Charles E.Perkins and Elzabeth M .Royer “Performance Comparison of Two On-demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks” IEEE INFOCOM 2000. [14] Mario Gerla, Xiaoyan Hong, Guangyu Pei, “Fishey e State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks”, INTERNET- DRAFT- (2002) [15] Mehran Abolhasan and Tadeusz Wysocki “D isplacement- based Route update strategies fo r proactive routing protocols IJCSI International Journal of Com puter Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org 482 in mobile ad hoc networks” International Workshop on the Internet, Telecommunications and Signal processing(2003). [16] UCLA Parallel computing laboratory, University of California, About GloMoSim, September 2004 http://pcl.cs.ucla.edu/projects/glomosim/ .