Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking Protocols Evaluation through Simulation for the Quality of Service

M.Asim Rashid, M.Haris Saeed Khan, Nabeel Ahmed Supervisor: Mr. Khayam Iftikhar. Bachelors Of Computer Engineering COMSATS Institute Of Information Technology Islamabad Email:- aaxsim@live.com harixaeed@gmail.com hot_nabeel@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of the quality of services for the mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) routing protocols and comparative evaluation within mobile ad hoc networks routing protocols from reactive, proactive and hybrid categories. To analyze the results of simulation for mobile ad hoc routing protocols for quality of services (QOS) of end to end delay, media access delay, throughput and packet delivery ratio for optimized link state routing, temporary ordered routing algorithm and ad hoc on demand distance vector protocol and compare their results with each other. Simulations are performed on OPNET modeler. INTRODUCTION In this rapidly developing world of today, there is a strong need for communication between people irrespective of their place information. As our paper is on Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking Protocols Evaluation through Simulation for the Quality of Service, we should be well aware of the idea that what basically the Mobile Ad-Hoc networks [1] are. An ad-Hoc network refers to a

Small network of devices connected with each other without having an access point. Its counterpart is the Infrastructure network. In MANTES there is no need to install base stations.[2] This project is basically a comparison of the evaluation matrices of the reactive, proactive and the hybrid protocols. The AODV represents the reactive, the OLSR represents the pro-active and the TORA shows the hybrid protocols. PROTOCOLS THAT HAVE BEEN USED We have used three protocols for our comparison. They are Reactive - AODV (Ad-Hoc on Demand Distance Vector) Proactive - OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing Algorithm) Hybrid - TORA (Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm) 1:- AODV

The AODV Stands for: Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector .it is a Type of Distance Vector Routing protocol and is used in MANETs Wireless environment. It does not maintain routes from every node and every node maintains its own increasing sequence number. It provides unicast, multi-cast and broadcast communication.[3] The main advantaged and disadvantages of AODV are:The Sequence number ensures that only latest route is selected. The AODV Generates routes on-demand to reduce overheads It Uses both unicast, and broadcast communication. Sometimes the control overhead increases significantly when multiple route reply packets are received in response to a single RREQ.[4] 2:- OLSR The OLSR Stands for: Optimized Link State Routing. It is a Type of Link State Routing protocol. In the OLSR protocol, All nodes elect group of nodes as Multipoint Relays (MPRs) only which broadcast routing table (control traffic).All the nodes broadcast list of MPRs instead of all neighbors.sometimes,Mobility causes frequent route changes. In order to cope with it, Topology Control (TC) messages are sent. All nodes maintain routing table with routes at all mobile nodes (MNs).[5] The main pros and cons of OLSR protocol are:The Routes are always available for communication. Constant overheads are created by control traffic. 3:-TORA TORA Stands for: Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm. In this protocol,[]6 Routers only maintain information about

adjacent Routers. It maintains multiple paths to destination when frequent topology changes occur. It Uses Internet MANET Encapsulation Protocol (IMEP) for link-state & neighbor connectivity. The main advantages and disadvantages of TORA are. It creates multiple paths for its use. It Minimizes overheads of topology changes. Its Bandwidth efficient and highly adaptive. The IMEP usage makes it impossible to separate overhead from this protocol. The Efficiency of TORA is affected by large sized network. The Quality of Services (QoS) The Quality of Services (QoS) is the Set of service requirements that needs to be met by the network while transporting a packet stream from a source to its destination. All The network needs are governed by the service requirements of end user applications. The network is expected to guarantee service attributes to the users in terms of end-to-end, bandwidth, probability of packet loss, delay variance, media access delay etc. Power consumption is another QoS attribute which is more specific to MANETs. The QoS aims to optimize multiple QoS metrics while provisioning network resources, and is a complex problem. The constraints or the bottle necks that are faced in providing the Quality of Services are the Time constraints that includes Delay, jitter Space constraints includes System buffer Frequency constraints Includes Network/system bandwidth Reliability constraints this includes the Error rate.[7] The widespread use of mobile and handheld devices is likely to popularize ad hoc networks, which do not require any wired infrastructure for intercommunication. The need for supporting Quality of Service (QoS) in these networks is becoming essential. Mobile Technology and real time applications

have needed to strictly support Quality of Service (such as throughput, delay, energy consumption etc). The Quality of services evaluation metrics that we have used are as follows:Throughput: total number of packets received by destination in a given timeframe. End to end Delay: average end to end delay of data packets from sender to receiver. Media access Delay: includes transmission delay, queuing delays and delays due to contentions and back offs.[8] SCENARIOS:We have made scenarios of AODV, OLSR and TORA in the OPNET 14.5 Modulator. The scenario of AODV is

Figure 2:- The scenario of OLSR The scenario of TORA is

Figure 3:-Scenario of TORA Figure 1:-Scenario of AODV. The scenario of OLSR is RESULTS We have compared the three protocols and have got some results as shown

Throughput

Figure 4:-Throughput Separate graphs are shown as follows Figure 6:-End to End Delay. Separate end to end delay are shown here

Figure 5:-separate Throughput End To End Delay Figure 7:-Separate End to End delay

Media Access Delay

CONCLUSION We have compared the performance of Reactive (AODV), Proactive (OLSR) and Hybrid (TORA) protocols. Presented results of throughput, end to end delay, media access delay. OLSR shows best performance with highest throughput, and lowest delays. Our results show that OLSR from Proactive Protocol category is most efficient protocol for MANETS. Most of the comparisons between these three categories have shown that OLSR (Proactive Protocol) is more efficient. However TORA (Hybrid protocol) has efficiently worked in small sized network. TORAs efficiency decreased in 50 nodes scenario.

References
Figure 8:- Media Access Delay Separate image is shown below

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_adhoc_network. [2]http://www.bluetronix.net/mobile_ad_hoc_ networks.htm [3]David Johnson, David Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4, RFC 4728. [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DestinationSequenced_Distance_Vector_routing. [5]http://www.ijcsi.org/papers/7-3-3-8-16.pdf. [6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_OnDemand_Distance_Vector_Routing [7]http://www.coursehero.com/file/1378426/P erkins99AODV/ [8]http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Ad% 20hoc%20OnDemand%20Distance%20Vector %20Routing/

Figure 9:-Separate Image of Media Access Delay