INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF MOBILITY

MODELS ON MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS

 Introduction
 The mobile ad‐hoc networks (MANETS) are autonomously self‐organized networks
without fixed topology.
 The mobile nodes in this network moves arbitrarily and topology changes frequently.
 In MANET routing, protocols play an important role to make reliable communication
between nodes.
 Mobility is one of the most significant factor that have effect on routing process.

2
 Classification of MANET routing Protocols:
1. Proactive Routing Protocols
2. Reactive Routing Protocols
3. Hybrid Routing Protocols

3
 Ad-hoc on-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Protocol:
 Reactive Routing Protocol
 It uses 4 messages to find and maintain the route.
1. Route Request message (RREQ)
2. Route Reply Message (RREP)
3. Route Error Message (RERR)
4. HELLO Message.

4
 Route discovery in AODV:

5
 Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) :
 Proactive, Link State ,Table Driven Routing Protocol.
 Optimization of pure link state protocols .
 OLSR reduces the control traffic overhead by using Multipoint Relays (MPR).
 A MPR is a node's one-hop neighbor which has been chosen to forward packets.
 Instead of pure flooding of the network, packets are just forwarded by a node's
MPRs.
 In OLSR routing protocol traffic control is exchanged by two type of messages they
are (1) HELLO and (2) TC.

6
7
 Geographic Routing Protocol
 Uses Geographic Position information to forward the packets from source node to
destination node.
 Uses Greedy forwarding mechanism to forward the packets.
 Greedy forwarding mechanism uses local information to transport the packet closer to
the destination in each step.

8
9
10
11
12
 Mobility Models
 Fast Car Model (FCM)
 In FCM, we assume that the nodes can move like a car at speed 30m/s or 108km/h.
 In this model pause time interval must be considered because the mobile nodes can
be stopped for a moment at different breakpoints.
 Slow Car Model (SCM)
 In this model, the car may move at a slow speed compared to the previous model
but on a busy street.
 Speed is reduced to 10m/s or 36km/h.

13
  Race Walking Model (RWM)
 In this model, mobile nodes are considered as human due to the fact that most
of the time MANET participants are carried by a human.
 Average speed considered is 4m/s or 14.4km/h.
 Human Walking Model (HWM)
 This is similar to the RWM model, but it has different consideration.
 HWM model speed is 2m/s or 7.2km/h.

14
 Performance Evaluation Metrics
 Data drop rate
 Average End-to-End delay
 Throughput

15
 Simulation Set-up
 Simulator: OPNET 14.5
 Environnent Size: 1500m x 1500m
 Number of nodes: 75
 Protocols :AODV, OLSR, GRP
 Speed :FCM (30m/s), SCM (10m/s), RWM (4m/s), HWM (2m/s)
 Performance Metrics :Data drop rate, Average End-to-End delay, Throughput
 Pause Time: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100
 Application Traffic: FTP Traffic
 Simulation Time: 900sec

16
 Simulation Results:

Fig. Simulation Results of Data Drop Rate [1]

17
 Fig. Simulation Results of Average End-to-End delay [1]
18
19 Fig. Simulation results of Throughput [1]
 Conclusion
 Instead of evaluating the performances of routing protocols according to the number
of nodes and traffic load, the performance evaluation is done based on the four
mobility models namely FCM (30m/s), SCM (10m/s), RWM (4m/s) and HWM
(2m/s).
 Regarding the end-to-end delay and throughput, OLSR protocol has the ability to
provide the best performance.
 In terms of data drop rate, AODV protocol performed better than OLSR and GRP
protocols.

20
 References
 Ako Muhammad Abdullah1, Emre Ozen2, Husnu Bayramoglu3 “Investigating the
Impact of Mobility Models on MANET Routing Protocols”, International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), Vol. 10, No. 2, 2019.
 Dr.S.S. Dhenakaran1, A. Parvathavarthini2 “An Overview of Routing Protocols in
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
Science and Software Engg 3(2), February - 2013, pp. 251-259.

21
 Thank you

22