V. V Das and R. Vijaykumar (Eds.): ICT 2010, CCIS 101, pp. 610–615, 2010. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Comparative Performance Analysis of QoS-Aware Routing on DSDV, AODV and DSR Protocols in

MANETs

Rajneesh Gujral1 and Anil Kapil2

1 Assoc. Professor, Computer Engineering Department, M. M. Engineering College, M. M. University, Ambala, India

rgujral77@yahoo.com 2 Professor, M.M. Institute of Computer Technology and Business Management,

M. M. University, Ambala, India anil_kdk@yahoo.com

Abstract. Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) appear nowadays as one of the most promising architectures to flexibly provide multimedia services in multiple wireless scenarios. However, the dynamic nature of this environment complicates the supporting of the heavily demanded QoS. In this paper, an attempt has been made to performing the individual and comparative performance analysis of QoS-aware routing on proactive protocol (DSDV) and two prominent on-demand source initiated routing protocols: AODV and DSR protocols using network simulator NS-2.34.The performance matrix includes the following QoS parameters such as PDR (Packet Delivery Ratio), Throughput, End to End Delay and Routing overhead. We are also analyzing the effect in performance of QoS parameters on these routing protocols when packet size changes, when time interval between packet sending changes, when mobility of nodes changes.

Keywords: QoS, Performance, Ad hoc Routing Protocols, NS-2.34.

1 Introduction

Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) are self-created and self organized by a collection of mobile nodes, interconnected by multi-hop wireless paths in a strictly peer to peer fashion [1]. The increase in multimedia, military application traffic has led to extensive research focused on achieving QoS guarantees in current networks. The goal of QoS provisioning is to achieve a more deterministic network behaviors, so that information carried by the network can be better delivered and network resources can be better utilized. The QoS parameters differ from application to application e.g., in case of multimedia application bandwidth, delay jitter and delay are the key QoS parameters [2].After receiving a QoS service request the main challenges to maintain the mobile ad hoc network are: no central controlling authority, limited power ability, continuously maintain the information required to properly route traffic. Some studies [3],[4],[5],[6][7] evaluated the performance of the

Comparative Performance Analysis of QoS-Aware Routing 611

proposed routing algorithms. A detailed packet simulation comparative study of AODV,DSR,TORA and DSDV was reported in [3] highlighting the DSR and AODV achieve good performance at all mobility speed whereas DSDV and TORA perform poorly under high speeds and high load conditions respectively. In [7] three routing protocols were evaluated in a city traffic scenarios and it was shown that AODV outperforms both DSR and the proactive protocol FSR.A simulation study of AODV, DSR and OLSR was done in [4] and it was shown that AODV and DSR outperform OLSR at higher speeds and lower number of traffic streams and OLSR generates the lowest routing load.

In this paper, an attempt has been made to perform the individual and comparative performance analysis of QoS-aware routing on proactive protocol (DSDV) and two prominent on-demand source initiated routing protocols: AODV and DSR protocols. Section 2 of this paper describes Simulation Model and Performance Metrics of the ad hoc routing protocols. Section 3 presents the comparative performance analysis of the study Section 4 concludes the paper and future works.

2 Simulation Model and Performance Metrics

This section starts with a framework and overview of simulation techniques used for network performance evaluation and that is the most suitable technique to get more details that can be incorporate and less assumption is required compared to analytical modeling.

2.1 Performance Metrics

In this paper, the performance matrix includes the following QoS parameters.

Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): also known as the ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the CBR sources. The PDR shows how successful a protocol performs delivering packets from source to destination. The higher for the value give you the better results.

100*

1

1

∑

∑= n

n

CBRsent

CBRrecePDR

Average End to End Delay: Average End to End delay is the average time taken by a data packet to reach from source node to destination node. First we have calculated total delay by subtracting the time when packets was sent from the time when the packet was received. Then find the ratio of total delay to the number of packets received.

100*)(

____

1

1

∑

∑ −=

n

n

CBRrece

eCBRsenttimeCBRrecetimDelayEndtoEndAvg

Throughput: Throughput is the ratio of total number of delivered or received data packets to the total duration of simulation time. Like, we start the packet sending at time 1 and finish at time 10 so total duration of simulation is 9 (10-1). This is calculated by calculating total number of received packets divided by 9 (simulation time).

612 R. Gujral and A. Kapil

timesimulation

CBRreceThroughput

n

∑= 1

Normalized Protocol Overhead/ Routing Load: Routing Load is the ratio of total number of the routing packets to the total number of received data packets at destination. First we calculated total routing packets (RTR) then we have divided this total number of RTR by total data packets received at destination.

∑∑=

CBRrece

RTRPacketLoadRouting _

2.2 Analysis of Trace File with Grep and Gawk Filters

To filter the data from trace files, we have used simple grep and awk filter both. We have used grep command to count lines containing cbr and AGT and starting with S from AODV.tr file. Syntax is:

$ cat AODV8.tr | grep AGT | grep cbr | grep ^s | wc-l

awk is a good filter and a report writer. It is a pattern searching and processing language. We have written pd.awk filter to find Total Delay, Average End to End Delay and Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). The syntax of command to find total delay, average delay and packet delivery ratio:

$ gawk –f pd.awk AODV8.tr

The simulation parameters are considered when building the TCL script and pd.awk code has shown in figure 1 and figure2.

Parameters Value No of Node 25 Simulation Time 10 sec Environment Size 1200x1200 Traffic Size CBR (Constant Bit Rate ) Packet Size 100,500 and 1000 bytes Queue Length 50 Source Node Node 0 Destination Node Node 2 Mobility Model Random Waypoint Antenna Type Omni directional Simulator NS-2.34 Mobility speed 500,1000,2000 m/s Packet Interval 0.015,0.15 and 1.5 sec Operating System Linux Enterprises version -5

BEGIN { npacketsent=0; npacketrece=0; rtotaldelay=0.0; } { strEvent=$1; rTime=$2; strAgt=$4; idPacket=$6; strType=$7; if( strAgt =="AGT" && strType =="cbr"){ if(strEvent =="s") { npacketsent+=1; nSentTime[IdPacket]=rTime; } if(strEvent =="r") { npacketrece+=1; nReceivedTime[idPacket]= rTime; rtotaldelay+=nReceivedTime[idPacket]-nSentTime[idPacket]; } } } END { rTime=rEndTime-rStartTime; rpacketDeliveryRatio=(npacketrece/npacketsent)*100; if(npacketrece !=0) rAverageDelay=rtotaldelay/npacketrece; printf("total= %f",rtotaldelay); printf(" Averagedelay:%15.5f packetdeliveryratio :%10.6f" rtotaldelay,rAverageDelay,rpacketDeliveryRatio); }

Figure 1: Simulation Parameter Figure 2: AWK filter (pd.awk code)

3 Comparative Performance Analysis on DSDV, AODV and DSR

Detail of analysis are focusing on Packet delivery Ratio, Average end to end delay, Throughput and Normalized Protocol Overhead/ Routing Load .We are also analyzing the effect in performance of these QoS parameters when packet size changes, when time interval between packet sending changes, when mobility speed of nodes changes.

We have taken 25 nodes and simulation time=10 sec in our scenario file. Source node is 0 and destination node is 2. Node 2 is moving in nature so path to destination is changing. Figure-3 shows data transfer from source to destination and dropping

Comparative Performance Analysis of QoS-Aware Routing 613

Figure-3 (Simulation showing packet transfer)

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-4 (Packets Received when packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

No of Pac

ket R

eceive

d

Table-1 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015 sec) Table-2 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.15 sec)

Table 1 Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to

End

Delay

Throughput Routing

Load

Table 2 Packets

Sent

Packets

Receive

d

(PDR)

Packet

Deliver

y Ratio

Averag

e End

to End

Delay

Throug

hput

Routing

Load

AODV 600 184 30.67% 2.51 20.44 4 AODV 60 38 63.33% 3.95 4.2 5.81

DSDV 600 74 12.33% 2.28 8.22 7.85 DSDV 60 9 15% 2.20 1 9.44

DSR 600 158 26.33% 2.18 17.55 7.11 DSR 60 31 51.67% 3.19 3.44 4.22

packets are the packets lost during transfer.Figure-4 shows packets received in each protocol when packet size is 1000 bytes and interval between packet sending is 0.015 sec. In graphs, X-Axis shows the simulation time and Y-Axis shows the number of packets received in each three protocols.

Table-1 shows the performance matrix of three protocols designed after filtering the data from trace files generated after simulation. Table-1 shows the number of the packets received, PDR, Average end to end delay, throughput and routing load of three protocols separately. Similarly we have also simulated the graph for different situations like by changing packets size, by changing time interval between packet sending and by changing mobility speed. The performances of three protocols in different environment have been shown in table-2 to table-8. After analyzing all the tables at different packet sizes, at different time interval between packet sending and different mobility, we can say that DSR protocol is performing little bit better than AODV protocol which is performing much better than DSDV protocol. From table-1, table-2 and table-3 we are analyzing that as time interval between packets sending is

Table-3 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=1.5 sec)

Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to

End

Delay

Throughput Routin

g Load

AODV 6 3 50% 3 0.33 44

DSDV 6 2 33.33% 1.75 0.22 15.5

DSR 6 4 66.67% 0.81 0.44 14.25

No of P

acke

t Rec

eive

d

Simulation Time (Sec)Figure-5 (Packets Received when packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.15 sec)

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-6 (Packets Received when packet size=1000 bytes, interval=1.5 sec)

No of Pac

ket Rec

eived

Simulation Time (Sec)Figure-7 (Packets Received when packet size=100 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

No of Pac

ket R

eceive

d

Table-4 (Performance Matrix packet size=100 bytes, interval=0.015 sec Table-5 (Performance Matrix packet size=500 bytes, interval=0.015 sec Table 4 Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to

End

Delay

Throughput Routi

ng

Load

Table 5 Packets

Sent

Packets

Receive

d

(PDR)

Packet

Deliver

y Ratio

Averag

e End

to End

Delay

Throug

hput

Routing

Load

AODV 600 307 51.17% 3.38 34.11 2.73 AODV 600 201 33.50% 2.59 22.33 4.05

DSDV 600 74 12.33% 2.28 8.22 7.85 DSDV 600 74 12.33% 2.28 8.22 7.85

DSR 600 279 46.50% 3.10 31 2.91 DSR 600 219 36.50% 2.62 24.33 3.16

614 R. Gujral and A. Kapil

No

of

Pac

ket

Rec

eive

d

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-8 (Packets Received when packet size=500 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

No o

f Pac

ket R

ecei

ved

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-9 (Packets Received when packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-10 (Packets Received packet size=1000bytes interval=0.015sec mobility=500)

No

of

Pac

ket

Rec

eive

d

Simulation Time (Sec) Figure-11(Packets Received packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015 sec mobility=2000)

No

of P

acke

t Rec

eive

d

Table-6 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec,

mobility=1000 m/sec)

Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to

End

Delay

Throughput Routing

Load

AODV 600 111 18.50% 1.83 12.33 6.39

DSDV 600 56 9.33% 2.15 6.22 10.37

DSR 600 108 18% 1.80 12 8.60

Table-7 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec, mobility=500)

Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to End

Delay

Throughput Routing

Load

AODV 600 123 20.50% 1.93 13.66 3.67

DSDV 600 60 10% 2.18 6.66 9.68

DSR 600 122 20.33% 1.92 13.55 8.54

Table-8 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec, mobility=2000)

Packets

Sent

Packets

Received

(PDR)

Packet

Delivery

Ratio

Average

End to End

Delay

Throughput Routing

Load

AODV 600 103 17.17% 1.76 11.44 7.49

DSDV 600 54 9% 2.13 6 10.75

DSR 600 103 17.17% 1.76 11.44 9.35 Simulation Time (Sec)

No o

f Pac

ket R

eceive

d

increasing, numbers of packets received are decreasing. We have analyzed the performance of DSDV protocol at different packet size. From table-1, table-4 and table-5, we can say that there is no effect on the performance of DSDV protocol at varying packet size. At packet size 100, 500 and 1000 bytes, number of packet received is 74.Performance of DSDV protocol a different packet size is shown in figure-12. As the number of packets received in AODV is decreasing with increasing packet size, packet delivery ratio (PDR) is also decreasing. Average delay between packet sending is also decreasing with increasing packet size. Throughput is also decreasing with packet increasing packet size. Thus, performance of AODV protocol is decreasing with increasing packet size as shown in performance matrices table-1, table-4 and table-5. We can analyze the performance of DSR protocol at variable packet size from table-1, table-4 and table-5. We can see that packet delivery ratio

Comparative Performance Analysis of QoS-Aware Routing 615

(PDR) is decreasing with increase in packet size. Throughput of DSR protocol is decreasing as packet size is increasing. Routing overhead is also increasing with increase in packet size. Average end to end delay is decreasing with increase in packet size. It means the performance of DSR protocol is high at less packet size except the routing load.

4 Conclusions and Future Work

From all the graphs and tables, we analyzed that performance of DSDV protocol is not good as throughput is very low and routing load is very high as compared to AODV and DSR protocols. AODV performed good in some situations than DSR protocol but overall DSR is performing better than AODV protocol like if we compare average end to end delay. There is no effect on the performance of DSDV protocol if packet size varies as shown in figure-12. AODV and DSR protocols perform better at less packet size. Performance of all three protocols decreasing as mobility of nodes increasing. As observed from analysis AODV is more desirable in highly mobile networks and DSR protocol becomes mediocre in highly mobile networks due to use of caching and its inability to expire stale routes.

In the future, some other protocols Comparative Performance Analysis (TORA, OLSR etc) could be studied too with taking few other QoS parameters (Security, Power consumptions etc.) in our performance matrix.

References

[1] Qasim, N., Said, F., Aghvami, H.: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Simulations Using Routing Protocols for Performance Comparisons. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2008, London, U.K, July 2-4. WCE 2008, vol. I (2008)

[2] Gujral, R., Kapil, A.: Secure QoS Enabled On-Demand Link-State Multipath Routing in MANETS. In: Proceeding of BAIP 2010, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, March 26-27. LNCS-CCIS, pp. 250–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

[3] Broch, J., Maltz, D., Johnson, D., Hu, Y.C., Jetcheva, J.: A performance comparison of multihop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In: MOBICOM 1998, October 1998, pp. 85–97 (1998)

[4] Clausen, T., Jacquet, P., Viennot, L.: Comparative study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In: The first Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop (September 2002)

[5] Usop, N.S.M., Abdullah, A., Abidin, A.F.A.: Performance Evaluation of AODV, DSDV & DSR Routing Protocol in Grid Environment. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS) 9(7), 261–268 (2009)

[6] Lakshmi, M., Sankranarayanan, P.E.: Performance Analysis of Three Routing Protocols in Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Information Technology Journal 5(1), 114–120 (2009)

[7] Jaap, S., Bechler, M., Wolf, L.: Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc network in city traffic scenarios. In: International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, France (2005)