SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE

ANALYSIS
OF
ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK
USING QUALNET 5.2 SIMULATOR
Submitted by:
Dipti Divya(904075)
Garima Astha (904080)
Harpreet Jolly(904085)
Jewshree Brahma(904097)

Under the guidance of Prof. D. Seth

Overview
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATION
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT
BACKGROUND & RELATED WORKS
SIMULATION & RESULT ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
IDEAS FOR FUTURE WORK
REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION
A mobile ad-hoc network(MANET) is a self-configuring infrastructure
less network of wireless mobile devices.
Protocol used is AODV & DSR
AODV & DSR are on demand protocol.
Fading is deviation of the attenuation affecting a signal over certain
propagation media.
Qualnet 5.2 is the basic simulator
Based on the results further comparisons were studied and performance
of the routing protocols were evaluated.


MOTIVATION
During natural calamities and other
disasters
Infrastructure network collapse
Ad hoc network gain importance as
no access point needed
Has its own nodes for routing and
packet sending
Acts as a helping hand during
emergency
Temporary setup
Does not require much time and has
acceptable performance
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT
wired network protocols cannot be applied to
the MANET.
Hence, various new routing protocols such as
AODV, DSR, etc. have been designed
specifically for dynamic topology.
Wireless Ad hoc Network provides lot of
flexibility
BACKGROUND & RELATED WORKS

Mobile Ad-hoc Network
A mobile ad-hoc network is a self-
configuring infrastructureless network of
wireless mobile devices.
Ad hoc is Latin and means "for this
purpose".
In short it is also called MANET.
Each device in a MANET is free to move
independently in any direction, and will
therefore change its links to other devices
frequently.

AD-HOC AND I NFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS
AD-HOC NETWORK
Ad hoc mode:
allows each device to communicate
directly.
no central Access Point
only able to communicate with other Ad-
hoc devices and not with any Infrastructure
devices or any other devices connected to a
wired network

INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
requires the use of an Access Point.
The Access Point controls Wireless
communication and offers several important
advantages over an Ad-hoc network.
For example, an Infrastructure based network
supports increased levels of security, potentially
faster data transmission speeds and integration
with a wired network.

BASICS OF AODV & DSR


Both are on-demand routing protocol

table driven routing mechanism
In case of link failure, AODV
broadcast the Route error message
to all its neighbors
AODV
source routing procedure
a unicast packet to the source
giving the information about the
broken link in case of link failure.
DSR
WHAT IS.
FADING
RAYLEIGH FADING
RICEAN FADING

FADING is deviation of the attenuation affecting a
signal over certain propagation media.
may vary with time , geographical position or ratio
frequency.
often modeled as a random process
Is one of the most challenging problems faced by the
communication system engineer in a mobile
environment.
RICEAN FADING is a stochastic model for radio propagation anomaly
caused by partial cancellation of a radio signal by itself.
occurs when one of the paths , typically a line of sight signal , is
much stronger than the others.
RAYLEIGH FADING is a statistical model for the effect of a
propagation environment on a radio signal.
most applicable when there is no dominant propagation
along a line of sight b/w transmitter and receiver
SIMULATION & RESULT
ANALYSIS

TOOLS TO BE USED
QUALNET 5.2

licensed network simulator
is specialized in simulating all kind of wireless applications
is a comprehensive suit tool for modeling large wired and wireless
networks
well documented
PERFORMANCE METRICS
Throughput

End to- end delay

Packet delivery ratio
Our study is confined to throughput and end-to-end delay
SYSTEM MODEL
1500 X 1500 TERRAIN
G
R
I
D

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
CBR
Connections
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
No. of nodes Simulation
time
No. of CBR connections
25 1500s 3 10 18
50 2000s 8 24 42
75 2000s 10 40 55
100 3000s 11 34 84
SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT NODES
PARAMETERS VALUES
No. of nodes 25,50,75,100
Placement of nodes grid structure
Terrain 1500 X1500
Data traffic CBR
MAC protocol 802.11
Path loss model Two ray ground reflection model
Routing protocols AODV and DSR
Fading Models Rayleigh and Ricean
Mobility Model Random waypoint
No.
of nodes
No. of
CBR
connectio
ns
No. of
mobile
nodes
Without Fading Ricean Fading Rayleigh Fading
throughput
( bits/sec )


average
end-to-end
delay
( seconds )

throughput
( bits/sec )
average end-to-end
delay
( seconds )
throughput
( bits/sec )
average end-to-end
delay
( seconds )

AODV

DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR
25
3 0 4050 4100 0.043 0.051
10 0 3900 4100 0.102 0.101 2450 4100 0.202 0.175 2400 4100 0.201 0.177
18 0 4500 4800 0.112 0.110
50
8 0 4050 4100 0.036 0.035
24
0 3900 4600 0.098 0.109 3150 4300 0.208 0.167 3100 4350 0.205 0.167
10 3650 4350 0.095 0.13 2650 4300 0.2 0.25 2700 4300 0.16 0.175
24 3500 3050 0.1 3.2 2600 2550 0.2 1.4 2500 2550 1.5 1.5
40 3200 2650 0.2 1.35 2350 1550 0.35 2.2 2300 1500 0.35 2.15
42 0 4100 4400 0.102 0.113
75
10 0 4000 4100 0.045 0.030
40 0 4200 4550 0.097 0.097 3100 4500 0.178 0.157 3000 4500 0.175 0.157
55 0 4600 5000 0.112 0.112
100
11 0 3800 4150 0.0218 0.0215
34 0 4050 4100 0.0176 0.0186
84 0 4050 4250 0.0199 0.0191 3800 4200 0.040 0.030 3900 4300 0.040 0.030
SIMULATED RESULTS
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N A NO FADI NG ENVI RONMENT

I t is observed that the
throughput of DSR is
always greater than
AODV for any number
of active CBR
connections.
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N A NO FADI NG ENVI RONMENT

AODV offers less delay
when the number of
active CBR connections
are between 20 to 60. I t
is approximately same for
rest of the cases.
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

The performance of
DSR is better in
comparison to that of
AODV in terms of
throughput irrespective
of the number of active
CBR connections
(traffic intensity).
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

AODV has more average end-
to-end delay in comparison to
DSR routing protocol. Hence,
DSR is better.
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RI CEAN FADI NG

The performance of
DSR is better in
comparison to that of
AODV in terms of
throughput irrespective
of the number of active
CBR connections
(traffic intensity).
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N RI CEAN FADI NG

AODV has more average end-
to-end delay in comparison to
DSR routing protocol. Hence,
DSR is better.
MOBILE NODES
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N A NO FADI NG ENVI RONMENT

I t is observed that the
throughput of DSR is
greater for low mobility
but AODV performs
better for large no. of
mobile nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
i
t
s
/
s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N A NO FADI NG ENVI RONMENT

10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
A
v
g

E
n
d
-
T
o
-
E
n
d

D
e
l
a
y

(
i
n

s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR
AODV offers less
delay than DSR for
any number of mobile
nodes.
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

I t is observed that
the throughput of
DSR is greater for
low mobility but
AODV performs
better for large no.
of mobile nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
i
t
s
/
s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

I t is observed that DSR
and AODV offer same
delay for low mobility
but AODV performs
better for large no. of
mobile nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
A
v
g

e
n
d
-
t
o
-
e
n
d

D
e
l
a
y

(
i
n

s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR
COMPARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RI CEAN FADI NG


I t is observed that the
throughput of DSR is
greater for low mobility
but AODV performs
better for large no. of
mobile nodes.


10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
i
n

b
i
t
s
/
s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR
COMPARI SON OF AVERAGE DELAY I N RI CEAN FADI NG

AODV offers less delay
than DSR for any number
of mobile nodes.
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
A
v
g

E
n
d
-
t
o
-
E
n
d

D
e
l
a
y

(
i
n

s
e
c
)
no: of mobile nodes
AODV
DSR

I t is observed that in ideal (no fading) environment the throughput of the
DSR is always larger than the AODV for any number of active CBR
connections when the nodes are static in nature.
I n both the Rayleigh & Ricean fading environment, the AODV has less
throughput and more average end-to-end delay in comparison to DSR
routing protocols
But when we consider real life scenario i.e. we consider the nodes to be
mobile, it is found that the throughput of DSR is greater for low mobility
but AODV performs better for large no. of mobile nodes in both ideal as
well as fading conditions.
Considering delay we see that in ideal case AODV offers less delay than
DSR for any number of mobile nodes same is the case for Ricean fading
environment whereas in Rayleigh fading it is observed that DSR and
AODV offer same delay for low mobility but AODV performs better for
large no. of mobile nodes.
CONCLUSI ON :
I deas for FUTURE WORK
In our project we have
assumed the simplified two-way
ground reflection model as the pathloss
model. These protocols can also be
evaluated using other pathloss models
which may give different results in
different scenarios.
REFERENCES

[1]. C.E. Perkins, Adhoc Networking, Pearson Professional, 2000.
[2]. C.-K Toh, Adhoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems, 1st ed.
Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall,Dec.2001.
[3]. Seth, D.D.; Patnaik, Srikant; Pal, Srikanta; "A Quality of Service assured &
faired MAC protocol for Mobile Adhoc Network," Communications and Signal
Processing (ICCSP), 2011 International conference on pp. 413-417, 10-12 Feb. 2011.
[4]. Hongqiang Zhai, Jianfeng Wang, Xiang Chen and Yuguang Fang; Medium
access control in mobile adhoc networks: challenges and solutions Wireless
Communication & Mobile Computing, 2006; Vol. 6: pp.151170, Wiley
InterScience. DOI: 10.1002/wcm.376.
[5]. S. Kumar, V. S. Raghavan and J. Deng, Medium Access Control Protocols for
Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks: A Survey, Elsevier Ad-Hoc Networks Journal, Vol.
4(3), pp. 326-358, May 2006.
[6]. Royer E. M. and Toh C. K., 1999. A Review of Current Routing Protocols for
Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine,
46-55.
[7]. Perkins C. E. and Royer E. M., 1999. Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector
Routing, In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing
Systems and Applications, New Orleans, LA, 90-100.
[8]. Rappaport T. Wireless Communications Principles and Practice 2nd
Edition, Prentice Hall.
THANK YOU