ENSC 895: COMMUNICATION NETWORKS

FINAL PROJECT PRESENTATIONS

Spring 2010

Performance Analysis and Comparison of Three

Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols

Reza Qarehbaghi
www.sfu.ca/~rqarehba/ENSC895_OPNET.html
[email protected]
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

2
Introduction
Cellular Network
• A radio network consists of a number of cells.
• served by at least one fixed location known as base
station.

Wireless LAN

• Centralized wireless network.

• provides a connection through an access point.
• Provides mobility within a local coverage area.

3
Wireless Ad Hoc Network

• Decentralized wireless network.

• Does not rely on a preexisting infrastructure such as base stations or
access points.
• Each node acts as a router as well as source node for sending data.
• “Packet Radio” networks were the earliest wireless Ad Hoc networks
from the 1970s, sponsored by DARPA after the ALOHAnet project.
4
Applications
• Mobile Ad Hoc networks (MANETs):
• self-configuring network of mobile devices connected by wireless
links.
• Nodes are free to move in any direction.

• Types:
• Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
• Intelligent Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
(InVANETs)

5
Applications
• Wireless Sensor Network (WSN):
• consists a large number of inexpensive autonomous sensors that
are spatially distributed and are networked via low power
wireless communications.
• Monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as
temperature, sound, vibration, pressure, …

• Applications:
• Area monitoring: e.g. presence of enemy in battle field.
• Environmental monitoring: e.g. forest fire detection.
• Agriculture: e.g. monitoring water tank levels for gravity fed
water systems.
•…

6
Routing Protocols
• Reactive Routing Protocols (On-Demand):
• Routing paths are searched only when needed with route
discovery operation.
• Source nodes may suffer from long delays.
• Less routing overhead.
• Proactive Routing Protocols (Table-Driven):
• Nodes continuously evaluate routes to all reachable nodes.
• Nodes attempt to keep consistent, up to date routing information.
• A source node can get a routing path immediately if it needs one.
• High routing overhead.
• Hybrid Protocols:
• Combines the merits of both proactive and reactive routing
protocols.
• Overcome proactive and reactive routing protocols shortcomings.

7
Routing Protocols
• Reactive Routing Protocols (On-Demand):
• AODV: Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
• DSR: Dynamic Source Routing
• ACOR: Admission Control enabled On-demand Routing
• ABR: Associatively-Based Routing
• Proactive Routing Protocols (Table-Driven):
• OLSR: Optimized Link State Routing
• DSDV: Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector
• AWDS: Ad Hoc Wireless Distribution Service
• CGSR: Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing
• Hybrid Protocols:
• TORA: Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm
• ZRP: Zone Routing Protocol
• OORP: Order One Routing Protocol

8
Dynamic Source Routing
• Uses source routing that means intermediate nodes do not need to
maintain update routing information.
• Each routed packet carries complete, ordered list of nodes in its
header through which the packet must pass.
• Eliminates the need for the periodic route advertisement and
neighbor detection packets present in other protocols.
• Has two major phases: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance.
• Route Discovery is the mechanism by which source wishing to send a
packet to a destination obtains a source route to it and then “Route
Reply” is generated when the destination receives a route request.
• When Route Maintenance indicates a source route is broken, source is
notified with a Route Error packet.

9
Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
• Needs periodic route advertisement and neighbor detection.
• Borrows the basic on-demand mechanism of Route Discovery and
Route Maintenance from DSR .
• Three type of control packets:
• RREQ (Route REQuest):
• Broadcasts into the network to search for a specific destination.
• Sets up reverse path to the source as it travels node to node.
• Contains hop count and source and destination address and
sequence number.
• RREP (Route REPly):
• Travels back to the source, based on the reverse path.
• RERR (Route ERRor):
• when an intermediate node discovers a link breakage due to
moving nodes, it propagates an RERR packet.
10
Optimized Link State Routing
• Each node periodically broadcasts its routing table allowing each
node to build a global view of the network topology.
• Periodic routing tables create a large amount of overhead.
• Reduces overhead by limiting number of nodes can forward
network wide traffic through Multi Point Relays (MPRs).
• MPRs are responsible for forwarding routing messages and
optimization for controlled flooding and operations.
• After detecting a broken link, it does not notify the source
immediately and source node notifies when the intermediate node
broadcasts its next packet.

11
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

12
Related Works
• G. Jayakumar and G. Ganapathy, “Performance Comparison of Mobile
Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocol,” IJCSNS International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security, vol.7, no.11, pp. 77-84,
Nov 2007.
 Simulation of AODV and DSR with ns-2.
• A. Suresh, “Performance Analysis of Ad hoc On-demand Distance
Vector routing (AODV) using OPNET Simulator,” M.S. Mini Project,
University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, 2005.
 Simulation of AODV with OPNET.
• J. Broch et al., “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless
Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 4th annual
ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and
networking, Dallas, Texas, United States, October 1998, pp. 85–97.
 Simulation of AODV, DSR, DSDV, and TORA with ns-2.
13
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

14
OPNET Model
• Twelve Scenarios:
• Three Scenarios for AODV:
• FTP
• MPEG4 Video
• MPEG2 Video
• Three Scenarios for DSR:
• FTP
• MPEG4 Video
• MPEG2 Video
• Three Scenarios for OLSR with “Hello” messages (every 1 sec):
• FTP
• MPEG4 Video
• MPEG2 Video
• Three Scenarios for OLSR with “Hello” messages (every 5 sec):
• FTP
• MPEG4 Video
• MPEG2 Video 15
 OPNET Model

• Mobile Node starts moving after 3

minutes.
• It takes 2 minute to move 1km.
• Destination starts moving after 8
minutes.
• It takes 80 seconds to move 650m.
• Each node has 450m distance with its
neighbor nodes.

16
Network Design Parameters
• FTP Traffic:

• MPEG4 Video:
• 352x288 at 25 fps
• MPEG2 Video:
• 1280x720 at 30 fps
• Ideal wireless environment.

17
Network Design Parameters
• DSR Routing Parameters:
• Route Expiry Timer: 30s
• Request Table Size (nodes): 6
• Send Buffer Maximum Size: Infinity
• AODV Routing Parameters:
• Route Request Retries: 5
• Hello Interval (seconds): uniform (1, 1.1)
• Net Diameter: 6
• Local Repair: Enabled
• OLSR:
• Willingness: High
• Hello Interval (seconds): 1 (High Traffic Hello Message Scenario)
• Hello Interval (seconds): 5 (Low Traffic Hello Message Scenario)
18
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

19
FTP General Statistics
 AODV
 DSR
 OLSR (High Traffic)
 OLSR (Low Traffic)

Average Upload
Response Time
(sec)

Average FTP Traffic Average TCP Delay

Received (bytes/sec) (sec)
20
 MPEG4 Traffic Throughput
• AODV • OLSR
• MPEG4 Traffic: (High Traffic)
 Sent • MPEG4 Traffic:
 Received  Sent
• (Bytes/sec)  Received
• (Bytes/sec)

• DSR • OLSR
• MPEG4 Traffic: (Low Traffic)
 Sent • MPEG4 Traffic:
 Received  Sent
• (Bytes/sec)  Received
• (Bytes/sec)

21
 MPEG2 Traffic Throughput
• AODV • OLSR
• MPEG2 Traffic: (High Traffic)
 Sent • MPEG2 Traffic:
 Received  Sent
• (Bytes/sec)  Received
• (Bytes/sec)

• DSR • OLSR
• MPEG2 Traffic: (Low Traffic)
 Sent • MPEG2 Traffic:
 Received  Sent
• (Bytes/sec)  Received
• (Bytes/sec)

22
Routing Traffic (FTP)

AODV

DSR

OLSR (High
Traffic)

OLSR (Low
Traffic)

Routing Traffic sent Routing Traffic Received

pkts/sec pkts/sec 23
Video Packet delay variation

 AODV
 DSR
 OLSR (High
Traffic)
 OLSR (Low
Traffic)

video packet delay variation video packet delay variation

(MPEG4) (MPEG2)
24
Video Packet Delay

 AODV
 DSR
 OLSR (High
Traffic)
 OLSR (Low
Traffic)

video packet E2E delay video packet E2E delay

(MPEG4) (MPEG2)
25
Route Discovery Time
 AODV
 DSR

MPEG4

FTP MPEG2
Average in Route Discovery Time
26
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

27
Conclusions
• 12 Scenarios, 30 min simulation time each:
• 6 hours of simulation time / Actual time ≈ 7 hours.
• OLSR with low traffic hello message acts better in FTP.
• High routing traffic.
• AODV acts better in MPEG4 video transfer.
• Low routing traffic.
• Good throughput.
• Low packet jitter and E2E delay.
• All of protocols act poorly in MPEG2 video transfer.
• They are not able to transfer high rate video traffic.
• On-demand routing protocols are better in order to save more
battery power in WSNs.
28
Future Work
• Develop complex scenarios with more nodes and more mobility.

• Realistic wireless environment.

• Use workstations with actual properties.

• Compare more Ad Hoc routing protocols.

• Develop a Short Message Service (SMS) system based on wireless

Ad Hoc network for sending and receiving text messages in mobile
phones.

29
Roadmap

• Introduction
• Related Works
• OPNET Model
• Simulation Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• References

30
References
• S. K. Sarkar, T. G. Basavaraju, and C. Puttamadappa, Ad Hoc Mobile
Wireless Networks: Principles, Protocols, and Applications, New
York, Auerbach Publications, 2007, pp. 77-94.
• G. Jayakumar and G. Ganapathy, “Performance Comparison of Mobile
Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocol,” IJCSNS International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security, vol.7, no.11, pp. 77-84,
Nov 2007.
• J. Broch et al., “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless
Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 4th annual
ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and
networking, Dallas, Texas, United States, October 1998, pp. 85–97.
• A. Zaballos et al., “AdHoc Routing Performance Study Using OPNET
Modeler,” in OPNETWORK 2006, Washington, DC, Aug. 2006.

31
References
• E. Royer and C. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-
hoc Mobile Wireless Networks,” IEEE Personal Communication
Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 46-55, April 1999.
• A. Suresh, “Performance Analysis of Ad hoc On-demand Distance
Vector routing (AODV) using OPNET Simulator,” M.S. Mini Project,
University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, 2005.
• K. Gorantala, “Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” M.S.
Thesis, Umeå University, Sweden, 2006.
• Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Network Planning Solution Standard Models
User Guide, Cisco Systems, Inc., 2005.
• OPNET Technologies, Inc. Making Networks and Applications
Perform, “HOW TO: Design Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and Protocols,”
OPNET Technologies, Inc., 2007.
• W. Hrudey and Lj. Trajkovic, “Streaming video content over IEEE
802.16/WiMAX broadband access,” OPNETWORK 2008, Washington,
DC, Aug. 2008. 32
Any Question?

33