Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
1.1 MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK (MANET):
A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) consists of a number of mobile battery
powered energy constraint nodes communicating with each other in single or multiple
hops over wireless links. They are temporary and infrastructure less without any central
controller. Every node generates its own data traffic and cooperatively forwards others
which are not in direct communication range of each other i.e. acts both as an end
terminal and router. Due to the mobility and dynamic addition/deletion of nodes,
topology changes frequently and on-demand routing protocols are required. MANETs
should be capable of handling these topology changes through network reconfigurations.
Routing protocols for MANET should be adaptive to the topology changes and be
capable of discovering new routes when old routes becomes invalid due to such change.
The number of nodes in MANET changes with time so the routing protocols should be
scalable.
A mobile ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes that are
dynamically and arbitrarily located in such a manner that the interconnections between
nodes are capable of changing on a continual basis. There are some unique characteristics
of mobile ad hoc networks.
Low cost of deployment: Ad hoc networks can be deployed on the fly; hence no
1.3 OBJECTIVE:
To study various cluster based routing schemes in mobile ad-hoc networks and
schemes in mobile ad-hoc networks and implement distributed weighted cluster based
implement distributed weighted cluster based routing algorithm.
Design a routing protocol for MANET that is Efficient, scalable, distributed and simple to
implement. Evaluate CBRP through simulation compare with different design alternatives
compare against other MANET protocols.
1.4 MOTIVATION:
Major design decision use clustering approach to minimize on-demand route
discovery traffic, use local repair to reduce route acquisition delay and new route
discovery traffic suggest a solution to use uni-directional links
A lot of research is currently going on in moiled-hoc networks. Chief occurs being to
develop an efficient routing protocol which provides for efficient communication with
minimum energy requirement.
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol RFC 3626.
BENEFITES
Being a proactive protocol, routes to all destinations within the network are
known and maintained before use. Having the routes available within the standard
routing table can be useful for some systems and network applications as there is
no route discovery delay associated with finding a new route.
The routing overhead generated, while generally greater than that of a reactive
protocol, does not increase with the number of routes being created.
Default and network routes can be injected into the system by HNA messages
allowing for connection to the internet or other networks within the
OLSR MANET cloud. Network routes are something reactive protocols do not
currently execute well.
Power-Aware DSR-based
BENEFITS
The main advantage of this protocol is having routes established on demand and
that destination sequence numbers are applied to find the latest route to the
destination. The connection setup delay is lower.
ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) ZRP uses IARP as pro-active and IERP as reactive
component.
BENEFITS:
source and destination of a packet are in the same zone, the packet can be
delivered immediately.
Most existing proactive routing algorithms can be used as the IARP for ZRP.
In ZRP a zone is defined around each node, called the node's k-neighborhood,
which consists of all nodes within k hops of the node. Border nodes are nodes
To understand their application we have to see what they offer and how they
establish
Establishing this type of networks requires mobile devices with the right
instantaneous deployment.
The cooperation of the users is necessary to the operation of ad-hoc networks;
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reactive
Hybrid
Scalability
Limited search cost
Up-to date routing information
within zones
Slow convergence
Tendency of creating
loops
Large amount of
resource are needed.
Routing information in
not dully used.
Not always up to date
routes
Large delay
Control traffic and
overhead cost
Arbitrary proactive
schemes within zones.
Inter zone routing
latencies.
More resource for large
size zones.
The study has been done to compare the efficiency of the various categories of
routing protocols: DSDV, AODV, FSR, LAR, OLSR, STAR, and ZRP. The overall goal
of our simulation study is to analyze the behavior and performance of the protocols under
a range of various scenarios. Simulations have been run using a mobile ad hoc networks
composed of 10, 15, 25, 50 and 75 nodes moving over a rectangular 1500 m 1500 m
space and operating over 30 seconds of simulation time. All nodes move according to the
random way point mobility model.
Table 1.2: Traditional Routing Protocols
11
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol backing the core routing
decisions on the Internet. It maintains a table of IP networks or prefixes which
designate network reach-ability among autonomous systems (AS). It is described
as a path vector protocol. BGP does not use traditional Interior Gateway
Protocol(IGP) metrics, but makes routing decisions based on path, network
policies and/or rule-sets. For this reason, it is more appropriately termed a reachability protocol rather than routing protocol.
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is an adaptive routing protocol for Internet
Protocol (IP) networks. It uses a link state routing algorithm and falls into the
group of interior routing protocols, operating within a single autonomous
system (AS).
Table 1.3: Routing Property
Routing property
Routing structure
Route availability
Proactive
Both flat and
hierarchical
Always available, if
Reactive
Mostly flat, except
CBRP
Determined when
12
Hybrid
Mostly hierarchical
Depends on the
needed
Traffic control
Usually high
Low
Mobility handling
effects
usually updates
occurs based on
mobility at fixed
intervals
High
ABR introduced
LBQ, AODV uses
local route
discovery
Usually lower than
proactive protocols
Delay level
Higher than
proactive
Scalability level to
perform efficient
routing
Usually up to 100
nodes
Source routing
protocols up to few
100 nodes point to
point may scale
higher
Storage
requirements
location of the
destination
Mostly lower than
proactive and
reactive
Usually more than
one path may be
available
Usually depends on
the size of each
cluster
For local destination
small, since inter
zone may be as
large as reactive
protocols.
Designed for up to
1000 or more nodes
in every situation. Typically a secure protocol is only good at protecting the network
against one specific type of attacks.
Many researchers have been done to evaluate the performance of secure routing
protocols in comparison with normal routing protocols. One of the objectives of this
research is to examine the additional cost of adding a security feature into non-secure
routing protocols in various scenarios. The additional cost includes delay in packet
transmission, the low rate of data packets over the total packets sent, etc.
It is well known that the real-world network does not operate in an ideal working
environment, meaning that there are always threats and malicious actions affecting the
performance of the network.
Thus, studying the performance of secure routing protocols in malicious
environments is needed in order to effectively evaluate the performance of those routing
protocols. In the thesis, I have implemented two secure routing protocols: a secure
version of the dynamic source routing - DSR (OLSR) and Secure Ad hoc On-demand
Distance Vector routing protocol (SAODV) in the OPNET simulation environments. I
will also create malicious scenarios by implementing several attacks in the simulation
environments.
In ad hoc networks, nodes are not familiar with the topology of their networks.
Instead, they have to discover it: typically, a new node announces its presence and listens
for announcements broadcast by its neighbors. Each node learns about others nearby and
how to reach them, and may announce that it too can reach them.
14
Chapter III discusses security issues in MANETs with a focus on secure routing in
MANETs. It focuses on the attacks and exploits that are possible in an ad hoc wireless
network. It explains the working mechanism of four of the state-of-the-art routing
protocols including OLSR and Secure Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing
protocols.
Chapter IV discusses the system Architecture employed to study the performance
of routing protocols in MANETs. A brief description of the OPNET Modeler simulator
environment is provided. The scenarios, metrics and the issues faced are explained. A
summary concludes the chapter.
Chapter V discusses the simulation approach employed to study the performance
of routing protocols in MANETs. A brief description of the OPNET Modeler simulator
environment is provided. The scenarios, metrics and the issues faced are explained. A
summary concludes the chapter.
Chapter VI forms the core of this thesis and discusses the experiments carried out
to analyze the performance of DSR, OLSR-INRIA, AODV, ZRP and SAODV. The
experimental results and their analyses follow the experiments.
Chapter VII concludes this thesis along with suggestions for future work in the
area of mobile ad hoc networks.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
BASED ON IPV4 AND IPV6 FOR MANET
Ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes where wireless radio
interface connects each device in a MANET to move freely, independently and randomly.
Routing protocols in mobile ad hoc network helps to communicate source node with
15
destination node by sending and receiving packets. Many authors have compared various
routing protocols such as AODV, DSR, DSDV, TORA, DYMO, OLSR etc in the past. In
this paper, we have analyzed the behavior of three routing protocols AODV (Ad hoc on
demand distance vector), DYMO Dynamic MANET On demand), and OLSR (Optimized
link state routing) in the network protocol IPV4 & IPV6 and compared the performance
of these protocols using Qualnet5.0.2 simulator. The performance metrics are
Throughput, Average Jitter, Packet Delivery Ratio & Total Packets Received. To test
competence and effectiveness of all three protocols under IPV4 & IPV6, Changing the
speed and mobility. Finally results are scrutinized from different scenarios to provide
qualitative assessment of the applicability of the protocols.
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self- configuring network of mobile
devices connected by wireless links. In other words, a MANET is a collection of
communication nodes that wish to communicate with each other, but has no fixed
infrastructure and no predetermined topology of wireless links. Each node in a MANET
is free to move independently in any direction, and will therefore change its links to other
devices frequently. Individual nodes are responsible for dynamically discovering other
nodes that they can directly communicate with. Due to the limitation of signal
transmission range in each node, not all nodes can directly communicate with each other.
Each node must forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router. The
primary challenge in building a MANET is equipping each device to continuously
maintain the information required to properly route traffic. Therefore, nodes are required
to relay packets on behalf of other nodes in order to deliver data across the network.
Ad hoc networks can be built around any wireless technology, including infrared,
radio frequency (RF), global positioning system (GPS), and so on. Usually, each node is
equipped with a transmitter and a receiver to communicate with other nodes. Military
application, Collaborative & Distributed Computing, Emergency Operation, Wireless
Mesh Network and the routing protocol should be able to provide quick, secure and
reliable multicast communication with support for real time traffic. The paper is
distributed as follows. In section 2 we have discuss three routing protocols taken for
16
comparison. Section 3 gives the details of simulation environment. The simulation results
are shown in section 4. Sections 5 describe conclusion and future scope.
SIMULATION RESULTS, WE CONCLUDE THAT FOR IPV4 AND IPV6:
DYMO have better throughput than AODV and OLSR with IPV4.
DYMO have better throughput than AODV and OLSR with IPV6.
OLSR have low jitter and average end to end delay corresponds to high efficiency
17
ROUTING PROTOCOL:
The performance investigation of reactive and proactive MANET routing
protocols, namely AODV, DSR, TORA and OLSR is done by Ashish Shrestha and Firat
Tekiner. They have concluded that with regards to overall performance, AODV and
OLSR performed pretty well. However,
AODV showed better efficiency to deal with high congestion and it scaled better
by successfully delivering packets over heavily trafficked network compared to OLSR
and TORA. Comparison of OLSR and TORA has been done by Pankaj Palta and Sonia
Goyal in.They have concluded that OLSR is better in those scenario where bandwidth is
large as OLSR always updated their nodes so large bandwidth is used than TORA on
same conditions. Simulation and analysis of GRP routing protocol has been done by
kuldeep vats, Mandeep Dalal , Deepak Rohila and Vikas Laura.Simulation results show
18
that GRP protocol has better performance in terms of delay , total traffic sent and
received routing traffic sent and received in packet and bit form ,packet copy, packet
created and packet destroyed. Manijeh Keshtgary and Vahide Babaiyan, used OPNET
14.5 for simulation. The simulation study for MANET network under routing protocols
AODV, DSR, OLSR,
protocols were tested with QOS parameters. From their analysis, the OLSR outperforms
others in overall performance and GRP has least media access delay and delay. This
result is verified by Kuldeep Vats, Monica Sachdeva and Dr .Krishan Saluja in. They
also concluded that OLSR is best in overall performance followed by GRP.
In this paper, performance of three routing protocols namely OLSR, GRP and
TORA was analyzed .OLSR performs best in terms of load and throughput.GRP performs
best in terms of delay and routing overhead.
19
end to end delay is used for comprehensive performance analysis. The average end to end
delay of CBR/UDP for MAODV and AODV is lesser than TCP/FTP. The Average
End2End Delay of MAODV is lesser than that of AODV for both traffics. The results
follow these trends over a wide range of simulations based on node mobility.
The mobile ad-hoc network is a self-configuring infrastructure less network
without the need of any central administration. Therefore, they are well suited for the
environments as earthquake prone areas, military battlefield operation, virtual
classrooms, and many other emergency services. AODV is a protocol which is capable of
unicast and multicast transmission. Multicasting in a wireless network is a diverse
technique through which the message can be transferred to multiple nodes simultaneously
using fewer links. The information is delivered to each of the links only once, and copies
are created when the link to the destination splits, thus creating an optimal distribution
path.
In general, for multicast transmissions there are two types of nodes, source node
and multicast member node. The source node primarily spreads out a multicast data to
multiple multicast member nodes that want to receive that data and join the multicast
group.
A big challenge in the design of ad hoc networks is the development of dynamic
routing protocols that can find routes, transfer information and data efficiently between
two nodes. Each node in the network also acts as a router, forwarding data packets for
other nodes.
The study of performance of two protocols, unicast AODV and multicast
MAODV has been analysed over different scenarios. The analysis has been carried out
with two traffic types, TCP/FTP and CBR/UDP. From the analysis it is concluded that
MAODV performs slightly better than AODV in terms of Packet Delivery Ratio,
End2End delay with varying node speed over two traffics, TCP and CBR. From
experimental analysis it is concluded that in low density and in low speed the Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR) is high for both TCP and CBR. In the same scenario the End2End
20
Delay for CBR traffic is lower than TCP traffic for both protocols. With mobility model it
is also concluded that MAODV performs better than AODV for both TCP and CBR
traffic patterns. In future the analysis may be extended to analyze the performance with
node density, packet generation rate, varying pause time etc. By evaluating the
performance of these two protocols over different scenarios, it will help in designing a
new protocol or improvement in the existing protocol.
22
In last three decades, wireless network has grown enormously. Although, wireless
network has eased the information sharing and communication but we have to setup static
links before we can start the communication between two systems. This form of network
is known as infrastructure network. These networks can only work in the environment
where a fixed infrastructure exists. This motivates the need of infrastructure less networks
which are known as ad hoc networks. Ad-hoc means for one specific purpose only.
Hence, these networks are formed when needed. All available nodes are aware of all
other nodes within range. The entire collection of nodes is interconnected in many
different ways. The topology of such networks changes very rapidly because the nodes in
ad hoc network are mobile and independent of each other. This makes the routing very
difficult.
In this research study, we have performed simulations of three MANET routing
protocols AODV, TORA and OLSR to evaluate their scalability and then compared them.
Simulation is done using the OPNET Modeler 14.5. In the research work, Average end to
end delay and throughput are considered as the performance evaluation parameters.
HTTP heavy browsing is used for traffic generation. The simulation results conclude that
on increasing the number of nodes there is performance degradation in all protocols, but
it varies from protocol to protocol. As the number of nodes increased the network average
end to end delay also increased for all three routing protocols. However, OLSR protocol
outperformed the AODV and TORA protocols and has least network latency. TORA
performed worst even it uses the localization.
In case of network throughput too, it is observed that on varying the number of
nodes performance of TORA protocol was very poor. Whereas, the performance of the
OLSR protocol was far better than the AODV and TORA in terms of throughput. AODV
performance was average during the simulation however; it reduces the routing overhead
to great extent and reacts quickly during its operation. Hence, this paper concludes that
the OLSR protocol in highly scalable with reference to varying network size, however the
AODV protocol is almost equally scalable but less than OLSR. This comparative analysis
24
is done to identify the suitable protocols according to the network size, so that the routing
could be more efficient and cost effective.
Protocols Used
Simulator
Performance
Variable
References
Guntupalli et al.
DSDV, DSR,
NS2
Metrics
Average End to
Parameters
Number of
End Delay,
nodes, Speed,
Normalized
pause time,
Routing Load,
Transmission
Packet Delivery
Power.
Ratio
Packet Delivery
Number of
Ratio, End to
nodes, Speed,
End Delay,
pause time
AODV
Yogesh et al.
AODV, DSR
GLOMOSIM
Normalized
routing overhead.
25
Chenna et al,
DSDV, AODV,
NS2
DSR, TORA
Throughput,
Traffic Loads,
Routing
Movement
Overhead, Path
Patterns.
Optimality,
Packet Loss,
G. Jayakumar et
AODV, DSR
NS2
al,
Average DeLay
Packet Delivery
Speed
Ratio, Routing
Overhead, MAC
load and average
End to End
Birdar et al,
Delay
Packet Delivery
AODV, DSR
Pause Time
Ratio, Routing
Overhead,
Normalized
Routing
Overhead and
Average End to
Vijayalaskhmi
DSDV, AODV
NS2
et al,
End Delay
Packet Delivery
Number of
Ratio, Average
Nodes, Speed,
End to End
Time
Delay and
Shaily et al,
AODV, ZRP
Qual Net
Throughput.
Packet Delivery
Pause Time
Traction, Average
End to End
Delay and
Li Layuan st al,
DSDV, AODV,
NS2
26
Throughput.
Average Delay,
Network Size.
DSR, TORA
Jitter, Routing
Load, Loss Ratio,
Throughput and
Connectivity
CHAPTER 3
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
In MANET the wireless links between adjacent nodes are subject to interference from external sources, intra
and inter transmission in the network, ambient noise in the system and jamming signals from malicious nodes. The
cumulative effect of all these factors results in low link capacity and reliability. In literature Kumar et al modifies the
MANET routing protocols to reduce network congestion without taking into account the reliability of wireless links. It
resulted in an only traffic load aware routing to reduce congestion. On the other hand Vijayavani et al modifies and
compares various routing protocols in MANET based on network size, density and node mobility. Here also the
wireless link status is not considered. Ghosh et al considered the status of wireless links in DSR and achieved good
results.
In our work we have modified the route discovery process of OLSR-INRIA, DSR and ZRP to select the most
reliable path amongst multiple available paths based on its SNR value. The reliability of a path is the minimum SNR
value of the wireless links constituting the path as it defines the weakest portion of the path. The structure of the RREQ
packet is modified to include an additional field known as ROUTE_MIN_SNR, to store the minimum SNR value
among all the path links. It gives us a measure of the path reliability. During the initial stages of the route discovery
process the source node broadcasts RREQ packets to its immediate neighborhood. The ROUTE_MIN_SNR field of the
RREQ packets received by the neighborhood nodes is updated with the SNR value of the link from the physical layer.
After this updating the RREQ packets are further broadcasted in the immediate neighborhood. This process continues
until the RREQ packets reaches destination node
. When the destination node receives the RREQ packets, it compares the SNR value of each path to the
source which is above a certain threshold (10dB in our method). Among the possible paths one with the maximum SNR
value is selected as it gives the maximum throughput, reliability with minimum delay.
27
3.1 CHALLENGE:
Qualify and quantify the effects of Node misbehavior on the overall performance
28
It is for sure that there are many issues need to be handled if an optimized ad hoc network
needs to be implemented which does not seem possible with today's technology.
There might be cases that the protocols that we have discussed cannot help out. For
instance what if there are some nodes that do not want to cooperate? Or some other
problems related proximity to each other. Some might behave as malicious and etc.
Recall that in ad hoc networks, there is mobility, dynamic situations. In this part, our
concern is Routing system.
29
30
You need to know what you want to characterize in your system. You need to have a
proper goal first. There is no such thing as general model.
Goals -> correct metrics, workloads, methodology.
Your performance evaluation should represent the actual usage of the system.
31
32
Hybrid: This type of routing protocols combines features of the above two
categories. Nodes belonging to a particular geographical region or within a certain
distance from a concerned node are said to be in the routing zone and use table driven
routing protocol. Communication between nodes in different zones will rely on the
on-demand or source-initiated protocols.
In the rest of this chapter, I will give an overview of two of the most common routing
protocols used in mobile ad hoc network: Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) and
Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol (AODV)
33
34
ROUTE MAINTENANCE
The route maintenance phase is carried out whenever there is a broken link
between two nodes. A broken link can be detected by a node by either passively
monitoring in promiscuous mode or actively monitoring the link. As shown in Figure 3.3,
when a link break (F-G) happens, a route error packet (RERR) is sent by the intermediate
node back to the originating node. The source node re-initiates the route discovery
procedure to find a new route to the destination. It also removes any route entries it may
have in its cache to that destination node. DSR benefits from source routing since the
intermediate nodes do not need to maintain up-to-date routing information in order to
route the packets that they receive. There is also no need for any periodic routing
advertisement messages.
35
ROUTE DISCOVERY
In this phase, RREQ packets are transmitted by the source node in a way similar
to DSR. The components of the RREQ packet include fields such as the source identifier
(SId), the destination identifier (DId), the source sequence number (SSeq), the destination
sequence number (DSeq), the broadcast identifier (BId), and TTL. When a RREQ packet
is received by an intermediate node, it could either forward the RREQ packet or prepare a
Route Reply (RREP) packet if there is an available valid route to the destination in its
36
cache. To verify if a particular RREQ has already been received to avoid duplicates, the
(SId, BId) pair is used. While transmitting a RREQ packet, every intermediate node
enters the previous nodes address and its BId. A timer associated with every entry is also
maintained by the node in an attempt to delete a RREQ packet in case the reply has not
been received before it expires.
When a node receives a RREP packet, the information of the previous node is
also stored in it in order to forward the packet to it as the next hop of the destination. This
plays a role of a forward pointer to the destination node. By doing it, each node
contains only the next hop information; whereas in the source routing, all the
intermediate nodes on the route towards the destination are stored.
Figure 3.5 depicts an example of route discovery mechanism in AODV. Suppose
that node A wishes to forward a data packet to node G but it has not an available route in
its cache. It then initiates a route discovery process by broadcasting a RREQ packet to all
its neighboring nodes (B, C and D).
37
All the SId, DId, SSeq, DSeq, BId, and TTL fields are inserted in the RREQ packet.
When RREQ packet reaches to nodes B, C and D, these nodes immediately search their
respective route caches for an existing route. In the case where no route is available, they
forward the RREQ to their neighbors; otherwise a comparison is made between the
destination sequence number (DSeq) in the RREQ packet and the DSeq in its
corresponding entry in the route cache. It replies to the source node with a RREP packet
consisting of the route to the destination in the case the DSeq in the RREQ packet is
greater. In Figure 2.4, node C gets a route to G in its cache and its DSeq is greater when
compared with that in the RREQ packet.
3.6 OLSR-INRIA
The Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol was designed by the French
National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA) for mobile adhoc networks. It is a proactive routing protocol that employs an efficient link state packet
forwarding mechanism called multipoint relaying on its way to optimize pure link state
routing protocol. There is a two way optimization. One by reducing the size of the control
packets and other by reducing the number of links that are used for forwarding link state
packets. The reduction in the size of the link state packets is made by declaring only a
subset of the links in the link state updates which are assigned the responsibility of packet
forwarding known as Multipoint Relays. Periodic link state updates are facilitated by the
optimization done by multipoint relaying facilities. No control packet is generated on the
event of a link break or addition of a new link by the link state update mechanism which
achieves higher efficiency when operating in a highly dense network.
38
39
3.7HYBRIDS - ZRP
40
proactive inter-zone routing, BRP is used to spread the reactive route request.
Figure 3.7 illustrates the different components of ZRP.
41
Integrity ensures that a message that is on the way to the destination is never
corrupted. A message could be corrupted because of channel noise or because of
malicious attacks on the network.
Authentication enables a node to ensure the identity of the peer node. Without
authentication, an attacker could masquerade as a normal node, thus gaining
access to sensitive information.
message
replay,
message
littering,
network
partitioning,
etc.
with poor physical protection are quite vulnerable and they may be compromised. Once
the nodes are compromised, they can be used as starting points to launch attacks against
the routing protocols.
3.8.1.1 ATTACKS AND EXPLOITS ON THE EXISTING PROTOCOLS
In general, the attacks on routing protocols can generally be classified as routing
disruption attacks and resource consumption attacks. In routing disruption attacks, the
attacker tries to disrupt the routing mechanism by routing packets in wrong paths; in
resource consumption attacks, some non-cooperative or selfish nodes may try to inject
false packets in order to consume network bandwidth. Both of these attacks are examples
of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. Figure 3.1 depicts a broader classification of the
possible attacks in MANETs.
CHAPTER 4
43
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
4.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH:
Uses the Open Access Research Test bed for Next-Generation Wireless Networks
(ORBIT), which consists of open API wireless terminals, forwarding nodes,
access points, switches and routers, to evaluate different approaches both in terms
of protocol functionality and software performance.
Compatible upgrades to WLAN protocols for service features such as flow QoS
and multicasting; interworking (global roaming, handoff, etc.) of multiple radio
link technologies such as Bluetooth, 802.11, GPRS and 3G/WCDMA.
Content delivery techniques for mobile users, including those based on proactive
Infostations caching and novel semantic routing techniques. [This project involves
collaboration with Semandex Networks, Princeton, NJ
44
45
Such 4G wireless networks can be realized with an IP-based core network for
global routing along with more customized local-area radio access networks that support
features such as dynamic handoff and ad-hoc routing.
4G is all about an integrated global network based on an open-systems approach.
Integrating different types of wireless networks with wireline backbone networks
seamlessly and the convergence of voice, multimedia, and data traffic over a single IPbased core network will be the main focus of 4G. With the availability of ultrahigh
bandwidth of up to 100 Mbps, multimedia services can be supported efficiently.
Ubiquitous computing is enabled with enhanced system mobility and portability support,
and location-based services and support of ad hoc networking are expected. The
illustration below shows the networks and components within the 4G network
architecture.
46
Table Driven
proactive
Hybrid
47
On demand driven
reactive
DSDV
WRP
ZRP
CGSR
STAR
ABR
DSR
CBRP
RDMBR
TORA
AODV
48
The general process of creating a simulation can be divided into several steps:-
49
Topology definition:- To ease the creation of basic facilities and define their
interrelationships, ns-3 has a system of containers and helpers that facilitates this
process.
Model usage:- Models are added to simulation (for example, UDP, IPv4, pointto-point devices and links, applications); most of the time this is done using
helpers.
Node and link configuration:- Models set their default values (for example, the
size of packets sent by an application or MTU of a point-to-point link); most of
logged.
Performance analysis:- After the simulation is finished and data is available as
a time-stamped event trace. This data can then be statistically analysed with
Broadcast Packets
(BP)
Authentication
Neighbor discovery
and exchange of ID
50
Cluster maintenance
by detecting events
Data aggregation at
CH & Upload at BP
Create neighbor
table
Wait for Time T (stop)
Transmit CH
Compute counter
weight values
Receive CH &join
Selected CH by
CH
Counter Expired
Stop
51
management scheme is needed for SAODV. Two mechanisms are used to secure the
AODV messages:
manner, but the techniques cannot be applied to the mutable information. Route error
messages are protected in a different manner because of a big amount of mutable
information. According to the author, it is not important which node started the route
error and which nodes are just forwarding it. The important information is that a neighbor
node is informing other nodes that it is not able to route messages to certain destinations
anymore. Therefore, every node (generating or forwarding a route error message) uses
digital signatures to sign the whole RERR message and that any neighbor that receives
RERR verifies the signature. The RREQ and RREP have the following extension fields
Hash function
Reserved
MD5HMAC96
SHA1HMAC96
Reserved
Implementation dependent
TESLA handles the authentication of RERR messages in a way similar to how the
RREQ messages are handled. In order to avoid the injection of invalid route errors
(RERR) into the network by any node other than the node that sees a broken link, each
node on the return path to the source node just forwards the RERR. On the other hand
TESLA authentication is delayed, so all the nodes on the return path buffer the error but
do not process it until it is authenticated. Later, the node that saw the broken link
discloses the key and sends it over the return path, which enables nodes on that path to
authenticate the buffered error message. The RERR contains six fields
Advantages/
Merits
Disadvantages
/Future
Improvement
MANET, AODV,
Direction
Using simulation results,
Trusted Networks;
Trust Model
53
destination.
They presented a secure ad hoc
Routing Protocol
simulation. In future
synchronization control
problem .
54
Security
more specifically
processing requirements
performance of them on a
The transmission
networking as MANET
56
The component called AODV defines the main flow of control inside the AODV
routing daemon. The control flow is based on an event-driven design. The set of possible
events include reception of routing control packets, expiration of various timers, and
reception of route requests on the ASL socket. Possible actions include sending out
packets, setting new timers and updating various data structures. The daemon program is
essentially a big select() loop which monitors various file descriptors for the events and
takes the appropriate actions. This component also initializes ASL by calling the
functions int route_add() and open\_route\_request().
57
The RREQ, RREP and RERR components take care of both generating as well as
processing incoming route requests, route replies and route error packets respectively.
The Routing Table component (routeTable) handles updates to the aodv routing table as
well as to the kernel routing table. It also maintains a route cache using the aodv-helper
module through the corresponding API function query_route_idle_time_aodv(), as
explained
in
the
next
subsection. The
Pending
Route
Request
component
58
59
CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
5.1 SIMULATION TOOL
One common method to conduct research in the networking and security fields is
to simulate and evaluate the protocol(s) in various scenarios. Fortunately, there are
various computer simulation applications that are available for doing those tasks, such as
NS-2, OPNET, GLOMOSIM, etc. My thesis is heavily based on the implementation and
experiments in the OPNET simulation environment. OPNET Modeled was chosen as a
simulation environment because it is one of the leading environments for network
modeling and simulation. It supports large number of built-in industry standard network
protocols, devices, and applications. In addition, its programming library helps
researchers to easily modify the network elements and measure their performance in the
simulation environment. OPNET also provides rich data analysis features.
61
62
AODV behaves. It is very easy to follow for instance the route discovery
procedure. About two months later, in August 1998. two separate mobility
extensions were released. These extensions had everything that we wanted
from a n extension, so we decided to use one of them. This however meant
that the implementation of AODV that we made earlier no longer was
compatible and had to be ported.
5.3.1 AODV
We have implemented the AODV protocol The implementation is done
accord to the AODV draft released in August 1993. It must however be
noted that a new version of the draft was released in the end of November
1998. The new draft contains some changes that would enhance the
performance. These changes that affect the unicast routing part is primarily:
Reduced or complete elimination of hello messages.
Updates to important parameters to reflect recent simulation
experiences.
To be able to test how the hello messages and link layer support affects
the behavior of the protocol we have implemented three versions:
AODV with only IP-based hello messages
AODV with only Link Layer notification of broken links
AODV with both IP-based hello messages and Link layer notification
of broken links
63
fast enough, but if the interval is to short, a great amount of extra control
overhead would be added. Most of the parameters in Table 3 are obvious.
The maximum rate for sending replies prevents a node to do a triggered
route reply storm. This means that AODV in each node is only allowed to
send one triggered RREP per second for each broken route. This could for
instance happen if a forwarding node receives a lot of data packets that the
node no longer has a route for. In this case the node should only send a
triggered RREP. as a response to the first data packet and if the node keeps
receiving data packets after that, a triggered RREP is only allowed to be sent
once per second.
TABLE 5.1: CONSTANTS USED IN THE AODV IMPLEMENTATION
.
Parameter
Value
Hello interval
1,5 s
300 s
300 s
Request retries
Time between retransmitted requests
3s
8s
5.3.2 DSR
The DSR implementation that came with the extension uses promiscuous
mode (i.e. eavesdropping), which means that the protocol learns information
from packets that it overhears. The question is how realistic this is in a real
environment. In a real case scenario we will probably have some sort of
65
bytes
30 ms
30 s
5.3.2.1 FLOODING
Each node keeps track of (source IP, sequence number) for all
destinations and does not process a packet if the packet has a sequence
number smaller than the stored sequence number. The idea was to do the
simulations on the flooding protocol and compare the results with the results
for the routing protocols. After some initial simulations on flooding this plan
was abandoned. The simulations took too long to complete. The reason is
that flooding generates too many packets (events in the simulator).
Radio Frequency propagation (path loss with terrain diffraction, fading, and
processes, and more effectively design technologies such as MANET, 802.11, 3G/4G,
Ultra Wide Band, 802.16, Bluetooth, and Transformational Communications systems.
Wireless network planners, architects, and operations professionals can analyze end-toend behavior, tune network performance, and evaluate growth scenarios for revenuegenerating network services.
67
FIG 5.2: STEPS TO ADD NEW SECURE ROUTING PROTOCOLS INTO OPNET
Step 2 in Figure 5.2 (Add security features into new protocols) is further
concretized in Figure 5.3. At the origin nodes that generate the routing packets, the
security fields are added into the routing packets at the packet creation phase of the
routing process. These security fields will be verified against the secure conditions at the
intermediate nodes and at the destination node. If the security conditions are not met, the
nodes will discard the routing packets; otherwise they accept the packets and proceed to
next appropriate processing phase. These conditions are defined by each specific protocol
and added at the processing phase of the routing process.
68
Function Name
Purpose
initialize_hash (<arguments>)
generate_hash_chain (<arguments>))
generate_signature (<arguments>))
publickey_extraction (<arguments>))
verify_signature (<arguments>))
verify_hop_count (<arguments>))
initialize_mac (<arguments>))
routing packet
Generate a hash value based on the MD5
OLSR_generate_hash (<arguments>))
algorithm
Generate a hash value for the OLSR
OLSR_verify_hash (<arguments>))
protocol
Verify the hash values in an OLSR routing
packet
69
5.4.3
RUNNING
SIMULATIONS
IN
70
THE
OPNET
MODELER
AND
Figure 5.5 shows the steps to run experimental scenarios in OPNET. There are
two ways to collect the experimental data from OPNET. The first approach is to use the
OPNET Statistic Analysis tool. Values such as average number of routing packets,
number of data sent or received over various points during the simulation time, etc., are
collected by this tool. Other values like average number of end-to-end delay of data
packets are dumped into a scalar file. This scalar file needs to be converted into a text file
to be readable by other tools.
ATTACK-1
Route Drop
Route Drop
Route Drop
Route Drop
ATTACK-2
Route modification
Route modification
Route modification
Route modification
ATTACK-3
Route Fabrication
Route Fabrication
Impersonation
Impersonation
Network setup:
o
Number of nodes: 25
Mobility pause time values (seconds): 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90,
100.
Number of data source: 10 nodesnode 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23 ,24
Traffic pattern:
72
To create the malicious environments, five nodes are selected to launch the attacks
discussed in the previous section. The attacks are launched separately with various
numbers of malicious nodes. Table 4.2 shows the nodes assigned to implement the
attacks, given different number of malicious nodes.
The order in which malicious nodes are involved in attacking the network remains the
same for each protocols evaluation.
CHAPTER 6
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
6.1 RESULT ANALYSIS:
73
We have considered two different network scenarios with the first one having 52 nodes with 7 different
source and destination pairs (Figure 6.1) and the second one having 72 nodes with 7 different source and destination
pairs (Figure 6.2) respectively. Qualnet 4.5 network simulator is used to extensively simulate the above mentioned
scenarios. We have taken the packet size to be 512 bytes. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is used as the transport layer
protocol and Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic is used as the application layer protocol applied between the source and
destination. In the first scenario CBR traffic is applied between seven source destination node pairs namely (3, 40), (5,
38), (13, 47), (17, 49), (19, 46), (28, 35) and (39, 07) respectively as depicted in figure 1 over randomly deployed 52
nodes in the deployment area. In the second scenario similarly CBR traffic is applied between seven source destination
node pairs namely (2, 39), (12, 30), (19, 27), (23, 41), (45, 31), (55, 29) and (65, 16) respectively as shown in figure 2
over randomly deployed 72 nodes in the deployment area. In both the scenarios Random Waypoint (RWP) mobility
model is considered.
It gives a list of various simulation parameters. We have enhanced both security and throughput at the same
reducing end-to-end delay and jitter in our proposed schemes. This can be attributed to the fact by taking only links
with high SNR value we ensure reliability, increased throughput and security. Jamming and interfering signals from
intruder or malicious nodes lowers a link's SNR ratio and provides a good indication about its reliability and security
75
76
BENIGN ENVIRONMENT
As shown in Figure 6.1, the percentage of packets delivered in AODV and
SAODV is fairly close to each other, and both methods exhibit superior performance
(~90% in general). The security features in SAODV lower the performance a little bit.
Actually, the generation and verification of digital signatures depends on the power of the
mobile nodes and causes a delay in routing packet processing. In the simulation
environments, this delay depends on the simulation running machine and is not high
enough to make the significant difference for the PDF metric. On the other hand, the
packet delivery fraction in DSR and OLSR are 20-40% lower than that of
AODV/SAODV across the board given different mobility pause times.
The major difference between AODV and DSR is caused by difference in their
respective routing algorithms. It was reported by other researchers that, in high mobility
and/or stressful data transmission scenarios, AODV outperforms DSR. The reason is that
DSR heavily depends on the cached routes and lack any mechanism to expire stale
routes. In the benign environment of our experiments, the default expiry timer of cached
route for DSR and OLSR is 300 seconds, while this number is 3 seconds for AODV and
SAODV. In respect to the protocol design, these values are kept unchanged through all
the simulation scenarios.
Furthermore, DSR and OLSR store the complete path to the destination. Hence,
if any node moves out of the communication range, the whole route becomes invalid. In
MANETs, the nodes are mobile, so route change frequently occurs. Without being aware
of most recent route changes,
The situation is even worse for OLSR, mainly because OLSR relies on the
delayed key disclosure mechanism of TESLA when authenticating packets, including the
RERR packets (see section III.3.1 for details). When an intermediate node in OLSR
notices a broken link, it sends a RERR message to the source node of the data packet. The
source node, however, simply saves the RERR message, because it has not yet received
from the intermediate node the key needed to authenticate the route error. The source
node keeps sending the data until the second route error is triggered, and another RERR
77
is received. Only then would the previous route error be authenticated, and the broken
link not be used any more. This explains the worse performance of OLSR in comparison
with DSR and other protocols.
78
Normalized
Delivery
Routing
Fraction (%)
Load
DSR
68.41%
1.72
OLSR
54.70%
2.58
AODV
93.45%
1.01
SAODV
92.00%
0.98
Pause Time
(seconds)
79
The comparison between the normal routing protocols (DSR and AODV) and
their respective secure version (that is, OLSR and SAODV) in benign environments has
been extensively conducted by other researchers. In the next section, I will discuss the
performance of the protocols in various malicious environments.
80
Fig 6.7.Comparision of Jitter for OLSR-INRIA & SOLSR-INRIA, DSR & SDSR and ZRP & SZRP for 52 & 72 Nodes.
6.2.1 THROUGHPUT
We have measured end to end throughput in Kbits/sec for each source destination
pair over both the network scenarios. A high individual and average throughput is
observed in all the cases by the modified protocols. The result obtained can be attributed
to the fact that due to the selection of the path having highest SNR value the impact of
interference and jamming signals are less and path bandwidth is increased which is
reflected as higher throughput that is desirable for almost every envisaged application of
MANET. A considerable improvement in average throughput is observed in both the
scenario for all routing protocol.
In case of the end-to-end packet delay is calculated as the elapsed time interval
when the packet is sent by the source to the time when it is received at the destination
node. The modified protocols exhibits a low end to end delay every source destination
pair and on the average as well. This can be attributed to the fact due to the selection of
high SNR value paths offering high bandwidth resulting in lower queuing delay at the
intermediate nodes.
The overall end to end delay is reduced which is an important QoS in applications
such as video streaming, live telecast and others. Fig 6 shows the end to end delay for
scenario 1 and scenario 2 as well. A significant reduction in average end to end delay is
observed which makes this type of modified protocol suitable for video streaming
operations.
81
6.2 THROUGHPUT
End-to-End Delay
(In Sec)
OLSR-INRIA
SOLSR-INRIA
DSR
SDSR
ZRP
SZRP
52 Nodes
Scenario
0.818
0.329
01.48
0.178
0.185
0.126
72 Nodes
Scenario
0.727
0.131
1.404
0.235
04.04
0.171
Figure 6.8 . Comparison of End-to-End Delay for OLSR-INRIA & SOLSR-INRIA, DSR & SDSR and ZRP & SZRP for 5
Nodes.
82
same links, and nondeterministic propagation delay in the data-link layer. In our modified
protocol average jitter decreases for SOLSR-INRIA, SDSR and as well as for SZRP. .
In case of SOLSR-INRIA the Jitter is decreased by 52% for the first scenario and 67% for
the second scenario. In case of SDSR the Jitter is decreased by 84% for the first scenario
and 75% for the second scenario. As well as for SZRP the Jitter is decreased by 68% for
the first scenario and 76% for the second scenario
TABLE 6.3: END TO END DELAY
Jitter
(In Sec)
OLSR-INRIA
SOLSR-INRIA
DSR
SDSR
ZRP
SZRP
52 Nodes
Scenario
0.124
0.059
0.497
0.077
0.067
0.021
83
72 Nodes
Scenario
0.112
0.036
0.493
0.120
0.264
0.061
84
85
The AODV protocol performance was evaluated with the "Network Simulator 2"
(ns2), which is one of the most powerful tools used to simulate wired and wireless
network protocols. For our case of study, three simulation scenarios were considered: in
the first one the simulation was carried out in normal conditions, in other words, all the
nodes participated correctly in the routing functions. In the second scenario, one of the
nodes was a malicious node which accomplished the sequence number attack. In the third
scenario, an attack detection module was proposed and it was incorporated in the AODV
protocol and simulated again.
The metrics that we used to evaluate the attack detection module performance are
the following: (1) Packet delivery ratio or percentage (considered as our most important
metric), (2) Number of RREP packets sent by node number 2 (the malicious node), (3)
Accuracy on attack detection, and (4) Average latency of the transmitted packets.
86
It shows the number of RREP packets sent by node 2 (the malicious node) versus
the number of connections in normal conditions. In order to evaluate this metric and
observe the behavior of the curves, we have placed the respective graphics on separate
figures. Figures 9 and 10 depict the number of sent RREP packets versus the number of
connections without or with the module incorporated, respectively, and both under attack
conditions.
87
This is because the attack is implemented in such a way that the malicious node
replies with a false RREP to any route request that reaches it.
With the detection module incorporated the number is even bigger; this is because
there is a moment in which the source node discards any RREP it receives (due to broken
links or increments in the sequence number). In that moment there is not an available
route for the source node, which is continuously sending route requests, and that explains
the increment on the number of RREP.
88
89
90
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
CONCLUSION
From the simulation results it can be concluded that for SOLSR-INRIA, SDSR
and SZRP average throughput increases while average end-to-end delay and jitter
decreases considerably as compared to OLSR-INRIA, DSR and ZRP in both the
scenarios. The modified protocols avoid malicious nodes and noisy links by choosing the
highest SNR path which increases overall network reliability. Random Waypoint (RWP)
mobility model is considered as it encompasses most of the envisaged application areas
of MANETs. We have extensively simulated our methods using QualNet 4.5 network
simulator. As a future work other mobility models and data traffic might be considered.
Intrusion detection methods may be incorporated in the route discovery phase of OLSRINRIA, DSR and ZRP for detection of malicious nodes to enhance network reliability.
In this thesis, I have implemented two secure routing protocols, OLSR and
SAODV, based on their respective underlying protocols, DSR and AODV, in the OPNET
simulation environment. I have also simulated four popular network attack models that
exploit the weakness of the protocols. The attack models are used to make malicious
wireless nodes and create various malicious environments, in which the performance of
DSR, AODV, OLSR, and SAODV are evaluated. With three different attack models for
each of the protocols, and with the number of malicious nodes varying from one to five,
totally 65 scenarios are created to evaluate the four protocols.
91
The ultimate goal of a routing protocol is to efficiently deliver the network data
to the destinations; therefore, two metrics, Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF) and
Normalized Routing Load (NRL), are used to evaluate the protocols. In order to get the
accurate experimental results, each scenario is run eleven times in order to calculate the
average value for the two evaluation metrics. Through the collected evaluation metrics
from the various scenarios, the impacts of attacks upon the routing protocols are then
studied. The procedure is summarized below:
First, the four protocols are used in a benign environment, in which there is no
network attack, in order to collect baseline values for the metrics. The differences
amongst baseline values of the protocols are also discussed in order to get better
understanding of each protocols operation.
Second, each of the protocols is evaluated in various simulated malicious
environments. The collected metrics are compared with the respective baseline values, in
order to assess the impact of a particular network attack on the protocol operation. Based
on the results weve collected, we conclude that, in all the malicious environments,
normal routing protocols (DSR and AODV) can not guarantee to deliver data to the
destinations as well as in the benign environments. In other words, the data is redirected
or discarded due to the attacks on the routing protocol. When the number of malicious
nodes increases, the number of received data packets decreases. For the secure versions
of the routing protocols (OLSR and SAODV), they are designed to detect the changes in
routing packets; hence, even under attacks, they are still able to deliver the data to the
destinations. However, under specific attacks like route fabrication attack for OLSR and
impersonation attack for SAODV, the protocol requires the existence of a specific
security mechanism, in order to maintain the normal operation. That is the key
management center for SAODV and the secure cached routes for OLSR.
Another conclusion is that the mobility model of the malicious nodes affects the
number of data packets to the destinations. Preliminary analysis and discussions of this
issue can be found in Chapter VI
92
FUTURE WORK
More research is needed in the following issues:
The OLSR protocol needs to be improved in order for the cached route feature to
93
BIBLIOGRAPHIC
[1] T.H Clausen, G.Hansen, L.Christensen, G. Behrmann, The Optimised Link State
Routing Protocol Evaluation Through Experiments and Simulations, Proceedings of
IEEE Symposium on Wireless Personal Mobile Communications, 2001, September 2001.
[2] D.B Johnson, D.A. Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,
Mobile Computing, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, vol. 353, pp. 153-181.
[3] D. Sivakumar, B. Suseela, R. Varadharajan, A Survey of Routing Algorithms for
MANET, IEEE International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and
Management (ICAESM), March 30-31, 2012, pp. 625- 640. Available in IEEE Explore.
4] V.Jha, K. Khetarpal, M.Sharma, A Survey of Nature inspired Routing Algorithms for
MANETs, IEEE 3rd International Conference on Electronics, Computing Technology
(ICECT), April 8-10, 2011, pp. 1-4. Available in IEEE Explore.
[5]
Wireless Networks, IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. 58, Issue. 12, 2010, pp.
3593-3604.
[6] Royer E M, Toh C K, A review of current routing protocols for Adhoc mobile
wireless networks IEEE Journal of Personal Communications, Dec. 2006, vol. 6(2), pp.
46- 55.
[7] Z.J Haas, The Routing Algorithm for the Reconfigurable Wireless Networks,
Proceedings of ICUPC 1997, vol. 2, pp. 562-566, October 1997.
[8] P. Nand, and S.C. Sharma, Performance study of Broadcast based Mobile Ad hoc
Routing Protocols AODV, DSR and DYMO, Proc. International Journal of Security and
Its Applications, Vol. 5, No. 1, January, 2011, pp. 53-64.
94
[9] D.B. Johnson, D.A. Maltz and J. Borch, DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Computer Science Department
Carnegie
Mellon
University
Pittsburgh,
PA15213-3891,
Dec.
2009.
http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu.
[10] J. Liy, H. Kameday and Y. Panz, Study on Dynamic Source Routing Protocols for
MANET, Institute of Information Science and Electronics, University of Tsukuba,
Japan. Department of CS, Georgia State University. University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303,
USA.
[11] Scalable Networks Technologies: Qualnet Simulator 4.5
http://www.scalable-
networks.com .
[12] Saurav Ghosh, Chinmoy Ghorai, Evaluating the Performance of Modified DSR in
Presence of Noisy Links using QUALNET Network Simulator in MANET, Proc.
International Journal of Smart Sensors and Ad Hoc Networks (IJSSAN) ISSN No. 22489738 Volume-1, Issue-2, 2011, pp. 35-40.
[13] Arun Kumar B. R., Lokanatha C. Reddy, Prakash S. Hiremath, Performance
Comparison of Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols International
Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.8 No.6, June 2008, pp.337343.
[14] G.R Vijayavani, G. Prema, Performance Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols
with Mobility Model derived based on Realistic Mobility Pattern of Mobile Nodes,
IEEE Conference on Advanced Communication, Control and Computing Technologies
(ICACCCT) 2012, pp. 32- 36. Available in IEEE Explore.
[15] Zygmunt J. Haas and Marc R. Pearlman and Prince Samar, The Intrazone
Routing Protocol (IARP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Draft-ietf-manet-zone- iarp-01.txt,
June 2001.
95
[16] Zygmunt J. Haas and Marc R. Pearlman and Prince Samar, The Interzone
Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Draft-ietf-manet-zone- ierp 02.txt July
2002.
[17]. M.N. SreeRangaRaju and Dr. Jitendranath Mungara, Optimized ZRP for MANETs
and its Applications, proceedings of International Journal of Wireless & Mobile
Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2011.
[18]. DSR, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- manet-dsr-10 .
[19]. AODV, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- manet-aodv-09 .
[20]. ZRP, internet draft, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manet- zone-zrp-04.txt .
[21].
ZRP
patch,
http://magnet.daiict.ac.in/magnet_members/MTech/2007/PatelBr
ijesh/Simulation.html#Sec_2.
[22].ZRP
Agent
Implementation
documentation,
http://magnet.daiict.ac.in/magnet_members/MTech/2007/PatelBr
jesh/Thesis_files/MyZRP/ZRPManual.pdf .
[23]. Yinfei Pan, Design Routing Protocol Performance Comparison in NS2: AODV
Comparing to DSR as Example, Deptt of CS, SUNY Binghamton, Vestal NY 13850.
[24].NS2 Trace format - http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/NS-2_Trace_Formats .
[25].The ns Manual (formerly ns Notes and Documentation) by Kevin Fall, Kannan
Varadhan. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/ns_doc.pdf
[26]. NS Simulator for beginners, http://wwwop.inria.fr/members/Eitan.Altman/COURS-NS/n3.pdf.
96
97