Analysis of Random Direction and Probabilistic Random Walk models for CBR traffic using DSDV

Pardeep Kumar, 2Sunil Makkar, 3Sandeep lamba, 4Ajay Jangra Brcm College of Engg. & Technology, Bahal, Bhiwani, Haryana 3, MTech scholar,CDLU,Sirsa,haryana Pardeep.lamba@gmail.com,engg.sandeeplamba@gmail.com

1, 2, 4

Abstract - In Mobile Adhoc network (MANETS), there is no fixed infrastructure. Different wireless hosts are free to move from one location to another without any centralized administration. MANET uses dynamic, random and quickly changing network topology. MANET is sub set of wireless. In this research paper, we have implemented DSDV routing protocol using random direction and probabilistic random walk models. DSDV is table driven or pro-active protocol. We have analyzed the Random Direction and Probabilistic Random Walk models using metrics namely packet delivery fraction (PDF), average end to end delay (e2e delay), routing overhead, normalized routing load by varying number of nodes. We have used NS-2.34 simulator to implement these protocols. We observed that Random Direction model is having good Packet delivery fraction and end-to-end delay while Prob. Random Walk model is better in case of routing overhead and normalized routing load with less packets. Keywords- AD hoc, DSDV, Random Direction, Prob. Random Walk, NS-2.34

I.

Introduction

Now it is era of wireless communication. Mobile Adhoc network (MANET) is one of the wireless technologies which have [1] found its use in many area in recent years especially in military emergency service (disaster recovery, search and rescue). They are also used in the field of education (conference rooms meeting) & in the personal area networks. In MANETS, every mobile [2] node can roam into any direction without the constraints of wireless connections. They can follow any route in a vigorously changing network. The routes are multi-hope due to available radio-propagation range of wireless devices. Every node acts as a router; no centralized administration is available in MANETs. Due to this MANET is an autonomous, self configuring, infrastructure less & dynamic network of mobile nodes. In MANETS, routing is highly complex due to random trajectories of mobile nodes. They design of the routing protocol which can adapt dynamically changing wireless topology is very challenging.

The mobility models that are commonly used to simulate MANETs can be classified into two categories [7]: individualbased and group-based. An individual-based model describes node mobility independently of any nodes with group-based mobility models. Individual nodes movement is depended on the movement of close by nodes. There are various mobility models such as Random Way Point, Random Walk, Random Direction, Probabilistic Random Walk etc. that have been proposed for evolution [7] and with the help of BonnMotion 1.5a [15] finds the mobility scenario of the nodes in the mobility models. The individual-based mobility model is the Random Direction and Probabilistic Random Walk model where motion is characterized by two factors: the maximum speed and the pause time. Each node starts moving from its initial position to a random target position selected inside the simulation area. The node speed is uniformly distributed between 0 and the maximum speed. When a node reaches the target position, it waits for the pause time, then selects another random target location and moves again. Many other variations of this model exist which increase the randomness of the mobility process. Mohd Izuan Mohd Saad [8] performed analysis of random based mobility models in MANET routing protocols. They have chosen routing overhead, throughput and packet delivery ratio as performance metrics for simulation & a varying networks size of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 nodes. They have used OMNET++ simulator. Their simulation results shows that the performance of the routing protocols varies across different performance metrics. Vijaylakshmi, Avinash patel, Linganagouda Kulkarni[9] analysed AODV and DSDV using NS-2. Their simulation results shows that AODV is better than DSDV because it consumes less bandwidth and performes better under high mobility simulations.Valentina Timcenko, mirjana stojanovic, slavica BOSTJANCIC Rakas[10], has investigated & compared DSDV, AODV & DSR using mobility models RPGM, RW, GM, MG. They have used NS-2 simulator.

In this paper we have evaluated the performance of the two different mobility models, Random Direction and Probabilistic Random Walk with respect to varying number of nodes using DSDV protocol. We investigated the performance metrics, namely, packet delivery fraction (PDF), average end-to- end delay, routing overhead and normalized routing load by varying the number of nodes through NS-2.34 simulator. The rest of the paper is organized as follow: section 2 describes the routing protocol DSDV [6]. Section 3 describes the mobility models and the software tool we have used and outlines the problem with the mobility models. Section 4 describes the performance metrics which are used to compare the performance of two mobility models in MANET using CBR traffic. Section 5 contains Result and Discussion and Section 6 concludes the paper. II. DESTINATION SEQUENCED DISTANCE VECTOR

where n= Number of Nodes, d=duration of simulation, i= number of seconds to skip, o= minimum pause time. Then to convert this created java file into NS file, we have used the command: BM NSFile f scenario1. (2) Probabilistic Random Walk model: - This model utilizes a set of probabilities to determine the next position of a mobile node. The model utilizes a probability matrix that defines the probabilities of a node moving forwards, backwards, or remaining still in both the x and y direction. Once the direction of travel has been determined, the node will travel with a fixed speed for a specified allotment of time. This time is set by using t flag. To create this model, we have used the command: BM -f scenario1 Prob.RandomWalk -n 10 -d 900 -i 3600 -t 10 Where n= Number of Nodes, d=duration of simulation, i= number of seconds to skip, t= specified time for movement in a particular direction. IV. SIMULATION

The destination sequenced distance vector routing protocol [6] is a proactive routing protocol which is a modification of conventional Bellman-Ford routing algorithm. This protocol adds a sequence number to each route table entry at each node. Routing table is maintained at each node and with this table; node transmits the packets to other nodes in the network. These stations list for all the available destination addresses and the number of hops required to reach each destination in the routing table. In order to maintain the consistency, each station transmits and updates its routing table periodically. It provides the loop free paths, reduces the count to infinity problem and maintains only the shortest path to each destination. But it does not support multipath routing and cannot be used for larger networks because it consumes more bandwidth. III. MOBILITY MODELS

In this research paper, we have chosen NS-2.34 for implementation. It is an event driven network [11, 12] simulator. It was developed at UC Berkeley that simulates variety of IP networks. It implements network protocols such as TCP and UDP, traffic source behavior such as FTP, Telnet, Web, CBR and VBR, router queue management mechanism such as Drop Tail, RED and CBQ, routing algorithms. NS also implements multicasting and some of the MAC layer protocols for LAN simulations. NS 2 is written in C++ and OTcl.

In this paper, we have presented two following mobility [7, 8] models:

Fig .1 General view of NS

(1) Random Direction model: - This model forces mobile nodes to travel to the edge of the simulation area before changing direction and speed. In this model, MNs choose a random direction in which to travel similar to the Random Walk Mobility Model. A mobile node then travels to the border of the simulation area in that direction. Once the simulation boundary is reached, the mobile node pauses for a specified time, chooses another angular direction (between 0 and 180 degrees) and continues the process. To create this model using bonnmotion [9], we have used the command: BM -f scenario1 RandomDirection -n 10 -d 900 -i 3600 -o 10

NS is Object-oriented Tcl (OTcl) script interpreter that has a simulation event scheduler and network component object libraries and network setup (plumbing) module libraries. Plumbing modules are implemented as member functions of the base simulator object. To setup and run a simulation network, a user should write an OTcl script that initiates an event scheduler, sets up the network topology using the network objects and the plumbing functions in the library and tells traffic sources when to start and stop transmitting packets through the event scheduler. Plumbing is used for a network setup because setting up a network is plumbing possible data paths among network objects by setting the "neighbor" pointer of an object to

the address of an appropriate object. In NS, an event scheduler keeps track of simulation time and fires all the events in the event queue scheduled for the current time by invoking appropriate network components, which usually are the ones who issued the events, and let them do the appropriate action associated with packet pointed by the event. Network components communicate with one another passing packet; however this does not consume actual simulation time. These compiled objects are made available to the OTcl interpreter through an OTcl linkage that creates a matching OTcl object for each of the C++ objects and makes the control functions and the configurable variables specified by the C++ object act as member functions and member variables of the corresponding OTcl object. In this way, the controls of the C++ objects are given to OTcl. It is also possible to add member functions and variables to a C++ linked OTcl object.

been used to draw the graphs. All results are based on a network configuration consisting of CBR traffic communication over an 802.11 wireless network with routing provided by the DSDV protocol

Table 1. Simulation Parameters

Parameter
Mobility Models Terrain Size Protocol Packet Size Traffic Type No. of Nodes Packet Rate Simulation Time Pause time Maximum Speed Minimum Speed Maximum Connections

Value
Random Direction , Probabilistic Random Walk 200m * 200m DSDV 512 bytes CBR 10,20,30,40,50 4 Packets / second 900 seconds 10 seconds 1.5 m/s .5 m/s 80% of total no. of nodes

Fig 2. Architectural View of NS

When a simulation is finished, NS produces one or more textbased output files that contain detailed simulation data. The data can be used for simulation analysis or as input to a graphical simulation display tool called network animator (NAM). BonnMotion is Java [13] software which creates and analyses mobility scenarios. It is developed by the Communication Systems group at the Institute of Computer Science of the University of Bonn, Germany where it serves as a tool for the investigation of mobile ad hoc network characteristics. The scenarios can be exported for the network simulators NS-2, GloMoSim/QualNet, COOJA, MiXiM and ONE. For our simulation, we have created the scenario file using BonnMotion. Then this scenario file is added to the DSDV protocol implementation script. After running this script, a trace file (.tr) is created. This trace file contains the every information about the network we have created. To analyze this file, we have used an AWK script. To run this script, we have used the command: gawk f <name of the AWK script > <name of the trace file>. scenario file that describes the exact motion of each node, together with the exact time at which each change in motion or packet origination is to occur. Microsoft Excel has

The type of traffic is created by using in-built tool of NS2.34. The parameters used for simulation are summarized in the table. IV (A) Performance Metrics [14, 15] This paper focuses on following performance metrics which are quantitatively measured. The performance metrics are important to measure the performance and activities that are running in NS-2.34 simulation. The performance metrics are: (A1) Packet Delivery Fraction It is the ratio of data packets delivered to the destination to those generated by the sources. It is calculated by dividing the number of packet received by destination through the number packet originated from source. Packet delivery Fraction (%) = (total no. of data packets delivered / total no. of data packets generated) * 100 (A2) Average end-to-end delay of data packets Various delays are caused by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC, and propagation and transfer times. It is an average

end-to-end delay of data packets. Once the time difference between every TCP packet sent and received was recorded, dividing the total time difference over the total number of TCP packets received gave the average end-to-end delay for the received packets. This metric describe the packet delivery time: the lower the end-to-end delay the better the application performance. D = (Tr - Ts) Where Tr = receive time and Ts = sent time

(A3) Routing Overhead

It is the total number of control or routing (RTR) packets generated by routing protocol during the simulation. All packets sent or forwarded at network layer are considered as routing overhead. Overhead = Number of RTR packets (A2) AVERAGE END-TO-END DELAY: - The figure shows that up to 40 nodes, the value of delay is very less as compared to at 50 nodes. Here, Random Direction model is having minimum delay as compared to Prob. Random Walk model.

(A4) Normalized Routing Load

It is defined as the number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at destination. Each hop-wise transmission of a routing is counted as one transmission. It is the sum of all control packet sent by all node in network to discover and maintain route. NRL = Routing Packet / Received Packets V.RESULT AND DISCUSSION All the analysis is carried out with respect to varying number of mobile nodes. (A1) Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF):- As shown in figure,

No. of Nodes 10 20 30 40 50

Random direction 6.4 7.36 9.44 15.69 4684.65

Prob. Random Walk 6.49 7.48 9.28 26.9 5006.16

PDF is decreasing at higher number of nodes for both models. Random Direction model is having more packet delivery fraction as compared to Probabilistic Random Walk model. No. of Nodes 10 20 30 40 50 Random direction 99.87 100 99.96 99.88 78 Prob. Random Walk 99.78 99.92 99.94 99.86 76.59

(A3) ROUTING OVERHEAD: - The figure shows that number of routing packets is increasing linearly with increase in number of nodes. Here, Probabilistic Random Walk model is showing better performance as compared to Random Direction model.

No. of Nodes 10 20 30 40 50

Random direction 711 1423 2193 2874 5188

Prob. Random Walk 710 1430 2142 2866 4825

References [1] M. Frodigh, P. Johansson, and P. Larsson. Wireless ad hoc networking: the art of networking without a network, Ericsson Review, No.4, 2000, pp. 248-263. [2] IETF Working Group: Mobile Adhoc Networks (manet). http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html. [3] E.M. Royer and C.K. Toh, A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks, IEEE Personal Communications, 1999, 6(2), pp. 46-55. [4] S.Corson, and J. Macker, Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations, IETF RFC 2501, January 1999. [5] Routing Protocol: Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_protocol. [6] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, SIGCOMM 94, London, England, UK, Pages 234244, August 1994. [7] T. Camp et al., A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research, and Wireless Comm. & Mobile Computing: Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 483- 502, 2002. [8] Mohd Izuan Mohd. Saad, Zuriati Ahmed Zukar nain , Performance analysis of Random-Based mobility models in MANET routing protocol , European journal of Scientific Research , ISSN 1450-216X , Vol.32 No:4 (2009),PP 444 454. [9] Vijayalakashmi M.et.al, Qos Parameter Analysis On AODV and DSDV Protocols in a Wireless Network IJCSE , Vol 1 , No: 4,PP -283 -294. [10] Valentina Timcenko,Mirjana Stojanovic Slavica Bostjancic Rokas ,MANET Routing Protocol vs. Mobility Models : Performance Analysis & Comparison ,Proceeding of the 9TH WSEAS Inter . Conference on AIC 09. [11]Network Simulator NS2 and Network Animator NAM. [Online]. Available http://www.isi.edu/nsnam [12]Marc Gries Tutorial, Available at: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/tutorial/. [13] M. Gerharz, C. de Waal, BonnMotion a mobility scenario generation tool, University of Bonn, [Online]. Available: www.cs.uni-bonn.de/IV/BonnMotion/ [14] S. Corson, and J. Macker, Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations, IETF RFC 2501, January 1999 [15] IETF's IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group, RFC 2330, Available http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ippmcharter.html.

(A4) NORMALIZED ROUTING LOAD (NRL):- This figure shows that at higher number of nodes Prob. Random Walk model is having less load as compared to Random Direction model.

No. of Nodes 10 20 30 40 50

Random direction 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.027 0.051

Prob. Random Walk 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.048