Performance Comparison of Various Routing Protocols in Different Mobility Models

Abstract

Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a infrastructure less network in which two or more devices have wireless communication which can communicate with each other and exchange information without need of any centralized administrator. Each node in the ad hoc network acts as a router, forwarding data packets for other nodes. The main issue is to compare the existing routing protocol and finding the best one. The scope of this study is to test routing performance of three different routing protocols (AODV, OLSR and DSDV) with respect to various mobility models using NS2 simulator. In this paper the parameters used for comparison are packet delivery fraction (PDF), average end to end delay (AEED), normalized routing load (NRL) and throughput. Table-Driven routing protocols (Proactive) In table driven/ proactive routing protocols[4], nodes periodically exchange routing information and attempt to keep up-to-date routing information [5]. Proactive protocols are called so because they have to maintain information about routing prior to its use. Information about routes is maintained in tables called routing tables and when topology changes these tables are updated.On Demand routing protocols (Reactive) In on demand/ reactive routing protocols [6], nodes only try to find a route to a destination when it is actually needed for communication. Proactive protocols are named so, because routing table [7] is not maintained in it. When communication between nodes is required then route is discovered in on-demand manner.Many routing protocols have been proposed, but just few comparison studies have been performed. Almost all available comparative studies have performed simulations for proactive and reactive protocols by varying number of nodes, network topology, and network density. This paper focuses on varying mobility speed from low to high by keeping other parameters like pause time, number of nodes, mobile connections, simulation duration constant. This study is performed by varying mobility speed and measuring different quantitative metrics in different mobility models i.e. RPGM and RWPM. Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM) model shows the random motion of mobile nodes associated with a group [3]. Random Waypoint Model (RWPM) assumes that each host is initially placed at random position within the simulation area. As the simulation progresses, each host possess at its current location for a determinable period called the pause time [3].The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. After presenting the related work in section 2, section 3 presents routing in MANET. Section 4 presents mobility models. Section 5 describes simulation environment. The results of our simulation are analyzed in section 6. Finally, section 7 concludes the paper.

Impact of Random Mobility Models on OLSR

“…The authors in [23] have compared the performance of AODV, OLSR and DSDV with respect to reference point group mobility and random waypoint mobility models. It is found that, in the case of random waypoint mobility model, AODV shows maximum packet delivery ratio, least routing load and MAC load.…”

Performance Analysis on Multihop Transmission Using Arp Routing Protocol in Ieee 802.11 Ad Hoc Network

“…All nodes that are connected will be updated in each of the node's table to maintain the configuration of the protocol and were shared among themselves. Therefore, if there are any changes in the network topology, each node will update its routing table [7]. These types of routing are applied in the link-state routing and distance vector routing.…”

Building Realistic Mobility Models for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

“…Seminal examples of RWP use are found in Perkins et al, 2001, [76] and Boukerche, 2004, [113]. Its continual use is cited in Uzoh'et al, 2012, [114], Sharma and Mukherjee, 2012, [115], and Rani et al, 2012, [116]. It is common to use RWP as a baseline when discussing realistic mobility models.…”