Comparison of Random Waypoint & Random Walk Mobility Model Under DSR, AODV & DSDV MANET Routing Protocols
Comparison of Random Waypoint & Random Walk Mobility Model Under DSR, AODV & DSDV MANET Routing Protocols
Comparison of Random Waypoint & Random Walk Mobility Model Under DSR, AODV & DSDV MANET Routing Protocols
0976-5697
! "
#"# $ % %#
& ''' (
Comparison of Random Waypoint & Random Walk Mobility Model under DSR,
AODV & DSDV MANET Routing Protocols
Abstract- Mobile Adhoc Network is a kind of wireless ad hoc network where nodes are connected wirelessly and the network is self configuring.
MANET may work in a standalone manner or may be a part of another network. In this paper we have compared Random Walk Mobility Model
and Random Waypoint Mobility Model over two reactive routing protocols Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Adhoc On-Demand Distance
Vector Routing (AODV) protocol and one Proactive routing protocol Distance Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) Our analysis
showed that DSR, AODV & DSDV under Random Walk and Random Way Point Mobility models have similar results for similar inputs
however as the pause time increases so does the difference in performance rises. They show that their motion, direction, angle of direction, speed
is same under both mobility models. We have made their analysis on packet delivery ratio, throughput and routing overhead. We have tested
them with different criteria like different number of nodes, speed and different maximum number of connections.
Keywords- Mobile Adhoc Networks, Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Adhoc On-Demand Distance vector Routing (AODV), Distance
Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV), Random Walk Mobility Model and Random Waypoint Mobility Model, NS-2
send out the next update with this number. Packets are maintenance, are also limited so that they do not create
transmitted between the stations of the network by using unnecessary overhead in the network. The AODV protocol
routing tables which are stored at each station of the is a loop free and avoids the counting to infinity problem,
network. Each routing table, at each of the stations, lists all which were typical to the classical distance vector routing
available destinations, and the number of hops to each. Each protocols, by the usage of the sequence numbers. [3]
route table entry is tagged with a sequence number which is
originated by the destination station. To maintain the III. MOBILITY MODELS
consistency of routing tables in a dynamically topology,
each station periodically transmits updates, and transmits There are two types of mobility models used in the
updates immediately when significant new information is simulation of networks: traces and synthetic models [8,9].
available. Routing information is advertised by broadcasting Traces are those mobility patterns that are observed in real
or multicasting the packets which are transmitted life systems. They provide accurate information when they
periodically and incrementally as topological changes are involve a large number of nodes and an appropriately long
detected - for instance, when stations move within the observation time. However, new network
network. Data is also kept about the length of time between environments like ad hoc networks are not easily modeled if
arrival of the first and the arrival of best route for each traces have not yet been created. In this type of situation it is
destination. Based on this data, a decision may be made to necessary to use synthetic models. Synthetic models attempt
delay advertising routes which are about to change soon, to realistically represent the behaviors of MNs without the
thus damping fluctuations of the route tables. use of traces. Different synthetic entity mobility models for
ad hoc networks are [9]
B. DSR [a] Random Walk Mobility Model (including its many
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol is an on- derivatives): A simple mobility model based on random
demand routing protocol based on source routing. In the directions and speeds.
source routing technique, a sender determines the exact [b] Random Waypoint Mobility Model: A model that
sequence of nodes through broadcasted route request includes pause times between changes in destination
Message. When route is found then route reply is made and speed.
containing the route to destination. The list of intermediate [c] Random Direction Mobility Model: A model that forces
nodes for routing is explicitly contained in the packet’s MNs to travel to the edge of the simulation area before
header. In DSR, every mobile node in the network needs to changing direction and speed.
maintain a route cache where it caches source routes that it [d] Boundless Simulation Area Mobility Model: A model
has learned. When a host wants to send a packet to some that converts a 2D rectangular simulation area into a
other host, it first checks its route cache for a source route to torus-shaped simulation area.
the destination. In the case a route is found, the sender uses [e] Gauss-Markov Mobility Model: A model that uses one
this route to propagate the packet. Otherwise the source tuning parameter to vary the degree of randomness in
node initiates the route discovery process. Route discovery the mobility pattern.
and route maintenance are the two major parts of the DSR [f] A Probabilistic Version of the Random Walk Mobility
protocol. Model: A model that utilizes a set of probabilities to
determine the next position of an MN.
C. AODV [g] City Section Mobility Model: A simulation area that
This protocol performs Route Discovery using control represents streets within a city.
messages route request (RREQ) and route reply (RREP) In this paper we are analyzing the first two models.
whenever a node wishes to send packets to destination. To
control network wide broadcasts of RREQs, the source node A. The Random Walk Mobility Model
uses an expanding ring search technique. The forward path It was first described mathematically by Einstein in
sets up an intermediate node in its route table with a lifetime 1926 [9]. Since many entities in nature move in extremely
association RREP. When either destination or intermediate unpredictable ways, the Random Walk Mobility Model was
node using moves, a route error (RERR) is sent to the developed to mimic this erratic movement. In this mobility
affected source node. When source node receives the model, an MN moves from its current location to a new
(RERR), it can reinitiate route if the route is still needed. location by randomly choosing a direction and speed in
Neighborhood information is obtained from broadcast Hello which to travel. The new speed and direction are both
packet. As AODV protocol is a flat routing protocol it does chosen from pre-defined ranges, [speedmin; speedmax] and
not need any central administrative system to handle the [0;2 ] respectively. Each movement in the Random Walk
routing process. AODV tends to reduce the control traffic Mobility Model occurs in either a constant time interval t or
messages overhead at the cost of increased latency in a constant distance traveled d, at the end of which a new
finding new routes. The AODV has great advantage in direction and speed are calculated. If an MN which moves
having less overhead over simple protocols which need to according to this model reaches a simulation boundary, it
keep the entire route from the source host to the destination “bounces” off the simulation border with an angle
host in their messages. The RREQ and RREP messages, determined by the incoming direction. The MN then
which are responsible for the route discovery, do not continues along this new path.
increase significantly the overhead from these control Many derivatives of the Random Walk Mobility Model
messages. AODV reacts relatively quickly to the topological have been developed including the 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and d-D
changes in the network and updating only the hosts that may walks.
be affected by the change, using the RRER message. The
Hello messages, which are responsible for the route
reactive protocols have greater packet delivery ratio B. Normalized Routing Overhead
compare to proactive protocol.
Normalized routing overhead is the total number of
routing packets divided by total number of delivered data
packets (A. Al-Maashri and M. Ould-Khaoua, 2006). In the
-.*/0' 1 context of this project, the average number of routing
''
' packets required to deliver a single data packet is analyzed.
& -.*/0" 1
*
! *(*/0' 1 Comparing the results of Fig 4(a) to Fig 4(b) and of Fig
4(c) to Fig 4(d), we conclude that all the protocols react
*(*/0" 1
same under Random Walk Mobility Model and random
' ! " # Waypoint Mobility model. It is also clear that proactive
() protocol has more routing overhead compared to reactive
protocols.
Figure 3(a)
" % -.*/0' 1
1 .
$
-.*/0' 1 # -.*/0" 1
''
3 .+ ,
' -.*/0" 1 " *( 0' 1
*
& !
% *( 0' 1 *( 0" 1
+ , ,
$
# *( 0" 1 *(*/0' 1
" 2
'
*
!
1 ,
*(*/0' 1 *(*/0" 1
*(*/0" 1 ' ! " #
' ! " #
()
()
Figure 4(a)
Figure 3(b)
#
-.*/0' 1 % -.*/0' 1
1 .
'' $
' -.*/0" 1 -.*/0" 1
#
*
&
3 .+ ,
$ !
# *( 0" 1 *( 0" 1
"
*
! *(*/0' 1 *(*/0' 1
2
'
*(*/0" 1
1 ,
*(*/0" 1
' ! " # ' ! " #
() ()
" # #
-.*/0' 1 -.*/0' 1
'' %
1 .
% *( 0' 1 *( 0' 1
3 .+ ,
"
$
+ , ,
# ! *( 0" 1
*( 0" 1
"
*
! *(*/0' 1 *(*/0' 1
2
'
1 ,
*(*/0" 1 *(*/0" 1
' ! " # ' ! " #
() ()
)
#
" #
-.*/0' 1 !" -.*/0' 1
1 .
%
$ -.*/0" 1 ! -.*/0" 1
# "
*( 0' 1 *( 0' 1
3 .+ ,
3 )
" "
! *( 0" 1 *( 0" 1
'"
,
*(*/0' 1 ' *(*/0' 1
2
C. Throughput
The throughput (messages/second) is the total number " #
of delivered data packets divided by the total duration of !"
simulation time or the throughput of each of the routing -.*/0' 1
!
protocol in terms of number of messages delivered per one " -.*/0" 1
second is evaluated. *( 0' 1
3 )
"
Comparing Fig 5(a) to Fig 5(b) and Fig 5(c) to Fig 5(d), *( 0" 1
we say that all three protocols react equally same under
,
'" *(*/0' 1
Random Walk Mobility Model and random Waypoint '
*(*/0" 1
Mobility model. We also conclude that DSDV being a "
proactive protocol gives low throughput compared to others.
' ! " #
Similarly protocols increase with increasing number of
( 44*
nodes.
Figure 5(d)
!"
-.*/0' 1 VII. CONCLUSION
!
" -.*/0" 1
In the end we say that random walk mobility model and
3 )
" *( 0' 1
random way point mobility model both are actually same
*( 0" 1
mobility models apart from the pause time which is zero in
,
'"
' *(*/0' 1 Random Walk Mobility Model. There motion, direction and
" *(*/0" 1 angle of motion, speed, etc are similar to each other. Our
results showed clearly that all protocols perform same under
' ! " # these models. But if we increase the pause time in Random
( 44* Way point mobility model, it decreases the mobility and so
as the path breakage which results in difference of
Figure 5(a) performance.
VIII. REFERENCES
"
[1] C. Perkins, E. B. Royer and S. Das (2003), “Ad hoc On-
!"
-.*/0' 1 Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”, RFC
!
" -.*/0" 1 3561, IETF Network Working Group, July.
[2] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet (2003), “Optimized Link
3 )
*( 0' 1
"
*( 0" 1
State Routing Protocol (OLSR)”, RFC 3262, IETF
Network Working Group, October 2003.
,
'"
*(*/0' 1
' [3] V. Nazari, K. Ziarati (2006), “Performance Comparison
" *(*/0" 1 of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,
IEEE 2006.
' ! " #
[4] Josh Broch, David A.Maltz, David B. Johnson Yih-
( 44* Chen Hu and Jorjeta Jetcheva, “A Performance
Comparison of Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc Network
Figure 5(b) Routing Protocols”, ACM MOBICOM 98, Dallas,
Texas. pp 25-30, October 1998.
[5] Jochen Schiller “Mobile Communications”, Addision
Wesley Longman Pvt.Ltd, India. 2000.
[6] H. Ehsan and Z. A. Uzmi (2004), “Performance Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol. 2,
Comparison of Ad HocWireless Network Routing no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002.
Protocols”, IEEE INMIC 2004. [10] S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer (2000),
[7] F. Bertocchi, P. Bergamo, G. Mazzin (2003), “Performance comparison of Two On-Demand Routing
“Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad protocols for Ad hoc Networks”, In Proc. of INFOC
hoc Networks”, IEEE GLOBECOM 2003. OM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.
[8] M. Sanchez and P. Manzoni. A java-based ad hoc [11] R. Misra, C. R. Manda (2005)l, “Performance
networks simulator. In Proceedings of the SCS Western Comparison of AODV/DSR On-Demand Routing
Multiconference Web-based Simulation Track, Jan. Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks in Constrained
1999. Situation”, IEEE ICPWC 2005.
[9] T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, A Survey of [12] CMU Monarch Group, “CMU Monarch extensions to
Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research, in the NS-2 simulator.” Available from
Wireless Communication and Mobile Computing http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu/cmu-ns.html, 2006
(WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc [13] “The network simulator ns-2.
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns2.”