8 Sem End Zppt of Group 20

8/12/2019 8 Sem End Zppt of Group 20

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/8-sem-end-zppt-of-group-20 1/39

SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

OFROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK

USING QUALNET 5.2 SIMULATOR

Submitted by:Dipti Divya(904075)Garima Astha (904080)Harpreet Jolly(904085)

Jewshree Brahma(904097 )

Under the guidance of Prof. D. Seth



Overview• INTRODUCTION

• MOTIVATION

• OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

• BACKGROUND & RELATED WORKS

• SIMULATION & RESULT ANALYSIS

• CONCLUSION

•

IDEAS FOR FUTURE WORK

• REFERENCES



INTRODUCTION



A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is a self-configuring infrastructureless network of wireless mobile devices.

Protocol used is AODV & DSR

AODV & DSR are on demand protocol.

Fading is deviation of the attenuation affecting a signal over certain

propagation media.

Qualnet 5.2 is the basic simulator

Based on the results further comparisons were studied and performance of the routing protocols were evaluated.



MOTIVATION



• During natural calamities and other

disasters• Infrastructure network collapse• Ad – hoc network gain importance as

no access point needed• Has its own nodes for routing and

packet sending• Acts as a helping hand during

emergency• Temporary setup• Does not require much time and has

acceptable performance



OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT



• wired network protocols cannot be applied to

the M ANET.

• H ence, var ious new routi ng protocols such as

AODV, DSR, etc. have been designed

specif ically for dynamic topology.

• Wireless Ad hoc Network provides lot of

flexibility



BACKGROUND & RELATED WORKS



Mobile Ad-hoc Network• A mobile ad-hoc network is a self-

configuring infrastructureless network ofwireless mobile devices.

• Ad hoc is Latin and means "for this

purpose".• In short it is also called MANET.• Each device in a MANET is free to move

independently in any direction, and will

therefore change its links to other devicesfrequently.



AD-H OC AND I NF RASTRUCTURE NETWORKS

AD-H OC NET WORK

Ad hoc mode: allows each device to communicate

directly. no central Access Pointonly able to communicate with other Ad-

hoc devices and not with any Infrastructuredevices or any other devices connected to awired network

INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK

requires the use of an Access Point.

The Access Point controls Wirelesscommunication and offers several importantadvantages over an Ad-hoc network. For example, an Infrastructure based networksupports increased levels of security, potentiallyfaster data transmission speeds and integration

with a wired network.



BASICS OF AODV & DSR

“ oth are on demand routing protocol”

• table driven routing mechanism• In case of link failure, AODV broadcast the Route error messageto all its neighborsAODV

• source routing procedure• a unicast packet to the source

giving the information about the broken link in case of link failure. DSR



WHAT IS……….

FADINGRAYLEIGH FADING

RICEAN FADING

FADING is deviation of the attenuation affecting asignal over certain propagation media.may vary with time , geographical position or ratio

frequency.often modeled as a random processIs one of the most challenging problems faced by thecommunication system engineer in a mobileenvironment.



RICEAN FADING is a stochastic model for radio propagation anomalycaused by partial cancellation of a radio signal by itself.

• occurs when one of the paths , typically a line of sight signal , ismuch stronger than the others.

RAYLEIGH FADING is a statistical model for the effect of apropagation environment on a radio signal.most applicable when there is no dominant propagationalong a line of sight b/w transmitter and receiver



SIMULATION & RESULT

ANALYSIS



TOOLS TO BE USED

QUALNET 5.2

licensed network simulatoris specialized in simulating all kind of wireless applicationsis a comprehensive suit tool for modeling large wired and wirelessnetworkswell documented



PERFORMANCE METRICS

Throughput

End – to- end delay

Packet delivery ratio

“Our study is confined to throughput and end -to- end delay”



SYSTEM MODEL 1500 X 1500 TERRAIN

GRID

ST

RUCTUR

E

CBR Connections



SIMULATION PARAMETERS

No. of nodes Simulationtime No. of CBR connections

25 1500s 3 10 18

50 2000s 8 24 42

75 2000s 10 40 55

100 3000s 11 34 84

SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT NODES

PARAMETERS VALUES

No. of nodes 25,50,75,100

Placement of nodes grid structure

Terrain 1500 X1500

Data traffic CBR

MAC protocol 802.11

Path loss model Two ray ground reflection model

Routing protocols AODV and DSR Fading Models Rayleigh and Ricean

Mobility Model Random waypoint



No.of nodes

No. ofCBR

connections

No. of

mobilenodes

Without Fading Ricean Fading Rayleigh Fading

throughput( bits/sec )

averageend-to-end

delay( seconds )


average end-to-enddelay

( seconds )


average end-to-enddelay

( seconds )

AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR AODV DSR

25

3 0 4050 4100 0.043 0.051

10 0 3900 4100 0.102 0.101 2450 4100 0.202 0.175 2400 4100 0.201 0.177

18 0 4500 4800 0.112 0.110

50

8 0 4050 4100 0.036 0.035

24

0 3900 4600 0.098 0.109 3150 4300 0.208 0.167 3100 4350 0.205 0.167

10 3650 4350 0.095 0.13 2650 4300 0.2 0.25 2700 4300 0.16 0.175

24 3500 3050 0.1 3.2 2600 2550 0.2 1.4 2500 2550 1.5 1.5

40 3200 2650 0.2 1.35 2350 1550 0.35 2.2 2300 1500 0.35 2.15

42 0 4100 4400 0.102 0.113

75 10 0 4000 4100 0.045 0.030 40 0 4200 4550 0.097 0.097 3100 4500 0.178 0.157 3000 4500 0.175 0.157

55 0 4600 5000 0.112 0.112

100

11 0 3800 4150 0.0218 0.0215

34 0 4050 4100 0.0176 0.0186

84 0 4050 4250 0.0199 0.0191 3800 4200 0.040 0.030 3900 4300 0.040 0.030

SIMULATED RESULTS



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N A NO FADI NG ENVIRONMENT

I t i s observed that thethroughput of DSR is

always greater thanAODV for any number

of active CBRconnections.



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE D EL AY I N A NO FADI NG ENVIRONMENT

AODV offers less delaywhen the number of

active CBR connectionsare between 20 to 60. I t

is approximately same for

rest of the cases.



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

The per formance ofDSR i s better in

compar ison to that ofAODV in terms of

throughput ir respectiveof the number of active

CBR connections(traff ic intensi ty).



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE D EL AY I N RAYL EI GH FADI NG

AODV has more average end- to-end delay in comparison toDSR routing protocol. H ence,

DSR is better .



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RI CEAN FADI NG

The per formance of

DSR is better incompar ison to that ofAODV in terms of

throughput irrespective

of the number of activeCBR connections(traff ic intensity).



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE DEL AY I N RICEAN FADI NG

AODV has mor e average end- to-end delay in comparison toDSR routing protocol. H ence,

DSR is better .



MOBILE NODES



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N A NO FADI NG ENVIRONMENT

I t i s observed that the

thr oughput of DSR isgreater for low mobil i ty

but AODV performsbetter for large no. of

mobi le nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

T h r o u g

h p u

t ( b i t s / s e c )

no: of mobile nodes

AODV

DSR



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE D EL AY I N A NO FADI NG ENVIRONMENT

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

A v g

E n

d - T o - E n

d D e

l a y

( i n s e c

)

no: of mobile nodes

AODV DSR

AODV offers lessdelay than DSR forany number of mobilenodes .



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RAYLEI GH FADI NG

I t i s observed thatthe thr oughput ofDSR is greater for

low mobil i ty butAODV performs

better for large no.of mobile nodes .

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

T h r o u g

h p u

t ( b i t s / s e c

)

no: of mobile nodes

AODV DSR



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE D EL AY I N RAYL EI GH FADI NG

I t i s observed that DSRand AODV off er samedelay for low mobil ity

but AODV performsbetter for large no. ofmobi le nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

A

v g e n

d - t o - e n

d D e

l a y (

i n s e c

)

no: of mobile nodes

AODV

DSR



COM PARI SON OF THROUGHPUT I N RI CEAN FADI NG

I t i s observed that the

thr oughput of DSR isgreater for low mobil itybut AODV performsbetter for large no. of

mobi le nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

T h r o u g

h p u

t ( i n b i t s

/ s e c

)

no: of mobile nodes

AODV

DSR



COM PARI SON OF AVERAGE DEL AY I N RICEAN FADI NG

AODV offers less delay

than DSR for any numberof mobile nodes.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

A v g

E n

d - t o - E

n d D e

l a y

( i n s e c

)

no: of mobile nodes

AODV

DSR



• I t i s observed that in ideal (no fading) environment the thr oughput of the

DSR is always larger than the AODV f or any number of active CBRconnections when the nodes are static in nature.

• I n both the Rayleigh & Ricean fading environment, the AOD V has lessthroughput and more average end-to-end delay in comparison to DSRrouting protocols

• But when we consider r eal l ife scenario i.e. we consider the nodes to bemobile, it is found that the thr oughput of DSR is greater for l ow mobil itybut AOD V performs better for large no. of mobile nodes in both ideal aswell as fading conditi ons.

• Considering delay we see that in i deal case AODV offers less delay than

DSR for any number of mobil e nodes same is the case for Ricean f adingenvi ronment whereas in Rayleigh fading it i s observed that DSR andAODV offer same delay for low mobil i ty but AODV performs better forlarge no. of mobile nodes.

CONCLUSI ON :



I deas for F UTURE WORK



In our project we haveassumed the simplified two-way

ground reflection model as the pathlossmodel. These protocols can also beevaluated using other pathloss modelswhich may give different results in

different scenarios.



REFERENCES



[1]. C.E. Perkins, “ Adhoc Networking”, Pearson Professional, 2000.[2]. C.-K Toh , “ Adhoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems”, 1st ed.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall,Dec.2001.[3]. Seth, D.D.; Patnaik, Srikant; Pal, Srikanta; "A Quality of Service assured & faired MAC protocol for Mobile Adhoc Network," Communications and SignalProcessing (ICCSP), 2011 International conference on pp. 413-417, 10-12 Feb. 2011.[4]. Hongqiang Zhai, Jianfeng Wang, Xiang Chen and Yuguang Fang; “Mediumaccess control in mobile adhoc networks: challenges and solutions” WirelessCommunication & Mobile Computing, 2006; Vol. 6: pp.151 – 170, WileyInterScience. DOI: 10.1002/wcm.376.[5]. S. Kumar, V. S. Raghavan and J. Deng, “Medium Access Control Protocols for Ad- Hoc Wireless Networks: A Survey”, Elsevier Ad -Hoc Networks Journal, Vol.4(3), pp. 326-358, May 2006.[6]. Royer E. M. and Toh C. K., 1999. “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for

Ad- Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine,46-55.[7]. Perkins C. E. and Royer E. M., 1999. “Ad Hoc On -demand Distance VectorRouting,” In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile ComputingSystems and Applications, New Orleans, LA, 90-100.[8]. Rappaport T. “Wireless Communications – Principles and Practice” 2nd

Edition, Prentice Hall.



THA NK YOU

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	garimaastha
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

8 Sem End Zppt of Group 20

Documents