Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02

Analysis of Routing Protocols over TCP in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks using

Random Way Point Model

Khaing Su Wai
Myanmar Institute of Information Technology, Mandalay
[email protected]
Hsu Mon Maung
Myanmar Institute of Information Technology, Mandalay
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Mobile ad hoc network, MANET is an impartial disseminated wi-fi structure inclusive of unbound
nodes due to the fact, each node may communicate with each other at random, and then, redirecting data like a router
for exclusive nodes. Packet forwarding in MANET is challenging assignment, furthermore, the presence of malicious
nodes makes the general platform very insecure and the unpredictable existence of the changing nodes adds compl exi t y.
Shifting of the nodes has massive influence at the network performance. This paper offers the overall performance
comparison between dynamic source routing, DSR, ad hoc on demand distance vector routing, AODV and destination
sequenced distance vector, DSDV [7]. And then, precisely determine which routing mechanism is greater powerful. The
objective of this paper is to review routing mechanisms in MANET to get a perfect performance of the factors influencing
the actual quality among these network applications. This analysis of routing mechanisms is useful in know -how of the
requirements and challenging circumstances for routing mechanisms in MANET and procedures relating to premise of
developing a new routing protocol which we expect to supply in the future. The overall performance measurement of
three routing protocols using the random way point mobi lity over tcp was performed and assessed the measurement of
those protocols in phrases of the window size of tcp, packet loss, jitter, average throughput, average delay and packet
delivery ratio with regard to the alterable number of nodes. In this paper, we are able to simulate MANET using network
simulator NS2 and then make a result-primarily based assessment by using NS2 visual trace analyzer.

Keywords: M ANET ; AODV; DSDV; DSR

analysis, we elected three routing protocols AODV,
1. INTRODUCTION DSR, and DSDV then, compared their results. First we
MANET generally is a sequence of freedom to illustrate the particular features of routing protocols for
integrated progressive wireless nodes' framework MANET and describe their strengths and limitations.
because there are no a centralized rule or platform. We used network simulator NS2 for simulations and it
These dynamic nodes are more effective either directly is the most common wireless network testing simulator
or with the aid of intervening nodes to establish a supporting many MANET routing protocols. Ns2 visual
correspondence with each other due to there is no core trace analyzer has used to assess the performances of
management using radio connections or wireless multi- these protocols. The parameters are window size of tcp,
hop networks. Such systems are called dynamic packet loss, jitter, average delay, average throughput,
topology. This network topology is not rigid and the and packet delivery ratio. The analysis is reviewed by
entire nodes work as access points because there is no simulating networks with disparate variables of nodes,
the need of any base stations. Home and industrial tcp traffic, and random way point mobility model. The
communication, military environments, moving remaining paper is standardized as follows: section 2
vehicles, and IOT systems are some applications where discusses the work related to MANET routing
the ad hoc service is used. The routing mechanisms for simulations, section 3 briefly describes the basic
ad hoc networks are broadly categorized into three MANET architecture and the features of each of the
classes based upon the update mechanism of the routing three routing protocols, the performance assessment
information: proactive, reactive, and hybrid. Each node metrics are discussed in section 4 and the results of the
updates and retains the routing tables in proactive study are analyzed, and lastly, section 5 terminates the
protocols to keep track of all potential targets for the paper.
instant availability of the routes for future use. DSDV is
the sample of proactive protocol. Reactive protocols set 2. RELATED WORK
up routes only when routes are essential by an initial This section discusses the reviews related to
node and every node sustains individual routing data to MANET routing protocols by researchers. H. Ehsan and
targets but would not own an exhaustive topological Z.A. Uzmi [3] contrasted AODV, DSR, DSDV and
view of the system. In reactive protocols routes are TORA to ad hoc routing protocols. Their research
found on-call and for locating a route to target, a route indicates that DSR is outperforming other routing
request is initiated. The samples of reactive protocols protocols due to its capacity to efficiently use caching
are DSR and AODV. The main purpose of this paper is and support various paths to target. S. S. Tyagi and R.
to post a detailed analysis of MANET protocols. In this K. Chauhan conducted a related survey [8]. They
 Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02
analyze protocols using PDR, average delay, packet frequent disconnections or partitions, restricted
loss, and overhead routing. The number of nodes, communication bandwidth, communications broadcast
speed, time of pause and time of simulation varies. In nature, mobility-imposed constraints, dynamically
large environments, they reason that AODV performs changing topologies, paths lack of system and
better than DSR, and that both AODV and DSR application mobility awareness. Figure 1 demonstrates
perform better than DSDV. The authors undertake a our model for MANET in this paper.
related survey in [6]. They assess similar protocols by
shifting the quantity of sources, the pause time, the 3.2. AODV
quantity of nodes and speed. They presume that in high
mobility scenarios AODV and DSR perform better than AODV is one of a classification of demand-
DSDV, and that AODV beats DSR in higher load driven routing protocols intended for use in MANETs
scenarios. N.Vetrivelan and A V Reddy[4] assess [1]. The mechanism for route discovery is only
average delay, fraction of packet delivery and load of requested when a node wants to transmit information to
routing for AODV , DSDV and TORA. They shifted a different node. And this protocol is reactive. For every
the quantity of nodes and held up to 100sec simulation route entry, AODV utilizes a destination sequence
time. Their findings show that AODV outperforms the number. Considering the option between two routes to a
other two routing protocols as far as average delay is target, a requesting node always chooses the one with
concerned but TORA provides better performance in the highest number of sequences. To discover and
terms of packet transmission fraction and DSDV preserve connections, the protocol uses various
performs best in less stressful situations. DSDV messages. If a source node needs to discover a route to
performs best in less distressing circumstances. DSDV target, it will transmit a route request, RREQ message
is best in upsetting conditions followed by TORA for to the whole network [9]. When an RREQ message
the standardized routing load. reaches a target, the target will send a route replies,
RREP message by unicasting back to the source route
and then the target route is made available. An
3. M ANET AND ROUTING PROTOCOLS interceding node can also respond with an RREP
3.1. MANET message if the route to the target is fresh sufficiently.
As the RREP propagates again to the source node an d
MANETs are very useful when networks their routing tables are modified by interceding nodes.
dependent on the infrastructure are not accessible, Nodes of an active route can deliver connectivity
inefficient or costly. That is not always feasible to set information to their instant neighbors by periodically
up fixed access points and backbone networks. MANET transmitting local Hello messages. If Hello messages
is a network where no wireless or cellular networking prevent originating from a neighbor within a given time
infrastructure exists. MANETs require no backbone interval, it is presumed the communication is fail. When
infrastructure support. Instead MANET is a network in a node observes that a path to a neighbor is presently
which frequent host, frequent movement, topology false, it eliminates the routing entry and transmits a
changes and wireless multi-hop links occur. Any route error, RERR message to active neighboring nodes
applications of MANET are s mart phone, laptop, wrist the utilization of the path.
watch, military environments, vehicles, aircraft, civil
environments, taxi-cab network, conference rooms,
sports facilities, emergency operations. Mobile nodes 3.3. DSR
can play the features of hosts and routers in this The DSR protocol is a reactive or on-demand
environment and are free to transfer and manage routing mechanism designed for wireless
arbitrarily. The mobile nodes within the radio range can communication systems [1]. In DSR, routing entries at
interact directly with one another. In this environment, the interceding nodes are not organized and use the
data must be routed across intermediate nodes. These source routing mechanism. The source of a packet
networks are fully dispersed, can be established specifies the full sequence of a route that packets of
anywhere and at any time and then contribute access to data are forwarded. A route discovery packet, RREQ is
message and resources without any infrastructure transmitted to all neighbors by the source. This packet
support. Some of MANET’s challenges are packet loss involves the target host address, the source address, a
because of transmission faults, variable capacity link, route record field and a unique identifier. Every node
that receives this packet retransmits it, except it is the
target or there is a path in its cache to the target. Only
when the RREQ message hits the final destination, it
will send back an RREP message to source by going
backward. The route that RREP packet conveys back is
stored for later use at the source. If any connection on a
source route is broken, a Route Error (RERR) packet is
used to alert the source node. The source eliminates any
route utilizing this connection from its store. The routes
to some random node are stored at the source in a route
cache and hence routing loops can’t be made as they
Figure 1. Our model for MANET
 Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02
will be detected immediately. This protocol diminishes
transmission capacity s quandered in remote systems
which the control packets and erases the periodic
routing table update messages.

3.4. DSDV
The DSDV routing protocol is a table-driven
routing scheme intended for MANETs. Every node has
a routing table showing the next hop and quantity of
hops to the target and regularly forwarding the routing
table to neighbors [1]. A sequence number is utilized to
label each route when every node advertises its own Figure 2. Simulation of Our Model
routing information to each neighbor, and routes with The other nodes are randomly moved by Random way
greater number of sequences are more desirable. point mobility at time 1s and a speed of 3 m/sec. A tcp
Moreover, the one with better metric is more desirable link is initiated between node 0 and node 1 at time 1s,
among two routes with an equal number of sequences. using a routing protocol and also the IEEE802.11 mac
In the event that a node identifies that a path to a target protocol. During this tcp protocol, our application is file
has fallen, then it will set its hop number to infinity and transfer protocol from source to destination. The form
change its sequence number. Information about new of channel will be set to wireless internet. The Two Ray
paths, broken connections, metric change is propagated Ground model is designed to be radio-propagation. The
to neighbors immediately. By exchanging that function of the network interface is set as Wireless. The
refurbished routing information, every node updates its mac type is set to suit in IEEE protocol 802 11 mac.
own routing tables. Because of there is some alteration, The interface queue type for AODV and DSDV is ready
and all nodes share the routing information changes, the to be Queue/DropTail/PriQueue. DSR type of interface
overhead is more encouraged in DSDV protocol. queue is configured to be CMUPriQueue. The layout
antenna is designed to be OmniAntenna. The maximum
4. R ESULT AND DISCUSSION packet is set to 50 in interface queue. We will compare
multiple protocols using different sets of mobile nodes.
Table 1. Simulation Parameters The small variety of node is configured as 10, the
medium range of node is configured as 30 and the large
Parameter Value
wide variety of node is configured as 100 and 150.
Routing Protocols AODV, DSR, DSDV AODV, DSDV, and DSR are set to the routing protocol.
Simulation Duration 150 seconds The topography dimension X is set at 950. The
Number of Nodes 10,30,100,150 topography Y-dimension is set at 700. Simulation end
Simulation Area 950 X 700 meters time is set to be 150s. Figure 2 illustrates our simulation
Antenna Omni-directional environment in this analysis.
Window size of tcp is the size of the receiver’s
MAC IEEE802.11 buffer which will influence the flow of transmission. To
Traffic Agent TCP evaluate the window size of tcp for each protocol is
Traffic Type FTP based on the total number of TCP transferred packets.
Packet Size 512 bytes Table 2. AODV Result of Simulation
Channel Type Wireless
AODV
Propagation Model Two ray ground reflect
10 30 100 150
Mobility Model Random Way Point nodes nodes nodes nodes
Node 0 position (5,5) Generated 3801 5298 7717 5944
Node 1 position (490,285) packets
Mobility Speed 3m/s Lost 38 15 48 33
packets
We tend to compare the performance of AODV, Transferred 3763 5283 7669 5911
DSR and DSDV over TCP in ad hoc wireless networks packets
using Random way point mobility regarding window Jitter 0.013072 0.024729 0.009754 0.013046
size of tcp, throughput, average delay and packet s s s s
delivery ratio, whereas, variable the network size. The Average 0.231268 0.193891 0.184348 0.251609
source is node 0 and also the destination is node 1. As Delay s s s s
shown in table 1, the first location of node 0 and 1 are Average 17 KB/s 26 KB/s 28 KB/s 21 KB/s
severally (6,6), (489,284) and also the z coordinate is 0. Throughput
At time 1s, node 0 begins to move towards point Packet 1.00% 0.28% 0.62% 0.56%
(249,249) at a speed of 3 m / sec and node 1 also starts Delivery
to move towards point (44, 258) at a speed of 3 m / sec. Ratio
 Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02
network increments. The total amount of TCP
Table 3. DSR Result of Simulation
transferred packets on AODV is less than the others, but
DSR increases when number of nodes is enlarged up to 100.
10 30 100 150 We presume that window size in DSR outflanks the
nodes nodes nodes nodes other two protocols when organization size is huge.
Generated 8102 9276 9181 9036
packets
Lost 18 8 8 3
packets
Transferred 8084 9268 9173 9033
packets
Jitter 0.010714 0.011089 0.009848 0.009973
s s s s
Average 0.164771 0.204117 0.197196 0.190531
Delay s s s s
Average 40 KB/s 34 KB/s 33KB/s 33 KB/s Figure 3. Transferred Packets
Throughput Packet loss occurs when one, or extra packets
of data traveling throughout a network fail to attain
Packet 0.22% 0.09% 0.09% 0.03%
their destination node. Packet loss is measured with
Delivery
respect to packets sent as a percentage of packets lost. If
Ratio
a path to the destination is not available or the buffer
Table 4. DSDV Result of Simulation that stores pending packets is complete, a packet may
be dropped at the source. If the connection to the
DSDV subsequent hop is broken, it can also be dropped on an
10 30 100 150 intermediate host. Wireless link transmission errors,
nodes nodes nodes nodes host mobility, traffic load and buffer overload
Generated 6800 7772 7316 6625 (congestion) are key causes for packet loss in mobile ad
packets hoc networks. Protocol efficiency will improve if the
Lost 20 12 9 32 loss of the packet is low. From Table 2,3,4, AODV has
packets higher packet loss for a few nodes, and the packet loss
is significantly decrease up to 30 nodes then the packet
Transferred 6780 7760 7307 6593
loss is highest when the size of network set to 100. But,
Packets
the packet loss is moderately decrease when the size of
Jitter 0.008149 0.007486 0.008523 0.010002 network is huge. DSR has higher packet loss for a few
s s s s nodes. But the packet loss is significantly decrease
Average 0.123940 0.134735 0.132913 0.146609 when the size of network enlarges. The packet loss in
Delay s s s s DSDV is slightly decrease when the size of network
Average 41 KB/s 40 KB/s 38 KB/s 34 KB/s grows. But the packet loss is significantly increase
Throughput when the size of network enlarges. DSDV outperforms
AODV due to the fact the packet loss for DSDV is
Packet 0.29% 0.15% 0.12% 0.48%
much less than AODV. In AODV, the packet loss is
Delivery
higher than the other two protocols. In DSR, the packet
Ratio loss is less than that of AODV and DSDV for all
different sets of mobile nodes. So, DSR is the most
The protocol that can transmit most packets has the best efficient option at packet loss metric. DSR is the most
window size. Table 2,3,4 demonstrate the effect of suitable protocol for real-time applications where
network size on the total number of TCP transferred packet loss is an important consideration.
packets between AODV, DSR and DSDV routing Jitter is a latency that varies over time, or when
mechanisms, separately. Comparing these total packets are not sent in the same order. Jitter is the
transferred packets, it is easy to know that in the DSR, variation in the time of arrival of the packet in another
it has transferred most packets. DSR protocol most suits phrase. There are no variations or jitters in a network
highly mobile systems among the DSDV, DSR, and with constant latency. The packet jitter is expressed as
AODV. Because according to the simulation results an average of the network's mean latency variation. The
shown in Figure 3, the DSR can transmit most packets performance of protocol is better efficiency if the
in scenario, which is best to highly mobility systems. So latency between various packets is short. From the
the windows size evolution of DSR is better than other results in table 2,3,4, AODV has the highest jitter when
protocols when the size of network is enormous. There the network size is 30 and the lowest jitter when the
is negligible impact on window size in DSDV protocol network size is set to 100. In DSR, jitters are higher for
as the size of network extends. But the number of small network sizes. But as the network grows, jitter of
transferred packets is slightly decrease when the size of DSR decreases. The jitter in DSDV is lower on 10 to
 Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02
100 nodes. But, there is minimal increase in jitter when
the size of network set to 150. However, DSDV gives
better jitter performance than AODV and DSR. With
the different range of nodes, DSR is more fitting than
AODV. AODV shows higher degree of jitter than that
of the other protocols.

Figure 5. Throughput
both of DSDV and DSR act the same performance.
Throughput in DSDV and DSR declines moderately as
a number of nodes increase, but the better impact is
observed in AODV where throughput increases
appreciably as network size increases. But the
throughput in AODV is slightly decrease when the size
Figure 4. Average Delay of network is over 100 nodes. We presume that DSDV
The average delay can be characterized as the outflanks the other two routing protocols and it is
average time it takes for data packets to reach the generally appropriate for small networks. For large
destination through the network from the source [5]. It networks, DSR is generally suitable because throughput
consists of the queue in the transfer of data packets , the in DSR does not decline at over 100 nodes.
delay caused by route discovery process, MAC The packet delivery ratio is the ratio of packets
retransmission delays, packet propagation and transfer delivered successfully to the destination to the packets
times. In a routing protocol, a lower average delay generated by the source. It reflects the success rate of
value represents powerful protocol, fast route packet transmission that is in an exceedingly given
convergence, and packets transiting the optimal path. period, what percentage packets out of the overall
Table 2,3,4 display the effect of network size on packets that were transmitted can reach the destination.
average delays for AODV, DSR and DSDV, It is a process of packet loss because of route
respectively. congestion, network queuing delays, and efficiency of
Figure 4 displays average delay outcomes of routing algorithms. An effective routing protocol
our simulation for the routing protocols. It indicates that guaranteeing a large proportion of the packet
AODV has higher delay for a small number of nodes transmission. Performance is higher when the delivery
and the delay is moderately decrease up to 100 nodes ratio for the packets is closer to one. Table 2,3,4
then the delay starts significantly increase when the size demonstrate the effect of the packet delivery ratio for
of network increases. DSR has higher delay for a small the routing protocols AODV, DSR and DSDV,
number of nodes due to the delay of DSR significantly severally.
increases when the network size is extended to 30
nodes. But the delay is slightly decrease when the size
of network enlarges. DSR become more suitable in a
large number of nodes compared to AODV. DSDV
protocol outperforms the other two routing protocols
because it has lower delay. But the delay is slightly
decrease when the size of network grows. In average
delay metric, AODV gives worst form comparing with
other protocols and is suitable for medium sized
network. DSDV is suitable for applications where delay
is an important consideration.
Throughput is the proportion of how quick we
Figure 6. Packet Delivery Ratio
can really send packets through the network [2]. The
quantity of packets that are sent to the destination giv es From Figure 6, we know that AODV has
network throughput. The proportion of the aggregate higher PDR for small number of node, and it
sum of data that a source gets to a destination to the considerably declines at 30 nodes and considerably
time it takes for the destination to get the final packet is increases at 100 nodes. However, AODV has had better
known as throughput. The efficiency is better when it's packet delivery ratio than DSDV and DSR. Packet
higher throughput. It represents to a powerful delivery ratio of DSR is extremely less than compared
throughput network. For AODV, DSR and DSDV to AODV and it slightly declines as network size
routing protocols, respectively, Table 2,3,4 display the increases. Each of DSDV and DSR act a similar
effect of network size on the throughput. performance on packet delivery ratio and DSDV
From Figure 5 we noticed the DSDV has declines slightly as a number of nodes increase. But the
higher throughput, AODV has lower throughput, and better impact is observed in DSDV where packet
 Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02
delivery ratio increases appreciably as network size 8th International M ultitopic Conference (INM IC 2004),
increases over 100 nodes. We have a tendency to Pakistan, Dec 2004, pp. 457-465.
conclude that AODV achieves the best packet delivery [4] N. Vetrivelan, and A. V. Reddy, “Performance analysis
of three routing protocols for varying M ANET size,”
ratio performance but, if we consider the impact of
Proceeding of the International M ulti Conference of
large network size, DSDV also achieves optimum Engineers and Computer Scientists Vol. II, (IM ECS
performance. ‘08), Hong Kong, M arch 2008, pp. 19-21.
[5] Piyush Yadav, Rajeev Agrawal, Komal Kashish.
5. CONCLUSIONS "Performance Evaluation of ad hoc Wireless Local Area
Network in Telemedicine Applications", Procedia
In future networking, wireless networks are
Computer Science, 2018
anticipated to work an essential role. Because of [6] Shah, S., Khandre, A., Shirole, M ., Bhole, G.:
common properties with respect to connection Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols
characteristics, node mobility and alterable network Using NS2 Simulation, M obile and Pervasive
size, routing protocols in wireless networks are Computing (CoM PC-2008).
complicated whenever contrasted with wired networks. [7] Sunil Kumar Singh, Rajesh Duvvuru, Jyoti Prakash
There are a variety of routing protocols being approved Singh. "Chapter 90 Performance Impact of TCP and
in ad hoc wireless networks that are absolutely different UDP on the M obility M odels and Routing Protocols in
M ANET", Springer Science and Business M edia LLC,
within the results from one another. The performance
2014
comparison between DSR, AODV and DSDV has been
[8] Tyagi, S.S., Chauhan, K.R.: Performance Analysis of
proposed in this paper to verify exactly which protocol Proactive Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks.
is more powerful. We have used ns2.35 for simulations. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 –
NS2 visual trace analyzer has used to assess the 8887),2010
performance of these protocols with regard to the [9] Vandana Dubey, Nilesh Dubey. "Performance
variable number of nodes in relation to the performance Evaluation of AODV and AODVETX", 2014
metrics. The simulation results for window size in tcp, International Conference on Computational Intelligence
packet loss, jitter, throughput, average delay and packet and Communication Networks, 2014
delivery ratio show that with increase in networks size,
Random way point mobility model and transmission
control protocol as type of traffic. From the analysis of
the graphs obtained from the simulation of the protocols
shows that, window size in DSR outperforms than the
other two routing protocols when the network size is
huge. The most successful option for packet loss
metrics is DSR, since the packet loss for all separate
sets of mobile nodes is lower than that of AODV and
DSDV. In jitter performance, DSDV achieves greater
effectiveness than AODV and DSR. At average delay
metric, DSDV is ideal for applications wherever delay
is a critical factor. In throughput metric, DSDV
outflanks the other two routing protocols and it is
especially perfect for smaller networks. DSR is
typically ideal for large networks because throughput in
DSR does not decline to more than a hundred nodes.
AODV achieves the most efficient results on the packet
delivery ratio. If we prefer to observe the combined
effect of network size, window size in tcp, throughput,
average delay and packet delivery ratio, DSR is the
most efficient option for large networks.

6. R EFERENCES
[1] Cana, Erion "Comparative Performance Simulation of
DSDV, AODV and DSR M ANET Protocols in NS2,"
International Journal of Business and Technology: Vol.
2 : Iss. 1 , Article 4, 2013. <https://knowledgecenter.ubt-
uni.net/ijbte/vol2/iss1/4>
[2] Gouda, B. S., C. K. Behera, and R. K. Behera. "A
scenario based simulation analysis and performance
evaluation of energy efficiency enhancement of routing
protocols in M ANET", International M utli-Conference
on Automation Computing Communication Control and
Compressed Sensing (iM ac4s), 2013
[3] H. Ehsan and Z. A. Uzmi, “Performance comparison of
ad hoc wireless network routing protocols,” Proc. of the
Journal of Information Technology and Education Science 2020, Vol-02