Comparative Performance of AODV, OLSR, FSR & LAR Routing Protocol in MANET in Large Scale Scenarios

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) ....................................................................... 1 Issue in Ad-hoc network ............................................................................................. 3 MANET Applications: ................................................................................................ 4

LITERATURE SURVEY ...................................................................................... 6 2.1 2.2 Requirement of Ad-hoc Routing Protocol .................................................................. 6 Design Issues of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks ......................................... 6 Routing Architecture ............................................................................................ 6 Unidirectional Links Support ............................................................................... 7 Usage of Super Hosts ........................................................................................... 8 Quality of Service (QoS) Routing........................................................................ 8 Multicast Support ................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.3 2.4

Desirable Properties of AD-HOC Routing Protocols ............................................... 10 Classification of Routing Protocol ............................................................................ 12 Proactive (Table-Driven): .................................................................................. 12 Reactive (Source-Initiated On-Demand Driven): .............................................. 13 Hybrid Protocols: ............................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 3.

Overview of Routing Protocol ............................................................................. 15 3.1 Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) ....................................................... 15 Path Discovery ................................................................................................... 16 Reverse-Path Setup ............................................................................................ 17 Forward-Path Setup ........................................................................................... 18 Route Table Management .................................................................................. 19 Path Maintenance ............................................................................................... 20 Local Connectivity Management ....................................................................... 21 ii

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6

3.2

Optical Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) ........................................................... 22 Protocol Overview ............................................................................................. 23 Multipoint Relays (MPRs) ................................................................................. 24 Protocol Functioning .......................................................................................... 25 Core Functioning ............................................................................................... 26

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.4

Fisheye State Routing (FSR) ..................................................................................... 28 Location-Aided Routing Protocol (LAR) ................................................................. 31 Location information ......................................................................................... 31 LAR Scheme 1 ................................................................................................... 34

3.4.1 3.4.2 4.

SIMULATION RESULTS .................................................................................. 37 4.1 Comparison of OLSR, AODV, ZRP and LAR1 ....................................................... 37 Efficiency Matrix Used: ..................................................................................... 37 Effect of varying pause time .............................................................................. 37 Effect of varying number of nodes .................................................................... 39

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 42 References .................................................................................................................... 43

iii

Table of Figure
Figure 1 Cellular network versus mobile adhoc network .......................................................... 2 Figure 2 Classification of Routing Protocol ............................................................................ 12 Figure 3 Reverse & Forward Path Discovery .......................................................................... 17 Figure 4 Multiple Relay Points ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5 Building a route from topology table ........................................................................ 26 Figure 6 Scope of fish eye ....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 7 Message Reduction using fish eye ............................................................................ 30 Figure 8 Example of Expected zone ........................................................................................ 32 Figure 9 Request zone. ............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 10 LAR scheme 1 ........................................................................................................ 35 Figure 11 Comparison of throughput of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time ................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 12 Ccomparison of End to End delay of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time ................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 13 Comparison of Avg jitter effect of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time ................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 14 Comparison of throughput of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes. ...................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 15 Ccomparisons of End to End delay of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes. ........................................................................................................ 40 Figure 16 Comparison of avg jitter effect of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes. ........................................................................................................ 41 iv

List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Simulation result (change in pause time) ......................................... 42 Table 2 Summary of simulation result(change in no of nodes) ......................................... 42

1. INTRODUCTION
The use of wireless technology has become a ubiquitous method to access the Internet or connect to the local network whether in a corporate, educational, or private setting. Wireless technologies are integrated in numerous kinds of devices that can be mobile or stationary and used almost everywhere. Practically all laptop computers are currently sold with a built-in wireless adapter. In handheld units like PDAs, wireless adapters have also become standard and are now being introduced in some types of mobile phones. It is much easier and inexpensive to deploy a wireless network compared to a traditional wired network, as the required effort and cost of running cables are negligible. Furthermore, additional devices can be added to the network at no extra cost.

When devices equipped with wireless adapters are part of a WLAN and are managed by a wireless access point, their coordination is controlled by a centralized entity. The devices rely on the presence of a fixed infrastructure, i.e., wireless access points to work. Laptop computers must be within the range of a wireless access point to connect to other devices because the laptops must communicate via the access point.

If communication between wireless equipped devices is desired, the reliance upon an existing infrastructure as well as its implied limitations on mobility can be a major obstacle. To overcome these issues, the wireless equipped devices themselves must operate autonomously to provide connection such that a device not directly within transmission range of another device is able to communicate.

1.1 Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET)

A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is an autonomous system of mobile routers (and associated hosts) connected by wireless links, the union of which form an arbitrary graph. The routers are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily. Thus, the networks wireless topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. Such a network may operate in a standalone fashion, or may be connected to the larger Internet.

In other words, A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of mobile terminals that are able to dynamically form a temporary network without any aid from fixed infrastructure or centralized administration.

Figure 1 Cellular network versus mobile adhoc network

In MANET, Each wireless capable device must function as a router and forward packets. Thus, communication can be via multiple wireless hops. Such wireless equipped devices are referred to as nodes. The nodes in the network are mobile and communicate without a preestablished fixed infrastructure, but instead form a routing infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion.

The mobile nodes must work together in a distributed fashion to enable routing among the nodes. Because of the lack of centralized control, routing becomes a central issue and a major challenge as the network topology is constantly changing. The mobility patterns and the condition under which a routing protocol is supposed to work can vary considerably. Furthermore, the number of mobile nodes in the network can range from a few to several hundreds or thousands.

1.2 Issue in Ad-hoc network

1. Lack of centralized management: MANET doesnt have a centralized monitor server. The absence of management makes the detection of attacks difficult because it is not east to monitor the traffic in a highly dynamic and large scale ad-hoc network. Lack of centralized management will impede trust management for nodes.

2. Resource availability: Resource availability is a major issue in MANET. Providing secure communication in such changing environment as well as protection against specific threats and attacks, leads to development of various security schemes and architectures. Collaborative ad-hoc environments also allow implementation of selforganized security mechanism.

3. Scalability: Due to mobility of nodes, scale of ad-hoc network changing all the time. So scalability is a major issue concerning security. Security mechanism should be capable of handling a large network as well as small ones.

4. Cooperativeness: Routing algorithm for MANETs usually assumes that nodes are cooperative and non-malicious. As a result a malicious attacker can easily become an important routing agent and disrupt network operation by disobeying the protocol specifications.

5. Dynamic topology: Dynamic topology and changeable nodes membership may disturb the trust relationship among nodes. The trust may also be disturbed if some nodes are detected as compromised. This dynamic behavior could be better protected with distributed and adaptive security mechanisms.

6. Limited power supply: The nodes in mobile ad-hoc network need to consider restricted power supply, which will cause several problems. A node in mobile ad-hoc network may behave in a selfish manner when it is finding that there is only limited power supply.

7. Bandwidth constraint: Variable low capacity links exists as compared to wireless network which are more susceptible to external noise, interference and signal attenuation effects.

8. Adversary inside the Network: The mobile nodes within the MANET can freely join and leave the network. The nodes within network may also behave maliciously. This is hard to detect that the behavior of the node is malicious. Thus this attack is more dangerous than the external attack. These nodes are called compromised nodes.

9. No predefined Boundary: In mobile ad- hoc networks we cannot precisely define a physical boundary of the network. The nodes work in a nomadic environment where they are allowed to join and leave the wireless network. As soon as an adversary comes in the radio range of a node it will be able to communicate with that node. The attacks include Eavesdropping impersonation; tempering, replay and Denial of Service (DoS) attack [2].

1.3 MANET Applications:

With the increase of portable devices as well as progress in wireless communication, ad-hoc networking is gaining importance with the increasing number of widespread applications. Ad-hoc networking can be applied anywhere where there is little or no communication infrastructure or the existing infrastructure is expensive or inconvenient to use. Ad hoc networking allows the devices to maintain connections to the network as well as easily adding and removing devices to and from the network. The set of applications for MANET is diverse, ranging from large-scale, mobile, highly dynamic networks, to small, static networks that are constrained by power sources. Besides the legacy applications that move from traditional infra structured environment into the ad hoc context, a great deal of new services can and will be generated for the new environment. Typical applications include [12, 16]

1. Military Battlefield: Military equipment now routinely contains some sort of computer equipment. Ad- hoc networking would allow the military to take advantage of commonplace network technology to maintain an information network between the 4

soldiers, vehicles, and military information headquarters. The basic techniques of ad hoc network came from this field.

2. Commercial Sector: Ad hoc can be used in emergency/rescue operations for disaster relief efforts, e.g. in fire, flood, or earthquake. Emergency rescue operations must take place where non-existing or damaged communications infrastructure and rapid deployment of a communication network is needed. Information is relayed from one rescue team member to another over a small hand held. Other commercial scenarios include e.g. ship-to-ship ad hoc mobile communication, law enforcement, etc.

3. Local Level: Ad hoc networks can autonomously link an instant and temporary multimedia network using notebook computers or palmtop computers to spread and share information among participants at e.g. conference or classroom. Another appropriate local level application might be in home networks where devices can communicate directly to exchange information. Similarly in other civilian environments like taxicab, sports stadium, boat and small aircraft, mobile ad hoc communications will have many applications.

4. Personal Area Network (PAN): Short-range MANET can simplify the intercommunication between various mobile devices (such as a PDA, a laptop, and a cellular phone). Tedious wired cables are replaced with wireless connections. Such an ad hoc network can also extend the access to the Internet or other networks by mechanisms e.g. Wireless LAN (WLAN), GPRS, and UMTS. The PAN is potentially a promising application field of MANET in the future pervasive computing context.

5. MANET-VoVoN: A MANET enabled version of JXTA peer-to-peer, modular, open platform is used to support user location and audio streaming over the JXTA virtual overlay network. Using MANET-JXTA, a client can search asynchronously for a user and a call setup until a path is available to reach the user. The application uses a private signaling protocol based on the exchange of XML messages over MANETJXTA communication channels.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 Requirement of Ad-hoc Routing Protocol

Since the topology of the network is constantly changing, the issue of routing packets between any pair of nodes becomes a challenging task. Most protocols should be based on reactive routing instead of proactive. Multi cast routing is another challenge because the multi cast tree is no longer static due to the random movement of nodes within the network. Routes between nodes may potentially contain multiple hops, which is more complex than the single hop communication.

2.2 Design Issues of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks

The major design issues in mobile ad hoc networks are discussed below.

2.2.1 Routing Architecture

The routing architecture of a self-organized network can be either hierarchical or flat. In most self-organized networks, the hosts will be acting as independent routers, which implies that routing architecture should conceptually be flat, that is, each address serves only as an identifier and does not convey any information about one host that is topologically located with respect to any other node. In a flat self-organized network, the mobility management is not necessary because all of the nodes are visible to each other via routing protocols. In flat routing algorithms such as Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP), the routing tables have entries to all hosts in the self-organized network.

However, a flat routing algorithm does not have good scalability. The routing overhead increases rapidly when the network becomes larger. Hence, to control channel reuse spatially (in terms of frequency, time, or spreading code) and reduce routing information overhead, some form of hierarchical scheme should be employed. Clustering is the most common 6

technique employed in hierarchical routing architectures. The idea behind hierarchical routing is to divide the hosts of a self-organized network into a number of overlapping or disjoint clusters.

One node is elected as clusterhead for each cluster. This clusterhead maintains the membership information for the cluster. Nodes that are not clusterheads will, henceforth, be referred to as ordinary nodes. When an ordinary node wants to send a packet, the node can send the packet to the clusterhead that routes the packet toward the destination. Clusterhead Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR) and Cluster-Based Routing Protocol (CBRP) belong to this type of routing scheme. Hierarchical routing involves cluster, address, and mobility management.

2.2.2 Unidirectional Links Support Almost every existing routing protocol tends to assume that all links are bidirectional. However, there are a number of factors that will make wireless links unidirectional. They are as follows:

Different radio capabilities: Radios within a network can have different transmit powers or receive sensitivities. This is quite likely in a tactical environment where man-pack and vehicular radios exist. Vehicular radios, being less constrained by size and weight, typically have 12 decibels (dB) greater transmit power than their manpack counterparts. Unidirectional links are exceedingly likely in tactical networks.

Interference: This is due to either hostile jammers or friendly interference, which will reduce a nearby receivers sensitivity. For example, host A can receive packets from host B as there is very little interference in As vicinity. However, B may be in the vicinity of an interference node, and therefore cannot receive packets from A. So, the link between A and B is directed from B to A. Message broadcast requirement: There is an increasing emphasis on the wide area broadcast of messages. Satellitebased transmitters are being used for the downward links, whereas the upward links use alternative paths.

Mute mode: An extreme instance, applicable only in tactical mobile networks, is when hosts cannot transmit due to an impending threat. In such a case, it still needs to receive information; however, it cannot participate in bidirectional communications. The state of link direction is time varying: The directional state of the wireless link may be either a persistent or a transient phenomenon. The frequency of such transitions and the duration of stay in each state will be a function of offered traffic, terrain, mobility patter, and energy availability.

2.2.3 Usage of Super Hosts

All existing routing protocols assume that all mobile hosts have the same properties based on the spirit of a self-organized network as a collection of equal peers opportunistically using each others services to communicate. Although this is true in some circumstances, there are also situations where the network will include hosts with preponderant bandwidth, guaranteed power supply, and high-speed wireless links. Such hosts are referred to as Super Hosts. For example, a companying a military environment consists of a number of walking soldiers equipped with low-capacity man-pack radios and a few tanks with high- capacity vehicular Radios. Usually, the self-organized networks in this situation have two-level network

Architecture: backbone area and subarea. Backbone area is composed of Super Hosts. In addition, Super Hosts are often assumed to have lower mobility than normal hosts so as to maintain the stability of the backbone. Normal hosts need not make routing decisions. For example, a satellite host (a Super Host) can easily collect the routing information from the normal hosts geographical locations, build the routing table, and propagate these routes. The example is just analogous that a person on stage is likely to have a much better view of the wireless network throughout an auditorium.

2.2.4 Quality of Service (QoS) Routing

Up to now, most of the routing protocols that have been proposed for ad hoc wireless networks optimized the solution for only one metric: hop distance. So the shortest path is 8

generally preferable. For datagram traffic, shortest path routing may be sufficient. However, these wireless links in self-organized networks, typically scarce and dynamic, make it difficult to perform efficient resource utilization or to execute critical real-time applications in such environments. Based on this consideration, it is necessary to provide QoS routing support to effectively control the total traffic that can flow into the network. QoS routing is a routing mechanism under which paths for flows are determined according to resource vailability in the network as well as the QoS requirement of flows. QoS routing means that it selects routes with sufficient resources for the requested QoS parameters. The goal of QoSrouting has two points. The first one is to meet the QoS requirements for each admitted connection, and the second one is to achieve global efficiency in resource utilization. Thus, QoS routing will consider multiple constraints, and provide better load balance by allocating traffic on different paths, subject to the QoS requirement of different traffic. On the contrary, current routing protocols seem to favour routing traffic based on the shortest path, thereby causing a bottleneck. In a self organized network, there are many metrics to be considered: the (1) most reliable path, (2) most stable path, (3) maximum total power remained path, (4) maximum available bandwidth path, and so forth. It is desirable to select the routes with a minimum cost based on the above metrics and not unlikely only to provide the shortest path based on the hop distance. 2.2.5 Multicast Support

As we know, multicast routing is a network-layer function that constructs paths along which data packets from a source are distributed to reach many, but not all, destinations in a communication network. Then, multicast routing sends a single copy of a data packet simultaneously to multiple receivers over a communication link that is shared by the paths to the receivers. The sharing of links in the collection of the paths to receivers implicitly defines a tree used to distribute multicast packets. In contrast to unicast routing, multicast routing is a very useful and efficient way to support group communication. This is especially the case in self-organized networks where 9

bandwidth is limited and energy is constrained. In addition, a self organized network often consists of several cooperative work groups. The deployment of multicast routing in a selforganized network will provide collaborative visualization and multimedia conferencing as well as information dissemination in critical situations such as disaster or military scenarios. Multicast routing in self-organized networks became an active research topic only very recently, and much research has focused on designing the Unicast Routing Protocols. However, a self-organized network is better suited for multicast than unicast because of its broadcast characteristics. Employing multicast routing in a self-organized network poses new challenges. Traditional multicast protocols are not suitable for this environment because of the following reasons: 1. The source-originating route requests a move, making source-oriented protocols inefficient. 2. Multicast members move, thus precluding the use of fixed multicast topology. 3. Transient loops may form during spanning tree reconfiguration. 4. Maintaining too much multicast-related state information puts much pressure on both storage capacity and power, which are severely limited in handheld devices in self-organized networks.

2.3 Desirable Properties of AD-HOC Routing Protocols

The properties that are desirable in Ad-Hoc Routing protocols are Distributed operation: The protocol should be distributed. It should not be dependent on a centralized controlling node. This is the case even for stationary networks. The difference is that the nodes in an ad-hoc network can enter or leave the network very easily and because of mobility the network can be partitioned.

10

Loop free: To improve the overall performance, the routing protocol should guarantee that the routes supplied are loop free. This avoids any waste of bandwidth or CPU consumption.

Demand based operation: To minimize the control overhead in the network and thus not waste the network resources the protocol should be reactive. This means that the protocol should react only when needed and that the protocol should not periodically broadcast control information.

Unidirectional link support: The radio environment can cause the formation of unidirectional links. Utilization of these links and not only the bi-directional links improves the routing protocol performance.

Security: The radio environment is especially vulnerable to impersonation attacks so to ensure the wanted behaviour of the routing protocol we need some sort of security measures. Authentication and encryption is the way to go and problem here lies within distributing the keys among the nodes in the ad-hoc network.

Power conservation: The nodes in the ad-hoc network can be laptops and thin clients such as PDAs that are limited in battery power and therefore uses some standby mode to save the power. It is therefore very important that the routing protocol has support for these sleep modes.

Multiple routes: To reduce the number of reactions to topological changes and congestion multiple routes can be used. If one route becomes invalid, it is possible that another stored route could still be valid and thus saving the routing protocol from initiating another route discovery procedure.

Quality of Service Support: Some sort of Quality of service is necessary to incorporate into the routing protocol. This helps to find what these networks will be used for. It could be for instance real time traffic support. It should be noted that none of the proposed protocols have all these properties, but it is necessary to remember 11

that the protocols are still under development and are probably extended with more functionality.

2.4 Classification of Routing Protocol

Routing is the most fundamental research issue in MANET and must deal with limitations such as high power consumption, low bandwidth, high error rates and unpredictable movements of nodes. Generally, current routing protocols for MANET can be categorized as:

1. Table driven (proactive) routing protocol 2. On demand (reactive) routing protocol 3. Hybrid routing protocol

Figure 2 Classification of Routing Protocol

2.4.1 Proactive (Table-Driven):

The pro-active routing protocols are the same as current Internet routing protocols such as the RIP (Routing Information Protocol), DV(distance-vector), OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) and link-state . They attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date routing information of the whole network. Each node has to maintain one or more tables to store routing information, and response to changes in network topology by broadcasting and propagating. Some of the 12

existing pro-active ad hoc routing protocols are: DSDV Destination Sequenced DistanceVector, 1994), WRP (Wireless Routing Protocol, 1996), CGSR (Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing, 1997), GSR (Global State Routing, 1998), FSR (Fisheye State Routing, 1999), HSR (Hierarchical State Routing, 1999), ZHLS (Zone based Hierarchical Link State,1999),STAR (Source Tree Adaptive Routing, 2000).

2.4.2 Reactive (Source-Initiated On-Demand Driven):

These protocols try to eliminate the conventional routing tables and consequently reduce the need for updating these tables to track changes in the network topology. When a source requires to a destination, it has to establish a route by route discovery procedure, maintain it by some form of route maintenance procedure until either the route is no longer desired or it becomes inaccessible, and finally tear down it by route deletion procedure. Some of the existing re-active routing protocols areDSR (Dynamic Source Routing, 1996), ABR (Associativity Based Routing, 1996), TORA (Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm, 1997), SSR (Signal Stability Routing, 1997), PAR (Power-Aware Routing,1998), LAR (Location Aided Routing, 1998), CBR (Cluster Based Routing, 1999), AODV (ad hoc OnDemand Distance Vector Routing, 1999). In pro-active routing protocols, routes are always available (regardless of need), with the consumption of signaling traffic and power. On the other hand, being more efficient at signaling and power consumption, re-active protocols suffer longer delay while route discovery. Both categories of routing protocols have been improving g to be more scalable, secure, and to support higher quality of service.

2.4.3 Hybrid Protocols:

Hybrid routing protocols aggregates a set of nodes into zones in the network topology. Then, the network is partitioned into zones and proactive approach is used within each zone to maintain routing information. To route packets between different zones, the reactive approach is used. Consequently, in hybrid schemes, a route to a destination that is in the same zone is established without delay, while a route discovery and a route maintenance procedure is required for destinations that are in other zones. The zone routing protocol (ZRP) and zonebased hierarchical link state (ZHLS) routing protocol provide a compromise on scalability 13

issue in relation to the frequency of end-to-end connection, the total number of nodes, and the frequency of topology change.

Furthermore, these protocols can provide a better trade-off between communication overhead and delay, but this trade-off is subjected to the size of a zone and the dynamics of a zone. Thus, the hybrid approach is an appropriate candidate for routing in a large network. At network layer, routing protocols are used to find route for transmission of packets. The merit of a routing protocol can be analyzed through metrics-both qualitative and quantitative with which to measure its suitability and performance.

These metrics should be independent of any given routing protocol. Desirable qualitative properties of MANET are Distributed operation, Loop-freedom, Demand-based operation, Proactive operation, Security, Sleep period operation and unidirectional link support. Some quantitative metrics that can be used to assess the performance of any routing protocol are End-to-end delay, throughput, Route Acquisition Time, Percentage Out-of-Order Delivery and Efficiency. Essential parameters that should be varied include: Network size, Network connectivity, Topological rate of change, Link capacity, Fraction of unidirectional links, Traffic patterns, Mobility, Fraction and frequency of sleeping nodes.

14

3. Overview of Routing Protocol

3.1 Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)

An ad hoc network is the cooperative engagement of a collection of mobile nodes without the required intervention of any centralized access point or existing infrastructure. AODV is a novel algorithm for the operation of such ad hoc networks. Each mobile host operates as a specialized router, and routes are obtained as needed (i.e., on demand with little or no reliance on periodic advertisements). The AODV routing algorithm is quite suitable for a dynamic self-starting network as required by users wishing to utilize ad hoc networks. AODV provides loop-free routes even while repairing broken links. Because the protocol does not require global periodic routing advertisements, the demand on the overall bandwidth available to the mobile nodes is substantially less than in those protocols that do necessitate such advertisements. AODV uses symmetric links between neighbouring nodes. It does not attempt to follow paths between nodes when one of the nodes cannot hear the other one. Nodes do not lie on active paths; they neither maintain any routing information nor participate in any periodic routing table exchanges. Further, a node does not have to discover and maintain a route to another node until the two needs to communicate unless the former node is offering its services as an intermediate forwarding station to maintain connectivity between two other nodes. When the local connectivity of the mobile node is of interest, each mobile node can become aware of the other nodes in its neighbourhood by the use of several techniques, including local (not system wide) broadcasts known as Hello messages. The routing tables of the nodes within the neighbourhood are organized to optimize response time to local movements and provide quick response time for requests for establishment of new routes. The algorithms primary objectives are as follows: 1. To broadcast discovery packets only when necessary. 2. To distinguish between local connectivity management neighbourhood detection and general topology maintenance. 15

3. To disseminate information about changes in local connectivity to those neighbouring mobile nodes that are likely to need the information.

AODV uses a broadcast route discovery mechanism as is also used with modifications in the DSR algorithm. Instead of source routing, however, AODV relies on dynamically establishing route table entries at intermediate nodes. This difference pays off in networks with many nodes where a larger overhead is incurred by carrying source routes in each data packet. To maintain the most recent routing information between nodes, we borrow the concept of destination sequence numbers from DSDV. Unlike in DSDV, however, each ad hoc node maintains a monotonically increasing sequence number counter which is used to supersede stale cached routes. The combination of these techniques yields an algorithm that uses bandwidth efficiently by minimizing the network load for control, and data traffic is responsive to changes in topology and ensures loop-free routing.

3.1.1 Path Discovery

The path discovery process is initiated whenever a source node needs to communicate with another node for which it has no routing information in its table. Every node maintains two separate counters: a node sequence number and a broadcast ID. The source node initiates path discovery by broadcasting a Route REQuest (RREQ) packet to its neighbors. The RREQ contains the following fields: <source_addr source sequence# broadcast id dest_addr dest sequence# hop cnt> The pair <source_addr, broadcast_id> uniquely identifies an RREQ. broadcast_id is incremented whenever the source issues a new RREQ. Each neighbor either satisfies the RREQ by sending a Route REPly (RREP) back to the source, or broadcasts the RREQ to its own neighbors after increasing the hop_cnt. Notice that a node may receive multiple copies of the same route broadcast packet from various neighbors. When an intermediate node receives an RREQ, if it has already received an RREQ with the same broadcast_id and source address, it drops the redundant RREQ and does not rebroadcast it. If a node cannot satisfy the 16

RREQ, it keeps track of the following information to implement the reverse-path setup as well as the forward path setup that will accompany the transmission of the eventual RREP. Destination IP address Source IP address Broadcast ID Expiration time for reverse-path route entry Source nodes sequence number

Figure 3 Reverse & Forward Path Discovery

3.1.2 Reverse-Path Setup

There are two sequence numbers (in addition to the broadcast_id) included in an RREQ: the source sequence number and the last destination sequence number known to the source. The source sequence number is used to maintain freshness information about the reverse route to the source, and the destination sequence number specifies how fresh a route to the destination 17

must be before it can be accepted by the source. As the RREQ travels from a source to various destinations, it automatically sets up the reverse path from all nodes back to the source. To set up a reverse path, a node records the address of the neighbor from which it received the first copy of the RREQ. These reverse-path route entries are maintained for atleast enough time for the RREQ to traverse the network and produce a reply to the sender.

3.1.3 Forward-Path Setup

Eventually, an RREQ will arrive at a node (possibly the destination itself) that possesses a current route to the destination. The receiving node first checks that the RREQ was received over a bidirectional link. If an intermediate node has a route entry for the desired destination, it determines whether the route is current by comparing the destination sequence number in its own route entry to the destination sequence number in the RREQ. If the RREQs sequence number for the destination is greater than that recorded by the intermediate node, the intermediate node must not use its recorded route to respond to the RREQ. Instead, the intermediate node rebroadcasts the RREQ. The intermediate node can reply only when it has a route with a sequence number that is greater than or equal to that contained in the RREQ. If it does have a current route to the destination and if the RREQ has not been processed previously, the node then unicasts a route reply packet (RREP) back to its neighbour from which it received the RREQ. An RREP contains the following information: <source_addr, dest_addr, dest_sequence #, hop_cnt, lifetime> By the time a broadcast packet arrives at a node that can supply a route to the destination, a reverse path has been established to the source of the RREQ. As the RREP travels back to the source, each node along the path sets up a forward pointer to the node from which the RREP came, updates its timeout information for route entries to the source and destination, and records the latest destination sequence number for the requested destination. The forward path setup as the RREP travels from the destination D to the source node S. Nodes that are

18

not along the path determined by the RREP will time out after ACTIVE_ROUTE_TIMEOUT (3000 milliseconds) and will delete the reverse pointers. A node receiving an RREP propagates the first RREP for a given source node toward that source. If it receives further RREPs, it updates its routing information and propagates the RREP only if the RREP contains either a greater destination sequence number than the previous RREP or the same destination sequence number with a smaller hop count. It suppresses all other RREPs it receives. This decreases the number of RREPs propagating toward the source while also ensuring the quickest and most up-to-date routing information. The source node can begin data transmission as soon as the first RREP is received and can later update its routing in formation if it learns of a better route. 3.1.4 Route Table Management

In addition to the source and destination sequence numbers, other useful information is also stored in the route table entries and is called the soft state associated with the entry. Associated with reverse-path routing entries is a timer called the route request expiration timer. The purpose of this timer is to purge reverse-path routing entries from those nodes that do not lie on the path from the source to the destination. The expiration time depends upon the size of the ad hoc network. Another important parameter associated with routing entries is the route-caching timeout, or the time after which the route is considered to be invalid. In each routing table entry, the address of active neighbours through which packets for the given destination are received is also maintained. A neighbour is considered active for that destination if it originates or relays at least one packet for that destination within the most recent active timeout period. This information is maintained so that all active source nodes can be notified when a link along a path to the destination breaks. A route entry is considered active if it is in use by any active neighbours. The path from a source to a destination, which is followed by packets along active route entries, is called an active path. Note that, as with DSDV, all routes in the route table are tagged with destination sequence numbers, which guarantee that no routing loops can form, even under extreme conditions of out-of-order packet delivery and high node mobility. A mobile node 19

maintains a route table entry for each destination of interest. Each route table entry contains the following information: Destination Next hop Number of hops (metric) Sequence number for the destination Active neighbours for this route Expiration time for the route table entry

Each time a route entry is used to transmit data from a source toward a destination, the timeout for the entry is reset to the current time plus the active route timeout. If a new route is offered to a mobile node, the mobile node compares the destination sequence number of the new route to the destination sequence number for the current route. The route with the greater sequence number is chosen. If the sequence numbers are the same, then the new route is selected only if it has a smaller metric (a fewer numbers of hops) to the destination. 3.1.5 Path Maintenance

Movement of nodes not lying along an active path does not affect the routing to that paths destination. If the source node moves during an active session, it can reinitiate the route discovery procedure to establish a new route to the destination. When either the destination or some intermediate node moves, a special RREP is sent to the affected source nodes. Periodic Hello messages can be used to ensure symmetric links, as well as to detect link failures. Alternatively, and with far less latency, such failures could be detected by using Link-Layer ACKnowledgments (LLACKs). A link failure is also indicated if attempts to forward a packet to the next hop fail. Once the next hop becomes unreachable, the node upstream of the break propagates an unsolicited RREP with a fresh sequence number, that is, a sequence Number that is one greater than the previously known sequence number and hop count of all active upstream neighbours. Those nodes subsequently relay that message to their active neighbours and so 20

on. This process continues until all active source nodes are notified; it terminates because AODV maintains only loop-free routes, and there are only a finite number of nodes in the ad hoc network. Upon receiving notification of a broken link, source nodes can restart the discovery process if they still require a route to the destination. To determine whether a route is still needed, a node may check whether the route has been used recently as well a s inspect upper-level protocol control blocks to see whether connections remain open using the indicated destination. If the source node or any other node along the previous route decides it would like to rebuild the route to the destination, it sends out an RREQ with a destination sequence number of one greater than the previously known sequence number to ensure that it builds a new viable route, and that no nodes reply if they still regard the previous route as valid. 3.1.6 Local Connectivity Management

Nodes learn of their neighbours in one of two ways. Whenever a node receives a broadcast from a neighbour, it updates its local connectivity information to ensure that it includes this neighbour. In the event that a node has not sent any packets to all of its active downstream neighbours within a Hello interval, it broadcasts to its neighbours a Hello message, a special unsolicited RREP containing its identity and sequence number. The nodes sequence number is not changed for Hello message transmissions. This Hello message is prevented from being rebroadcast outside the neighbourhood of the node because it contains a Time-To-Live (TTL) value of one. Neighbours that receive this packet update their local connectivity information to the node. Receiving a broadcast or a Hello message from a new neighbour or failing to receive allowed Hello loss consecutive Hello messages from a node previously in the neighbourhood is an indication that the local connectivity has changed. Failing to receive Hello messages from inactive neighbours does not trigger any protocol action. If Hello messages are not received from the next hop along an active path, the active neighbours using that next hop are sent notification of link failure. We have determined that the optimal value for allowed Hello loss is two. The local connectivity management with Hello messages can also be used to ensure that only nodes with bidirectional connectivity are considered to be neighbours. For this purpose, each Hello 21

sent by a node lists the nodes from which it has heard. Each node checks to make sure that it uses only routes to neighbours that have heard the nodes Hello message. To save local bandwidth, such checking should be performed only if explicitly configured into the nodes.

3.2 Optical Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)

OLSR is developed for mobile ad hoc networks. It operates as a table-driven, proactive protocol, that is, it exchanges topology information with other nodes of the network regularly. Each node selects a set of its neighbour nodes as multipoint relays (MPR). In OLSR, only nodes, selected as such MPRs, are responsible for forwarding control traffic, intended for diffusion into the entire network. MPRs provide an efficient mechanism for flooding control traffic by reducing the number of transmissions required. Nodes, selected as MPRs, also have a special responsibility when declaring link state information in the network. Indeed, the only requirement for OLSR to provide shortest path routes to all destinations is that MPR nodes declare link state information for their MPR selectors. Additional available link state information may be utilized, for example for redundancy. Nodes which have been selected as multipoint relays by some neighbour node(s) announce this information periodically in their control messages. Thereby, a node announces to the network that it has reach ability to the nodes which have selected it as an MPR. In route calculation, the MPRs are used to form the route from a given node to any destination in the network. Furthermore, the protocol uses the MPRs to facilitate efficient flooding of control messages in the network. A node selects MPRs from among its one-hop neighbours with symmetrical (i.e., bidirectional) linkages. Therefore, selecting the route through MPRs automatically avoids the problems associated with data packet transfer over unidirectional links (such as the problem of not getting link-layer acknowledgments for data packets at each hop, for link layers employing this technique for unicast traffic). OLSR is developed to work independently from other protocols. Likewise, OLSR makes no assumptions about the underlying link layer. OLSR inherits the concept of forwarding and relaying from HIPERLAN (a MAC layer protocol), which is standardized by European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The protocol is developed in the IPANEMA project (part of the Euclid program) and 22

in the Perception Recognition Integration for Observation of Activity (PRIMA) project (part of the RNRT program). OLSR is a proactive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. It is well suited to large and dense mobile networks, as the optimization achieved using the MPRs works well in this context. The larger and more dense a network, the more optimization can be achieved as compared to the classic link state algorithm. OLSR uses hopby-hop routing, that is, each node uses its local information to route packets. OLSR is well suited for networks, where the traffic is random and sporadic between a larger set of nodes rather than being almost exclusively between a small specific set of nodes. As a proactive protocol, OLSR is also suitable for scenarios where the communicating pairs change over time: no additional control traffic is generated in this situation because routes are maintained for all known destinations at all times.

3.2.1 Protocol Overview

OLSR is, as discussed in the previous subsection, a proactive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. The protocol inherits the stability of a link state algorithm and has the advantage of having routes immediately available when needed due to its proactive nature. OLSR is an optimization over the classical link state protocol, tailored for mobile ad hoc networks. OLSR minimizes the overhead from flooding of control traffic by using only selected nodes, called MPRs, to retransmit control messages. This technique significantly reduces the number of retransmissions required to flood a message to all nodes in the network. Secondly, OLSR requires only a partial link state to be flooded to provide shortest path routes. The minimal set of link state information required is that all nodes selected as MPRs must declare the links to their MPR selectors. Additional topological information, if present, may be utilized, for example for redundancy purposes. OLSR may optimize the reactivity to topological changes by reducing the maximum time interval for periodic control message transmission. Furthermore, as OLSR continuously maintains routes to all destinations in the network, the protocol is beneficial for traffic patterns where a large subset of nodes are communicating with another large subset of nodes, and where the sourcedestination pairs are changing over time. The protocol is particularly 23

suited for large and dense networks, as the optimization done using MPRs works well in this context. The larger and more dense a network, the more optimization can be achieved as compared to the classic link state algorithm. OLSR is designed to work in a completely distributed manner and does not depend on any central entity. The protocol does not require reliable transmission of control messages: each node sends control messages periodically, and can therefore sustain a reasonable loss of some such messages. Such losses occur frequently in radio networks due to collisions or other transmission problems. Also, OLSR does not require sequenced delivery of messages. Each control message contains a sequence number, which is incremented for each message. Thus the recipient of a control message can, if required, easily identify which information is more recenteven if messages have been reordered while in transmission. Furthermore, OLSR provides support for protocol extensions such as sleep mode operation and multicast routing. Such extensions may be introduced as additions to the protocol without breaking backwards compatibility with earlier versions. OLSR does not require any changes to the format of Internet Protocol (IP) packets. Thus any existing IP stack can be used as is; the protocol only interacts with routing table management. 3.2.2 Multipoint Relays (MPRs)

The idea of multipoint relays is to minimize the overhead of flooding messages in the network by reducing redundant retransmissions in the same region. Each node in the network selects a set of nodes in its symmetric one-hop neighbourhood, which may retransmit its messages. This set of selected neighbour nodes is called the MPR set of that node. The neighbours of node N which are not in its MPR set receive and process broadcast messages but do not retransmit broadcast messages received from node N. Each node selects its MPR set from among its one-hop symmetric neighbours. This set is selected such that it covers (in terms of radio range) all symmetric strict two-hop nodes. The MPR set of N, denoted as MPR (N), is then an arbitrary subset of the symmetric one-hop neighbourhood of N which satisfies the following condition: every node in the symmetric strict two-hop neighbourhood of N must have a symmetric link toward MPR (N).

24

Figure 4 Multiple Relay Points

The smaller an MPR set, the less control traffic overhead results from the routing protocol. Each node maintains information about the set of neighbours that have selected it as an MPR. This set is called the MPR selector set of a node. A node obtains this information from periodic Hello messages received from the neighbours. Upon receipt of this MPR selector information, each node calculates and updates its route to each destination. Therefore, the route is a sequence of hops through the multipoint relays from source to destination. 3.2.3 Protocol Functioning

OLSR is modularized into a core of functionality, which is always required, for the protocol to operate, and a set of auxiliary functions. The core specifies, in its own right, a protocol able to provide routing in a stand-alone MANET. Each auxiliary function provides additional functionality, which may be applicable in specific scenarios (e.g., in case a node is providing connectivity between the MANET and another routing domain). All auxiliary functions are compatible, to the extent where any (sub-)set of auxiliary functions may be 25

implemented with the core. Furthermore, the protocol allows heterogeneous nodesthat is, nodes which implement different subsets of the auxiliary functionsto coexist in the network. The purpose of dividing the functioning of OLSR into core functionality and a set of auxiliary functions is to provide a simple and easy-to-comprehend protocol, and to provide a way of only adding complexity where specific additional functionality is required. 3.2.4 Core Functioning

The core functionality of OLSR specifies the behaviour of a node, equipped with OLSR interfaces participating in the MANET and running OLSR as a routing protocol. This includes a universal specification of OLSR protocol messages and their transmission through the network, as well as link sensing, topology diffusion, and route calculation.

Figure 5 Building a route from topology table

26

Specifically, the core is made up from the following components. Packet Format and Forwarding: A universal specification of the packet format and an optimized flooding mechanism serves as the transport mechanism for all OLSR control traffic.

Link Sensing: Link sensing is accomplished through periodic emission of Hello messages over the interfaces through which connectivity is checked. A separate Hello message is generated for each interface. Resulting from link sensing is a local link set describing links between local interfaces and remote interfaces, that is, interfaces on neighbour nodes. If sufficient information is provided by the link layer, this may be utilized to populate the local link set instead of a Hello message exchange.

Neighbour Detection: Given a network with only single interface nodes, a node may deduct the neighbour set directly from the information exchanged as part of link sensing: the main address of a single interface node is, by definition, the address of the only interface on that node. In a network with multiple interface nodes, additional information is required to map interface addresses to main addresses (and, thereby, to nodes).This additional information is acquired through Multiple Interface Declaration (MID) messages.

MPR Selection and MPR Signalling: The objective of MPR selection is for a node to select a subset of its neighbours such that a broadcast message, retransmitted by these selected neighbours, will be received by all nodes two hops away. The MPR set of a node is computed such that it, for each interface, satisfies this condition. The information required to perform this calculation is acquired through the periodic exchange of Hello messages.

Topology Control Message Diffusion: Topology control messages are diffused with the purpose of providing each node in the network with sufficient link state information to allow route calculation.

27

Route Calculation: Given the link state information acquired through periodic message exchange, as well as the interface configuration of the nodes, the routing table for each node can be computed.

3.3 Fisheye State Routing (FSR)

FSR is an implicit hierarchical routing protocol. It uses the fisheye technique proposed by Kleinrock and Stevens, where the technique was used to reduce the size of information required to represent graphical data. The eye of a fish captures with high detail the pixels near the focal point. The detail decreases as the distance from the focal point increases. In routing, the fisheye approach translates to maintaining accurate distance and path quality information about the immediate neighbourhood of a node, with progressively less detail as the distance increases. FSR is functionally similar to LS Routing in that it maintains a topology map at each node. The key difference is the way in which routing information is disseminated. In LS, link state packets are generated and flooded into the network whenever a node detects a topology change. In FSR, link state packets are not flooded. Instead, nodes maintain a link state table based on the up-to-date information received from neighbouring nodes, and periodically exchange it with their local neighbours only (no flooding). Through this exchange process, the table entries with larger sequence numbers replace the ones with smaller sequence numbers. The FSR periodic table exchange resembles the vector exchange in Distributed Bellman-Ford (DBF) (or more precisely, DSDV ) where the distances are updated according to the time stamp or sequence number assigned by the node originating the update. However, in FSR link states rather than distance vectors are propagated. Moreover, like in LS, a full topology map is kept at each node and shortest paths are computed using this map. In a wireless environment, a radio link between mobile nodes may experience frequent disconnects and reconnects. The LS protocol releases a link state update for each such change, which floods the network and causes excessive overhead. FSR avoids this problem by using periodic, instead of event driven, exchange of the topology map, greatly reducing the control message overhead. When network size grows large, the update message could 28

consume considerable amount of bandwidth, which depends on the update period. In order to reduce the size of update messages without seriously affecting routing accuracy, FSR uses the Fisheye technique. Fig. 1 illustrates the application of fisheye in a mobile, wireless network. The circles with different shades of grey define the fisheye scopes with respect to the centre node (node 11). The scope is defined as the set of nodes that can be reached within a given number of hops. In our case, three scopes are shown for 1, 2 and 2 hops respectively. Nodes are colour coded as black, grey and white accordingly. The number of levels and the radius of each scope will depend on the size of the network. The reduction of routing update overhead is obtained by using different exchange periods for different entries in routing table. More precisely, entries corresponding to nodes within the smaller scope are propagated to the neighbours with the highest frequency. Referring to Fig. 2, entries in bold are exchanged most frequently. The rest of the entries are sent out at a lower frequency. As a result,

Figure 6 Scope of fish eye

A considerable fraction of link state entries are suppressed in a typical update, thus reducing the message size. This strategy produces timely updates from near stations, but creates large 29

latencies from stations afar. However the imprecise knowledge of the best path to a distant destination is compensated by the fact that the route becomes progressively more accurate as the packet gets closer to destination. As the network size grows large, a graded frequency update plan must be used across multiple scopes to keep the overhead low.

Figure 7 Message Reduction using fish eye

The FSR concept originates from Global State Routing (GSR) [5]. GSR can be viewed as a special case of FSR, in which there is only one fisheye scope level and the radius isinfinity8. As a result, the entire topology table is exchanged among neighbours. Clearly, this consumes a considerable amount of bandwidth when network size becomes large. Through updating link state information with different frequencies depending on the scope distance, FSR scales well to large network size and keeps overhead low without compromising route computation accuracy when the destination is near. By retaining a routing entry for each destination, FSR avoids the extra work of finding the destination (as in on-demand routing) and thus maintains low single packet transmission latency. As mobility increases, routes to remote destinations become less accurate. However, when a 30

packet approaches its destination, it finds increasingly accurate routing instructions as it enters sectors with a higher refresh rate.

3.4 Location-Aided Routing Protocol (LAR)

3.4.1 Location information

The proposed approach is termed Location-Aided Routing (LAR), as it makes use of location information to reduce routing overhead. Location information used in the LAR protocol may be provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS). With the availability of GPS, it is possible for a mobile host to know its physical location. In reality, position information provided by GPS includes some amount of error, which is the difference between GPScalculated coordinates and the real coordinates. For instance, NAVSTAR Global Positioning System has positional accuracy of about 50100 m and Differential GPS offers accuracies of a few meters. 3.4.1.1 Expected zone and request zone

Expected zone: Consider a node S that needs to find a route to node D. Assume that node S knows that node D was at location L at time t0, and that the current time is t1. Then, the expected zone of node D, from the viewpoint of node S at time t1, is the region that node S expects to contain node D at time t1. Node S can determine the expected zone based on the knowledge that node D was at location L at time t0. For instance, if node S knows that node D travels with average speed v, then S may assume that the expected zone is the circular region of radius v(t1 t0), cantered at location L.If actual speed happens to be larger than the average, then the destination may actually be outside the expected zone at time t1. Thus, expected zone is only an estimate made by node S to determine a region that potentially contains D at time t1. In general, it is also possible to define v to be the maximum speed (instead of the average) or some other measure of the speed distribution.

31

If node S does not know a previous location of node D, then node S cannot reasonably determine the expected zone in this case, the entire region that may potentially be occupied by the ad hoc network is assumed to be the expected zone. In this case, our algorithm reduces to the basic flooding algorithm. In general, having more information regarding mobility of a destination node, can result in a smaller expected zone. For instance, if S knows that

Figure 8 Example of Expected zone Destination D is moving north, and then the circular expected zone in figure 8(a) can be reduced to a semi-circle, as in figure 8(b). Request zone: Again, consider node S that needs to determine a route to node D. The proposed LAR algorithms use flooding with one modification. Node S defines (implicitly or explicitly) a request zone for the route request. A node forwards a route request only if it belongs to the request zone (unlike the flooding algorithm). To increase the probability that the route request will reach node D, the request zone should include the expected zone (described above). Additionally, the request zone may also include other regions around the request zone. There are two reasons for this: When the expected zone does not include host S, a path from host S to host D must include hosts outside the expected zone. Therefore, additional region must be included in the request zone, so that S and D both belong to the request zone .The request zone in figure 9(a) includes the expected zone from figure 8(a).

32

In the example in figure 9(b), all paths from S to D include hosts that are outside the request zone. Thus, there is no guarantee that a path can be found consisting only of the hosts in a chosen request zone. Therefore, if a route is not discovered within a suitable timeout period, our protocol allows S to initiate a new route discovery with an expanded request zone in our simulations, the expanded zone includes the entire network space. In this event, however, the latency in determining the route to D will be longer (as more than one round of route request propagation will be needed). Note that the probability of finding a path (in the first attempt) can be increased by increasing the size of the initial request zone (for instance, see figure 9(c)). However, route discovery overhead also increases with the size of the request zone. Thus, there exists a trade-off between latency of route determination and the message overhead.

Figure 9 Request zone.

An edge between two nodes means that they are neighbours. Determining membership of request zones As noted above, our LAR algorithms are essentially identical to flooding, with the modification that a node that is not in the request zone does not forward a route request to its neighbors.4 Thus, implementing LAR algorithm requires that a node be able to determine if it is in the request zone for a particular route request the two LAR algorithms presented here differ in the manner in which this determination is made.

33

3.4.2 LAR Scheme 1

Our first scheme uses a request zone that is rectangular in shape (refer to figure 10). Assume that node S knows that node D was at location (Xd, Yd) at time t0. At time t1, node S initiates a new route discovery for destination D. We assume that node S also knows the average speed v with which D can move. Using this, node S defines the expected zone at time t1 to be the circle of radius R = v(t1 t0) centered at location (Xd, Yd). (As stated before, instead of the average speed, v may be chosen to be the maximum speed or some other function of the speed distribution.) In our first LAR algorithm, we define the request zone tobe the smallest rectangle that includes current location of S and the expected zone (the circular region defined above), such that the sides of the rectangle are parallel to the X and Y axes. In figure 10(a), the request zone is the rectangle whose corners are S, A, B and C, whereas in figure 10(b), the rectangle has corners at point A, B, C and G note that, in this figure, current location of node S is denoted as (Xs, Ys). The source node S can, thus, determine the four corners of the request zone. S includes their coordinates with the route request message transmitted when initiating route discovery. When a node receives a route request, it discards the request if the node is not within the rectangle specified by the four corners included in the route request. For instance, in figure 4(a), if node I receives the route request from another node, node I forwards the request to its neighbours, because I determines that it is within the rectangular request zone. However, when node J receives the route request, node J discards the request, as node J is not within the request zone (see figure 10(a)). When node D receives the route request message, it replies by sending a route reply message (as in the flooding algorithm). However, in case of LAR, node D includes its current location and current time in the route reply message. When node S receives this route reply message (ending its route discovery), it records the location of node D. Node S can use this information to determine the request zone for a future route discovery. (It is also possible for D to include its current speed, or average speed over a recent time interval, with the route reply message. This information could be used in a future route discovery.

34

Figure 10 LAR scheme 1

In our simulations, we assume that all nodes know each others average speed.) Size of the request zone. Note that the size of the rectangular request zone above is proportional to (i) average speed of movement v, and (ii) time elapsed since the last known location of the 35

destination was recorded. In our implementation, the sender comes to know location of the destination only at the end of a route discovery (as noted in the previous paragraph). At low speeds, route discoveries occur after long intervals, because routes break less often (thus, t1 t0 is large). So, although factor (i) above is small, factor (ii) becomes large at low speeds, potentially resulting in a larger request zone. At high speeds as well, for similar reasons, a large request zone may be observed. So, in general, a smaller request zone may occur at speeds that are neither too small, nor too large. For low speeds, it is possible to reduce the size of the request zone by piggybacking the location information on other packets, in addition to route replies (this optimization is not evaluated here).

36

4. SIMULATION RESULTS

4.1 Comparison of OLSR, AODV, ZRP and LAR1

4.1.1 Efficiency Matrix Used:

Throughput: It is measure of the number of packets successfully transmitted to their destination per unit time.it is the ratio between the number of sent packets vs. Received packets

Avg end to end delay: It signifies the average time taken by packets to reach one end to another end(source to destination)

Avg jitter effect: It signifies the packet from the source will reach the destination with different delays. A packet delays varies with its position in the queue of the router along the path between source and destination and this position can vary unpredictably

4.1.2 Effect of varying pause time

In this pause time have varied from 0s to 100s with a size of 30 nodes. Other parameter such as simulation time and outgoing end time remain constant

37

Figure 11 Comparison of throughput of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time

Figure 12 Ccomparison of End to End delay of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time 38

Figure 13 Comparison of Avg jitter effect of routing protocol in constant node density by varying pause time

4.1.3 Effect of varying number of nodes

The number of nodes has varied from 10 to 60 with constant 40s pause time. Other parameters such as simulation time and outgoing end time remain constant

39

Figure 14 Comparison of throughput of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes.

Figure 15 Ccomparisons of End to End delay of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes. 40

Figure 16 Comparison of avg jitter effect of routing protocol in constant pause time by varying number of nodes.

41

Conclusion
Table 1 Summary of Simulation result (change in pause time) Metrics Throughput E to E delay Avg jitter Sum AODV 2 4 3 9 OLSR` 4 2 4 10 FSR 3 1 2 6 LAR` 1 2 1 4

Statically in the above table when we change the pause time also change in the all four routing protocol so that LAR shows best performance in all metrics and OLSR shows worst performance and AODV and FSR shows relative result Table 2 Summary of simulation result(change in no of nodes) Metrics Throughput E to E delay Avg jitter Sum AODV 2 3 1 6 OLSR` 3 1 3 7 FSR 4 4 4 12 LAR` 1 2 2 5

Statically in the above table when we change the pause time also change in the all four routing protocol so that LAR shows best performance in all metrics and FSR shows worst performance and AODV and OLSR shows relative result. From table 1 and 2 we can conclude that LAR shows best result in all scenarios. 42

References
[1] Priyanka Goyal1, Vinti Parmar2, Rahul Rishi3, MANET: Vulnerabilities, Challenges, Attacks, Application IJCEM International Journal of Computational Engineering & Management, Vol. 11, January 2011 ISSN (Online): 2230-7893

[2] Jeroen Hoebeke, Ingrid Moerman, Bart Dhoedt and Piet Demeester, An Overview of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Applications and Challenges

[3] Praveen goyal,simulation study of comparative performance of AODV<OLSR<FSR & LAR routing protocol in MANET in large scale acenarios, 2012 IEEE

43