International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
QoS Analysis in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Using
Routing Protocols
Deepshikha#1 , Pragati#2, Nagendra Sah#3
#3
Assistant Professor & ECE Department & PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, India
#1
B.E. Final Year, Electrical Engg, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh,India
#2
B.E. Final Year, CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh, India
Abstract— It is proposed to analyze the usefulness of Bandwidth
Reservation Protocol (BRP) for mobile ad-hoc networks in
improving the quality of service (QoS). There are two types of
bandwidth reservation protocols namely, priority based and
scheduling based. In this simulation the priority based bandwidth
reservation protocols are used. These are Fair End-to-end Bandwidth
Allocation (FEBA) and Priority based Bandwidth Reservation
Protocol (PBRP) algorithms. PBRP protocol consists of two phases
namely Bandwidth Request phase and Bandwidth Reply phase. In the
former Phase, a Bandwidth Request (BREQ) message is forwarded
from the node that requests the admission of a new traffic flow to its
destination. In the later Phase, a Bandwidth Reply (BREP) message
proceeds backwards, hop-by-hop, from the destination node to the
node that originated the request along the path laid down by the
corresponding BREQ message. The destination node precedes the
reply according to the priority of traffic classes and reserves the
bandwidth on the reply path. By simulation results, it is found that
the use of these protocols achieve high bandwidth utilization and
throughput with reduced delay. The simulation is done on mesh
based On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) by using
QUALNET 5.0.
Keywords— Mobile ad-hoc Networks (MANETs), Quality of
services (QoS), Bandwidth Reservation Protocol (BRP), Bandwidth
Request (BREQ).
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad-hoc wireless network is a special case of
wireless network devoid of predetermined backbone
infrastructure. This feature of the wireless ad-hoc networks
makes it flexible and quickly deployable. As the nodes
correspond over wireless link, all the nodes must combat
against the extremely erratic character of wireless channels
and intrusion from the additional transmitting nodes. These
factors make it a challenging problem to exploit on data
throughput even if the user-required QoS in wireless ad-hoc
networks is achieved
Wireless mesh networks (WMN’s) contains several
stationary wireless routers which are interlinked by the
wireless links. Wireless routers acts as the access points (APs)
for wireless mobile devices. Through the high speed wired
links, some wireless routers act as a gateway for internet.
Wireless mobile devices transfer data to the corresponding
wireless router and further these data’s are transferred in a
multi-hop manner to the internet via intermediate wireless
routers. The popularity of WMN’s is due to their low cost and
ISSN: 2231-5381
auto-organizing features [1].
In this paper the focus is on the problem of providing QoS
support for real-time flows, while allocating bandwidth to
elastic flows fairly. A protocol QUOTA (quality-of-service
aware fair rate allocation) is proposed, a framework that
combines QoS support and fair rate allocation. Their proposed
framework QUOTA provides higher priority to real-time
flows than elastic flows by reserving the necessary bandwidth
for the former and fairly allocating the left-over bandwidth to
the latter [2].
In this paper a Fair End-to-end Bandwidth Allocation
(FEBA) algorithm is introduced. The FEBA algorithm is
implemented at the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer of
single-radio, multiple channels IEEE 802.16 mesh nodes,
operated in a distributed coordinated scheduling mode. FEBA
negotiates bandwidth among neighbors to assign a fair share
proportional to a specified weight to each end-to-end traffic
flow. Thus the traffic flows are served in a differentiated
manner, with higher priority traffic flows being allocated
more bandwidth on the average than the lower priority traffic
flows [3].
A low-complexity intra-cluster resource allocation
algorithm by considering the power allocation, sub-carrier
allocation, and packet scheduling is proposed. The time
complexity of their proposed scheme is on the order of O
(LMN), where L is the number of time slots in a frame, M is
the number of active links, and N is the number of sub-carriers
[4].
An efficient intra-cluster packet-level resource allocation
approach is proposed. Their approach considers power
allocation, sub-carrier allocation, packet scheduling, and QoS
support. Their proposed approach combines the merits of a
Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)-driven approach and a genetic
algorithm (GA)-based approach. Their proposed approach
achieves a desired balance between time complexity and
system performance [5].
The problems of the reservation on a single hop are
discussed. The reason for the inconsistencies in the existing
approaches which lead to admission failures and present a
protocol for preventing them is analysed. This allows for
increasing the reliability of established communication links
in WMNs. They have focused only on the local admission
control and not the various searching strategies for finding a
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 486
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
suitable path [6]
In this paper authors propose a new multicast protocol for
Mobile Ad Hoc networks, called the Multicast routing
protocol based on Zone Routing (MZR). MZR is a sourceinitiated on demand protocol, in which a multicast delivery
tree is created using a concept called the zone routing
mechanism [7].
In this paper, authors present a performance study of
three multicast protocols: ODMRP, ADMR, and SRMP.
Multicast Routing in Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs) is
a recent research topic. Source Routing-based Multicast
Protocol, (SRMP) is a new on-demand multicast routing
protocol that applies a source routing mechanism and
constructs a mesh to connect group members [8].
In this paper, authors focus on one critical issue in
Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) that is multicast routing.
In fact, optimal routes, stable links, power conservation, loop
freedom, and reduced channel overhead are the main features
to be addressed in a more efficient multicast mechanism [9].
In this paper, the authors describe the reliability of
the On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol (ODMRP) in
terms of the delivery of data packets in response to the
important role that multicasting plays in wireless mobile multi
hop ad hoc networks. Using GloMoSim2.0, the simulation
results have shown that using ODMRP, the average miss ratio
does not always increase with increasing the speeds of
mobility of the mobile hosts in the ad hoc network. Instead,
there is a "sweet spot" of values of the mobility speeds of the
mobile hosts. In addition, the averages miss ratio decreases
with increasing the number of multicast group members,
which indicates that ODMRP has more packet delivery
capabilities for denser multicast groups. [10]
In this paper, authors present a comparative
performance evaluation of three general-purpose on demand
multicast protocols, namely ADMR, MAODV, and ODMRP,
focusing on the effects of changes such as increasing number
of multicast receivers or sources, application sending pattern,
and increasing number of nodes in the network [11].
In this paper, authors analyse the performance of
multicast routing protocol PIM-SM to provide suggestions of
improving this protocol. PIM-SM is preferred among the
current intra domain multicast routing protocols. But it is not
widely deployed in Internet till now [12].
destination node to the node that originated the request along
the path laid down by the corresponding (BREQ) message.
The destination node precedes the reply according to the
priority of traffic classes and reserves the bandwidth on the
reply path.
In the Bandwidth Request Phase the bandwidths are not
reserved and only the necessary messages are transmitted to
the destination. The source is required to select the Traffic
flow Identification (TFID) of any new flow in such a way that
the source, destination, TFID uniquely identifies the traffic
flow in the network.
In this phase, the destination sends back to the source a
BREP message and it is routed through the same path that has
been enclosed by the BREQ message. This is obtained by
using the list of intermediate node IDs included in the BREQ
message. On receiving the BREP message, each node reserves
the bandwidths according to the priority of the traffic.
If the nodes do not receive packets until the traffic flow is
dropped for a particular amount of time Ts, then the
bandwidth remains allocated. The source generates probe
packets to guarantee an established traffic flow state on each
node in the path to prevent premature termination of the traffic
flow. Probe packets are the messages which include the
information about their traffic and these packets are discarded
by the receivers in the MAC layer. The generation interval of
the probe packets must be smaller than the Ts. Generally, by
transmitting the probe packets it consumes the bandwidth
which is already reserved for the traffic flow in the data subframe.
B. Fair end-to-end Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm
This algorithm is implemented at the medium access control
layer of single-radio, multiple channel IEEE 802.16 mesh
nodes, operated in a distributed coordinated scheduling mode.
FEBA negotiates bandwidth among neighbours to assign a fair
share proportional to a specified weight to each end-to-end
traffic flow. Thus the traffic flows are served in a differential
manner, with higher priority traffic flows being allocated
more bandwidth on the average than the lower priority traffic
flows.
III. PROPAGATION MODELS
There is greater interest in characterizing the radio
II. BANDWIDTH RESERVATION PROTOCOL
communication channel inside a building. The indoor
propagation model differs from the outdoor propagation
A. Priority Based Bandwidth Reservation Protocol
because of variation in fading rate and type of interference.
Basically, the proposed protocol consists of two phases For example floor attenuation factor and penetration
namely Bandwidth Request phase and Bandwidth Reply phase. attenuation factor are two main parameters of indoor
In the Bandwidth Request Phase, a Bandwidth Request propagation models. The ITU Model is applicable for
(BREQ) message is forwarded from the node that requests the frequency range 900 MHz to 5.2 GHz. The ITU indoor path
admission of a new traffic flow to its destination. During this loss model is formally expressed as
phase bandwidths are not reserved. The BREQ message
L = 20 log f + N log d + Pf (n) – 28
consists of traffic flow specifications and the requested Where, N is distance power loss coefficient, Pf (n) is the floor
bandwidth [13].
loss penetration factor. Propagation loss prediction model
Next in the Bandwidth Reply Phase, a Bandwidth Reply plays an important role in design of cellular mobile radio
(BREP) message proceeds backwards, hop-by-hop, from the communication system. Propagation models are used
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 487
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
extensively in network planning, particularly for conducting
feasibility studies and during initial deployment. These are
also very important for performing interference studies as the
deployment proceeds. Propagation loss modelling of cellular
mobile system is important for site planning; the transmission
loss and signal coverage can be predicted by set of
propagation loss modelling equations [14].
Propagation models in wireless communication have
traditionally focused on predicting the average received signal
strength at a given distance from the transmitter, as well as the
variability of the signal strength in close proximity to a
particular location. Propagation models that predict the mean
signal strength for an arbitrary transmitter – receiver
separation distance are useful in estimating the radio coverage
area of transmitter and are called large scale propagation
models, since they characterize signal strength over large T-R
separation distance. On the other hand, propagation model that
characterize the rapid fluctuation of the received signal
strength over very short travel distances or short time duration
are called small scale or fading models. As mobile moves over
very small distances, the instantaneous received signal
strength may fluctuate rapidly giving rise to small scale fading.
The reason for this is that received signal is sum of many
contributions coming from different directions [15].
B. Mesh Topology
A mesh topology offers multiple paths for messages within
the network. This lends itself to greater flexibility than other
topologies. If a particular router fails, then the self healing
mechanism allows the network to search for an alternate path
for messages to be passed. Mesh topology is highly reliable
and robust. The advantages being that if any individual router
becomes inaccessible, then alternate routes can be
rediscovered and used. The drawback of this topology has
higher communications overheads than the star topology,
which can result in increased latency and lower end-to-end
performance.
C. Tree topology
A tree topology consists of a coordinator, to which other
nodes are connected as follows:
1.
2.
The coordinator is linked to a set of routers and ends
devices- its children.
A router may then be linked to more routers and end
devices-its children. This can continue to a number
of levels.
For every child router connected, additional child routers can
also be connected, creating different levels of nodes. In order
The propagation models are generally used to characterize the the messages to be passed to other nodes in the same network,
quality of mobile communication. It can be used as prediction the source node must pass the messages to its parent, which is
tool for those telecommunication engineers who deal with the the node higher-up by one level of the source, and the
site planning for base station. These models can be broadly messages is continually relayed higher-up in the tree until it is
categorized into three types: empirical, deterministic and passed back down to the destination node. Because the
stochastic. Empirical models are based on observation and number of potential paths a message can take is only one, a
measurement alone. These are mainly used to predict path loss. router therefore can be used in place of an end device in a
The deterministic models make use of the laws governing Tree network, but the message relay functionality of the router
electromagnetic wave propagation to determine the received will not be used- only its applications will be relevant.
signal power at a particular location. Stochastic models, on
other hand, model the environment and use much less D. ODMRP
processing power to generate prediction. The concept of
It is a soft state reactive mesh based and uses a forwarding
constraint satisfaction programming has been implemented on group concept i.e. only a subset of nodes forwards the
empirical wireless propagation models in order to predicting multicast packets. In ODMRP, multicast group members are
and optimizing the propagation loss [16].
maintaining a soft state approach. No explicit control message
is required to leave the group and group membership and
multicast routes are established and updated by the source on
IV. NETWORK TOPOLOGIES
Topology refers to the configuration of the hardware demand [17].
components and how the data is transmitted through that
The sources, desiring to send packet to a multicast group
configuration. They describe the physical and logical
but
having no route to the multicast group, will broadcast a
arrangement of the network nodes. There are three network
JOIN-DATA control packet to the entire network. This
topologies.
JOIN_DATA packet is periodically broadcast to refresh the
membership information and update routes. When an
A. Star Topology
The star topology consists of a coordinator and several end immediate node receives the JOIN_DATA packet, it stores the
devices. In this topology, the end device communicates only source ID and the sequence number in its message cache to
with the coordinator. Any packet exchange between ends detect any potential duplicates. The routing table is updated
devices go through coordinator. The main advantages of star with the appropriate node ID from which the message was
topology are its simplicity and predictable and energy efficient received for the reverse path back to the source node. If the
behavior. The limitations and drawbacks are scalability and message is not duplicate and time to live (TTL) is greater than
zero, it is rebroadcast. When the JOIN_DATA packet reaches
coordinator as a single point of failure.
a multicast receiver, it creates and broadcasts a JOIN_TABLE
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 488
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
to its neighbours. When a node receives a JOIN_TABLE, it
checks to see if the next hop node ID of one of the entries
matches its own ID.
If it does, the node realizes that it is on the path to the
source and thus is a part of the forwarding group and sets the
forwarding group flag (FG_FLAG). It then broadcasts its own
join table built on matched entries. The next hop node ID field
is filled by extracting information from its routing table. In
this way, each forward group member propagates the
JOIN_TABLE until it reaches the multicast source s via the
shortest path.
On receiving JOIN_TABLE, a node also has to built is
multicast table for forwarding future multicast packets. This
whole process constructs (or updates) the routes from sources
to receivers and builds a mesh of nodes called the forwarding
group.
Fig4.1. ODMRP Join Query
After the forwarding group establishment and route
construction process, sources can multicast packets to
receivers via selected routes and forwarding groups. While it
has data to send, the source periodically sends JOIN_DATA
packets to refresh the forwarding group and routes. When
receiving the multicast data packet, a node forwards it only
when it is not a duplicate and the setting of the FG_FLAG for
the multicast group has not expired. This procedure minimizes
the traffic overhead and prevents sending packets through the
state routes. In ODMRP, no explicit control packet needs to be
sent to join or leave the group. If a multicast source wants to
leave the group, it simply stops sending JOIN_DATA packets,
since it does not have any multicast data to send the group. If
a receiver no longer wants to receive from a particular
multicast group, it does not send the join reply for that group.
Fig4.2. ODMRP Join Table
PROTOCOL ILLUSTRATION
Following figures illustrate ODMRP forwarding path setup
and multicast data forwarding. Figure 4.1 illustrates Join
Query packet forwarding, while Figure 4.2 illustrates
forwarding path setup by Join Table packets. Finally, Figure
4.3 shows multicast data forwarding through previously
established forwarding path. In Figure 4.1 Node A broadcasts
a Join Query packet as a multicast source, and all the
surrounding nodes (B, C, D, E, and F) rebroadcast the
received Join Query packet. In addition, intermediate nodes
retain a unique identifier of the last Join Query and the
information of their immediate parent towards the multicast
source. In the Figure 4.1, these packets open two possible
forwarding paths from the source to multicast receiver L. L
selects the path from J, and replies a Join Table packet back to
the source reinforcing the selected path. While the Join Table
packets travel toward the source, nodes K, J and C update
their routing tables as forwarding nodes for multicast sender A
(Figure 4.2). Once the Join Table packets reach the multicast
sender A, it initiates sending of multicast data through the
forwarding path (Fig 4.3)
ISSN: 2231-5381
Fig4.3. ODMRP data forwarding
The On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol
(ODMRP) falls into the category of on-demand protocols
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 489
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
since group membership and multicast routes are established
and updated by the source whenever it has data to send.
Unlike conventional multicast protocols which build a
multicast tree, ODMRP is mesh based. It uses a subset of
nodes, or forwarding group, to forward packets via scoped
flooding. ODMRP consists of a request phase and a reply
phase. When a multicast source has data to send but no route
or group membership information is known, it piggybacks the
data in a Join-Query packet. When a neighbor node receives a
unique Join-Query, it records the upstream node ID in its
message cache, which is used as the node’s routing table, and
re-broadcasts the packet. This process’ side effect is to build
the reverse path to the source. When a Join-Query packet
reaches the multicast receiver, it generates a Join-Table packet
that is broadcast to its neighbors. The Join-Table packet
contains the multicast group address, sequence of pairs, and a
count of the number of pairs. When a node receives a JoinTable it checks if the next node address of one of the entries
matches its own address. If it does, the node realizes that it is
on the path to the source and thus becomes a part of the
forwarding group for that source by setting its forwarding
group flag. It then broadcasts its own Join-Table, which
contains matched entries. The next hop IP address can be
obtained from the message cache. This process constructs the
routes from sources to receivers and builds the forwarding
group. Membership and route information is updated by
periodically sending Join-Query packets.
Fig.4.4 Mesh Formation in ODMRP
Nodes only forward (non-duplicate) data packet if they belong
to the forwarding group or if they are multicast group
members. By having forwarding group nodes flood data
packets, ODMRP is more immune to link/node failures (e.g.,
due to node mobility). This is in fact an advantage of mesh-
ISSN: 2231-5381
based protocols. Figure 4.4 illustrates how the mesh is created
in ODMRP.
E. Management Of Route Request, Route Reply And Route
Error Packets
To create multicast mesh and a stable route in a
mesh from source to destination, various control packets such
as route request (RR), route reply and route error (RE) packets
are used. Some of the fields on the control packets required
for multicast mesh creation, stable path establishment and
handling link failure situations are described. The fields of RR
packet are as follows:

Source address: it is the address of the node
originating packet.
 Multicast group address: it is the address of the
multicast group.
 Sequence number: the sequence number assigned to
every packet delivered by the source that uniquely
identify the packet.
 Route request flag (RR Flag): this flag is set for the
duration of forward travel of RR packet from source
to destination.
 Previous node address: it is the address of the
previous node that RR packet has visited during its
forward movement. It is the route request phase, a
node receiving RR packet stores this address with
multicast address in its Multicast Routing
Information Cache (MRIC) as next hop-node to send
the packet to RR source. This field is updated after
every movement to the next node until it reaches the
receiver with multicast address.
 Power: this is the power at which a node has
transmitted the packet to neighbor.
 Antenna Gain: this is the gain of antenna at the
forwarding node to forward RR packet to its
neighbor.
F. QoS Routing
If only two hosts are involved in ad-hoc network, no real
routing decision is necessary. In many adhoc networks two
hosts that want to communicate may not be within wireless
transmission range of each other, but could communicate if
other hosts between them are willing to forward packets for
them. Routing problem in real adhoc network may be more
complicated due to non uniform propagation characteristics of
wireless transmission and due to possibility that any of the
host may move at any time.
QoS routing protocols search for routes with sufficient
resources for QoS requirements. QoS routing protocols should
work with resource management to meet QoS requirements
such as delay bounds, bandwidth demand. QoS routing is
difficult in MANETs due to following reasons:
(a) Overhead of QoS routing is too high for bandwidth
limited MANETs because mobile host should have
mechanism to store and update link state information.
(b) Due to dynamic nature of MANET, maintaining link
state information is difficult.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 490
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The QUALNET-5.0 simulator has been used for proposed
protocol. It has the facility to include multiple channels and
radios. It supports different types of topologies such as chain,
ring, multi ring, grid, binary tree, star, hexagon, mesh and
triangular. The supported traffic types are CBR and MCBR.
In this simulation, 50 mobile nodes are arranged in a topology
of size 1500 meter x 1500 meter region. All nodes have the
same transmission range of 250 meters. In our simulation, the
speed is set as 5m/s.
Performance matrices used:1. Control packet load: the average number of control
packet transmission by node in the network. Control
packets include any of QUERY, REPLY, PASSREQ,
CONFIRM, HELLOW and ACK packets.
2. Packet delivery ratio: the ratio of data packet sent by
all the sources that is received by a receiver.
3. Data packet overhead: the number of data
transmissions performed by the protocols per
successfully delivered data packet.
4. Control packet overhead: the number of controlled
transmissions performed by the protocols per
successfully delivered data packet.
5. Total packet overhead: the total control and data
overheads per successfully delivered data packet.
This matrix represents the multicast routing
efficiency.
6. End-to-End Delay: It is the average time it takes a
data packet to reach the destination. This metric is
calculated by subtracting time at which first packet
was transmitted by source from time at which first
data packet arrived to destination. This includes all
possible delays caused by buffering during route
discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,
retransmission delays at the MAC, propagation and
transfer times. This metric is significant in
understanding the delay introduced by path
discovery.
7. Throughput: It is the average rate of successful
message delivery over a communication channel. It is
defined as the amount of data successfully delivered
from the source to the destination in a given period of
time. It is the amount of data per time unit that is
delivered from one node to another via a
communication link. The throughput is measured in
bits per second (bit/s or bps). and
8
9
Bandwidth Utilization: It is the ratio of bandwidth
received into total available bandwidth for a traffic
flow.
Routing overhead: This metric describes how many
routing packets for route discovery and route
maintenance need to be sent so as to propagate the
data packets.
ISSN: 2231-5381
10 Media access delay: The time a node takes to access
media for starting the packet transmission is called as
media access delay. The delay is recorded for each
packet when it is sent to the physical layer for the
first time.
11 Path optimality: This metric can be defined as the
difference between the path actually taken and the
best possible path for a packet to reach its destination.
Here, we have considered end-to-end delay, throughput
and bandwidth utilization as the performance metrics and
no. of nodes and data flow rates as the variables.
The simulation environment for the proposed
work consists of four models:a) Network model
b) Channel model-fading channels.
c) Mobility model-random, grid and uniform.
d) Traffic model-CBR and MCBR.
Table.1. Experimental set-up
Area
Transmission
range
Number of nodes
Physical / Mac
layer
Mobility model
Maximum
mobility speed
Simulation
duration
Pause time
Packet size
Traffic type
1500X1500 m2
500 m
200
IEEE 802.11 at 2 Mbps
Random waypoint
model with no pause
time
1-20 m/s
500 s
0
512 bytes
CBR (Constant Bit
Rates)
5/second
Number of
packets
Number of
1,2,5,10,15 nodes
multicast sources
Number of
10,20,30,40,50 nodes
multicast receivers
No. of simulations 20
A. Effect of Varying no of nodes
In the first experiment, the no. of nodes is varied as 10, 20,
30, 40 and 50 and the above metrics are examined.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 491
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
Fig.5.3 shows the bandwidth utilization obtained, when the
number of nodes is increased. It shows that PBRP utilizes
more bandwidth than the FEBA algorithm. As far as the
bandwidth utilization is concerned, the FEBA protocol is less
effective in comparison to PBRP.
END-TO-END
DELAY(s)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PBRP
In the second experiment, we vary the number of data flows as
2,4,6,8 and10 MBPS..
10
20
30
40
50
y
NO. OF NODES
Fig.5.1 nodes Vs Delay
END-TO-END
0.6
It is evident from Fig.5.1 that the end-to-end delay
increases as the number of nodes is increased. It is clear that
PBRP has less delay when compared to FEBA algorithm. The
priority based protocol is more effective for wireless mobile
ad-hoc network in mesh configuration.
THROUGHOUT
P
A
C
K
E
T
S
B. Effect of varying data Flows
FEBA
D
E 0.5
L
A 0.4
Y
PBRP
(s 0.3
) 0.2
FEBA
0.1
8000
DATA FLOWS
0
2
6000
4
6
8
10
PBRP
4000
Fig.5.4 Flow Vs Delay
FEBA
2000
Fig. 5.4 shows the end-to-end delay values when the
number of flow is increased. It is clear that PBRP has less
delay when compared to FEBA algorithm. Here the delay is
taken in second and data flow rate in MBPS.
0
10
20
30
40
50
NO. OF NODES
Fig.5.2 no of nodes Vs Throughput
THROUGHOUT
Fig.5.2 shows the throughput values when the number of
nodes is increased. From the figures, it can be seen that the
throughput is more in the case of PBRP and outperforms the
FEBA algorithm in mesh configuration of wireless mobile adhoc networks. Since the connection in wireless mobile ad-hoc
network is unpredictable, the bandwidth utilization protocols
save the bandwidth and reduce the delay in packet delivery.
7000
P 6000
A 5000
C
4000
K
E 3000
T 2000
S 1000
PBRP
FEBA
0
BANDWIDTH
2
BANDWIDTH
UTILISATION
UTILISATION
1.4
4
6
8
10
DATA FLOWS
1.2
Fig.5.5 Flow Vs Throughput
1
0.8
PBRP
0.6
FEBA
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
NO. OF NODES
50
Fig. 5.5 shows the throughput values when the number of
data flow rates are increased. From the figures, it can be seen
that the throughput is more in the case of PBRP and
outperforms the FEBA algorithm. Overall, the use of
bandwidth utilization protocol improves the quality of service
parameters.
Fig.5.3 no of nodes Vs Bandwidth Utilization
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 492
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
BANDWIDTH
THROUGHPUT VS
MOBILITY
BANDWIDTH UTILISATION
0.6
0.5
6000
0.4
0.3
PBRP
0.2
FEBA
4000
THROUG
HPUT VS
MOBILITY
2000
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
DATA FLOWS
10 30 50 70
10
Fig.5.6 Flow Vs Bandwidth Utilization
Fig5.8 Throughput Vs Mobility Values
Figure.5.6 shows the bandwidth utilization obtained,
when the number of flows are increased. It shows that PBRP
utilizes more bandwidth than the FEBA algorithm.
Seeing above graph, it is observed that mobility of nodes is
directly proportional to throughput, as here the value of
throughput goes on increasing when mobility(m/s) increased
from 10 to 70.
As the analysis shows that the PBRP algorithm outperforms
the FEBA algorithm, hence all the following has been done by
using FBRP algorithm.
PACKET DELIVERY
RATIO VS NODES
1
The performance of ODMRP is investigated and analyzed
based on the results obtained from the simulation. A number
of experiments are performed to explore the performance of
these protocol with respect to a number of parameters such as
traffic load, mobility speed and node placement. Taking CBR
as traffic model and uniform placement model the values of
Throughput,Packet delivery ratio,End to End delay with
respect to No of nodes and Mobility of nodes have been
observed.
PACKET
DELIVER
Y RATIO
VS…
0.5
0
15
30
45
60
Fig5.9 Packet Delivery Ratio Vs No Of Nodes
THROUGHPUT VS NODES
5000
4000
3000
THROUGH
PUT VS
NODES
2000
1000
PDR value increases at very fast rate as the no of nodes
changes from 15 to 30, after that the value of PDR increases at
constant rate. Analysis is done when nodes vary from
15,30,45,60.
END TO END DELAY VS
NODES
0.08
0.06
0
END TO
END
DELAY VS
NODES
0.04
15 30 45 60
0.02
Fig5.7 Throughput(Bits/S) Vs Nodes Values
It is observed that on increasing the nodes from 15 to 30
throuput slides down but after that when nodes are increased
in numbers throughput also increases.
ISSN: 2231-5381
0
15 30 45 60
Fig5.10 End To End Delay Vs No. Of Nodes
End to end delay in uniform model increases with the no. of
nodes. It is observed that the variation of end to end delay
with the nodes variation is very large.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 493
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 12 Number 10 - Jun 2014
PACKET DELIVERY
RATIO VS MOBILITY
access. Simulation results show that ODMRP is effective and
efficient in dynamic environments and scales well to a large
number of multicast members.
1
References
PACKET
DELIVERY
RATIO VS
MOBILITY
0.5
0
10
30
50
70
[1]
[2]
[3]
Fig5.11 Packet Delivery Ratio Vs Mobility
It shows that the packet delivery ratio value is improved as the
mobility of the node is increased. This factor is benificial for
any Adhoc network.
END TO END DELAY VS
MOBILITY
0.04
END TO
END
DELAY VS
MOBILITY
0.02
0
10
30
50
70
FIG5.12 END TO END DELAY VS MOBILITY(M/S)
This factor also shows benificiary to any Adhoc network as
the mobility is varied from 10 to 30. The end to end delay
value slumps abruptly but decreases furthur at constant rate.
VI. CONCLUTION
Least available bandwidth and end-to-end latency along
with congestion around a link are integrated in a QoS-based
routing metric for mobile ad-hoc networks. By simulation
results, it is shown that the proposed method achieves high
bandwidth utilization and throughput with reduced delay,
when compared with existing technique. Our results states that
on increasing the no of nodes in the network leads to
congestion which further degrades the performance of the ad
hoc network. For better performance a trade off is made
between different parameters.
To this end, we conducted extensive simulations employing a
wide range of mobility models and traffic load conditions. We
also compared the performance of this protocol with different
node placement strategies and node speed variations.
Topology, number of network nodes and node mobility are
important parameters that can significantly affect the
performance of the protocols being evaluated. Simulation
results showed that more data packets were delivered to
destinations, less control packets were produced in low
mobility, control packets were utilized more efficiently in
high mobility, and end-to-end delay was shorter. The ODMRP
was scalable, robust to host mobility, and efficient in channel
ISSN: 2231-5381
[4]
[5]
[6]
Letor, Blondia, Bouckaert, Moerman and Demeester, "A cluster driven
channel assignment mechanism for wireless mesh networks", 5th IEEE
International conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems,
Oct.2008
Bo Wang and Matt Mutka, “QoS-aware fair rate allocation in wireless
mesh networks”, Elsevier, Computer Communications 31, 2008
Gahng-Seop Ahn, Andrew T. Campbell, Andras Veres and Li-Hsiang
Sun, “SWAN: Service Differentiation in Stateless Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks”, In the Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of
the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, INFOCOM 2002.
Ho Ting Cheng and Weihua Zhuang, “Joint Power-Frequency-Time
Resource Allocation in Clustered Wireless Mesh Networks”, IEEE
Network, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 45-51, Jan/Feb 2008.
Ho Ting Cheng and Weihua Zhuang, “Novel Packet-Level Resource
Allocation with Effective QoS Provisioning for Wireless Mesh
Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 8,
No. 2, February 2009
Andre Herms and Georg Lukas, “Preventing Admission Failures of
Bandwidth Reservation in Wireless Mesh Networks”, IEEE/ACS
International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, 2008
[7]. Vijay Devarapalli, Deepinder Sidhu “MZR: A Multicast Protocol
for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, 0-7803-7097-1/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE.
[8] Hasnaa MOUSTAFA and Houda LABIOD “A Performance
Comparison of Multicast Routing Protocols In Ad hoc Networks” The
14m IEEE 2003 International Symposium on Persona1, lndoor and
Mobile Radio Communication Proceedings, 0-7803-7822-9/03/$17.00@
2003 IEEE.
[9] Hasnaa Moustafa and Houda Labiod, “A Performance Analysis of
Source Routing-based Multicast Protocol (SRMP) Using Different
Mobility Models”, CNRS. 0-7803-8533-0/04/$20.00 (c) 2004 IEEE.
[10]Ahmed Sobeih, Hoda Baraka, Aly Fahmy, “On the Reliability of
ODMRP in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks” 0-7803-8396-6/041$20.00 ©
2004 IEEE.
[11] Jorjeta G. Jetcheva and David B. Johnson, December 15, 2004,
CMU-CS-04-176, “A Performance Comparison of On-Demand Multicast
Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks” This work was supported in
part by NASA under grant NAG3-2534 at Rice University; by NSF under
grants CNS-0209204, CNS-0325971, CNS-0338856, and CNS-0435425
at Rice University; by a gift from Schlumberger to Rice University; and
by the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) under DARPA contract
number F19628-96-C-0061 at Carnegie Mellon University.
[12] Dan Li, Jianping Wu, Ke Xu, Xiaoping Zhang, Yong Cui1, Ying Liu,
“Performance Analysis of Multicast Routing Protocol PIM-SM” 0-76952388-9/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
[13] K.valarmathiand N. Malmurugan, “A priority Based Bandwidth
Reservation Protocol for Wireless Mesh Networks”, in the proceeding of
international journal of computer science issue Vol.9, issue-1, No.-1, January,
2012, Page No. 90-95.
[14] Tiong Sieh Kiong, Zeti Akma, Loo Hooi KAR, poh Tzye Perng,
“Propagation Loss models characterization for GSM 900MHz at Kaula
Lumpur and putrajaya”, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga
Malaysia
[15] Theodore S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communication System: Principles
and Practice”, Second Edition, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited,
2005.
[16] V.S Abhayawardhana, I.J Wassell, D. Crosby,M.P. Sellars,M.G. Brown
“Comparison of Empirical propagation path Loss Models for Fixed
Wireless Access Systems”, BT Mobility Research Unit, U.K.,
University of Cambridge.
[17] Nagendra Sah, Neelam Rup Prakash and Deepak Bagai, “Performance
Evaluation and Optimization of ODMRP Routing Protocols over 802.11
Based Wireless Mobile Ad-hoc Network” in the international journal of
computer science and technology(IJCST),Vol.3, issue 4, October-December,
2012, ISSN-2229-4333, PAGE NO.643-646.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 494