International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Rod topology Based Performance Analysis of
TCP Variants With Routing Protocol
Dr.Saylee Gharge, Ajinkya Valanjoo, Chintan Jethva, Darshana Suryawanshi
VES Institute of technology ,Chembur Mumbai-400074
ABSTRACT
TCP is being used as a highly reliable end-to-end protocol for transporting applications. TCP was originally designed for wired
links where the error rate is really low and actually assumed that packet losses are due to congestion in the network. But TCP
performance in wireless networks suffers from significant throughput degradation and delays. TCP uses congestion control and
avoidance algorithms which degrades end-to-end performance in wireless systems. In this paper we have analyzed the
performance of TCP variants(tahoe, reno,newreno,vegas,westwood,westwoodnr,sack,fack)and routing protocol
(aodv,dsdv,dsr,aomdv ) in NS2. The performance of TCP variant for different QOS metrics is studied for rod topology.
Keywords:-NS2,throughput,end to end delay, packet drop, TCP, Routing protocol
1.INTRODUCTION
TCP is one of the most popular end-to-end protocols offers reliable connection and compatible for both in wired and
wireless networks. It was originally developed for wired networks
with the mechanism of keeping low Bit Error Rate (BER). Later, the idea of forming an ad hoc on-the-fly network of
mobile devices opens up an exciting new world of possibilities. Because ad-hoc networks do not need any preconfigured
infrastructure, they can solve many interesting problems of spontaneous link establishment, i.e. communication on the
fly. In this case, ad-hoc networks have a clear advantage over the classic, wire-bound connections. However, unlike
wired links, wireless radio channels are affected by many factors that may lead to high levels of BER [1]. Though, TCP
does not have the functionality to determine the packet loss where the reasons can be network congestion, channel
errors, link failure, fading, interfaces, multi-path routing, malicious nodes and black hole etc., it has been the dominant
transport-layer protocol providing reliable byte stream delivery between end- host applications with mechanism of
connection management, congestion control, flow control, and error control [2].
In ad hoc networks, nodes are allowed to communicate with each other without any existing infrastructure.
Characteristics of mobile Ad hoc networks are Autonomous and infrastructure less, Multi-hop routing, Dynamic
network topology,Device heterogeneity, Self-creation, self-organization and self administration and Complexities of
mobile Ad hoc networks are Energy constrained operation, Bandwidth constrained variable capacity links, Limited
physical security, Network scalability.[2].
The paper is organized as follows. Section II Deals with comparison of TCP variants In Section III described Routing
in ad hoc networks Section IV Introduce Qos and Simulation Scenario and Section V Conclusion
2.TCP VARIANT
TCP congestion control algorithm
TCP implements the congestion control mechanism with each of these byte streams so that the receiver can limit the
sender from transmitting more data in the network[3].
1. Slow start
Fig 1.Slow start
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 461
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
2.Congestion avoidance
Fig 2 indicates congestion avoidance Reducing senders window size by half at experience of loss, and increase the
senders window at the rate of about one packet per RTT (NOTE: not per ack).
3. Fast Retransmit
Fig 3 observed fast retransmit algorithm Dont wait for re- transmit timer to go off, retransmit packet if 3 duplicate acks
received.
4.Fast Recovery
Since duplicate ack came through, one packet has left the wire. Perform congestion avoidance, dont jump down to slow
start.
Fig 2. Congestion avoidance
Fig 3. Fast retransmit
B.TCP VARIANTS
1. TCP Tahoe (1988)
The congestion control algorithms introduced in this version are [13],[14]:
a) Slow Start
b) Congestion Avoidance
c) Fast Retransmit
2. TCP Reno (1990)
Implements the following algorithm:
a) Slow Start
b) Congestion Avoidance
c) Fast Retransmit
d) Fast Recovery.
3.TCP New Reno 3rd Improvement was TCP NewReno (1995)
1.Nagles algorithm.
2.Improved RTO calculation and back-off.
3.AIMD congestion avoidance with slow-start
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 462
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
4.Fast retransmit and modified fast recovery[15],[16].
4. Sack (1996)
SACK algorithm allows a TCP receiver to acknowledge out-of-order segments selectively rather than cumulatively by
acknowledging the last correctly in order received segment. The receiver acknowledges packets received out of order
and the sender then retransmits only the missing data segments instead of sending all unacknowledged segments[17].
The biggest problem with SACK is that currently selective acknowledgments are not provided by the receiver to
implement SACK need to implement selective acknowledgment which is not a very easy task and Requires
modification to the acknowledgment procedures at both sender and receiver sides.
Fig 4. Sack example
5.Vegas (1990)
Implements the Slow Start (EV),Congestion Avoidance(EV),Fast Retransmit, Fast Recovery[18] in vegas enhanced
version of slow start and congestion avoidance algorithm used.
6.Westwood(1999)
Implements the Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit, Fast Recovery(EV) [19] in Westwood enhanced
version of fast recovery algorithm used.
7.WestwoodNR (2003-2004)
Implements using Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit and enhanced version of Fast Recovery (EV)
algorithms [19].
8.FACK(1996)
Implements using enhanced version of Slow Start (EV) , Congestion Avoidance ,Fast Retransmit and enhanced version
of Fast Recovery (EV).[19].
3. ROUTING IN AD - HOC NETWORKS
Very poor TCP performance in mobile ad hoc network. Thus the there will be need of an efficient routing protocol to
enhance the performance and increase its reliability.
A. AODV
Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing protocol (AODV) is an on demand routing protocol. [4,5,6].
B. DSDV
Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector routing protocol (DSDV) is one of the most well known table-driven routing
algorithms for MANETs which is based on the Distributed Bellman-Ford algorithm [7,8].
C. DSR
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a kind of source routing based on two procedures: route discovery and route
maintenance [9].
D. AOMDV
Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing (AOMDV) [10,11] protocol is an extension to the AODV
protocol for computing multiple loop-free and link disjoint paths [12].
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 463
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
TABLE I COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO CATEGORIES OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Parameters
TableDriven(Proactive)
Periodic Route Required
Updates
always
Delay
Low
Routing Infor- Keep stored in
mation Traffic
table
Storage
Higher
Requirements
Route
Availability
Routing PhilosOphy
Scalability
Control Traffic
Example
Always
available
Mostly flat
100 nodes
High
DSDV,OLSR
OnDemand(Reactive)
Not required
High
Doesn’t store
Dependent
on
no. of
routes
Maintained
or
Needed
Computed as per
Need
Flat
less than 100
Low
AODV, AOMDV
,DSR
4. QOS AND SIMULATION SCENARIO
In NS2 simulator, a number of parameters are present for MANET environment in order to study the overall network
performance. These parameters are known as performance metrics. In this paper following performance metrics are
con- sidered.
1.Throughput
In communication networks, such as Ethernet or packet radio, throughput or network throughput is the rate of
successful message delivery over a communication channel. This data may be delivered over a physical or logical link,
or pass through a certain network node. The throughput is usually measured in bits per second (bit/s or bps), and
sometimes in data packets per second or data packets per time slot.
2.End-to-End Delay
The end-to-end delay is the time required to traverse from the source node to the destination node in a network. The
end-to-end delay is measured in second.
3. Packet Drop
Drop can be defined as:
No. of Packets Dropped = No of pkt Sent - No of pkt Received
TABLE II SIMULATION PARAMETER FOR NETWORK
Value
Method
Channel type
Channel/Wireless channel
Radio-propagation
Propagation/Two ray round
model
Network interface type Phy /wirelessphy
MAC type
Mac/802.11
Interface queue type
Queue/DropTail/PriQueue
Link Layer Type
LL
Antenna
Antenna/omni antenna
Maximum packet in ifq 50
Area
500*500
Number of mobile
nodes
Source type
Routing Protocol
4
TCP (Tahoe, Reno, New Reno,
Vegas, Westwood, Westwood NR,
Sack and Fack)
AODV,DSDV,DSR,AOMDV
NS2[20] is used as a network simulation tool for hypothesis testing and to Study the effect of rod topology each TCP
variants(Tahoe, Reno, NewReno, Vegas, Westwood, WestwoodNR, Sack, Fack) are compared with AODV,DSDV,
DSR,AOMDV,OLSR Routing protocols and calculated throughput, end to end delay and packet drop. The objective of
the paper is to find out to TCP variant and Routing Protocol combination which will perform better in case of
throughput, end to end and packet drop. Fig 5 shows rod topology solid-line circle denotes a node’s valid transmission
range. The dotted-line circle denotes a node’s interference range. Node 4’s transmission will interfere with node 1’s
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 464
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
transmissions to node 2.
Fig 5 Rod topology
TABLE III THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR TAHOE
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
368.91
DSDV
360.96
Tahoe
DSR
361.17
AOMDV
359.51
230.192
230.316
235.799
236.383
265
120
219
249
Fig 6. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Tahoe
From our Simulation Table III and Fig 6 shows Throughput Based Tahoe Performs better over AODV than rest of the
Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Tahoe Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing Protocol. Packet
Drop Based Tahoe Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Tahoe
using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE IV THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR RENO
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
DSDV
Reno
DSR
AOMDV
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
368.91
360.96
361.17
359.51
230.192
230.316
235.799
236.383
265
120
219
243
Page 465
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Fig 7. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Reno
From our Simulation Table IV and Fig 7 shows Throughput Based Reno Performs better over AODV than rest of the
Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Reno Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing Protocol. Packet
Drop Based Reno Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Reno
using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE V THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR NEWRENO
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
368.91
DSDV
Newren 360.96
o
DSR
361.17
AOMDV
359.51
230.192
230.316
235.799
236.383
265
120
219
243
Fig 8. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Newreno
From our Simulation Table VI and Fig 8 shows Throughput Based Newreno Performs better over AODV than rest of
the Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Newreno Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing Protocol.
Packet Drop Based Newreno Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP
variant Newreno using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE VI THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR VEGAS
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
DSDV
Vegas
DSR
AOMDV
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
187.25
133.33
183.05
182.35
38.2166
40.0596
38.9979
38.8719
170
94
149
174
Page 466
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Fig 9. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Vegas
From our Simulation Table VI and Fig 9 shows Throughput Based Vegas Performs better over AODV than rest of the
Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Vegas Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing Protocol. Packet
Drop Based Vegas Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Vegas
using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE VII THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR WESTWOOD
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
368.91
DSDV
Westwo 361.00
od
DSR
361.17
AOMDV
359.51
230.192
231.858
235.799
236.383
265
114
219
243
Fig 10. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Westwood
From our Simulation Table VII and Fig 10 shows Throughput Based Westwood Performs better over AODV than rest
of the Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Westwood Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing
Protocol. Packet Drop Based Westwood Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that
TCP variant Westwood using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE VIII THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR WESTWOODNR
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
368.91
DSDV
Westwo 360.89
odNR 361.17
DSR
AOMDV
359.51
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
230.192
234.524
235.799
236.383
265
144
219
243
Page 467
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
400
300
200
100
0
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Throughput(k
bps)
End to End
Delay (ms)
Packet Drop
Fig 11. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for WestwoodNR
From our Simulation Table VIII and Fig 11 shows Throughput Based WestwoodNR Performs better over AODV than
rest of the Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based WestwoodNR Performs better over AODV than rest of the
Routing Protocol. Packet Drop Based WestwoodNR Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so
conclude that TCP variant WestwoodNR using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE IX THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR SACK
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
DSDV
Sack
DSR
AOMDV
368.91
360.99
361.71
359.51
230.192
233.186
235.799
236.383
265
124
219
243
Fig 12. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Sack
From our Simulation Table IX and Fig 12 shows Throughput Based Sack Performs better over AODV than rest of the
Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Sack Performs better over AODV than rest of the Routing Protocol. Packet
Drop Based Sack Performs better over DSDV than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Sack
using AODV better Combination than rest of the Routing Protocol.
TABLE X THROUGHPUT, END TO END DELAY AND PACKET DROP FOR FACK
Routing
Protocol
TCP
Throughput End to End Packet
Variant (kbps)
Delay(ms) Drop
AODV
DSDV
Fack
DSR
AOMDV
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
368.91
361.00
361.71
359.51
230.192
231.858
235.799
236.383
265
114
219
243
Page 468
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Fig 13. Throughput, End to End Delay and Packet Drop for Fack
Table 10 indicate that Throughput Based Fack Performs better over DSR than rest of the Routing Protocol. End to End
Delay Based Fack Performs better over DSR than rest of the Routing Protocol. Packet Drop Based Fack Performs better
over DSR than rest of the Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Fack using DSR better Combination than rest
of the Routing Protocol.
5.CONCLUSION
Performance of Eight types of TCP variants were compared and analyzed over AODV, DSDV, DSR and AOMDV
routing protocol.
Different MANET routing protocols and TCP Variant are employed in the network and their performance is evaluated
for the node size = 4 based on the analysis of the performance metrics is following:
Throughput Based Only Vegas not Performs better over Routing Protocol. End to End Delay Based Vegas Performs
better over AODV than rest of the TCP Variant and Routing Protocol. Packet Drop Based Vegas Performs better over
DSDV than rest of the TCP Variant and Routing Protocol. so conclude that TCP variant Vegas better Perform than
rest of the TCP Variant in Rod topology .
REFERENCES
[1] JeroenHoebeke, Ingrid Moerman, Bart Dhoedt and Piet Demeester ”An Overview of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks:
Applications and Challenges Department of Information Technology (INTEC), Ghent University”.
[2] Ahmad Al Hanbali, Eitan Altman, And Philippe Nain, Inria Sophia Antiplolis France ” A Survey Of Tcp Over Ad
Hoc Network, IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials ,Third Quarter 2005”.
[3] SUN Xiaoling ”TCP Congestion Control Algorithm Research Computer and Information Engineering Institute
Chafing University”.
[4] C. Siva Rama Murthy and B.S. Manoj, Adhoc wireless networks: architectures and protocols, Second Edition,
Prentice Hall.
[5] T. G. Basavaraju and Subir Kumar Sarkar, Adhoc mobile wireless networks: principles, protocols and applications,
Auerbach Publications, 2008.
[6] V. Ramesh, Dr. P. Subbaiah, N. KoteswarRao and M. Janardhana Raju,Performance comparison and analysis of
Dsdv and Aodv for Manet, (IJJCSE) International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering ,vol.02,pp. 183188, 2010
[7] Md. MonzurMorshed; Franz I. S. Ko; Dongwook Lim; Md. HabiburRahman; Md. RezaurRahmanMazumder;
JyotirmoyGhosh, Performance evaluation of Dsdv and Aodv routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc networks, NISS,
2010, pp. 399-403, May 2010
[8] D. Johnson, Y. Hu and D. Maltz ”The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (Dsr) for mobile ad hoc networks for
IPv4” IETF Experimental RFC 4728, February 2007
[9] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic Source Routing in ad hoc Wireless Networks. In Mobile
Computing, edited by Tomasz Imielinski and Hank Korth, chapter 5, pages 153-181. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1996
[10] M.K.Marina and S.R.Das ”On-Demand multipath distance vector routing in ad hoc networks” in Proceedings of
the 9th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001
[11] H.D.Trung, W.Benjapolakul, P.M.Duc ”Performance evaluation and comparison of different ad hoc routing
protocols” Department of Electrical Engineering, ChulalongkornUniversity, Bangkok, Thailand, May 2007
[12] Mrs.AlaaGhalebSeddik ”TCP performance Study and Enhancement within wireless Multi-hop Ad-hoc network
environments” 30 March 2009.
[13] http://www.ukessays.com/ePssays/communications/ transmissioncontrol protocol.
[14] DhananjayBisen and Sanjeev Sharma ”Improve Performance Of Tcp New Reno Over Mobile Ad-hoc Network”
International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 2, April 2011
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 469
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
ISSN 2319 - 4847
[15] Nasif EkizAbuthahir HabeebRahman Paul D. Amer Misbehaviors in ”TCP SACK Generation” ACM SIGCOMM
[16] Seddik-Ghaleb, Y. Ghamri-Doudane, and S. M. Senouci ” TCP WELCOME TCP Variant forWireless
Environment, Link losses, and Congestion packet loss Models” in First International Communication Systems and
Networks and Workshops, COMSNETS 2009
[17] Saleem-ullahLar, Xiaofeng Liao and SongtaoGuo ”Modeling TCP NewReno Slow Start and CongestionAvoidance using Simulation Approach”in IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security, VOL.11 No.1, January 2011. Technical Report IAM-02-003, Univ. of Bern, July 2001.
[18] Claudio Casetti,MarioGerla,Saverio Mascolo,M.Y. Sanadidi And Ren Wang, ”TCP Westwood: End-to-End
Congestion Control for Wired/Wireless Networks Wireless Networks” 8, 467479, 2002
[19] B. Qureshi, M. Othman, Member, IEEE, and N. A. W. Hami ”Progress in Various TCP Variants IEEE, February
2009
[20] http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/tutorial/
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2015
Page 470