G343741

M.Chandrika, N.Papanna / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
(IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com
Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 37-41
37 | P a g e
Performance comparison of AOMDV and POR Routing Protocols
in MANETS
M.Chandrika M.tech student1
, N.Papanna Assistant professor2
1,2
Sree Vidyanikethan Engg.College, Tirupati.AP,India.
Abstract
Mobile ad hoc network (MANET) [1] is
Mobile nodes that are communicated with each
and every other hop using multi-hop wireless
nodes. Each node acts as a router in network and
no fixed infrastructure for mobile nodes and
there is no base station of it, forwarding data
packets for other nodes [2]. Without network
infrastructure is known as ad hoc network is
formed by mobile stations inside a restricted area
which communicates without the need of access
point [3]. An ad hoc network can be formed by
mobile computers with wireless interfaces that
are communicate among themselves without any
help of infrastructure. In an ad hoc network the
mobile nodes are access to serve both routers and
hosts. Performance comparison of AOMDV and
POR with ns-2 (version 2.34) simulations shows
that throughput as POR packet delivery is better
than that of AOMDV.
Keywords: MANETS, AOMDV, POR, Data
delivery, routing protocol.
I. Introduction
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) as a
self-configuration and less infra structure data
transmission. Due to the broadcasting nature of
wireless channel and dynamic network topology,
reliable data delivery in MANETs. In this main issue
is high mobility [1]. Most existing protocols as
topology based routing protocols used in MANETS.
There are quite easily influences to node mobility,
especially in large scale networks. Main reason is
due to the procedure of a node –node before data
transmission is predefined. Network topology is
changed very fast and it is difficult to maintain a
route.
The route recovery and route discovery
procedures are time consuming, when path link is
breaks that time data packet loss is occurred and
then the packet is reroute and transmission rate is
interrupted. Routing protocols are DSDV, DSR,
AODV and AOMDV. Here node mobility is not
easy to influence. Next will introduce the
Geographic routing (GR) protocol, this is uses the
location based data packets will be transmitted in
hop-by-hop routing. And source is alert of its own
location.
In GR, to select the next hop forwarder use
the greedy forwarding with the large positive
information to the destination and GR is very high
efficiency and scalability. If the node moves out of
sender coverage area transmission will be fail i.e.,
packet loss occur. Then GPSR (Greedy Perimeter
state less routing) is introduced and due to the
broadcasting nature of wireless medium single data
packet transmission will leads to the multiple
reception and enhance the robustness of backup
condition. It does not deliver the data packets to
sensitive applications.
In AOMDV, nodes are selected to the
destination as forwarding candidates and all
neighboring nodes request to the next neighboring
nodes. Then the path is multiple route requests to the
neighbor nodes and route reply to the destination.
When the path link is breaks then entire packet is
loss and also throughput is decreased at the same
time time-consuming and energy-consuming. Next
will introduce the POR (position based opportunistic
routing) protocol, it may achieve the multiple
receptions without losing information and collision
avoidance. Reduce the latency and duplicate
relaying packets.
II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS
2.1. Overview
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a
less infrastructure for mobile nodes that means
infrastructure is absent. Nodes are utilized in the
network of same random access wireless channel;
cooperate in a friendly manner to attractive their
multi hop forwarding. The nodes in the network as
not only acts as hosts but also as routers and that
route data to from other nodes in network [2].
The main features of MANET are listed some as
below [4]:
a. MANET can be formed without any pre-
existing infrastructure.
b. MANETS can follow the dynamic topology
and where nodes may join and leave the
network at any time and the multi-hop
routing. It may keep changing as nodes join
and leave from the network. It does have
very limited physical security, and
increasing security.
c. Every node in the MANET can assist in the
routing of packets in network.
d. Limited Bandwidth & Power is limited
Routing protocols can be fallowed into different
categories:

38 | P a g e
(1) Uni-cast routing protocols
a. Topology-based routing protocols
• Proactive routing protocols
• Reactive routing protocols
• Hybrid routing protocols
b. Geographical-based routing protocols
(2) Multicast routing protocols
(3) Broadcast algorithms
In this may have to discuss about reactive routing
protocols (e.g., AOMDV, POR) and simulating the
results for that protocols.
2.1.1. Ah Hoc On Demand Multicast routing
protocol [AOMDV]. [13]
Here Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance
Vector Routing (AOMDV) protocol is an
enhancement part of the AODV protocol for
computing multiple loop-free and link disjoint paths
[5]. Multipath routing is provides the multiple
alternative paths between each and every source and
destination nodes in a network. The benefit of such
multipath is a fault tolerance, bandwidth increasing,
and security improvement. Overlapping, looping
(infinity loop) and optimum disjointed paths and the
main issue in such algorithms [14]. Destination
contains a number of next-hops nodes along with the
neighbor hop counts in route entries and same
sequence number is accessed to the all neighbor
nodes. For destination node, a node maintains the
hop count information, which is defined as the
maximum hop count is all the paths and uses the
sending route request of the destination.
Each duplicate route node request is
received by the neighbor node and it can be defined
as an alternate path to the destination. Loop free
node is assured by the acceptance of alternate paths
to destination and if it has a less hop count than the
advertised hop count for that destination. Because
the maximum hop count is used, the advertised hop
count therefore does not change for the same
sequence number [5]. When a route advertisement
is received for a destination with a greater sequence
number, the next hop list and advertises the hop
count is reinitialized.
Multi-path AODV can be used to find the
node-disjoint or link disjoint routes. To find node-
disjoint routes, each node does not reject the
duplicate RREQs immediately. Source node is
RREQ to the all neighboring nodes and selects the
node-disjoint path, because duplicate RREQs
packets are not broadcasted to the neighbors.
Any two RREQs are arriving at intermediate nodes
via different neighbors of the source could not have
transmitted at the same node [5]. Several changes
are required in the basic AODV route discovery
mechanism to enable computation of multiple link
disjoint routes between source destination pairs.
Note that any intermediate node I on the
route between a source S and a destination D can
also form such multiple routes to D, thus making
available a large number of routes between S and D.
In the route discovery procedure a reverse path is set
up backwards to the source via the same path the
route request (RREQ) has traversed. If duplicates of
the RREQ coming via different paths are ignored as
before, only one reverse path can be formed. To
form multiple routes, all duplicates of the RREQ
arriving at a node are examined as each duplicate
defines an alternate route. See Figure 2 each of these
alternate routes may not be disjoint [12].
Figure: 1 (a) Second copy of RREQ is transmitted
over the dotted link. (b) The second copy of RREQ
via B is suppressed at intermediate node I.
In the hope of getting link disjoint paths
(which would be more numerous than node disjoint
paths) the destination node adopts a “looser” reply
policy. It replies up to k copies of RREQ arriving via
unique neighbors, disregarding the first hops of these
RREQs.
2.1.2. Position Based Opportunistic Routing [POR]
Protocol
The POR is designed at based on
geographic routing and opportunistic forwarding.
The nodes are assumed to be aware of their own
location and the positions of their neighbors.
Neighborhood location information can be
exchanged using one-hop beacon or piggyback in
the data packet’s header. The location information of
nodes can be obtained with GPS [15] and it likes
equipment and neighbor’s coordinates are updated
periodically through one hop beacons.
When the source node S wants to sends packets to
the destination node D. It calculates the forwarder
list according to the distance between its neighbors
and the destination and inserts the list into the packet
header the neighbor. After that packet is send out,
tacking the best forwarder list can be set with respect
to the respected nodes.
All nodes within the sender’s coverage area nodes
may receive the packets and check its position in the
forwarder list, there are n nodes ahead of it, and it

39 | P a g e
will wait for n time’s slots before forwarding those
packets if the same packet was being sent by the
other node before the dedicated time slots. It will
discard the packets and sub sequent nodes will do
the same operation, until the packet reaches the
destination.
Figure2. (A) the operation of POR in normal
situation. (B) The operation of POR when the next
hop fails to receive the packet situation.
In this the above figure nodes sends the
source to destination. A source node located in the
forwarding area satisfies the two conditions: i.e., 1)
it makes positive progress toward the destination;
and 2) its distance to the next op node should not
exceed half of the transmission range in wireless
mode (i.e., R=2), so that ideally all the forwarding
candidates can hear from one another. First sender
sends the data transmits the forwarding area and
chooses the candidate selection process and the
condition is satisfied then forwards the next
forwarding area to the destination. Collect the
information to the forwarder does not forwards the
packets to the destination and same time sub-optimal
candidates has to be send the packets to the
destination in certain period of time.
III. SIMULATION MODEL
The performance of AOMDV is evaluated
in terms of Scenario and Traffic patterns using NS 2
[6] and Bonn Motion [5].
Figure3. Overview of the simulation model
The following Figure 3. Illustrates the simulation
model [7] and the simulation parameters are
described in Table 1. In our study and evaluation for
the two protocols AOMDV and POR we have used
the radio Propagation model which is the ns - 2 [12]
(Version 2.34) default model.
The result of simulation is generated as
trace files and the awk & Perl scripts are used for
report generation. In this model mobility generator is
moves to the nodes files and some of that traffic
generator and collects the information to the network
simulator and trace the file. Trace file is generated at
flow of data and speed of that particular node. Then
calculate the performance evaluation of both routing
protocols.
Table: 1 Simulation parameters
IV. PERFORMANCE METRICS
Performance Metrics [8, 9] are quantitative
measures that can be used to evaluate any MANET
routing protocol. We considered the following four
metrics. To evaluate the multi path on-demand
routing protocols AOMDV and POR. The fallowing
metrics are used in performance comparison.
4.1. Packet delivery ratio
The ratio of the number of packets is
received and the number of packets expected to
receive. Thus, for multicast packets delivery, the
ratio is equal to the total number of received packets
over the number of originated packets times the
group size. It is calculated as follows:
Packet Delivery ratio = (Number of Packets
Received/Number of Packets Sent) x 100.
4.2. Average Throughput
It is a data transmission is determined by
the amount of data moved from one node to another
in a certain period of time. And Average Throughput
[10] is the number of bytes received successfully and
is calculated by
Average Throughput= (Number of bytes received
x8)/ (Simulation time x 1000) kbps
4.3. Average End-to-End Delay (Average e2e
delay)
Average End-to-End [11] delay is the
average times of the data packet are transmitted
successfully across a MANET from source to
destination. It includes all possible delays in
networking area, such as buffer is during the route
discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,
retransmission delay at the MAC (Medium Access
Control), the propagation and the transfer time. The
average e2e delay is computed by,
Parameter Value
Mac protocol
Propagation model
Transmission Range
Mobility model
Traffic type
Packet size
Number of nodes
Simulation time
IEEE 802.11
Two-way ground
250m
Random way
point(RWP)
Constant bit rate (CBR)
256 bytes
80
900sec

40 | P a g e
where D is the average end-to-end delay, n is the
number of data packets successfully transmitted over
the MANET, ' i ' is the unique packet identifier, Ri is
the time at which a packet with unique identifier ' i '
is received and Si is the time at which a packet with
unique identifier ' i ' is sent. The Average End-to-
End Delay should be less for high performance.
4.4. Packet Loss
Packet Loss is the difference between the
number of data packets are send and the number of
data Packets received in that location. It follows that:
Packet Loss= Number of data packets sent− Number
of data packets received.
V. V.PERFORMANCE EVOLUTION
In simulation results AOMDV and POR
routing protocols are discussed. And packet loss is
very high in AOMDV and POR is better than that of
AOMDV also throughput is calculated.
Figure: 4. (a) AOMDV- throughput (b) POR-
throughput
In this figure individual through put values
are calculated and AOMDV protocol as increasing
the throughput values at that time packet loss is
increased. And next POR protocol as increasing the
throughput values and packet loss is decreased. In
POR End-to End data delivery is better than the
AOMDV.
Figure: 5. Performance comparison of AOMDV and
POR
In this figure performance comparison of AOMDV
and POR protocols is calculated and it is time
consuming and energy consuming .and POR packet
loss is reduced and duplicate relaying packets also
reduced.
VI. CONCLUSION
The main contribution of this paper is
performance comparison of reactive protocols (e.g.,
AOMDV, POR). The simulation scenario consisting
of minimum 2 and maximum of 100 nodes is created
by writing the TCL script in NS-2 (version 2.34) and
analyzing the parameters Packet delivery ratio, End-

41 | P a g e
to-End data delivery and throughput with the help of
generated X Graph. When compare to the AOMDV
throughput POR is better. Reduce the latency and
duplicate relaying packets also reduced then enhance
the robustness of efficient data delivery. In this use
only one channel in AOMDV and POR. In future
work, we can use number of channels. One channel
will communicate with one node number of channels
increase then packet delivery time is decreased. That
means ,in existing one 50 nodes per second data
packets will send where as in future work enhance
the number of channels 100 nodes per second in
simulation results.
REFERENCES
[1] Vicomsoft, “Knowledge share whitepapers
wireless networking Q&A”, Vicomsoft
connect and protect, Jan 2003.
[2] Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer,
Samir R. Das and Mahesh K. Marina:
“Performance Comparison of Two On-
Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc
Networks”, IEEE Personal
Communications, February 2001.
[3] Darlan Vivian, Eduardo Adilio Pelinson
Alchieri, Carlos Becker Westphall:
“Evaluation of QoS Metrics in Adhoc
Networks with the use of Secure Routing
Protocols”, Network and Management
Laboratory, Department of Computer
Sciences, Federal University of Santa
Catarina.
[4] Charles E.Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer,
“Ad hoc on demand distance vector
(AODV) routing (Internet-Draft)”, Aug-
1998.
[5] Kevin Fall, K. Varadhan, "The ns Manual",
University of Southern California,
Information Sciences Institute (ISI),
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ns-
documentation.html.
[6] The Network Simulator ns-allinone-2.34,
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
[7] Elizabeth M. Royer, University of
California, Santa Barbara, “A Review of
Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc
Mobile Wireless Networks”, IEEE
Personal Communications, April 1999.
[8] N.Jaisankar, R.Saravanan, “An Extended
AODV Protocol for Multipath Routing in
MANETs”, August 2010, IACSIT
International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol.2, No.4.
[9] Nadia Qasim, Fatin Said, Hamid Aghvami,
“Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Simulations
Using Routing Protocols for Performance
Comparisons”, WCE,Proceedings of the
World Congress on Engineering 2008 Vol I,
London, U.K. July 2 - 4, 2008.
[10] Christopher L. Barrett, Martin Drozda
Achla Marathe, Madhav V.
Marathe,”Characterizing the Interaction
Between Routing and MAC Protocols in
Ad-hoc Networks”, 3rd ACM International
Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking
and Computing (MOBIHOC), Lausanne,
Switzerland, June 2002.
[11] Md.Anisur Rahman, Md. Shohidul Islam,
Alex Talevski, “Performance Measurement
of various routing protocols in Adhoc
network”, IMECS March 18-20, 2009,
Hong Kong, Vol I, 2009.
[12] NS2 Tutorial, “NS-2” homepage
www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
[13] Mahesh K Marina, Samir R Das, “On
demand distance vector routing in Adhoc
networks”, 2001, IEEE, 1092- 1658/01.
[14] Idris Skloul Ibrahim, Peter J.B King,
“Robert Pooley: Performance Evaluation of
Routing Protocols for MANET”, Fourth
International Conference on Systems and
Networks Communications, 2009.
[15] B. Karp and H.T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy
Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless
Networks,” Proc. ACM MobiCom, pp. 243-
254, 2000.

G343741

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to G343741

Recently uploaded

G343741