Simulation and analysis of ad hoc on dem (1)
Simulation and Analysis of Ad-hoc On-demand Distance
Vector Routing Protocol
Md. Monzur Morshed
Tiger Hats
Md. Habibur Rahman
Tiger Hats
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
m.monzur@gmail.com
mmmhabib@gmail.com
Md. Rezaur Rahman Mazumder
Tiger Hats
K. A. M. Lutfullah
Tiger Hats
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
Assistant System Manager
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
m_rezaur@yahoo.com
kallolrahman@yahoo.com
Another usual characteristic is that it is an On-demand algorithm;
it determines a route to the destination only when packets send to
destination. If the wireless nodes are within the range of each
other, the routing is not necessary. If a node moves out of range
then the node will not be able to communicate with others
directly, intermediate nodes are needed to organize the network
which takes care of the data transmission.
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad-hoc Network is a decentralized network. There are
many routing protocols have been proposed for Mobile Ad-hoc
Network. In this paper, we have simulated AODV routing
protocol to visualize the performance of AODV Routing Protocol.
AODV is a reactive protocol; it uses traditional routing tables.
This means that for each destination exist one entry in routing
table and uses sequence number, this number ensure the freshness
of routs and guarantee the loop-free routing. To evaluate the
performance of AODV routing protocol, the simulation results
were analyzed by graphical manner and trace file based on QoS
metrics such as Delay, Jitter. The simulation result analysis
verifies the AODV routing protocol performance.
2. AODV PROTOCOL MECHANISM
Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is
essentially a combination of both DSR and DSDV protocol [2]. It
borrows the basic on-demand mechanism of Route Discovery and
Route Maintenance from DSR protocol, plus the use of hop-byhop routing, sequence numbers, and periodic beacons from
DSDV protocol [3]. The AODV protocol is loop-free and avoids
the count-to-infinity problem by the use of sequence numbers.
AODV protocol uses a simple request-reply mechanism for route
discovery [4]. Source node require a route to sends a Routes
Request message to its neighbors. Source address and Request ID
fields uniquely identify the ROUTE REQUEST packet to allow
nodes to discard any duplicates they may receive. Sequence
number of source and the most recent value of destination
sequence number that the source has seen and the Hop count field
will keep track of how many hops the packet has traveled. When
source include destination sequence numbers in its route request
that actually last known destination sequence number for a
particular destination. Every intermediate nodes store most recent
sequence number of source. If a neighbor has a route to
destination then it informs the source node. If neighbors have no
route then it rebroadcast RREQ and increment hop count.
Eventually a route must be found if exists. In reverse path
calculation, all nodes remember source of the RREQ. When a
route is found then it working backwards, route is discovered. The
receiver looks up the destination in its route table.
Keywords
AODV, MANET, QoS, Network Simulator (NS2).
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a composition of a group of
mobile, wireless nodes which cooperate in forwarding packets in a
multi-hop fashion without any centralized administration. In
MANET, each mobile node acts as a router as well as an end node
which is either source or destination. AODV is perhaps the most
well-known routing protocol for MANET [1]. It offers quick
adaptation to dynamic link conditions, low processing and
memory overhead, low network utilization, and determines
unicast routes to destinations within the ad hoc network [2].
"Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
ICIS 2009, November 24-26, 2009 Seoul, Korea
Copyright © 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-710-3/09/11... $10.00"
610
To test freshness it compares destination sequence number, if
RREQ packet destination sequence number is greater than the
Route destination sequence numbers assumes route is still present
and remains unused. If route is found Route Reply (RREP)
message is returned to source.
5. QoS METRICS
We used different parameter of QoS metrics such as delay, jitter,
packet drop, round trip time, and throughput to understand the
behavior of AODV Routing Protocol.
6. SIMULATION RESULT
3. SIMULATION TOPOLOGY
Simulation environment consists of 16 wireless mobile nodes
which are place uniformly and forming a Mobile Ad-hoc
Network, moving about over a 1000 × 1000 meters area for 40
seconds of simulated time. We have used standard two-ray ground
propagation model, the IEEE 802.11 MAC, and omni-directional
antenna model of NS2. We have used AODV routing algorithm
and interface queue length 50 at each node. The source nodes are
respectively 6, 15 and 5 and the receiving nodes are respectively
0, 1 and 11.
6.1 Drop
The routers might fail to deliver (drop) some packets if they
arrive when their buffers are already full. Some, none, or all of the
packets might be dropped, depending on the state of the network,
and it is impossible to determine what will happen in advance.
The receiving application may ask for this information to be
retransmitted, possibly causing severe delays in the overall
transmission. Table 2 shows the scenario of two types of packet
(TCP, UDP) flow from source to destination node where UDP
packet drop rates of UDP are greater than TCP packets. We use
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) as a User Datagram Protocol (UDP).
Table 2: Packet Drop of TCP and UDP
Packet type
Send
Receive
Drop
TCP
759
673
86
UDP
1963
1229
734
6.2 Throughput
Throughput is the measurement of number of packets passing
through the network in a unit of time [5]. This metric show the
total number of packets that have been successfully delivered to
the destination nodes and throughput improves with increasing
Figure 1: Simulation Topology
nodes density.
4. SIMULATION DESCRIPTION
6.2.1 Transmission Throughput
Table 1: Simulation parameters
Value
Channel type
Channel/Wireless channel
Radio-propagation model
Propagation/Two ray round
Network interface type
Phy/wirelessphy
MAC type
Mac/802.11
Interface queue type
Queue/Drop Tail
Link Layer Type
LL
Antenna
Antenna/omni antenna
Maximum packet in ifq
50
Area (m×m)
1000×1000
Number of mobile nodes
16
Source type
UDP, TCP
Simulation Time
40 sec
Routing protocol
AODV
Sending Throughput (kbps)
Method
700000
612864
600000
500000
400000
300000
202752
202240
202240
0─8
8─16
16─24
189440
200000
100000
0
24─32
32─40
Range of Time (second)
Figure 2: Transmission Throughput for UDP
Figure 2 shows the maximum sending throughput in the time
interval of 24 to 32 and sending throughput increased because of
node density, less traffic and free of channel. In rest of the time
the sending throughput was almost constant.
611
600000
Sending Throughput (kbps)
Sending Throughput (kbps)
600000
503512
500000
400000
300000
236248
166144
200000
138320
98992
100000
503512
500000
400000
300000
200000
236248
166144
100000
0
0
0─8
8─16
16─24
24─32
0─8
32─40
8─16
16─24
24─32
32─40
Range Of Time (second)
Range Of Time (second)
Figure 5: Receiving Throughput for TCP
Figure 3: Transmission Throughput for TCP
Figure 3 shows the time interval 24 to 32 was maximum amount
TCP packets send from the source node because it shows the
maximum job was done by the source node. In this particular unit
time interval sending throughput was high due to less traffic and
source and destination distance node close to each other.
6.3 Delay
A specific packet is transmitting from source to destination and
calculates the difference between send times and received times.
Delays due to route discovery, queuing, propagation and transfer
time are included in the delay metric [6].
6.2.2 Receiving Throughput
8
250000
7
190988
200000
150000
139916
6
131404
95760
100000
Delay
Receiving Throughput (kbps)
138320
98992
86184
5
4
3
2
50000
1
0
0
0─8
8─16
16─24
24─32
0
32─40
10
20
30
40
Send Time (second)
Range of Time (second)
Figure 6: Send Time VS Delay Graph for UDP
Figure 4: Receiving Throughput for UDP
Figure 6 shows the delay is increasing because of the distance
between sending and receiving nodes. From the Figure 6, the time
range between 0-20 seconds, the delay was high because in that
particular time interval the distance between sending node and
receiving node is high due to traffic. And in the time interval 2040 sec the delay is less because of less traffic and free channel for
the UDP packets.
Figure 4 shows the maximum receiving throughput in the time
interval of 16 to 24 as well as maximum amount UDP packets
actually received by the intended destinations because in that
particular time interval the send node and receive node distance is
less, free of channel for those packets.
Figure 5 the time range 8 to 16 maximum TCP packets received
because in this particular time range destination node face less
traffic and free channel which shows the maximum work was
done by the intended destinations. And the rest of the time
interval received throughput reasonably stable for TCP packets.
From the Figure 2 to Figure 5 shows throughput which is the
number of routing packets (TCP, UDP) received successfully by
AODV routing protocol.
612
2
2
Jitter
Delay
1
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
-1
0
0
10
20
30
40
-2
Send Time (second)
Send Time (second)
Figure 7: Send Time VS Delay Graph for TCP
Figure 9: Send Time VS Jitter Graph for TCP
Figure 7 shows after certain time interval the delay increases
because of the node distance and busy nodes. The delay decreases
when the source and destination nodes close to each other while
having free channel and minimum traffic. From Figure 6 and
Figure 7 we conclude that there is trend of increasing delay with
increasing distance between source and destination, busy channel,
busy nodes and node density. When nodes keep on moving more
frequently there will be more topology changes and more link
breakages. This will cause activation of routes discovery process
to find additional links. Thus packets have to wait in buffers until
new routes are discovered. This results in larger delay.
Figure 9 shows when the send time 10 jitter values was close to
zero and after certain time interval jitter value increased and later
repeated old scenario for the TCP packets. There is a trend of
increasing of jitter value with increasing of delay between the
packets. Jitter values of routing packets (TCP, UDP) are affected
by packets delay if we compare Figure 7 with Figure 9 for TCP
data packets and Figure 6 with Figure 8 for UDP data packets.
6.5 Round Trip Time (RTT)
Round-trip time (RTT), also called round-trip delay, is the time
required for a signal pulse or packet to travel from a specific
source to a specific destination and back again. For each
connection, TCP maintains a variable, RTT that is the best current
estimation of round-trip time to the destination. When a segment
is sent, a timer is started, both to see how long the
acknowledgement takes and to trigger a retransmission if it takes
too long.
6.4 Jitter
Jitter is the variation of the packet arrival time. In jitter calculation
the variation in the packet arrival time is expected to minimum.
The delays between the different packets need to be low if we
want better performance in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks.
8
3
6
4
2
RTT
Jitter
2
0
-2
0
10
20
30
40
1
-4
-6
0
-8
0
Send Time (second)
10
20
30
40
Send Time (second)
Figure 8: Send Time vs. Jitter Graph for UDP
Figure 10: Send Time Vs RTT
Figure 8 we can see few spikes are comparatively higher than
others because there were long delays, destination node far away
from source node, more traffic and busy channel. In rest of the
time UDP packets delay was low.
In Figure 10 shows that initially RTT delay was less. After a
certain time interval RTT increased because of node distance,
node density, node mobility and more traffic. RTT delay increase
when intermediate node was busy node or congestion occurred
613
[2] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer and S. Das, “Ad hoc OnDemand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,” IETF RFC,
3561, July 2003.
during the packet transmission. From Figure 10 Round Trip Time
(RTT) also affected by TCP delay which is shown in Figure 7.
[3] Geetha Jayakumar and G. Gopinath, “Performance
comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for Ad-hoc
networks based on random way point mobility model,”
American Journal of Applied Sciences, June 2008, pp. 659664.
7. CONCLUSION
In our simulation, we have simulated and analyzed the AODV
routing protocol using different parameter of QoS metrics. As a
reactive protocol AODV transmits network information only ondemand. We have analyzed two types of data packets TCP, UDP
and both packet drop rate are respectively 11.33% and 37.39%.
[4] Geetha Jayakumar and Gopinath Ganapathy, “Performance
Comparison of Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocol,”
International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security (IJCSNS 2007), vol. 7, no. 11, November 2007, pp.
77-84.
For DSR and AODV Routing Protocol, packet delivery ratio is
independent of offered traffic load, with both protocols
delivering between 85% and 100% of the packets in all cases
[4]. Comparing results we conclude that AODV routing protocol
[5] Rekha Patil, DrA.Damodaram, “Cost Based Power Aware
Cross Layer Routing Protocol,” International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS 2008),
vol. 8 no. 12, December 2008, pp. 388-393.
perform well under voice or data transmission but poor
performance for video transmissions as well as lack of Quality of
Service (QoS).
[6] S H Manjula, C N Abhilash, Shaila K, K R Venugopal, L M
Patnaik, “Performance of AODV Routing Protocol using
Group and Entity Mobility Models in Wireless Sensor
Networks,” Proceedings of the International
MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists
(IMECS 2008), vol. 2, 19-21 March 2008, Hong Kong, pp.
1212-1217.
Simulation result shows the performance of TCP and UDP
packets with respect to delay, throughput, jitter, round trip time.
As a result, we can say that for real time applications we need
more robust routing protocol which will perform better than
AODV routing protocol.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Davide Cerri, Alessandro Ghioni, “Securing AODV: The ASAODV Secure Routing Prototype,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, February 2008.
614
Vector Routing Protocol
Md. Monzur Morshed
Tiger Hats
Md. Habibur Rahman
Tiger Hats
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
m.monzur@gmail.com
mmmhabib@gmail.com
Md. Rezaur Rahman Mazumder
Tiger Hats
K. A. M. Lutfullah
Tiger Hats
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
Assistant System Manager
East West University, Mohakhali
Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
m_rezaur@yahoo.com
kallolrahman@yahoo.com
Another usual characteristic is that it is an On-demand algorithm;
it determines a route to the destination only when packets send to
destination. If the wireless nodes are within the range of each
other, the routing is not necessary. If a node moves out of range
then the node will not be able to communicate with others
directly, intermediate nodes are needed to organize the network
which takes care of the data transmission.
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad-hoc Network is a decentralized network. There are
many routing protocols have been proposed for Mobile Ad-hoc
Network. In this paper, we have simulated AODV routing
protocol to visualize the performance of AODV Routing Protocol.
AODV is a reactive protocol; it uses traditional routing tables.
This means that for each destination exist one entry in routing
table and uses sequence number, this number ensure the freshness
of routs and guarantee the loop-free routing. To evaluate the
performance of AODV routing protocol, the simulation results
were analyzed by graphical manner and trace file based on QoS
metrics such as Delay, Jitter. The simulation result analysis
verifies the AODV routing protocol performance.
2. AODV PROTOCOL MECHANISM
Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol is
essentially a combination of both DSR and DSDV protocol [2]. It
borrows the basic on-demand mechanism of Route Discovery and
Route Maintenance from DSR protocol, plus the use of hop-byhop routing, sequence numbers, and periodic beacons from
DSDV protocol [3]. The AODV protocol is loop-free and avoids
the count-to-infinity problem by the use of sequence numbers.
AODV protocol uses a simple request-reply mechanism for route
discovery [4]. Source node require a route to sends a Routes
Request message to its neighbors. Source address and Request ID
fields uniquely identify the ROUTE REQUEST packet to allow
nodes to discard any duplicates they may receive. Sequence
number of source and the most recent value of destination
sequence number that the source has seen and the Hop count field
will keep track of how many hops the packet has traveled. When
source include destination sequence numbers in its route request
that actually last known destination sequence number for a
particular destination. Every intermediate nodes store most recent
sequence number of source. If a neighbor has a route to
destination then it informs the source node. If neighbors have no
route then it rebroadcast RREQ and increment hop count.
Eventually a route must be found if exists. In reverse path
calculation, all nodes remember source of the RREQ. When a
route is found then it working backwards, route is discovered. The
receiver looks up the destination in its route table.
Keywords
AODV, MANET, QoS, Network Simulator (NS2).
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a composition of a group of
mobile, wireless nodes which cooperate in forwarding packets in a
multi-hop fashion without any centralized administration. In
MANET, each mobile node acts as a router as well as an end node
which is either source or destination. AODV is perhaps the most
well-known routing protocol for MANET [1]. It offers quick
adaptation to dynamic link conditions, low processing and
memory overhead, low network utilization, and determines
unicast routes to destinations within the ad hoc network [2].
"Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
ICIS 2009, November 24-26, 2009 Seoul, Korea
Copyright © 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-710-3/09/11... $10.00"
610
To test freshness it compares destination sequence number, if
RREQ packet destination sequence number is greater than the
Route destination sequence numbers assumes route is still present
and remains unused. If route is found Route Reply (RREP)
message is returned to source.
5. QoS METRICS
We used different parameter of QoS metrics such as delay, jitter,
packet drop, round trip time, and throughput to understand the
behavior of AODV Routing Protocol.
6. SIMULATION RESULT
3. SIMULATION TOPOLOGY
Simulation environment consists of 16 wireless mobile nodes
which are place uniformly and forming a Mobile Ad-hoc
Network, moving about over a 1000 × 1000 meters area for 40
seconds of simulated time. We have used standard two-ray ground
propagation model, the IEEE 802.11 MAC, and omni-directional
antenna model of NS2. We have used AODV routing algorithm
and interface queue length 50 at each node. The source nodes are
respectively 6, 15 and 5 and the receiving nodes are respectively
0, 1 and 11.
6.1 Drop
The routers might fail to deliver (drop) some packets if they
arrive when their buffers are already full. Some, none, or all of the
packets might be dropped, depending on the state of the network,
and it is impossible to determine what will happen in advance.
The receiving application may ask for this information to be
retransmitted, possibly causing severe delays in the overall
transmission. Table 2 shows the scenario of two types of packet
(TCP, UDP) flow from source to destination node where UDP
packet drop rates of UDP are greater than TCP packets. We use
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) as a User Datagram Protocol (UDP).
Table 2: Packet Drop of TCP and UDP
Packet type
Send
Receive
Drop
TCP
759
673
86
UDP
1963
1229
734
6.2 Throughput
Throughput is the measurement of number of packets passing
through the network in a unit of time [5]. This metric show the
total number of packets that have been successfully delivered to
the destination nodes and throughput improves with increasing
Figure 1: Simulation Topology
nodes density.
4. SIMULATION DESCRIPTION
6.2.1 Transmission Throughput
Table 1: Simulation parameters
Value
Channel type
Channel/Wireless channel
Radio-propagation model
Propagation/Two ray round
Network interface type
Phy/wirelessphy
MAC type
Mac/802.11
Interface queue type
Queue/Drop Tail
Link Layer Type
LL
Antenna
Antenna/omni antenna
Maximum packet in ifq
50
Area (m×m)
1000×1000
Number of mobile nodes
16
Source type
UDP, TCP
Simulation Time
40 sec
Routing protocol
AODV
Sending Throughput (kbps)
Method
700000
612864
600000
500000
400000
300000
202752
202240
202240
0─8
8─16
16─24
189440
200000
100000
0
24─32
32─40
Range of Time (second)
Figure 2: Transmission Throughput for UDP
Figure 2 shows the maximum sending throughput in the time
interval of 24 to 32 and sending throughput increased because of
node density, less traffic and free of channel. In rest of the time
the sending throughput was almost constant.
611
600000
Sending Throughput (kbps)
Sending Throughput (kbps)
600000
503512
500000
400000
300000
236248
166144
200000
138320
98992
100000
503512
500000
400000
300000
200000
236248
166144
100000
0
0
0─8
8─16
16─24
24─32
0─8
32─40
8─16
16─24
24─32
32─40
Range Of Time (second)
Range Of Time (second)
Figure 5: Receiving Throughput for TCP
Figure 3: Transmission Throughput for TCP
Figure 3 shows the time interval 24 to 32 was maximum amount
TCP packets send from the source node because it shows the
maximum job was done by the source node. In this particular unit
time interval sending throughput was high due to less traffic and
source and destination distance node close to each other.
6.3 Delay
A specific packet is transmitting from source to destination and
calculates the difference between send times and received times.
Delays due to route discovery, queuing, propagation and transfer
time are included in the delay metric [6].
6.2.2 Receiving Throughput
8
250000
7
190988
200000
150000
139916
6
131404
95760
100000
Delay
Receiving Throughput (kbps)
138320
98992
86184
5
4
3
2
50000
1
0
0
0─8
8─16
16─24
24─32
0
32─40
10
20
30
40
Send Time (second)
Range of Time (second)
Figure 6: Send Time VS Delay Graph for UDP
Figure 4: Receiving Throughput for UDP
Figure 6 shows the delay is increasing because of the distance
between sending and receiving nodes. From the Figure 6, the time
range between 0-20 seconds, the delay was high because in that
particular time interval the distance between sending node and
receiving node is high due to traffic. And in the time interval 2040 sec the delay is less because of less traffic and free channel for
the UDP packets.
Figure 4 shows the maximum receiving throughput in the time
interval of 16 to 24 as well as maximum amount UDP packets
actually received by the intended destinations because in that
particular time interval the send node and receive node distance is
less, free of channel for those packets.
Figure 5 the time range 8 to 16 maximum TCP packets received
because in this particular time range destination node face less
traffic and free channel which shows the maximum work was
done by the intended destinations. And the rest of the time
interval received throughput reasonably stable for TCP packets.
From the Figure 2 to Figure 5 shows throughput which is the
number of routing packets (TCP, UDP) received successfully by
AODV routing protocol.
612
2
2
Jitter
Delay
1
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
-1
0
0
10
20
30
40
-2
Send Time (second)
Send Time (second)
Figure 7: Send Time VS Delay Graph for TCP
Figure 9: Send Time VS Jitter Graph for TCP
Figure 7 shows after certain time interval the delay increases
because of the node distance and busy nodes. The delay decreases
when the source and destination nodes close to each other while
having free channel and minimum traffic. From Figure 6 and
Figure 7 we conclude that there is trend of increasing delay with
increasing distance between source and destination, busy channel,
busy nodes and node density. When nodes keep on moving more
frequently there will be more topology changes and more link
breakages. This will cause activation of routes discovery process
to find additional links. Thus packets have to wait in buffers until
new routes are discovered. This results in larger delay.
Figure 9 shows when the send time 10 jitter values was close to
zero and after certain time interval jitter value increased and later
repeated old scenario for the TCP packets. There is a trend of
increasing of jitter value with increasing of delay between the
packets. Jitter values of routing packets (TCP, UDP) are affected
by packets delay if we compare Figure 7 with Figure 9 for TCP
data packets and Figure 6 with Figure 8 for UDP data packets.
6.5 Round Trip Time (RTT)
Round-trip time (RTT), also called round-trip delay, is the time
required for a signal pulse or packet to travel from a specific
source to a specific destination and back again. For each
connection, TCP maintains a variable, RTT that is the best current
estimation of round-trip time to the destination. When a segment
is sent, a timer is started, both to see how long the
acknowledgement takes and to trigger a retransmission if it takes
too long.
6.4 Jitter
Jitter is the variation of the packet arrival time. In jitter calculation
the variation in the packet arrival time is expected to minimum.
The delays between the different packets need to be low if we
want better performance in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks.
8
3
6
4
2
RTT
Jitter
2
0
-2
0
10
20
30
40
1
-4
-6
0
-8
0
Send Time (second)
10
20
30
40
Send Time (second)
Figure 8: Send Time vs. Jitter Graph for UDP
Figure 10: Send Time Vs RTT
Figure 8 we can see few spikes are comparatively higher than
others because there were long delays, destination node far away
from source node, more traffic and busy channel. In rest of the
time UDP packets delay was low.
In Figure 10 shows that initially RTT delay was less. After a
certain time interval RTT increased because of node distance,
node density, node mobility and more traffic. RTT delay increase
when intermediate node was busy node or congestion occurred
613
[2] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer and S. Das, “Ad hoc OnDemand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,” IETF RFC,
3561, July 2003.
during the packet transmission. From Figure 10 Round Trip Time
(RTT) also affected by TCP delay which is shown in Figure 7.
[3] Geetha Jayakumar and G. Gopinath, “Performance
comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for Ad-hoc
networks based on random way point mobility model,”
American Journal of Applied Sciences, June 2008, pp. 659664.
7. CONCLUSION
In our simulation, we have simulated and analyzed the AODV
routing protocol using different parameter of QoS metrics. As a
reactive protocol AODV transmits network information only ondemand. We have analyzed two types of data packets TCP, UDP
and both packet drop rate are respectively 11.33% and 37.39%.
[4] Geetha Jayakumar and Gopinath Ganapathy, “Performance
Comparison of Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocol,”
International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security (IJCSNS 2007), vol. 7, no. 11, November 2007, pp.
77-84.
For DSR and AODV Routing Protocol, packet delivery ratio is
independent of offered traffic load, with both protocols
delivering between 85% and 100% of the packets in all cases
[4]. Comparing results we conclude that AODV routing protocol
[5] Rekha Patil, DrA.Damodaram, “Cost Based Power Aware
Cross Layer Routing Protocol,” International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS 2008),
vol. 8 no. 12, December 2008, pp. 388-393.
perform well under voice or data transmission but poor
performance for video transmissions as well as lack of Quality of
Service (QoS).
[6] S H Manjula, C N Abhilash, Shaila K, K R Venugopal, L M
Patnaik, “Performance of AODV Routing Protocol using
Group and Entity Mobility Models in Wireless Sensor
Networks,” Proceedings of the International
MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists
(IMECS 2008), vol. 2, 19-21 March 2008, Hong Kong, pp.
1212-1217.
Simulation result shows the performance of TCP and UDP
packets with respect to delay, throughput, jitter, round trip time.
As a result, we can say that for real time applications we need
more robust routing protocol which will perform better than
AODV routing protocol.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Davide Cerri, Alessandro Ghioni, “Securing AODV: The ASAODV Secure Routing Prototype,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, February 2008.
614