Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
The wide spread usage of laptops, sensor devices, PDAs and other
mobile electronic devices leads to the increasing popularity of Ad-hoc wireless
networks. These devices will eventually need to communicate with each other,
in some cases, without an adequate infrastructure to rely on. This arise the
need of routing protocols that can work without any central gateway to
connect with.
164
Most of the existing routing protocols for MANETs [45, 46] are not
considering the fairness into account. They tend to have a heavy burden on the
hosts along the shortest path from a source to a destination. This paves the way
for the heavily loaded hosts to deplete power energy quickly, which in turn
will lead to networks partitions and failure of application sessions. The
multipath routing is proposed as an alternative to single shortest path routing
to distribute load and assuage congestion in the network. In multipath routing,
traffic bound to a destination is split across multiple paths to that destination.
Multipath routing aims to establish multiple paths between source-destination
pairs and thus requires more hosts to be responsible for the routing tasks. Even
though multi-path analysis have been covered fairly [3, 33,62], research on
multi-path routing for MANET is still in the early age.
165
5.2
166
167
Gateway Node
Intra-Cluster routing
Inter-cluster routing
Ordinary Node
Cluster Head
Basic terminology:
Cluster: It refers to a collection of nodes, grouped for the functioning for same
purpose.
Cluster Head (CH): Cluster head is a special node which has certain extra
responsibilities. All the information is passed through this node only.
Cluster Gateway (CG): A node which is common member of more than one
cluster is called as Cluster Gateway.
Cluster Member Node (CMN): The nodes which are the member of a cluster.
168
Benefits of Clustering:
The size of routing table in each and every node in the network is
reduced by clustering method
5.2.1
(i)
CHs are prone to power drainage due to serving as cluster heads longer
period of time.
169
(ii)
(iii)
170
(iv)
(v)
171
(vi)
LLC has an important improvement over Lowest-ID and HighestDegree Clustering Algorithms [12]. Since most of algorithms require
performing
procedure
of clustering
periodically to
satisfy
specific
172
1.
2.
Cluster formation.
Cluster maintenance.
173
174
(ix)
Max-Min D-Cluster
connectivity. In the 1 d-round, each node broadcast its WINNER value to all
nodes in its 1-hop neighbors. This followed by cascaded occurrences of the
same process for every d-round, so nodes will determine their new WINNER
values as the highest value. Therefore, all nodes in the 2
st
nd
with the value that exists at each node after 1 d-round. In this procedure,
175
within each d-round, a node chooses for its new WINNER value the lowest
value among its received WINNER values and its own. The selection of CH is
based on registered entries of each node after 2d-round of flooding. A node
can declare itself as a CH if it has received its original ID after 2d rounds of
floods. Otherwise, each node should look for node pairs, this pair is defined as
st
any node ID that result as a WINNER at least once in the 1 d-round as well
as in the second 2
nd
the node will choose the minimum node pair as CH. Therefore, the lowest
node ID appearing in booth stages of flooding is chosen as CH. The SENDER
array is used to give the CH the ability to obtain information of every node in
its cluster.
5.3
5.3.1
Overview
176
with each other, the connecting path between source and destination may be
from one cluster or through several intermediate clusters. Therefore, the
maintenance and management efforts can be distributed into several
intermediate clusters.
5.3.2
Formation of Clusters
Data Structures:
The following are some of the important data structures used by the
nodes in the network.
a) NEIGHB-TAB: This table is maintained by all nodes in the network
that contains the information about its other neighbor nodes.
b) CH-NEIGHB-TAB: This table is used by all the cluster heads of the
network to keep track of the information about its neighboring cluster
heads.
177
The Node Eminence (NE) value is calculated for each and every
node in the network in the following manner:
(1)
178
for nodes with higher NE value than its NE value. If no such node is found it
elects itself as cluster head and sets its state to CH and set IDch with its own
ID.
The very high mobility of nodes will change the network topology
drastically. Therefore, in clustering a node may join or leave at any time. Two
Cluster heads may come within one hop, which may leads to trigger a cluster
head change event. When two CHs receive LIVE-BEE packet from each other,
their NE value is compared. The CH with the higher NE value is elected as CH
and the other one give up its role of CH and changes its status from CH to
CMN and this information is disseminated within the corresponding clusters
for updation. This might trigger reorganization of other clusters.
179
5.3.3
5.3.3.1
180
2.2 Upon receiving multiple route replies from the destination D, the
source node S selects the completely node disjoint paths
represented by the bats.
2.4 The
minimum
delay values
which
also
satisfies
the
QoS
3.2
181
3.2.1
3.2.2
182
5.3.3.2
Route Maintenance
5.4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
5.4.1
183
The node speed is uniformly distributed between zero and the maximum
speed. Table 5.1 lists the simulation parameters and environments used.
Transmission Range
250 m
Mobility model
Number of Nodes
50
Node Speed
0-30 m/s
Routing protocols
AODV, CABM-AODV
MAC
2 Mbps
Initial energy
20 Joules
Performance Metrics
The following metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the
protocols:
Packet Delivery Ratio: It represents the ratio of the number of data packets
delivered to the destination and the number of data packets sent by the source.
184
185
5.4.1.1
a)
Varying Velocity
CABM-AODV
78.03
98.31
72.36
96.62
10
76.64
95.2
15
82.07
93.45
20
76.41
92.27
25
70.16
91.22
30
70.27
90.15
186
The results of the above table clearly depicts that the performance
of the proposed algorithm CABM-AODV in terms of Packet Delivery Ratio
Over velocity of nodes. The probability of link breaks increases with the
increase of velocity of the nodes which leads to the heavy packet loss. Since
CABM-AODV establishes and maintains multiple paths with nodedisjointness in a clustered environment and when an active path is broken due
to the node mobility, the source node selects another valid node-disjoint path
among the available path lists from its routing table to keep continue the
communication between source and destination without interruption. This
mechanism of CABM-AODV delivers the better packet delivery ratio than that
of the traditional AODV.
b)
187
100
90
80
70
AODV
60
CABM-AODV
50
40
5
10
15
20 25 30 35
Number of Nodes
40
45 50
5.4.1.2
End-to-End Delay
a)
Varying Velocity
Figure 5.3 shows the effect of node velocity over End-to-End Delay
of two protocols AODV and CABM-AODV. The proposed algorithm CABMAODV shows minimum delay when compared to that of AODV.
188
END-TO-END DELAY
AVERAGE DELAY (ms)
600
500
400
300
AODV
200
CABM-AODV
100
0
0
10
15
20
MAXIMUM VELOCITY (m/s)
25
30
Figure 5.3 depicts the effect of varying node velocity on End-toEnd delay for AODV and CABM-AODV. The end-to-end delay increases as
the mobility speed increases. Higher mobility causes more broken links and
frequent re-routing and thus causes more packet loss and larger end-to-end
delay. For CABM-AODV the end-to-end delay is 60% to 74% lesser than
AODV.
b)
189
CABM-AODV
113
101
10
204
112
15
213
119
20
262
121
25
318
125
30
323
131
35
328
135
40
336
139
45
343
141
50
347
148
5.4.1.3
190
than the traditional AODV. This is because the nodes which have higher
energy are considered for routing.
REMAINING ENERGY
14
12
10
8
6
AODV
CABM-AODV
2
0
5
10
15
20 25 30 35
NUMBER OF NODES
40
45 50
5.4.1.4
191
14
12
10
8
6
AODV
CABM-AODV
2
0
5
10
15
20 25 30 35
NUMBER OF NODES
40
45 50
5.4.1.5
Throughput
192
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT (bits/sec)
4800
4600
4400
4200
4000
AODV
CABM-AODV
3800
3600
3400
3200
5
10
15
20 25 30 35
NUMBER OF NODES
40
45 50
5.4.1.6
The figure 5.7 shows that the network life time is improved in the
marginal of 9% to 15% for CABM-AODV when compared to the traditional
AODV.
193
NETWORK LIFETIME
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
AODV
CABM-AODV
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
NUMBER OF DEAD NODES
5.4.2
Performance
Comparison
of
CABM-AODV
&
CBMMRP
5.4.2.1
Control Overhead
a) Control Overhead Vs Pause Time
Figure 5.8 clearly depicts that the control overhead of the protocol
CBMMRP is slightly high (7% to 14%) than CABM-AODV.
194
CONTROL OVERHEAD
6
5
4
3
CBMMRP
CABM-AODV
1
0
0
CONTROL OVERHEAD
6
5
4
3
CBMMRP
CABM-AODV
1
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
NUMBER OF NODES
195
5.4.2.2
Figure 5.10 shows that the end to end delay of CABM-AODV over
pause time is 5% to 28% less than that of the protocol CBMMRP.
END TO END DELAY
2500
2000
1500
CBMMRP
1000
CABM-AODV
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
PAUSE TIME
5.5
SUMMARY