In this project, AODV and Flooding routing protocols using different parameter metrics have been simulated and analyzed Simulation results show that performance parameters of the routing protocols may vary depending on network load, mobility and network size. Under G-Sense Model, AODV experience the highest Packet Delivery Fraction and Throughput with the increase of nodes stop time, and mobile nodes number. AODV and Simple Flooding performance is due to their on demand characteristics to determine the freshness of the route. And it is proved also that AODV has a slightly higher Average end-to-end Delay than Simple Flooding.

1. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET
ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS
AD-HOC NETWORKS USING G-SENSE

2. INTRODUCTION
 Importance of networking
 Computer network – system for communication between computers
(fixed, temporary)
 History starts with Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in
1962
 1969 the beginning of ARPANet which connected University of LA,
SRI, University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of
Utah
 Ethernet developed in 1980
 In 1994, Bluetooth proposed by Ericsson to develop a short-range,
low-power, low complexity, and inexpensive radio interface
 WLAN 802.11 spec. is proposed in 1997

3. AD-HOC NETWORKS
 Need of Ad-Hoc Networks
 Setting up of fixed access points and backbone infrastructure is
not always viable
 Infrastructure may not be present in a disaster area or war
zone
 Infrastructure may not be practical for short-range radios;
Bluetooth (range ~ 10m)
 Do not need backbone infrastructure support
 Are easy to deploy
 Useful when infrastructure is absent, destroyed or
impractical

4. AD-HOC NETWORKS
Characteristics of an AD-HOC network
 Collection of mobile nodes forming a temporary
network
 Network topology changes frequently and
unpredictably
 No centralized administration or standard support
services
 Each host is an independent router
 Hosts use wireless RF transceivers as network
interface
 Number of nodes 10 to 100 or at most 1000

5. TYPES OF WIRELESS NETWORKS
Two types of wireless network:
 Infrastructured
 the mobile node can move while communicating
 the base stations are fixed
 as the node goes out of the range of a base station, it gets
into the range of another base station
 Infrastructureless or ad-hoc
 the mobile node can move while communicating
 there are no fixed base stations
 all the nodes in the network need to act as routers

6. CELLULAR AND AD-HOC NETWORKS

7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CELLULAR AND
AD-HOC NETWORKS

8. CELLULAR WIRELESS AD-HOC
NETWORK NETWORK

9. MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS
(MANET)
 Self-creating, self-organizing and self-administrating without deploying any kind of
infrastructure.
 Wide application in military, commercial and educational environments where fixed
infrastructure is not easily acquired.
 Two nodes communicate directly or via a multi-hop route with the cooperation of
other nodes
 Formed by wireless hosts which may be mobile
 Without (necessarily) using a pre-existing infrastructure
 To find a multi-hop path to another nodes, each MANET node widely use flooding or
broadcast

10. MANET

11. APPLICATIONS OF MANET
 Personal area networking
 cell phone, laptop, ear phone, wrist watch
 Military environments
 soldiers, tanks, planes
 Civilian environments
 taxi cab network
 meeting rooms
 sports stadiums
 boats, small aircraft
 Emergency operations
 search-and-rescue
 policing and fire fighting

12. CHALLENGING ISSUES
 Limited wireless transmission range
 Broadcast nature of the wireless medium
 Packet losses due to transmission errors
 Mobility-induced route changes
 Mobility-induced packet losses
 Battery constraints
 Potentially frequent network partitions
 Ease of snooping on wireless transmissions (security
hazard)

13. CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROUTING
PROTOCOLS IN MANET
 Proactive (table driven)
 Require each node to maintain one or more tables to store routing
information
 Each node responds to changes in network topology by propagating
updates throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent
network view
 DSDV, OLSR (Optimized Link State Protocol)
 Reactive protocols (source initiated)
 Creates routes only when desired by the source node
 Once a route has been established, it is maintained by a route
maintenance procedure until either the destination becomes
inaccessible along every path from the source or until the route is no
longer desired
 DSR, AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector)

14. AD HOC MOBILE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Ad-Hoc Mobile
Routing Protocols
Table Driven/
Proactive
DSDV WRP
CGSR STAR
Hybrid
ZRP
On Demand Driven/
Reactive
ABR DSR
TORA AODV
CBRP RDMAR

15. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
 Sender S broadcasts data packet P to all its neighbors
 Each node receiving P forwards P to its neighbors
 Sequence numbers used to avoid the possibility of forwarding the same
packet more than once
 Packet P reaches destination D provided that D is reachable from
sender S
 Node D does not forward the packet

16. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Represents that connected nodes are within each
other’s transmission range
Z
Y
Represents a node that has received packet P
M
N
L

17. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Represents transmission of packet P
Represents a node that receives packet P for
the first time
Z
Y
Broadcast transmission
M
N
L

18. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
• Node H receives packet P from two neighbors:
potential for collision
Z
Y
M
N
L

19. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
• Node C receives packet P from G and H, but does not forward
it again, because node C has already forwarded packet P once
Z
Y
M
N
L

20. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
M
• Nodes J and K both broadcast packet P to node D
• Since nodes J and K are hidden from each other, their
transmissions may collide
=> Packet P may not be delivered to node D at all,
despite the use of flooding
N
L

21. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
Z
Y
• Node D does not forward packet P, because node D
is the intended destination of packet P
M
N
L

22. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
• Flooding completed
• Nodes unreachable from S do not receive packet P (e.g., node Z)
• Nodes for which all paths from S go through the destination D
also do not receive packet P (example: node N)
Z
Y
M
N
L

23. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY
B
A
S E
F
H
J
D
C
G
I
K
• Flooding may deliver packets to too many nodes
(in the worst case, all nodes reachable from sender
may receive the packet)
Z
Y
M
N
L

24. FLOODING FOR DATA DELIVERY:
DISADVANTAGES
 Potentially, very high overhead
 Data packets may be delivered to too many nodes who do not
need to receive them
 Potentially lower reliability of data delivery
 Flooding uses broadcasting -- hard to implement reliable
broadcast delivery without significantly increasing overhead
 Broadcasting in IEEE 802.11 MAC is unreliable
 In our example, nodes J and K may transmit to node D
simultaneously, resulting in loss of the packet
 in this case, destination would not receive the packet at all

25. AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL
 AODV = Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector
 Source floods route request in the network.
 Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route
request.
 Each node forwards the request only once (pure
flooding).
A
S E
F
B
C
G D

26. AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
 Source floods route request in the network.
 Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).

27. AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
A
S E
F
B
C
G D
 Uses hop-by-hop routing.
 Each node forwards the request only once (pure flooding).
 Reverse paths are formed when a node hears a route request.

28. AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
Route reply forwarded via the reverse path.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D

29. AODV ROUTE DISCOVERY
Route reply is forwarded via the reverse path …
thus forming the forward path.
The forward path is used to route data packets.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D

30. ROUTE EXPIRY
Unused paths expire based on a timer.
A
S E
F
B
C
G D

31. AODV – OPTIMIZATION
Useful optimization: An intermediate node with a
route to D can reply to route request.
 Faster operation.
 Quenches route request flood.
Above optimization can cause loops in presence of
link failures

32. AODV
At most one route per destination maintained at
each node
 After link break, all routes using the failed link are erased.
Expiration based on timeouts.
Use of sequence numbers to prevent loops.
Optimizations
 Routing tables instead of storing full routes.
 Control flooding (incrementally increase ‘region’)

33. MINI-PROJECT

34. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANET ROUTING
PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORKS
USING G-SENSE
 Simulation Model
 The network simulations have been carried out using G-Sense
Simulator and its associated tools for animation and analysis of
results.
 This simulator was originally designed for wired networks and has
been subsequently extended to support simulations in mobile
wireless (and MANET) settings.

35. GRAPHICAL INTERFACE FOR SENSE
SIMULATOR ( G-SENSE)

36. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Simulation Parameters Values
Simulator G-Sense Simulator
Protocols Simple Flooding, AODV
Layer Network Layer
Stop Time (seconds) 10, 20, 30
Number of Nodes 5, 15, 25
Terrain Size (meters) 1500m, 2000m, 3000m
Number of Source nodes 20, 30, 40
Packet Size (KB) 10, 30, 50
Interval (seconds) 2, 3, 4

37. SIMULATION RESULTS
 Simple Flooding Graphic at 5 nodes

38. SIMULATION RESULT
 AODV Graphic at 5 nodes

39. SIMULATION RESULT
 In this project, we have attempted to compare Simple Flooding
and Ad-Hoc on demand Distance Vector Protocol.
 For all the simulations, the same movement models were used,
the number of nodes was fixed at 5, 15 and 25, the stop time was
varied as 10, 20 and 30s.
 As shown in figures 1 and 2, we observe that, regardless of
network size or mobility rate, AODV performed better than
Simple Flooding in delivering over 90% of data packets.
 Same figures show a uniform distribution of Average end-to-end
Delay in Simple Flooding and AODV in which AODV performed
well than Simple Flooding.
 Throughput for AODV was slightly higher as compared to Simple
Flooding.
 Network size and network load have lead to increasing the
throughput for the two protocols.

40. PRESENT CONCLUSION
 In this project, AODV and Flooding routing protocols using
different parameter metrics have been simulated and
analyzed
 Simulation results show that performance parameters of the
routing protocols may vary depending on network load,
mobility and network size.
 Under G-Sense Model, AODV experience the highest Packet
Delivery Fraction and Throughput with the increase of nodes
stop time, and mobile nodes number.
 AODV and Simple Flooding performance is due to their on
demand characteristics to determine the freshness of the
route. And it is proved also that AODV has a slightly higher
Average end-to-end Delay than Simple Flooding.

41. NOTE:-
 Further in the project we will study the comparison between other
MANET protocols like DSR, DSDV and AODV in different software
and analyse them and would conclude in our study.

42. REFERENCES
 Performance Comparison Of MANET Routing Protocols In Different Network
Sizes Computer Science Project David Oliver Jörg Institute of Computer Science
and Applied Mathematics Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (RVS)
University of Berne, Switzerland 2003 head: Prof. Dr. Torsten Braun assisted
by:Marc Heissenbüttel.
 Simulation Analysis of Routing Protocols using Manhattan Grid Mobility Model
in MANET Youssef Saadi1, Said El Kafhali1, 2, Abdelkrim Haqiq1, 2, Bouchaib
Nassereddine , Computer Networks, Mobility and Modeling laboratory
Department of Mathematics and Computer FST, Hassan 1st University, Settat,
Morocco 2 e-NGN Research group, Africa and Middle East.
 Efficient Flooding in Ad hoc Networks: a Comparative Performance Study
Yunjung Yi and Mario Gerla, Computer Science Department, University of
California, Los Angeles, CA 90095
 Wireless Ad-hoc Networks, Lu Han, October 8, 2004
 Exploring Mesh- and Tree Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs.
Kumar Viswanath, Katia Obraczka and Gene Tsudik, University of California,
Santa Cruz, Computer Engineering Department. kumarv,katia@cse.ucsc.edu,
gts@ics.uci.edu

43. REFERENCES
 Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems, By C.-K. Toh
- Ph.D
 Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks, Subir Kumar Sarkar, T G Basavaraju,
C Puttamadappa
 AD HOC NETWORKS Technologies and Protocols. Edited by PRASANT
MOHAPATRA, University of California‚ Davis. SRIKANTH V.
KRISHNAMURTHY, University of California‚ Riverside
 Enhancing the Performance of Ad Hoc Wireless Networks with Smart
Antennas Somprakash Bandyopadhyay, Siuli Roy, Tetsuro Ueda.
 Mobile ad hoc networking: imperatives and challenges. Imrich
Chlamtac a, Marco Conti b, Jennifer J.-N. Liu. School of Engineering,
University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. Istituto IIT, Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy, Department of Computer Science,
University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA.