MANET is basically an independent system of mobile nodes where no fixed infrastructure exists and network Connectivity keeps changing regularly in random way. In MANET, all mobile units in the field share information to each other without a central control unit. The Source node and destination node works as transmitter and receiver respectively. In this layout each nodes is completely free to move anywhere in the area of responsibility connected wirelessly in field space [1]. No Separate router is available because the function of all the nodes are to act as self-sustained router. All nodes are capable of finding the routes and maintain the path directory for data transmission from source to destination nodes. The network structure continuously changing with respect location and application by executing a particular model of node mobility. In well and highly developed areas, communication between nodes may get affected due to fading effect. To reduce this effect network manager uses some common techniques such as (i) Diversity reception (ii) Rake receiver (iii) Space time coding (iv) Forward error correction etc [2]. A basic systematic layout of MANET Scenario is shown in figure 1 below. In MANET, Routing protocols (RPs) are divided into two parts: one is unique path RPs and another is multiple path RPs. AODV, DSR and ZRP are under unique path RPs. AODV and DSR are Reactive RPs and ZRP is hybrid RP. Reactive RPs can also be denoted as on demand routing protocol. These Reactive RPs protocols basically work on two things: (i) Route discovery and (ii) Route maintenance. Whereas the process of route discovery gets executed when routes are required in the event of disruption of the link between source and destination and has resulted in link failure. This will lead to commencement of the route search process [3]. These are mainly (i)AODV (ii) Light Weight Mobile Routing (LMR), (iii) Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) (iv)Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) (v) DSR, etc. Hybrid RPs are combination of both proactive and reactive protocols. Few example of these are: (i) ZRP (ii) Zone-Based Hierarchical Link State (ZHLS) (iii)Distributed Spanning Trees based routing protocol (DST) (iv) Distributed Dynamic Routing (DDR) (v) Scalable Location Update routing protocol (SLU) etc. [4]. Each RPs have definite advantages and disadvantages. In the present research the focus has been on AODV, DSR and ZRP protocols for this present modelled MANET scenario. The goal of this present paper is to find out the performance of AODV, DSR and ZRP with multiple MMs such as RWM, RWPM, GM and FBM in term of Throughput and Delay for 10 and 20 nodes. Many places where the MANET have wide applications are comprises of Defence, Military, War zone, Farming, Medical Robotics automation etc. [5].
This paper is organized in the order such that the latest research works are given in Section II and the proposed work is explained in Section III. Section IV presents the results and discussion of the simulated work. The overall output of this scenario is summarized in Section V.
In [6] authors analysed the performance of AODV and ZRP RPs at different speed. The simulation results were calculated for End to End delay, Throughput, Queue length and Drop packets. Author used Qualnet Simulator for analysis. On the bases of simulation output, AODV performed better than ZRP.
In [7] the authors have compared the performance of AODV and AOMDV RPs for 40, 80, 120 nodes at maximum speed of 10m/s. The performance metrics evaluated parameters chosen are throughput (b/s) and average end to end delay (second). Authors found performance of AOMDV is good in all output parameter as compared to AODV RPs.
In [8] the authors compared AODV, AOMDV and DSDV. Based on the simulation result, authors analysed that AODV perform better in terms of the (i) throughput, (ii) RO. It has also been seem that while checking the packet delivery ratio and (iv) packet loss, AOMDV is more reliable. For Delay, DSDV is more credible than AODV and AOMDV.
In this paper [9] Authors Described three energy model such as Generic, Micaz and Micamotes for transmitting mode and receiving mode using AODV and Dynamic MANET on Demand (DYMO) RPs. On the basis of simulation outcome authors found that AODV RPs perform better in Micamotes energy model than other energy model. For throughput and AEED, AODV also performs well.
In [10] the authors evaluated AODV RPs for Throughput, jitter, AEED, Total packet received and Energy expenditure models. On the basis of Qualnet Simulation Outputs, It has been observed that jitter is high in Micaz model. In transmitting and receiving mode, Energy consumption of Micamotes is very less as compared to other energy models.
In [11]
In this proposed network model, simulation is done using NETSIM with Version 9.0. All the essential work parameters chosen are described in the table 1.
The performance evaluated of these protocols: AODV, DSR and ZRP with multiple MMs namely RWM, RWPM, GMP and FBM in term of throughput and delay. The performance is calculated for two different set of 10 and 20 nodes in area of 700*700 meter2. The application applied between source and destination is CBR type. The maximum speed of nodes is 15 m/s in this network scenario. In 10 and 20 nodes network scenario. First among the nodes will be acting as source and final node in the chain as destination node. All nodes are connected to each other by a wireless link. MANET scenario with 10 nodes is presented in figure. In this MANET scenario shown in Figure 4, while calculating the throughput verses mobility, it is observed that for DSR, Throughput are 0.583903, 0.583903, 0.583903 and 0.583903. For AODV, Throughput are 0.584584, 0.584487, 0.583903 and 0.583903. For ZRP, Throughput are 0.572612, 0.100837, 0.567745 and 0.0567648 for RWM, RWPM, GM and FBM respectively.
Throughput of the AODV and DSR with all mobility model is almost same. But for ZRP, throughput is less for all mobility model except for group mobility. From overall performance seen through result is that the AODV and DSR is more reliable than ZRP.
On the basis of simulation outcomes to measure the Delay verses mobility as shown in Figure 5, it has been found that for DSR, Delay are 12862.28476, 12862.3644, 12860.25648 and 12861.45009. For AODV, Delay are 16613.86295, 16232.52069, 16254.82639 and 16107.94337. For ZRP, Delay are 21593.59712, 93018.86365, 18061.32 and 17285.52525 for RWM, RWPM, GM and FBM respectively. In this new scenario shown in Figure 6, while calculating the throughput verses mobility, it is observed that for DSR, throughput are 0.583903 , 0.583903 , 0.583903 and 0.583903, for AODV, Throughput are 0.585071 , 0.58692 , 0.583903 and 0.592663. For ZRP, Throughput are 0.049543, 0.015379, 0.573585 and 0.056259 for RWM, RWPM, GM and FBM respectively. In 10 nodes, DSR, AODV and ZRP RPs are used to calculate the performance for these MMs. In the results, throughput is high and delay is low in DSR as compared to both AODV and ZRP RPs. Throughput of AODV is much closed to DSR but it is less. Therefore DSR is best in both throughput and Delay metrics with these MMs. In case of 20 nodes, we repeat same process and observed that throughput is high in AODV, DSR than ZRP RPs. For delay, DSR have low delay compared to other RPs. So DSR is also best for 20 nodes with these MMs. Therefore we can say that DSR performed well for these MMs with increase in number of nodes.
Delay Vs Mobility for 20 nodes
In this present research paper, the Comparison of the performance of AODV, DSR and ZRP routing protocols with multiple MMs namely RWM, RWPM, GM and FBM in terms of the throughput (mbps) and delay (microsecond) for a configuration of 10 and 20 nodes has been presented. These outcome of the performance metrics vary with all MMs. For ZRP, both throughput and delay are highly unstable with some MMs. But in the case of DSR and AODV, the results are stable. After deeply analysis of simulation results, we found that the performance of DSR is more reliable and efficient than both AODV and ZRP RPs with all types of mobility models.