ICTACT Journal on Communication Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MESH-BASED MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOLS ON QOS PARAMETERS USING ENERGY MODEL


Affiliations
1 Mewar University, India
2 University of Delhi, India
 

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Energy is a critical resource for mobile devices as it determines the stability of a network and affects the packet delivery ratio (PDR) in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs). ODMRP and CAMP have been analyzed by only a few researchers earlier and most of the studies compare them using the Quality-of-Service parameters including throughput, PDR and latency, by varying the network size, number of senders and node speed. This paper adds a new dimension of energy utilization to the analysis by examining these two popular protocols using their energy efficiency and related parameters such as hop count and control overhead. The two protocols have been simulated and monitored here using NS3 tool which has not been used in previous researches for multicast routing protocols. The tool provides a scalable realistic environment with result analysis capability and it allows addition of modules for new protocol implementation. Secondly, the paper performs statistical comparison of the two protocols using nonparametric test for statistical confirmation of the simulation results. The outcomes of the analysis show CAMP to perform better in all dynamic scenarios for energy metric except in changing node speed. The results are derived after using an underlying demand based unicast routing protocol for CAMP implementation not used in earlier implementations. The analysis results of this research may be used by the network administrators to choose appropriate multicast routing mechanism where network stability cannot be compromised due to limited energy.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • C.S. Murthy and B.S. Manoj, “Ad Hoc Wireless Networks: Architectures and Protocols”, Prentice Hall, 2004.

  • M. Adler and C. Scheideler, “Efficient Communication Strategies for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”, Theory of Computing Systems, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 337-391, 2000.

  • S.J. Lee, M. Gerla and C.C. Chiang, “On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications and Networking, pp.1298-1302, 1999.

  • S.J. Lee, W. Su and M. Gerla, “On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol in Multihop Wireless Mobile Networks”, Mobile networks and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 441- 453, 2000.

  • J.J. Garcia Luna Aceves and E.L. Madruga, “The CoreAssisted Mesh Protocol”, IEEE Journal on selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1380-1394, 1999.

  • K.K. Das, B.S. Manoj and C.S. Ram Murthy, “A Dynamic Core based Multicast Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks”, Proceedings of ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Network and Computing, pp. 24-35, 2002.

  • S.J. Lee and C. Kim, “Neighbor Supporting Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol”, Proceedings of 1st Annual Workshop on Mobile and Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, pp. 37-44, 2000.

  • S. Y. Oh, J. S. Park and M. Gerla, “E-ODMRP: Enhanced ODMRP with Motion Adaptive Refresh”, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 68, No. 8, pp. 1044-1053, 2008.

  • D. Pathirana and M. Kwon, “RODMRP: Resilient On Demand Multicast Routing Protocol”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced In-formation Networking and Applications, pp. 85-92, 2007.

  • M. Lee and Y. K. Kim, “Patch ODMRP: An Ad-Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol’, Proceedings of International Conference on Information Networking, pp. 537-543, 2001.

  • P. M. Ruiz and A.F. Gómez-Skarmeta, “Reducing Data Overhead of Mesh-Based Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocols by Steiner Tree Meshes”, Proceedings of Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, pp. 54-62, 2004.

  • B. So, H. Jeon and J. Lee, “PEODMRP: Performance Enhanced On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol”, Proceedings of Joint Conference on Communications and Informations, pp. 1-12, 2004.

  • C.C. Chiang, M. Gerla and L. Zhang, “Forwarding Group Multicast Protocol (FGMP) for Multihop, Mobile Wireless Networks”, Cluster Computing, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 187-196, 1998.

  • S. J. Lee, W. Su and J. Hsu, “A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 565-574, 2000.

  • V. Kaushik and Shikha, “Reliable Multicasting in Ad-Hoc Networks-Simulated Analysis of Different Protocols and Open Challenges”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Information Management in the Knowledge Economy, pp. 80-85, 2013.

  • H. Moustafa and H. Labiod, “Multicast Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Telecommunication Systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 65-88, 2004.

  • G. Singal, V. Laxmi, M.S. Gaur and V. Rao, “Moralism: Mobility Prediction with Link Stability based Multicast Routing Protocol in MANETs”, Wireless Networks, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 663-679, 2017.

  • T. Omari, G. Franks and M. Woodside, “On the Effect of Traffic Model to the Performance Evaluation of Multicast Protocols in MANET”, Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp. 404-407, 2005.

  • K. Viswanath, K. Obraczka and G. Tsudik., “Exploring Mesh and Tree based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs”, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 28-42, 2005.

  • J. Macker and M.S. Corson, “Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group Charter”, Available at: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter, Accessed at 2007.

  • M. Umar, D. Babu, K.M. Balamurugan and P. Singh, “Automation of Energy Conservation for Nodes in Wireless Sensor Networks”, International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 1-12, 2020.

  • E. Hyytia, H. Koskinen and P. Lassila, “Random Waypoint Model in Wireless Networks”, Proceedings of International Conference on Networks and Algorithms: Complexity in Physics and Computer Science, pp. 1-13, 2005.

  • K. Mariyappan and M. Karnan, “Literature Survey on Existing Power Saving Routing Methods and Techniques for Increasing Network Life Time in MANET”, ICTACT Journal on Communication Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 1491-1502, 2017.

  • M.S. Corson and J. Macker, “RFC2501: Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations”, Available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2501, Accessed at 1999.

  • S.J. Lee, S. William, H. Julian, M. Gerla and R. Bagrodia, “A Performance Comparison Study of Ad Hoc Wireless Multicast Protocols”, Proceedings International Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 565-574, 2000.

  • R.C. Biradar and S.S. Manvi, “Review of Multicast Routing Mechanisms in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 221-239, 2012.


Abstract Views: 413

PDF Views: 160




  • COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MESH-BASED MULTICAST ROUTING PROTOCOLS ON QOS PARAMETERS USING ENERGY MODEL

Abstract Views: 413  |  PDF Views: 160

Authors

Ashema Hasti
Mewar University, India
U S Pandey
University of Delhi, India

Abstract


Energy is a critical resource for mobile devices as it determines the stability of a network and affects the packet delivery ratio (PDR) in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs). ODMRP and CAMP have been analyzed by only a few researchers earlier and most of the studies compare them using the Quality-of-Service parameters including throughput, PDR and latency, by varying the network size, number of senders and node speed. This paper adds a new dimension of energy utilization to the analysis by examining these two popular protocols using their energy efficiency and related parameters such as hop count and control overhead. The two protocols have been simulated and monitored here using NS3 tool which has not been used in previous researches for multicast routing protocols. The tool provides a scalable realistic environment with result analysis capability and it allows addition of modules for new protocol implementation. Secondly, the paper performs statistical comparison of the two protocols using nonparametric test for statistical confirmation of the simulation results. The outcomes of the analysis show CAMP to perform better in all dynamic scenarios for energy metric except in changing node speed. The results are derived after using an underlying demand based unicast routing protocol for CAMP implementation not used in earlier implementations. The analysis results of this research may be used by the network administrators to choose appropriate multicast routing mechanism where network stability cannot be compromised due to limited energy.

References