Simulation Results and Discussion

The MAODV and the ODMRP protocols are implemented and compared with the pro-posed PCHMR and ORODMR algorithms in simulations respectively. The following four metrics are considered in the simulations for performance evaluation:

• Data Packet Delivery Ratio: The number of data packet delivered to multicast receivers over the number of data packet supposed to be delivered to multicast receivers.

• Average End-to-End Delay: The time difference between the time of a data packet transmitted and delivered.

• Control Packet Overhead: The number of control packets transmitted per data packet delivered.

• Control Packet Rate: The number of control packets transmitted over the number of control and data packets transmitted.

The changing factor is designed to be the shadowing deviations β to evaluate the performance under the environment with different signal variations. It is noted that the legend without β value indicates that β is equal to 2.

In the first part of this section, the performance comparison between two classic existing multicast routing protocols is shown in Figs. 5.1 to 5.4. The tree-based MAODV protocol shows a poor packet delivery performance than the mesh-based ODMRP protocol. In the tree structure, there is only one path between MNs. If a tree link breaks, the MAODV algorithm has to repair the link and produces more control packets. On the other hand, the ODMRP algorithm provides redundant routes with a mesh topology. The alternative paths allow data packets to be delivered even when the links fail. It is particularly noticed that the control packet overhead of the MAODV algorithm is around 20 times worse than that of the ODMRP algorithm under the high shadowing deviation (β = 4) assumption. The primary reason is that the MAODV protocol repairs the unconnected links in a timely manner even the success packet delivery is restricted by the network environment itself. On the other hand, the failed Join Request packets cause no other additional control packets in the ODMRP algorithm.

Figs. 5.5 to 5.8 illustrate the performance comparison among the MAODV, the ODMRP, the PCHMR and the ORODMR algorithms. As can be seen in Figs. 5.5 to 5.8, the mesh-based algorithms (i.e. the ORODMR and the ODMRP algorithms) obtain better performance than the tree-based algorithm (i.e. the MAODV algorithm); while the hybrid-based PCHMR

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.1: Performance Comparison: Packet Delivery Ratio vs Velocity for Different Shad-owing Deviation

Data Packt Delivery Latency (s)

MAODV ODMRP MAODV(4) ODMRP(4)

Figure 5.2: Performance Comparison: End-to-End Delay vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.3: Performance Comparison: Control Packet Overhead vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

Figure 5.4: Performance Comparison: Control Packet Ratio vs Velocity for Different Shad-owing Deviation

lies in between. As compared with the MAODV protocol under all mobility speeds, the proposed PCHMR scheme can increase the packet delivery ratio and also decrease the end-to-end delay, the control packet overhead, and the control packet rate. It is interesting to find that the hybrid-based PCHMR protocol consumes less control packets comparing with the tree-based MAODV scheme. The major reason is due to the excessive control packets required for repairing the broken linkages occurred from the MAODV scheme; while the PCHMR protocol utilizes comparably less control packets to maintain the mesh linkages, which offer additional reliable communication links between the MNs. With the adaptation of the power control mechanism in the PCHMR scheme, only those reliable links (that have signal powers larger than the power thresholds) are preserved; while the fragile communication links are consequently ignored.

It is noticed that the ORODMR algorithm achieves the same superior performance with the ODMRP algorithm for the packet delivery ratio and end-to-end latency, and obtain slightly decrease for the control packet overhead and the control rate in the meantime. It will be shown in the following results that the ORODMR protocol shows more distinct characteristic under a different simulation radio propagation environment

Figs. 5.9 to 5.12 illustrate the performance comparison between the tree-based MAODV and the hybrid-based PCHMR for different shadowing deviations β (i.e. 2, 2.2, and 2.5).

Different shadowing deviations β are altered to test the performance difference between the PCHMR and the MAODV algorithms. The bigger the shadowing deviation parameter is, the faster the signal strength decays. It is obvious that as β value grows, the delivery ratio drops and the other three metrics considered rise. When the β value is set too stringent (β = 2.5), the packet delivery ratio and the control packet rate of both algorithms are severely degraded and it makes no difference for using power consideration and hybrid structure. In most cases, the PCHMR scheme obtains better performance than the MAODV algorithm, especially when the environment is full of interference. The received signal power and the extra mesh links make proposed PCHMR scheme achieving better performance than the MAODV algorithm in worse network connectivity.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.5: Performance Comparison: Packet Delivery Ratio vs Velocity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Data Packt Delivery Latency (s)

MAODV ODMRP PCHMR ORODMR

Figure 5.6: Performance Comparison: End-to-End Delay vs Velocity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.7: Performance Comparison: Control Packet Overhead vs Velocity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.8: Performance Comparison: Control Packet Ratio vs Velocity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.9: Tree Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Packet Delivery Ratio vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

Data Packt Delivery Latency (s)

MAODV

Figure 5.10: Tree Related Protocol Performance Comparison: End-to-End Delay vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.11: Tree Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Control Packet Overhead vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5.12: Tree Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Control Packet Ratio vs Ve-locity for Different Shadowing Deviation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.6

0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

Mobility Speed (m/s)

Data Packet Delivery Ratio

ODMRP ORODMR ODMRP(2.5) ORODMR(2.5)

Figure 5.13: Mesh Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Packet Delivery Ratio vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

The performance comparisons between the mesh-based ORODMR and ODMRP algo-rithms are demonstrated in Figs. 5.13 to Figs. 5.16. The thought here is like the previous test for tree related algorithms. The proposed ORODMR protocol mainly focuses on reducing the control packet overhead. The performance under different signal propagation conditions is considered. As can be seen in Fig. 5.13 to 5.16, the ORODMR protocol keeps the high packet delivery ratio and lowered end-to-end delay. It also reduces the control packet overhead and control packet rate significantly. Even when the β equals 2.5, the delivery ratio and latency are only slightly influenced by the decreased usage of control packets that is implemented in the proposed ORODMR protocol.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Data Packt Delivery Latency (s)

ODMRP ORODMR ODMRP(2.5) ORODMR(2.5)

Figure 5.14: Mesh Related Protocol Performance Comparison: End-to-End Delay vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

Figure 5.15: Mesh Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Control Packet Overhead vs Velocity for Different Shadowing Deviation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.7

0.75 0.8 0.85

Mobility Speed (m/s)

Control Packet Rate

ODMRP ORODMR ODMRP(2.5) ORODMR(2.5)

Figure 5.16: Mesh Related Protocol Performance Comparison: Control Packet Ratio vs Ve-locity for Different Shadowing Deviation

Chapter 6

Conclusion

A Power-Controlled Hybrid Multicast Routing (PCHMR) protocol and a Overhead-Reduced On Demand Multicast Routing (ORODMR) protocol for the mobile ad hoc network are pre-sented in this thesis. The PCHMR algorithm combines the benefits of the tree-based and the mesh-based algorithms in order to fulfill the requirements within the dynamically changing networks, especially for group moving environment. The route determination scheme of the PCHMR algorithm considers both the hop counts within the route and the power strength between the MNs. The ORODMR protocol retains the excellent property of the ODMRP and reduces the control packets that are necessary for maintaining mobile node connectivity. The multicast receiver information are utilized to avoid redundant join reply transmission. The simulation results show that the proposed PCHMR protocol and the ORODMR algorithm outperform the existing tree-based and the mesh-based multicast routing protocols respec-tively, and the mesh-based multicast routing protocols achieve better performance than the tree-based multicast routing protocol under different signal variation environments.

Bibliography

[1] K. W. Chin, J. Judge, A. Williams and R. Kermode, ”Implementation experience with MANET routing protocols,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol.

32, Issue 5, Nov. 2002, pp. 49-59.

[2] Y. Wu, P. A. Chou, Qian Zhang, K. Jain, Wenwu Zhu, Sun-Yuan Kung, ”Network planning in wireless ad hoc networks: a cross-Layer approach,” Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal, Volume 23, Issue 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 136-150.

[3] S. Shakkottai, T. S. Rappaport, P. C. Karlsson, ”Cross-layer design for wireless networks,”

Communications Magazine, IEEE Volume 41, Issue 10, Oct 2003, pp. 74 - 80.

[4] Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) speci-fications

[5] Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) speci-fications: Higher-Speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band High-speed [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11

[7] Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) speci-fications: High-speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHZ Band

[8] Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) speci-fications Amendment 4: Further Higher Data Rate Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band [9] http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ns-documentation.html

[10] H. T. Friis. A note on a simple transmission formula. Proc. IRE, 34, 1946.

[11] T. S. Rappaport. Wireless communications, principles and practice. Prentice Hall, 1996.

[12] C. E. Perkins, and P. Bhagwat, ”Highly Dynamic Destination Sequence Distance Vec-tor (DSDV) Routing for Mobile Computers,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM ’94 Conference, August 1994, pp.234-244.

[13] S. Murthy and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, ”An Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Networks,” ACM Mobile Networks Appl. J., Special Issue on Routing in Mobile Commu-nication Networks, Oct. 1996, pp. 183-197.

[14] V. D. Park and M. S. Corson, ”A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks,” Proceedings of IEEE Infocom ’97, Apr. 1997, pp. 1405-1413.

[15] V. D. Park and M. S. Corson, ”Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) version 1: Furrctiod specification.” Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rnanet-tora-spec-00.txt, November 1997, Working in progress.

[16] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, and J. Broch, ”DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” Ad Hoc Networking, edited by C. E. Perkins, Addison-Wesley, 2001.

[17] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, ”Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing,” Proceed-ings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Feb.

1999, pp. 90-100.

[18] C.-K. Toh, ”A novel Distributed Routing Protocol to Support Ad-hoc Mobile Comput-ing”, Proceedings of 15th IEEE Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, March 1996, pp. 480-486.

[19] R. Dube, C. D. Rais, K.-Y. Wang, and S. K. Tripathi, ”Signal Stability Based Adaptive Routing (SSA) for Ad-hoc Mobile Networks,” IEEE Personal Communications, Feb. 1997, pp. 36-45.

[20] Z. J. Haas and M. R. Pearlman, ”The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing Protocol,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol.9, no.4, Aug. 2001, pp.427-438.

[21] S.E. Deering and D.R. Cheriton, ”Multicast Routing in Datagram Internetworks and Extended LANs,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 8, no. 2, May 1990, pp.

85-110.

[22] J. Moy, ”Multicast Routing Extensions for OSPF,” Communications of the ACM, vol.

37, no. 8, Aug. 1994, pp. 61-66.

[23] T. Ballardie, P. Francis, and J. Crowcroft, ”Core Based Trees (CBT) - An Architecture for Scalable Inter-Domain Multicast Routing,” In Proceedings of ACM SICCOMM93, Sail Francisco, CA, Oct. 1993, pp. 85-95.

[24] S. Deering, D.L. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, C.G. Liu, and L. Wei, ”The PIM Architecture for Wide-Area Multicast Routing,” IEEE/ACM Transactoins on Networking, vol. 4, no. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 153-162.

[25] E. M. Royer and C. E. Perkins, ”Multicast Operation of the Ad-Hoc On-Demand Dis-tance Vector Routing Protocol,” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Aug. 1999, pp. 207-218.

[26] C. W. Wu and Y. C. Tay, ”AMRIS: A Multicast Protocol for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,”

Proceedings of the IEEE Military Communications Conference, Vol. 1, Oct. -Nov. 1999, pp. 25-29.

[27] J. Xie, R. R. Talpade, A. Mcauley, and M. Liu, ”AMRoute: Ad Hoc Multicast Routing Protocol,” Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, Dec. 2002, pp. 429-439.

[28] S. K. S. Gupta and P. K. Srimani, ”An Adaptive Protocol for Reliable Multicast in Mobile Multi-Hop Radio Networks,” Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Feb. 1999, pp. 111-122.

[29] S. J. Lee, M. Gerla, and C. C. Chiang, ”On-Demand Multicast Routing Protocol,” the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, Vol. 3, Sept. 1999, pp. 1298-1302.

[30] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and E. L. Madruga, ”The Core-Assisted Mesh Protocol,” the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, Iss. 8, Aug. 1999, pp. 1380-1394.

[31] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bharghavan, ”MCEDAR: Multicast Core-Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing,” the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Con-ference, Vol. 3, Sept. 1999, pp. 1313-1317.

[32] P. Sinha, R. Sivakumar, and V. Bharghavan, ”CEDAR: a Core-Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing Algorithm,” the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, Iss. 8, Aug. 1999, pp. 1454-1465.

[33] L. Xiao, A. Patil, Y. Liu, L. M. Ni, A.-H. Esfahanian, ”Prioritized overlay Multicast in Mobile Ad Hoc Environments,” IEEE Computer, vol.37, no.2, February 2004, pp. 67-74.

[34] B. An, S. Papavassiliou, ”A Mobility-Based Hybrid Multicast Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Wireless Networks,” Military Communications Conference, 2001.

[35] J. Biswas, M. Barai, and S. K. Nandy, ”Efficient Hybrid Multicast Routing Protocol for Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks,” Proceedings of the 29^th Annual IEEE International Confer-ence on Local Computer Networks (LCN’04), 2004.

[36] C.-C. Chiang, M. Gerla and L. Zhang, ”Forwarding Group Multicast Protocol (FGMP) for Multihop, Mobile Wireless Networks,” Baltzer Cluster Computig, vol. 1, no. 2, 1998, pp. 187-196.

[37] T. Kunz, E. Cheng, ”On-demand multicasting in ad-hoc networks:comparing AODV and ODMRP,” Distributed Computing Systems, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference, 2-5 July 2002, Page(s):453 - 454.

[38] T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V. Davies, ”A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing: Special Issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, Vol. 2, No. 5, Dec. 2002, pp. 483-502.

[39] T. Rappaport, ”Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice,” Prentice Hall PTR, Dec. 2001.

[40] H. T. Friis, ”A Note on a Simple Transmission Formula,” Proceedings of the IRE, Vol.

41, May. 1946, pp. 254-256.

[41] J. Heidemann, N. Bulusu, J. Elson, C. Intanagonwiwak, K. Lan, Y. Xu, W. Ye, D. Estrin, and R. Govindan, ”Effects of Detail in Wireless Network Simulation,” Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed Simulation, Jan. 2001, pp. 3-11.