1. MANET: Performance Reference: “Performance comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks”; Perkins, C.E.; Royer, E.M.; Das, S.R.; Marina, M.K.; IEEE Personal Communications, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, Feb. 2001; Page(s): 16 –28 (AdHocUnicast-4.pdf)

2. 2 DSR Using source routing –The sender knows the complete hop-by-hop route to the destination –These routes are stored in a route cache –The data packets carry the source route in the packet header Sending a data packet –0. To a destination for which it does not already know the route –1. Route discovery  Flooding the network with route request (RREQ) packets

3. 3 DSR (cont)  Each node receiving an RREQ rebroadcasts it, unless it is the destination or it has a route to the destination in its route cache  Such a node replies to the RREQ with a route reply (RREP) packet that is routed back to the original source  RREQ and RREP packets are also source routed  The RREQ builds up the path traversed across the network  The RREP routes itself back to the source by traversing this path backward  The route carried back by the RREP packet is cached at the source for future use

4. 4 DSR (cont) –2. If any link on a source route is broken  The source node is notified using a route error (RERR) packet  The source removes any route using this link from its cache  A new route discovery process must be initiated by the source if this route is still needed –3. For any forwarding node  Caches the source route in a packet it forwards for possible future use (aggressive use of source routing)

5. 5 DSR (cont) Optimizations –1. Salvaging  An intermediate node can use an alternate route from it own cache when a data packet meets a failed link –2. Gratuitous route repair  A source node receiving an RERR packet piggybacks the RERR in the following RREQ  This helps clean up the caches of other nodes in the network that may have the failed link in one of the cached source routes

6. 6 DSR (cont) –3. Promiscuous listening  When a node overhears a packet not addressed to itself, it checks whether the packet could be routed via itself to gain a shorter route  If so, the node sends a gratuitous RREP to the source of the route with this new better route  It also helps a node to learn different routes without directly participating in the routing process

7. 7 AODV To maintain routing information –Uses traditional routing tables, one entry per destination –Uses sequence numbers maintained at each destination to determine freshness of routing information and to prevent routing loops –A routing table entry is expired if not used recently –A set of predecessor nodes is maintained for each routing table entry  Indicating the set of neighboring nodes which use that entry to route data packets  These nodes are notified with RERR packets when the next hop link breaks  Each predecessor node, in turn, forwards the RERR to its own set of predecessors, thus effectively erasing all routes using the broken link

8. 8 AODV (cont) Optimization –Control the RREQ flood in the route discovery –Initially, expanding ring search to discover routes to an unknown destination –Increasingly larger neighborhoods are searched to find the destination –The search is controlled by the TTL field in the IP header of the RREQ packets

9. 9 DSR vs. AODV 1. By the virtue of source routing –DSR has access to a significantly greater amount of routing information than AODV  For example, in DSR, using a single request-reply cycle, the source can learn routes to each intermediate node on the route in addition to the intended destination  Promiscuous listening of data packet transmissions –AODV can gather only a very limited amount of routing information  This usually causes AODV to rely on a route discovery flood more often, which may carry significant network overhead

10. 10 DSR vs. AODV (cont) 2. Route caching –DSR replies to all requests reaching a destination from a single request cycle  The source learns many alternate routes to the destination  saves route discovery floods –In AODV, the destination replies only once to the request arriving first and ignores the rest  The routing table maintains at most one entry per destination

11. 11 DSR vs. AODV (cont) 3. Stale routes in the cache –Current spec. of DSR does not contain any explicit mechanism to expire stale routes  Stale routes, if used, may start polluting other cache  Some stale entries are indeed deleted by route error packets, but promiscuous listening and node mobility  more caches are polluted by stale entries –AODV has a much more conservative approach than DSR  When faced with two choices for routes, the fresher route (based on destination sequence number) is always chosen  Also, if a routing table entry is not used recently, the entry is expired  Determination of a suitable expiry time is difficult

12. 12 DSR vs. AODV (cont) 4. Route deletion (using RERR) activity –Is also conservative in AODV  By way of a predecessor list, the error packets reach all nodes using a failed link on its route to any destination –In DSR, a route error simple backtracks the data packet that meets a failed link  Nodes that are not on the upstream route of this data packet but use the failed link are not notified promptly

13. 13 DSR vs. AODV (cont) Goal of the simulation –Determine the relative merits of the aggressive use of source routing and caching in DSR, and the more conservative routing table and sequence-number-driven approach in AODV

14. 14 Simulation Model Based on NS-2 MAC layer protocol –DCF of IEEE 802.11 –RTS+CTS for unicast data –“Broadcast” data packets and RTS control packets are sent using physical carrier sensing Radio model –Luccent: WaveLAN (2Mbps) –250m radio range

15. 15 Simulation Model (cont) AODV and DSR –RREQ packets are treated as broadcast packets in the MAC –RREP and data packets are all unicast packets with a specified neighbor as the MAC destination –RERR packets  Are broadcast in AODV  Use unicast transmissions in DSR –Send buffer: 64 packets  Contains all data packets waiting for a route, but no reply has arrived yet  Packets are dropped if they wait in the send buffer for more than 30s

16. 16 Simulation Model (cont) –Interface queue  All packets (data and routing) sent by the routing layer are queued at the interface queue until the MAC layer can transmit them  Maximum size of 50 packets  Two priorities: routing packets get higher priority than data packets Traffic models –Traffic sources: CBR –Random source-destination pair –512-byte data packets

17. 17 Simulation Model (cont) Mobility model –Random waypoint model  From a random location to a random destination with a randomly chosen speed (uniformly distributed between 0 ~ 20 m/s)  Once the destination is reached, another random destination is targeted after a pause  Pause time affects the relative speeds of the mobiles –Two field configurations  1500m x 300m with 50 nodes  2200m x 600m with 100 nodes

18. 18 Performance Metrics Packet delivery fraction –The ratio of the data packets delivered to the destination to those generated by the CBR sources Average end-to-end delay of data packets –Includes all possible delays caused by  Buffering during route discovery latency  Queuing at the interface queue  Retransmission delays at the MAC  Propagation and transfer times

19. 19 Performance Metrics (cont) Normalized routing load –The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination –Each hop-wise transmission of a routing packet is counted as one transmission Normalized MAC load –Routing, ARP, control (RTS, CTS, ACK) packets transmitted by the MAC layer for each delivered data packet –Consider both routing overhead and MAC control overhead –Also accounts for transmissions at every hop

20. 20 Varying Mobility and # of Sources 50 node experiments –Packet rate for 10, 20, 30 traffic sources: 4 packets/s –Packet rate for 40 traffic sources: 3 packets/s 100 node experiments –Packet rate for 10, 20 sources: 4 packets/s –Packet rate for 40 sources: 2 packets/s

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23 Simulation results (50 nodes) For 50 node experiments –1. The packet delivery fractions for DSR and AODV are very similar with 10 & 20 sources (Fig. 1a & 1b) With 30 & 40 sources, AODV outperforms DSR by about 15% (Fig. 1c, 1d) at lower pause time (higher mobility) For higher pause times (lower mobility), DSR has a better delivery fraction than AODV –2. Delays performance of both protocol is similar to that with delivery fraction Almost identical delays with 10 & 20 sources (Fig. 2a, 2b) With 30 & 40 sources, AODV has about 25% lower delay than DSR (Fig. 2c, 2d) for lower pause times. But for higher pause times, DSR has better (30% ~ 40% lower) delay than AODV

24. 24

25. 25

26. 26 Simulation results (50 nodes) For 50 node experiments –3. In all cases, DSR demonstrates significantly lower routing load than AODV (Fig. 3), usually by a factor 2-3, with the factor increasing with a growing number of sources DSR’s normalized routing load is fairly stable with an increasing number of sources, even though its delivery and delay performance get increasingly worse –4. AODV has similar or slightly lower MAC load than DSR (Fig. 4) for lower pause times As the pause time is increased, the MAC load comparison goes against AODV With increase in pause time, MAC load remains almost steady for AODV, while it decreases significantly for DSR

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31 Simulation results (100 nodes) For 100 node experiments –1. When the number of sources is low, the performance (delivery fraction & delay) of DSR and AODV is similar regardless of mobility –2. With large numbers of sources, DSR delivers better performance under low-mobility conditions However, AODV starts outperforming DSR for high- mobility scenarios –3. DSR always demonstrates a lower routing load than AODV  Major contribution to AODV’s routing overhead is from route request, while route replies constitute a large fraction of DSR’s routing overhead

32. 32 Simulation results (100 nodes)  AODV has more route requests than DSR, and the converse is true for route replies  The relative routing load differences will be much smaller if the comparison is made in terms of bytes, reasons: 1. DSR uses large routing packets 2. DSR data packets carry routing information –4. Comparison of MAC load goes against DSR except under low-mobility conditions  Note that MAC load computation takes into account both the routing and control packets at the MAC layer.  When only control packets were considered, we have seen that AODV always has lower load than DSR

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35 Simulation results (effect of loading) Mobility: Zero pause time (highest mobility) –Y-axis (throughput) : represents the combined received throughput at the destination of the data sources –X-axis (offered load): c ombined sending rate of all data sources With 10 sources –1. DSR’s throughput starts saturating only at an offered load of around 400 kbps (Fig. 7a)  This is due to a poor packet delivery fraction –2. AODV’s throughput increases further along, starting to saturate around 700 kbps

36. 36 Simulation results (effect of loading) –3. AODV always has lower average delay than DSR (Fig. 7c) until the point where DSR begins to saturate  Comparison of delays beyond that point does not provide any useful insight since DSR loses more than half the packets –4. AODV generates higher routing load in kbps than DSR (Fig. 7a)  The routing load comparison in packets after normalization (Fig. 8a) also show similar behavior –5. However, AODV has lower MAC load than DSR (Fig. 8c)

37. 37 Simulation results (effect of loading) With 40 sources (Fig. 7b & 7d) –The qualitative scenario is similar to 10 sources, but the quantitative picture is very different  Both AODV and DSR saturate much earlier, AODV: 300 kbps, DSR: 200 kbps  AODV has a better delay characteristic than DSR  AODV has a higher normalized routing load and lower normalized MAC load than DSR

38. 38 Observations A. Routing load and MAC overhead –1. DSR almost always has a lower routing load than AODV  The difference is often significant (by a factor of up to 3) if the routing load is presented in terms of packet counts  Presenting routing loads in terms of bytes is less impressive (at most about a factor of 2)  By virtue of aggressive caching, DSR is more likely to find a route in the cache, and hence resorts to route discovery less frequently than AODV  But DSR generates more replies and errors

39. 39 Observations (cont)  AODV’s routing load was dominated by RREQ packets (90% of all routing packets)  DSR’s routing load was dominated by RREP packets, due to multiple replies from the destination (roughly 50%)  In terms of absolute numbers, DSR always generated more RREP and RERR packets (factor 2~4) than AODV, but significantly fewer RREQ packets (up to an order of magnitude for high mobility) –2. Higher MAC load for DSR for high mobility and/or high traffic load  RREP is unicast in AODV & DSR: RTS/CTS/Data/Ack  RREQ is broadcast (not use any additional MAC control packets)  RERR: unicast in DSR, but broadcast in AODV

40. 40 Observations (cont) Further experiments for route & MAC load –Fig. 9 shows detailed statistics at the application layer, the routing layer, and the MAC layer –100 nodes –40 CBR sources, rate: 2 packets/sec –Packet size: 512 bytes

41. 41 unicast

42. 42 RTS CTS ACK Data R-unicast = = RTS CTS ACK Data R-broadcast

43. 43 Observations (cont) B. Effect of mobility –High mobility  Link failures happen very frequently  Trigger new route discovery in AODV  The reason of DSR is mild and causes route discovery less often (the route discovery is delayed in DSR until all cached routes fail  But the chances of the caches being stale is quite high in DSR. The cache staleness and high MAC overhead together result in significant degradation in performance for DSR. This effect is more severe with large numbers of sources and for larger networks

44. 44 Observations (cont) –Low mobility  The possibility of link failures is low  Nodes usually get clustered with low mobility  network congestion in certain regions  causes link layer feedback to report link failures  Such spurious link failures lead to new route discoveries in AODV  DSR is largely unaffected by this problem. DSR caches are nearly up to date for low-mobility cases  Also, AODV timer-based route expiry mechanism could result in unnecessary route invalidations –A combination of nodes with different mobility  Hard to predict the relative performance of AODV and DSR

45. 45 Observations (cont) C. Packet delivery and choice of routes –DSR: aggressive use of route caching  Comparatively poorly in delivery fraction and delay in more stressful situation (larger numbers of nodes, sources, and/or higher mobility)  Perform better in less stressful situations  Picking stale routes  consumption of additional network bandwidth, possible pollution of caches in other nodes –Significant improvement of DSR  Cache expiry using suitable timeouts  Wider propagation of routes errors

46. 46 Observations (cont) D. Delay and choice of routes –Correlation between the end-to-end delay and number of hops is usually small (correlation coefficient less than 0.1), except at very low load  Buffering and queuing delay, time to gain access to the radio medium in a single congested node are often large  In AODV, the destination replies only to the first arriving RREQ. This favors the least congested route instead of the shortest route  In DSR, the destination replies to all RREQs, making it difficult to determine the least congested route

47. 47 Observations (cont) –DSR always had a shorter average path length than AODV (15%~30% shorter), even though AODV often has less delay

48. 48 Observations (cont) E. Effect of loading of the network –Network capacity is poorly utilized by the combination of 802.11 MAC and on-demand routing  Instantaneous network capacity is roughly 7 times the nominal channel bandwidth (2Mbps) for zero pause scenario with 100 nodes  The delivered throughput to the application was at most about 2% ~ 3% of the network capacity  With more unicast routing packets, DSR suffers from this phenomenon more than AODV

49. 49 Conclusion General observation –Delay and throughput: DSR outperforms AODV in less “stressful” situations  Aggressive use of caching, and lack of any mechanism to expire stale routes or determine the freshness of routes AODV outperforms DSR in more stressful situations –Routing load: DSR generates less routing load than AODV –MAC layer load: DSR’s apparent savings on routing load did not translate to an expected reduction on real load on the network