International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Systems (IJEECS)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Estimate the Routing Protocols for Internet of Things
1Manjushree G, 2Jayanthi M.G
1,2Dept. of Computer Network and Engineering Cambridge Institute of Technology Bangalore, India
Abstract—Internet of Things (IoT) has been a forerunner in the new technologies of today. The use of intelligent interfaces of things which have a distinct identity and also a virtual personality to establish a connection and to communicate with the available social environment and user contexts is on the rise. Initially, this paper went through the available and preexisting routing protocols like AODV, DSR and OLSR. These routing protocols are mainly used extensively in Ad Hoc networks, so that their performance in the IoT context can be extracted and utilized to find an appropriate routing mechanism to be used for IoT in future endeavors. Thus, to find a routing protocol which suits the IoT scheme the routing overhead, average end to end delay and throughput were put to comparison. The result obtained through simulation has shown that the performance of DSR mechanism is much ahead routing overhead terms. And it also shows through simulation that better performs in throughput terms can be achieved by the AODV mechanism.
Keywords- Internet of Things; Routing mechanism;
AODV;DSR;OLSR;RREQ;RREP
I. INTRODUCTION
Since some years in a short span, the (IoT) has emerged as the most happening topic in the wireless communication field. Enabling of new forms of communication has been a distinct feature of (IoT). Here, communication refers to the connection established between people and things and between things themselves. This has been possible by embedding of mobile transceivers with a short range into a wider array of everyday items and extra gadgets.
The sensor module, the processor module, the wireless communication module and the power module are the different nodes which the IoT is composed of. Equal status and the absence of central control node in the network are the characteristics of the nodes. Adaptation of nodes to dynamic location change and taking shortest time to find the network routing are the two important requirements in the network. As of now for IoT routing protocol a unified standard has not been defined. So a great significance can be attributed to the finding of a novel routing protocol for the IoT.
The existing routing protocols are been used in Ad Hoc wireless networks. These wireless Ad Hoc networks
consist of a collection of mobile notes which are arbitrary and dynamic in nature and exhibit independence from fixed infrastructure. The movement of each node is independent and can choose any direction because in the mobile networks each of the nodes can perform the task of a host and a router and there is equal participation in the network [5]. For effective communication with other nodes different varieties of routing protocols have been used and tested. After the consideration of the node mobility, bandwidth, energy and physical security as effective routing protocol has been arrived at [1][6].
AODV [7] is a routing protocol which is source-initiated and on-demand, roots are created on demand basis so that the number of required broadcast is reduced. Thus, it had a reputation of being a pure on-demand route acquisition system when established. In order for the nodes to establish routing information or for these to participate in exchange of the routing table, the nodes have to been on a selected path [8].
Another example of a source-initiated and on-demand routing protocol is the DSR. It has been elaborated in [4]
and [2].The example of a table-driven routing protocol is described in [3] the OLSR. The main idea behind this routing protocol is the use of link state algorithm with a regular exchange of messages it address to the network topology information.
Thus, comparison between IoT and Ad Hoc network yields greater simulations in:
a) Topographical distribution b) Node characteristics.
Thus the feasibility for the application for routing protocols of Ad Hoc networking in the future for IoT applications can be established. Hence, in an IoT environment there is an opportunity to use the performance of the existing Ad Hoc routing protocols to our advantage and this is of great significance.
II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In this paper, a thorough study of the routing mechanism of the existing protocols like AODV, DSR, and OLSR
has been accomplished, and a comparison of their performance in a prescribed IoT environment has been done.
The following is the mechanism of existing routing protocols:
A. Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing
A route request message (RREQ) is broadcasted by the source node to its neighbors. It does this when it wants to transmit a message to some destination nodes. The neighbors in turn broadcast the message to their respective neighbors. When the above process takes place simultaneously the nodes with the help of the routing tables record the source node from which the first copy of request was sent. Construction of the reverse path for the route reply message is done using the routing table. The RREQ reaches the destination and the route reply message (RREP) is uncast by the destination node.
The neighbor from which destination node received the RREQ is sent to the RREP. When RREP traverses back to the source, the nodes which are along the path gate interrupted into the forward route tables which in turn point to the node from which RREP was sent.
B. Dynamic Source Routing
DSR is another example for an On-demand routing protocol.
It consists of 2 major components within it:
i) Route discovery ii) Route maintenance
Route discovery: On the decision by a source node to send a message to the distribution nodes, a route cache is first located by it in order to determine an existing route to the destination.
If it deems route valid, this route is used to send the message. If it is found to be an invalid one or if the valid route doesn’t exist, a route discovery process is initiated through a broadcast of a route request message. If at the data link layer the node comes across a total transmission problem it generates a route error message. When the route error message is received by the node, hop in error from its route cache is removed by it. Thus transaction of all the hop is error containing routes at that point too occurs. To verify the correct operation of the route links acknowledgement packets are always used.
C. Optimized link state routing protocol:
The exchange of information between each node has to happen in OLSR. This has to happen periodically.
Multi-Point Relay [MRP] nodes are elected from the lot, these MPR in turn are used as routing node and the participation of MPR selector in routing computation is restricted.
Broadcasting of control information is done by OLSR using the MPR nodes and thus MPR selector is relieved from forwarding control information.
Two types of messages exist in the OLSR:
Hello message and topology control message (TC).
Node address and lists of three neighbor nodes are contained in the Hello message.
A set of bidirectional links between a node and a subset of its neighbor nodes are contained in the TC message.
III. PERFORMANCE METRIX
A. Routing overhead
It is the average number of route packets which every data present is to allow as needed.
It is therefore a reflection of the degree of network congestion and node power efficiency.
Expression of Routing Overhead is as follows:
N1/N2 (1)
where N1 represents route packet members which are sent and forwarded, N2 is number of data packet received. Units used for the measurement of routing overhead are bits per second (bit/s or bytes).
B. Average End to End Delay
It is sum of all delays during transmission.
It can be caused by numerous possible delays like:
Buffering during route discovery latency.
Queuing at the interface queue.
Retransmission delays at the MAC.
Propagation and transfer time.
The significance of this metric can be brought into view while understanding the delay introduced by path discovery Expression for Average End to End Delay is:
Σ (T – T) / N (2)
Where T1 is the time when first data packet arrives to the destination T2 is the time when the first packet is transmitted by source and N is the number of packets sent.
C. Throughput
It is the measure of the percentage of packets received by the destination from the total packets sent by the source.
M1×100% (3) M2
Where M1 is the packets received by the destination and M2 is the packets sent by the source. The units used to measurement of throughput are bits per second (bps or bit/sec).
IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
The method or system of the routing protocols defined earlier is used. Using IoT scenarios and environment their performance is to put to simulation. The space dimension used is 1000m*1000m. Random waypoint type mobility model is taken. There are two comparable scenarios at this point. In the first scenario, the placed nodes are variable in number. The comparisons of the performances with AODV, DSR and OLSR have been made respectively. In the second scenario, not all the nodes but a certain percentage of the nodes do vary and there is no change in the total number of nodes. Thus to gather fairer results identical mobility pattern is shared by all the nodes.
In both the cases that are scenarios, the fixed nodes are entitled to communicate with all the nodes in a certain area framework and also there is a limit on numbers.
27 independent trials are performed while running the simulation. During simulation the number of nodes and percentage of mobile nodes is to set. Here the number of nodes was set at 10, 20, 30 and 40 while the percentage of mobile nodes is set at 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%
respectively.
The routing overhead, average end to end delay and throughput for the above simulation has been given in Fig1 and Fig6.
Figure 1. Routing overhead with respect to variable number of nodes
Fig. 1 shows the increase in all the protocols overhead with increase in number of nodes. With the comparison of the routing overheads of DSR, OLSR and AODV, it is clear that AODV has the highest routing overhead.
Figure 2. Routing overhead with respect to variable percentage of mobile node
Fig. 2 shows the constant nature of routing overhead when the percentage of mobile nodes is increased. It is also clear that DSR and AODV have the lowest and highest routing overhead respectively. The result also implies that in the future application of IoT in case energy-saving strategy is to be used as a key point; hence the DSR mechanism has to be adopted in this view.
Figure 3. Delay with respect to variable number of nodes
Figure 4. Delay with respect to variable percentage of nodes
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4: Fig3 gives the average and end to end delay concerning with the number of nodes and Fig4 gives the percentage of mobile nodes.
From fig3 it can be drawn to the conclusion that the increase in number of mobile nodes leads to the increase in the delay of AODV and DSR protocols. The average end to end delay is the highest in case of AODV and lowest for OLSR. It also showcases the insensitivity of average end to end delay to the mobile nodes percentage.
Arriving at a result through comparison we can perceive that in the future application of IoT if rapid communication is the main purpose then the best choice should be the mechanism of OLSR protocol.
Figure 5. Throughput with respect to variable number of nodes
Fig. 5: Puts into perspective the throughput with respect to number of nodes. The results thus obtained makes it clear that the throughput achieved for DSR is lowest in comparison to the other two routing protocols. In case of AODV, when the number of nodes exceeds 20 there is a spike in the throughput and tends to be much greater than that of DSR and OLSR.
Figure 6. Throughput with respect to variable percentage of mobile nodes
Fig. 6: It makes clear that the performance of AODV is better in network throughput terms and also as the percentage of mobile nodes is changed. By observing the result it implies that in future IoT applications if priority is imported to communication quality, then the adoption of AODV mechanism is suggested for further improvement.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The purpose of conduction of the paper was to study, learn, research and compose the mechanism of already existing protocols of MANET. This was done keeping in view the possible IoT applications and thus any appropriate protocol scheme which could be used in an advantageous way for IoT was searched for and tested.
Comparison of these routing protocols was based on three important parameters viz. routing overhead, average end to end delay and throughput. These parameters were subject to changes in number of nodes and the percentage of mobile nodes. Impact on the routing protocol performance in the effect of variable speed and location information will be the main course of evolution in future projects. Thus, on the basis of the available comparison of results of existing protocol mechanisms we shall throw light on a novel protocol which stands suitable and acceptable for IoT standards.
We shall also implement it and therefore improve the performance of the network.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The major contributes to this effort are: Mrs. Jayanthi M.G (Associate Professor, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, CITECH).
REFERENCES
[1] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks”, Mobile Computing, Eds., Kluwer, vol. 353, pp.
[2] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc On- Demand Distance Vector Routing”, Proc. 2nd IEEE Wksp. Mobile Comp. Sys. And Apps, pp.
90-100, 1999.
[3] Royer, E.M. Chai-Keong Toh, “A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless network”, IEEE Personal Communications, vol.6, pp. 46-55, 1999.
[4] Y. C. Hu, D. B. Johnson, “Cashing strategies in on-demand routing protocols for wireless ad hoc networks”, Processing of the Sixth Annul IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking(MobiCom’00), pp.231-242, 2000.
[5] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler,T. Clausen, A.
Laouiti, A. Qayyum and L. Viennot, “Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks”,
Multi Topic Conference, IEEE INMIC 2001.
Technology for the 21st Century. Pp. 62-68, 2001.
[6] S. Kumari, P. Boora and R. Singh, “Ad Hoc network routing protocols: an overview”, International Journal of Technology and Applied Science, vol. 1, pp. 19-23, 2010.
[7] H. Li and A. Dhawan, “MOSAR: A Secure On- demand Routing Protocol for Mobile Multilevel Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Network Security, vol. 10, pp.121-134, 2010.
[8] R. Ahuja, “Simulation based Performance Evaluation and Comparison of Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols based on Random Waypoint Mobility Model,”
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 7, pp. 20-24, 2010.
