Evaluation of the Quality of Service Parameters for Routing Protocols in Ad-Hoc Networks

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

Evaluation of the Quality of Service
Parameters for Routing Protocols in Ad-Hoc
Networks

Zeyad Ghaleb Al-Mekhlafi 1 , Rosilah Hassan 2 , ZurinaMohd Hanapi 3
1 3 Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Ziadgh2003@hrtmaU.com;rosilah@ftsm.ukm.my;zurina@fektm.upm.edumy

Abstract

Recently, many researchers have focused on the Ad- Hoc networks
especially the routing protocols which include reactive and proactive
routing protocols. The ultimate goal of routing protocols is
forwarding data packet from the source to the destination.
Consequently, several proactive routing protocols, such as routing
information protocol (RIP), and reactive routing protocols, such as
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), are based on exploring,
maintenance, and recuperating the route path. The likely problem in
the Ad-Hoc networks is how to establish the best routing protocol
that assures the requirements of the application concerning about
some criteria. This work presents the evaluation of RIP and DSR
utilizing the QualNet simulation. Furfhermoie, the achievement of
these routing protocols was assessed based on the throughput,
average jitter, average end-to-end delay, and energy consumption
metrics. This paper demonstrates that the RIP has superior
evaluation performance as compared to DSR in two different
scenarios (effect of the number of nodes andeffectof packetsize).

Keywords

Fmding Pmtocols; Average Jitter, Average End-to-End Delay; Throughput;
Energy Consumptbn

Introduction

The new revolutions in wireless technology have led to
the emergence of a new wireless system which is called
Ad-Hoc Network. Ad- Hoc Network is a kind of wireless
system which allows direct communication with each
other. In Ad- Hoc network, each node plays a dual role; a
router and a host in the sense at the same time. The
process of sending and receiving data packages is
controlled by getting some information regarding the
surrounding network and dealing with algorithm. This
combination between these functions is known as a
routing protocol.

A number of studies have recently gained attention in
using the routing protocols, particularly, proactive routing

protocol and reactive routing protocol [1, 2]. Proactive
routing protocols are those protocols which carry out the
function of keeping track of routes for all the destinations
in the Ad-Hoc networks. They are supported to be
available in the form of tables. Furthermore, proactive
routing protocol periodically exchange routing
information in the whole network and maintains routes
between different nodes dynamically. They have low
latency and high overhead, and the routes are reliable.
These protocols cannot scale well with the increase in
network size. It is stated that one advantage of applying
such kinds of protocols is that they facilitate
communication to undergo minimal initial delay in the
application procedure. However, their disadvantage is
represented by the fact that they require additional
control traffic to constantly update the entries of the stale
route. On the other hand, reactive routing protocols
attempt to identify a path to the destination only when a
packet of data sent to the destination is received by the
network protocol. This is one advantage of such kind of
protocols as the degree of uncertainty in the node position
is found to be high. They have also proved to be more
suitable and more distinguished by their better
performance in Ad- Hoc networks. However, taking more
time to find a route and requiring more flooding which
results into clogging the network are among the
disadvantages of such protocols.

Therefore, the arrangement of forwarding data packet
from the source to destination is the ultimate aim by
utilizing routing protocols. The differences between these
protocols are due to the differences in the
searching, maintenance and recovering the route path.
The decision of choosing the best routing protocol should
take into account some considerations such as mobility of
nodes, packet size, cost of path, application type, number
of nodes, type of traffic, and Quality of Services (QoS).

272

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

On the whole, QoS shore up in wireless is an extremely
demanding issue because of their dynamic character [3, 4] .
Diverse techniques, as of physical layer capable of
application layer, have been wished-for to supply QoS
shore up in wireless Ad-Hoc networking surroundings
[5]. Recently, a cross-layer design move toward in QoS
conditioning in wireless networks has gained more
research interest [6, 7] .

Consequently, this paper focuses on the most important
factors, namely end-to-end delay, average jitter,
throughput and energy consumption. The end-to-end
delay is important for the Ad-Hoc networks due to the
fact that some of the real-time applications are very
sensitive to the delay which means that the data packet
sent from the source node should be delivered to the final
target node within a specific period of time without any
delay. Therefore, the routing protocol will be selected
based on the shortest path from the source node to the
destination node. The aver age jitter assesses the variability
over time of the packet latency across a network which
associated with the delay. The network with constant
delay has no jitter. Therefore, the routing protocol that
satisfies the constant delay without any variation during
the time will be more suitable to be selected for data
routing. Moreover, the significance of throughput come
from the needs to deliver the more messages to
destination nodes during a specific period of time which
means that the routing protocols should use some
mechanisms to avoid the congestion in some paths which
are more frequently used to prevent the packet drops
during the data routing. Hence, the reactive routing will
be getting a better chance as compared to the proactive
routing, to be chosen as it can find alternative paths to be
used rather than the congested one. Another mechanism
to increase the throughput of routing protocols, in order
to be chosen, is how to deal with the failures of the paths
during the data delivery; meaning that if the current path
used no more available either by the node failure or
moving from the current position, the routing which
deals with this issue will be more preferred by the user.
Beside these, energy consumption is an important factor
especially in mobile Ad-Hoc networks which has
restricted energy. Therefore, the routing protocol should
consider this factor by chosen the paths that consume
small energy to extend the lifetime of the node and give
the chance to the connectivity of the network to be longer.
Moreover, the nodes of paths which routed the data
packets will deplete their energy very fast and run-out
their batteries. Therefore, the routing protocol must look
for new paths to avoid using the same path repeatedly
and consuming much energy. Again, the reactive

protocols will be more preferred because of their on-
demand property.

Related Works

In [8], an Ad-Hoc routing protocol, namely Ad-Hoc On
demand Distance Vector (AODV) has been evaluated.
According to this model, the performance of AODV in
homogeneous Ad-Hoc was better than heterogeneous
one. A performance analysis of proactive and reactive
routing protocols for Ad-Hoc networks Dynamic
Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), AODV
and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) showed that the
performance of AODV was better in dense environment
except packet loss [9]. Moreover, it was found that both
DSR and AODV performed well, and they proved to be
better than DSDV. However, it is not clear which protocol
is the best for all scenarios, even though there are rapid
growth and development in the field of Ad-Hoc network.
A comparison of the parameters of routing protocols
between these previous studies is shown in table 1 .

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF THE PARAMETERS OF ROUTING
PROTOCOLS BETWEEN PREVDIB STUDIES

Parameter

(Tyagi&Chauhan
2010)

(fcrraa&Ha3san2010)

Numberof
nocks

10-200

57

Simulationtirre

12D0sec|20Min)

3000s

Simulationaiea

8DX1200m

500)600 mlOOOXlODm
H)OX1500m / 2000>GOOOm,
2500X2500m

Routing
protocols

DSDVACOV,D3R

ACDV

TransmBsbn

250 m

250m

range

PacletazE

512 bytes

100^3I),10050Qffl0700m900
and 1000 bytes

MACpotoool

80211

80211

Mob%ype

Randomway pint

Randomway pint

Typoftraffic

CBR

CBR

Pad-etratoe

54Mps

51Mps

Speed

(10400) ir/s

2Mps

Piogram
simulatbn

NB-2

CMNeT-H-

A comparative review study on reactive and proactive
routing protocols in MANETs provided information
about several routing schemes proposed for Ad-Hoc
networks [10]. These schemes were classified accordingto
the routing strategy (i.e., Proactive and Reactive). It is

273

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

shown that each protocol has definite advantages and
disadvantages and is well studied for certain situations.
Despite of the rapid growth in the field of Ad-Hoc
networks, many challenges still exist and need more
attention and consideration from researchers so that it is
possible for such networks tobe used more widely within
the next few years. Recently we have evaluated the
routing information protocol and dynamic source routing
[11]. According to this model, Routing Information
Protocol (RIP) was found to be better as compared to
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR).

Performance evaluation of AODV, DSDV, and DSR
Routing Protocol in Grid Environment was described in a
previous study [12] . According to this model, the AODV,
DSR, and DSDV perform very well when the mobility is
high. However, simulation results showed that the
traditional routing protocols like DSR have a dramatic
decrease in performance when the mobility is high. In [13],
the performance of routing protocols in mobile Ad- Hoc
network was compared for DSDV, AODV, and DSR and
showed that DSR outperforms AODV. The DSR has less
routing overhead when nodes have high mobility
considering the throughput, end-to-end delay and packet
delivery ratio metrics while DSDV produces low end-to-
end delay compared to AODV and DSR. In [14], the
evaluation four Ad-Hoc network protocols (AODV,
DSDV, DSR and TORA) in diverse network scales taking
into contemplation the mobility factor. Based on this
model, the throughput and energy consumption in tiny
size networks did not disclose any momentous
differences. On the other hand, for medium and huge Ad-
Hoc networks the TORA concert proved to be
incompetent in this research. Above all, the concert of
AODV, DSDV and DSR in tiny size networks was
equivalent. Other than in medium and large size
networks, the AODV and DSR formed good results and
the concert of AODV in terms of throughput is good in all
the scenarios that have been investigated.

Thus, our work in this present study is to use the more
widely used traditional mobility models and traffic
sources to create observations based on more
standardized methodology that can be used to evaluate
which protocol, proactive routing protocol (RIP) or
reactive routing protocol (DSR), is more stabile for Ad-
Hoc networks based on some criteria in QualNet
simulation.

Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols

The routing protocol resolves the path of a packet from
the source to the destination. To forward a packet, the

network protocol requires knowing the next node in the
path and the outgoing interface on which to send the
packet [15]. A routing protocol computes routing
information such as homogeneous and heterogeneous
networks [8, 16]. Overall, routing protocols can be
classified into two categories: proactive (table driven)
routing protocols and reactive (on-demand) routing
protocols. Popular proactive routing protocols are
(DSDV) [17], Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) [18, 19], and
RIP [20], whereas reactive routing protocols include DSR
[21] and AODV [22].

Routing Information Protocol

RIP is a routing protocol which is dynamic as OSPF, but it
is widely used in both local and wide area networks. It is
classified as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) which
makes a use of the distance-vector routing algorithm as
proposed in 1988 [23]. Since then, RIP Version 1 has been
extended and updated to RIP Version 2 in 1998 [20]. It is
indicated that both RIP versions are stillbeing used today,
but they have been technically supported by more
advanced techniques such as OSPF and Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) protocol; Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS). Moreover, RIP has been
updated to IPv6 network which is known as a standard
RIP next generation (RIPng).

One of the advantages of employing RIP is that it is
simple to understand and easy to configure as it is capable
of being supported by all routers, support load balancing,
and in general, it is free from loop. However, among the
disadvantages, RIP is not efficient, slow when it is used in
large networks due to its configuration, supports equal-
cost load balancing, its congestion raises a problem and its
scalability is limited since it is only measured as 15 hop
maximum.

Dynamic Source Routing

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is defined by Johnson and
Maltz [24] as a routing protocol which is still on demand
and in which the sender of data can determine exactly the
required sequence of nodes to propagate a packet. This
packet header includes a number of intermediate nodes
for routing. Each node works to maintain the route cache
which cashes the source route being learned. It is stated
that "Route Discovery" and "Route Maintenance" are the
two main components of DSR which work together to
determine and maintain routes to random destinations.
The purpose of designing such protocol is to make
restrictions to the large consumption of bandwidth
caused by control packets in Ad-Hoc wireless networks.
This process is done by deleting the messages of the

274

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

periodic updates required which usually appears in the
table- driven approach [25].

The possibility of establishing a route when necessary
makes the sender to be able to choose and control routes
by reducing the load of data and including routing which
is free from loop containing unidirectional links in
networks is all the main advantages of DSR. However,
DSR may lead to significant overheads because the source
route has to be included with each packet. It uses cashing
excessively and lacks mechanisms by which it can detect
the freshness of the routes which causes delay and
reduction; hence, the route mechanism for maintenance is
unable to repair a broken link locally. Therefore, this
makes the delay of the connection setup higher than that
found in table- driven protocols [26] .

Metrics for Evaluation

Corson and Macker showed that the evaluation metrics
are possible to be made a use of in evaluating the
quantitatively Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET)
routing protocols [27]. Such quantitative measurement is
useful as a prerequisite for assessing or evaluating the
performance of network or even to compare the
performance using different routing protocols.

Materials and Methods

Simulation Tools

The objective of this QualNet Version 5 simulation is to
evaluate the proactive routing protocol and reactive
routing protocol in Ad-Hoc networks in two scenarios. In
a previous study [11], the effect of the number of nodes
was evaluated. Beside this effect, the current study also
covered the effects of packet size. It has five experiences
with different number of nodes for scenario I (effects the
number of nodes), and seven experiences with different
packet size for scenario II (effects of packet size). The
evaluation metrics used are throughput, end-to-end delay,
aver age jitter, and energy consumption.

a. Average End-To-End Delay

This refers to the interval taking place between the data
packet generation time and the time of the arrival of the
last bit to the destination i.e. the average amount of time
taken by a packet to move from source to destination. The
process includes all possible delays which happen due to
buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at the
interface queue, retransmission delays at the Media
Access Control (MAC) and propagation and transfer
times [9] .

b. Average Jitter

Average Jitter is known as the time variation measured
between the arrival of the packets duetothe congestion of
the network, the drift in timing, or changing of the route
[2].

c. Throughput

Throughput is the number of delivered packet per unit of
time [28].

d. Energy Consumption

It is defined as the amount of energy consumed in
a process or system, or by an organization or society. It is
the summation of the idle mode, transmit mode, and
receive mode [29].

Simulation Environments

In this paper, the QualNet simulation was implemented;
802.11 MAC [30]. The parameters in the simulation such
as number of nodes, time of simulation, packet size, and
type of traffic were summarized in Table2.

TABLE 2 PARAMETERS SETUP

Parameter

Soenarbl

Scenarbl

Numberofnxfes

50,9dl30,lX!210

7

SirnulationTirre

12DQecpivIin)

aooos

Simulationaiea

800XL2OOm

503>600m

Routing ptofcoofe

RPandDSR

RPandDSR

TransmssbriPowr

25dBm

25dBm

TransnitPowr
Gbreumption

lOOmW

lOOmW

Recewe Power
Gbreumption

BOmW

DOmW

He PowerCbnsumption

120mW

120mW

Traremfesbnrange

270m

270m

TransmssbnPower

250

25D

BemSize

512tyte

1002D03»,«l50QfflO
and700Byfes

PHY

80211b

80211b

Typeoftraffic

CBR

CBR

DalaRae

11Mbps

llMps

Speed

(10100)n>fe

(t0400)nife

The number of nodes ranges from 50 to 210 nodes which
divided into 50, 90, 130, 170, and 210 and the packet size
range from 100 bytes to 700 bytes which divided into 100,
200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 bytes. Five reasons

275

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

experiences with different number of nodes and seven
reasons experiences with different packet size were
implemented in this work.

Evaluation of Results

Results are obtained after the experiments have been
conducted. The present paper aims to demonstrate the
evaluation performance of each routing protocol with
respect to the effects of the number of nodes and effects of
packet size. The evaluation metrics considered for average
jitter, end-to-end delay, throughput, and energy
consumption. The tests highlight the evaluation
performance of RIP and DSR in Ad- Hoc network.

Scenario I

Average End-To-End Delay

Data set of the effects of the number of nodes by QualNet
simulation of Average End-to-End Delay (scenario I) is
shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 DATA SET OF AVERAGE END-TO-END DELAY
Scenario I
Average End-to -End Delay (s)

No of Nodes

DSR

RIP

50

0.079186

0.058514

90

0.197886

0.069717

130

0.207281

0.052935

170

0.063845

0.03455

210

0.191009

0.04776

Average End-to-End Delay (s)

925

>, 0.20
~

ft 0.15
=

w 0.10

2

1 ^

a

0.00

-US II

3.P

50 90 130 170

No. Of Nodes

2 ID

Figure 1 shows the influence of the number of nodes on
network average end-to-end delay for two routing
protocols. The average end-to-end delay values increased
according to the number of nodes for DSR. The
maximum average end-to-end delay gained simulation
with 130 numbers of nodes from DSR and the minimum
average end-to-end delay gained from simulation 170
numbers of nodes from DSR. The increase average end-
to-end delay values the increase and the decrease
according to the number of nodes for RIR The
maximum average end-to-end delay gained simulation
with 90 numbers of nodes from RIP and the minimum
average end-to-end delay gained from simulation 170
numbers of nodes from RIP. From the graph, it is clear
that RIP out performs DSR for scenario I or II of varying
pause time, varying simulation time, varying speed and
varying number of nodes. In case of DSR, delay time
increased sharply with increasing number of nodes.
However, a sharp decrease was noticed when the number
of nodes is 170. On the other hand, RIP increased and then
decreased with increasing number of nodes. It is
important to note that RF gave a low end-to-end delay as
comparedto DSR.

Throughput

Data set for the effects of the number of nodes by QualNet
simulation of Throughput (scenario I) is demonstrated in
Table4.

TABLE 4 DATASETOFTHROUGHPUT
Scenario I
Thro ughput (bib/s )

No of Nodes

DSR

RIP

50

2312

2320

90

3

2301.75

130

6

1532.33

170

14

2285

210

6

2343.25

FIG.l AVERAGE END-TO-END DELAYBETWEENRP AND DSR IN

SCENARD I

Figure 2 shows the influence of the number of nodes on
network throughput for two routing protocols (RIP and
DSR). The throughput values increased according to the
number of nodes for RIP while in DSR it first increased
when the number of nodes rose to 50 after which it starts
to decrease sharply with increasing number of nodes. The
maximum throughput was gained from simulation with
210 nodes for RIP and the minimum throughput was

276

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

gained from simulation with 130 nodes. The maximum
throughput was gained from simulation with 50 nodes
from DSR and the minimum throughput has gained from
simulation with (90,130,170,210) numbers of nodes. RIP
have higher throughput value compared to DSR.

throughput

2033

a i5M> ■

•A
2

| 1000 ■

h

100

-DS3
■RIP

50

90 130 170

Nnnf Nddes

2 ID

FIG. 2 THROUGHPUTS BETWEEN RF AND DSR IN SCENARIO I
Average Jitter

Data set for the effects of the number of nodes by QualNet
simulation of Average Jitter (scenario I) is shown in Table
5.

TABLE 5 DATA SET OF AVERAGE JITTER

Average Jitter (s)

0.040
0.035
0.030

0.020
0.315
0.010
0.005

o.ooo

■DSR

R P

50 90 130 170 210

No. Of Nodes

FIG. 3 AVERAGE JITTER BETWEEN RIP AND DSR IN SCENARD I
Energy Consumption

In energy consumption, the result was calculated by
collecting Idle mode + Transmit mode + Receive mode.
The energy consumption was represented in two tables:
Table 6 for the Idle mode, Transmit mode and Receive
mode and Table 7 for the collected energy consumption
(Idle mode + Transmit mode+ Receive mode).

TABLE 6 ATA SET FORENERGYCONSUMPTDN FORDLE MODE,
TRANSMTTMODE AND RECEIVE MODE

DSR

Scenario I

No of

50

90

130

170

210

Average litter (s)

Nodes

No of Nodes DSR

RIP

Receive
mode

0.066248

26.4599

33.6272

36.8386

29.895

50 0.0365204

0.015466

90

0.036365

Transmit
mode

0.020879

0.008001

0.013737

0.007616

0.007551

130 0.0248375

0.018677

Idle mode

39.9387

15.5754

8.95939

5.99503

12.4046

170 0.0143463

0.000938

RIP

210 0.0224834

0.01431

No of

50

90

130

170

210

Nodes

The two kinds of routing protocols have different jitter
with the increased number of nodes, as shown in figure 3.

Receive

2.25513

2.35914

2.96544

3.51517

4.11252

Overall, RfP showed a better jitter

than DSR when the

mode

number of nodes is greater than 50 while DSR showed the
better jitter than RfP, when the number of nodes is 90 but
when the number of nodes is above 90, the RfP gave a

Transmit
mode

0.21928

0.398631

0577919

0.718834

1.01791

better jitter than DSR.

Idle mode

37.9164

37.8188

37.2575

36.7488

36.1947

277

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

TABLE 7 DATA SET OF THE COLLECTED ENERGYCONSLMPTDN

TABLE 8 DATA SET OF AVERAGE END-TO^ND DELAY

Scenario I

Scenario II

End-to -End Delay (s)

Eneigy Consumption

PacketSize

DSR

PIP

Ivli

100

6.5376

0.00089

No of Nodes

DSR

RIP

200

6.54139

0.00085

50

40.02583

40.39081

300
400

6.43877
6.73125

0.000777
0.000939

90

42.0433

40.57657

500
600

6.06969
6.41203

0.000761
0.000566

130

42.60033

40.80086

700

6.81644

0.000714

170

210

42.84125 40.'

42.30715 41.32513

Energy V on sumption

43.il)
43.00
42.iO
42.00
41.i0
41.00
40.i0
40.00
| 39 .50
H 39.00
38.i0

bU y0 130 170

No. Of Nodes

-DbK
RIP

FIG. 4 ENERGY CONSUMPTION BETWEEN RIP AND DSR IN
SCENARD I

The energy consumption for the two routing protocols
increased at the beginning of this work, as shown in
Figure 4. DSR has a longer consumption than RIP.
Therefore, RIP has the better energy consumption than
DSR except when the number of nodes is 50 nodes.

Scenario li

Average End-to-End Delay

Data set of the effects of packet size by QualNet
simulation of average End-to-End Etelay (scenario II) is
presented in Table 8.

Figure 5 shows that the average end-to-end delay for two
routing protocols decreased; except when the packet size
of DSR was higher than 100 bytes. Thus, DSR has longer
delay than RIP and RIP exhibits shorter delay than DSR.

Average End-to-End Delay (s)

r

J-l

2 J
| !

V

■ i

-DSR

-RIP

2 ID

300 400 500
Packet .Size

(50

'00

Fig. 5 Averse End to EndDelay between RIP andDSR inscenario H
Throughput

Data set of the effects of packet size by QualNet
simulation of Throughput (scenario II) is shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9 DATASETOFTHROUGHPUT

Scenario II

Thro ughput (bils/s )

PacketSize

DSR

RIP

100

6.5376

0.00089

200

6.54139

0.00085

300

6.43877

0.000777

400

6.73125

0.000939

500

6.06969

0.000761

600

6.41203

0.000566

700

6.81644

0.000714

278

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

3000 -

Throughput ( bits/s]

« 2000

Throughput I

-

100

200 300 100 500 60S 700
PLiikel Siie

AverageJitter(s)

1.20

1.00

0.80

o.r.o

0.40 --

0.20 --

0.00 --

-D5R

RIP

—

—

100 200 .300 400 SMI 600 700

Packet Size

FIG. 6 THROUGHPUTS BETWEEN RF AND DSR INSCENARIO II

Figure 6 shows the influence of the packet size on the
network throughput for two routing protocols. Overall,
the throughput value increased with the packet size for
the two routing protocols. The maximum throughput
gained from simulation with 700 bytes packet size, while
the minimum throughput gained from simulation with
100 bytes packet size. On the other hand, DSR has the
maximum throughput values according to increase
packet size compared to RIP. Therefore, the DSR has
better throughput than RIR

Average Jitter

Data set of the effects of packet size by QualNet
simulation of Average Jitter (scenario U) is presented in
Table 10.

TABLE 10 DATA SET OF AVERAGE JITTER

FIG. 7 AVERAGE JITTER BETWEEN RTP AND DSR TN SCENARD H

The two kinds of routing protocols have different jitter
with increased packet size (Fig 7). In general, RIP had
better jitter than DSR while DSR showed longer delay
than RIP. Thus, RIP showed the best evaluation
performance.

Energy Consumption

There are two tables to show the energy consumption:
table 11 for the Idle mode, Transmit mode and Receive
mode while table 12 was for the collected result (Idle
mode + Transmit mode + Receive mode).

TABLE 11 DATA SETFORENERGYCONSUMPTDNOF IDLE MODE,
TRANSMIT MODE AND RECEIVE MODE

Packet

DSR

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Scenario II

Receive

0.01

0.01

0.0175

0.016

0.0186

0.0188

0.019

Average Jitter (s)

mode

317

5901

71

744

13

96

2

PacketSize

DSR

RIP

Transmit
mode

0.04
5568

0.05
6014

0.0631
08

0.060
627

0.0687
09

0.0692
31

0.071
318

100

0.956555

0.001107

Idle
mode

149.
958

149.
948

149.94
2

149.9
44

149.93
7

149.93
7

149.9
35

200

1.03527

0.000909

RTP

300

0.997965

0.000897

Packet
Size

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

400

1.04567

0.001143

Receive

0.00

0.00

0.0126

0.008

0.0077

0.0100

0.009

mode

8079

7198

69

29

53

93

364

500

1.03995

0.000736

Transmit

0.02

0.02

0.0467

0.031

0.0295

0.0360

0.036

mode

9998

7191

71

318

84

45

08

600

1.04009

0.000409

Idle

149.

149.

149.95

149.9

149.97

149.96

149.9

700

1.05922

0.000677

mode

973

975

7

72

3

7

67

279

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

TABLE 12 DATA SET OF THE COLLECTED ENERGY
CONS UMPTDN (IDLE MODE + TRANSMIT MODE + RECEIVE
MODE)

Scenario II

Ere igy consumptio n

PacketSize

DSR

RIP

100

150.0167

150.0111

200

150.0199

150.0094

300

150.0227

150.0164

400

150.0214

150.0116

500

150.0243

150.0103

600

150.0251

150.0131

700

150.0255

150.0124

Energy Consumption

150.030
o 150.025

—

= iEoo:a

7.

y

V

£ 150.005
150.000

-DSR

RIP

inn ? no m 400 5qo sno 7 on
Packet Size

FIG. 8 ENERGY CONSUMPTION BETWEEN RTP AND DSR IN
SCENARDH

The two types of routing protocols have different energy
consumption with increasing packet size as shown in
Figure 8. DSR has longer energy consumption than RIP,
while RIP has smaller energy consumption than DSR. As
a result, the RF showed the best evaluation performance
in energy consumption.

Conclusion

In the present paper, an evaluation for routing protocols
was carried out on acquired simulation results of two
routing protocols, RIP and DSR using QualNet V5. RIP
and DSR were selected to represent the Proactive routing
protocols and Reactive routing protocols, respectively. We
found that Routing Information Protocol preformed
better than DSR for all evaluation metrics in 2 different

scenarios.
REFERENCES

[I] S.-J. Lee, J. Hsu, R. Hayashida, M. Gerla, R. Bagrodia,
Selecting a routing strategy for your ad hoc network.
ComputerCommunicatbns 26 (2003) 723-733.

[2] L. Layuan, L Chunlin, Y. Peiyan, Performance evaluation

and simuk tbns of routing protocols in ad hoc networks.

ComputerCommunicatbns 30 (2007) 1890-1898.
[3] D. Wu, QoS provisbning b wireless networks. Wireless

communications and mobile computing 5 (2005) 957-969.
[4] A. Duda, C.J. Sreenan, Challenges for quality of service in

nextgeneratbn mobile networks, parameters 4 (2003) 3G.
[5] P. Mohapatra, J. Li, C. Gui, Qos in mobile a hoc networks.

Wireless Communicatbns, IEEE 10 (2003) 44-52.
[6] Q. Zhang, F. Yang, W. Zhu, Cross-layer QoS support for

multimedia delivery over wireless internet EURASIP

Journalon ApplfedSignal Processing 2005 (2005) 207-219.
[7] S.B. Lee , G.S. Ahn, X. Zhang , A.T. Campbell , INSIGNIA :

An IP-based quality of service framework for mobile ad

hoc networks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed

Computbg 60 (2000) 374-406.
[8] Z. Ismail, R Hassan, Evaluation of ad hoc on demand

distance vector routing protocol in HetMAN architecture.

Journal of Computer Scfence 6 (2010) 830-836.
[9] S. Tyagi R. Chauhan, Performance Analysis of Proactive

and Reactive Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks.

International Journal of Computer Applications IJCA 1

(2010) 31-34.

[10] S. Mohseni, R Hassan, A. Patel, R. Razali, Comparative
review study of reactive and proactive routing protocols in
MANETs, in, IEEE, 2010, pp. 304-309.

[II] Z.G. Al-Mekhlafi, R Hassan, Evaluation Study on Routing
Information Protocol and Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-
Hoc Network, in, 7th Conference on IT in Asia
2011(CLTA11). Kuching Sarawak Malaysia, 2011,pp.256-259.

[12] N.S.M Usop, A. Abdullah, AF.A. Abidin, Performance
evaluation of AODV, DSDV & DSR routbg protocol in
gridenvironment IJCSNS 9 (2009) 261-268.

[13] P. Manickam, TG. Baskar, M. Girija, DD. Manimegaki
Performance Comparisons of Routing Protocols in Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks. Arxiv preprint arXiv:l 103. 0658 (2011).

[14] V. Kanakaris, D. Ndzi, D. Azzi, Ad-hoc networks energy

280

International Journal of Energy Science Vol. 2 Iss. 6, December 2012

consumption a review of the ad-hoc routing protocols.
Journal of Engineering Science and Technobgy Review
(JESTR) 3 (2010) 162-167.

[15] M.J.Islam, M.A. Khaer, M.N. Islam, M.M. Islam, Simplified
XOR Based Approach for Reducing Broadcast
Redundancy with Fast Network Coverage in Wireless Ad-
Hoc Networks, in, 5th International Conference on IT in
Asia (CITA'07), 2007.

[16] Q. Guo, X. Xu, J. Zhu, H. Zhang, A QoS-guaranteed cell
selection strategy for heterogeneous cellular systems. ETRI
Journal 28 (2006) 77-83.

[17] C.E Perkins, P. Bhagwat, Highly dynamic destinatbn-
sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile
computers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communicatbn
Re vie w24 (1994) 234-244.

[18] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, A. Lindem," OSPF for IPv6,
in, RFC 5340, July, 2008.

[19] J . Moy, RFC2328: OSPF Version 2 RFC Editor Unite dStates
(1998).

[20] G. Malkin, RFC2453: RIP Versbn 2. RFC Editor United
States (1998).

[21] D.B. Johnson, DA. Maltz, J. Broch, DSR The dynamic
source routing protocol for multi-hop wireless ad hoc
networks. Ad hoc networking 5 (2001) 139-172

[22] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, S. Das, Ad hoc on-demand

distance vector ( AODV) routing. (2003) .
[23] C .L He drkk, RFC1058: Routing information protocol. RFC

Editor Unite dStates (1988).
[24] D.B. Johnson, DA. Maltz, Dynamic source routing in ad

hoc wireless networks. Mobile computing (1996) 153-181.
[25] G. Acs, L. Buttyan, I. Vajda, Provably secure on-demand

source routing in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE

Transactbns on Mobile Computing (2006) 1533-1546.
[26] M. Uma, Padmavathi, A Comparative Study and

Performance Evaualtbn of Reactive Quality of Service

Rouhhg Protocols Mobile ADHOC Networks. Journal of

Theoretical and Apple dlnformatbn Technobgy 6 (2009) 2.
[27] S. Corson, J. Macker, Mobile Ad hoc Networking

(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and

EvaluationConsiderations[S], RFC2501, 1999.
[28] N. Mshra, N.N. AmitPandey, R Sinha, DS. Tapaswi,

Sefection of Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols by

Performance Analysis, b, 2008, pp. 113-116.
[29] M.C. Domingo, Packet Size Optimizatbn for Improving

the Energy Efficbncy b Body Sensor Networks. ETRI

Journal33(2011).
[30] Y. Tay, K.C. Chua, A capacity analysis for the IEEE 802.11

MAC protocol. Wirefess networks 7(2001) 159-171.

281