Each node receives this packet and
verifies the destination address update their details for the source node in
the route information tables. A node getting this RQP message may send a
response to the corresponding node. If it is may either the destination node or
if it may be a path to reach the destination node. If it is not match with the
current node address to destination address then again retransmit that RQP
packet to its neighbours. If this node is the end in the MANET region then
reply message back to the source node. Otherwise it re-broadcast the route
request message till the destination node identify. When the RQP reaches the
destination node, now destination node can transmit the Route response packet (RPP)
to the source node. RPP fields are shown in Table 2.Route response packet is
used to reply from the destination node to source node. After the destination
node identification data transmission is started between source to the
destination node with flooding packet. Fig.2 shows RPP message reply from
destination. RPFAODV having destination sequence number is mainly used to
update the path information and energy level at each node when dynamic changes.
RPFAODV ensure the paths through sequence numbers for easy identification of
the scheduled route.
Initialize the route for broadcast
through FAODV routing protocol. In additionally to the source node address,
current sequence number, route request and broadcast identifier. Nodes can keep
track the route request messages and broadcast their node broadcast id. FAODV
is flexible to dynamic network topology and large-scale network. In the FAODV
algorithm (Algorithm 1), mainly path finding towards broadcast area to deliver
the packet from source node.
The simulations were performed by the
network simulator-2 (NS-2). Different simulation model parameters used for this
comparison results were specified in Table 3. For all the simulations, the
simulation time was fixed at 150 sec. Simulation mobile nodes are varied by 10,
30, 50 and 100 nodes.
Energy consumption in RPFAODV is a smaller amount of energy
consumption compare with other routing protocols. RPFAODV and AODV are
consuming more or similar amount of energy when route identification and
auxiliary maintenance process. RPFAODV, AODV is consuming less amount of energy
compared with TORA routing protocol.
In order to model the above equation, the number of total
cost of energy (CE) is calculated by adding cost of communication energy (CME)
and cost of computational energy (CTE).
6.2. Delay between end-to-end (DBEE)
to taken for the entire packet to completely reach at the destination from
source node. Evaluation of delay between end-to-end is depends upon the
parameters like broadcast time (BT), message transmission time (MTT), waiting time
(WT), delay in processing (DP).
6.3. Message delivery ratio(MDR)
The message delivery ratio is
calculated between the number of packet messages originated by the source node
and the number of packet messages received at the destination within the
x= number of packet messages received
at destination node
y= number of packet messages sent by
MDR= message delivery ratio
6.4. Loss of packets (LP)
lost is minimum number of loss using RPFAODV protocol compared to TORA
protocol. Packet loss is always less in the AODV compared with other routing
protocols. Some certain conditions may cause loss of packets such as packets
corruption, bandwidth insufficient, link disruption, packet buffering and many issues.
In such situations, packets may be dropped either drop in the intermediate hop
or node itself.
RPFAODV compared with AODV, DSR, DSDV
routing protocols. In FAODV based routing can provide less delay over AODV. RPFAODV
performance analyses are compared with number of nodes like 10, 30, 50 and 100.
Performance parameter for delay is reduced from 8% to 12%. Message delivery
ratio is increased from 9% to 22%.The highest end-to-end delay in TORA protocol
compared to other routing protocols, delay caused while re-transmission of
packets lost when collision, due to broadcast time. In this DBEE is collected
and calculated when both transmissions, re-transmission occurs. It also
responds quickly to the active routes when topological changes. It does not
provide additional overheads on data packets. RPFAODV based MDR performance as
increased gradually when nodes are increased. Fig.3 shows that message delivery
ratio between RPFAODV, AODV, DSR and DSDV. Fig.4 shows that total number of packets
loss between RPFAODV, AODV, DSR and DSDV. FAODV have less number of packet drop
/ loss compare with other routing protocols. Fig.5 shows that average
throughput between RPFAODV, AODV, DSR and DSDV with 10, 30, 50 and 100 nodes.Fig.6
shows that average delay between end-to-end for RPFAODV, AODV, DSR and DSDV.
FAODV have less delay between source-end to destination-end compare with other
routing protocols. Fig.7 shows simulation graph for window versus time using RPFAODV,
DSR and DSDV routing protocols.
RPFAODV and AODV are better in route
updating process and maintenance process in transmission path. Whereas RPFAODV
find the best route compare with AODV based on the energy level. Connection
establishment is easy and Lower delay for new path establishment in RPFAODV.
In this work we considered the four
performance measures in an mobile ad-hoc network by varying considerations i.e.
message delivery ratio, loss of packets, average end-to-end delay and
throughput with different number of nodes (10, 30, 50 and 100 nodes), different
speed of nodes. From results reported in chapter 7 concluded that RPFAODV
protocol is the best in terms of average MDR. Large numbers of packets are loss
as well as large number of packets dropped when a DSDV routing protocol apply
for this networks. Message packets loss and dropping the packets when a
transmission occurs are based on variety of nodes, with in their region. RPFAODV
works with less packet losses than other routing techniques. Our ns-2 based
simulation has confirmed that the advantages of RPFAODV and demonstrated for
the improvement of packet delivery, reduction of delay in end-to-end, throughput
are compared with AODV, DSR, DSDV.
In future, energy metrics to be
considered with these performance measures for design such a protocol that can
be provide best data delivery in high random mobility network. Analyse the
energy metrics for QoS applications for better routing and broadcasting the