Design and Implementation of Fuzzy based Hello Interval Time of OSPF Routing Protocol for Manets

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Design and Implementation of Fuzzy based Hello Interval Time of OSPF Routing Protocol for Manets

Dr. A.V.N. Chandra Sekhar

Professor: Department of Information Technology Sasi Institute of Technology & Engineering Tadepalligudem, India

  1. Phani Kumar

    Assistant Professor: Department of Information Technology

    Sasi Institute of Technology & Engineering Tadepalligudem, India

    P. Naveen Kireeti

    Student: Department of Information Technology Sasi Institute of Technology & Engineering Tadepalligudem, India

    AbstractRouting is a challenging issue which should be handled in a timely manner without unnecessary time delays in MANETs. The choice of the constants affects timeliness of protocol. OSPF suggests that the HELLO INTERVAL Time should be a constant value but does not mention how this value to be adjusted with network size. The proposed method Fuzzy Based Hello interval Time OSPF (FBHIOSPF) suggests that the Hello interval Time should be a suitable value with the network size and the results shows that it performs better than OSPF.

    KeywordsAd Hoc Network, Fuzzy Logic, OSPF, FBHIOSPF.

    Hello Interval Time (HIT) value which plays an important role in calculating Net Traversal Time, the value the sender waits for RREP to determine route lifetime and time-out values. The OSPF suggests that the HIT value should be constant but does not mention how this value should be adjusted with network size. The proposed method Fuzzy Based Hello Interval Time (FBHITOSPF) suggests that the HIT should be a suitable value with the Network size.

    The following are the some of the default constants in the standard.

    HELLO INTERVAL TIME= 02ms

    1. INTRODUCTION

      Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) [1][2][3][4][5] are collection of mobile devices that communicate with each other without the need of centralized infrastructure. One of the challenging issues [6] in MANETs is routing [7]. The routing protocols [8][9][10] can be proactive, reactive,

      and hybrid. The rest of the paper is organized as follows:

      Proactive routing protocol OSPF is summarized in section 2, Methodology is illustrated in section 3, Simulation Environment is presented in section 4, and results is presented in section 5 and finally concluded with section 6.

    2. OPEN SHORTEST PATH FIRST (OSPF)

Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)Protocol [12] allows users to find and maintain routes in the network in an on predefined manner. If a sender wants to find a route to the destination, it broadcasts a RREQ message and then waits for HELLO INTERVAL TIME (HIT) to receive RREP message. Once the source node received the RREP message, the route has been established and data packets may be forwarded to the destination. Route Maintenance is to provide feedback to the sender in case of router or link failure through RERR message.

  1. FUZZY LOGIC BASED HELLO INTERVAL TIME OSPF (FBHITOSPF)

    Human experiences can be implemented through membership functions and fuzzy rules in fuzzy logic [13][14][15]. This method calculates Hello Interval Time value associated with the network size and speed. The Input variables are number of nodes (n-nodes) and speed. Hello Interval Time is treated as an output variable. The linguistic variable associated with input variables are Low (L), Medium

    (M) and High (H) for number of nodes, Low (L) and High (H) for speed and for the output variable these are Low (L), Medium (M) and High(H).

    Figure (l) shows the architecture used in the model. Figure (2), Figure (3), Figure (4) shows the membership functions and Table 1 shows fuzzy conditional rules respectively. Triangular shaped membership functions [16] are preferred for output variable. Figure 5(a) and 5(b) shows rule view for nodes 20 with NT 14.5 and for nodes 70 with NT 20.4 respectively. Figure 5(c) shows the surface view of the model.

    III. METHODOLOGY

    OSPF considers the defaults constants suggested in the draft [11] standard. The proposed method concentrates on the

    Figure (1): sugeno architecture of the FBHITOSPF

    Figure(2): Membership function for Input variable n-nodes

    Figure(3) :Membership function for Input variable speed

    Figure(4): Membership function for output variable hi

    INPUT VARIABLES

    OUTPUT VARIABLE

    Number of nodes (n nodes)

    Speed

    HELLO INTERVAL

    L

    L

    H

    L

    M

    M

    L

    H

    L

    M

    L

    M

    M

    M

    M

    M

    H

    L

    H

    L

    L

    H

    M

    L

    H

    H

    L

  2. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

    Simulators like OPNET, NS2 [24], Glomosim [25] and Qualnet [26] etc., were developed to evaluate the performance [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] of routing protocols. The experiments for evaluating the FBHITOSPF model were implemented within the opnet Library. The simulation parameters used in the method was given in table 2.

    Table 2: Scenario Parameters varying number of nodes.

    Area

    1000m x 1000m

    Nodes

    20,30,40,50,60,70,80,100

    Nodes Placement

    Random

    Mobility Model

    Random Way Point

    Node Transmission Power

    0.005

    Operational mode

    802.11b

    Data rate

    11Mbps

    Simulation time

    1000 sec

    Figure 5(a): Rule view for 30 nodes, speed 20.7 & HI 1

    Figure 5(b): Rule view for 50 nodes, speed 20.7 & HI 1

    Figure 5(c): Surface view showing speed, n-nodes and HI

  3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

    The performance metrics namely Average end-end delay and Throughput were considered to analyze FBHIOSPF PROACTIVE routing protocol.

    Average end-end delay: The time taken for a packet to travel from a source to destination. The Average end-end delay is shown in the figure (6) with number of nodes.

    Throughput: The total amount of data received by the receiver from the sender divided by the time takes for the receiver to get the last packet. The Throughput is shown in the figure (7) with number of nodes.

  4. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE Varying node Hello interval time with the network size

    and speed plays a major role for improving the performance. From the simulation results, it was observed that at 20 nodes, the average delay for OSPF HI and FBHI was 0.0003074 and 0.000305 respectively. From the results, it is evident that FBHI OSPF performs better than de-facto OSPF in the above QOS metrics. The given model with various mobility models can further be studied.

  5. REFERENCES

  1. Iiyas, M., 2003. The Hand Book Of Ad Hoc Networks, CRC Press.

  2. Perkins C., Ad Hoc Networking, Addison Wesley, 2001.

  3. D. P. Agrawal and Q-A Zeng. Introduction to Wireless and Mobile Systems, Brooks/Cole Publishing, ISBN No. 0534-40851-6, 436 pages, 2003.

  4. Siva, C., R. Murthy and B.S. Manoj, 2004. Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architecturesand Protocols . Prentice Hall.

  5. C.-K. Toh, Ad hoc Mobile Wireless Networks: Protocols and Systems, Prentice-Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2002.

  6. S. Giordano and W. W. Lu, Challenges in mobile ad hoc networking, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 129181, June 2001.

  7. David B. Johnson, Routing in Ad Hoc Networks of Mobile Hosts, in Proceeding of the IEEE workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Application, Dec 1994.

  8. Hongbo Zhou, A Survey on Routing Protocols in MANETs, Technical. Note March 2003.

  9. J. Broch, D. Maltz, D. Johnson, Y. Hu, and J. Jetcheva. Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM98), pages 85-97, 1998.

  10. E. M. Royer, and C.-K. Toh, A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks, IEEE Personal Communications, Apr. 1999, pp. 4655.

  11. Ogier & Spagnola Experimental Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS) Flooding Request for Comments: 5614 pg.12 – August 2009.

  12. M. W. Chandra, Extensions to ospf to support mobile ad hoc networking, in Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) draft, July 2004.

  13. T. J. Ross, Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.

  14. L. A. Zadeh, fuzzy logic = computing with words, IEEE Transactions on fuzzy systems, vol. 4, no2, pp. 104-111, 1996.

  15. Kosko, B., Fuzzy Thinking, Hyperion, 1993.

  16. Pedrycz W., Why Triangular Membership Functions? Fuzzy Sets System, Vol.64, pp.21-30,1994.

  17. A. Nasipuri, R. Castaneda, and S. R. Das, Performance of multipath routing for on-demand protocols in ad hoc networks, Mobile Networks Applicant. (MONET) J., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 339349, 2001.

  18. C.-E. Perkins, E.-M. Royer, S.-R. Das, and M.-K. Marina, Performance comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks, IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 16 28, Feb 2001.

  19. S. -J. Lee, M. Gerla and C. -K. Toh, A Simulation Study of Table- Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Network, July-August 1999, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 48- 54.

  20. S. Corson and J. Macker. Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (MANET) Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations. Technical report, Request for Comments: 2501, January 1999.

  21. J. Broch, D. Maltz, D. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva, A Performance Comparison of Multi hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols, ACM/IEEE Mobile Computing and Networking, October 1998.

  22. S.P. Setty et al. Performance Evaluation of AODV in different Environments, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST), Vol.2(7), 2010, 2976-2981.

  23. Huang R, Zhuang Y, Cao Q, Simulation and Analysis of Protocols in Ad Hoc Network, 2009 International Conference

    on Electronic Computer Technology, 2009 IEEE.

  24. Network simulator -2. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/

  25. GLOMOSIM http://pcl.cs.ucla.edu/projects/glomosim/

  26. QualNet Network Simulator, Available: http://www.scalable- networks.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *