(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 9, No.

1, January 2011

Enhanced Load Balanced AODV Routing Protocol

Iftikhar Ah mad and Hu maira Jabeen Depart ment of Co mputer Science Faculty of Basic and Applied Sciences International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract Excessive load on the MANET is the main reason for link breakage and performance degradation. A congested node in the network dies more quickly than other nodes. A good load balancing technique share the traffic load evenly among all the nodes those can take part in transmission. Transferring of load from congested nodes to less busy nodes and involvement of other nodes in transmission that can take part in route can improve the overall network life. We proposed a load balancing scheme for AODV that improves overall network life, throughput and reduce average end to end delay. Keywords: AODV, load balancing,congestion,delay.

are proposed to achieve good load balancing in MANET. In Load balancing we transfer the jobs fro m overloaded nodes to less busy nodes or idle nodes. In the result, total time to process all jobs can be reduced and also guarantee that no node will remain idle while some jobs are there to process. Numbers of algorith ms are proposed for load balancing that consider traffic load for route selection, but these algorithms are not suitable for large scale transmissions. While selecting the route we must consider that the distribution of load should be even. Mobile nodes having low traffic load should be preferred to the heavily loaded mobile nodes. II. RELATED WORK Dynamic Load-Aware Routing [2] protocol, DLA R defined the network load of a mobile node as the number of packets in its interface queue. Load-Balanced Ad hoc Routing protocol [1] LBAR defined network load in a node as the total number of routes passing through the node and its neighbors. In Load-Sensitive Routing protocol [3] the network load in a node is defined as the summation of the number of packets being queued in the interface of the mobile host and its neighboring hosts. Even though the load metric of LSR is more accurate than those of DLAR or LBA R, but it does not consider the effect of access contentions in the MAC layer .Therefore, LSR produce contention delay. WLAR [4] distributes traffic among mobile nodes through load balancing mechanism which is product of average queue size and number of shared nodes. Load Aware Routing in Ad hoc (LA RA) networks protocol [5] defines a new metric called traffic density that is used to select the route with minimu m load. Traffic density means the degree of contention at the mediu m access control layer. Simp le Load-balancing Approach (SLA)[6] not allowing traffic to be concentrated on the node and allowing each node to drop RREQ or to give up packet forwarding depending on its own traffic load to save energy. It also suggests a payment scheme called Protocol-Independent Fairness Algorithm (PIFA) for packet forwarding. A novel load-balancing technique [7] for ad hoc ondemand routing is very effective method to achieve load balance and congestion alleviation. If a node ignores RREQ messages within a specific period, it can comp letely be excluded fro m the additional commun ications that might have occurred for that period otherwise. A node can decide not to serve a traffic flow by dropping the RREQ for that flow. The interface queue occupancy and workload on node is used to control RREQ messages adaptively.

I. INT RODUCTION A mobile ad hoc network is defined as a collection of mobile nodes with no central management, running on batteries and changing topology [12]. The routing in MANET is difficult due to its changing topology. There are three types of protocols for MANET proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols. Proactive routing protocols stores and maintains routing state of every other node in the network. Reactive routing protocols discover route on demand, when there is need. Hybrid routing protocols combines advantages of both reactive and proactive classes of protocols. In this study we proposed a load balanced ad hoc routing protocol by modifying basic AODV routing protocol. AODV [13] is the main reactive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks which is most widely used for routing in MANET. It is especially designed for MANET and performs well then other routing protocols for MANET. The basic function of AODV is depended on two mechanisms; one is route discovery mechanism and second is route mentainence mechanism. Both of these mechanisms works through four different type of messages those are RREQ, RREP, Route error message and Hello message. Whenever a node wants to transmit data to any other node in the network, it starts route discovery process by sending a broad cost of RREQ to all its neighbors those are within transmission rang. A route reply is sent back to the source node by the destination or any intermediate node that have fresher route to destination. The reply is sent through the route which is having less number of hops. In this way a route with less number of hops is selected during the route discovery mechanism. In the route discovery mechanism the route is discovered and selected through route discovery algorithm. Lot of work has been done on this algorithm and improvements are made in order to increase performance of protocol. Certain Load balancing schemes

98

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2011

Delay-based load-aware on-demand routing (D-LAOR) protocol [8], discovers the optimal path based on the estimated total path delay and the hop count. AOMDV routing protocol [9] used Queue Length and Hop Count value together to select a route from source to destination that avoids congestion and load balancing. A threshold value is defined after a threshold alternate path is chosen. Intermediate nodes avoids broad cast of RREQ if the routes are already congested. Aggregate Interface Queue Length (AIQL) scheme has been proposed in this paper [10] to deal with load balancing issues. A route is selected on the bases of AIQL to transmit the data. AIQL is the sum of queue length of all nodes in the path form source to destination. All proposed protocols work well for small scale transmissions but in case of large scale transmission the adhoc on demand distance vector load and mobility (AODVLM) routing protocol [11] shows better results in terms of throughput and delivery ratio with little increase in routing overhead. The proposed load balancing scheme in this paper further extends the AODVLM implementation. III.
PROPOSD LOAD BALANCING SCHEME

Instead of increasing load on already busy nodes we are distributing traffic load among the other available nodes. C. Use of less Busier Nodes During the trans mission the selected route exp ires fro m time to time to check the availability of less busier node for further transmission of data. There is greater chance that more nodes come closer to the active route that can provide better route for transmission. For this purpose we exp ires route after fixed intervals of t ime during the transmission of data. Instead of using the same route for entire transmission of data new route are discovered. The follo wing figure 1 displaying the scenario of transmission with basic AODV routing protocol.

The proposed mod ification extends AODV and distributes the traffic among ad hoc nodes through a simple load balancing mechanis m. The protocol adopts basic AODV procedure.
Figure 1. Example AODV Transmsion Scenerio.

A. Selecting Route Selection Procedure When a source node initiates a route discovery procedure by flooding RREQ messages, each node that receives the RREQ looks in its routing table to see if it has a fresh route to the destination. If it doesn't have the route it calculates the number of packets in its interface queue and divides it with its queue length and adds calculated ratio in RREQ and broadcasts it further. The process is repeated till either the destination is reached or no destination is found. B. Averaged Aggregated Load Ratio (AALR) If P are packets in the queue of a node and L is the length of queue then ratio of the load on node is R =P/L and sum of ratio on each node in the route is = R then AALR = R/N, where N is number of hops the RREQ has passed through. The AALR metric has been used in order to find out the heavily loaded route. Because if the aggregate queue length for the path is higher, then it obviously means that either all the nodes on the path are loaded or there is at least one node lying on the route that is overloaded. Hence by considering a route with lesser value of averaged aggregate load ratio for selecting the path we are have diverge the packets from heavily loaded route to comparatively lighter route. In this way traffic load is distributed among the available reachable nodes that can provide a path to destination.

In figure 1 node 5 is co mmunicating with node 7 and node 0 is the source node for node 4. We can easily analyze that node 3 is busiest node that will be dead very soon. For large scale t ransmission there will be more bad results as for as through put is concerned. As from the figure it is clear that node 5 can co mmunicate through node s instead of node 3. With the passage of time as in part 2 of the figure the node 0 can transmit data through node 2 which is more efficient path but it does not happening in case of basic AODV. After new proposed load balancing scheme the figure 1 will be like the figure 2.

Figure 2. AODV T ransmsion Scenerio after Implementation.

99

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2011

The new scheme is adopting the better and less busy route. It avoids the congested nodes during route discovery and later on during transmissions makes use of all available less busy nodes. In this way our scheme is shift ing the traffic load form busier nodes to less busy nodes. New proposed scheme not using the certain nodes for entire traffic but sharing t raffic load with all available nodes that can take part in co mmun ication as in shown in figure 2. As long as a particular node remains busy means it has to transmit or forward more packets to its neighboring nodes. With transmission of each data and control packet node is consuming energy (power). Mobile node relies on batteries and battery life decrease with the forwarding of each and every packet. So, more load means lesser life time of the node and lesser network life intern. To calculate the nodes load share we calculate number of packets forward by that particular node and compare that number against each other and the network. Our proposed protocol give more even load balancing in MANET then existing load balancing protocols. IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION We imp lemented basic and our load balancing algorithm in NS2 [15]. NS2 is discrete event simulator for the simulation of wireless ad hoc networks. It supports Two Ray Ground propagation and Random Way Point mobility models those are required for the implementation of our work. We used the following performance metric to evaluate the performance of our load balancing algorithm against basic AODV algorithm. A. Performance Metric 1) Average end to end delay: This is the average overall delay occurs for a packet to travel fro m a source node to a destination node. This includes all possible delays caused by buffering during route discovery, queuing at the interface-queue, contention and retransmission delays at the MAC layer, and propagation and transfer times.

TABLE I.

SIMULATION SETTING

Channel type Radio-propagation model Network interface MAC type Interface queue Link layer type Antenna model Max packet in ifq Packet size Number of mobile nodes Simu lation time

Channel/Wireless Channel Propagation/TwoRay Ground Phy/WirelessPhy Mac/802_11 Queue/Drop Tail/PriQueue LL Antenna/Omni Antenna 25 1024 20 150 seconds

C. Simulation Results The results are compared and presented in graphical form after implementing Enhanced load balancing AODV routing protocol. We analyzed the results by taking pause time on xaxis and performance metric throughput and end to end delay on Y-axis and for load distribution nu mber of forwarded packets on y-axis and Node ID on x-axis. 1) Throughput: Throughput at different time interval is compared as shown in figure 5.

Figure 3. Throughput vs Pause time.

2) Throughput: It is defined as the total number of packets transmitted in a given time period. 3) Traffic load Distribution: It is the total number of packets that are forwarded by a node during transmission. Because each forwarded packet consume nodes power that reduce node life. B. Parameter Setting The radio propagation model [14] that is considered for the protocol is the Two-Ray Ground and Random way point mobility model is used in our implementation of protocol. The table I shows complete detail of parameter used in our simulation setting.

Total number of packets transmitted by AODV is lesser then Load balanced AODV and with passage of time throughput of load balanced AODV is increasing as more packets are transmitting in given time. 2) Average end to end delay: Average end to end delay of load balanced is round about 18 mille seconds at the start of transmission and as transmission goes on it becomes 10 mille second but for AODV its min imu m value is 14 mille seconds. It means averaged end to end delay is reduced in greater extend. This reduction in delay improves throughput that means now source node is sending packets more quickly to the destination then basic AODV.

100

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2011

V.

CONCLUSION

Figure 4. End to end delay vs Pause time.

New load balanced AODV routing protocol for distributing traffic load evenly among nodes in ad hoc networks is proposed. The idea is to provide a scheme for load distribution and to reduce congestion in high load networks. We performed a simu lation study and compared the modified version of AODV with basic AODV protocol. The results of simu lation shows that the proposed load balanced protocol can improve average throughput, reduce average end to end delay and improves overall network life. Hence, the proposed AODV is more useful for longer transmission and for moderately loaded high mobility networks. REFERENCES
[1] Hassanein, H. and A. Zhou, Routing with Load Balancing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Proceeding of ACM MSWiM, Rome, Italy, 2001 pp: 89-96. Lee, S.J. and M. Gerla, Dynamic Load Aware Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of ICC Helinski, Finland,2001 pp: 32063210. Wu, K. and J. Harms, Load Sensitive Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of IEEE ICCCN'01, Phoenix, AZ 2001, pp: 540-546. Choi, D.I., J.W. Jung, K.Y. Kwon, D. Montgomery and H.K. Kahng, Design and Simulation Result of a Weighted Aware Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network: LNCS 3391, 2003 pp: 178-187. Saigal, V., A.K. Nayak, S.K. Pradhan and R. Mall, Load Balanced Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Networks, Elsevier Computer Communications 27, 2004 pp: 295-305. Yoo, Y. and S. Ahn, A Simple Load-Balancing Approach in Secure Ad Hoc Networks , ICOIN , LNCS 3090, 2004 pp: 44-53. Lee, Y.J. and G.F. Riley, A Workload-Based Adaptive LoadBalancing Technique for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Proceedings of IEEE Communication Society, WCNC 2005, pp: 202-207 Song, J.H., V. Wong and V.C.M. Leung, Load-Aware On-Demand Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, Proceedings of 57th IEEE Semiannual Vehicular Technology Conference, 2003 p3: 17531757 Shalini Puri, Satish R. Devene, "Congestion Avoidance and Load Balancing in AODV-Multipath Using Queue Length," Proceedings of Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology, 2009 pp. 1138-1142 Amita Rani and Mayank Dave Performence evoluation of modified AODV for load Balancing, Journal of Computer Science 3 (11): 863-868, 2007. Iftikhar Ahmad and Mata ur Rehman Efficient AODV routing based on traffic load and mobility of node in MANET , Proceedings of IEEE, International Conference on Emerging Technologies, Islamabad, Pakistan, 2010. S. Corson and J. Macker, Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance issues and Evaluation Considerations, Network Working Group, RFC2501, January 1999. C. Perkins, E. Royer and S. Das, Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, IETF RFC3561,July 2003. M. Gunes and M. Wenig , Models for Realistic Mobility and Radio Wave Propagation for Ad Hoc Network Simulations SpringerVerlag London Limited,2009. [15] K. Fall and K. Varahan, editors. NS Notes and Documentation. The VINT Project, UC Berkeley, LBL, USC/ISI, and Xerox PARC, November 1997.

3) Load distribution: Load d istribution is important because in which we analyzed how all the nodes shared the network traffic load among each other that reflects more node life. More packet forwarding means more energy consumption and mo re use of battery power. By not sending all the data through some specific nodes all nodes that can be involved in transmission are included in the route. Load balancing means all node sharing equal load in the network. If network is not balanced in term of traffic load some nodes have lot of load on it and some remains free. The busier nodes can get exhausted quickly and may be down quickly that result in to mo re link failure and performance degradation. In figure 5 traffic load is more balanced among the nodes in the network then basic AODV that show steep up and downs in the graph. In case of AODV some nodes like node 2, 5, 9 forwards only round about 100 packets and some nodes like node 3.6,8 are forwarding round about 700 packets. Th is means load is not balanced among the node and in case of load balanced AODV the traffic load is shared evenly among the nodes as for the all nodes number of forwarded packets are round about 400 packets.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] Figure 5. Farwording packet vs Node. [14]

[15]

101

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500