For the comparative analysis of mobile node network protocol, four performance parameters as discussed below:
Throughput
It characterizes the percentage of the number of packets that reach the reserve from the sender to the time is taken by the receiver to receive all the data as given in Eqn (1). Figure 3 and Table 2 show the throughput analysis of the AODV, DSDV, DSR, and ZRP protocols.
$$Thoughput=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\frac{{b}_{i}}{{t}_{i}}$$
1
Figure 3 shows the throughput represented by the AODV protocol throughout better than the other routing protocol in a small and large network with a random mobility environment. The number of nodes increases from 10 to 100 nodes the AODV and DSR protocol throughput increase from 60.2835 to 514.3095 bits/sec and 58.953 to 443.991 bits/sec, respectively. It more stables compared to other routing protocols because It is an on-demand routing protocol. It finds the path in the network when required. So, it is not required to store any information in the table and cache as the DSDV and DSR protocol are stored. DSR protocol throughput 58.953 bits/sec (at 10 Node) to 443.991 bits/sec (at 100 Node) better compare to the DSDV protocol throughput 48.3825 bits/sec (at 10 Nodes) to 191.103 bits/sec (at 100 Nodes). DSDV protocol throughput increases gradually up to the 70 Node network. After that, it decreases because it is difficult to maintain the routing table at a large network.
Table 2
Routing Protocol Throughput
No of Nodes | Throughput (kbps) |
AODV | DSDV | DSR | ZRP |
10 | 60.2835 | 48.3825 | 58.953 | 58.449 |
20 | 126.9105 | 104.337 | 122.3085 | 122.6175 |
30 | 190.752 | 164.154 | 184.0995 | 183.687 |
40 | 254.352 | 216.2205 | 245.2965 | 231.003 |
50 | 317.337 | 279.528 | 306.012 | 215.583 |
60 | 378.813 | 338.478 | 364.7415 | 143.811 |
70 | 436.0755 | 371.478 | 410.04 | 89.559 |
80 | 478.3515 | 331.599 | 442.497 | 55.437 |
90 | 501.1335 | 271.2195 | 465.444 | 37.8495 |
100 | 514.3095 | 191.103 | 443.991 | 27.54 |
Throughput for ZRP protocol varies from 58.449 (at 10 Nodes) to 231.003 (at 40 Nodes), which is better at the small network as compared to the throughput of DSDV protocol which is 48.3825 (at 10 Nodes) to 216.2205 (at 40 Nodes) while the mobile and communicating nodes are increasing in the network. In this case, ZRP routing protocol performance drastically decreases because peripheral nodes are also part of the neighbor zone. Due to this, intermediate nodes flood the same route request many times in the network. It will increase the delay in the network and drastically reduce the throughput of ZRP compared to other routing protocols. At an extensive network with nodes 50 to 100, the throughput of ZRP reduces to 27.54 compared to AODV, DSDV, and DSR protocol throughout that is 514.3095 bits/sec, 191.103 bits/sec, and 443.991 bits/sec, respectively.
Packet Delivery Ratio is the packet delivered at the receiver to the packet transmitted by the sender as given in Eqn (2). For a better packet delivery ratio, the network's throughput and routing protocol are
$$\text{P}\text{a}\text{c}\text{k}\text{e}\text{t} \text{D}\text{e}\text{l}\text{i}\text{v}\text{e}\text{r}\text{y} \text{R}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\frac{{PktR}_{i}}{Pkt{S}_{i}}$$
2
Where PktRi is the number of Received Packets
PktSi is the number of Send Packets
Table 3
Packet Delivery Ratio of the routing protocol
No of Nodes | Packet Delivery Ratio (%) |
AODV | DSDV | DSR | ZRP |
10 | 132.2468 | 106.274 | 134.26 | 127.75 |
20 | 139.1768 | 114.478 | 139.44 | 134.12 |
30 | 139.5282 | 120.022 | 139.72 | 133.756 |
40 | 139.4862 | 118.552 | 139.72 | 126.196 |
50 | 139.1782 | 122.57 | 139.44 | 94.332 |
60 | 138.4684 | 123.76 | 138.46 | 52.444 |
70 | 136.6204 | 116.396 | 133.42 | 27.944 |
80 | 131.0862 | 90.916 | 125.86 | 15.134 |
90 | 122.0716 | 66.094 | 117.74 | 9.184 |
100 | 112.7938 | 41.902 | 101.08 | 6.013 |
Figure 4 and Table 3 show that the packet delivery ratio of Reactive protocol (AODV and DSR) between the node (10 to 20) increases from 132.2468 to 139.1768 and for AODV and 134.26 to 139.44 for DSR protocol because all the nodes randomly move in the network space 900m x 900m. The destination node is not within the transmission range to drop the packet. And hence between the nodes 20 to 50, it delivered 99% of the packet delivered at the destination. After that, protocol performance degraded due to the congestion in the network. An extensive network AODV (80.5%) performs better than DSR (72.2%).
ZRP protocol performance is better than DSDV protocol when the 40 nodes are present in the network. When the number of nodes increases, its performance is degraded due to the peripheral zone node overlapping and several nodes increasing. It is switching from reactive to proactive or vice-versa. In AODV and DSR protocol, the packet delivery ratio is more stable, and it will decrease as several nodes increase, but it is more stables than other routing protocols.
Table 4
Packet Dropping Ratio of Routing Protocol
No of Nodes | Packet Dropping Ratio (%) |
AODV | DSDV | DSR | ZRP |
10 | 8.03010 | 34.9305 | 5.9247 | 12.6875 |
20 | 0.85260 | 26.4277 | 0.609 | 6.0871 |
30 | 0.48865 | 20.6886 | 0.2842 | 6.46555 |
40 | 0.53215 | 22.214 | 0.34365 | 14.29845 |
50 | 0.85115 | 18.05395 | 0.57275 | 47.3048 |
60 | 1.58630 | 16.81855 | 1.5544 | 90.69025 |
70 | 3.50030 | 24.44265 | 6.77005 | 116.06525 |
80 | 9.23215 | 50.837 | 14.5754 | 129.3313 |
90 | 18.5687 | 76.5484 | 23.0115 | 135.488 |
100 | 28.17785 | 101.5957 | 40.29405 | 138.77225 |
Figure 5 and Table 4 show the packet dropping ratio, ZRP (138.77225 ) and DSDV (101.5957) drop a large number of the packet compared to AODV (28.17785) and DSR (40.29405) routing protocols at 100 node networks. DSDV drop packet because it periodically updates the routing table. AODV and DSR have similar behavior. Node increases from 10 to 60, DSR drops (5.9247–1.5544%) a smaller packet number than the AODV (5.5% to 1.094) because it maintains the routing cache. As the number of nodes increases from 70 to 100, DSR cache size increases, and it will drop a more number of packets (6.77005–40.29405%) than AODV (3.5003–28.17785%). The number of nodes increases every protocol packet dropping ratio also increases. DSDV and ZRP drop many packets 70% and 95%, respectively, at 100 nodes compared to AODV (28%) and DSR (40%) because DSDV performance degrades due to routing table and ZRP performance due to the zone overlapping.
Routing overhead: It is the total number of routing packets like RREQ, RREP, RERR, and Hello packet to the total number of delivered packets at the receiver [18].
Table 5
Routing Protocol Overhead
No of Nodes | Routing Overhead |
AODV | DSDV | DSR | ZRP |
10 | 0.05805 | 0.16065 | 0.0513 | 4.81815 |
20 | 0.09585 | 0.18495 | 0.04725 | 6.7662 |
30 | 0.135 | 0.23085 | 0.06615 | 8.81415 |
40 | 0.2052 | 0.2862 | 0.08505 | 10.9377 |
50 | 0.26595 | 0.34965 | 0.10125 | 15.498 |
60 | 0.3834 | 0.5211 | 0.13635 | 28.53495 |
70 | 0.5184 | 1.0827 | 0.22275 | 54.92205 |
80 | 0.7533 | 1.59975 | 0.32265 | 110.0358 |
90 | 1.0908 | 2.34765 | 0.42255 | 195.7716 |
100 | 1.34325 | 3.8286 | 0.79785 | 310.54995 |
Figure 6 and Table 5 show that ZRP has a significant routing overhead of 4.81815 to 310.54995 varies for 10 to 100 nodes, respectively. Compared to all other routing protocols, many control packets are required because it maintains the routing zone and change from proactive to reactive or vice-versa. As node density increases, the routing overhead also increases in the network. In DSR, routing overhead (0.05 to 0.7) is less because routing is maintained between the communicated nodes, whereas the DSDV routing overhead is less (0.1 to 3.8) due to the table maintenance. DSDV routing overhead goes smooth because it has small changes caused by the network load and the node mobility. AODV (0.05 to 1.3) preserves only one routing entry for each destination node, and it triggers a new routing discovery process when any link breaks in the network. Its routing overhead is higher compared to DSDV and DSR. In general, DSR performs the best result in the network in all routing protocols.
End-to-End Delay
It is given as the average time needed for data delivery at their receiver from the sender across the network.
The simulation-based analysis concludes that the network's number of nodes and traffic increase, and the end-to-end delay of the AODV, DSR, DSDV, and ZRP protocol increases, as shown in Figures 7 and 6. But AODV routing protocol performance is more stable than all other routing protocols for small and large network conditions with the number of the communicating node.
Table 6
End to End dealy for Routing Protocol
No of Nodes | End to End delay |
AODV | DSDV | DSR | ZRP |
10 | 0.09546 | 0.01419 | 0.129 | 0.15738 |
20 | 0.02064 | 0.02064 | 0.0516 | 0.03096 |
30 | 0.02451 | 0.02322 | 0.0516 | 0.03096 |
40 | 0.0258 | 0.02838 | 0.0645 | 0.21027 |
50 | 0.03741 | 0.02967 | 0.1161 | 1.49898 |
60 | 0.06321 | 0.10965 | 0.258 | 5.02068 |
70 | 0.15093 | 1.06425 | 0.9159 | 10.54575 |
80 | 0.37797 | 2.74254 | 1.806 | 14.8995 |
90 | 0.78948 | 5.31093 | 2.7477 | 18.3051 |
100 | 1.39062 | 9.81432 | 4.7859 | 21.5043 |
For the small network (i.e.10 to 50 Nodes), the DSDV protocol has a minor delay of 0.029sec as compared to AODV (0.029sec), DSR (0.11sec), and ZRP (1.49sec) protocol because it maintains the route for the destination in the route. When nodes increase from 60 to 100 and traffic increases, the delay also increases for the DSDV routing protocol from 0.10965 to 9.81432 sec. The AODV protocol increases from 0.09546 to 1.3 seconds because of the time consumed in the computation of the routes. Initially, AODV required more delay to find the route because it finds the path when any source node sends the data. After that, it has needed less delay of 1.39062 sec. (at 100 nodes) and more stable at large networks compared to DSDV (9.81432 sec.), DSR (4.7859), and ZRP (21.5043) protocol. Up to the 60 nodes, DSDV routing protocol delay varies from 0.01419 to 0.10965 sec. that is less than DSR protocol delay (0.1 to 0.258 sec.) but as the node increases in the network. Its performance degraded because it periodically updates the routing table in the network. For the extensive network of 100 nodes, DSDV and DSR delay 9.81 sec and 4.78 sec. respectively. Whereas 70 to 100 nodes DSR delay (0.9159 to 4.7859 sec.) better compared to DSDV delay (1.06425 to 9.81432 sec.), but it degraded as compared to AODV delay (0.15093 to 1.39062 sec.) because it stores the path at the node cache-memory. For the ZRP protocol, as the number of node increase from 10 to 100 nodes, the delay increase from 0.15738 to 21.5043 sec. because it has difficulty finding the route in mobility & traffic due to its zone-based algorithm.