1 / 22

Energy Efficiency of Load Balancing in MANET Routing Protocols

Energy Efficiency of Load Balancing in MANET Routing Protocols. Sunsook Jung Nisar Hundeware Dr. Alex Zelikovsky Department of Computer Science Georgia State University. Outline. AODV-Node Caching AODV-NC with load balancing AODV-NC with adaptive work load balancing

charlesphillips
Download Presentation

Energy Efficiency of Load Balancing in MANET Routing Protocols

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Energy Efficiency of Load Balancing in MANET Routing Protocols Sunsook Jung Nisar Hundeware Dr. Alex Zelikovsky Department of Computer Science Georgia State University

  2. Outline • AODV-Node Caching • AODV-NC with load balancing • AODV-NC with adaptive work load balancing • Energy and Routing Efficiency Metrics • Implementation • Conclusion

  3. Mobile Ad hoc Networks • An ad hoc wireless network is an autonomous system consisting of hosts that do not rely on the presence of any fixed network infrastructure. • Applications • battlefield, data acquisition in hostile terrain etc. • Characteristics of MANET • Infrastructure less mobile networks • All nodes can move and can be connected dynamically • No fixed routers, no base stations • All nodes are treated as routers

  4. Routing in MANET • Routing protocols – DSR, DSDV, AODV, TORA • Objectives of MANET routing - to maximize network throughput - to minimize energy consumption - to minimize delay • Performance Metrics - Packet Delivery Ratio - Routing Overhead - End-to-end delay

  5. AODV with Node Caching • Drawbacks of AODV • Route Request is done using flooding • Result in redundant packet overhead • Cached node - have forwarded data packet recently - have more reliable information about its neighbors and have better locations - used to forward RREQ • This is not a broadcast since nodes which are not cached drop RREQ -> reduce the Rout Request overhead

  6. Implementation of Node Caching • Time Threshold H • The Route Request packet has time threshold H • A node N maintain the time T(N) when N forwarded the last data packet • Upon receiving the Route Request packet by Node N at current time T • N check the condition T – H <= T(N) • True : forward the Route Request packet • False: drop the Route Request packet

  7. Route Discovery in AODV-NC Since T- H > T(N), RREQ is dropped S 3 4 9 2 6 7 RREQ is forwarded 1 D 5 8 Recently sent a data packet

  8. Performance Improvement of AODV-NC • Relative routing overhead • Reduced by average 89% • Delivery ratio • Increased by average 20% • End-to-end delay • Decreased by average 63%

  9. Forwarding Load Balancing • Some specific nodes are overused in AODV-NC. • To prevent unfairness of node caching, load balancing scheme was imposed. • AODV-NC (H : n - t) • n is the maximum number of data packets forwarded by node N during time period t • If node N forward cache-constrained RREQ more than n, the node N forward only standard RREQ and data packets during the break t.

  10. Workload-based Adaptive Load Balancing • Forwarding load balancing algorithm is not self adaptive. • Lee et al suggested workload-based adaptive load balancing algorithm. • Drop RREQ according to the length of the message queue and the outstanding workload in nodes.

  11. Energy Efficiency Metrics • The total energy consumption • The throughput and network lifetime with limited energy amount • The energy usage per delivered packet • The energy usage per hop

  12. Routing Efficiency Metrics • Relative routing overhead • Delivery ratio • End-to-end delay • Average number of hops and optimal hops • Optimal hops are calculated by NS2. • Normalized hops • average hops/optimal hops • Distribution of average number of hops

  13. Simulation Study • All simulations have been performed on NS2 (version ns-2.26) • All the scenario files have been generated using NS2 • Using setdest and cbrgen.tcl program • All energy efficiency measured by Energy Model in NS2 • TX power: 0.6W, RX power: 0.3W, Idle: 0.1W • Initial energy for energy consumption: 1000J • Initial energy for network lifetime: 300J

  14. Simulation Study (2) • Parameters for simulations

  15. Results : Energy Consumption • AODV-NC(1:300-120) uses the least energy in connection 20. • However, AODV uses the least energy in connection 60. -> explained by network throughput

  16. Results : Throughput and Network lifetime • AODV-NC(0.1)-WLB shows the highest throughput both connection 20 and 60. • AODV-NC(1:300-120) shows the longest network lifetime.

  17. Results : Energy consumption per packets and hop • AODV-NC(1:300-120) uses the least energy to deliver a data packet. • AODV-NC(1:300-120) and AODV-NC(0.1)-WLB uses the least energy for one hop.

  18. Results: Routing Efficiency • Average number of hops • AODV-NC(1:300-120) delivers packets with the smallest number of hops • Normalized hops • AODV-NC(0.1) shows the lowest ratio • Distribution of average hops • AODV-NC sends packets with smaller hops than AODV.

  19. Results: Routing Efficiency (2) • For various speeds of nodes • From 1m/s to 20m/s • AODV-NCs with load balancing shows the better performance than AODV-WLB. • In high mobility, AODV-NC-WLB and AODV-WLB failed to find a path at the first attempt. • It causes the increments of overhead and delay.

  20. Results: Routing Efficiency (3) • For various connections of nodes • From 10 to 60 connections • At high workload conditions, WLB improves performances. • With AODV, WLB improves delivery ratio, relative overhead and delay up to 6%, 23% and 7.5% • With AODV-NC, WLB improves delivery ratio, relative overhead and delay up to 32%, 85% and 41%

  21. Conclusion • With non-adaptive and adaptive load balancing techniques combines with AODV-NC shows better performance than AODV itself in energy efficiency as well as routing efficiency. • AODV-NC-WLB is the best in network throughput • AODV-NC-(H:t-n) shows the longest network lifetime

  22. Questions?

More Related