84 JOURNAL OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN WEB INTELLIGENCE, VOL. 2, NO. 2, MAY 2010We run each simulation four times with different nodepause time vary<strong>in</strong>g from 15 to 30sec with a step <strong>in</strong>terval<strong>of</strong> 5 sec. The graphs are presented <strong>in</strong> results section.ResultsThe performance <strong>of</strong> proposed protocol is evaluated us<strong>in</strong>gthe follow<strong>in</strong>g metrics:Packet delivery ratio (Throughput): Packet deliveryfraction is the ratio between the number <strong>of</strong> packetsorig<strong>in</strong>ated by the application layer CBR sources and thenumber <strong>of</strong> packets received by the CBR s<strong>in</strong>ks at the f<strong>in</strong>aldest<strong>in</strong>ations. Packet delivery Ratio is higher for AODVwith Dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g Sets than that <strong>of</strong> conventional AODV(figure 3 & 7 )Number <strong>of</strong> Control Packets: The total number <strong>of</strong>control packets occurred by different nodes is less <strong>in</strong>AODV with Dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g Sets than that <strong>of</strong> conventionalAODV(figure 4 & 8).Number <strong>of</strong> Route requests: It is the number <strong>of</strong> controlpackets generated by all the nodes <strong>in</strong> the simulation. Thenumber <strong>of</strong> Route Request packets is less <strong>in</strong> AODV withDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g Sets (figure 2 & 6 ) compare to conventionalAODV.End-to-End Delay: The End-to-End Delay <strong>of</strong> AODVwith Dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g Sets is better when compared withconventional AODV (figure 5 & 9).Performance <strong>of</strong> AODV with Dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong> sets andAODV <strong>in</strong> the Terra<strong>in</strong> Dimensions (500, 500)RouteThroughputs <strong>in</strong>Requests(persecondsnodes)Comparision Route Requests <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODV withDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets700600500400300200100020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160No <strong>of</strong> NodesAodvAodvdomFig 2 Route Request packet ComparisonComparision <strong>of</strong> Throughputs <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODV withDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets14000120001000080006000400020000AodvdomAodv20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160No <strong>of</strong> NodesAODVAODVDOMAODVAODVDOMEnd-to-End Delay<strong>in</strong> secondsComparision <strong>of</strong> End-to-End Delay <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODVwith Dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets0.050.040.030.020.010Aodv1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8No <strong>of</strong> NodesAodvdomFig 5 End-to-End Delay <strong>in</strong> SecAODVAODVDOMPerformance <strong>of</strong> AODV with dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets andAODV <strong>in</strong> the Terra<strong>in</strong> (2000, 2000) up to 40 nodesRouteRequestpackets sentThroughputs(<strong>in</strong>Control Packetsseconds)Compar<strong>in</strong>g Route Request packets sent <strong>in</strong> AODV andAODV with dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets2000Aodv15001000500010 15 20 25 30 35 40No <strong>of</strong> NodesAodvdomFig 6 Route Request packet ComparisionComparision <strong>of</strong> Throughputs <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODV withdom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets80007000Aodvdom60005000400030002000Aodv1000010 15 20 25 30 35 40No <strong>of</strong> nodes2000150010005000Fig 7 Throughput comparisonComparision <strong>of</strong> CTRL Packets <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODV withDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g setsAodvAodvdom10 15 20 25 30 35 40No <strong>of</strong> nodesFig 8.Control Packets ComparisonAODVAODVDOMAODVAODVDOMAODVAODVDOMControl Packets800600400200Fig 3 Throughput comparisonComparision <strong>of</strong> Control Packets <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODV withDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g sets020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160No <strong>of</strong> NodesAodvAodvdomFig4.Control Packets ComparisonAODVAODVDOMEnd-to-End delay <strong>in</strong>secondsComparision <strong>of</strong> End-to-End Delay <strong>in</strong> AODV and AODVwith Dom<strong>in</strong>ant sets0.350.3Aodv0.250.2AODV0.15AODVDOM0.1Aodvdom0.05010 15 20 25 30 35 40No <strong>of</strong> nodesFig 9 End-to-End Delay <strong>in</strong> Sec© 2010 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
JOURNAL OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN WEB INTELLIGENCE, VOL. 2, NO. 2, MAY 2010 85V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKWe presented an enhanced dom<strong>in</strong>ant prun<strong>in</strong>g approachthat allows prun<strong>in</strong>g redundant broadcasts even more thanthe conventional dom<strong>in</strong>ant prun<strong>in</strong>g heuristic. Redundantbroadcasts <strong>in</strong>crease the number <strong>of</strong> packet collisions, andconsequently delay the response for RREQs <strong>in</strong> the routediscovery process. DP is shown to reduce the number <strong>of</strong>broadcast transmissions when compared to standard DP.Because DP requires the two-hop neighborhood todeterm<strong>in</strong>e the forwarder list, we built a neighbor protocolas part <strong>of</strong> AODV. By mak<strong>in</strong>g the neighbor protocol part<strong>of</strong> AODV, the result is a more accurate view <strong>of</strong> the localtopology, and therefore more accurate is thedeterm<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the forwarder list. We also proposed aAPDP algorithm which is an enhanced version <strong>of</strong> PDP.Here we have shown the performance comparison <strong>of</strong>AODV with DP algorithm. Future scope <strong>of</strong> the work is tocompare to the performance <strong>of</strong> AODV with PDPalgorithm and compare the performance <strong>of</strong> both.REFERENCES[1] Brad Williams and Tracy Camp. Comparison <strong>of</strong>broadcast<strong>in</strong>g techniques for mobile adhoc networks. InMobiHoc ’02: Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the 3rd ACM <strong>in</strong>ternationalsymposiumon mobile ad hoc network<strong>in</strong>g & comput<strong>in</strong>g,pages 194–205. ACM Press, 2002.[2] C. Perk<strong>in</strong>s. Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector rout<strong>in</strong>g. InProceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the IEEE workshop on mobile comput<strong>in</strong>gsystems and applications, pages 90–100, 1999.[3] Charles E. Perk<strong>in</strong>s and Elizabeth M.Royer. Ad-hoc ondemanddistance vector rout<strong>in</strong>g. Technical report, SunMicro Systems Laboratories, Advacnced DevelopmenetGroup, USA.[4] David B Johnson and David A Maltz. Dynamic sourcerout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> ad hoc wireless networks.In Mobile Comput<strong>in</strong>g,volume 353, pages 153–179. Kluwer AcademicPublishers,1996.[5] Dipti Joshi, Sridhar Radhakrishnan, and ChandrasekheranNarayanan. A fast algorithm for generalized networklocation problems. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the ACM/SIGAPPsymposium on applied comput<strong>in</strong>g, pages 701–8, 1993[6] H. Lim and C. Kim. Flood<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> wireless ad hoc networks.Computer Communications, 24(3–4):353–363, February2001[7] Jie Wu and Fei Dai. Broadcast<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> ad hoc networks basedon self-prun<strong>in</strong>g. In IEEE INFOCOM, pages 2240–2250,2003.[8] Jorge Nuevo, “A comprensible glomosim tutorial”,March4,2004http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk\~hndai\research.[9] Katia Obraczka, Kumar Viswanath, and Gene Tsudik.Flood<strong>in</strong>g for reliable multicast <strong>in</strong> multi-hop ad hocnetworks. Wireless Networks, 7(6):627–634, 2001.[10] Marco A. Spohn and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves. Enhanceddom<strong>in</strong>ant prun<strong>in</strong>g applied to the route discovery process <strong>of</strong>on-demand rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the 12thIEEE <strong>in</strong>ternational conference on computercommunications and networks, pages 497–502, October2003[11] Mobile Ad Hoc Network<strong>in</strong>g:Rout<strong>in</strong>g Protocol PerformanceIssues and Evaluation Considerations Request ForComments 2501 available at http://www.ietf.org[12] N<strong>in</strong>g.P. and Sun.K. How to misuse aodv: a case study <strong>of</strong><strong>in</strong>sider attacks aga<strong>in</strong>st mobile ad-hoc rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols.Technical report, Comput. Sci. Dept., North Carol<strong>in</strong>a StateUniv., Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003.[13] Peng-Jun Wan, Khaled M. Alzoubi, and Ophir Frieder.Distributed construction <strong>of</strong> connected dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g set <strong>in</strong>wireless ad hoc networks. In IEEE INFOCOM, pages1597–1604, June 2002.[14] Rajive Bagrodia. README GloMoSim S<strong>of</strong>tware.University <strong>of</strong> California, Los Angeles - Department <strong>of</strong>Computer Science. Box 951596, 3532 Boelter Hall, LosAngeles-CA 90095-1596 / rajive@cs.ucla.edu.[15] Teresa W. Haynes, Stephen T. Hedetniemi, and Peter J.Slater, editors. Fundamentals <strong>of</strong> Dom<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> Graphs.Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1998.[16] Xiaoyan Hong, Kaix<strong>in</strong> Xu, and Mario Gerla. Scalablerout<strong>in</strong>g protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. 2002.[17] Yu-Chee Tseng, Sze-Yao Ni, Yuh-Shyan Chen, and Jang-P<strong>in</strong>g Sheu. The broadcast storm problem <strong>in</strong> a mobile ad hocnetwork. Wireless Networks, 8:153–167, 2002. H. Lim andC. Kim. Flood<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> wireless ad hoc networks. ComputerCommunications,24(3–4):353–363, February 2001-04-15).[18] Z. Haas. A new rout<strong>in</strong>g protocol for the reconfigurablewireless network. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs<strong>of</strong> the IEEE <strong>in</strong>ternationalconference on universal personal communications, pages562–566, October 1997.[19] A Nagaraju , Dr S.Ramachandram “Adaptive PartialDom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g Set Algorithm For Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”, Presented <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>ternational conference ACM,COMPUTE-09, Jan 9 th -11 th ,2009,Banglore.[20] J.Hass and M.R.Pearlman, “The Zone Rout<strong>in</strong>gProtoco(ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks,” draft-ietf-manetzone-zrp-02.txt,work<strong>in</strong> progress,June 1999[21] T.Clausen, P.Jacquet,A.Laouiti, P.Muhlethaler,A. Q andL.Viennot. Optimized l<strong>in</strong>k state rout<strong>in</strong>g protocol for adhocnetworks. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the IEEE <strong>in</strong>ternat multitopics conferences. 2001© 2010 ACADEMY PUBLISHER