EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SINGLE PATH: RESULTS

RESULTS

We have evaluated the performance of multi path routing protocol AOMDV with respect to single path routing protocol AODV using ns-2 simulations under a wide range of pause time and energy consumption scenarios. The goal is to address the following issues. In single Path and Multipath environment what will be end-to-end delay and packet delivery fraction when pause time varies? In single Path and Multipath environment what will be energy consumption throughput for various pause times?

‘ In this paper, we have considered two experiments to compare the performance measures of AODV and AOMDV rigorously. Our objective was to measure the life time of route, end-to-end delay, throughput, energy consumption and packet delivery fraction in single path environment and multipath environment with and without energy field in the dynamic and reactive routing protocol. Hence, in the first experiment we have considered plain AODV and AOMDV. We have observed End-to-End delay throughput and packet delivery fraction in it. In second experiment, we have taken AODV and AOMDV with energy as parameter to observe the effect on life time of route. To find the facts we have considered energy consumption criteria.

Experiment 1

In this simulation case, we consider a map size of 500m by 500m. Two routing protocols are simulated: AODV and AOMDV. Number of Nodes is varying up to 50. The node’s Maximum speed is 25m/s (90 km/h – fast vehicular speed). Each node has a pause time of 20s. The traffic type is CBR, the application agent is sending at a rate of 10 packets per second (data) continuously. The entire simulation run lasts for 100s. Table 4.1 summarizes the simulation parameters.

Table 1: Simulation Parameter
table 1Experimental Evaluation-3
Fig1Experimental Evaluation-4
Figure 1: End to End Delay Vs Nodes

Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes (10 to 50 in block of ten ) and number of connection 8 which shows that the end to end delay for AOMDV is much lesser then compare to AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the end to end delay is much batter in AOMDV. We could see that AOMDV is outperforming 15.66% better than AODV. So we can say that AOMDV is much QOS aware than the AODV.

Result: Throughput – AOMDV and AODV.

Fig2Experimental Evaluation-5
Figure 2: Throughput V/S Nodes

Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes (10 to 50 in block of ten ) and number of connection 8 which shows that the throughput for AOMDV is closer to AODV but little lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the first computation for multi path reduce the throughput in AOMDV.

Fig3Experimental Evaluation-6
Figure 3: PDF V/s Nodes

Here the red line shows AOMDV and blue line shows AODV, the result here taken for different numbers of nodes and number of connection 8 which shows that the PDF for AOMDV is closer to AODV but little lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the first computation for multi path reduce the PDF in AOMDV.

Experiment 2

In this simulation case, we consider a map size of 1000m by 1000m. Two routing protocols are simulated: AODV and AOMDV. Number of Nodes are 100. The node’s Maximum speed is 20m/s (75 km/h – fast vehicular speed). Each node has a varying pause time of 0 to 50 with increment of 10. The traffic type is CBR. The entire simulation run lasts for 100s.
Some assumptions are taken as follows.
1. Data transfer between single source and single destination.
2. Area having higher no. of nodes. ideal 100.
3. Bandwidth is same for all links.

Table 2: Simulation Parameters
table2Experimental Evaluation-7
Fig4Experimental Evaluation-8
Figure 4: End to End Delay V/s Pause Time

Here the Red line shows AOMDV and Green line shows AODV, the result here taken for different Pause Time (10 to 50 with increment of 10) and number of nodes 100, and the result conclusion shows that the end to end delay for AOMDV is much lesser then AODV, the reason behind that is the AOMDV compute multi path for same destination and choose the best from that so the end to end delay is much batter compare to others.

Result of End to End Delay – AODV, AOMDV

Result of Energy Consumption – AODV, AOMDV

Fig5Experimental Evaluation-9
Figure 5: Energy Consumption V/s Pause Time

Here the Red line shows AOMDV and Green line shows AODV, the result here taken for different Pause Time (10To 50 with increment of 10) and number of nodes 100, and the result conclusion shows that the Energy Consumption for AOMDV is closer to AODV. Here the result shows that for less pause time the energy consumption is less compare to AODV but as pause time increases the energy consumption increases compare to AODV.