Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AN EVALUATION OF GPSR ROUTING PROTOCOL TO MEASURE THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE NETWORK
NUR SYAFIQAH BINTI MOHAMAD
BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
(COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY) WITH HONORS
FACULTY OF INFORMATICS AND COMPUTING
UNIVERSITY SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN
2019
i
DECLARATION
This dissertation is submitted as partial fulfillment for the reward of a Bachelor
of Computer Science (Computer Network and Security) with Honors at University
Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA). The results of this work are on my own investigations.
All the sections of text and results which have been obtained from other sources are
fully referenced. I understand that cheated and plagiarism constitute a branch of
university regulations and will be dealt with accordingly.
Signature: ……………………………………….
Name: NUR SYAFIQAH BINTI MOHAMAD
Date: …………………………………………….
ii
CONFIRMATION
I certify that the project and the writing of this report were conducted by the
student under my supervision.
Signature: ……………………………………….
Name: NUR AIDA BINTI MAHIDDIN
Date: …………………………………………….
iii
DEDICATION
First of all, praise to Allah, the Gracious and the Most Merciful for blessing and
giving the opportunity to undergo and complete my proposal for final year project, An
Evaluation Of GPSR Routing Protocol To Measure The Performance Of The Network.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartiest gratitude to my
supportive supervisor, Puan Aida binti Mahiddin for her motivation, guidance, and help
throughout my project. Without her time, support and guidance, it is impossible for me
to finish my project successfully. Thank you for your kindness. May Allah bless her.
Next, I would like to extend my appreciation to my parents Mohamad bin
Awang and Semek binti Mohamad, my family members and my friends who supported
and encouraged me throughout the process. May Allah protect and bless all of them.
Lastly, I thank you to all my lecturers who taught me throughout my education
from Semester 1 until Semester 6 at University Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA). May
Allah bless all of them.
iv
ABSTRACT
MANET is a collection of mobile devices and a self-configured network.
It is wireless communication and networking to communicate with each other
without a fixed infrastructure of the centralized administrator. Greedy Perimeter
Stateless Routing (GPSR) routing protocol is a geographic routing protocol that
assumes that each node knows its geographic location. Route mechanisms
GPSR gives very bad past in large networks when source and destination are not
along a straight line. The source should know destination locations accurately
for packets to reach or come close to the destination. However, it very difficult
for location management service to maintain accurate location information at all
times. Geographic routing is difficult when holes are present in network
topology and nodes are very often disconnected. The thesis attempts to focus on
the performance GPSR by considering varying beacon intervals and max jitter.
This routing proposed to improve routing performance. It has been implemented
in OMNet++ simulator viewing that the applicability of the protocol can be
enhanced. So, this thesis evaluates the performance GPSR routing protocol in
MANET in terms of packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, and throughput. It
can be observed from the pattern of the graph that will show the result of the
simulation. It is a general-purpose event-driven simulation tool freely available
for the research community.
v
ABSTRAK
Koleksi peranti mudah alih (MANET), pelbagai hop dan rangkaian
dikonfigurasi sendiri. Ia adalah komunikasi tanpa wayar dan rangkaian untuk
berkomunikasi satu sama lain tanpa infrastruktur pentadbir berpusat yang tetap.
Protokol routing perimeter tamak tanpa kerumitan (GPSR) adalah protokol routing
geografi yang mengandaikan bahawa setiap node mengetahui lokasi geografinya.
Mekanisme laluan GPSR memberikan lalu masa yang sangat buruk dalam rangkaian
besar apabila sumber dan destinasi tidak berada di sepanjang garis lurus. Sumber
harus mengetahui lokasi destinasi dengan tepat untuk paket untuk mencapai atau
mencapai destinasi. Walaubagaimanapun, sangat sukar untuk perkhidmatan
pengurusan lokasi untuk mengekalkan maklumat lokasi yang tepat pada setiap masa.
Peralihan geografi sukar apabila lubang hadir dalam topologi rangkaian dan nod
sering terputus. Tesis ini cuba memberi tumpuan kepada GPSR prestasi dengan
mempertimbangkan pelbagai selang beacon dan jitter max. Peralihan ini dicadangkan
untuk meningkatkan prestasi routing. Ia telah dilaksanakan di OMNet++ melihat
simulator bahawa penggunaan protokol boleh ditingkatkan. Jadi, tesis ini menilai
protokol routing GPSR dalam MANET dari segi nisbah penghantaran paket, nisbah
kehilangan paket dan output. Ia boleh dilihat dari corak graf yang akan menunjukkan
hasil simulasi. Ia adalah alat simulasi yang digerakkan oleh acara umum yang tersedia
secara bebas untuk komuniti penyelidikan.
vi
CONTENTS
DECLARATION I
CONFIRMATION II
DEDICATION III
ABSTRACT IV
ABSTRAK V
CONTENTS VI-IX
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES XI-XII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) 1-2
1.1.2 Classification of Routing Protocols 3-5
1.1.3 Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing 5-8
(GPSR) routing protocol
vii
1.1.4 Routing Selection Scheme in MANET 8
1.2 Problem Statements 9
1.3 Objectives 9-10
1.4 Scopes 10
1.5 Limitation of Works 10
1.6 Summary 11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Related Works 13-21
2.3 Summary 21
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Research Methodology 23
3.3 Simulation 24-25
3.4 Project Framework 26
3.5 Project Flowchart 27-28
3.6 Summary 28
viii
CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Installation of OMNet++ 4.6 29-33
4.3 Simulation Environment 33
4.4 Configuration 34
4.4.1 Omnetpp.ini File 35
4.4.2 GPSR.ned File 36
4.4.3 Simulation 36-37
4.5 Results 37
4.5.1 Packet Delivery Ratio 37-38
4.5.2 Packet Loss Ratio 38
4.5.3 Throughput 39
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction 40
5.2 Finalization of Project 40-41
5.3 Constraints and Challenges 41
5.4 Future Works 41
5.5 Summary 42
ix
REFFRENCES 43-46
APPENDIX 47-48
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
4.1 Simulation Parameter 34
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1.1 Example of MANET 1
1.2 Classification of Routing Protocol 3
1.3 GPSR Routing Protocol
(a) Greedy Forwarding 6
(b) Greedy Forwarding Failure 6
(c) Planner Graph Traversal 7
(d) Right-hand-rule: Perimeter 8
3.1 Research Methodology 23
3.2 OMNet++ version 4.6 Simulation tool Icon 25
3.3 Inetmanet Framework Icon 25
3.4 Framework of GPSR Routing Protocol 26
3.5 Flowchart of GPSR Routing Protocol 28
4.1 omnetpp 4.6 30
4.2 mingwenv File 30
xii
4.3 setenv command 31
4.4 configure command 31
4.5 make command 32
4.6 omnetpp command 32
4.7 Inetmanet Framework 33
4.8 Simulation of GPSR Routing Protocol 36
4.9 Simulation of MANET Area 36
4.10 Simulation running with 1s beacon intervals 37
4.11 Packet Delivery Ratio 38
4.12 Packet Loss Ratio 38
4.13 Throughput 39
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MANET Mobile Ad-hoc Network
OMNet++ Objective Modular Testbed in C++
GPSR Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing
GPS Global Positioning System
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Project
1.1.1 Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET)
A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a developing area of research. Mobile ad-
hoc network is a group of wireless mobile sites forming a temporary network and
provides communication between the nodes without any central authority. Mobile ad-
hoc Networking is an efficient way of exchanging peer-to-peer information among
devices. A routing protocol must be able to support unicast, multicast and broadcast.
Figure 1.1 shows example of MANET. A mobile ad-hoc is a self-organizing that
consists of mobile nodes that are capable of communication with each other without
the help of fixed infrastructure. The mobile nodes are including laptops, smartphones,
and personal computers. Nodes are randomly connected with each other. Each device
in MANET is free to move independently in any direction and will, therefore, change
its links to other devices frequently. Each node must forward traffic to make the
network consistent.
2
On the other hand, the ad-hoc network using a multi-hop link. Each node itself as
a router for forwarding and receiving packets to/from other nodes. These networks are
usually deployed for various diverse applications such as military networks, conference
rooms and in commercial applications like vehicle ad-hoc networks [13]. Hence,
information sharing among mobile nodes is made available. Besides, MANET is a
dynamic network topology which means mobile nodes comes and goes from the
network. This topology changes frequently, leading to regular route changes, network
partitions and possibly packet loss.
Figure 1.1 Example of MANET [17]
3
1.1.2 Classification of routing protocols
Fig. 1.2 shows the classification of Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network.
Figure 1.2 Classification of routing protocol [2]
Classification of routing protocols are divided into three types:
I. Flat routing
Flat routing protocols are network communication protocols implemented by
routers where all routers are each other's peer. The routing protocols distribute
routing information to routers that are connected with each other without any
organizational or segmentation structure between them.
II. Hierarchical routing
Hierarchical routing is the procedure of setting a router in a hierarchy. A good
example is to consider the corporate intranet. Most corporate intranets are made
up of high speeds backbone network. Connected to this backbone are routers
that are in turn connects to a specific workgroup.
4
III. Geographic position routing
In this routing protocol relies on geographical positioning information. It is
especially suggested for wireless networks and based on that idea source sends
a message to a geographic location destination instead of using a network
address.
IV. Proactive routing protocol
In these protocols, the network each node must keep up-to-date routing tables.
When the network topology changes every node in the network propagates the
update message to the network to maintain a reliable routing table. In each node
builds its own routing table which can be used to find out a path to a destination
and routing information is stored.
V. Reactive routing protocol
In a reactive routing protocol, route tables are created when required and are not
maintained periodically. The source node propagates the route request packet to
its neighbors when it wants to connect to a destination node. When a node wants
to send data to any other node, it first initiates the route discovery process to
discover the path to that destination node. This path remains usable till the
destination is accessible or the route is not required.
VI. Hybrid routing protocol
These protocols are made from the combine strategies of both proactive and
reactive protocols. This hybrid routing protocol uses the proactive routing
5
protocol in the case of intra-domain routing and uses the reactive routing
protocol in the case of inter-domain routing.
1.1.3 Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) Routing Protocol
GPSR consists of two methods for forwarding packets: greedy forwarding
which is used wherever possible and perimeter forwarding which is used in the regions
greedy forwarding cannot be.
Greedy Forwarding is a location-based routing protocol that assumes that each
node knows its geographic location (e.g., using GPS). Each node announces its
existence by broadcasting periodic beacons to its one-hop neighbors which contain the
node's ID and its geographic location. A simple beaconing algorithm is used to provide
all nodes with their neighbor positions. Every node transmits a beacon periodically to
the broadcast MAC address. The route request packet is the integration of the
information about the position. The entire neighbor nodes of each node are maintained
in the local table. The node that needs to send the packet request packet checks the local
table for the nearest node to the destination and passes the data packet to the
corresponding node. If a beacon from the neighbor is not received for a longer time
than a timeout interval, a GPSR router assumes that the neighbor has failed or out of
range and deletes the neighbor node from its local table.
Figure 1.3(a) shows an example of greedy forwarding. x receives a packet from
D. The packets are sent from x to y, therefore the distance between y and D is less than
between D and any other neighbor x. This process will repeat until the packets reach
the destination D.
6
(a) Greedy Forwarding [1]
(b) Greedy Forwarding Failure [1]
Sometimes greedy forwarding is impossible as in figure 1.3(b) where no
neighbor node is close to the destination D of x itself. Although the two paths of two
routes (x→y→z→D) and (x→w→v→D), X will not choose w or y to forward using
greedy forwarding.
Here the second algorithm will be active which is the forwarding perimeter or
Face-2 algorithm. Therefore, the packet mode will be placed into the perimeter mode
or Face-2 algorithm. In this method, the packet is forwarded to the node with the least
backward progress if any of the nodes cannot find the forward path. In addition, with
this method the problem of looping packets is occurring, which does not occur in
forwarding packet towards the destination with positive progress. In the Face-2
7
algorithm, a node does not need to store any additional or inadequate information. This
algorithm is based on the planner graph traversal as shown in figure 1.3(c).
(c) Planner Graph Traversal [26]
The planner graph is a graph with no intercepting perimeter. In an ad-hoc
network, the information is transferred in which the nodes are vertices and the perimeter
exists between two vertices if the nodes are closer to communicate with each other. The
packet is forwarded along the center of the face in planner graph traversal by using the
right-hand rule. In the perimeter routing, the right-hand rules are used to cross the edges
of the shaded region without a node. This algorithm finds a possible path around the
void to the destination node. Figure 1.3(d) show node y to node x, the next edge is
linked x and y in the direction form x to y. The right-hand-rule chooses another edge
by counter-clockwise rotation way and then traverses the closed polygonal area. In
figure 1.3(b), when node X finds out a routing void, the routing path by right-hand-rule
is x→w→v→D→z→y→x and then the border transmission is finished [27]. When it is
possible, the packet is forwarded according to the greedy forwarding again. In addition,
to location knowledge, each source node in GPSR needs to know the location of its
one-hop neighbors and destination nodes (bases base in our case).
8
(d) Right-hand-rule: Perimeter [27]
Figure 1.3 GPSR Routing Protocol
1.1.4 Routing Selection Scheme in MANET.
Routing is one of the most important issues in MANET. In order to overcome
these issues, a routing selection scheme is required to reduce the amount of end-to-end
delay and increase packet delivery between the mobile node to the destination. It is
important as the node needs to choose the optimal route to the destination. The Routing
Selection Scheme, route table will generate first before the node sends the data packet
to the destination.
9
1.2 Problem Statements
There are several problems that occurred in this thesis:
I. The collision of beacon interval messages at the node in MANET deployment.
The collision of messages at the node due the nodes send the beacon messages
at the same time. The collision occurs when the beacon messages being
broadcasted to the neighbor nodes. This also will lead to packet loss.
II. Location-based routing is difficult when holes are present in network topology
and nodes are very often disconnected [12]. Since GPSR is a geographical
strategy (i.e., determining routes based on destination and neighboring positions
to forward data) it can carry packets to a dead end, increasing end-to-end delays
and the number of hops required to reach the destination. Additionally, due to
high node mobility and barriers, the GPSR strategy may suffer from lower
performance as it does not take into account these features.
1.2 Objectives
The goals of this thesis to solve the problem statement by proposed GPSR routing
protocol in MANET. So, this project mainly focuses on the following objectives:
I. To study the GPSR routing protocol in MANET. The nodes move randomly due
to dynamic network topology in MANET.
II. To implement the GSPR routing protocol in MANET by using OMNet++
simulation tools.
10
III. To analyze and evaluate the performance GPSR routing protocol in MANET in
terms of packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, and throughput. It can be
observed from the pattern of the graph that will show the result of the
simulation.
1.3 Scopes
The scope of this thesis is limited to geographic routing. This thesis only focuses
on the beacon message. This project stimulates MANET via OMNet++ simulation
version 4.6 in windows.
1.4 Limitation of Works
Applying MANET in a real-world environment as this project only simulation in
OMNet++. The network could not be implemented in a real-life experiment because:
I. Provide a very high cost because MANET required a large area such as a
military area or disaster area. There are more nodes that need to prepare so they
may lead to the high cost to provide more nodes.
II. Different to collect/retrieve the data and specify the number of nodes. It is
because it will not get specific result of transmission the packets or message
from node to another node in the real life.
III. Take a long time to make configuration on MANET. In the real environment,
the coverage area for MANET is wide. For instance, disaster likes flooding so
it will take a few days to build this environment.
11
1.5 Summary
Due to the nature MANET which has been started in the problem statement
above. It is encouraging and motivating to develop this research as an effort to bring
some contribution to education and academics.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, taking a few researchers related to the project as a literature
review. It is important to gather the information or knowledge to get a better
understanding of the user an idea of how this project works.
As described in chapter 1, it is clearly stated about the routing protocol in
MANET. In the multi-hop network, nodes communicate with each other using wireless
links of each node. Each node acts as a host as well as a router and forwards data packets
for other nodes. A central challenge in the design of multi-hop ad-hoc networks is the
development of a dynamic protocol that can efficiently find routes between two
communication nodes [9]. Since MANET is an infrastructure less network, therefore,
it becomes difficult to manage and detect the fault. The use of this topology results in
frequent network partitions, route changes and possibly packet loss [2].
13
2.2 Related Object and Article
An ad hoc routing protocol is a convention or standard, that control how nodes
decide which way to route packets between computing devices in a mobile ad hoc
network. Routing is a problem in manet due to limited resources and moving nature of
nodes. Besides, this method also proposed to prevent flooding occurred among the node
when passing the data packet to the destination node.
Dung Nguyen Quoc, Shan He (2017) conducted on Geographic Routing in the
case of Void Area Problem based on Coordinates Rotation Axes. There are many
routing protocols using geographic location information for the wireless network in
case of the void area were proposed such as the Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing
protocol (GPSR) and Detour Routing based on Quadrant Classification protocol
(DRQC). These routing protocols choose a neighbor node of the sent node in such a
way that the distance to the destination node is shortest for a next node. Geographic
routing protocols are developed increasingly in Wireless networks, Wireless Sensor
Network, Mobile ad hoc Network, Vehicular ad hoc networks, and Wireless body area
network. In this case, many nodes cannot find neighbor nodes to the destination node
with the shortest distance. This problem called void area. If the local minima problem
occurs, the routing of some routing protocol will fail or performance is ineffective. As
in, DSR, ADOV, DRDV, and other protocols need the buffer to store information about
the state of the network, so the routing is costly and scalability, restoration the state of
the wireless network is not effective. So, the routing protocols used geographic are more
efficient in this case because they can improve the performance of routing in case the
local minima problem [3].
14
Radhika Patel, Bimal Patel, Sandip Patel, Amit Parmar (2016) conducted on
Comparative Performance Analysis of Reactive routing protocols, TORA and AODV:
A simulation-based evaluation. Reactive routing protocols are the type of routing
protocols that never maintains topology information and never exchange topological
statistics with further nodes in the network. They obtain the necessary information as
and when required by establishing the connection. The most popular reactive routing
protocols are AODV, DSR, ABR, and TORA. AODV discovers routes only when it is
required using the route discovery process. AODV manages link breakages and thus
provides loop-free routes. The route discovery process of AODV is established only if
any route is not useful or is expired. It has the capability of providing unicast, broadcast
as well as multicast communication. Besides, AODV utilizes a broadcast route
discovery and unicast route reply message. TORA routing protocol particularly built on
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). It is a distributed routing highly adaptive, well scalable
protocol for a mobile, multihop, wireless network. TORA relies on IMEP (Internet
Manet Encapsulation Protocol) as it provides reliable routing on an orderly manner and
ordered packet delivery. IMEP also affects the detection of link/connection status,
broadcast reliability, and message aggregation [4].
Yuto Terao, Phoneparuth Phoununavong, Keisuke Utsu, Hiroshi Ishii (2016)
conducted on A Proposal on Void Zone Aware Greedy Forwarding Method over
MANET. The greedy Forwarding algorithm which is a special route assisted by routing
in MANET has a problem that cannot find a path when the node faces an empty zone
(hole). The existing method to solve the problem usually tries to escape from the void
zone only after it finds the zone and produces a longer path. This paper proposes a
revised effective greedy forwarding method with a void zone information sharing
between the nodes before the route decision. There are several proposals can handle
15
this problem. The authors proposed the Hole-Aware Greedy (HAGR) to overcome the
problem of void topology. When a network has a void topology (void zone) or hole,
HAGR uses neighboring node advertising to detect holes in the network. Greedy
Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) consists of two packet-forwarding steps: Greedy
Forwarding and Perimeter Forwarding. When a pack reaches a void zone, the algorithm
recovers by directing the perimeter of the area. It returned to the GF as it escapes from
the void zone. GPSR does not correspond to large-scale networks and is not easy to
implement GPSR to nonplanar topologies in ad hoc networks. Face routing routes a
message along the inside of the communication graph face with a face change on the
edges crossing the line connecting the source and destination. The face routing may
increase the number of hops of the route [5].
Hosam Rowaihy, Ahmed BinSahaq (2016) conducted the research on
Performance of GPSR and AOMDV in WSNs with Uncontrolled Mobility. Mobile
Wireless Sensor Network (MWSN) is a subset of WSN where some or all sensors are
mobile. Due to the similarities between the MWSNs and Mobile Ad-hoc Network
(MANET), the existing MANET routing protocols can be used for this purpose.
However, the nature of network communication in the MWSN (many to one) differs
from the nature of MANET (peer to peer). In this paper, the authors investigated the
performance of two different MANET routing protocols, a Greedy stateless Perimeter
(GPSR) and Ad-doc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV) in MWSN.
They also examine the performance of these routing protocols in the MWSNs domain
with a location-based detection application, assuming that the nodes move in an
uncontrollable manner. These protocols represent two different categories of routing
methods: the first is based on geography, while the second is based on path discovery.
AOMDV is not suitable for operation in MWSNs: even with its ability to handle link
16
breaks caused by node mobility (e.g. using multiple path routing), the nature of the
traffic in MWSNs (all-to-one) generates a significant routing overhead due to the route
discovery process. The GPSR performance is better than AOMD, especially when the
network density is sufficient. However, their dependence on geographic information
can be a disadvantage, especially when used in sensitive applications (e.g., military
missions) that need to maintain the privacy of places. In general, the GPSR is more
efficient than the AOMDV because of its advantage in using geographic information
that eliminates its needs for the discovery process of the routes used by AOMDV [1].
Neha Chachra, Jogishwar Singh Sohal (2016, February) conducted on Scalable
approach in Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing. In International Journal of Computer
Applications. In this paper, the authors describe the Greedy perimeter stateless routing
(GPSR) and optimization of mobile wireless networks to compare its performance
based on changes in topology. The distance vector (DV), link state (LS) and path vector
algorithms are used for scalable topology in wireless networks for efficient routing
related to a given application. The GPSR is a scalable routing protocol for wireless
sensor networks (WSNs). This routing protocol uses the randomized positioning of
routers in different configurations and algorithms that are used to make packet delivery
decisions through nodes. In this routing protocol, routers are considered to be stateless
for the dissemination of topology information where each node's need only to know the
neighbors' position. The usefulness of routing is achieved by characterizing the self
from the node position. By knowing the position of the packet's destination and the
position of the next ranked candidate, are sufficient to make the right decisions about
the routing forwarding. The Wireless routers have complete information about their
own position via outsourced GPS services, inertial sensors on vehicles, searching for a
variety using radar and ultrasonic chirps. The IEEE 802.11 wireless network MAC
17
sends a link-based acknowledgment for the unicast packets, with a bidirectional link in
802.11 [6].
Sukhdev Singh Ghuman (2016) conducted on Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
protocol in wireless networks. The Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) is an on-
demand protocol which helps to control the bandwidth consumed by control packets
and ad-hoc wireless networks. It also provides excellent performance for routing in
multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks. The basic technique used in this protocol is to
show a route by flooding Route Request (RREQ) packets in the network. When the
destination node receives an RREQ packet, it responds by sending a Route Reply
(RREP) packet back to the source. The RREP packet carries the route traversed by the
RREQ packet which was received at the destination node. In this paper, the author
investigates a protocol for routing packets between wireless mobile nodes in an ad hoc
network The DSR protocol uses dynamic source routing that adjusts quickly to shift the
change when the host moves frequently and requires a little overhead during the period
in which the host moves less often. In DSR protocol, the main difference between
routing protocols and the other on-demand routing protocols is it does not require a
hello packet transmission, which is used by a node to tell other nearby nodes about its
presence. It does not need to do additional work to update the table according to current
network conditions as done in a table-driven approach. In this protocol, a route is
established as per requirement, so the need to find routes to all other nodes in the
network is eliminated. To reduce the control overhead, the intermediate nodes also use
the stored route information efficiently [7].
Pankaj Kumar Varshney, G.S. Agrawal, Sudhir Kumar Sharma (2016)
conducted Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing Protocols in Wireless
Ad hoc Networks using Varying Node Density. In this paper, the authors analyzed the
18
performance of Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Source Tree Adaptive
Routing Protocol (STAR) at the application layer with the different number of nodes.
Both routing protocols are categorized as proactive protocols. They are also called
table-driven protocols. Table-driven protocol is one of the old ways to get routing in
the mobile ah-hoc network. Each node uses routing tables to store the location
information of other nodes in the network. The authors presented the results after
simulation and analyzing the power consumption behavior of routing protocols
respectively the Source Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR) and Optimized Link
State Routing (OLSR). The authors analyze the result in terms of end-to-end delays,
OLSR routing protocol has less value compared to STAR routing protocol on different
node capacity. In the case of average jitter: In increase, the node density OLSR routing
protocol performs better than the STAR routing protocol. In terms of throughput, OLSR
has a good value of throughput but as an increase in the load density STAR routing
protocol performs well on low load density. The time when the first packet was received
in second by a constant bit rate (CBR). In the performance of the first packet received
on the receiver server, the OLSR routing protocol looks for the route as compared with
the STAR routing protocol as on increase the node density. Both routing protocols give
the slightly same response in terms of the last packet received. In case of the total packet
received: In increase the node density OLSR routing protocol getting more packets as
compare to STAR routing protocols. The experimental results show that the overall
performance of the OLSR routing protocol is better than the STAR routing protocol as
an increase in the node density in a particular area [8].
Albaseer, Abdullatif & Bin Talib, Ghashmi, Bawazir, Ahmed (2016) conducted
Multi-hop Wireless Network: A Comparative Study for Routing Protocols Using
OMNET++ Simulator. The multi-hop communication is the most suitable solution to
19
overcome the limitation of the transmission range of mobile terminals. In this paper,
the authors have presented a performance of four protocols in the case of multi-hop
routing which are DSR, AODV, OLSR, and DSDV. These routing protocols were
evaluated based on the number of nodes. The authors used OMNet++ simulator to
estimate the performance of the protocols and they considered three metrics which are
end-to-end delay, collision and packet delivery ratio (PDR) for comparison purpose.
These metrics are compared based on the number of nodes which have directly affected
the number of hops. In this paper, the nodes have used in this simulation are 8, 16, 32,
40 and 80 nodes. The random waypoint mobility model is implemented in all scenarios.
First, the authors conclude the results that AODV achieved the best packet delivery
ratio. AODV is the highest PDR among the other protocol and does not affect when the
number of nodes is increased. This is because it has a lower routing overhead. Next, for
the collision, DSR and OLSR achieved the best results and closed to each other. OLSR
has the lowest collision because only the multipoint relays (MPR) nodes contribute to
delivering data. DSR and AODV fall between these two extremes, but the DSR
achieves better results than AODV. DSR keeps more than one route for the same
destination in the cache so the control packets exchanges are smaller than in the case of
AODV. In the last metric of this paper, AODV and OLSR provide the lowest end-to-
end delay. These protocols accomplish the same and the best results among the others.
From the overall result, AODV and OLSR accomplished a good performance compared
with DSDV and DSR in all given metrics [14].
Stuti Pant, Navendu Nitin, Ashish Xavier Das, A. K Jaiswal (2016). In this
paper, the authors investigate the performance of two mobility models which are
random waypoint and group over the increasing number of nodes by varying the routing
protocol such as AODV, DSR, DYMO, and ZRP. The authors analyze performance
20
metrics of various routing protocols with average end-to-end delay, jitter, and
throughput. In two groups with the varying number of nodes which are 20,40 and 80
nodes the average end-to-end delay, throughput and jitter are analyzed. The
performance of DSR was the best as the increasing the number of nodes in a group. Its
average end-to-end delay and jitter were the least and the throughput was good
comparatively. Next, the performance of the metrics of DYMO in terms of throughput
was better than ZRP according to an increasing number of nodes. ZRP performed with
more variations as the average end-to-end delay and jitter of the ZRP routing protocol
was more compared to DSR and DYMO. In addition, the performance of AODV was
quite poor. AODV performed with a significant amount of variation as the average end-
to-end delay and jitter was the highest and throughput was less [15].
Mohd. Imran, Mohammed Abdul Qadeer (2016) conducted an Evaluation study
of performance comparison of topology-based routing protocol, AODV, and DSDV in
MANET. Considering an ad-hoc network that is specified by frequently changing
topology and infrastructure less connectivity, a protocol must be tested under realistic
conditions but also it should not be limited and a sensible transmission range for
communication must be taken into account. In the paper, the authors analyze and
simulate the behavior of the Ad-hoc network operating in the different protocols which
are AODV and DSDV routing protocol. Many of these protocols have been simulated
and its performance has been evaluated against the transmission throughput, receiving
throughput and end-to-end delay. Based on the simulation, in terms of sending
throughput, AODV performed better than DSDV. The authors acquire that transmission
throughput first increases and then goes on the decrease with an increase in simulation
time as the node density, less traffics and free channel for both of protocol. For
receiving throughput, AODV indicating its highest efficiency and performance under
21
high mobility than DSDV. DSDV protocol has maximum receiving throughput because
it maintains a periodic table that it broadcast routing table continuously to its neighbor
for the update. For the AODV protocol, it decreases because of the less active route. In
terms of end-to-end delay, AODV decreases as the mobility increases but for DSDV it
increases gradually. Simulation results show that AODV achieves higher efficiency and
performance under a high mobility scenario than DSDV [18].
2.4 Summary
This chapter brings about the research of the methods or techniques that were
implemented in the routing protocol selection scheme in MANET. This study is
important to get the idea on to conduct and guide to the successful project.
22
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methods and alternatives that have been used from
the beginning until the end of the project. This chapter also discusses the simulation
that is used in the project. The network simulation tool used is OMNet++ simulator
version 4.6. Besides, this chapter also reviews the research of methodology and
flowchart of the project. It can help a better understanding of visualization in the project
implementation.
23
3.2 Research of Methodology
Figure 3.1 Research Methodology
The methodology is project planning. It consists of several steps in this research
methodology such as problem identification and motivation, design and development,
computer simulation and lastly, is a generalization and scheme performance evaluation
as shown in figure 3.1. Firstly, the problem identification used to explain about the
problem that occurred in this project. In this phase, the problem statement is stated
based on a literature review of related works to get more understanding of the problem
occurred in MANET. Secondly, design and development tell about the overall
development of this project. This phase will identify the suitable and specific methods
used to solve the problems. Thirdly, in the computer simulation step, it discusses the
simulation is tested and performed in OMNet++ version 4.6. In this scheme
performance evaluation, it is evaluated the performance metric of this project in terms
of packet delivery and end-to-end delay. It evaluates the performance of the Greedy
Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol by analyzing and summarizing the results
of the simulation.
24
3.3 Simulation
Simulation is used in this project because to implement this project in the real
environment required a high cost and consumes a long time. OMNet++ version 4.6 is
an open-source tool that only can directly install on Windows 10. Besides, this
simulation tool provides to small scale network, which is very suitable to make
implementation routing protocol on the MANET environment. Figure 3.2 shows the
OMNet++ version. 4.6 simulation tool icon. In this case, the simulation is preferred to
prevent this matter effectively. OMNet++ version 4.6 simulator is used to simulate and
generalized the measurement results in the MANET environment. OMNet++ (Object
Modular Network Testbed in C++) simulator provides a component-based,
hierarchical, modular and extensible architecture. besides, OMNet++ has extended GUI
support and due to its modular architecture, the simulation kernel and model can be
embedded easily into the user application. New modules can be derived from basic
object classes like modules, gates or connections. OMNet++ is composed of Graphical
network editor, Kernel library, Command line interface and A model documentation
tool for documentation. Graphical Network Editor (GNED) to allow graphical topology
build, creating files in the Network Description (NED) language. Kernel library is a
simulation that contains definitions of objects used for the topology creation. The
command line interface includes a graphical and command line interface for simulation
execution.
After installation of OMNet++ version 4.6, inetmanet framework imported to
OMNet++ simulation. Figure 3.3 shows the inetmanet Framework Icon. The purpose
of installing inetmanet is to make the implementation and configuration of MANET
easier because inetmanet framework is required for MANET environment in
OMNet++.
25
In conclusion, OMNeT++ and the inetmanet provide all the necessary
components for simulating MANET routing protocols in general and other Internet
protocols. Because of its modular architecture and its ability to directly access, monitor
and alter all modules’ internal states, OMNeT++ is very well suited for the
implementation of complex protocols [10].
Figure 3.2 OMNet++ version 4.6 Simulation tool Icon
Figure 3.3 Inetmanet Framework Icon
26
3.4 Project Framework
Figure 3.4 shows an overview of the project framework
Figure 3.4 Framework of GPSR Routing Protocol
27
3.5 Project Flowchart
GPSR is a location-based routing protocol that assumes that each node knows
its geographic location (e.g., using GPS). GPSR protocol is stateless, none flooding
requirement and quick adaptation to the mobility of network topology. It uses greedy
forwarding and perimeter forwarding scheme to route packets to the destination. Under
GPSR, the nodes are assumed to be equipped with other location services to get their
own geographical information. Periodic Hello Packets are exchanged among nearby
nodes to learn locations of their one-hop neighbors. The information kept in the header
of the transmitted packet. Hence, the forwarding process follows the greedy scheme to
select the next forwarding node that is closer to the destination than any other neighbor.
Since it encounters the local maximum, the routing protocol is shown in Figure 3.5.
GPSR Protocol Flowchart However, GPSR suffers from some disadvantages in the
highly dynamic node network. GPSR makes forwarding decisions by the greedy
forwarding scheme mainly depending on the accurate position information. causes high
packet loss.
28
Figure 3.5 Flowchart GPSR Routing Protocol [11]
3.6 Summary
This chapter clarifies the concept of the research methodology, framework, and
flowchart of this project. It helps to get more understanding of implementing the
simulator in this project for the next chapter.
29
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULT
4.1 Introduction
This paper discussed configuration on MANET simulation on simulation tool
which is OMNet++ version 4.6 and implementation GPSR routing Protocol to achieve
the objective in this project. This chapter also shows the evaluation and results of the
performance of the project.
4.2 Installation of OMNET++ version 4.6
The platform is used to install OMNet++ version 4.6 is Windows 10. The steps
below show the installation of OMNet++ version 4.6. All the steps below must be
followed one by one to get a successful installation.
Step 1: Download the OMNet++ 4.6 win32 version from link
https://omnetpp.org/omnetpp/summary/30-omnet-releases/2291-omnet-4-6-win32-
source-ide-mingw-zip
30
Step 2: Figure 4.1 shows extract the downloaded file into C:\
Figure 4.1 omnetpp-4.6
Step 3: After the extracting process completed, select mingwenv file in omnetpp-4.6
and a run file as shown in figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 mingwenv File
31
Step 4: Then, type 3 commands in mingwenv to install omnetpp into the system:
1. Figure 4.3: .setenv command.
2. Figure 4.4: ./configure command.
3. Figure 4.5: make command
4. Figure 4.6: omnetpp command.
Figure 4.3 setenv command
Figure 4.4 configure command
32
Figure 4.4 make command
Figure 4.5 omnetpp
Installation is completed with command omnetpp, then the OMNet++ version
4.6 is started. After all the installation OMNet++ version 4.6 is success, the Inetmanet
framework is imported. Due to the framework consists of all files of MANET
requirements and components as shown in figure 4.6. The inetmanet framework used
33
in the project is inetmanet-3.x-inetmanet-2.2. This framework is imported to OMNet++
version 4.6.
Figure 4.6 Inetmanet Framework
4.3 Simulation Environment
Table 1 shows the simulation setting discussed the parameter used when
simulating the MANET environment in the simulation tool. In this project, the
simulation area is 1000(m) x 1000(m) with simulation time is fixed to 900 (s). The
beacon intervals are used in different numbers which are 1s, 2s and 3s and the max
jitters are 1s, 10s, 20s, and 30s. Due to the modify the number beacon intervals and max
jitters can improve the performance of GPSR routing protocol in the network.
34
Table 1: Simulation Parameter Setting
Parameter Specification
Simulation area 1000m x 1000m
Mobility model Stationary Mobility
Routing protocol GPSR Protocol
Number of nodes 10
Interval beacon 1s, 1.5s, 3s
Max Jitter 1s, 10s, 20s, 30s
MAC layer type 802.11/MAC
Simulation time 900s
4.4 Configuration of MANET Environment and GPSR routing protocol in
OMNet++
The parameter on the configuring of the MANET area in this simulation has
been discussed before in the simulation parameter. In this section, the configuration of
the MANET area and GPSR will follow as the simulation parameter. To ensure the
simulation run successfully, there were must have some files including the main
function.
35
4.4.1 omnetpp.ini File
The file shows the main function of the simulation that consists of the simulation
time limit, declaration number of nodes, mobility speed of each node and the set area
of the simulation.
Algorithm 1: Simulation Environment
Simulation time 900s //Simulation time is fixed
Number of Host 100
Beacon intervals 1s
Max jitter 10s
Area of Simulation 1000(m) x 1000(m) //Area is fixed
The declaration can be changed. For example, the declaration number of beacon
intervals can be changed to 1.5s and 3s and the max jitter also can be changed to 1s,
20s, 30s as explained in the simulation parameter before. Simulation time and
simulation area are fixed during the whole simulation.
36
4.4.2 GPSR.ned File
Figure 7 Simulation of GPSR Routing Protocol
4.4.3 Simulation
Figure 4.8 Simulation of MANET Area
37
Figure 4.9 Simulation running with 1s beacon intervals
4.5 Results
The result of this project is evaluating the network performance based on
packet delivery ratio, packet loss and throughput after the GPSR routing protocol is
proposed. For evaluated the results, there is a formula that gives the specific answer.
4.5.1 Packet Delivery Ratio
Packet delivery ratio is defined as the ratio of data packets received by the
destinations to those generated by the sources. For figure 4.10, the packet delivery
increases as the max jitters of the beacon message decrease at beacon intervals 1s, 1.5s
and 3s.
38
Figure 4.10 Packet Delivery Ratio
4.5.2 Packet Loss Ratio
The packet loss ratio is the packet ratio between dropped and sending data
packets. Packet loss ratio decrease during the whole simulation. For figure 4.11, as the
number of max jitters of beacon messages increases at the beacon intervals 1s, 1.5s and
3s, thus the packet loss decreases.
Figure 4.11 Packet Loss Ratio
39
4.5.3 Throughput
It is defined as the total number of the packet delivered over the total simulation
time. In this project, the throughput is compared to the number beacon intervals 1s,
1.5s, and 3s with different max jitter which are 1s, 10s, 20s, and 30s. For figure 4.12,
the throughput increases as the number of max jitters decrease.
Figure 4.12 Throughput
40
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the conclusion, constraints, and challenges that were
faced during the process of completing the project. Besides, some modification of
future work is also proposed. The conclusion discusses the conclusion of the project.
The project constraints and the challenges state all the difficulties that have been faced
throughout the development of this project. Future work discusses the suggestion in the
future project.
5.2 Finalization of Project
The simulation of MANET is significant in order to let people understand the
operation of MANET. In real-world, MANET is notable in establishing a network for
the benefit of users residing in a restriction situation or area where obtaining the wired
network would be very impractical. In this project, the GPSR routing protocol is
proposed to make possibly calculations in the simulation rather than in the real world.
The results of the simulation are shown in the previous chapter. The results are
41
evaluating the performance packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, and throughput after
implementation of GPSR routing protocol on OMNet++ simulation.
5.3 Constraints and Challenges
There are some problems and limitations that occurred during the development
of this project. One of the difficulties in conducting this project is unstable connections
of internet connection which could bring some problems during the installation process.
Besides, it is difficult to fix some errors that are related to the computer's system and
panel. After that, the difficulties are adjusting and running the GPSR routing protocol
technique in inetmanet framework due to some file’s errors and having missing files.
5.4 Future Works
There are several suggestions that can be made for future work which can be
used to upgrade the efficiency and performance of this project. Firstly, this simulation
can change with a large area that can increase the number of nodes in the MANET
simulation environment. Secondly, this simulation is not only can be used for MANET,
it also can be used in wireless mesh network and Internet of Thing (IoT) for improving
the performance. Then, this simulation can change the mobility model that the nodes
can move with the various speed and various pause time in the simulation area.
42
5.5 Summary
In this chapter, the benefit of this project and the difficulty faced during the
development process are highlighted. Then, the future work highlighted could possibly
aid in a better tool in the development process which can be more useful to the users in
the future. The simulation MANET is an effort to let people understand the operation
of MANET in the real-world environment. The implementation in the real-world
environment requires time and consumes a high cost to develop. Thus, this simulation
is employed to cope with these problems operatively.
43
REFERENCES
[1] Rowaihy, H., & BinSahaq, A. (2016). Performance of GPSR and AOMDV in
WSNs with Uncontrolled Mobility. Procedia Computer Science, 98, 48-55
[2] Kodimalar, S., & Nevetha, S.R. (2015). Performance Analysis of ZRP and
GPSR Routing Protocols in MANET
[3] Dung Nguyen Quoc, Shan He (2017). Geographic Routing in case of Void Area
Problem based on Coordinates Rotation Axes
[4] Radhika Patel, Bimal Patel, Sandip Patel, Amit Parmar (2016) Comparative
Performance Analysis of Reactive routing protocols, TORA and AODV: A
simulation-based evaluation. Procedia Computer Science 98 48 – 55
[5] Terao, Y., Phoummavong, P., Utsu, K., & Ishii, H. (2016, November). A
proposal on void zone aware Greedy Forwarding method over MANET.
In 2016 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON) (pp. 1329-1333).
[6] Neha Chachra, Jogishwar Singh Sohal (2016, February). Scalable approach in
Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing. In International Journal of Computer
Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 135 – No.6,
[7] Ghuman, S. S. (2016). Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol in wireless
networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing,
5(6), 251-254.
[8] Varshney, P. K., Agrawal, G. S., & Sharma, S. K. (2016). Relative performance
analysis of proactive routing protocols in wireless ad hoc networks using
varying node density. Invertis Journal of Science & Technology, 9(3), 161-169.
44
[9] Lee, Z. J., Chou, S. T., Lee, C. Y., & Peng, B. Y. (2016). AODV with intelligent
priority flow scheme for multihop ad hoc networks. Vietnam Journal of
Computer Science, 3(4), 259-265.
[10] Rao, V., & Gupta, A. (2015). Simulative Analysis of AODVv2-02 Routing
Protocol Using OMNET++. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Technol, 5(2), 342-349.
[11] Hu, L., Ding, Z., & Shi, H. (2012). An Improved GPSR Routing Strategy in
VANET. 2012 8th International Conference on Wireless Communications,
Networking and Mobile Computing, 1-4.
[12] Jaime Johnson, Nathan Daniel Anil Koneri, Vineeth Chander, Yuhang Lin
(2018). A Location-Based Routing Method for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
https://slideplayer.com/slide/12873450/
[13] Lakshman, N. L., Khan, R. U., & Mishra, R. B. (2016). Analysis of Node
Density and Pause Time Effects in MANET Routing Protocols using NS-3.
International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, 8(12), 9.
[14] Albaseer, Abdullatif & Bin Talib, Ghashmi, Bawazir, Ahmed (2016). Multi-hop
Wireless Network: A Comparative Study for Routing Protocols Using
OMNET++ Simulator. Journal of Ubiquitous Systems & Pervasive Networks.
7. 29-34. 10.5383/JUSPN.07.01.005.
[15] Pant, S., Nitin, N., Das, A. X., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2016). Performance Analysis
of Various MANET Routing Protocols with Change in Number of Nodes over
Different Mobility Models.
[16] Rohal, P., Dahiya, R., & Dahiya, P. (2013). Study and analysis of throughput,
delay and packet delivery ratio in MANET for topology based routing protocols
45
(AODV, DSR, and DSDV). International Journal for advance research in
engineering and technology, 1(2), 54-58.
[17] Patel, R., Patel, B., Patel, S., & Parmar, A. (2017). Comparative Performance
Analysis of Reactive routing protocols, TORA and AODV: A simulation-based
evaluation. In the Conference Paper.
[18] Imran, M., & Qadeer, M. A. (2016, September). Evaluation study of
performance comparison of topology-based routing protocol, AODV, and
DSDV in MANET. In 2016 International Conference on Micro-Electronics and
Telecommunication Engineering (ICMETE) (pp. 207-211). IEEE.
[19] Sujatha, G & Sridivya, N. (2015). Greedy perimeter stateless routing in
MANET's. 2014 International Conference on Information Communication and
Embedded Systems, ICICES 2014. 10.1109/ICICES.2014.7033888.
[20] Hussein, W. A., Ali, B. M., Rasid, M. F. A., & Hashim, F. (2017, November).
Design and performance analysis of high reliability-optimal routing protocol for
mobile wireless multimedia sensor networks. In 2017 IEEE 13th Malaysia
International Conference on Communications (MICC) (pp. 136-140). IEEE.
[21] Bai, Y., Mai, Y., & Wang, N. (2017, April). Performance comparison and
evaluation of the proactive and reactive routing protocols for MANETs. In 2017
Wireless Telecommunications Symposium (WTS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[22] Sharma, R., Sharma, T., & Kalia, A. (2016). A comparative review of routing
protocols in MANET. International Journal of Computer Applications, 133(1),
33-38.
46
[23] Dixit, M., Kumar, R., & Sagar, A. K. (2016, April). VANET: Architectures,
research issues, routing protocols, and its applications. In 2016 International
Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA) (pp.
555-561). IEEE.
[24] Yang, X., Deng, D., & Liu, M. (2015, December). An overview of routing
protocols on Wireless Sensor Network. In 2015 4th International Conference on
Computer Science and Network Technology (ICCSNT) (Vol. 1, pp. 1000-
1003). IEEE.
[25] Chengetanai, G., & O'Reilly, G. B. (2015, March). Survey on simulation tools
for wireless mobile ad hoc networks. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT) (pp. 1-7).
IEEE.
[26] Kaur, H., Singh, H., & Sharma, A. (2016). Geographic routing protocol: A
review. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, 9(2), 245-
254.
[27] Liu, Z., Feng, X., Zhang, J., Li, T., & Wang, Y. (2016). An improved GPSR
algorithm based on the energy gradient and APIT grid. Journal of
Sensors, 2016.
47
APPENDIX
GANTT CHART FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1
TASKS W
1
W
2
W
3
W
4
W
5
W
6
W
7
W
8
W
9
W
10
W
11
W
12
W
13
W
14
W
15
Topic
Discussion and
Determination
Project Title
Proposal
Proposal Writing
- Introduction
Proposal Writing
Literature
Review
Proposal
Progress
Presentation &
Evaluation
Discussion &
Correction
Proposal
Proposed
Solution
Methodology
Proof of Concept
Drafting Report
of the Proposal
Submit a draft of
a report to the
supervisor
Preparation for
Final
Presentation
Seminar
Presentation
Final Report
Submission
48
GANTT CHART FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2
TASKS W
1
W
2
W
3
W
4
W
5
W
6
W
7
W
8
W
9
W
1
0
W
1
1
W
1
2
W
1
3
W
1
4
W
1
5
Project
Meeting with
Supervisor
Project
Development
Proposal
Progress
Presentation &
Evaluation
Project
Testing
Submit the
draft Report
and
Documentatio
n of the
Project
Seminar
Presentation
Discussion &
Correction
Report
Final Thesis
Submission