ISSN ONLINE(2319-8753)PRINT(2347-6710)

Performance Analysis of Cooperation Scheme for Probabilistic Routing In Opportunistic Network Using NCPR Protocol

R.Arasa kumar1 , K.Renuka Devi2*
  1. Department of ECE, Velammal College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai, Tamilnadu, India.
  2. Department of ECE, Velammal College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai, Tamilnadu, India.
Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology


In opportunistic network as one type of challenged networks where networks contact are intermittent or where link performance is highly variable or extreme. This technique to alter user to speak end-toend methods are unstable. when node are selfish, they may not have incentives to participate in probabilistic routing and also the system performance are degrade, enable to participate that selfish node, This approach will considerably decrease the quantity of retransmissions therefore on scale back the routing overhead and improve the routing performance. so finding the neighborhood node, we tend to use channel awareness mechanism for knowledge transmission and to enhance the standard.


Bargaining game, NCPR (Neighbor coverage based probabilistic rebroadcast) protocol, Opportunistic network.


An opportunistic network may be a mobile ad hoc network and delay tolerant networks, as well as mobile social networking application. Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs) and Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTNs), likewise as mobile social networking applications. Opportunistic networking techniques modify users to communicate in an atmosphere wherever contemporaneous end-to-end methods square measure unavailable or unstable. In such an atmosphere, as a result of transitivity of links, messages square measure sometimes passed from one user to a different in a very store and forward fashion. Forwarding opportunities arise whenever mobile devices users inherit the communication vary of every alternative. In distinction to traditional networking techniques, during which messages square measure delivered on pre-existing end-to-end methods, opportunistic networking permits a message to be transferred from its supply to its destination even once such a path from the supply to the destination never exists.
In probabilistic routing protocols, once a node carrying a message meet another node, it estimates the probability of the latter node having the ability to bring the message to the destination another node, it estimates the chance of the latter node having the ability to bring the message to the destination[1].Several ideas behind opportunist networks return from the studies on Delay Tolerant Networks(DTNs) that are conducted among the net analysis Task Force and have crystal rectifier to the specification of the consists of a network of independent internets every defined by Internet-like property in among, however having occasiona Performance Analysis of Cooperation Scheme for Probabilistic Routing In Opportunistic Network Using NCPR Protocol R.Arasa kumar #1 , K.Renuka Devi*2 #1Department of ECE, Velammal College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai, Tamilnadu, India. *2Department of ECE, Velammal College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai, Tamilnadu, India. opportunities among them, generally scheduled over time, some others fully random. During extreme mobility, watchdog and pathrater can increase network throughput , while increasing the overhead transmissions from the standard routing protocols[2]. Ad hoc networks are an increasingly promising area of re- search with practical applications, but they are vulnerable in many settings to nodes that misbehave when routing packets. For robust performance in an untrusted environment, it is necessary to resist such routing misbehavior[3]. We show that two techniques increase throughput by 17% in a net- work with moderate mobility, while increasing the ratio of overhead transmissions to data transmissions from the standard routing protocol's 9% to 17%. Protocol.
The message reached its destination and our approach is intended by the observation that we tend to extend our model to think about the case during which there is message exchange in probabilistic routing is analogous to exchange in markets, in probabilistic routing, a message is transferred from a node with a lower delivery probability of the message to a node with the higher delivery probability, even as during a market, a decent is listed from an individual with a lower valuation of the nice to an individual with the higher valuation[4]. we tend to model the method of probabilistic routing as a series of bargaining games, to create a broad category of probabilistic routing protocols incentive compatible[5]. So, being cooperative is often to the simplest interests of the selfish nodes.a risk of breakdown within the bargaining method, and gift a sensible solution.
Probabilistic routing protocols are supported the observation that, in observe, nodes dont seem to be probably to move around indiscriminately, but rather move during a sure fashion supported quality patterns. If a two types of nodes has met many times before, its probably that they will meet once more within the future. Such quality patterns will be exploited to boost performance of routing protocol in opportunistic networks. To use the quality patterns, a probabilistic metric called delivery probability was introduced.Let, Pa, b∈ [0,1] be the delivery probability from node a to a destination node b, this metric indicates however probably that a node are going to be able to deliver a message to the destination. every node stores a matrix of delivery possibilities. When two nodes meet, they exchange their delivery chance matrices. This matrix is accustomed update the inner delivery probability matrix. Then the delivery probability matrix is employed to choose that message to forward from one node to a different node. Formally, a basic probabilistic routing protocol works as follows.


To calculate the transmit delay and transmit probability of the projected protocol. Victimisation the upstream coverage ratio relation of associate in RREQ packet received from the previous node to calculate the transmit delay and use the extra coverage ratio relation of the RREQ packet and therefore the property issue to calculate the transmit probability in our protocol, that requires that every node desires its 1-hop neighborhood information.The node receives the RREQ packet from its earlier node s, the neighbour list within the RREQ packet to estimate what percentage its neighbours are not lined by the RREQ packet from s. The node nickel has a lot of neighbours not lined by the RREQ packet from supply, and therefore the RREQ packet will reach a lot of extra neighbour nodes once node nickel rebroadcasts the RREQ packet.


We outline the UnCovered Neighbors (UCN) set U(ni) of node nickel as follows:
U(ni) = N(ni) − [N(ni) ∩ N(s)] − {s}, (1)
Where, N(s) and N(ni) square measure the neighbors sets of node s and nickel, severally. s is that the node that sends Associate in Nursing RREQ packet to node nickel. determination of broadcast delay td(ni) of the node ni: The node that features a larger broadcast delay could hear RREQ packets from the nodes that have lowered one, delay as a result of the broadcast delay is employed to work out the order of distributive neighbor coverage information.
Td (ni) = MaxDelay × Tp(ni), (2)
Where, Tp(ni) is that the delay quantitative relation of node nickel, and MaxDelay could be a little constant delay. If the num neighbor is zero, the node will nothing. attributable to the 2 cases and this system will cut back the overhead of neighbor list listed within the RREQ packet. Wireless networks with 10, 20, 30, and 40 mobile nodes at random distributed during a piece of ground space of 10km by 10 metric linear unit. Every node has 3 locations within the physical piece of ground, and at random travel among these locations at a speed uniformly chosen between 10 m/s and 30 m/s. when reaching its destination, the node stays there for five minutes.Three nodes use IEEE 802.11 (at 11Mbps) because the MAC layer protocol. The radios transmission vary is about to 250 meters. Nodes broadcast hello message each one second. The length of your time unit employed in probabilistic routing protocols is about to one minute. Nodes generate messages with uniform quantity of ten minutes. The destination of the message is at random select from the opposite nodes. A message is born if it cannot be forwarded to a different node in one hour. Each node has associate in initial credit of 5000, and pays one hundred credit for every delivered message.



Delivery ratio reflects the impacts of our schemes on the performance of a opportunistic network with selfish nodes. Our second set of evaluations are to demonstrate that our schemes improve the delivery ratio of probabilistic routing in face of selfish nodes. Behaving cooperatively when nodes are selfish.
Fig1 shows the packet delivery ratio ,as we have mentioned selfish behavior of nodes can lower the network performance. In contrast our schemes improve the delivery ratio of probabilistic routing in face of selfish nodes and can boost the network performance in terms of delivery ratio in face of selfish nodes.


The total utility obtained by a node over a period of time. Cumulative utility reflects the impacts of a node’s behavior on its own. All nodes prefer higher utilities. Furthermore, since a beneficial trade brings a forwarding node a positive utility, the nodes always prefer increasing cumulative utilities.
The figures show the results when all nodes are cooperative and when some of them are selfish. we consider two situations, in which 30% and 70% of the nodes are selfish. We observe that the cumulative utilities achieved by collectively being cooperative are higher than those of partially being selfish.


The average delivery ratio as a function of the number of nodes in the network when all nodes behave cooperatively and when some of the nodes behave selfishly, our schemes can boost the network performance in terms of delivery ratio in face of selfish obtain a more accurate additional coverage ratio. In order to keep the network connectivity and to reduce the retransmissions and connectivity factor to determine how many neighbors should receive the packet in the cooperative incentive scheme.



Thus, the good network performance in terms of delivery ratio in face of selfish nodes.






This phenomenon will be more severe with an increase in the number of nodes. It is very important to reduce the redundant rebroadcast and packet drops caused by collisions to improve the routing performance. Compared with the NCPR protocol reduces the collision rate by about 98.1% on the average. Under the same network conditions, the collision rate is reduced. when the NCPR protocol is compared with the other protocol. This is the main reason that the NCPR protocol could improve the routing performance


  1. U. Shevade, H. H.Song, L. Qiu, and Y. Zhang, “Incentiveaware routing in DTNs,” in Proc.2008 InternationalConf. Netw.Protocols.

  2. L. Anderegg and S. Eidenbenz, “Ad hoc-VCG: a truthful andcostefficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks with selfishagents,” in Proc. 2003 International Conf. Mobile Comput. Netw.

  3. M. E. Mahmoud and X. S. Shen, “Stimulating cooperation inmultihop wirelessnetworks uses cheating detection system,” in Proc.2010 IEEE Conf. Comput. Commun

  4. N. Ben Salem, L. Buttyan, J.-P. Hubaux, and M. Jakobsson, “A charging and rewarding scheme for packet forwarding in multi-hopcellular networks,” in Proc. 2003 ACM Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Netw.Comput.

  5. S. Lee, G. Pan, J. Park, M. Gerla, and S. Lu, “Secure incentives for commercial ad dissemination in vehicular networks,” in Proc. 2007ACM Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Netw. Comput.

  6. A. Lindgren, A. Doria, andO.Schelen,“Probabilistic routing in intermittently connected networks,” in Proc. 2003 ACM Symp. MobileAd Hoc Netw. Comput.

  7. S. Marti, T. Giuli,K. Lai, and M. Baker, “Mitigating routingmisbehaviorin mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proc.2000 InternationalConf.MobileComput. Netw.

  8. V. Srinivasan, P. Nuggehalli, C.-F. Chiasserini, and R. Rao, “Cooperation in wireless ad hoc networks,” in Proc. 2003 Annual IEEEConf. Comput.Commun.

  9. B. Burns, O. Brock, and B. N. Levine, “MV routing and capacity building in disruption tolerant networks,” in Proc. 2005 IEEEConf.Comput. Commun

  10. Security and Cooperation in Wireless Networks.CambridgeUniversity Press, 2007.

  11. B. B. Chen and M. C. Chan, “Mobicent: a credit-based incentive system for disruption tolerant network,” in Proc. 2010 IEEE Conf.Comput.Commun.

  12. T. Chen and S. Zhong, “Inpac: an enforceable incentive scheme for wireless networks using network coding,” in Proc. 2010 IEEEConf. Comput. Commun.