Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 5;17(7):1573.
doi: 10.3390/s17071573.

MPH-M, AODV-M and DSR-M Performance Evaluation under Jamming Attacks

Carolina Del-Valle-Soto  1 , Carlos Mex-Perera  2 , Raul Monroy  3 , Juan A Nolazco-Flores  4
Affiliations

MPH-M, AODV-M and DSR-M Performance Evaluation under Jamming Attacks

Carolina Del-Valle-Soto et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

In this work, we present the design of a mitigation scheme for jamming attacks integrated to the routing protocols MPH, AODV, and DSR. The resulting protocols are named MPH-M (Multi-Parent Hierarchical - Modified), AODV-M (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector - Modified), and DSR-M (Dynamic Source Routing - Modified). For the mitigation algorithm, if the detection algorithm running locally in each node produces a positive result then the node is isolated; second, the routing protocol adapts their paths avoiding the isolated nodes. We evaluated how jamming attacks affect different metrics for all these modified protocols. The metrics we employ to detect jamming attack are number of packet retransmissions, number of CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance) retries while waiting for an idle channel and the energy wasted by the node. The metrics to evaluate the performance of the modified routing protocols are the throughput and resilience of the system and the energy used by the nodes. We evaluated all the modified protocols when the attacker position was set near, middle and far of the collector node. The results of our evaluation show that performance for MPH-M is much better than AODV-M and DSR-M. For example, the node energy for MPH-M is 138.13% better than AODV-M and 126.07% better than DSR-M. Moreover, we also find that MPH-M benefits much more of the mitigation scheme than AODV-M and DSR-M. For example, the node energy consumption is 34.61% lower for MPH-M and only 3.92% and 3.42% for AODV-M and DSR-M, respectively. On throughput, the MPH protocol presents a packet reception efficiency at the collector node of 16.4% on to AODV and DSR when there is no mitigation mechanism. Moreover, MPH-M has an efficiency greater than 7.7% with respect to AODV-M and DSR-M when there is a mitigation scheme. In addition, we have that with the mitigation mechanism AODV-M and DSR-M do not present noticeable modification. However, MPH-M improves its efficiency by 8.4%. We also measure the resilience of these algorithms from the average packet re-transmissions perspective, and we find that MPH-M has around a 15% lower change rate than AODV-M and DSR-M. The MPH-M recovery time is 5 s faster than AODV-M and 2 s faster than DSR-M.

Keywords: Wireless Sensor Networks; jamming; routing algorithms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reactive mechanism for packet collision.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Coverage range of the jammer node and its influence in its neighbors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Network grid.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Energy consumption of the nodes from Figure 3 with AODV (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Energy consumption of the nodes from Figure 3 with DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Energy consumption of the nodes from Figure 3 with MPH (Multi-Parent Hierarchical) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Average number of retries (MAC algorithm) for the nodes from Figure 3 for AODV (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Average number of retries (MAC algorithm) for the nodes from Figure 3 for DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Average number of retries (MAC algorithm) for the nodes from Figure 3 for MPH (Multi-Parent Hierarchical) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Average number of packet re-transmissions of the nodes from Figure 3 for AODV (Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Average number of packet re-transmissions of the nodes from Figure 3 for DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Average number of packet re-transmissions of the nodes from Figure 3 for MPH (Multi-Parent Hierarchical) under normal (blue) and jamming (red) conditions.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Difference between ideal detection and imprecise detection of a jammer node.
Figure 14
Figure 14
System throughput.
Figure 15
Figure 15
System throughput with ideal conditions and under attack with the jammer node is located near, in the middle and far from the collector node.
Figure 16
Figure 16
System throughput with jamming, the jammer node is located near, in the middle and far from the collector node. Links have packet loss.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Throughput for different data rate for AODV, DSR, MPH, AODV-M, DSR-M and MPH-M under jamming.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Energy consumption for different data rate for AODV, DSR, MPH, AODV-M, DSR-M and MPH-M under jamming.
Figure 19
Figure 19
Resilience results for AODV, DSR and MPH and for AODV-M, DSR-M and MPH-M.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akyildiz I.F., Su W.J., Sankarasubramaniam Y., Cayirci E. Wireless sensor networks: A survey. Comput. Netw. 2002;38:393–422. doi: 10.1016/S1389-1286(01)00302-4. - DOI
    1. IEEE . IEEE Standard 802.15.4-2006 (Revision of IEEE Standard 802.15.4-2003) IEEE Computer Society; New York, NY, USA: 2006. Wireless medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications for low-rate wireless personal area networks (WPANs) pp. 1–305.
    1. Del-Valle-Soto C., Mex-Perera C., Olmedo O., Orozco-Lugo A., Galván-Tejada G., Lara M. An efficient Multi-Parent Hierarchical Routing Protocol for WSNs; Proceedings of the Wireless Telecommunications Symposium (WTS); Washington, DC, USA. 9–11 April 2014; pp. 1–8.
    1. Perkins C., Royer E. Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing; Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, WMCSA; New Orleans, LA, USA. 25–26 February 1999; pp. 90–100.
    1. Maltz D., Broch J., Jetcheva J., Johnson D. The effects of on-demand behavior in routing protocols for multihop wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 1999;17:1439–1453. doi: 10.1109/49.779925. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources