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