1. INTRODUCTION

With the recent technological advancements in the field of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, their utility has increased by leaps and Bounds .MANETs find their use particularly in the field where infrastructure network are not possible without having any centralized administration. Mobile Ad Hoc network provide services to user at any time and any where but all services depend upon behavior of nodes. If nodes present in network behave cooperatively then quality of services is best but some time nodes are represent misbehaving nature thus they affected the functionality of network .they can be either selfish or malicious .Selfish nodes A selfish node may enjoy network services, e.g. receiving packets destined for itself but refuse to route or forward packets for others, therefore invalidating the basic collaboration premise in almost all current routing algorithms for mobile ad-hoc networks.

Malicious nodes may seek to damage or disrupt normal network operations.

Moreover, misbehaving node may act as a good network citizen for a certain time period or in certain places, but then starts to act selfishly or maliciously at other times or locations .

Trust based route, if data send by any route reached it’s destination successfully then the route known as trust based route that type of route used by network for secure data sending. Reputation value of that type routes is grater then other routes. Good routing can be provided by different routing protocols. These protocol find out the between two nodes and allow them to communicate with each other. The performance of a MANET greatly depends on the cooperation of all nodes in the network. In this paper, we propose a system to evaluate the trust value of a route in presence of selfish nodes that refuse to cooperate but at the same time still use the network for their own benefits.

In MANET a network can be called better if its data sending rate is high. But data sending rate or efficiency of a network diminish by the presence of misbehaving nodes when no. of selfish nodes are increase then route can not able to forward data to its destination and data may be lost thus a intrusion created between source and destination nodes. While construction of network it is assumed that all nodes are cooperative. But during packet forwarding they spent most of there energy if they ignore the request of packet transmission and save energy thus enjoy membership of networking. For example, simulation studies by Buttyan and Hubaux [6] show that when the average numbers of hops from a source to a destination is around 5, then almost 80% of the transmission energy will be devoted to packet forwarding. By denying services for others, a node could reserve its resources for its own use and stay longer in the network. So there is a strong motivation for the nodes not to cooperate and misbehaving. In general, there are two types of node misbehaving:

1.1MALICIOUS NODES:-

A misleading node is selective in choosing which packet it wants to respond. It behaves like an honest node. Malicious nodes injected by adversaries, on the other hand, will actively spend battery power to cause harm to the entire network. Providing nodes with an incentive to cooperate (by either rewarding them for active cooperation or punishing them for a lack of such cooperation) becomes an interesting research issue.

1.2 SELFISH NODES:-

Selfish node aims to save its resources to the maximum. This type of misbehaving node discards all incoming packets (control and data) except those which are destined to it. By dropping control packets, the nodes would not be included in the routing and then be released from being requested to forward data packets. The similarity of these two types of misbehaving is that they both use the network to forward their own packets but refuse to provide the same services back. Misbehaving nodes can significantly degrade the performance of a MANET. Simulation done by Babakkhouya et al. [8] shows that the percentage of misleading nodes can decrease the number of packets that are successfully delivered in the network. As the number of selfish nodes been increased, the source node will have less option on which route the data packets should travel. As a result, less attractive route will be selected which means longer delays. It also means that the remaining cooperative nodes have to take the extra burden of forwarding packets. In [10], three types of selfish nodes related to routing such as Dynamic Source Routing are defined:

Selfish Nodes Type 1 (SN1) –

These nodes participate in the DSR Route Discovery and Route Maintenance phases, but refuse to forward data packets (which are usually much larger than the routing control packets);

Selfish Nodes Type 2 (SN2) –

These nodes participate in neither the Route Discovery phase, nor forwarding data packets. They only use their energy for transmissions of their own packets;

Selfish Nodes Type 3 (SN3) –

These nodes behave (or misbehave) differently based on their energy levels. When the energy lies between full energy E and a threshold T1, the node behaves properly. For an energy level between T1 and another lower threshold T2, it behaves like a node of type SN1. Finally, for an energy level lower than T2.it behaves like a node of type SN2. The relationship between T1, T2, and E is T2 < T1 < E.

2. RELATED WORK:-

Various techniques have been proposed to prevent selfishness in MANETs. These schemes can be broadly classified into reputation-based schemes [2], [9] and credit-based schemes [3], [5], [6], In2012 Sumer Singh, Puneet Jain, Puneet Bindra, Chakshu Goel [8] made analysis of AODV and GRP by varying no. of misbehavior nodes based on OPNET. Result of AODV is best in comparison of GRP.

In 2012, March Kuldeep Vats, Monika Sachdeva, Dr. Krishan Saluja [10] prepared performance analysis of OLSR, GRP, DSR protocol using OPNET and concluded that OLSR presents the best ce then GRP present low to OLSR but high to DSR i.e. performance of DSR is lowest.

3. EVALUATION OF TRUST BASE ROUTE:-

By applying simulation we get throughput of that route i.e. no. of packet send and no. of packet receive and use this data for evaluation of trust value of a route. formula used for trust value calculation

The proposed approach is implemented over the existing on demand routing protocol Reputation value of node is used to classify a node as well behaving or misbehaving. each node uses a monitoring mechanism like “watchdog” to monitor their neighbors. Monitoring the neighbors helps each node to calculate the reputation value of each of its neighbor. Reputation value is calculated using equation above. Suppose there are „N‟ nodes in the mobile ad-hoc network.

M= no. of packet.

N= max. no. of node.

Pri=packet receive by node i.

Psi=packet send by node i.

3. 1 Simulation Methodology and Simulation

Environment:-

We use network simulator ns2 for our proposed simulations. It comprises the models and modules at physical and data link layers, MAC layer protocols and the ad hoc routing protocols DSDV, DSR, AODV, which we need to compare. Speed of a node in the ad hoc network is uniform (Random way point mobility model). After reaching the destination, a node pauses for a specified interval of time before choosing a random destination and repeating the process. Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic is chosen for communication among randomly selected nodes. Two types of node misbehaviors mentioned above are incorporated in ns2 as separate node definition types, which allow picking a selfish model between two possible choices. Table 1 lists some common parameters used in course of the simulation.

3.2 Performance Analysis:-

PROTOCOL/PARAMETRE	AODV	DSR	DSDV
THROUGH PUT	80‰	80‰	60‰
PACKET DROP FOR 40 FOR 60 FOR 80	100 150 200	100 200 250	3500 5500 4500
AVERAGE PACKET DELAY	MIDIUM	HIGH	LOW

Fig:- Throughput for without selfish node[9]

Fig:- Throughput for 40 selfish nodes[9]

Fig:- Throughput for 60 selfish nodes[9]

Fig:- Throughput for 80 selfish nodes[9]

After analysis given graph we obtain them in follow

following table form

6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper we analyzed relation between selfish nodes and network performance under varying no. of selfish nodes with mobility speed of 25 m/s and the performance is compared in term of no. of packet drop, throughput and delay. After analysis of graph it shows that when no. of selfish node increase then the packet drop is also increase thus performance of network is decrees. So the relation between network performance and no. of selfish nodes is inversely proportional to each other. In future this relationship can also calculate through mathematical implementation.

7. REFERENCE:-

1. K. Balakrishnan, “Prevention of Node selfishness in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, M.S. Thesis, Department of EECS, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA, August 2004.

2. S. Buchegger and J-Y. Le Boudec, “Performance Analysis of the CONFIDANT Protocol: Cooperation Of Nodes, Fairness In Dynamic Ad-hoc Networks”, Proc. of the IEEE/ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHOC), June 2002.

3. L. Buttyan and J-P. Hubaux, “Enforcing Service Availability in Mobile Ad-Hoc WANs”, Proc. of First IEEE/ACM Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHOC), August 2000.

4. Y-C. Hu, D. Johnson and A. Perrig, “SEAD: Secure Efficient Distance Vector Routing for Mobile Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, Proc. Of Fourth IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA), June 2002.

5. J-P. Hubaux, T. Gross, J-Y. Le Boudec, and M. Vetterli, “Toward Self-Organized Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: The Terminodes Project”, IEEE Communications Magazine, January 2001.

6. M. Jakobsson, J-P. Hubaux and L. Buttyan, “A Micropayment Scheme Encouraging Collaboration in Multi-Hop Cellular Networks”, Proc. of Financial Crypto , January 2003.

7. L. Buttyan and J. Hubaux, “Stimulating cooperation in self-organizing mobile ad hoc networks,” in Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 579–592, October 2003,

8. Sumer Singh, Puneet Jain, Puneet Bindra, Chakshu Goel” Opnet based simulation and performance analysis of AODV and GRP by varying no . of. Misbehavior nodes” ijeted ,issue2,vol4, may2012

9. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Binod Kumar Pattanayak, Alok Kumar Jagadev, Manojranjan Nayak,” measure of Impact of Node Misbehavior in Ad Hoc Routing: A Comparative Approach” IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 4, No 8, July 2010

10. Kuldeep Vats, Monika Sachdeva, Dr. Krishan Saluja," Simulation and performance Analysis of OLSR, GRP, DSR Routing Protocol using OPNET”, International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development. Issue 2, Vol.2, March-2012.

11. Animesh Kr Trivedi1, Rishi Kapoor1, Rajan Arora1, SudipSanyal1 and Sugata Sanyal , " RISM – Reputation Based Intrusion Detection System for Mobile Adhoc Networks" Available from link profile.iiita.ac.in/aktrivedi_b03/rism.pdf.

12. M. Tamer Refaei, Vivek Srivastava, Luiz Da Silva, Mohamed Eltoweissy," A Reputation-based Mechanism for Isolating Selfish Nodes in Ad Hoc Networks", Proceedings of the Second Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services(MobiQuitous'05) , 2005

13. Pietro Michiardi and Refik Molva, "CORE: Acollaborative reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks," Sixth IFIP conference on security communications, and multimedia (CMS2002), Portoroz, Slovenia, 2002.

14. Buchegger, Sonja; Le Boudec, Jean-Yves, "Performance Analysis of Confidant Protocol: Cooperation of Nodes -Fairness in Dynamic Ad-Hoc Networks," Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHOC). IEEE, June 2002.

15. Tiranuch Anantvalee, Jie Wu: Reputation-Based System for Encouraging the Cooperation of Nodes in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Proceedings of International conference of Communications, pp 3383-3388, 2007.

16. Fei Wang. Furong Wang, Benxiong Huang, Laurence T. Yang,” COSR: a reputation-based secure route protocol in MANET “in Journal EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking - Special issue on multimedia communications over next generation wireless networks archive Volume 2010, pp. 1-11, January 2010.

17. Sameh R. Zakhary and Milena Radenkovic ,“Reputation based security protocol for MANETs in highly mobile disconnection-prone environments” in International conference on Wireless On-demand Network Systems and Services (WONS), PP. 161 – 167, Feb. 2010.

18. David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, V “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR)", draftietf-manet-dsr-09.txt, 2003.

19. C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat” DSDV Routing over a multi-hopwireless network of mobile computers AdHoc Networking Concepts “ page no.-53 69.

20. T. Wei Chen and Mario Gerlatobe - Global State Routing:” ANew Routing Scheme for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks“ Computer Science Department, University of California, Los Angeles

21. G. Pei, M. Gerla - Computer Science Department ,University of California, Los Angeles and Tsu-Wei Chen – Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies–“Fisheye State Routingin Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”.

22. P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, T. Clausen, A. Laouiti, A. Qayyum, L. Viennot–“ Optimized Link State Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks”, Hipercon Project, INRIA Rocquencourt; BP 105, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France.

23. M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki, E. Dutkiewicz –“ A review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks “- Received 25March 2003; accepted 4 June 2003

Received on 26.02.2013 Accepted on 20.03.2013

Research J. Science and Tech 5(3): July- Sept., 2013 page 327-330