8 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16
I MPACT OF M OBILITY AND N ETWORK L OAD ON THE
P ERFORMANCE OF R EACTIVE AND P ROACTIVE R OUTING
P ROTOCOL IN M ANET PATIL V.P.
Smt. Indira Gandhi College of Engineering, New Mumbai, India [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET) are collections of wireless mobile nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without the use of any pre-defined network infrastructure or centralized administration. MANET has the attributes such as wireless connection, continuously changing topology, distributed operation and ease of deployment. In this paper, performance evaluation of both proactive wireless routing protocol destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV) and reactive protocols ad-hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) with continuous bit rate (CBR) traffic is executed using NS-2 simulator. The performance differentials are analyzed with varying network load and mobility. The performance of these routing protocols AODV and DSDV is analyzed in terms of their Packet Delivery Fraction, Average End-to-End Delay, routing load under two scenarios i.e. by varying no. of sources and no. of nodes and their results are shown in graphical forms. The comparison analysis will be carrying out about these protocols and in the last the conclusion will be presented, that which routing protocol is the best one for mobile ad hoc networks. It demonstrates that even though both protocols share distance vector characteristics, the individuality of protocol’s mechanism draw considerable performance differentials with mobility. Finally, according to results of practical works, it has been observed that the routing protocols AODV gives less fluctuation results and better performance as compare with DSDV, with respect to some identified parameters of routing protocol such as routing overhead, Packet delivery ratio and average end- to- end delay.
KEYWORDS:Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Performance Analysis, Routing Protocols, AODV, DSDV.
1. INTRODUCTION
MANETs are collections of mobile nodes, dynamically forming a temporary network without preexisting network infrastructure or centralized administration. Nowadays a lot of research efforts focus on MANET [1, 2].Mobile ad hoc network is an autonomous system of mobile nodes connected by wireless links; each node operates as an end system and a router for all other nodes in the network.
A wireless network is a growing new technology that will allow users to access services and information electronically, irrespective of their geographic position. Wireless networks can be classified in two types: - infrastructured network and infrastructure less (ad hoc) networks.
Infrastructured network consists of a network with fixed and wired gateways. In this work, an attempt has been made to compare the performance of one prominent on demand reactive routing protocol and one proactive routing protocol for MANETs AODV and DSDV protocols. AODV [3] is a reactive gateway discovery algorithm where a mobile device of MANET connects by gateway only when it is needed. DSDV [4] is a proactive routing protocol. As per findings in this paper the differences in the protocol mechanism lead to significant performance variation for both of these protocols. Further, it has been observed that AODV performed better than DSDV.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section II gives a brief description of the related work.
Section III discusses types of routing protocols in ad hoc network. Section IV gives the overview of AODV and DSDV protocols. Problem formulation and experimental simulation environment for
9 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 some performance metrics are described in Section V. Results of our simulation experiments are presented and discussed in Section VI. Finally, the results are concluded in Section VII.
2. RELATED WORK
Several researchers have done the qualitative and quantitative analysis of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols by means of different performance metrics. They have used different simulators for this purpose.
Anuj K. Gupta et. al. [20] is subjected to the on-demand routing protocols with identical loads and environment conditions and evaluates their relative performance with respect to the two performance metrics: average End-to-End delay and packet delivery ratio and investigates various simulation scenarios with varying pause times. Using the latest simulation environment NS 2, it evaluates the performance of three widely used ad-hoc network routing protocols using packet-level simulation.
Broch et al. [5], conducted experiments with DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV. They used a constant network size of 50 nodes, 10 to 30 traffic sources, and seven different pause times and various movement patterns. Packet delivery fraction (PDF), number of routing packets and distribution of path lengths were used as performance metrics. They extended ns-2 discrete event simulator [6], developed by the University of California at Berkeley and the VINT project [7], to correctly model the MAC and physical-layer behavior of the IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN standard.
Karthikeyan et al. [10] studied the Reactive protocols, DSR and AODV as well as a Proactive Protocol, DSDV and their characteristics with respect to different mobility were analyzed based on packet delivery fraction, routing load, end -to- end delay, number of packets dropped, throughput and jitter using Network Simulator (ns-2).
Vijaya et. al [19] compares the performance of two prominent on-demand reactive protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks: DSR and AODV with traditional proactive DSDV protocol. The network performance such as throughput delivery ratio and end-to-end delay carried out using NS2 simulator.
Juan-Carlos Cano and Pietro Manzoni [8] concentrated on the energy consumption issues of routing protocols. They presented a performance comparison of the DSR, AODV, TORA and DSDV routing protocols with respect to energy consumption.
Ehsan and Uzmi [9], presented the performance comparison of DSDV, AODV, DSR and TORA based on simulations performed using network simulator-2. Three metrics: normalized routing overhead, packet delivery fraction and average end to end delay, were used to measure performance.
G. Rajkumar, Dr. K. Duraisamy [23] recently made review Of Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for some performance metrics.
Parma Nand, Dr. S.C. Sharma [21] analyzed the performance study of Broadcast based Mobile Ad hoc Routing Protocols AODV, DSR and DYMO and Rajendiran. M, Srivatsa. S. K [22] presented performance evaluation of On-Demand Multicasting in Ad-hoc Networks for AODV, ODMRP and FSR protocols.
3. CLASSIFICATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS AND ISSUES IN MANET
3.1 Classification routing protocol:
There are many ways to classify the MANET routing protocols. Depending upon how the protocols handle the packet to deliver from source to destination, most of the protocols are classified into three types.
i) Pro-Active / Table Driven routing Protocols
Proactive MANET protocols are table-driven and will actively determine the layout of the network.
This is especially important for time-critical traffic. However, a drawback to a proactive MA-NET of protocol is that the life span of a link is significantly short. This phenomenon is brought about by the increased mobility of the nodes, which will render the routing information in the table invalid quickly.
Proactive MANET protocols work best in networks that have low node mobility or where the nodes transmit data frequently. Examples of Proactive are DSDV (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector), OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing).
10 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 ii) Reactive or On Demand Routing Protocol
In the routing, the routes are not predefined [11]. A node calls for route discovery to find out a new route when needed. This route discovery mechanism is based on flooding algorithm which employs on the technique, a node just broadcasts the packet to all of its neighbors and intermediate nodes just forward the packet to their neighbors. This is a repetitive technique until reaches to destination;
reactive techniques have smaller routing overheads but higher latency because a route from node A to node B will be found only when A wants to send to B. Examples of Reactive are DSR, AODV.
iii) Hybrid Routing
Hybrid protocols [11] are the combinations of reactive and proactive protocols. It takes advantages of these two protocols and as a result, routes are found very fast in the routing zone.
3.2 Issues in routing with MANET
The major problems [14] for routing in mobile ad-hoc networks are as follows:
i) Dynamic Topology
Since the topology is not constant; so the mobile node might move or medium characteristics might change. In ad hoc networks, routing tables must somehow reflect these changes in topology and routing algorithms have to be adapted. For example in a fixed network routing table updating takes place for every 30sec. This updating frequency might be very low for ad-hoc networks.
ii). Interference
This is the major problem with mobile ad-hoc networks as links come and go depending on the transmission characteristics, one transmission might interfere with another one and node might overhear transmissions of other nodes and can corrupt the total transmission.
iii) Bandwidth constrained link:
Wireless link have significantly lower capacity than their hardwired counterparts. They are also less reliable due to the nature of signal propagation.
iv) Energy constrained operation:
Devices in mobile network may rely on batteries or other exhaustive means as their power sources.
For these sources, the conservation and efficient use of energy may be most important system design criteria.
v) Asymmetric links
Most of the wired networks rely on the symmetric links which are always fixed. But this is not a case with ad-hoc networks as the nodes are mobile and constantly changing their position within network.
vi) Routing Overhead
In wireless ad hoc networks, nodes often change their location within network. So, some stale routes are generated in the routing table which leads to unnecessary routing overhead.
4. ROUTING PROTOCOLS UNDER CONSIDERATION
4.1 Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)
AODV [14, 12] is an on-demand version of the table driven Dynamic Destination Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) protocol. It is another variant of classical distance vector routing algorithm, a confluence of both DSDV and DSR. It shares DSR’s on-demand characteristics hence discovers routes whenever it is needed via a similar route discovery process. However, AODV adopts traditional routing tables; one entry per destination which is in contrast to DSR that maintains multiple route cache entries for each destination.
In AODV, the packets carry the destination address and sequence number. In AODV, when a source requires a path to the destination, a route request (RREQ) message is flooded in the network. When an intermediate node receives such a RREQ, it examines its local route cache to check whether a fresh route to the required destination is available or not. If a fresh route exists, then the node unicasts a route reply (RREP) message immediately back to the source. As an optimization, AODV uses an
“expanding ring” flooding technique, where a RREQ is issued with a limited TTL only. If no RREP message is received within a certain time by the source node, then another RREQ is issued with a larger TTL value. If still no reply, the TTL is increased in steps, until a certain maximum value is reached. During route discovery process, all IP-Packets generated by the application for destination
11 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 are buffered in the source node itself. When a route is established, then the packets are transmitted. An important feature of AODV [16] is the maintenance of timer-based states in each node, regarding utilization of individual routing table entries. A routing table entry is said to be expired if not used within certain duration. These nodes are notified with route error (RERR) packets when the next-hop link breaks. In the situation of link break, each predecessor node, forwards the RERR to its own set of predecessors. In this way all routes, which contain the broken link, are removed. AODV is designed to support communication between mobile nodes with lowest possible routing path. It maintains the same strategy as DSR as “on demand” but DSR works with source routing where as AODV work on hop by hop routing [4].
4.2 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector [15, 16] is a loop free routing protocol in which the shortest- path calculation is based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm. Data packets are transmitted between the nodes using routing tables stored at each node. Each routing table contains all the possible destinations from a node to any other node in the network and also the number of hops to each destination. The protocol has three main attributes: to avoid loops, to resolve the “count to infinity”
problem, and to reduce high routing overhead. Each node issues a sequence number that is attached to every new routing-table update message and uses two different types of routing-table updates, named
“full” and “incremental dumps”, respectively, to minimize the number of control messages disseminated in the network. Each node keeps statistical data concerning the average setting time of a message that the node receives from any neighboring node. The data is used to reduce the number of rebroadcasts of possible routing entries that may arrive at a node from different paths but with the same sequence number. DSDV takes into account only bidirectional links between nodes. In all table driven protocols each node maintains a table that contains the next hop to reach all destinations. To keep the tables up to date they are exchanged between neighboring nodes at regular intervals or when a significant topology changes are observed.
5. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND PERFORMANCE METRICS
5.1Problem formulation
In this paper two scenarios are taken into considerations for performance analysis: 1) Varying no. of traffic sources and 2) Varying number of nodes.
A detailed simulation model based on network simulator- NS-2 is used in this paper for analysis. The Monarch research group at Carnegie- Mellon University developed support for simulating multihop wireless networks complete with physical, data link, and medium access control (MAC) layer models on NS-2 [17]. The distributed coordination function (DCF) of IEEE 802.11 for wireless LANs is used as the MAC layer protocol.
Simulation experiment -1: Varying traffic pattern
Continuous bit rate (CBR) traffic sources are used to generate the simulated network traffics. A random flow of traffic generation TCL script called “cbrgen.tcl” is used to simulate continuous bit rate sources in NS-2. The source-destination pairs are chosen randomly among 50 nodes in a network within simulation time. Traffic sessions are established at random time with seed value=1 which is given to cbrgen.tcl program to generate traffic pattern, at the beginning of simulation and sessions are established until ending of simulation. The traffic pattern is varied to change the offered load in the network. 10, 20 and 50 traffic sources are generated to do this simulation work. The packet size is 512-byte and transmission rate is 4 pkt/sec. Data rate for the simulation is 2 Mb/sec.
Simulation Experiment -2: Varying Mobility
A mobility generation tool called “setdest” is developed by CMU for generating random movements of nodes in the wireless network of NS-2 is used to generate mobility model for this simulation work.
The mobility model uses the random waypoint model [17] in a rectangular field. In this model each node starts at a random location and moves independently during simulation time. It remains stationary for a specified period called pause time and then moves to some new randomly chosen location with a randomly chosen speed (in this simulation, between 0 and max. speed 10 m/s). When any node reaches the new location, the node again remains stationary for the pause time and chooses a
12 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 new random location with a new randomly chosen speed. It continues to repeat this behaviour throughout the simulation. In this mobility, it produces large amounts of relative node movement and network topology changes. So it helps to generate good movement model to evaluate DSDV and AODV routing protocols. The simulation is consists of 600m*600 m field area for 50 nodes and run for 500 simulated seconds. The pause time is varies from 0 to 500 s.
The model parameters that have been used in the following experiments are summarized in simulation parameters shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Simulation parameters
PARAMETERS VALUES
No. Of Nodes 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40 Simulation Time 500 Seconds Environment Size 600x600 m2
Node Speed 10 m/sec
Pause Time 0 to 500 sec.
Packet Size 512 bytes
Packet sending rate 4 packets /sec.
Routing protocols AODV,DSDV
Traffic Type CBR
Mac type MAC 802.11
Simulator type NS2 -2.34
Mobility model Random way point No. of traffic sources 10,20,50
5.2 Performance metrics
There are different kinds of parameters for the performance evaluation of the routing protocols. These have different behavior of the overall network performance. This comparative study uses the following performance metrics [18]:
i) Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF): This is the ratio of total number of packets successfully received by the destination nodes to the number of packets sent by the source nodes throughout the simulation.
This estimate gives us an idea of how successful the protocol is in delivering packets. A high value of Packet Delivery Fraction indicates that most of the packets are being delivered to the higher layers and is a good indicator of the protocol performance.
ii) Normalized routing load
The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination.
iii) Average end-to-end delay of data packets
It includes the average delay data packets that happened during transmission time from source to destination. So it consist of route discovery latency, the queuing delays at a node, retransmission delays at the MAC layer and the propagation and transfer time of wireless channel. So, this time can be calculated as: Calculate the send(S) time (t) and receive (R) time (T) and average it.
6. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The simulation results are shown in the following section in the form of line graphs. Graphs show comparison between the two protocols by 1) varying different numbers of sources on the basis of the above-mentioned metrics as a function of pause time and 2) by varying no. of nodes.
6.1Effect of varying no. of sources
A. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) Vs Pause Time
Figure 1(a)-(c), shows comparison between the routing proto-cols on the basis of Packet Delivery Fraction as a function of pause time and using different number of traffic sources. From these graphs it is clear that throughput decrease with increase in mobility. As the packet drop at such a high load traffic is much high. DSDV performs better at high mobility but as the number of sources increases it
13 |
shows lower throughput. The reason is that in DSDV routing table update mechanism is not fast enough to update the routing tables w
of packets during the route discovery phase. Buffering of data packets while route discovery in progress, has a great potential of
Fig. 1(a): Packet delivery Ratio vs. Pause time for 10 sources
Fig. 1(c): Packet delivery Ratio vs. Pause time for 50 sources
B. Average End - to- End Delay Vs Pause time Figure 2. (a) - (c), shows graph for
average packet delay in-creases for increase in number of nodes waiting in the interface queue while routing protocols try to find valid route to the destination. In general, high mobility and high traffic load increases the delay; when congestion starts to become a problem the delay at low mobility is higher than at medium mobility. The delay time is also affected by route discovery, which is the first step to begin a communication session. In DSDV route construction may not occ
to lengthy delays waiting or new routes to be determined. It is seen that DSDV performance is slightly better than AODV.
Fig. 2(b): End to End Delay vs. Pause time for 20 sources
Volume 2
shows lower throughput. The reason is that in DSDV routing table update mechanism is not fast enough to update the routing tables when topology changes occur. AODV drop a considerable number of packets during the route discovery phase. Buffering of data packets while route discovery in progress, has a great potential of improving AODV and DSDV performances.
vs. Pause time for 10 sources. Fig.1 (b): Packet delivery Ratio vs. Pause time for 20 sources
vs. Pause time for 50 sources Fig. 2(a): End to End Delay vs. Pause time for 10 sources
End Delay Vs Pause time
(c), shows graph for end to end delay Vs pause time. These graphs show that the creases for increase in number of nodes waiting in the interface queue while routing protocols try to find valid route to the destination. In general, high mobility and high traffic ay; when congestion starts to become a problem the delay at low mobility is higher than at medium mobility. The delay time is also affected by route discovery, which is the first step to begin a communication session. In DSDV route construction may not occ
or new routes to be determined. It is seen that DSDV performance is slightly
Delay vs. Pause time for 20 sources Fig. 2(c): End to End Delay vs. Pause time for 50 sources
2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 shows lower throughput. The reason is that in DSDV routing table update mechanism is not fast hen topology changes occur. AODV drop a considerable number of packets during the route discovery phase. Buffering of data packets while route discovery in
vs. Pause time for 20 sources
End to End Delay vs. Pause time for 10 sources
These graphs show that the creases for increase in number of nodes waiting in the interface queue while routing protocols try to find valid route to the destination. In general, high mobility and high traffic ay; when congestion starts to become a problem the delay at low mobility is higher than at medium mobility. The delay time is also affected by route discovery, which is the first step to begin a communication session. In DSDV route construction may not occur quickly. This lead or new routes to be determined. It is seen that DSDV performance is slightly
End to End Delay vs. Pause time for 50 sources
14 |
C. Normalized routing load
Normalized routing load of DSDV and AODV protocols in different sources are presented in Figures 3 (a-c). In 10 sources (Figure 3 a
higher sources. Proactive routing protocol, DSDV showed slightly higher routing load then routing protocols. As pause time is increased, AODV’s normalized routing load is almost 0 at pause time. From 20 to 50 sources (Figures
load of AODV is much higher than DSDV protocol. In this simulation it to high congestion and certain positions of nodes in ad
packets to maintains transmission of data packets of the simulation network. Though the simulation environment path, mobility and traffic patterns are same for two protocols, AODV has worse normalized routing load with increasing of traffic sources.
routing load in the simulation.
Fig 3a: Normalized routing load -10 sources.
Fig
6.2 Effect of varying no. of nodes
Fig shows the performance of routing protocol with respect to different metrics considered a) Packet delivery ratio:
In terms of packet delivery ratio the performance of DSDV is comparison with the AODV.
b) Average end to end delay:
The performance of DSDV is degrading due to increase in the no. of nodes. The load of exchange of routing tables becomes high and the frequency of exchange also increases due to the mobility of nodes.
Volume 2
Normalized routing load of DSDV and AODV protocols in different sources are presented in Figures 3 a), DSDV and AODV demonstrates lower routing load
higher sources. Proactive routing protocol, DSDV showed slightly higher routing load then routing protocols. As pause time is increased, AODV’s normalized routing load is almost 0 at
0 sources (Figures 3 b-c), as network load is increased, normalized routing load of AODV is much higher than DSDV protocol. In this simulation it maintains 4 pkt/sec, so due to high congestion and certain positions of nodes in ad-hoc network, AODV requires more routing maintains transmission of data packets of the simulation network. Though the simulation environment path, mobility and traffic patterns are same for two protocols, AODV has worse normalized routing load with increasing of traffic sources. Both routing protocols maintains stable
10 sources. Fig.3b: Normalized routing load
Fig 3c: Normalized routing load -50 sources.
6.2 Effect of varying no. of nodes
the performance of routing protocol with respect to different metrics considered
In terms of packet delivery ratio the performance of DSDV is better with more no. of nodes than in
The performance of DSDV is degrading due to increase in the no. of nodes. The load of exchange of routing tables becomes high and the frequency of exchange also increases due to the mobility of
2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16 Normalized routing load of DSDV and AODV protocols in different sources are presented in Figures ), DSDV and AODV demonstrates lower routing load than other higher sources. Proactive routing protocol, DSDV showed slightly higher routing load then reactive routing protocols. As pause time is increased, AODV’s normalized routing load is almost 0 at 500 , as network load is increased, normalized routing maintains 4 pkt/sec, so due hoc network, AODV requires more routing maintains transmission of data packets of the simulation network. Though the simulation environment path, mobility and traffic patterns are same for two protocols, AODV has worse ocols maintains stable
Normalized routing load -20 sources.
the performance of routing protocol with respect to different metrics considered
better with more no. of nodes than in
The performance of DSDV is degrading due to increase in the no. of nodes. The load of exchange of routing tables becomes high and the frequency of exchange also increases due to the mobility of
15 |
Figure 4 (a) Packet delivery ratio v/s no. of nodes.
7. CONCLUSION
In this paper two types of simulation work AODV routing protocols of mobile ad performance metrics like packet delivery Firstly numbers of traffic sources are
given number of traffic sources. Secondly numbers of nodes are varied and performance is analyzed.
From these two types of simulation work, it is evaluated that DSDV and AODV protoc individuality with mobility and traffic sources.
uniqueness and similarity between DSDV and AODV DSDV demonstrates significantly lower routing load increasing number of sources. A
of the protocols. Due to on demand strategy of topology. Since AODV has always more routing control in normalized routing load results, it always choose the
increased. When number of sources increased, DSDV has a better delivery f Overall performance it shows that AODV
mobility and lower number of sources.
respect to increasing nodes. In opposite AODV different load. An observation on average end with 50 sources. This happened for high level of The comparison also indicate that
better with regard to packet delivery ratio but it may have considerable routing overload. As far as packet delay is concerned AODV performs better than DSDV with large no. of nodes. Hence
time traffic AODV is preferred over DSDV. For less no. of nodes and less mobility DSDV’s performance is better.
REFERENCES
[1] Broch J, Maltz DA, Johnson DB, Hu YC, Jetcheva J (1998). A Performance Comparison of Multi Wireless Network Routing Protocols. MobiCom,pp. 25
[2]Charles EP (2001). Ad-hoc networking. Addison
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers. SIGCOMM 94 England UK.
[3] Talooki, Ziarati VNK (2006). Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad APCC '06: pp.1-5.
[4]Charles EP, Das S (2003). Ad-hoc On RFC 3561. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt).
[5] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. C. Hu and J. Jetcheva, “A Performance Comparison of Multi Wireless Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking
Volume 2
Packet delivery ratio v/s no. of nodes. Figure 4 (b) Average end to end delay v/s no. of nodes
two types of simulation works are done to compare the performance of DSDV and AODV routing protocols of mobile ad-hoc networks with NS-2 simulator for measurements of performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, average end to end delay, and normalized
sources are varied and performance is measured by varying pause time for given number of traffic sources. Secondly numbers of nodes are varied and performance is analyzed.
two types of simulation work, it is evaluated that DSDV and AODV protoc individuality with mobility and traffic sources. The simulation results bring out some important uniqueness and similarity between DSDV and AODV routing protocols. In Normalized routing load,
demonstrates significantly lower routing load and fairly stable as compare to A relatively stable normalized routing load is considered for
of the protocols. Due to on demand strategy of ADOV, it needs more routing packets to maintain AODV has always more routing control packets to maintain transmission that found normalized routing load results, it always choose the fresh route and packet delivery fraction is
sources increased, DSDV has a better delivery fraction
Overall performance it shows that AODV and DSDV performs good packet delivery fraction in low mobility and lower number of sources. In average end-to-end delay, DSDV delay is increased respect to increasing nodes. In opposite AODV maintains almost same stable average delay in
load. An observation on average end-to-end delay of both protocols is that delay increases This happened for high level of network stressful situation.
that as the no. of nodes in the network increases
better with regard to packet delivery ratio but it may have considerable routing overload. As far as packet delay is concerned AODV performs better than DSDV with large no. of nodes. Hence
time traffic AODV is preferred over DSDV. For less no. of nodes and less mobility DSDV’s
Broch J, Maltz DA, Johnson DB, Hu YC, Jetcheva J (1998). A Performance Comparison of Multi ing Protocols. MobiCom,pp. 25-30.
hoc networking. Addison-Wesley. Charles EP, Pravin B (1994). Highly Dynamic Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers. SIGCOMM 94
i, Ziarati VNK (2006). Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad
hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. Nokia Research Center.
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt).
] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. C. Hu and J. Jetcheva, “A Performance Comparison of Multi hoc Network Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International ce on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM’98), October 1998, pp. 85
2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16
Average end to end delay v/s no. of nodes
compare the performance of DSDV and for measurements of and normalized routing load.
and performance is measured by varying pause time for given number of traffic sources. Secondly numbers of nodes are varied and performance is analyzed.
two types of simulation work, it is evaluated that DSDV and AODV protocols has The simulation results bring out some important routing protocols. In Normalized routing load, airly stable as compare to AODV with an relatively stable normalized routing load is considered for scalability ADOV, it needs more routing packets to maintain transmission that found fresh route and packet delivery fraction is sources increased, DSDV has a better delivery fraction than AODV.
and DSDV performs good packet delivery fraction in low end delay, DSDV delay is increased with maintains almost same stable average delay in both protocols is that delay increases the no. of nodes in the network increases, DSDV would be better with regard to packet delivery ratio but it may have considerable routing overload. As far as packet delay is concerned AODV performs better than DSDV with large no. of nodes. Hence for real time traffic AODV is preferred over DSDV. For less no. of nodes and less mobility DSDV’s
Broch J, Maltz DA, Johnson DB, Hu YC, Jetcheva J (1998). A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wesley. Charles EP, Pravin B (1994). Highly Dynamic Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers. SIGCOMM 94 -8/94 London i, Ziarati VNK (2006). Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks.
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. Nokia Research Center.
] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. C. Hu and J. Jetcheva, “A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop hoc Network Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International
(MOBICOM’98), October 1998, pp. 85–97.
16 | Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 8-16
[6] Information Sciences Institute, “ns-2 network simulator,” Software Package, 2003. [Online]. Available:
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
[7] “The VINT Project,” USC/ISI, Xerox PARC, LBNL and UC Berkeley, 1997. [Online]. Available:
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/vint/
[8] Juan-Carlos Cano and Pietro Manzoni, “A Performance Comparison of Energy Consumption for Mobile Ad- hoc Network Routing Protocols”, IEEE Transaction, 2000.
[9] Humaira Ehsan and Zartash Afzal Uzmi, “Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Wireless Network Routing Protocols”, IEEE Transactions, 2004.
[10] N. Karthikeyan, V. Palanisamy And K. Duraiswamy, “A Performance Evaluation Of Proactive And Reactive Protocols Using ns-2 Simulation”, International J. of Engg. Research & Indu. Appls. (IJERIA).ISSN 0974-1518, Vol.2, No.II (2009), pp 309-326.
[11] A. Singh and S. Mishra, “Performance Analysis of Reactive Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.10 No.8, August 2010.
[12] M. Bouhorma, H. Bentaouit and A.Boudhir “Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols AODV and DSR,” IEEE Proceedings 2009.
[13] N. Sharma, S. Rana and R. M. Sharma, “Provisioning of Quality of Service in MANETs Performance Analysis & Comparison (AODV and DSR ),” 2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology.
[14] A. K. Gupta, H. Sadawarti and A. K. Verma, “Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR & TORA Routing Protocols,” IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, No.2, April 2010.
[15]Charles EP Bhagwat P (1994). Highly Dynamic Destination- Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) or Mobile Computers. Comp. Comm. Rev., pp. 234-244.
[16]Charles EP, Royer EM, Das SR, Marina MK (2001). Performance Comparison of Two On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Networks. IEEE Personal Commun., pp. 16-28.
[17]Josh B, David AM, David BJ, Yih-Chun H, Jorjeta J (1998). A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad-hoc Network Routing Protocols. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM MOBICOM: pp. 85-97.
[18]Mbarushimana C, Shahrabi (2007). Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. AINAW’07.21st Int. Conf. 2: 679-684.
[19] Vijaya, Amiya kumar Rath, Pinak Bhusan Mishra, Amulya Ratna Dash (2011) 2nd international conference on Emerging Applications of Information technology, IEEE.
[20] Anuj K. Gupta, Anil K. Verma, Harsh Sadawarti (2010) IACSIT International Journal of Emerging and Technology, 2(2).
[21] Parma Nand, Dr. S.C. Sharma, “Performance study of Broadcast based Mobile Ad hoc Routing Protocols AODV, DSR and DYMO”, International Journal of Security and Its Applications Vol. 5 No. 1, January, 2011.
[22]Rajendiran. M, Srivatsa. S. K, “On-Demand Multicasting in Ad-hoc Networks: Performance Evaluation of AODV, ODMRP and FSR”,IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 3, No. 1, May 2011,ISSN (Online): 1694-0814.
[23]G. Rajkumar, Dr. K. Duraisamy,” A Review Of Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks” ,Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 15th February 2012.
Vol. 36 No.1.
AUTHOR
PATIL V.P. is currently working as a faculty member in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering department in Smt. Indira Gandhi college of Engineering.
New Mumbai. He is graduate in B.E. and post graduate in M.TECH (ELECTRONICS DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY).He is having 25 years of experience in teaching and administrations in Engineering colleges. His area of research is in computer communication networking and microwave engineering.