Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) Md. Zulfikar Alom 1, Tapan Kumar Godder 2, Mohammad NayeemMorshed 3, Student Member, IEEE 1,2 Department of Information & Communication Engineering, Islamic University, Kushtia-7003, Bangladesh 3 School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), 02600Arau, Perlis, Malaysia Abstract Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a collection of wireless mobile nodes that are capable of communicating with each other without the use of a network infrastructure. The main procedure for data transmission in ad hoc network is routing. In this paper, we evaluate the performance characteristics and behavior of few ad hoc communicating protocols namely Ad Hoc On Demand Routing Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) Routing Protocols in MANET. Performance comparison is based on performance metrics such as throughput, end-to-end delay and normalized routing load are evaluated using network simulator (NS-2.35) varying number of nodes and number of pause time. Keywords Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs), Ad Hoc On Demand Routing Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV). I. INTRODUCTION Mobile ad hoc mobile networks are structures where nodes communicate among each other without whatever existing commercial infrastructure and wirelessly. They have the luxury of rapid deployment, robustness, suppleness and untouched support just for mobility. This particular flexibility associated with self setting up and self administration causes it to be lucrative with regard to various programs in army operations, cellular mesh systems; wireless sensor systems etc. Because of the wireless character of Mobile ad hoc network, the redirecting protocol is really a very essential issue to create it better and dependable. Quite a few papers provide comparison between routing methodologies DSR, AODV, DSDV in addition to TORA depend on PDF, Average End to end Delay in addition to NRL [1][2]. This paper aims to produce a comprehensive comparative research of three favorite routing protocols: AODV, DSR and DSDV in MANET and in the last the conclusion will be presented, that which routing protocol is the best one for mobile ad hoc networks. II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN AD-HOC NETWORKS Ad hoc network routing protocols are classified into three major categories based on the routing information updated mechanism as shown in Figure (1). There are Proactive (table driven routing protocols), Reactive (on-demand routing protocols) and Hybrid routing protocols being combination of Proactive and Reactive [1]. Ad Hoc Routing Protocol Proactive Routing (Table Driven) Reactive Routing (On Demand) Hybrid Routing Fig.1 Classification of Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol. OLSR, OSPE, DSDV, WRP AODV, DSR, TORA, ABR ZRP, CGSR A. AODV (Ad Hoc on Demand Routing Vector) The ad hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) is dependent on distance vector routing algorithm. Nevertheless, unlike range vector, it's a reactive process; it demands the path when required. It doesn't require nodes which maintain paths for locations, which aren't actively utilized in communication. The options that come with AODV redirecting protocol tend to be loop-free redirecting and instant notification will be sent towards the affected nodes upon link damage [3]. The formula uses numerous messages to keep and uncover links. They are route request (RREQ), route reply (RREP), as well as route error (RERR) [4]. Whenever a source node wants to establish the communication program, it triggers a path- break through process. The origin node wide casts the RREQ packet using its IP address, broadcast ID (BrID) as well as sequence amounts of source as well as destination. As the BrID as well as IP address can be used to distinctively identify every request. Receiving node arranged the backward pointer towards the source as well as generates the RREP packet if it's the location. B. DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) DSR will allow the network for being completely selfsetting up and self-configuring, without the need for almost any existing network infrastructure or administration. The protocol consists of the a couple main parts of Route Discovery in addition to Route Maintenance, which band together to make it possible for nodes to get and retain routes to help destinations from the ad hoc network [5]. A selling point of DSR is usually that nodes can certainly store many routes into their route cache, which shows that the supplier node can certainly check it is route cache for just a valid way before initiating route
discovery in case a logical route is found there no requirement for way discovery. C. DSDV (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector) DSDV is mostly a table made routing protocol this really is an upgraded version for the distributed Bellman-Ford formula. In the entire table made protocols any node says a table made from the so next hop to arrive at all countries. To maintain ones tables new they really are exchanged approximately neighboring nodes located at regular intervals or every significant topology transformations are recognized [6]. III. SIMULATION METRICS AND PARAMETERS The simulations were performed using Network Simulator (Ns-2), which is popularly used for ad hoc networking community. The routing protocols were compared based on the following three performance metrics: Traffic Type CBR Source Type UDP, TCP Protocol AODV,DSR and DSDV MAC Type Mac 802.11 Physical Type PHY 802.11b IV. SIMULATION RESULT AND ANALYSIS A. Varying Both Number of Nodes and Simulation Times The first set of experiments uses differing the number of nodes and changing the simulations. For the 4 nodes, 8 nodes and 16 nodes experiments respectively. Throughput: Throughput is defined as the rate of the total data reaches a receiver from the sender. The time it takes by the receiver to receive the last message is called as throughput. Throughput is expressed as bytes or bits per sec (byte/sec or bit/sec) [7]. End to End delay: The average time from the beginning of a packet transmission at a source node until packet delivery to a destination. This includes delays caused by buffering of data packets during route discovery, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC, and propagation and transfer times. Calculate the send(s) time (t) and receive (R) time (t) and average it [8]. 2.a Normalized Routing Load: The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination. Each hop wise transmission of a routing packet is counted as one transmission [9]. Routing Load = Routing Packets Sent / Received Packets The simulation parameters are as follows: Table I: Simulation Parameters Parameters Value Simulator NS-2 (Version 2.35) Channel Type Wireless Channel Radio Propagation Model Two ray round wave Network Interface Type Wireless Link Layer Type Logical Link Antenna Omni Antenna Simulation Area (m*m) 500*500 Simulation Duration 100 seconds Number of mobile nodes 2,4,8,12,16 Maximum Packet Size 500 2.b 2.c Fig:2(a,b,c) End to end delay for 4,8 and 16 node respectively with varying Simulation Time
In Figure 2(a,b,c) it can be seen from the results, end to end delay is higher in AODV followed by DSR and DSDV having the lowest and most stable End to End Delay in mobility. AODV has only one route per destination in the routing table, which is constantly updated based on sequence number and DSDV has to continuously update the whole routing table periodically when needed, which leads to a slight delay in delivery. The end to end delay does not change with increase in the number of nodes as the source and destination are in the same place moving with same speed, the increased number of nodes only might increase number of hops. The End to End delay decreases with increase with speed, as when it moves more frequently the routing updates are exchanged more frequently and faster it reaches the destination. In Figure 3(a,b,c) it can be seen from the results, throughput of AODV is higher than DSR and DSDV since its routing overhead is less than others. The rate of packet received for AODV is better than the DSDV. The dropped packet for DSR is less than that of DSDV; AODV has no periodic updates exist in DSR. DSDV routing protocol consumes more bandwidth, because of the frequent broad casting of routing updates. While the AODV is better than DSDV as it doesn t maintain any routing tables at nodes which results in less overhead and more bandwidth. 4.a 3.a 4.b 3.b Fig:3(a,b,c) Throughput for 4,8 and 16 node respectively with varying Simulation Time 3.c Fig:4(a,b,c) Normalized routing load for 4,8 and 16 node respectively with varying Simulation Time 4.c
In Figure 4(a,b,c) it can be seen from the results, normalized routing load is minimum at DSR and also is AODV produce low results in compare to DSDV because the normalized routing load is defined as the fraction of all routing control packets sent by all nodes over the number of received data packets at the destination nodes. the route request process as frequently as in DSR and AODV while sending packets. Hence on average DSDV clearly has less delay. It can be observed that AODV is the worst protocol in terms of delay. B. Fixed Simulation Times but Varying Number of Nodes Fig.7. Variation of Normalized routing load by varying number of nodes Fig.5. Variation of Throughput by varying number of nodes In Figure 5 It can be seen that, the Throughput of AODV is higher than DSR and DSDV since its routing overhead is less than others. The rate of packet received for AODV is better than the DSDV. The dropped packet for DSR is less than that of DSDV; AODV has no periodic updates exist in DSR. DSDV routing protocol consumes more bandwidth, because of the frequent broad casting of routing updates. While the AODV is better than DSDV as it doesn t maintain any routing tables at nodes which results in less overhead and more bandwidth. In Figure 7 it can be seen that, the Normalized Routing Load of DSDV is higher than DSR and AODV and the load in routing is minimum at DSR and AODV because the normalized routing load is defined as the fraction of all routing control packets sent by all nodes over the number of received data packets at the destination nodes. Routing load of DSDV is maximized so it is not fine. V. CONCLUSION Here the performance about three different commonly used mobile ad hoc routing protocols namely AODV, DSR and DSDV by increasing numbers of nodes and push time using NS-2 has been evaluated. The performance analysis depend on throughput, average end to end delay and normalized routing load. It can be concluded that DSR gives good performance when comparing to AODV, and DSDV in terms of packet delivery ratio and end to end delay. AODV gives better performance than DSR and DSDV in terms of throughput. REFERENCES Fig:6. Variation of End to end delay by varying number of nodes In Figure 6. It can be seen that, the End to End delay of AODV is higher than DSR and DSDV. In END to End Delay, DSDV which is a table driven proactive routing protocol completely wins over the on demand reactive routing protocols DSR and AODV.Since DSDV proactively keeps the routes to all destination in its table it does not have to initiate [1] Sachin Kumar Gupta and R K Saket, Performance Metric Comparison of AODV and DSDV Routing Protocols in MANETs Using NS- 2,IJRRAS,Vol. 7,Issue No.3, June 2011. [2] Manveen Singh Chadha and Rambir Joon Sandeep, Simulation and Comparison of AODV, DSR and AOMDV Routing Protocols in MANETs, International Journals of Soft Computing and Engineering (IJSCE), Vol.2, July 2012. [3] S. Vanthana and Dr. V.Sinthu Janita Prakash, Comparative Study of Proactive and Reactive Adhoc Routing Protocols Using NS2, IEEE World Congress On Computing and Communication Technologies, 2014. [4] Dr. D. Sivakumar and B. Suseela, A Survey of Routing Algorithms For MANET, IEEE-International Conference On Advances in Engineering, Science, Management (ICAESM-2012). [5] P. Manickam, T. Guru Baskar, M.Girija and Dr.D. Manimegalai, Performance Comparison Of Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,IJWMN, 2011.
[6] C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination Sequenced Distance-vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, ACM SIGCOMM 94 Conference,1994. [7] Thakur Anuja, Sharda Patel, and Ashok Verma. Performance Evaluation of AODV, DSDV and DSR Routing Protocols using NS- 2 Simulator, International Journal Of Engineering Science & Research technology, 2014. [8] Kavita Pandey and Abhishek Swaroop, A Comprehensive Performance Analysis of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid MANETs Routing Protocols, IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 6, No 3, November 2011. [9] M Bouhoma,H Bentaouit, and A.Boudhir, Performance comparison of Ad hoc Routing Protocols AODV and DSR,IEEE,2009.