PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR WIRELESS ADHOC NETWORK

Abstract

In wireless network, comparison of the routing protocols for different network topologies plays very important role for evaluation of its performance .Performance is calculated by Quality of service(QoS) parameters. In this paper parameters like throughput, delay and fairness are studied with the help of NS2.34 network simulator software. Comparative evaluation of adhoc routing protocols like Adhoc on demand distance vector (AODV),dynamic source routing (DSR),DSDV and Adhoc on demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) is done in different scenarios, ie one hop and two hops. It is observed that in 2 hops the throughput of AODV protocol is good but its delay is poor, throughput and delay of DSDV protocol is poor and throughput and delay for DSR is balanced one. In single hop fairness of AODV and AOMDV protocol is good, it is balanced in DSR and it is worst in DSDV.

Full text

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/13-17
Research Article
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR
WIRELESS ADHOC NETWORK
Sujata Agrawal
1
Dr. M.B. Daigavane
2
Dr. K.D.Kulat
3
Address for Correspondence
1
Asst Professor Electronics & Telecommunication SKNCOE Pune
2
Professor, Electronics & Power Electronics, SD College of Engg. Wardha
3
Professor, Electronics & Computer Science Dept. VNIT, Nagpur
ABSTRACT
In wireless network, comparison of the routing protocols for different network topologies plays very important role for evaluation
of its performance .Performance is calculated by Quality of service(QoS) parameters. In this paper parameters like throughput,
delay and fairness are studied with the help of NS2.34 network simulator software. Comparative evaluation of adhoc routing
protocols like Adhoc on demand distance vector (AODV),dynamic source routing (DSR),DSDV and Adhoc on demand
multipath distance vector (AOMDV) is done in different scenarios, ie one hop and two hops. It is observed that in 2 hops the
throughput of AODV protocol is good but its delay is poor, throughput and delay of DSDV protocol is poor and throughput and
delay for DSR is balanced one. In single hop fairness of AODV and AOMDV protocol is good, it is balanced in DSR and it is
worst in DSDV.
1. INTRODUCTION
A mobile ad-hoc network or MANET is a collection of
mobile nodes sharing a wireless channel without any
centralized control or established communication
backbone. They have no fixed routers with all nodes
capable of movement and arbitrarily dynamic. These
nodes can act as both end systems and routers at the
same time. When acting as routers, they discover and
maintain routes to other nodes in the network. The
topology of the ad-hoc network depends on the
transmission power of the nodes and the location of the
mobile nodes, which may change from time to time [1].
One of the main problems in ad-hoc networking is the
efficient delivery of data packets to the mobile nodes
where the topology is not pre-determined nor does the
network have centralized control. Hence, due to the
frequently changing topology, routing in ad-hoc
networks can be viewed as a challenge.
2. ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is a dynamic
wireless network that can be formed without the need
for any pre-existing infrastructure in which each node
can act as a router.
A fundamental assumption in ad-hoc networks is that
any node can be used to forward packets between
arbitrary sources and destinations. Some sort of routing
protocol is needed to make the routing decisions. A
wireless ad-hoc environment introduces many
problems such as mobility and limited bandwidth
which makes routing difficult.This paper compares the
different adhoc protocols on the basis of QoS
parameters like Throuput,Delay and Fairness.
2.1 Throughput:
It is the average rate of successful message delivery
over a communication channel. These data can be
delivered over a physical or logical link. It is measured
in bits per second.
2.2 Delay:
It is a time required for packets to reach to destination
node from source node.
2.3 Fairness:
Fairness reflects the ability of different users, nodes, or
applications to share the channel equally. It is an
important attribute in traditional voice or data
networks, since each user desires an equal opportunity
to send or receive data for their own applications. It is
the parameter for measuring the congestion in the
network. Fair network means less congestion.
There are three types of Adhoc Routing protocols.
They are pro-active protocols, active protocols and
hierarchical protocols.For comparison purpose we have
taken the few protocols from each type. They are
Dynamic Source routing Protocol (DSR), Destination
Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Adhoc on
demand Distance vector protocol (AODV) and Ad-hoc
On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing
(AOMDV).
2.4 DSR Protocol
DSR is a reactive routing protocol i.e. determines the
proper route only when packet needs to be forwarded.
For restricting the bandwidth, the process to find a path
is only executed when a path is required by a node
(On-Demand Routing). In DSR the sender (source,
initiator) determines the whole path from the source to
the destination node (Source-Routing) and deposits the
addresses of the intermediate nodes of the route in the
packets. DSR is beacon-less which means that there
are no hello-messages used between the nodes to notify
their neighbours about their presence. DSR was
developed for MANETs with a small diameter between
5 and 10 hops and the nodes should only move around
at a moderate speed. DSR is based on the Link-State
Algorithms which mean that each node is capable to
save the best way to a destination. Also if a change
appears in the network topology, then the whole
network will get this information by flooding. The
DSR protocol is composed of two main mechanisms
that work together to allow discovery and maintenance
of source routes in MANET.
2.5 DSDV Protocol
It is a proactive protocol based on Bellman –Ford
Algorithm. Packets are transmitted according to the

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/13-17
routing table. Each node maintains routing table with
entry for each node in the network .DSDV protocol
guarantees loop free paths. DSDV maintains only the
best path instead of maintaining multiple paths to every
destination. With this, the amount of space in routing
table is reduced. It shows the freshness of the route, if
the node detects that a route to a destination has
broken, then its hop number is set to infinity and
sequence number is updated.
2.6 AODV Protocol
AODV is a very simple, efficient, and effective routing
protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks which do not
have fixed topology. It does not require nodes to
maintain routes to destinations that are not actively
used. The protocol uses different messages to discover
and maintain links: Route Requests (RREQs), Route
Replies (RREPs), and Route Errors (RERRs). These
message types are received via UDP, and normal IP
header processing applies. This algorithm was
motivated by the limited bandwidth that is available in
the media that are used for wireless communications.
The on demand route discovery and route maintenance
from DSR and hop-by-hop routing, usage of node
sequence numbers from DSDV make the algorithm
cope up with topology and routing information.
Obtaining the routes purely on-demand makes AODV
a very useful and desired algorithm for MANETs.
2.7 AOMDV Protocol
Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector
Routing (AOMDV) protocol is an extension to the
AODV protocol for computing multiple loop-free and
linkdisjoint paths. The routing entries for each
destination contain a list of the next-hops along with
the corresponding hop counts. All the next hops have
the same sequence number. This helps in keeping track
of a route. For each destination, a node maintains the
advertised hop count, which is defined as the maximum
hop count for all the paths, which is used for sending
route advertisements of the destination. AOMDV can
be used to find node-disjoint or link-disjoint routes.
The advantage of using AOMDV is that it allows
intermediate nodes to reply to RREQs,[7]while still
selecting disjoint paths. But, AOMDV has more
message overheads during route discovery due to
increased flooding and since it is a multipath routing
protocol, the destination replies to the multiple RREQs
those results are in longer overhead.
3 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Implementation of wireless ad-hoc networks in the real
world is quite hard. Hence, the preferred alternative is
to use some simulation software which can mimic real-
life scenarios. Here, we have used network simulator
NS-2.34 for simulation purpose.
3.1 Methodology
To compare different ad-hoc routing protocol, it is best
to use identical simulation environments for their
performance evaluation.
3.1.1 Simulation of Adhoc routing Protocols:
This describes the simulation of different routing
Protocols in one hop and two hops scenarios. We make
use of ns-2.34 which has support for simulating a
multi-hop wireless ad-hoc environment completed with
physical, data link, and medium access control (MAC)
layer models on ns-2.
TABLE 2 NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS
(IN BOTH SCENARIOS)
Type of channel Wireless channel
Network Interface Type Wireless Physical
Network Interface Type
ropagation Model
Two Ray Ground
MAC Protocol 802.11
Routing Protocol AODV, AOMDV, DSDV, DSR
Interface Queue Type Drop Tail Priority
Antenna Type Omni antenna
3.1.2 Scenario Details 1:
Fig.1 Scenario details for one hop
Here node placement is of one hop. Our evaluations are
based on the simulation of 13 wireless nodes forming
an adhoc network, moving about over a square of
(200m x 200m) flat space for 1000s of simulated time.
A square space is chosen to allow free movement of
nodes with equal density. Number of the sources are 12
i.e nodes 1 to 12.Node o is the sink node. All the nodes
are sending packets to node 0. Traffic Interval time is
kept 0.001 seconds. Transmission range is 250 meters.
The Quality of service parameters like throughput,
delay and fairness are calculated for different routing
protocols. To enable fair and direct comparisons
between the routing protocols, identical loads and
environmental conditions had to be maintained.
Measurement of Throughput
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
No of sources
Throu ghput (% )
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Fig:2 Throughput measurement in 1-hop topology
for AODV,AOMDV,DSR,DSDV
The figure 2 shows the measurement of total
throughput. This result show how the routing protocols
behaves when saturated with unicast traffic. As the
number of nodes increases the interference also
increases. The throughput varies with the number of
contenders, as the number of contenders increase the
throughput increases. It is observed that the throughput
of AODV routing protocol in one hop scenario is

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/13-17
maximum and it is minimum for DSDV .It is balanced
for AOMDV and DSR.
Measurement of Delay
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No of sources
De aly (m s)
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Fig:3 Delay measurement in 1-hop topology for
AODV,AOMDV,DSR,DSDV
Fig 3.Shows that the delay is minimum in DSDV.
Delay for DSDV decreases as the number of sauces
increases. This is desirable parameter for DSDV
protocol. It is worst in AODV. And balanced in
AOMDV and DSR.
Measurement of Fairness
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
No of Sources
Fair nes s
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Fig:4 Fairness measurement in 1-hop and 2 hop
topology for AODV,AOMDV,DSR,DSDV
Fig.4 shows the comparison of AODV ,AOMDV DSR
and DSDV on the basis of fairness. Network becomes
more fair for AODV as number of sources are
increased. For DSDV it is worst. It is balanced in
AOMDV and DSR protocol.Fairness results are same
for one hop and two hop topologies.
Measurement of Throughput
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.001 0.0 1 0.1 1 10
Interval (s)
Throu gput (% )
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Figure 5: Throughput versus Inter arrival time for
AODV,AOMDV,DSR and DSDV in one hop
Scenario
Figure 5 shows that as the inter arrival time increases,
throughput for AOMDV is maximum. It is minimum
for DSDV.
Measurement of Delay
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.001 0 .01 0.1 1 10
Interval (s)
De lay (m s)
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Figure 6:Delay versus Inter arrival time for
AODV,AOMDV,DSR and DSDV in one hop
Scenario
Above figure shows that the delay is minimum for
DSDV protocol.
3.1.2 Scenario Details 2:
Figure 7: Two hop Scenario
Figure 5 shows the two hop scenario. Here Nodes are
placed in two hops, and total number of nodes taken
is 17.Node 0 is a sink node and outermost 8 nodes are
sources. Area of simulation is 1000m*1000m.
Number of packets generated by each source is 100.
Measurement of Throughput
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
No of sources
Th rou ghp ut (% )
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Fig:8 Throughput versus number of sources in 2-
hop topology for AODV,AOMDV,DSR,DSDV
Above figure shows that the throughput for AOMDV
protocol increases as number of sources increases .It is
least for DSDV protocol.

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/13-17
Measurement of Delay
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
No of sources
De lay (s )
AODV
AOMV
DSR
DSDV
Fig 9: Delay measurement in 2-hop topology for
AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV
It is observed from the above figure that the delay is
least for DSDV protocol and maximum for AODV
protocol.
Measurement of Throughput
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Interval (s)
Th rou gp ut (% )
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Figure 10:Throughput versus Interarrival time for
AODV AOMDV, DSR and DSDV in two hops
Scenerio
Above figure shows the comparison of AODV,
AOMDV, DSR and DSDV on the basis of throughput
for two hop scenario by changing the inter arrival time
.It is observed from the graphs that as the inter arrival
time increases throughput also increases. It is more for
AOMDV, DSR ,and AODV and is less for DSDV.
Measurement of Delay
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.001 0.0 1 0.1 1 10
Interval (s)
De lay (m s)
AODV
AOMDV
DSR
DSDV
Figure11: Delay versus Interarrival time for AODV,
AOMDV, DSR and DSDV in two hops Scenario
Figure 11 shows the comparison on the basis of delay.
For analysis purpose delay should be less. Here it is
observed that delay is good i.e. less for DSDV .It is
more in AODV and AOMDV, balanced in DSR.
5. CONCLUSION
This paper evaluated the performances of AODV,
AOMDV, DSR and DSDV using ns-2.34. Comparison
was based on throughput, delay and fairness in one hop
scenario by changing the number of sources and inter-
arrival time. Also in two hop scenario by changing the
changing the number of sources and inter-arrival time.
We conclude that throughput for AODV routing
protocol in one hop scenario by varying the number of
sources is maximum and it is minimum for DSDV .It is
balanced for AOMDV and DSR, delay is minimum in
DSDV. Delay for DSDV decreases as the number of
sauces and inter-arrival time increases. This is
desirable parameter for DSDV protocol. It is worst in
AODV. And balanced in AOMDV and DSR. Network
becomes more fair for AODV as number of sources are
increased. For DSDV it is worst. It is balanced in
AOMDV and DSR protocol. As the inter arrival time
increases, throughput for one hop in AOMDV is
maximum. It is minimum for DSDV.
Fairness results are same for one hop and two hop
topologies with increase in number of sources. Fairness
can not be observed by varying inter-arrival time.
For two hop scenario, the throughput for AOMDV
protocol increases as number of sources increases .It is
least for DSDV protocol. Delay is least for DSDV
protocol and maximum for AODV protocol, it is
observed from the graphs that as the inter arrival time
increases throughput also increases. It is more for
AOMDV, DSR, and AODV and is less for DSDV ,also
it is observed that delay is good i.e less for DSDV .It is
more in AODV and AOMDV, balanced in DSR.
Hence in conclusion we say that by varying the number
of sources and interarrival time throughput and fairness
for AODV is best and delay for DSDV is best in both
the scenarios. AODV is efficient based on throughput
and fairness and DSDV is efficient based on
delay.DSR and AOMDV protocols give the results in
between the AODV and DSDV protocols.
REFERENCES
1. Shaily Mittal Prabhjot Kaur “Performance comparison of
AODV, DSR and ZRP Routing Protocols in Manets”
International Conference on Advances in Computing,
Control, and Telecommunication Technologies, 2009
2. Juan-Carlos Cano, Pietro Manzoni, “A Performance
comparison of Energy Consumption for Mobile Ad Hoc
Network Routing Protocols” Departamento de
Informatica de Sistems y Computadores (DISCA) Escuela
de Informatica Universidad Polite’cnica de Valenci
3. F.Bertocchi,P.Bergamo,G.Mazzini, M.Zorzi“Performance
Comparison of Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc
Networks”DI,University of Ferrara,Italy.
4. Saniir R.Das, Cliarles E. Perkins,Elizabeth M.Roycr.
“Performance Comparison of Two On-demand Routing
Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks” IEEE INFOCOM 2000.
5. Rajendra V. Boppana, Anket Mathur, “Analysis of the
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks
”CS Department ,UT San Antonio ,San Antonio,TX
78249,USA,2004

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/13-17
6. David B. Johnson David A. Maltz Josh Broch,“ DSR: The
Dynamic Source Routing protocol for Multi-Hop
Wireless ad Hoc networks” Computer Science
Department Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh,PA,2000.
7. H.D.Trung, W.Benjapolakul, P.M.Duc, “Performance
evaluation andcomparison of different ad hoc routing
protocols”, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, May 2007
8. J.Broch, D.A.Maltz, D.B.Johnson, Y-C.Hu, J.Jetcheva,
“Aperformance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc
network routing protocols”, Computer Science
Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
USA. http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu/
9. H.D.Trung, W.Benjapolakul, “Routing protocols in
mobile ad hoc networks”, in: Encyclopedia of W ireless
and Mobile Communications, CRC Press, Book Chapter,
in press.
10. S.R.Das, R.Casteneda, J.Yan, “Simulation based
performance evaluation of mobile, ad hoc network routing
protocols” in:ACM/Baltzer Mobile Networks and
Applications (MONET) Journal, July 2000.
11. C.E.Perkins, E.M.Belding-Royer and I.D.Chakeres, “Ad
hoc On- Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”,
IETF Internet Draft, draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-01.txt.
January 2004
12. L.B.Oliveira, I.G.Siqueira, A.A.F.Loureuro,”On the
performance of ad hoc routing protocols under a peer-to-
peer application”, Computer Science Department, Federal
University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, July 2005
13. T.Fujiwara, T.Watanbe, “An ad hoc networking scheme
in hybrid networks for emergency communication”,
Information Technology Lab, Eugene Co. Ltd,
Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan
14. P.P.Pham, S.Perreau, “Increasing the network
performance using multi-path routing mechanism with
load balance”, Institute of Telecommunications Research,
University of South Australia, Australia, September 2003
15. M.K.Marina and S.R.Das, “On-Demand multipath
distance vector routing in ad hoc networks” in:
Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on
Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001
16. C.S.R.Murthy, B.S.Manoj, Ad hoc Wireless Networks,
Architecture and Protocols, 6th Edition The ns Manual,
formerly ns Notes and Documentation