You are on page 1of 5

A Study and Comparison of OLSR, AODV and TORA Routing Protocols in Ad Hoc Networks

P.Kuppusamy
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Vivekananda College of Engineering for Women Namakkal, India kuppusamy1980@gmail.com Dr.K.Thirunavukkarasu Principal Velammal Engineering College Chennai, India drkt@rediffmail.com

Dr.B.Kalaavathi
Dept. of Information Technology K.S.R College of Technology Namakkal, India kalaavathi@ksrct.ac.in
Abstract— Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of mobile nodes in which the wireless links are frequently broken down due to mobility and dynamic infrastructure. Routing is a significant issue and challenge in ad hoc networks. Many routing protocols have been proposed like OLSR, AODV, DSR, ZRP, and TORA so far to improve the routing performance and reliability. This research paper describes the characteristics of ad hoc routing protocols OLSR, AODV and TORA based on the performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, end–to–end delay, routing overload by increasing number of nodes in the network. This comparative study proves that AODV, TORA performs well in dense networks than OLSR in terms of packet delivery ratio. Keywords—MANET, AODV, OLSR, TORA, routing

A. Proactive or table-driven routing protocols: In proactive protocols, each node maintains individual routing table containing routing information for every node in the network. Each node maintains consistent and current up-to-date routing information by sending control messages periodically between the nodes which update their routing tables. The proactive routing protocols use link-state routing algorithms which frequently flood the link information about its neighbors. The drawback of proactive routing protocol is that all the nodes in the network always maintain an updated table. Some of the existing proactive routing protocols are DSDV [4] and OLSR [8], [17]. B. Reactive or On Demand Routing Protocol: In Reactive routing protocols, when a source wants to send packets to a destination, it invokes the route discovery mechanisms to find the route to the destination. The route remains valid till the destination is reachable or until the route is no longer needed. Unlike table driven protocols, all nodes need not maintain up-to-date routing information. Some of the most used on demand routing protocols are DSR [8] and AODV [4]. Hybrid Routing Protocol: Hybrid routing protocol combines the advantages of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. Some of the existing hybrid protocols are ZRP [8] and TORA [20]. II. OVERVIEW OF PROTOCOLS C.

I.

INTRODUCTION

In MANET [6], [9] the set of wireless mobile nodes connected together to form temporary network in which the nodes are communicating with each other without centralized control. The nodes are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily. Hence the network’s topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. The nodes that are within each other’s radio range can communicate directly, while remote nodes rely on their neighboring nodes to forward packets as a router. Routing is a core problem in networks for sending data from one node to another. Routing protocols works well in wired networks does not show the same performance in mobile ad hoc networks due to the rapid change of topology. A MANET includes many challenges and issues such as Dynamic topologies, Frequency of updates or network overhead, energy, speed, routing and security. The routing protocol is required whenever the source needs to transmit and delivers the packets to the destination. Many routing protocols have been proposed for the mobile ad hoc network and classified as Proactive or Table Driven routing Protocol, Reactive or On Demand Routing Protocol.
___________________________________ 978-1- 4244 -8679-3 /11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

A. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Optimized Link State Protocol (OLSR) [8], [17] is a proactive routing protocol, all nodes have route table for containing routing information to every node in the network. Thus the routes are always immediately available when needed. OLSR is an optimization version of a pure link state

143

[5] is an enhancement of DestinationSequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) routing protocol algorithm which contains the characteristics of DSDV and 9 2 RREQ 9 2 8 7 RREP 7 8 Destination 4 6 Destination 4 1 Source 6 1 Source 3 5 3 5 Figure. To minimize network wide broadcasts of RREQ. the route discovery process is initiated to locate the destination. Route Request ID (RREQ ID).protocol. If it is there. The RREQ receiving node set the backward pointer to the source node and generates a RREP unicast packet with a lifetime. When the RREP reaches the source node. Advantages and Limitations OLSR is also a flat routing protocol and it does not need central administrative system to handle its routing process. the RREQ ID and the IP address is used to uniquely identify each request. OLSR has also Multiple Interface Design (MID) to allow the nodes for having multiple OLSR interface addresses and provide the external routing information giving the possibility for routing to the external addresses. If not. OLSR may optimize the reactivity to topological changes by reducing the maximum time interval for periodic control message transmission. nodes in the ad hoc network can act as gateways to another possible network. illustrates the MPR utilization in packet transmission. Hello messages are used for finding the information about the link status and the neighbor nodes. and the sequence number of the source and destination. Based on this information. destination pairs are changing over time. sent back to the source if it is the destination or contains a route to the destination i. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol AODV [1]. If the RREQ is lost during transmission. the packet is forwarded to the appropriate next hop toward the destination. [4]. OLSR protocol uses Multipoint Relays (MPR) to reduce the possible overhead in the network. which are only allowed to forward the topological messages. OLSR uses the following control messages: Hello and Topology Control (TC). C. An intermediate node set up a reverse route entry with lifetime for the source node in its route table to process the RREQ and forwards a RREP to the source.2 illustrates the route discovery process by broadcasting RREQ. and to provide the shortest path. The fig. Furthermore. The link is reliable for the control messages. as OLSR continuously maintains routes to all destinations in the network.1 given below. While. Each node maintains a route table contains routing information but does not necessarily maintain routes to every node in the network and tremendously minimize the requirement of system wide broadcasts. it checks route table for valid route from source to its destination. it means a route from source to the destination has been established and the source node can begin the data transmission. If it is. Packet transmission using MPR broadcasts by reducing the same broadcast in some regions in the network. the intermediate node updates the forward route entry with preceding node into the precursor list and forwards the RREQ to its neighbor node. since the messages are sent periodically and the delivery does not have to be sequential. the entries in the route table are verified to ensure whether there is a current route to that destination node or not. OLSR is best suitable for high density network and does not allows long delays in the transmission of the packets. B. The source node broadcasts a control message RREQ with its IP address. the protocol is beneficial for traffic patterns where a large subset of nodes are communicating with another large subset of nodes in which the source. copies its known sequence number for the destination into the Destination Sequence number field in the RREP message and RREP sent back to the source along the reverse path.2 AODV route discovery process 144 . as a limitation OLSR protocol needs that each node periodically sends the updated topology information throughout the entire network. the source node uses an expanding ring search technique. Hence the topological changes cause the flooding of the topological information to all available nodes in the network. Route Discovery When a source node desires to transmit the packet to its destination. 9 11 Figure 1. But the flooding is minimized by the MPR’s. D.e. intermediate node. TC messages are used for broadcasting information about own advertised neighbors which includes at least the MPR Selector list. The fig.. the sequence numbers are used to determine the timeliness of each packet. E. However. If it is not there. Forward Path Setting When an intermediate node receives RREQ from the source. The idea of MPR is to reduce flooding of 7 4 3 12 2 5 1 10 6 8 MPR Node DSR. this increase the protocols bandwidth usage. the source node is allowed to broadcast again using route discovery mechanism.

Advantages and Limitations The AODV has great advantage in having less overhead over proactive protocols and it also supports both unicast and multicast packet transmissions even for nodes in constant movement. When either destination or intermediate node moves. 0) 3 (0. Consequently. The Hello messages.3 Route creation in TORA 145 . When this packet propagates in the network. A route discovered with AODV may no longer be the optimal route further along in time. 4) (0. 3) 9 Destination UPDATE 2 (0. TORA uses an arbitrary height metric to establish a direct acyclic graph and the length of the route that physically (DAG) rooted at the destination. various performance metrics begin decreasing. When a node discovers that the route to a destination is no longer valid.3. Route Maintenance A route discovered between a source node and destination node is maintained as long as needed by the source node. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm Protocol Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [9]. -) 0. highly adaptive routing protocol which is also known as link reversal protocol. 2) 7 (0. As shown in fig. the node broadcasts a QUERY packet to its neighbors. Initially to create a route. these nodes propagate the RERR to their predecessor nodes. 1) Figure. using the RRER message. -) (0. This process continues until the source node is reached. -) (-. Packets move from the source node having the highest height to the destination node with the lowest height like top-down approach. then the node will attempt to discover a new route. The recipient of the QUERY packet then broadcasts the UPDATE packet which lists its height with respect to the destination. Thus a source node maintains one or more downstream. it can either stop sending the data or reinitiate the route discovery mechanism by sending a new RREQ message if the route is still needed. G. -) (-. 3) (0. the node upstream of the break initiates Route Error (RERR) message to the affected active upstream nodes. It is also possible that a valid route is expired and the determination of a reasonable expiry time is difficult. This QUERY is re-broadcasted through the network until it reaches the destination or an intermediate node that has a route to the destination. (-. AODV responds quickly to the topological changes in the network and updating only the nodes that may be affected by the change. 0 9 Destination Source 2 (-. [10]. If the source node moves during an active session. TORA reduces the control messages in the network by having the nodes to query for a path only when it needs to send a packet to a destination. it will generate a CLEAR packet that results in reset of routing over the ad hoc network. it retains that height. each node that receives the UPDATE packet sets its height to a value greater than the height of the neighbor from which the UPDATE was received. distributed.F. as the size of network grows. The reason behind this is that the nodes are in mobility and their sending rates may differ widely. it will adjust its height so that it will be a local maximum with respect to its neighbors and then transmits an UPDATE packet. -) 6 8 5 1 3 (-. If the node has no neighbors of finite height with respect to the destination. [20] is a hybrid. -) (-. Consequently. In TORA three steps are involved in establishing a network. which are responsible for the route maintenance. When a node detects a network partition. Maintaining the routes and Erasing invalid routes. -) 4 QUERY (-. The limitations of AODV protocol is all nodes in the broadcast medium can detect each other’s broadcasts. 1) 4 5 1 Source 6 8 0. H. node 6 does not propagate QUERY from node 5 as it has already seen and propagated QUERY message from node 4 and the source may have received a UPDATE each from node 2. are also limited so that they do not create unnecessary overhead in the network. multiple routes often exist for a given destination but none of them are necessarily the shortest route. When RERR is received by the source node. This has the effect of creating a series of directed links from the original sender of the QUERY packet to the node that initially generated the UPDATE packet. it can reinitiate route discovery mechanism to establish a new route to destination. In addition. The establishment of the route is based on the DAG mechanism thus ensuring that all the routes are loop free. -) (0. • • • Creating the routes from source to destination. Instead of using the shortest path for computing the routes. This situation can arise because of network congestion or the fluctuating characteristics of wireless links. 3 (0. 2) 7 (-. the TORA algorithm maintains the direction of the next destination to forward the packets.

queuing at interface queue. Setting Route Forward path UPDATE packets TABLE. Advantages and Limitations The advantage of TORA is that the multiple routes are supported by this protocol between the source and destination node.I. transmission delays at the MAC. It provides the support of link status sensing and neighbor delivery.III ROUTING PERFORMANCE IN HIGH MOBILITY High Mobility and High Traffic Protocol End Packet Path Routing to End delivery optimality overhead delay ratio Low Average Average Low OLSR Average Average Average Low AODV TORA High Low Average Average IV. consequently communication overhead and bandwidth utilization is minimized. routing overhead performance metrics. which limits the maximum throughput of the network. neighbor discovery. Multiple Interface Detection. in order packet delivery and address resolution are all readily available. Metrics for Performance Comparison MANET has number of qualitative and quantitative metrics that can be used to compare ad hoc routing protocols. AODV and TORA) on the basis of end-to-end delay. Also TORA consist some of the limitations like which depends on synchronized clocks among nodes in the ad hoc network. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS maintenance need to be sent so as to propagate the data packets. Reversal. This will make the overhead for this protocol difficult to separate from that imposed by the lower layer. 1) End-to-end Delay [8]: This metric represents average end-to-end delay and indicates how long it took for a packet to travel from the source to the application layer of the destination. reliable in-order control packet delivery and security authentication. CONCLUSION This paper presents the comparative study and performance analysis of various ad hoc routing protocols (OLSR. 5) Routing overhead [9]: This metric describes how many routing packets for route discovery and route Link reversal route repair Route Link Discovery. 4) Path optimality [9]: This metric can be defined as the difference between the path actually taken and the best possible path for a packet to reach its destination. 3) Media Access Delay [3]: The time a node takes to access media for starting the packet transmission is called as media access delay. media access delay. failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route to improve congestion. Neighbor (MPR) Detection. packet delivery ratio. CBR source). It includes all possible delay caused by buffering during route discovery latency. Discovery. The solution is to run the Internet MANET Encapsulation Protocol at the layer immediately below TORA. TABLE I. path optimality. The delay is recorded for each packet when it is sent to the physical layer for the first time. It is measured in seconds. Route calculation AODV On Demand or Reactive Distance Vector Route Table Yes Flat No Yes Moderate Possible Yes Erase Route notify Source TORA Hybrid Link Reversal Route Table Yes Flat Yes No Moderate Possible Yes A. AODV and TORA routing protocols. The table. It does not require a periodic update. I illustrates the comparison of OLSR. Expanding Route Ring. It specifies the packet loss rate. OLSR requires that it continuously have some bandwidth in order to receive 146 . III. The study of these routing protocols shows that OLSR is more efficient in high density networks with highly sporadic traffic. Search.e. Therefore.II ROUTING PERFORMANCE IN LOW MOBILITY Low Mobility and Low Traffic Protocol End Packet Path Routing to End delivery optimality overhead delay ratio Low High Good Low OLSR Average High Average Low AODV Low High Good Average TORA TABLE. and propagation and transfer time. This paper has been considered the following metrics to evaluate the performance of ad hoc network routing protocols. The dependence of this protocol on intermediate lower layers for certain functionality presumes that the link status sensing. 2) Packet Delivery Ratio [4]: Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets received by the destination through the number of packets originated by the application layer of the source (i. COMPARISON OF AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS Performance Constraints Category Protocol Type Route Maintained in Loop Freedom Route Philosophy Multiple routes Multicast Message Overhead Periodic broadcast Requires sequence data Route reconfiguration methodology Summary OLSR Table driven or Proactive Link state scheme Route Table Yes Flat No Yes Minimum Possible No Control messages sent in advance to increase the reactiveness Control messages for Link Sensing.

E (Metallurgy with University Ranking) in Madras University in 1975 and M. Her current areas of interest include Mobile Computing and Data Structures and Algorithms Analysis. [16] V. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics & Automation. Proceedingsof INMIC. R. 2008. Internaional Conference on Wireless Networking and Mobile Computing. 35. RFC 3561. pp. Farhat Anwar.txt. 201 – 206. October 1998. 1997. 1998. IEEE ICPWC 2005.ac. [13] S. “Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Version 1.S. TORA performs much better in packet delivery owing to selection of better routes using acyclic graph. She is currently working as a Professor in Information Technology. [19] Zhi Ren and Yi Zhou Wei Guo. Md. [10] Md. Tarek R.Kuppusamy received the B. Park and S. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree from Madras University. pp.Perkins. S. B.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-tora-spec-01. IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications. T. D. 1. “An Adaptive Multi-Channel OLSR Routing Protocol Based on Topology Maintenance”. R.K. Vol. “Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol” RFC 3626. A. David A. C. Clausen and P. July 2003. Hass and M. The AODV is better for moderately dense networks where as the OLSR performs well in sparse networks. in the proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM MOBICOM ’98).Tech(Metal casting) in 1977and Ph. “Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”. Md. “On-Demand Routing in Multi-hop Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks’. Das. Chennai. Jetcheva.ietf. S. in 2002 and M. Samir R.the topology updates messages.D degree in Mechanical Engineering from IIT Madras in 1983. Sheltami. Uzmi (2004). [14] T. Y-C. Vivekanandha College of Engineering for Women. Chennai. [11] P. July 2005. Hu. “Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)”. Perkins and E. P. 85-97. “Performance Analysis of Ad hoc Routing Protocols [2] [3] [4] [12] R. D. C. http://www. 1405-1413. Broch. IEEE Personal Communications. IETF Networking Group. pp. Anne Aaron. He is currently working as a principal in Velammal Engineering College. “Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols for Networks with Node Energy Constraints”. D. As well. “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing . Volume 17.E. 2222-2227. Innovation Works. 1999. B.Das. “Simulation-Based Comparative Study of On Demand Routing Protocols for MANET”.B. His current areas of research interests are ad hoc networks and mobile computing.lancs. 90-100. IEEE 8th International Multitopic Conference.457 – 465. Canada. M. Arafatur Rahman. Chandrasekhar Reddy.Thirunavukkarasu received the B. pp. E. Vol. Maltz.edu. C. TORA and OLSR in MANET Using Various Energy Models”. February 2001. October 2003. Pearlman. Issue. Misra. Asif. December 2005. P. Spring 2000-2001. Namakkal. Charles E.Tech from Pondicherry University in 2000 and Ph. The performance of all protocols was almost stable in sparse medium with low traffic.E. OLSR and SBR in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks”.ietf. December 2004. Functional specification”. "Global State Routing: A New Routing Scheme for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks" Proceedings of IEEE International Computing Conference ICC 1998. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA). “Performance comparison of two on-demand Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Networks”.uk.D from Periyar University in 2010. She is a member of CSI & ISTE INDIA. REFERENCES [1] Alexander Klein. It has been concluded that performance of TORA is better for dense networks. 3. “Performance Comparison and Evaluation of AODV.I . [9] J. 13. IETF Network Working Group. available at http://www. Saiful Azad. E. Chennai in 2007.Royer. Elizabeth M.Kalaavathi received the B. 147 . He is a member of MSITE. pp. Basavaraju. [15] Tsu-Wei Chen and M. October 2010. IWS INDIA. Corson. Sensors. Corson. [20] Z. Dr. “Performance Comparison of Ad HocWireless Network Routing Protocols”. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree from Anna University. AODV keeps on improving in packet delivery ratio with dense networks. K. “Performance Analysis of Adhoc Network Routing Protocols”.edu. Ziarati. Dr. Maltz. IETF Internet draft. Ehsan and Z. He is a member of CSI INDIA and carrying out PhD research work in association with Anna University. Japan. “Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing”. Mohammad Moshee Uddin.stanford. available at www.E. [18] V. Internet draft available at www.org. Golam Kaosar. J. J. Hasan Mahmoud. Perkins.Rangasamy College of Technology. Jaqcquet. pp. K. “A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks”. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM). Chenna Reddy. “A performance comparison of Multi-hop wireless ad-hoc networking routing protocols”. “Performance Comparison of AODV/DSR On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks in Constrained Situation”. Royer. Gowrishankar. Park and M. His current areas of research interests are robotics. [8] H.Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2010 Vol. May 2001. Ashraf S. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor in Computer Science and Engineering. 2006. Royer. M. pp.A.rice. Nazari. [17] V. The future work suggested that the effort will be made to enhance ad hoc network routing protocol by tackling core issues. [5] [6] [7] in Mobile WiMAX Environment”.monarch. August 2008. August 2006. pp. Gerla. Hafiz M. Signal Processing and Real-time Controls Integration and Mobile Computing. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree in 1993 from Bharathiyar University. Namakkal. available at http://ivms. Kobe.G. Manda. 1-5. Subir Kumar Sarkar “Simulation Based Overhead Analysis of AOMDV. IEEE 3rd International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing.cs.Internet Draft”. IAENG International Journal of Computer Science. November 1997. 16-28. Jie Weng. Dr. Johnson. Academic Open Internet Journal.