You are on page 1of 5

International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 8- August 2013

ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 3696


Evaluation AODV, DSR and DSDV
Protocol of MANET by USING NS-2
Seema Vilas Bhujade
#1
,

Prof. S. D. Sawant
*2
Department of E&TC,Pune
1
Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, pune ,India
2
Sinhgad Technical Institute, Vadgaon, pune ,India



ABSTRACT-A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a collection
of wireless mobile nodes forming a temporary network without
using any centralized access point, infrastructure, or centralized
administration. Mobile Ad-Hoc network have the attributes such
as wireless connection, continuously changing topology,
distributed operation and ease of deployment. Mobile nodes
communicate with each other using multihop wireless links. Each
node in the network also acts as a router, forwarding data
packets for other nodes. In order to facilitate communication
within the network, a routing protocol is used to discover routes
between nodes. In this paper we have compared the performance
of three MANET routing protocol DSDV (Destination Sequenced
Distance-Vector),AODV(Ad- Hoc on-Demand Distance Vector),
and DSR(Dynamic Source Routing) by using NS-2. The On-
demand protocols, AODV and DSR perform better than table-
driven DSDV protocol. The performance of these routing
protocols is analyzed in terms of their average throughput,
average delay & maximum packets in queue and their results are
shown in graphical forms use Network Simulator-2 (NS-2).
Keywords: MANET, NS-2,AODV, DSR, DSDV
I. INTRODUCTION
The Ad-Hoc networking is sometimes also called
infrastructure less networking, the mobile nodes in the
network dynamically establish routing among themselves to
formtheir own network on the fly and self-
organizing[3].Communloication and sharing of information in
emergencies are also possible by ad hoc networks, which take
full advantage of the features of wireless communication [3]
including fast and temporary setup and terminal portability
and mobility. In network, each mobile node operates not only
as a host but also as a router, forwarding packets for other
mobile nodes in the network that may not be
within direct wireless transmission range of each other. Each
node participates in an Ad-Hoc routing
protocol that allows it to discover multi-hop paths through
the network to any other node [2]. Our goal is to carry out a
systematic performance study of DSDV [4] & AODV [5],
DSR. The purpose of this work is to understand there working


mechanismand investigate that which routing protocol gives
better Performance in which situation[4].

A. Background And Preliminaries
The properties that are desirable in Ad-Hoc Routing
protocols are as follows:

1. Distributed operation: The protocol should be used
distributed Ad-hoc network node can enter or leave the
network working very easily .It shouldnt depend on any
specific node and controlling node .
2. Loop free: The routing protocol should give the routes
supplied are loop free so that avoids wastage of
bandwidth or CPU consumption.
3. Demand based operation: To minimize the control
overhead and wastage in the network.
4. Unidirectional link support: The links established in radio
environments can be utilized to improve the performance.
5. Security: The behavior of the routing protocols, security
measures like authentication and encryption to
distribution nodes in the ad-hoc network is challenging.
6. Power conservation: The ad-hoc network node can be use
networking by laptops and Personal Digital Assistant
(PDAs) has limited in battery power and therefore uses
some standby mode to save the power sleep modes.
7. Multiple routes: In Ad-Hoc network topology changes
reduce the number of reactions and congestion, multiple
routes can be used. If any route is invalid, that time
another route that helps saving the routing protocol from
initiating another route discovery procedure.
8. Quality of Service Support (QoS): It is a set of service
requirements that needs by the network while transporting
a packet streamfroma source to its destination [5].
II. MANET NETWORK MODEL
The MANET is a collection of nodes, which have the
possibility to connect on an arbitrary and dynamic network
with wireless links. This means that links between the nodes
can change with time, new nodes can join the network, and
other nodes can leave it.

International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 8- August 2013
ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 3697
III. TYPES OF ROUTING IN MANET
Nodes in Ad-Hoc network is a function of routers
that discover and maintain routes to other nodes in the
network. MANET is to establish a correct and efficient route
between a pair of nodes and to ensure the correct and timely
delivery of packets. The protocols for routing can be classified
as



Fig. 1 Types of Routing in MANET


A. Destination-Sequenced Distance -Vectors Routing
(DSDV)
DSDV is a table-driven routing scheme for
Ad-Hoc mobile network. Each node should maintain a table
all the possible destinations with its sequence numbers. Route
always use the highest sequence number. They are minimize
the traffic generated and updating routing table have two types
of packets in the system.
1. full dump, a packet that carries all the available
routing information about a change in network .
2. incremental which will be used carry just the
changed since the last full dump, they increasing the
overall efficiency of the system.
DSDV required regular update of its routing tables,
so uses up battery power and a small amount of bandwidth.
DSDV is not suitable for highly dynamic networks. DSDV
node maintains a routing table for next hop information for
each reachable destination and also the destination sequence
number. When a source node 1 decides that its route to a
Destination node 6 has broken, it advertises the route to 1 with
an infinite metric and a sequence number one greater than its
sequence number for the route that has broken (making an odd
sequence number).


Fig. 2 DSDV path discover

Distance Vector Routing Protocol Initialization:
Phase sequence number/cost per hop =1
Each node knows its neighbors and the sequence number/cost
to reach Destination. Tells its neighbors periodically the
distance to every other node in the network

Table I .DSDV routing table
Route TableA Route Table B













Advantages of DSDV
DSDV protocol should give the routes loop free
paths. Extra traffic with incremental updates instead of full
dump updates.
Limitations of DSDV
Wastage of bandwidth due to unnecessary routing
information even in store in table, no change in the network
topology. DSDV doesnt support Multi path Routing. It is
difficult to determine a time delay for the route.
It is difficult to maintain the routing tables for larger
network. Each and every host in the network should maintain
a routing table for every node. But for larger network this
would lead to overhead, which consumes more bandwidth.


B. Reactive (On-Demand) Protocols
These protocols do not maintain routing
activity and information at nodes. If a node wants to
transmit a packet when Reactive protocol searches
for the route in an on-demand manner and
establishes the connection to another node receive
packet . Examples of reactive routing protocols are
Destina
-tion
Seq.
no.
Next
Hop
1 0 1
2 1 2
3 1 3
4 2 3
5 3 5
Destina
-tion
Seq.
no.
Next
Hop
2 0 2
1 1 1
3 2 1
4 1 4
5 2 3
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 8- August 2013
ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 3698
the dynamic source routing (DSR), ad hoc on-
demand distance vector routing (AODV).

1. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector
(AODV): The Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
routing algorithm is Ad-Hoc mobile networks routing
protocol. AODV is unicast and multicast routing. AODV
reactive routing protocol is designed for Ad-Hoc networks
up to thousands of nodes.
AODV is loop-free, self-starting, and scales to large
numbers of mobile nodes. It is uses route request (RREQ)
messages to discover the paths required by a source node.


Fig. 3 Propagation of a RREP
An intermediate node that receives a RREQ replies
route reply (RREP) message, if it is a route to the destination
whose corresponding destination sequence number can be
greater or equal to the one contained in the RREQ. If a link
breaks the node propagates a route error (RERR) message to
the source node to informunreachable destination(s).

Fig.4 Propagation of a RREP
Advanced uses of AODV
AODV is reactive nature protocol. It can be highly
dynamic behavior of Vehicle Ad-hoc networks [7], that uses
for both unicasts and multicasts packets [8].
Limitations/disadvantages of AODV
The algorithm requires that the nodes in the
broadcast mediumcan be detect each others. When an RREQ
travels fromnode to node is discovering the route info on
demand, it sets the reverse path in itself and all the nodes
which it is passing and it carries all this info all way. AODV
have lacks an efficient route maintenance technique and No
reuse of routing info protocol.
The routing is always obtained on demand.In
simulation of Ad-Hoc Networks Using DSDV, AODV and
DSR Protocols and their Performance. It should vulnerable to
misuse. AODV lacks of support for high throughput routing
metrics and it can favors of long path, low bandwidth links
over short, high-bandwidth links.
Discovery high route latency: AODV is a reactive
routing protocol can not discover a route until a flow is
initiated.

2. 2.. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) Protocol: DSR is a
reactive unicast routing protocol i.e. utilizes source routing
algorithm. DSR [9] reactive routing protocol is designed for
ad hoc networks up to 200 nodes. Each node has uses cache
technology so maintain route information of all the nodes.
There are two major phases in DSR such as:
Route discovery
Route maintenance
Source node wants to send a packet, each node can
discover dynamically a source route to any destination
node in the network by multiple hops. DSR are Route
Discovery and Route Maintenance, both are working together
to discover and maintain source routes to arbitrary
destinations in the network.
Advanced uses of DSR
DSR protocol can reduction of route discovery and
control overheads with the use of route cache.
Limitations/disadvantages DSR
DSR protocol is increasing size of packet header
with route length by source routing.

I.
IV. ROUTING PROTOCOL PERFORMANCE
All three protocols is include packet delivery ratio,
control routing overhead, Average End-to-end Delay,i.e.
provides good QoS will affect by the MANETs performance.
A. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR)
Packet delivery ratio is the total number of unique
data packets arrived at the destination divided by the total
number of data packets sent froma source. Packet delivery
ratio measures protocol performance in the network. The
performance should be depend on factors such as packet size,
network load, and also the effects of frequent topological
changes.

Packet Delivery Ratio=

Pkt_Delivery % =
B. Average End-to-end Delay
The route a data packet fromthe source node to the
destination node measure average time. When value of End-
to-end delay is high that means the protocol performance not
good for the network congestion and end-to-end delay is lower
i.e. better for the application performance. .

Avg-Endto-End_Delay=
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 8- August 2013
ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 3699
Average End-to-end Delay ratio of total CBR send
time and CBR recv time difference divided by total CBR
received .


C. Routing Overhead (ROH)
The routing overhead is ratio of the total amount of
control data packets sent and total lost packet by the routing
protocol in the duration of the simulation. The characteristics
of the routing protocol overhead of DSDV depend on its
configuration and AODV overhead is consists of lot of
broadcast packets, DSR consists by point to point packets.

=total generated packets
=total lost packets
=total sent packets

D. Throughput
Ratio of the packets delivered to the total
number of packets sent (transmitted).
Throughput =packets delivered / total number of packets sent

=total generated packets
=total received packets


V. NETWORK SIMULATOR MODEL (NS2)
Language Used:
FRONT END : TCL
BACK END : C++
Visualization Tools
NAM-1 (Network AniMator Version 1)
Xgraph-Simulation results

Advantages of simulation
NS-2 is cheap does not require any equipment. NS-
2 is open sources.
Disadvantages of simulation
It doesnt model reflect reality. Lots of resources is
required in NS-2. Its work in very slow for long time
simulated time.









TABLE II
SIMULATION PARAMETER


VI. SIMULATION RESULTS
AODV,DSDV and DSR with 10 to 100
nodes ,constant pause time of 0 second, varying speed 10 m/s
for 1500*1500 simulation area, Packet Delivery Ratio,
Routing Overhead and Delay is being analyzed. The
simulation results are shown in the following section in the
formof line graphs.

A. Average End to End Delay
As shown in Fig. 5 as the number of nodes increases
Average End to End Delay also increases. Graph shows that
DSDV has higher Average End to End Delay than AODV &
DSR. According to our simulation result, best performance is
shown by DSR.





Fig. 5 Average End To End Delay Vs. Number of Node

B. Packet Delivery Ratio
The PDR shown in Fig. 6 is Demand- Driven Routing
Protocols AODV & DSR performbetter than Table-Driven
S.NO. Parameter Parameter Value
1 Channel Wireless
2 Routing queue Drop tail
3 Simulator NS-2.33
4 Simulation Area 1500mX1500m
5 MAC Protocol IEEE 802.11
6 Nodes 10-100
7 Antenna Type Omni antenna
8 Propagation Model Two Ray Ground
9 Number of
Connections
10
10 Packet Size 512 byte
11 Routing Protocols AODV, DSDV &
DSR
12 Traffic Sources CBR (UDP)
13 Simulation Time 250 Sec.
14 Mobility Model Randomwaypoint
15 Pause Time 0 ns
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 8- August 2013
ISSN: 2231-5381 http://www.ijettjournal.org Page 3700
Routing Protocol DSDV. Best performance is shown by DSR
routing protocol and DSDV lowest performance.




Fig. 6 Packet Delivery Ratio vs. Number of Nodes

C. Routing Overhead (ROH)
The routing overhead shown As shown in Fig. 7 as
the number of nodes increases also Routing Overhead
increases. Graph shows that DSDV has higher Routing
Overhead than AODV & DSR. When no. of node is increase
with routing Overhead also increase. According to our
simulation result; best performance is shown by DSDV .



Fig.7 Routing Overhead Vs. Number of Node


D. Packet loss
The Packet Delivery loss is shown in Fig. 8 Demand- Driven
Routing Protocols DSR perform better than Table-Driven
Routing Protocol AODV, DSDV. Best performance is shown
by DSR .



Fig. 8 Packet loss vs. Number of Nodes


VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper presents a brief presented a comparison
of AODV, DSDV and DSR and their features, differences
and characteristics.
In our assumed scenario DSR shows best
performance than DSDV & AODV in terms of Average End
to End Delay, Packet Delivery Ratio, loss & DSDV
performance is best in Routing Overhead. DSR is proved to
be best in case of Packet loss. In all considering the aspect,
DSR is better.

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/tutorial/
[2] Kumar Prateek, Satish Kumar Alaria and Nimish Arvind MANET-
Evaluation of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocol
[3] Anil Kumar Sharma and Neha Bhatia Behavioral Study of MANET
Routing Protocols by using NS-2IJ CEM Vol. 12, April 2011
[4] Deepak Kumar, Ashutosh Srivastava and S C Gupta Performance
Comparison of DSDV and AODV Routing Protocols in MANETS IJ ECCT
Volume 2 Issue 3 (May 2012)
[5] I.Vijaya, Amiya Kumar Rath, Pinak Bhusan Mishra and Amulya Ratna
Dash Influence of Routing Protocols in Performance of Wireless Mobile
Adhoc NetworkIEEE 2011.
[6] Yongguang Zhang, HRL Laboratories, LLC Security In Mobile Ad-
Hoc Networks IEEE
[7] Christian Schwingenschlogl and Timo Kosch. Geocast enhancements of
aodv for vehicular networks. Technical report, Institute of Communication
Networks, Munich University of Technology. and BMW Research,Munich,
Germany. 12 Nov 2009 [8]Krishna Ramachandran. Aodv. Technical report,
University of California, SantaBarbara, USA. J uly 2004[9] PreetamSuman,
Dhananjay Bisen, Poonam Tomar Vikas Sejwar Rajesh Shukla,
Comparative study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks.
Manuscript received November 20, 2009.