MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp.

47-50 47
ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

Performance Analysis of Routing Protocol in Mobile

Ad Hoc Network using NS-2

Anurag Malik Shivanshu Rastogi Sajendra Kumar

Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, System Administrator,
Moradabad Institute of Technology, Moradabad Institute of Technology, Koutons Retail India Ltd.
Moradabad. Moradabad. Email: New Delhi.
Email:anurag_malik@rediffmail.com rshivanshu1145@gmail.com Email: Saajvoice@gmail.com

Abstract- The MANET routing protocols DSDV, DSR and
AODV are the most promising routing protocols. They
can be used in MANET to route packets between mobile
nodes. The main objective of this paper comparing the
performance of DSDV, DSR and AODV routing protocols
under different performance metrics like Throughput,
Packet delivery ratio, Path optimality, Packets Delay
(Jitter), Packets lost, etc. This paper also shows the
performance results of simulation done under different
network conditions.
Keywords: MANET, ROUTING PROTOCOLS, DSDV, DSR, AODV.
1. INTRODUCTION
A Network is defined as the group of people or systems or
organizations who tend to share their information collectively
for their business purpose. In Computer terminology the
definition for networks is similar as a group of computers
logically connected for the sharing of information or services
(like print services, multi-tasking, etc.). Initially Computer
networks were started as a necessity for sharing files and
printers but later this has moved from that particular job of
file and printer sharing to application sharing and business
logic sharing. A computer networks can be understood as a
system for communication between computers. These
networks may be fixed (cabled, permanent) or temporary and
wired or wireless.
2. ROUTING IN MANETS
An ad-hoc network [3] is a collection of wireless mobile
hosts forming a temporary network without the aid of any
stand-alone infrastructure or centralized administration.
Mobile Ad-hoc networks are self-organizing and self-
configuring multihop wireless networks where, the structure
of the network changes dynamically. This is mainly due to the
mobility of the nodes. Nodes in these networks utilize the
same random access wireless channel, cooperating in a
friendly manner to engaging themselves in multihop
forwarding. The nodes in the network not only act as hosts but
also as routers that route data to/from other nodes in network.
In mobile ad-hoc networks where there is no infrastructure
support as is the case with wireless networks, and since a
destination node might be out of range of a source node
transmitting packets; a routing procedure is always needed to
find a path so as to forward the packets appropriately between
the source and the destination. Within a cell, a base station
can reach all mobile nodes without routing via broadcast in
common wireless networks. In the case of ad-hoc networks,
each node must be able to forward data for other nodes. This
creates additional problems along with the problems of
dynamic topology which is unpredictable connectivity
changes.
3. PROBLEMS IN MANET ROUTING
3.1 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. For example consider a
MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc Network ) where node B sends a
signal to node A but this does not tell anything about the
quality of the connection in the reverse direction.
A. Routing Overhead: In wireless adhoc networks, nodes
often change their location within network. So, some
stale routes are generated in the routing table which leads
to unnecessary routing overhead.
B. 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.
C. Dynamic Topology: This is also the major problem with
ad-hoc routing since the topology is not constant. The
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50 48
ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications

mobile node might move or medium characteristics Table 1: Performance Comparison

might change. In ad-hoc networks, routing tables must
somehow reflect these changes in topology and routing Protocol property DSR DSDV AODV
algorithms have to be adapted. For example in a fixed
Loop Free Yes Yes Yes
network routing table updating takes place for every
30 sec. This updating frequency might be very low for Multicast Route Yes No No
ad-hoc networks. Distributed Yes Yes Yes
Unidirectional Link Yes No No
4. PROTOCOL COMPARISON Multicast No No Yes
The MANET routing protocols DSDV [7] and DSR are two Periodically Broadcast No Yes No
of the promising routing protocols. They can be used in
Qos Support No No No
MANET to route packets between mobile nodes. The main
objective of this paper comparing the performance of DSDV, Route Maintain IN Route Cache Route table Route table
AODV [5,6] and DSR routing protocols under following Reactive Yes No Yes
metrics :
A. Throughput: It is defined as total number of packets
received by the destination. It is a measure of
Pause-Time vs Routing Load
effectiveness of a routing protocol. Finally what matters
is the number of packets delivered successfully.
2.5
Normalised Routing Load
B. Packet delivery ratio: the ratio between the number
of packets received by the TCP sink at the final 2
destination and the number of packets originated by the
application layer sources. It is a measure of efficiency 1.5 DSDV
of the protocol. AODV
1 DSR
C. Routing overhead: The total number of routing
packets transmitted during the simulation. For packets 0.5
sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the packet
(each hop) counts as one transmission. Since End-to-end 0
Network Throughput (data routing performance) is 0 10 20 30 40
defined as the external measure of effectiveness,
Pause-Time
efficiency is considered to be the internal measure. To
achieve a given level of data routing performance, two Fig. 1: Packet Delivery fraction for AODV, DSR and DSDV
different protocols can use differing amounts of
overhead, depending on their internal efficiency, and thus
protocol efficiency may or may not directly affect data
routing performance. If control and data traffic share the P a u se -T im e vs R o u tin g L o a d
same channel, and the channels capacity is limited, then 2 .5
excessive control traffic often impacts data routing
Normalised Routing Load

performance. 2

D. Path optimality: The difference between the number 1 .5 DSDV

of hops a packet took to reach its destination and the AODV
length of the shortest path that physically existed through 1 DSR
the network when the packet was originated. 0 .5
E. Packets lost: it is a measure of the number of packets 0
dropped by the routers due to various reasons. The 0 10 20 30 40
reasons we have considered for evaluation are Collisions,
P a u se -T im e
time outs, looping, errors.
Fig. 2: Packet Routing load for AODV, DSR and DSDV
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50
ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications
Pause-Time vs End to End Delay
25
End to End Delay (ms)
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30
Pause-Time
Fig. 3 End-to-End delay for AODV, DSR and DSDV
F. Packets Delay (Jitter): It is a metric which is
very significant with multimedia and real-time
traffic. It is very important for any application where
data is processed online.
Power consumption: The total consumed energy
G.
divided by the number of delivered packet.
5. PERFORMANCE RESULT
The graphs below shows the performance of the routing
protocol with respect to different metric considered above.
The X- Axis shows the pause times of the nodes and the y
axis shows the Metric considered for simulation.
In terms of PDF with respect to varied pause time, DSR
performs well when the number of nodes is less, which is
shown in following Fig. 1. The performance of AODV is
consistently uniform and DSDV performance is poor than
reactive protocols.
In terms of Routing Load with respect to varied pause
time, DSR is found to be less when compared to AODV
and DSDV because of DSR aggressive caching
techniques, which is observed in Fig. 2.
In terms of end-to-end delay, DSDV is the best
performer. As routing information is constantly updated
in the proactive protocols, routes to every destination are
always available and up-to-date, and hence end-to-end
delay can be minimized as shown in Fig. 3.
In terms of packets dropping, DSDV performance is
worst when mobility is high. This is because of the reason
that it keeps only one route per destination. Therefore
lack of alternate routes and presence of stale routes in
routing table when nodes are moving at higher rate leads
to packet drops, which is shown in Fig. 4.
In Fig. 5, with respect to varied pause time, throughput
decreases comparatively in DSDV as it needs to advertise
periodic updates and even-driven updates. If the node
mobility is high then occurrence of even driven updates
are more.
49
DSDV
AODV
DSR
40
Fig. 4: Packets dropped for AODV, DSR and DSDV
Pause-Time vs Average Throughput
120
100
80
Throughput
DSDV
60 AODV
40
DSR
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Pause-Time
Fig. 5: Average throughput for AODV, DSR and DSDV
With regard to throughput versus time, DSR consumes
considerable power and gives lower throughput due to
network failure, which is shown in Fig. 6. (Since we started
the simulation with very low battery power).
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper we examined simulation studies and also
compared the On-Demand (DSR and AODV) and Table
Driven (DSDV) routing protocols [1,2,4] by varying the pause
time and measured the metrics like end-end delay, dropped
packets, routing overhead, power efficiency etc. The results
indicate that the performance of the two on demand protocols
namely DSR and AODV is superior to the DSDV.
It is also observed that DSR outperforms AODV in less
stressful situations, i.e. smaller number of nodes. AODV
outperforms DSR in more stressful situations. The poor delay
and packet delivery ratio of DSR is mainly due to caching and
lack of mechanisms to expire stale routes. The routing
overhead is consistently low for DSR and AODV than in
comparison with DSDV especially for large number of nodes.
This is due to the fact that in DSDV the routing table
exchanges would increase with larger number of nodes.
The results indicate that as the number of nodes in the
network increases DSDV would be better with regard to the
packet delivery ratio, but it may have considerable routing
overhead. As far as packet delay and dropped packets ratio are
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology Vol. 1 No. 1 Jan. 2011 pp. 47-50
ISSN 2230-7621 (Print Version) 2230-763X (Online Version) MIT Publications
concerned, DSR/AODV performs better than DSDV with
large number of nodes. Hence for real time traffic AODV is
preferred over DSR and DSDV. For less number of nodes and
less mobility, DSDV performance is superior.
Fig. 6. Throughput Vs Time for AODV, DSR and DSDV
50
REFERENCES
[1] Yasser Kamal Hassan, Mohamed Hashim Abd El-Aziz, and Ahmed
Safwat Abd El-Radi, Performance Evaluation of Mobility Speed over
MANET Routing Protocols, in International Journal of Network
Security, Vol.11, No.3, pp. 128, 138, Nov. 2010.
[2] Abdul Hadi Abd Rahman and Zuriati Ahmad Zukarnain, Performance
Comparison of AODV, DSDV and I-DSDV Routing Protocols in
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, European Journal of Scientific Research
ISSN 1450-216X Vol.31 No.4 (2009), pp. 566-576.
[3] C. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, New York: Addison Wesley, 2000.
[4] S.R. Das, C.E. Perkins, and E.E. Royer, Performance Comparison of
Two On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks, Proc.
INFOCOM, 2000, pp. 3- 12.
[5] C.E. Perkins, E.M. Belding-Royer, and S. Das. Ad hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. RFC 3561, July 2003.
[6] C.E. Perkins and E.M. Royer. The Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
Protocol. In C.E. Perkins, editor, Ad hoc Networking, pages 173219.
Addison- Wesley, 2000.
[7] C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, Proc. ACM
SIGCOMM 94, pp. 234-244, 1994.