See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308936904

Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive

Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad hoc Networks
using Varying Node Density

Article · September 2016

DOI: 10.5958/2454-762X.2016.00015.9

CITATIONS READS

0 385

3 authors:

Pankaj Varshney G. S. Agrawal

Mangalayatan University Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
6 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 658 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Ansal University
40 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Media Analytics, like Twitter Sentiment Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pankaj Varshney on 18 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Invertis Journal of Science Relative
and Technology, Vol.Analysis
Performance 9, No. 3,
of 2016 ; pp.Routing
Proactive 1-9 Protocols DOI No. : ........................

Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing

Protocols in Wireless Ad hoc Networks using
Varying Node Density

PANKAJ KUMAR VARSHNEY1, G.S. AGRAWAL and SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA2*

1Department
of Computer Applications, FET, Mangalayatan University, Beswan, Aligarh-U.P. (India)
2School of Engineering, Jaipur National University, Jaipur-Raj. (India)
*
E-mail: sudhir.732000@gmail.com

Abstract
A Wireless Ad hoc Networks consists of mobile platforms (e.g., a router with multiple hosts and
wireless communications devices) here in simply referred to as "nodes" which are free to move
about arbitrarily; thus, the network topology which is typically multi-hop may change randomly and
rapidly at unpredictable times, and may consist of both bidirectional and unidirectional links. So
that the development of dynamic routing protocols that can efficiently find routes between two
communications nodes when nodes are mobile is very challenging task. To accomplish this, a number
of ad hoc routing protocols had been proposed and implemented. Performance evolution of the
protocols is the key step before selecting a particular protocol. In this paper, the performance is
compared on Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Source Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR)
at application layer by varying number of nodes using QualNet 5.0 simulator. The average jitter,
end-to-end delay, throughput, First Packet Receive (FPR), Last Packet Receive (LPR), Total Bytes
Receive (TBR), and Total Packet Receive (TPR) are the common measures used for the comparison
of the performance of above protocols. The experimental results show that overall performance of
OLSR routing protocol is better than STAR routing protocol as increase the node density in a particular
area.
Key words : OLSR, STAR, QualNet 5.0, Wireless Ad hoc Networks

1. Introduction routing protocols have been developed [2, 3].

Wireless ad hoc networks are collection of
wireless nodes sharing a wireless channel without
any base station or centralized control. These nodes
can act as a router as well as both end system. It
has flexible network architecture. There are variable
routing paths to provide communication in case of
limited wireless connectivity range and resources
constraints. Due to the rapidly changing the
topology, routing in wireless ad hoc networks can
be challengeable task. A considerable amount of
research has been done in this area, and number of
Routing protocol is the way to deliver the message
from source to the precise destination. Routing
protocols can be categorized as proactive routing
protocol also known as table driven routing
protocols and reactive routing protocols also known
as on demand routing protocol [4, 5]. Each of these
types of protocols may behave differently on
different wireless scenarios. Hence, the performance
evaluation is main issue to know its behaviour in
wireless environment. The main objective of this
paper to study the effects on characteristics of OLSR
and STAR proactive routing protocols on varying

1
 Pankaj Kumar Varshney, G.S. Agrawal and Sudhir Kumar Sharma
the network load in the proposed scenarios shown
in table 1. We emphasized on the different major
performance matrices i.e. Average Jitter, Average
End-to-End Delay, Throughput, First Packet Receive
(FPR), Last Packet Receive (LPR), Total Bytes
Receive (TBR), and Total Packet Receive (TPR) for
comparison of performance of OLSR and STAR
protocols. The rest of the paper is organized as
follows. Section 2 gives the brief idea of OLSR and
STAR routing protocols used for performance
evolution. Section 3 we present literature review.
Section 4 describes the methodology and
performance metrics. Section 5 discussions the
simulation results. Section 6 gives the conclusion of
the experimental results.
2. Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols
The process of sending messages or packets of
data requires a special method called routing.
Routing refers to sending the data from the source
node to the destination node through the
intermediate nodes. A routing protocol specifies
how routers communicate with each other,
disseminating information that enables them to
select routes between any two nodes on a
computer network.
Fig 1: Classification of Routing Protocols
2
2.1 Classification of Routing Protocols
There are several kinds of routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks. These routing protocols
are categorized as proactive or reactive routing
protocol. The ad hoc routing protocols which have
both proactive and reactive merits, is called hybrid
routing protocols.
A. Proactive Protocols : It is also called table-driven
protocols. Table-driven protocols are one of the
old ways of acquiring routing in mobile ad-hoc
networks. These protocols maintain consistent
overview of the network. Each node uses
routing tables to store the location information
of other nodes in the network. This information
is used to transfer data among various nodes of
the network.
B. Reactive Protocols : Reactive protocols are also
known as on demand or source initiated routing
protocols. In reactive routing protocols a
request is made for the route only when it is
necessary for a node to communicate with
another node. It maintains the routes that are
currently in usage. As a result it reduces the
burden in the networks.
 Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing Protocols
C. Hybrid Routing Protocols : Protocols belonging
to this category combine the best features of
the above two categories. Nodes within a
certain distance from the node concerned, or
within a particular geographical region, are said
to be within the routing zone of the given node.
For routing within this zone, a table -driven
approach is used. For nodes that are located
beyond this zone, an on-demand approach is
used.
D. Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) : OLSR is a
proactive link-state routing protocol, which uses
hello and topology control (TC) messages to
discover and then disseminate link state
information throughout the mobile ad hoc
network. Individual nodes use this topology
information to compute next hop destinations
for all nodes in the network using shortest hop
forwarding paths. OLSR is an optimized version
of a pure link state protocol. The topological
changes cause the flooding of the topological
information to all available hosts in the network.
E. Source Tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR) : The
To reduce the possible overhead in the network
protocol multipoint relays (MPR) are used.
Reducing the time interval for the control
messages transmission brings more reactivity to
MRP Node
Mobile Node
Fig 2: MPR node sends the TC message
3
the topological changes. OLSR uses two kinds
of the control messages namely hello and
topology control. Hello messages are used for
finding the information about the link status and
the host's neighbours. Topology control
messages are used for broadcasting information
about its own advertised neighbours, which
includes at least the MPR selector list [6].
This MPR selector is obtained from HELLO
packets sending between in neighbour nodes.
These routes are built before any source node
intends to send a message to a specified
destination. Each and every node in the network
keeps a routing table. This is the reason the
routing overhead for OLSR is minimum than
other reactive routing protocols and it provide
a shortest route to the destination in the
network. There is no need to build the new
routes, as the existing in use route does not
increase enough routing overhead. It reduces
the route discovery delay.
source tree Adaptive Routing Protocol (STAR)
was the first proactive routing protocol, which
with link-state working information. In addition,
it implemented for the first time LORA principle
(Least overhead routing approach) to get found
paths as long as possible in order to avoid
control messages. STAR does not use the
shortest practicable paths, so that unnecessary
control messages can be avoided. There are all
the nodes provided with fixed addresses, which
has the advantage that not constantly new
updates of information are needed. These
consist of at least one LSU (Link State Update).
During initialization of the network arising
source tree, which represent connections of a
node to its neighbour. The next step (= update)
is to send the own source tree to all
neighbouring nodes, refresh the own source
tree so. This allows each node to build with
own and the resulting source tree a topology
graph of the complete network contains.
Update information as broadcast shipped and
 Pankaj Kumar Varshney, G.S. Agrawal and Sudhir Kumar Sharma
numbered. In this case, the counter is
incremented only by the transmitter. An LSU is
valid if the number is higher than the number
for the same connection last saved, which has
the advantage that LSUs not need to be updated
periodically. Update information will be sent, if
a receiver is no longer attainable, A new
recipient was found it appears that loops were
formed, the metric of connections exceeds the
maximum value, which can be determined by
comparing the received with the own source
tree.
3. Literature Review
A lots of research work has been done in the
field of Wireless Ad hoc Networks routing
protocols. Different routing protocols were
simulated in different kind of simulators. Here we
will discuss different research papers about Wireless
Ad hoc Networks routing protocols performance.
In this paper work we will simulate two Wireless
Ad hoc Networks proactive routing protocols with
the effect of QoS parameter i.e. Node density using
Qualnet simulator 5.0.
The authors presented the results after
simulation and analyzing the power consumption
behaviour of four routing protocols respectively the
Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV), the
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and the Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) and Zone
Routing Protocol (ZRP) [7]. The DSR normally
performs better than AODV except in static
networks in which they show a similar behaviour.
Comparing AODV and OLSR, there are several
scenarios in which AODV perform worse than
OLSR, typically when longer routes are allowed.
Finally, referred to DSR and AODV, outcome in
general power consumption favourable to OLSR in
all simulated execution [8]. [9] have seen that
proactive routing protocol OLSR performed better
than the reactive routing protocols AODV, DSR and
TORA for medium size MANETs. [10] show that,
at low network load AODV performs better in case
of packet delivery fraction but it performs badly in
4
terms of average end-end delay, routing load and
routing packets. At high network load and mobility
OLSR performs better with respect to packet
delivery fraction. Authors [11] have used RWP
(random waypoint) mobility model and performed
simulations by using QualNet version 5.0 Simulator
from Scalable Networks. Performance of OLSR and
LAR1 is evaluated based on Average end to end
delay, Packet delivery ratio, Throughput and Average
Jitter. OLSR has shown better performance than
LAR1 in terms of average end-to-end delay and
average jitter due to its proactive nature and LAR1
shown better performance than OLSR in terms of
packet delivery fraction and throughput due to less
overhead in route discovery by using location
information of mobile nodes. In reference of [12]
The AODV and DYMO (Reactive), OLSR (Proactive)
and ZRP (hybrid) protocols are compared for
battery models Duracell AA(MX- 1500),Duracell
AAA(MN-2400),Duracell AAA(MX-2400), Duracell
C-MN(MN-1400),Panasonic AA standard using
Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Since Energy
conservation is main focus area now days. In all the
simulation results OLSR outperforms the other
protocols.
4. Methodology and Performance Matrices
A. Simulation Setup : The Our aim of this simulation
study is to analyze the performance of OLSR
and STAR wireless ad hoc routing protocol on
the basis of varying nodes. The simulations have
been performed using QualNet version 5.0
software that provides scalable simulations of
wireless ad hoc networks. The simulation has
carryout in terrine dimensions 500X500 with
10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 nodes respectively placed
randomly and duration fixed 200 sec for each
of simulation. The nodes moved following the
random waypoint mobility model with 1 seed
value and minimum and maximum speed of
nodes are 2 and 20 metres per second
respectively. The MAC protocol is used the
IEEE 802.11b with the 2.4 GHz channel
frequency. The nodes have application run on
CBR (constant bit rate) traffic. We are taking
 Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing Protocols

Table 1 • First Packet Receive (FPR)

Simulator Parameters • Last Packet Receive (LPR)
MAC Layer Protocol 802.11 • Total Bytes Receive (TBR)
Routing Protocols OLSR, STAR
• Total Packet Receive (TPR)
Traffic Type Constant bit rate (CBR)
Mobility Model Random Way Point 5. Results and Discussion
Radio Type 802.11 b Radio
Channel Frequency 2.4 GHz In this paper the performance evaluation is
Interval 50 m/s carried out in wireless ad hoc network by varying
Start Time 50 m/s one parameter i.e. number of nodes while keeping
End Time 0 m/s other parameters fixed. OLSR and STAR protocols
Packet size 1048 are considered for the analysis purpose.
Item to be send 5000
Number of Nodes 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 Network Load Analysis : In this analysis the
Node Placement Random number of nodes varied as 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50
Terrine Dimensions 500 X 500 where as the pause time, terrain dimension and
Seed value 1 simulation time are fixed at 30s, 500X500 and 200s
Simulation time 200 sec
respectively with 3 random CBR. The performance
Number of CBR 3
plots i.e. Number of nodes Vs Average jitter,
Pause Time 30 sec
Maximum Speed 20 m/s Number of nodes Vs Throughput, Number of nodes
Minimum Speed 2 m/s Vs Average End-to-End delay, Number of nodes Vs
Performance Matrices in Average Jitter, Average End-to- First packet received, Number of nodes Vs Last
Application Layer End Delay, Throughput, First packets received, Number of nodes Vs Total packets
Packet Receive (FPR), Last Packet received, and Number of nodes Vs Total byte
Receive (LPR), Total Bytes Receive
(TBR), and Total Packet Receive received is shown fig 3(a), (b), (c), (d), (e),(f) and
(TPR) (g) respectively. In terms of average jitter the OLSR
routing protocol is perform better than STAR
1048 bytes size for the each packet to send the routing protocol as shown in fig. 3(a) on increase
5,000 packets in the said environment with the the node density. From fig. 3(b) OLSR routing
interval of 50 milliseconds. protocol has less value of average end-to-end delay
as compare to STAR routing protocol on varying
B. Performance Matrices : To analyze the node capacity. In case of throughput: In low load
performance of routing protocols, metrics are density OLSR has good value of throughput but as
needed. So, we use different metrics to increase the load density STAR routing protocol
compare the performance. They are : performs well as shown in fig. 3(c). Time when
• Average Jitter : It is the variation in the time first packet was received in second by constant bit
between packets arriving. Jitter is commonly rate CBR fig. 3(d) showing the performance of first
used as an indicator of consistency and packet receive on receiver server. In this case OLSR
stability of a network. routing protocol find the route fast as compare to
• Throughput : Throughput is the number of STAR routing protocol as on increase the node
packet that is passing through the channel density. From fig. 3(e) OLSR and STAR both routing
in a particular unit of time. protocols are give the slightly same response in
• Average End-to-End Delay : End-to-end delay terms of last packet received. In case of total packet
indicates how long it took for a packet to received the OLSR routing protocol getting more
travel from the source to the application packets as compare to STAR routing protocols on
layer of the destination. increase the node density as shown fig.3 (f). As per

5
 Pankaj Kumar Varshney, G.S. Agrawal and Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Fig 3(a): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs Average Jitter in Application Layer.

Fig 3(b): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs Average
End - to-End Delay in Application Layer.

Fig 3(c): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs Throughput in Application Layer.

6
 Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing Protocols

Fig 3(d): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs
First Packet Received in Application Layer.

Fig 3(e): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs
Last Packet Received in Application Layer.

Fig 3(f): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs
Total Packets Received in Application Layer.

7
 Pankaj Kumar Varshney, G.S. Agrawal and Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Fig 3(g): Comparison of OLSR and STAR Protocols with respect to Nodes Vs
Total Bytes Received in Application Layer.

Fig 4: Snapshot of 30 varying Nodes Placement network in QualNet 5.0 Simulator.

fig.3 (g) OLSR routing protocol getting more bytes 7. Acknowledgment

as compare to STAR routing protocol on increasing
the node density.
6. Conclusion
This paper compares the performance of two
proactive routing protocols according to the
different performance matrices i.e. Throughput,
Average Jitter, Average End-to-End Delay, First
Packet Receive (FPR), Last Packet Receive (LPR),
Total Bytes Receive (TBR), and Total Packet Receive
(TPR) on the basis of varying the number of nodes.
In considered mobility scenarios, Overall
performance of OLSR routing protocol is better as
compare to STAR routing protocol.
One of the authors P.K.V. thanks to Prof. Naresh
Chauhan CSE Deptt. YMCA, Faridabad (India), for
their kind supports to perform the simulation
scenario on the QualNet 5.0 Simulator.
References
[1] S. Agrawal, M.B. Daigavane and K.D. Kulat,
"Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols
for Wireless Adhoc Network", International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology,
III(I), (2012) 13-17.
[2] S. Mohapatra and P. Kanungo, "Performance

8
 Relative Performance Analysis of Proactive Routing Protocols
analysis of AODV, DSR, OLSR and DSDV
Routing Protocols using NS2 Simulator",
International Conference on Communication
Technology and System Design 2011, 1877-7058
© Elsevier (2011) 69 - 76.
[3] S.A. Alhamoodi and K.K. Raman,
"Performance Analysis with AODV Routing
Protocol for Wireless Adhoc Network",
International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622, 2(5),
(2012)144-148.
[4] R. Jain and L. Shrivastava, "Study and
Performance Comparison of AODV & DSR
on the basis of Path Loss Propagation Models",
International Journal of Advanced Science and
Technology, 32, (2011) 45-51.
[5] M.A. Shabad and S.S. Apte, "Scenario based
Performance comparison of DSDV, DSR,
AODV", International Journal of Advanced
Research in Computer and Communication
Engineering, 2(8), (2013) 3276-3280.
[6] S. Ali and A. Ali, "Performance Analysis of
AODV, DSR and OLSR in MANET",
Department of Electrical Engineering with
emphasis on Telecommunication Blekinge
Institute of Technology, Sweden, (2009) 1-59.
[7] D. Vir, S.K. Agarwal and S.A. Imam,
"Investigation on Aspects of Power
Consumption in Routing Protocols of MANET
View publication stats
using Energy Traffic Model", International
Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical,
Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, 2,
(2013) 590-598.
[8] L.M. Feeney, "An Energy Consumption Model
for Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols
for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", Mobile
Networks and Applications, 6, (2001) 239-249.
[9] A. Kadyamatimba, M. Mbougni, Z.P. Ncube,
A. Helberg and E. Dube, "Performance
Evaluation of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks Using Http Traffic",
DOI:10.7763/IPEDR, 54, (2012) 69-74.
[10] S. Azadm, A. Rahman and F. Anwar, "A
performance Comparison of Proactive and
Reactive Routing Protocols of Mobile Ad-hoc
Network(MANET)", Journal of Engineering and
Applied Science, 2(5), (2007) 891-896.
[11] A.K. Maurya, A. Kumar and D. Singh, "Rwp
Mobility Model Based Performance Evaluation
Of Olsr And Lar1 Routing Protocols In Manet",
International Journal of Computer Networks &
Communications (IJCNC), 3, (2011) 145-156.
[12] M. Sharma and G. Singh, "Evaluation of
Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Ad hoc Routing
Protocol for various Battery models in VANET
using Qualnet", International Journal of Smart
Sensors and Ad Hoc Networks (IJSSAN), 01,
(2011) 65-69.