Experimental Analysis of AODV, DSDV and OLSR Routing Protocol
for Flying Adhoc Networks (FANETs)
Ku!deep Singh
Computer Science and Engineering Department
Thapar University
Patiala, India
kuldeepisp@gmail.com
Abstract- In recent years the capability and role of Mobile
Adhoc Networks have rapidly evolved. Their use in emergency,
natural disaster, military battle fields and UAVs is getting very
popular as a result of cutting edge technologies in networking
and communication. Using the concept of MANET
networking paradigms like VANET and FANET have evolved.
FANET is comparably new concept of MANET and it has
capabilities to tackle with situations where traditional MANET
cannot do so. Due to high mobility and fast topology change in
FANET, this is highly challengeable for researcher to implement
routing in FANETs. Routing protocols play a dominating role in
enhancing the performance of adhoc networks. In this paper,
experimental analysis is carried out on AODV, DSDV and OLSR
routing protocol for FANET environment using NS2 simulator.
Keywords- MANET, VANET, FANET,UA Vs, AODV, DSDV,
OLSR.
I. INTRODUCTION
Flying adhoc network (FANET) is a sub category of
mobile adhoc network. FANET may consist
homogenous or heterogeneous flying agents that are able to
communicate with each other in the vicinity, and also
interacts with their surroundings to acquire some kind of
valuable information. F ANET do not use central controlled
system [1]. Although mobile adhoc networks have versatile
application but there is a need of certain technology which
can overcome from the situation where traditional MANET
are not usable such as disaster situations such as drowning
or military combat field [2]. It is not imaginable to install
moveable nodes (which move on surface) in
communication area. F ANET can provide solution to
tackle such situations by using flying object called micro­
air-vehicles (MAVs). The swarm of MA Vs is used to
converse in a large operational area. MAVs structure
themselves to form wireless communication network. No
GPS, radar or cameras are installed with them and they
communicate in the neighbourhood only [3, 4]. In FANET,
MAVs changes position very frequently. Due to this there
is a rapid change in topology. So it is very necessary
challenging task to find a suitable routing technique for
FANET.
978-1-4799-6085-9/15/$31. 00©2015 IEEE
Ani! Kumar Verma
Computer Science and Engineering Department
Thapar University
Patiala, India
akverma@thapar.edu
new
Figure 1. Flying Ad-hoc Network
II. OVERVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOL
In this section, routing protocols AODV, DSDV and OLSR
are described briefly and the performance parameters of
these protocols are also discussed. This section also define
of the basic difference of these routing protocols, that how
these protocols defines mechanism to their route strategy
based classification like reactive or proactive.
A. Adhoc On-Demand Distance Vector
Ad hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) is one of the
routing protocol that is intended for mobile ad hoc
networks. This protocol is adaptive to vigorous link
conditions, low network utilization, slow processing, and
memory overhead and for finding unicast paths to
such destinations nodes in the ad hoc network. This protocol is
known to be an on demand protocol. This means that it
forms route only for those nodes which are requested by
source node according to its need. Nodes need to keep the
route until that is required by source node. AODV creates a
tree of group members and nodes needed by members.
AODV use sequence numbers to recognize new route
updates. The key properties of this protocol are that there is
no looping, it is self-starting and used for large number of
mobile nodes [5].
Control messages used by AODV for route maintenance
are as follow:
• Route Request (RREQ): RREQ messages are sent by
a node that needs a route to another node. This
 request message consists of broadcast identity, IP provide an efficient way to reduce the entire network
address of destination, sequence number of traffic as well as flooding in the network, which arises in
destination, IP address of source, sequence number of that condition when every node sent data packets to each
source and count of hops it can travel. other to deliver the message to the desired destination[8].
• Route Reply (RREP): RREP messages are sent as Types of control messages in OLSR:
reply to RREQ message. RREP messages are
unicasted to the sender, because the route followed • HELLO: hello message is used for almost all basic
by sender message is cached. The same route is operations in OLSR like MPR selection,
followed to reply back. neighbourhood detection, link sensing etc. Each
• Route Error (RERR): RERR messages are used to network node has to broadcast all details which
tell other nodes about disconnection of the link, include their own address and list of all neighbours
cracking in any active route. which are responding to their message and also list of
those who are not responding to their messages
B. Destination Squenced Distance Vector
within a defined time interval. Every node has to
Destination sequence distance vector routing is a routing broadcast the list of all those network nodes which
algorithm designed for adhoc networks using the concept are selected as MPR for the originator node.
of Bellman-Ford algorithm. This routing algorithm was • TC: After a defined time slice TC messages are also
discovered by C. Perkins and P.Bhagwat in 1994. DSDV
sent by nodes in the entire network. TC messages are
is modified version of Distance Vector Routing. Distance
used for dissemination topological information to the
Vector Routing maintains hope count for each destination
entire network. All neighbours list (those nodes
node. The routing table consist of destination, distance
selected that node as MPR) is also included by the
and next hope. Initially routing tables are empty [6]. Each
sender of TC message and they have to also include a
node sends its routing table to the neighbour nodes
sequence number for included MPR selector set.
periodically. Nodes re-compute there shortest distance
and update their table. Main problems of Distance Vector III. SIMULATION
Routing are count to infinity, slow convergence and
A. Simulation Plateform
looping. DSDV was designed to solve the problems of
Distance Vector Routing. DSDV added two parameters < For evaluating and analyzing the performance of AODV,
Sequence number, Damping >. Sequence number was DSDV and OLSR NS2 simulator is used. NS2 is
added to avoid looping issues and damping was included application level simulator. NS2 uses c++ libraries as
to avoid unnecessary updates. DSDV routing updates are backend and OTcI interpreter as a front-end. NS2 can
done in two forms. simulate both types of networks wired and wireless and
NS2 can simulate various types of communication protocol
• Periodic updates: Periodic updates are sent after
like UDP, TCP and multicast routing, etc [9, 10 and 11].
every 15s. Entire routing table of each node is
broadcasted. B. Simulation Parameters
• Trigger Updates: These are the updates that are sent
in between periodic updates. These updates are sent Table 1 Simulation Parameters
when any update is received by any node. Parameter Value

C. Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Simulator NS2(Version-2.35)

OLSR is proactive routing protocol for adhoc networks. Protocol AODV, DSDV and OLSR
The protocol inhibits the stability of link state algorithm.
Channel Type Channel/Wireless Channel
Because of the proactive nature of OLSR, It has a benefit
of having routes speedily available whenever required [7]. Simulation duration 900s
The pure link state protocol, all the nodes declared and
Traffic Type CBR
broadcast their neighbour links in the whole network. But
in OLSR protocol is do optimization of pure link state for MAC Layer Protocol 802. 1 1
adhoc network.
OLSR provides following features: Data Payload 5 12 Bytes/packet

• By declaring a node as a multi-point-relay (MPR) Number of Nodes per simulation 20

selector for each neighbour of it, OLSR reduces the
size of control Packet. Node Speed 5, I 0,20,30,40,50 (Meter/Sec)

• MPRs nodes are only eligible for broadcasting data.

Max of CBR Connections 200
By using these MPRs, OLSR reduces to scatter its
messages in the whole communication network.
OLSR routing protocol is best suited for larger, dynamic
and dense networks. OLSR key component is MPR which
C. Performance Parameters B. Result Graphs
Three Different parameters are used to analyzing the
performance of AODV, OLSR and DSDV protocols are
as follow:
• Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): It defines Ratio 1.00

Between number of packet sent from source to

destination and number of packet actually received at �
00.98

a::
destination.
�
PDR = (Total number of packet sent by source / .� 0.96
Qj
number of packet received by destination) o
� 0.94
• End to End Delay (E2E Delay): It is the time slice u
.,
Q.
between sending time at source and receiving time at
0.92
destination. It includes transmission delay, process
queue delay and propagation delay.
0.90 +-�-��-��-��
• Throughput: Throughput defines the rate of o 10 20 30 40 50

successful packet delivery over a communication Speed (m'sec)

channel. Figure 2. Speed vs Packet Delivery Ratio

IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

8.5

A. Results Tables
en 8.0
After performing simulation Table 2 shows results of ..s
>-
packet delivery ratio, Table 3 shows end to end delay and � 7.5
0
Table 4 shows average throughput. -0
c:
w 7.0
.s
Table 2 Speed vs Packet Delivery Ratio -0
c:

Routing Speed(m/sec) W 6.5

Protocol
6.0
5 10 20 30 40 50

OLSR 1 1 1 I 0 10 20 30 40 50
. 996 . 997
Speed (mfsec)
Figure 3. Speed vs End to End Delay
AODV 0. 998 1 0. 991 0.987 0.953 0.927

DSDV 0. 996 0. 994 0.986 0.949 0.93 1 0. 9 16

72

Table 3 Speed vs End to End Delay

70
Routing Speed(m/sec) en
Protocol 2-68
�
5 10 20 30 40 50 '5
,g-68
01

OLSR 6.234 6.233 6.234 6.233 6.333 6.533 :::J

�64
I-
.,
AODV 6.20 1 6. 13 1 6.93 1 7.246 7.789 8.346 � 62
.,
>
<:(60
DSDV 6.0 1 1 5. 93 1 6.493 6.972 6. 993 7.293
58

0 10 20 30 40 50
TabIe 4. Speed vs. Average Throughput.
h Speed (mise c)
Routing Speed(m/sec)
Figure 4. Speed vs Average Throughput
Protocol
5 10 20 30 40 50 C. Simulation Analysis
OLSR 64. 6 1 64. 6 1 64. 6 1 64. 6 1 64. 6 1 64. 6 1 In this simulation, experimental analysis of AODV,
DSDV and OLSR routing protocols have been performed
AODV 62. 13 63.69 65. 7 1 6 1.32 59. 16 58. 13 and results obtained from simulation is shown in table (2,
3 and 4) and on the base of results graphs are drawn.
DSDV 60. 9 1 62.77 60.93 62. 1 1 62.27 6 1. 93
From the figure 2, it is observed that the packet delivery
ratio of OLSR is consistent and almost near to hundred
percent whereas packet delivery ratio of AODV and
 DSDV decreases when the node speed increase. And from [2]
figure 3, it can be clearly seen that at low node speed end
to end delay of OLSR is more than the AODV and DSDV
[3]
but as the speed of node increases the end to end delay
time of AODV and DSDV routing increases. Whereas
OLSR end to end delay time increase little. So in case of [4]
end to end delay OLSR perform better than other two
(AODV and DSDV) routing protocol. Figure 4 shows, the [5]
average throughput of OLSR is consistent even when the
[6]
node speed increase, but average throughput of AODV
and DSDV is getting down with the high speed nodes. So
from the results it can be seen that OLSR perform better
than AODV and DSDV in FANETs. [7]
V. CONCLUSION
[8]
In this research, AODV, DSDV and OLSR routing
protocols are analyzed under the different parameters i.e.
End to End Delay, Average Throughput and Packet
[9]
Delivery Ratio with respect to speed of mobile node.
Through the simulation results it can be clearly seen that,
OLSR routing protocol perform better than the other two [10] Issariyaku[, Teerawat, Hossain, Ekram, Introduction to Network
routing protocol AODV and DSDV in terms of End to
End Delay, Average Throughput and Packet Delivery
Ratio. So the performance of F ANET can be optimized by
[ 1 1] Francisco
choosing OLSR as a routing protocol.
REFERENCES
[I] Michae[ Muller, "F[ying Adhoc Network" Proceedings of the 4th
Seminar on "Research Trends in Media [nformatics", Institute of Media
Informatics, U[m University, [4th February. 20[2.
Ozgur Koray Sahingoz, "Networking Mode[s in F[ying Ad-Hoc
Networks (FANETs): Concepts and Challenges", Springer Science, [4th
September, 20[3.
Sudip Misra and Gopidi Rajesh," Bird F[ight-[nspired Routing Protocol
for Mobi[e Ad Hoc Networks", ACM Transactions on Autonomous and
Adaptive Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4, Article 25, October 20[[ .
200 [Bixio Rimo[di Karo[ Kru ·ze[ecki, Louis Traynard, and Stefano
Rosati,"Speed-Aware Routing for UAV Ad-Hoc Networks",24 Ju[ 20 [3
C.E. Perkins and E.M.Royer, "Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector", in
[EEE WMCSA, New Or[eans, 1999.
C.E. Parkins and TJ. Watson, "Highly dynamic destination sequenced
distance vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers", in ACM
SIGCOMM_94 Conference on Communication Architecture, London,
U.K., 1994.
PJacquet, T.Clausen, L. Viennot, "Optimized link state routing [OLSR]
protocol for adhoc network", in proceedings of IEEE Multi Topic
Conference, lNMlC, March 200 I.
Thomas Clausen (editor), Philippe Jacquet (editor) C. Adjih, A. Laouiti,
P. Minet, P. Muhlethaler, A. Qayyum, L. Viennot," The Optimised
Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks: protocol specifications",
INRIA, March 2004.
Zhibin Wu,Rutgres University,[on[ine] Avai[ab[e:
http://www.winlab.rutgres.edu/-zhibinwu/htmllnetwork_simu[ator_2. ht
m[ ,October,2007.
Simu[ators[on[ine] Avai[ab[e
http://www.springer.comlengineering/signa[s/book/978-0-3 87-17 59-
3,2009.
J.Ros,
OLSR,[On[ine]
Avai[ab[e:http://masimum.inf.um.es/fjrml development/um-olsr/
September,20[3.