Comparative Analysis of CBRP, AODV, DSDV
Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
P.Parvathi
Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sudharsan Engineering College
Sathiyamangalam, Tamilnadu. parvathip@sec.ac.in
Abstract- An ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile
nodes that wish to communicate without any fixed infrastructure
or centralized control. It is a self-configuring network of mobile
nodes connected by wireless links the union of which forms an
arbitrary topology. Therefore, routing in MANET is a critical
task due to highly dynamic environment .Several protocols are
introduced for improving the routing mechanism to find route
between any source and destination host across the network. This
paper focuses on the three popular routing algorithms Cluster
Based Routing Protocol (CBRP), a hybrid routing protocol, Ad-
Hoc on Demand Distance Vector Protocol (AODV), reactive
routing protocol and Destination Sequence Distance Vector
Routing Protocol (DSDV), Pro-active routing protocol. This
paper provides an overview of these protocols by presenting their
characteristics, functionality, benefits and limitations.
Keywords-MANETs,Routing P rotocol,CBRP,AODV,DSDV
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of
communication devices or nodes that wish to communicate
without any fixed infrastructure and pre-determined
organization of available links. It is a 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 [10]. The nodes are free to move
randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily; thus, the
network’s wireless topology may change rapidly and
unpredictably. This is shown as in the Fig.1.
Figure 1.Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Wireless Ad-Hoc networks are also called Mobile Ad-Hoc
multi-hop wireless networks is a collection of wireless mobile
hosts forming a temporary network without the aid of any
Authorized licensed use limited to: QUAID E AWAM UNIV OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. Downloaded on March 01,2021 at 04:57:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
established infrastructure or centralized administration.
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs) are characterized by a
dynamic, multi-hop, rapid changing topology [7, 8].Such
networks are aimed to provide communication capabilities to
areas where limited or no communication infrastructures exist.
MANETs can also be deployed to allow the communication
devices to form a dynamic and temporary network among
them. It is used in areas of Sensor networks for environmental
monitoring, Rescue operations in remote areas, Remote
construction sites, and Personal area Networking, Emergency
operations, Military environments, Civilian environments. The
scopes of the ad-hoc network are also associated with
Dynamic topology changes, Bandwidth constrained, Energy
constrained operation, Limited physical security, Mobility-
induced packet losses, Limited wireless transmission range,
Broadcast nature of the wireless medium, Hidden terminal
problem, and Packet losses due to transmission errors attention
due to many potential military and civilian applications. A
MANET uses multi-hop routing instead of a static network
infrastructure to provide network connectivity.
Routing is a core problem in networks for sending data from
one node to another. Several routing protocols have been
proposed for mobile Ad-Hoc networks. In this paper we
present the classification of these routing protocols and the
review of a CBRP, AODV and DSDV routing protocols [5, 8].
II. CLASSIFICATION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. Table Driven Routing Protocols
These protocols are also called as proactive protocols since
they maintain the routing information even before it is needed
Each and every node in the network maintains routing
information to every other node in the network. Routes
information is generally kept in the routing tables and is
periodically updated as the network topology changes. The
advantage is that routes to any destination are always available
without the overhead of a route discovery. Example protocols
are DSDV (4), OLSR, and CGSR etc.
B. On Demand Routing Protocols
These protocols are also called as reactive protocols since they
don’t maintain routing information or routing activity at the
network nodes if there is no communication. If a node wants
to send a packet to another node then this protocol searches for
 the route in an on-demand manner and establishes the
connection in order to transmit and receive the packet. The
route discovery usually occurs by flooding the route request
packets throughout the network. Example protocols are
AODV [7, 8], DSR [7, 8], and TORA etc.
C. Hybrid Protocols
These protocols combine the benefit of both table -driven and
on demand routing approaches. Hybrid protocols are scalable
to network size. Example protocols are CBRP [5], ZRP etc.
III.CLUSTER BASED ROUTING PROTOCOL
In CBRP the nodes of a wireless network are divided into
several disjoint or overlapping clusters. Each cluster elects one
node as the so-called clusterhead. These special nodes are
responsible for the routing process. But clusterheads are able
to communicate with each other by using gateway nodes. A
gateway is a node that has two or more clusterheads as its
neighbors or when the clusters are disjoints at least one
clusterhead and another gateway node. This is shown as in the
Fig.2.
The following states describe the clustering process
depending on the current node state. These states are:
Undecided. This means the node does not belong to any
cluster: this usually occurs if a new node appears in the
network. Clusterhead. If a clusterhead detects that it has a bi-
directional link to another clusterhead for a time period, it
changes its state to member if the other clusterhead has a
lower ID. Each member node belongs at least to one cluster.
A. Routing
CBRP uses two data structures to support the routing process:
the cluster adjacency table (CAT) and the two-hop topology
database. The CAT stores information about neighboring
clusters. This is, whether they are bi-directionally or uni-
directionally linked. That means, a cluster is called
Figure2. Cluster Based Routing Protocol
• Bi-directionally linked, if there is a bi-directional link
between two nodes of the clusters, or if there are at
Authorized licensed use limited to: QUAID E AWAM UNIV OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. Downloaded on March 01,2021 at 04:57:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
least two opposite uni-directional links between two
nodes.
• Uni-directionally linked, if there is just one uni-
directional link between them.
The two-hop topology database is build from the information
received by HELLO messages. It contains all nodes that are at
most two hops away. The routing process works in two steps.
First, it discovers a route from a source node S to a destination
node D, afterwards it routes the packets [5].
B. Route Discovery
Route discovery is done by using source routing. In the CBRP
only cluster heads are flooded with route request package
(RREQ) [5]. Gateway nodes receive the RREQs as well, but
without broadcasting them. They forward them to the next
cluster head. This strategy reduces the network traffic.
C.Routing and Route Improvement
Due to node movement, disappearance of nodes or failures,
the CBRP includes two mechanisms to improve a route: The
first is Local Repair and the second is Route Shortening.
• Local Repair
If a connection between two nodes fails, the CBRP is able to
repair the route.
• Route Shortening
Sometimes a node may discover a connection between itself
and another succeeding node of the route that is not its direct
successor or a connection between two following nodes,
respectively. This can be done by examining the information
stored in the two-hop topology database. If so, it shortens the
route by excluding the redundant node(s) from the route [5, 6].
D.Advantages of CBRP
Cluster-based approaches on routing in mobile ad-hoc
networks are good methods to decrease network traffic and
routing overhead.
E. Limitations of CBRB
Like other routing protocols, CBRP has some limitations and
problems which are disadvantages compared to other
protocols. If networks and clusters become too big, the
overhead per packet increases due to source routing. Another
problem of the CBRP is its support of uni-directional links.
When using a network with 802.11 link layer technology these
links cannot be supported, because the 802.11 protocol knows
only bi-directional links.
IV. ADHOC ON DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR
ROUTING PROTOCOL
The AODV routing protocol is a reactive routing protocol;
therefore, routes are determined only when needed. Fig.3
shows the message exchanges of the AODV protocol. Hello
messages may be used to detect and monitor links to
neighbors. If Hello messages are used, each active node
periodically broadcasts a Hello message that all its neighbors
receive. Because nodes periodically send Hello messages, if a
 node fails to receive several Hello messages from a neighbor,
a link break is detected [8].
When a source has data to transmit to an unknown destination,
it broadcasts a Route Request (RREQ) for that destination. At
each intermediate node, when a RREQ is received a route to
the source is created. If the receiving node has not received
this RREQ before, is not the destination and does not have a
current route to the destination, it rebroadcasts the RREQ. If
the receiving node is the destination or has a current route to
the destination, it generates a Route Reply (RREP). The RREP
is unicast in a hop-by hop Fashion to the source. As the RREP
propagates, each intermediate node creates a route to the
destination. When the source receives the RREP, it records the
route to the destination and can begin sending data.
If multiple RREPs are received by the source, the route with
the shortest hops count is chosen. As data shows from the
source to the destination, each node along the route updates
the timers associated with the routes to the source and
destination, maintaining the routes in the routing table. If a
route is not used for some period of time, a node cannot be
sure whether the route is still valid; consequently, the node
removes the route from its routing table. If data is _owing and
a link break is detected, a Route Error (RERR) is sent to the
source of the data in a hop-by hop fashion. As the RERR
propagates towards the source, each intermediate node
invalidates routes to any unreachable destinations. When the
source of the data receives the RERR, it invalidates the route
and reinitiates route discovery if necessary.
Fig.3. AODV Protocol Messaging
A. Advantages of AODV
• Because of its reactive nature, AODV can handle
highly dynamic behavior of Vehicle Ad-hoc
networks [8].
• It used for both uncast and multicast using the ’J’
(Join multicast group) flag in the packets.
B. Limitations AODV
• Requirement on broadcast medium: The algorithm
expects/requires that the nodes in the broadcast
medium can detect each others’ broadcasts.
• Overhead on the bandwidth: Overhead on bandwidth
will be occurred compared to DSR, when an RREQ
travels from node to node in the process of
discovering the route info on demand, it sets up the
reverse path in itself with the addresses of all the
nodes through which it is passing and it carries all
this info all its way.
Authorized licensed use limited to: QUAID E AWAM UNIV OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. Downloaded on March 01,2021 at 04:57:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
• No reuse of routing info: AODV lacks an efficient
route maintenance technique.
• The routing info is always obtained on demand,
including for common case traffic.
• It is vulnerable to misuse: The messages can be
misused for insider attacks including route
disruption, route invasion, node isolation, and
resource consumption.
• AODV lacks support for high throughput routing
metrics: AODV is designed to support the shortest
hop count metric. This metric favors long, low
bandwidth links over short, high-bandwidth links.
• High route discovery latency: AODV is a reactive
routing protocol. This means that AODV does not
discover a route until a flow is initiated. This route
discovery latency result can be high in large-scale
mesh networks.
V. DESTINATION SEQUENCE DISTANCE VECTOR
ROUTING PROTOCOL
DSDV is a hop-by-hop distance vector routing protocol. It is
proactive; each network node maintains a routing table that
contains the next-hop for, and number of hops to, all reachable
destinations. Periodical broadcasts of routing updates attempt
to keep the routing table completely updated at all times [3].
To maintain the consistency of routing tables in a dynamically
varying topology, each station periodically transmits updates,
and transmits updates immediately when significant new
information is available. Routing information is distributed
between nodes by sending full dumps infrequently and smaller
incremental updates more frequently [6]. Routing information
is advertised by broadcasting or multicasting the packets
which are transmitted periodically and incrementally as
topological changes are detected. For instance, when stations
move within the network [4]. To guarantee loop-freedom
DSDV uses a concept of sequence numbers to indicate the
freshness of a route. A route R is considered more favorable
than R' if R has a greater sequence number or, if the routes
have the same sequence number, R has lower hop-count. The
sequence number for a route is set by the destination node and
increased by one for every new originating route
advertisement. When a node along a path detects a broken
route to a destination D, it advertises its route to D with an
infinite hop-count and a sequence number increased by one.
Route loops can occur when incorrect routing information is
present in the network after a change in the network topology,
e.g., a broken link. In this context the use of sequence numbers
adapts DSDV to a dynamic network topology such as in an ad-
hoc network [3, 6].DSDV requires a regular update of its
routing tables, which uses up battery power and a small
amount of bandwidth even when the network is idle.
Whenever the topology of the network changes, a new
sequence number is necessary before the network re-
converges; thus, DSDV is not suitable for highly dynamic
networks [6].
 A. Advantages of DSDV
• DSDV protocol guarantees loop free paths [1].
• Count to infinity problem is reduced in DSDV [1].
• We can avoid extra traffic with incremental updates
instead of full dump updates.
• Path Selection: DSDV maintains only the best path
instead of maintaining multiple paths to every
destination. With this, the amount of space in routing
table is reduced.
B. Limitations of DSDV
• Wastage of bandwidth due to unnecessary
advertising of routing information even if there is no
change in the network topology.
• DSDV doesn’t support Multi path Routing.
• It is difficult to determine a time delay for the
advertisement of routes [2].
• It is difficult to maintain the routing table’s
advertisement for larger network. Each and every
host in the network should maintain a routing table
for advertising. But for larger network this would
lead to overhead, which consumes more bandwidth.
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
A. Discussion
After reviewing the three routing protocols namely, CBRP,
AODV and DSDV.We would like to make a comparative
discussion of the above three protocols with their advantages
and limitations. DSDV is a proactive routing protocol, which
maintains routes to each and every node in the network,
AODV is a reactive routing protocol which finds the path on
demand or whenever the route is required and CBRP is a
hybrid protocol which is also finds the path on demand by
using source routing method. In DSDV and CBRP,
broadcasting is done periodically to maintain routing updates
and in AODV, only hello messages are propagated to its
neighbors to maintain local connectivity. DSDV routing
algorithm maintains a sequence number concept for updating
the latest information for a route. Even, the same concept is
adapted by AODV routing protocol. Due to the periodic
updates being broadcasted in DSDV, bandwidth is wasted
when the nodes are stationary. But, this is not the case with
AODV, as it propagates only hello messages to its neighbors.
For sending data to a particular destination, there is no need to
find a route as DSDV routing protocol maintains all the routes
in the routing tables for each node. While AODV has to find a
route before sending a data. Overhead in DSDV is more when
the network is large and it becomes hard to maintain the
routing tables at every node. But, in AODV overhead is less as
it maintains small tables to maintain local connectivity. DSDV
cannot handle mobility at high speeds due to lack of
alternative routes hence routes in routing table is stale. While
in AODV this is the other way, as it find the routes on
demand. 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 event driven
Authorized licensed use limited to: QUAID E AWAM UNIV OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. Downloaded on March 01,2021 at 04:57:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
updates are more. But in AODV it doesn’t advertise any
routing updates and hence the throughput is stable. CBRP uses
two data structures to support the routing process: the cluster
adjacency table (CAT) and the two-hop topology database.
The CAT stores information about neighbouring clusters. This
is, whether they are bi-directionally or uni-directionally
linked. Route discovery is done by using source routing. In the
CBRP only clusterheads are flooded with route request
package (RREQ). Gateway nodes receive the RREQs as well,
but without broadcasting them. They forward them to the next
clusterhead. This strategy reduces the network traffic.
B. Conclusion
The study reveals that, DSDV routing protocol consumes
more bandwidth, because of the frequent broadcasting of
routing updates and AODV is better than DSDV as it doesn’t
maintain any routing tables at nodes which results in less
overhead and more bandwidth. While Compared with AODV,
CBRP overhead is lower and its throughput is considerably
higher [9, 11].DSDV routing protocols works better for
smaller networks but not for larger networks. AODV routing
protocol is best suited for general mobile ad-hoc networks as it
consumes less bandwidth and lower overhead when compared
with DSDV routing protocol. My conclusion is that, when
compared with AODV and DSDV routing protocols, CBRP
routing protocol decreases network traffic and routing
overhead.
REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Uwe Roth. Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector
routing.http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Highly+Dynamic+Destination-
Sequenced+Distance-Vector+Routing.html (visited 2006-04-06).
[2] Guoyou He. Destination-sequenced distance vector (DSDV) protocol.
Technical report, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.
[3] P.Johansson, T. Larsson, N. Hedman, B. Mielczarek, and M.Degermark.
“Scenario based Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for Mobile
Ad-hoc Networks”, Mobicom’99, 1999, Pages 195-206.
[4] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly dynamic destination-sequenced
distance vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers”, Proceedings of
ACM SIGCOMM 94, 1994, pp. 34–244.
[5] M. Jiang, J. Li, and Y.C. Tay. “Cluster Based Routing Protocol
(CBRP)”, IETF MANET Working Group, Internet-Draft, 1999.
[6] Nor Surayati Mohamad Usop; Azizol Abdullah; Ahmad Faisal Amri
Abidin; “Performance Evaluation of AODV,DSDV & DSR Routing
Protocol in Grid Environment”,IJCSNS International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.9 No.7, July 2009, pp.
261 – 268.
[7] S. A. Ade; P.A.Tijare, (2010). “Performance Comparison of AODV,
DSDV, OLSR and DSR Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks.” July-December 2010, Volume 2,No. 2, pp. 545-548.
[8] Sapna S. Kaushik; P.R.Deshmukh, (2009). Comparison of effectiveness
of AODV, DSDV, and DSR routing protocols in MANETs.
International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge
management,” July-December 2009, Volume 2, No. 2, pp. 499-502.
[9] A. Boukerche, Simulation-based performance comparison of routing
protocols for mobile ad hoc networks, Simulation 78 (2002) 401– 407.
[10] Xiaoyan Hong, Kaixin Xu, and Mario Gerla. Scalable routing protocols
for mobile ad hoc networks. 2002.
[11] N. Moghim, F. Hendessi, N. Movehhedinia, T.A. Gulliver, Ad-hoc
wireless network routing protocols and improved AODV, The Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering 28 (2003) 99–114.