International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
A Comparison of Routing Protocols for MANET using NS-2
Simulator
1
Renu Singla, 2Priyanka
1
Asst. Prof (CSE) , Sri Ram College of Engg.,Palwal, India
2
M.Tech(CSE), Sri Ram College of Engg.,Palwal, India
Abstract: Wireless Connections are used in Mobiles
for establishing connection to various networks. A
MANET is a collection of mobile users communicate
over wireless links. The mobile device in MANET not
only perform abilities as a host ,but also as a router.
The destination node can be within range of a source
node or beyond the coverage of source, hence packets
can be forwarded directly or via one or more
intermediate nodes. In the given work, the reactive
routing protocols, AODV and DSR are used and the
comparison is based on the delay per packet
transmitted for nodes. In this work, we have used NS-2
Visual Trace Analyzer to analyze the results using
Trace file output. Simulation is performed using NS-2
Simulator and output Trace file is used to conclude
final results.
In MANET, nodes are autonomous and free to move
randomly. Hence, the network topology is very
dynamic and communication link between source and
destination can vary with time. Traditional routing
protocol used in wired network cannot be applied
directly to wireless network. Nodes must be capable to
maintain the routes so that they move to allow
applications to operate without interruptions.
Keywords: MANET, AODV, DSR, NS-2 Simulator,
Trace File.
I.
INTRODUCTION
An era of Mobile Computing has come up due to
development of various wireless technologies such as
wireless handhelds and other mobile information
terminals. Vast interest and concerted work in
developing and enhancing wireless and mobile
network protocols are being driven by the ever
increasing demand for an anytime and anywhere
Internet access. Today, it is possible to create ,
synthesize, analyze and communicate knowledge
using varieties of media forms because of access to a
variety of multimedia and digital devices.
Additionally, the mobile devices are getting smaller,
cheaper, more convenient, and more powerful and
have contributed to the explosive growth of the mobile
computing equipment market.
1.
Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) is a vast mobile
node collection sharing wireless communication.
These devices has no fixed infrastructure even when
moving. Nodes can serve as both hosts and routers
where communication between nodes beyond their
coverage can be achieved.
ISSN: 2231-5381
Figure 1: Mobile Nodes with their coverage range
In the figure, Node 1 has two neighbours Node2 and
Node 3. Node 4 and Node 5 are beyond the range of
Node1, hence the transmission to node 4 and 5 will be
done using Node 2 as intermediate node.
2.
Routing Protocols in MANET
There are many routing protocols have been proposed.
Topology-based routing protocols route packets based
on information about the network links. Topologybased protocols can be further divided into proactive
routing protocols, reactive routing protocols and
hybrid routing protocols. The network links are
determined long before routing process in proactive
protocols.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 39
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
2.2. DSR Routing Protocol
MANET’s Routing Protocols
AODV
Reactive
Protocols
DSR
ABR
DSDV
Proactive
Protocols
WRP
CGSR
Hybrid
Protocols
TORA
ZRP
HECTOR
Figure 2: MANET’s Topology based Routing Protocol
In proactive routing protocol perform consistent and
up-to-date routing information to all the nodes is
maintained at each node. In Reactive (On-Demand)
routing protocol, protocols find route on demand by
flooding the network with Route Request packets. In
the given work, we are using AODV and DSR reactive
protocols for comparison.
2.1. AODV Routing Protocol
Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector(AODV) routing
protocol is a reactive routing protocol . AODV is a
combination of both DSR and DSDV. It inherits the
basic on-demand mechanism of route discovery and
route maintenance from DSR plus the use of hop-byhop routing sequence numbers and periodic beacons
from DSDV. This protocol also uses some of the
characteristics of proactive routing protocol. Route
Requests (RREQs), Route Replies (RREPs), and
Route Errors (RERRs) are the message types defined
by AODV. These message types are received via
UDP, and normal IP header processing applies. In
AODV when the routes are needed, they are
established on demand and the established route is
maintained as long as it is needed. When a network
node needs a connection, it broadcasts a Request for
connection. Other AODV nodes forward this message
and record the node that they heard it from, creats
temporary routes back to needy node. When node
receives message and has a route to required node, it
sends a message back through a temporary route to
requesting node. The needy node then begins using the
route. Unused entries are recycled in the routing table
after time.
ISSN: 2231-5381
DSR is a simple routing protocol which is designed
specifically for use in multihop wireless adhoc
network of mobile node. In DSR, there is no existing
network infrastructure , so it is a self organizing
network. The DSR protocol allows node to
dynamically discover a source route across multiple
networks hops to any destination in the adhoc
network. Each data packet sent then carries in its
header the complete , ordered list of nodes through
which the packet must pass. By including the source
route in the header of each data packe, other nodes
forwarding or overhearing any of these packets may
also easily cache this routing information for future
use.
DSR is composed of two mechanism which work
together to allow discovery and maintenance of source
routes in ad hoc network. Route Discovery is a
mechanism in which a source node wishing to send a
packet to destination node obtains a source node
towards destination. Route Maintenance is mechanism
by which source node is able to detect , while using a
source route
to Destination node. If the network topology has
changed such that it can no longer use its route to
Destination because a link along the route no longer
works. When Route Maintenance indicates a source
route is broken, Source node can attempt to use any
other route it happens to know to Destination, or can
invoke Route Discovery again to find a new route.
Route Maintenance is used only when Source is
actually sending packets to Destination.
II.
EXISTING WORK
Lot of work is already done by different researchers in
the field of MANET and mobile computing. Some of
the efforts of earlier researchers are discussed in this
section.
Broch et al [1] gave a detailed packet level simulation
comparing four multihop ad hoc network routing
protocols DSDV, TORA, DSR and AODV. They also
contributed in terms of describing modifications to ns
network simulator to provide an accurate simulation of
the mac and physical layer behaviour of the IEEE
802.11 wireless LAN standard. Each of the protocol in
ad hoc network of 50 mobile nodes, experiments were
done for a range of node mobility rates and movement
speeds. It was observed that DSDV delivered virtually
all data packets when node mobility rate and
movement speeds were low but failed to converge as
node mobility increases. TORA although was the
worst performer but delivered over 90% of the packets
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 40
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
with 10 or 20 sources. DSR performed well at all
algorithms optimize the network performance by
mobility rates and movement speeds, but its source
utilizing trustworthy nodes in effective way and
routing increases the number of routing overhead
penalizing non-cooperative nodes. The paper presents
bytes. Finally, AODV performs as well as DSR and
a survey on trust based routing protocols for MANET.
also eliminates source routing overhead. But at high
D.A. Maltz[5] proposed the effects of on-demand
rates of node mobility is actually more expensive than
behavior in routing protocols for multihop wireless ad
DSR.
hoc networks. A number of on demand routing
Kuppusamy et al[2], proposed a study and comparison
protocols proposed for use in multihop wireless ad hoc
of OLSR, AODV and TORA routing protocols in ad
networks In this paper, he analyzed the use of onhoc networks. He studied that in MANET, there is a
demand behavior in such protocols, focusing on its
collection of mobile nodes in which the wireless links
effect on the routing protocol's forwarding latency,
are frequently broken down due to mobility and
overhead cost, and route caching correctness, drawing
dynamic infrastructure. In ad hoc networks, routing is
examples from detailed simulation of the dynamic
a significant issue and challenge. Many routing
source routing (DSR) protocol. He studied the
protocols have been proposed like OLSR, AODV,
protocol's behavior and the changes introduced by
DSR, ZRP, and TORA so far to improve the routing
variations on some of the mechanisms that make up
performance and reliability. He presented a work
the protocol, examining which mechanisms have the
which describes the characteristics of ad hoc routing
greatest impact and exploring the tradeoffs that exist
protocols OLSR, AODV and TORA based on the
between them
performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, end-toK.N. Durai[6] proposed a work on Energy efficient
end delay, routing overload by increasing number of
random cast DSR protocol with mediation device in
nodes in the network. This comparative study proves
MANET. MANET basically have dynamic topology,
that AODV, TORA performs well in dense networks
as the routing system's list of neighboring nodes and
than OLSR in terms of packet delivery ratio.
routers changes its location from time to time.
Another work was done by Ismail, Z[3]. He presented
MANET's medium is shared with other nodes, so often
Effects of Packet Size on AODV Routing Protocol
it consumes lot of bandwidth. The drawback is mainly
Implementation in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous
because of limitations of the technology and routing
MANET. Three scenarios have been defined from this
protocols available. MANET's are vulnerable to attack
architecture: scenario I (communication entirely
as they share a wireless medium with infrastructure
within MANET, homogeneous MANET), scenario II
less backbone. The system proposes a Routing
(communication between MANET and wireless LAN,
protocol in MANET which enables efficient usage of
heterogeneous
MANET)
and
scenario
III
power and bandwidth in Mobile Ad-hoc networks
(communication between MANET with wireless LAN
(MANET). Randomized Overhearing techniques is
and wired LAN, heterogeneous MANET). The aim of
proposed to reduce power consumption and enhance
this research is to assess the effects of different packet
effective Routing in MANET. Minimum hop path is
size with the implementation of AODV routing
introduced to reduce excess bandwidth consumption.
protocols in homogeneous and heterogeneous
MD(Mediation Device)protocol is proposed to extend
MANET through the simulation method. The three
the battery life of nodes in the MANET scenario.
scenarios above have been developed in the
Y.Lacharite[7] presented a Simplified Approach to
OMNeT++ network simulator. The results achieved
Multicast Forwarding Gateways in MANET.
from the test have been evaluated using the metrics
Simplified multicast forwarding (SMF) provides an
assigned, throughput and packet delivery ratio (PDR).
optimized flooding mechanism in MANET
The tests show that the increase of throughput and
environments to efficiently propagate multicast
PDR performance was parallel with the increase of
packets. The main difference between the SMF and
packet size. From the test also, we can conclude that
traditional multicast routing is that no multicast tree is
the performance due to the packet size effect in
built and maintained, and no group membership
homogeneous MANET is better than in heterogeneous
management is needed. He presented the results of a
MANET.
tested single-gateway MANET implementation, and
S.A. Thorat[4] proposed a work on Design issues in
also introduced a proposal for the multiple-gateway
trust based routing for MANET. MANET works well
scenario. In the IETF MANET working group, the
if the participating nodes cooperate with each other.
SMF design group also presents proposals for
For individual nodes it may be benefcial to be nonhandling multiple gateways;. However this approach
cooperative and selfsh. However non-cooperation,
implies that equal multicast packets disseminated into
selfshness and malicious behavior of the participating
the MANET by different gateways have different
nodes may result into collapse of a MANET. Trust
taggerlD, and hence these packets cannot be detected
based routing algorithms aim to identify misbehaving
as duplicates. This article demonstrates a successful
and non-cooperating nodes in the MANET. These
implementation of the gateway functionality and
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 41
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
extends its analysis by proposing a solution for the
III.
SIMULATION
multiple-gateway configuration.
Q. Razouqi [8] presented extensive Simulation
For Simulation Purpose, NS-2.34 used in Linux
Performance Analysis for DSDV, DSR and AODV
Environment(Ubuntu). The whole scenario is
MANET Routing Protocols. In this work, Destination
simulated in the network simulator. Delay per packet
Sequenced Distance vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source
is noted down for the comparison of AODV and DSR.
Routing(DSR) and Ad hoc On demand Distance
The nodes generation, nodes movement and transfer of
Vector(AODV) routing protocols that are widely
data between nodes is displayed as output in Network
simulated in this paper using different scenarios in
Animator(NAM). The NAM scenario of 20 nodes of
terms of different Traffic types, constant bit
AODV and DSR is shown in figure below
rate(CBR), variable bit rate(VBR) then combining
both classes in one scenario to scrutinize the impact of
this combination. Performance metrics used for
comparison are Average energy consumption, Average
throughput, Normalized routing load (NRL), packet
delivery
fraction(PDF)
and
total
dropped
packets(TDP). Combined traffic results pronounce that
DSR and AODV exhibit better behaviors overall the
performance metrics examined.
V.K. Taksande[9]
presented a a Simulation
Comparison Among AODV, DSDV, DSR Protocol
with IEEE 802.11 MAC for Grid Topology in
MANET.He performed
comprehensive analysis
Figure 3: NAM Scenario for AODV 20 nodes
among AODV, DSDV, DSR routing protocols of adhoc network with IEEE 802.11 Mac protocol in grid
topology
using
Network
Simulator-2(NS-2).
Performance metrics of MANET such as Received
Packet Vs. no. of nodes, Packet delivery ratio Vs. no.
of nodes, Total dropped packets Vs. no. of nodes,
Average end to end delay Vs. no. of nodes are
investigated to confirm the best routing protocol in the
simulation environment.
B.S. Gouda[10] presented A comprehensive
performance analysis of energy efficient routing
protocols in different traffic based mobile ad-hoc
Figure 4: NAM Scenario for DSR 20 nodes
networks. In this paper word is done to enhance the
Some
parameters taken into account for the simulation
network performance of different routing protocols,.
are
The performance analysis and simulation are carried
out to evaluate network performance using Network
1. Network Simulator : NS-2.34
Simulator (NS-2), based on the different load, node
2. Protocols studied : AODV,DSR
mobility, delay, packet sending rate and energy
3. Node mov. Model : Random waypoint
consumption. It has been verified through various
4. Traffic type
: CBR
simulations, Results conclude that energy AODV
5.
Data
payload
: Bytes/packet
deliver the better performance as that of the modern
6.
No.
of
Nodes
: 20, 40, 80
protocols DSDV, TORA, DSDV, DSR and AODV in
7.
Packet
Size
: 1024 bytes
terms of energy efficiency but it is observed that DSR
8.
Metric
for
needs significantly smaller energy overheads than
Comparison
: Delay/Packet
other protocols.
9.
Flow
considered
for
M.N. Alslaim[11] presented a comparative study of
Comparison
: tcp
MANET routing protocols. In this paper, the MANET
characteristics and challenges are highlighted.
Additionally, the previously mentioned categories of
routing protocols, proactive and reactive, are explored.
and a comparison is conducted between DSDV, DSR
and AODV in terms of both properties and
performance. Finally, a critical analysis is performed
on some papers that discussed routing in MANET.
ISSN: 2231-5381
In this work, NS2 Trace file analyzer(NS-2 Visual
Trace Anlyzer-2.72) is used to compare the results
using trace file output. Packets generated and packet
loss during transfer of data is noted down for the
comparison and graphs are generated according to the
tcp flow (Delay per packet) for both AODV and DSR.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 42
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
IV.
RESULTS
The number of nodes was varied as 20, 40,80 with
different traffic sources. Also the type of traffic
sources was TCP. The packet size was taken to be the
same 1024 bytes. Each of the mobile nodes selects a
random destination at the specified time and moves
towards it.
Firstly , number of packets, number of bytes generated
, and lost number of packets and bytes are noted down
for each scenario which is shown below.
Figure 7.b: DSR 20 nodes
Figure 7: Delay Per Packet For AODV and DSR 20
nodes
The above graphs shows that when 20 nodes are
considered, the delay per packet using AODV protocol
is very high comparatively using DSR protocol.
Figure 5: Generated and Lost Packets for 80 nodes
using AODV Routing
Figure 6: Generated and Lost Packets for 80 nodes
using DSR Routing
Figure 8.a: AODV 40 nodes
According to the number of packets lost considered,
DSR routing protocol has less number of lost packets
as compare to AODV protocol. As we increased the
number of nodes in both protocols, the lost number of
packets decreased gradually.
The term DELAY implies the delay a packet suffers
between leaving the sender application and arriving at
the receiver application
The graphs are generated for Delay per packet and
results are observed for final conclusion of comparison
between AODV and DSR routing protocol.
Figure 8.b: DSR 40 nodes
Figure 8: Delay Per Packet For AODV and DSR 40
nodes
The above graphs shows that when 40 nodes are
considered,i.e the number of nodes increases then the
delay per packet using AODV protocol decreases as
compared to 20 nodes using AODV but using DSR
delay per packet increases as compared for 20 nodes
using DSR routing.
Figure 7.a: AODV 20 nodes
Figure 9.a: AODV 80 nodes
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 43
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 24 Number 1- June 2015
[7]
Figure 9.a: DSR 80 nodes
Figure 9: Delay Per Packet For AODV and DSR 80
nodes
The graphs shows that when the number of nodes
increases as 80 then the delay per packet using AODV
protocol decreases and becomes very less as compared
to 20 and 40 nodes using AODV but using DSR for
increasing number of nodes, delay per packet
increases.
V.
Lacharite, Y., A Simplified Approach to Multicast Forwarding
Gateways in MANET, Wireless Communication Systems,
2007. ISWCS 2007, pp 426-430, 2007
[8] Razouqi, Q., Extensive Simulation Performance Analysis for
DSDV, DSR and AODV MANET Routing Protocols,
Advanced Information Networking and Applications
Workshops (WAINA), 2013, pp 335-342, 2013
[9] Taksande, V.K., A Simulation Comparison Among AODV,
DSDV, DSR Protocol with IEEE 802.11 MAC for Grid
Topology in MANET, (CICN), 2011, pp 63-67, 2011
[10] Gouda, B.S., A comprehensive performance analysis of energy
efficient routing protocols in different traffic based mobile adhoc networks, Automation, Computing, Communication,
Control and Compressed Sensing (iMac4s), 2013, pp 306-312,
2013
[11] Alslaim, M.N., A comparative study of MANET routing
protocols, e-Technologies and Networks for Development
(ICeND), 2014, pp 178-182, 2014
CONCLUSION
On the basis of result, it was concluded that as the
packet size is increased the end-to-end delay of AODV
is lesser than that of DSR for larger number of nodes.
DSR (Dynamic source routing) protocol is not a
winner when it comes to the large size of the network.
The end-to-end delay is increased when the packet size
is increased. The degraded performance might be
because of the aggressive use of caching. The basic
problem is that in highly dynamic environment, the
cache becomes stale and could lead to significant
downfall in performance. There is a lot of scope
related to the use of caching in DSR.So, AODV gave
the best performance overall, making it suitable for
medium as well as larger networks.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Broch et al "Performance comparison of multihop wireless ad
hoc
network
routing
protocols
"
http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu/
Kuppusamy, P, A study and comparison of OLSR, AODV and
TORA routing protocols in ad hoc networks, Electronics
Computer
Technology
(ICECT),
2011,
DOI:
10.1109/ICECTECH.2011.5941974 (pp 143-147)
Ismail,Z, Hassan, R., Effects of Packet Size on AODV
Routing Protocol Implementation in Homogeneous and
Heterogeneous
MANET,
Computational
Intelligence,
Modelling and Simulation (CIMSiM), 2011, pp 351-356, 2011
Thorat, S.A., Design issues in trust based routing for MANET,
Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies
(ICCCNT), 2014, pp 1-7, 2014
Maltz, D.A., The effects of on-demand behavior in routing
protocols for multihop wireless ad hoc networks, Selected
Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on (Volume:17 ,
Issue: 8 ), pp 1439 - 1453, August 1999
Durai, K.N., Energy efficient random cast DSR protocol with
mediation device in MANET, Advanced Computing and
Communication Systems (ICACCS), 2013,pp 1-5, 2013
ISSN: 2231-5381
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 44