ijcta2011020329

8/4/2019 ijcta2011020329

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ijcta2011020329 1/5

A Study of Performance Comparisons of Simulated

Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols

Amandeep Verma, Lecturer in Computer Science,

Punjabi University Regional Centre for IT & Mgmt., Mohali

[email protected]

Abstract

Security has become a prime concern so as

to present protected communication in Wireless as

well as wired environment. Ad hoc networks are

illustrated by multi-hop wireless connectivity and

recurrently changing network topology which have

made them infrastructure less. The wireless links in

this network are very error prone and can go down

frequently due to mobility of nodes, interference and

less infrastructure. A routing protocol is needed

whenever a packet needs to be transmitted to a

destination via number of nodes and numerous

routing protocols have been proposed for such kind

of ad hoc networks. It is advantageous to know the

performance of various protocols under different

scenarios for various metrics. This paper describes a

simulation evaluations conducted of several routing protocols tailored specifically for mobile ad hoc

networks.

Keywords: Ad hoc Networks, Routing Protocols,

Performance metrics

1. Introduction

Security has become a primary concern in

order to provide protected communication in

Wireless as well as wired environment. An adhoc

network is a temporary infrastructure less network,formed dynamically by mobile devices without

turning to any existing centralized administration. Ad

hoc networks are characterized by multi-hop wireless

connectivity and frequently changing network

topology which have made them infrastructure less.

A routing protocol is needed whenever a packet

needs to be transmitted to a destination via number of nodes and numerous routing protocols have been

proposed for such kind of ad hoc networks. These

protocols find a route for packet delivery and deliver

the packet to the correct destination. Each mobile

node operates not only as a host but also as a router

and forwards packets for other mobile nodes in the

network that may not be within direct transmission

range of each other. The wireless links in this

network are highly error prone and can go down

frequently due to mobility of nodes, interference and

less infrastructure. Therefore, routing in MANET is a

critical task due to highly dynamic environment. In

recent years, several routing protocols have been

proposed for mobile ad hoc networks. Differentrouting protocols are suitable for different network

characteristics. For this purpose different types of

protocols for MANET have been designed such as

DSDV, AODV, TORA, DSR, ZRP, and OLSR and

many others.

Generally, routing protocols are classified

into two main categories: Table-driven routing

protocols and source initiated on-demand driven

routing protocols. The table driven routing protocols

maintain consistent and up-to-date routing

information from each node to the rest of the nodes in

the network in one or more routing tables regardless

of the need of such routes. The source initiated on-demand routing protocols are developed and

employed in mobile ad-hoc networks and initiates

routing activities only when needed. In another

classification these protocols generally fall into one

of two categories: proactive or reactive. Proactive

routing attempts to maintain optimal routes to all

destinations at all times, regardless of whether they

Amandeep Verma, Int. J. Comp. Tech. Appl., Vol 2 (3), 565-569

565

ISSN:2229-609

mailto:[email protected]

8/4/2019 ijcta2011020329


are needed. To support this, the routing protocol

propagates information updates about a network’s

topology throughout the network. In contrast,

reactive or on-demand routing protocols determine

routes to given destinations only when there is data to

send to those destinations. If a route is unknown, the

source node initiates a search to find one. Proactive

routing protocols have the advantage of having short

routes available at all times, thereby avoiding the

delay of searching for a route on demand. Reactive

routing protocols have the advantage of only

generating routing overhead to find routes when

routes are needed, independent of network topology

changes.

This paper describes a simulation

evaluations conducted of several routing protocols

tailored specifically for mobile ad hoc networks. The

intended readers for this paper are those who are

looking for the effects of various ad hoc networking

protocols on performance metrics. The various

performance metrics to be considered whileevaluating the protocols are also listed. In order to

make a selection of simulator, the comparative

studies are also quoted.

The paper is organised as follows. The section 2

presents a tabular visualisation of the studies. The

section 3 lists down the performance metrics. The

section 4 is about the Simulators. The section 5 gives

the analysis of the studies. The section 6 provides the

conclusion and future work.

2. Review of Literature

Study Protocols Simulator/Parameter

Performance metrics

Conclusion

Performance

of mobile adhoc

networking

routing

protocols in

realistic

scenarios [5]

AODV,

OLSR,DSR and

ZRP

QualNet,

modelrealistic

scenarios

Packet

deliveryratio,

latency and

jitter of

data

packets

AODV is

overallbetter as

compared to

other

Performance

Evaluation of

DSR and

DSDV

Routing

Protocols for

Wireless Ad

Hoc

Networks[15]

DSR and

DSDV

Ns-2.29 ,

Random

waypoint

model

Packet

delivery

fraction and

throughput

DSR is

better than

DSDV

Simulation

Comparisonof Four

Wireless Ad

hoc Routing

Protocols

[13]

DSDV,

TORA,DSR,

AODV

nodes move

accordingto the

‘random

way point’

model

delay,

controlpacket

overhead,

route

acquisition,

throughput

DSDV

suitable forsmall

networks

with limited

topology,

TORA is

good for

highly

mobile and

dense

network,

AODV

overall best

AdhocNetworks

Routing

Protocols and

Mobility [3]

WRP,FSR,

DSR,

AODV,

ABR and

LAR

GloMoSim,mobility

and

propagation

model,

DataReception

Rate,

Consumed

Energy,

Overhead,

Mobilitycause more

packet loss,

latency,

congestion

and energy

consumePerformance

Comparison

of Routing

Protocols For

Mobile Ad

Hoc

Networks

[18]

DSDV,

TORA,

DSR,

AODV

Ns-2, CBR

traffic

source,

movement

model

based on

pause time

Weighted

Path

Optimality,

Network’s

Load

Deviation,

Average

end-to-end

delay, Jitter

DSDV is

best in Path

Optimality,

DSDV and

AODV in

delay, DSR

in load

balancing

and DSDV

in jitter

PerformanceAnalysis of

DSR &

Extended

DSR

Protocols [1]

DSR andExtended

DSR

GloMoSim,Random

waypoint

mobility

model,

CBR traffic

source

Collision,Throughput

, latency

rate and

Packet

Loss/Drop

Tradeoff between

delay and

collisions

results in

less packet

drops and

slightlybetter

throughput

then

traditional

DSR.

Performance

Evaluation of

Ad Hoc

Routing

Protocols

Using NS2

Simulation

[14]

AODV,

DSR and

DSDV

Ns-2, CBR

traffic

source,

random

waypoint

model

Packet

delivery

fraction,

Average

End-to-end

delay and

normalized

routing load

AODV and

DSR

perform

equally for

packet

delivery

fraction,

DSDV is

better than

other for

average

end- to enddelay

PerformanceComparison

of Two

Anycast

based

reactive

Routing

Protocols for

Mobile Ad

hoc Networks

[12]

ARDSRand

A-AODV

Ns-2.23,random

waypoint

model,

CBR traffic

source

PacketDelivery

fraction,

Average

end-to-end

delay of

data

packets,

Routing

load and

Energy

consumptio

n

ARDSRbetter

performanc

e in PDF

and e-e

delay at low

mobility,

AODV

better at

high

mobility

Performance

Evaluation

andSimulation of

Mobile Ad-

hoc Network

Routing

Protocols

[16]

AODV,

DSDV,

DSR andOLSR

Two

different

scenariosfiles

Average

Routing

Overhead,Packet

Delivery

Ratio,

Average

End-to-end

delay

AODV

performs

better interms of

packet

delivery

ratio.

DSDV is

better in

case of

overhead

and DSDV

and AODV

performs

quite same

in end-to

end delay

Performance DSR and Ns-2 Packet DSR


566

ISSN:2229-609

8/4/2019 ijcta2011020329


Comparison

of Two

Routing

Protocols for

Ad Hoc

Networks

[19]

AODV delivery

fraction,

Average

end-to-end

delay

outperforms

AODV

when

smaller no.

of nodes,

less

mobility

and lower

load

otherwiseAODV

A

Performance

Comparison

of Routing

Protocols for

Security Issue

In Wireless

Mobile Ad

Hoc

Networks [6]

DSR and

TORA

OPNET

10.0

Throughput

media

access

delay,

Traffic sent

and Down

Load

response

time

DSR

performanc

e affected

by proxy as

compared to

TORA

Performance

Comparisons

of AOMDV

and OLSR

Routing

Protocols forMobile Ad

Hoc Network

[9]

AOMDV

and

OLSR

Ns-2,

random

waypoint

mobility

model file

transferapplication

of TCP for

traffic

Packet loss

rate,

average

end-to-end

delay and

normalizedrouting load

OLSR

outperforms

AOMDV

An

Experimental

Comparison

of Routing

Protocols in

Multi Hop

Ad Hoc

Networks

[10]

OLSR,

BATMA

N [2] and

Babel [7]

----- Hop Count,

Expected

Transmissi

on Count

[4]

Babel better

throughput

less routing

overhead,

performanc

e of OLSR

and

BATMAN

are almost

same

A Simulation

Based

Performance

Comparisonof Routing

Protocol on

Mobile Ad-hoc Network

[11]

AODV,

DYMO,

ZRP,

OLSR.

Qualnet

4.5,

CBR traffic

source,

two-raypropagation

path lossmodel,

mobility

based on

pause time

Packet

Delivery

Fraction,

AverageEnd-to-end

delay,

Jitter,Throughput

DYMO best

in PDF,

OLSR and

ZRP goodin average

e-e delay,

ZRP betterthan others

in

throughput

Performance

Analysis of

Proactive and

Reactive

Routing

Protocols for

Ad hoc

Networks

[17]

DSR,

AODV

and

DSDV

Ns-2,

generate

scenario

files for

simulation

Packet

Delivery

Ratio,

Average e-e

delay,

Packet Loss

and

Routing

Overhead

AODV

outperforms

DSR and

DSDV in

PDF,

AODV and

DSDV

outperforms

in average

e-e delay,

DSR is

better than

AODV and

DSDV in

packet loss

3. Performance Metrics

Routing Overhead

Average routing overhead is the total

number of routing packets divided by total number of

delivered data packets. This metric provides an

indication of the extra bandwidth consumed by

overhead to deliver data traffic. It is crucial as the

size of routing packets may vary. The routing

overhead describes how many routing packets for

route discovery and route maintenance need to be

sent in order to propagate the CBR packets.

Packet D elivery R atio/ P acket D elivery

Fraction/Throughput

Packet delivery ratio is calculated by

dividing the number of packets received by the

destination through the number of packets originated

It specifies the packet loss rate, which limits the

maximum throughput of the network. The better the

delivery ratio, the more complete and correct is the

routing protocol.

Average End-To-End Delay

Average End-to-End delay (seconds) is the

average time it takes a data packet to reach the

destination. This metric is calculated by subtracting

“time at which first packet was transmitted by

source” from “time at which first data packet arrived

to destination”. This includes all possible delays

caused by buffering during route discovery latency,

queuing at the interface queue, retransmission delays

at the MAC, propagation and transfer times.

Packet Loss/Drop

Packet loss describes an error condition in

which data packets appear to be transmitted correctly

at one end of a connection, but never arrive at the

other. There might be different reasons like corrupted

packets will be dropped by nodes; the link/route

between nodes is not working, insufficient

bandwidth, etc.

Latency Rate

When source node sends a data packet

towards destination node, it takes some time to

deliver and this time is called latency rate/delay or

transmission time.

Normalized routing load

The number of routing packets transmitted

per data packet delivered at the destination. Each

hop-wise transmission of a routing packet is counted

as one transmission.


567

ISSN:2229-609

8/4/2019 ijcta2011020329


Route acquisition time

The time it takes a source node to find a

route to a destination node

Expected Transmission Count

The expected transmission count metric

(ETX) [4], which finds high-throughput paths on

multi-hop wireless networks. ETX minimizes the

expected total number of packet transmissions

(including retransmissions) required to successfully

deliver a packet to the ultimate destination. ETX

calculates the probability of successful transmissions

in both directions over a wireless link. To determine

these statistics, every node periodically broadcasts a

configured number of probes. Receivers calculate the

number of probes received; against the number

expected. As links are asymmetric, it is important to

measure the success rate of probes in both directions.To obtain this information, each node will place its

own ETX values in the probes sent.

4. Simulators

Simulations play a vital role in the development

and testing of ad-hoc networking protocols.

However, the simulation of large networks is still a

tedious task that consumes a lot of computing power,

memory, and time.

The study [8], compare protocols and models

implemented in SWANS to the correspondingimplementations in ns-2. Using identical input

parameters show results are comparable and analyze

reasons for differences. By showing that results

achieved with JiST/SWANS are equivalent to those

of ns-2, support the usage of JiST/SWANS. As ns-2

performance problems when simulating hundreds or

thousands of nodes and the complex mixture of Tcl

and C/C++ code in ns-2, JiST/SWANS could be an

interesting alternative. In the paper [20] reported a

performance comparison study by implementing an

identical simulation set-up in five simulators, namely

ns-2, OMNet++, ns-3, SimPy and JiST/SWANS.

5. Analysis

The studies revealed that AODV, DSR,

TORA and OLSR protocols are under study. The

performance metrics like packet delivery function,

Average end-to-end delay, throughput and routing

load are used for comparisons. Some of the studies

even contradict in results. The reason for that seems

to be different simulation environment in these

studies as the metrics used for comparison are almost

same. Most of the studies use ns-2 for simulation

purposes. But some recent studies show other

simulators better than ns-2 as it is complex mixture of

Tcl and C/C++code. Even ns3 outperform ns2.

OPNET modeler and QualNet which is commercial

version of GloMoSim also very much in use for

simulation purposes. JiST/SWANS performed well

but it is not much in use, this might be due to non-

graphical interface.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

The overall performance of AODV is better

than the other protocols, but every protocol has its

better in some domain. The future work is to compare

simulators for different protocols.

References

[1] Ahmad S., Awan I., Waqqas A. and Ahmad B.,

(2008), “Performance Analysis of DSR & Extended DSRProtocols”, Proceedings of Second Asia International

Conference on Modeling and Simulation, pp. 191-196

[2] Axel Neumann, Corinna Aichele, and Marek Lindner(2008), “Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking(B.A.T.M.A.N.)”, IETF Draft

[3] Djamel Djenouri, Abdelouahid Derhab and Nadjib

Badache, (2006), “Adhoc Networks Routing Protocols and

Mobility”, The International Arab Journal of Information

Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 126-133

[4] Douglas S. J. De Couto , Douglas S. J. De , CoutoDaniel , Robert Morris , Daniel Aguayo , John Bicket,

(2003), “A High-Throughput Path Metric for Multi-HopWireless Routing”, Proceedings of ACM MobiComm

conference,

[5] Hsu J., Bhatia S., Takai M., Bagrodia R. and

Acriche M.J., (2003),“ Performance of mobile ad hocnetworking routing protocols in realistic scenarios”,

Proceedings of IEEE conference on military

communications, Vol. 2, pp. 1268-1273

[6] Jha, R.K., Limkar, S.V. and Dalal, U.D., (2010), “ APerformance Comparison of Routing Protocols for SecurityIssue In Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Proceedings

of International Conference on Emerging Trends in

Engineering and Technology, pp. 825-830


568

ISSN:2229-609

8/4/2019 ijcta2011020329


[7] Juliusz Chroboczek, (2009), “The Babel Routing

Protocol”, Internet-Draft.

[8] Kargl Frank and Schoch Elmar, (2007), “Simulation of

MANETs: a qualitative comparison between JiST/SWANSand ns-2”, Proceedings of the 1st international workshop

on System evaluation for mobile platforms, pp. 41-46

[9] May Zin Oo and Mazliza Othman, (2010),"Performance Comparisons of AOMDV and OLSRRouting Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Network"

Proceedings of Second International Conference on

Computer Engineering and Applications, vol. 1, pp.129-

133

[10] Murray D., Dixon M. and Koziniec T., (2010), “An

Experimental Comparison of Routing Protocols in Multi

Hop Ad Hoc Networks”, Proceedings of Australasian

Telecommunication Networks and Applications

Conference, pp. 159-164.

[11] Rahman M A , Anwar F, Naeem J and Abedin M S M,(2010), “A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of

Routing Protocol on Mobile Ad-hoc Network”,

Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on

Computer and Communication Engineering, pp. 1-5

[12] Saeed A., Khan L., Shah N. and Ali H., (2009),

“Performance Comparison of Two Anycast based reactiveRouting Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks”,Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on

Computer, Control and Communications, pp. 1-6

[13] Samba Sesay, Zongkai Yang, Biao Qi and Jianhua He,(2004), “Simulation Comparison of Four Wireless Ad hocRouting Protocols”, International Journal on Information

Technology by Asian Network for Scientific Information,No. 3, Vol. 3, pp. 219-226.

[14] Shah Samyak, Khandre Amit, Shirole Mahesh andBhole Girish, (2008), “Performance Evaluation of Ad HocRouting Protocols Using NS2 Simulation, Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile and Pervasive

Computing, pp. 167-171

[15] Singh Rajeshwar, Singh Dharmendra K. and KumarLalan, (2011), “Performance Evaluation of DSR andDSDV Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”

International Journal Advanced Networking and

Applications, Volume: 02, Issue: 04, pp: 732-737

[16] Singla Vikas, Singla Rakesh and Kumar Ajay, (2009),“Performance Evaluation and Simulation of Mobile Ad-hoc

Network Routing Protocols”, International Journal of

Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1

[17] Tyagi S S and Chauhan R K, (2010), “Performance

Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols forAd hoc Networks”, International Journal of Computer

Applications, Vol. 1, No. 14, pp. 27-30.

[18] Vahid Nazari Talooki & Koorush Ziarati,(2006),“Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols ForMobile Ad Hoc Networks”, Proceedings of Asia-PacificConference on Communications, pp. 1-5

[19] Wang Lin-zhu, Fang Ya-qin and Shan Min, (2009),

“Performance Comparison of Two Routing Protocols forAd Hoc Networks”, Proceedings of WASE International

Conference on Information Engineering, pp. 260-262

[20] Weingartner E., vom Lehn H. and Wehrle K.,

(2009), “A performance comparison of recent network simulators”, Proceedings of IEEE International conference

on Communications, pp. 1-5


569

ISSN:2229-609

Documents

ijcta2011020329