Ijebea15 461

ISSN (Print): 22790020 ISSN (Online): 2279International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise 0039 International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR) (An Association Unifying the Sciences, Engineering, and Applied Research)

Applications (IJEBEA) www.iasir.net

Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks: A Survey Sangeeta Monga1, Rahul Malhotra2 Assistant Professor ECE Department, DAV University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India 2 Director GTBKIET, Malout, Punjab, India

1

Abstract: Mobile Adhoc networks are rapid growing technology since the last two decades. Such network form dynamically by autonomous mobile nodes that can be connected by wireless links without using existing network infrastructure or central administration. So in MANET every node acts as a router and forwards each other’s packets to enable information sharing between the mobile hosts. How packets are routed that is routing becomes complex because of highly dynamic nature of mobile Adhoc networks. Efficient routing protocol is required which provide QoS by maximizing throughput, minimizing delay and energy consumption. These challenges make the routing area as most active research area with in MANET domain. The aim of this paper is to study the work done by different researchers in the area of routing protocols in MANET. Key words: Routing, AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, OPNET, NS2.

I.

Introduction

A multihop wireless Adhoc network uses infrared or radio frequencies to share information and resources between devices. Such type of network can form dynamically between the nodes as need arises. It is an infrastructure less network as it do not require any fixed infrastructure such as base station for its operation. In MANET nodes are free to move randomly so network topology is changing rapidly and unpredictably. Each node will be able to communicate directly with other node that resides in its transmission range. For communicating with nodes that resides beyond this range, the node needs to use intermediate nodes to relay message hop by hop.

So in MANET every node acts as a router and forwards each other’s packets to enable information sharing between the mobile hosts. How packets are routed that is routing becomes complex because of highly dynamic nature of mobile Adhoc networks. The main objective of Adhoc network routing protocol is the correct and efficient route establishment between a pair of nodes so that messages may be delivered reliably and in timely manner. Route formation should be done with minimum overheads, power and bandwidth consumption. Adhoc routing protocols may be divided in two broad categories: proactive routing protocols and reactive on demand routing protocols. Proactive routing protocols attempts to maintain consistent, up to date routing information between every pair of nodes in the network by propagating, proactively, route updates at fixed intervals. Various proactive routing protocols are Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV), Cluster Head Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR), Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP), Global State Routing (GSR), and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR). Reactive on demand routing protocols form a route to the destination only when there is a demand for it, usually initiated by a source node through route discovery process with in the network. Once a route has been formed it is the duty of this node to maintain this route until the communication is over. Reactive on demand routing protocols includes Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Adhoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA), and Associativity Based Routing (ABR). The aim of this paper is to study the work done by various researchers in the domain of MANET Routing Protocols. Section 2 gives that survey and section 3 concluded the paper.

II.

Literature Survey

1. The performance of AODV, DSR, DSDV and OLSR routing protocol under CBR traffic with different network conditions were studied by Pal et al. (2013). Review showed that under different conditions different protocols behaved differently. Simulations was done using 30 nodes with NS2 Simulator. Performance was studied by analyzing total number of packet drop, throughput, and end to end delay. Finding indicates that DSR protocol is more applicable in small size of cluster but as size of cluster increases AODV protocol drastic change in performance and more applicable.

2. Comparative analysis of AODV, DSR, GRP, OLSR and TORA by varying number of nodes for FTP and HTTP application over MANET was done by Aujla et al. (2013) using OPNET Modeler 14.5 by means of throughput, delay, load, data dropped metrics. For FTP load OLSR performs best in all scenario whereas for HTTP traffic AODV gives highest throughput it goes down as number of nodes increases. DSR shows least throughput and least data drop.

IJEBEA 15-461; © 2015, IJEBEA All Rights Reserved

Page 52

Sangeeta Monga et al., International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise Applications, 14(1), September-November, 2015, pp.

52-56

3. Comparison of AODV and DSR was done by Rehman et al. (2014) using NS2 Simulator platform by measuring PDR, average end to end delay and routing overheads with change in mobility. Results showed that AODV outperforms DSR in terms of PDR in case of high mobility while average delay of AODV is higher than DSR at high mobility. Average routing load for AODV is higher than DSR. 4. Manjit et al. (2012) compared the AODV, OLSR, and TORA USING ns2 simulator. Simulation result showed that AODV performance in PDF and throughput is better than OLSR and TORA. For end to end delay metric TORA perform better than OLSR and AODV. 5. Deepali et al. (2011) assessed the performance AODV, DYMO and OLSR in context of larger scale denser MANET with three different traffic models CBR, Poisson and Self-similar by measuring PDR, delays, overheads and hops travelled. Simulation results showed that for larger scale denser MANET in which multihop communications dominates OLSR proactive route establishment process produces excessive overheads leading to collapse of MANET. Whereas AODV and DYMO are able to maintain network wide connectivity. So OLSR being unusable in larger denser multihop MANET except when majority of nodes are nearly immobile.

6. Devashih Rastogi et al. (2007) presented the experimental evaluation of AODV and OLSR on National Open Access Research Test Bed. They studied the maximum achievable throughput using these protocols under different topologies and dynamics. Observations were taken using Orbit Test Bed, at WINLAB, Rutger University. Orbit is an indoor grid based wireless network emulator consisting of 400 802.11a/b/g radio nodes, which can be dynamically interconnected into specific topologies. Each node consist of 1GHzVIA C3 processor with 512MB RAM, 20GB Hard Drive, two wireless mini PCI 802.11/a/b/g cards and two 100BaseT Ethernet ports for transfer of experimental data. The test bed provides a system consisting of central experiment controller called node handler and local client called node agent running on each node. Measurements are collected using orbit measurement library and orbit traffic generator OTG are used to generate UDP flow. Observations indicate that AODV performs better OLSR in terms of stability. OLSR allowed throughput to increase beyond saturation for some flows at the expanse of degradation of other flows. AODV does not allow throughput to increase above saturation and maintains it fairly constant at that level. Thus if offered load is increased further stable throughput can be obtained but with larger packet loss.

7. Comparative study of Adhoc routing protocols such as AODV, DSR and TORA was done by Khatri et al.

(2010) on the basis of their throughput by increasing number of nodes in the network using OPNET Simulator.

Simulations was done for file transfer protocol as application. Simulation results showed that TORA is better for denser network, AODV is better for moderately dense network whereas DSR performs well in sparse networks.

8. Performance comparison of AODV and DSR was done by Birader et al. (2009) using group mobility model. In experiment they analyzed the effect of increasing node speed on performance of protocols using NS2 Simulator.

Results showed that DSR performs better in high mobility, average delay is better in case of AODV for increased number of groups. DSR protocol provides higher control traffic during high mobility, due to its aggressive caching.

9. Evaluation of performance of AODV and DYMO routing protocol in MANET was done by Kum et al. (2010) using NS2 simulator using packet level simulations. The simulation results showed that while path accumulation of DYMO reduced the routing overheads, the size of routing packet was increased. At low moving speeds the throughput of DYMO could outperforms than AODV but at high speeds AODV achieve higher throughput than DYMO. 10. Comparison of performance of DSR, DSDV and AODV for CBR traffic in MANET using NS2 Simulator was done by Rahul and Bhawna (2013). These protocols were compared in terms of PDR, Routing overheads, average end to end delay and normalized routing load. When subjected to change in pause time, speed and varying number of nodes. Results showed that AODV performs best in terms of PDR. In terms of average routing overheads and normalized routing load DSDV performs better than AODV and DSR. For end to end delay metric the performance of AODV and DSR is quite similar to each other but DSR performs poorly for this metrics.

11. FuYongsheng et al. (2008) evaluated the AODV, OLSR and SRMP performance under two different mobility model RWP and RPGM and network sizes. Simulations were done using NS2 Simulator. The results showed that hop by hop routing is not absolutely superior to source routing. Furthermore simulations showed that it is the routing strategies behind protocols to determine the performance such as local broadcast, hop by hop routing and multicasting strategies. So reactive protocol SRMP combines source routing and multicasting and outperforms OLSR in terms of throughput and get the same delay as OLSR. 12. An overview of on demand wireless Adhoc network protocol DSR and TORA was given by Rahul and Gurpreet (2011). This paper gives the introduction to wireless Adhoc networks, their operating modes, characteristics, advantages and application area of Adhoc networks.

IJEBEA 15-461; Š 2015, IJEBEA All Rights Reserved

Page 53

Sangeeta Monga et al., International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise Applications, 14(1), September-November, 2015, pp.

52-56

13. Rahul and Simarpreet (2011) compared the AODV and DSR in terms of packet received and packet lost with variation in number of nodes using NS2 Simulator. Simulations result showed that in AODV initially there is no packet loss but in DSR routing the packet loss at initiation is very high.

14. A qualitative comparison of various routing protocols was done by Gurbinder and Rahul (2014). Several routing protocols such as DSDV, AODV, DSR, TORA and OLSR were compared on the basis of various parameters such as algorithm used, QoS, multicasting, broadcast and Power consumption. Paper also showed that energy efficiency of reactive protocol is better than proactive because of lesser routing overheads.

15. Sukhminder et al. (2013) analyzed the AODV, DSR and OLSR routing techniques using OPNET for Database and http traffic. Performance was analyzed by measuring delay, throughput and media access delay parameters. Simulations showed that in case of DB traffic, OLSR has the maximum throughput, least delay and media access delay. In case of http traffic also OLSR shows better performance as compared to other protocols.

16. A survey on the performance of Adhoc on demand distance vector routing protocol in MANET with different network parameter using network simulator was done by Shruti and Amit (2014). Performance was analyzed for CBR and TCP traffic using different performance metrics such as PDR, average end to end delay, routing load and throughput. Simulations showed that throughput of AODV degrades as packet size and number of nodes increases. Routing load increases with increase in network size, packet size and pause time. End to end delay increases with increase in network size. PDR increase with increase in node speed and number of connections.

17. Simulation study to observe the effect of increasing network size and network area on AODV, OLSR and GRP was done by Talib and Sura (2014) using OPNET simulator. Results showed that in OLSR increase in routing overheads is simultaneous with increase in network area and size. In AODV performance degrades with network size more than 300 nodes. GRP is the worst routing protocol.

18. A qualitative study AODV protocol was done by Deepat and Munish (2014) .this paper provided the overview of AODV protocol by presenting their characteristics, functionality, benefits, limitations and their security requirements.

19. Performance of AODV, DSR, DSDV and OLSR routing protocols in MANET was analyzed by Norrozila et al. (2014) using NS2 Simulator by measuring various QoS parameters such as PDR, throughput and end to end delay. Simulation results showed that AODV has highest PDR. End to end delay of OLSR is least and DSDV exceeds other protocols in terms of throughput.

20. Priyanka and Hrituparna (2014) compared AODV, DSR, DYMO and TORA protocol on the basis of PDR, end to end delay and throughput. Simulation result concluded that AOMDV has better average throughput with increasing pause time as compared to AODV and DSR. TORA exhibit the minimum average end to end delay while AODV has the highest delay.

21. Analysis of AODV, DSR, OLSR and DSDV using NS2 Simulator was done by Mohapatra and Kanungo (2012) performance was analyzed by varying number of nodes or pause time or network area while keeping other parameters constant. Results showed that for high mobility condition of nodes DSR give better packet delivery ratio than other protocols. For network size analysis it is observed that DSR protocol outperforms other protocols if network size is less than 600*600sqm. If network size is more than this and if PDR and throughput are the prime criteria, the OLSR protocol is better solution for high mobility condition.

22. Comparative study of on demand and table driven routing protocol in MANET was given by Pillai et al.

(2015). Experiment has been conducted for AODV, DSR and DSDV for 80 number of nodes using random way point mobility model for CBR traffic with NS2.35 Simulator as a function of varying speed. Results conclude that throughput performance of both the on demand routing protocols is fairly comparable. However DSR protocols outperforms in terms of routing overhead, normalized routing load and packet drop metric than AODV. Overall, AODV protocol exhibit superior performance in terms of PDR and packet loss.

23. Impact of propagation model on QoS issue of routing protocol (AODV and DSR) was studied by Venkataraman et al. (2015). This paper investigates the impact of familiar propagation models two ray and shadowing on the performance of AODV and DSR routing protocol using NS2 Simulator. Results showed that both AODV and DSR show better throughput in two ray ground model.

24. Performance evaluation of reactive Adhoc on Demand Distance Vector and Location Aided Routing (LAR1) using Qualnet 5.1 simulator with varying number of nodes was done by Shouilly et al. (2015). Results showed that AODV has better performance than LAR1 in terms of average jitter and throughput while LAR1 performed better than AODV in terms of average end to end delay and energy consumption.

IJEBEA 15-461; Š 2015, IJEBEA All Rights Reserved

Page 54

Sangeeta Monga et al., International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise Applications, 14(1), September-November, 2015, pp.

52-56

III.

Conclusion

Due to high mobility and dynamic topology, routing is a main challenge for MANET. It is a critical issue to select efficient and reliable routing protocol. Simulation tools are used to analyze the performance of routing protocols in MANET. Survey showed that different researchers have studied the different routing protocols under different network scenarios. Survey also conclude that performance of routing protocol vary with network and selection of accurate routing protocol according to network ultimately influence the efficiency of that network.

References [1]

Arora Deeepali,Millman Eamon, Nevielle W. Stephen , ‘ Assessing the Performance of AODV,DYMO Protocols in the Context OF Larger scale Denser MANETs’,IEEE, 2011, pp675-679.

[2]

Aujla Singh Gagandeep, Kang Singh Sandeep , ‘Comparative Analysis of AODV, DSR, GRP, OLSR and TORA by varying number of nodes with FTP and HTTP Application over MANET’, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol.65, No.2, 2013, pp18-26.

[3]

Birader R S, Sarma H D Hiren, Sharma Kalpana, Sarkar Kumar Subir , C Puttamadappa , ‘Performance Comparison of Reactive Routing Protocols of MANETs using Group Mobility Model’ ,International Conference on Signal Processing System IEEE, 2009,pp192-194.

[4]

Brar Gurbinder Singh, Malhotra Rahul , ‘A Review of Energy Efficient Routing Protocols FOR Wireless Adhoc Networks’, Global Journal of Computer and Technology, Vol.1, No.1, 2014, pp22-27.

[5]

Goyal Deepak, Devi Munisha, ‘A Survey of Routing Protocols AODV in Mobile Adhoc Networks’, International Journal of Computer Sciences and Mobile Computing, Vol.3, Issue7, 2014,pp452-456.

[6]

Gupta Manjeet, Kaushik Sonam , ‘Performance Comparison Study of AODVOLSR and TORA Routing Protocols for MANETs’, International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, Vol. 2, Issue No. 3, 2012, pp704-711.

[7]

Hasson Saad Talib, Jasim Sura , ‘ Simulation Study to Observe the Effect of Increasing Each of the Network Size and Network Area Size on MANETs Routing Protocol’, Oriental Journal of Computer Science and Technology,Vol.7,No.1, 2014, pp67-73.

[8]

Kaur Sukhvinder, Bansal R K, Bansal Savina , ‘Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR and OLSR Routing Techniques for Adhoc Mobile Networks’, International Journal of Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology Research, Vol.3, Issue5, 2013, pp195-200.

[9]

Khatri Pallavi, Rajput Monika,Shastri Alankar, Solanki Keshav , ‘ Performance Study of Adhoc Reactive Routing Protocol’,Journal of Computer Science 6(10), 2010,pp11591163.

[10]

Kum Dong-Won, Park Jin –Su, Cho You-Ze, Cheon Byoung-Yoon, ‘Performance Evaluation of AODV and DYMO Routing Protocol in MANET’, 2010, IEEE.

[11]

Malhotra Rahul, Singh Gurpreet , ‘An Overview of on Demand Wireless Adhoc Network Protocols: DSR and TORA’, International Journal of Computer Technology and Applications, Vol.2, Issue5, 2011, pp1641-1651.

[12]

Malhotra Rahul, Kaur Sumanpreet , ‘Comparative Analysis of AODV and DSR Protocols for Mobile Adhoc Networks’, International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Technology, Vol.1, Issue6, 2011, pp330-335.

[13]

Malhotra Rahul, Sachdeva Bhawna , ‘Multilingual Evaluation of the DSR, DSDV and AODV Routing Protocol in Mobile Adhoc Networks’, The Standard International Journals, Vol.1, No. 3, 2013, pp51-57.

[14]

Mohapatra S., Kanungo P. , ‘Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR, OLSR and DSDV Routing Protocols using NS2 Simulator’, International Conference on Communication Technology and System Design, Procedia Engineering Elsevier, 2012, pp69-76.

[15]

Pal Leena, Sharma Pradeep, Kaurav Netram , ‘ Performance Analysis of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols for Mobile Adhoc Networks’, International Journal of Scientific Research in Network Security and Communication,Vol.1,Issue 5, 2013, pp1-4.

[16]

Pillai G Kumar, Meenakshi S., Rath A. Kumar, Majhi B. , ‘Comparative Study of on Demand and Table Driven Routing Protocols in MANET’, Computational Intelligence in Data Mining,Vol.2, 2015,pp369-379,DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-220808_34.

[17]

Rastogi Devashish, Ganu Sachin, Zhang Yanyong, Trappe Wade, Graff Charles , 'A Comparative Study of AODV and OLSR on the Orbit TestBed’, IEEE, 2007, pp1-7.

[18]

Rehman Ur Ghani, Asif Muhammad, Jan Rahim, Muhammad Shad, Ahmad Llyas, ‘Simulation Based Study to Present the Performance of Adhoc Routing Protocols’, International Journal of Innovations and Applied Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 , 2014,pp261268.

[19]

Sarkar Priyanka, Paul Hrituparna, ‘Performance Comparison of AODV,DSR,DYMO and TORA Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks’,

[20]

Shah M Shruti, Patel Amit , ‘Enhance AODV Routing Protocol in TCP and CBR Traffic’, International Journal of Engineering Development and Research, Vol.2, Issue1, 2014, pp172-176.

[21]

Shouiliy Al Khaidoon, Alsaqour Raed, Uddin Mueen , ‘Simulation Study on the Performance of Reactive and Position Based Routing Protocols in MANET’, Innovations and Advances in Computing, Informatics, System Sciences, Networking and Engineering, 2015, pp25-29, DOI 10.1007/978-3-3919-067735_4.

[22]

Sulaiman Norrozila, Khalaf I. Osamah, Abdulsahib M.Ghaidaa, Mohammed N. Maumer, Ayoob A. Ayoob , ‘Effect of Using Different QoS Parameters in Performance of AODV,DSR,DSDV and OLSR Routing Protocols in MANET’, International Journal of Advances in Computer Networks and its Security,Vol.4, Issue2, 2014, pp15-19.

and OLSR Routing

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering and Technology, Vol.11, 2014,pp9-12.

IJEBEA 15-461; © 2015, IJEBEA All Rights Reserved

Page 55

Sangeeta Monga et al., International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise Applications, 14(1), September-November, 2015, pp.

52-56

[23]

Venkataramana Attada, Rao J Vasudeva, Setly S. Pallam , ‘ Impact of Propagation Models on QoS Issue of Routing Protocols in Mobile Adhoc Networks’, Emerging ICT for Bridging the Future-Proceeding of the 49th Annual Convention of the Computer Society of India CSI ,Vol.2, 2015,pp267-274,DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13731-5_30.

[24]

Yongsheng Fu, Xinyu Wang, Shanping Li, ‘Performance Comparison and Analysis of Routing Strategies in Mobile Adhoc Networks’, International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering IEEE, 2008,pp505-510.

IJEBEA 15-461; © 2015, IJEBEA All Rights Reserved

Page 56