2010 International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering

Comparative Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET using NS2
Asma Tuteja1 (M.Tech Student ,M.M.University, Mullana, asmatuteja@yahoo.co.in) Rajneesh Gujral2 (Assoc. Professor, Comp. Sc. Deptt., M.M.University, Mullana,) Sunil Thalia3 (ME Student, NITTTR, Chandigarh, sunilthalia@rediffmail.com)
ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad-Hoc networks are highly dynamic networks characterized by the absence of physical infrastructure. Nodes of these networks functions as a routers which discovers and maintains the routes to other nodes in the network. In such networks, nodes are able to move and synchronize with their neighbors. Due to mobility, connections in the network can change dynamically and nodes can be added and removed at any time. In this paper, we are going to compare Mobile Ad-Hoc network routing protocols DSDV, AODV and DSR using network simulator NS2.34. We have compared the performance of three protocols together and individually too. The performance matrix includes PDR (Packet Delivery Ratio), Throughput, End to End Delay, Routing overhead. We are comparing the performance of routing protocols when packet size changes, when time interval between packet sending changes, when mobility of nodes changes. Keywords: DSDV, AODV, DSR, PDR, throughput, end to end delay, routing overhead, packet size, time interval, mobility.

INTRODUCTION Mobile Ad-Hoc network is a kind of wireless network and self configuring network of moving routers associated with wireless network. The routers are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily, thus, the network's wireless topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. [1][3] Mobile Ad-Hoc network is an infractureless network due to mobile routers. Each node or router must forward the packets unrelated to its own use. [8][9][10] Main challenges to maintain the Mobile Ad-Hoc network are: No central controlling authority, limited power ability, continuously maintain the information required to properly route traffic. Figure 1 is showing the network of five mobiles connecting with wireless link. Every node will discover the routing path by using route request and route reply packets. Route maintenance is also required as the node changes its position so its route also. Mobile ad-hoc network is presently applicable everywhere in real life like in business meetings outside the offices, in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Protocols etc.[8][9][10]

This infrastructureless network is managed using the routing protocols. Routing is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send data or physical traffic. Routing directs the passing of logically addressed packets from their source toward their ultimate destination through intermediary nodes. So routing protocol is the routing of packets based on the defined rules and regulations. Every routing protocol has its own algorithm on the basis of which it discovers and maintains the route. In every routing protocol, there is a data structure which stores the information of route and modifies the table as route maintenance is requires. A routing metric is a value used by a routing algorithm to determine whether one route should perform better than another. Metrics can cover such information as bandwidth, delay, hop count, path cost, load, reliability and communication cost. The routing table stores only the best possible routes while link-state or topological databases may store all other information as well. [8][9][10] BACKGROUND Many routing protocols have been proposed but a few comparisons have been made. The work done by the Monarch project at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) has compared some of the different routing protocols and evaluated them based on the same quantitative metrics. The result was presented in the article A performance comparison of multihop ad hoc wireless network routing protocols. [12] Some other simulation results have been done on individual protocols. Several simulation based performance comparisons have been done for ad-hoc routing protocols in the recent years. The performance comparison of two on-demand routing protocols AODV and DSR have been presented using NS-2 Simulator. [11] Mostly Mobile Ad-Hoc networks are used in Military communication by soldiers, planes, tanks, mobile offices, small aircrafts, education systems with set-up of virtual classroom conference rooms, meetings etc. [1] But the main problem is of mobility. As we know that all the nodes are mobile. Major challenges in Mobile Ad-Hoc networks are routing of packets with frequently mobile nodes movement, there are resource issues like power and storage and there are wireless communication issues also. As Mobile Ad-Hoc network consists of wireless hosts that may move often. Movement of hosts results in a change in routes. A lot of research works are performing on designing efficient routing protocols. These protocols are designed and analyzed using
330

Fig-1 (Infrastructureless Network)

978-0-7695-4058-0/10 $26.00 2010 IEEE DOI 10.1109/ACE.2010.16

CBR model, Poisson traffic model, which are inherently unable to capture traffic self-similarity. Another problem is of reliability and power consumption. How much any protocol is reliable means how much percentage of packets will be received by destination node successfully i.e. the packet delivery ratio (PDR). Power consumption is another main performance measure to compare these protocol performances. We have selected DSDV, AODV and DSR for analysis as lot of research is going on these three routing protocols. [1] [2] [3][5] Routing in Mobile Ad-Hoc networks and some fixed wireless networks use multiple-hop routing. Routing protocols for this kind of wireless network should be able to maintain paths to other nodes and in most cases, must handle changes in paths due to mobility. So we have chosen node mobility as performance criteria for comparing routing protocols. ROUTING ALGORITHM All the routing protocols are categorized under three categories Table Driven, Source Initiated and Hybrid as shown in Fig-2 [7]. Our key protocols for comparison are DSDV, AODV and DSR. DSDV is a table driven/proactive routing protocol. In proactive protocols, routes to all the nodes in the network are discovered in advance. Whole table is broadcasts after a fixed interval of time independent of any route changes or not. This increases the overhead and so decreases the throughput of network using DSDV protocol. [1][7][9][12] In DSDV Protocol, every node stores one or more routing tables. Routing table stores all the available destinations, number of hopes (intermediate nodes) to reach the destination node, sequence number assigned by the destination node. The sequence number stored in routing table is used to make the protocol loop free. Every node maintains a monotonically increasing sequence number for itself. It also maintains the highest known sequence number for each destination in the routing table (called destination sequence numbers). The routing updates can be Event Driven or Time Driven. These routing table updates can be sent via full dump or incremental updates. In incremental updates, only those informations are sent which has change since last updates. Full Dump means sending whole routing table. AODV (AdHoc on demand distance vector) is a source initiated routing protocols.

It is a reactive protocol as it only requests a route when needed and does not require nodes to maintain routes to the destinations that are not actively used in communication. Route discovery in AODV is done by broadcasting RREQ (Route Request) and RREP (Route Reply) packet. When a node in the network wants to send data to an unknown destination in the network or outside the network, it broadcasts the RREQ packet to all its neighbors. [2][7][8][9] Neighbors will further send to their neighbors till the destination node is not found or lifespan has finished. If destination has found or route to a destination has found in routing table of any node receiving RREQ for destination then node will make a new packet RREP packet and unicast this RREP packet node by node till source node does not receives this RREP. After receiving RREP node modifies its routing table and start sending data. If node receives more than one RREP packets for same destination from different nodes in the network then node will chose the shortest route to destination. DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) is a source initiated/reactive protocol as AODV protocol. Difference in AODV and DSR is that AODV only stores address of next hop to the destination but DSR stores complete route from source to destination including all the intermediate nodes. Sender of the packet discovers the complete path through which to forward the packets. The sender explicitly lists this route in the packets header, identifying each forwarding hop by the address of the next node to which to transmit the packet on its way to the destination host. [4][5][6][9][10] SIMULATION AND COMPARISON We have used NS2.34 for simulation of three routing protocols. NS2 is a Network Simulator which is used to simulate all type of networks and can be easily understandable by anyone. It is a discrete event driven simulator means that it start packet sending at the specified time by us and stop also at a specified time. We have taken 25 nodes and simulation time=10 sec in our scenario file. Source node is 0 and destination node is 2. Node 2 is moving in nature so path to destination is changing every time. Fig-3 shows data transfer from source to destination. Dropping packets in fig shows the packets lost. Fig-4 shows packets received in each protocol when packet size is 1000 bytes and interval between packet sending is 0.015 sec.

Fig-2 (Classification of Ad-Hoc Routing Protocols)

Fig-3 (Simulation showing packet transfer)

331

Packets Sent

Packets Received

(PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio

Average End to End Delay

Throughput

Routing Load

AODV DSDV DSR

6 6 6

3 2 4

50% 33.33% 66.67%

3 1.75 0.81

0.33 0.22 0.44

44 15.5 14.25

Table-3 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=1.5 sec)

Packets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio 51.17% 12.33% 46.50% Average End to End Delay 3.38 2.28 3.10 Throughput Routing Load

AODV DSDV DSR

600 600 600

307 74 279

34.11 8.22 31

2.73 7.85 2.91

Table-4 (Performance Matrix packet size=100 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

Pack ets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio 33.50% 12.33% 36.50% Average End to End Delay 2.59 2.28 2.62 Throughput Routing Load

Fig-4 (Packets Received when packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

Packets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio Average End to End Delay Throughput Routing Load AODV DSDV 20.44 8.22 17.55 4 7.85 7.11 DSR

600 600 600

201 74 219

22.33 8.22 24.33

4.05 7.85 3.16

AODV DSDV DSR

600 600 600

184 74 158

30.67% 12.33% 26.33%

2.51 2.28 2.18

Table-5 (Performance Matrix packet size=500 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

Packets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio 18.50% 9.33% 18% Average End to End Delay 1.83 2.15 1.80 Throughput Routing Load

Table-1 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015 sec)

Packets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio Average End to End Delay Throughput Routing Load AODV DSDV DSR AODV DSDV DSR 60 60 60 38 9 31 63.33% 15% 51.67% 3.95 2.20 3.19 4.2 1 3.44 5.81 9.44 4.22 Packets Sent Packets Received 600 600 600 111 56 108

12.33 6.22 12

6.39 10.37 8.60

Table-6 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec, mobility=1000)

(PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio 20.50% 10% 20.33% Average End to End Delay 1.93 2.18 1.92 Throughput Routing Load

Table-2 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.15 sec)

In graphs, X-Axis shows the simulation time and Y-Axis shows the number of packets received in each three protocols. Table-1 shows the performance matrix of three protocols designed after filtering the data from trace files generated after simulation. Table shows the number of packets received, PDR, Average end to end delay, throughput and routing load of three protocols separately. Similarly we have generated the graph for different situations like by changing packets size, by changing time interval between packet sending and by changing mobility. Table-2, table-3, table-4, table-5, table-6, table-7 and table-8 show the performance of three protocols in different environment. After analyzing all the tables at different packet sizes, at different time interval between packet sending and different mobility, we can say that DSR protocol is performing little bit better than AODV protocol which is performing much better than DSDV protocol. From table-1, table-2 and table-3 we are analyzing that as time interval between packets sending is increasing, numbers of packets received are decreasing. One important fact we have analyzed

AODV DSDV DSR

600 600 600

123 60 122

13.66 6.66 13.55

3.67 9.68 8.54

Table-7 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec, mobility=500)

Packets Sent Packets Received (PDR) Packet Delivery Ratio 17.17% 9% 17.17% Average End to End Delay 1.76 2.13 1.76 Throughput Routing Load

AODV DSDV DSR

600 600 600

103 54 103

11.44 6 11.44

7.49 10.75 9.35

Table-8 (Performance Matrix packet size=1000 bytes, interval=0.015sec, mobility=2000)

is the performance of DSDV protocol at different packet size. From table-1, table-4 and table-5, we can say that there is no

332

effect on the performance of DSDV protocol at varying packet size. At packet size 100, 500 and 1000 bytes, number of packet received is 74. Performance of DSDV protocol at different packet size is shown in fig-12. The number of packets received in AODV is decreasing with increase in packet size so the packet delivery ratio (PDR) is also decreasing. Average delay between packet sending is also decreasing with increasing packet size. Throughput is also decreasing with increasing packet size. We can say that performance of AODV protocol is decreasing with increase in packet size as shown in performance matrices table-1, table-4 and table-5.We can analyze the performance of DSR protocol at variable packet size from table-1, table-4 and table-5. We can see that packet delivery ratio (PDR) is decreasing with increase in packet size. Throughput of DSR protocol is decreasing as packet size is increasing. Routing overhead is also increasing with increase in packet size. Average end to end delay is decreasing with increase in packet packet size. It means the performance of DSR protocol is high at less packet size except the routing load. CONCLUSION From all the graphs and tables, we analyze that performance of DSDV protocol is not good as throughput is very low and routing load is very high as compared to AODV and DSR protocols. AODV performed good in some situations than DSR protocol but overall DSR is performing better than AODV protocol like if we compare average end to end delay. There is no effect on the performance of DSDV protocol if packet size varies as shown in fig-5. AODV and DSR protocols perform better at less packet size. Performance of all three protocols decrease as mobility of nodes increase. FUTURE WORK Analyze and Compare the performance of TORA protocol with table driven and source initiated routing protocols. Also

compare the performance of all routing protocol based on power consumption, reliability and quality of service in the performance matrix. REFERENCES
[1] Nadia Qasim, Fatin Said, Hamid Aghvami , Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Simulations Using Routing Protocols for Performance Comparisons, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2008 Vol I WCE 2008, July 2 - 4, 2008, London, U.K. [2] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, I. D. Chakeres, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing Protocol, draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00.txt, October 2003. [3] S. R. Das, R. Castaneda, J. Yan, R. Sengupta, Comparative Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, pp.153-161, 1998. [4] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu, and Jorjeta G. Jetcheva., The dynamic source routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks, Internet Draft, MANET Working Group, draft-ietf-manet-dsr07.txt, February 2002. [5] T. Clausen, P Jacket, L Viennot, Comparative study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, The First Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop. September 2002 [6] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, Yih-Chun Hu, "The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR)", draft-ietf-manetdsr-10.txt, july 2004. [7] Tony Larson, Nicklas Hedman Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad-hoc networks- A simulation Study, 1998. [8] Bulent Tavli Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Energy-Efficient Real-Time Data Communications, 2006. [9] Azzedine Boukerche Algorithms and Protocols for Wireless, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, 2008. [10] Mohammad llyas,Richard C. Dorf The handbook of ad hoc wireless networks, 2003. [11] The ns-2 Network Simulator,http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/ [12] Josh Broch, David A. Maltz, David B. Johnson, Yih-Chun Hu, Jorjeta Jetcheva, A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols.

Fig-5 (Packets received in DSDV at different packet size)

333