a comparative study of reactive and proactive routing

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE

ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

PRESENTED BY

ABHIRAM.SS3 MTECH CEROLL NO:01

Add-Hoc Network

• Ad-hoc is a Latin word which means "for this purpose"

• It is a decentralized type of wireless network.

• It does not rely on a pre-existing infrastructure, such as routers in wired

networks or access points in wireless networks.

• The routing decisions are made by the node itself.

• Ad-hoc network can be broadly classified into MANET and VANET.

MANET

• mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self-routing, infrastructure less

network of mobile devices connected wirelessly

• MANETs have many applications : such as

military communication,

in search and rescue operations,

in home and enterprise networks,

in entertainment,

and in sensor networks

ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

• There are number of routing protocols in manet such as AODV,DSDV,DSR

etc..

• The routing protocols in MANET is classified into four types

1) PROACTIVE ROUTING

2) REACTIVE ROUTING

3) HYBRID ROUTING

4) HIERARCHICAL ROUTING

PROACTIVE ROUTING

• This type of protocols maintains a routing table; so it is otherwise called

table driven routing protocol.

• The address of nodes are periodically updated in the routing tables of all

nodes throughout the network.

• Nodes transmit hello message periodically to update routing table

• Eg: DSDV

• ADVANTAGES

1) Fast route discovery

2) Good reliability in packet delivery

• DISADVANTAGES

1) It need large routing overhead

2) It requires periodic hello message to find routing changes

REACTIVE ROUTING

• This protocol do not have any pre determined routing table, it is otherwise

called On Demand Routing Protocol

• Here node initiates a route discovery process throughout the network, only

when it wants to send packets to its destination.

• Route discovery is done by using flooding of route request packets

• Eg: AODV

• ADVANTAGES

1) It requires less routing overhead

2) It consume less resources due to the absence of large routing tables

• DISADVANTAGES

1) High latency time in route finding.

2) Excessive flooding can lead to network clogging.

HIERARCHICAL ROUTING

• This type of protocol combines the advantages of proactive and reactive

routing.

• The routing is initially established with proactive routing and then serves

reactive routing for additionally activated nodes by flooding.

HYBRID ROUTING

• It is similar to hybrid protocol but the choice of proactive and of reactive

routing depends on the hierarchic level in which a node resides

DSDV (DESTINATION SEQUENCE DISTANCE VECTOR)

• It is a type of the PROACTIVE Routing Protocol

• It is developed by modifying the Distributed Bellman Ford algorithm for

using in mobile wireless environment.

• It uses a sequence number to avoid looping; hence called ‘destination

sequence distance vector’

• Each node maintain a routing table with destination address, hope count and

sequence number.

AODV (AD-HOC ON DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR)

• It is an improvement of the DSDV protocol

• There is no routing tables are maintained here; the routing is done by

flooding route request message to the neighboring nodes.

• Next hop is calculated on the basis of delay time of route reply messages.

• It use least congested path instead of shortest path.

• it also supports both unicast and multicast packet transmissions

• The advantage of AODV is that it minimize the number of required

broadcasts.

SIMULATION TOOL AND PARAMETERS

• The simulation is done by using NETWORK SIMULATOR-2 (NS 2)

• The parameters of the scenario is given in the table shown below.

Parameter value

Simulator NSVersion 2.35Protocol studied AODV & DSDVNumber of nodes  30 and 50Simulation Time 60 secSimulation Area 2000x2000Traffic Type UDPData Payload Bytes/packetBandwidth 600kbps

SIMULATION RESULTS

PERFORMANCE METRICS

• Here we use three parameters to compare the performance of the two routing

1) End-to-End Delay (E2E): This metric includes all possible delay that may be

caused during the transmission of packet from source to destination.

2)Packet loss: It is the number of data packets lost during transmission.

3)Throughput: it is otherwise called Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF). It is the ratio

of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the sources

RESULTS

• THROUGHPUT of 30 node AODV and DSDV

• PACKET LOSS of 30 node AODV and DSDV

• End to end delay of 30 node AODV and DSDV

Parameter AODV DSDV

Nodes 10 20 30 50 10 20 30 50

Avg energy 14.91 17.9044 19.0523 29.0126 2.606 3.33 4.459 15.5589

Total energy 745.5 895.219 952.614 1450.63 130.32 166.569 222.99 777.945

Pkt send 3204 3204.00 3204.00 3204.00 3204.00 3204.00 3204.00 3204.00

Pkt rcvd 2290 2288.00 2107.00 2287.00 428.00 576.00 816.00 593.00

PDF 71.47 71.41 65.76 71.38 13.36 17.98 25.47 18.51

Avg throughput

-54.46 -53.99 -50.26 -54.33 -10.02 -13.69 -19.55 -14.01

Avg end to end delay

1382.47 544.44 1487.85 2062.88 38.77 183.81 46.16 31.85

No. dropped pkts

920 926 1106 955 3688 3473 2788 3173

No. dropped bytes

478400 481636 575120 496774 1917920 1806220 1450120 1650240

Pkt loss % 28.71% 28.90% 34.52% 29.81% 111.32% 100.78% 74.87% 76.18%

CONCLUSION

• From the comparison between AODV and DSDV it is clear that the

performance of REACTIVE Routing protocol is much better than

PROACTIVE routing protocols.

REFERENCES

• Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols Using An Elegant Visual Simulation Tool

Nazmus Saquib1, Md. Sabbir Rahman Sakib, and Al-Sakib Khan Pathan2Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,

BRAC University Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BRAC University66 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212,

Bangladesh{nsaquib, srsakib}@bracu.ac.bd, sakib.pathan@gmail.com

• Simulation and Evaluation of MANET Routing Protocols for Educational Purposes

Alexandros Kaponias, Anastasios Politis, and Constantinos Hilas, Department of Informatics and Communications T.E.I. of Serres

Serres, Greece pli1542@teiser.gr. anpol@teiser.gr, chilas@teiser.gr

• Performance analysis of AODV, DSR & TORA Routing Protocols

Anuj K. Gupta, Member, IACSIT, Dr. Harsh Sadawarti, Dr. Anil K. Verma

• A comprehensive overview about selected Ad-Hoc Networking Routing Protocols

Daniel Lang March 14, 2003