International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 9, September- 2014

Simulation and Comparision of AODV and

AOMDV Routing Protocols in MANET

Pankaj Oli Vivek Kumar Gupta

M.Tech (CSE) Assistant Professor, Department of CSE
Manav Rachna International University Manav Rachna International University
Faridabad, India Faridabad, India

Abstract— One of the main challenges of Mobile Ad Hoc all nodes is maintained at each node with respect to the time.
Networks is the design of robust routing algorithms that adapt to Routes are built from each node to every other node before
the frequent and randomly changing network topology. MANET they are needed. Any changes occurring in topology is
is a dynamic wireless network that need no pre-existing broadcasted through the network, notifying all the nodes of the
infrastructure in which each node acts as a router. Each node changes. Proactive protocols hence maintain routing
acts as an end system but also as a router to forward packets. information about the available paths in the network even if
These nodes are free to move and organizes themselves in the these paths are not currently used. The major drawback of
network and changes their positions frequently. The routing these approaches is that the maintenance of unused paths may
protocols are categorized as Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid
occupy an important part of the available bandwidth if the
protocols. Reactive routing approach is widely popular routing
category for MANET. The design follows the idea that each node topology changes frequently [17].
tries to reduce routing overhead by sending routing packets In on-demand or reactive routing protocols, the routes are
whenever a communication is needed. In this paper we compare created on requirement basis. To find a path from source to
RT
AODV and AOMDV routing protocols for MANETs. The AODV destination, it invokes the route discovery mechanisms. Only
is a unipath routing protocol and AOMDV is a multipath version the routes that are currently in use are maintained, thereby
of AODV. AOMDV was designed primarily for highly dynamic
maintaining low control overhead and reducing the network
IJE

ad hoc network where link failures and route breaks occurs

frequently. We analyze these routing protocols by extensive load since a small subset of all available routes is in use at any
simulations in ns-2 simulator and show that how pause time time. Reactive routing protocols have some inherent
affect their performance. Performance of AODV and AOMDV is limitations. First, since routes are only maintained while in
evaluated based on Packet Delivery Ratio, throughput, packets use, it is usually required to perform a route discovery before
dropped, normalized routing overhead, end to end delay and packets can be exchanged between communication peers. This
optimal path length. leads to a delay for the first packet to be transmitted. Second,
even though route maintenance for reactive algorithms is
Keywords—AODV,AOMDV,routing , MANET restricted to the routes currently in use, it may still generate an
I. INTRODUCTION important amount of network traffic when the topology of the
network changes frequently. Finally, packets to the destination
A mobile ad hoc network [8] is a collection of digital data are likely to be lost if the route to the destination changes [17].
terminals equipped with wireless transceivers that can Existing routing protocols in ad-hoc networks utilize the
communicate with one another without using any fixed single route that is built for source and destination node pair.
networking infrastructure. Communication is maintained by Due to node mobility, node failures and the dynamic
the transmission of data packets over a common wireless characteristics of the radio channel, links in a route may become
Channel. The absence of any fixed infrastructure, such as an temporarily unavailable, making the route invalid [17]. The
array of base stations, makes ad hoc networks radically overhead of finding alternative routes mounts along with
different from other wireless LANs. additional packet delivery delay. This problem can be solved
The topology of the ad-hoc network depends on the by use of multiple paths between source and destination node
transmission power of the nodes and the location of the mobile pairs, where one route can be used as the primary route and
nodes, which may change from time to time. One of the main the rest as backup. Performance can be adversely affected by
problems in ad-hoc networking is the efficient delivery of data high route discovery latency and frequent route discovery in
packets to the mobile nodes where the topology is not pre- dynamic networks. This can be reduced by computing multiple
paths in a single route discovery attempt. Multiple paths can
determined nor does the network have centralized control. be formed for both traffic sources and intermediate nodes with
Hence, due to the frequently changing topology, routing in ad- new routes being discovered only when needed, reducing
hoc networks can be viewed as a challenge. route discovery latency and routing overheads. Multiple paths
In table-driven or proactive routing protocols, consistent can also balance network load by forwarding data packets on
and up-to-date routing information of the network topology of multiple paths at the same time.

IJERTV3IS090675 www.ijert.org 745

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 9, September- 2014

In our paper we mainly concentrate on AODV and to get multiple link-disjoint routes, the destination replies to
AOMDV routing protocols. duplicate RREQs, the destination only replies to RREQs
arriving via unique neighbors. After the first hop, the RREPs
II. BACKGROUND follow the reverse paths, which are node disjoint and thus link-
A. Ad hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) protocol disjoint. The trajectories of each RREP may intersect at an
intermediate node, but each takes a different reverse path to
AODV is a destination based reactive protocol. This protocol the source to ensure link disjointness. The advantage of using
inherits the feature of route discovery from DSR. However, AOMDV is that it allows intermediate nodes to reply to
AODV resolves the problem of large headers found in DSR. RREQs, while still selecting disjoint paths. But, AOMDV has
This problem can cause significant performance degradation more message overheads during route discovery due to
especially when the actual data contents are small. AODV increased flooding and since it is a multipath routing protocol,
maintains routing tables on the nodes instead of including a the destination replies to the multiple RREQs those results are
header in the data packet. The source node initiates the route in longer overhead
discovery process in the same way as in DSR. An intermediate
node may reply with a route reply (RREP) only if it knows a III. METRICS FOR PERFORMANCE COMPARISION
more recent path than the one known by the sender node to the
destination. A destination sequence number is used to indicate The six important performance metrics are considered for
how recent the path is as follows. A new route request evaluation of these routing protocols are as follows:
generated by the sender node is tagged with a higher sequence
number and an intermediate node that knows the route to the Throughput - Throughput is the measure of how fast we can
destination with a smaller sequence number cannot send the actually send packets through network. The number of packets
RREP message. Forward links are setup when a RREP travels delivered to the receiver provides the throughput of the
back along the path taken by RREQ. So the routing table network. The throughput is defined as the total amount of data a
entries are used to forward the data packet and the route is not receiver actually receives from the sender divided by the time
included in the packet header. If an intermediate node is it takes for receiver to get the last packet
unable to forward the packet to the next hop or destination due
to link failures, it generates the route error (RERR) message Packets Dropped - Some of the packets generated by the
by tagging it with a higher destination sequence number. source will get dropped in the network due to high mobility of
RT

When the sender node receives the RERR message, it initiates a the nodes, congestion of the network etc.
new route discovery for the destination node.
3. Packet Delivery Ratio - The ratio of the data packets
IJE

delivered to the destinations to those generated by the CBR

B. Ad hoc on demand multipath distance vector (AOMDV) sources. It is the fraction of packets sent by the application
that are received by the receivers
Ad-hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector Routing .
(AOMDV) [17] protocol is an extension to the AODV 4. Normalized Routing Overhead - The number of routing
protocol for computing multiple loop-free and link disjoint packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the
paths [18]. The routing entries for each destination contain a destination. Each hop-wise transmission of a routing packet is
list of the next-hops along with the corresponding hop counts. counted as one transmission. The routing overhead describes
All the next hops have the same sequence number. This helps how many routing packets for route discovery and route
in keeping track of a route. For each destination, a node maintenance need to be sent in order to propagate the data
maintains the advertised hop count, which is defined as the packets
maximum hop count for all the paths, which is used for 5. End-to-End Delay – End-to-End delay indicates how long it
sending route advertisements of the destination. Each took for a packet to travel from the source to the application
duplicate route advertisement received by a node defines an layer of the destination i.e. the total time taken by each packet
alternate path to the destination. Loop freedom is assured for a to reach the destination. Average End-to-End delay of data
node by accepting alternate paths to destination if it has a less packets includes all possible delays caused by buffering
hop count than the advertised hop count for that destination. during route discovery, queuing delay at the interface,
Because the maximum hop count is used, the advertised hop retransmission delays at the MAC, propagation and transfer
count therefore does not change for the same sequence number times.
[18]. When a route advertisement is received for a destination 6. Optimal Path Length - It is the ratio of total forwarding
with a greater sequence number, the next-hop list and the times (depends on number of hops) to the total number of
advertised hop count are reinitialized. AOM DV can be used to received packets. Optimal path length increases as the number
find node-disjoint or link-disjoint routes. To find node-disjoint of hops on optimal path increases
routes, each node does not immediately reject duplicate
RREQs. Each RREQs arriving via a different neighbor of the IV. SIMULATION RESULT AND ANALYSIS
source defines a node-disjoint path. This is because nodes
cannot be broadcast duplicate RREQs, so any two RREQs As already mentioned we had taken two On-demand
arriving at an intermediate node via a different neighbor of the routing protocols namely Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector
source could not have traversed the same node. In an attempt (AODV) and Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector

IJERTV3IS090675 www.ijert.org 746

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 9, September- 2014

(AOMDV). The NS-2.34 simulation framework is used for

simulation purposes. Our evaluations are based on the
simulation of 50 wireless nodes forming an ad hoc network,
moving about over a square (500m x 500m) flat space. The
mobility model used is Random way point model because it
models the effect of mobility of nodes on overall performance
of network. In this paper various parameters such as
throughput, packets dropped, packet delivery ratio, routing
overhead, end to end delay and optimal path length are
investigated on the basis of varying pause time. We ran the
simulation environment for 200 seconds for the scenario of
pause time varying from 0-100. Zero pause time resembles to
high mobility of nodes and max pause time denotes low
mobility of nodes. Table 1 illustrates the environment in
which the simulation is carried out. Graphs from Fig 1 to Fig
6 shows the Effect of Mobility or varying pause time on
AODV and AOMDV with respect to various performance Fig. 1 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of
metrics. Throughput

2) Packets dropped:
Table 1 Simulation parameters for varying pause time The number of packets dropped in AOMDV are very low in
compared to AODV.With incresing pause time packets
dropped for both protocols increses but AOMDV drops less
S.No Value packets than AODV. Multipath nature of AOMDV attributes
Parameters to less packet drop.
l 1 Number of nodes 50
No.
2 Simulation Time 200sec.
3 Area 500 *500m2
RT

4 Max Speed 20 m/s

5 Traffic Source CBR
6 Pause Time (sec) 0,20,30,40,100
IJE

7 Packet Size 512 Bytes

8 Packets Rate 4 Packets/s
9 Max. No. of connection 10,20,30,40

10 Bandwidth 10Mbps
11 Delay 10 ms
12 Mobility model used Random way point

1) Throughput:
Fig. 2 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of
The pause time was increased (low mobility) and the Packets dropped
throughput changes at every pause time during complete
simulation period. AOMDV shows a better throughput then 3) Packet Delivery Ratio:
AODV at every pause time. At starting throughput of AODV In order to calculate packet delivery ratio (PDR) ,the no of
decreases rapidly. When a link becomes over utilized and packets received by the destination will be divided by the no
causes congestion, AOMDV can choose to divert through of packets originated. The better PDR implies the more
alternate paths and hence throughput increases. accurate and suitable routing network. With increasing pause
time the packet delivery ratio of AODV decreases rapidly but
AOMDV follows a straight line. So a very little change in
packet delivery ratio of AOMDV is observed. Thus AOMDV
has better packet delivery ratio than AODV because of the
availability of multiple paths.

IJERTV3IS090675 www.ijert.org 747

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 9, September- 2014

Fig. 3 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of Packet Fig. 5 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of End to
Delivery Ratio End Delay

4) Routing Overhead: 6) Optimal Path Length:

Pause time is varied again and results show that routing AOMDV has better optimal path length than AODV with
overhead decreases at lower pause time but increases at higher increasing pause time. Because of multipath property
pause time for both protocols but AOMDV has low routing AOMDV selects the best optimal path for routing. With
overhead at every pause time compared to AODV protocol. increasing pause time Optimal path length for AOMDV is
always smaller than of AODV.
RT
IJE

Fig.4 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of

Routing Overhead
Fig. 6 Comparison between AODV and AOMDV on the basis of Optimal
5) End to End Delay: Path Length
With increasing pause time (from high mobility to low
CONCLUSION
mobility) end to end delay increases for both protocols but still
AOMDV has low end to end delay than AODV. At higher
This paper evaluated the performance of reactive protocols
pause time end to end delay for AODV increases again but for
AODV and AOMDV using NS-2.34.Comparisions are based
AOMDV it decreases.
on the packet delivery ratio, packets dropped, throughput,
normalizing routing overhead, end to end delay and optimal
path length. Results shows that in every aspects AOMDV is
has better performance than AODV thought the difference is
very low in every term. The simulation result reveals that the
effect of mobility on the performance of AODV is higher as
compared to AOMDV protocol, To compare both protocols
more precisely we need to implement those protocols in more
extreme conditions for better results, and performances of

IJERTV3IS090675 www.ijert.org 748

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 9, September- 2014

these protocols can also be analyzed by varying number of [12] Taneja, Sunil, and Ashwani Kush. "A Survey of routing protocols in
mobile ad hoc networks." International Journal of Innovation,
nodes and transmission rate. So in conclusion we can say that
Management and Technology 1, no. 3 (2010): 2010-0248.
AOMDV outperform AODV due to its ability to search [13] Dr.S.S.Dhenakaranand A.Parvathavarthini,”An Overview of Routing
alternate routes when a link breakdown occurs. Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network”,International Journal of
Advanced Research inComputer Science and Software
Engineering,Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013 ISSN: 2277 128.
[14] Sahil Gupta,Sunanda Arora,gaurav Banga,”Simulation
REFERENCES BasedPerformance Comparision of AODV and DSR Routing
prptpcols in MANETS”,International Journal of Applied Engineering
[1] Abbas, Laraib, Muddesar Iqbal, Muhammad Shafiq, Saqib Rasool, and Research,ISSN 0973-4562 volume 7 No. 11(2012.)
Azeem Irshad. "AComprehensive REVIEW OF SOME WELL [15] SukhchandanLally and LjiljanaTrajković ,”Performance Analysis of
KNOWN ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MANETS." Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks”,Simon Fraser
[2] Anuj K. Gupta, Harsh Sadawarti, Anil K. Verma, “Performance analysis University Vancouver, British Columbia Canada,2011.
of MANET Routing Protocols in different mobility models”, IJITCS vol. [16] Samir Ranjan, Robert Castaneda, Jiangtao Yan, and Rimli Sengupta.
5, pp. 73-82, May 2013. "Comparative performance evaluation of routing protocols for
[3] Ammar Odeh, EmanAbdelFattah and MuneerAlshowkan, Performance mobile, ad hoc networks." In Computer Communications and
Evaluation Of AODV And DSR Routing Protocols In Manet Networks, Networks, 1998. Proceedings. 7th International Conference on, pp.
International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.3, 153-161. IEEE, 1998.
No.4, July 2012. [17] S.R. Biradar, Koushik Majumder, Subir Kumar Sarkar,
[4] C.E Perkins, E.M. Royer, and S. Das, ―Ad hoc On-demand Distance Puttamadappa.”Performance evaluation and comparison of AODV
Vector (AODV),‖ RFC 3561, July 2005. and AOMDV ”, (IJCSE) International Journal on Computer Science
[5] Elizabeth M. Royer and Chai-KeongToh, ―A review of current routing and Engineering Vol. 02, No. 02, 2010, 373-377.
protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks‖ , Technical report, [18] Tyagi SS, Chauhan RK. Performance analysis of proactive and reactive
University of California and Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, routing protocols for ad hoc networks.Int J ComputAppl 2010;1(14).
1999.
[6] G.VijayaKumar ,Y.VasudevaReddyr , Dr.M.Nagendra , Current
Research Work on Routing Protocols for MANET: A Literature Survey,
International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering Vol. 02,
No. 03, 2010, 706-713
[7] Mina Vajed Khiavi, Shahram Jamali,”Performance Comparision of
AODV and AOMDV Routing Protocols in Manet”,International
Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, volume
4(11),2013,ISSN 2251-838X
[8] Maveen Singh Chadha, Rambir Joon, Sandeep,”Simulation and
RT
comparison of AODV ,DSR and AOMDV routing
protocols in MANET” International Journal of Soft Computing and
Engineering(IJCSE) ISSN:2231-2307, volume-2, Issue-3,July 2012.
[9] Mohapatra , P.Kanungo[12],”Comparative Performance Analysis of
IJE

MANET Routing Protocols Using NS2 Simulator” ,Communication in

computer &Information Science Volume 250, 2011, pp 731-736.
[10] Perkins, Charles E., and Elizabeth M. Royer. "Ad-hoc on-demand
distance vector routing." In Mobile Computing Systems and
Applications, 1999. Proceedings. WMCSA'99. Second IEEE Workshop
on, pp. 90-100. IEEE, 1999.
[11] SachinDnyandeoUbarhande, Performance Evolution of AODV and
DSR Routing Protocols in MANET Using NS2, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 3, Issue 5, May-2012, ISSN
2229-5518

IJERTV3IS090675 www.ijert.org 749

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)