MATRIX Academic International Online Journal Of Engineering And Technology Copyright © MAIOJET

Comparative Analysis Of Various Protocols In Topology

Based Routing In Mobile Adhoc Networks

Dr.Vinodini Katiyar#1, Nupur Soni*2, Devendra Nath Pathak*3

* Babu Banarsi Das University, Lucknow, INDIA

#
Shri Ramswroop Engineering College, Lucknow, INDIA
1
[email protected],[email protected],[email protected].

Abstract-A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is a self-

configuring infrastructure less network of mobile devices In ad hoc networks, nodes do not start out familiar with the
connected by wireless. Each device in a MANET is free to topology of their networks; instead, they have to discover it.
move independently in any direction, and will therefore The basic idea is that a new node may announce its presence
change its links to other devices frequently. Each must and should listen for announcements broadcast by its
forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a neighbours. Each node learns about nodes nearby and how to
router. The primary challenge in building a MANET is reach them, and may announce that it, too, can reach them.
equipping each device to continuously maintain the Wireless ad-hoc networks have gained a lot of importance in
information required to properly route traffic. Such wireless communications. Wireless communication is
networks may operate by themselves or may be connected established by nodes acting as routers and transferring packets
to the larger Internet. MANETs are a kind of wireless ad from one to another in ad-hoc networks. Routing in these
hoc networks that usually has a routable networking networks is highly complex due to moving nodes and hence
environment on top of a Link Layer ad hoc network. In many protocols have been developed. In this paper we have
this paper we have done comparative analysis of various selected three main and highly proffered routing protocols for
topology based routing protocols and laid more emphasis analysis of their performance. Figure1 below represents the
on LAR-1 LAR 2 routing protocols. We have also scenario of MANET.
introduced AODV+PGB, a broadcasting mechanism and is
aimed at reducing broadcast overhead.
Keywords- LAR-1, LAR-2, MANET, incremental, OLSR,

I. INTRODUCTION

Each device in a MANET is free to move Figure1.

Ad-hoc network architecture independently in any
direction and will [1] therefore change its links to
other devices frequently. Each must forward traffic
unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router.
Routing in ad-networks has been a challenging task ever Fig1. Ad-hoc network architecture [1]
since the wire- less networks came into existence. The
major reason for this is the constant change in network
topology because of high degree of node mobility. A
number of protocols have been developed for accomplish
this task. Topology based Routing

10
 MATRIX Academic International Online Journal Of Engineering And Technology Copyright © MAIOJET

In packet switching networks, routing directs packet forwarding, periodically exchange it with their local neighbors. For large
the transit of logically addressed packets from their source toward networks in order to reduce the size of the routing update
their ultimate destination through intermediate nodes decide which messages the FSR technique uses different exchange periods
way to route packets between computing devices in a mobile ad- for different entries in the routing table.
hoc network. In ad hoc networks, nodes do not start out familiar
with the topology of their networks; instead, they have to discover Relative to each node the network is divided in different
it. The basic idea is that a new node may announce its presence and scopes
should listen for announcements broadcast by its neighbours. Each
node learns about nodes nearby and how to reach them, and may Pros
announce that it, too, can reach them. Wireless ad-hoc networks - Scales well to large network sizes
have gained a lot of importance in wireless communications.
Several MANET routing protocols have used topology based Control traffic overhead is manageable Changing in the
routing approach. Topology based routing protocols use links routing table will not occur even if there is any link failure
information within the network to send the data packets from because it doesn’t trigger any control message for link failure
source to destination . Topology based routing approach can be Cons
further categorized in to three groups: - Route table size still grows linearly with network size
Proactive Routing - As mobility increases routes to remote destinations
become less accurate
Reactive Routing - What happens if the target node is out of the scope of
all nodes in the source nodes scope

2.1.2 OLSR
2. MERITS & DEMERITS OF TOPOLOGY BASED ROUTING
PROTOCOLS Optimized link state routing (OLSR) [2] maintains routing
information by sending link state information. After each
Topology based routing protocols use link’s change in the topology every node sends updates to selective
information within the network to send the data packets from nodes. By doing so, every node in the network receive updates
source to destination. Topology based routing approach can be only once. Unselected packets cannot retransmit updates; they
further categorized into proactive (table-driven) and reactive can only read updated information.
(on-demand) routing 2.1.3 STAR
2.1 Proactive (table-driven) Source-Tree Adaptive Routing (STAR) [4] is another link
State protocol. In STAR, preferred routes to every destination
Proactive routing protocols are mostly based on are saved in each router. It reduces overhead on the network
shortest path algorithms. They keep information of all by eliminating periodic updates. There is no need of sending
connected nodes in form of tables because these protocols are updates unless any event occurs. This protocol can be suitable
table based. Furthermore, these tables are also shared with their for large scale networks but it needs large memory and
neighbors. Whenever any change occurs in network topology, processing because it has to maintain large trees for whole
every node updates its routing table. network. For STAR, there are mainly two alternative
mechanisms to discover neighbours:
MERITSs 1. Hello Messages: Hello messages are sent by each node
- No Route Discovery is required. periodically to inform neighbours of its existence. Such
- Low Latency for real time applications. messages can be small packets, not needing to contain any
DEMERITS
routing information. When a node receives a hello message
- Unused paths occupy a significant part of the available from another node that it does not know previously, it
bandwidth.
discovers a new neighbour. If a node does not receive any
2.1.1 Fisheye State Routing message (update or hello) from a neighbour for a certain
period of time, it determines that this neighbour is broken or
FSR [3] is a proactive or table driven routing protocol where the out of its range.2. Neighbour Protocol: A neighbour protocol
information of every node collects from the neighboring nodes. can be implemented at the link layer. It notifies STAR of the
Then calculate the routing table. It is based on the link state existence of new neighbours or the loss of connectivity to an
routing & an improvement of Global State Routing. For routing
existing neighbour. With the support of a neighbour protocol,
this approach translates into an accurate information in the
no hello messages are needed.
immediate neighborhood of a node and less detail as the
distance increases.FSR is similar to link state (LS) routing in
that each node maintains a view of the network topology with a 2.2.1 DSDV
cost for each link. In LS routing link state packets are flooded Destination Sequence Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) [2]
into the network whenever a node detects a topology change. In use Distance Vector shortest path routing algorithm, it
FSR nodes maintain a topology table (TT) based on the up-to- provides loop free single path to the destination. DSDV sends
date information received from neighboring nodes and two types of packets “full dump” and “incremental”. In full

11
 MATRIX Academic International Online Journal Of Engineering And Technology Copyright © MAIOJET

dump packets, all the routing information is send while in proposed for highly dynamic mobile, multi-hop wireless
incremental only updates are send. It decreases bandwidth networks. It is a source-initiated on-demand routing protocol.
utilization by sending only updates instead of complete routing It finds multiple routes from a source node to a destination
information. The incremental still increases the overhead in the node. The main feature of TORA is that the control messages
network, because these incremental packets are so frequent that are localized to a very small set of nodes near the occurrence
makes it unsuitable for large scale networks. of a topological change. To achieve this, the nodes maintain
2.2.2AODV routing information about adjacent nodes. The protocol has
Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector routing protocol [5] is a three basic functions: Route creation, Route maintenance and
reactive routing protocol which establish a route when a node Route erasure. TORA can suffer from unbounded worst-case
requires to send data packets. It has the ability of unicast & convergence time for very stressful scenarios [8,9]. TORA has
multicast routing. It uses a destination sequence number a unique feature of maintaining multiple routes to the
(DestSeqNum) which makes it different from other on demand destination so that topological changes do not require any
routing protocols. reaction at all. The protocol reacts only when all routes to the
Pros destination are lost. In the event of network partitions the
- An up-to-date path to the destination because of using protocol is able to detect the partition and erase all invalid
destination sequence number. routes
- It reduces excessive memory requirements and the route 2.2.5 AODV +PGB
redundancy. To improve AODV in VANET, [10] proposed AODV-PGB,
- AODV responses to the link failure in the network. which aims to reduce control message overhead and obtain
- It can be applied to large scale adhoc network.
stable routes by modifying RREQ broadcasting mechanisms.
Cons This protocol uses the location and power of received signal
information when intermediate nodes rebroadcast RREQ to
-More time is needed for connection setup & initial
communication to establish a route compared to other establish a routing path. Intermediate nodes of the zone
approaches. defined by signal power and location information rebroadcast
-If intermediate nodes contain old entries it can lead the RREQ packet with delay, thus avoiding collision. That
inconsistency in the route. quickly establishes a routing path and reduces the hop count
-For a single route reply packet if there has multiple route reply between source and destination. Another disadvantage of
packets this will lead to heavy control overhead. AODV is that the node informs the end nodes of the path loss
- Because of periodic beaconing it consumes extra bandwidth. by sending an unsolicited Route-Error (RERR) packet until
the end nodes acknowledge the notification when a path break
2.2.3 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
is detected at an intermediate node [11]. AODV incorporates
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [6] is one of the purest
two types of routing repair methods: local repair and
examples of an on-demand routing protocol that is based on the
concept of source routing. It is designed specially for use in reconfiguration. A local repair protocol operates when the hop
multihop ad hoc networks of mobile nodes. It allows the count between the intermediate node and the destination node
network to be completely selforganizing and self-configuring is less than MAX_REPAIR_ TTL. The intermediate node
and does not need any existing network infrastructure or broadcasts a RREQ after increasing the sequence number.
administration. DSR uses no periodic routing messages like However, if the hop count is greater than
AODV, thereby reduces network bandwidth overhead, MAX_REPAIR_TTL or the intermediate node does not
conserves battery power and avoids large routing updates.
Instead DSR needs support from the MAC layer to identify link receive a RREP during the discovery period, the intermediate
failure. DSR is composed of the two mechanisms of Route node transmits a RERR to the source node to reconfigure the
Discovery and Route Maintenance, which work together to routing path. AODV therefore incurs overhead and delay
allow nodes to discover and maintain source routes to arbitrary when reconfiguring or locally repairing a new route, because
destinations in the network. DSR has a unique advantage by the AODV protocol requires additional overhead such as
virtue of source routing. As the route is part of the packet itself, RERR, RREQ, and RREP on a global network. This is more
routing loops, either short – lived or long – lived, cannot be
serious in VANET because it has frequency routing path loss.
formed as they can be immediately detected and eliminated.
This property opens up the protocol to a variety of useful AODV(-PGB) waits for the construction of new routes when
optimizations the existing route is broken. The frequent route failures result
in a significant amount of time needed to repair existing routes
2.2.4 Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) or reconstruct new routes [12]. In VANET, path loss
The Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) is a frequently occurs due to the high speed of vehicles. Therefore,
highly adaptive, efficient and scalable distributed routing maintenance and repair of established routing paths is
algorithm based on the concept of link reversal [7]. TORA is
12
 MATRIX Academic International Online Journal Of Engineering And Technology Copyright © MAIOJET

necessary for the effective use of AODV(-PGB) in VANET

Method Unicast Unicast Broadcast Broadcast
2.2.6 LAR
Location-Aided Routing (LAR) protocol is an approach that
decreases overhead of route discovery by utilizing location Storage O(E) O(E) O(Md*A) O(N)
information of mobile hosts. Such location information may be Complexity
obtained using the global positioning system (GPS) [1], [6], [7],
[8]. LAR uses two flooding regions, the forwarded region and
the expected region. LAR protocol uses location information to Md-Number of maximum desired destination
reduce the search space for a desired route. Limiting the search E-communication pairs
space results in fewer route discovery messages [1], When a A-average number of adjacent nodes N-number of nodes in
source node wants to send data packets to a destination, the the network
source node first should get the position of the destination
mobile node by contacting a location service which is 3. CONCLUSION
responsible of mobile nodes positions. This causes a connection
and tracking problems [8], [10]. Two different LAR algorithms In this paper, we presented a performance comparison of
have been presented in LAR scheme 1 and LAR scheme 2. different proactive (FSR, DSDV, OLSR,STAR) and reactive
LAR protocols(AODVTORA LAR DSR, AODV+PGB) as a
scheme 1 uses expected location of the destination (so-called function of network and area size.
expected zone) at the time of route discovery in order to
determine the request zone. The request zone used in LAR The performance of AODV was very good in all network
scheme 1 is the smallest rectangle including current location sizes, even though the routing overhead
of the source and the expected zone for the destination. The
sides of the rectangular request zone are parallel to the X and Y is higher than in DSR. We presented two location-aided
axes. When a source needs a route discovery phase for a routing (LAR) protocols. These protocols limit the search for a
destination, it includes the four corners of the request zone route to the so-called request zone, determined based on the
with the route request message transmitted. Any intermediate expected location of the destination node at the time of route
nodes receiving the route request then make a decision discovery. The modified LAR1 protocol performs well in
static and dynamic modes, it outperforms both AODV and
whether to forward it or not, by using this explicitly specified
LAR1 protocol at all levels (network life time, network
request zone. Note that the request zone in the basic LAR
overhead, reliability);
scheme 1 is not modified by any intermediate nodes. On the
other hand, LAR scheme 2 uses distance from the previous AODV+PGB – Preferred Group Broadcasting (PGB) is a
location of the destination as a parameter for defining the broadcasting mechanism and is aimed at reducing broadcast
overhead associated with AODV’s route discovery The
request zone. Thus, any intermediate node J receiving the AODV protocol will perform better in the networks with static
route request forwards it if J is closer to or not much farther traffic with the number of source and destination pairs is
from the destination's previous location than node I relatively small for each host. It uses fewer resources than
transmitting the request packet to J. Therefore, the implicit OLSR, because the control messages size is kept small
request zone of LAR scheme 2 becomes adapted as the route requiring less bandwidth for maintaining the routes and the
request packet is propagated to various nodes. route table is kept small reducing the computational power.
Both protocols scalability is restricted due to their proactive or
TABLE 1: reactive characteristic.
COMPARISON OF THE FOUR ROUTING PROTOCOLS

REFERENCES
parameters AODV DSR TORA LAR
[1] Integration of mobile ad-hoc networks, EU project DAIDALOS,
Susana Sargento, Institute of Telecommunications
Source No Yes No Yes [2] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki and E. Dutkiewicz, “A review of
routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks”, Ad Hoc Networks 2 ,
routing 2004 , pp. 1–22.
Topology Full Full Reduced Reduced [3] G. Pei, M. Gerla, Tsu-Wei Chen, "Fisheye State Routing: A Routing
Scheme for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks," IEEE ICC 2000, vol. 1, pp.
Broadcast Full Full Local Full 70 -74.
Update Route Route Node’s Route [4] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and M. Spohn, “Source-Tree Routing in
Wireless Networks,” Proceedings of 7th International Conference on
Information Error Error height Error Network Protocols, 1999.
[5] Perkins, C.; Belding-Royer, E.; Das, S. (July 2003) “Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing”.
Update Source Source Neighbour’s Destination [6] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad-Hoc
Ad hoc Networks," Mobile Computing, ed. T. Imielinski and H.
Destination Korth, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, pp. 153- 181.

13
 MATRIX Academic International Online Journal Of Engineering And Technology Copyright © MAIOJET

[7] Vincent D. Park and M.Scott Corson. A highly adaptive distributed

routing algorithm for mobile wireless networks. In Proceedings of
INFOCOM 1997, 1997.
[8] Park V. and S. Corson, 2001. Temporary-ordered Routing Algorithm
(TORA). Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manettora-spec-04.txt.
[9] V. Park and S. Corson, Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm
(TORA) Version 1, Functional specification IETF Internet draft
(1998), http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf- manet-tora-
spec- 01.txt.
[10] V. Naumov, R. Baumann and T. Gross, "An evaluation of inter-
vehicle ad hoc networks based on realistic vehicular traces," in Proc.
of A CMMOBIHOC '06, pp. 108-119, May 22-25, 2006. Article
(CrossRef Link)
[11] C. Siva Ram Murthy and B. S. Manoj, Ad hoc wireless networks
architecture and protocols, publishing as Prentice Hall Professional
Technical Reference, pp. 320-322, 2004.
[12] V. Naumov and T. Gross, "Connectivity-aware routing (CAR) in
vehicular ad hoc networks," in Proc. of 26th IEEE Conf. on
Computer, Communications, pp. 1919-1927, May 6-12, 2007. Article
(CrossRef Link) of Routing Protocols in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
in Car2Carcommunication consortium”.
[13] Kevin,Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla[2010], “Survey of Routing Protocols
in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks in Car2Carcommunication
consortium”.
[14] Maxim Raya, Panos Papadimitratos and Jean-Pierre Hubaux
“Securing Vehicular Communication”, IEEE Wireless
Communications Magazine, Special Issue on Inter-Vehicular
communication, Vol 13, num. 5,2006, p. 8-15
[15] Maxim Raya, EPFL Jean-Pierre Hubaux, EPFL “Security Aspects of
Inter-Vehicle Communications” 5th Swiss Transport Research
Conference Monte Verita/Ascona, March 9-11, 2005

14