See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325815755

Analysis of Routing Protocols based on Network parameters in WANET

Article  in  INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING · April 2018

DOI: 10.26438/ijcse/v6i4.813

CITATION READS
1 162

3 authors, including:

Dr Pushpender Sarao
Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management
20 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new strategy for Performance Enhancement of DSR in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Pushpender Sarao on 21 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Open Access
Research Paper Volume-6, Issue-4 E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Analysis of Routing Protocols based on Network parameters in Wanet

Pushpender Sarao1*, P.Sindhu2, V. Navakishor3

1*
CSE, Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management, JNTUH, Hyderabad, India
2
CSE, Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management, JNTUH, Hyderabad, India
3
CSE, Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management, JNTUH, Hyderabad, India
*
Corresponding Author: [email protected], Tel.: +91-8059335388

Available online at: www.ijcseonline.org

Received: 10/Mar/2018, Revised: 17/Mar/2018, Accepted: 29/Mar/2018, Published: 30/Apr/2018

Abstract— Ad-hoc networks are mostly used in each and every field of our daily life. There are so many circumstances in
wireless ad-hoc networks, on which performance of networks depends. To achieve a better network performance, it is
mandatory to identify the network circumstances and appropriate routing protocols. Routing protocols plays a vital role a
routing process in ad-hoc networks. AODV (Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector), DSR (Dynamic Source Routing), and
DSDV (Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector) are the well familiar routing protocols which are mostly used in mobile ad-
hoc networks. In this paper, we analysed these routing protocols by considering several performance metrics like throughput,
end-to-end delay, normalized routing load, received packets at various speeds and pause times.

Keywords— Pause time, speed, AODV, average throughput, PDR, E2E delay, normalized routing load
recommendation of design criteria for designing an optimal
I. INTRODUCTION routing metric for MANETs. In this paper, we analyse the
performance of AODV, DSR, and DSDV routing protocols
A wireless multi-hop network is a network of nodes which
and also same time, we have compared all these routing
are connected by wireless communication links, the links are
protocols with each other in respect of several performance
most often implemented with digital packet radios. Nodes
parameters. Varying the pause times and speeds, we simulate
must make use of intermediate nodes to forward packets to
each protocol at network simulator-2.35 (NS-2.35).
the intended destination node, because a node cannot directly
communicate with all the nodes in the network. A node is a Rest of this paper is contributed as: section 2 research
communication device that is capable of sending, receiving, methodology used for evaluation of performance. Results
and relay packets. An optimal routing metric has a potential and discussion part is elaborated in section 3. Section 4
to improve performance of a wireless network. concludes the paper.
A number of routing protocols were analysed with mobile ad
hoc networks (MANETs). These existing routing protocols II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
have been compared by different scholars in the literature,
but the manner in which they were compared was not We have written tcl scripts for AODV, DSR, and DSDV
consistent, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions as to routing protocols. We have taken five nodes in a network.
which routing protocol works best for Mobile Ad-hoc For creating the node speeds and pause times; we have used
Networks (MANETs).some research work described a the setdest command in NS-2 at Linux platform.
comparison on DSR and AODV routing protocols only,
while other research papers described a comparison work Pause times were taken as 10s,20s,30s,40s,50s,60s,70s,80s,
based only a few performance metrics. The actual thing is and 90sin different tcl scripts. Speeds were taken as
that, network performance depends upon so many metrics 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80.90(m/s). First, we execute tcl file by
and factors, which must be considered. For example speed is taking the speed 20 as constant, but with varying the pause
an important factor in mobile ad-hoc networks. At higher times for all tcl scripts. In second stage, we updated tcl
speeds, the routing links may be broken down and scripts with constant pause time i.e. 10s, but at varying the
performance will be degraded. The goal of this research work speeds from 10 to 90 m/s. simulation time for all the scripts
is to evaluate the performance of existing routing protocols at were taken as 90s only with constant network size i.e.
different network conditions for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks 808×602. Traffic generated was total based on CBR packets.
with a view to select an optimal one. The goal of this work Three UDP connections were established for transferring the
was achieved by evaluating the performance of existing packets. Several other parameters were taken as depicted in
routing protocols through NS2 simulation, and table 1.

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 8

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.6(6), Apr 2018, E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Table 1: Simulation Parameters

Parameter Description
Udp packet size 1500 bytes
CBR start time 1
CBR stop time 8
Mac Protocol type MAC/802.11
Channel type wireless channel
Propagation model TwoRayGround
Queue type DropTailPriQueue
Link layer type LL
Antenna type Omni Antenna
Max packets in 50
queue
Antenna type Omni Antenna
Figure 1: Pause time Vs E2E_Delay
Routing protocols DSDV, DSR, AODV
When we compare, pause time Vs E2E delay, at lowest pause
The sample setdest commands are given as below: time, AODV performs better than DSDV and DSR. But at
setdest –v 1 –n 5 –p 10 –M 20 –t 90 –x 808 –y 602 mid pause time (50), the DSDV performance is good. At the
setdest –v 1 –n 5 –p 20 –M 20 –t 90 –x 808 –y 602 pause time 90, the AODV outperforms.
setdest –v 1 –n 5 –p 10 –M10 –t 90 –x 808 –y 602
setdest –v 1 –n 5 –p 10 –M 20 –t 90 –x 808 –y 602 Table 3: Pause Time vs Received packets

Pause_Time DSDV DSR AODV

We updated these scripts with different speeds, pause times, 10 7533 7515 7647
we executed all tcl scripts at NS-2.35 platform, and taken 20 8418 8439 7305
simulation experience in nam window of NS-2.35. For 30 3869 3823 5765
calculating performance metrics like average throughput, 40 5633 5691 3033
end-to-end delay, normalized routing load etc., we have 50 6938 6937 6441
written awk scripts. By executing awk scripts on various 60 789 739 252
trace files created by tcl scripts, we have collected all results 70 8915 8915 8679
and recorded the data in tabular forms. For visualizing the 80 8928 8928 8927
results, we have used origin software.
90 8914 8914 8924
III.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We have simulated three routing protocols (AODV, DSR, Analysing pause time Vs received packets, from initial pause
and DSDV) in NS-2.35. All results are recorded in tables time (10) to highest pause time (90), AODV outperforms.
(table 2-table 11). Here we analysed all results and data by For Pause times (70-90), received packets by DSDV and
considering different routing and network metrics. DSR are same. Almost, received packets performance for
Visualization work is carried out through figures (figure 1- both the protocols (DSDV, DSR) is same.
figure 10).

Table 2: Pause time Vs E2E delay

PAUSE_TIME DSDV DSR AODV

10 1033 1054.64 972.448
20 749.289 761.968 1098.63
30 544.421 552.11 728.633
40 797.19 779.01 1606.04
50 1055.34 1076.49 1354.96
60 411.234 417.828 978.223
70 1516.072 526.507 483.203
80 486.754 436.449 484.003
90 487.008 496.708 480.871 Figure 2: Pause_Time Vs Received_Packets

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 9

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.6(6), Apr 2018, E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Table 4: Pause time Vs Normalized routing load

Pause_Time DSDV DSR AODV

10 .006 .006 .010
20 .006 .006 .014
30 .013 .014 .024
40 .009 .009 .011
50 .006 .006 .006
60 .053 .053 .290
70 .005 .005 .005
80 .004 .004 .004
90 .004 .004 .006
Analysing the pause time Vs normalized routing load, the
NRL for DSDV and DSR is same at pause times 10-90s. The Figure 4: Pause_Time Vs PDR
normalized routing load for AODV is maximum at pause
time 10-90s as compared to DSDV and DSR routing Table 6: Pause time Vs Throughput
protocols.
Pause_Time DSDV DSR AODV

10 669.61 608.03 679.8

20 748.28 750.16 693.84
30 471.01 374.44 512.46
40 500.74 505.2 269.62
50 616.76 606.68 572.56
60 65.69 65.69 22.41
70 792.45 792.46 771.48
80 793.64 793.64 798.58
90 792.37 792.37 793.25

Figure 3: Pause_Time Vs NRL Analysing pause time Vs average throughput, the

average throughput for DSDV and DSR is
Table 5: Pause time Vs Packet delivery fraction approximately same. AODV routing protocol
outperforms even though at highest pause time. Also
Pause_Time DSDV DSR AODV
10 443.09 444.15 436.48
average throughput is better at lowest pause time.
20 396.51 395.52 427.65
30 862.70 873.08 578.98
40 592.54 586.51 1100.49
50 481.09 481.16 518.21
60 4516.64 4516.64 13245.24
70 374.40 374.40 384.58
80 373.86 373.86 373.90
90 374.44 374.44 374.03

Figure 5: Pause_Time Vs Throughput

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 10

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.6(6), Apr 2018, E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Table 7: Speed Vs Throughput respectively. At average speed, normalized routing load is at

lower level for all three routing protocols.
Speed AODV DSR DSDV
10 257.78 300.82 380.34
20 364.99 416.26 476.48
30 321.02 316.11 106.67
40 658.49 647.58 656.78
50 705.80 670.53 743.45
60 622.94 635.59 496.78
70 418.40 601.07 424.21
80 382.74 345.84 387.88
90 297.71 368.39 376.85

Also, we analysed the comparison of AODV, DSR, and

DSDV at different speeds (10-90). When we analyse speed
Vs throughput, overall average throughput for DSDV is best.
At average speed, the average throughput for AODV, DSR, Figure 7: Speed Vs NRL
and DSDV routing protocols is maximum.
Table 9: Speed Vs Packet delivery ratio

Speed AODV DSR DSDV

10 1513.74 1296.74 1313.06
20 813.11 712.90 635.53
30 924.34 938.64 2781.50
40 450.57 458.17 451.79
50 420.38 442.50 399.12
60 479.98 470.44 603.91
70 789.11 493.61 699.46
80 797.56 858.05 795.47
90 1345.89 1044.69 1296.19

Analysing speed Vs PDR, at lowest speed, the packet

Figure 6: Speed Vs Throughput delivery ratio for AODV is higher. At average speed,
PDR for all three protocols is lowest. At highest speed,
AODV outperforms as packet delivery ratio. PDR for
Table 8: Speed Vs Normalized Routing Load DSDV is highest at speed 20.

Speed AODV DSR DSDV

10 .051 .066 .017
20 .019 .031 .009
30 .038 .115 .047
40 .025 .014 .009
50 .015 .010 .006
60 .013 .012 .009
70 .030 .016 .011
80 .063 .049 .013
90 .067 .040 .022

Analysing speed Vs NRL, at lowest speed, the normalized

routing load for DSR is highest. But at higher speeds, the
NRLs for AODV and DSDV are maximum and minimum

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 11

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.6(6), Apr 2018, E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Figure 8: Speed Vs PDR

Table 10: Speed Vs Received Packets

Speed AODV DSR DSDV

10 2205 2574 2542
20 4105 4682 5252
30 3611 3556 1200
40 7408 7285 7388
50 7940 7543 8363
60 6954 7095 5527
70 4707 6762 4772
80 4185 3890 4196
90 2480 3195 2360

Figure 10: Speed Vs E2E_Delay

Analysing speed Vs received packets, received packets
at average speed is highest for all three protocols. At IV.CONCLUSION
highest speed, received packets by DSR are more. We have analysed AODV, DSR, and DSDV routing
Performance of DSDV is lowest at highest speed. protocols at different pause times and speeds. When we
analysed with metrics pause time Vs E2E delay, pause time
Vs normalized routing load and pause time Vs received
packets, AODV outperforms. By considering the metrics
speed Vs throughput at higher speeds, speed Vs NRL, DSDV
is best routing protocol. When we analysed the performance
of AODV, DSR by considering metrics speed Vs received
packets at higher speed, DSR routing protocol outperforms.
At last, we compared DSDV and AODV in respect of speed
Vs end-to-end delay at higher speed, DSDV outperforms.

REFERENCES
Figure 9: Speed Vs Received_Packets
[1] Sureshkumar, V. Ellappan, K. Manivel: A comparison analysis
Table 11: Speed Vs E2E delay of DSDV and AODV routing protocols in mobile AD HOC
networks 2017 Conference on Emerging Devices and Smart
Speed AODV DSDV Systems (ICEDSS),3-4 March 2017, pp. 435-445.
10 1351.12 706.198 [2] Kavita Bhatnagar: Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols
20 760.976 667.242 in MANET: International Refereed Journal of Engineering and
Science (IRJES), vol. 06, no. 10, 2017, pp. 16–19.
30 947.475 1093.18 [3] Nand P., Sharma : S.C. (2011) Comparison of Routing
40 634.256 489.721 Protocols for MANET and Performance Analysis of DSR
50 722.12 700.358 Protocol. vol 125. In: Unnikrishnan S., Surve S., Bhoir D.
60 480.269 560.262 (eds) Advances in Computing, Communication and Control.
Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol
70 743.564 716.887 125. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg Springer,
80 778.709 586.649 [4] Buta Singh, Silki Baghla and Dr. Himanshu Monga: Mobility
90 954.004 289.686 models based performance evaluation of AOMDV routing
protocol of MANET, International Journal of Applied Research
2017; 3(1): 82-86.
[5] ShereenOmar,OsamaElGhandour,andAhmedM.AbdEl-Haleem:
We also compared AODV and DSDV for end-to-end Multipath Activity Based Routing Protocol for Mobile
delays at different speeds. End-to-end delay for AODV Cognitive Radio Ad Hoc Networks, Wireless Communications
is high at low speed. End-to-end delay for DSDV is low and Mobile Computing Volume 2017, January2017, pp. 1-12.
[6] Shariq Mahmood Khan, Muhammad Mubashir Khan, Najeed
at higher speeds. Ahmed Khan: Route Constancy and Energy Aware Routing
Protocol for MANET, IJCSNS International Journal of

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 12

 International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Vol.6(6), Apr 2018, E-ISSN: 2347-2693

Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.17 No.5, May

2017, pp. 56-64.
[7] Ikwinder Singh, Harpal Singh: A Review on Energy
Comparison for AODV, ZRP and AODVDR Routing Protocols,
International Journal of Computer Science and Network,
Volume 6, Issue 3, June 2017, pp. 368-372.
[8] Amit Dua, Rakesh Kumar Saini, ―Comparison of Routing
Protocol under Network Topology Change for Mobile Adhoc
Network‖, International Journal of Computer Applications
(0975 – 8887) Volume 171 – No.5, August 2017, pp. 30-33.
[9] Khaled O. Basulaim, Aseel Abdan: MANET Routing Protocols
Comparison for Performance Evaluation, International Journal
of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) – Volume 44
Issue 1- February 2017, pp. 1-7.
[10] Anderiya Amy, P.Krunalkumar: A study on the comparison of
Routing Protocols of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, SSRG
International Journal of Mobile Computing & Application
(SSRG-IJMCA) – Volume 4 Issue 3 May-June 2017, pp. 24-29.
[11] Khushneet Kaur Batth and Rajeshwar Singh, Performance
Evaluation of Ant Colony Optimization Based Routing
Algorithms for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, International Journal
of Advancements in Technology, Volume 8, Issue 2, March 15,
2017, pp. 1-7.

Authors Profile
Dr. Pushpender Sarao is presently working as a
professor in CSE departement at Hyderabad
Institute of Technolgy and Management,
Hyderabad, Telangana. He is BE, M.Tech, PhD in
computer science engineering. He is author of three
books in computer science, wireless networks. He is life member of
ACM and CSI. He has published more than 50 research papers in
international reputed journals. His main research work focuses on
routing protocols in wireless mesh networks, mobile ad-hoc
network.. He has 8 years of teaching experience and 10 years of
Industrial Experience.

Mrs. Punuru Sindhu is currently working as

assistant professor in CSE department at HITAM
College, Hyderabad. She completed her B.Tech and
M.Tech in CSE from JNTU Anantapur. She has 8
years teaching experience. She got best faculty award
for three times. Her area of research includes: Data Science and
Cloud Computing.

Mr. Vadla Navakishor is working as assistant

professor in CSE department at HITAM College,
Hyderabad. He completed his B.Tech from JNTUH
and M.Tech from Manipal University. He has two
years teaching experience at HITAM College. He is
NET and GATE, ASET, TSSET qualified. He is CSI student
chapter coordinator at HITAM. His interesting research area
includes: Networks and Data Science.

© 2018, IJCSE All Rights Reserved 13

View publication stats