Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

Performance Analysis of AODV, DSR, and DSDV

MANET Routing Protocols under CBR Traffic
Nirupa Mohd. Dr. N. C Barwar
Assistant professor Associate Professor,
Department of Computer Department of Computer
Science and Engineering, Science and Engineering,
JIET group of Institution, Jai Narain Vyas Univrcity,
Jodhpur (Raj.), India Jodhpur (Raj.), India.

Abstract:- A Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a which it discovers and maintains the route. In every routing
collection of wireless mobile nodes forming a temporary protocol, there is a data structure which stores the
network without using any centralized access point or information of route and modifies the table as route
administration. MANET protocols have to face high maintenance is requires. A routing metric is a value used
challenges due to dynamically changing topologies, low by a routing algorithm to determine whether one route
transmission power and asymmetric links of network. The should perform better than another. Metrics can cover such
widely accepted existing routing protocols designed to information as bandwidth, delay, hop count, path cost,
accommodate the needs of such self-organized networks do load, reliability and communication cost. The routing table
not address possible threats aiming at the disruption of the stores only the best possible routes while link-state or
protocol itself. In this paper an attempt has been made to topological databases may store all other information as
compare the performance of two On-demand reactive routing well [3][7][9].
protocols namely AODV and DSR and a proactive routing The main objective of ad-hoc routing protocols is to deliver
protocol namely DSDV in different scenarios under CBR data packets among mobile nodes efficiently without
traffic patterns considering End-to-End delay, Packet
predetermined topology or centralized control. The various
mobile ad-hoc routing protocols have been proposed and
Delivery Ratio, and Throughput metrics for performance
have their unique characteristics. Hence, in order to find
analysis and the simulator used is NS-2 in Ubuntu operating
out the most efficient routing protocol for the highly
system(Linux).The simulations are carried out by varying the
dynamic topology in ad-hoc networks, the behaviour of
packet size, number of maximum connecting nodes, varying
routing protocols has to be analyzed under different traffic
number of nodes and the results are analyzed
patterns respect to their metrics [4].
Keywords: - MANET, DSDV, AODV, DSR, CBR.
1. MOBILE AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
I. INTRODUCTION
There are two main approaches for routing process in ad-
hoc networks[10]. The first approach is a proactive
An Ad-Hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile
approach which is table driven and attempt to maintain
nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without
consistent, up-to-date routing information from each node
the use of existing network infrastructure or centralized
to every other node in the network. Proactive protocols
administration [1][2]. MANET is a kind of wireless
present low latency, but high routing overhead, as the
network and self configuring network of moving routers
nodes periodically exchange control messages and routing-
associated with wireless network. The routers are free to
table information in order to keep up-to-date route to any
move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily, thus,
active node in the network. The second approach is re-
the network's wireless topology may change rapidly and
active, source-initiated or on-demand. Reactive protocols
unpredictably [1][3]. Main challenges to maintain the
create routes only when desired by the source node. When
Mobile Ad-Hoc network are: No central controlling
a node requires a route to a destination, it initiates a route
authority, limited power ability, continuously maintain the
discovery process within the network. Reactive protocols
information required to properly route traffic.
do not maintain up-to-date routes to any destination in the
This infra-structure less network is managed using the
network and do not generally exchange any periodic
routing protocols. Routing is the process of selecting paths
control messages. Thus, they present low routing overhead,
in a network along which to send data or physical traffic.
but high latency as compared to proactive protocols. The
Routing directs the passing of logically addressed packets
DSDV is a proactive protocol and AODV, DSR, and
from their source toward their ultimate destination through
TORA are reactive protocols. The mobile ad-hoc routing
intermediary nodes. So routing protocol is the routing of
protocols considered in this study are AODV, DSR, and
packets based on the defined rules and regulations. Every
DSDV [4].
routing protocol has its own algorithm on the basis of

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 1

Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

route maintenance. There by reducing network bandwidth

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROTOCOL overhead, conserving battery power and avoiding large
routing updates throughout the mobile ad-hoc network.
2.1 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) DSR is a loop free protocol and supports unidirectional
DSDV [3][4][7] is considered to be successor of Distance links.
Vector in wired routing protocol and guarantees a loop free
path to each destination. It is based on the Bellman-Ford 2.3 Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)
algorithm for calculation of shortest path. For this protocol, Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector [11][13] is a reactive
every node maintains routing table which contains all routing protocol, which mixes the properties of DSR and
available destinations with associated next hop towards DSDV. Routes are discovered as on-demand basis and are
destination, distance and destination sequence number. maintained as long as they are required. Each node of
Destination sequence number presents improvement of AODV maintains a routing table but unlike the DSDV
DSDV routing protocol compared to distance vector protocol it does not necessarily maintain route for any
routing, and it is used to distinguish stable routes from possible destination in network. However, its routing table
fresh ones and avoid formation of route loops. maintains routing information for any route that has been
In order to maintain the consistency in dynamic recently used within a time interval; so a node is able to
environment, each node periodically broadcasts its routing send data packets to any destination that exists in its
table to its neighbors. Broadcasting of the information is routing table without flooding the network with new Route
done in Network Protocol Data Units (NPDU) in two ways: Request (ROUTE_REQ) messages.
full dump and incremental dump. Full dump requires Like DSDV it maintains a sequence number, which it
multiple NPDUs, while incremental requires only one increases each time it finds a change in the topology of its
NPDU to fit in all the information, to minimize the number neighborhood. This sequence number ensures that the most
of control messages disseminated in the network. When an recent route is selected for execution of the route discovery.
information packet is received from another node, node All routing packets carry these sequence numbers. AODV
compares the sequence number with the available sequence stores routing information as one entry per destination in
number for that entry. If the sequence number is larger, contrast to DSR, which cashes multiple entries per
entry will be updated with the routing information with the destination. Without source routing, AODV relies on
new sequence number, else if the information arrives with routing table entries to propagate an ROUTE_REPLY back
the same sequence number, metric entry will be required. If to the source and, subsequently, to route data packets to the
the number of hops is less than the previous entry, new destination. AODV supports for both unicast and multicast
information will be updated. Update is performed routing, and also supports both bidirectional and
periodically or when significant change in routing table is unidirectional links.
detected since the last update. If network topology
frequently changes, full dump will be carried out, since 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
incremental dump will cause less traffic in stable network
topology. When such updating takes place each update is The objective of our work is to compare the
broadcasted in the network, which leads to a heavy performance of three routing protocols based on Table
network load situation and affects the bandwidth. With Driven and On-demand behavior, namely Destination
more number of nodes, traffic load increases. DSDV takes Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Ad-hoc On-Demand
into account only bidirectional links between node s. Distance vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR), for wireless ad hoc networks based on the
performance. The comparison has been made on the basis
2.2 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) of their properties like throughput, packet delivery ratio
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [3][4] is an on-demand (PDR), End to End Delay with respect to three different
routing protocol, which is based on the concept of source- scenarios – out by varying the packet size, number of
based routing. DSR is a simple pure on-demand reactive maximum connecting nodes, varying number of nodes and
protocol that does not periodically exchange any control the results are analyzed
packets. The main concept of the DSR protocol is “source
routing”, in which source nodes place the complete route 4. PERFORMANCE METRICES CONSIDERED
that the packet must follow from a source to a destination FOR STUDIES
in the header of a packet. DSR applies two on-demand
processes, route discovery and route maintenance. The A. Average end-to-end delay of data packets: It is
route discovery process is used to discover new routes and defined as the average end-to-end delay of data packets
maintain them in the cache of nodes. The route within a network. The sum of all time differences between
maintenance process detects link failures, then repair route the packet sent and received divided by the number of
or find alternate route. Each node “caches” the routes to packets, gives the average end-to-end delay. The lower the
any destination it has recently used, or discovered by end-to-end delay the better the application
overhearing its neighbor’s transmission. When there is not performance[1][14].
such route, a route discovery process is initiated. DSR AED= Σ (Received time – sent time)/Total data packets
applies on demand schemes for both route discovery and received

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 2

Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

B. Average Throughput: It is measured as the ratio

of amount of received data to the amount of simulation
time and tells about how soon an end user is able to receive
data. A higher throughput implies better QoS of the
network [1].

Average Throughput = Total Received Bytes / Elapsed

Time

C. Packet Delivery Ratio

Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number
of packets received at the destination by the number of
packets originated at the source. For the best performance
packet delivery ratio of routing protocol should be as high
as possible [2]. If the ratio is 1, it will be the best delivery
ratio of the routing protocol.

PDR= No. Of received packets/No. Of sent packets

5. SIMULATION RESULTS AND THEIR Figure 2(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS varying number of connection.

Two On-demand (Reactive) routing protocols namely Ad Average End to End Delay: The performance of DSR first
hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) and decrease and then increases with increasing number of
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and one Table-driven nodes. It also degrades with increasing nodes for network
(Proactive) namely Destination Sequenced Demand but at coming to the end both remains the same with
Vector (DSDV) is used. The mobility model used is decreasing the number of nodes for AODV the delay is low
Random waypoint mobility model because it models the at first than it increase with the increasing the number of
random movement of the mobile nodes. nodes. AODV shows better performance than DSDV &
DSR.
Table 1: Simulation Setup
Platform Ubuntu
NS version Ns-allinone-2.35
Pause time 0,40,80,120,160,200
Simulation time 200ms
Number of nodes 10,30
Traffic pattern CBR(Constant Bit Rate)
Transmission Range 250m
Simulation Area Size 500 * 500
Node speed 20 m/s
Mobility model Random way point
Interface type LL

Scenario 1: In this scenario, number of nodes connected in

a network at a time is varied and thus varying the number
of connections, through which the comparison graphs of
AODV, DSDV and DSR is obtained.

TABLE 2: Various parameters used while varying number

of connections. Figure 2(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying number
PARAMETER VALUE of connection.
Number of Nodes 100
Simulation Time 50 sec Throughput: DSR outperforms the other two protocols but
Routing Protocol AODV,DSDV,DSR AODV shows the better performance than DSDV protocol.
Simulation Model Two Ray Ground AODV & DSR performs same for less number of nodes
MAC Type 802.11
Link Layer Type LL
which decrease with increasing nodes for DSR network.
No. of connection 20,40,60,80,100 Overall DSR shows the highest throughput and
Interface Type Queue outperforms the other protocol.
Traffic Type CBR
Packet size 512 MB
Queue Length 50
Pause Time 00 sec
Node speed 20 m/s

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 3

Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

Figure 2(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
varying number of connection.
Figure 3(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
Packet Delivery Ratio: performance of AODV & DSR varying speed of the node in the network.
remains constant for increasing number of nodes, Where as
DSDV performs the increase with decrease then remains Average End To End Delay: AODV & DSR performs
with increasing the number of nodes. almost same, where as DSDV shows least performance and
DSR performs constantly when the speed of nodes
Scenario 2: In this scenario, total number of nodes in the changes. Whereas AODV performs better than DSDV.
network at a time remains fixed and thus varying speed of
the node with which they are moving in the network.

Table 3: Various parameters used while varying mobility

of the nodes i.e. speed of the nodes in the network

PARAMETER VALUE
Number of Nodes 100
Simulation Time 100 sec
Routing Protocol AODV,DSDV,DSR
Simulation Model Two Ray Ground
MAC Type 802.11
No. of connection 50
Link Layer Type LL
Interface Type Queue
Traffic Type CBR
Packet size 512 MB
Queue Length 50
Pause Time 10 sec Figure 3(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying speed of
Node speed 10,30,50,70,90 m/s the node in the network.

Throughput: AODV & DSR performs constantly in all

condition where as for DSDV the speed of the nodes is low
with increasing number of nodes. AODV & DSR performs
better than DSDV routing protocol.

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 4

Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

Figure 3(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
varying speed of the node in the network. Figure 4(a): Average End-To-End Delay for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
varying packet size in the network.
Packet Delivery Ratio: DSDV performs with decrease in
Average End To End Delay: The performance of AODV,
increasing with the speed of nodes and AODV & DSR
DSDV & DSR remains constant for increasing packet size
performs constantly in all condition where as AODV
but AODV performs and show better than DSR & DSDV.
performs better than both DSDV & DSR routing protocols.

Scenario 5: In this scenario, total number of nodes in the

network at a time remains fixed and thus parameter values
for varying the packet size with which they are moving in
the network.

Table 4: Parameter Values For Varying The Packet Size.

PARAMETER VALUE
Number of Nodes 30
Simulation Time 50 sec
Routing Protocol AODV,DSDV,DSR
Simulation Model Two Ray Ground
MAC Type 802.11
No. of connection 10
Link Layer Type LL
Interface Type Queue
Traffic Type CBR
Packet size 28,38,48,98,128 MB
Queue Length 50
Pause Time 00 sec Figure 4(b): Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by varying packet
Node speed 20 m/s size in the network.

Throughput: AODV performs better than DSR & DSDV.

The performance of all the three routing protocols remains
almost constant with decrease and slight increase with
packet size.

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 5

Special Issue - 2015 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
NCETRASECT-2015 Conference Proceedings

7. REFERENCES

[1] S.Vanthana, Dr.V.Sinthu Janita Prakash “Comparative Study Of

Proactive and Reactive AdHoc Routing Protocols Using Ns2”.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 978-1-4799-2876-
7/13 © 2013 IEEE.
[2] Prof. Mohit Dua1, Prof. Virender Ranga,Ms. Krishma Mehra, Mr.
Pawan Kardam, Ms. Snehal Mohan Bahsakhetre “ Performance
Evaluation Of AODV, DSR, DSDV Mobile Adhoc Protocols On
Different Scenarios: An Analytical Review”. Department Of
Computer Engineering National Institute Of Technology,
Kurukshetra (India).
[3] Asma Tuteja, Rajneesh Gujrl and Sunil Thalia, “Comparative
Performance Analysis of DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing
Protocols in MANET using NS2”, International Conference on
Advances in Computer Engineering, 2010.
[4] S Sumathy, Beegala Yuvaraj, E Sri Harsha “Analysis of Multicast
Routing Protocols: Puma and Odmrp” International Journal of
Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) ,Vol.2, Issue.6, Nov-Dec.
2012, pp-4613-4621.
[5] Aiswarya Antony, Swarna Parvathi , Akshaya
Venkatesan,”Experimental Analysis Of Streaming Over Mobile
Adhoc Networks Using PUMA”,Indian jounal of engineering
,volume 2 ,number 3,ISSN 2319-7757, January 2013.aly
Figure 4(c): Packet Delivery Ratio for AODV, DSR, and DSDV by
[6] Fasee Ullah, Muhammad Amin and Hamid ul Ghaffar,“Simulating
varying packet size in the network.
AODV and DSDV For Adynamic Wireless Sensor Networks”
IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Packet Delivery Ratio: the performance of DSR shows Security, VOL.10 No.7,July 2010.
better than DSDV & AODV as AODV & DSR performs [7] Baldev Ram Mali, N.C. Barwar,” Performance of MANET Routing
constantly with the increase with packet size and DSDV Protocols considering Impact of Node Density under Different
Traffic Patterns”, Special Issue of International Journal of Computer
performs decrease with increase with packet size. Applications (0975 – 8887) on Wireless Communication and Mobile
Networks, No.6. Jan.2012.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK [8] Md. Arafatur Rahman, Farhat Anwar, Jannatul Naeem and Md. Sharif
Minhazul Abedin, “A Simulation Based Performance Comparison of
Routing Protocol on Mobile Ad-hoc Network (Proactive, Reactive
AODV shows the best performance with its ability to and Hybrid)”,International Conference on Computer and
maintain connection by periodic exchange of information Communication Engineering (ICCCE 2010), 11-13 May 2010,
required for TCP network. AODV perform best in case of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
varying packet size and packet delivery fraction. DSDV [9] Sapna S. Kaushik1 & P.R.Deshmukh2, “Comparison of effectiveness
of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc
outperform other in case of throughput. At higher node Network” International Journal of Information Technology and
mobility AODV is worst in case of end to end delay but Knowledge Management , Volume 2, No. 2, July-December 2009.
performs best in packet delivery fraction. DSDV performs [10]. Pratik Gite1, Manish Sharma2 “Performance Evaluation of ad-hoc
better than AODV for higher node mobility. In case of Network Routing Protocols using ns2 Simulation” ACEEE Int. J. on
Network Security , Vol. 03, No. 01, Jan 2012
throughput DSR performs best but overall AODV [11] Uma Mani, Ramasamy Chandrasekaran and V.R. Sarma Dhulipala,
outperforms DSDV and DSR as a high mobility “Study And Analysis Of Routing Protocols In Mobile Ad-Hoc
environment topology change rapidly and AODV can adapt Network” Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1519-1525, 2013.
to the changes, but with taking everything in to account [12] Kapang Lego,Pranav Kumar Singh,Dipankar Sutradhar
“Comparative Study Of Adhoc Routing Protocol AODV, DSR And
DSDV is better than other. Hence for real time traffic DSDV In Mobile Adhoc Network” Kapang Lego et. al. / Indian
DSDV is preferred over DSR and AODV. Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Vol. 1 No. 4 364-371
Finally, from the above research work [13] S. Corsonts, J. Macker “Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET):
performance of AODV is considered best for real time and Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation
Considerations” Naval Research Laboratory, January 1999
TCP network. In all the parameters AODV outperforms [14] Rashmi Rohankar, Rinkoo Bhatia, Vineet Shrivastava, Deepak
other than two DSDV and DSR routing protocols. In this Kumar Sharma “Performance Analysis of Various Routing Protocols
research work only three scenarios and three parameters are (Proactive and Reactive) for Random Mobility Models of Adhoc
taken for the comparison of the ad hoc routing protocols. Networks.” 1st Int’l Conf. on Recent Advances in Information
Technology | RAIT-2012 |
In future many scenarios and parameters can be used to [15] David Oliver Jorg, “Performance Comparison Of MANET Routing
compare the performance of the Ad Hoc routing protocols Protocols In Different Network Sizes”, University of Berne,
used in the TCP network. Simulation tools other than NS2 Switzerland, 2003.
can be used and the windows platform can be used for [16] Nor Surayati Mohamad Usop, Azizol Abdullah and Ahmad Faisal
Amri Abidin, “Performance Evaluation of AODV, DSDV & DSR
implementing the simulation instead of linux. Routing Protocol in Grid Environment”, IJCSNS International
Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.9 NO.7,
July 2009

Volume 3, Issue 23 Published by, www.ijert.org 6