International Journal of Modern Communication Technologies & Research (IJMCTR)

ISSN: 2321-0850, Volume-4, Issue-10, October 2016

Performance comparison of MANET Routing

Protocols under FTP Traffic
Abdelmuti Ahmed Abbasher Ali, Dr.Amin Babkir A/Nabi Mustafa

Abstract² Mobile AdHoc networks (MANET) is a network of MANET can operate in stand-alone fashion or it can be
mobile nodes such as laptops interfacing without centralized connected to the internet. Many studies have been conducted
infrastructure. Each individual node in MANET must be able to in the area of MANET protocol performance comparison and
act as a host, generating application traffic and as a router
in most of these studies the type of traffic considered are not
which carries out network control and routing protocol.
The performance of proactive and reactive routing protocols is
related to specific application [3]. In this paper we will
studied under specific application traffic beside the original compare the performance where a varying number of nodes
network traffic which is more similar to real situations. There need to receive large data files from one common source node
are various routing protocols exist for MANET. This paper will (server). In order to achieve this, File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
study and compare the performance of three routing protocols is used. Although there is a trend towards HTTP for
Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR), which is a downloads, FTP is still a candidate for use in modern
proactive protocol, Dynamic Source Routing Protocols (DSR) applications for Internet of Things or Smart Cities [3]
and AdHoc-On-Demand Vector Routing protocol (AODV) .Both
AODV and DSR are reactive protocols .The comparison
II. RELATED WORK
between the performance of these routing protocols, based on
the performance metric of throughput , End-to-End delay and In [3] the performance of AODV, DSR, and OLSR has been
routing traffic overhead will be evaluated by using Opnet evaluated under FTP traffic. Many scenarios has been
Simulation package under different scenarios and under implemented and the study concluded that OLSR
identical loads and environment conditions. File Transfer outperformed AODV and DSR in terms of routing traffic
Protocol (FTP) is used as the application traffic where a number overhead, normalized load routing and End-to-End Delay.
of nodes receive data file from the same source node (WLAN
FTP Server) with different data for each destination node. The
They concluded that the type of the traffic load in the network
finding of the study is that the type of traffic load in the network plays an important role on the performance and operation of
is the most important factor on the performance of MANET the most popular routing protocols used in MANETs,
routing protocols regardless of the mobility model employed by regardless of the mobility model employed by the relay nodes.
the nodes In [4] the performance of AODV, DSR and TORA has been
evaluated under varying number of nodes and FTP Traffic.
Index Terms² AODV; DSR; FTP;.OLSR Two scenarios have been implemented (20 nodes and 40
nodes).the study concluded that DSR outperform AODV and
I. INTRODUCTION TORA in term of delay, throughput and network load. In [5]
As the field of wireless networks has witnessed an the paper evaluated the performance of AODV and DSR
accelerated growth in all it aspects, Mobile AdHoc networks protocols to transfer multimedia data over MANET.
have emerged as a major area of research for both the Performance of these routing protocols is evaluated under
academic and industrial sectors [1].This growth has been different metrics such as network load, throughput and
motive by the rapid growth of different wireless devices. A end-to-end delay. During the simulation they have changed
mobile ad hoc network is an autonomous collection of mobile network size. They concluded that AODV perform better than
devices (laptops, smart phones, sensors, etc.) that DSR under high mobility and varying network size.
communicate with each other over wireless links and In [6], DSR, AODV and OLSR are compared in terms of
cooperate in a distributed manner in order to provide the throughput, good put, routing load and end-to-end delay, by
necessary network functionality in the absence of a fixed varying network load, number of flows, network size and
infrastructure [1].Nodes that are located within each other mobility. The paper concludes that proactive routing
send range can directly communicate, otherwise intermediate protocols have better performance than reactive Routing
nodes will act as a router and relay data packets to their protocols. In [7], DSDV, AODV and DSR are compared in
destinations. High rate of topological change, due to the fact terms of packet delivery ratio, throughput, and end-to-end
that every node can enter or leave the network at any time, delay and routing overhead by varying packet size, time
limited bandwidth and energy-constrains are considered to be interval between packet sending, and mobility of nodes
the main challenges in MANET designing and routing [3].the .
routing protocol should be able to cope with dynamic changes III. REVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOL IN MANET
of MANET and keep up-to-date routing paths to all nodes in Routing in mobile ad hoc networks is quite different from
the network or be able to find them when need arises. conventional routing in wired networks. A dynamic routing
protocol is needed for mobile ad hoc network to function
properly in a rapidly changing network topology
Abdelmuti Ahmed Abbasher Ali, Faculty of Engineering, Neelain
University,Khartoum-Sudane Types of Routing in MANET
Dr.AminBabkirA/NabiMustafa, Neelain University, Khartoum-Sudan

9 www.erpublication.org
 Performance comparison of MANET Routing Protocols under FTP Traffic

Based on how routing information is acquired, routing movement it sends a route error message (RERR) to the
protocols in MANET can be divided into proactive routing, affected nodes. The source node will re-initialize Route
reactive routing and hybrid routing [2]. discovery process if it is still need that route. In brief AODV
uses three types of control messages RREQ, RREP and RERR
Proactive (table ± driven) routing:- to implement route discovery and maintenance processes.
This type of protocol maintain fresh lists of destinations and
B. DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING PROTOCOL (DSR)
their routes by periodically distributing routing tables
throughout the network so that a source can find a route The DSR [9] Protocol is a simple, efficient and on-demand
immediately when it need it .The main disadvantages of routing protocol designed specifically for use in multihop
proactive are slow reaction on dynamic changes and wireless ad hoc networks of mobile nodes. The key
respective amount of data for maintenance. Optimized Link distinguishing feature of DSR is the use of source routing.
-State Routing Protocol (OLSR) is an example of proactive That is, the sender knows the complete hop-by-hop route or
routing protocols in MANET. the complete ordered list of nodes through which the packet
must pass to the destination. These routes are stored in a route
Reactive (on ± demand) routing:- cache. The data packets carry the source route in their packet
This type of protocols finds the routes on demand by header [10]
flooding the network with route request packets. Higher DSR protocol composed of two mechanism Route discovery
latency time in route finding and excessive flooding which and Route maintenance. Route discovery is the mechanism by
can lead to network clogging, are the main disadvantages of which a source node obtains a source route to a destination.
this routing approach. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector Route maintenance is the mechanism by which a source node
(AODV) is an example of this type of protocol. while routing packets to a destination is able to detect any
changes in the network. If the network topology changed due
Hybrid to mobility of nodes then the source node can either attempt to
This type of protocol combines the advantages of proactive use any route it happens to know about the destination node or
and reactive routing. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is an invoke a route discovery mechanism to find a new route to
example of a hybrid protocols. Proactive is used by anode to destination. Route discovery and maintenance mechanisms
establish routing to it is closest neighbors (Within 2 hop are issued only on-demand.
radius) and reactive is used by anode if communication is If a route to a destination node is unknown for a source node it
desired with another node that is outside of it is closest initiates a route discovery mechanism to dynamically
neighbors radius determine that route.
Route discovery mechanism floods the network with route
IV. OVERVIEW OF AODV, DSR AND OLSR request packets (RREQ). Each node receiving a RREQ
rebroadcasts it, unless it is the destination or it has a route to
A. ADHOC ON-DEMAND VECTOR ROUTING PROTOCOL the destination in its route cache. Such a node
(AODV) replies to the RREQ with a route reply(RREP) packet that is
AODV [8] is an On Demand routing protocol and thus only routed back to the original source. The route carried back by
initiate a route discovery when needed. Neighbor nodes learn the RREP packet is cached at the source for future use [10]
DERXW HDFK RWKHU¶V HLWKHU E\ EURDGFDVW RU D +(//2 PHVVDJHV
When a broadcast is received by neighbors nodes each node Route maintenance mechanism works as follows if any link
update it is routing table information to include the on a source route is broken; the source node is notified using a
broadcasting node. When anode never sends a broadcast to it route error(RERR) packet. The source removes any route
is neighbors within the hello interval, it broadcast only to the using this link from its cache. A new route discovery process
neighbors nodes a HELLO message. HELLO message must be initiated by the source node, if this route is still
contains the identity of the node and it is sequence number. needed [10] Implementation of DSR and source routing
When a node wants to send a packet it first checks for the results in a loop-free packet routing ,eliminate the need for
address of destination in it is routing table if address exist it updating routing information in the passed-by nodes and
start sending packets otherwise it will start a route discovery allow caching of information by nodes that forwarding or
process by broadcasting a route request packet (RREQ). The overhearing packets in them for their own future use
RREQ message consists of the following information: source
IP, destination IP, source sequence number and destination C. OPTIMIZED LINK-STATE ROUTING PROTOCOL(OLSR)
sequence number which are used to determine the freshness of Optimized link state routing (OLSR) protocol [11] is a
the route and to prevent routing loops[10], the broadcast proactive (table ± driven) protocol designed specifically for
identifier which is used to avoid the problem of duplicate mobile wireless Ad hoc network (MANET). OLSR is a
packets in broadcasting and the hops count .All the nodes that modification and improvement of the pure link state routing,
receive the RREQ packets check if they have any packet with while in pure link state routing the entire link with neighbor
the same broadcast identifier and same source IP address if nodes are declared and flooded in the entire network, OLSR
they do, they will discard the packets to avoid duplicate reduce the overhead of network floods through the use of
packets. When receiving a non-duplicate packet the nodes Multipoint Relay (MPR). MPRS refer to the selected routers
create a back way pointer towards the source. When the (Nodes) that can forward broadcast messages during the
destination node receives the RREQ; it sends a route reply flooding process. The use of multipoint relay minimize the
packet RREP to the source node by unicast in the reverse path overhead of flooding messages in the network by reducing
.When an intermediate node discovers an active links redundant retransmission in the same region .Each node in the
disconnection or change of topology caused by node network selects a set of nodes in it is symmetric one-hop

10 www.erpublication.org
 International Journal of Modern Communication Technologies & Research (IJMCTR)
ISSN: 2321-0850, Volume-4, Issue-10, October 2016
neighborhood , which may retransmit it is message . This The packet End-to-End delay is the amount of time it takes a
selected set is called MPR of that node. Neighbors of anode N packet to exit from a source until it reaches it is destination.
ZKLFK DUH QRW LW LV 035 VHW UHFHLYHV PHVVDJH EXW GRQ¶W This includes all possible delays caused by buffering during
retransmit broadcast messages received from node N. This route discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,
reduce overhead since in classical flooding mechanism, every retransmission delays at the MAC, propagation and transfer
node retransmit each message it receives the first time .Each times [10].End-to-End delay is expressed in Seconds.
node selects it is MPR set from among it is one ± hop End-to-End delay is important because some applications are
symmetric Neighbors. MPR set is selected such that it covers delay sensitive. End-to-end delay assesses the ability of the
in terms of radio signal all symmetric two ±hop nodes. Once routing protocols in terms of efficient use of the network
HDFK QRGH¶V 035 VHW Ls selected, routing paths within the resources
network can be determined and because of OLSR proactive
nature, each node maintains a route to every other node in the Throughput
network. Nodes in OLSR sends control messaged periodically Throughput can be defined as the ratio of the total data that
and it can sustain the loss of some packets from time to time reaches a receiver from the sender. It is expressed as bytes
so reliable transmission is not required .OLSR works in a orbits per second. Throughput can be affected by many
completely distributed manner and no central entity is factors such as limited bandwidth, network topology changes,
required. OLSR carries out hop by hop routing which means and unreliable communication between nodes
that each node in the network uses it is recent information to
route a packet. OLSR has three functions: packet forwarding, Routing Traffic Overhead
neighbor sensing, and topology discovery [11]. Packet It is defined as the total number of routing control packets
forwarding and neighbor sensing mechanisms provide routers transmitted over the network, which is expressed in bits per
with information about the neighbors and offer an optimized second or packets per second.
way to flood messages in the OLSR network using MPRs. The The amount of routing traffic increases as the network grows.
neighbor sensing operation allows routers to diffuse local This parameter measures the scalability of the protocol, and
information in the whole network. Topology discovery is used thus the network
to determine the topology of the entire network and to
construct the routing tables. OLSR is particularly suitable for VI. SIMULATION RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
large and dense networks as the optimization done using MPR The results of the simulations of the 20-Nodes and 50-Nodes
is works well in this context. OLSR also supports node networks and the observation made from the graph are
mobility that can be traced thought it is local control discussed below
messages.
Average End-to-End delay
V. SIMULATION SETUP
To carry out the simulation two scenarios have been created The figures below (Fig 1 and Fig2) show the delay in all
and analyzed for varying numbers of node. The first scenario protocol studied in the 20-node and 50-node scenarios. We
consists of 20 nodes and the second scenario consists of 50 note that OLSR has the least End-To-End delay and this is due
nodes. The second scenario has high node density and more to its proactive nature.AODV performs approximately near to
congested than the first. The simulation environment is OLSR in the two scenarios while DSR got the higher delay
1000mx1000m and one WLAN server is configured with FTP and this is due to it is Source routing mechanism. It is also
server application in each scenario.FTP file size is set to 1000 observed that the results in the two scenarios are
byte and inters request time to 20 seconds approximately equals and this prove that the type of traffic
TABLE I
load in MANETs is the most important factor in routing
SIMULATION PARAMETERS protocols performance. Fig 3 combines the two results.

Parameter Value
Simulator Opnet 17.5
Protocol Studied AODV,DSR and OLSR
Simulation time 1h
Simulation Area 1000mx1000m
Transmission Range 250m
Node Mobility Model Random Way Point
Bandwidth 1Mbps
Application FTP
Numbers of relay Node 20,50
File size (constant) 1000bytes

Performance Metrics Parameters

Three important performance metrics of AdHoc routing

protocols are evaluated [10] Fig 1 Average End-to-End delay in 20 Nodes
Average End-to-End delay

11 www.erpublication.org
 Performance comparison of MANET Routing Protocols under FTP Traffic

Fig 2 Average End-to-End delay in 50 Nodes Fig 6 Average in throughput for 50 and 20 Nodes

Routing Traffic Overhead

Routing traffic overhead is an important factor in AdHoc

networks routing protocols. The figures below show the
results of comparison of AODV, DSR and OLSR. As can be
noted from the figure OLSR has much larger routing traffic
overhead compared to AODV and DSR and the result is
expected because OLSR will try to maintain route to all nodes
in the network which explains it is Proactive approach, on the
other hand, AODV and DSR are reactive and on demand
routing protocols which will only initiate route discovery on
demand and their routing traffic overhead.
Fig 3 Average End-to-End delay in 50 Nodes and 20
Nodes
Throughput
From the figures below it is noted that OLSR has the highest
throughput because it is a proactive routing protocol and it
discovers routes before attempting to send any data. AODV
and DSR maintain approximately the same throughput

Figure 7: Average routing traffic sent 20-Node scenario

Fig 4 Average in throughput for 20 Nodes

Figure 8: Average routing traffic sent 50-Node scenario

VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper the performance of AODV, DSR and
OLSR have been investigated. In our scenarios we used FTP
traffic and we compared the simulation results of the three
Fig 5 Average in throughput for 50 Nodes

12 www.erpublication.org
 International Journal of Modern Communication Technologies & Research (IJMCTR)
ISSN: 2321-0850, Volume-4, Issue-10, October 2016
protocols under FTP traffic. Although OLSR has the best
performance of all three protocols in terms of throughput and
Average End-to-End Delay, it produces significantly more
overhead traffic to maintain updated routing tables. DSR has
poor performance in contrast to AODV and OLSR in all
metrics considered in this study. Finally, AODV has adequate
performance and in the same time keeps the overhead traffic
rather low in contrast to OLSR. Overall, OLSR performs
better than AODV and DSR, but it is not the best choice in
case we need to keep overhead traffic low. In future we will
further investigate the performance of routing protocols by
introducing other types of traffic (e.g. Http-E-mail) and
implementing more complex scenarios and more metric.

REFERENCES
[1] K. Subir, and G, Basavargia AdHoc Mobile Wireless networks
Principles, protocols and Applications Taylor & Francis Group .USA
2008
[2] E. M. Royer Mobile AdHoc Networking IEEE Press 445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, New Jersey page 315
[3] Dimitra Kampitakia $QDVWDVLRV $ > @ ³6LPXODWLRQ VWXG\ RI
0$1(7 URXWLQJ SURWRFROV XQGHU )73 WUDIILF´ (FRQRPLGHV 3XEOLVKHG E\
Elsevier Ltd 2014
[4] O.O. Omitola (2015). Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in
MANETs using Varying Number of Nodes and Different Metrics. Afr J.
of Comp & ICTs. Vol 8, No. 2. P 83-90.
[5] Abdullah et al "The Impact of Reactive Routing Protocols for
Transferring Multimedia Data over MANET," Journal of Zankoy
Sulaimani-Part A, vol. 4, no. 16, 2014
[6] M barushimana, C.; Shahrabi, A., Comparative Study of Reactive and
Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,
Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 2007,
AINAW '07. 21st International Conference on , vol.2, no., pp.679,684,
21-23 May 2007
[7]Tuteja, A.; Gujral, R.; Thalia, S., Comparative Performance Analysis of
DSDV, AODV and DSR Routing Protocols in MANET Using NS2,
Advances in Computer Engineering (ACE), 2010 International
Conference on , vol., no., pp.330,333, 20-21 June 2010
[8] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer Ad hoc on-demand distance vector
routing. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications, pages 90±100, Feb 1999
[9] D. B. -RKQVRQ DQG ' $ 0DOW] ³'\QDPLF 6RXUFH 5RXWLQJ LQ $G-Hoc
Networks," Mobile Computing, ed. T. Imielinski and H.Korth, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1996, pp. 153-181
[10] Perkins, C.E.; Royer, E.M.; Das, S.R.; Marina, M.K., Performance
comparison of two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks,
Personal Communications, IEEE , vol.8, no.1, pp.16,28, Feb 2001
[11] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, A. Laouiti, P. Muhlethaler; A. Qayyum, and L.
9LHQQRW ³2SWLPL]HG /LQN 6WDWH 5RXWLQJ 3URWRFRO ´ LQ Proceedings of
IEEE INMIC, Lahore, Pakistan, December 2001

13 www.erpublication.org