International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 4, April-2015

ISSN 2229-5518

Comparative Performance Analysis of AODV, DSDV and DSR for Wireless Devices

Tanvi Shanbhag, Ahmed Hussain, Dhruv Shah, Prof. Jay Borade

AbstractRouting is the task of directing data packets from a source node to a given destination. The On-demand protocol performs better than the table-driven protocol.In this project we have analyzed and compared three routing protocols i.e. AODV, DSR, DSDV implemented in ns-2. The protocols are simulated in a wireless environment with routing protocols and varying pause time in a simulation environment of 100 nodes. We investigated the performance metrics namely Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Average end-to-end delay, energy spent and throughput through NS-2 simulation. The performance of protocol is one of the interesting issue.

Index TermsAODV, DSR, DSDV, NS-2 Simulator, packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, energy spent, throughput, source, destination

195

1 INTRODUCTION

—————————— ——————————
n recent year the establishment of IEEE 802.11 wireless pro- tocol has allowed users to roam freely within a wireless local area network by communicating with the access point
in the LAN. However, this protocol utilizes a centralized to- pology for communication
In typical wireless LAN environment, illustrated in Figure 1, client utilizes access point (AP) in network to connect with other clients. Information is first sent from sender to the AP and then forwarded to the receiver. This approach still retains deficiencies if the traditional centralized system eg the failure of AP will have a catastrophic effect on the overall network [1].

Fig 1. Wireless Local Area Network (LAN)

1.1 A Better Network: Distributed System

A distributed computer system consists of multiple software components that are on multiple computers, but run as a sin-

————————————————

Prof. Jay Borade is currentlyan Assistant lecturer at Fr.Agnel’s College of

Engineering, India. E-mail: jaayb8@gmail.com

Tanvi Shanbhag is currently pursuing B.E degree in Mumbai University,

India, E-mail: tanvishanbhag12@gmail.com

Ahmed Hussain is currently pursuing B.E degree in Mumbai University,

India, E-mail: ahmedspeedstar@gmail.com

Dhruv Shah is currently pursuing B.E degree in Mumbai University,India,

E-mail: dhruvshah1093@gmail.com
gle system. The computers that are in a distributed system can be physically close together and connected by a local network, or they can be geographically distant and connected by a wide area network. A distributed system can consist of any number of possible configurations, such as mainframes, personal com- puters, workstations, minicomputers, and so on. The goal of distributed computing is to make such a network work as a single computer [1].
Distributed systems offer many benefits over centralized sys

Fig 2. Distributed System Topology

tems, including the following:
 Scalability-The system can easily be expanded by
adding more machines as needed.
 Redundancy- Several machines can provide the same
services, so if one is unavailable, work does not stop. Additionally, because many smaller machines can be used, this redundancy does not need to be prohibi- tively expensive.
 Connectivity- Unlike a centralized system, a distrib-
uted system does not have a single point if failure. When a node fails in distributed environment, infor- mation is simply routed around the failed node and continues its path to the receiver node. The distribut- ed system will maintain its functionality as long as there is an alternate path available [1].

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 6, Issue 4, April-2015

ISSN 2229-5518

196

1.2 Routing Protocols

An individual packets needs to be routed to its destination node through one of many available paths in the network. Nodes themselves can behave as routers and forward packets onto the next node. When a new node joins the network, addi- tional possible routes are created and thus add to the complex- ity of route discovery and selection.
The routing process is further complicated by the mobility of wireless nodes. In a wireless distributed system, nodes com- municate wirelessly and thus have the ability to roam freely as long as it is within the signal proximity of at least one other node in the network. In other words, Routing is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send network traf- fic. Routing in ad-hoc network is different then wired network due to mobility of the nodes. Routing protocols are basically classified as following [3]:

Fig 3. Types Of Routing Protocols

1.2.1 Proactive (table-driven) routing protocols

They are similar to the connectionless schemes of traditional datagram networks. These protocols employ classical routing strategies such as distance-vector (e.g. DSDV) or link-state (e.g. OLSR) routing and any changes in the link connections are updated periodically throughout the network. Proactive protocols maintain routing information about the available paths in the network even if these paths are not currently used. The main disadvantage of these protocols is the mainte- nance of unused paths may occupy an important part of the available bandwidth if the network topology changes fre- quently [6].

1.2.1.1 Destination Sequenced Distance Vector – DSDV

DSDV is a hop –to –hop distance vector routing protocol. In this protocol, each node has a routing table that stores the next hop, number of hops for all the reachable destinations. Each node broadcast routing updates periodically. The ad-
the delay in determining a route can be substantially large. In reactive protocols, since routes are only maintained while in use, it is typically required to perform a route discovery pro- cess before packets can be exchanged between nodes. There- fore, this leads to a delay for the first packet to be transmitted. Another disadvantage is that, although route maintenance is limited to the routes currently in use, it may still generate a significant amount of network traffic when the network topol- ogy changes frequently. Finally, packets transmitted to the destination are likely to be lost if the route to the destination changes [6].

1.2.2.1 Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

DSR allows the network to be completely self- organizing and self-configuring, without the need for any existing network infrastructure or administration. The protocol is composed of the two main mechanisms of “Route Discovery” and “Route Maintenance”, which work together to allow nodes to discov- er and maintain routes to destinations in the ad hoc network. An advantage of DSR is that nodes can store multiple routes in their route cache, which means that the source node can check its route cache for a valid route before initiat- ing route discovery and if a valid route is found there is no need for route discovery [6].

1.2.2.2 Ad-Hoc on Demand Distance Vector- AODV

The ad hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) is based on distance vector routing algorithm. However, unlike distance vector, it is a reactive protocol i.e. it requests the route when needed. It does not require nodes that maintain routes for des- tinations, which are not actively used in communication. The features of AODV routing protocol are loop-free routing and immediate notification is to be sent to the affected nodes on link breakage. The algorithm uses various messages to main- tain and discover links. These are route request (RREQ), route reply (RREP), and route error (RERR) [6].

2 PERFORMANCE METRICS

In this project, we are most interested in the following perfor- mance metrics[4]:
 Packet Delivery Ratio=Number of Packets received Successfully

Number of Packets sent

Throughput =Number of delivered packet* Packet size* 8

Total Duration of Simulation

Average End to End Delay = ”Sum (for each i equal to packet

number, (packet i received time- packet i sent time))”

i

vantage of DSDV over traditional distance vector routing pro- tocols is that DSDV guarantees loop-free routing [6].

Energy Spent =

∑ (Initial energy yi - Final energy yi)

n

1.2.2 Reactive (on-demand) routing protocols

(e.g. AODV, DSR) employ a lazy approach whereby mobile nodes only discover routes to destinations on-demand. These protocols maintain only the routes that are currently in use, thus reducing the burden on the network when only a few of all available routes is in use at any time. Reactive protocols often consume less bandwidth than proactive protocols, but

Total no. of nodes

3 SIMULATION PARAMETERS

For this project, we create a square flat platform of finite di- mensions for simulation. Various parameters are kept perma- nent while others are varied to help us analyze the perfor- mance of the three protocols.

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 6, Issue 4, April-2015

ISSN 2229-5518

3.1 Variable Parameters

Three parameters are varied in this project: routing protocols, total number of nodes in the network, and the pause times of the nodes. There will be three variances of each parameter, as outlined in the following table [1].

Table 1 Project Variable

197

PROTOCOLS

NUMBER OF NODES

PAUSE TIME

AODV

100

0,5,10,15,25

DSDV

100

0,5,10,15,25

DSR

100

0,5,10,15,25

By varying the number of nodes, we introduce traffic both in
terms of data and network configurations packets. With in- creased number of nodes, more routes are available to reach any given node. It would be interesting to see how each rout- ing protocol behaves with the added overhead of increased
route discovery and increased route selections.

3.2 Fixed Parameters

The table below outlines the fixed parameters used in this pro- ject and their respective values [1].

Table 2 Project Fixed Parameter

The simulations were performed using Network Simulator 2 (NS-2.33). The traffic sources are Constant Bit Rate (CBR). The source destination pairs are spread randomly over the network. The mobility model uses ‘random waypoint model’ in a rectangular field of 1000m x 1000m with 100 nodes.

4 RESULTS ALONG WITH COMPARISON

In this Section, we compare the capabilities of the three routing protocol studied in this paper. To evaluate more reliable performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols in same simulation environment (100 mobile nodes). Performance metrics are calculated from trace file, with the help of AWK pro- gram. The simulation results are shown in the following section in the form of line graphs. Graphs show comparison by varying different number of sources.[1]

As it can be seen from Fig 4, end to end delay is higher in DSR followed by DSDV and AODV having the lowest and most stable End to End Delay in mobility. DSR is a On-Demand source routing protocol, and this is the major reason for it hav- ing a higher End-to-End Delay, where route is looked only when needed and there is a route Discovery mechanism hap- pening every time and it also has to carry a large overhead each time, thus the higher delay. AODV on the other hand has only one route per destination in the routing table, which is constantly updated based on sequence number and DSDV has

Fig 4. End-to-End Delay with varying pause time

to continuously update the whole routing table periodically and when needed, which leads to a slight delay in delivery.

Fig 5. Throughput of network with varying pause time

As the pause time increases, the network becomes more stable and thus a decrease in the overall number of routing-related messages. As a result, the throughput of the network should decrease as the network becomes more stable.
It can be seen from Fig 6, the pdf remains the same in all the scenario despite the increase of pause time(decrease in speed) and increase in the number of nodes which could be due to the multihop characteristics of the Ad hoc Routing protocol.DSDV has a slight higher pdf than AODV and DSR in all the scenari- os, which could be due to it being a Table-Driven Routing pro- tocol and is slightly more reliable .DSR has slightly more Pdf than AODV as it always looks for the most fresh and reliable route when needed and does not look for it from the routing

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 6, Issue 4, April-2015

ISSN 2229-5518

198

table like AODV.

Fig 6. Packet Delivery Ratio with varying pause time

Fig 7. Energy Spent with varying pause time

Fig 7, highlights the energy consumed by routing protocols. DSR offers the best performance while DSDV shows the worst results. Typically on-demand protocols (DSR, AODV) present an energy descendent trend as the motion rate drops, the ta- ble-driven protocol (DSDV) presents an energy consumption that remains practically constant as packet sending rate varies.

5 CONCLUSION

The simulation work illustrates the performance of three rout- ing protocols AODV, DSR and DSDV. The paper presents a study of the performance of routing protocols, used for wire- less devices in high mobility case under low, medium and high density scenario. We vary the Pause time of nodes from 0
to 25 in a fixed topography of 1000 x 1000 meters. Moreover, since Random Waypoint Mobility Model has been used in this study to generate node mobility. We find that the performance varies widely across different network sizes and results from one scenario cannot be applied to those from the other scenar- io. AODV performance is the best considering its ability to maintain connection by periodi c exchange of information. As far as Throughput is concerned, AODV and DSR perform bet- ter than the DSDV. DSR and AODV reached approx 100% packet delivery ratio when pause time equal to 25 while DSDV obtained only approx 94% packet delivery ratio. AODV has a stable End to End Delay despite mobility as it has the feature of On-Demand Routing protocol and also maintains a Routing table. The results obtained from the simulations allow us to conclude the following as far as energy consumption refers. Generally DSR performs better than DSDV and AODV.
Thus reactive routing protocol performs better than proac- tive routing protocol as regards to Packet delivery ratio and energy consumptions.

REFERENCES

[1] Edward Chen and Colin Ng, “Comparative Analysis of Wireless Rout- ing Algorithms in ns-2”, ENSC 835: HIGH-PERFORMANCE NETWORKS CMPT 885: SPECIAL TOPICS: HIGH-PERFORMANCE NETWORKS, Spring 2006.

[2] Akshai Aggarwal,, Savita Gandhi , Nirbhay Chaubey “PERFOR- MANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, DSDV AND DSR IN MANETS”, Interna- tional Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.2, No.6, November 2011

[3] Shilpa Shukla , Shelja Sharma “STUDY & ANALYSIS of DSDV, AODV

& DSR”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and

Communication Engineering Vol. 2, Issue 5, May 2013

[4] G. Jose Moses, D. Sunil Kumar, Prof.P.Suresh Varma, N.Supriya “A Simulation Based Study of AODV, DSR, DSDV Routing Protocols in MA- NET Using NS-2”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Com- puter Science and Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2012

[5] Sapna S. Kaushik & P.R.Deshmukh “COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE- NESS OF AODV, DSDV AND DSR ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS”, International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management July-December 2009, Volume 2, No. 2 [6]Pankaj Rohal, Ruchika Dahiya, Prashant Dahiya “Study and Analysis of Throughput, Delay and Packet Delivery Ratio in MANET for Topology Based Routing Protocols (AODV, DSR and DSDV)”, International Journal for Advance Research In Engineering And Technology, Vol. 1, Issue II, Mar. 2013.

[6] Nilesh P. Bobade, Nitiket N. Mhala ” Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector in s with varying Network Size using NS-2 Simulation”.(IJCSE) International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 02, No. 08, 2010.

[7] Amith Khandakar “Step by Step Procedural Comparison of DSR, AODV and DSDV Routing protocol” 2012 4th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology (ICCET 2012) IPCSIT vol.40 (2012)

© (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore.

[8] T. Clausen, P Jacket, L Viennot,“Comparative study of Routing Proto- cols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks,” The First Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop. September 2002.

IJSER © 2015

http://www.ijser.org