Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

Abstract—Mobile ad hoc network is a collection of mobile
nodes communicating through wireless channels without any existing
network infrastructure or centralized administration. Because of the
limited transmission range of wireless network interfaces, multiple
"hops" may be needed to exchange data across the network. In order
to facilitate communication within the network, a routing protocol is
used to discover routes between nodes. The primary goal of such an
ad hoc network routing protocol is correct and efficient route
establishment between a pair of nodes so that messages may be
delivered in a timely manner. Route construction should be done
with a minimum of overhead and bandwidth consumption. This paper
examines two routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks– the
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), the table- driven
protocol and the Ad hoc On- Demand Distance Vector routing
(AODV), an On –Demand protocol and evaluates both protocols
based on packet delivery fraction, normalized routing load, average
delay and throughput while varying number of nodes, speed and
pause time.
Keywords—AODV, DSDV, MANET, relative performance
I. INTRODUCTION
OBILE ad hoc networks are formed by autonomous
system of mobile nodes connected by wireless links
without any preexisting communication infrastructure or
centralized administration. Communication is directly between
nodes or through intermediate nodes acting as routers. The
advantages of such a network are rapid deployment,
robustness, flexibility and inherent support for mobility. Ad
hoc networks, due to their quick and economically less
demanding deployment, find applications in military
operations, collaborative and distributed computing,
emergency operations, wireless mesh networks, wireless
sensor networks and hybrid networks.
Due to node mobility, routes between two nodes may
change. Therefore, it is not possible to establish fixed paths
for delivery between networks. Because of this, routing is the
Narendra Singh Yadav is a research scholar in the Department of
Electronics and Communication Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of
Technology, Jaipur – 302017. INDIA.
(Phone: 91-141-2780457; e-mail: narensinghyadav@yahoo.com).
Dr. R. P. Yadav is professor in the Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology,
Jaipur – 302017. INDIA. (e-mail: rpyadav@mnit.ac.in).
most studied problem in mobile ad hoc networks and a
number of routing protocols have been proposed [1-13],
which are derived from either distance-vector [14] or link-
state [15] based on classical routing algorithms.
Routing protocols for Mobile ad hoc networks can be
classified into two main categories: Proactive or table driven
routing protocols and Reactive or on-demand routing
protocols. In proactive protocols, every node maintains the
network topology information in the form of routing tables by
periodically exchanging routing information. They include the
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) [2], the
Wireless Routing Protocol (WRP) [3], Source-Tree Adaptive
Routing (STAR) [5] and Cluster-head Gateway Switch
Routing protocol (CGSR) [4]. On the other hand, reactive
protocols obtain routes only on demand, which include the
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol [6], the Ad hoc On-
demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol [7], the
Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [8], and the
Associativity Based Routing (ABR) protocol [10].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents an overview of the two main categories of mobile ad
hoc routing protocols and a general comparison of the both.
Section III provides an overview and general comparison of
the routing protocols used in the study. The simulation
environment and performance metrics are described in Section
IV and then the results are presented in Section V. Finally
Section VI concludes the paper.
II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MOBILE AD HOC
NETWORKS
As shown in Figure.1, routing protocols for Mobile ad hoc
networks can be classified into two main categories:
• Proactive or table-driven routing protocols and
• Reactive or on-demand routing protocols.
A. Table-Driven Routing Protocols
Table-driven routing protocols attempt to maintain
consistent, up-to-date routing information from each node to
every other node in the network. The routing information is
kept in a number of different tables and they respond to
changes in network topology by propagating updates
throughout the network in order to maintain a consistent
Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-
Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Narendra Singh Yadav, R.P.Yadav
M
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4 NUMBER 2 2007 ISSN 1305-2403
IJIT VOLUME 4 NUMBER 2 2007 ISSN 1305-2403 101 © 2007 WASET.ORG

network view. The areas in which these protocols differ are
the way the routing information is updated, detected and the
type of information kept at each routing table.
B. On-Demand Routing Protocols
On-demand routing protocols were designed to reduce the
overheads in Table-Driven protocols by maintaining
information for active routes only. When a node requires a
route to a destination, it initiates a route discovery process
within the network. This process is completed once a route is
found or all possible route permutations have been examined.
Once a route has been established, it is maintained by a route
maintenance procedure until either the destination becomes
inaccessible along every path from the source or until the
route is no longer desired. Route discovery usually occurs by
flooding a route request packets through the network. When a
node with a route to the destination (or the destination itself)
is reached a route reply is sent back to the source node using
link reversal if the route request has traveled through bi-
directional links or by piggy-backing the route in a route reply
packet via flooding.
On-Demand routing protocols can be classified into two
categories: source routing and hop-by-hop routing. In Source
routed on-demand protocols each data packets carry the
complete path from source to destination. Therefore, each
intermediate node forwards these packets according to the
information in the header of each packet. The major drawback
with source routing protocols is that in large networks they do
not perform well. This is due to two main reasons; firstly as
the number of intermediate nodes in each route grows, then so
does the probability of route failure. Secondly, as the number
of intermediate nodes in each route grows, then the amount of
overhead carried in each header of each data packet will grow
as well.
In hop-by-hop routing each data packet only carries the
destination address and the next hop address. Therefore, each
intermediate node in the path to the destination uses its routing
table to forward each data packet towards the destination. The
advantage of this strategy is that routes are adaptable to the
dynamically changing environment of MANETs, since each
node can update its routing table when they receiver fresher
topology information and hence forward the data packets over
fresher and better routes. Using fresher routes also means that
fewer route recalculations are required during data
transmission. The disadvantage of this strategy is that each
intermediate node must store and maintain routing information
for each active route and each node may require being aware
of their surrounding neighbors through the use of beaconing
messages.
Fig. 1 Classifications of mobile ad hoc routing protocols.
C. Comparison of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing
Protocols
The table-driven ad hoc routing approach is similar to the
connectionless approach of forwarding packets, with no
regard to when and how frequently such routes are desired. It
relies on an underlying routing table update mechanism that
involves the constant propagation of routing information. This
is not the case, however, for on-demand routing protocols.
When a node using an on-demand protocol desires a route to a
new destination, it will have to wait until such a route can be
discovered. On the other hand, because routing information is
constantly propagated and maintained in table-driven routing
protocols, a route to every other node in the ad hoc network is
always available, regardless of whether or not it is needed.
This feature, although useful for datagram traffic, incurs
substantial signaling traffic and power consumption. Since
both bandwidth and battery power are scarce resources in
mobile computers, this becomes a serious limitation. Table 1
lists some of the basic differences between the two categories
of mobile ad hoc routing protocols.
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF TABLE-DRIVE AND ON-DEMAND ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
Parameters Table-Driven On-Demand
Route availability Always available
irrespective of need
Computed when needed
Routing philosophy flat, except for CGSR flat, except for CBRP
Periodic updates Always required Not required
Handling mobility Updates occur at regular
intervals
Use localized route
discovery
Control traffic
generated
Usually higher than On-
Demand
Increases with mobility
of active routes
Storage
requirements
Higher than On-
Demand
Depends on the number
of routes maintained or
needed
Delay Small as routes are pre-
determined
High as routes are
computed when needed
Scalability Usually upto 100 nodes Usually higher than
Table-Driven
Routing protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Table-Driven On-Demand
DSDV
WRP
CGSR
STAR
AODV
DSR
TORA
ARB

III. OVERVIEW OF DSDV AND AODV
As each protocol has its own merits and demerits, none of
them can be claimed as absolutely better than others. Two
mobile ad hoc routing protocols – the Destination Sequenced
Distance Vector (DSDV), the table- driven protocol and the
Ad hoc On- Demand Distance Vector routing (AODV), an On
–Demand protocol are selected for study.
A. Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)
DSDV [2], an enhanced version of the distributed Bellman-
Ford algorithm, belongs to the proactive or table driven family
where a correct route to any node in the network is always
maintained and updated.
In DSDV, each node maintains a routing table that contains
the shortest distance and the first node on the shortest path to
every other node in the network. A sequence number created
by the destination node tags each entry to prevent loops, to
counter the count –to-infinity problem and for faster
convergence. The tables are exchanged between neighbors at
regular intervals to keep an up to date view of the network
topology. The tables are also forwarded if a node finds a
significant change in local topology. This exchange of table
imposes a large overhead on the whole network. To reduce
this potential traffic, routing updates are classified into two
categories. The first is known as “full dump” which includes
all available routing information. This type of updates should
be used as infrequently as possible and only in the cases of
complete topology change. In the cases of occasional
movements, smaller “incremental” updates are sent carrying
only information about changes since the last full dump. Each
of these updates should fit in a single Network Protocol Data
Unit (NPDU), and thus significantly decreasing the amount of
traffic. Table updates are initiated by a destination with a new
sequence number which is always greater than the previous
one. Upon receiving an updated table a node either updates its
tables based on the received information or holds it for some
time to select the best metric received from multiple versions
of the same update from different neighbors.
The availability of routes to all destinations at all times
implies that much less delay is involved in the route setup
process. The mechanism of incremental updates with
sequence number tags makes the exiting wired network
protocols adaptable to mobile ad hoc networks. Hence, an
existing wired network protocol can be applied to mobile ad
hoc networks with fewer modifications. DSDV suffers from
excessive control overhead that is proportional to the number
of nodes in the network and therefore is not scalable in mobile
ad hoc networks. Another disadvantage is stale routing
information at nodes.
B. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV)
AODV [7] is an improvement on the DSDV. AODV uses
an on- demand approach for finding routes. Since it is an on -
demand algorithm, a route is established only when it is
required by a source node for transmitting data packets and
it maintains these routes as long as they are needed by the
sources.
AODV uses a destination sequence number, created by the
destination, to determine an up to date path to the destination.
A node updates its route information only if the destination
sequence number of the current received packet is greater than
the destination sequence number stored at the node. It
indicates the freshness of the route accepted by the source. To
prevent multiple broadcast of the same packet AODV uses
broadcast identifier number that ensure loop freedom since the
intermediate nodes only forward the first copy of the same
packet and discard the duplicate copies.
To find a path to the destination, the source broadcasts a
Route Request (RREQ) packet across the network. This
RREQ contains the source identifier, the destination identifier,
the source sequence number, the destination sequence
number, the broadcast identifier and the time to live field.
Nodes that receives RREQ either if they are the destination or
if they have a fresh route to the destination, can respond to the
RREQ by unicasting a Route Reply (RREP) back to the source
node. Otherwise, the node rebroadcasts the RREQ.
When a node forwards a RREQ packet to its neighbors, it
also records in its tables the node from which the first copy of
the request came. This information is used to construct the
reverse path for the RREP packet. AODV uses only
symmetric links because the route reply packet follows the
reverse path of route request packet. When a node receives a
RREP packet, information about the previous node from
which the packet was received is also stored in order to
forward the data packets to this next node as the next hop
toward the destination. Once the source node receives a RREP
it can begin using the route to send data packets.
The source node rebroadcasts the RREQ if it does not
receive a RREP before the timer expires. It attempts discovery
up to some maximum number of attempts. If it does not
discover a route after this maximum number of attempts, the
session is aborted.
If the source moves then it can reinitiate route discovery to
the destination. If one of the intermediate nodes move then the
moved nodes neighbor realizes the link failure and sends a
link failure notification to its upstream neighbors and so on till
it reaches the source upon which the source can reinitiate
route discovery if needed.
The main advantage of AODV is that routes are obtained on
demand and destination sequence numbers are used to find the
latest route to the destination. One of the disadvantages of
AODV is that intermediate nodes can lead to inconsistent
routes if the source sequence number is very old and the
intermediate nodes have a higher but not the latest destination
sequence number, thereby causing stale entries. Also multiple
Route Reply (RREP) packets in response to a single Route
Request (RREQ) packet can lead to heavy control overhead.
Another is that periodic hello message leads to unnecessary
bandwidth consumption.
Table 2 lists some of the basic differences between the two
routing protocols.

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF DSDV AND AODV ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Parameter DSDV AODV
Routing structure Flat Flat
Hello messages Yes Yes
Frequency of updates Periodic and as needed As required
Critical nodes No No
Loop –free Yes Yes
Multicasting
capability
No Yes
Routing metric Shortest path Freshest and shortest
path
Utilizes sequence
number
Yes Yes
Time complexity O (D) O (2D)
Communication
complexity
O (N) O (2N)
Advantages Small delays Adaptable to highly
dynamic topology
Disadvantages Large overhead Large delays
Abbreviations:
D = Diameter of the network
N = Number of nodes in the Network
IV. SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE METRICS
The simulations were performed using Network Simulator2
(NS-2) [16], particularly popular in the ad hoc networking
community. The traffic sources are CBR (continuous bit –
rate). The source-destination pairs are spread randomly over
the network. The packet rate is 4 packets per second for 15
and 30 sources, 3 packets per sec for 45 sources. The data
packet size is 512 bytes. The mobility model uses random
waypoint model in a rectangular filed of 500m x 500m with 50
nodes. In this mobility model, each node starts its journey
from a random chosen location to a random chosen
destination. Once the destination is reached, another random
destination is chosen after a pause time. The speed of nodes is
varied between 0 to 25m/s and pause time between 0 to 100
seconds. Different network scenario for different numbers of
node, pause time and speeds are generated. Simulations are
run for 100 seconds. The propagation model is the Two way
ground model [17]. Simulation parameters are listed in table 3.
TABLE III
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Simulator ns-2
Studied protocols DSDV and AODV
Simulation time 100 seconds
Simulation area 500 m x 500 m
Transmission range 250 m
Node movement model Random waypoint
Speed 0 – 25 m/s in steps of 5 m/s
Traffic type CBR (UDP)
Data payload 512 bytes/packet
Packet rate 4 packets/sec for 15 and 30 sources
3 packets/sec for 45 sources
Node pause time 0 - 100 s in steps of 20s
Bandwidth 2 Mb/s
Performance Metrics
The following performance metrics are considered for
evaluation:
Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF): The ratio of the data packets
delivered to the destinations to those generated by the sources.
Average end-to-end delay: This includes all possible delays
caused by buffering during route discovery latency, queuing at
the interface queue, retransmission delays at the MAC, and
propagation and transfer times.
Normalized routing load: The number of routing packets
“transmitted” per data packet “delivered” at the destination.
Simulation metrics are listed in Table 4.
TABLE IV
SIMULATION METRICS
ID metrics definition formula Example
value
PS packet sent total number of
packets sent by
the source node
computed from
trace file
2000
PR Packet
Received
Total number of
packets received
by the
destination node
Computed from
trace file
600
PDF Packet
Delivery
Fraction
Ratio of packets
received to
packets sent
PDF =
(PR/PS)*100%
88.5%
TD Total Delivery
Time
Time spent to
deliver packets
(PR)
Computed from
trace file
1567.2
AD Average end-
to- end Delay
Delay spent to
deliver each data
packet
AD = TD/PR 6.235
RF Routing
Packets
Number of
routing packets
sent or
forwarded
Computed from
trace file
44
NRL Normalized
Routing Load
Number of
routing packets
per data packets
NRL = RF/PR 2.5
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
The simulation results are shown in the following section in
the form of line graphs. Graphs show comparison between the
two protocols by varying different numbers of sources on the
basis of the above-mentioned metrics as a function of pause
time and speed.
A. Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF)
Figure 2 shows a comparison between both the routing
protocols on the basis of packet delivery fraction as a function
of pause time and using different number of traffic sources.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
Packetdeliveryratio(%)
AODV
DSDV
(a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
AODV
DSDV
(b)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 2 Packet delivery fraction vs. Pause time for 50-node model
with (a) 15 sources, (b) 30 sources and (c) 45 sources.
Both of the protocols deliver a greater percentage of the
originated data packets when there is little node mobility,
converging to 100% delivery ration when there is no node
motion.
The On-demand protocol, AODV performed particularly
well, delivering almost 100% of the data packets regardless of
the mobility rate. The packet delivery of AODV is almost
independent of the number of sources that is varying number
of sources does not effect AODV that much.
DSDV performance is worst when mobility is high. This
poor performance is because of the reason that DSDV is not a
On demand protocol and it keeps only one route per
destination, therefore lack of alternate routes and presence of
stale routes in the routing table when nodes are moving at
higher rate leads to packet drops. The packet delivery of
DSDV protocol depends on the number of sources, as it is
obvious from figure 2.
protocols on the basis of packet delivery fraction as a function
of pause time and using different number of traffic sources.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
Packetdeliveryfraction(%)
AODV
DSDV
(a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(b)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 3 Packet delivery fraction vs. Speed for the 50-node model
As expected, Packet delivery fraction for AODV decreases
as speed increases, since finding the route requires more and
more routing traffic. Therefore less and less of the channel
will be used for data transfer, thus decreasing the packet
delivery. Furthermore, as the number of nodes increases, more
routing traffic will be generated (because AODV uses
flooding for route discovery), which makes the packet
delivery fraction decrease as the number of nodes increases.
For DSDV, as was the case with AODV, packet delivery
fraction decreases as speed increases, since finding the route
requires more and more routing traffic as speed increases thus
making a lesser portion of the channel useful for data transfer.
Although the packet delivery fraction of both the protocols
decreases as speed increases, but DSDV’s packet delivery
fraction decreases in a more steeper and more rapid fashion.
This is due to excessive channel used by regular routing table
updates. Furthermore, as mobility speed increases, more
event-triggered updates are generated, resulting in even more
packet delivery fraction decrease. This problem is not present
in AODV since routes are only generated on-demand.
B. Average End to End Delay
Figure 4 shows comparison between both the routing
protocols on the basis of average end-to-end delay as a
function of pause time, using different number of sources.
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
AverageEnd-to-EndDelay(Sec)
AODV
DSDV
(a)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
AODV
DSDV
(b)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause time (sec)
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 4 Average End-to-End Delay vs. Pause time for the 50-node
model with (a) 15 sources, (b) 30 sources and (c) 45 sources.

DSDV performed pretty stable and the delay kept about
0.04 seconds when pause time increased from 0 seconds to
100 second. The reason is that it is a table driven protocol, so
a node does not need to find a route before transmitting
packets. So the delay is quite stable.
For AODV the delay is much more then the DSDV. As
AODV is On-demand protocol, with an increased number of
sources and high mobility there are more link failures
therefore there are more route discoveries. AODV takes more
time during the route discovery process as first it finds the
route hop by hop and then it gets back to the source by back
tracking that route. All this leads to delays in the delivery of
data packets.
Figure 5 shows comparison between both the routing
protocols on the basis of average end-to-end delay as a
function of speed, using different number of sources.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AverageEnd-to-EndDelay(sec)
AODV
DSDV
(a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(b)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 5 Average End-to-End Delay vs. Speed for the 50-node model
AODV has less average end-to-end delay when compared
to DSDV. This poor performance of DSDV is because of the
reason that DSDV is not a On demand protocol and it keeps
only one route per destination, therefore lack of alternate
routes and presence of stale routes in the routing table when
nodes are moving at higher rate leads to large delay.
C. Normalized Routing Load
protocols on the basis of normalized routing load as a function
of pause time, using a different number of sources.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause Time (sec)
Normalizedroutingload
AODV
DSDV
(a)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause Time (sec)
AODV
DSDV
(b)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pause Time (sec)
NormalizedRoutingLoad
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 6 Normalized routing load vs. Pause time for the 50-node
model with (a) 15 sources, (b) 30 sources and (c) 45 sources.
As DSDV is a table driven routing protocol its overhead is
almost the same with respect to node mobility.
In cases of AODV, as the pause time increases, route
stability increases, resulting in a decreased number of routing
packet routing packet transmissions, and therefore a decrease
in the routing overhead. A relatively stable normalized routing
load is a desirable property for scalability of the protocols.
protocols on the basis of normalized routing load as a function
of pause time, using a different number of sources.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(b)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Speed (m/s)
AODV
DSDV
(c)
Fig. 7 Normalized routing load vs. Speed for the 50-node model

In case of AODV the normalized routing load drastically
increases as the number of nodes increases. The routing load
also increases as the node mobility increases. As the number
of nodes increases, more nodes will be flooding the network
with route request and consequently more nodes will be able
to send route reply as well. As the node speed increases, a
source node will have to generate more route requests to find
a fresh enough route to destination node.
In case of DSDV the normalized routing load is almost the
same with respect to node speed. The reason is that it is a table
driven protocol, so a node does not need to find a route before
transmitting packets.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper compared the two ad hoc routing protocols.
AODV an On – Demand routing protocol, and DSDV a table
driven protocol.
Simulation results show that both of the protocols deliver a
greater percentage of the originated data packets when there is
little node mobility, converging to 100% delivery ration when
there is no node motion. The packet delivery of AODV is
almost independent of the number of sources. DSDV
generates less routing load then AODV. AODV suffers from
end to end delays. DSDV packet delivery fraction is very low
for high mobility scenarios.
Packet delivery fraction of both the protocols decreases as
speed increases, but DSDV’s packet delivery fraction
decreases in a steeper and more rapid fashion. AODV has less
average end-to-end delay when compared to DSDV. The
normalized routing load for AODV increases drastically as the
number of nodes increases. The routing load also increases as
the node speed increases. But for DSDV the normalized
routing load is almost the same with respect to node speed
REFERENCES
[1] E. M. Royer and C. K. Toh, “A review of current routing protocols for
ad hoc mobile wireless networks,” IEEE Personal Communications
magazine, April 1999, pp. 46–55.
[2] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers,” in
Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 1994, August 1994, pp. 234-244.
[3] S. Murhty and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “An Efficient Routing
Protocol for Wireless Networks,” ACM Mobile Networks and
Applications Journal, Special Issue on Routing in Mobile
Communication Networks, Vol. 1, no. 2, October 1996, pp. 183-197.
[4] C. C. Chiang, H. K. Wu, W. Liu and M. Gerla, “Routing in Clustered
Multi-Hop Mobile Wireless Networks with Fading Channel,” in
Proceedings of IEEE SICON 1997, April 1997, pp. 197-211.
[5] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and M. Spohn, “Source-Tree Routing in
Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE ICNP 1999, October 1999,
pp. 273-282.
[6] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Malta, “Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks,” Mobile Computing, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
vol. 353, 1996, pp. 153-181.
[7] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
Routing,” Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing
Systems and Applications 1999, February 1999, pp. 90-100.
[8] V. D. Park and M. S. Corson, “A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing
Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE
INFOCOM 1997, April 1997, pp. 1405-1413.
[9] Y. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, “Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks,” in Proceedings of ACM MOBICOM 1998, October
1998, pp. 66-75.
[10] C. K. Toh, “Associativity-Based Routing for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks,”
Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 4, no. 2, March 1997, pp. 1-36.
[11] P. Sinha, R. Shivkumar and V. Bharghavan, “CEDAR: A Core
Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing Algorithm,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, August 1999, pp.
1454-1466.
[12] Z. J. Haas, “The Routing Algorithm for the Reconfigurable Wireless
Networks,” in Proceedings of ICUPC 1997, vol. 2, October 1997, pp.
562-566.
[13] R. S. Sisodia, B. S. Manoj and C. Siva Ram Murthy, “A Preferred Link-
Based Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” Journal of
Communications and Networks, vol. 4, no. 1, march 2002, pp. 14-21.
[14] Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks. Fourth Edition, Prentice
Hall, ch. 5, pp. 357-360.
[15] Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks. Fourth Edition, Prentice
Hall, ch. 5, pp. 360-366.
[16] K. Fall and K. Vardhan, The Network Simulator (ns-2). Available:
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns
[17] T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications, Principles & Practices.
Prentice Hall, 1996, ch. 3, pp. 70-74.
Narendra Singh Yadav received M.Tech. degree in Computer Science from
Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, India in 2002. He is a Ph.D student at
Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India. His research
interests include Clustering, Routing and Security in ad hoc wireless
networks, wireless sensor networks and wireless hybrid networks.
Dr. R.P.Yadav received M.Tech. degree from Indian Institute of Technology,
Delhi, India in Integrated Electronics and Circuits in 1987 and completed
Ph.D in Communication Engineering from University of Rajasthan in 2001.
He is currently working as Professor in the Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering at Malaviya National Institute of Technology,
Jaipur, India. He is an active member of various professional bodies and has
organized many workshops, conferences and seminars. His research interests
include MIMO and Ad hoc Networking, Microstrip Antennas, coding and
Digital Communication Systems.

Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (20)

More from Narendra Singh Yadav (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance Comparison and Analysis of Table-Driven and On-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks