PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH NS2 SIMULATOR

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 215 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)
Volume 10, Issue 2, March-April 2019, pp. 215-223. Article ID: IJARET_10_02_021
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=10&IType=02
ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499
© IAEME Publication
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF ADHOC
ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH NS2
SIMULATOR
Syeda Kausar Fatima, Dr. Syeda Gauhar Fatima, Dr.Syed Abdul Sattar and Syed Mohd
Ali
Research Scholar JNTUH, Hyderabad, India
ABTRACT
A mobile adhoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes dynamically
creating a temporary network without usage of any prevailing network infrastructure
or consolidated management. Several routing protocols like Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR), Adhoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) and Destination
Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) have been implemented. In this paper, an attempt
has been made to compare the performance of two prominent on-demand reactive
routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks: DSR and AODV, along with the
traditional proactive DSDV protocol. A simulation model with MAC and physical layer
models is used to study interlayer interactions and their performance inferences. The
On-demand protocols, AODV and DSR perform better than the table-driven DSDV
protocol. Although DSR and AODV share similar on-demand performance, the
differences in the protocol mechanics can lead to significant performance differentials.
A variation of workload and scenarios, as characterized by mobility, load and size of
the ad hoc network were simulated. The performance analysis is evaluated by means of
varying network load, mobility, and network size. These simulations are conceded out
based on the Rice Monarch Project that has made considerable additions to the NS-2
network simulator to track adhoc simulations.
Keywords: Performance, Analysis, Ad Hoc Network, AODV, DSR, DSDV, NS2.
Cite this Article: Syeda Kausar Fatima, Dr. Syeda Gauhar Fatima, Dr.Syed Abdul
Sattar and Syed Mohd Ali, Performance Estimation of Adhoc Routing Protocols with
Ns2 Simulator, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and
Technology, 10(2), 2019, pp. 215-223.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=10&IType=2
1. INTRODUCTION
Wireless networking is a developing technology that permits users to access information and
services electronically, regardless of their geographic location. Wireless networks can be
classified in two types.

Syeda Kausar Fatima, Dr. Syeda Gauhar Fatima, Dr.Syed Abdul Sattar and Syed Mohd Ali
1.1. Infrastructure Networks
Infrastructure network comprises of a network with fixed and wired gateways. A mobile host
communicates with a bridge in the network (called base station) within its communication
range. The mobile unit can travel geographically while it is communicating. When it goes out
of range of one base station, it associates with new base station and starts communicating
through it. This is called handoff. In this method the base stations are stationary.
1.2. Infrastructure Less (Adhoc) Networks
In adhoc networks [5] all nodes are mobile and can be linked dynamically in a random manner.
As the range of each host’s wireless transmission is restricted, so to communicate with hosts
outside its transmission range, a host needs to enlist the aid of its nearby hosts in forwarding
packets to the destination. So all nodes of these networks behave as routers and take part in
discovery and maintenance of routes to other nodes in the network. Adhoc networks are suitable
in emergency search and rescue operations, meetings or conventions in which persons wish to
rapidly share information, and data acquirement operations in unfriendly topography. This ad-
hoc routing protocols can be divided into two classifications:
Table Driven Routing Protocols: In table driven routing protocols, reliable and up-to-date
routing information to all nodes is preserved at each node.
On-Demand Routing Protocols: In On-Demand routing protocols, the paths are formed as
and when essential. When a source needs to send to a destination, it raises the route discovery
mechanisms to discover the path to the destination.
2. AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS DESCRIPTION DESTINATION-
SEQUENCED DISTANCE-VECTOR
The Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) [3] Routing Algorithm is established on
the idea of the traditional Bellman-Ford Routing Algorithm with certain improvements. Every
mobile node maintains a routing table that lists all available destinations, the number of hops
to reach the destination and the sequence number allocated by the destination node. The
sequence number is used to distinguish stale routes from new ones and therefore avoid the
creation of loops. The nodes occasionally transmit their routing tables to their immediate
neighbors. A station also transmits its routing table if a significant change has occurred in its
table from the last update sent. So, the update is both time-driven and event-driven. The routing
table updates can be sent in two ways: a “full dump” or an incremental update. A full dump
sends the full routing table to the neighbors and could span many packets whereas in an
incremental update only those records from the routing table are sent that has a metric variation
since the last update and it must fit in a packet. If there is space in the incremental update packet
then those records may be incorporated whose sequence number has altered. When the network
is pretty stable, incremental updates are sent to shun extra traffic and full dump are relatively
infrequent. In a fast-changing network, incremental packets can grow big so full dumps will be
more common.
3. AD HOC ON-DEMAND DISTANCE VECTOR ROUTING (AODV)
AODV [2] discovers routes on an as required basis via a similar route discovery process.
However, AODV implements a very different mechanism to maintain routing information.
It uses traditional routing tables, one entry per destination. This is in contrast to DSR, which
can maintain multiple route cache entries for each destination. Without source routing, AODV
relies on routing table entries to broadcast an RREP back to the source and, subsequently, to
route data packets to the destination. AODV uses sequence numbers maintained at each

Performance Estimation of Adhoc Routing Protocols with Ns2 Simulator
destination to determine freshness of routing information and to prevent routing loops. All
routing packets carry these sequence numbers.
An important feature of AODV is the maintenance of timer-based states in each node,
regarding utilization of individual routing table entries. A routing table record is expired if not
used recently. A set of predecessor nodes is preserved for each routing table entry, representing
the set of neighboring nodes which use that entry to route data packets. These nodes are notified
with RERR packets when the next-hop link breaks. Each predecessor node, in turn, forwards
the RERR to its own set of predecessors, thus effectively erasing all routes using the broken
link. In contrast to DSR, RERR packets in AODV are intended to inform all sources using a
link when a failure occurs. Route error propagation in AODV can be visualized conceptually
as a tree whose root is the node at the point of failure and all sources using the failed link as the
leaves.
4. DYNAMIC SOURCE ROUTING (DSR)
The main distinctive feature of DSR [4] is the use of source routing. That is, the sender knows
the complete hop byhop route to the destination. These routes are stored in a route cache. The
data packets carry the source route in the packet header. When a node in the adhoc network
tries to send a data packet to a destination for which it does not already know the route, it uses
a route discovery process to dynamically determine such a route. Route discovery works by
flooding the network with route request (RREQ) packets. Each node receiving an RREQ
rebroadcasts it, unless it is the destination or it has a route to the destination in its route cache.
Such a node replies to the RREQ with a route reply (RREP) packet that is routed back to the
original source. RREQ and RREP packets are also source routed. The RREQ builds up the path
traversed across the network. The RREP routes itself back to the source by traversing this path
backward. The route carried back by the RREP packet is cached at the source for future use. If
any link on a source route is broken, the source node is notified using a route error (RERR)
packet. The source removes any route using this link from its cache. A new route discovery
process must be initiated by the source if this route is still needed. DSR makes very aggressive
use of source routing and route caching.
5. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
The simulation experiment is carried out in LINUX (FEDORA 6). The detailed simulation
model is based on network simulator-2 (ver-2.31) [1], is used in the evaluation. The NS
instructions can be used to define the topology structure of the network and the motion mode
of the nodes, to configure the service source and the receiver, to create the statistical data track
file and so on.
6. TRAFFIC MODEL
Continuous bit rate (CBR) traffic sources are used. The source-destination pairs are spread
arbitrarily above the network. Only 512-byte data packets are used. The number of source-
destination pairs and the packet sending rate in each pair is varied to change the obtainable load
in the network.
7. MOBILITY MODEL
The mobility model uses the random waypoint model in a rectangular field. The field
configurations used is: 500 m × 500 m field with 50 nodes. Here, each packet starts its journey
from a random location to a random destination with a randomly chosen speed (uniformly
distributed between 0–20 m/s). Once the destination is reached, another random destination is
targeted after a pause. The pause time, which affects the relative speeds of the mobiles, is varied.
Simulations are run for 100 simulated seconds. Identical mobility and traffic scenarios are used

across protocols to gather fair results. Mobility models were created for the simulations using
50 nodes, with pause times of 0, 10, 20, 40, 100 seconds, maximum speed of 20 m/s, topology
boundary of 500 × 500 and simulation time of 100 secs.
8. PERFORMANCE METRICS [7] PACKET DELIVERY FRACTION
The ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the CBR
sources is known as packet delivery fraction.
9. AVERAGE END-TO-END DELAY
Average end to end delay 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 of data packets.
10. NORMALIZED ROUTING LOAD
The number of routing packets transmitted per data packet delivered at the destination. Each
hop-wise transmission of a routing packet is counted as one transmission. The first two metrics
are the most significant for best effort traffic. The routing load metric evaluates the efficiency
of the routing protocol. Note, however, that these metrics are not completely independent. For
example, lower packet delivery ratio means that the delay metric is evaluated with fewer
samples. In the conventional perception, the longer the path lengths, the higher the probability
of a packet drops. Thus, with a lower delivery ratio, samples are generally inclined in favor of
smaller path lengths and therefore have less end to end delay.
11. PERFORMANCE RESULTS
For all the simulations, the identical movement models were used, the number of traffic sources
was fixed at 20, the maximum speed of the nodes is set to 20 m/s and the pause time varied as
0 s, 10 s, 20 s, 40 s and 100 s.
12. PACKET DELIVERY FRACTION
The On-demand protocols, DSR and AODV performed predominantly well, transporting over
85% of the data packets irrespective of mobility ratio.
13. AVERAGE END-END PACKET DELAY
The average end-to-end delay of packet delivery was higher in DSDV as compared to both DSR
and AODV. In summary, both the On-demand routing protocols, AODV and DSR
outperformed the Table-driven routing protocol; DSDV and the reasons are discussed later.
Figures 1 and 2 highlight the relative performance of the three routing protocols. All of the
protocols provide a greater proportion of the initiated data packets when there is little node
mobility (i.e., at large pause time), converging to 100% delivery when there is no node mobility.
Following, since both AODV and DSR did better, an effort was made to evaluate the
performance difference among the two by changing the mobility arrangement and number of
traffic sources.

Figure 1 Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF) Vs Pause time
Figure 2 Average Delay Vs Pause Time
14. VARYING MOBILITY AND NUMBER OF SOURCES TO ANALYZE
THE PERFORMANCE MODIFICATION
Now, again simulations were carried out with the number of traffic sources as 10, 20, 30 and
40.The pause time was varied as 0 (high mobility), 10, 20, 40, 100 (no mobility) and the packets
were directed at a ratio of 4 packets/sec.
14.1. Packet Delivery Fraction Comparison
The packet delivery fractions [7] for DSR and AODV are alike with 10 sources (Fig. 3).
However, with 20, 30 and
40 sources, AODV outperforms DSR by about 15 percent (Fig. 5 and 6) at lower pause
times (higher mobility).
Figure 3 PDF for 10 Sources

14.2. Normalized Routing Load Comparison
In all cases, DSR demonstrates significantly lower routing load than AODV, with the factor
increasing with a growing number of sources. In summary, when the number of sources is low,

the performance of DSR and AODV is similar regardless of mobility. With large numbers of
sources, AODV starts outperforming DSR for highmobility scenarios. As the data from the
varying sources demonstrate, AODV starts outperforming DSR at a lower load with a larger
number of nodes. DSR always demonstrates a lower routing load than AODV. The major
contribution to AODV’s routing over-head is from route requests, while route replies constitute
a large fraction of DSR’s routing overhead. Furthermore, AODV has more route requests than
DSR, and the converse is true for route replies.
Figure 7 Normalized Routing Load for 10 Sources

15. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
The simulation results bring out some important characteristic differences between the routing
protocols. The presence of high mobility implies frequent link failures and each routing protocol
reacts differently during link failures. The different basic working mechanism of these protocols
leads to the differences in the performance. DSDV fails to converge below lower pause times.
At higher rates of mobility (lower pause times), DSDV does poorly, dropping to a 70% packet
delivery ratio. Nearly all of the dropped packets are lost because a stale routing table entry
directed them to be forwarded over a broken link. As described in the earlier section, DSDV
maintains only one route per destination and consequently, each packet that the MAC layer is
unable to deliver is dropped since there are no alternate routes. For DSR and AODV, packet
delivery ratio is independent of offered traffic load, with both protocols delivering between
85% and 100% of the packets in all cases. Since DSDV uses the table-driven approach of
maintaining routing information, it is not as adaptive to the route changes that occur during high
mobility. In contrast, the lazy approach used by the on-demand protocols, AODV and DSR to
build the routing information as and when they are created make them more adaptive and result
in better performance (high packet delivery fraction and lower average end-to-end packet
delays). Next the simulation results of Normalized Routing Load graph with 30 and 40 sources
that compare the performances of AODV and DSR lead us to the following conclusions.
16. MOBILITY EFFECT
In the presence of high mobility, link failures occur very frequently. Link failures trigger new
route discoveries in AODV since it has at most one route per destination in its routing table.
Thus, the frequency of route discoveries in AODV is directly proportional to the number of
route breaks. The reaction of DSR to link failures in comparison is mild and causes route
discovery less often. The reason is the abundance of cached routes at each node. Thus, the route
discovery is delayed in DSR until all cached routes fail. But with high mobility, the chance of
the caches being stale is quite high in DSR. Finally when a route discovery is originated, the
large number of replies received in response is associated with high MAC overhead and cause
improved interfering to data traffic. Hence, the cache staleness and high MAC overhead
together result in significant degradation in performance for DSR in high mobility scenarios. In
lower mobility scenarios, DSR regularly performs better than AODV, because the chances of
find the route in one of the caches is much higher. However, due to the constrained simulation
environment (lesser simulation time and lesser mobility models), the better performance of
DSR over AODV couldn’t be observed.
17. ROUTING LOAD RESULT
DSR almost always has a lower routing load than AODV.
This can be attributed to the caching strategy used by DSR. By virtue of aggressive caching,
DSR is more likely to find a route in the cache, and hence resorts to route discovery less
frequently than AODV.
18. CONCLUSIONS
This project compared the performance of DSDV, AODV and DSR routing protocols for adhoc
networks using ns-2 simulator. DSDV uses the proactive table-driven routing strategy while
both AODV and DSR use the reactive On demand routing strategy. Both AODV and DSR
perform better under high mobility simulations than DSDV. High mobility outcomes in
frequent link failures and the overhead involved in updating all the nodes with the new routing
information as in DSDV is much more than that involved AODV and DSR, where the routes
are created as and when required. DSR and AODV both use on-demand route discovery, but

with different routing mechanics. In particular, DSR uses source routing and route caches, and
does not depend on any periodic or timer-based activities. DSR exploits caching aggressively
and maintains multiple routes per destination. AODV, on the other hand, uses routing tables,
one route per destination, and destination sequence numbers, a mechanism to prevent loops and
to determine freshness of routes. The general observation from the simulation is that for
application-oriented metrics such as packet delivery fraction and delay AODV, outperforms
DSR in more “stressful” situations (i.e., smaller number of nodes and lower load and/or
mobility), with widening performance gaps with increasing stress (e.g., more load, higher
mobility). DSR, however, consistently generates less routing load than AODV. The poor
performances of DSR are mainly attributed to aggressive use of caching, and lack of any
mechanism to expire stale routes or determine the freshness of routes when multiple choices
are available. Forceful caching, however, seems to help DSR at low loads and also keeps its
routing load down.
19. FUTURE WORK
In upcoming years, extensive complex simulations may possibly be carried out by means of the
project code, in order to increase a more in-depth performance analysis of the adhoc routing
protocols. Further new protocol performance could be studied too.
REFERENCES
[1] NS-2, The ns Manual (formally known as NS Documentation) available at http: //www.
isi.edu/nsnam/ ns/doc.
[2] Ian D. Chakeres and Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer. AODV Routing Protocol Implementation
Design
[3] Charle E. Perkins and Pravin Bhagwat. Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-
Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers.
[4] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz and Josh Broch. DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing
protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc networks.
[5] Magnus Frodigh, Per Johansson and Peter Larsson. Wireless ad hoc networking—The art
of networking without a network.
[6] Park. V and Corson. M. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Version 1.
Functional Specification.
[7] Gao, Fang, Lu, Yuan, Zhang, Qingshun and Li, Chunli. Simulation and Analysis for the
Performance of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols.

PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH NS2 SIMULATOR

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH NS2 SIMULATOR (20)

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH NS2 SIMULATOR