Abstract—These Mobile Adhoc Network (MANET) is

self-managing and governing network with their unique

infrastructure less feature. There are many routing protocols

have been proposed for the needs for research in MANET .The

objective of this paper is to analyze and compare the behavior of

three most popular routing protocols i.e. Ad-hoc On-demand

Distance Vector (AODV), Destination-Sequenced Distance

Vector routing protocol (DSDV) and Dynamic Source Routing

(DSR) using Network Simulator-ns-2 which is a discrete event

open source simulator targeted at wired and wireless

networking research .Here evaluation based on performance

metrics such as packet-delivery-fraction (PDF) ,average

end-to-end delay of data packets and data packet loss by

keeping different pause time.

Index Terms—AODV, DSDV, DSR, MANET, ns-2.

I. INTRODUCTION

Mobile Ad-Hoc network is a kind of wireless network and

self-managing network of moving routers which dynamically

forms a momentary network without the use of any existing

network infrastructure or centralized administration

associated with wireless network. There are different

interesting topics of research due to the presence of dynamic

topology of the network, intermittent connectivity etc. [1]

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) activity has

standardized several routing protocols for MANET. Routing

protocols are the backbone to provide efficient services in

MANET, in terms of performance and reliability. These

protocols are basically divided into nine categories [2] based

on their underlying architectural framework as follows

1) Reactive or on-demand or Source-initiated

2) Pro-active or Table-driven

3) Hybrid

4) Location-aware (Geographical)

5) Multipath

6) Hierarchical

7) Multicast

8) Geographical Multicast

9) Power-aware

There are various Routing protocols exists such as Ad-hoc

On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source

Routing (DSR) are falls under the Reactive or

Source-initiated routing protocol and Destination-Sequenced

Distance Vector routing protocol (DSDV) is one of the

Manuscript received September 14, 2012; revised November 8, 2012.

The authors are with the National Institute of Technology, Agartala

799055 India. (e-mail: anupamjamatia@gmail.com, tdbarma@gmail.com,

mkdb06@gmail.com, swapanxavier@gmail.com).

researchers and have been shown to perform well under

various testing scenarios.

II. WIRELESS ADHOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS

In this section our main focus is to highlight the features of

AODV, DSDV, DSR routing Protocol.

A. AODV

AODV is a state-of-the-art source-initiated routing

protocol that espouses a purely reactive strategy. It sets up a

route on-demand at the start of a communication session, and

uses till it breaks, after which a new route setup is initiated.

AODV adopts a very different type of mechanism to maintain

routing information. It uses traditional routing tables, one

entry per destination [3]. AODV routing protocol is basically

one of the flat routing or uniform routing algorithms rather

we can say it is a well-studied-non-position [4] routing

protocol. This protocol is basically used the simple flooding

technique. AODV relies on the routing table entries to

propagate route reply back to the source and subsequently to

route data packets to the destination. This protocol uses

sequence numbers which is maintained at each destination to

prevent routing loops and to define the newness of routing

information in the table. Regarding utilization of individual

routing table entries AODV has important features which is

hop-by-hop routing maintenance of timer based states in each

intermediate node.

B. DSDV

The methodology in proactive routing protocols is here

every node keeps its routing related information to every

other node (or nodes located in a specific part) in the network.

The routing information is usually kept in a number of

different tables and these tables are time-by-time updated

and/or if there is a change in the network topology. The

differences between these protocols exist in the way the

routing related information is updated, detected and the types

of information kept at each routing table. Furthermore, each

routing protocol may maintain different number of tables

[5].One of the popular and the oldest proactive routing

protocol is Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV)

introduced by Perkins and Bhagwat [6]. DSDV relies on the

Bellman-Ford algorithm where each and every mobile node

maintains a routing table which contains the possible

destinations in the network together with their distance in hop

counts. Each entry also stores a sequence number are

assigned by the destination and also used in the identification

of stale entries and the avoidance of loops. In order to

maintain routing table consistency, routing updates are

periodically forwarded throughout the network. Basically

Scenario Based Pause Time Analysis of AODV, DSDV

and DSR over CBR Connections in MANET

Anupam Jamatia, Tribid Debbarma, Mrinal Kanti Debbarma, and Swapan Debbarma

Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013

57DOI: 10.7763/LNSE.2013.V1.13

Pro-active or table-driven routing have been discussed by the

two types of updates are possible; full dump and incremental.

A full dump sends the entire routing table to the neighbors

and can require multiple network protocol data units.

Incremental updates are smaller which must fit in a single

packet and are used to transmit those entries from the routing

table which have changed since the last full dump update. In

stable network, incremental updates are forwarded and full

dump are usually infrequent. On the other hand, in dynamic

network full dumps will be more frequent. In addition to the

routing table information, each route update packet contains

a distinct sequence number assigned by the transmitter. The

route labeled with the most recent (highest number) sequence

number is used. The shortest route is chosen if any two routes

have the same sequence number [2] [7]-[10].

C. DSR

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is a reactive type routing

protocol which is specifically designed for use in multi hop

wireless Adhoc networks. This protocol is built on two

mechanisms of route discovery and route maintenance [10]

[11].As AODV and DSR both are reactive type routing

protocol there is a similarities both forms a route on-demand

when a transmitting computer requests one. DSR uses source

routing instead of relying on routing table of each

intermediate node. [12]-[13]

During the route discovery it requires to gathering the

address of each node between the source and destination to

determine source routes. The accumulated path information

is cached by nodes in its route cache for processing the route

discovery packets. If a source node cannot find a route in its

route cache, the source node starts a route discovery

mechanism by broadcasting a request packet to its neighbors

[14]. The learned paths are used to route packets. As the

routed packets contain the address of each device or node the

packet will traverse this may result in high overhead for long

paths or large addresses to accomplish source routing. As the

amount of overhead increased in the large network this

protocol is not very effective [5].To avoid using source

routing, optionally DSR can defines a flow id option which

allows packets to be forwarded on a hop-by-hop basis. The

major difference between this and the other reactive routing

protocols is that it is beacon-less and hence does not require

periodic hello packet or beaconing transmissions therefore to

save the considerable amount of bandwidth nodes can switch

to sleep node [5], which are used by a node to inform its

neighbors of its presence.

III. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

In this section we are particularly described the design and

implementation of pause time analysis of AODV, DSDV and

DSR routing protocol using different performance metrics

such as packet delivery fraction, average end to end delay,

packet loss [15].The advantage of simulation in research of

different protocol is that, it allows almost perfect

experimental control with simulation of a model. In the

simulation it is not possible to exactly recreate the entire

world inside a computer model, so when creating a

simulation some factors must be statistically or otherwise

approximated. Incorrect results can be obtained if proper

capturing behaviors of factors are failed. Proper measure

should be taken for this purpose.

For Simulation purpose we have used ns- 2.35 version on

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Kernel version 3.2.0. To measure the

different performance metrics for the above protocol we used

random waypoint mobility model.

To carry out this project, we have used Tcl (Tool

Command Language) scripts to defining the parameters for

different network topology and communication model and

also used awk scripts to get the data from the simulation. We

have used gnuplot tool to plot the graph from the generated

data.

A. Generating Traffic and Mobility Models

To carry out our experiments we have to generate traffic

and also have to make mobility models and for this

Continuous Bit Rate (CBR) traffic sources are used. The

source-destination pairs are spread randomly over the

network. Traffic models were generated for 50 nodes with

Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic sources, with maximum

connections of 10 at a rate of 8kbps. (Rate 2.0: in 1 second, 2

packets are generated. The packet size is 512 byte. Therefore

the rate is 2 × 512 × 8=8kbps). The packet sending rate in

each pair and the number of source-destination pairs is varied

to change the offered load in the network. The mobility

model uses here is the random waypoint model in a

rectangular terrain area with the field configurations used is

1200 m x 400 m with 50 nodes. Here, each packet starts its

journey from a random source to a random destination with a

uniformly distributed in 20m/s randomly chosen speed.

Another random destination is targeted after a pause once the

destination is reached. Here for the experimental purpose we

keep the varied pause time which affects the relative speeds

of the mobiles. We have taken different pause time such as 0,

100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 .Simulations run

for 900 simulated seconds. Identical mobility and traffic

models generated only once to gather fair results for this

project. To generate large number of nodes and their

positions and movements including moving directions &

speeds we have used a CMU tool called "setdest" in ns-2.

B. Performance Metrics

We have focuses on three performance metrics such as

packet-delivery-fraction (PDF) and Average end-to-end

delay of data packets and Data packet loss. [16]-[17]

1) Packet-delivery-fraction (PDF)

The Ratio of the number of data packets delivered to the

destinations to those generated by the CBR Sources.

PDF = Receive Packet/Sent Packet * 100.

The higher the value gives the use the better results. This

metric characterizes both the completeness and correctness of

the routing protocol also reliability of routing protocol by

giving its effectiveness.

2) Average end-to-end delay of data packets

There are possible delays caused by buffering during route

discovery latency, queuing at the interface queue,

retransmission delays at the MAC and propagation and

transfer times. The thesis use Average end-to-end delay.

Average end-to-end delay is an average end-to-end delay of

Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013

58

Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013

59

data packets. It also caused by queuing for transmission at the

node and buffering data for detouring. Once the time

difference between every CBR packet sent and received was

recorded, dividing the total time difference over the total

number of CBR packets received gave the average end-to-end

delay for the received packets. This metric describes the

packet delivery time: the lower the end-to-end delay the better

the application performance.

3) Data Packet Loss (Packet Loss)

Mobility-related packet loss may occur at both the network

layer and the MAC layer. Here packet loss concentrates for

network layer. When a packet arrives at the network layer the

routing protocol forwards the packet if a valid route to the

destination is known. Otherwise, the packet is buffered until a

route is available. A packet is dropped in two cases: the buffer

is full when the packet needs to be buffered and the time that

the packet has been buffered exceeds the limit.

IV. SIMULATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Packet Delivery Fraction is the ratio between the number of

packets originated by the application layer sources and the

number of packets received by the sinks at the final

destination. It will describe the loss rate that will be seen by

the transport protocols such as TCP, IP, and UDP which in

turn affects the maximum throughput that the network can

support. This simulation chooses 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500,

600, 700, 800 and 900 seconds pause time. This simulation

generates 50 nodes. Fig. 1 below shown at pause time 0

seconds (high mobility) environment, DSR outperforms

AODV and DSDV in high mobility environment, topology

change rapidly and AODV can adapt to the changes quickly

since it only maintain one route that is actively used. DSDV

deliver less data packet compare to AODV because in rapid

change topology it is not as adaptive to route changes in

updating its table. DSR does not have mechanism in knowing

which route in the cache is stale; data packet is forwarded to

broken link.

Fig. 1. Pause-time vs. packet delivery fraction

The delay is affected by high rate of CBR packets as well.

The buffers become full much quicker, so the packets have to

stay in the buffers a much longer period of time before they

are sent. This can be seen at the DSDV routing protocol has

the highest value at the 0 mobility. Refer to the Fig. 2 below,

at the 200 and 700 pause time the delay is high for DSR

protocol. The connection setup delay is less. DSDV,

whenever the topology of the network changes, a new

sequence number is necessary before the network

re-converges.

Fig. 2. Pause-time vs. average-end-to-end delivery

In the given below Fig. 3, show not much packet loss on

AODV and DSR side. For DSDV, show the packet loss higher

than DSR and AODV because the route maintenance

mechanism does not locally repair a broken link at that

particular time period.

Fig. 3. Pause-time vs. packet loss

V. CONCLUSION

We can get the observation from the above simulation

result is that if there is a less packet loss then the Protocol is

the highest efficiency. So here DSR and AODB are much

more efficient than DSDV. For application oriented matrices

such as Packet-Delivery-Fraction and End-to-End Delay DSR

and AODV performs better than DSDV with respect to

various Pause-Time and AODV consistently generates less

routing loads than other two protocols. Changes of network

load and topology have the greater impact on the performance

of routing protocol. Since from the last 25 years, field of

Mobile ad hoc network is growing and latest developments

are coming day by day but still there are many more

challenges to be met. We shall consider the comparison of

above three protocols along with the more two protocol such

as TORA and PUMA with varying packet size and speed of

nodes in our future work.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Kathiravelu and S. Sivasuthan “A Hybrid Reactive Routing

Protocol for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” in Proc. of 6th IEEE

International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems,

August 2011, pp. 222-227.

[2] A. Boukerche, B. Turgut, N. Aydin, M. Z. Ahmad, L. Bölöni, and D.

Turgut, “Routing protocols in ad hoc networks:A survey,” Journal

Computer Networks:The International Journal of Computer and

Telecommunications Networking archive, vol. 55, no. 13, September,

2011, pp. 3032-3080.

Anupam Jamatia is an Assistant Professor at the

Computer Science and Engineering Department of

National Institute of Technology, Agartala, India. He

received his B.E. in Computer Science and

Engineering at University College of Engineering,

Burla, Orissa, India in May 2000 and Currently

Pursuing M.Tech. in Computer Science and

Engineering at National Institute of Technology,

Agartala, India. His research interests include Routing

Protocol in Wireless Networking and Mobile Computing. He is a member of

IEEE.

Tribid Debbarma was born on the 17th November

1978 in khowai, Tripura, India. He received the B.E.

degree in Computer Science & Engineering from

Tripura Engineering College (presently- National

Institute of Technology Agartala), Agartala, Tripura,

India, in the year 2003. Currently pursuing M.Tech. in

Computer Sc. & Engineering Department of National

Institute of Technology, Agartala, India. He is working

as Assistant Professor in Computer Science & Engineering Department of

National Institute of Technology Agartala, India since 2006.

Mrinal Kanti Debbarma is presently working as an

Assistant Professor at Computer Science & Engineering

Department of National Institute of Technology

Agartala, India. He received B.Tech (IET, Lucknow),

M.Tech (MNNIT, Allahabad), currently pursuing

Ph.D.(Information Technology) at Assam University.

His research interest include in , MANET Routing

Protocols, Wireless Sensor Networks ,Software

Engineering with special interest in Software metrics analysis and

Regression testing. He has 12 years of academic and 5 years Industrial

experience. He has published more technical papers in various International

Journals and Conferences.Mr. Debbarma is a member of IAENG, IACSIT.

Swapan Debbarma was born in India, in the state

called Tripura on 4th Oct. 1978. He is an Assistant

Professor in Computer Science & Engineering

Department at National Institute of Technology Agartala,

Tripura, INDIA. He has 12 years of academic experience.

He obtained his Bachelor of Technology in Computer

Science & Engineering from NERIST, Arunachal

Pradesh, India and M.Tech. in CSE from Tripura

University, Agartala, India. At present pursuing Ph.D. from NIT Agartala in

the area of Nanotechnology. He also has interest in OS and Networking.

Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 2013

60

[3] A. A. A. Radwan, T. M. Mahmoud, and E. H. Houssein, “Evaluation

comparison of some ad hoc networks routing protocols,” Egyptian

Informatics Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2011, pp. 95–106.

[4] H. D. Trung and P. M. Duc, “Performance evaluation and comparison

of different ad hoc routing protocols,” Computer Communications,

2007, vol. 30, pp. 2478-96.

[5] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki, and E. Dutkiewicz, “A review of routing

protocols for mobile ad hoc networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 2, no. 1,

January 2004, pp. 1–22.

[6] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced

Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers,” in

Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Communications

Architectures, Protocols and Applications, Oct. 1994, pp. 234-244.

[7] N. Qasim, F. Said, and H. Aghvami, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Simulations Using Routing Protocols for Performance Comparisons,”

in Proceedings of the WorldCongress on Engineering (WCE), 2008 vol.

I, London, UK. July 2-4, 2008.

[8] T. Larson and N. Hedman “Routing Protocols in Wireless Ad-hoc

networks- A simulation Study,” Masters Thesis in Computer Sc. &

Engineering, Switch Lab Erricson, Stockholm, 1998.

[9] A. Boukerche, Algorithms and Protocols for Wireless, Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2008.

[10] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, B. David, H. Johnson, C. Yi, and J. Jetcheva, “A

Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Network

Routing Protocols,” in Proceeding of the 4th annual ACM/IEEE

international conference on Mobile computing and networking

MobiCom '98, pp. 85 – 97.

[11] J. Broch, D. B. Johnson, and D. A. .Maltz, “The dynamic source

routing for mobile adhoc networks,” IETF Internet-draft,

draft-ietf-manet-dsr-00.txt, 1998.

[12] N. S. M. Usop, A. Abdullah, and A. F. A. Abidin, ”Performance

Evaluation of AODV,DSDV & DSR Routing Protocol in Grid

Environment,” International Journal of Computer Science and

Network Security (IJCSNS), 2009, pp. 261-268.

[13] K. A. Gupta, H. Sadawarti, and K. A. Verma, “A Review of Routing

Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” WSEAS Transactions on

Communications, ISSN: 1109-2742, vol. 10, no. 11, November 2011,

pp. 331-340.

[14] L. Layuan, Y. Peiyan, and L. Chunlin, “Performance evaluation and

simulations of routing protocols in Adhoc networks,” Computer

Communications, vol. 30, pp. 1890-1998, 2007.

[15] S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, and E. M. Royer, “Performance comparison of

two on-demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks,” in Proc. of

Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and

Communications Societies. Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 3-12.

[16] P. C. Reddy and P. C. Reddy, “Performance Analysis of Adhoc

Network Routing Protocols,” Academic Open Internet Journal, ISSN

1311-4360, vol. 17, 2006.

[17] S. M. Said, M. M. Ibrahiem, E. Emary, and S. Kadim, “Comparative

study between the performance of proactive and reactive mobile ad-hoc

networks (MANET) routing protocols with varying mobility,”

Academic Journals, Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 6, no. 6, pp.

1256-1274, 18 March, 2011.