Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols

Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Guide: Prof. D.B.Phatak

IIT Bombay

Presented by: Pramendra Singh

Roll Number: 113050025

Outline

• Introduction of Routing protocol for MANET

• Motivation

• Comparing parameter and performance measuring parameter .

• Results

• Conclusion

• References

Note- All the graphs are taken from[1].

Introduction of Routing protocol for MANET

• Importance of routing 1. efficient use of bandwidth. 2. flexible and optimal path selection. 3. Load balancing

Routing protocols are divided into two classes

1. Reactive routing protocols 2. Proactive routing protocols

Reactive routing protocols

• These find the route only when there is data to be transmitted.

• Main reactive protocols are

1. AODV (Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector routing protocol).

2. DSR (Dynamic Source Routing protocol).

• generate low control traffic and routing overhead.

Proactive protocols

• These protocols calculate path in advance for all source and destination pairs

• Need periodically exchange topology information to maintain route up to date

• Main proactive protocols are

1. OLSR(Optimized Link State Routing).

2. DSDV (Destination-Sequenced Distance vector Routing).

DSR

• Source-routed on-demand routing protocol.

• Maintain route cache.

• RREQ packet is send by source.

• Intermediate nodes add its address in the header(source routing).

• Destination reply with RREP pkt containing whole route.

• Route are not necessarily bidirectional

AODV

• Source send RREQ pkt .

• Intermediate node add entry of source in its routing table about source

• Destination reply the packet from the same route , in this way intermediate nodes make entry of destination.

Motivation

• Routing is the most important.

• Different protocols perform best in different scenarios.

• For example, If we use OLSR in highly mobile environment then most of the bandwidth will be wasted in exchanging routing information in each update.

Comparing parameter

• Effect of workload

• Number of flows

• Size of network

• Mobility of nodes

Performance measuring parameter

• Throughput

• Goodput

• Routing load

• End to end delay

Simulation parameter

• Experiment is done in the form of simulation.

• Simulator OPENET 11.0 is used

• Simulation were run for 1000 sec

• Nodes were distributed in 1000m *1000m area randomly.

• For network traffic CBR (constant bit rate) category is used.

• Routing table expire time set to 15 sec for OLSR

Effect of workload

• Workload consist of 10 CBR flows

• Intensity varied from 12.5-150Kbps

• Number of node 50

• Speed is uniformly distributed between 0-20m/s

Effect of Number of flows

• Number of flows varies from 0-30

• Each flow generate 25kbps traffic

Size of network

• Number of nodes are varied from 25 – 100.

Mobility of nodes

• Throughput

• Goodput,

• Routing load

• End to end delay

Conclusion

• OLSR routing protocol is well suited for the ad-hoc configuration of the tablets as there will be large number of user and less mobility at the cost of more routing load.

References

• C. Mbarushimana and A. Shahrabi, “Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE AINAW'07, 2007

THANK YOU

DSR v/s AODV

• DSR multiple roots

• DSR source routing

• DSR route caching

• AODV only bidirectional roots