A Comparative Performance Study of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols to Improve the Route Discovery Process of AODV

A Comparative Performance Study of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols to Improve the Route Discovery Process of AODV

Zafar Mehmood Khattak, Muddesar Iqbal, Xingheng Wang
DOI: 10.4018/ijaras.2014100102
(Individual Articles)
No Current Special Offers


A Mobile Adhoc Network is a multihop self-configuring network without any fixed infrastructure of wirelessly connected devices. Due to node mobility and, dynamic topology, designing and implementing reliable routing in MANET is a major challenge. This paper provides the comparative performance analysis of DSR, AODV and DSDV. Different types of test scenarios have been designed with fixed number of nodes and varying mobility. The experimental results have been analyzed and recommendations based on the obtained results have been proposed about the significance of each protocol in different scenarios and situations which will help the researcher in the field to select best protocol under predefined conditions with varied mobility. Furthermore, based on the learning from comparative performance analysis, some modification to AODV route discovery process has been proposed and evaluated. The proposed changes have made significant improvement both in throughput and packet delivery fraction.
Article Preview

In the past, many researchers have performed the experimental analysis of table driven protocols and on demand protocols by analyzing their throughput, packet delivery ratio, end to end delay and normalized routing load based on different predefined constrains.

Khatawkar (2012) have analysed table driven protocol, DSDV and on demand routing protocol AODV and DSR with the fixed mobility and increasing number of nodes to compare throughput, delay, normalized routing load, number of sent packets using NS-2 simulator. The result shows that in less dense environment DSR shows better performance than AODV and DSDV, but with increasing number of nodes AODV has slightly changed its behaviour and shown better result than DSR and DSDV for throughputs, packet delivery ration, number of send and received packets, but end to end delay is still better in DSR even in more dense situation. (Sharma, 1012) compares the performance of ad hoc protocols on the base of variation in number of nodes. Various performance parameters are measured during the study. Results show that all protocols show variation due to variation in number of nodes, DSR show slightly better performance with less number of nodes as compared to AODV and DSDV, while performance of AODV shows more stability when the network structure is growing in terms of nodes. DSDV shows almost constant performance.

Sharma (2012) compares performance of three routing protocol AODV, DSR and DSDV based on the properties like throughput, ratio of packet delivery, number of packets loss and end-to-end delay, defining 4 different scenarios.. In first scenario when the number of nodes increasing, in end-to-end delay property, both DSR and DSDV show poor performance as compared to AODV, but DSR outclass both AODV and DSDV with less number of nodes. For packet loss DSDV shows constant behaviour, but packet loss ratio is greater both in AODV and DSR with increasing number of nodes. In ratio of packet delivery DSR show better performance with increasing number of nodes as compared to AODV, and AODV shows good performance than DSDV. Analysing the throughput behaviour both AODV and DSR show same behaviour for less number of nodes, which is gradually decreased when the number of nodes are increased, overall DSDV outperforms both AODV and DSR in throughput. In scenario with varying pause time, AODV shows better performance than both the protocol for end-to-end delay, for packet loss DSDV outclass both the protocols for all condition, analysing the throughput DSDV shows a stable behaviour as compared to AODV and AODV show better performance than DSR.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles: Forthcoming
Volume 7: 1 Issue (2016)
Volume 6: 2 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing