a comparative analysis of proactive, reactive and hybrid ... · pdf fileomnet++ i. e. open...

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 11, Number 6 (2016) pp 3885-3896

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

3885

A Comparative Analysis of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Routing

Protocols over open Source Network Simulator

in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

Deepshikha Bhatia*

Assistant Professor, The IIS University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Prof. Durga Prasad Sharma

AMIT, AMU MOE FDRE under UNDP and External Consultant & Adviser (IT), ILO [An autonomous Agency of United Nations], Geneva.

Abstract

It is very difficult to pursue a research over real time networks

at the mean time implementation of such components are

costly. Network simulators reduce this task in real time and

accomplish this task with less time and cost. There are many

network simulators available in the market like Ns2, Ns3,

OMNET++, OPNET, NetSim, QualNet, REAL, J-Sim,

SWAN, Jist, and GloMoSiM. Generally Network simulators

are used to analyze network performance and its measurement

metrics. It has been observed that several standing authors did

not compare routing protocols with network simulators in

general. This paper presents comparison of results of NS3 and

OMNET++ i. e. open source simulators for analyzing Mobile

Ad hoc routing protocols by means of Packet Delivery Ratio,

Routing Overhead, Throughput, Average end to end delay and

Path Optimality. Further it was analyzed that which one open

source simulator is most fit for research purposes. This

research presented proactive, reactive and hybrid routing

protocols and compared with both network simulators.

Experimental results clearly differentiate the performance

differences of selected simulators and helps in selection

process for network simulators by salient stakeholders.

Keywords: OMNET, NS3, MANET, Network simulators,

Routing Protocols.

Introduction Simulation is one of the key technologies in today world. The

simulation in computer can model the real time concept by

using simulator. In recent development real time

implementation causes more cost and it consumes more time

to implement. For avoiding such situation network simulators

are used. There are many types of network simulators on

modern world which are differ from their working range. The

network simulators providing more benefits and features like

reproducibility, setup, easy to deploy, scalability. There are

different network simulators with different features. Some of

the network simulator are OPNET, NS2, NS3, NetSim,

OMNeT++, REAL, J-Sim and QualNet. Mostof the network

simulation toolkits are based on the paradigm of the event-

driven network simulation.

In recent era, the network simulation toolkits are used by

academic research, industrial development and guarantying

quality. Network simulators are used in research area because

of resources, time, giving best performance result and the

network simulators are solving the problem of new security

implementation. In recent days network simulators are used

for designing and analyzing different network protocols. The

decentralized structure of mobile nodes may change network

topology rapidly and unpredictably is referred as MANET. In

Mobile Ad hoc network the mobile nodes are autonomously

connected with the wireless link. MANET is a type of Ad hoc

network which has routable networking domain. Basically

MANET does not have any specific infrastructure. In

MANET routing is the process of exchanging information

from one node to another node. In routing the messages are

transferred towards the destination through the selected

efficient path.

In MANET the routing protocols are classified into 3 different

types as shown in fig 2 which are,

Proactive routing protocols

Reactive routing protocols

Hybrid routing protocols

Figure 1: Manet Architecture

In proactive routing protocol all the nodes generally stores

their information in the form of tables when any change in the

network topology happens. As per the change network

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



3886

topology, routing tables are updated. But in proactive routing

protocol, the cost associated with this is significantly greater

than reactive routing protocol. One major advantage of

proactive routing protocol does not cause any discovery delay

when constructing a new route.

Reactive or on demand routing protocols are discovering the

route when it needed. i. e., based on demand only the reactive

routing protocol will finding out the route. This reduces the

control message overhead and the cost of increased latency

when discovering new route. During message transmission it

consumes low bandwidth and in reactive routing protocol

there is no need to issue messages from source to destination.

The combination of both reactive and proactive routing

protocols is named as hybrid routing protocol.

Figure 2: Sorting of Manet routing protocol

Hybrid routing protocol overcomes the problem of both

existing routing protocols. In that the control message

overhead of proactive protocol is minimized and the latency

problem associated in reactive protocol is decreased.

The main goal of this study includes the following:

In this paper we have worked with some of the

simulators. Among the network simulator which one

simulator giving best performance result in terms of

packet delivery ratio, Routing Overhead,

Throughput, Average end to end delay, Path

Optimality was our target.

Here we used reactive, proactive and hybrid routing

protocols. For reactive routing protocol AODV, DSR

and for proactive routing protocols DSDV, OLSR,

hybrid includes ZRP, WARP.

These protocols were compared with OMNET++ and

NS3 network simulators.

From that we analyzed which one network simulator

producing most fit results.

Related Work GayatryBorboruah, Gypsy Nandi [7] discussed with current

network simulators like NS2, NS3, OPNET, NetSim,

OMNeT++, QualNet and they also discussed with network

simulators overview and features. Other than network

simulators additionally they proposed some of the simulation

techniques like event simulation, parallel discrete event

simulation and USSF. The loop-free route in AODV is stated

in paper [4] for repairing the failure links. This is very useful

for dynamic self-starting networks and this approach is very

adaptable for large scale mobile ad hoc networks. OMNET++

simulation tool is used in [10] where the OMNET++

simulation has been used for dense scale networks. It allows

an integrated Development Environment during simulation.

The main contribution of this proposal reduced the debugging

time. Majorlyit uses components in reusable format when

using OMNET++ simulation. Basically routing protocols

performs an important role in message transmission during

communication.

Authors in [1] proposed a performance of DSR, AODV,

DSDV routing protocols which are simulated with NS-2. 35.

The simulation results proved that the AODV routing protocol

performs better in case of throughput and packet delivery ratio

but increases average End to end delay when number of node

increases. The DSR performs better throughput when

compared to AODV and decreases when time increases. But

in this work they did not considered NS3and thus not suitable

for our research. In [5] various network simulators are

compared by means of CPU utilization, memory usage,

computational time, and scalability in mobile ad hoc

networks. This paper worked to prove which one network

simulator optimal for researching. In that they proved NS3 is

the fastest network simulator among them by means of

computation time. In the paper, [2] the control message

overhead during node mobility for various routing protocols

like proactive, reactive. This paper proved that the proactive

routing protocol gives better result when node mobility occurs

and it reuses the link for many routes.

Nancy Garg proposed different network simulators like ns2,

ns3, omnet++, opnet, qualnet, GloMoSim. Among various

network simulators he analyzed which one is the main

resource for research [6] and economically which one open

source simulator best also analyzed. Finally he stated ns2 and

OMNET++ are most benefits when compared to other

simulator types. A general framework of DSDV is added with

layer 2 features in [3]. In that the mobile nodes are treated as a

router. Each of them is cooperating to transmit the data

packets when they need it. VANET is a type of Mobile ad hoc

network. VANET is basically used in vehicle to vehicle

communication or vehicle to road side equipment

communication.

In the research study [12] the routing protocols such as

AODV and OLSR used and compared with OMNET++

simulation environment. Finally, the study of Reetika et. al

[12] proved that AODV routing protocol gives better result by

means of performance. At the same time OLSR gives better

throughput by means of throughput. So, the selection of

network plays an important role when choosing the routing

protocols. This approach is used in layer 2. In another study

[8] five different network simulators have been proposed and

those are ns-2, OMNet++, ns-3, SimPy and JiST/SWANS. In

this study they proved JiSTas the fastest network simulator

and NS3 provides better choice when comparing the

performance and OMNET++ offering graphical user interface

support. Finally they proved NS3, JiST and OMNET++ are

the better choices by means of scalability.



3887

System Overview Protocol Overview:

Proactive Routing Protocols

Proactive routing protocols are also called as table driven

routing protocols. In this all nodes in network maintains a

specific table which contains all routing information about

entire topology of the network.

This table is updated periodically when any changes made in

the network topology to maintain network consistence. In this

paper we are discuss about two proactive ad hoc routing

protocols which are,

Optimal Link State Routing (OLSR)

Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV)

OLSR

The Optimized link state routing protocol is a type of

proactive routing protocol in mobile ad hoc network.

Normally in link state routing the routing protocol

immediately inherits the routing when routing is needed.

OLSR is also pure link state protocol where the links with

neighbor node is announced and are flooded into the entire

network. In OLSR flooding broadcast can be minimized by

using Multipoint Relay (MPR). For reducing the control

message overhead it uses specific nodes to spread their

message in the network. So, the nodes in multipoint relay are

selected for retransmission of packets.

Other than normal control messages OLSR does not generate

any extra control messages when response to link defeat.

Normally OLSR uses two kinds of control messages which

are: Hello message and Topology Control (TC) messages.

Hello messages are used for building Multipoint Relay set

which gives details about which one neighbor node selects

this MPR. From this collected information that host is

evaluatingit own MPR sets [13].

Figure 3: OLSR routing mechanism

Node 3 generates topology control messages and forwards it

to the advertising neighbors like 4, 5, and 6 since MS (3) = {2,

4, 5}. Then node 4 broadcasts its control message to

advertising neighbors like 1, 3, 5, and 6. Node 4 has its MS

(4) ={1, 3, 5, 6}. Now all nodes have link state information to

route to any node in the network. Flooding through multipoint

relay nodes can reduces number of duplicate transmission.

OLSR is immediately reactive when any changes in the

network topology by changing the time interval of

broadcasting the Hello messages.

DSDV:

Destination Sequenced Distance Vector is a table driven

routing protocol where each node in the network maintains a

unique routing tables for exchange topology information.

Basically DSDV is derived from Bellman-Ford routing

mechanism. The routing table contains information about

source to possible destination and number of hops to each

destination is recorded where each table entry is labeled with

a sequence number. The consistency between each station can

be maintained by the periodical update of topology changes

information when any changes occurred in each station. Each

station sends their topology updated information and the

routing table is updated dynamically[14].

If the station moves from one to another station within the

network means the topology change information is

incrementally broadcasted or multicast the routing packets. In

DSDV routing each mobile station should advertise their

routing tables to each of its neighboring stations. The

information stored in the routing table includes sequence

number of transmitter, hardware address, network address,

and most important parameter is time taken to broadcast this

routing information is also to be considered. In large scale

mobile ad hoc networks adjustment is to be taken in time

when broadcasting the messages. The amount of time taken

for broadcasting these messages can be reduced in two ways.

Full dump

Incremental

The full dump transfers all available routing information. The

second one is transfers only the information which is

transferred in full dump is named as incremental where it

maintains a network protocol data unit (NPDU). When a

mobile node receives any new information means that

information is compared with already received routing

packets. In DSDV the route with old sequence number is

rejected and it chooses the route with fresh sequence number

only.

Figure 4: Routing Table of Node A

One major advantage of DSDV routing protocol is that base

station in the network can able to extend their coverage range

beyond the range imposed by the wireless transmitter. In



3888

DSDV the base station within the coverage range can

cooperate to extend coverage range of base station to serve

other base station in outside of the coverage range.

Reactive Routing Protocols

Reactive routing protocols are set up route on-demand only.

The node in mobile ad hoc network wants to communicate

with other node which it has no route, the routing protocol try

to initiate route between those two nodes. In reactive routing

protocols route discovery process is done by flooding Route

Request to the entire network. Here we discuss with two

different reactive routing protocols which are,

Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)

Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)

AODV:

Ad hoc on-demand routing protocol is a type of reactive

routing protocol in mobile ad hoc network. AODV routing

protocol establishes a route to the destination on demand only.

It has two specific processes which are

Route Discovery

Route Maintenance

In AODV Hello message plays a vital role for maintaining

network connectivity. Hello messages are used to identify the

coverage range of nodes. The main aim of hello messages is

to maintain local connectivity between the nodes. Hello

messages can able to identify whether its next hop is within

coverage range or not. AODV can able to perform unicast,

broadcast and multicast operations. If a source node decides a

path to the destination means the source node broadcast route

request (RREQ) packet to the entire network [13]. The nodes

receiving these packetsfrom reverse path and update their

route table and the destination node send unicast route reply

(RREP) message to the source through selected path. The

nodes which are forward information are known as active

route. The RREQ contains information of current sequence

number, source IP address, broadcast ID, and also contains

most recent sequence number of the destination that source

node aware [1]. The broadcast ID of each RREQ is

incremented for every source node that initiates path

discovery process.

Figure 5: AODV RREQ Broadcast

Source node receives RREP from the destination node, the

node setup forward pointers to the destination node. This

process is defined as path discovery in AODV. Source node

starts packet transmission from source to the destination when

the source node receives RREP from destination node.

If the source node receives RREP later means RREP have

same sequence number with smaller hop count. Then it

updates its routing table and inform to the destination for

getting new better route from source to destination.

Figure 6: Path Discovery

In AODV link between nodes are normally symmetric in

nature. Link failure occurs when the route is in active and the

node up steams its Route Error RERR message to the source

node for finding new route. After receiving RERR message

the source node decide to reinitiate route discovery. The route

maintenance applied when the node moves and reinitiates its

routes using our route discovery protocol to find out new

freshestroute from source to destination.

DSR:

Dynamic Source Routing protocol is a simple and efficient

routing protocol used for multi-hopping and it does not

requires any infrastructure of administration. DSR is

composed of two types of mechanisms like

Route Discovery

Route Maintenance

DSR is completely allowing the network to be self organizing

and self configuring. DSR route discovery process is used to

identify path between source to particular destination [15].

This process is done by using Route Request (RREQ) and

Route Reply (RREP). In that each intermediate node in the

route authorized to issues a valid route reply if it has valid

route to the destination in its route cache memory. If the

source wants to communicate with destination node a RREQ

is broadcasts to all the nodes in the network when the source

does not have route to the destination in its route cache. Each

node receives this route request and adds its address into the

RREQ. After that it re-broadcasts this packet to their

neighboring nodes. If the destination receives this RREQ and

it adds address and then generates its own RREP packet. Then

this packet is forward to the source through reverse path. If

the source node receives this packet then it establishes its

route to the destination and stores it in their route cache.

If there is any failure in the routing means it sends an RERR

message to the source node [16]. Route from A to F is shown

in fig8. As shown in fig8.



3889

Figure 7: DSR Route Discovery

The link from D to E is broken. Node D sends Route Error

message (RERR) to source node A. Then it has to choose

alternate route for future transmission.

Figure 8: DSR Route Maintenance

Hybrid Routing Protocols

Hybrid routing protocols are the combination of both

proactive and reactive routing protocols. Hybrid routing

protocols are designed to reduce control overhead caused in

proactive routing protocols and also to decrease latency in

reactive routing protocols. Normally topology of hybrid

routing protocols are region based or zone based. The data

transmission within the region is normally follows a table

driven (Proactive). If the data transmission occur between

different region or zone is accomplished through on demand

routing protocols. Examples of hybrids routing protocols

include:

Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)

Wireless Ad hoc Routing Protocol (WARP)

ZRP:

In Zone Routing Protocol network topology is divided into

number of zones. Zone is defined as a collection of nodes

which are having minimum distance from the radius which is

called zone radius. Basically in ZRP nodes are classified into

two different types which are peripheral nodes and interior

nodes.

Figure 9: Structure of ZRP

The nodes which are in perimeter of the zone are defined as

peripheral nodes which minimum distance is equal to zone

radius. The nodes which minimum distance is less than the

radius are defined as interior nodes. The transmission power

range is adjusted when regulate number of nodes in the

routing zone. The number of nodes in the routing zone should

be sufficient to improve network reachability and redundancy.

In ZPR the routing is classified into two different types:

Intra Zone Routing Protocol (IARP)

Inter Zone Routing Protocol (IERP)

In IARP, the routing information is maintained only the nodes

which are within the routing zone. The IERP maintains

routing information outside of the routing zone. ZPR uses the

concept of bordercasting instead of broadcasting. In

bordercasting the node only directsits message to the

peripheral node. This bordercast message delivery service is

provided by the Bordercast Resolution Protocol (BRP). In

routing process the source node sends its route request

message to their border nodes by using BRP. Then destination

node sends route reply message when the receiver of the route

request packet knows the destination. Otherwise the source

node continuously sends route request. If a node is receives

multiple copies of the same packet which is considered as a

redundant packets. These redundant packets are discarded

later

WARP:

WARP is a Wireless Ad hoc Routing Protocol which is same

as ZRP. WARP is same as ZRP but is has additional

enhancement feature than ZRP which is Quality of Service

(QOS). WARP performs on demand routing discovery and

route maintenance by using user datagram protocol. In WARP

the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) is used which is

locates one hop neighbor. In WARP‘s Proactive Routing

protocol (PRP) is a timer based link state routing protocol.

This feature allows WARP to both hop count routing and

QOS routing which is based on wireless routing metrics such

as link stability, node energy status. WARP’s Reactive

Routing Protocol is providing explicit source routing which

providing End to End QOS support.



3890

Network Simulators Overview In today research criteria computer network simulation plays a

vital role. Because it requires minimum cost and time.

Computer simulation is used to test the network plan capacity

as well as meet customer’s requirements. Recently, number of

network simulation tools is used in modern research. In this

paper we are only discuss with two different network

simulators which includes: OMNET++ and NS3. These two

network simulators are used in recent research because of

their functionality framework.

OMNET++ network simulator

OMNET++ is anopen source network simulator which is

component based network simulator framework. In contrast to

NS2 and NS3, OMNET++ is not a network simulator which is

a discrete event based network simulation framework.

OMNET++ network simulator provides Graphical User

Interface (GUI) support for researchers. This component

based architecture is programmed in C++ and it can also be

embedded into different kinds of user applications.

OMNET++ is consists of number of component modules. It

can be classified into two different types which include:

Simple Module

Compound Module

The simple module is used to define algorithm in which

particular algorithm is occur. The active component of the

system is defined as simple module and this module only

defines the behavior associated with the system. Collection of

simple module is defined as a compound module which can

interact with each other. The compound module is

representing a host node.

Figure 10: OMNET++ Module structure

These modules are communicated with message which

contains number of attributes such as timestamps. Simple

module is send messages through gates[10]. Gates are the

interfaces of module like input and output gates. Messages are

sending out through the output gate and are arrive via input

gate. Both input and output gates are connected with

connection.

In OMNET++ the modules and interconnection between

modules are described in OMNET’s topology description

language NED [9]. The main description of NED is a simple

module declaration, compound module definition and network

definitions. The features associated with NED languages

include: Inheritance, Interfaces, Packages, Inner types, Meta

data annotations. In OMNET++ NED language is used same

as XML language. Since, NED language is converted into

XML representation without any loss of data. The object

library used in OMNET++ providing very rich for simple

module implementation. Parallel simulation execution (PDES)

support is also offered by OMNET++network simulator. This

parallel simulation feature is very helpful for large scale

simulations.

Figure 11: OMNET++ Simulation Architecture

The logical architecture of OMNET++ simulation is shown in

fig11. The model component library consists of simple and

compound module compiled codes. Simulation kernel and

class library builds concrete simulation model at the

beginning of simulation execution process. User interface

library defines where input data is come from, where output

data to go, controls the simulation execution, evaluate how the

simulation model is visualized, what happens to simulation

output, etc.

Advantages of OMNET++:

Omnet++ distributions are available in both UNIX and

Windows based systems, Mac OS.

It supports structured and reusable format since it is

developed as a component oriented approach.

It uses most extensive Graphical User Interface (GUI)

support.

It offers Graphical network editor for NED files.

OMNET++ supports large scale simulation as well as

queuing simulation.

NS3:

NS3 is a free open sourced discrete event network simulator

as like NS2 which are target to research and educational

purpose. The main advantage of NS3 isa free network

topology and its source code is available to all. NS3 is a

replacement of NS2 not an extension [5]. NS3 is written in

pure C++ and some part of simulation can also written in

python scripting and it does not have OTcl API. Fig 12

depicts the architecture of NS3. Python programs are used to

import NS3 modules and python binding have also been



3891

modularized in recent days. By using sockets NS3 support

both simulation and emulation. In NS3 the protocol entities

are planned to be closer to real world computers which causes

more attention to realism. More open source networking

software is supported by NS3 that results more software

integration specialty to it [8]. In NS3 various types of virtual

machines are used in recent days. These virtual machines are

supporting the features for NS3 such as:

Testbed integration

Attribute system

Tracing Architecture

Topology

Characteristics of NS3:

In high degree of complexity network environment NS3

provide high reliability.

NS3 is widely used for design and optimization of large

and medium scale networks.

The simulation results can be easily reproduced and

analyzed.

It is very flexible to use for teaching. NS3 providing the

platform to visually see the network protocol.

It requires only a small amount of cost for constructing an

application.

Figure 12: NS3 Architecture

Features of NS3:

An NS3 is designed with new software core which

improves scalability, coding style, modularity and

documentation.

An object aggregation capabilities used in NS3 which

easier for modal and packet extension.

Nodes are used in NS3 are designed like real computers

which improves more attention to realism.

Light weight virtual machines are designed over a

simulation network.

NS3 only takes low initial application cost. It is very easy

to learn.

Performance Evaluation In this section we compare our routing protocols with network

simulators. Various numbers of protocols like proactive,

reactive and hybrid used in all these networks. Weprovided

NS3 and OMNET++simulation environments. NS3 simulation

tool used in Linux platform and OMNET++ used in Widows

platform. From the simulation we can analyze which one

network simulator good for MANET routing such as proactive

routing protocol (DSDV or OLSR), reactive routing protocol

(AODV or DSR) and for hybrid routing protocols (ZRP,

WARP). Based on the simulation result we can able to

compare which one open source network simulator better for

MANET routing.

Simulation Environment:

We conduct our simulation experiments on NS3 and

OMNET++ network simulators between proactive routing

protocol (DSDV or OLSR), reactive routing protocol (AODV

or DSR) and for hybrid routing protocols (ZRP, WARP). The

parameters considered during OMNET++ simulation is listed

in table 1.

Table 1: OMNET++ Simulation Structure

Parameter Values

Number of nodes 15, 25, 50

Interface type Phy/WirelessPhy

Channel Wireless Channel

Mac type Mac/802_11

Interface Phy/WirelessPhy

Movement Model Random

Size of packet 64-512 bytes

Protocol AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, ZRP, WARP

Traffic CBR

Simulation area 600M*600M

Node mobility speed 1…15 m/s

In our simulation we compare our reactive, proactive and

hybrid routing protocols with NS3 and OMNET++ network

simulators. Our simulation is run using networks of 15, 25 and

50 nodes. During simulation the nodes can move anywhere

within the coverage area. Total simulation conducted in the

area of 600*600 m. Speed of each mobile node is 15 mps. We

use Constant Bit Rate (CBR) for traffic management in

mobile Adhoc network during packet transmission. Traffic

source is to be CBR and packet sizes of 64 to 512 bytes. It

consists of IEEE 802. 11 MAC protocol which is uniformly

distributed. The nodes in our simulation moves depend on the

Random Waypoint Mobility Model which can be generated

and executed by OMNET++ and NS3 simulator. In the

simulation model, apacket can be uni-cast or broadcast.

According to the mobility model nodes are moves in the

simulation environment. For simulation, environment

surrounding is selected Pause Time. Pause Time is a time in

which all the nodes in the networks are motionless but

continued in transmission. Each node in the network selects

random destination and moves to the destination at a speed

distributed uniformly. If the pause time is 0 seconds means it

corresponds to continuous motion. No motion between the

node means the pause time corresponds to N seconds.



3892

Performance Metrics:

Some important performance metrics discussed in this section

for these two network simulators. These metrics are listed

below:

Packet delivery ratio

Throughput

Average end-to-end delay

Path Optimality

Routing Overhead

Those parameters are explained in detail and clearly plotted

with its graphical representation in next section.

Comparative Analysis:

In this section various network protocols on NS3 and

OMNET++ are compared by means of Packet delivery ratio,

Throughput, Average end-to-end delay, Path optimality and

Routing overhead.

Performance on NS3:

In this section we analyze the result of NS3 network simulator

performance with various routing protocols such as AODV,

DSR, DSDV, OLSR, ZRP, and WARP compared in terms of

Packet delivery ratio, Throughput, Average end-to-end delay,

Path optimality and Routing overhead. Figure13. Showpacket

delivery ratio between various routing protocols. Packet

delivery ratio is the ratio between numbers of packet

generated by the source and the number of packets

successfully delivered to the destination. Packet delivery ratio

of above mentioned protocols are displayed in table 2.

Table 2: Packet delivery Ratio

Packet Delivery Ratio

No. of Nodes AODV DSR DSDV OLSR ZRP WARP

15 . 83 . 67 . 59 . 55 . 45 . 42

25 . 89 . 77 . 68 . 58 . 54 . 45

50 1. 0 . 94 . 84 . 79 . 7 . 68

From NS3 simulation we got better packet delivery ratio for

AODV routing protocol when compared to other routing

protocols.

Figure 13: PDR Vs No. of Nodes

In normal network condition DSR perform better result when

increase number of nodes DSR reduces PDR value. In this

case AODV perform well when varying number of nodes.

Table 3: Throughput

Throughput


15 220 235 210 170 130 105

25 255 260 240 220 165 143

50 310 330 298 230 220 140

Figure 14: Throughput Vs No. of Nodes

Throughput is defined as the total number of packet delivered

at a unit of time. From figure14 various routing protocols

performed on NS3 simulation and table 3 describes the

throughput values of those protocols. Finally DSR gives better

throughput even increasing number of nodes in the network.

AODV reduces its throughput when maximizing number of

nodes.

Table 4: Average End-End Delay

Average End-End Delay


15 109 85 75 70 253 265

25 128 96 80 103 288 310

50 194 145 130 160 374 394

Figure 15: Average End-End DelayVs No. of Nodes



3893

Average end to end delay is the time taken by a packet to

reach its destination through the desired route from source. It

is also defined as the sum of all time differences between the

data packet sent and received divided by the number of

packets. Normally average end to end delay minimum for

AODV because it has low throughput compared to DSR. If

the throughput of the routing protocol maximum means

average end to end delay is minimum and vice versa.

Proactive routing protocols having minimum delay since it

already stored its routing information in routing table which

reduces its delay. Table 4 depicts average end-to-end delay

values. Figure15 shows average end to end delay of 6

different routing protocols.

Table 5: Routing Overhead

Routing Overhead


15 0. 513 0. 31 0. 313 1. 123 2. 293 2. 503

25 0. 76 0. 16 0. 26 1. 43 2. 93 3. 28

50 0. 504 0. 12 0. 254 1. 364 2. 604 3. 404

Figure16 shows routing overhead when varying number of

nodes from 0 to 50. The total number of routing control

packetsgenerated by each routing protocols is defined as

routing overhead.

Literally all the proactive routing protocols are having

minimum routing overhead.

Figure 16: Routing OverheadVs No. of Nodes

Since all of its routing information are maintained in the

routing table. DSDV have minimum routing overhead than

AODV. Here DSR having decreased routing overhead than

other routing protocols. Normally hybrid routing protocols

lack in their routing process because it choose their routing on

demand fashion. Comparison of outing overhead of those

protocols are shown in table 5.

Table 6: Path Optimality

Path Optimality


15 64 47 27 15 8 5

25 70. 9 47. 9 27. 9 16. 9 10 5

50 95 62 32 21 14 10

Figure 17: Path Optimality Vs No. of Nodes

Path optimality is the difference between numbers of hops to

reach its destination by a packet and the length of the shortest

path that existed physically via the network when the packet

was originated. Among the shortest pathAODV chooses

freshest path. Remaining all the routing protocols choose only

shortest path for forwarding data packets from the source to

the destination. Figure 17 and table 6 describes the ranges of

path optimality.

Performance on OMNET++:

As per NS3 comparison various routing protocols such as

proactive (DSDV, OLSR), reactive (AODV, DSR), hybrid

(ARP, WARP) are compared by using OMNET++ simulation

environment. The working processes of all the routing

protocols are same but their performance metrics values only

differ because of the simulator. For example PDR value of

AODV is 0. 83 in NS3 and for OMNET++ its PDR value is

decreased to 0. 58.

Table 7: Packet delivery Ratio

Packet Delivery Ratio


15 0. 58 0. 47 0. 45 0. 4 0. 35 0. 35

25 0. 69 0. 55 0. 48 0. 45 0. 42 0. 35

50 0. 85 0. 74 0. 62 0. 5 0. 49 0. 4

Figure 18: PDR Vs No. of Nodes



3894

From fig18we can analyze the packet delivery ratio of WARP

is very low when compared to other routing protocols. Table7

shows PDR values of OMNET++ simulation result for various

routing protocols. All reactive routing protocols are having

high packet delivery ratio than proactive routing protocols.

Table 8: Throughput

Throughput


15 150 120 100 70 59 50

25 175 150 110 97 75 72

50 240 220 185 148 120 100

Figure 19: Throughput Vs No. of Nodes

Table8 list throughput values of MANET routing protocols.

Here DSR performs better result than DSDV. Protocol

comparison of throughput can be shown in fig 19.

Table 9: Average End-End Delay

Average End-End Delay


15 119 94 79 79 208 220

25 140 110 90 120 240 265

50 231 179 154 199 331 363

Figure 20: Average End-End DelayVs No. of Nodes

Average End to end delay result on OMNET++ for OLSR is

very low. Table 9 and figure 20 depictthe ranges of average

end-to-end delay of those protocols.

Table 10: Routing Overhead

Routing Overhead


15 0. 663 0. 38 0. 383 1. 273 2. 473 2. 723

25 0. 95 0. 2 0. 4 1. 65 3. 15 3. 55

50 0. 85 0. 31 0. 46 1. 45 2. 99 3. 59

Figure 21: Routing OverheadVs No. of Nodes

The routing overhead is very low in proactive routing since it

is a table driven protocol all routing details are stored in their

routing table. Table 10 shown routing overhead values of

MANET protocols and also figure 21 depicts routing

overhead for varying number of nodes.

Table 11: Path Optimality

Path Optimality


15 62. 12 50. 12 25. 12 14. 6 8. 5 4

25 63. 4 43. 4 24. 8 14. 8 8. 8 5

50 75 50 35 20 12 8. 5

Figure 22: Path Optimality Vs No. of Nodes

Path optimality can be slightly differ from NS3 performance

which is depicted in fig 22 and its comparison values are

shown in table 11.

Finally our simulation results on both network simulators

conclude that our proposed NS3 network simulator attain

more effective results compared with OMNET++ network

simulator. Since NS3 produces and it appears to be the most

and better result for large and medium scale networks.



3895

Conclusion A Mobile Ad hoc Network is an infrastructure less

networktherefore accomplishing routing is a major factor in

this network structure. Other than routing, therearelots of

challenging tasks that areto be achieved on MANET. In order

to achieve routing in MANET, directly the numbers of routing

protocols have been discussed by the researchers. The

network size and topology changes during communication;

are the major factors that affect efficient routing in MANET.

This paper discusses with numbers of MANET routing

protocols with different network simulators using different

parameters. In this research, first we compared all the

protocols in NS3 simulation environment by means of PDR,

Throughput, Average end to end delay, Routing overhead and

Path optimality. After that all these protocols were compared

with those parameters in OMNET++ simulation environment.

Each simulator has its own areas of relative weakness

compared to the other candidate set. It has been observed that

both OMNeT++ and NS3 are found to be the most mature

simulators. OMNeT++ visualization at GUI support is better,

and NS3 performance is better in the case of large models. It

is also observed that the working process of all these protocols

is same but their parameter values are differed in two different

simulation environments. Finally havingcomparative analysis

of results using both simulations, it is concluded that NS3

network simulator provides better performance when

compared to OMNET++. Future researches can compare

MANET routing protocols with more than 2 open source

network simulators.

References

[1] Johansson Per, Tony Larsson, NicklasHedman and

Mikael Degermark (1999), ”Scenario-based

Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for Mobile

Ad-hoc Networks”, Proceeding MobiCom’99

Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM/IEEE international

conference on mobile computing and networking, pp.

195-206.

[2] Viennot L., P. Jacquet, and T. H. Clusen (2004),

”Analyzing control traffic overhead versus mobility

and data traffic activity in mobile ad hoc network

protocols”, ACM/Springer Wireless Network, Vol. 4,

No. 10, pp-447-455.

[3] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, ”Highly Dynamic

Destination Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing

(DSDV)for Mobile Computers”, Comp. Commune.

Rev., Oct 1994, pp. 234-44.

[4] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc On-Demand

Distance Vector Routing, ” Proc. 2nd IEEE Wksp.

Mobile Comp. Sys. and Apps., Feb. 1999, pp. 90-100.

[5] Atta urRehman Khan, Sardar M. Bilal, Mazliza

Othman, “A Performance Comparison of Network

Simulatorsfor Wireless Networks”.

[6] Nancy Garg, “Network Simulators: A Case Study”,

International Journal of Advanced Research in

Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume

5, Issue 1, January 2015.

[7] AleksandrHuhtonen, “Comparing AODV and OLSR

Routing Protocols”, HUT T-110. 551 Seminar on

Internetworking.

[8] Uma R ffPujeri, Dr. V Palanisamy, “Survey of Various

Open Source Network Simulators”, International

Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)Volume 3 Issue

12, December 2014.

[9] Elias Weing¨artner, Hendrikvom Lehn and Klaus

Wehrle, “A performance comparison of recent network

Simulators”, Published in Communications, 2009.

ICC'09. IEEE International Conference.

[10] AndrásVarga, Rudolf Hornig, “An overview of the

OMNET++ simulation environment”, ISBN 978-963-

9799-20-2March 03-07, 2008.

[11] Amer O Abu Salem, HebatallahAwwad, “Mobile Ad-

hoc Network Simulators, A Survey and Comparisons”

International Journal of P2P Network Trends and

Technology (IJPTT)-Volume 9-June 2014.

[12] ReetikaSingla, Sukhwinder Sharma, Gurpreet Singh,

Ravinderkaur, “Performance Evaluation Of Routing

Protocols In Vanets By Using Tcp Variants On

Omnet++ Simulator International Journal

ofEngineering Research and Applications”, (IJERA)

ISSN: 2248-9622Vol. 2, Issue 5, September-October

2012, pp. 1725-1731.

[13] GayatryBorboruah, Gypsy Nandi, “A Study on Large

Scale Network Simulators”, GayatryBorboruah et al, /

(IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science

and Information Technologies, Vol. 5 (6), 2014, 7318-

7322.

[14] Charles E. Perkins, Pravin Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic

Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing

(DSDV) for Mobile Computers”.

[15] Rajesh Sharma, SeemaSabharwa, “Dynamic Source

Routing Protocol(DSR)”, International Journal of

Advanced Research inComputer Science and Software

Engineering Volume 3, Issue 72013.

[16] ThiyamRomila Devi, RameswariBiswal, Vikram

Kumar, Abhishek Jena, “Implementation of Dynamic

Source Routing (Dsr) in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

(Manet)”, IJRET: International Journal of Research in

Engineering and Technology, Volume: 02 Issue: 11

Nov-2013.

[17] Sushil Kumar, Dinesh Singh &MridulChawla,

“Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols in

MANETVarying Network Size”, International Journal

of Smart Sensors and Ad Hoc Networks (IJSSAN)

ISSN No. 2248-9738 (Print) Volume-1, Issue-2, 2011.

[18] Rakesh Kumar Jha, PoojaKharga, “A Comparative

Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols in MANET

using NS3 Simulator”, I. J. Computer Network and

Information Security, 2015, 4, 62-68.

[19] K. Ramesh Reddy, S. VenkataRaju, N. Venkatadri,

“Reactive, Proactive MANET Routing Protocol

Comparison”, International Journal of Video & Image

Processing and Network Security IJVIPNS-IJENS Vol:

12 No: 05.

[20] Bharti Kukreja, Sanjeev Kambhra, “Performance

Comparison of Routing Protocols in MANET”,

IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and

Network 108 Security, VOL. 14 No. 8, August 2014.



3896

[21] Mina VajedKhiavi, ShahramJamali, SajjadJahanbakhsh

Gudakahriz, “Performance Comparison of AODV,

DSDV, DSR and TORA RoutingProtocols in

MANETs”, International Research Journal of Applied

and Basic Sciences. Vol., 3 (7), 1429-1436, 2012.

[22] P. Manickam, T. Guru Baskar, M. Girija, Dr. D.

Manimegalai, “Performance comparisons of routing

Protocols in mobile ad hoc networks”, International

Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol.

3, No. 1, February 2011.

a comparative analysis of proactive, reactive and hybrid ... · pdf fileomnet++ i. e. open...

Documents