International Journal of Computer Engineering and Applications,

Volume XI, Issue IX, September 17, www.ijcea.com ISSN 2321-3469

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 1

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, AOMDV,

ANTHOCNET AND SARA

Kirandeep Kaur Department of Computer

Science and Engineering

SBSSTC, Ferozepur

Punjab, India

Kiranbhullar6042@gmail.com

Mr.Pawan Luthra Department of Computer

Science and Engineering

SBSSTC, Ferozepur

Punjab, India

Pawanluthra81@gmail.com

Parminder kaur Department of Computer

Science and Engineering

SBSSTC, Ferozepur

Punjab, India

Parminder92sandhu@gmail.com

ABSTRACT- In the past two decades we noticed a great

development in ad-hoc wireless networks. There are several

routing protocols for MANET (mobile adhoc network) has

been introduced to find shortest discovered path. It is very

difficult to predict which routing protocol will perform

better under different scenarios. In this paper, we studied

about different aspects related to networks that may affect

performance of routing protocols is presented using NS2

simulator. AODV, AOMDV, AntHocNet and SARA

routing protocols have been chosen to investigate and

compare performance under different scenarios. Current

routing trends include optimal path based on end to end

delay, throughput, normalized routing load and Packet

delivery ratio. Performance of routing protocols will be

evaluated based on these parameters.

Keywords - AODV; AOMDV; AntHocNet; SARA; ACO

I. INTRODUCTION

Ad-hoc network is collection of mobile nodes

without using any infrastructure, centralized access point

or accessible framework [1]. It can also be defined as

self organizing, self creating and self administrating.

There are no fixed routers or other base station to route

packet from source to destination, instead each node act

as a router and forward data to other nodes [2]. Since

nodes in a MANET are may be not fixed or highly

mobile, their topology changes often and nodes are

linked dynamically in a random way. Nodes join or leave

network freely without any restriction [3]. Due to

dynamic topology and other great features MANET

attracts to different real world application. MANET

protocols are of two type’s on-demand (reactive) and

table driven (pro-active) protocols. In this paper we

discuss two reactive protocols AODV and AOMDV.

Reactive protocols are based on the principle of creating

route or path between source and destination only when

there is demand of that route [4].

ACO (Ant Colony Optimization) algorithms are

derived from swarm intelligence which is inspired from

nature. An ACO algorithm simulates ant colony

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, AOMDV, ANTHOCNET AND SARA

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 2

behavior. An ant colony is self-organized as all members

cooperate with each other to finish specific jobs. Ants try

to discover shortest path from food source to its nest by

following trials of deposition of a chemical substance

named as pheromone. Routing algorithms that are

depending on the idea of ACO technique are known as

ant routing algorithms. Examples of such routing

algorithms are AntHocNet and SARA [5]. We can

measure their performances by simulation of routing

algorithms. One of most popular simulator NS2 is used

for this purpose in this paper.

II. AODV (Ad hoc On-demand Distance

Vector)

AODV is based on distance vector and known as on

on-demand routing protocols. In this, route is established

when it requires [6]. Routes are maintained as long as

they are desirable by nodes. Source node send RREQ

(Route Request) message to their neighbouring nodes.

The node send back RREP (Route Reply) to the sender

node. If any kind of error occurs during transmission

then RERR (Route Error) message send back to the

sender node [7].

Fig.1. Example of AODV

Fig.1 shows that J is sender node and F is

receiver node. Sender node broadcast the RREQ to its

neighboring nodes. And then the neighboring nodes

rebroadcast the packets to its connected nodes. The

nodes send immediate back reply to the node [8].

Fig.2. Packet transmission

Fig.2 shows that after the transmission of

message the source node select the shortest path for

communication. And then the Node J sends the message

to destination node F through selected path.

III. AOMDV

AOMDV (Adhoc on –demand Multipath

Distance Vector) routing protocol is modified or we can

say advanced version of AODV protocol. It is used for

computing multiple loop-free and link-disjoint paths. In

AOMDV, when source node wants to communicate or

send packet to a destination node and there is no route

available in its routing table, it starts route discovery

process by sending RREQ packets. Route discovery

process in AOMDV is same as in AODV [9]. RREQ

packet in AOMDV has all fields as that in AODV. It

includes one more field called as last hop that is

neighbor node of source. This neighbor node from which

RREQ is received, are used to achieve link disjointness

for reverse trail or path to source (shown in fig).

Multiple duplicate RREQ packets may be acknowledged

by a node. For each received or acknowledged packet, it

checks if there is an alternate reverse path formed to

source such that link-disjointness and loop-freedom are

preserved. When reverse path is established to source, an

intermediate node checks if there is any valid path

available to destination [10]. If so, RREP packets is

generated which include a forward route not used in any

prior Route Replies for this RREQ(route request) and

sends RREP back through reverse path to source. Also,

it checks if it has broadcast this request before and if not

then broadcast it. When RREQ packet is received,

destination node tries to form a reverse path to source.

Then RREP packet is generated for each copy of RREQ

that arrives through loop-free path to source node. To

increase the probability to find multiple disjoint paths

multiple RREPs are intended. When RREP packet is

received, an intermediate node checks if it can form

disjoint and loop-free path to destination using same rule

as when it receives RREQ packet. If not, then it will

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Applications,

Volume XI, Issue IX, September 17, www.ijcea.com ISSN 2321-3469

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 3

drop RREP packet. Otherwise, it checks for any reverse

path to source that has not been used previously to

forward RREP for this route discovery process. If so, it

will choose any unused reverse path to forward RREP.

Otherwise, it will drop packet [11].

By following sufficient conditions loop-freedom is

guaranteed:

Sequence rule: - Multiple paths maintained by a

node should have same sequence number for

each destination i.e. destination with highest

sequence number.

For same destination sequence number: - a node

never approves a path longer than one

previously advertised and never advertises a

path shorter than one previously advertised.

Route maintenance in AOMDV routing protocol is same

as in AODV routing protocol. A node broadcast or

generate RERR (route error) packet upon link breakage

of last route to destination.

Fig.3. Route discovery process in AOMDV

IV. ANTHOCNET

AntHocNet is a hybrid algorithm for MANET

(mobile ad-hoc networks) that contain both on-demand

and table-driven components [12]. It is derived from

AntNet, Which is designed for wired networks with

some amendment in it so that it can be used in mobile

ad-hoc networks. AntHocNet emerges as a multipath,

reactive, proactive and adaptive algorithm. It is reactive

because it has components that work on-demand to

maintain path to destinations. It doesn’t preserve routing

information about destinations constantly, but sets route

merely when they are desirable at start of

communication sessions [13]. This is completed in a

reactive route setup process, where ant agents are called

reactive forward ants (FANTS) is launched by source

node in order to search multiple routes to destination

nodes and backward ants (BANT) are used to setup the

routes. Routes are illustrated in pheromone tables

demonstrating their respective characters. After route

setup, data packets are sent over different routes by

means of these pheromone tables [14]. While

communication session is start, routes are supervised,

managed and enhanced using different agents known as

proactive FANT. During link failure nodes sends

information to its immediate neighbors and updates

routing tables to give better performance. Algorithm

responds to link breakage or failures using particular

reactive mechanisms such as a local route repair and by

using warning messages [15].

Fig.4. Nature of ants

V. SARA

SARA (simple ant routing algorithm) is an On-

demand algorithm and it is a modified version of ARA

routing algorithm [16]. It consists three phases: - (a)

Route discovery (b) Route maintenance (c) Route repair.

Route Discovery process is initiated when a

node wants to communicate or send data packet to a

destination. If source has a path to destination, then it

will be used and data transmission will be started. If not,

then source node sends a FANT packet to its immediate

neighbor nodes but only one of them will broadcast

received FANT packet further. A node that receives

FANT packet will update its routing table to source

node. The destination node or the node that is

responsible of forwarding FANT are able to reply by

sending a BANT packet to source node. Any node that

receives a BANT packet will update its routing table to

destination node [17]. If source node does not receive

any BANT packet within a certain period, another FANT

will be sent. After receiving first BANT, route is

established and data is sent.

Route maintenance deals with process of

maintaining routes active. Opposite direction of link

from where packet is received, will be marked which

means to update pheromone value of this link. However,

pheromone value will be decrease with time; least used

links may attain a very small weight. When a link failure

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, AOMDV, ANTHOCNET AND SARA

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 4

detected, route repair will start. If this repair fails to give

a solution, new route discovery process will be initiated

[18].

Fig. 5 Forward and backward ants. (a) FANT (Forward ant) randomly

selects the path

Fig. 5 Forward and backward ant (b) BANT (Backward ant) randomly

selects the path.

VI. SIMULATION RESULT AND

ANALYSIS

All simulation results will be shown in this

section. All simulations result has been executed on

NS2.35 simulator which has been installed on Ubuntu

16.04 operating system. Throughput, packet delivery

ratio, normalized routing load and end to end delay are

performance metrics that have been used. The following

result show Throughput, packet delivery ratio,

normalized routing load and end to end delay of AODV,

AOMDV, AntHocNet and SARA.

(a) Throughput

TABLE 1. Throughput

Throughput 5 10 20 40 90

AODV 27.27 120.72 140.3 156.51 331.05

AOMDV 80.63 109.99 188.61 203.11 380.75

AntHocNet 148.28 270.35 278.68 266.19 499.14

SARA 190.45 310.07 290.05 350.07 609.95

(b) Packet Delivery Ratio

TABLE 2. Packet Delivery Ratio

PDR 5 10 20 40 90

AODV 0.9958 0.9988 0.9892 0.9924 0.9672

AOMDV 0.9943 0.9887 0.9886 0.9879 0.9774

AntHocNet 0.9925 0.9788 0.9875 0.9952 0.9866

SARA 0.9977 0.9888 0.9968 0.9977 0.9939

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

5 10 20 40 90

Throughput

AODV

AOMDV

AntHocNet

SARA

0.95

0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1

1.01

5 10 20 40 90

Packet Delivery Ratio

AODV

AOMDV

AntHocNet

SARA

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Applications,

Volume XI, Issue IX, September 17, www.ijcea.com ISSN 2321-3469

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 5

(c) Normalized Routing Load

TABLE 3. Normalized Routing Load

NRL 5 10 20 40 90

AODV 0.091 0.124 0.083 0.154 0.321

AOMDV 0.055 0.081 0.047 0.146 0.297

AntHocNet 0.021 0.029 0.067 0.124 0.221

SARA 0.014 0.028 0.051 0.109 0.157

(d) End to End Delay

TABLE 4. End to End Delay

Delay 5 10 20 40 90

AODV 255.799 267.299 270.059 300.997 351.114

AOMDV 205.499 207.002 265.194 280.975 299.035

AntHocNet 191.605 235.767 220.812 253.854 276.469

SARA 135.844 166.733 185.953 210.831 243.434

VII. CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORK

Performance of AODV, AOMDV, SARA and

AntHocNet is compared by using performance metrics

like throughput, end to end delay, packet delivery ratio

and normalized routing load. From Simulation results it

can be conclude that SARA protocol performs better

than AntHocNet, AODV and AOMDV protocol in case

of Throughput, packet delivery ratio, normalized routing

load and end to end delay.

Throughput of SARA protocol is increase with

increase in nodes as compared to other protocols. Delay

is less in SARA and high in AODV. Packet delivery

ratio is more consistent in SARA as compared to other

protocols. Also, SARA has less normalized routing

overhead than AODV, AOMDV and AntHocNet.

In future work, we can perform attack on these

protocols. We can detect and prevent attack and measure

their performance under different scenarios. Also we can

compare other bio inspired algorithms in further studies.

REFERENCES

[1] Pragya Gupta, Sudha Gupta, “Performance Evaluation of Mobility Models on MANET Routing Protocols“, International Conference on

Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies, ISBN: 9780-0-

7695-4941-5/13©2013 IEEE.

[2] Latif Ullah Khan, Faheem Khan, Naeem Khan, “Effect of Network Density on the Performance of MANET Routing Protocols”,

International Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing

Technologies, ISBN: 978-1-4673-4922-2/13©2013 IEEE.

[3] Mona N.Alslaim, Haifaa A.Alaqel, Soba S.Zaghloul, “A Comparative Study of MANET Routing Protocols”, The Third

International Conference on e-Technologies and Networks for Development (ICeND2014), ISBN: 978-1-4799-3166-8©2014 IEEE.

[4] Parminder kaur, Monika Sachdeva, Gagandeep,” COMPARATIVE

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF MANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS”, International Journal of Advances in Cloud

Computing and Computer (IJACCCS), ISSN: 2454-4078 ©2016

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

5 10 20 40 90

Normalized Routing Load

AODV

AOMDV

AntHocNet

SARA

0

100

200

300

400

5 10 20 40 90

End to End Delay

AODV

AOMDV

AntHocNet

SARA

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AODV, AOMDV, ANTHOCNET AND SARA

Kirandeep Kaur, Mr.Pawan Luthra and Parminder Kaur 6

[5] Nishitha Taraka, Amarnath Emani, “Routing in Ad Hoc Networks

Using Ant Colony Optimization”, 5th International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation, ISBN: 978-1-4799-

3858-2©2014 IEEE

[6] Pankaj Oli, Vivek Kumar Gupta,” Simulation and Comparison, of

AODV and AOMDV Routing Protocols in MANET”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-

0181©2014

[7] Gagandeep, Aashima ,Pawan kumar, “Analysis of Different

Security Attacks in MANETs on Protocols Stack. A-Review“,

IJEAT,ISSN:2249-8958,2012

[8] Parul Suneja; Anil Kumar; Annu Soni, “System scenario based

investigation of AODV and AOMDV routing protocol in MANET”,

International Conference on Soft Computing Techniques and Implementations (ICSCTI), ISBN: 978-1-4673-6792-9©2015 IEEE.

[9] Parminder kaur, Monika Sachdeva, Gagandeep, “Impact of

blackhole Attack on AODV protocol,” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), ISSN: 2249 – 8958

©2016

[10] Bijan Paul, Kaysar Ahmed Bhuiyan, Kaniz Fatema, Partha Pratim

Das, “Analysis of AOMDV, AODV, DSR, and DSDV Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network”, International Conference on

Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks, ISBN: 978-

1-4799-6929-6 ©2015 IEEE.

[11] Tanya Koohpayeh Araghi, Mazdak Zamani, Azizah BT Abdul

Mnaf, ”Performance Analysis in Reactive Routing Protocols in Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using DSR, AODV

and AOMDV”, International Conference on Informatics and Creative

Multimedia, ISBN: 978-0-7695-5133-3©2013 IEEE

[12] T. Nishitha, P. Chenna Reddy, “Performance Evaluation of AntHocNet Routing Algorithm in Ad Hoc Networks”, International

Conference on Computing Sciences, ISBN: 978-1-4673-2647-6©2012

IEEE

[13] Andre-Jan Merts; Arno Barnard, ”Simulating MANETS: A study

using satellites with AODV and AntHocNet”, Pattern Recognition

Association of South Africa and Robotics and Mechatronics International Conference (PRASA-RobMech), ISBN: 978-1-5090-

3335-5©2016 IEEE.

[14] Soni Shaik, P. Chenna Reddy, “AN EVALUATION STUDY OF ANTHOCNET”, International Journal of Networks and Systems,

ISSN: ISSN 2319 5975 ©2013 IEEE.

[15] R. Anusha, Dr. P. Chenna Reddy,” COMPARISON OF AODV AND ANTHOCNET IN STATIC WIRELESS NETWORK”,

International Journal on Cybernetics & Informatics (IJCI) Vol. 4, No.

2, ©2015

[16] Tamer Hashem Farag, Reem Farag Ahmed,” Comparative Simulations for SARA and AODV Routing Algorithms in Ad hoc

Network using NS2”, International Journal of Computer Applications,

ISSN: 0975 – 8887 ©2016

[17] Fernando Correia, Teresa Vazao, “Simple Ant Routing

Algorithm”, ISBN: 978-89-960761-1-7©2008 IEEE.

[18] Yi Zhang, Zhiyi Fang, Hongyu Sun, Lin Chen, "SARA: A Self-Adaptive Routing Algorithm in Wireless Sensor Network” 13th ACIS

International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial

Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, ISBN: 978-1-4673-2120-4©2012 IEEE.