NS2 Report Analysis of AODV & DSDV

Routing Protocol
Muhammad Sami
Advanced Network - CSC 4202
Computer Science Department
IIUM
Abstract
In present day era where high mobility is considered a future of
computing and technology, quality and efficiency for the
dynamic networks and mobile technology is imperative. A
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is formed by a group of
autonomous mobile nodes connected by wireless link without
centralized control or established infrastructure. Routing
protocols for ad-hoc networks are typically evaluated using
simulation, since the deployment of ad-hoc network is relatively
rare. In this paper, using a simulation tool ns-2 we make a
comparison between AODV and DSDV protocols for CBR
traffic in mobile ad hoc networks. We analyze the performance
of the routing protocol after extracting data from trace file. To
analyze the data, Perl language is chosen because of its
simplicity and its fast execution for a big data trace-file
contains. The performance metrics that is going to be extracted
and analyzed are the packet delivery ratio, average delay, and
packet loss.
Keywords: network simulation, ns2, AODV, DSDV, perl

1.

INTRODUCTION

The maturity of wireless transmission and the

popularity of portable computing devices have to satisfy
personal communication desire, that is in any time and in
any area, which is an important issue in the next generation
network. Users can move around, while at the same time still
remaining connected with the rest of the world. It is because
of this that wireless ad-hoc network is one of the hot topics
of research in networks these days.
A mobile wireless network (MANET) is an
infrastructure-less network with no fixed locations of routers,
hosts or wireless base stations. Here, nodes are free to move
in any random fashion. The ad-hoc network is an extension
of a wireless cellular network that has been in use since
1980s and has several advantages over it- on-demand set up,
fault tolerance and unconstrained connectivity. Although in
this study, simulation and analysis of different routing
protocols are based on Vehicular Ad-hoc Network
(VANET), which is a subgroup of MANET, designed to
support the very high speed of nodes movements.
In ad hoc networks, each mobile node operates not
only as a host but also as a router, forwarding packets for
other mobile nodes in the network that may not be within
direct wireless transmission range of each other. Each node
participates in an ad-hoc routing protocol that allows it to
discover multi-hop paths through the network to any other
node. The idea of ad-hoc networking is sometimes also
called infrastructure-less networking, since the mobile nodes
in the network dynamically establish routing among
themselves to form their own network on the fly.

2.

MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS

An ad-hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile hosts

forming a temporary network without the aid of any standalone infrastructure or centralized administration [1]. Mobile
Ad-hoc networks are self-organizing and self-configuring
multi-hop wireless networks where, the structure of the
network changes dynamically.
Ad-hoc routing protocols can be classified based on
different criteria. Depending upon the routing mechanism
employed by a given protocol, it may fall under more than
one class. Routing protocols for ad-hoc networking can be
classified into four categories viz. (i) Based on routing
information update routing mechanism (proactive or tabledriven, reactive or on-demand and hybrid protocols), (ii)
Based on the use of Temporal information (Past Temporal
and Future Temporal) for routing, (iii) Based on routing
topology (Flat Topology, Hierarchical Topology), (iv) Based
on the Utilization of Specific Resources (Power Aware
Routing
and
Geographical
Information
Assisted
Routing)[1][3]. But in this report, we are only discussing on
two routing protocols that are Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector (DSDV), and Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV) routing protocol.
2.1. DSDV
The destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV) routing
protocol is a proactive routing protocol which is a
modification of conventional Bellman-Ford routing
algorithm. This protocol adds a new attribute, sequence
number, to each route table entry at each node. Routing table
is maintained at each node and with this table; node transmits
the packets to other nodes in the network. This protocol was
motivated for the use of data exchange along changing and
arbitrary paths of interconnection which may not be close to
any base station.
a) Protocol Overview and Activities:
Each node in the network maintains routing table for the
transmission of the packets and also for the connectivity to
different stations in the network. These stations list for all the
available destinations, and the number of hops required to
reach each destination in the routing table. The routing entry
is tagged with a sequence number which is originated by the
destination station. In order to maintain the consistency, each
station transmits and updates its routing table periodically.
The packets being broadcasted between stations indicate
which stations are accessible and how many hops are

required to reach that particular station. The packets may be

transmitted containing the layer2 or layer 3 addresses.
Routing information is advertised by broadcasting or
multicasting the packets which are transmitted periodically
as when the nodes move within the network. The DSDV
protocol requires that each mobile station in the network
must constantly; advertise to each of its neighbors, its own
routing table. Since, the entries in the table my change very
quickly, the advertisement should be made frequently to
ensure that every node can locate its neighbors in the
network. This agreement is placed, to ensure the shortest
number of hops for a route to a destination; in this way the
node can exchange its data even if there is no direct
communication link.
b) Advantages of DSDV
DSDV protocol guarantees loop free paths [4].
Count to infinity problem is reduced in DSDV
[4].
We can avoid extra traffic with incremental
updates instead of full dump updates.
Path Selection: DSDV maintains only the best
path instead of maintaining multiple paths to
every destination. With this, the amount of space
in routing table is reduced.
c)

Limitations of DSDV
Wastage of bandwidth due to unnecessary
advertising of routing information even if there is
no change in the network topology [3].
DSDV doesnt support Multi path Routing.
It is difficult to determine a time delay for the
advertisement of routes [5].
It is difficult to maintain the routing tables
advertisement for larger network. Each and every
host in the network should maintain a routing
table for advertising. But for larger network this
would lead to overhead, which consumes more
bandwidth.

2.2. AODV
AODV adopts a very different mechanism to maintain
routing information. It uses traditional routing tables, one
entry per destination. This is in contrast to DSR, which can
maintain multiple route cache entries for each destination.
AODV uses sequence numbers maintained at each
destination to determine freshness of routing information and
to prevent routing loops. All routing packets carry these
sequence numbers. An important feature of AODV is the
maintenance of timer-based states in each node, regarding
utilization of individual routing table entries. A routing table
entry is expired if not used recently. AODV allows nodes to
respond to link breakages and changes in network topology
in a timely manner. A set of predecessor nodes is maintained
for each routing table entry, indicating the set of neighboring
nodes which use that entry to route data packets. These
nodes are notified with RERR packets when the next-hop
link breaks. In contrast to DSR, RERR packets in AODV are
intended to inform all sources using a link when a failure

occurs. AODV also uses Destination Sequence Numbers to

avoid loop formation and Count to Infinity Problem.
a) Advantages of AODV
Because of its reactive nature, AODV can handle
highly dynamic behavior of Vehicle Ad-hoc
networks [6].
Used for both unicasts and multicasts using
the J (Join multicast group) flag in the packets
[7].

b) Limitations of AODV
Requirement on broadcast medium: The
algorithm expects/requires that the nodes in the
broadcast medium can detect each others
broadcasts.
Overhead on the bandwidth: Overhead on
bandwidth will be occurred compared to DSR,
when an RREQ travels from node to node in the
process of discovering the route info on demand,
it sets up the reverse path in itself with the
addresses of all the nodes through which it is
passing and it carries all this info all its way.
No reuse of routing info: AODV lacks an
efficient route maintenance technique.
The routing info is always obtained on demand,
including for common cause traffic [7].

3.

SIMULATION METHODOLOGY

In order to provide an analysis of the performance and

how do they compare to each other in mobile networks,
simulation is going to be used. The simulation tool that is
used in this study is NS-2. The network simulator NS-2 is a
discrete event simulator, which means it simulates such
events as sending, receiving forwarding and dropping
packets. For simulation scenario and network topology
creation it uses OTCL (Object Tool Command Language).
In the simulation, we are trying to mimic an ad-hoc
network of moving vehicle in a highway with varying
speeds. There are 6 lanes, which is divided into 2 parts that
move with opposing directions. There are 18 nodes or
vehicles in the simulation scenario that have different
speeds, limited by the lanes maximum speeds. This
corresponds well to the real world where there are fast and
slow lane. The topology size or area of the simulation is
defined by 1000m in width, and 600m in height. The
duration which simulation will run is set to 50 seconds and
that the maximum nodes can move is 310km/h after adjusted
scale; NS-2 operates the node movement by a second per 1
unit of movement, and m/s is considered the most possible
scale instead of km/s.
NS-2 will create a dump file or trace file of the
simulation into a file with extension .tr that can be further
analyzed or inputted into another program such as Network
Animator (NAM). In this paper, we do the analysis by
getting data from the trace file using Perl language. The
routing protocol also alternated between TCP-FTP and UDPCBR.

3.1

Performance Metrics

Packet Delivery Ratio: Ratio of the data packets

delivered to the destinations to those generated
by CBR sources, it is the measure of the number
of packets dropped by the routers due to various
reasons.

Average Delay: Average amount of time taken

by a packet to go from source to destination.

Throughput:

a) Simulation Parameters:

to be consistent whether it was on UDP-CBR or

TCP-FTP.
4.

CONCLUSION

From the study we have been doing, the simulation

and the analysis of different routing protocols
DSDV and AODV- we have decided that AODV
definitely performs best in any scenario or of any
two transport protocols (UDP and TCP). While
DSDV might be in comparable degree or better in
static wireless nodes, it suffers from the
limitations that make it undesirable for a node that
moves frequently and in very high speed. The poor
performance of DSDV to handle the predetermined
scenario in this paper can also be seen from the
NAM where packet loss and delay are consistently
occurring.

Routing Protocols

DSDV, AODV

Transport Protocols

TCP, UDP

Simulation Area

1000x600

Simulation Time

50

Number of Nodes

18

Maximum Speed

310km/h

Type of Traffic

CBR, FTP

[2] Ning.P. and Sun.K. How to misuse aodv: a case study of insider attacks
against mobile ad-hoc routing protocols.Technical report, Comput. Sci.
Dept., North CarolinaState Univ., Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003

Packet Size

512 bytes(CBR)

[3] Danny D. Patel. Energy in ad-hoc networking for thepico radio.

Technical report. 15 Jun 2006

REFERENCES
[1] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic sourcerouting in ad
hoc wireless networks. Technical report,Carnegie Mellon University,
1996

[4] Dr. Uwe Roth. Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector

routing. June 15, 2006

3.2

Analysis of Results
a) Packet Delivery Ratio
It tells us about the performance of a protocol that
how successfully the packets have been delivered.
Higher the value means better results. Based on the
analysis from the trace-file of the simulation, the
PDR shows that AODV outperforms DSDV in all
scenarios with DSDV on TCP perform worst.
b) Average end-to-end Delay
It is an average delay of data packets. Buffering and
queuing during route discovery latency, interface
queue, and retransmission delays at the MAC and
transfer times, may cause this delay. Lower delay
means better results and performance. The DSDV in
this scenario also beaten by the AODV routing
protocol, which may be caused by the vehicle
moving at different speeds, and DSDV has to
update its routing table with each movement.
c) Packet Loss
Packet loss or drop packets, is the difference
between the number of packets sent by the source
and received by the target node. The routing
protocol forwards the packet to destination if a valid
route is known; otherwise it is buffered until a route
is available. From the NAM, it can be seen that the
DSDV has lots of drop packets and queue time or
buffered longer compared to the AODV, and seems

[5] Guoyou He. Destination-sequenced distance vector(DSDV) protocol.

Technical report, Helsinki Universityof Technology, Finland. 2 Dec
2003
[6] Christian Schwingenschlogl and Timo Kosch. Geocastenhancements of
aodv for vehicular networks. Technicalreport, Institute of
Communication Networks, MunichUniversity of Technology. and BMW
Research,Munich,Germany. 12 Nov 2009
[7] Krishna Ramachandran. Aodv. Technical report,University of
California, Santa Barbara, USA. July 2004