An Analysis of Routing Protocol in Mobile
Adhoc Networks and its Applications
Davinder Singh1*, Dr. Mohit Gupta2
1 Research Scholar, University of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2 Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Technology, Jaipur Rajasthan
Abstract - Each hub in a mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) sends parcels bound for different
hubs in the network by means of remote (radio transmission) transmission on a wilful premise,
making it a self-beginning, powerful network made up of mobile hubs. Multi-bounce
transferring is the essential inspiration for the advancement of ad hoc networking. Remote Ad
hoc networks, otherwise called foundation less networks, can be set up rapidly and effectively
using radio waves as the network's transmission channel. There is no principal server or
referee in an ad hoc network. Every hub in a MANET is fit for playing out its own networking
errands, for example, routing and bundle sending, in a decentralized and independent style.
Uses of routing protocols like Ad hoc On-request Distance Routing Protocol (AODV), Dynamic
Source Routing (DSR), Transiently Requested Routing Calculation (TORA), and Enhanced
Connection State Routing (OLSR) are fascinating in light of the fact that routing is the focal
issue in MANETs. These routing protocols are simulated using OPNET, and their effectiveness
is investigated using various metrics. With the use of metrics, the most efficient channel for
data transfer can be determined. The results demonstrate the viability of AODV and TORA for
topology-changing in large-scale networks using a variety of criteria.
Keywords: Mobile ad-hoc network, Routing protocol, AODV, DSR, TORA, OLSR, WMN.
INTRODUCTION
Using multi-hop radio relaying, ad hoc wireless networks are a type of wireless network. No base
stations or other forms of fixed infrastructure exist. Each computer in an ad hoc network serves as a
router, routing data packets between them. Since nodes in such networks might theoretically move
anywhere at any time, the network's topology is subject to sudden and unexpected shifts. Additionally,
certain nodes in an ad hoc network do not directly connect with one another due to the limited
communication ranges between nodes. Therefore, ad hoc networks' routing patterns are likely to
involve a number of hops, with each node functioning similarly to a router. In proactive routing
protocols, each node keeps its own copy of the most recent routing information for all other nodes,
ensuring that the network is always operating at maximum efficiency. When a source wishes to
connect to a destination, it uses route discovery techniques to identify a connection to the destination.
In reactive routing protocols, the paths are established on the fly.
Applications of MANET
Some distinctive MANET applications include:
Military field: For the sake of maintaining any information network between vehicles, armed
forces, and information headquarters, the military can take advantage of traditional network
technology with the help of ad hoc networking.
Collaborative work: the need for collaborative computing is far more important outside of the
office ambiance and surroundings than inside it is, which is why it is so important to facilitate
commercial settings through teamwork. People prefer to meet in a public place in order to
discuss and collaborate on any given project.
Confined area: Ad-Hoc networks can freely associate with immediate, also temporary hyper-
media network via laptop computers for sharing the information with all the participants, for
example in a school or conference. Another potentially legitimate and limited-scope
application is in a home network, where the devices can connect directly to one another and
exchange data.
Personal area networks (PANs) and Bluetooth: A PAN is a network with a very limited
range, composed of devices that often belong to a single person. Bluetooth is an example of
a short-range MANET that can facilitate communication between mobile devices like laptops
and mobile phones.
In the business world, an ad hoc network could be utilized for rescue and emergency
procedures during times of crisis, such as a fire, flood, or earthquake. In cases where a
transmission network is urgently needed but the infrastructure is either broken or does not
exist, emergency saving techniques should be implemented immediately.
Networked sensors allow for local and long-distance control of household appliances via
mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). The practice of following moving targets, such as
animals. Those dealing with weather sensing in some way.
Emergency Services: rescue efforts after a disaster, hospital patient diagnosis and record
transfer, and infrastructure restoration.
Communications infrastructure for computer-generated conference rooms, classrooms, and
labs in the educational sector
Categorization of Present Routing Protocols in (MANET)
Every gadget in an ad hoc network should have the option to go about as an information transfer for
the gadgets around it. Along these lines, a few different routing methodologies have been proposed to
guarantee adequate execution for ad hoc networks. Various kinds of ad hoc routing incorporate
proactive routing, receptive routing, and cross breed routing protocols. As per the information
displayed in Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Routing Protocols for MANET
Proactive Routing Protocols/Table Driven
While in on-request routing the courses are delivered just when liked by the source have, in table
driven routing protocols the protocols are acknowledged and cutting-edge routing in series to all hubs
is kept at every hub. Hubs will in some cases test different hubs in a network for routing information.
Fixed protocol costs are doable because of the autonomy of protocol costs from traffic profile
subtleties. Proactive routing advancements like OLSR, GSR, and DSDV have this advantage.
Reactive Routing Protocols
Protocols that build ways between hubs “on request” do so just when mentioned by source hubs. It
keeps these associations alive however long the first information sources need them. On account of
its profoundly adaptable nature, an ad hoc network is best depicted by the responsive (on-request)
routing protocols that portray it. Responsive routing protocols, as opposed to AODV, DSR, and
TORA, possibly update routing data while a routing need is introduced, definitely eliminating control
overhead, particularly in high versatility networks where the occasional update will lead to huge futile
overhead.
Hybrid Routing Protocols
The half and half routing protocols join the best highlights of proactive and receptive routing protocols
with an end goal to limit both postponement and control overhead (as far as sort out bundles). By
utilizing proactive routing in little networks (to diminish delay) and receptive routing in huge scope
networks (to bring down control overhead), cross breed routing protocols like ZRP, DST, and DDR
plan to streamline the advantage of the two sorts of routing.
LITERATURE REVIEW
QoS routing relies on geometric coordinates, directions of movement, velocities, and node-specific
resource information, all of which may not be immediately accessible to the network as is anticipated
by Samarth and Nahrsted (2002). The update protocol in this approach, however, places a heavy
burden on the network's bandwidth by broadcasting a node's position and available resources to
every other node in the network. A few versatility models, (for example, the Irregular Walk Portability
Model, the Irregular Waypoint Versatility Model, and gathering versatility models) have been
described to account for the unpredictable topological changes in the network brought on by mobility
(Camp and Boleng 2002; MusolesiandHailes 2004; Lin and Noubir 2008).
In order to ensure that a request with certain QoS requirements is satisfied, an alternative QoS
routing technique was developed by Zhang and Mouftah (2004). Newly proposed backup routes can
only be a combination of the two shortest route segments possible: one from the source to a
transitional hub, and another from the hub to the goal. Assuming that all possible connected paths
meet the specified quality-of-service requirements, the one with the lowest cost is selected.
Communication overhead is further reduced by employing directional limited hunt. The quality of
service (QoS) qualities of a path may deviate over time from what a hub locally records, hence this
alternative directing mechanism is prone to data inaccuracies in large enterprises.
To oblige nature of-administration prerequisites in MANETs, Perkinset al., 2003 expanded the first ad
hoc on Request Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol. Parcel designs (routediscovery) and
routing table construction were adjusted to consider the particular of administration prerequisites that
hubs sending a RREQ or RREP bundle should meet to give QoS (transmission capacity and inactivity
ensure). Considering that a mobile's Hub Crossing TIME addresses essentially the handling time for
the parcel, most of the deferral at a hub is brought about by bundle lining and dispute delay at the
Macintosh layer. Therefore, when the network is busy, a packet may face significantly longer delays
than this. As a result, there was a need to design a delay-sensitive protocol that takes into account
not just the amount of time it takes to execute packets at a node, but also the amount of time it takes
for MAC contention and queuing. Through adding up the delays at each node along a path and at
each link(i,j), we may calculate the total delay from beginning to end. Delay at a node consists of the
time it takes to process the protocol, the time it takes to queue data at node I for link (i,j), and the time
it takes to resolve MAC contention at node i. As the name implies, link latency is the time it takes for
information to propagate through a link (i,j). The propagation delay in a wireless network is negligible
and roughly the same for each hop. Consequently, the delay of the node is mostly attributed to two
sources: queuing and media access control.
PARAMETER ANALYSIS AND RESULT
Different types of performance evaluation exist for different routing protocol settings. Delay, network,
and throughput are the three types of metrics utilized to assess the study's overall network
performance.
Figure 2. Simulation flow
Network Load
All higher levels in all wlan nodes forward a representation of the network load in bits/sec to the
wireless lan layers. The following bar chart illustrates the typical workload for networks with 5, 10, 15,
and 20 nodes. When compared to other routing protocols, DSR often has a high average load. When
looking at the load on the network as a function of node count, TORA stands out as the best option
among the four protocols. When comparing TORA to AODV, larger networks are better suited to
TORA.
End to End Delay
The length of a bundle's excursion from beginning to objective is known as its “start to finish delay.”
Start to finish idleness of information parcels that were effectively acknowledged by WLAN Macintosh
and moved to higher layers is displayed in Figure 4. At the point when there is to a lesser degree a
period distinction between where a parcel is sent and where it is gotten, the presentation routing
protocol performs better. Start to finish delay was determined for 5, 10, 15, and 20 hubs utilizing every
one of the four accessible protocols. After 20 hubs, the typical start to finish delay in AODV and TORA
is essentially lower than in other routing protocols. The more drawn out the network is, the additional
time is lost from end to starting. Previous OPNET distributions thought about AODV and DSR in
remote cross section networks concerning throughput and dormancy. Because of the utilization of
both responsive and proactive routing protocols in MANET, the postponement and load of DSR are
expanded, and accordingly, DSR isn't reasonable for remote transmission. This is on the grounds that
DSR contains the whole routing data, which brings about information bundles that are too huge to
ever be sent remotely. Accordingly, AODV is ideal, as it further develops framework effectiveness by
not requiring the vehicle of all routing information. TORA functions admirably since it has a less
overload than DSR. In light of this, both AODV and TORA can be sent remotely, as displayed in Fig.
3.
Mathematically end to end delay can be shown as Equation (1):
(1)
Where:
= End-to-End Delay
= Transmission Delay
= Propagation Delay
= Processing Delay
Figure 3. Comparison of load in AODV, DSR, TORA, OLSR by increasing nodes
Figure 4. Comparison of End to End Delay in AODV, DSR, TORA, OLSR by increasing nodes
Throughput
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
510 15 20
Load (bits/sec)
Number of nodes
AODV
DSR
OLSR
TORA
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
510 15 20
End to end delay (sec)
Number of nodes
AODV
DSR
OLSR
TORA
When data reaches its destination from its source, the wlan MAC collects all of the data traffic in
bits/sec and sends it on to the next higher layer, where it can be altered to show any value the sender
wants. Figure 5 compares the throughput of four different routing methods across a range of node
densities. When compared to other routing protocols, the DSR protocol has a higher average
throughput. When the number of nodes in a network is reduced, the throughput suffers. When the
number of nodes in a network drops, the amount of data being sent through it also drops. You can
use the following equation to calculate throughput:(2):
(2)
Figure 5. Comparison of Throughput in AODV, DSR, TORA, OLSR by increasing nodes
CONCLUSION
In this study, we discuss the benefits of MANETs, classify routing protocols for MANETs, and provide
a table of comparisons between them. There are three primary groups of protocols: There are three
types of protocols: I proactive (table-driven), (ii) reactive (on-demand), and (iii) hybrid. For each of
these courses, our liason and I discussed and compared various protocol-related details. Using the
OPNET simulator, we compared the performance of the DSR, AODV, TORA, and OLSR routing
protocols in a MANET, addressing both reactive and proactive routing methods. When evaluating the
load of four different routing protocols, OLSR has the lowest delay for a limited number of nodes,
suggesting its application for such networks. When there are fewer nodes, performance improves.
Even though DSR's throughput improves with a growing network size, making it useful for managing
large-scale networks, it is not a good fit for wireless transmission. Although DSR is adequate for
smaller networks, TORA and AODV perform better. Research on these four routing protocols, as well
as other routing protocols in MANET, will provide useful pointers for designing next-generation,
extremely efficient routing protocols for WMNs.
REFERENCES
1. Aarthy, M.P.A., M. Shanmugaraj and V.S. Dhulipala, 2011. Energy consumption analysis of
multicast routing protocols in wireless ad hoc network environment. Comput. Networks
Inform. Technol., 142: 412-414. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-19542-6_77
2. Abolhasan, Mehran, Tadeusz Wysocki, and ErykDutkiewicz. “A review of routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks.” Ad hoc networks 2, no. 1 (2004): 1-22.
3. Adhoc wireless Networks by C.Siva Ram Murthy and B.S.Manoj
4. Bhat, M.S., D. Shwetha and J.T. Devaraju, 2011. A performance study of proactive, reactive
and hybrid routing protocols using qualnet simulator. Int. J. Comput. Applic., 28: 10-17.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
510 15 20
Throughput (bits/sec)
Number of nodes
AODV
DSR
OLSR
TORA
5. G. Pei, M. Gerla and T.-W. Chen, Fisheye State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In
Proceedings of the 2000 ICDCS Workshops, Taipei, Taiwan, Apr. 2000, pp. D71-D78
6. Guo, L., Y. Peng, X. Wang, D. Jiang and Y. Yu, 2011. Performance evaluation for on-demand
routing protocols based on OPNET modules in wireless mesh networks. Comput. Electr.
Eng., 37: 106-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2010.10.002
7. Gupta, Anuj K., Harsh Sadawarti, and Anil K. Verma. “Review of various Routing Protocols for
MANETs.” International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering 1, no. 3 (2011).
8. Hong Jiang,J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves “Performance Comparison of Three Routing Protocols
for Ad Hoc Networks “.
9. Jaisankar N, Saravanan R.” An extended AODV protocol for multipath routing in MANETs”.
Int J EngTechnol 2010;2(40).
10. Kumari, Suman, Sunil Maakar, Suresh Kumar, and R. K. Rathy. “Traffic pattern based
performance comparison of AODV, DSDV & OLSR MANET routing protocols using freeway
mobility model.” evaluation 8 (2011): 15.
11. Luo, H., P. Zerfos, J. Kong, S. Lu and L. Zhang, 2002. Self-securing ad hoc wireless
networks. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Computers and
Communications, Jul. 1-4, IEEE Xplore Press, Taormina-Giardini Naxos, Italy, pp: 567-574.
DOI: 10.1109/ISCC.2002.1021731
12. Malik, A., S. Rastogi and S. Kumar, 2011. Performance analysis of routing protocol in mobile
ad hoc network using NS-2. MIT Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inform. Technol., 1: 47-50.
13. Mehran Abolhasan, Tadeusz Wysocki, and ErykDutkiewicz. “A review of routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks”. Technical report, Telecommunication and Information Research
Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522; Motorola Australia Research
Centre, 12 Lord St., Botany, NSW 2525, Australia, 2003.
14. Mostafavi, Mohammad Ali, Ayyoub Akbari Moghanjoughi, and Hamid Mousavi. “A Review and
Performance Analysis of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols on MANET.” Network &
Communication Technologies 1, no. 2 (2012).
15. Patil1 VC, Biradar RV, Mudholkar RR, Sawant SR.” Ondemand multipath routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks issues and comparison”. Int J Wireless Commun Simulation
2010;2(1):21–38.
16. Singh, T.P., S. Dua and V. Das, 2012. Energy-efficient routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc
networks. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Software Eng., 2: 1-7.
17. Taneja, S. and A. Kush, 2010. A survey of routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks. Int. J.
Innov. Manage. Technol., 1: 279-285.
18. Tarique, Mohammed, Kemal E. Tepe, SasanAdibi, and Shervin Erfani. “Survey of multipath
routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks.” Journal of Network and Computer Applications
32, no. 6 (2009): 1125-1143.
19. Wang, Nen-Chung, Yung-Fa Huang, and Jhu-Chan Chen. “A stable weight-based on-demand
routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks.” Information Sciences 177, no. 24 (2007): 5522-
5537.
20. Zhang, Zhensheng. “Routing in intermittently connected mobile ad hoc networks and delay
tolerant networks: overview and challenges.” Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE 8,
no. 1 (2006): 24-37.
