Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in MANET

Sachin Lalar and Arun Kumar Yadav

Department of Computer Science and Applications Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

corresponding author email:sachin509@gmail.com 

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/ojcst/10.01.23

ABSTRACT:

Routing protocol is the essential and vital performance factor in the Mobile Ad-hoc Network. The routing protocols in MANET are accomplished to handle a lot number of nodes with restricted resources. There is a variety of routing protocol exist in MANET. The routing protocol which is chosen may have an effect on the performance of network. In this paper, We perform a comparative study of DSDV, CSGR, WRP, AODV, OLSR, DSR, TORA, ZRP, ZHLS, DYMO routing protocol with respect to Routing Approaches, Routing structure, Route selection, Route, Routing table, Route maintenance, Operation of protocols, Strength, Weakness.

KEYWORDS: MANET;Routing Protocol;DSDV; CSGR; WRP;AODV;OLSR; DSR;TORA;ZRP;ZHLS;DYMO

Copy the following to cite this article: Lalar S, Yadav A. K. Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in MANET. Orient.J. Comp. Sci. and Technol;10(1)

Copy the following to cite this URL: Lalar S, Yadav A. K. Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in MANET. Orient.J. Comp. Sci. and Technol;10(1). Available from: http://www.computerscijournal.org/?p=4991

Introduction

MANET (Mobile Ad hoc Network) is collection of  mobile nodes which having the Autonomous Self -configuring network.In MANET, the nodes can flow freely and at any time it can connect to different nodes. Mobile nodes having the bandwidth restricted,dynamic topologies, Energy limited operation, variable infrastructure & capacity links. Routing protocol performs an essential function in any network [1]. Routing protocol specifies the routes between the nodes and disseminating information whichchoosethe routes between any two nodes on a network.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The classifications of routing protocol in MANET are explained in section II. Further the comparisons of routing protocols DSDV, DSR, AODV & OLSR are explained in Section III.   Concluding remarks are given in section IV.

Classification of Routing Protocol

There are different routing protocols existing in MANET. Routing protocols can be classified into three types:  Proactive, Reactive routing protocol and Hybrid protocols. The routing protocols in MANET are accomplished to handle a lot number of nodes with restricted resources. The major concern in routing protocol is disappearing/ appearing of the nodes in various places. It is important to reduce routing message overhead despite the growing number of mobile nodes. Another important concern is to maintain the size of routing table small because if the size of routing protocol is larger than it can affect the control packet transferred inside the network.

Routing protocol is categorized on the idea of how and at what time route are discovered, however both pick the shortest path to the destination.

Proactive Routing Protocols

This type of routing protocols uses link-state routing algorithms which floods link information about its neighbours frequently. Proactive routing protocol stores the routing information and maintains the information up to date by exchanging the control packet from their neighbours. The examples of proactive routing protocols are DSDV, OLSR, and WRP etc [8].

Reactive Routing Protocols

Reactive routing protocols reduce overheads that are present in proactive protocols. It uses distance-vector routing algorithm and establishes the route to given destination only when a node request it by initiating route discovery process. There are number of reactive routing protocols available in MANET [4] like DSR, AODV, TORA and LMR etc.

Hybrid Routing Protocols

It is the mixture of reactive and proactive routing protocols. The example of Hybrid routing protocols are ZRP, BGP, EIGRP. Table 1 show the difference between the Proactive, Reactive routing protocol and Hybrid protocols in different features.

Table 1: Comparison between protocols [2]

Features	Reactive	Proactive	Hybrid
Routing Structure	Mostly Flat	Both Flat & Hierarchical	Hierarchical
Route Acquisition	On demand	Table driven	Combination of both
Routing Overhead	Low	High	Medium
Latency	High due to flooding	Low due to routing tables	Inside zone Low outside similar to reactive protocols
Scalability	Not suitable for large networks	Low	Designed for large networks
Routing information	Available when required	Always available	Combination of both
Periodic Updates	Not needed	Yes whenever the topology of the network changes	Yes
Mobility	Route Maintenance	Periodic updates	Combination of both
Storage Requirement	Low	High	Medium
Bandwidth Requirement	Low	High	Medium
Power Requirement	Low	High	Medium

 

The figure 1 shows the example of the type of routing protocol. 

Figure 1: Types of Routing Protocols [2]   Click here to View figure

 

Comparsion of Routing Protocol

In this section, we will make the comparison of explain the ten routing protocol DSDV, CSGR, WRP, AODV, OLSR, DSR, TORA, ZRP, ZHLS, DYMO. The comparison is done with respect to Protocol type, Routing Approaches, Routing structure, Route selection, Route, Routing table, Route maintenance, Operation of protocols, Advantages, Limitation as shown in Table 2 [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].

Table 2: Comparsion between routing protocol Click here to View table

 

Conclusion

This paper presents a comparative study of routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc networks. These protocols are divided into three: proactive or table-driven, reactive or on-demand, and Hybrid routing protocols. For each of these classes, we have reviewed several representative protocols. Each routing protocol has unique features. The main factor that distinguishes the protocols is the method of determining routes within source destination pairs. The routing protocol DSDV, CSGR, WRP, AODV, OLSR, DSR, TORA, ZRP, ZHLS, DYMO is compared with respect to Protocol type, Routing Approaches, Routing structure, Route selection, Route, Routing table, Route maintenance, Operation of protocols, Advantages, Limitation.

References

1. Singh, G. and Singh, A. (2012) Performance Evaluation of Aodv and Dsr Routing Protocols for Vbr Traffic for 150 Nodes in MANETs. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research (ijceronline. com), 2, 1583-1587.
2. Kaur, R. and Rai, M.K. (2012) A Novel Review on Routing Protocols in MANETs. Undergraduate Academic Research Journal (UARJ), 1, 103-108.
3. Dhenakaran, S.S. and Parvathavarthini, A. (2013) An Overview of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3, 251-259.
4. .Ehsan, Z. Uzmi, “Performance comparison of adhoc wireless network routing protocols”, Proceedings of IEEE International Multi-topic Conference (INMIC) 2004
5. Panda, I. (2012) A Survey on Routing Protocols of MANETs by Using Qos Metrics. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2, 120-129.
6. Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T. and Dutkiewicz, E. (2004) A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Ad Hoc Networks, 2, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8705(03)00043-X
   CrossRef
7. Mbarushimana, C. and Shahrabi, A. (2007) Comparative Study of Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, AINAW’07, Niagara Falls, 21-23 May 2007, 679-684.
   CrossRef
8. BR, A.K., Reddy, L.C. and Hiremath, P.S. (2008) Performance Comparison of Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 8, 337-343.
9. Guo, J. and Wang, A. (2014) Study on Integration OLSR Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network. Proceedings of the 9^th International Symposium on Linear Drives for Industry Applications, 4, 701-708.
   CrossRef
10. Bali, S., Steuer, J. and Jobmann, K. (2008) Capacity of Ad Hoc Networks with Line Topology Based on UWB and WLAN Technologies. Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, Pomona, 24-26 April 2008, 17-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WTS.2008.4547538
    CrossRef
11. Lol, W.G. (2008) An Investigation of the Impact of Routing Protocols on MANETs Using Simulation Modelling. Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
12. Perkins, C.E. and Bhagwat, P. (1994) Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 24, 234-244.
    CrossRef
13. Boukerche, A., Turgut, B., Aydin, N., Ahmad, M.Z., Bölöni, L. and Turgut, D. (2011) Routing Protocols in Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey. Computer Networks, 55, 3032-3080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.05.010
    CrossRef
14. Bakht, H. (2011) Survey of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-Hoc Network. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 1, 258-207.
15. Royer, E.M. and Toh, C.K. (1999) A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks. IEEE Personal Communications, 6, 46-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/98.760423
    CrossRef
16. Wan, T., Kranakis, E. and Van Oorschot, P.C. (2004) Securing the Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector Routing Protocol (S-DSDV). In: Information and Communications Security, Springer, Berlin, 358-374.
    CrossRef
17. Dhenakaran, D.S. and Parvathavarthini, A. (2013) An Overview of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3, 251-259.
18. Humblet, P.A. (1991) Another Adaptive Distributed Shortest Path Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 39, 995-1003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/26.87189
    CrossRef
19. Rajagopalan, B. and Faiman, M. (1991) A Responsive Distributed Shortest-Path Routing Algorithm within Autonomous Systems. Journal of Internetworking: Research and Experience, 2, 51-69.
20. Chowdhury, S. A., Uddin, M. A., and Al Noor, S. (2012) A Survey on Routing Protocols and Simulation Analysis of WRP, DSR and AODV in Wireless Sensor Networks.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.