Proc. of Int. Conf.

on Recent Trends in Signal Processing, Image Processing and VLSI, ICrtSIV

Simulation and Analysis of AODV and AOMDV

Protocol during Link Breakage in MANET using
NS-2
Siddlingappagouda Biradar1, Nagraj Kyasa2, and Rashmi K. T3
1, 2, 3
Don Bosco Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India
Email: siddubiradarr@gmail.com, nagraj.kyasa@gmail.com, ktrashmi@yahoo.com

Abstract Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a type of wireless ad-hoc network which is
a self-arranging network of mobile nodes connected by wireless links which creates an
discretionary topology. The mobile nodes are free to move randomly and to arrange
themselves in a random manner. Thus, the network's wireless topology may change rapidly
and unpredictably. This paper describes the simulation results in order to select which
routing protocol has better performance and respond faster when implemented under link
breakage condition in MANET. The simulations and comparisons of two ad hoc routing
protocols that are Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Ad hoc On-demand
Multipath Distance Vector (AOMDV) routing protocol. By using the performance metric
such as average-end to end delay, throughput and jitter. We can predict the best routing
protocol and fast responding protocol among AODV and AOMDV when implemented
under link breakage condition in MANET using Network Simulator (NS) 2 tool.
Index Terms MANET, AODV, AOMDV, NS-2

I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks are a wireless network which does not require any infrastructure support for
transferring data from one node to another node [1].In these infrastructure networks, each node works as
source, receiver and intermediate router. From this we can say that node can acts as host or router at different
time period depending upon simulation time. If node wants to send the data it can act as a source and if node
wants to receive the data it acts as receiver, if node has to transfer the data packets to other node, then it will
act as a router. Nodes are free to move over network topology. Topology of MANET network keeps on
hanging dynamically which makes to work good in uniform networks because the requirements differ in the
two cases. In wireless networks, routing protocols quickly respond to change in network topology which
occurs frequently in these networks [2].
II. ROUTING IN MANET
Most quality of services routing algorithms represent an expansion of present classic best-effort algorithms.
Many routing protocols have been generated which support developing and carrying on multi-hop routes
between nodes in MANETs. These algorithms can be classified into two different cases: reactive routing
protocol such as DSR (Destination Source Routing), AODV, and TORA (Temporally-Ordered Routing
Algorithm), and proactive routing protocol such as DSR (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector protocol)
DOI: 03.AETS.2014.5.142
Association of Computer Electronics and Electrical Engineers, 2014

[10].
In the reactive routing protocols, routes are uncovered between a source and a destination only when the need
arises to send data. This provides a decreased operating of communication and the quality of the scalable. In
the proactive protocols, routing tables which include routing data between all nodes are generated and
retained endlessly irrespective of the need of any given node to convey at that time. With this approach, the
response time for route knowledge is relatively small, which may be essential for certain applications, but the
operating cost of communications increased in the continued update of information for routes which might
not be used for a more time if at all is too high. Additionally, this address needs more memory due to
definitive increase in the area of the routing table. These necessities put limits on the size and compactness of
the network. A third hybrid address, the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), has also been aimed and attempts to
acquire the uses of both methods. In ZRP, the network is disunited into regions. A proactive table driven aim
is used for assignment and maintenance of routes between nodes of the same region, and a reactive ondemand aim is used for communication between nodes of different region. This concept can be impressive in
larger networks with applications that expose a relatively high degree of sector of communication, where
communication between nodes with closeness to one another is much more often than that between nodes
which are additionally apart [3].
A figure showing the different types of routing protocols is shown below:

Figure 1: Types of Routing Protocols [3]

Before convincing the current appeals for design and implementation of quality of service routing protocols,
it is important to briefly debate the present excellent-effort routing protocols which live for MANETs. Many
routing protocols have been created to determine and support routes between source and destination nodes
[4].
Among the most important and superior routing algorithms for MANETs that have evolved are three
fundamental types. Each of these three fundamental types has its own merits, demerits, and fitness of use in
some types of ad hoc networks depending on the action, number of nodes included, node density, underlying
link layer technology, and general difference of the environment and applications being supported. These
three routing algorithms are: (a) on demand such as DSR, AODV, and TORA routing protocol, and (b) tabledriven such as DSDV protocol. There are also other cases of routing protocols considered for more quality of
being scalable such as (c) the ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol), which is a hybrid representation for routing in
ad hoc networks, in extra to others, which will be mentioned lately [5].
III. AODV
The AODV protocol is a routing algorithm specially meant for ad hoc mobile networks. AODV Protocol can
perform both unicast and multicast routing. It is a reactive algorithm, define that it develops routes between
nodes only as expected by source nodes. It maintains these routes as long as they are needed by the sources.
Additionally, AODV forms trees which connect multicast group members. The trees are composed of the
group members and the nodes needed to connect the members. AODV uses sequence numbers to ensure the
freshness of routes. It is loop-free, self starting, and scales to large numbers of mobile nodes. AODV builds
routes using a route request/route reply query cycle [11]. When a source node desires a route to a destination
for which it does not already have a route, it announces a route request (RREQ) packet across the wireless
network. Nodes which are receiving this packet update their information for the source node and set up
reverse pointers to the source node in the route tables. Along with this source nodes IP address, current
526

sequence number, and broadcast ID, the RREQ also contains the most recent sequence number for the
destination of which the source node is aware. A node receiving the RREQ may send a route reply (RREP) if
it is either the destination or if it has a route to the destination with corresponding sequence number greater
than or equal to that contained in the RREQ. If this is the case, it will again unicast a RREP back to the
source. Or else, it rebroadcasts the RREQ packet. Nodes keep track of the RREQ's source IP address and
broadcast ID. If they receive a RREQ again which they have already processed, they discard the RREQ and
do not forward it.
As the RREP propagates back to the source, nodes set up forward to the destination. Once the source node
accepts the RREP packet, it may start to forward all its data packets to the destination. If the source later
receives a RREP containing a higher sequence number or contains the almost same sequence number with a
lesser hop count, it may update its routing information for that destination and begin using the best route. As
long as the route remains active, it will continue to be maintained in the routing table. A route is considered
active as long as there are data packets periodically moving from the source to the destination along that path.
Once the source decides to stop sending data packets, the links will time out and ultimately link will be
deleted from the intermediate node routing tables. If a link break occurs while the route is active, the node
upstream of the break propagates a route error (RERR) message to the source node to inform it of the now
unreachable destination. After receiving the RERR, if the source node still desires the route, it can reinitiate
route discovery [12].
IV. AOMDV
AOMDV protocol [6] is an extended version of AODV protocol for computing multiple loop-free and link
disjoint paths [7]. The routing details for each destination contain a list of the next-hops along with the other
hop counts. All the next hops will be having the same sequence number. This helps in keeping track all route
information. For each destination, a node maintains the detail hop count, which is said as the maximum hop
count for all the paths, which is used for sending route announcement of the destination. Each same route is
received by a node tells an alternate path to the destination. Loop freedom is assured for a node by accepting
alternate paths to destination if it has a less hop count than the advertised hop count for that destination.
Because the maximum hop count is used, the advertised hop count therefore does not change for the same
sequence number [6]. When a route announced is received for a destination with a greater sequence number,
the next-hop list and the advertised hop count are reinitialized. AOMDV can be used to find node duplicate
routes. To find node disjoint routes, each node does not easily reject duplicate RREQs. Each RREQs coming
through a different neighbour of the source defines a node-disjoint path. This is because nodes cannot be
communicate same RREQs, so any two RREQs arriving at an intermediate node via a different neighbor of
the source could not have traversed the same node. In an attempt to get multiple link-disjoint routes, the
destination replies to duplicate RREQs, the destination only replies to RREQs entering through different
neighbours. After the first hop, the RREPs follow the reverse paths, which are node detaches and thus linkdetaches. The approaches of each RREP may intersect at an intermediate mobile node, but each takes a
different inverse path to the source to assure link detaches [8]. The merits of using AOMDV is that it allows
intermediate nodes to reply to RREQs, while still selecting disjoint paths. But, AOMDV has got more
message overheads while route disclose due to added flooding and since it is an a multipath routing protocol,
the destination acknowledges to the many RREQs those results are in longer processing overhead.
V. PERFORMANCE METRICS
When we analysed the performance of AODV and AOMDV routing protocol, we concentrated on three
performance metrics which are Average Jitter, Average End-to-End Delay, and Throughput.
A. Average Jitter
It is defined as average of the variation in latency (response time) over time from point to point. It is
measured in milliseconds [9].
B. Average end-to-end delay
It is defined as average time taken by a data packet to arrive in the destination. It also includes the delay
caused by route discovery process and the queue in data packet transmission. Only the data packets that
successfully delivered to destinations that counted.
(arrive time send time) / Number of connections
527

The lower value of end to end delay means the better performance of the protocol.
C. Throughput
Throughput is defined as the average number of packets successfully delivered per unit time i.e. average
number of bits delivered per second.
Throughput=Total number of received packets at destination/time taken
VI. SIMULATION
The performance analysis of AODV and AOMDV routing protocol on link breakage is performed in a
simulated environment. NS 2.34 [7] simulator is used under Linux (ubuntu 11.10) or windows platform for
simulation. The link breakage analyses are performed by following simulation parameters for both Protocols.
TAB I: SIMULATION PARAMETERS USED IN THIS EVALUATION
Simulator

Ns-2.34

Protocol

AODV & AOMDV

Simulation duration

0-20 seconds

Simulation area

1500m x 1000m

Number of nodes

11

Movement model

Random Waypoint

MAC Layer Protocol

IEEE 802.11

Link Type

Duplex-link

Queue size

50

Transmission range

250

Interference range

550

Packet Size

1500 bytes/packet

Application Type
Agent Type

FTP
TCP

VII. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The simulation results are shown as below in the form of graphs. The performance of AODV and AOMDV
based on parameters like average jitter, average end-to-end delay and throughput.
Fig2 shows the wireless network which is of 11 nodes as it is shown in the Network Animator (NAM)
console which is a built-in program in NS-2-allinone package after the end of the simulation process. When
source (node 0) transmits packet to destination (node 10) and node 6 is made to move away from network
scenario at 10 sec, Performance of average jitter, average end to end delay and throughput for AODV and
AOMDV varies.

Figure 2. Link breakage in MANET topology

528

Figure 3. End to end delay of AODV protocol

Figure 4. End to end delay of AOMDV protocol

Figure 5. Jitter of AODV protocol

Figure 6. Jitter of AOMDV protocol

Figure 7. Throughput of AODV protocol

Figure 8. Throughput of AOMDV protocol

At 11 nodes in MANET environment, the end to end delay of AODV and AOMDV protocol are almost
constant as shown in fig 3 and fig 4. Whereas average jitter of AOMDV is slightly less than AODV protocol
as shown in fig 5 and fig 6. Throughput of AOMDV is more than AODV protocol as a shown in fig 7 and 8,
As a result AOMDV works better and respond faster in link breakage condition than AODV protocol.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The simulation results show that when comparing AODV with AOMDV, multipath AOMDV results is
superior to single path AODV protocol when there is mobility induced in link breakage condition at 11
nodes.
IX. FUTURE WORK
The results of this work shows the conclusion that performance of multipath AOMDV is better than single
path AODV routing protocol. In future, Identification of protocols which are better than AOMDV routing
protocol and which are in current research work in various research centres which will analyse the
performance in a better way than that of AOMDV. Comparing the performance of routing protocols by using

529

different simulators like Opnet, Jsim and Qualnet. Studying performance for other metrics like packet loss,
packet delivery ratio and routing overhead, etc.
REFERENCES
[1] Aleksi Penttinen, Research on Ad Hoc Networking- Current Activity and Future Directions.
[2] Nitin H. Vaidya,Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Routing, MAC and Transport Issues, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
[3] Andreas Tnnesen, Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks.
[4] Demetris Zeinalipour. A Glance at QoS in MANETs. University of California, Tech. Rep., 2001.
[5] Imad Jawhar and Jie Wu. Quality of Service Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
[6] M.K.Marina and S.R.Das, On-Demand multipath distance vector routing in ad hoc networks in: Proceedings of
the 9th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001
[7] J.Broch, D.A.Maltz, D.B.Johnson, Y-C.Hu, J.Jetcheva, performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc
network routing protocols, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon USA.
[8] H.D.Trung, W.Benjapolakul, P.M.Duc, Performance evaluation and comparison of different ad hoc routing
protocols, Department of Electrical Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, May 2007.
[9] Kamalinder Kaur and Manish Mahajan, Analysis and Evaluation of Reactive Routing Protocol in MANETs,
International Conference on Computational Techniques and Artificial Intelligence, 2001.
[10] Nor Surayati Mohamad Usop, Azizol Abdullah and Ahmad Faisal Amri Abidin Performance Evaluation of AODV,
DSDV & DSR Routing Protocol in Grid Environment,in International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security, VOL.9 No.7, July 2009.
[11] M.K.Marina and S.R.Das, On-Demand multipath distance vector routing in ad hoc networks in: Proceedings of
the 9th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2001
[12] Azizol Abdullah, Norlida Ramly, Abdullah Muhammed, Mohd Noor Derahman: Performance Comparison Study of
Routing Protocols for Mobile Grid Environment, pp 82-88, IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and
Network Security, VOL.8 No.2, February 2008.

530