GTU PG SCHOOL , Gandhinagar

Comparison of proactive and reactive routing protocol in mobile ad-hoc network

Vrajesh Parikh (141060753008)

OutlineClassification of Routing Protocols

Proactive vs. Reactive Routing Protocols

Proactive and Reactive Protocols Comparison

Performance Metrics

Result and Performance Comparison

Classification of Routing Protocols Classification of Routing Protocols

• Proactive Protocols▫have lower latency due to maintenance of routes at all times▫can result in much higher overhead due to frequent route

updates▫when a packet needs to be forwarded, the route is already

known

• Reactive Protocols may have▫higher latency since the routes have to be discovered when the

source node initiates a route request▫ lower overhead since routes are maintained only on-demand

basis▫Determine a route only when there is data to send.

Proactive vs. Reactive Routing Protocols

..• Latency of route discovery

▫ Proactive protocols: Little or no delay for route determination since routes are maintained at all times

▫ Reactive protocols: Significant delay in route determination Employ flooding (global search) Control traffic may be burst

• Overhead of route discovery/maintenance▫ Proactive protocols: Consume bandwidth to keep routes up-to-date

Maintain routes which may never be used▫ Reactive protocols: Lower overhead since routes are determined on

demand

• Which approach achieves a better trade-off depends on the traffic and mobility patterns▫ Low traffic with high mobility : Reactive▫ High traffic with low mobility : Proactive

5

Proactive and Reactive Protocols Comparison

PERFORMANCE METRICS The performance comparison of routing protocols on the following

performance metrics:

Packet Delivery RatioPacket delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number of packets received by the destination through the number of packets originated by the application layer of the source

Average End-To-End DelayAverage End-to-End delay (seconds) is the average time it takes adata packet to reach the destination. This metric is calculated by subtracting ―time at which first packet was transmitted by source from ―time at which first data packet arrived to destination.

ThroughputThe throughput of the protocols can be defined as percentage of the packets received by the destination among the packets sent by the source. It is the amount of data per time unit that is delivered from one node to another via a communication link.

RESULTS AND PERFORMANCECOMPARISION• Performance of AODV , TORA and DSDV protocols is

evaluated under both CBR and TCP traffic pattern. Extensive Simulation is done by using NS-2.

Average End to End Delay for CBR Traffic Pattern

Average End to End Delay TCP Traffic Pattern

CONCLUSIONSThis study was conducted to evaluate the performance Reactive (AODV , TORA) and Proactive protocols (DSDV) of MANET based on both CBR and TCP traffic. These routing protocols were compared in terms of Packet delivery ratio, Average end-to-end delay and Throughput when subjected to change in no. of nodes. Simulation results show that Reactive protocols better in terms of packet delivery ratio and average end-to-end delay. Future work will be to evaluate the performance of these protocols by varying the speed , pause time. Performance can also be analyzed for other parameters like Jitter, Routing Overhead. By evaluating the performance of these protocols new protocols can be implemented or changes can be suggested in the earlier protocols to improve the performance.

[1] Mazhar H malik Department of informatics Universita Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy malik@dsi.unive.it “Performance Analysis of Proactive and ReactiveProtocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networking: A Simulation based Analysis” 2014, IEEE

[2] Vikas Singla, Department of Information Technology “Traffic Pattern based performance comparison of Reactive and Proactive protocols of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, 2010 International Journal of Computer Applications

REFERENCES

?