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

1. GTU PG SCHOOL ,
Gandhinagar
Comparison of proactive and reactive
routing protocol in mobile ad-hoc
network
Vrajesh Parikh (141060753008)

2. Outline
Classification of Routing Protocols
Proactive vs. Reactive Routing Protocols
Proactive and Reactive Protocols Comparison
Performance Metrics
Result and Performance Comparison

3. Classification of Routing Protocols
Classification of Routing Protocols

4. • 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

5. ..
• 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

6. Proactive and Reactive Protocols
Comparison

7. PERFORMANCE METRICS
 The performance comparison of routing protocols on the following
performance metrics:
Packet Delivery Ratio
Packet 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 Delay
Average End-to-End delay (seconds) is the average time it takes a
data 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.
Throughput
The 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.

8. RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE
COMPARISION
• Performance of AODV , TORA and DSDV protocols is
evaluated under both CBR and TCP traffic pattern. Extensive
Simulation is done by using NS-2.

9. Average End to End Delay for CBR
Traffic Pattern

10. Average End to End Delay TCP Traffic
Pattern

11. CONCLUSIONS
This 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.

12. [1] Mazhar H malik Department of informatics Universita Ca’ Foscari Venezia,
Italy malik@dsi.unive.it “Performance Analysis of Proactive and Reactive
Protocols 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

13. ?