International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)

Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

73


www.ijaert.org

Simulative Contemplation of AODV, AOMDVand MDART Protocols

Sucheta Sharma
1
, Gurpreet Singh
2

1,2
Department of Computer Science& Engineering,
Yamuna Institute of Engineering & Technology, Gadholi, Yamuna Nagar


ABSTRACT
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) consist of a
collection of wireless mobile nodes which dynamically
exchange data among themselves without the reliance on
a fixed base station or a wired backbone network.Each
device in a MANET is free to move independently in
any direction, and will therefore change its links to other
devices frequently.The primary challenge in building a
MANET is equipping each device to continuously
maintain the information required to properly route
traffic. Such networks may operate by themselves or
may be connected to the larger Internet. MANETs are a
kind of Wireless ad hoc network that usually has a
routable networking environment on top of a Link
Layer ad hoc network. There are so many routing
protocols in MANETS. In this paper we study about
differentUnipath and Multipath routing protocols i.e.
AODV, AOMDV and MDART.Multipath routing is
the routing technique of using multiple alternative paths
through a network, which can yield a variety of benefits
such as fault tolerance, increased bandwidth, or
improved security. In this paper we compare the
performance of AODV, AOMDV and MDART.

KeywordsAODV, AOMDV, MANET, MDART,
Multipath Routing Protocols.

I. INTRODUCTION

A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self-
configuring, infrastructure less network of mobile
devices connected by wireless. MANETs have potential
use in a wide variety of disparate situations. Such
situations include moving battlefield communications to
disposable sensors which are dropped from high
altitudes and dispersed on the ground for hazardous
materials detection. Civilian applications include simple
scenarios such as people at a conference in a hotelwhere
their laptops comprise a temporary MANET to more
complicated scenarios such as highly mobile vehicles on
the highway which form an ad hoc network in order to
provide vehicular traffic management. In wireless
scenarios, routes are broken due to node movement.
Also, the wireless links used for data transmission are
inherently unreliable and error prone. Therefore,
multipath routing protocols are used to overcome the
disadvantages of shortest path routing protocols.
Multipath routing protocols are used to increase the
reliability and fault tolerance. It can also be used to
provide load balancing, which reduces the congestion on
a single path caused by bursty traffic. Routing protocols
can be classified in to two types: Unipath and Multipath
routing protocols.
1. Unipath Routing
Routing protocols are used to find and maintain routes
between source and destination nodes. Two main classes
of ad hoc routing protocols are proactive and reactive
protocols. In proactive protocols, each node maintains a
routing table containing routes to all nodes in the
network. Nodes must periodically exchange messages
with routing information to keep routing tables up-to-
date. Therefore, routes between nodes are computed and
stored, even when they are not needed. These protocols
may be impractical, especially for large, highly mobile
networks. Because of the dynamic nature of adhoc
networks, a large number of routing messages may have
to be exchanged in order to keep routing information
accurate or up-to-date. In reactive protocols, nodes only
compute routes when they are needed. Therefore, on-
demand protocols are more scalable to dynamic, large
networks. When a node needs a route to another node, it
initiates a route discovery process to find a route.
Reactive protocols consist of the following two main
phases.
1.1Discovery of route Itis the process of finding a route
between two nodes
1.2 Maintenance of route Itis the process of repairing a
broken route or finding a new route in the presence of a
route failure.
In unipath routing, only a single route is used between a
source and destination node. Two of the most widely
used protocols are the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
and the Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV)
protocols. AODV and DSR are both on-demand
protocols.
2. Multipath routing
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
74


www.ijaert.org
Multipath routing consists of finding multiple routes
between a source and destination node. The benefits of
Multipath routing includes that multiple paths can
provide load balancing, fault-tolerance, and higher
aggregate bandwidth. Load balancing can be achieved
by spreading the traffic along multiple routes. This can
alleviate congestion and bottlenecks. The three phases in
multipath Routing are:
2.1 Discovery and Maintenance of RouteThe
discovery and maintenance of route consists of finding
multiple routes between a source and destination node.
Multipath routing protocols can attempt to find node
disjoint, link disjoint, or non-disjoint routes. Node
disjoint routes, also known as totally disjoint routes,
have no nodes or links in common. Link disjoint routes
have no links in common, but may have nodes in
common. Non-disjoint routes can have nodes and links
in common.
2.2 Traffic AllocationThe traffic allocation strategy
used deals with how the data is distributed amongst the
paths. The choice of allocation granularity is important
in traffic allocation. The allocation granularity specifies
the smallest unit of information allocated to each path.
For instance, a per-connection granularity would allocate
all traffic for one connection to a single path. A per-
packet granularity would distribute the packets from
multiple connections amongst the paths. A per-packet
granularity results in the best performance. This is
because it allows for finer control over the network
resources. It is difficult to evenly distribute traffic
amongst the paths in the per-connection case, because all
the connections experience different traffic rates. If a
round-robin traffic allocation approach is used, however,
per packet granularity may result in packets arriving out-
of-order at the destination. Packet reordering is an issue
that needs to be dealt with in multipath routing, possibly
at the transport layer.

II. RELATED WORK

Multipath routing is not a new technique and has already
been proposed and implemented in packet and circuit
switched networks. In circuit switched telephone
networks, alternate path routing was proposed in order to
increase network utilization as well as to reduce the call
blocking probability. In this section, we have given a
brief review of routing protocols which are developed as
an extension to the AODV routing protocol under
various scenarios.The recent studies extensively focused
on the multipath discovering extension of the on-
demand routing protocols in order to alleviate single
path problems like AODV[1] and DSR[2], such as high
route discovery latency, frequent route discovery
attempts and possible improvement of data transfer
throughput. The AODV (AODV Multipath) [3], is a
multipath extension to AODV. These provide
linkdisjoint and loop free paths in AODV. Multipath
Source Routing (MSR) protocol [4], a multipath
extension to DSR, uses weighted round robin packet
distribution to improve the delay and throughput.
Multipath Extension of AODV can be classified as:
AOMDV: The maximum number of paths can be
congured, as well as the hop dierence between the
shortest path and an alternative path. The protocol
calculates link and node disjoint paths [5]. AODV
Multipath protocol establishes only node disjoint paths.
There is no limitation on the maximum number of paths
[6]. MDART, namely the multi-path dynamic address
routing, is based on a prominent DHT-based shortest-
path routing protocol known as DART [7].

III. TYPES OF UNIPATH ROUTING
PROTOCOLS

DSR (Dynamic Source Routing)
DSR is an on-demand routing protocol for ad hoc
networks. In DSR the source includes the full route in
the packets header. The intermediate nodes use this to
forward packets towards the destination and maintain a
route cache containing routes to other nodes.
Route discovery
If the source does not have a route to the destination in
its route cache, it broadcasts a route request (RREQ)
message specifying the destination node for which the
route is requested. The RREQ message includes a route
record which species the sequence of nodes traversed
by the message. When an intermediate node receives a
RREQ, it checks to see if it is already in the route record.
If it is, it drops the message. This is done to prevent
routing loops. If the intermediate node had received the
RREQ before, then it also drops the message. The
intermediate node forwards the RREQ to the next hop
according to the route specied in the header. When the
destination receives the RREQ, it sends back a route
reply message. If the destination has a route to the
source in its route cache, then it can send a route
response (RREP) message along this route. Otherwise,
the RREP message can be sent along the reverse
routeback to the source. Intermediate nodes may also use
their route cache to reply to RREQs. If an intermediate
node has a route to the destination in its cache, then it
can append the route to the route record in the RREQ,
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
75


www.ijaert.org
and send an RREP back to the source containing this
route. This can help limit ooding of the RREQ.
However, if the cached route is out-of-date, it can result
in the source receiving stale routes.
Route maintenance
When a node detects a broken link while trying to
forward a packet to the next hop, it sends a route error
(RERR) message back to the source containing, an error
in detecting route from source to destination.

AODV (Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector)
protocol
AODV comes under the category of Reactive protocol.
AODV [8] is based on DSDV and DSR collectively. It
keeps Routing tables .It discovers route between two
nodes when needed. It is loop-free, self-starting, and
scales to large numbers of mobile node. AODV builds
routes using a route request / route reply query cycle.
When a source S node wants to send a packet to the
destination node D, it first checks its routing table and if
there is no entry, it initiates route discovery process. It
broadcasts a route request (RREQ) packet to its
neighbours. The RREQ contains IP addresses of source
(S) and destination (D) node, current sequence number
of source(S) and last known sequence number of D, a
broadcast ID from S, which is incremented each time S
sends a RREQ message. The broadcast ID, IP address
pair of the source S forms a unique identifier for the
RREQ. AODV utilizes destination sequence numbers to
guarantee the fresh route. When a node broadcast RREQ
message, it waits for RREP. If the reply is not received
within certain time limit, the source node rebroadcast the
RREQ or it assumes that there is no route present. When
a node receives a RREQ message, it broadcast the
RREQ message to its neighbour if it is not the
destination route and creates a temporary reverse route
to the source IP address in its routing table with next
hope equal to the IP address of neighbouring node that
sent the RREQ. Intermediate nodes can reply to the
RREQ only if they have a route to the destination whose
corresponding destination sequence number is greater
than or equal to that contained in the RREQ. Once the
RREQ reaches the destination or an intermediate node
with a fresher route, it generates RREP and it is
unicasted back to the requesting node which eventually
reaches the source node. The intermediate node records
the route to the destination as the RREP follows from
destination to source. The nodes are mobile, so it can
move anytime. IF the source node moves to different
location [9], it can rediscover the route the destination
node by route discovery process. If the destination
node/the intermediate node moves to different location,
it informs the upstream node through Route error
message which eventually reaches the source node. The
source node terminates the ongoing connectivity. AODV
protocol reduces number of routing messages in the
network. It handles the dynamic behaviour of the nodes
efficiently. The route discovery latency is high.

IV. TYPES OF MULTIPATH ROUTING
PROTOCOLS

AOMDV (Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Routing)
AOMDV extends AODV to discover multiple paths
between Source and Destination in route discovery [10].
The route discovery process has been modified to enable
multiple paths. They stress on link disjointness of
multiple paths such that the paths may share nodes but
no edges. Also the loop freedom property of paths is
guaranteed by using sequence numbers of nodes.
Multiple paths are maintained in routing entries in each
node. The routing entries contain a list of next-hops
along with corresponding hop counts for each
destination. To ensure loop-free paths AOMDV
introduces the advertised hop count value at node i for
destination d. This value represents the maximum hop-
count for destination d available at node i. Consequently,
alternate paths at node i for destination d are accepted
only with lower hopcount than the advertised hop count
value. Node-disjointness is achieved by suppressing
duplicate RREQ at intermediate nodes. This protocol
provides efcient recovery from route failures and
efcient fault tolerance. To achieve these goals, it
computes multiple loop-free and disjoint alternate paths
at every node [11].
AOMDV works in two phases:
(i) A route update rule to establish and maintain
multiple loop-free paths at each node.
(ii) A distributed protocol to find link disjoint
paths.
In AOMDV this is used at the intermediate nodes.
Duplicate copies of a RREQ are not immediately
discarded. Each packet is examined to see if it provides
a node-disjoint path to the source. For node-disjoint
paths all RREQs need to arrive via different neighbours
of the source. This is verified with the first hop field in
the RREQ packet and the first hop list for the RREQ
packets at the node. At the destination a slightly
different approach is used, the paths determined there
are link-disjoint, not node-disjoint. In order to do this,
the destination replies up to k copies of the RREQ,
regardless of the first hops. The RREQs only need to
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
76


www.ijaert.org
arrive via unique neighbours. The properties of
AOMDV are as follows:
Multiple routes are established in single route
discovery process.
Extension of AODV.
Multiple link-disjoint routes are created.
Maximum hop count to each destination is used
to avoid loops.
Nodes maintain next-hop info for destinations.
RREQs from different neighbours of the source
are acceptedat intermediate nodes

MDART (Multipath Dynamic Address Routing):
The protocol, namely the multi-path dynamic address
routing (M-DART), is based on a prominent DHT-based
shortest-path routing protocol known as DART [7]. M-
DART extends the DART protocol to discover multiple
routes between the source and the destination. In such a
way, M-DART is able to improve the tolerance of a tree-
based address space against mobility as well as channel
impairments. Moreover, the multi-path feature also
improves the performances in case of static topologies
thanks to the route diversity. M-DART has two novel
aspects compared to other multi-path routing protocols.
First, the redundant routes discovered by MDART are
guaranteed to be communication-free and coordination-
free, i.e., their discovering and announcing though the
network does not require any additional communication
or coordination overhead. Second, M-DART discovers
all the available redundant paths between source and
destination, not just a limited number.

V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Here we have measure and compare the performance of
different protocols AODV, AOMDV and MDART using
different parameters that are Packet Delivery Ratio, No.
of Packets send, Average Throughput, No. of Packets
drop, Average Delay and Average Jitter in MANETS
with the help of NS2 .

Performance parameters are:
A. Throughput: It is the rate at which packets can
delivered successfully from one location to another
in a given amount of time.
B. Average Delay: It refers to the time taken for
a packet to be transmitted across a network from
source to destination.
C. Number of Packets Send: It is simply the rate of
transmission of number of packets.
D. Packet Delivery Ratio: It is the ratio of the packets
sends to destination to those generated at constant
bit rate.
E. Number of Packets Drop: It is due to link breakage
between source to destination, if link is broken
between source and destination the packet will be
drop down.
F. Average Jitter: It refers as variation in delay with
respect to time.

SIMULATION RESULTS
We ran the simulation environments for 10sec for no. of
scenarios with no. of nodes varying from 20, 50 and 70
using following parameters: Packet delivery ratio, no. of
packets send, average throughput, average jitter ,
average end-to-end delay and number of packets
dropped are calculated for AODV, AOMDV and
MDART . The results are summarized with graphs
which are given below:

Average Throughput: The following figure shows the
Average Throughput of AODV, AOMDV and MDART
routing protocols.



Fig1Average Throughput

The above figure is concluded that MDART is better
than AOMDV while comparing above three protocols
mentioned in graph.
Average Delay: The following figure shows the
Average Delay of three protoocls which are discussed
above.
0
50000
20 50 70
D
A
T
A

I
N

B
Y
T
E
S
Number of Nodes
AVERAGE
THROUGHPUT(BYTES/S
ECONDS)
AODV
AOMDV
MDART
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
77


www.ijaert.org

Fig 2: Average Delay

From Fig 2 we find that average delay of MDART is
less as compare to other two protocols when number of
nodes reaches to 70.
Number Of Packets Send: The following figure shows
the total number of packets send from source to sink
using AODV, AOMDV and MDART.


Fig 3 Number Of Packets Send

From above figure we find that rate of transmission of
packets of AOMDV is better than other two protocols.
Delivery Ratio of Packets: The following figure shows
the delivery ratio of packets using protocols which are
used in Fig 4.

Fig 4 Delivery Ratio Of Packets

We find from this figure that MDART has better packet
delivery ratio than other two protocols.
Number Of Packets Dropped: Fig 5 shows the total
number of packets drop from source to sink while
transmission of packets.


Fig 5 Number Of Packets Dropped

We find from above figure that MDART has least
dropping rate of packets than AODV and AOMDV.
Average Jitter: The following figure shows the
variation in delay of packets send from source to
destination.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
20 50 70
T
I
M
E

I
N


S
E
C
O
N
D
S
Number of Nodes
AVERAGE DELAY
AODV
AOMDV
MDART
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
20 50 70
T
C
P

P
A
C
K
E
T
S
Number of Nodes
NUMBER OF PACKETS
SEND
AODV
AOMDV
MDART
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
100
100.1
20 50 70
P
A
C
K
E
T

D
E
L
I
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
I
O
Number of Nodes
DELIVERY RATIO OF
PACKETS
AODV
AOMDV
MDART
0
5
10
15
20 50 70
T
C
P

P
A
C
K
E
T
S

D
R
O
P
P
E
D
Number of Nodes
NUMBER OF PACKETS
DROPPED
AODV
AOMDV
MDART
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 2, May 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
78


www.ijaert.org


Fig 6 Average Jitter

We find that AOMDV has less or almost comparable
average jitter than MDART, but average jitter of AODV
is more than other two protocols.

V1. CONCLUSION

As opposed to single path routing protocols, on-demand
routing protocols with multipath capability can
effectively deal with mobility-induced link failures in
mobile ad hoc networks. The outcome of this fact is the
multipath routing protocols that have been proposed for
mobile ad hoc networks throughout years. Multipath
routing protocols also improve load distribution,
reliability,delayand energy efficiency. In this paper we
studied the different unipath and multipath routing
protocol and we have to compare the performance of
three different protocols that are AODV, AOMDV and
MDART and select the best one among them.It is easy
to compare AODV with multipath routing protocols but
it is very difficult to select the best one from AOMDV
and MDART because both of them have almost
equivalent performance. But from simulation results
which are discussed above we concluded that MDART
is better than AOMDV.

REFERENCES

[1] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer,Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV), IETF
RFC 3561, 2003
[2] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, and J. Broch, DSR:
The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-
Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Ad Hoc
Networking, Addison-Wesley, 2001, 139-172
[3] M. K. Marina and S. R. Das, On-Demand
MultiPath Distance Vector Routing in Ad hoc
Networks, Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP}, IEEE
Computer Society Press,2001,14-23
[4] L.Wang, L.Zhang, Y.Shu and M.Dong, Multipath
source routing in wireless ad hoc networks,
Proceedings of Canadian Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2000, 1,
479-483
[5] Marina, M., Das, S., On-demand multipath
distance vector routing in ad hoc networks,
Proceedings of the International Conference for
Network Procotols (ICNP) (2001)
[6] Ye, Z., Krishnamurthy, Tripathi, S., A framework
for reliable routing in mobile ad hoc networks,
IEEE INFOCOM ,2003
[7] Eriksson J, Faloutsos, M, Krishnamurthy,S.Dart:
dynamic address routing for scalable ad hoc and
mesh networks, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking 2007, 119132.
[8] Sunil Taneja and Ashwani Kush,A survey of
Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,
International Journal of Innovation, Management
and Technology, August 2010, 1(3)
[9] Etorban, Ali Abdalla, The design and performance
evaluation of a proactive multipath routing
protocol for mobile ad hoc networks, PhD diss.,
Heriot-Watt University, 2012
[10] DavideCerri, AllessandroGhioni, Securing AODV:
The A-SAODV Secure Routing Prototype, IEEE
Communication Magazine, February 2008, 46(2),
120-125
[11] Jain, S. A.; Chimote, G; Sangle, S.; Bhagat, A.,
Multipath Routing Protocol for Congestion
Control in MANET, IJAIR, 2011, 2(3)
[12] Sucheta Sharma, Gurpreet Singh, Amanpreet Kaur,
Study Based Comparison of Multi-Path Routing
Protocols in MANETs, In the proceedings 2
nd

International Conference on Futuristic trends in
Engineering & Management 2014 (ICFTEM-
2014) & In Online Journal International Journal
of Computer Science and Communication (ISSN:
0973-7391), May 2014, 191-196


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
20 50 70
T
I
M
E
Number of Nodes
AVERAGE JITTER
AODV
AOMDV
MDART