Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Volume: 3 | Issue: 4 | May-Jun 2019 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 - 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD24006 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 4 | May-Jun 2019 Page: 1019
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Route Table Management Limitations/Disadvantages of AODV
Each mobile node in the network maintains a route table Overhead on the bandwidth: Overhead on bandwidth will
entry for each destination of interest in its route table. Each be occured com- pared to DSR,when an RREQ travels from
entry contains the following info: node to node in the process of dis- covering the route info on
Destination demand, it sets up the reverse path in itself with the
addresses of all the nodes through which it is passing and it
Next hop
carries all this info all its way.
Number of hops
Destination sequence number No reuse of routing info: AODV lacks an efficient route
Active neighbors for this route maintenance tech- nique. The routing info is always obtained
on demand, including for common case traffic[12].
Expiration time for the route table entry
It is vulnerable to misuse: The messages can be misused
The other useful information contained in the entries along
for insider attacks in- cluding route disruption, route
with source and destination sequence numbers is called soft-
invasion, node isolation, and resource consumption[15].
state information associated to the route entry. The info
about the active neighbors for this route is maintained so that
AODV lacks support for high throughput routing metrics:
all active source nodes can be notified when a link along a
AODV is designed to support the shortest hop count metric.
path to the destination breaks. And the purpose of route
This metric favors long, low- bandwidth links over short,
request time expiration timer is to purge the reverse path
high-bandwidth links [2].
routing entries from all the nodes that do not lie on the active
route.
High route discovery latency: AODV is a reactive routing
protocol. This means that AODV does not discover a route
Interesting concepts of AODV
until a flow is initiated. This route discovery latency result
The concepts of AODV that make it desirable for MANETs
can be high in large-scale mesh networks.
with limited bandwidth
Discussion and Conclusion
include the following:
Discussion
Simple: It is simple with each node behaving as a router,
After reviewing the concept of wireless ad-hoc networks and
maintaining a simple routing table, and the source node
two routing protocols namely, AODV and DSDV. We would like
initiating path discovery request, making the network self-
to make a comparative discussion of both the protocols with
starting.
their pro’s and con’s. Most of the discussion being made is
based on previous studies and implementations done by
Most effective routing info: After propagating an RREP, if a
many authors[2, 10, 12].
node finds re- ceives an RREP with smaller hop-count, it
updates its routing info with this better path and propagates
DSDV is a proactive routing protocol, which maintains routes
it.
to each and every node in the network, while AODV is a
reactive routing protocol which finds the path on demand or
Most current routing info: The route info is obtained on
whenever the route is required.
demand. Also, after propagating an RREP, if a node finds
receives an RREP with greater destination sequence number,
Broadcasting in DSDV is done periodically to maintain
it updates its routing info with this latest path and
routing updates and in AODV, only hello messages are
propagates it.
propagated to its neighbors to maintain local connectivity.
DSDV routing algorithm maintains a sequence number
Loop-free routes: The algorithm maintains loop free routes
concept for updating the latest information for a route. Even,
by using the simple logic of nodes discarding non better
the same concept is adapted by AODV routing protocol.
packets for same broadcast-id.
Due to the periodic updates being broadcasted in DSDV,
Coping up with dynamic topology and broken links:
bandwidth is wasted when the nodes are stationary. But, this
When the nodes in the network move from their places and
is not the case with AODV, as it propa- gates only hello
the topology is changed or the links in the active path are
messages to its neighbours.
broken, the intermediate node that discovers this link
breakage propagates an RERR packet. And the source node
For sending data to a particular destination, there is no need
re-initializes the path discovery if it still desires the route.
to find a route as DSDV routing protocol maintains all the
This ensures quick response to broken links.
routes in the routing tables for each node. While, AODV has
to find a route before sending a data.
Highly Scalable: The algorithm is highly scalable because of
the minimum space complexity and broadcasts avoided
Overhead in DSDV is more when the network is large and
when it compared with DSDV[11].
it becomes hard to maintain the routing tables at every
node. But, in AODV overhead is less as it maintains small
Advanced uses of AODV
tables to maintain local connectivity.
Because of its reactive nature, AODV can handle highly
dynamic behavior of Vehicle Ad-hoc networks [26].
DSDV cannot handle mobility at high speeds due to lack of
alternative routes hence routes in routing table is stale.
Used for both unicasts and multicasts using the ’J’ (Join
While in AODV this is the other way, as it find the routes on
multicast group) flag in the packets [11].
demand.
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD24006 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 4 | May-Jun 2019 Page: 1020
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Throughput decreases comparatively in DSDV as it needs to Electrical Engineering University of Maryland
advertise periodic updates and even-driven updates. If the Baltimore County, USA, 2000.
node mobility is high then occurrence of event driven
[10] David B. Johnson and David A. Maltz. Dynamic
updates are more. But in AODV it doesn’t advertise any
source routing in ad hoc wireless networks.
routing updates and hence the throughput is stable.
Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.
Conclusion [11] David B. Johnson Josh Broch, David A. Maltz and
The study reveals that, DSDV routing protocol consumes Jorjeta Jetcheva. A performance comparison of multi-
more bandwidth, because of the frequent broadcasting hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols.
of routing updates. While the AODV is better than DSDV as it Technical re- port, Computer Science Department,
doesn’t maintain any routing tables at nodes which results in Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213,
less overhead and more bandwidth. From the above, USA.
chapters, it can be assumed that DSDV routing protocols
works better for smaller networks but not for larger
networks. So, my conclusion is that, AODV routing protocol is [12] service differentiation in wireless local area networks.
best suited for general mobile ad-hoc networks as it Technical report, Department of Computing science,
consumes less bandwidth and lower overhead when Umea Univer- sity, SWEDEN, 2005.
compared with DSDV routing protocol.
[13] Ning.P. and Sun.K. How to misuse aodv: a case study
of insider attacks against mobile ad-hoc routing
References
protocols. Technical report, Comput. Sci. Dept., North
[1] Rima Khalaf Ali El-Haj-Mahmoud and Ayman Kayssi.
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003.
Performance comparison of the aodv and dsdv
routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks. [14] Danny D. Patel. Energy in ad-hoc networking for the
Technical report, Department of Electrical and pico radio. Technical report.
Computer Engineering, American University of
Beirut, USA. [15] Charles E. Perkins. Ad Hoc Networking. Addision
Wesley, 2001.
[2] Scott M. Ballew. Managing IP Networks with Cisci
Routers. Orilley 1st Edition, 1997. [16] Charles E. Perkins and Pravin Bhagwat. Dsdv routing
over a multi hop wireless network of mobile
[3] Cisco. Cisco Internetworking. Cisco Press, 2002. computers. Technical report, IBM Research and
University of Maryland, USA.
[4] Laura Marie Feeney. A taxonomy for routing protocols
in mobile ad hoc networks. Technical report, Swedish [17] Charles E. Perkins and Pravin Bhagwat. Highly dynamic
Institute of Computer Science, Sweden, 1999. destination-sequenced distance-vector routing(DSDV)
for mobile computers. Technical report, IBM Re- search
[5] Bassam Halabi. Internet Routing Architectures. Cisco
and University of Maryland, USA.
Press, 2000.
[18] Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M.Royer. Ad-hoc on-
[6] Guoyou He. Destination-sequenced distance vector
demand distance vector rout- ing. Technical report, Sun
(DSDV) protocol. Technical report, Helsinki University
Micro Systems Laboratories, Advacnced Developmenet
of Technology, Finland.
Group, USA.
[7] Xiaoyan Hong, Kaixin Xu, and Mario Gerla. Scalable
[19] Krishna Ramachandran. Aodv. Technical report,
routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. 2002.
University of California,Santa Barbara, USA.
[8] Tasman Networks Inc. Routing basics: Protocol http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/AODV/aodv.html(visited
evolution in enterprise and service provider networks. 2006-04-15).
Technical report, 2004.
[20] Krishna Ramachandran. Aodv-st. Technical report,
[9] Aniruddha Rangnekar Ismail Ari, Neelu Jethani and University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.
Sushma Natarajan. Perfor- mance analysis and http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/ krishna/aodv-st/(visited
comparison of ah-hoc routing protocols. Technical 2006-04
report, De- partment of Computer Science and
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD24006 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 4 | May-Jun 2019 Page: 1021