IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555

Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
PROACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR
AD-HOC NETWORKS
Diwakar Yadav1

Gouri Sankar Mishra2

Computer Science & Engg.

Computer Science & Engg.

Sharda University, Greater Noida(UP), India

Sharda University, Greater Noida(UP), India

Abstract
An ad-hoc network is self organized network without
any fixed infrastructure and consists of wireless mobile
nodes. The nodes in the network work like a
transreceiver as well as a router. As the network is
dynamic in nature the topology changes rapidly and
unpredictavely which creates a challenge in establishing
a route between the source and the destination nodes. A
number of protocols are already purposed by the
researchers till date. The purposed routing protocols
can be classified in three different groups namely
Proactive routing protocol, Reactive routing protocol,
Hybrid routing protocol. In reactive routing protocol
the information about the routes to all the destinations
are maintained by periodic routes update process
whereas the routes are calculated through route
discovery process when they are required in reactive
routing protocol and hybrid routing protocol combined
the fundamental properties of both the protocols. In my
work two proactive routing protocols, i.e. The fish-eye
state routing protocol (FSR), optimized linked state
Routing Protocol (OLSR), Intrazone routing protocol
(IARP) and Bellman-Ford routing protocol are taken
for performance evolution in different parameters in
simulated environment. The better performance of
these protocols than other routing protocols in networks
having infrastructure inspired me to explore further
and implement each of them in ad hoc networks. We
investigated the performance of proactive routing
protocols in terms of packet delivery ratio, average end
to end delay, throughput by simulating in QualNet.
Key words: MANET, FSR, OLSR,
Wellman-Ford, Multihop, QualNet.

IARP,

1 INTRODUCTION
[1] Mobile ad hoc network are composed nodes those
are self-managed without any fixed infrastructure
.they contained dynamic topology by this way they

can easily join or leave the network at any time. The

nodes in the network work like a transreceiver as well
as a router. As the network is dynamic in nature the
topology changes rapidly and unpredictavely which
creates a challenge in establishing a route between
the source and the destination nodes. All nodes
present in MANET behave as routers and take part in
discovery and maintenance of routes to other nodes
in the network. Efficient packet delivery to mobile
nodes by the routing protocols is main challenge in
MANET. Due to node mobility routing in ad hoc
network is a very challenging task. Moreover
bandwidth; energy and physical security are limited.
This paper discusses the performance evaluation of
purposed proactive routing protocols in terms of
average end to end delay, packet delivery ratio,
throughput through different parameters.
The rest of paper is organised as follows. In section 2
we present types of proactive routing protocols.
section 3 presents the brief description about
proactive routing protocols, section 4 present the
Simulation environment Parameters, section 5
present the result and discussion and section 6
present the conclusion.
2. SURVEY ON ROUTING PROTOCOLS
[2] Mobile ad hoc network does not have any fixed
infrastructure. In ad hoc network node move
arbitrarily so topology changes in ad hoc network is
rapid and unpredictable therefore routing is very
important in ad hoc network. Routing protocols can
be classified in three parts. (i) Table driven
(Proactive) routing protocols (ii) Reactive routing
protocols (iii) Hybrid routing protocols.

690

IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555
Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

Table driven protocols are also called as proactive

protocols since they maintain the routing information
even before it is needed. In proactive routing
protocols each and every node maintained a routing
table in the network and update this periodic table
through periodic exchange of control massage
between nodes because every node should have
instant information about any topology change in the
networks. In proactive routing protocol route to every
destination already present so there is no initial delay
to start sending data.
[3] On demand routing protocol is also called
reactive routing protocol. In reactive routing protocol
routes are developed when it needed so update of
routing table in reactive routing protocol is not
required so frequently and there is no need of
maintain routes for all nodes in the networks. In
reactive routing protocol for new destination every
node required a route so they have to wait until new
root is discovered. It is time taking process so we can
say that this is main drawback of proactive routing
protocols.
[4] Hybrid routing protocols inherit the advantages of
proactive and reactive routing protocols. Initially
hybrid routing protocol developed the routing
through proactive routes and then reactive flooding
satisfy the demand of additional activated nodes.
Hybrid routing protocols uses the proactive routing
protocol for the small domain of the networks
because for the small domain proactive routing is
very effective and for the nodes which are located
outside the domain it uses reactive routing protocols
because reactive routing protocols is more bandwidth
efficient in changing networks.
3. PROACTIVE ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In proactive routing protocols each and every node
maintained a routing table in the network and update
this periodic table through periodic exchange of
control massage between nodes because every node
should have instant information about any topology
change in the networks. In proactive routing protocol
route to every destination already present so there is
no initial delay to start sending data. In this paper 4
protocols have been taken to evaluate performance of
proactive routing protocols.
(i)Fish-eye state routing protocol (FSR)
[5] The fish-eye state routing protocol (FSR) is a
proactive routing protocol. It is based on link state
routing and provides route information immediately
when required. There is Scope parameter in FSR
which controlled the number of nodes with which the
link state information exchanged more frequently.

FSR scope can be defined as number of node that can

be reachable within number of hopes. FSR is a link
state routing protocol so it has a topology map at
each and every node. In FSR it consumes less amount
of bandwidth to update the massage in comparison to
LS. For reducing the size of update massages it uses
fisheye technique. Frequency of entry in routing table
corresponding to neighbour nodes is higher in
comparison to rest of nodes in FSR. Packet are
generated and flooded over network in link state
periodically or at the time of topology change but in
FSR packets are exchanged periodically with
neighbour nodes instead of flooding.
(ii) Optimised link state routing protocol (OLSR)
[6] OLSR protocols are optimised form of classical
link state algorithm use the concept of multi point
relay (MPR). In MPR there are some selected nodes
only which have responsibility to forward broadcast
massages during the flooding process. By this way it
reduces the massage overhead in comparison to
classical flooding. In OLSR the nodes which are
selected as MPR only can generate link state
information. OLSR works very effectively for larger
and denser networks and where traffic is random.
(iii) Intrazone routing protocol (IARP)
[7] Intrazone routing protocol (IARP) is a proactive
routing protocol. Generally IARP is used to improve
the performance of globally existing reactive routing
protocols. IARP is a proactive part of ZRP hybrid
routing protocols. In IARP each node monitors the
changes accurse in R-hop neighbourhood and avoids
the global route discovery to local destination.
IARPs
routing
provides
enhanced,
route
maintenance after routes have been discovered.
(iv) Bellman-Ford routing protocol
[8] Bellman-Ford routing protocol is a proactive
routing protocols which is based on Bellman_ford
algorithm this is a distance vector algorithm. This
protocols and algorithms currently use in the IPv4
Internet. If that protocol is used in those system of
networks which have several hundreds of networks
and if there is any loop formed then Bellman-ford
take much time to resolve that loop so this protocol is
not suitable for larger networks.
4. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT AND
PARAMETERS
All four protocols are simulated in QualNet
simulator. QualNet provides a comprehensive
environment for designing protocols, creating and
animating network scenarios, and analyzing their

691

IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555
Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

performance. In this paper, we have taken two

different test scenarios.
Test Scenario 1
In the first scenario I have taken maximum speed20m/s, minimum speed- 0m/s, simulation time- 50s,
packet size- 4packets/second, dimension space
1000x1000m, mobility model- random waypoint,
pause time- 10s, 20s, 40, 100s and traffic type- CBR
for varying network where no. of nodes (50) kept a
constant.
Test Scenario 2
In the second scenario Parameters I have taken
maximum speed- 20m/s, minimum speed- 0m/s,
simulation time- 50s, packet size- 4packets/second,
dimension space 1000x1000m, mobility modelrandom waypoint, number of nodes- 25, 50, 75, 100
and traffic type- CBR for varying network where
pause time (20s) kept a constant.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The simulation results have been carried out by
mainly considering the following three different
scenarios:
1. The packet delivery ratio
2. The average end-to end delay
3. Throughput

Figure 1: Line chart of packet delivery ratio with

varying pause time
With the second scenario where dependency is no. of
node, the packet delivery ratio of the routing protocol
is compared.
Nodes

25

50

75

100

Bellman
Ford
IARp

0.8979592

0.8010204

0.869898

0.625

0.5586735

0.5994898

0.6071429

0.5943878

OLSR
INRIA
Fish
EYE

0.7831633

0.8137755

0.7602041

0.6352041

0.8188776

0.8061224

0.744898

0.127551

Table2: Packet delivery ratio with the varying nodes

with 20s pause time

5.1 The packet delivery ratio

With the first scenario where dependency is on pause
time, the packet delivery ratio of the routing protocol
is compared.
10 Sec

20 Sec

40 Sec

100 Sec

Bellman_Ford

0.8163265

0.7653061

0.7704082

0.7704082

IARP

0.6683673

0.5943878

0.6020408

0.6020408

OLSR_INRIA

0.7755102

0.7270408

0.7372449

0.7372449

Fish_Eye

0.8061224

0.755102

0.7653061

0.7627551

Value

Table 1: Packet delivery ratio with the varying pause

time at 50 nodes.

Figure 2: Line chart of packet delivery ratio at

varying nodes

692

IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555
Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

If compare those results then it shows that packet

delivery ratio at varying pause time for all four
protocols come in following order (i) Bellman-Ford
(ii) FSR (ii) OLSR (iv) IARP. And if we compare
packet delivery ratio of these four protocols at
varying nodes then at node 25 Bellman-Fords packet
delivery ratio is more than other protocols but at 100
nodes OLSRs packet delivery ratio is more than
other protocols. So we can say that performance of
Bellman-Ford protocol in terms of packet delivery
ratio at varying nodes is better than other protocols
for small network region but for the large network
region performance of OLSR in terms of packet
delivery ratio at varying nodes is better than other
protocols.

With the second scenario where dependency is no. of

node, the average end-to end delay of the routing
protocol is compared.
25

50

75

100

Bellman
Ford
IARp

0.0129915

0.0166353

0.019694

0.027239

0.00661

0.0069463

0.0068898

0.0074905

OLSR
INRIA
Fish EYE

0.0099789

0.0096766

0.0116932

0.0183684

0.0112432

0.0690683

0.368785

0.795938

Nodes

Table 4: The average end-to end delay with the

varying nodes with 20s pause time.

5.2 The average end-to end delay

With the first scenario where dependency is on pause
time, the average end-to end delay of the routing
protocol is compared.
10 sec

20 sec

40 sec

100 sec

Bellman_Ford

0.0124023

0.0122418

0.0125517

0.0125517

IARP

0.0069791

0.006529

0.0080303

0.0080351

OLSR_INRIA

0.0089752

0.0091388

0.0095143

0.0095142

Fish_Eye

0.071868

0.064061

0.0679574

0.0662429

Value

Table 3: The average end-to end delay with the

varying pause time with 50 nodes

Figure 4: Line chart of the average end-to end delay

with varying node.
After evaluating these results we find out that
average end to end delay of IARP protocols is less
than rest of protocols (OLSR, FSR, Wellman-Ford) at
both scenario when nodes are varying and pause time
is fixed or when pause time are varying and nodes are
fixed. So we can say that in case of average end to
end delay, performance of IARP is better than other
protocols.
5.3 Throughput
With the first scenario where dependency is on pause
time, Throughput of the routing protocol is
compared.

Figure 3: Line chart of the average end-to end delay

with varying pause time.

Value

10 sec

20 sec

40 sec

100 sec

Bellman_Ford

13383

12547

12630.5

12630.5

IARP

15303.5

13706.5

13896

13896

OLSR_INRIA

14043.5

13163

13348

13348

Fish_Eye

14174.5

13277.5

13457

13412

Table 5: Throughput with the varying pause time at

50 nodes.

693

IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555
Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

After evaluating these results where pause time is

varying and nodes are fixed then we can find out that
when pause time is increases then throughput of all
nodes going to decrease and performance of IARP
protocol in terms of throughput is better than rest of
protocols at any pause time and when evaluate these
protocols for varying nodes at fixed pause times then
we find out that throughput of Wellman-Ford
protocol at 25 nodes is better than rest of protocols
But at 100 nodes performance of IARP protocols in
terms of throughput is better than other protocols.
6. CONCLUSION:

Figure 5: Line chart of Throughput with varying

pause time.
With the second scenario where dependency is no. of
node, Throughput of the routing protocol is
compared.

Nodes

25

50

75

100

Bellman
Ford

14867.5

13129.5

14265.5

10290.5

IARp

13924

13773.5

13946

13705.5

OLSR
INRIA

14255

14727

13829

11569

Fish EYE

14333

13717.5

12723.5

2298.5

After evaluating all these results in terms of packet

delivery ratio, average end to end delay and
throughput at varying nodes or varying pause time
we find out that overall performance of OLSR in
terms packet delivery ratio is better than IARP, FSR
and Wellman-Ford and IARP protocols shows the
better performance in terms of average end to end
delay and throughput in comparison to WellmanFord, FSR and OLSR. So we can say that overall
performance of IARP protocols is best among these
protocols in terms of packet delivery ratio, average
end to end delay and throughput at varying nodes or
varying pause time. FSR protocol is worst among
these protocols.

 
 

Table 6: throughput with varying nodes at 20s pause

time.

It is most gratuities to my respected guide Mr. Gouri

Sankar Mishra for giving his valuable time and
continuous guidance during my research work. I
mostly thank to my friends for their support and also
I am very thankful to my parents who gave me their
parental nourishment and influence me for research
work.
References:
[1] S.R.Das, R Castaneda. J Yan. Comparative
Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for
Mobile, Ad hoc Networks.
http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~sdas/pub.html
[2] M.S. Corson and J. Macker. Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol
Performance issues and Evaluation Considerations.
Request for Comments 2501, IETF, January 1999.
http://www.rfc.net/rfc2501.html

Figure 6: Line chart of Throughput with varying

nodes.

[3] S. Sathish, K. Thangavel and S. Boopathi,

Performance analysis of DSR, AODV, FSR and
ZRP routing protocols in MANET, MES Journal of
Technology and Management, 2011

694

IRACST - International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology & Security (IJCSITS), ISSN: 2249-9555
Vol. 2, No.3, June 2012

[4] S. Kumari, S. Maakar , S. Kumar and R. K.

Rathy, Traffic pattern based performance
comparison of AODV, DSDV & OLSR
MANET routing protocols using freeway mobility
model, International Journal of Computer Science
and Information Technologies,
Vol. 2 (4), 2011, 1606-1611
[5] Mario Gerla, Xiaoyan Hong, "Fisheye State
Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks,"
INTERNET DRAFT STANDARD, December 2001.

[6] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, Optimized Link State

Routing Protocol (OLSR INTERNET DRAFT
STANDARD, RFC 3626, October 2003.
[7] Zygmunt J. Haas, Marc R. Pearlman, Prince
Samar, "The Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP) for
Ad Hoc Networks," INTERNET DRAFT
STANDARD, RFC 2026, July 2002.
[8] G. Malkin, Xylogics, R. Minnear, " RIPng for
IPv6," INTERNET DRAFT STANDARD, RFC
2080, January 1997.
AUTHORS

Mr. Diwakar Yadav is a M-tech (CSE) Scholar from

Sharda University. He has completed B.Tech in
Information Technology from UPTU in 2007. He has
interests in Network Protocols and Distributed
Operating System.

Mr. Gouri Sankar Mishra has been joined Sharda

University as an Assistant Professor. He has worked
on Network Securities, Network protocols and
Information Systems.

695