proactive and reactive routing comparisons

proactive and reactive routing comparisons

• 1.
  GTU PG SCHOOL, Gandhinagar Comparison of proactive and reactive routing protocol in mobile ad-hoc network Vrajesh Parikh (141060753008)
• 2.
  Outline Classification of RoutingProtocols Proactive vs. Reactive Routing Protocols Proactive and Reactive Protocols Comparison Performance Metrics Result and Performance Comparison
• 3.
  Classification of RoutingProtocols 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 ofroute 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 ReactiveProtocols Comparison
• 7.
  PERFORMANCE METRICS  Theperformance 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 toEnd Delay for CBR Traffic Pattern
• 10.
  Average End toEnd Delay TCP Traffic Pattern
• 11.
  CONCLUSIONS This study wasconducted 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 Hmalik 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.
  ?