MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan. 2012, pp.

(40-43) 40
ISSN 2230-7621 MIT Publications

Survey on Routing Protocol AODV and DSDV

Ravi Chowdhary Shipra Srivasatava Poonam Saini

Department of Computer Science
Accurate Institute of Management
and Technology
Greater Noida (U.P.)
e-mail: ravichowdhary80@gmail.com
Department of Electronics and Department of Computer Science
Communication NITTTR, Chandigarh
Krishna Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Ghaziabad (U.P.)
e-mail: shiprakiet@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Wireless mobile ad-hoc networks are described as networks without any physical connections. It is a collection of mobile
nodes dynamically forming a temporary network without the use of any existing network infrastructure or centralized
administration. In these networks there is no fixed topology due to the mobility of nodes, interference, multipath propagation
and path loss. Hence a dynamic routing protocol is needed for these networks to function properly. Many Routing protocols
have been developed for accomplishing this task. The purpose of this paper to study, understand, analyze and discuss two
mobile ad-hoc routing protocols DSDV and AODV where the first one is a proactive protocol depending on routing tables
which are maintained at each node. The other one is reactive protocols, which find a route to a destination on demand,
whenever communication is needed. Considering the bandwidth, throughput and packet loss, in both DSDV and AODV
routing protocols, DSDV is best suited for only smaller networks and AODV is suited for general Ad-hoc Networks.
Keywords: Performance, Analysis, Ad Hoc Network, AODV, DSDV.

INTRODUCTION from one to another in ad-hoc networks. Routing in these

A Network is defined as the group of people or systems or
organizations who used to share their information collectively
for their business purpose. In Computer science the definition
for networks is similar as a group of computers logically
connected for sharing the information (like print services,
multi-tasking, etc.). Computer network defines system for
communication between computers. These networks may be
fixed (cabled, permanent) or temporary. Ad-hoc networks are
wireless networks where nodes communicate with each other
using multi-hop links. There is no stationary infrastructure or
base station for communication. Each node itself acts as a
router for forwarding and receiving packets to/from other
nodes. Routing in ad-networks has been a challenging task
ever since the wireless networks came into existence. The
major reason for this is the constant change in network
topology because of high degree of node mobility. A number
of protocols have been developed for accomplish this task.
Some of them are DSDV and AODV routing protocols which
are explained.
PURPOSE OF THIS WORK
Wireless ad-hoc networks have gained a lot of importance in
wireless communications. Wireless communication is Networks: In ad-hoc networks routing protocols can be
established by nodes acting as routers and transferring packets divided into following categories:
networks is highly complex due to moving nodes and hence
many protocols have been developed. This paper concentrate
mainly on routing protocols and their functionality in Ad-hoc
networks with a discussion being made on two selected
protocols DSDV and AODV, ending with their comparison.
The different types of networks available today are Wired and
Wireless networks. Wiredare differentiated from wireless as
being wired from point to point.
Routing
Routing is the act of moving information from a source to a
destination in the network. During this process, at least one
intermediate node is encountered within the network. The
routing concept involves, two activities: firstly, selection of
routes secondly, transferring the information groups (called
packets) through an internetwork.
MANET
Mobile adhoc network is self configuring network of mobile
routers connected by wireless link the union of which form
and arbitrary topology.
Classification of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. (40-43) 41
ISSN 2230-7621 MIT Publications

Table-Driven Routing Protocols (Proactive): In table Consume more bandwidth.

driven routing protocols, consistent and up-to-date routing Ad-hoc on-Demand DistanceVector (AODV) Protocol:
information toall nodes is maintained at each node. In this AODV is a very simple, efficient, and effective routing protocol
routing protocol it continuously evaluate the routes within the for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks which do not have fixed topology.
network, so that when a packet or information is needs to be This algorithm was motivated by the limited bandwidth that is
forwarded, the route is already known or can say maintain the available in the media that are used for wireless
routing information before it is needed. Routes information is communications. It borrows most of the advantageous concepts
generally kept in the routing tables and is periodically updated from DSR and DSDV algorithms. Theon demand route
as the network topology changes. discovery and route maintenance from DSR and hop-by-hop
On Demand Routing Protocols (Reactive): On demand routing, usage of node sequence numbers from DSDV make
routing protocols, the routes are created when required. When the algorithm cope up with topology and routing information.
a source wants to send to destination, it invokes the route Obtaining the routes purely on demand makes AODV a very
discovery mechanisms to find the path to the destination.These useful and desired algorithm for MANETs.
protocols are also called reactive protocols since they dont Each mobile node in the networks maintains a route table
maintain routing information or routing activity at the network
entry for each destination of interest in its route table. Each
nodes if there is no communication. entry contain the following info:
Hybrid Routing Protocol: Hybrid routing protocols are a Destination
new generation of protocol, which are both proactive and
Next hop
reactive in nature. These protocols are designed to increase
scalability by allowing nodes with close proximity to work No. of hops
together to form some sort of a backbone to reduce the route Destination sequence no.
discovery overheads. Active neighbor of this route
Expiration time of route table entry
MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
Advantages of AODV
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) Protocol:
Minimal space complexity: It does not maintain all the
It is a table driven or proactive routing protocol based on the
routing path information.
classical bellman ford routing algorithm. Each mobile node
maintains a routing table with a route to every possible Maximum utilization of the bandwidth: AODV
destination in the network and the number of hops to the maximum utilize the bandwidth because it doesnt require
destination. Sequence number allows the mobile node to updating the routing table.
distinguish state route from new ones and help avoid formation Simple: It is simple each node behaving as a router,
of routing loops.The destination address: maintaining a simple routing table.
The number of hops required to reach the destination. Most effective routing info: Gives most effecting routing
The new sequence number, originally stamped by the information, an RREP with smaller hop-count, it updates
destination. its routing info with this better path and propagates it.
Most current routing info: Route info is obtained on
Advantages of DSDV demand.
Loop free paths. Loop-free routes: The algorithm maintains loop free routes
Avoid count to infinity problem is reduced in DSDV. by using the simple logic of nodes discarding non better
Avoid extra traffic with incremental updates instead of full packets for same broadcast-id.
dump updates. Coping-up with dynamic topology and broken links:
Amount of space is reduced because DSDV maintains only When the nodes in the network move from their places
the best path instead of maintaining multiplepaths to every and the topology is changed or the links inthe active path
destination. are broken, the intermediate node that discovers this link
break-age propagates an RERR packet. And the source
Limitations of DSDV node re-initializes the path discovery if it still desires the
Wastage of bandwidth. route. This ensures quick response to broken links.
DSDV doesnt support Multipath Routing. Highly Scalable: Scalable because of the minimum space
complexity and broadcasts avoided when it compared with
It is difficult to determine a time delay for the advertisement
DSDV.
of routes.
It is difficult to maintain the routing tables advertisement Limitations/Disadvantages of AODV:
for larger network. Requirement on broadcast medium: The algorithm
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. (40-43) 42
ISSN 2230-7621 MIT Publications

Table 1
Parameters DSDV AODV
Type Proactive Reactive
Process All nodes participating in the route maintains its Every node acts like a router, and a request message
own routing table is generated initially.
Routing Path Every node maintains its routing table to every node It is Routing protocol in which every node finds the
in the network. path on demand or whenever the route is required.
Connectivity Broadcasting in DSDV is done periodically to In AODV, only hello messages are propagated to its
maintain routing updates neighbours to maintain local connectivity.
Scalability Comparatively less scalable Highly scalable
Throughput Throughput decreases comparatively in DSDV as it In AODV it doesnt advertise any routing updates
needs to advertise periodic updates and even-driven and hence the throughput is stable.
updates. If the node mobility is high then occurrence
of event driven updates are more.
Mobility DSDV cannot handle mobility at high speeds due to In AODV it has high mobility, as it find the routes on
lack of alternative routes hence routes in routing table demand.
is stale
Bandwidth DSDV routing protocol consumes more bandwidth, While the AODV is better than DSDV as it doesnt
because of the frequent broadcasting of routing maintain any routing tables at nodes which results in
updates. less overhead and more bandwidth.
Range It works better for small network. It works better for mobile ad-hoc networks as it
consumes less bandwidth.
Performance AODV performs predictably less performing. Reactive routing protocol AODV performance is the
Delivered virtually all packets at low node mobility, best considering its ability to maintain connection by
and failing to converge as node mobility increases. periodic exchange of information, which is required
for TCP, based traffic.

expects/requires that thenodes in the broadcast medium can Table 2: Comparison of routing protocol
detect each others broadcasts. DSDV AODV
No reuse of routing info: AODV lacks an efficient route
Loop- free Yes Yes
maintenance technique.The routing info is always obtained
on demand, including for common case traffic. Multiple routes No No
Distributed Yes Yes
It is vulnerable to misuse: The messages can be misused
for insider attacks includingroute disruption, route invasion, Reactive No Yes
node isolation, and resource consumption. Uni directional link support No No
AODV lacks support for high throughput routing Qos Support No No
metrics: AODV isdesigned to support the shortest hop Multicast No Yes
count metric. This metric favors long, lowbandwidthlinks Security No No
over short, high-bandwidth links. Power Conservation No No
High route discovery latency: AODV is a reactive routing Periodic broadcast Yes Yes
protocol. Thismeans that AODV does not discover a route Requires reliable or sequence data No No
until a flow is initiated. This routediscovery latency result
can be high in large-scale mesh networks. maintain any routing tables at nodes which results inless
overhead and more bandwidth. From the above, chapters, it
can be assumedthat DSDV routing protocols works better for
CONCLUSION
smaller networks but not for larger networks. So, my
In this paper, conclude DSDV routing protocol consumes more conclusion is that, AODV routing protocol is best suited for
bandwidth, because of the frequent broadcasting of routing general mobile ad-hoc networks as it consumes less bandwidth
updates. While the AODV is better than DSDV as it doesnt and lower over head when compared with DSDV routing
protocol.
MIT International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. (40-43)
ISSN 2230-7621 MIT Publications
REFERENCES
[1] Kimaya Sanzgiri, Bridget Dahill, Clayshields secure routing
protocol for ad hoc networks Department of Computer
Science, University of Califonia, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
April 2002.
[2] bdulhadiabdrahman ,zuriatiahemad ,zukaranainPerformance
comparison AODV, DSDV ISDV routing protocols mobile
adhoc network department of communication technology
and network faculty of computer science and information
technology, 2009, Euro Journals of Publishing.
[3] C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination-
Sequenced Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile
Computers, in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 94, London, UK, Oct.
1994, pp. 234-244.
[4] T. Liu & K. Liu, Improvement on DSDV in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks, IEEE, China, 2007, pp. 1637-1640 .
[5] Azizol Abdullah, Norlida Ramly, Abdullah Muhammed,
Mohd. Noor Derahman: Performance Comparison Study of
Routing Protocols for Mobile Grid Environment, pp. 82-88,
IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and
Network Security, Vol. 8 No. 2, February 2008.
[6] Altman, E., and Jimenez, T., (2003). NS Simulator for
Beginners. Lecture notes. Univ.de Los Andes, Merida,
Venezuela and ESSI.Sophia-Antipolis, France.].
[7] K.U.R. Khan, A.V. Reddy, R.U. Zaman, K.A. Reddy, T.S
Harsha, An Efficient DSDV Routing Protocol for Wireless
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and its Performance Comparison,
Second UKSIM European Symposium on Computer Modeling
and Simulation, India, 2008, pp. 506-511.
[8] I.D. Chakeres. AODV-UCSB Implementation from University
of California Santa Barbara. http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/
AODV/aodv.html
[9] I.D. Chakeres and E.M. Belding-Royer. The Utility of Hello
Messages for Determining Link Connectivity. In Proceedings
of the 5th International Symposium on Wireless Personal
43
Multimedia Communications (WPMC), pp. 504-508,
Honolulu, Hawaii, October 2002.
[10] IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 802.11 Standard, IEEE
Standard For Information Technology, 1999.
[11] J. Kadlecsik, H. Welte, J. Morris, M. Boucher, and R.
Russell.The netlter/iptables Project. http://www.netlter.org/.
[12] V. Kawadia, Y. Zhang, and B. Gupta. System Services for
Implementing Ad-Hoc Routing: Architecture, Implementation
and Experiences. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services
(MobiSys), pp. 99-112, San Francisco, CA, June 2003.
[13] L. Klein-Berndt. Kernel AODV from National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). http://w3.antd.nist.gov/
wctg/aodv kernel/.
[14] F. Lilieblad, O. Mattsson, P. Nylund, D. Ouchterlony, and
A. Roxenhag. Mad-hoc AODV Implementation and
Documentation. http://mad-hoc.yinglinux.net.
[15] H. Lundgren, D. Lundberg, J. Nielsen, E. Nordstrom, and C.
F. Tschudin. A Large-scale Testbed for Reproducible Ad hoc
Protocol Evaluations. In IEEEWireless Communications and
Networking Conference 2002 (WCNC), March 2002
[16] H. Lundgren, E. Nordstrom, and C. Tschudin. Coping with
Communication Gray Zones in IEEE 802.11b based Ad hoc
Networks. Technical Report 2002-022, Uppsala University
Department of Information Technology, June 2002.
[17] Nova Engineering. NovaRoam. http://www.novaroam.com/.
[18] The Global Mobile Information Systems Simulation Library
(Glomosim). http://pcs.cs.ucla.edu/projects/glomosim.
[19] N. Borisov, I. Goldberg and D. Wagner.Interceptingmobile
communications: The insecurity of 802.11. http://
www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/isaac/wep-faq.html.
[20] J. Broch, D.A. Maltz, D.B. Johnson, Y-C. Hu and J. Jetcheva.
A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc
network routingprotocols. In Proc. ACM MOBICOM, pp. 85-
97, Oct. 1998.