1. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online)
Special Issue (November, 2013), pp. 182-189
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijecet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.8896 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJECET
©IAEME
A Detailed Study of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using
Qualnet Simulator
Alka Chaudhary1, V N Tiwari2, Anil Kumar3
1Ph.D
Scholar Computer Science Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India
2Electronics & Communication, Manipal University Jaipur, India
3Computer Science Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India
1alkachaudhary0207@gmail.com, 2vivekanand.tiwari@jaipur.manipal.edu, 3anil.kumar@jaipur.manipal.edu
ABSTRACT: Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are opened new paradigm for communication
in many areas such as battle field, disaster relief, neighborhood area networks, virtual class
rooms, and multiuser games etc. because in MANET, there is no need of pre existing network
infrastructure for managing the communication between the nodes. Overall communications
are based on routing protocols in these types of networks. Routing protocols are fully
responsible to send data packets between two nodes. Due to the dynamic nature of MANETs,
Routing protocols play a critical task to manage the communication. So there are basically
three classes of unicast routing protocols such as flat, hierarchical and Geographic Position
Assisted Routing protocols. This paper is going to focus on the performance under different
mobile and stationary nodes of all routing protocol classes. The performance evaluation is
based on the metrics such as Average Jitter, Average end to end delay and throughput using
Qualnet simulator 6.1.
KEYWORDS: MANETs, routing protocols, simulation, Qualnet 6.1, Average Jitter, Average end
to end delay and throughput.
I.
INTRODUCTION
MANETs form a network without the help of pre defined infrastructure. In this network
collection of mobile node can communicate or send data packets freely to each other with the
help of routing protocols. Mobile nodes can join and leave the network at any time due to the
wireless links. The range of the MANETs applications can be static small area networks to
highly dynamic area networks. The main challenge of designing MANETs is to develop scalable
routing protocol which can help to communication between mobile nodes [1]. Due to the
dynamically changing topology, wired network routing protocols cannot be directly apply on
ad hoc networks. So that ad hoc networks have required the need of dynamic mechanism of
routing protocols [2]. Consideration of mobility in the network may influence the performance
of routing protocols because nodes that forward and receive the data packets through the
routing protocol may go out of range to each other that’s why link breakage is happened over
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 182

2. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
any time. In this case Manets require to search or establish a new optimum route. As a result,
the quick route discovery mechanism should be the aim of the routing protocols. It is helpful to
detailed study of the various performance metrics for understanding and usage of routing
protocol.
In this paper, we evaluated the performances of various proactive, reactive and hybrid
protocols such as Optimized Link State Routing protocol (OLSR), Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR), Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing (AODV), Location Aided Routing (LAR) and
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) using Qualnet simulator 6.1[3] under 45 stationary (without
mobility) and mobile nodes. Other sections of this paper are organized as follows: In section II,
Describes the classification and techniques of routing protocols which is in this work specially
implemented using Qualnet 6.1. In section III, elaborates the comparison between various
routing protocols- OLSR, DSR, AODV, LAR and ZRP. In section IV, evaluates the performances
under different metrics which is related to MANETs. Finally, Section V concludes the paper on
the bases of simulation results.
II.
CLASSIFICATION AND TECHNIQUES OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. Classification of Routing Protocols
On the bases of classification, Unicast routing protocols can classify into three classes: flat,
hierarchical and Geographic Position Assisted Routing protocols which is depicted in fig.1.
Further flat routing protocols can classify in two types such as: proactive and reactive [4].
Fig. 1: Classification of routing protocols
A.1 Proactive Routing Protocols
Proactive routing is also known as table - driven routing protocol. In this type of routing each
node maintain the routing table for containing the latest route information of any node in the
network. All proactive protocols have different method in the way of propagating information
through all the nodes at the time of topology changes. These types of routing protocols are not
suitable for larger networks because each node table maintains the entry of all nodes. These
types of routing protocols are: Destination sequenced distance vector (DSDV), Optimized link
state protocol (OLSR), Bellman ford protocol, etc [7].
A.2 Reactive Routing Protocols
It is also known as on- demand routing protocol. Here, in this type of protocols are discovered
the route on-demand bases when a node want send data packet to other node. By the flooding
route request packet are disseminate throughout the network in the route discovery phase.
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 183

3. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
Examples of reactive routing protocols are Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing
(AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Location Aided Routing (LAR) [8].
A.3 Hierarchical Routing Protocols
Hierarchical routing protocols are known as hybrid routing protocols because these protocols
are based on the combination of proactive and reactive routing protocol. Actually combination
is based on the merits of both types (proactive, reactive) routing protocols. The hybrid routing
protocols examples are zone routing protocol (ZRP), CGSR (Clusterhead-Gateway Switch
Routing), and HSR (Hierarchical State Routing).
A.4 Geographic Position Assisted Routing
As suggest the name of this routing protocol used for proving the correct location of a node in
the ad networks. Global Positioning System (GPS) to make possible to this work within the few
meters range. All GPS equipped nodes use the same universal clock for global synchronization
between the GPS nodes but there must be additional concern taken on the mobile
environment. Due to mobility, given location information may or may not be incorrect.
Examples of Geographic Position Assisted Routing are: GPSR (Greedy Perimeter Stateless
Routing), LAR (Location Aided Routing) etc.
B. Techniques used in Routing Protocols
Under the process of routing protocols mobile nodes can able to send data packet in the
multihop wireless links because in MANETs there are no pre infrastructure so that all nodes
form network through wireless links. In another way we also can say that with help of routing
protocols two mobile nodes are capable to share data when both nodes are not in the range of
each other. Each node acts as a router in the network the data packet for data forward to other
nodes. Each routing protocol are having a different way to discover the route and maintain the
routing table but basically in literature there are two methods are used: Distance vector and
state link.
Distance vector – in this method each node are restricted to maintain vector table distance
vector to their direct neighbors on the bases of cost of each path and periodically exchange the
routing update even if there are no change in topology [5].
State link- in this method, each node are exchanged information periodically from all neighbors
for maintaining the routing table based on shortest path Dijkstra algorithm [6].
III.
COMPARISON AMONG OLSR, DSR, AODV, ZRP AND LAR ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. Optimized Link State Protocol (OLSR)
This protocol is based on proactive routing protocols. It is an enhanced version of link state
routing. OLSR used two types of control messages: HELLO message and topology control
message i.e. one for used to get link status information and topology change message used to
get broadcast information regarding own neighbors which is already include in MPR selector
list. MPR (multipoint relay) protocol is used for reducing the overhead in the network which
happened due to flooding the topological information in the topological change phase [7].
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 184

4. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
DSR routing protocol are not relay on the routing table actually it’s based on the source
routing. Source determines the complete followed sequence by node to send the data packets.
DSR is having two phases such as discovery and maintenance. In discovery phase all nodes
flood the RREQ message with unique identification number with in the wireless transmission
range and in maintenance phase used, when no route is available due to the topology change
then it may invoke the discovery phase again. In the routing entry DSR make the entry of each
intermediate node instead of next hop [9].
C. Ad Hoc on Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
This protocol is considered the combination of DSDV and DSR routing protocols. It is based on
DSR two mechanism i.e. route discovery and maintenance. In this protocol routing table have
the update only own next hop not the all intermediate node. This protocol establishes the route
only demand bases. It is used three types of control message RREQ for route request, RREP for
route reply and RERR for route error due to link failure or topology change [10].
D. Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
This protocol comes in hierarchical based class routing protocol. The aim of this protocol is to
overcome the issues of proactive and reactive routing protocols. So that it is a combination of
proactive and reactive protocols. IN ZRP each node maintain the routing table of only own zone
because update are propagated locally in the single zone. A node knows its zone through the
Intra zone Routing Protocol (IARP) and Inter zone Routing Protocol (IERP) is used to reactively
discovery route to destination form outside of routing zone [11].
E. Location-Aided Routing (LAR)
Location-Aided Routing (LAR) comes in geographic Position Assisted Routing protocol class
but it is an on demand protocol which is based on source routing. The operation used in LAR is
similar to DSR routing. LAR perform the new route discovery using location information for
request zone and only request zone nodes forwards the route request[12].
IV.
SIMULATION PARAMETER AND RESULTS
A. Performance Metrics used in This Work
Average End–to-End Delay: It is also known as latency or response time. The response time
is the delay time to between transmission and reception of a data packet. For average End-toEnd delay, the total delay time of all received packets divide by the total received packets.
Average Jitter: A packet jitter represents the difference between transmission delay of
current packet to transmission delay of previous packet and for calculation of average jitter,
the total packet jitter of all received packets divide by the number of packet received.
Throughput: Represent the how many number of UDP packet reached at destination within
the simulation time.
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 185

5. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
B. Simulation parameters: The description of used parameter during the simulation is
mentioned in the table which is given below:
Mac Type
Routing protocols
Antenna
No. Of Channels
Channel frequency
Packet size
Radio type
Energy Model
Path loss model
Pause time
Battery model
Simulation time
Battery Charge Monitoring
Traffic type
Simulation area
Number of nodes
Mobility
Mobility speeds
Simulator
IEEE 802.11
OLSR, DSR, AODV, LAR & ZRP
Omni directional
One
2.4 GHz
512 bytes
802.11b
Generic
Two Ray
30 second
Linear model
300 second
Interval 60 Sec.
CBR
1500m X 1500m
45 nodes
None
Random Way Point
None
0 to 10 mps
Qualnet 6.1.
Table 1: Simulation parameter
C. Analysis of Simulation Results
This work is carried out by using Qualnet simulator 6.1 under the 45 stationary (without
mobility) and mobile (with mobility) nodes. In fig.2 Snapshot shows the discovery mechanism
for new route by routing protocols. The traffic source are used CBR (constant bit rate). Random
waypoint mobility model are used for mobility of mobile nodes.
Fig. 2: Simulation scenario snapshot in route discovery phase
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 186

6. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
Average end to end
delay (seconds)
C.1 Average End-to-End delay
0.08
0.06
AODV
0.04
DSR
0.02
LAR
0
45 Nodes
(Without
Mobility)
OLSR
45 Nodes
(With
mobility)
ZRP
Fig. 3: Variation in Average End- to-End delay for fixed and mobile nodes
Routing protocols
End –to End delay
(without mobility)
End –to End delay
(with mobility )
AODV
0.0188423
DSR
0.0411631
LAR
0.0258453
OLSR
0.0223695
ZRP
0.046926
0.0261787
0.0352116
0.0130685
0.0165612
0.0750054
Table 2: Average End-to-End delay
Average Jitter
(seconds)
C.2 Average Jitter (s)
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
AODV
DSR
45 Nodes
(Without
Mobility)
LAR
45 Nodes
(With
mobility)
OLSR
ZRP
Fig. 4: Variation in Average jitter (s) for fixed and mobile nodes
Routing protocols
Average jitter
(without mobility )
Average jitter
(with mobility)
AODV
DSR
0.000861715 0.00238085
LAR
0.00105521
OLSR
ZRP
0.000512437 0.000664386
0.000794998 0.00202068
0.00133932
0.00064611
0.000798068
Table 3: Average jitter
C.3 Throughput
Throughput
(bits/second)
6000
AODV
4000
DSR
2000
LAR
0
45 Nodes (Without Mobility)
45 Nodes (With mobility)
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
OLSR
October 18-20, 2013
Page 187

7. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
Fig. 5: Variation in throughput for fixed and mobile nodes
Routing protocols
Throughput( without
mobility )
Throughput( with
mobility )
AODV
4150.9
DSR
4104.97
LAR
123.713
OLSR
1100.64
ZRP
247.482
4142.71
3858.44
1669.78
780.732
566.182
Table 4: Throughput
D. Explanation of Results
In the case of fixed and mobile node topology, AODV showed the better performance in fixed
node topology from the other protocols in average end-to-end delay which is depicted in the
graph fig.3 and table 2 but after including mobility in the scenario LAR And OLSR performs
better from AODV. DSR and ZRP routing protocols have high average delay in both scenario
topology.
On the bases of average jitter performance, we analyzed from the result fig. 4 and table 3 in
both the phase (fixed and mobile topology) level of performance of all (considered) routing
protocol are same i.e. OLSR and ZRP routing protocols have high jitter calculated value, DSR
having low average jitter value.
AODV routing protocol analyzed from the fig. 5 and table 4, which has the overall better
throughput from all other routing protocols because AODV has the property to avoid the
routing loops and freshness of routes.
V.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have been evaluated the performance of proactive (OLSR), reactive (AODV,
DSR, LAR) and hybrid (ZRP) routing protocols under the density of 45 nodes with fixed node
topology and mobile node topology in mobile Ad hoc networks using Qualnet simulator 6.1.
From the simulation results, we noticed that based on the theoretical perspective simulation
results are fully satisfied with expected results. In Reactive routing protocols, AODV performed
better than DSR. ZRP, LAR and OLSR routing protocols need more time to route discovery and
route maintenance so that these protocols are best suited for large range MANETs applications.
However, DSR routing protocol are Preferred for small and low mobility networks while AODV
preferred where node density and mobility considers high.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Vetrivelan and A.V.Reddy, Performance Analysis of Three routing Protocols for Varying MANET
Size, Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 2008.
[2] M.Uma and G.Padmavathi, A Comparative Study and Performance Evaluation of Reactive Quality of
Service Routing Protocols in MANETs, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2009,
pp. 223-229.
[3] QualNet Network Simulator; Available: http://www. scalable-networks.com.
[4] Xiaoyan Hong, Kaixin Xu, Mario Gerla , Scalable Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,
Network, IEEE Volume:16 , Issue: 4 , 2002, pg 11-21,
[5] JAdjih, C., Baccelli, E. et Jacquet, P, Link state routing in wireless ad-hoc networks, Military
Communications Conference, MILCOM IEEE , 2003.
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 188

8. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET),
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online), Special Issue (November, 2013), © IAEME
[6] Kamal Beydoun, Conception d’un protocole de routage hierarchique pour les réseaux de capteurs
sans fil, L’U.F.R des sciences et techniques de l’université de FRANCHE-COMTE, 2009
[7] Philippe Jaquet, Paul Muhlethaler and Amir Qayyum, Optimized Link State Routing Protocol, IETF
Draft, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsr-06.txt, 2001.
[8] Syed Basha Shaik, S. P. Setty, Performance Comparison of AODV, DSR and ANODR for Grid
Placement Model” International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887), Volume 11, No.12, 2010,
6-9.
[9] D.Johnson, D.Maltz and Yih, Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft ietf manet-DSR-09.txt, IETF Internet draft, 2003.
[10] Ya Xu, John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin, Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc
routing, In Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Mobile Computing and networking
(MobiCom'01), New York, USA, 2001, pages 70_84.
[11] SreeRangaRaju and Jitendranath Mungara, Performance Evaluation of ZRP over AODV and DSR in
Mobile Adhoc Networks Using Qualnet” European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 45, No.4. 2010, pg
658-674.
[12] Y.-B. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, Location-aided routing(LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks”, in ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom98), 1998, pages 66-75.
BIOGRAPHY
Alka Chaudhary received her MCA degree from Institute of Technology and
Science (ITS), Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad in 2010. Currently, she is pursuing
Ph.D (Full Time) in Computer Science from Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ),
Rajasthan. Her research interests include information security, Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks, Neural network, Fuzzy Logic, intrusion detection/prevention, and
Network Security.
Prof. (Dr.) V N Tiwari received his Ph.D degree from IIT, BHU, Varanasi in
1997.He is Currently Working as a HOD of Electronic and Communication
Department in Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ), Rajasthan. He has published
more than 35 research papers in National/International Journals and
Conferences. He has 20 years of R & D and Teaching Experience. His research
interests include Microwave Technology, Antennas and Radar.
Prof. (Dr.) Anil Kumar received his Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from
Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim (India). He is currently working as a
Professor in Department of CSE, Manipal University Jaipur (MUJ). He is an
IEEE Senior Member and he is currently guiding 3 – Full Time and 3 – Part
Time Research Scholars. His research interests include Image processing
algorithm, Cryptography, Artificial Intelligence, Signal and System, Neural
System and Genetic Algorithm. He has published more than 70 research
papers in international journal and conferences.
International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS-2013)
B K Birla Institute of Engineering & Technology (BKBIET), Pilani, India
October 18-20, 2013
Page 189