1. COPMUTER NETWORKS
Group Members:
 Asadullah Ilyas – 396
 Zain Ul Islam – 407
 Fazeel Ashraf – 398
 Ali Haider – 392

2. AODV AND OLSR ROUTING PROTOCOLS
 Key Terms
 Ad hoc Network: Infra Structure less networks
 AODV: Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector
 OLSR: Optimized Link State Routing
 Wireless Ad hoc is Dynamically forming a temporary
network

3. 1: COMPARING AODV AND OLSR
ROUTING PROTOCOLS
 By: Aleksandr Huhtonen (Helsinki University of
Technology)
 Abstract
 Mobile networks creates underlying architecture for
communication without the help of fixed routers
 Hosts have limited transmission range
 No fixed router
 Each host act as a router

4. PROBLEM
 Challenge for mobile protocols is that they also
have to deal with mobility of hosts. Hosts can
appear and disappear in various locations.

5. AD HOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOLS
 Ad hoc network routing protocols
 Table Driven (Pro-Active): OLSR and Better
Approach To Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(B.A.T.M.A.N)
 On Demand (Reactive): AODV, Admission Control
Enabled On Demand Routing (ACOR), Dynamic
Source Routing and Dynamic Man-NET on Demand
Routing

6. QUALITIES TO BE EFFECTIVE
 Distributed Operation
 Loop freedom
 Demand based operation
 Proactive operation
 Security
 Sleep period operation

7. AD HOC ON DEMAND PROTOCOL (AODV)
 AODV is a Reactive protocol n Routes are created
when needed
 Routing table stores information about next hop
2 destination
 Route Discovery
 RREQ message with destination IP and Seq. # is
broadcasted
 Sequence number prevent looping
 RREP from desired destination is unicasted
 RREP-ACK optional
 RERR in case of route breakage
 Route repairing

8. ROUTE REQUEST (RREQ) MESSAGE

9. ROUTE REPLY (RREP) MESSAGE

10. AODV ROUTING TABLE
 Destination address
 Destination sequence number
 Hop count
 Next hop
 Route state (valid, in valid)
 Precursor list

11. ADVANTAGES
 Doesn’t need any central administrative system
to handle the routing system
 Reduce the control traffic messages
 The AODV has great advantage in overhead over
simple protocols.
 Using the RRER message AODV reacts relatively
quickly to the topological changes in the network
and updating affected host
 AODV is a loop free protocol

12. OPTIMIZED LINK STATE ROUTING (OLSR)
 OLSR is a proactive protocol, Routes are always
available
 Information of the network
 Topological change causes flooding
 Control Messages
 Hello Messages (one hop count)
 Topology Control Messages (TC)  topology info.
 Multipoint Relays (MPR)
 Neighbor Sensing by Hello Messages
 MPR Selector Set
 MPR can only transmit topology information

13. MPR (MULTI-POINT RELAYS)
 The core optimization in OLSR is that of MPR.
 It’s used to reduce the message exchange
overhead by reducing the number of hosts that
broadcast messages in a network.
 For efficiency MPR is kept low n only MPR can
send throughout messages.

14. ROUTING TABLE CALCULATION
 The host maintains the routing table
 The routing table entries have following
information:
i. destination address
ii. next address,
iii. number of hops to the destination
iv. local interface address.
The routing table is recalculated if any change
occurs in these sets.
 For the routes for routing table entry the
shortest path algorithm is used.

15. ADVANTAGES
 OLSR doesn’t need any infrastructure
 The proactive protocol provides that the protocol
has all the information to all the participated
hosts.
 Flooding is minimized by the MPRs having the
drawback of maximum usage of bandwidth
 OLSR is best for the networks using larger
number of nodes.

16. AODV AND OLSR ROUTING PROTOCOLS
FOR WIRELESS AD-HOC AND MESH
NETWORKSANALYSIS & RESULTS
End to end delay
For 100 nodes
For 50 nodes

17. NETWORK LOAD

18. THROUGHPUT
For 50 nodes 100 nodes

19. IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCES OF
AODV AND OLSR
 Writers
 A. Saika
 M.M.Himmi
 Abstract
 Comparing a reactive and proactive protocol
 Network Simulator 2 was used
 Concluded that it depends on several constraints

20. EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS
 There were 4 nodes, two fixed and two mobile.
 Measuring area was set to 500 x 500 m2
 Time of simulation was 150 seconds
 Protocols used were:
 AODV (for reactive)
 OLSR (for proactive)
 The result of network was a .tr file, used for
creating graphs and charts

21. EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS

22. EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS

23. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AODV
AND OLSR ON THE ORBIT TEST BED
 ORBIT stands for Open Access Research Test bed
 It is an indoor grid based wireless network
emulator consisting of 400 radio nodes.
 It is a test bed to conduct network based
experiments under conditions that are similar to
real life conditions.

24. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
 Orbit Traffic Generator(OTG) and Orbit Traffic
Receiver(OTR) was used to generate TCP and
UDP traffic.
 20 nodes were created in the experiment. The
input load was gradually increased and
conducted the experiment for 100 s at each
setting to obtain steady.
 For each channel rate offered load was increased
until saturation.

25. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
 After saturation OLSR lost stability and showed
large variation in throughput.
 At high loads the nodes started competing for
bandwidth ,causing collisions
 AODV performed better in terms of stability.
 AODV doesn’t allow throughput to increase
beyond saturation.

26. TCP UDP BASED ANALYSIS OF AODV
AND OLSR
 Experimental Setup
 Network simulations are implemented using NS-2
simulator.
 Each node is then assigned a particular trajectory .
 The number of nodes which we take in this is of
about 30.
 In each simulation scenario, the nodes are initially
located at the center of the simulation.

27. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
 Data rate of 512 Mbps in UDP and of 1024 Mbps
in TCP is used
 The nodes start moving after the first 20 seconds.
 Constant Bit Rate (CBR) traffic and Internet
Protocol (IP) is used as Network layer protocol.
 the number of traffic sources was fixed at 20
 maximum speed of the nodes was set to 100m /s
 the pause time was varied as 20, 40 ,60, 80 and
100 seconds.

28. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
 The AODV protocol will perform better in the
networks with static traffic.
 It uses fewer resources than OLSR.
 The AODV protocol can be used in resource
critical environments.
 The OLSR protocol is more efficient in networks
with high density and highly sporadic traffic.

29. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION
 AODV performs efficiently in case of low
bandwidth
 OLSR requires more band width to send TC
messages in case of topology change
 AODV performs better in case of low mobility
 In case of high mobility AODV per packet delay
is increased but is more effective in case of
throughput as compared to OLSR.
 Scalability is limited in case of large network,
AODV suffers flooding and OLSR table grows
 Remarkable to consider to combine both and
have maximum benefit