2011 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Systems

Accumulating Path information in AODV for Ad-hoc network

Rakesh Thakur

Sanjeev Sharma

School of IT,
RGPV,
Bhopal (MP),India
Rakesh.thakur.soit@gmail.com

School of IT,
RGPV,
Bhopal (MP),India
santoshsahu@rgtu.net

powerful, fixed nodes. These fixed nodes are hard wired

using landlines. The communication between a fixed node
and a mobile node within its range occurs via the wireless
medium. However, this requires a fixed permanent
infrastructure, another system model, the mobile ad hoc
network.
Previous work [8] has studied the performance of
AODV [2], DSR [3] and other on-demand routing
protocols in a variety of scenarios. This work showed that
both AODV [2] and DSR [3] drop in performance at high
mobility [4], [5] high velocities or when the number of
connections is high. Based on the results, the authors
proposed modifications to both AODV and DSR that
could improve the performance of each protocol..
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
Briefly describes the ad-hoc routing protocol AODV.
Section III discusses the proposed work. Section IV
describes performance metrics. Section V represents
Simulation Environment. Section VI is
describes and
Performance analysis and last section VII is Conclusions
and future work.

AbstractAn ad-hoc network is the cooperative engagement

of collection of mobile nodes without the required
intervention of any centralized access point or exiting
infrastructure. The need for an efficient routing protocol in
mobile ad hoc network is widely proclaimed. A lot of routing
protocols have been proposed. They are categorized into
three parts according to the way how their routing tables are
constructed: Proactive or Table Driven (OLSR, DSDV),
Reactive or On-Demand-Driven (DSR, AODV, TORA) and
hybrid (ZRP). Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
(AODV) is one of the most widely researched on-demand ad
hoc routing Protocols. In this paper present modified ad-hoc
On demand distance vector Routing mechanism (MAODV)
for route discovery process of such ad-hoc networks. That
mechanism modified route request and route reply packet
format of route discovery. By accumulating this information,
nodes can learn better amount of routing information to
different destinations and reduced number of route
discovery. Which are performs effectively in term of routing
overhead and delay during high load. The performance of the
protocol is evaluated by a simulation model under a variety
of network conditions. Evaluation based on comparative
study of MAODV with unmodified AODV was done using
realistic parameters like Packet received, Average end to
end delay, Average jitter, packet drop, Throughput, and
energy consumption calculated by varying attributes of
Number of Nodes and Pause Time. Implementation and
simulations were performed in QualNet 5.0 simulator.

II. OVERVIEW OF AODV

AODV is an on-demand dynamic routing protocol [7]
that uses routing tables with one entry per destination.
When a source node needs a route to a destination, it
initiates a route discovery process to locate the destination
[10] node. The source node floods a query packet
requesting a route to be set up to the destination.
A reply is sent back directly to the source node either
by the destination itself or any other intermediate node that
has a current route to the destination. On receiving a route
request (RREQ), intermediate nodes update their routing
table for a reverse route to the source. Similarly, the
forward route to the destination is updated on receiving a

Keywords-AODV, DSR, Ad hoc Networking, End to End delay,

Pause Time, Routing protocol, Distance vector routing

I. INTRODUCTION
An Ad-hoc [1] network is a collection of mobile nodes
[11] [12] that are capable of communicating with each
other without the aid of any established infrastructure or
centralized administration. They are self-organized,
dynamically changing multi-hop networks [6]. Each node
in an ad hoc network performs the dual task of being a
possible source/destination [10] of some packets while at
the same time acting as a router [9] for other packets to
their final destination.

During the last few years, we have all witnessed a

continuously increasing growth in the deployment of
wireless and mobile communication networks. The growth
in the use of wireless communications over the last few
years is quite substantial and as compared to other
technologies, its huge. The primary advantage of a
wireless network is the ability of the wireless node to
Communicate with the rest of the world while being
mobile. Two basic system models have been developed for
the wireless network paradigm. The fixed backbone
wireless System model consists of a large number of
mobile nodes [11] [12] and relatively fewer, but more
978-0-7695-4587-5/11 $26.00 2011 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/CICN.2011.18

Santosh Sahu

School of IT,
RGPV,
Bhopal (MP),India
sanjeev@rgtu.net















Figure.1: Rout Discovery process in AODV.

Route reply (RREP) packet. AODV uses sequence

numbers to determine the timeliness of each packet and to
prevent loops. Expiry timers are used to keep the route
entries fresh. Link failures are propagated by a route error
(RERR) message from the site of a link break to the source
node for that route. When the next hop link breaks, RERR
95
89

Above Following is the guidelines of AODV, entries are

also created in the precursor lists by a node forwarding a
route reply back to the source. If an entry is updated to any
intermediate nodes, any pending packets to that node are
sent.

packets are sent to a set of neighboring nodes that

communicate over the broken link with the destination.
This recursive process erases all broken entries in the
routing table of the nodes. Since nodes reply to the first
arriving RREQ, AODV favours the least congested route
instead of the shortest route. The AODV on-demand
approach minimizes routing table information. However,
this potentially leads to a large number of route requests
being generated.

As an example, consider seven nodes A, B, C, D, E, F, and

G as shown in figure.2 Node A wants to send data to node
G. Since A does not have a route for G in its routing table,
it broadcasts a route request. B receives the route request,
updates its routing table for the reverse route to A, and
forwards the request since it also has no route to G.
However, before forwarding, it appends its own address to
the

III. ENHANCEMENT IN AODV (MAODV)

AODV can be modified to enable build up path during the
route discovery cycle.

When the RREQ and RREP messages are generated
or forwarded by the nodes in the network, each node
appends its own address on these route discovery
messages.

(B) Each node also updates its routing table with all
the information contained in the control messages. As
the RREQ messages are broadcast, each intermediate
node that does not have a route to the destination
forwards the RREQ packet after appending its address
in the packet shown in figure.2


Hence, at any point the RREQ packet contains a list
of all the nodes traversed. Whenever a node receives a
RREQ packet, it updates the route to the source node.
It then checks for intermediate nodes build up in the
path.

A new entry is made in the routing table for any of the
intermediate nodes, if one did not already exist.










































Figure.3: Rout Reply process in AODV with appending own IP address.

request. When C receives the RREQ, it updates its routing

table for both node A and B and appends its address to the
request. Similarly, when D receives the request it updates
its routing table for nodes A, B and C, while G learns
about nodes A, B, C, D, E, and F Thus, the routing table
is populated and during subsequent route requests, there is
higher probability of routes being present in the routing
table. This should decrease the number of route discovery
cycles as compared to basic AODV. This design increases
the efficiency of AODV.
IV. PERFORMANCE METRICS
The following metrics are used in varying scenarios to
evaluate the different protocols
1) Packet received:
This is defined as the ratio of the number of data packets
received by the destinations to those sent by the CBR
sources.
2) Eenergy consumption:
Energy consumption, is used to rate the energy used by the
routing protocol, how much energy have consumed by the
routing, we will analyze and compared with these two
protocol algorithm with effects and changes in pause time
and number of nodes
3) Average end to end delay:

















If a route entry for a node does exist, and if the hop count
to any of the intermediate nodes is less than the previously
known hop count to that node, the routing table entry is
updated for that node. The entry is updated by retaining
the previously known sequence number for that node.
Note that if the node was unknown previously, the
sequence number in the routing table entry is set to zero
and the hop count value is obtained from the accumulated
route. This conservative nature of updating the routing
table along with maintaining lifetimes for each route entry
helps to invalidate the stale entries and keep the route
entries current, thus improving the routing accuracy of the
protocol. As the RREP message is unicast back to the
source, each intermediate node forwards the RREP packet
by adding its address in the packet shown in figure.3.
Hence, at any point the RREP packet contains all the
previously visited nodes. Similar to the RREQ, the routing
table is updated for each intermediate node visited by the
RREP in addition to the destination node.













This is defined as the delay between the time at which the

data packet was originated at the source and the time it
reaches the destination. Data packets that get lost en route
are not considered. Delays due to route discovery, queuing
and retransmissions are included in the delay metric.











Figure.2: Rout Request process in AODV with adding own IP address.

90
96

4) Throughput:

It can also observe that both protocols receive more

packets when pause time varies between 90 to 150s.

It is the measure of the number of packets successfully

transmitted to their final destination per unit time. It is the
ratio between the numbers of sent packets vs. received
packets.
5) Average jitter effect:
Average Jitter effect signifies the Packets from the source
will reach the destination with different delays. A packet's
delay varies with its position in the queues of the routers
along the path between source and destination and this
position can vary unpredictably.
6) Packet drop:
It is the measure of total discarded packet due to
corruption or due to packet drop. We can calculate it by
subtracting total received packets by server in total sent
packet by client.

Figure 4: Pause Time (sec) Vs Packet Received

2) Pause time Vs number of packet Drops

V. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

Figure: 5 show the packet drops for AODV and MAODV

When pause time varies in network.

In order to observe the affect of static parameter on

AODV we have consider the platforms based simulation
on Qualnet version 5.0 which [13] is a standard tool set
used for wired, wireless, MANETs. In this dissertation
work all the simulation work is done in Qualnet wireless
network simulator .Simulation time was taken 200 seconds
and it remains fixed throughout all simulation work. The
simulation work was carried out using AODV, MAODV,
routing protocol. Network traffic is provided by using
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) sources. A CBR traffic source
provides a constant stream of packets throughout the
whole simulation, thus further stressing the routing task.
TABLE 1 CONFIGURATION
Simulation Time
Terrain Area
Number of nodes (sensor)
Number of mobile nodes (vehicles )
Application type

Figure 5: Pause Time (sec) Vs Packet Drop

200s minutes
1500 x 1500
50
5
CBR

Packet drop is the measure of total discarded packet due to

corruption or due to packet loss. Packet drop can be
calculated by subtracting total received packets by server
with total sent packet by client. And it has been seen that
the packet drop by AODV is more than MAODV. It can
be observed that packet drop is decreases as pause time
increases. It can also be observed that packet drop at pause
time 90 to 120s both AODV and MAODV drop same
amount of packets.

VI. RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Every time route changes when link failure is occur, it
confirms that the routing layer is directly affected by link
failure (route disconnections). The routing operations in
AODV uses stored route depending on their time stamp
In this analysis we measure the performance of MAODV
and AODV routing protocol. Performance metric are
number of packet Received, number of Packet Drop,
throughput, Avg. End to End delays, Avg. Jitter, and
Energy Consumption (mWhr) -in this analysis we vary
two parameter, one is pause time and second is number of
node.

3) Pause time Vs Avg. End to End Delay

The End to End Delay signifies that the time taken by
packets to reach one end to another end (Source to
Destination).

(A) Variation of pause time in routing protocols.

1) Pause time Vs number of Packet Received:
Figure: 4 shows total packet received of AODV and
MAODV with variation in pause time. It has observed that
the performance of MAODV is always better than AODV.

91
97

Figure 6: Pause Time Vs End to End Delay

Figure 8: Pause Time (sec) Vs Throughput (bits/sec)

As we can see from Figure: 6 Effects of end to end delay

is decreases in AODV it take more time to search the
destination, when we increase the pause. It can be
observed that end to end delay in MAODV is very less as
compared to AODV.

6) Pause time Vs Energy consumption

Energy consumption, is used to rate the energy used by the
routing protocol, how much energy have consumed by the
routing, we will analyze and compared with these two
protocol algorithm with effects and changes in pause time.
As see in Figure: 9 it can be observed that the energy
consumption of AODV and MOADV is continuously
decreased with variation in pause time. The protocol
MAODV has better result than AODV.

4) Pause time Vs Avg. Jitter Effect

Average Jitter effect signifies the Packets from the source
will reach the destination with different delays. A packet's
delay varies with its position in the queues of the routers
along the path between source and destination and this
position can vary unpredictably. As we can see from
Figure: 7 that Avg. jitter effect in MAODV decreases as
we increase the pause time. It can be observed that
MAODV has less Jitter effect as compare to MOADV
when we increase pause time.

Figure 9: Energy Consumption Vs Pause Time

B. Variation in number of nodes in routing protocols

1) Number of nodes Vs number of packet received
Figure: 10 shows total packet received of protocol with
variation in number of nodes. The performance of
MAODV varies when we increase number of nodes.
MAODV receive very less packet when number of nodes
in network is 40 it can also be observed that AODV
receive more packets than MAODV when number of node
in network is 50.

Figure 7: Pause Time Vs Avg. Jitter Effect

5) Pause time Vs Throughput

Figure: 8 shows throughput of AODV with variation in
pause time. Throughput is the ratio of numbers of sent
packets with number of received packets. It has observed
that the performance of MAODV is better than AODV.
The throughput of MAODV is minimum when a node in
network moves with pause time of 30 sec and maximum at
pause time of 150 sec. When nodes in network moves with
a pause time of 150 sec, than nodes comes closer and get
more routing paths. Due to this reason receiver can receive
proper signal and data, so throughput will increases when
we increase pause time for nodes in network.

92
98

Figure: 12 shows end to end delay for AODV and

MAODV with variation in number of node in network. It
can be observed that the end to end delay is decreases in
MAODV, but there is increment of end to end delay by
AODV.
4) Number of nodes Vs Avg. Jitter Effect
Average Jitter effect signifies the Packets from the source
will reach the destination with different delays. A packet's
delay varies with its position in the queues of the routers
along the path between source and destination and this
position can vary unpredictably Figure: 13 shows average
jitter for AODV and MAODV with variation in number of
node in network. It can be observed that average jitter
effect in the AODV and MAODV increases as we increase
the node density. Sometimes average jitter for AODV is
less than MAODV like at node density 35 and 45.

Figure 10: Number of nodes Vs Packet Received

2) Number of nodes Vs number of Packet Drop

Figure: 11 shows packet loss in network of AODV with
variation in number of nodes in network. It can observe
that MAODV has less packet drop than AODV. If receiver
cant accept exactly those packets which are sent by
sender, than the difference between sending packet and
receiving packets are lost packet. Packet drop may occur
due to congestion in network or improper routing path. It
can also observe that there is fewer packet drops when
number of node in network is 35. The packet loss
increases when there are 40 nodes present in network.

Figure 13: Number of nodes Vs Jitter Effect

5) Number of nodes Vs Throughput

Figure: 14 shows throughput of MAODV and AODV with
variation in number of node.

Figure 11: Number of nodes Vs Packet Drop

3)

Number of nodes Vs Avg. End to End Delay

Average End to End Delay signifies the average time

taken by packets to reach one end to another end (Source
to Destination).

Figure 14: Number of nodes Vs Throughput (bits/sec)

It has seen that performance of MAODV is very low when

number of node in network are 45. It can observed that
throughput of network is decreases with increase in
number of nodes.
6) Number of nodes Vs Energy consumption
Energy consumption, is used to rate the energy used by the
routing protocol, how much energy have consumed by the
routing, we will analyze and compared with these two

Figure 12: Number of nodes Vs End to End delay

93
99

controlled
environment.
A
practical
real-life
implementation and study would be beneficial to
understand the performance and applicability of the
protocols. Given the high interest within the area of
MANET routing protocols, there are many issues to be
researched and resolved before reaching a stage of being
commercially or practically viable.

protocol algorithm with effects and changes in number of

nodes .The energy consumption for AODV with variation
of the number of nodes in network. As in Figure: 15 it can
observe that energy consumption of AODV and MAODV
is continuously varying with increment of number of node.
It can also observe that AODV has less energy
consumption when number of node in network is 45.

REFERENCES
[1] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector
Routing, in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications, New Orleans, LA, February 1999,
pp. 90100.
[2] Charles Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer. Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector Routing. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications, New Orleans, LA, February 1999,
pp. 90-100.
[3] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks, in Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski and H. Korth,
Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, pp. 153181.
Figure 15: Number of nodes Energy Consumption

[4] Josh Broch, David A. Maltz, David B. Johnson, Yih-Chun Hu, and
Jorjeta Jetcheva. A Performance Comparison of Multi-Hop Wireless Ad
Hoc Network Routing Protocols. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking
(MobiCom98), ACM, Dallas, TX, October 1998.

VII. CONCLUSIONS
An modified Ad hoc on demand distance vector routing
mechanism (MAODV) is proposed for route discovery
process of such ad-hoc networks. That mechanism
modified route request and route reply packet format of
route discovery and implemented in mobile Adhoc
network under QualNet 5.0 Simulator. Extensive
simulation studies were taken to compare its performance
with standards unmodified AODV over Ad-hoc Mobile
Network. After implementation MAODV it is analysed
under varying conditions of Pause Time and number of
node. Simultaneously efficiency of MAODV on various
realistic performance metrics was measured, including
Packet received, Average end to end delay, Average jitter,
packet drop, Throughput, and energy consumption.
From results it is observed that, Sometime MAODV
performs well under the varying conditions of high density
node and pause time, because of proper utilization of time,
optimal paths between nodes, optimal bandwidth
exploitation and less packet delay. Simultaneously
throughput was found to be most favorable, however it
may be vary according to traffic conditions and packet
loss. Enhance AODV reduces routing overhead and delay,
that method improves security and valid path selection
process AODV, and thus enhances the performance of the
protocol.

[5] Samir R. Das, Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Royer and Mahesh K.

Marina. Performance Comparison of Two On-demand Routing Protocols
for Ad hoc Networks. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine special
issue on Ad hoc Networking, February 2001, p.16-28.
[6] Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Belding-Royer, and Samir Das. Ad
Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. IETF RFC 3561.
[7] Charles E. Perkins, Elizabeth M. Belding Royer, and Samir R. Das,
Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, IETF Internet
Draft, February 2003 (Work in Progress).
[8] S. R. Das, C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, and M. K. Marina,
Performance Comparison of Two On- Demand Routing Protocols for
Ad Hoc Networks, In IEEE Personal Communications Magazine special
issue on Ad hoc Networking, February 2001, pp. 1628.
[9]B.Das and V.Bharghavan. Routing in Ad-hoc Net-works Using
Minimum Connected Dominating Sets. In IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC 97), June 1997.
[10] Chen Linxin, Zeng Xi, Cao Yi, Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Technology of Self-Organized Packet Radio Network, Publishing House
of Electronics Industry.
[11] David B. Johnson, David A. Maltz, and Josh Broch, DSR: The
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless .Ad Hoc
Networks, in Ad Hoc Networking, Editor: Charles E.Perkins, Chapter 5,
pp. 139-172, Addison- Wesley, 2001.
[12] Christian Niggemeyer, The Dynamic Source Routing protocol for
Ad Hoc Networks http://gauge.upb.de/pgmanet/seminar/
workout/dsr.pdf.

VIII. FUTURE WORK

[13]Scalable Network Technologies, QualNet simulator 5.0 Version,

tutorial on http://www.cs binghamton.edu /~vinkolar/QualNet/
qualnet-tut1.pdf.

As part of our future work we apply new path selection

approach to another ad hoc on demand routing protocols
by varying pause time and check its performance. Also
check the performance of Test other protocols in the
hybrid situation. The implementations of different routing
protocols in Qual-Net have to be adapted to use them in
hybrid simulations. Development of a new routing
protocol specialized for hybrid networks. Finally, most
simulations have been conducted in a simulation and

100
94