A Study and Comparison of OLSR, AODV and TORA Routing Protocols in Ad Hoc Networks

P.Kuppusamy
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Vivekananda College of Engineering for Women Namakkal, India kuppusamy1980@gmail.com Dr.K.Thirunavukkarasu Principal Velammal Engineering College Chennai, India drkt@rediffmail.com

Dr.B.Kalaavathi
Dept. of Information Technology K.S.R College of Technology Namakkal, India kalaavathi@ksrct.ac.in
Abstract Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is a collection of mobile nodes in which the wireless links are frequently broken down due to mobility and dynamic infrastructure. Routing is a significant issue and challenge in ad hoc networks. Many routing protocols have been proposed like OLSR, AODV, DSR, ZRP, and TORA so far to improve the routing performance and reliability. This research paper describes the characteristics of ad hoc routing protocols OLSR, AODV and TORA based on the performance metrics like packet delivery ratio, endtoend delay, routing overload by increasing number of nodes in the network. This comparative study proves that AODV, TORA performs well in dense networks than OLSR in terms of packet delivery ratio. KeywordsMANET, AODV, OLSR, TORA, routing

A. Proactive or table-driven routing protocols: In proactive protocols, each node maintains individual routing table containing routing information for every node in the network. Each node maintains consistent and current up-to-date routing information by sending control messages periodically between the nodes which update their routing tables. The proactive routing protocols use link-state routing algorithms which frequently flood the link information about its neighbors. The drawback of proactive routing protocol is that all the nodes in the network always maintain an updated table. Some of the existing proactive routing protocols are DSDV [4] and OLSR [8], [17]. B. Reactive or On Demand Routing Protocol: In Reactive routing protocols, when a source wants to send packets to a destination, it invokes the route discovery mechanisms to find the route to the destination. The route remains valid till the destination is reachable or until the route is no longer needed. Unlike table driven protocols, all nodes need not maintain up-to-date routing information. Some of the most used on demand routing protocols are DSR [8] and AODV [4]. Hybrid Routing Protocol: Hybrid routing protocol combines the advantages of both proactive and reactive routing protocols. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. Some of the existing hybrid protocols are ZRP [8] and TORA [20]. II. OVERVIEW OF PROTOCOLS C.

I.

INTRODUCTION

In MANET [6], [9] the set of wireless mobile nodes connected together to form temporary network in which the nodes are communicating with each other without centralized control. The nodes are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily. Hence the networks topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. The nodes that are within each others radio range can communicate directly, while remote nodes rely on their neighboring nodes to forward packets as a router. Routing is a core problem in networks for sending data from one node to another. Routing protocols works well in wired networks does not show the same performance in mobile ad hoc networks due to the rapid change of topology. A MANET includes many challenges and issues such as Dynamic topologies, Frequency of updates or network overhead, energy, speed, routing and security. The routing protocol is required whenever the source needs to transmit and delivers the packets to the destination. Many routing protocols have been proposed for the mobile ad hoc network and classified as Proactive or Table Driven routing Protocol, Reactive or On Demand Routing Protocol.
___________________________________ 978-1- 4244 -8679-3 /11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

A. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Optimized Link State Protocol (OLSR) [8], [17] is a proactive routing protocol, all nodes have route table for containing routing information to every node in the network. Thus the routes are always immediately available when needed. OLSR is an optimization version of a pure link state

143

protocol. Hence the topological changes cause the flooding of the topological information to all available nodes in the network. OLSR protocol uses Multipoint Relays (MPR) to reduce the possible overhead in the network,. The fig.1 given below, illustrates the MPR utilization in packet transmission. The idea of MPR is to reduce flooding of
7 4 3 12 2 5 1 10 6 8
MPR Node

DSR. Each node maintains a route table contains routing information but does not necessarily maintain routes to every node in the network and tremendously minimize the requirement of system wide broadcasts. D. Route Discovery When a source node desires to transmit the packet to its destination, the entries in the route table are verified to ensure whether there is a current route to that destination node or not. If it is there, the packet is forwarded to the appropriate next hop toward the destination. If it is not there, the route discovery process is initiated to locate the destination. The source node broadcasts a control message RREQ with its IP address, Route Request ID (RREQ ID), and the sequence number of the source and destination. While, the RREQ ID and the IP address is used to uniquely identify each request, the sequence numbers are used to determine the timeliness of each packet. To minimize network wide broadcasts of RREQ, the source node uses an expanding ring search technique. The fig.2 illustrates the route discovery process by broadcasting RREQ. The RREQ receiving node set the backward pointer to the source node and generates a RREP unicast packet with a lifetime, sent back to the source if it is the destination or contains a route to the destination i.e. intermediate node. An intermediate node set up a reverse route entry with lifetime for the source node in its route table to process the RREQ and forwards a RREP to the source. When the RREP reaches the source node, it means a route from source to the destination has been established and the source node can begin the data transmission. If the RREQ is lost during transmission, the source node is allowed to broadcast again using route discovery mechanism. E. Forward Path Setting When an intermediate node receives RREQ from the source, it checks route table for valid route from source to its destination. If it is, copies its known sequence number for the destination into the Destination Sequence number field in the RREP message and RREP sent back to the source along the reverse path. If not, the intermediate node updates the forward route entry with preceding node into the precursor list and forwards the RREQ to its neighbor node.

11

Figure 1. Packet transmission using MPR

broadcasts by reducing the same broadcast in some regions in the network, and to provide the shortest path. OLSR uses the following control messages: Hello and Topology Control (TC). Hello messages are used for finding the information about the link status and the neighbor nodes. TC messages are used for broadcasting information about own advertised neighbors which includes at least the MPR Selector list. OLSR may optimize the reactivity to topological changes by reducing the maximum time interval for periodic control message transmission. OLSR has also Multiple Interface Design (MID) to allow the nodes for having multiple OLSR interface addresses and provide the external routing information giving the possibility for routing to the external addresses. Based on this information, nodes in the ad hoc network can act as gateways to another possible network. Furthermore, as OLSR continuously maintains routes to all destinations in the network, the protocol is beneficial for traffic patterns where a large subset of nodes are communicating with another large subset of nodes in which the source, destination pairs are changing over time. B. Advantages and Limitations OLSR is also a flat routing protocol and it does not need central administrative system to handle its routing process. The link is reliable for the control messages, since the messages are sent periodically and the delivery does not have to be sequential. OLSR is best suitable for high density network and does not allows long delays in the transmission of the packets. However, as a limitation OLSR protocol needs that each node periodically sends the updated topology information throughout the entire network, this increase the protocols bandwidth usage. But the flooding is minimized by the MPRs, which are only allowed to forward the topological messages. C. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol AODV [1], [4], [5] is an enhancement of DestinationSequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) routing protocol algorithm which contains the characteristics of DSDV and

9 2
RREQ

9 2 8 7
RREP

8
Destination

Destination

4 1
Source

1
Source

Figure.2 AODV route discovery process

144

F. Route Maintenance A route discovered between a source node and destination node is maintained as long as needed by the source node. If the source node moves during an active session, it can reinitiate route discovery mechanism to establish a new route to destination. When either destination or intermediate node moves, the node upstream of the break initiates Route Error (RERR) message to the affected active upstream nodes. Consequently, these nodes propagate the RERR to their predecessor nodes. This process continues until the source node is reached. When RERR is received by the source node, it can either stop sending the data or reinitiate the route discovery mechanism by sending a new RREQ message if the route is still needed. G. Advantages and Limitations The AODV has great advantage in having less overhead over proactive protocols and it also supports both unicast and multicast packet transmissions even for nodes in constant movement. AODV responds quickly to the topological changes in the network and updating only the nodes that may be affected by the change, using the RRER message. The Hello messages, which are responsible for the route maintenance, are also limited so that they do not create unnecessary overhead in the network. The limitations of AODV protocol is all nodes in the broadcast medium can detect each others broadcasts. It is also possible that a valid route is expired and the determination of a reasonable expiry time is difficult. The reason behind this is that the nodes are in mobility and their sending rates may differ widely. In addition, as the size of network grows, various performance metrics begin decreasing. A route discovered with AODV may no longer be the optimal route further along in time. This situation can arise because of network congestion or the fluctuating characteristics of wireless links. H. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm Protocol Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [9], [10], [20] is a hybrid, distributed, highly adaptive routing protocol which is also known as link reversal protocol. TORA uses an arbitrary height metric to establish a direct acyclic graph and the length of the route that physically (DAG) rooted at the destination. Consequently, multiple routes often exist for a given destination but none of them are necessarily the shortest route. Instead of using the shortest path for computing the routes, the TORA algorithm maintains the direction of the next destination to forward the packets. Thus a source node maintains one or more downstream. TORA reduces the control messages in the network by having the nodes to query for a path only when it needs to send a packet to a destination. In TORA three steps are involved in establishing a network. Creating the routes from source to destination, Maintaining the routes and Erasing invalid routes.

Initially to create a route, the node broadcasts a QUERY packet to its neighbors. This QUERY is re-broadcasted through the network until it reaches the destination or an intermediate node that has a route to the destination. The recipient of the QUERY packet then broadcasts the UPDATE packet which lists its height with respect to the destination. When this packet propagates in the network, each node that receives the UPDATE packet sets its height to a value greater than the height of the neighbor from which the UPDATE was received. This has the effect of creating a series of directed links from the original sender of the QUERY packet to the node that initially generated the UPDATE packet. When a node discovers that the route to a destination is no longer valid, it will adjust its height so that it will be a local maximum with respect to its neighbors and then transmits an UPDATE packet. If the node has no neighbors of finite height with respect to the destination, then the node will attempt to discover a new route. As shown in fig.3, node 6 does not propagate QUERY from node 5 as it has already seen and propagated QUERY message from node 4 and the source may have received a UPDATE each from node 2, it retains that height. When a node detects a network partition, it will generate a CLEAR packet that results in reset of routing over the ad hoc network. The establishment of the route is based on the DAG mechanism thus ensuring that all the routes are loop free. Packets move from the source node having the highest height to the destination node with the lowest height like top-down approach.
(-, -) (-, -) (-, -)

4
QUERY (-, -)

5 1 3
(-, -) (-, -)

0, 0

9
Destination

Source

2
(-, -)
(0, 3) (0, 2)

7
(-, -)
(0, 1)

4 5 1
Source

0, 3

(0, 0)

3
(0, 4)

(0, 3)

9
Destination UPDATE

2
(0, 2)

7
(0, 1)

Figure.3 Route creation in TORA

145

I.

Advantages and Limitations The advantage of TORA is that the multiple routes are supported by this protocol between the source and destination node. Therefore, failure or removal of any of the nodes is quickly resolved without source intervention by switching to an alternate route to improve congestion. It does not require a periodic update, consequently communication overhead and bandwidth utilization is minimized. It provides the support of link status sensing and neighbor delivery, reliable in-order control packet delivery and security authentication. Also TORA consist some of the limitations like which depends on synchronized clocks among nodes in the ad hoc network. The dependence of this protocol on intermediate lower layers for certain functionality presumes that the link status sensing, neighbor discovery, in order packet delivery and address resolution are all readily available. The solution is to run the Internet MANET Encapsulation Protocol at the layer immediately below TORA. This will make the overhead for this protocol difficult to separate from that imposed by the lower layer. III. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS

maintenance need to be sent so as to propagate the data packets.

TABLE I. COMPARISON OF AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS Performance Constraints Category Protocol Type Route Maintained in Loop Freedom Route Philosophy Multiple routes Multicast Message Overhead Periodic broadcast Requires sequence data Route reconfiguration methodology Summary OLSR Table driven or Proactive Link state scheme Route Table Yes Flat No Yes Minimum Possible No Control messages sent in advance to increase the reactiveness Control messages for Link Sensing, Neighbor (MPR) Detection, Multiple Interface Detection, Route calculation AODV On Demand or Reactive Distance Vector Route Table Yes Flat No Yes Moderate Possible Yes Erase Route notify Source TORA Hybrid Link Reversal Route Table Yes Flat Yes No Moderate Possible Yes

A. Metrics for Performance Comparison MANET has number of qualitative and quantitative metrics that can be used to compare ad hoc routing protocols. The table. I illustrates the comparison of OLSR, AODV and TORA routing protocols. This paper has been considered the following metrics to evaluate the performance of ad hoc network routing protocols. 1) End-to-end Delay [8]: This metric represents average end-to-end delay and indicates how long it took for a packet to travel from the source to the application layer of the destination. It includes all possible delay caused by buffering during route discovery latency, transmission delays at the MAC, queuing at interface queue, and propagation and transfer time. It is measured in seconds. 2) Packet Delivery Ratio [4]: 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 (i.e. CBR source). It specifies the packet loss rate, which limits the maximum throughput of the network. 3) Media Access Delay [3]: The time a node takes to access media for starting the packet transmission is called as media access delay. The delay is recorded for each packet when it is sent to the physical layer for the first time. 4) Path optimality [9]: This metric can be defined as the difference between the path actually taken and the best possible path for a packet to reach its destination. 5) Routing overhead [9]: This metric describes how many routing packets for route discovery and route

Link reversal route repair Route Link Discovery, Reversal, Expanding Route Ring, Search, Discovery, Setting Route Forward path UPDATE packets

TABLE.II ROUTING PERFORMANCE IN LOW MOBILITY Low Mobility and Low Traffic Protocol End Packet Path Routing to End delivery optimality overhead delay ratio Low High Good Low OLSR Average High Average Low AODV Low High Good Average TORA TABLE.III ROUTING PERFORMANCE IN HIGH MOBILITY High Mobility and High Traffic Protocol End Packet Path Routing to End delivery optimality overhead delay ratio Low Average Average Low OLSR Average Average Average Low AODV TORA High Low Average Average

IV.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the comparative study and performance analysis of various ad hoc routing protocols (OLSR, AODV and TORA) on the basis of end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio, media access delay, path optimality, routing overhead performance metrics. The study of these routing protocols shows that OLSR is more efficient in high density networks with highly sporadic traffic. OLSR requires that it continuously have some bandwidth in order to receive

146

the topology updates messages. As well, AODV keeps on improving in packet delivery ratio with dense networks. The performance of all protocols was almost stable in sparse medium with low traffic. TORA performs much better in packet delivery owing to selection of better routes using acyclic graph. It has been concluded that performance of TORA is better for dense networks. The AODV is better for moderately dense networks where as the OLSR performs well in sparse networks. The future work suggested that the effort will be made to enhance ad hoc network routing protocol by tackling core issues.

REFERENCES
[1] Alexander Klein, Performance Comparison and Evaluation of AODV, OLSR and SBR in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, Innovation Works, IEEE 3rd International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing, 2008. Anne Aaron, Jie Weng, Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols for Networks with Node Energy Constraints, available at http://ivms.stanford.edu, Spring 2000-2001. Charles E.Perkins, Elizabeth M.Royer, Samir R.Das, Performance comparison of two on-demand Routing Protocols for Ad-hoc Networks, IEEE Personal Communications, pp. 16-28, February 2001. C. Perkins, E. B. Royer, S. Das, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing - Internet Draft, RFC 3561, IETF Network Working Group, July 2003. C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA), pp. 90-100, 1999. David A. Maltz, On-Demand Routing in Multi-hop Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, available at www.monarch.cs.rice.edu, May 2001. Farhat Anwar, Md. Saiful Azad, Md. Arafatur Rahman, Mohammad Moshee Uddin, Performance Analysis of Ad hoc Routing Protocols

[2]

[3]

[4]

[12] R. Misra, C. R. Manda, Performance Comparison of AODV/DSR On-Demand Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Networks in Constrained Situation, IEEE ICPWC 2005. [13] S. Gowrishankar, T.G. Basavaraju, Subir Kumar Sarkar Simulation Based Overhead Analysis of AOMDV, TORA and OLSR in MANET Using Various Energy Models,Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2010 Vol.I , October 2010. [14] T. Clausen and P. Jaqcquet, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol RFC 3626, IETF Networking Group, October 2003. [15] Tsu-Wei Chen and M. Gerla, "Global State Routing: A New Routing Scheme for Ad-hoc Wireless Networks" Proceedings of IEEE International Computing Conference ICC 1998. [16] V. Nazari, K. Ziarati, Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, pp. 1-5, August 2006. [17] V. Park and S. Corson, Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Version 1, Functional specification, IETF Internet draft, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-tora-spec-01.txt, 1998. [18] V. D. Park and M. S. Corson, A Highly Adaptive Distributed Routing Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Kobe, Japan, pp. 1405-1413, 1997. [19] Zhi Ren and Yi Zhou Wei Guo, An Adaptive Multi-Channel OLSR Routing Protocol Based on Topology Maintenance, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics & Automation, Canada, pp. 2222-2227, July 2005. [20] Z. J. Hass and M. R. Pearlman, Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), Internet draft available at www.ietf.org, November 1997. P.Kuppusamy received the B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree from Madras University, in 2002 and M.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree from Anna University, Chennai in 2007. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, Vivekanandha College of Engineering for Women, Namakkal. He is a member of CSI INDIA and carrying out PhD research work in association with Anna University. His current areas of research interests are ad hoc networks and mobile computing. Dr.K.Thirunavukkarasu received the B.E (Metallurgy with University Ranking) in Madras University in 1975 and M.Tech(Metal casting) in 1977and Ph.D degree in Mechanical Engineering from IIT Madras in 1983. He is currently working as a principal in Velammal Engineering College, Chennai. He is a member of MSITE, IWS INDIA. His current areas of research interests are robotics, Sensors, Signal Processing and Real-time Controls Integration and Mobile Computing. Dr.B.Kalaavathi received the B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) degree in 1993 from Bharathiyar University, Chennai, M.Tech from Pondicherry University in 2000 and Ph.D from Periyar University in 2010. She is currently working as a Professor in Information Technology, K.S.Rangasamy College of Technology, Namakkal. She is a member of CSI & ISTE INDIA. Her current areas of interest include Mobile Computing and Data Structures and Algorithms Analysis.

[5]

[6] [7]

in Mobile WiMAX Environment, IAENG International Journal of Computer Science, Vol. 35, Issue. 3, 13, August 2008. [8] H. Ehsan and Z. A. Uzmi (2004), Performance Comparison of Ad HocWireless Network Routing Protocols, IEEE 8th International Multitopic Conference, Proceedingsof INMIC, pp.457 465, December 2004. [9] J. Broch, D.A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y-C. Hu, J. Jetcheva, A performance comparison of Multi-hop wireless ad-hoc networking routing protocols, in the proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM MOBICOM 98), pp. 85-97, October 1998. [10] Md. Golam Kaosar, Hafiz M. Asif, Tarek R. Sheltami, Ashraf S. Hasan Mahmoud, Simulation-Based Comparative Study of On Demand Routing Protocols for MANET, available at http://www.lancs.ac.uk, Internaional Conference on Wireless Networking and Mobile Computing, Vol. 1, pp. 201 206, December 2005. [11] P. Chenna Reddy, Dr. P. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Performance Analysis of Adhoc Network Routing Protocols, Academic Open Internet Journal, Volume 17, 2006.

147