Vol. 1, No. 2 | July - December 2018

A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing

Protocols under different performance Metric

Sadaf Wali1, Syed Irfan Ullah1, A.Wajid Ullah Khan1, Abdus Salam1

Abstract

Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) has recently gained enormous studies attention because of

their large potential of reliability and scalability in various fields. Besides, this Ad-hoc network is very

flexible in nature which makes it more valuable for the researcher in the research area. Ad-hoc network

provides better mobility due to which it uses dynamic topology. The routing protocols possess a very

important role in any MANET. The routing protocols are divided into three big categories reactive

protocols (on demand), proactive protocols (table-driven) and hybrid. The different routing protocols

were created, which perform differently under different scenarios. This survey paper investigates

the reactive and proactive routing protocol performance under different scenarios. The routing

protocols like AODV, DSR, DSDV, AODV Modified (R-AODV) and TORA are compared

under different parameters. The NS2 simulation tool is used for the simulation purpose. This

paper shows the previous work done by the researchers in the field of reactive and proactive

routing protocol based on its comparative analysis. Our results, contrarily to previously reported
studies conducted on the same routing protocols, show the superiority of reactive over proactive protocols

in routing such traffic under different network scenarios and parameters.

Keywords: AODV, DSR, DSDV, TORA, R-AODV

1. Introduction

A Lot of work has been done in the area of

routing protocols in recent time. Many routing

protocols have been proposed for Ad-hoc

community with attention on optimizing

distinct aspects of the network routing. The

Wireless Ad-hoc network is the collection of

a group of mobile computers. The nodes help

in packet forwarding and allow

communication beyond its transmission

range. A wireless Ad-Hoc network

community is a decentralized form of wireless

network which does no longer rely on a pre-

existing infrastructure. As wireless Ad-hoc

network does not require a central device or

control management. Therefore, it is easy to

1 Department of computing and technology, Abasyn University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Corresponding Email: diyaaakhan098@gmail.com

establish when needed. The routers in the

network are free movers in any direction.

Therefore, the topology is dynamic in nature.

Every node in the wireless ad-hoc network

may act both as an end consumer node or a

router and could, therefore, trade its Link to

different nodes often. It also enables other

nodes to determine a path to another cell node

and perform packet delivery that might not in

the direct wireless communication. Ad-hoc

provides flexible and big advantages in

different environment such as military,

commercial and technology. The interest of

the researchers is increased for the Ad-hoc

networks for a distributed set of applications.

Applications such as gaming, military

applications, commercial application and

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

crises management services applications [1,

2].

As there is no specific device in this

environment, therefore, the security

challenges are the great concern for the

researchers to work on it. Many demanding

situations that still need to be solved in such

regions as addressing, routing, place control,

configuration management, interoperability,

security, and excessive capacity technologies

[3, 4]. The routing is the procedure which is

used to choose a path in a network. The main

function of routing protocol is the selection of

routes for multiple source destinations and its

accurate delivery to the destination. In Ad-hoc

networking the mobile nodes are used for

searching the route or paths for the connection

and sharing the data. The performance of any

routing protocol is the end to end delay,

throughput, PDF, NRL and Route Acquisition

Time etc.

2. Routing Protocols

The Ad-hoc routing protocols are

classified into three big classes

2.1. Table-driven (proactive Algorithms)

This Algorithm simply uses the tables.

The data are stored and updated in these

tables.

Examples are (DSDV), (WRP) wireless

routing protocol (GSR) global state routing [4,

5].

2.2. On Demand (reactive Algorithms)

This Algorithm creates routes on demand

bases by flooding the network with Route

Request packets. The two key procedures of

source initiated on demand-driven routing

protocols are the route discovery process and

route maintenance process. ABR, AODV, and

DSR are reactive routing protocols.

2.3. Hybrid protocols

The composite of table driven and on-

demand routing protocols which possess the

attributes of both routing protocols together.

ZRP, CEDAR, and LAR routing protocols

belongs to hybrid protocols [6].

In section 3 the protocols that are used in

Ad-hoc are discussed. Section 4 describes

comparison evaluation of routing protocols.

Section 5 describes the simulation result of

protocols. The last section presents the result

and conclusion.

Fig 1. Different classes of routing protocols

3. An Overview Of Protocols

3.1. Ad-hoc on-demand vector protocol

(AODV)

AODV is on demand protocol which

creates the route on demand. The nodes move

here and there very quickly which results in

breaking links. The message mechanisms are

having RREQs, RREPs, and RERRs. Route

Maintenance and route discovery are used by

AODV Whenever a sender wants to create a

route its route discovery process can be done

through flooding route request message. All

the neighbors include in this process as they

all get the route request messages. After

reaching the destination route reply packet

sends back on the same path used by RREQ

packet. Each node maintains a sequence

number and a routing table. The loop-free

operation takes place in AODV which helps in

repairing of breakage links. Whenever a link

breaks, the affected nodes are informed about

the infected or lost link [7, 8, 9, and 10].

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

3.2. Dynamic Source Routing Protocol

(DSR)

This protocol is designed for the multi-hop

networks of moving nodes. This is an efficient

routing protocol which is based on demand

routing protocol which has a self-organizing

network. Working of this protocol can be

illustrated in two steps Route identification

and route Management. DSR guarantee loop-

free routing. The source node will first check

the route of the node in a cache to which it

wants to send a packet. If it tries to find the

route, it sends the packet. Otherwise it uses

route discovery. After the destination received

the packet, it stores the information contained

by RREQs and sends a reply back to a source

node. The route mechanism is responsible for

checking whether the topology changes or not.

In case of breakage of a link, that route is

removed from cache route and informs all

nodes by sending RERRs [12, 13, and 14].

3.3. Destination- sequenced distance vector

Protocol (DSDV)

DSDV is a table-driven based on Bellman-

ford scheme. C. Perkins and P.Bhagwat

developed DSDV in 1994. This algorithm

helps in removing the routing loop problem.

The records are recorded in a table. Every

node entered in a table contains a sequence

number. When the connection exists the series

number is even else an odd number is used.

The routing records sent between nodes with

smaller updates usually.

Every node advertises routing information

using broadcasting a routing table packet

updated in case of network topology changes.

Loop-Free and count to infinity problem is

much reduced in DSDV [12, 13, and 14].

3.4. Modified Ad-hoc on-demand vector

protocol (R-AODV)

It is the new version of AODV routing

protocol with some modification in AODV.

The R-AODV tries to manufacture a more

dependable way between the source and

destination keeping route stability under

consideration. The change has been done in

Hello and RREQ messages. In R-AODV new

field is embedded by Hello message to record

the sending time. At whatever point the

(i+1)th node gets HELLO message sent from

the ith node, it should record the HELLO

messages arrival postpone time d_time. In

route discovery stage the (i+1) th node gathers

the d_time values of hello message reached

within the predefined period and makes count

to these. At last, the (i+1)th node appends

them to the RREQ packet and surges/floods

the bundles to the neighbors. At the point

when the RREQ packet achieves the goal, the

goal can choose a steady and solid route to the

source as indicated by these measurements

[17, 18].

3.5. Temporally Ordered Routing

Algorithm (TORA)

It is an on-demand routing protocol which

works on the concept of path reversal of the

directed A-cyclic Graph (DAG). TORA

searches multiple routes from sender to

destination. TORA is a loop-free and

bandwidth efficient protocol that's why TORA

has the property to repair the route quickly

during link breakage and provides multiple

paths for the desired destination. It works well

in networks where traffic increases gradually.

TORA operate in the dynamic network. It uses

Parameter "Height" to greatly emphasize the

direction of a path between the nodes. TORA

supports multicasting. TORA can be used in

conjunction with Lightweight Adaptive

Multicast Algorithm (LAM) to provide

multicasting. The disadvantage of TORA is

that the algorithm may also produce

temporary invalid routes as in LMR.

Information in a network is managed in

three different ways.

i. Route Erasure
ii. Route Discovery

iii. Route Maintenance
The protocol is able to detect the partition

and erase all invalid routes [19, 20].

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

4. Survey Of Routing Protocols
Performance Evaluation

The following performance metrics are

used for performance investigation of

protocols.

4.1. Throughput

To check the total rate of transmitted

packets in a unit time in the network. The

nodes received by the receiver per unit time.

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑝𝑢𝑡 =
(𝑝𝑟×𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒)

1000
[3]

pr is used for the packet received and psize is

the size of packets in bits.

4.2. Average End -to- End delay

The average time used by the sender to

send the packets to the receiver. All the

possible delays are included in it.

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦

𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡
[3]

i = packet sequence number

count = Total packet count

delay[i] = receiving_time[i] –

sending_time[i]

Total_Delay = Total Delay + delay[i]

4.3. NRL

The total number of packets transmitted

per data packet delivered at the destination.

𝑁𝑅𝐿 =
𝑝𝑐

𝑝𝑑
[3]

Where pc is the total control packets and

the pd is the total number of packets sent.

4.4. PDR

PDR is the ratio of a successful amount of

data delivered to the destination sends by the

source. PDR is used to measure the efficiency

of protocols

𝑃𝐷𝑅 =
𝑝𝑟

𝑝𝑠
× 100 [3]

pr is used for a packet received and ps is used

for a packet sent.

5. Literature Review On Protocols

5.1. Throughput

In the case of low mobility the throughput

of AODV is higher than comparatively to

DSR and DSDV. AODV gives better

throughput than R-AODV. The DSDV

performance is not very strong in a high

mobility within the constant value 10 to 30

percent. The performance of TORA is better

at high mobility but it has a lower throughput

in other cases [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

5.2. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR)

The packet delivery for DSR is the best

among the protocols. The DSR is best in terms

of Average PDR. AODV is having low PDR

than DSR because it drops a higher number of

packets. Packet loss of AODV is less than

DSDV. DSDV performs worst for packet

delivery. The packet loss issue is very

sensitive in TORA compared to other routing

protocols. TORA packet delivery is less than

AODV. The PDR for Modified-AODV is the

same as AODV but changes in velocity

decrease rapidly in case of AODV. [1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 19, 20].

5.3. End-to-End delay

The Delay of AODV and DSR is more

than DSDV. The routes are not shortest due to

which AODV and DSR delay is poor. The

TORA protocol is also having worst delay

characteristics because of the loss of distance

information with progress. The average delay

of R-AODV is less than AODV

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

5.4. Normalized Routing Load (NRL)

The NRL for AODV is highest among the

other routing protocols. DSDV has the least

NRL which shows that DSDV is the best

routing protocol for the optimal shortest path.

6. Simulation Results And Analysis

This section explains the simulation

analysis carried out for the routing protocols.

According to the different author’s papers, the

simulation results for the routing protocols are

discussed below.

6.1. PDR (Packet delivery ratio)

A Wajid Khan [3] the result of PDR

analysis for routing protocol describes that

DSR works better under small network. DSR

is greater than AODV. In the medium and

larger network size, AODV works efficiently.

Its PDR is greater. The reason behind it is that

as the route discovery process is very quick, it

allows the AODV to adapt to the route

changes quickly.

Ajay Prakash [2] results show that while

increasing pause time the PDF of AODV and

DSDV is continuously decreasing for 10

numbers of a node. The results also describe

that PDF of AODV is larger than DSDV.

Sapna S [5] according to their simulation

result as the load will be less for less number

of nodes DSR performs well. DSR

performance slightly decreases as the number

of nodes increased. DSDV performs better

than the other two protocols with nodes

increased. AODV also performs better but as

nodes increase its performance slow down.

Anuj k [19] simulation result shows TORA

is quite sensitive to packet loss than other

protocols. The PDF of AODV is slightly less

than DSR.

Humaira Nishat [18] papers compared the

AODV and R-AODV. The result shows that

the PDR for both the protocols is the same but

with the increase of velocity, AODV ratio

decreases. Whereas R-AODV remains the

same.

This graph shows the comparison of

AODV, DSR, and DSDV under the PDR

parameter. It shows that AODV performance

is better as the packet delivery ratio is less than

the other two protocols. The other two

protocols packet delivery ratio is high.

Fig 2: Packet delivery Ratio of AODV, DSDV, DSR

Fig 3: PDR of AODV, DSR, and DSDV

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

In this graph 200 numbers of nodes are

used for the comparison of AODV, DSR, and

DSDV. The protocols were compared under

different network sizes such as small, medium

and large. DSR works better under small

network size while for the large and medium

size network AOD performs better.

The graph shows that with the increase in

node velocity AODV ratio decreases. The

overall performance of both the protocols was

the same.

The graph shows that AODV has lower

PDR than DSR because of a high rate of

packet dropping

6.2. Throughput

According to the paper of A Wajid khan

[3], the throughput parameter is checked for

AODV, DSR and DSDV routing protocols

under different network scenarios like small,

medium and large. The results show that the

AODV protocol received more packets than

the other two protocols. DSR throughput is not

good in all networks. The reason behind the

low performance is linked breakage.

Akshai Aggarwal [4] paper result shows

that AODV performance is better under a

large number of nodes, while DSR

performance is better for a small number of

nodes.

V. Rajeshkumar [9] this paper focuses on

the comparison of three routing protocols such

as AODV, DSR, and DSDV. The no of nodes

was (30, 40, and 50). The overall performance

of AODV was higher than the other two

protocols. As AODV is loop-free therefore

the routing packets for it is much more. DSR

performs slightly low than AODV. Anuj k

[19] paper describes that the overall

performance of AODV is better. TORA

performs well for high mobility rate while for

low mobility its performance was low.

Humaira Nishat [18] the performance of

both protocols was the same for the

throughput but as the speed increases behind

18m/s R-AODV performance becomes low.

Fig 4: PDR of AODV and R-AODV

Fig 5: PDR of AODV, DSR, and TORA

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

This graph represents the performance of

protocols for the throughput parameter.

According to this graph result, the throughput

of AODV is high than other protocols.

The graph shows that AODV throughput is

higher than DSR and DSDV

The result of the graph shows that as the

speed increases R-AODV performance

becomes low. Both protocols result is almost

the same.

6.3. End-To-End Delay

A Wajid khan [3] the average end to end

delay of DSR is better than AODV. The

AODV has very high delay under all network

conditions. Ajay Prakash [2] the graphs show

that the delay of AODV is much higher than

DSDV. The reason behind the end to end

delay is as AODV contains the address of next

hop. During link breakage, the route discovery

process Re-initiate which is waste of time.

Anuj k [19] the author compared AODV,

DSR and TORA protocols. According to his

simulation, the end to end delay was very poor

for both AODV and DSR. DSR delay was

slightly higher than AODV. The end to end

delay decreases as the pause time increases.

Similarly, TORA performance was also not

very good. The reconstruction of a route was

also not very quick which results in lengthy

delays.

Humaira Nishat [18] the average delay of

R-AODV is less than AODV. AODV gives

more delay than R-AODV.

Fig 6:-Throughput for AODV, DSR, and DSDV

Fig 7: Average Throughput of AODV, DSR,

and DSDV

Node Velocity

Fig 8: A throughput of AODV and R-AODV

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

The graph indicates the comparison of

three protocols namely AODV, DSR, and

DSDV. According to the result of the graph,

the result of DSR is better than the other

protocol.

This graph compares the result for the AODV

and R-AODV. The result of both the protocol

shows that R-AODV performs better for the

end to end delay

Fig 11: End to End delay of AODV, DSR
and DSDV

The result of the graph shows that the
average end to end delay of DSR is better than

AODV and DSDV

This comparative analysis is based on the

protocols such as AODV, DSR, and TORA

for the parameters end to end delay.

According to the result, TORA performs

better than AODV and DSR.

Fig 9: End to End Delay of AODV, DSR, and DSDV

(with 10 connections)

Fig 12: End to End Delay AODV, DSR and

TORA
Fig 10: End to End delay of AODV and R-AODV

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

6.4. NRL (Normalized routing load)

A Wajid khan [3] the authors analyzed

the performance of routing protocols for NRL.

The result shows that AODV has low NRL in

small and medium networks than DSR in a

large network. Amirhossein

Moravejosharieh[21] According to the author

the DSR protocol has the best NRL than other

protocols. In the value of density, DSDV has

highest NRL while in speed density M-AODV

has highest NRL.

Guntupalli Lakshmikanth [22] according to

their simulation result the NRL is 15 times

increased in AODV and DSDV as the number

of nodes increased from 40 to 100. The DSR

increased 25 %.

Geetha Jayakumar [23] According to the

simulation result it shows that with the

different variation of pause time DSR

performs better than AODV. The NRL was

low of DSR than AODV. AODV route

discovery process takes more time than DSR.

Therefore DSR has low NRL than AODV.

Fig 13: NRL of AODV, DSR, DSDV

This graph represents the performance of

protocols for NRL which show that for both

small and medium AODV has low NRL,

while DSR performs better for large size.

This graph is based on the performance

analysis of AODV, DSR, DSDV, and TORA

which indicates that the DSR performs better

than the other protocols.

Fig 14:-NRL of AODV, DSDV, DSR, and TORA

under low mobility case

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Sukkur IBA Journal of Emerging Technologies - SJET | Volume 1 No. 2 July – December 2018 © Sukkur IBA University

The table indicates the average result for

the following routing protocols under

different parameters. The results are based

upon the paper of A Wajid khan [3]. The total

number of nodes used in the simulation

process is (50,100,150,200).

The simulation time is 100 sec. packet size

is 512 and interval time is 0.1. The overall

performance of AODV is better for all

Parameters

PROTOCOL

PROPERTY

Avg AODV

Avg DSR

Avg DSDV

Avg TORA

Paper/Author

Name

Anuj k [19] Anuj k[19] Anuj k[19] Anuj k[19]

Throughput

N/A

PDR

95 %

95.5 %

N/A

90 %

End to End

Delay

16 sec

17 sec

N/A

14.25 sec

Paper/Author

Name

Samir

Robert[24]

Samir Robert

[24]

Samir Robert

[24]

Samir Robert

[24]

NRL 0.3 sec 0.1sec 3 sec 0.3 sec

TABLE I. Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols

PROTOCOL PROPERTY

Avg AODV

Avg

R-AODV

Paper/Author Name

Humaira Nishat [18]

Throughput

100 %

81 %

PDR

88 %

86 %

End to End Delay

0.18 sec

0.14 sec

NRL

N/A

TABLE II. Comparative Analysis of AODV and R-AODV

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

This table is based on the paper of Humaira

Nishat [18]. The comparison has been done

for two protocols AODV and R-AODV. The

mobile nodes are 25 with the packet size of

1500B. The performance of both the protocols

is same but with the changes in the network

scenarios R-AODV performs low.

The table indicates the result of reactive and

proactive routing protocols for different

parameters. The results were taken from two

papers such as Anuj k [19] and Samir Robert

[24]. The simulation parameters used in Anuj

k [19] are as following. The simulation time

was 200 sec with the area of 500.500. CBR

(UDP) traffic type was used. 500 nodes are

used.

Samir Robert [24] the number of nodes used

is 10. This result is for low mobility network.

The packet size used is 512.

7. Result and Conclusion

In this survey paper, a comprehensive analysis

of reactive and proactive routing protocols

under different performance metrics has been

done. The different work of the author is also

discussed on the bases of the simulation. All

routing protocols show good result under

specific performance metrics. The average

results are shown with the help of graphs and

tables of each routing protocols which

explains the performance of the reactive and

proactive routing protocols in detail.

After comparing all the reactive and proactive

routing protocols under different parameters,

the overall performance of AODV routing

protocol is better than the other protocols.

In the case of throughput, the AODV

receives more packets than the other

protocols. The NRL of AODV is also

lowerssss than the other protocols in different

network scenarios. End to end delay and

packet delivery ratio (PDR) is also medium in

AODV than the other protocols.

8. Future Work

To analyze and compare the combination

of protocols such as R-AODV and TORA

with the other reactive and proactive routing

protocols with the different parameters under

the network sizes such as small, medium and

large. The following parameters such as

Throughput, NRL, Jitter, Latency and

collision should keep under consideration

while comparing the routing protocols.

TABLE III. Comparative analysis of Routing Protocols

PROTOCOL

PROPERTY

Avg AODV

Avg DSR

Avg DSDV

Paper/Author Name

A Wajid khan [3]

Throughput

55 %

45 %

45%

PDR

85 %

91 %

86 %

End to End Delay

1.5 sec

3.0 sec

0. 2 sec

NRL

2.65 sec

3.0 sec

0. 2 sec

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

REFERENCES

[1]. S.Mohapatra, P.K Kanungo
“Performance analysis of AODV, DSR,

OLSR, and DSDV routing protocols

using NS2 Simulator”, Proceeded

engineering 30(2012) PP 69-76.

[2]. Ajay Prakash Rai, Rasvihari Sharma,
Vineet Srivastava, Rashmi Tikar, Rinkoo

Bhatia.“Performance Comparison of

AODV & DSDV Ad-Hoc Network

Routing Protocols On The Basis Of

Variable Speed & Pause Time”,

International Journal of Engineering and

Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume

2, Issue 10, April 2013

[3]. Wasi Ullah, Haider Ali, A Wajid Khan,
Arshad Farhad, Baseer Ahmad and

Adnan Khan, "Performance Assessment

of Reactive Routing Protocols in Mobile

Ad-hoc Networks under CBR Traffic

using NS2", IEEE WiSPNET 2016

conference, PP 1070-1073.

[4]. Akshai Aggarwal, Savita Gandhi,
Nirbhay Chaubey." Performance

Analysis of AODV, DSDV, and DSR in

MANET" international journal of

distributed and parallel system (IJDPS)

vol.2, No.6, November 2011

[5]. Sapna S. Kaushik & P.R.Deshmukh,
"COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS

OF AODV, DSDV AND DSR

ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MOBILE

AD- HOC NETWORKS", International

Journal of Information Technology and

Knowledge Management July-December

2009, Volume 2, No. 2, pp. 499-502.

[6]. M.Ilyas. “Routing algorithms for
balanced energy consumption in Ad-hoc

Networks” in the handbook of Ad-Hoc

Wireless Networks, 1st ed., 2003.

[7]. C.E. Perkins, E.M. Belding-Royer, and
S.Das. "Adhoc on demand distance

vector (AODV) routing protocol" RFC

3561, July 2003.

[8]. I.D Chakeres.and E.M.Belding Royer
“AODV Routing Protocol

Implementation Design”, IEEE

international conference on distributed

computing systems workshop

(ICDCSW’04),2004.

[9]. V.Rajeshkumar P.Sivakumar,
"Comparative study of AODV, DSDV,

and DSR routing protocols in Manet

using network simulator-2", IEEE

international journal of advanced

research in computer and communication

engineering Volume 2, Issue 12,

December 2013, pp 4564-4569

[10]. Zahian Ismail, Rosilah Hassan
“Performance of AODV Routing

Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network”,

IEEE 978-1-4244-6716-7/10/$26.00,

2010.

[11]. Sampo Naski.”Performance of Ad
Hoc Routing Protocols Characteristics

and Comparison”, Helsinki University of

Technology Telecommunications

Software and Multimedia Laboratory

HUT T-110.551 Seminar on

Internetworking Sjökulla, 2004.

[12]. D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz.
“Dynamic source routing in Ad-hoc

wireless networks”. In Imielinski and

Korth, editors, Mobile Computing, pages

153181. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

1996.

[13]. David B. Johnson David A. Maltz
Josh Broch, "DSR: The Dynamic source

routing protocol for multi-hop wireless Ad-

Hoc Networks", Computer Science

Department Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891.

[14]. Mina Vajed Khiavi, Shahram Jamali,
Sajjad Jahanbakhsh Gudakahriz

“Performance Comparison of AODV,

DSDV, DSR and TORA Routing

Protocols in MANETs”, International

Sadaf Wali (et-al) A Comprehensive Study on Reactive and Proactive Routing Protocols under different performance

Metric (pp. 39-51)

Research Journal of Applied and Basic

Sciences. Vol., 3 (7), 1429-1436, 2012.

[15]. Afrah Daas, Khulood Mofleh, Elham
Jabr, Sofian Hamad, "Comparison

between AODV and DSDV Routing

protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Network

(MANET", IEEE 978-1-4799-7626-

3/15/$31.00, 2015

[16]. C.E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat,
“Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced

Distance-Vector (DSDV) Routing for

Mobile Computers”, ACM SIGCOMM

Symposium on Communications,

Architectures, and Protocols, Sep. 1994,

pp. 234–244.

[17]. Mou Zonghuna, Meng Xiaojing. “A
Modified AODV Routing protocol based

on route stability in MANET”,

[18]. Humaira Nishat, Vamsi Krishna K,
"Performance Evaluation of On-Demand

Routing Protocol AODV and Modified

AODV (R-AODV) in MANET"

International Journal of Distributed and

Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.2, No.1,

January 2011.

[19]. Anuj K. Gupta, Dr. Harsh Sadawarti,
"Performance analysis of AODV, DSR &

TORA Routing Protocols" IACSIT

International Journal of Engineering and

Technology, Vol.2, No.2, April 2010

ISSN: 1793-8236.

[20]. Mina Vajed Khiavi, S Shahram
Jamali, Sajjad Jahanbakhsh Gudakahriz

"Performance Comparison of AODV,

DSDV, DSR and TORA Routing

Protocols in MANETs" International

Research Journal of Applied and Basic

Sciences. Vol., 3 (7), 1429-1436, 2012

[21]. Amirhossein Moravejosharieh, Hero
Modares, Rosli Salleh, Ehsan Mostajeran

"Performance analysis of AODV,

AOMDV, DSR, DSDV routing protocols

in vehicular ad-hoc network " research

journal of recent sciences vol.2(7), 66-73

July (2013)

[22]. Guntupalli Lakshmikanth, Mr. A.
Gaiwak, "Simulation-Based Comparative

Performance analysis of Adhoc Routing

Protocols".

[23]. Geetha Jayakumar, Gopinath
Ganapathy “Performance Comparison of

MobileAd-hoc Network Routing

Protocol” IJCSNS International Journal

of Computer Science and Network

Security, VOL.7 No.11, November 2007.

[24]. Samir Robert, Rimli Sengupta
"comparative performance evaluation of

routing protocols for mobile, Ad-hoc

networks".