Performance evaluation of reactive and proactive routing protocol in IEEE 802.11 ad hoc network

Abstract

Wireless technology based on the IEEE 802.11 standard is widely deployed. This technology is used to support multiple types of communication services (data, voice, image) with different QoS requirements. MANET (Mobile Adhoc NETwork) does not require a fixed infrastructure. Mobile nodes communicate through multihop paths. The wireless communication medium has variable and unpredictable characteristics. Furthermore, node mobility creates a continuously changing communication topology in which paths break and new one form dynamically. The routing table of each router in an adhoc network must be kept up-to-date. MANET uses Distance Vector or Link State algorithms which insure that the route to every host is always known. However, this approach must take into account the adhoc networks specific characteristics: dynamic topologies, limited bandwidth, energy constraints, limited physical security, ... Two main routing protocols categories are studied in this paper: proactive protocols (e.g. Optimised Link State Routing - OLSR) and reactive protocols (e.g. Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector - AODV, Dynamic Source Routing - DSR). The proactive protocols are based on periodic exchanges that update the routing tables to all possible destinations, even if no traffic goes through. The reactive protocols are based on on-demand route discoveries that update routing tables only for the destination that has traffic going through. The present paper focuses on study and performance evaluation of these categories using NS2 simulations. We have considered qualitative and quantitative criteria. The first one concerns distributed operation, loop-freedom, security, sleep period operation. The second are used to assess performance of different routing protocols presented in this paper. We can list end-to-end data delay, jitter, packet delivery ratio, routing load, activity distribution. Comparative study will be presented with number of networking context consideration and the results show the appropriate routing protocol for two kinds of communication services (data and voice).