See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327200867

Impact of ART and DPC on AODV Routing Environment for Dynamic Network
using QualNet 7.1

Technical Report · June 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11762.96969

CITATIONS READS
0 31

3 authors:

Ashish Kumar Singh Apporva Shukla

National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University
19 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Prayag Varshney
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling and Simulation of Hydro Power Plant using MATLAB & WatPro 3.0 View project

Analysis of Si/SiGe Heterostructure Solar Cell View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashish Kumar Singh on 24 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Impact of ART and DPC on AODV Routing
Environment for Dynamic Network using
QualNet 7.1
Apporva Shukla, Prayag Varshney, Shikha Mishra, Ashish Kumar Singh
School of Electronics & Communication Engineering
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra, India- 182320
 transmission range of wireless network interfaces,
Abstract—AODV routing protocol is one of the
MANET protocol with infrastructure less mobile
network within which communication requires
Quality of Services (Qos). In this paper, the AODV
routing protocol performance parameter for a real
scenario is analyzed with IEEE 802.11/b MAC
protocol in random waypoint model, by varying
route maintenance parameter like ART and DPC
for variable node density using CBR traffic in
terms of average throughput, average jitter,
average end to end delay and packet drop. The
graphical interpretation is done on the basis of size,
mobility and congestion of network with a fixed
source to destination pair. For the analysis propose
QualNet 7.1 simulator is used.
Keywords — MANET, AODV: Ad-hoc on-
demand distance vector, IEEE 802.11/b, MAC,
random way point, ART: Active route timeout,
DPC: Delete period constant (n), QualNet 7.1
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless communication through radio waves
among independent mobile nodes in a network
called Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET). The
mobile nodes within the radio range can
communicate directly, whereas rest of all require
intermediate nodes to route their packets. MANET
is fully decentralize and rapidly-deployable
technology, provide communication capabilities to
the areas with limited or no existing
communication infrastructure. Due to constraint in
multi-hop technique is used to transfer data
between the nodes in network. MANET uses
different types of routing protocols [1] such as
DSDV, AODV, OLSR, TORA, DSR, etc. which
can be classified as on-demand driven (reactive),
table driven (proactive) and hybrid protocols.
Analysis of different protocols is done for quality
of service (QoS) [2] metrics like jitter, end to end
delay, throughput, packet drop etc. and route
maintenance parameters such as ART (Active
Route Timeout), DPC (Delete Period Constant)
etc. in constant scenario (Terrain Size, Node
Density and mobility).
Route maintenance is the mechanism used by a
source node to detect a link breakage along its
source route to a destination node. Using this
mechanism the source node can know it can still
use the route or not. When the source node
indicates the existence of a broken link in the
source route, it can use another route or trigger a
new route discovery process [3]. ART is the time
at which route is consider valid. When a route is
not used for some time, the nodes will remove the
route state from the routing table. The time until
the node removes the route states is called ART
[4]. Time to delete expired route is determined by
delete period constant (n). Time after which an
expired route is deleted can be calculated by
multiplication of delete period constant (n) and
maximum of active route timeout (ART) or hello
message. Delete period = Delete period constant
(n) × max (active route timeout, hello interval),
where recommended value for delete period
constant, n = 5 s [5].
Delete period insures the maximum duration for
the node I2 to remain active for adjacent node I1,
while I2 has invalidated the route to destination
node D as shown in figure 1, where S is source
node. If the path between node S to node D has
been setup through intermediate nodes I1 and I2,
and node I2 has invalidated the route to D then I2
can set up the route up to delete period. If node S
needs further communication with node D it has to
create new setup.
however, in this paper the performance variation of
AODV is studied by changing node-density, delete
period constant over the area of 1000×1000 m2.
The mobility model used is Random-Way point.
The scenario parameters are briefly depicted in
table. For the simulations purpose a network
simulator, called Qualnet 7.1 [11] is used. It allows
designing network models easily, efficiently
coding protocols, and run models that present real-
time statistics.
Table 1. Parameters at Physical Layer

Radio type 802.11b

Antenna height 1.5m
Antenna Efficiency 0.8
Antenna model Omni-Directional
Path loss model Two Ray
Packet Reception Model PHY802.1B
No. of channels 1 (2.4GHz)
Simulation Time 180 sec
Max Propagation Distance 200 m

Figure 1. Concept of delete period

Table 2. General Parameters
II. BRIEF SUMMARY ON AODV ROUTING Total simulation time 180 seconds
Ad-hoc on demand distance vector routing as name Terrain size 1000 m × 1000 m
Number of node 20, 40, 60
suggest, provide and establish route only as need
Number of SD pair 12
by source node to transmit data packets. Ad-hoc on
Transmission power 15dbm
demand distance vector (AODV), as name
Mobility Model Random waypoint
suggests, on-demand (reactive) protocol, instead of
Node placement Randomly
that it still uses attributes of proactive protocols.
Pause time 30 Sec
AODV takes the attributes of DSR and DSDV;
Minimum speed 1m/s
uses the approach of route maintenance and route Maximum speed 10 m/s
discovery of DSR and the approach of sequence Device type Mobile device
number and periodic hello messages from DSDV.
Additionally, nodes use the approach of Table 3. Parameters at different Layers
destination sequence numbering [6], [7] to
maintain most current routing information instead Network Layer
Subnet channel Wireless
of take part in exchanging routing table and
Network protocol IPv4
maintaining any routing information. Processes
Routing Protocol AODV
like path discovery [6] [10], reverse path setup,
Application Layer
forward path setup and route table management [9] Applications CBR
are required in AODV network for creating, Packet size 1024 Bytes
deleting and maintaining routes [5]. Data Rate 10 Kbps
III. SIMULATION PARAMETERS & SCENARIO MAC Layer
Mac protocol 802.11
In past few years there have been remarkable
improvement in performance of AODV protocols;

Table 4. Default value parameters of AODV
Active Route Timeout (ART)
Delete Period Constant (DPS)
Node Traversal Time
Maximum Route Request Retries
Maximum Number of Buffer Packets
Allowed Hello Loss
the packet, queuing, transferring the packet and
propagation time.
3s From figures 1, 2, 3 & 4, it is clear that average
5s End-To-End delay is minimum for 40 nodes.
0.04 s Delay is more in case of 60 nodes due to more
2 congestion compare to 20 nodes due to large
100
separation between nodes but at ART=3.0, 60
2s
nodes have lesser End-To-End value as compare to
20 nodes. From the fig. , delay is minimum at
DPC=4 as compare to DPC=3 and 5 due to more
overheads. Because at DPC=4 more alternate links
are available to deliver packets. Hence, there are
no difficulties in finding route for successful
delivery of packets.

Figure 2.1. General Scenario

Figure 3. Average End to end delay at ART=2.0

Figure 2.2. Scenario Using Qualnet

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

In this section, we have used graphical method to
compare average throughput, average jitter,
average end to end delay and packet lost in the
given scenario. Later the comparison on the basis
of network load density, active node along with the
application CBR is done.
A. Average End-To-End delay
The network delay is termed as average delay
occupied by network connections. So, for every
transmission between Source and Destination,
there is a network delay in the network. The packet
End-To-End delay is the time taken by the packets
to reach the destination after leaving the source.
Delay metric includes the delay due to processing Figure 4. Average End to end delay at ART=3.0
 time. Further increasing the value of dpc upto 5
cause in increment of alternate links, hence
performance increases. Further increment of dpc
results in more overhead than alternate links hence
degrades the performance. Fig.8 explains the fact
that ART=3.0 gives better performance for 40
nodes compare to 20 nodes, hence for designing
according to jitter, one can use ART=3 for better
performance at higher node density.

Figure 5. Average End to end delay at ART=4.0

Figure 7. Average Jitter at ART=2.0

Figure 6. Average End to end delay at ART=5.0

B. Average Jitter
Variation in time taken by packet to travel from
source node to destination is known as jitter. Jitter
increases as the node density in network increases
which can be seen from the below fig.7,9 and 10
i.e for 60 nodes network has larger value of jitter
as compare to 40 and 20 nodes for art 2,4 and 5. Figure 8. Average Jitter at ART=3.0.
But for ART=3, 40 nodes have lesser jitter as
compare to 20 nodes. In case of art=2.0 and
DPC=5, 20 nodes have minimum jitter as compare
to 40 and 60 nodes. It is clear from the fig.7, at
lower value of dpc jitter is more, increasing in dpc
value (from 3 to 4) performance is poor due to
memory occupancy of routing table for longer
 results in successful delivery of packets. Beyond
DPC=5 performance degrades due to more
overheads as compare to generated alternate links.

Figure 9. Average Jitter at ART=4.0.

Figure 11. Packet Loss at ART=2.0.

Figure 10. Average Jitter at ART=5.0.

C. Packet loss
Packet loss is termed as the number of data packets
that are failed to reach the destination. If there is an
increment of traffic intensity in the network, the Figure 12. Packet Lost at ART=3.0.
fraction of lost packets increases. Therefore,
performance at a node is measured in terms of both
delay and probability of packet loss [8].Every
packet of information has a limited time to reach
its destination before it is considered lost and
nodes stop resending it. This is a measure to
prevent overcrowding of packets on the network.
From figure 11, 12, 13 and 14, it is observed that
for 60 nodes packet loss is maximum as compare
to 20 and 40 nodes. Considering different ARTs,
minimum packet loss is obtained at ART=2 and
DPC=5.0. From fig.11, increasing DPC from 3 to
4 increases failure in packet delivery due to
increase in more overheads but further increment
in DPC value up to 5 alternate links increases
 from the fig as we increase the dpc value (from 3
to 4) node 20 throughtput increases because of less
traffic with low overhead. At same time node 40
and 60 throughtput value keep decreasing due to
congestion. But after dpc=4 to dpc=5 the
availability of alternate route is increased and
hence throughput gains maximum value
irrespective of overhead.

Figure 13. Packet Loss at ART=4.0.

Figure 15. Throughput at ART=2.0.

Figure 14. Packet Loss at ART=5.0.

D. Received Throughput
Throughput is the successful delivery of data
packets from source to destination node in a
particular unit of time.From the figure 15,16,17,18
it can be concluded that as we are increasing node
density from 20 to 40 the throughput gets
accelerated. It is due to increase in node, as number Figure 16. Throughput at ART=3.0.
of node increases, distance between them
decreases which result in better bits transmission.
While further increase in node density from 40 to
60, throughput dips down and it is the effect of
heavy congestion due to excess node. At art = 2
maximum throughput is observed as compared to
art 3, 4, 5 as shown in figure 15. After analysis of
figure 15 it can concluded that at dpc = 5 is the best
condition when throughput is at its peak. It is clear

Figure 17. Throughput at ART=4.0.
Figure 18. Throughput at ART=5.0.
V. CONCLUSION
The primary objective of this paper is to analyze
the effect of route maintenance parameters like
Active Route Timeout and Delete Period Constant
on the performance of AODV routing protocol for
variable node density for various application
parameters such as Average End-to-end delay,
Throughput, Average Jitter and Packet Loss. The
default value of Active Route Timeout and Delete
Period Constant are 3 seconds and 5 seconds
respectively by C. Perkins.
According to designed Scenario of 12 SD pairs
having CBR application, AODV gives better
performance for End-To-End delay having 60
nodes compare to 20 nodes and minimum for 40
nodes at ART=3.0 and DPC=4.0. From Figure 4
i.e. at “ART=3.0 and DPC=4.0” the delay is lesser
than at default values “ART=3 and DPC=5” but
these default values are taken for performance
optimization. So if designing a network according
to end to end delay, take DPC=4.0 to increase
performance. For optimum performance ART=2.0
and DPC=5.0 is taken.
In case of Average jitter, AODV gives better
performance at “ART=2.0 and DPC=5” in Figure
7. i.e. minimum value of jitter is obtained among
20, 40 and 60 nodes. Value of “ART=3.0 and
DPC=3.0” in Figure 8. can be used for designing
according to jitter, so better performance can be
achieved at 40 nodes compare to 20 nodes.
AODV gives better performance in terms of
packet loss at ART=2.0 and DPC=5.0. It can be
concluded from the Figure 11. that 40 nodes
having less packet loss compare to 20 and 60 nodes
at DPC=5 due to availability of more alternate
paths from source to destination pairs.
Performance of AODV in terms of throughput
doesn’t always increases after increasing the node
density. Sometimes channels availability increases
the throughput for transmission but network
congestion may decrease the throughput.
Throughput for this scenario is obtained at its
maximum value at ART=2.0 and DPC=5.0
because of less traffic with low overhead which
can be seen from the above Figure15..
However, the result is taken for network
performance on Parameters like End-To-End
Delay, Packet loss, Jitter or Throughput, the
maximum performance of AODV is achieved for
‘ART’ and ‘n’ combination of 2.0 and 5.0
respectively, which can be shown from Figure 3,
7, 11&15. Density of 40 nodes gives best
performance for application parameters like End-
To-End Delay, Packet loss or Throughput, but for
Jitter value, AODV gives best performance for 20
Nodes. The original default value of ART is taken
as 3 s in AODV algorithm developed by C.
Perkins, but here in this scenario, ART as 2.0 for
 maximum performances. So, it is clear from above
analysis, ART value is 1 s less than the original
default value, which results in reduced memory
overheads.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare that there is no conflict of
interests regarding the publication of this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. R.K.Saket,
Associate Professor in Department of Electrical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT
BHU), Varanasi, Dr. R.K.Jha, Assistant Professor
in Department of Electronics and Communication
Engineering, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University,
Katra (J&K) and Sachin Kumar Gupta, Assistant
Professor in Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Shri Mata Vaishno
Devi University, Katra (J&K) for their constant
guidance.
REFERENCES
[1] Zhou, H. (2003) A Survey on Routing
Protocols in MANETs, Technical Report, MI
48824-1027, MSUCSE 03-8.
[2] M. Ash and K. Oivind, “Quality of Service in
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey,”
International Journal of Ad Hoc and
Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2010,
pp. 75-98. doi:10.1504/IJAHUC.2010.034322.
[3] Zahedi, K. and Ismail, A.S. (2011) ‘Route
maintenance approaches for link breakage
prediction in mobile ad-hoc networks’,
International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications, Vol. 2, No. 10,
pp.23–30.
[4] Al-Mandhari, W., Gyoda, K. and Nakajima, N.
(2008) ‘Performance evaluation of active route
time-out parameter in ad-hoc on demand
distance vector (AODV)’, 6th WSEAS
International Conference on Applied
Electromagnetic, Wireless and Optical
Communications (Electro science ‘08), 2–4
July, Trondheim, Norway, pp.47–51, ISSN:
1790-5117.
View publication stats
[5] Perkins, C. and Das, S. (2003) ‘Ad hoc on
demand distance vector routing’, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Request for
Comments (Proposed Standard) 3561, July.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3561/
[6] Gupta, S.K. and Saket, Dr. R.K. (2011a)
‘Performance metric comparison of AODV
and DSDV routing protocols in MANETs
using NS-2’, International.
[7] l Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied
Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 3, June, pp.339–350,
ISSN: 2076-734X, EISSN: 2076-7366.
[8] Kurose, J. F. & Ross, K. W. (2010). Computer
Networking: A Top-Down Approach. New
York: Addison-Wesley. P 42-43
[9] Gupta, S.K. and Saket, Dr. R.K. (2011b)
‘Routing protocols in mobile ad-hoc
networks’, Special issue on Electronics,
Information and Communication Engineering,
International Journal of Computer
Applications, December, New York, USA,
ISBN: 978-93-80865-63-9, Vol. ICEICE, No.
4, pp.24–27.
[10]Gupta, S.K., Sharma, Rohit and Saket, Dr.
R.K. (2014) ‘Effect of variation in active route
timeout and delete period constant on the
performance of AODV protocol, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 12,
No. 2, Jan, pp.177–191.
[11]Scalable Network Technologies, Inc. QualNet
simulator Version 7.1(2013),
http://www.scalable-networks.com.