TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan.

2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

An Analysis of Network Survivability with

Variable Transmission Range and Mobility on
AODV over MANET
1

Rajneesh Kumar Gujral, 2Jitender Grover, 3Anjali

Computer Science & Engineering Department

M. M. Engineering College, M. M. University, Ambala, India
1
drrajneeshgujral@yahoo.com, 2Jitendergrover0101@gmail.com, 3Anjalirana2202@gmail.com
transmission control techniques impact Network
Survivability and a number of QoS performance metrics
on different routing protocol of wireless ad hoc networks.
Power control affects the performance of the network
layer.

Abstract In Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs), mobile

devices are equipped with power (energy). In order to utilize
this energy equipped devices efficiently for transmission of
data packets, many energy aware routing strategies are
followed. Effective transmission power control is a critical
issue in the design and performance of wireless ad hoc
networks. Transmission Power affects the Survivability of
the Network. Today, the design of packet radios and
protocols for wireless ad hoc networks are primarily based
on common-range transmission control. Mobility speed of
the nodes and extension of ad hoc network affects the
performance of the network as well. This paper is analysing
one of the widely used routing protocol AODV with varying
transmission range, mobility speeds and number of nodes.
Data transmitted by a node is received by all the nodes
within its communication range. This paper is focused on the
analysis of varying the range of the transmission in terms of
distance, mobility speed of the nodes and number of nodes in
the network. The proposed work has been simulated using
NS-2.34. The performance metrics comprises of Network
Survivability and QoS parameters such as packet delivery
ratio, end to end delay, routing overhead and throughput
has been analysed in this paper.

A high transmission power increases the connectivity of

the network by increasing the number of direct links seen
by each node but this is at the expense of reducing
network capacity. The type of power control used can also
impact the connectivity and performance of the network
layer.
Choosing a higher transmission power increases the
connectivity of the network. In addition, power control
impacts the signalling overhead of routing protocols used
in mobile wireless ad hoc networks. Higher transmission
power decreases the number of forwarding hops between
source-destination pairs, therefore reducing the signalling
load necessary to maintain routes when nodes are mobile.
The signalling overhead of routing protocols can consume
a significant percentage of the available resources at the
network layer, reducing the end users bandwidth and
power availability.

Keywords: Ad hoc networks, QoS, Transmission range.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Existing routing protocols discussed in the mobile ad hoc

networks (MANET) working group of the IETF [3] are
designed to discover routes using flooding techniques at
common-range maximum transmission power. These
protocols are optimized to minimize the number of hops
between source destination pairs. Such a design
philosophy favours connectivity to the detriment of
potential power-savings and available capacity.

Mobile Ad hoc networks (MANETs) are self-created and

self organized by a collection of mobile nodes,
interconnected by multi-hop wireless paths in a strictly
peer to peer fashion [1]. The goal of Network
Survivability and QoS provisioning is to achieve a more
deterministic network behaviors, so that information
carried by the network can be better delivered and
network resources can be better utilized. The Network
Survivability and QoS parameters differ from application
to application e.g., in case of multimedia application
bandwidth, delay jitter and delay are the key QoS
parameters [2].

Modifying existing MANET routing protocols to promote

lower transmission power levels in order to increase
network capacity and potentially higher throughput seen
by applications, is neither a trivial nor viable solution [4].
For example, lowering the common transmission power
forces MANET routing protocols to generate a prohibitive
amount of signalling overhead to maintain routes in the
presence of node mobility.

Network Survivability also differs with different routing

protocols in different environments like variable
transmission range and mobility speeds. This paper is
analysing the impact of an alternative approach and make
a case for variable-range transmission control. In this
paper it is shown that variable range transmission control
should underpin the design of future wireless ad hoc
networks and not, common-range transmission control. It
is compared how routing protocols based variable-range

Similarly, there is a minimum transmission power beyond

which nodes may become disconnected from other nodes
in the network. Because of these characteristics MANET
routing protocols do not provide a suitable foundation for

870

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

capacity-aware and power-aware routing in emerging

wireless ad hoc networks.
I.

AODV, DSR and TORA has been evaluated in [14] using

NS2 simulator with varying pause time, mobility speeds
and number of sources. Simulation result shows that DSR
and AODV perform better than DSDV and TORA. The
performance of AODV, DSDV and Improved DSDV (IDSDV) routing protocols by varying number of nodes,
pause time and mobility speed with fixed transmission
range 250m on 30 nodes has been evaluated in [15]. In
this paper, author studied the impact of various mobility
models with AODV and DSDV routing protocols and
have compared the throughput of the models.

RELATED WORK

This paper [5] discusses the performance and comparison

of different routing protocols of Mobile ad hoc networks
based on the energy level. To reduce the energy
consumption in AODV, DSR, author proposed enhanced
AODV and enhanced DSR. Simulations are done using
NS-2 and the results show that enhanced AODV and
enhanced DSR consumes less energy compared to
existing protocols and also comparison of energy
consumption in each protocol. Results show that AODV
performs better than DSR in terms of energy
consumption. In [6], authors compared the performance of
AODV and DSDV on the basis of consumer energy and
other traditional metrics using NS2.34 simulator with
varying number of nodes and fixed mobility speed. In this
paper result shows that AODV performs better than
DSDV in terms of energy consumption and Packet
Delivery Fraction. Performance analysis of AODV on
different mobility speeds with varying number of
connections has been done in [7] using NS2 as simulator.
Simulation results show that AODV performs better in
increasing mobility and traffic load.

Parameters such as loss ratio, hop counts, velocity of the

nodes are analyzed by varying the node density using
various mobility models and routing protocols. Results
show that DSDV performs better than AODV in all the
mobility models except Gauss Markov Model. The results
indicate that the performance of I-DSDV is superior to
regular DSDV. It is also observed that the performance is
better especially when the number of nodes in the network
is higher side. It is also observed that I-DSDV is even
better than AODV protocol in packet delivery fraction but
lower than AODV in end to end delay and routing
overhead. The authors in [16] compares the performance
of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols in grid
environment by varying pause time to show the impact of
mobility on 50 nodes scenario. Their results indicate that
AODV outperforms DSR and DSDV. DSR was very good
at all mobility rates and movement speeds than DSDV. In
[17] the performance of AODV and DSR routing
protocols has been observed in group mobility model by
varying mobility speeds. The result of AODV is better
than DSR in CBR traffic and real time delivery of data,
but DSR perform better in TCP traffic under restriction of
bandwidth.

This paper [8] shows the effect of power variations on

AODV using Matlab based Timeline simulator.
Simulation results show that performance of AODV
increases with increase in power. The performance of
AODV and DSR on the basis of residual energy and other
performance metrics has been evaluated in [9] using NS2
simulator with increasing number of nodes. Analysis
shows that on the basis of Energy consumption and
throughput DSR performs better than AODV. In [10],
authors compared DSR, AODV, DSDV and BeeAdHoc
protocols and analysed their Energy consumption and
traditional performance metrics using NS2 as simulator.
Results show that BeeAdHoc protocol is better than DSR,
AODV and DSDV in terms of energy consumption. It
also shows that performance BeeAdHoc protocol in other
traditional metrics is also satisfying. In [11], Energy
consumption performance of AODV, DSR, TORA and
DSDV protocols under the different mobility models like
Random Waypoint, RPGM and Manhattan Grid with
different mobility speeds using Ns2 simulator. Simulation
result shows that in low speed environment DSR is
generally best out of all but in highly Dynamic
environment Pro-active protocols save more power.

In [18] on different mobility scenarios the performance

comparison of AODV, DSR, OLSR and ZRP in WIMAX
environment has been conducted. The simulation result on
different QoS metrics shows that AODV, ZRP perform
better than DSR and OLSR. The performance of AODV
and DSR routing protocols in wireless sensor network
with varying load by varying number of sources and
mobility speeds on 50 and 100 nodes scenario has been
simulated in [19]. Their results indicate AODV perform
better than DSR when node density and traffic load is low
otherwise DSR delivers good performance.
In [20] a simulation based performance comparison of
DSDV and DSR routing protocols with variation in
number of nodes with fixed transmission range 250m has
been analyzed and it has observed from their results that
DSR outperforms DSDV. The throughput and delay
comparison of AODV, FISHEYE, DYMO and STAR
routing protocols with varying number of nodes has been
simulated in [21]. Their results show that AODV, DYMO
and Bellman ford protocols are having higher end to end
delays than others. A simulation based performance
analysis on AODV, TORA, OLSR and DSR routing
protocols for voice communication support over hybrid
MANETs has been conducted in [22]. The result shows
that overall performance of OLSR is best as all QoS

In [12], analysis of DSR, AODV, DSDV, TORA, FSR,

CBRP and CGSR has been done on the basis of consumed
energy using NS2 simulator. Analysis result shows that
DSR and AODV protocols perform better than other
protocols. This paper [13] compares the performance of
various AdHoc routing protocols such as DSDV, AODV,
TORA and AOMDV in terms of energy efficiency using
NS2.34 as simulator with fixed Transmission range and
Mobility speed. Simulation result shows that AOMDV
consumes minimum energy compared to all other
protocols. The energy efficiency performance of DSDV,

871

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

parameters have favorable results. The performance of

TORA is less than OLSR and AODV but its performance
is better than the performance of DSR. DSR protocol has
minimum throughput and maximum end-to-end-delay
with highest jitter and all these factors make this protocol
unsuitable for voice transmission. The impact of mobility
with all parameters on DSR and DSDV by varying
mobility speeds and number of nodes with 250m
transmission range has been analyzed in [23].

Routing protocols for MANETs have been classified

according to the strategies of discovering and maintaining
routes into three classes: proactive, reactive and Hybrid
[31]. This paper is analyzing a reactive routing protocol,
AODV.
Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV): AODV
routing protocol is also based upon distance vector, and
uses destination numbers to determine the freshness of
routes. AODV minimizes the number of broadcasts by
creating routes on-demand as opposed to DSDV that
maintains the list of the entire routes. To find a path to the
destination, the source broadcasts a route request packet.
The neighbors in turn broadcast the packet to their
neighbors till it reaches an intermediate node that has
recent route information about the destination or till it
reaches the destination. A node discards a route request
packet that it has already seen. The route request packet
uses sequence numbers to ensure that the routes are loop
free and to make sure that if the intermediate nodes reply
to route requests, they reply with the latest information
only.

The result shows that DSR outperforms DSDV in all QoS

parameters. The performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR
routing protocols by varying pause time and mobility
speed is analyzed in [24]. The observations of simulation
analysis show that AODV is preferred over DSR and
DSDV. In [25] impact of scalability on QoS Parameters
such as packet delivery ratio, end to end delay, routing
overhead, throughput and jitter has been analyzed by
varying number of nodes, packet size, time interval
between packets and mobility rates on AODV,DSR and
DSDV has been analyzed. The result shows that AODV
protocol is QoS-aware routing protocol under the impact
of scalability in terms of variation in number of nodes,
mobility rate and packet intervals. With the increase in
network size, the performance of DSR decreases due to
increase in packet-header overhead size as data and
control packets in DSR typically carry complete route
information. Performance of DSDV is not good at all.

III.

PERFORMANC METRICS

Network Survivability: Each time a MAC layer operation

takes place, certain amount of power is consumed for this
operation. Each node consumes some energy whenever it
is involved in the communication. Nodes survival time
can be find out using this consumed amount of energy and
after getting the survival times of all the nodes after the
end of simulation, average survival time of the network
can be find out.

The performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing

protocols in different mobility speeds with fixed nodes
has been analyzed in [26]. After analyzing in different
situations of network, it is observed that AODV performs
better than DSDV and DSR. In [27] the performance of
AODV and DSDV routing protocols by varying
transmission range and simulation time has been
analyzed. It is observed that the transmission range as a
system parameter affects the overall energy consumption
of wireless ad hoc networks. In [28] the performance
comparison of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing protocols
by varying number of nodes, pause time, mobility speed
and fixed transmission range 250m has been evaluated.
The result shows that AODV and DSR are proved to be
better than DSDV.

Simulation Time
Average Network
Energy

Network Survival Time =

*100

Consumed
The performance metrics includes the QoS parameters
such as Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Throughput, End to
End Delay, Routing Overhead and Jitter.
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): PDR also known as the
ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to
those generated by the CBR sources. This metric
characterizes both the completeness and correctness of the
routing protocol.

In [29] the performance of transport layer protocols TCP

and UDP on AODV, DSDV, TORA and DSR routing
protocols in multicast environment by varying pause time
with 50 nodes scenario has been simulated. The result
indicates that TCP is not appropriate transport protocol for
highly mobile multi hop networks and UDP is preferred.
This paper is analyzing the impact on certain QoS
parameters by taking variation in transmission range,
mobility and number of nodes on routing protocols
(AODV, DSR and DSDV). The rest of this paper is
organized as follows. Section 3 covers an overview of
routing protocols, Section 4 describes QoS based
performance metrics, Section 5, simulation analysis and
result discussion is presented and Section 6 concludes this
paper with discussions.
II.

NETWORK SURVIVABILITY AND QoS BASED

PDR

CBRrece
1
n

CBRsent

*100

Average End to End Delay: Average End to End delay is

the average time taken by a data packet to reach from
source node to destination node. It is ratio of total delay to
the number of packets received.
n

Avg _ End _ to _ End _ Delay

(CBRrecetim e CBRsenttim e)
1
n

CBRrece
1

OVERVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOL

872

*100

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

Throughput: Throughput is the ratio of total number of

delivered or received data packets to the total duration of
simulation time.
n

Throughput

CBRrece
1

simulation time

Normalized Protocol Overhead/ Routing Load: Routing

Load is the ratio of total number of the routing packets to
the total number of received data packets at destination.

Routing _ Load

RTRPacket
CBRrece

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance of AODV has been analyzed with
varying transmission range, mobility speed and number of
nodes. The parameters used for simulation are
summarized in Table 1 and initial position of 25 and 50
nodes is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1: Initial Positioning of 25 Nodes

The performance metrics comprises of Network

Survivability and QoS parameters such as packet delivery
ratio, end to end delay, routing overhead and throughput.
Table I: Simulation Parameters
Parameters

Values

No of Node

25, 50

Simulation Time

10 sec

Environment Size

1200 x 1200

Traffic Size

CBR (Constant Bit Rate)

Queue Length

50

Source Node

Node 0

Destination Node

Node 2

Mobility Model

Random Waypoint

A. Network Survivability

Antenna Type

Omni Directional

Simulator

NS-2.34

Mobility Speed

100, 500, 1000 m/s

Transmission Range

200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500,

AODV at higher mobility speeds and higher transmission

range shows more NETWORK SURVIVAL TIME than
the lower mobility speed and lower transmission ranges.
Figure 3 shows that for 25 nodes at 1000m/s mobility
speed and 550m transmission range network will survive
most.

(in meters)

550, 600

Operating System

Linux Enterprise Version-5

Figure 2: Initial Positioning of 50 Nodes.

So this is the best combination for 25 nodes. Figure 4

shows that survival time of the network is most when
mobility speed in 500m/s and transmission range is 500m
or mobility speed is 1000m/s and transmission range is
550m for 50 nodes.
Results also shows that at lower transmission ranges and
lower mobility speed network survivability time is less
and keeps on increasing with the increment in mobility
speed and transmission range.

873

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

Figure 3: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Network Survivability for 25 nodes.

Figure 5: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Packet Delivery Ratio for 25 nodes.

Figure 4: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Network Survivability for 50 nodes.

Figure 6: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Packet Delivery Ratio for 50 nodes.

B. Packet Delivery Ratio

C. End to End delay

AODV is having the highest packet delivery ratio in all

the simulated mobility speeds and transmission range
above 450m as depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6. It has
been observed that AODV with mobility rate 1000m/s and
transmission range over 400m for both 25 nodes and 50
nodes scenario has best packet delivery ratio. On the other
hand, AODV at 100m/s mobility speed and 250m
transmission shows poor performance in packet delivery
ratio in both 25 nodes and 50 nodes scenario.

As shown in figure 7 and figure 8 average end to end

delay of AODV protocol remains very low at almost all
communication ranges and 100m/s mobility speed in both
25 and 50 nodes scenario. In AODV protocol it is higher
with mobility speed 1000m/s than both the other mobility
speeds in both 25 and 50 node scenario.
For 25 nodes AODV protocol shows very less average
end to end delay on range 250m and 100m/s mobility
speed. In 50 nodes scenario AODV protocol shows very
low average end to end delay on ranger 200m and 250m
with 100m/s mobility speed. So AODV is better in term
of average end to end delay when mobility speed is lower.

At transmission range below 350m and mobility speed

500m/s AODV shows its worst performance in packet
delivery ratio for both 25 nodes and 50 nodes.

874

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

Figure 7: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Average End to End Delay for 25 nodes.

Figure 9: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate

on Throughput for 25 nodes.

Figure 10: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

Throughput for 50 nodes.

Figure 8: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

the Average End To End Delay for 50 nodes.

E. Routing Overhead

D. Throughput

As observed from Figure 11 and Figure 12 the routing

overhead of AODV is more when mobility speed is
500m/s than the others mobility speeds. The routing
overhead depending on their internal efficiency, and thus
protocols efficiency may or may not directly affect data
routing performance. If control and data traffic share the
same channel, and the channels capacity is limited, then
excessive control traffic often impacts data routing
performance. In both 25 nodes and 50 nodes scenario
graphs shows that AODV at 500m/s mobility speed and
200m transmission range has highest routing overhead
unless it uses transmission range more than 500m.
Routing overhead in AODV Protocol is inversely
proportional to transmission range. When the transmission
range is highest, routing overhead is minimum and at
lowest transmission range routing overhead in maximum.
AODV protocol is performing best in lowest mobility
speed in both 25 nodes and 50 nodes scenario.

The results analyzed from figure 9 and figure 10 indicates

throughput provided by the three different mobility speeds
with variable transmission ranges in 25 nodes and 50
nodes scenario is most when transmission range is high
for any mobility speed. With highest mobility and
transmission range more than 350m AODV has the
highest average throughput as compared to all the other
scenarios in both 25 nodes and 50 nodes. As observed
from results that AODV performed worst in terms of
average throughput when mobility speed is 500m/s as
compared to other mobility speeds. For 25 nodes average
throughput is very less at transmission range 300m and
mobility speed 500m/s. For 50 nodes average throughput
is lowest at transmission range 250m and at ranges close
to it and mobility speed 500m/s.

875

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

scenario, it is found that overall performance of AODV is

best with highest mobility speed and higher transmission
ranges in terms of Network Survival Time and QoS
parameters. The performance enhanced in higher
transmission range and higher mobile environment. Our
results can be used to determine the proper radio
transmission range in different mobility speed
environments for the reactive routing protocol AODV in
MANET without degrading a system performance.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Qasim, F. Said and H. Aghvami, 2008, Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks Simulations Using Routing Protocols for
Performance Comparisons, Proceedings of the World
Congress on Engineering 2008 vol I WCE 2008, London,
U.K, July 2 - 4, 2008.
[2] R. Gujral and A. Kapil, 2010, Secure QoS Enabled OnDemand Link-State Multipath Routing in MANETS
Proceeding of BAIP 2010, SPRINGER LNCS-CCIS,
Trivandrum, Kerala, India, March 26-27, 2010, pp. 250257.

Figure 11: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

Routing Overhead for 25 nodes.

[3] MANET. IETF mobile Ad-hoc Network Working Group,

MANET. http://www.ietf.org /html.charters /manet charter.html.
[4] J. Gomez, 2002, Energy-Efficient Routing and Control
Mechanisms for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, Ph.D.
Thesis, Columbia University, NewYork, December 2002.
[5] Rajgopal, K. Manikandan, and N. Sivakumar, 2011, QoS
Routing using Energy Parameter in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networ, International Journal of Computer Applications
(0975 8887) Volume 22 No.4, May 2011.
[6] P. Vijayalakshmi, V. Saravanan, P. R. J. Thangiah and D. J.
Abraham, 2011, Energy-Aware Performance Metric for
AODV and DSDV Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks, IJCSI International Journal of Computer
Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 4, No 1, July 2011.

Figure 12: Impact of Varying Transmission Range and Mobility Rate on

Routing Overhead for 50 nodes.

V. CONCLUSION

[7] C. Ma and Y. Yang, 2011,A Battery-Aware Scheme for

Routing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Transactions
On Vehicular Technology, Vol. 60, No. 8, October 2011.

The transmission range, mobility and different number of

nodes as a system parameter affects the overall energy
consumption and performance of MANET. The
performance of AODV routing protocol shows some
differences by varying transmission range, mobility speed
and number of nodes. From our experimental analysis it is
concluded that AODV has maximum network survival
time with higher mobility speed and lowest network
survival time with lowest mobility speed. Packet delivery
ratio and throughput is best when transmission range is
high for all the mobility speeds and it is directly
proportionate to transmission range. AODV has minimum
routing overhead with low mobility speed but average end
to end delay is maximum in this case which decreases its
performance to some extent. AODV is best when
transmission range is 550m with highest mobility speed.
This paper compares the AODV protocol with variation in
transmission range and mobility speeds in the analyzed

[8] S. Chettibi and M. Benmohamed, 2009,A Multipath

Energy-Aware On demand Source Routing Protocol for
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, Proceedings of CoRR,2009.
[9] P. Arivubrakan and V. R. S. Dhulipala, 2012, QoS
Enhancement by varying Transmission Range in Wireless
Ad-hoc Networks, International Journal of Computer
Applications (0975 8887) Volume 37 No.9, January
2012.
[10] H. F. Wedde, M. Farooq, T. Pannenbaecker, B. Vogel, C.
Mueller, J. Meth and R. Jeruschkat, 2005,BeeAdHoc: An
Energy Efficient Routing Algorithm for Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks Inspired by Bee Behavior, Proceeding GECCO

876

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

'05 Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and

evolutionary computation Pages 153-160.

[21] R. Singh, D. K. Singh and L. Kumar, 2011,Performance

Evaluation of DSR and DSDV Routing Protocols for
Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, International journal of
Advanced Networking and Applications, vol.2 (4),2011,
pp.732-737.

[11] J. C. Cano and P. Manzoni ,2000, A Performance

Comparison of Energy Consumption for Mobile Ad Hoc
Network Routing Protocols, Proceeding of 8th
International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and
Simulation of Computer & Telecommunication System
2000.

[22] B. Malany, A. Sarma, V.R. Dhulipala and R.M.

Chandrasekaran,2009, Throughput and Delay Comparison
of MANET Routing Protocols ,International Journal of
Open Problems Compt. Math, vol. 2(3), September 2009.

[12] N. Javaid, M. Yousaf, A. Ahmad, A. Naveed and K.

Djouani, 2011, Evaluating Impact of Mobility on Wireless
Routing Protocols, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Wireless
Technology and Applications (ISWTA), September 25-28,
2011, Langkawi, Malaysia.

[23] R.K. Gujral and M. Singh, 2011,Performance Analysis of

Ad hoc Routing Protocols for Voice Communication
Support over Hybrid MANETs, International Journal of
Computer Applications(IJCA), vol. 22(3), May 2011.

[13] J. Jacob and V. Seethalakshmi, 2012, Efficiency

Enhancement Of Routing Protocol In Manet, International
Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, May
2012.IJAET ISSN: 2231-1963.

[24] B. Divecha, A. Abraham, C. Grosan and S. Sanyal,2007,

Impact of Node Mobility on MANET Routing Protocols
Models, Journal of Digital Information Management, vol.
5(1), February 2007.

[14] N. Humaira and D.S. Rao, 2011,Energy Aware QoS ondemand Routing Protocols for MANETs, International
Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887), Volume
23 No.8, June 2011.

[25] A. Malik, S. Rastogi and S. Kumar, 2011,Performance

Analysis of Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network
using NS-2, MIT International Journal of Computer
Science & Information Technology Vol. 11, January. 2011,
pp. 47-50.

[15] R. A. Pushpa, A. Vallimayil and V.R.S. Dhulipala, 2011,

Impact of Mobility Models on Mobile Sensor Networks,
International Journal of Communication Network and
Security(IJCNS-2011) ,ISSN: 2231-1882, Volume. 1 Issue
1.

[26] R.K. Gujral and M. Singh,2011, "Analyzing the Impact of

Scalability on QoS Aware Routing for MANETs "
International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI),
vol. 8(3), May 2011, pp no. 487-495.

[16] A. Rahman and Z. Zukarnain, 2009, Performance

Comparison of AODV, DSDV and I-DSDV Routing
Protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, European Journal
of Scientific Research, vol 31(4), 2009, pp. 566576.

[27] A. K. Sharma and N. Bhatia, 2011, Behavioral Study of

MANET Routing Protocols by using NS-2, IJCEM
International Journal of Computational Engineering &
Management, vol. 12, April 2011.

[17] N. Usop, A. Abdullah and A. Abidin, 2009, Performance

Evaluation of AODV, DSDV and DSR routing Protocol in
Grid Environment, International Journal of Computer and
Network Security, vol. 9(7), 2009.

[28] P. Arivubrakan and V. R. S. Dhulipala, 2012, QoS

Enhancement by varying Transmission Range in Wireless
Ad-hoc Networks, International Journal of Computer
Applications (0975 8887), vol. 37(9), January 2012.

[18] H. S. Bindra, S. K. Maakar and A.L. Sangal, 2010,

Performance Evaluation of Two Reactive Routing
Protocols of MANET using Group Mobility Model,
International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI),
vol. 7(10), May 2010.

[29] S. S. Tyagi and R. K. Chauhan, 2010, Performance

Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Routing Protocols for
Ad hoc Networks, International Journal of Computer
Applications, vol. 1(14), 2010.
[30] Karthiga , J. B. Christinal and J. C. Moses, 2011,
Performance Analysis of Various Ad hoc Routing
Protocols in Multicast Environment, IJCST vol. 2(1),
March 2011.

[19] Anwar, M. Azad, M. Rahman, and M. Uddin, 2008,

Performance Analysis of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols in
Mobile WiMAX Environment,IAENG International
Journal of Computer Science, vol. 35(3), 2008, pp. 353
359.

[31] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki and E. Dutkiewciz, 2004, A

review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks
Elsevier journal of Ad hoc networks, vol. 12(1), 2004, pp.
1-22.

[20] Thaper, B. Jain, and V. Sahni, 2011, Performance analysis

of ad hoc routing protocols using random waypoint
mobility model in wireless sensor networks, International
Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE),
August 2011.

[32] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz and J. Broch, 2001, Dynamic

Source Routing protocol for Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks, In Ad Hoc Networking, edited by Charles E.
Perkins Addison-Wesley, chapter 5, 2001, pp. 139-172.

877

TECHNIA International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL.5 NO. 2, Jan. 2013 (ISSN 0974-3375)

[33] S. R. Das, R. Castaneda, J. Yan and R. Sengupta, 1998,

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Routing
Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks, Proceedings of the
international Conference On Computer Communications
and Networks (ICCCN 1998), 1998, pp.153-161.
[34] A. Norouzi and A. H. Zaim, Energy Consumption
Analysis of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks, Real-Time Systems, Architecture, Scheduling,
and Application, ISBN: 978-953-51-0510-7.
[35] Obtaining Node Position and Energy Dynamically in
NS2.34,
http://getch.Wordpress
.com
/2011/02/08/obtaining-node-position-and-energydynamically-in-ns2/

878