A Review on Alleviation of Blackhole Attacks on AODV Protocol

A solution to black hole attack is proposed in [5]. Here, AODV has been changed. Intermediate nodes need to add the address of the next hop node to the RREP packet to see if there is an advertised route and there is no malicious node. Upon receiving the RREP packet, the source node finds the details of the next hop node and sends a further request to the next hop node to verify the existence of the next hop node. The next hop node sends a further acknowledgment packet to the source node to confirm the routing information.

In general, reactive routing protocols (DSR, AODV, TORA), especially DSR and AODV have relatively high packet transfer rates, but the DSDV packet transfer rate is affected by network load. With regard to end-to-end latency, DSDV's average latency is lowest, as regards overhead, DSDV is unaffected by network load and will not change. Due to the diversity of the application environment of the ad hoc wireless network, different performance requirements are pursued. For example, system survivability, concealment, and confidentiality are more important in the military field, but end to end delays and packet transmission success rates are more important in wireless mobile conferencing systems.

The reactive routing protocol (AODV, DSR, and TORA) mechanisms suppress the possibility of failure of routing table entries. Routing is established only when you need to send a packet. Therefore, reactive routing protocols are much less sensitive to changes in network topology than active routing protocols. In a small ad hoc network (20 nodes), the average end-to-end latency of the Active Routing Protocol (DSDV) is minimal and the latency of the reactive routing protocols (AODV, DSR, and TORA) is increased. This is because there is a slight delay (since there is a direct delay from the routing table when the Active Routing Protocol (DSDV) needs to send a packet (possibility of being related to network topology and network scenario There is.