What is the Difference Between Reactive and Proactive Protocols?
🆚 Go to Comparative Table 🆚The main difference between reactive and proactive protocols lies in how they handle routing information and update their routing tables. Here are the key differences between the two types of protocols:
Proactive Protocols:
- Maintain individual routing tables containing routing information for every node in the network.
- Use flat and hierarchical routing structures.
- Require high bandwidth and power.
- Have lower latency due to the maintenance of routes at all times.
- Route acquisition delay is low.
- High control overhead.
- Update periodically, some may use conditions.
- Always have routes available.
- Convergence time is low.
Reactive Protocols:
- Collect information about network nodes only when needed.
- Mostly use flat routing structures, except for CBRP.
- Require low bandwidth and power.
- Have higher latency since routes have to be discovered when the source node initiates a route.
- Route acquisition delay is high.
- Low control overhead.
- Some nodes may require periodic beacons.
- Determine routes on-demand.
- Convergence time is higher, as routes are not up to date.
In summary, proactive protocols store routing information at all times, resulting in lower latency but higher control overhead, while reactive protocols only collect routing information when needed, leading to higher latency but lower control overhead.
Comparative Table: Reactive vs Proactive Protocols
Here is a table comparing the differences between reactive and proactive routing protocols:
Feature | Proactive Routing Protocols | Reactive Routing Protocols |
---|---|---|
Routing Structure | Both flat and hierarchical structures are used | Mostly flat, except for CBRP |
Routing Information | Stored in routing tables | Not stored, determined on-demand |
Latency | Lower due to maintenance of routes at all times | Higher since routes have to be discovered when the source node initiates a route |
Bandwidth | High bandwidth is required | Low bandwidth is required |
Power | High power is required | Low power is required |
Route Acquisition Delay | Low | High |
Control Overhead | High | Low |
Route Availability | Always available | Determined on-demand |
Convergence Time | Low | Routes are not up to date |
Proactive routing protocols, also known as table-driven protocols, maintain up-to-date routing information for all nodes in the network. They require high bandwidth and power, and have low route acquisition delay and control overhead. Some examples of proactive protocols include Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF).
Reactive protocols, also known as on-demand protocols, do not maintain routing tables for all nodes in the network. Instead, they initiate a route discovery process only when a node needs to send data to another node. They have high latency and route discovery delay, but low bandwidth and power requirements. Some examples of reactive protocols include Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA).
- Reactive vs Proactive
- Proactive vs Reactive Strategies
- Proactive vs Reactive Risk Management
- Proactive vs Reactive Purchasing
- Protocol vs Procedure
- Policy vs Protocol
- TCP vs UDP Protocols
- IPv4 vs IPv6 Protocols
- Anaphylaxis vs Prophylaxis
- Reactive Arthritis vs Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Protocol vs Etiquette
- Corrective vs Preventive Action
- Preventive vs Preventative
- Mutualism vs Protocooperation
- Centralised Routing vs Distributed Routing Protocols
- Convention vs Protocol
- TCP vs SCTP Protocols
- Reaction vs Reflex
- Active vs Passive Immunity