According to me, We cannot say that which one is better becoz one is better in some scenario(area,parameters) and other is better in other scenario.

Hello. To get to an understanding about the best routing protocol, there is the need to use a common evaluation methodology. This is a problem, since there is no such evaluation framework which should define parameters, scenarios configurations to be used to test all routing approaches.

Although I do not know of such approach for manets, I can point you to the following articles (open) that describe such evaluation framework for opportunistic routing, which, contrary to mantes can work in scenarios with intermittent connectivity. But in my opinion such framework can also be used to manets:

- Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, Susana Sargento, "Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing", IEEE Latin America Transactions, Vol 10 Issue 3 April 2012

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234112030_Assessment_Model_for_Opportunistic_Routing?ev=prf_pub

- Waldir Moreira, Paulo Mendes, Susana Sargento, "Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing", in Proc. of IEEE LATINCOM, Belem, Brazil, October 2011

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221680269_Assessment_model_for_opportunistic_routing?ev=prf_pub

Article Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing

Conference Paper Assessment Model for Opportunistic Routing

Normaly, DYMO was the next name for AODV, now it is back AODV2. These are just incremental versions of the same protocol.

Thank you philippe sir, paulo sir and rvindra.

@philippe, your answer is very good but can you explain it further explaining AODVvs DYMO or AODV2.