ENHANCING AND EVALUATION OF AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN

VANET.

Group Members

Mohammad Ahnaf Zaman FA08-BCE-072Usman Basharat FA08-BCE-

060Bilal Sarwar FA08-BCE-015

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONEvaluation and Enhancing of Protocols for

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks’ (VANET’s) Routing protocols are:AODV DSDVDYMO DSR FSROLSR

Main SoftwaresNS simulator.

MATLAB.

Nam

MOVE

SUMO

CONBUILD (developed for Project requirement)

MANETMANET is Mobile Ad-Hoc networks.

Self configuring networks of devices connected by wireless links

MANET move independently in any direction.

Works without a base station.

Nodes also act as routers as they forward traffic for other MANET nodes.

VANETVANET is vehicular Ad hoc network.

Enhanced form of MANET.

Uses moving vehicles as nodes for communication.

Nodes should be between 100 to 300 meters range.

Communication can be between moving vehicles or any base stations.

contVANET Scope.Safer roads.

Vast areas are accessible.

Factors affecting VANETS

Vehicle Density.

Communication range.

Proportion of equipped vehicles.

Applications of VANET.Safety alerts.

Access of internet.

Drivers are alarmed of different road conditions.

Communication between cars and road side can be performed by VANET.

The Routing Protocols:Reactive –

AODV (Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector)DYMO (Dynamic MANET On-demand )DSR (Dynamic Source Routing )

Proactive – FSR (Fish Eye State Routing )OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing Algorithm)DSDV (Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector

routing )

AODVAODV is Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector

Generates routes on-demand

Type of Distance Vector Routing protocol

Uses Ring Search Algorithm for route discovery

Node maintains its increasing sequence number

Provides unicast, multi-cast and broadcast communication

Pros and ConsSequence number ensures that only latest

route is selected

Generates routes on-demand to reduce overheads

Uses both unicast, and broadcast communication

Control overhead increases, when multiple route reply packets are received in response to single RREQ

DYMODYMO also refers to as Dynamic MANET On-Demand

routing protocol is a reactive protocol.

It is the successor of Ad-Hoc on-demand Distance

Vector routing protocol.

DYMO protocol uses source routing.

Basic operations of DYMO are route discovery and

management.

DYMO uses sequence numbers to ensure loop free.

Pros and ConsAverage end to end delay reduces when there

is increase in speed and mobility.

No link repair present, if link breaks it has to

again find new route.

Consumes more bandwidth and energy

DSRDSR is Dynamic Source Routing Protocol.

The routing approach of DSR is Source routing.

“Eavesdrop” on routes contained in headers

Reduces need for route discovery

Piggyback Route Reply onto new Route Request to prevent

infinite loop

Source includes identification number in Route Request

Pros and ConsRoutes maintained only between nodes who need to

communicate, reduces overhead.

Single route discovery yield many routes to destination,

due to intermediate nodes replying from local caches

Packet header size grows with route length due to

source routing

Increased overhead if too many route replies come back.

FSR

•FSR is fisheye state routing protocol

•FSR is similar to link state (LS) routing

•Distance between source and destination is

inversely proportional to accuracy

•Relative to each node the network is divided in

different scopes.

•Fisheye technique used to present data precisely

Pros and ConsScales well to large network sizes

Control traffic overhead is manageable

Route table size still grows linearly with

network size

As mobility increases routes to remote

destinations become less accurate

OLSROLSR stands for Optimized Link State Routing

Type of Link State Routing protocol

All nodes elect group of nodes as Multipoint Relays

(MPRs) only which broadcast routing table

Nodes broadcast list of MPRs to all neighbors

Mobility causes frequent route changes, Topology

Control (TC) messages are sent

Pros and Cons

Best for large and dense networks

Less Average End to End delay

Time increases in re-discovering broken link

DSDV

DSDV is destination sequence distance vector

It uses distance vector protocol

Routing is done hop by hop

The neighbour checks the best route from its own

table and forwards to neighbour.

Routing tables are maintained by periodically

broadcasting the tables stored in each node.

Pros and ConsDSDV is an efficient protocol for route discovery.

Hence, latency for route discovery is very low.

DSDV also guarantees loop-free paths.

DSDV send lots of control messages.

Modifications.

Modifications

Evaluation Metrics..Throughput: ratio of total number of packets

received by destination to total number of packets

transmitted by source node in a given timeframe

End to end Delay: average end to end delay of

data packets from sender to receiver.

NRL: is the number of data packets transmitted

by routing protocols for a single data packet to be

delivered successfully at the destination.

Simulation Results

AODV-M is better than AODVDSR-M behaves same as DSR

OLSR better than OLSR-M

Communication sessionAE

2ED

Simulation Results

AODV-M is better than AODVDSR-M better than DSR

OLSR-M better than OLSR

Simulation Results

AODV is better than AODV-MDSR-M is better than DSR

OLSR-M same as OLSR

NR

L

Communication session

Simulation Results

AODV-M is better than AODVDSR-M and DSR remains same.

OLSR-M is less efficient than original OLSR

Node Density

NR

L

Simulation Results

AODV is better than AODV-MDSR-M is same as DSR

OLSR better than OLSR-M

Communication session

PD

R

Simulation Results

AODV is better than AODV-MDSR-M is better than DSR

OLSR-M better than OLSR

Node DensityPD

R

Trade-off Table

Protocols Advantages Disadvantages (Cost)

AODV High throughput at high mobility.

Delay due to link repair.

DSR Cache learns route & increase throughput.

Causes delay when link failures are frequent.

OLSR Low AE2ED & high PDR. High NRL.

Simulation Results

FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

Simulation Results

FSR-M is better then FSRDSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO performs better than DYMO-M

Simulation Results

FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

Simulation Results

FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

Simulation Results

FSR-M is better then FSR.DSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

Simulation Results

FSR-M is better then FSRDSDV-M better than DSDV

DYMO-M performs better than DYMO

Trade-off TableProtocols Advantages Disadvantages (Cost)

DSDVLeads to high throughput. High AE2ED.

DYMOReduces AE2ED and NRL. Decrease in throughput.

FSRMore throughput and a decrease in NRL.

Increased AE2ED