View
224
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended