ENHANCING AND EVALUATION OF
AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN
VANET.
Group Members
 Mohammad Ahnaf Zaman
 Usman Basharat
 Bilal Sarwar
FA08-BCE-072
FA08-BCE-060
FA08-BCE-015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
 Evaluation and Enhancing of Protocols for Vehicular
Ad Hoc Networks’ (VANET’s)
 Routing protocols are:
 AODV
 DSDV
 DYMO
 DSR
 FSR
 OLSR
Main Softwares
 NS simulator.
 MATLAB.
 Nam
 MOVE
 SUMO
 CONBUILD (developed for Project requirement)
MANET
 MANET 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.
VANET
 VANET 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.
cont
VANET 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 )
AODV
 AODV 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 Cons
 Sequence 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
DYMO
 DYMO 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 Cons
 Average 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
DSR
 DSR 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 Cons
 Routes 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 Cons
 Scales 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
OLSR
 OLSR 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 Cons
 DSDV 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.
AE2ED
Simulation Results
Communication session
AODV-M is better than AODV
DSR-M behaves same as DSR
OLSR better than OLSR-M
Simulation Results
AODV-M is better than AODV
DSR-M better than DSR
OLSR-M better than OLSR
NRL
Simulation Results
Communication session
AODV is better than AODV-M
DSR-M is better than DSR
OLSR-M same as OLSR
NRL
Simulation Results
Node Density
AODV-M is better than AODV
DSR-M and DSR remains same.
OLSR-M is less efficient than original OLSR
Simulation Results
PDR
Communication session
AODV is better than AODV-M
DSR-M is same as DSR
OLSR better than OLSR-M
PDR
Simulation Results
Node Density
AODV is better than AODV-M
DSR-M is better than DSR
OLSR-M better than OLSR
Trade-off Table
Protocols
AODV
Advantages
Disadvantages (Cost)
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 FSR
DSDV-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 FSR
DSDV-M better than DSDV
DYMO-M performs better than DYMO
Trade-off Table
Protocols
Advantages
Disadvantages (Cost)
Leads to high throughput.
High AE2ED.
Reduces AE2ED and NRL.
Decrease in throughput.
More throughput and a
decrease in NRL.
Increased AE2ED
DSDV
DYMO
FSR