Performance Evaluation of AODV and ADV Protocols in VANET ...
Performance Evaluation of AODV and ADV Protocols in VANET ...
Performance Evaluation of AODV and ADV Protocols in VANET ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Kusum Dalal et al,Int.J.Comp.Tech.Appl,Vol 3 (1), 50-55<br />
ISSN:2229-6093<br />
<strong>and</strong> complex topology due to different routes followed<br />
by drivers at different speeds <strong>and</strong> their behaviour <strong>of</strong><br />
driv<strong>in</strong>g, whereas <strong>in</strong> MANETs topology changes are<br />
much less frequent. Due to these notable differences<br />
between MANETs <strong>and</strong> <strong>VANET</strong>s, the rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols<br />
used <strong>in</strong> MANETs have to be studied first <strong>and</strong> checked<br />
for their compatibility <strong>in</strong> <strong>VANET</strong> environments. The<br />
rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols that are selected for this study<br />
belongs to a special branch <strong>of</strong> MANET rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
protocols namely-Topology Based Rout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Protocols</strong>.<br />
The ma<strong>in</strong> reason for such selection is the dynamic<br />
topology aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>VANET</strong>s which has a direct<br />
implication on rout<strong>in</strong>g protocol analysis. The<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> selected protocols is carried out us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
NCTUns-6.0 simulator tool which provides various<br />
advantages over other simulators like MOVE, TraNs,<br />
QualNet etc.<br />
2. Related Work<br />
Several researchers have done the qualitative <strong>and</strong><br />
quantitative analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>VANET</strong> rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> different performance metrics <strong>and</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
different simulators for this purpose. Some <strong>of</strong> them are<br />
mentioned below as reference:-<br />
• Khaleel Ur Rahman Khan et al. [3], <strong>in</strong> this<br />
paper <strong>AODV</strong>, DSR <strong>and</strong> DSDV protocols are compared<br />
on basis <strong>of</strong> packet delivery ratio, number <strong>of</strong> packets<br />
dropped, end-to-end delay <strong>and</strong> average rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
overhead metrics us<strong>in</strong>g NCTUns-4.0 version.<br />
• Pranav Kumar S<strong>in</strong>gh et al. [4], <strong>in</strong> this paper<br />
<strong>AODV</strong>, OLSR <strong>and</strong> DSR are compared us<strong>in</strong>g MOVE<br />
<strong>and</strong> NS-2 simulators on basis <strong>of</strong> packet delivery ratio<br />
<strong>and</strong> end to end delay.<br />
• S. S. Manvi et al. [5], <strong>in</strong> this paper comparison<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>AODV</strong>, DSR, <strong>and</strong> Swarm Intelligence based rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
protocols is done us<strong>in</strong>g ns-2, 2.31 simulators <strong>in</strong>terms <strong>of</strong><br />
throughput, latency, data delivery ratio <strong>and</strong> data<br />
delivery cost.<br />
• Rajendra V. Boppana et al. [6], <strong>in</strong> this paper<br />
<strong>AODV</strong>, <strong>ADV</strong> <strong>and</strong> DSR are compared us<strong>in</strong>g CBR<br />
(Constant Bit Rate) traffic on basis <strong>of</strong> average data<br />
packet latency, network throughput <strong>and</strong> the percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> data packets delivered.<br />
• Samir R. Das et al. [7] evaluated the<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> SPF, DSDV, TORA, DSR, <strong>and</strong> <strong>AODV</strong><br />
protocols with respect to fraction <strong>of</strong> packets delivered,<br />
end-to-end delay, <strong>and</strong> rout<strong>in</strong>g load by vary<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> conversation per node us<strong>in</strong>g Maryl<strong>and</strong><br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>g Simulator.<br />
3. Rout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Protocols</strong><br />
A rout<strong>in</strong>g protocol governs the way that two<br />
communication entities exchange <strong>in</strong>formation with<br />
each other, by establish<strong>in</strong>g a route, mak<strong>in</strong>g decision for<br />
forward<strong>in</strong>g the data packets <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the route<br />
or recover<strong>in</strong>g from rout<strong>in</strong>g failure [8].<br />
DSDV<br />
Proactive<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Topology Based<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Reactive<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
OLSR STAR<br />
<strong>AODV</strong> TORA DSR<br />
Hybrid<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>ADV</strong><br />
Figure 2: Topology-based Rout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Protocols</strong> [8]<br />
In this paper topology-based rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols are<br />
studied. Some <strong>of</strong> these protocols are shown <strong>in</strong> figure 2.<br />
These rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols use l<strong>in</strong>ks’ <strong>in</strong>formation, which<br />
exists <strong>in</strong> the network, to perform packet forward<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
They can be divided <strong>in</strong>to:-<br />
1. Proactive (table-driven) rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols<br />
2. Reactive (on-dem<strong>and</strong>) rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols<br />
3. Hybrid rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols<br />
3.1. Proactive Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Proactive rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols are mostly based on<br />
shortest path algorithms <strong>and</strong> keep <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>of</strong> all<br />
connected nodes <strong>in</strong> form <strong>of</strong> tables which are also shared<br />
with their neighbors [9]. They ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> update<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation on rout<strong>in</strong>g among all nodes <strong>of</strong> a given<br />
network at all times even if the paths are not currently<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g used. Thus, even if some paths are never used but<br />
updates regard<strong>in</strong>g such paths are constantly<br />
broadcasted among nodes [8]. Route updates are<br />
periodically performed regardless <strong>of</strong> network load,<br />
b<strong>and</strong>width constra<strong>in</strong>ts, <strong>and</strong> network size which is one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> drawbacks <strong>of</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g this approach <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>VANET</strong>s.<br />
3.2. Reactive Rout<strong>in</strong>g<br />
On dem<strong>and</strong> or reactive rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols were<br />
designed to overcome the overhead problem, that was<br />
created by proactive rout<strong>in</strong>g protocols, by ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
only those routes that are currently active [9]. These<br />
protocols implement route determ<strong>in</strong>ation on a dem<strong>and</strong><br />
or need basis <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> only the routes that are<br />
currently <strong>in</strong> use, thereby reduc<strong>in</strong>g the burden on the<br />
network when only a subset <strong>of</strong> available routes is <strong>in</strong> use<br />
at any time [8].<br />
<strong>AODV</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>and</strong> uses an efficient method <strong>of</strong><br />
rout<strong>in</strong>g that reduces network load by broadcast<strong>in</strong>g route<br />
discovery mechanism <strong>and</strong> by dynamically updat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
rout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation at each <strong>in</strong>termediate node. Route<br />
discovery <strong>in</strong> <strong>AODV</strong> can be done by send<strong>in</strong>g RREQ<br />
(Route Request) from a node when it requires a route to<br />
send the data to a particular dest<strong>in</strong>ation. After send<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RREQ, node then waits for the RREP (Route Reply)<br />
<strong>and</strong> if it does not receive any RREP with<strong>in</strong> a given time<br />
period, source node assumes that either route is not<br />
IJCTA | JAN-FEB 2012<br />
Available onl<strong>in</strong>e@www.ijcta.com<br />
51