2. ENHANCING AND EVALUATION OF AD-HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VANET.

3. Group Members  Mohammad Ahnaf ZamanFA08-BCE-072  Usman BasharatFA08-BCE-060  Bilal SarwarFA08-BCE-015

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Evaluation and Enhancing of Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks’ (VANET’s) Routing protocols are: AODV DSDV DYMO DSR FSR OLSR

5. Main Softwares NS simulator. MATLAB. Nam MOVE SUMO CONBUILD (developed for Project requirement)

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. cont VANET Scope. Safer roads. Vast areas are accessible. Factors affecting VANETS Vehicle Density. Communication range. Proportion of equipped vehicles.

9. 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.

10. 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 )

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Pros and Cons Best for large and dense networks Less Average End to End delay Time increases in re-discovering broken link

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Modifications.

24. Modifications

25. 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.

26. Simulation Results AODV-M is better than AODV DSR-M behaves same as DSR OLSR better than OLSR-M Communication session AE2ED

27. Simulation Results AODV-M is better than AODV DSR-M better than DSR OLSR-M better than OLSR

28. Simulation Results AODV is better than AODV-M DSR-M is better than DSR OLSR-M same as OLSR NRL Communication session

29. Simulation Results AODV-M is better than AODV DSR-M and DSR remains same. OLSR-M is less efficient than original OLSR Node Density NRL

30. Simulation Results AODV is better than AODV-M DSR-M is same as DSR OLSR better than OLSR-M Communication session PDR

31. Simulation Results AODV is better than AODV-M DSR-M is better than DSR OLSR-M better than OLSR Node Density PDR

32. Trade-off Table ProtocolsAdvantagesDisadvantages (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. OLSRLow AE2ED & high PDR.High NRL.

33. Simulation Results FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

34. Simulation Results FSR-M is better then FSR DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO performs better than DYMO-M

35. Simulation Results FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

36. Simulation Results FSR is better then FSR-M. DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

37. Simulation Results FSR-M is better then FSR. DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO-M Performs better than DYMO

38. Simulation Results FSR-M is better then FSR DSDV-M better than DSDV DYMO-M performs better than DYMO

39. Trade-off Table ProtocolsAdvantagesDisadvantages (Cost) DSDV Leads to high throughput.High AE2ED. DYMO Reduces AE2ED and NRL.Decrease in throughput. FSR More throughput and a decrease in NRL. Increased AE2ED