In wireless ad-hoc networks, routing protocols are used to calculate efficient routes. These protocols are divided into two main categories with respect to their routing behavior; ondemand (reactive) and table driven (proactive). Reactive routing protocols calculate routes for destination in the network, when it is needed therefore these are known as on-demand routing protocols. Proactive protocols are based on periodic exchange of control messages and maintaining routing tables, that is why these are known as table-driven routing protocols for complete implementation of topology locally. Reactive protocols usually takes more time to find a route as compared to a proactive protocol. For our analysis, we have selected two reactive routing protocols, DSR [1] and DYMO [2] and one proactive routing protocol DSDV [3]. Moreover, we also enhance DSR and DYMO to obtain efficient performance. To validate the efficiency of these enhancements, simulations are performed in NS-2 by considering different scalabilities using RandomWay Point propagation model. II. RELATED WORK AND MOTIVATIONSeveral studies have been made for comparing different MANETs routing protocols using different performance metrics. Performance study which is presented in [4], discusses a delay time analysis for multi-hop Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication over linear VANETs. Authors in this paper discuss only about Packet Delivery rate (PDR) and End-toEnd Delay (E2ED), however, we have also discussed about the Normalized Routing Overhead (NRO).Performance analysis of two reactive protocols, AODV and DSR is compared by A. Shastri et al. [5] with varying pause time, scalability and number of connections only in VANETs. On the other hand, we compare reactive protocols with proactive ones, like AODV, AOMDV, DSDV and DYMO are evaluated by Mohammad Azouqa et al. [6] with performance metrics PDR, AE2ED and NRO versus number of nodes in VANETs.Performance evaluation of AODV and DSR with varying pause time and node density over TCP and CBR connection in VANETs is compared by [7].Saishree Bharadwaj.P. et al. in [8], compare the performance of AODV and DSDV in Urban Scenario of VANETs.Rajeshwar Singh et al. [9] evaluate the performance of DSDV and DSR using performance metrics; throughput and Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF) with varying scalability in MANETs.In [10], authors compared AODV, DSR and DSDV on the basis of TCP traffic pattern only in MANETs.DYMO is a reactive routing protocol and the main candidate for the upcoming reactive MANET routing protocols. It is based on the work and experience from previous reactive routing protocols, especially AODV and DSR [11].The studies that have been done so far from [4] to [8], compare the performance of routing protocols in VANETs only and the studies from [9] to [11] compare the performance of protocols only in MANETs. In this paper, we compare two
Abstract-Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks (MANETs) comprise on wireless mobile nodes that are communicating with each other without any infrastructure. Vehicular Ad-hoc NETwork (VANET) is a special type of MANETs in which vehicles with high mobility need to communicate with each other. In this paper, we present a novel framework for link availability of paths for static as well as dynamic networks. Moreover, we evaluate our frame work for routing protocols performance with different number of nodes in MANETs and in VANETs. We select three routing protocols namely Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), Fish-eye State Routing (FSR) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR). Furthermore, we have also modified default parameters of selected protocols to check their efficiencies. Performance of these protocols is analyzed using three performance metrics; Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Normalized Routing Overhead (NRO) and End-to-End Delay (E2ED) against varying scalabilities of nodes. We perform these simulations with NS-2 using TwoRayGround propagation model. The SUMO simulator is used to generate a random mobility pattern for VANETs. From the extensive simulations, we observe that AODV outperforms among all three protocols. Index Terms-AODV, FSR, OLSR, packet delivery ratio, endto-end delay, normalized routing load, MANETs, VANETsI. INTRODUCTION MANETs comprise of wireless mobile nodes that are communicating with each other without any centralized control. MANETs are self-starting network and consist of collection of mobile users that communicate over wireless links with reasonably constrained bandwidth independently. In MANETs, each node acts as a specialized router, thus, it is capable of forwarding packets to other nodes. Topologies of these networks are random and are changed frequently.VANET is a special type of MANET in which nodes (Vehicles) with high mobility can communicate with each other. Due to expensive employment in real world their simulations are required comprehensively. There should be broad level study so that the movement patterns of vehicles can be modeled accurately. VANETs are distributed, self-organizing communication networks built up by moving vehicles. These nodes are highly mobile and have limited degrees of freedom in the mobility patterns. In VANETs, routing protocols and other techniques must be adapted to vehicular-specific capabilities and requirements. A range of many useful applications
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.