Analysis and Modeling Experiment Performance Parameters of Routing Protocols in MANETs and VANETs

Abstract

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

On trust management in vehicular ad hoc networks: A comprehensive review

“…The unique characteristics of VANETs, such as centerless infrastructure, high mobility, and frequent network topology changes, create challenging and critical technical issues such as routing reliability, routing QoS, and link failure in order to avoid attackers for a variety of reasons, such as faked location, man-in-the-middle tampering, and malicious information (Chuan, 2012;Eiza & Ni, 2012;Sagar et al, 2012).…”

Cyber Attack Prevention Based on Evolutionary Cybernetics Approach

“…Works devoted to the self-regulation of systems and ensuring their viability [9][10][11], among them there are some works aimed at modeling the behavior of complex systems. The works devoted to functioning and modeling the behavior of self-regulating systems, such as the MANET and VANET networks [12,13], which have a clearly defined target function, can be noted. Complex adaptive and self-regulating systems must be characterized by the coherence of their components and be resistant to destructive influences.…”

The Performance based Evaluation of Models and Routing Protocols for Indian Automotive Networks

“…Unlike proactive routing protocols, reactive protocols do not generate sustained routing overhead. Reactive protocols usually take more time to find a route as compared to a proactive protocol [20]. Both these approaches have their pros and cons and no single routing protocol is able to work efficiently in all possible scenarios.…”