Robust geocast routing protocols for safety and comfort applications in VANETs

Abstract

Routing in cooperative vehicular networks is a challenging task because of high mobility of vehicles and difficulty of localization. In this paper, we study the geocast routing problem in Vehicular Ad‐hoc NETworks (VANETs), which aims at delivering data to a specific group of mobile vehicles identified by their geographical location. Although many geocast routing protocols have been proposed, only partial inherent constraints of VANETs (such as mobility, internal network fragmentation problem, external network fragmentation problem, and overload) are taken into account. Therefore, we propose two novel and robust geocast routing protocols: the first one, called Robust Geocast Routing Protocol for Safety Applications (RGRP‐SA), is dedicated to road safety applications, while the second, namely, Robust Geocast Routing Protocol for Comfort Applications (RGRP‐CA), is designed for comfort applications. Simulations conducted in NS‐2 demonstrate that our safety‐oriented RGRP‐SA protocol outperforms Inter‐Vehicle Geocast protocol and Mobicast Routing Protocol in VANETs by sending up to 25% more packets, cutting the end‐to‐end delay in half, and solving the internal network fragmentation problem. Besides, it is also shown that our comfort‐oriented RGRP‐CA protocol serves well comfort applications with only light overhead by solving internal and external network fragmentation problems and providing more reliable data delivery (with a 25% higher packet delivery ratio) and higher network throughput utilization in comparison with Mobicast with Carry‐and‐Forward protocol. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A review of Multicast Routing Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)

“…This protocol is developing an application to deliver reliable emergency messages in a specific geographical region. [16,17] Advantages, this protocol has network fragmentation and is avoided by using the ZOF approach. When reducing network load, the protocol does not exchange beacons periodically.…”

“…High packet delivery rates in good networks, hence increasing the density ratio by using ZOF. [16,17] Disadvantages, overhead the network and increase the packet delivery ratio by increasing the delay of the packet because of more geocast messages available and kept alive with a long duration at ZOR. [16,17] 4.6.…”

Advanced Greedy Hybrid Bio-Inspired Routing Protocol to Improve IoV

“…The perfect path between vehicles should have a lower end-to-end delay calculated by (14), so more packets can be transmitted on the link with less time.…”

“…These protocols are divided into geo-cast and cluster routing. In geo-cast routing [14], a packet is forwarded from one source to all the vehicles located in a fixed geographical area called a Zone of Relevance (ZoR) [6]. In cluster routing [15], the network is split into several cluster members, a cluster head is responsible for inter and intra-cluster coordination.…”

Routing and Scheduling Issues in Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks

“…All the neighbors belonging to the risk areas are calculated and time takeoff which promotes the furthest node to relay on the broadcast the message. This makes use of beacons technique [63].…”