You are on page 1of 6

JOURNAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, VOLUME 32, ISSUE 1, APRIL 2016

5

Performance Enhancement of VANET
Routing Protocols
Rasha K. Aswad, and Mohammed A. Abdala
Abstract— VANET is a type of wireless networks that emerged in recent years, which provides communication between the
moving vehicles on the roads, and aims to reduce accidents. The routing protocols in VANET are affected by the vehicles high
speed which leads to frequently link breaks between the communicated vehicles, so the ad hoc routing protocols are adapted
with the VANET characteristics to deliver the data between vehicles in short time. This paper presents three modified proposals
routing protocols namely: ERS-AODV, ART-AODV and COM-AODV routing protocols. These modified routing protocols have
improved the performance of the AODV routing protocol in general. Results show that the COM-AODV has the highest
enhancement.
Index Terms—Vehicular Ad hoc Network(VANET),Routing Protocol, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector(AODV), Com-AODV.

—————————— u ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION

V

ehicular Ad hoc Network (VANET) is part of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) that aims to
enhance the safety and comfort for drivers and passengers and also to decrease traffic congestion. It is formed
between the moving vehicles on the roads. Each vehicle is
embedded with navigation systems such as Global position
System (GPS) which helps in developing multiple types of
applications to enhance the safety of roads [1]. VANETs are
subclass of Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs), but in
VANETs the vehicles are used as mobile nodes to be communicated to each other to form Vehicle to vehicle (V2V)
communication and also the vehicle can communicate with
Road Side Unit (RSU) to form Vehicle to Road (V2R) communication. So these types of communications could help
to prevent the accidents and traffic jam by allowing vehicles to share and disseminate safety information with other
vehicles to warn the drivers. VANET featured by the high
movement, self organization, the predictable and rapid
topology changes; variable density in large scalable network and no power constrain [2]. The routing protocols are
used to set the way of the packet relaying to the intended
node, and to adjust the route failure. The routing protocol
is one of VANET challenges. Many existing MANETs routing protocols have been analyzed in the VANETs by many
earlier researches, but their performance was not suitable
for VANET because of its distinct characteristics. The performance of VANETs routing protocols affected by the
vehicle mobility, highly fragmented network and disruption in network path. An efficient routing protocol is the
one that could deliver the data packet in short time without
consume a lot of bandwidth. So, to develop an efficient
routing protocol: first, it should perform well in (dense and
————————————————

• R.Aswad is with the Department of Networks Engineering, Collage of
Information Engineering, Al-NahrainUniversity, Baghdad, Iraq.
• M.Abdala is with the Department of Networks Engineering, Collage of
Information Engineering, Al-NahrainUniversity, Baghdad, Iraq.

sparse) traffic scenarios and in (city and highway) environments. Second, it should overcome the hurdles in
VANET such as unpredicted topology change of network
[3]. In order to find a suitable routing protocol for VANET,
in [4] we have simulated and analyzed the performance of
three MANET routing protocols (AODV, OLSR, DYMO) in
VANET in city and highway environments. The results
show that AODV routing protocol has highest end-to-end
delay and average throughput. So, it could deliver high
data rate but with highest delay. We have tried to reduce
this delay by making three modifications which will present in the next section.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents AODV routing protocol. The modified proposals
of routing protocol are described in Section III. Section IV is
dedicated to the simulation setup. Section V shows the
simulation results. Conclusion is given in Section VI.

2 AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL
Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [5] is a
reactive routing protocol which is invented to operate in
ad-hoc network. It works in two phases: Route Discovery
and Route Maintenance. The route discovery starts when
the source needs to transmit data and there is no route to
destination. The Route Request (RREQ) packet is broadcasted by the node that needs to transmit data. The source
node waits for a Route Replay (RREP) from the appropriate destination after broadcasting RREQ. If it does not
receive RREP with NET_TRAVERSAL_TIME milliseconds, it will rediscover a path by broadcasting another
new RREQ. The rediscover operation will retry twice. So
the Expanding Ring Search (ERS) used to control the disseminated number of RREQ for each retry. Each repeated
retries by the source to find the destination will create
congestion in a network. So, to reduce this congestion the
source node must use a binary exponential backoff. Each
node receives the RREQ, maintains the source node address that has been sent the first RREQ. These nodes will

6

keep this address until the RREP arrive to the source, but
if the RREQ have been received by the intermediate node
and has not previously processed, then it will replay with
RREP to the source of RREQ. The forward path is created
by the traveling of RREP from the receiver to the sender.
Each node in this path do the following function: selects a
forward point to the RREP sender, updates the
timeout route information, and registers the most upto-date sequence number. The nodes that have not determined in this path will time out after 3000 mill seconds
and the reverse pointers will be deleted. Since the first
RREP was received by the source, then it will start with
data transmission.
The route maintenance phase is needed when the route to
destination has broken which occur due to the node
movement. In this case the node that detects the link
break will forward Route Error (RERR) packet to the
source node. When the RERR was received by the source,
then the source starts searching in the table for the old
route to this node. In case there is no old route, the source
will start discovering new route to that node.

3 MODIFIED PROPOSALS OF AODV ROUTING
PROTOCOL
The delay is one of the main performance metrics for the
VANET network and is one of VANET constrain which
must be as low as possible to deliver the safety message
in few seconds. The routing protocols affect the VANET
performance. In order to reduce the delay while keeping
or increasing the throughput values, the AODV routing
protocol have been enhanced with three different modified proposals namely: ERS-AODV, ART-AODV, and
COM-AODV.

3.1 ERS-AODV Routing Protocol
AODV routing protocol suffers from high delay, because
of the route discovery process in which the node will
broadcast number of RREQ message to find the destination. AODV uses Expanding Ring Search to control the
number of RREQ broadcasting. We have modified this
scheme in [6] which is named M-AODV, but here renamed to ESR-AODV. In Expanding Ring Search- Ad hoc
On demand Distance Vector (ERS-AODV) routing protocol, the source node could reach to the destination quickly
by covering more number of nodes.
3.2 ART-AODV Routing Protocol
Perkins in [7] explained that there are many AODV parameters that affect the AODV performance. One of these
parameters is the Active Route Timeout (ART). It is the
lifetime of route entry in the table which created after the
route discovery process. Its default value is 3000 milliseconds, which means that if the route is not used for 3000
milliseconds, it will be deleted from the route discovery
table. A previous study of the effect of Active Route
Timeout on AODV performance in MANET shows the
effect of high speed on throughput [8]. As the node

moves in high speed, the network topology will change
suddenly, so this leads to lack in connectivity between
nodes. The ART parameter plays an important role in
tolerating the lack of connectivity between nodes. Lower
values of ART in AODV compared with default value of
3000 milliseconds can achieve better packet delivery ratio
since the route state will not be held for a long time which
is preferred in a highly mobile environment. Knowing
that VANET main characteristics is the high mobility, so
ART in AODV has been modified and evaluated in
VANET. Active Route Timeout- Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector (ART-AODV) improve the throughput in
VANET.

3.3 COM-AODV Routing Protocol
In order to overcome the problem of the partitioned network that caused from high mobility in VANET which
lead to decreasing the throughput, and to overcome the
problem of increasing the delay that caused from the
longtime of route discovery process in AODV. A third
modification proposal is put forward by combining between both ERS-AODV and ART-AODV that have been
done in AODV. In this proposal, Combination-Ad hoc On
Demand Distance Vector (COM-AODV) routing protocol
will be performed as follows:
1. In the route discovery process, the node will send
RREQ message to larger number of nodes. This
will help it to find the destination node in smaller
time.
2. If it does not discover the target vehicle, the second trial of link discovery will not take that long
time.
3. If it has found the route, then it will create an entry
for that route in the table. However, if this route
has not been used for the specified ART time after
the last packet has been sent through, it will be
removed. This is very useful in high mobility network, since the link between nodes will break
quickly.

4 SIMULATION SETUP
VANET simulation requires a coupling between both
OMNeT++ [9] as network simulator and SUMO [10] as
traffic simulator. The proposed routing protocols have
been evaluated in two different environments: highway
and city. In each environment, two MAC protocols IEEE
802.11p and IEEE 802.11g are used. For each MAC protocol, the vehicle speed and number of vehicles are varied.
Table 1 represents the traffic parameters in each environment. Table 2 represents the value of the network parameters for each MAC protocol.

5 SIMULATION RESULTS
   In order to obtain the performance of proposed routing
protocols in VANET, the following performance metrics
have been selected:
1. Average Throughput: The total number of packets

7

2.

that have received successfully by the destination
per the unit of time, obtained in bit per second.
End-to-End Delay: The time taken by the data
packets to be transmitted from the sender to the
receiver.
TABLE 1
ENVIRONMENT TRAFFIC PARAMETERS
Parameters

Values
Highway

City

Number of Vehicle

70, 80, 90, 100,
110,120 km/h
25, 50, 75, 100

Number of lanes
Simulation area
Highway Length

3

5 Km

20, 40, 50, 60, 80
km/h
50, 75, 100, 150,
200
3
1500m x 1300m

Maximum Vehicle Speed

TABLE 2
NETWORK PARAMETERS IN EACH MAC PROTOCOL
Parameter
Carrier Frequency
Data Rate
Propagation Model
Mobility Model
Packet Length
Traffic Type
Simulation Time

Value
IEEE 802.11p
IEEE 802.11g
5.89 GHz
2.4 GHz
6 Mbps
24 Mbps
Two Ray Ground
Traci Mobility Model
512 Byte
UDP
600 sec

5.1 Highway Environment
The proposed routing protocols have been evaluated in
highway environment by varying vehicles number and
speed. The number of vehicles is set to 50 when changing the
vehicle speed. However, the maximum vehicle speed is set
to 70km/h when varying the number of vehicles.
Figure 1 and 2 shows the average throughput of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the vehicle speed respectively. It shows that the throughput of the three proposed routing protocols are higher than AODV. In addition to that, the
COM-AODV routing protocol has the highest throughput.

Fig. 2. Throughput vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11p

Figure 3 and 4 displays the end−to−end delay of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the vehicle speed respectively. It shows that the delay of the three proposed routing
protocols are lower than AODV. In addition to that, the
COM-AODV routing protocol has the lowest delay.
Figure 5 and 6 displays the average throughput of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the number of vehicles respectively. It shows that the throughput of the three proposed routing protocols are higher than AODV. In addition
to that, the COM-AODV routing protocol has the highest
throughput.

Fig. 3. Delay vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11g

Fig. 1. Throughput vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11g

Figure 7 and 8 depicts the end−to−end delay of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the number of vehicles respectively. It shows that the delay of the three proposed
routing protocols are lower than delay of AODV. In addition
to that, the COM-AODV routing protocol has the lowest
delay.

8

Fig. 4. Delay vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11p

Fig. 7. Delay vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11g

Fig. 5. Throughput vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11g

Fig. 8. Delay vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11p

Fig. 6. Throughput vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11p

5.2 City Environment
The proposed routing protocols have been evaluated in city
environment by varying vehicles number and speed. The
number of vehicles is set to 75 when varying the vehicle
speed. However, the maximum vehicle speed is set to 50
km/h when varying the number of vehicles.
Figure 9 and 10 shows the average throughput of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the vehicle speed respectively. It shows that the throughput of the three proposed routing protocols are higher than AODV. In addition to that, the
COM-AODV routing protocol has the highest throughput.
Figure 11 and 12 shows the end−to−end delay of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the vehicle speed respectively. It shows that the delay of the three proposed routing
protocols are lower than AODV. In addition to that, the
COM-AODV routing protocol has the lowest delay.

9

Fig. 9. Throughput vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11g

Fig. 12. Delay vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11p

Figure 13 and 14 shows the average throughput of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the number of vehicles respectively. It shows that the throughput of the three proposed routing protocols are higher than AODV. In addition
to that, the COM-AODV routing protocol has the highest
throughput.

Fig. 10. Throughput vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11p

Fig. 13. Throughput vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11g

Figure 15 and 16 shows the end−to−end delay of the three
proposed routing protocols using IEEE 802.11g and IEEE
802.11p MAC protocol against the number of vehicles
respectively. It shows that the delay of the three
proposed routing protocols are lower than AODV. In
addition to that, the COM-AODV routing protocol has
the lowest delay.
Fig. 11. Delay vs. Vehicle Speed using IEEE802.11g

10

6 CONCLUSION

Fig. 14. Throughput vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11p

This paper concerned on modifying AODV routing
protocols (that suffers from a large end-to-end delay
values) in order to enhance its performance in VANET. It
was simulated using OMNET++ as a network simulator
and SUMO as a traffic simulator by considering two
environments: highway and city by varying the vehicle
speed and number of vehicles using two MAC protocols:
IEEE 802.11g and IEEE 802.11p. The average throughput
and EED of the three proposed protocols outperform
AODV routing protocol. The performance of the
proposed COM-AODV routing protocol outperform the
performance of the ART-AODV and ERS-AODV
proposed routing protocols as follows:
I.
In
highway
environment,
the
average
throughput of the proposed COM-AODV
routing protocol is increased with percentage
ranging from 32.2% to 87%. The end-to-end delay
is decreased with percentage ranging from 36.9%
to 55%.
II.
In city environment, the average throughput of
the proposed COM-AODV routing protocol is
increased with percentage ranging from 17.2% to
37.6%. The end-to-end delay of COM-AODV is
decreased with percentage ranging from 25% to
53.7%.

References  
[1]

Fig. 15. Delay vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11g

Fig. 16. Delay vs. Number of Vehicles using IEEE802.11p

X. Wang, “Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks: Applications”, InTech,
2011.
[2] H. Hartenstein and K. Laberteaux, “VANET: Vehicular Applications and Inter- Networking Technologies”, Wiley Publications, 2010.
[3] L. Giordano and L. Reggiani, “Vehicular technologies Deployment and Applications”, InTech, 2013.
[4] A. Indras, R. Murali, and Venkatesh, "Routing Protocols for
Vehicular Adhoc Networks (VANETs): A Review ", Journal of
Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, Vol.
5, Issue 1, pp: 25 - 43, 2014.
[5] S. Kumar, T. Basavaraju, and C. Putamadappa, “Ad hoc mobile
wireless networks: principles, protocols, and applications”,
CRC Press, 2008.
[6] R. K. Aswed, and M. A. Abdala, “ End-to-End Delay Enhancement with AODV in VANET”, International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science, Technology & Engineering, Vol. 3,
Issue 11, pp: 227-232, 2014.
[7] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royar, and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-demand
Distance Vector routing", Request For Comments (Proposed
Standard) 3561, Internet Engineering
Task
Force
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt? Number =3561, 2003.
[8] W. Al-Mandhari, K. Gyoda, and N. Nakajima, “Ad-hoc On
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Performance Enhancement
with Active Route Time-Out Parameter”, Journal of WSEAS
Transactions on Communications, Vol. 7, Issue 9, pp: 912 – 921,
2008.
[9] OMNeT++ Discrete Event Simulator, Date Accessed: April
2015, http://omnetpp.org/.
[10] SUMO-Simulation Urban Mobility, Date Accessed : April, 2015,
http://sumo-sim.org.