You are on page 1of 9

LITERATURE SURVEY

David B. Johnson et al. presents Protocol for routing in ad hoc networks that uses dynamic source
routing. The protocol adapts quickly to routing changes when host movement is frequent, yet
requires little or no overhead during periods in which hosts move less frequently. Based on results
from a packet-level simulation of mobile hosts operating in an ad hoc network, the protocol
performs well over a variety of environmental conditions such as host density and movement rates
[19]. David B. Johnson et al. concluded that the overhead of the protocol is quite low, falling to just
1% of total data packets transmitted for moderate movement rates in a network. In all cases, the
difference in length between the routes used and the optimal route lengths is negligible, and in most
cases, route lengths are on average within a factor of 1.02 ofoptimal [19].

Otman Basir et al. propose a new region-based location-service-management protocol (RLSMP)
that uses mobility patterns as means to synthesize node movement and, thus, can be used in large
VANET applications. The protocol attempts to relax the scalability issue suffered by other protocols
by employing message aggregation in location updating and in querying. Furthermore, due to the
protocols intrinsic locality awareness, it achieves minimum control overhead [20]. Otman Basir et
al. concluded that the RLSMP achieves substantial communication overhead reduction and
improves the locality awareness when increasing the cell size as well as the network size. As such,
the RLSMP stands out as a promising candidate for large-scale wireless ad hoc networks such as
VANETs [20].

Christian Lochert et al. analyze a position-based routing approach which was geographic (GSR) that
makes use of the navigational systems of vehicles. By means of simulation we compare this
approach with non-position-based ad hoc routing strategies (Dynamic Source Routing and Ad Hoc
On-Demand Distance Vector Routing) [21].

Monika et al. exploit the position based routing for VANET. They take the benefit of BMFR
protocol to reduce the number of hops. Further take advantage of AMAR for optimizing the path
with the help of speed and direction in addition to position of neighbor nodes. Finally to resolve the
conflict between two competitive nodes they use an attribute named probability to prevent the
packet to be forwarded in wrong direction. VANET is a special type of MANET in which vehicles
act as nodes. Unlike MANET, vehicles move on predefined roads, vehicles velocity depends on the
speed signs and in addition these vehicles also have to follow traffic signs and traffic signals [22].
There are many challenges in VANET that are needed to be solved in order to provide reliable
services. Stable & reliable routing in VANET is one of the major issues. Monika et al. Concluded
that B-MFR (Border-node based most forward within radius routing) protocol reduce the number of
hops but in B-MFR a problem which is confliction between two radius node for reducing that
problem author uses AMAR (Adaptive Movement Aware Routing) protocol, This protocol makes
use of additional information about vehicle movement to select an appropriate packets next-hop
that ensures the data delivery. In this scheme, a border node is selected out of the two conflicting
nodes by making use of mobility awareness i.e. by using some parameters like speed and direction
[22].

Udit Agarwal et al. have presented an overview of various routing protocols in VANET. While a
number of schemes for handling routing and information dissemination in vehicle networks exist,
few may be able to handle the requirements of safety applications. This is mainly due to the
overhead in discovering and/or maintaining routes and node positions in highly mobile networks of
uncoordinated vehicles. Position of the vehicle is one of the most important data for vehicles.
Position based routing protocols need the information about the physical location of the
participating vehicles to be made available [23]. After analyzing the survey of protocols, Authors
concluded that the position based routing has better performance because there is no creation and
maintenance of global route from source node to destination node. In the position based routing
protocol, all the packets are received with small average delay, better throughput, and effective
utilization and also helps to prevent the accidents on the road effectively. Overall, routing vehicle
safety communications remains a challenging topic requiring innovative approaches [23].

The network topology and communication conditions get varies heavily when we route the data
packets via in any network (ad voc), so routing through VANET become very complex. If they
suggest a particular model for particular situations for example Highway Mobility Model for
highway or for City/ Town Mobility Model for city, with available protocols then by using again
simulator they can evaluate the performance of network i.e. VANET [24]. After simulation Sanjay
N. Kandekar et al. realized that position based routing method of VANET outperformed the
traditional ad hoc topology based routing. However, it is hard to provide any universal routing
protocol that can deal with all the various environments of VANET. The selection of a single
routing protocol is hard in VANET because the protocol performance depends on vehicle speed,
driving environment etc. That may vary from one environment of network to another [24].

A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a self-configuring less infrastructure network of mobile
devices connected by wireless links. Ad hoc is Latin and means "for this purpose". Each device in a
MANET is free to move independently in any direction, and will therefore change its links to other
devices frequently. Each must forward traffic unrelated to its own use, and therefore be a router.
The primary challenge in building a MANET is equipping each device to continuously maintain the
information required to properly route traffic. Such networks may operate by themselves or may be
connected to the larger Internet [25]. An ad hoc wireless network should be able to handle the
possibility of having mobile nodes, which will most likely increase the rate at which the network
topology changes. Accordingly the network has to be able to adapt quickly to changes in the
network topology. This implies the use of efficient handover protocols and auto configuration of
arriving nodes [25]. P.Senthilkumar et al. give the definition of (MANET) Mobile ad hoc network
MANET is a wireless network that transmits from computer to computer. Instead of using a central
base station (access point) to which all computers must communicate, this peer-to-peer mode of
operation can greatly extend the distance of the wireless network. To gain access to the Internet, one
of the computers can be connected via wire or wireless to an ISP [25].
A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) consists of a number of mobile wireless nodes; the
communication between these mobile nodes is carried out without any centralized control. MANET
is a self organized and self configurable network where the mobile nodes move arbitrarily. The
mobile nodes can receive and relay packets as a router. Routing is a critical issue and an efficient
routing protocol makes the MANET reliable. There are two types of features of MANET - absence
of fixed infrastructure and absence of central administration [25].
Shah et al. Due to the highly dynamic nature of mobile nodes and the absence of a central controller,
traditional routing protocols used for a wired network cannot be applied directly to a MANET.
Some of the considerations required in the design of MANET routing protocols include the mobility
of nodes, unstable channel states and resource constraints such as power and bandwidth. In a
MANET, the movement of nodes will cause communication between nodes to be disrupted from
frequent path breaks and reconnections. Also, the broadcasting of radio channels can be highly
unstable and the network layer has to interact with the MAC layer for available channels. In
addition, power availability is often limited since the nodes are connected to batteries [26]. Shah et
al. concluded that the average dropped packets for AODV and the average dropped packets for
DSDV between AODV and DSDV authors conclude the number of dropped packets is less in
DSDV. Cumulative sum of all the Dropped Packets in AODV and DSDV are also compared where
the throughput of DSDV is found good. Also End to end delays in AODV and DSDV are compared
which concludes that the average of End to end delay in DSDV is lesser [26].

M.Shahaya Sheela et al. used random waypoint mobility model for analyzing execution time with
MANET routing protocols [11].
Random Waypoint (RWP) model is a commonly used synthetic model for mobility, e.g., in Ad Hoc
networks. It is an elementary model which describes the movement pattern of independent nodes by
simple terms [11].
Each node moves along a zigzag line from one waypoint to the next
The waypoints are uniformly distributed over the given convex area, e.g. unit disk.
At the start of each leg a random velocity is drawn from the velocity distribution (in the basic case
the velocity is constant 1)
Optionally, the nodes may have so-called "thinking times" when they reach each waypoint before
continuing on the next leg, where durations are independent and identically distributed random
variables.

Charles E. Perkis et al. present an innovative design for the operation of such ad-hoc networks
which is they inrtroduced DSDV. The basic idea of the design is to operate each Mobile Host as a
specialized router, which periodically advertises its view of the interconnection topology with other
Mobile Hosts within the network. This amounts to a new sort of routing protocol [12]. They have
investigated modifications to the basic Bellman- Ford routing mechanisms. Providing convenient
connectivity for mobile computers in ad-hoc computers is a challenge that is only now being met.
They have presented DSDV protocol, which models the mobile computers as routers, which are
cooperating to forward packets as needed to each other. They make good use of the properties of the
wireless broadcast medium. There approach can be utilized at either the network layer (layer 3), or
below the network layer but still above the MAC layer software in (layer3) [12].

Teressa Longjam et al. found that the packet delivery ratio for DSDV is greater than AODV, the
throughput of DSDV is found to be more than AODV and routing overhead is greater in AODV
than in DSDV. But the performance of the routing protocols depends on the size of the network and
the number of connections made between the nodes so it cannot really say which one will be best
and which should be use all the time. DSDV is more preferable regarding the throughput and packet
delivery ratio for size network we are using here [14].

Yufei cheng et al. represented the implementation of DSDV routing protocol in ns-3. They analyzed
DSDV in varying node densities compared its performance against OLSR and AODV those result
indicate that DSDV overhead increases the as the node density increases and PDR performance of
the DSDV is inversely affected as the overhead increases [15].

Naigende Duncan et al. proposed EEDSR, an extension of DSR that reduces routing overhead by
limiting the number of route discovery and maintenance packets in the MANET. The scheme
involves bigger packet headers for the source route discovery packets since they contain
information about the energy levels of the nodes in the route cache. In EEDSR, since the RREQ
packets are flooded once for each communication period, routing overhead is minimized [16]. The
Dynamic Source Routing Naigende Duncan et al. is an on-demand protocol based on source routing.
It consists of two main mechanisms that allow the discovery and maintenance of routes in the
VANET. In the Route Discovery mechanism, a source node, S wishing to send a packet to a
destination node, D obtains a source route to the destination. If the source does not have a route to
the destination, it performs a route discovery by flooding the network with route request (RREQ)
packets. The RREQ packet contains the destination node address, the source node address and a
unique Request ID Any node that has a path to the destination in question can reply to the RREQ
packet by sending a route reply (RREP) packet. The reply is sent via the route recorded in the
RREQ packet Naigende Duncan et al. Several possible routes from S to D form a
route cache. If the route cache possesses multiple routes to the destination, the routing logic
selects the route with minimum hop to the destination [16].
The use of direct wireless communications among local surface elements will be necessary to
achieve optimal communications efficiency. However, the surface elements are mobile and may
lose communication with one another, due to traveling either out of range or behind an obstruction.
This problem can be addressed through the use of a mobile ad hoc network routing protocol,
allowing nodes unable to communicate directly to remain in contact by relaying data through one or
more intermediate nodes [17]. To test this method of dynamic surface-to-surface communications,
Jerry Toung et al. implemented the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol in a UNIX-based test
environment. DSR is an efficient routing protocol that allows independent wireless nodes to self-
organize into an ad hoc network. To enhance performance, forwarding and routing functions are
split between kernel and user space, respectively. They have conducted field testing to determine
the performance and effectiveness of DSR in maintaining connectivity among mobile nodes in the
presence of communications outages caused by distance or obstructions [17].

Jerry Toung et al. test results indicate that ad hoc routing protocols such as DSR have the potential
to greatly increase the flexibility of surface communications. By allowing surface nodes to relay
data among themselves, the effective communication range of a surface-based workgroup can easily
adapt to nodes moving about a work area in the presence of obstructions. Test results also suggest
that more work is needed to make the route discovery process more robust in the presence of
transient packet losses [17].
Routing protocols for VANETS have been reviewed by Mingliu Zhang et al. with particular
consideration of their application to sparse conditions as would occur in rural areas. Considerable
research has shown that position-based protocols perform well in dense VANETs, little attention
has been directed to rural VANETS, where low node densities and terrain effects are significant
factors. Protocols that do not require a location service may be beneficial in these situations and a
simple epidemic routing approach is shown to be effective, but according to Mingliu Zhang et al.
protocol suffers from the disadvantages of flooding as the node density increases. A BBR protocol
was proposed for partially connected VANETs [19]. Mingliu Zhang et al. evaluated that the
performance of the BBR protocol, they has been evaluated and the simulation results indicate that
BBR performs well for networks with frequent partitioning and rapid topology changes. High
packet delivery ratios can be achieved with long packet delivery delays when the network is highly
partitioned. The BBR protocol yields a better performance when the network is partially connected
and demonstrates comparable performance to reactive protocols when the network is fully
connected [19]. This new protocol is well suited for vehicle to vehicle communications along
sparsely used highways, as would be the case in rural and remote areas.

REFRENCES
[1] IEEE P802.11p, Amendment 3: wireless access in vehicular environments (WAVE), Draft
D0.26, January 2006.
[2] N. Balon, and J. Guo, Increasing Broadcast Reliability in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, In
Proc. of the 3rd ACM Int. Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks VANET'06, NY, USA, pp.
104-105, 2006.
[3] H. Alshaer and E. Horlait, An optimized adaptive broadcast scheme for inter-vehicle
communication, In Proc. of the 61st Int. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf. VTC05, vol.5, pp.
28402844, 2005.
[4] G. Korkmaz, E. Ekici, F. zgner, and U. zgner, "Urban multi-hop broadcast protocol for
inter-vehicle communication systems," In Proc. of the 1st ACM Int. Workshop on Vehicular Ad
Hoc Networks VANET'04, NY, USA, pp. 76-85, 2004.
[5] J. Harri, F. Filali, and C. Bonnet, Mobility models for vehicular ad hoc networks: a survey and
taxonomy, The Institut Eurecom Department of Mobile Communications, FRANCE, 2007.
[6] GM advanced technology, Vehicle-to-Vehicle technology,
http://media.gm.com:8221/us/gm/en/technology/advanced_technology/safety_telematics/
V2V_communications.htm
[7] Assessment of the applicability of cooperative vehicle-highway automation systems to bus
transit and intermodal freight: case study, California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
(PATH), 2004.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1629&context=its/path
[8] London Congestion Charging Technology Trials, Transport for London, Feb 2005.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/technology-trials.pdf.
[9] G. Korkmaz, E. Ekici, F. zgner, and U. zgner, "Urban multi-hop broadcast protocol for
inter-vehicle communication systems," In Proc. of the 1st ACM Int. Workshop on Vehicular Ad
Hoc Networks VANET'04, NY, USA, pp. 76-85, 2004.
[10] B. Parno, and A. Perrig Challenges in securing vehicular networks, In Proc. of the Int.
Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-IV), 2005.
[11] A. Huhtonen, Comparing AODV and OLSR Routing Protocols, session on Internetworking,
April 2004.
[12] A. Aaron and J. Weng, Performance Comparison of Ad-hoc Routing Protocols for Networks
with Node Energy Constraints, IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, 2004.
[13] Elizabeth M. Royer, Chai-Keong Toh, A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc
Mobile Wireless Networks, IEEE Personal Communications, April 1999.
[14] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector
Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Computers, Comp. Comm. Rev., Oct. 1994, pp. 234-44.
[15] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. Hu and J. Jetcheva, A Performance comparison of
multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols, in Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Mobile
Computing and Networking, pp. 85-97, October 1998.
[16] C. Adjih, M. Pascale, M. Paul, B. Emmanuel and P. Thierry, "QoS support, security and OSPF
interconnection in a MANET using OLSR," Ad Hoc Networks Journal, 2008.
[17] Alex Vallejo, Guiomar Corral, Jaume Abella and Agustin Zaballos, "Ad hoc routing
performance study using OPNET modeler," University Ramon Llull, Barcelona ,Spain, 2006.
[18] C. Adjih, M. Pascale, M. Paul, B. Emmanuel and P. Thierry, "QoS support, security and OSPF
interconnection in a MANET using OLSR," Ad Hoc Networks Journal, 2008.
[19.]David B. Johnson, "DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad
Hoc Networks" omputer Science Department
Carnegie Mellon University.

[20]Otman BasirEmerging New Trends in Hybrid Vehicle Localization Systems, Global
Navigation Satellite Systems: Signal, Theory and Applications, Shuanggen Jin (Ed.),(pp. 279
298).InTech.ISBN: 978-953-307-843-4

[21]Christian Locher, "Probabilistic Aggregation for Data Dissemination in VANETs
" Computer Networks Research Group Heinrich Heine University Dsseldorf.



[22]Monika Khatri, Sona Malhotra An Insight Overview Of Issues And Challenges In Vehicular
Adhoc Network Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, Volume 2, No. 12, December
2011

[23]Udit Agarwal and Monika Saxena Comparative and Behavioral Study of Various Routing
Protocols in VANET International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and
Software Engineering3(10),October - 2013, pp. 769-773.

[24]Sanjay N. Kandekar Issues and future developments in Ad hoc Routing Protocols in VENET
2005.

[25]P.Senthilkumar, M.Baskar and K.Saravanan, A Study on Mobile ADHOCK Network
(MANETS) Journal ofManagement and Science, Vol. 1, No.1, Sep 2011, pp. 16-22

[26]Shah S., Khandre A., Shirole M. and Bhole G.. Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing
Protocols Using NS2 Simulation,Mobile and Pervasive Computing, CoMPC2008.











.