You are on page 1of 20

ROUTING PROTOCOLS

APPLIED IN VEHICULAR
AD-HOC NETWORKS
(VANETs)

ICATC2120 WIRELESS NETWORKS


TOBIAS GLOCKER
Presented by: Joseph Soliman
• Are we safe?!

• Causes?
(Human factors & Road Design& vehicle design )

• Is there a better way?


• New Technologies.

• Auto Pilot ( Sensors, Radars,


Cameras….etc.)

• Accidents prediction& prevention.

• Equipped vehicles are a gateway to


more advanced technology.

• Machine learning algorithms.


VANETs (Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network)

Vanet Topology

V2I: wireless connection between vehicles and


infrastructure (light poles, traffic light….etc.)

V2V: wireless connection between two or more


vehicles.

Hybrid system: combines V2I&V2V


Applications: Comfort& infotainment
Maintenance Applications
Safety Parking spot locator
SOS services Enhanced route guidance and navigation
Pre-crash sensing Mobile media services
Event data recording
Work zone warning
Curve-speed warning (rollover warning)
Vehicle-based road condition warning
Infrastructure-based road condition warning
Cooperative (forward) collision warning
Emergency electronic brake lights
Blind spot warning / lane change warning
Wrong way driver warning
Rail collision warning

Traffic efficiency
Highway merge assistant
Intelligent traffic flow control
Road surface conditions
weather data
VANETs Characteristics

• Highly dynamic

• Frequent dysconnectivity

• Constrained mobility and prediction

• Coverage

• Latency

• Bandwidth
Networks classification

Connected
We use the term Conn. networks to refer to the traditional
Mobile Ad hoc networks (MANETs) where it is assumed that the
network is connected most of the time. This means that at each
timeslot there is an end-to-end path (space path) that connects
every pair of source and destination. Also, it is implicitly
assumed that the links do not change that fast, which entails
that the routes between sources and destinations do not alter
that much.
Intermittently connected
In the case of the Int. Conn. networks, no contemporaneous
end-to-end paths exist most of the time and communication is
achieved by the store, carry, and forward model of routing.
Disconnected
Such networks are really sparse and the mobility of the nodes
doesn’t allow them to communicate even through spacetime
paths. Actually, the lengths of the space-time paths are too long.
In this class of mobile networks it is preferable to use additional
mobile nodes that move around the network area collecting
messages and transferring them to the destination nodes (Network area = 2002, transmission range = 15 and
varying number of nodes
Communication standards
DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communication)
operates in the 5.9 GHz band. In the US it has been
allocated 75 MHz in the 5.850–5.925 GHz band & in
the EU allocated 70 MHz in the 5.855–5.925 GHz
band. DSRC system supports a vehicle speed up to
200 km/h, nominal transmission range of 300 m (up
to 1000 m), and the default data rate of 6 Mbps (up
to 27 Mbps). DSRC is known as IEEE 802.11p WAVE
(Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments) Multichannel operation in vehicular networks according to the IEEE 802.11p European standard

The Mobile Internet Protocol version 6 (MIPv6) has evolved from Mobile
Internet Protocol version 4 (MIPv4) and was designed to alleviate the
problems like shortage of IP address and the weak security mechanism.
Mobile IP configures the IP address by neighbor discovery or
autoconfiguration mechanisms (statefull and stateless mechanisms).
Addressing in vehicular networks use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) each IP address is statefull auto-configured and managed. DHCP has
been adopted in both IPv4 and IPv6 while the stateless autoconfigured
mechanism is adopted just by IPv6.
Routing Protocols
Topology based routing protocols

The information of all associated nodes is stored in the form of tables and distributed with their neighbors with periodic update of the network
topology. Finding the shortest path algorithm helps initiate the connection between the source and destination nodes. Although the initial route
discovery delay is neglectable but the periodic updating of the information tables and their large size in case of large networks, consume a
considerable portion of the bandwidth. This category might fail in Vanet.

Proactive:
Routing tables get updated with every change in the network topology (DSDV, GSRP, FSR, OLSR, WRP, and TBRPF)

Reactive:
Renew the routing table periodically, flood information packet. (TORA, AODV, PROAODV, DSR and AODV+PGB)

Hybrid:
Most hybrid routing protocols are zone-based, so that the number of nodes is divided into
different zones to make route discovery and maintenance more reliable.(ZRP, HARP)

AODV routing protocol: (a) propagation of RREQ and (b) RREP's path to the source.
Position based routing protocols

In position-based routing protocols all nodes recognize their own locations and their
neighbor node geographic locations using information from the GPS device.
That is used for deciding the route and no route maintenance needed.

Beacon protocols: cyclical: broadcast of short Hello beacons. Beacon pinpoints the existence and
Non-delay tolerant networks location of a node.
(non-DTNs) routing protocols
Beaconless protocols: dynamic characteristics of Vanet, makes receiving cyclic beacons is not always feasible

Only realistic in efficiently populated VANETs.


Data are transmitted to the nearest neighbor to the destination,
in case if that neighbor is not near enough then it’s called to be
achieved the utmost local growth.

Routing protocols for delay-tolerant networks (DTNs)


in intermittent environment when the is no chance of imminent end to end path. known as the carry-and- forward strategy: the node is allowed to store the
packets for certain distance and forward then to the next reachable node. The best known of these protocols are SKVR, VADD, and GeOpps

Hybrid position-based protocols


Utilized in case of connection failure due to reaching the local maximum growth, when the greedy mood is not efficient for reconstructing the connection.
Cluster based routing protocols

A cluster is built of a one cluster head that is responsible of inter &


intra cluster communications and management, and intra cluster
nodes that communicated directly. A cluster is created when nodes
are close to each other. Configuring the cluster and its head node is a
challenging issue. The most common cluster-based routing protocols
are CBR, CBDRP, LORA-CBF, COIN, and TIBCRPH.
Geo-Cast based routing protocols

Instead of broadcasting messages in omnidirectional form, the geo-cast protocols


forward its messages to a particular Zone of Reference (ZOR) in a position based
multicast routing manner. Nodes outside of the ZOR are not alerted to avoid any
overhead. One drawback of geo-cast is network partitioning and the presence of
unfavorable neighbors, which may hinder the proper forwarding of messages. The
various geo-cast routing protocols are IVG, CGR, AGR, ROVER, and Mobi-cast.
Multi-Cast based routing protocols

Taking advantage of the fact that vehicles can support sufficient


energy, multicast protocols use geo-cast routing techniques to flood
data frames to multiple destinations. The routing structure is built
by a mesh or a tree in which there is forwarding nodes function as a
router and others as receivers. The most common multicast routing
protocols are multicast ad hoc on-demand distance vector
(MAODV), adaptive demand-driven multicast routing (ADMR), and
multicast with ant colony optimization for VANETs based on
MAODV (MAV-MAODV), MOLSR, ODMRP, and D-ODMRP
Tree-based multicast routing protocols

In a tree based multicast routing protocol the


distribution tree has to be rebuilt quite often lead
MAODV join operation: (a) RREQ message, (b) RREP message, and (c) MACT message
by the frequent movements of consisting nodes,
that poorly affect the QOS.

Mesh-based multicast routing protocols

sustains a mesh that consists of a connected


component of the network that contains all
receivers in a group
Broadcast based routing protocols

Flooding packets in an exponential manner,


since that every receiving node rebroadcast
the packet again. This will guarantee the
message arrival in a cost of a great overhead,
high probability of collision and high
bandwidth utilization rate. Broadcast-based
routing protocols include BROADCOMM,
UMB, DV-CAST, EAEP, HyDi and DECA.
Hybrid protocols V2V&V2I

Variation between the two communication techniques in a hybrid


system, result the optimal performance. Depending only on V2V
connections would result many transmission gaps that could be fatal.
For that it’s favorable to deploy an infrastructure based network
protocols along VANETs protocols. These protocols can be categorized
into static infrastructure-based and mobile infrastructure-based
routing protocols

Static infrastructure-based routing protocol


To balance between cost and efficiency, a study of the protocols needs
and the RSUs (road side unit) number is needed. RSUs could be
distributed uniformly, only at intersections, or only at region borders
depending on the utilized protocol. Mobile gateway architecture of MGRP

Mobile infrastructure routing protocols


Mobile infrastructure-based routing protocols overcome the
restriction of fixed RSUs. Mobile infrastructure routing protocols
exploit the concept of mobile gateways where RSUs are replaced with
mobile vehicles that function as mobile gateways.

Architecture of the RAR protocol


Conclusion

Simulations could be useful to figure out which protocol is best


equipped to provide reliable and efficient communication channel,
given the characteristics of the network environment along with the
applications requirements.
Affect of vehicles speed on

• end-to-end connections

• Throughput

• One-hop link disconnection


References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision
• https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
• https://www.intechopen.com/books/contemporary-issues-in-wireless-
communications/reliable-communication-in-cooperative-ad-hoc-networks
• https://www.intechopen.com/books/contemporary-issues-in-wireless-
communications/reliable-communication-in-cooperative-ad-hoc-networks
• Antonellis, D., Mansy, A., & Psounis, K. (2008). Towards Distributed Network
Classification for Mobile. fourth international wireless Internet conference (WICON).
• Sharef, B. T., Alsaqour, R. A., & Ismail, M. (2014). Vehicular communication ad-hoc
routing protocols: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 40, 363–
396.

You might also like