Minor Thesis Presentation

By: Junaid M. Shaikh Supervisor: Dr. Ivan Lee

A Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols

in VANET Environment Using

OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES WORKFLOW SIMULATIONS DEMO RESULTS EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORK
3

INTRODUCTION

Technology is moving us from wired to wireless networks

Structured Networks (WLAN) Unstructured Networks (Mobile Ad hoc Network - MANET)

Vehicular Ad hoc Network VANET

VANET

Vehicles form network Vehicles equipped with

Wireless transceivers Computerized control modules Drop point Geographically relevant data Gateway to internet
VANET Scenario (Source: MoNet Lab)

Roadside Units

VANET APPLICATIONS

Safety

Accident avoidance warnings

Rapid rescue service

Convenience

Detour information Toll road payments Geographically-oriented local information

Entertainment

Internet access
Multimedia entertainment V2V Communication
6

RESEARCH CONSIDERATION

Network Layer

Ad hoc Routing Protocols

Proactive (routes update periodically)

DSDV AODV AOMDV DSR

Reactive (routes update on-demand)

Nodes Movement

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Analyzing data dissemination in VANETs Identify and Study Routing Protocols in VANET

Highest Delivery Ratio Lowest End-to-End Delay Deploy realistic vehicular traces

Mobility Models

Obtained: Multi-agent microscopic traffic simulator (MMTS) Developed: K. Nagel (at ETH Zurich) Available for research community
8

NS-2 (Network Simulator)

Network simulator targeted at networking research Almost complete OSI features with open-source Simulation components

Nodes (hardware entities) Agents (software entities; TCP, UDP) Links (for nodes connections) Traffic generators (source, sink)

Simulation operations

Event scheduler Network creation Tracing, etc

9

WORKFLOW
Mobility and Traffic Generator City Scenario Highway Scenario

TCL File with support of Mobility Patterns, Comm. Paradigms, Reliability constraints, and Related Parameters

Compile

NS-2 Simulator

AODV AOMDV DSR DSDV Multiple Trace & NAM Files

Trace File Analysis (Preferably AWK Script)

10

SIMULATIONS

City Model

Density Levels

Low Medium High

Highway Model

Density Levels

Low Medium High

11

CITY MODEL (Parameters)

Common Parameters
Variable Value

Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable No. of Nodes Max. Connections 8

Simulation time

300 s Low 12

Topology size

4000 m x 7000 m Medium 260 150

Routing Protocols

AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV

High Traffic Type TCP

812

150

12

CITY MODEL (Mobility Traces)

Google Map View Simulator View

13

HIGHWAY MODEL (Parameters)

Common Parameters
Variable Value

Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable No. of Nodes Max. Connections 150

Simulation time

300 s Low 370

Topology size

14000 m x 10000 m Medium 837 150

Routing Protocols

AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV

High Traffic Type TCP

1112

150

14

HIGHWAY MODEL (Mobility Traces)

Google Map View Simulator View

15

DEMO
CITY HIGHWAY

16

CITY

17

HIGHWAY

18

TRACE FILE & AWK SCRIPT

M s r s r r s 0.01000 7 (3076.65, 4672.97, 0.00), (3198.59, 4629.61), 13.65 2.556838879 _1_ AGT --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] 2.556838879 _1_ RTR --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] 2.560742394 _1_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 2.561962728 _4_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2.561963021 _6_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2.604736825 _1_ RTR --- 2 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 [0] 0 0 [0] 0 0 0] 1 [1 1] [0 2:255 32 0] 1 2:255 32 0] 1 0] 1 [1 2] [0

1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0] [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0] [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0] 2 0 0->16] [0 0 0 0->0]

#packet delivery ratio # # Sent tcp packets # if($4 == "AGT" && $1 == "s" && seqno < $6) { seqno = $6; } #receivedPacketSeqno[receivedPackets] = $12; # # Received tcp packets # #else if((($6%2) == 1) && ($1 == "r") && ($7 == "tcp")){ else if (($4 == "AGT") && ($1 == "r")){ rpkt++; }

# # end-to-end delay # if($4 == "AGT" && $1 == "s") { start_time[$6] = $2; } else if(($7 == "tcp") && ($1 == "r")) { end_time[$6] = $2; } else if($1 == "D" && $7 == "tcp") { end_time[$6] = -1; } }

19

RESULTS (CITY)

City Model

3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files

Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay

Routing Metrics

20

RESULTS (CITY)
Packet Delivery Ratio
120.00%

100.00%

Delivery Percentage (%)

80.00%

60.00%

City Low Density City Medium Density City High Density

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% AODV AOMDV DSR Routing Protocols DSDV

21

RESULTS (CITY)
Average End-to-End Delay
450 400 350 300 Time (msec) 250 City High Density 200 150 100 City Medium Density City Low Density

50
0 AODV AOMDV DSR Routing Protocols DSDV

22

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)

Highway Model

3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files

Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay

Routing Metrics

23

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
Packet Delivery Ratio
120.00%

100.00%

Delivery Percentage (%)

80.00%

60.00%

Highway Low Density Highway Medium Density Highway High Density

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% AODV AOMDV DSR Routing Protocols DSDV

24

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
Average End-to-End Delay
300

250

200 Time (msec.)

150

Highway High Density Highway Medium Density Highway Low Density

100

50

0 AODV AOMDV DSR Routing Protocols DSDV

25

EVALUATION
Evaluative Routing Metrics
Packet Delivery Ratio Rating Score Average End-to-End Delay Rating Score

Routing Protocols

Weighting Factor

Total Score

AODV

4 4 3 2

4 4 2 1

16

2 2 3 4

8 8 9 8

24 24 15 10
26

AOMDV

16 6 2

DSDV

DSR

Weighted Evaluation Matrix

CONCLUSIONS

Through major aspects of rigorous simulations followed by certain evaluations, AODV and AOMDV remained preferable for both city and highway scenarios used in for this project. DSDV good in city scene but not suitable for highway DSR remained acceptable only for E2E delay
Total Score

30
25 20

15
10 5 0 AODV AOMDV DSDV DSR

Total Score

27

FUTURE WORK

Mobility Traces

Adelaides Data
New routing protocols

Utilize Test Bed

28

Thank you for listening. Q&A

29