LtWDD h D DLDh DD

WLDh tDL ttLth D D

DD Dh hDL DD
Dr.Parminder Singh, Assistant Professor, CEC Landran, singh.parminder06@gmail.com
Abstract-Vehicular Ad hoc Network provides a
technology for communicating in between different vehicles.
n this paper the performance of vehicular ad hoc network is
evaluated using va rious QOS metrics, which afects the
performance of network communication, also analyze the
QoS performance with metrics routing overhead, packet
delivery ratio and average delay with 1024 bytes packets for
unicast routing protocols(Dynamic Source Routing, Ad hoc
On demand Distance Vector routing) and multicast routing
protocols (Adaptive Demand driven Multicast Routing, On
Demand Multicast Routing Protocol) in urban environment .
Afer evaluation results are compared with 512 bytes
packets(3) to see the diference in performance of vehicles
with diferent packet size. For investigation it uses the
network simulator i.e. ns-2 with a car trafc movement
tracing simulator SUMO.VANET simulation is implemented
in a 5 0 X 5 0 meters grid model of city environment. The
connectivity tests have shown that it is a realistic option to use
ad hoc networks for vehicular communication. For unicasting
DSR and in case of multicasting ADMR perform better as
compared to other protocols.
1nJm Terms-V ANET, DSR, AODV, ODMRP, ADMR
I. INTRODUCTION
V ANET has become an active area of research,
standardization, and development because it has
tremendous potential to improve vehicle and road safety,
traffc effciency, and convenience as well as comfort to
both drivers and passengers. Recent research efforts have
placed a strong emphasis on novel V ANET design
architectures and implementations .. V ANET research has
attracted a lot of attention fom researchers working in
various felds including electronics, networking, security
sofware engineering, automotive, transportation, and so
on. Recent results covering V ANET -related issues include
areas such as routing, Quality Service (QoS), broadcasting,
security attacks and threats, capacity, collision and
interference, the effects of transmission power on protocol
performance and power control algorithms, congestion
control, and service discovery. It is beyond the scope of this
work to review each of these topics[l] .
Routing of data in a vehicular ad hoc network is a
challenging task due to the high dynamics of such a
network. Communication between vehicles by means of
wireless technology has a large potential to improve trafc
safety and travel comfort of d rivers and passengers[ 4].
Traditional ad hoc routing protocols have difculties in
dealing with the high mobility specifc to vehicular ad hoc
networks. Vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) is
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infastructure
communications using wireless local area network
technologies. In general, V ANET is formed when vehicles
need to transmit packets to each other using the wireless
channel. Therefore, vehicles need to have wireless
transceivers and computerized modules that let the vehicles
to act as network nodes. There are a number of
characteristics which differentiate V ANET fom other
types of ad hoc networks. Due to the movement and speed
978-1-4799-2900-9/14/$31.002014llll
278
of the nodes, VANET's topology is very dyamic
compared to traditional mobile ad hoc network (MANET),
and because of that, V ANET's network is always partition,
especially if the vehicle density is low. Unlike traditional
MANET, V ANET does not have any restrictions in term of
energy and storage, since nodes in V ANET are cars, not
handheld devices[2].
This paper involves evaluation of performance in vehicular
ad hoc network with various parameters, for this various
protocols fom tw O c1asses(unicast and multicast) of
routing in V ANET are implemented on ns-2 network
simulator.
Routing is the act of moving information across the
network fom a source to a destination. Pis also referred as
the process of choosing a path over which the packets are
sent. For this various routing protocols are used and these
protocols are diferent fom each other in technology, rules
used for routing packets. Routing in vehicles is wide area of
research. mthis paper routing protocols are implemented to
see the performance of those protocols when implemented
in V ANETs and for comparison also use diferent packet
size for same protocols. Routing can be done with various
ways, in V ANETs unicasting , multicasting is possible and
for diferent routing type different protocol is used. Routing
protocols use several metrics as a standard measurement to
calculate the best path for routing the packets to its
destination that could be. Ad hoc networks are
infrastructureless networks. m vehicular networks vehicles
act as nodes and in Vehicular ad-hoc networks there is no
infastructure support as is the case with wireless networks,
and since a destination node(vehicle) might be out of range
of a source node(vehicle) transferring packets; so there is
need of a routing procedure. This is always ready to fnd a
path so as to forward the packets appropriately between the
source and the destination.
Nodes or vehicles in network are arbitrary, network
topology changes frequently, bandwidth and battery power
in ad hoc networks are limited, topology is unpredictable.
All these issues make routing in vehicular environment
challenging. Providing protocol for reliable routing in
Vehicular Adhoc Environment is still wide area of
research.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we discuss the related work. Various scenarios
and methodology used are provided in Section III. Section
IV involves description of simulation setup. Simulation
study along with the results and discussion are presented in
Section V. Finally, we draw conclusions and fture work in
Section VI.
II. RELATED WORK
Several studies have been conducted for comparing the
routing protocols in MANETs. V ANET is type of
MANETs. In our paper, we have varied the number of
nodes and based our study entirely on V ANETs.
Aslinda Hassan et aI. [2] evaluated the performances of
various routing protocols for the Manhattan mobility model
and concluded that the multicast routing protocols show a
consistent performance as the number of receivers
increase.in our study we evaluate the performance of nodes
in vehicular environment by breaking link in DSR. Jagdeep
et al. [3] evaluate performance of VANETs nodes with
metics delay, Packet delivery ratio and routing overhead
with packet size 512 bytes which is less. In this paper we
evaluate the performance with same metrics and protocols
but with diferent packet size and see the effect when
implement with diferent packet size in urban scenarios.
A. Routing in ANETs
Routing is exchange of information between nodes.
Protocols are set of rules to exchange data between nodes.
Various protocols have been imposed in vehicular
environment for routing, on the basis of basic type of
routing these protocols are classifed as unicast, multicast,
broadcast, geocast routing protocols. Papers [8][9][10]
discuss various routing protocols in V ANETs and
advantages/disadvantages, the applications of various
routing protocols for vehicular ad hoc networks and
explores the motivation behind the designed, and taces the
evolution of these routing protocols.
In our study we evaluate the performance of AODV,DSR,
ODMRP, ADMR protocols which are classifed as:
0tl0g
p|0t0t0l1l0
vH!
.r
reat.rj
,rtoe':
a.s|
reat.rj
;rtoe':
Fig.l. Routing protocols classifcation
Unicasting is to one-to-one routing i.e one sender and one
destination. Multicasting involves one sender and multiple
destinations.
Reactive routing is demand based routing. It opens the route
only when it is necessary for a node to communicate with
each other. It maintains only the routes that are currently in
use, as a result it reduces the burden in the network.
Reactive routing consists of route discovery phase in which
the query packets are fooded into the network for the path
search and this phase completes when route is found. The
various types of reactive routing protocols are AODV,
PGB, DSR and TORA[8]. AI' is arcactivcrouting
protocol for MA!s. lt opcratcs in tvo pLascs
namclyroutc discovcryandroutcmaintcnancc|11].It
has the ability of unicast multicast routing. It uses a
destination sequence number (DestSeqNum) which makes
it diferent fom other on demand routing protocols[9].
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol presented in
[12] which utilize source routing maintain active routes.
It has two phases route discovery route maintenance.
DSR is an on demand routing protocol in which a sender
determines the exact sequence of nodes through which a
packet is propagated[13].
In tree based multicast routing a sender initially foods a
join message to all nodes in the network. Interested nodes
reply to the sender via the reverse path. Afer all reply
messages arrive at the sender, a multicast tee rooted at the
sender is formed[14]. ADMR is tree based multicast
routing protocol.
In ADMR a multicast tee is created when a group sender
originates a multicast packet for the frst time. Interested
nodes reply to the sender's packet to join the group. Each
multicast packet includes the inter-packet time which is the
average packet arrival time fom the sender's application
layer. The inter-packet time lets tee nodes predict when the
next multicast packet will arrive and hence no periodic
control messages are required for tree maintenance[18].
Mesh-based multicast protocols try to solve the robustness
problem of tree-based protocols. They provide redundancy
by using alterative paths in order to mitigate efects of
fe-quent topology changes[I7].On-Demand Multicast
Routing Protocol (ODMRP) [15] is a reactive mesh based
multicast routing protocol. ODMRP uses a forwarding
group concept for multicast packet tansmission, in which
each multicast group G is associated with a forwarding
group (FG). Nodes in FG are in charge of forwarding
multicast packets of gr oup G. In a multicast group of
ODMRP, the source manages the group membership,
establishes and updates the multicast routes on demand.
Like reactive unicast routing protocols, ODMPR comprises
two main phases: the request phase and the reply phase[16]
U. Challenges in ANETs
Main challenges to V ANETs are node density, movement
patter, node velocity,scalability which are to be addressed
and keep in mind while designing and implementing
routlnglnvehlcularenvlrcnment[7].Daeto dyamic
nature of VA NET fnding and maintaining routes is
considered a challenge. Many investigations have been
done in this area and a lot of V ANET routing protocols
have been proposed.
vehicles in general are constrained to move within road
infastuctures (highways, city roads). Furthermore,
constraints imposed by this type of environment, namely
the radio obstacles (ex: buildings) afect considerably the
quality of radio transmissions. Finally, vehicle's mobility is
directly related to the driver behaviour. VANET are
characterized by a p otentially large number of nodes that
are highly mobile (i.e. according to cars' speed). This high
mobility can be more or less important depending on road
nature (small streets vs. highways). Consequently, a node
can quickly join or leave the network in a very short time
leading to fequent network partitioning and topology
changes. These characteristics imply a weak connectivity
reducing the lifetime of the routes.
In our current work, we focus on the routing protocol that is
suitable for handling the characteristics of such
environment[5].
?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/Ccnu/ing1ecbniques||C|C1} 279
280
III. SCENARIO AND METHODOLOGY USED
V ANET simulation is implemented in a 50 x 50 meters grid
model of city environment, which is based on Manhattan
Grid mobility model, also known as City Section Mobility
Model [19]. This model is based on several assumptions.
The frst assumption is that there are two directions in every
street. For vertical direction, mobile node can move either
to north or south, whereas for horizontal direction, it is
either east or west. Based on this model, it is also assumed
that mobile node can only move in the horizontal and
vertical lines on the steets . Figure 2 shows the position of
nodes in city model that is used for the simulation. The
distance between each intersection is by 50 x 50 meters.
Trafc lights are used in a number of intersections to
replicate the natural city environment. For simplicity, the
types of vehicles do not afect the result of the simulation.
w=A
[ :on, 'N_
++
.
tt
.."

O 0 O

i
L L w L
i
O C C 0
O D 0 O C
O 0 O

is
|
. .
FIg.2. vehIcles (nodes)present In network
IV. SIMULATION SETUP
A. Mobilit model
Table 1 shows the mobility mode confguration for this
simulation. This paper also used a tool called SUMO,
which involves tools to provide a graphical user interface
for tafc mobility tracing and to set the simulation
scenario with the parameters in Table I, frther which is
converted to NS-2 confguration to generate the network
tafc trace.
Table 1. Mobility Model Confguration
1aramcIcr aluc
Micro-tafc Simulator Simulation Urban Mobility
(SUMO)
Number of vehicles 21
Speed (m/s) 60 m/s
Number of lanes 5
Simulation time lOO ms
U. Network model
The network model is simulated using NS-2[20][21]
using the mobility trace that is generated by the SUMO
engine[22]. Unicast and multicast routing protocols are
used to transmit multicast packets to the group of receivers.
I
These nodes are randomly picked without any preferences
and the unicast transmissions are done without any
background network trafc.
The simulation uses two unicast routing protocols as
AODV and DSR, two multicast routing protocols- ODMRP
and ADMR.
These protocols are compared in terms of their performance
using the following metrics:
- Average end-to-end delay - measures an average delay
time fom a sender to a destination in second.
- Packet delivery ratio - measures the percentage of the
transmitted data packets that are successflly received.
- Normalized routing load - measures the number of
routing packets tansmitted per data packet delivered at the
destination[2].
Table 11.Network Model Confguration
mulaIon 1aramcIcr aluc
Network Simulator NS-2 version 2.34
Area 50 m x 50 m
Number of nodes 21
Maximum speed (m/s) 60 m/s
MAC IEEE 802. l l b
Transmission range 250 meters in radius
Trafc model Constant bit rate (CBR)
Packet size 512 Bytes, 1024 bytes
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Results with with J1Zbytes!3)
Average Delay with 512 bytes
As the number of nodes increases average delay for all
protocols increases. For DSR average delay is Jess as
compared to other protocols, average delay is between 0 to
5, when number of nodes are upto 6 nodes. Fig 3 shows
sudden decrease due to link down in DSR during
transmission. Afer link-up average delay increases as the
number of receivers increases. For 1 receiver delay is 0-3
seconds. In ODMRP and ADMR average delay increases
with number of receivers. A ODV having maximum
average delay. Graph shows no delays upto 2 nodes. Afer
that delay increases with number of nodes. For ! receiver
delay increases as 4-7 seconds. For ADMR there is
minimum delay upto 2 receivers, afer that sudden increase
and it increases with number of receivers. For single
receiver delay of 2-4 seconds for ADMR protocol when
size is 512 bytes.
?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/Ccnu/ing1ecbniques||C|C1}
|:J]
tL

:
Fig.3. Average delay vs nwber of receivers of 512 bytes
packet [3]
For ODMRP afer 2 receivers delay increases with constant
value of 3-5 seconds for 1 receiver. As the nwber of nodes
increases delay graph goes with constant variation.
Vehicles mobility is resticted to one-dimensional road
geometry. From the fgure 3, that current standard of
V ANET have a limited coverage of a few hundred meters,
fom the perspective of these networks, vehicles on long
highways move in one dimension. Nodes have reputation
information of all the nodes in the network. When a
receiver comes within the communication range of a node
of the support, the receiver is notifed that a message is
waiting for him and the message is then forwarded to the
receiver. Duplicate copies of the message are then removed
fom the other members of the support. The average delay
or communication time of the DSR Protocol is less
compared to other protocols but fuctuation is more.
From Figure 3 and Figure 4 , it is proved that multicast
routing protocols show an increase in average delay and
packet delivery ratio as the number of receivers increase
fom four receivers to 15 receivers. Figure 6.3 shows that
ODMRP manages to sustain delivery ratio at around 51 %
and ADMR has a delivery ratio of 45%. h contast to
multicast protocols, network throughput and packet
delivery ratio for unicast routing protocols begin to drop
for four destination nodes and more.
Packet Delivery ratio with 512 bytes
From fgure 4, for DSR protocol when number of receivers
are less then packet delivery ratio is constant with value 53,
as the nwnber of receivers increases packet delivery ratio
increases. there is sudden decrease due to broken link in
DSR, when link state goes up value in DSR increases with
nwber of receivers, there is fuctuation in curve. AODV
protocol have highest packet delivery ratio in unicast
routing as compared to DSR. There is constant fuctuation
in curve with increase in number of receivers but afer some
point graph shows constant curve.in case of multicast
routing with 512 bytes then packet delivery ration in case
od ADMR is 65-70% for 2-3 receivers. As the nwber of
receivers increase or decrease PDR value fuctuate with
these variations. h case of ODMRP value is highest. PDR
value fuctuate constantly with number of receivers.
" ^
|CK1 LOllVe( |!lO
'
AI[U m8)

_
.
^LV [60 ms)
__
.
____..........

.....

..................

...............;,......

...

_...
bb.000 ',
| '
!
._U
..

..
- ]
UU
......

t ... .
|
.
`U.UUUU
.

.
~~ __ ___ -.- , -
.

.

__@_U

, l.

'
b0.0UdU | '
_U
.

.

.

__U
@.................

....

. -.--' .. '.'

1 0 ]U"U0 10|0 .U0 0|U

Mumr OIHeCe|
Fig.4. Packet delivery ratio vs number of receivers(512
bytes)[3]
From the fgure 4, If only one retansmission of the oldest
unacknowledged segment was performed, the stored
ssthresh and cwnd values will be restored. If more than one
retansmission was performed, ssthresh is halved. If exactly
two such retansmissions were performed, cwnd is set to the
ssthresh (which had been halved previously). If more than
two retransmissions were performed, cwnd is set to one.
Therefore, the more retansmissions, the more conservative
the sender gets.
From the fgure 4, it analyed that Packet Delivery
Ratio(PDR) have large amount of retansmissions
compared to other protocols.
In Figure 4, DSR's delivery ratio shows approximately
99% decrease fom fve receivers to 15 receivers whereas
AODV has approximately 56% decrease.
'
Routing Overhead with 512 Bytes[3]
The simulations conducted proved that V ANET operates in
a 512 Bytes desired and efcient way. fom fgure 5 the
very small communication overhead did not affect data
tansmission in a signifcant way. Even multi-hop
connections can be handled without any negative effects
using the protocol. this method (V2V Communication) is
very suitable for the use in a Vehicular communication
environment with highly mobile nodes communicating
with other Vehicles.
?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/Ccnu/ing1ecbniques||C|C1} 281
From fgure 5 routing overhead in unicast routing with
AODV protocol stays constant, its value does not vary with
number of receivers. With DSR protocol routing overhead
is minimum as compared to other protocols. Value of
overhead stays constant and does not vary with number of
receivers. In case of multicast routing for ADMR protocol
routing overhead is bit more than DSR. There is small
variation in load with variation in number of receivers.
For ODMRP protocol overhead is maximum and vary with
number of receivers.
U. Results with 1UZ bytes
Average Delay with 1024 bytes
From the fgure 3 and fgure 6 It has observed that the delay
almost same when compared to the data bytes of 512 Bytes
and 1024 Bytes.
|::;:J:,.?-,|x(
Fig.6. Average Delay(1024 Bytes)
O: t
.Snv,

K::
when packet size is 1024 bytes then average delay os DSR
protocol for fve nodes increase with value of 0-3 second.
For AODV average delay is highest as compared to other
protocols.in starting when number of receivers are less
then value of delay vary fom 0-3 seconds for 1 node, as the
number of receiver increases this value vary 0-4 seconds for
4 nodes. In case of multicast routing with ADMR protocol
delay lies between 0 to 3 seconds upto 5 nodes, afer that
there is sudden increase in delay, it increases with constant
value of 1 second per increase in number of node. For
ODMRP protocol delay lies between 0 to 3 seconds upto 2
nodes. Afer that 0 to 5 seconds for single receiver.
Routing Overhead 1024 bytes
The simulations conducted proved that V ANET operates in
a 1024 Bytes desired and effcient way compared to 512
Bytes and simulation results analyzed almost similar. The
very small communication overhead did not afect data
tansmission in a signifcant way(see ODMRP Protocol).
Even multi-hop connections can be handled without any
negative effects using the protocol. This method (V2V
Communication) is very suitable for the use in a Vehicular
communication environment with highly mobile nodes
communicating with other Vehicles.
Routing overhead for lO24 bytes is same as with 512 bytes.
From fgure 7 routing overhead in unicast routing with
AODV protocol stays constant, its value does not vary with
number of receivers. With DSR protocol routing overhead
is minimum as compared to other protocols. Value of
overhead stays constant and does not vary with number of
receivers. In case of multicast routing for ADMR protocol
routing overhead is bit more than DSR. There is small
variation in load with variation in number of receivers.
For ODMRP protocol overhead is maximum and vary with
number of receivers.
Packet Delivery Ratio with 1024 Bytes
From the fgure 8, It has observed that PDR almost same
when compared to the data Bytes of 512 and 1024 over a
same scenario.
282 ?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/ Ccnu/ing 1ecbniques ||C|C1}
'
..:`::,..:,|:.:;.:.,
..:.::--

.`~,

l


'' '

@.
'

|JL".l
~ _ ,..
'

'

. -

~~

i.L-

.H

~--- ~------~
"P
l.... l.... ..".. /.T! l J: l11. l.111 :
Fig. 8. Packet Delivery Ratio(1024 Bytes)
There is less fuctuation in curve for 1024 bytes as
compared to 512 bytes. In unicasting with DSR protocol,
maximum value of PDR is 70% . there is sudden decrease
in curve due to link down state. For AODV this ratio is
93-99%, i.e highest ratio as compared to other protocols. h
case of multicast routing with ADMR this ratio is 70-72%
upto 5 nodes. Afer that upto 7 receivers value of PDR for
ADMR protocol is 73-88%, afer that there is sudden
decrease in value with increase in number of nodes. For
ODMRP protocol PDR value for 2 nodes is 91-95 %, afer
this upto 8 nodes, value remain constant, then there is
sudden decrease in value fom 95 to 92 %.
VI. CONCLUSION
DSR is best as it has minimum delay and overhead as
compared to other protocols, in multicast routing ADMR is
better as compared to ODMRP. It is because DSR maintain
information and routing information using cache, no need
to update it again and again which results in less overhead
on network and better performance in terms of va rious
metrics even afer link has been broken, but DSR in high
mobility patter performs worse. Though performance of
AODV is less but it is widely used in networking, as it
reduces excessive memory requirements and the route
redundancy. AODV responses to the link failure in the
network, It can be applied to large scale Adhoc network.
AODV is not better as compared to other protocols as it
require more time to set connection, more overhead on
networking and consume exta bandwidth. h multicasting
ADMR is better as compared to other protocols in
V ANETs, It utilizes the application data sending patter to
avoid periodic contol messages and it can adapt to the
change of mobility but the joining and rejoining processes
waste bandwidth and take time in ADMR. On the basis of
results drawn ADMR having better performance in
V ANETs. ODMRP having highest delay, PDR and
overhead in V ANET i.e low performance. ODMRP ofers
shortest paths reduces data delivery latency. It may be due
to reason that it sufers fom excessive fooding when there
is a large number of senders and the duplicate tansmissions
that waste bandwidth at low mobility. Various tables given
below show performance of these protocols in terms of
Average Delay, Packet Delivery ratio and Routing
Overhead with 512 and 1024 bytes both and what results
show is given in brief.
Table . Performance comparison of routing with 024bytes
Parameters DSR AODV ADMR ODMRP
Average Less delay Highest Average Delay
delay delay delay increase with
number of
nodes
Packet Gradually Highest Sudden Mostly
Delivery decrease, PDR, decrease remain
Ratio maximum
Value lies
afer 7 nodes. constant vary
overhead is between
between
70% 92-95%.
93-99%.
Routing Value remain Having Routing Highest
Overhead constant and maximum overhead overhead,
does not vary value of value is bit value vary
with link 2.1800 x more than with
state . having 10
3
, in case DSR, there is variation in
value ofunicast small number of
1.2000xl0
3
routing. variation receivers,
Value does with number
Maximum
not vary of receivers,
value is
stable value
2.1900x10
3
is 1.2800x 10
3
and
mimimum
value is
2.1000x10
3
?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/Ccnu/ing1ecbniques||C|C1} 283
284
Parameters DSR AODV ADMR ODMRP
52bvtes 024bvtes 52bvtes 024bvtes 52bytes 024bytes 52bvtes 024bytes
Average 0-3 seconds 0-2 seconds 4-7 seconds 3-7 seconds 2-4 seconds Upt05 3-5 seconds Upt02
delay receivers receivers
0-3 seconds, 0-3 seconds,
afer that 3-5 afer that 2-6
seconds seconds
Table IV, Average delay comparison between 52and 024bytes
Table V, Packet Delivery ratio comparison between 52and 024
bytes
Parameters DSR AODV ADMR ODMRP
52bytes 024bytes 52bytes 024bytes 52 024bytes 52bytes 024bytes
bytes
Average Average Highest Less
Packet More Remain Highest Highest value, value as variation in fuctuation in
Delivery fuctuation constant, value & PDR with value compared to curve with curve, value
Ratio in curve less constant value lies other value lies between
fuctuation variation between 93 between protocols, 90-100% 92-97%.
with value
90 to 99%
1111^L1h
[I] Sherali Zeadally et.al. "Vehicular ad hoc networks (V ANETS):
status, results, and challenges", Springer Science+Business
Media, L 2010, Telecommun Syst OI
10.1 007/s11235-0 I0-9400-5
[2] Aslinda Hassan et. a/., 'performance evaluation for multicast
transmissions in vanet , IEEE CCECE 2011 - 001105
[3] Jagdeep Kaur, Dr.Parminder Singh,"Performance Comparison
Between Unicast & Multicast Protocols in Vanet", Interational
Joural of Advanced Technology & Engineering Research
(!JATER),pp.109-115, Volume 3, Issue I, Jan. 2013
[4] Christian Lochert et.al. ," A Routing Strategy for Vehicular Ad Hoc
Networks in City Environments"
[5] Moez Jerbi et. al.," An Improved Vehicular Ad Hoc Routing
Protocol for City Environments ", 2007 IEEE
[6] Pranav Kumar Singh,Kapang Lego, "Comparative Study of Radio
Propagation and Mobilit Models in Vehicular Adhoc Network"
International Journal of Computer Ap-plications (0975 - 8887)
Volume 16- No.8, February 20 II
[7] Rakesh Kumar et.al.,
"
A Comparative Study of Various Routing
Protocols in V ANET", IJCSI International Joural of Computer
Science Issues, Vol. 8, Issue 4, No I, July 2011 ,pp-643-684
[8] Bijan Paul et.al.," V ANET Routing Protocols: Pros and Cons",
International Joural of Computer Applications (0975 - 8887)
volume 20- No.3, April 2011 ,pp-28-34
[9] Fan Li and Yu Wang, "Routing in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: A
Survey ",University of North Carolina at Charlotte, lLLL von|cu|ar
tocnoo|ogyaagaz|oo }uoo2007,pp. f2-22
[10] Saishree Bharadwaj.P et.al..," Performance Evaluation of MANET
Based Routing Protocols for V ANETs in Urban Scenarios", 20 II
International Conference on Network and Electronics Engineering
IPCSlT vol.l I (20 II) (20 I I) IACSIT Press,
Singapore.pp.164-169
to 99% 53 to value lies
90% between 70
to 87%.
[II] Johnson, D. B. and Maltz, D. A. (1996), "Dynamic Source Routing
in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks," Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski
and H. Korth, Eds., Ch. 5, Kluwer, 1996, pp. 153-81.
[12] M.Uma,
"
a comparative study and performance evaluation of
reactive quality of service routing protocols in mobile adhoc
networks
"
, Jo0|nul o| Theo|e||cul und Appl|ed |n|o|mu||on
Technology,Z JFJJ, QQ. ZZO-ZZ
[13] Uma Nagaraj et.al.," Study of Various Routing Protocols in
V ANET", !JCST Vol. 2, Iss ue 4, Oct . - Dec. 20 I I ,pp. 45-52
[14] S.J. Lee, M. Gerla, C.C. Chiang, "On Demand Multicast Routing
Protocol", Proceedings of IEEE WCNC'99, New Orleans, pp.
1298-1302, Sept 1999.
[15] kamal kant et.al," unicast and multicast routing protocols for manets:
a comparative survey".
[16] Alberto Gordillo Munoz," Multicast over Vehicle Ad Hoc
Networks",
[17] chen-che huang," a comprehensive survey of multicast routing
protocols for mobile ad hoc networks", Department of Computer
Science and Information Engineering National Dong Hwa
University,Taiwan
[18] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "Selection
procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the
UMTS; TR 101 112 V 3.1.0 (1997-11)," Tech. Rep., November
1997.
[19] Ke Liu," Network Simulator 2: Introduction",Dept. Of Computer
Science, SUNY Binghamton Spring, 2004
[20] The Network Simulator - ns-2 www.isi.edu/nsnamlns.html.
[21] Michael Behrisch et.al ," SUMO - Simulation of Urban Mobility An
Overview", Institute of Transportation Systems German Aerospace
Center ,germany, The Third interational Conference on Advances
in System Simulation, S?011.
[22] Daniel Krajzewicz,"Recent Development and Applications of
SUMO Simulation of Urban Mobility", Published under agreement
with IARIA, Interational Joural on A dvances in Systems and
Measurements, vol5 no 3 &4, year ?01?.
?01|n/era/icnalCcnjerencecn|ssuesandCballengesin|n/elligen/Ccnu/ing1ecbniques||C|C1}