Minor Thesis Presentation By: Junaid M. Shaikh Supervisor: Dr. Ivan Lee 1

A Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols in VANET Environment Using Realistic Vehicular Traces 2

O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION R ESEARCH O BJECTIVES W ORKFLOW S IMULATIONS D EMO R ESULTS E VALUATION C ONCLUSIONS F UTURE W ORK 3

I NTRODUCTION Technology is moving us from wired to wireless networks SStructured Networks (WLAN) UUnstructured Networks (Mobile Ad hoc Network - MANET) Vehicular Ad hoc Network – VANET 4

V ANET Vehicles form network Vehicles equipped with  Wireless transceivers  Computerized control modules Roadside Units  Drop point  Geographically relevant data  Gateway to internet VANET Scenario (Source: MoNet Lab) 5

V ANET A PPLICATIONS 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

R ESEARCH C ONSIDERATION Network Layer  Ad hoc Routing Protocols Proactive (routes update periodically)  DSDV Reactive (routes update on-demand)  AODV  AOMDV  DSR Nodes Movement 7

R ESEARCH O BJECTIVES Analyzing data dissemination in VANETs Identify and Study Routing Protocols in VANET  Highest Delivery Ratio  Lowest End-to-End Delay Mobility Models  Deploy realistic vehicular traces 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

W ORKFLOW TCL File with support of Mobility Patterns, Comm. Paradigms, Reliability constraints, and Related Parameters NS-2 Simulator Mobility and Traffic Generator Compile Multiple Trace & NAM Files Trace File Analysis (Preferably AWK Script) City Scenario Highway Scenario AODV AOMDV DSR DSDV 10

S IMULATIONS City Model  Density Levels Low Medium High Highway Model  Density Levels Low Medium High 11

C ITY M ODEL (Parameters) Common Parameters VariableValue Simulation time300 s Topology size4000 m x 7000 m Routing ProtocolsAODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV Traffic TypeTCP Specific Parameters Density LevelVariable No. of NodesMax. Connections Low128 Medium High

C ITY MODEL (Mobility Traces) Google Map View Simulator View 13

H IGHWAY M ODEL (Parameters) Common Parameters VariableValue Simulation time300 s Topology size14000 m x m Routing ProtocolsAODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV Traffic TypeTCP Specific Parameters Density LevelVariable No. of NodesMax. Connections Low Medium High

H IGHWAY M ODEL (Mobility Traces) Google Map View Simulator View 15

D EMO CITY HIGHWAY 16

CITY 17

HIGHWAY 18

TRACE FILE & AWK SCRIPT M ( , , 0.00), ( , ), s _1_ AGT cbr 512 [ ] [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0 r _1_ RTR cbr 512 [ ] [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0 s _1_ RTR DSR 32 [ ] [1:255 2: ] 1 [1 1] [ >0] [ >0] r _4_ RTR DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] [1:255 2: ] 1 [1 1] [ >0] [ >0] r _6_ RTR DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] [1:255 2: ] 1 [1 1] [ >0] [ >0] s _1_ RTR DSR 32 [ ] [1:255 2: ] 1 [1 2] [ >16] [ >0] 19 #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; }

R ESULTS (CITY) City Model  3 Density levels  4 Routing protocols  12 Trace files Routing Metrics  Packet Delivery Ratio  Average End-to-End Delay 20

R ESULTS (CITY) 21

R ESULTS (CITY) 22

R ESULTS (HIGHWAY) Highway Model  3 Density levels  4 Routing protocols  12 Trace files Routing Metrics  Packet Delivery Ratio  Average End-to-End Delay 23

R ESULTS (HIGHWAY) 24

R ESULTS (HIGHWAY) 25

Weighted Evaluation Matrix E VALUATION Routing Protocols Weighting Factor Evaluative Routing Metrics Total Score Packet Delivery RatioAverage End-to-End Delay RatingScoreRatingScore AODV AOMDV DSDV DSR

C ONCLUSIONS 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 27

F UTURE W ORK Mobility Traces  Adelaide’s Data Utilize Test Bed  New routing protocols 28

Thank you for listening. Q&A 29