A SURVEY OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VEHICULAR

ADHOC NETWORKS
1

K.ARAVINDHAN, 2R.ABINAYA, 3A.DEEPIKA, 4K.K.KARTHIKA

Assitant Professor, Department of CSE, SNS College of Engineering, Coimbatore.

2, 3, 4

UG Scholar, Department of CSE, SNS College of Engineering, Coimbatore.

ABSTRACT
VANET
(Vehicular
Ad-hoc
Network) is a new skill which has taken
huge attention in the recent years. VANET
which provides a differentiate approach for
intelligent transport system (ITS). VANET
has very dynamic topology, large and
variable network size, and constrained
mobility; these characteristics led to the
need for efficient routing and resource
saving VANET protocols, to fit with
different VANET environments. The survey
of routing protocols in vanet is important
and essential issue for smart ITS. This paper
shows the various routing protocols with its
advantages and disadvantages. Finally it
concludes the chapter by comparing the
various routing protocols.
Keywords: ITS, Dynamic topology,
Network size, Constrained mobility.
1. INTRODUCTION
Vehicular ad hoc network is a unique
form of MANET which is a vehicle to
vehicle & vehicle roadside wireless
communication network. It is autonomous &
self-organizing wireless communication
network, where nodes in VANET involve
themselves as servers and/or clients for
exchanging & sharing information. VANET

contains two entities: access points and

vehicles, the access points are permanent
and usually linked to the internet, and they
could take part as a distribution point for
vehicles. VANET addresses the wireless
communication between vehicles (V2V),
and between vehicles and infrastructure
access point (V2I). Vehicle to vehicle
communication (V2V) has two types of
communication: one hop communication
(direct vehicle to vehicle communication),
and multi hop communication (vehicle relies
on other vehicles to retransmit).
The main target of VANET is providing
safety and ease for passengers. Each vehicle
equipped with VANET device will be a
node in the Ad-hoc network and can receive
& relay other messages through the wireless
network. Collision caution, Road signal
arms and in place traffic view will give the
driver essential tool to decide the best path
along the way. VANET or Intelligent
Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networking provides an
bright way of using vehicular Networking.
Many routing protocols have been
developed for VANETs environment, which
can be classified in many customs,
according to different aspects; such as:
protocols characteristics, techniques used,
routing information, quality of services,
network structures, routing algorithms, and
so on. This paper will address the routing
information which used in packet

forwarding, it mostly focuses on topologybased and graphic-based routing.

uses links information that survive in the

network to perform packet forwarding.

2.
OVERVIEW
PROTOCOLS

2.1.1 Proactive routing protocols

Proactive routing protocols are mainly based
on shortest path algorithms. Proactive
protocols permit a network node to use the
routing table to accumulate routes
information for all other nodes, every entry
in the table contains the next hop node used
in the path to the destination, regardless of
whether the route is in fact needed or not.
The proactive routing means that the routing
information like next forwarding hope is
maintained in the background irrespective of
communication needs.
Pros
- No Route Discovery is required.
- Low Latency for real time applications.
Cons
- Unused paths occupy a significant part of
the offered bandwidth.

OF

ROUTING

In VANET, the routing protocols are

classified into five categories: Topology
based, Position based, Cluster based,
Geocast, Broadcast. This paper address the
first two routing protocols with its pros and
cons.[1].
ROUTING PROTOCOL

TOPOLOGY BASED

POSITION BASED
DTN
VADD

PROACTIVE

REACTIVE
GeOPPS

FSR

ASDV
NON-DTN

DSDV

DSR

GRANT

TORA
HYBRID
TO GO

Fig 1: Routing protocols

2.1 TOPOLOGY BASED ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
Topology-based routing protocol [3] usually
a conventional MANET routing protocol, it

2.1.1.1 Fisheye state routing (FSR)

FSR node [11] maintains a topology table
(TT) based upon the most recent information
arriving from neighbouring and cyclically
exchange it with local neighbours. It is
based on the link state routing & an
enhancement of Global State Routing.
Pros
-FSR reduces radically the extreme
bandwidth as it interactions partial routing
update information with neighbours only.
- Reduce routing overhead.
-Varying in the routing table will not occur
even if there is any link failure.
Cons
-Very poor performance in small ad hoc
networks.
-Less knowledge about outlying nodes.
-The increase in network size the storage
difficulty and the processing overhead of
routing table also enlarge.

2.1.1.2 Destination sequence distance

vector routing (DSDV)
DSDV protocol it is an earliest ad hoc
routing protocol, it implements the distance
vector strategy and uses a shortest path
algorithm to implement only one route to
destination which stored in the routing table,
each routing table contains information
about all accessible network nodes, as well
as the total amount of hops required to reach
these nodes, and each entry in the routing
table is branded with a sequence number
initiated by the destination node.
Pros
-Guarantees the loop free routes
-Reduces control message overhead
Cons
-Increases the overhead in the large network
-No control over the network congestion
2.1.2 Reactive routing protocols
Reactive routing protocols (also called ondemand) diminish the network overhead; by
maintaining routes only when needed, that
the source node starts a route discovery
process, if it needs a non existing route to a
destination, it does this method by flooding
the network by a route request message.
After the message reaches the destination
node (or to the node which has a route to the
destination), this node will send a route
reply message back to the source node by
unicast communication.
Pros
-To update routing table not need periodic
flooding the network. Flooding requires
when it is demanded.
-Beaconless so it saves the bandwidth.
Cons
- For route discovery latency is high.
-Excessive flooding of the network causes
interruption of nodes communication.

2.1.2.1 Ad hoc on-demand distance vector

(AODV)
AODV routing protocol is projected for
mobile ad hoc network, it has been
evaluated in several researches and shows
good results compared to related routing
protocols; so it has a good documentation.
AODV offers low network overhead by
reducing messages flooding in the
network[2],that when compared to proactive
routing protocols, besides reducing the
necessity of memory size; by minimizing the
routing tables which keep only entries for
recent active routes, also keeps next hop for
a route rather than the whole route[8].
Pros
- An up-to-date path to the destination
because of using destination sequence
number.
- It reduces excessive memory desires and
the route redundancy.
- AODV responses to the link failure in the
network.
- It can be useful to large scale adhoc
network.
Cons
-More time is necessary for relation setup &
initial communication to establish a route
compared to other approaches.
-If intermediate nodes hold old entries it can
lead inconsistency in the route.
-For a single route reply packet if there has
multiple route reply packets this will lead to
heavy control overhead.
- Because of periodic beaconing it consume
additional bandwidth.
2.1.2.2 Dynamic Source Routing(DSR)
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
protocol[12] presented in which make use of
source routing & maintain active routes. It
has two phases route discovery & route
maintenance.

Pros
-Beacon less.
-To obtain route between nodes, it has small
overload on the network. It uses caching
which reduce load on the network for
future route discovery.
-No periodical update is required in DSR.
Cons
-If there are too many nodes in the network
the route information within the header will
lead to byte overhead.
-Unnecessary flooding burden the network.
-In high mobility pattern it performs worse.
-Unable to repair broken links locally.
2.1.2.3 Temporally ordered routing
algorithm (TORA)
TORA
is
a
distributed
routing
protocol[10]using multi hop routes; it is
designed to reduce the communication
overhead related to adapting frequent
network changes. This protocol does not
implement a shortest path algorithm; thus
the routing structure does not represent a
distance. TORA constructs a directed graph
which contains the source node as the tree
root[4]. Packets should be running from
higher nodes to lower nodes in the tree.
Once a node broadcasts a packet to a
particular destination, its neighbor will
broadcast a route replay if it has a downward
link to the destination, if not, it just drops
the packet.
Pros
-It creates DAG (Direct acyclic graph) when
necessary.
-Reduce network overhead because all
intermediate nodes dont need to rebroadcast
the message.
-Perform well in dense network.
Cons
-It is not used because DSR & AODV
perform well than TORA.
-It is not scalable.

2.2
POSITION-BASED
ROUTING
PROTOCOL
Position based routing consists of class of
routing algorithm. They share the property
of using geographic positioning information
in order to select the next forwarding hops.
The packet is send without any map
knowledge to the one hop neighbour0.
11which is closest to destination. Position
based routing is beneficial since no global
route from source node to destination node
need to be created and maintained.
Pros
- Route discovery & management is not
necessary.
-Scalability.
-Suitable for high node mobility pattern.
Cons
-It requires position determining services.
-GPS device doesnt work in tunnel because
satellite signal is absent there.
2.2.1 Delay tolerant network (DTN)
protocols
Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) uses carry
& forward strategy to defeat common
disconnection of nodes in the network. In
carry & forward strategy when a node cant
get in touch with with other nodes it stores
the packet & forwarding is done based on
some metric of nodes neighbours.
Pros
-All nodes help each other to forward
packets (store and forward scheme).
Cons
-Limited transmission range
-Packets transmission will take large delays
-There is no guarantee of
-Unbroken end to end connectivity
2.2.1.1 Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery
(VADD)
Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery [7] is based
on the idea of carry & forward approach by
using predicable vehicle mobility. Among

proposed VAAD protocols H-VAAD shows

better performance.
Pros
-Comparing with GPSR (with buffer),
epidemic routing and DSR, VADD performs
high delivery ratio.
-It is suitable for multi-hop data delivery.
Cons
-Due to change of topology & traffic density
it causes large delay.
2.2.1.2Geographical opportunistic routing
(GeOpps)
GeOpps is a forwarding protocol uses the
offered navigation system in collecting
information about geographical position;
this information is used to pick vehicles that
are closest to a certain destination [5]. The
protocol uses store and forward technique, it
works just like the Move and Non DTN
protocols but it uses navigation system to
provide efficient packet delivery.
Pros
-By comparing with the Location-Based
Greedy routing and MoVe routing algorithm
GeOpps has high delivery ratio.
-To find a vehicle which is driving towards
near the destination GeOpps need few
encounters.
-The delivery ratio of GeOpps rely on the
mobility patterns & the road topology but
not dependent on high density of vehicles.
Cons
-Privacy is an subject because navigation
information is disclosed to the network.
2.2.2 Non delay tolerant network (Non
DTN) protocols
The Non-DTN protocols are geographic
routing protocols, but it does not consider a
dis-connectivity issue; it assumes there are
always a number of nodes to achieve the
successful communication; so, this protocol
is only fit for high density network. In these
protocols, the node forwards its packet to the
closest neighbour to the destination, but this

approach may be ineffective if there is no

closest neighbour to the destination rather
than the current node itself.
2.2.2.1 Greedy Perimeter Stateless
Routing (GPSR)
Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing [14]
selects a node which is next to the final
destination by using beacon. It uses Greedy
Forwarding algorithm if it fails it uses
perimeter forwarding for selecting a node
through which a packet will travel.
Pros
-To forward the packet a node needs to
remember only one hop neighbour location.
-Forwarding packet decisions are made
dynamically.
Cons
-For high mobility characteristics of node,
stale information of neighbours position are
often contained in the sending nodes
neighbour table.
-Though the destination node is moving its
information in the packet header of
intermediate node is never updated.
2.2.2.2 Beacon
Beacon means transmitting short hello
message periodically. It exposes occurrence
and position of a node. An entry will be
separated from neighbour table of a
receiving node if it fails to receive a beacon
after a certain period of time from the
corresponding node.
2.2.2.3 Greedy Routing with Abstract
Neighbour Table (GRANT)
To avoid local maximum Greedy Routing
with Abstract Neighbour Table (GRANT)
applies extended greedy routing algorithm
concept. Abstract Neighbour Table of
GRANT divides the plane into areas and
includes per area only one representative
neighbour.

ROUTING
PROTOCOL

TYPE

SUB -TYPE

PROS

FSR

TopologyBased

Proactive

Reduces routing Poor performance

overhead

AODV

TopologyBased

Reactive

Respond to
link failure

DSR

TopologyBased
TopologyBased

Reactive

Beacon less

Reactive

GPSR

PositionBased

GRANT

PositionBased

GPCR

PositionBased

NonDTN,NonOverlay
NonDTN,NonOverlay
NonDTN,NonOverlay

Reduces
Not scalable
network
overhead
Dynamic packet Intermediate node
forwarding
never updated.

TO-GO

PositionBased

NonDTN,Hybrid

No hidden
terminal

End-to-End latency is
higher

VADD

PositionBased

DTN

High delivery
ratio

Traffic density causes

delay

GeOpps

PositionBased

DTN

High delivery
ratio

No privacy

TORA

CONS

Consumes
bandwidth

extra

Byte overhead

is

Works well in
Overhead of beacon
extended greedy
routing
No
Depends on junction
planarization
nodes
problem

TABLE 1: ROUTING PROTOCOLS PROS AND CONS

Pros
-In city scenario with obstacles this extended
greedy routing approach works well than as
usual greedy approach.
Cons
- The overhead of beacon.
-VANET has a high mobility characteristic

but the performance evaluation of GRANT

is done on static traces.
2.2.2.4 Overlay
Overlay is a network that every node is
connected by virtual or logical links which
is built on top of an existing network.

2.2.2.5 Greedy Perimeter Coordinator

Routing(GPCR)
Greedy Perimeter Coordinator Routing [17]
is a position-based routing protocol uses
greedy algorithms to forward packet based
on a pre-selected path which has been
intended to deal with the challenges of city
scenarios. No global or external information
like static map does not require in GPCR.
Pros
- Does not require any global or external
information.
-For representing the planar graph it uses the
underlying roads though it is based on the
GPSR.
-It has no as usual a planarization problem
like unidirectional links, planar sub-graphs
& so on.
Cons
- Depends on junction nodes.
-There has a problem in the Junction
detection approach in which first approach
fails on curve road & second approach fails
on a sparse road.

2.2.3 Hybrid Position-Based Routing

Position routing protocol reduces control
routing overhead, it doesn't need to construct
or maintain a routing table; because it only
uses the location information about the
neighbours and destination nodes, these
issues made position-based routing protocols
scalable. Many researchers developed
hybrid schemes, they merge characteristics
of two or more position-based routing
protocols (non-DTN and DTN schemes),
sometimes they merge one or more topology
routing protocols (reactive, proactive and
hybrid schemes) with position-based
routing. The hybrid position routing protocol
is a mixture protocol that takes advantage of
more than one protocol schemes.

2.2.3.1 Topology-assist Geo-Opportunistic

Routing(TO_GO)
TO-GO is a geographic routing protocol
which improves packet delivery in greedy &
recovery forwarding that can bypass the
junction area by using two hop beaconing.
Pros
-No hidden terminal occurs because all
nodes can hear one another.
-From simulation result TO-GO, GPCR,
GpsrJ+ have similar packet delivery ratio.
- Low S/N ratio is taken care of.
Cons
-Simulation result shows that End-to-End
latency in TO-GO is higher than GPCR,
GPSR, GpsrJ+.
3. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have investigated the pros
and cons of different routing protocols for
inter-vehicle communication in VANET. By
studying different routing protocol in
VANET we have seen that further
performance evaluation is required to verify
performance of a routing protocol with other
routing protocols based on various traffic
scenarios. Comparison can be done among
the routing protocols in the Overlay and so
on. GSR is not compared with other position
based routing protocol.
REFERENCES
[1] Lee, Kevin C., Uichin Lee, and Mario
Gerla., "Survey of Routing Protocols in
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks," Advances in
Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks: Developments
and Challenges reference, IGI Global, 2010,
pp. 149-170, 25 Mar. 2013.
[2] Annu Mor, "A STUDY OF IMPROVED
AODV ROUTING PROTOCOL IN
VANET," International Journal of Computer
Applications & Information Technology,
vol. II, Issue I, January 2013 (ISSN: 22787720).

[3] "Survey of Routing Protocols in

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks," Kevin C. Lee,
Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla, Advances in
Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks: Developments
and Challenges, IGI Global, Oct, 2009.
[4] Lee, K.C.; Lee, U.; Gerla, M. (2009),
TO-GO: TOpology-assist geo-opportunistic
routing in urbanvehicular grids, Wireless
On-Demand Network Systems and Services,
2009. WONS 2009. Sixth International
Conference on , vol., no., pp.11-18, 2-4 Feb.
2009.
[5] Leontiadis, I., Mascolo, C. (2007),
GeOpps:Geographical Opportunistic
Routing for Vehicular Networks, World of
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks,
2007.WoWMoM 2007. IEEE International
Symposium on a ,vol., no., pp.1-6, 18-21
June 2007.
[6]Jerbi, M., Senouci, S.-M., Meraihi, R.,
and Ghamri-Doudane, Y. (2007), An
improved vehicular ad hoc routing protocol
for city environments,Communications,
2007. ICC 07. IEEE International
Conference, pp. 39723979, 24-28 June
2007.
[7] Zhao, J.; Cao, G. (2006), "VADD:
Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery in Vehicular
Ad Hoc Networks,"INFOCOM 2006. 25th
IEEE International Conference onComputer
Communications. Proceedings , vol., no.,
pp.1-12, April 2006.
[8] Perkins, C.; Belding-Royer, E.; Das, S.
(July 2003)Adhoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV) Routing.
[9] Ericson, Communication and Mobility
by CellularAdvanced Radio, ComCar
project, www.comcar.de,2002.

[10] V. Park, S. Corson, "TemporallyOrdered Routing Algorithm (TORA)

Version 1 Functional Specification," IETF
Internetdraft, 2001. [Online] Available:
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-manet-toraspec-04.pdf (2001)
[11] Pei, G., Gerla, M., and Chen, T.-W.
(2000), FisheyeState Routing: A Routing
Scheme for Ad Hoc WirelessNetworks,
Proc. ICC 2000, New Orleans, LA, June
2000.
[12] Johnson, D. B. and Maltz, D. A. (1996),
DynamicSource Routing in Ad Hoc
Wireless Networks, MobileComputing,
T. Imielinski and H. Korth, Eds., Ch. 5,
Kluwer, 1996, pp. 15381.