Critical Review: Survey of Routing Protocols in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (Kevin C.

Lee, UCLA, USA- Uichin Lee, UCLA, USA - Mario Gerla, UCLA, USA ) By Danish Mahmood (First paragraph is copy of paper; rest is written/ compiled by myself) Due to the rapid increase of traffic on roads, driving has not stopped from being more challenging and dangerous. This thought provokes Leading car manufacturers to decide to jointly work with national government agencies to developed solutions aimed at helping drivers on roads by anticipating hazardous events or avoiding bad traffic areas. One of the outcomes has been a novel type wireless access called WAVE, Wireless Access for Vehicular Environment, dedicated to vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-toroadside communications. While the major objective has clearly been to improve the overall safety of vehicular traffic, promising traffic management solutions and on-board entertainment applications are also expected by the different bodies. When equipped with WAVE communication devices, cars and roadside units form a highly dynamic network called a Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET), a special kind of Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). While safety applications mostly need local broadcast connectivity, it is expected that some emerging scenarios (Lee, 2009) developed for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) would benefit from uni cast communication over a multi-hop connectivity. Moreover, it is conceivable that applications that deliver contents and disseminate useful information can flourish with the support of multi-hop connectivity in VANETs. NETWORK ARCHITECTURE According to Figure, the architecture of VANETs falls within three categories: pure cellular/WLAN, pure ad hoc, and hybrid. In pure cellular/WLAN architecture, the network uses cellular gateways and WLAN access points to connect to the Internet and facilitate vehicular applications. Vehicles communicate with the Internet by driving by either a cellular tower or a wireless access point.

Since the infrastructure of cellular towers and wireless access points are not necessarily widely deployed due to costs or geographic limitations, nodes may only engage in communication with each other. Information collected from sensors on a vehicle can become valuable in notifying other vehicles about traffic condition and helping the police solve crimes (Lee, 2006). The infrastructure-less network architecture is in the pure ad hoc category where nodes perform vehicle-to-vehicle communication with each other. When there are roadside communication units such as a cellular tower and an access point and vehicles are equipped with wireless networking devices, vehicles can take advantage of the infrastructure in communicating with each other. Various applications in areas of urban monitoring, safety, driving assistance, and entertainment (Lee, 2006) have used infrastructure communicating units to access dynamic and rich information outside their network context and share this information in a peer-to-peer fashion through ad hoc, infrastructure less communication. The hybrid architecture of cellular/WLAN and ad hoc approaches provides richer contents and greater flexibility in content sharing. Similar to mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs), nodes in VANETs self-organize and selfmanage information in a distributed fashion without a centralized authority or a server dictating the communication. In this type of network, nodes engage themselves as servers and/or clients, thereby exchanging and sharing information like peers. Moreover, nodes are mobile, thus making data transmission less reliable and suboptimal. Apart from these characteristics, VANETs possess a few distinguishing characteristics, presenting itself a particular challenging class of MANETs. Taxonomy of routing protocols in VANET; s A routing protocol governs the way that two communication entities exchange information; it includes the procedure in establishing a route, decision in forwarding, and action in maintaining the route or recovering from routing failure.

Topology based Routing Protocols: Topology based routing protocols are as follows: Proactive (table driven) Fisheye state Routing (FSR) Reactive (On Demand) AdHoc on Demand Vector (AODV) AODV+PGB (Preferred Group Broadcasting)

Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) Dynamic source routing (DSR) Proactive Routing Protocols: These protocols are Table driven routing protocols popular amongst dense nodes. In such protocols, Routing info of next hop is maintained in background regardless of Communication Requests. Control packets are constantly flooded among nodes to maintain the paths or link states. In this way, they form a table on each node describing the paths to/from each node. Features of Proactive Routing:

No route discovery time delay, as destination is maintained in background and is always available on look up. (Hence low latency for real time app.)

 Maintenance of unused paths occupies significant part of bandwidth, especially in high mobile environments. FISH EYE STATE ROUTING: Fisheye routing is based on the assumption that routes to nodes which are far away do not have to be precise. It maintains a topology map at each node and propagates link state updates with only immediate neighbors. Link states are propagated at different frequencies depending upon the distance. (High freq. = nearby node. Low freq. = far node) The routing table is accurate for nodes close by, but approximate for nodes far away. When a packet is sent to a node, the route will become more precise when the packet closes in on the destination.

Features: Broadcasting overhead is reduces Imprecision in routing occurs at far away nodes (that is of not that much problem) Efficient link state routing protocol Proficient in handling large networks

Reactive Routing Protocols: These Routing protocols are also known as On Demand Routing protocols and their specialty is to deal with high mobility. In such protocols, it opens a node only when it is necessary to communicate contrary to proactive protocols that start searching routes even with no need of data transmission. It maintains only those routes which are in use. This routing basically has a route discovery phase where packets are flooded into network in search of path. There are numerous reactive routing protocols; some of most widely used are described. AODV Routing Protocol It is built on DSDV algorithm and the improvement is on minimizing the number of required broadcasts by creating routes on an on-demand basis (not maintaining a complete list of routes). Broadcast is used for route request commonly termed as RREQ. Nodes record the address of sending node in their routing table. This procedure of recording previous node is called backward learning. Destination transmits back the reply packet RREP only to sender using backward learning property establishing a forward path.

Features: Bandwidth efficient, responsive to changes in topology, ensures loop free routing Nodes use the routing caches to reply to route queries. Result: uncontrolled replies and repetitive updates in hosts caches The Problem: a RREQ packet may reach destination via several paths, resulting reply packet RREP to reach back via multiple paths causing over use of bandwidth AODV/PGB AODV/ Preferred group broadcast reduces broadcast overhead associated with AODVs route discovery. It is Based on the received signal strength of broadcast, node can determine whether it is in preferred group or not. Only one node is allowed to broadcast at a time. And preferred group is thought to have more chances to transmit to destination Dynamic Source Routing It is based on the concept of source routing instead of relying on routing table at each intermediate device. The Source initiates a HELLO packet that contains the headers of every passing node. In This way the source can establish a path to destination. There are two major phases in DSR protocol, i.e. Route discovery uses route request and route reply packets (Hello Packets)

Route maintenance uses route error packets and acknowledgments

Features: Can establish multiple routes, and can use any as alternative. Good in a network with low mobility This is a big advantage of having an alternate route without again broadcasting as in AODV. DSR Vs AODV AODV data packets carry destination address where as DSR data packets carry full routing information. DSR hence has more routing overheads than that of AODV. As the network diameter increases, amount of over head in data packet will continue to increase. Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm TORA is based upon link reversal algorithm. A directed acyclic graph (DAG) towards the destination is built based on the height of tree rooted at source. The nodes use height metric and no three nodes may have the same height and information may flow from nodes with higher heights to nodes with lower heights. A node constructs DAG by broadcasting a query packet. If a node has a downward link to destination, it will further broadcast the packet otherwise drop it. Same is vice versa as for reply packet.

Features: It provides multiple routes so that if one path is not available, other is readily available. It establishes routes quickly so that they may be used before the topology changes. As TORA gives a route to all the nodes in a network, hence maintenance of these routed can be extremely heavy, especially in highly dynamic VANETs. Simulation results for topology based protocols From Simulation Results done by different scientists, it is shown that AODV has the best performance and lowest control overhead. AODV is than followed by FSR, DSR and TORA respectively in terms of performance. The common feature on all these Algorithms/ protocols is that performance degrades as network densities increase reflecting their scalability problem. Geographic (Position Based) Routing In this routing, forwarding decision by a node is made based on the position of a packets destination and position of nodes one hop neighbors. The position of the destination is stored in header of packet by the source. This routing assumes that each node knows its location and the sending node knows the receiving nodes location by GPS. Geographic routing dont exchange link state info neither maintain established route

like topology based routing protocols, hence they are more robust and promising to the highly dynamic environments. Route is determined on the basis of geographical location of neighboring nodes as the packet is forwarded. And so there is no need of link state or route setup. There are three main types of position based routing protocols. Under these three main theories, several protocols have been built; some of most commonly used are described as follows: Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) Non Overlaying protocols Hybrid Protocols Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) These VANET Routing Protocols are designed or treated as a form of Delay Tolerant Networks (DTN). Nodes are highly mobile hence they suffer frequent disconnectivity To over come this, packet delivery is augmented by allowing nodes to store the packets when there is no contact with other nodes to carry packets for some distance until meeting with other nodes. When these nodes meet other nodes, they forward the packet based on some metric. This is called carry and forward strategy. Notable routing protocols in DTN are VADD (Vehicle assisted Data delivery) GeOpps (Geographical Opportunistic Routing) Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery (VADD) This routing protocol is designed mainly for mobile vehicle to a fixed/static station and vice versa. Routing strategy aimed at improving routing in disconnected VANETS by idea of Carry and forward strategy by using predictable vehicle mobility. Node/ vehicle make a decision at junction and select the next forwarding path with the smallest packet delivery delay. Where as a path is simply a branched road from an intersection. The expected packet delivery delay of a path can be modeled and expressed by some parameters such as road density, average vehicle velocity and road distances. The minimum delay can be solved by a set of linear system equations. The VADD assumes that vehicles are equipped with pre loaded digital maps providing street level mapping. Geographical Opportunistic Routing (GeOpps) It takes the advantage of suggested routes of vehicles navigation system to select vehicles what are likely to move closer to final destination of a packet. It calculates the shortest distances from packets destination to nearest point or node and than it establishes an arrival time of a packet to destination. During the travel is there is another vehicle that has shorter estimated arrival time, the packet will be forwarded to that vehicle/ node as well. This process repeats until the packet reaches its destination.

The minimum VADD is indirectly obtained by selection next forwarding node whose paths nearest point is closest to destination. Hence it requires navigation information to be exposed to the network thus privacy (vehicles where about) can be an issue. Non Delay tolerant Network Routing These protocols are Practical in highly dense VANETS. And is Connection sensitive as well. Non-DTN are Based on Greedy Approach (send packets to the node which is closest to destination) Greedy approach fails if there is no neighbor closer than its own self to the destination. This scene is termed ad local maximum Numerous ways are designed to over come this problem. Some of most widely used are: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) As the name indicates, it uses greedy Approach. This routing protocol recovers with the problem of local maximum by using perimeter mode which than apply face routing to reach destination. It is well suited for highways and longer distances as there is minimum chance of local maximum problem at longer distances or in highways. GPSR+ advanced Greedy Forwarding (GPSR+AGF) There are Two Problems in GPSR, i.e. a nodes neighbor may contain outdated information due to high mobility and Destinations location within packet is never updated, as it can also be mobile. To solve these problems, Advanced Greedy Forwarding (AGF) is the solution. It incorporates the speed and direction of a node in the beacon packet and the total travel time, including time to process the packet up to current forwarding node. With the velocity vector, speed plus direction, each node can filter out the outdated

nodes in its neighbor table. And with the help of total travel time, each forwarding node can better determine the deviation of destination. The Results show three times better performance than simple GPSR protocol. Position Based Routing with Distance Vector Recovery (PBR-DV) It Uses AODV style recovery when packets fall into a local maximum. The node at local maximum broadcast a request packet in which is the nodes position, destination location. On receiving such packet, node determines if it is closer to destination than sender node. If not closer than destination, than it records the node from which it receives the request packet (as in backward learning) and rebroadcast it. The main disadvantage of this routing protocol is additional flooding which is a must to discover the non greedy part of route. Non DTN-Overlaying protocols An overlay routing has the characteristic that the routing protocol operates on a set of representative nodes overlaid on top of the existing network. In the urban environment, it is not hard to observe that decisions are made at junctions as these are the places where packets make turns onto a different road segment. Thus overlay routing protocols must have to do something with nodes at junctions Greedy perimeter coordinate routing (GPCR) It is useful for urban environment and Well suited for highly dynamic environments such as inter vehicle communication on highways or cities. GPCR traverses the junctions by a restricted greedy forwarding procedure and adjusts the routing path by the repair strategy which is based on topology of streets. It removes the UN necessary stop at a junction while keeping the efficient planarity of topological maps. It uses two hop neighbors beaconing to predict which road segment its neighboring junction node will take. If prediction indicates that is neighboring junction will forward the packet onto a road with different direction, it forwards to junction node. Otherwise it bypasses the junction node and forwards the packet to its furthest neighboring node. The figure below shows the advantanges of GprsJ+ over GPCR

Dashed Arrows are GpsrJ+ and solid arrows are GPCR Geographic Source Routing It Relies on availability of map and computes a shortest path on overlaid graph. In that graph vertices are junctions nodes and edges are streets that connect those vertices. The sequence of junctions establishes a route to the destination. GSR does not consider the connectivity between two junctions; therefore route might not be connected rough. Contention based Forwarding This routing technique does not require proactive transmission of beacon messages. Data packets are broadcasted to all neighbor and neighbors decide if they should forward the packet. The actual forwarder is selected by a distributed timer based contention process which allows the most suitable node to forward the packet and to suppress other potential forwarders. Receiver of the broadcast data would compare their distance to destination to the last hops distance to the destination. The bigger the distance, the larger is the progress and shorter is the timer.

Hybrid Protocol Geo DTN+Nav As the name indicates, it is Hybrid of non DTN and DTN approaches. It includes greedy mode, perimeter mode and DTN mode. It moves from DTN mode to NonDTN mode by estimating the connectivity of network based on number of hops a packet has travelled so far, neighbors delivery quality and neighbors direction with

respect to destination. Virtual navigation interface gives the delivery quality of neighbors which abstracts information from underlying hardware such as navigation systems etc. Comparison of Routing Protocols

Conclusion There is a plethora of routing protocols of VANET; s all designed for a specific environment. Yet, there is no bench mark or agreed upon standard to validate their performances Though till now GPSR is widely accepted but yet no comparison with other sub areas as overlay, DTN etc. In Short, VANETs Routing is growing and research is getting mature day by day.