Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES WORKFLOW SIMULATIONS DEMO RESULTS EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORK
3
INTRODUCTION
VANET
Wireless transceivers Computerized control modules Drop point Geographically relevant data Gateway to internet
VANET Scenario (Source: MoNet Lab)
Roadside Units
VANET APPLICATIONS
Safety
Convenience
Entertainment
Internet access
Multimedia entertainment V2V Communication
6
RESEARCH CONSIDERATION
Network Layer
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
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
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
10
SIMULATIONS
City Model
Density Levels
Highway Model
Density Levels
Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable No. of Nodes Max. Connections 8
Simulation time
300 s Low 12
Topology size
Routing Protocols
812
150
12
13
Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable No. of Nodes Max. Connections 150
Simulation time
Topology size
Routing Protocols
1112
150
14
15
DEMO
CITY HIGHWAY
16
CITY
17
HIGHWAY
18
#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
Routing Metrics
20
RESULTS (CITY)
Packet Delivery Ratio
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
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
Routing Metrics
23
RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
Packet Delivery Ratio
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
24
RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
Average End-to-End Delay
300
250
150
100
50
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
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
28
29