Lot of work related to routing protocols is present in literature. In this study the most important work’s performance of routing protocols on the basis of topology are discussed. NS-2, NS-3, and NET-Sim were used to evaluate the performance of routing protocols in the VANET environment, and Veins simulation tools, there is a huge demand for qualitative comparison in addition to performance assessment studies.
The purpose of using NS-3 in this study is to look at routing protocol performance analysis. Furthermore, VANETs and MANETs share many similarities, particularly in recent years, with the exception of the shortage in the case of MANET infrastructure. As a result, the focus of this study will be on a survey of VANET routing protocols such as (CBR, OLSR, AOMDV, DIR, CAR, TROUVE, GyTAR, GPSR, GPCR, ACR, AODV, DSDV, and DSR protocols)17–27. Then there's the traffic control interface module, which connects to network and traffic simulators. Because VANET is made up of mobile nodes with a dynamic structure, identifying, managing, and employing communication techniques is difficult for fast-moving vehicles.
Liu etal. in17 proposed in urban situations, and it is recommended to increase the GPCR routing protocol's performance. To compare the result of VanetMobisim in the constrained of the GPCR routing protocol, the NS-3 simulator is used to find the best next hop node. In respect of PDR and time delay, the CA-GPCR approach outperforms conventional protocols.
Malik etal. in18 analyzed Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing, correlation queue length and time in position-based routing (GPSR). Network Simulator (NS3) and Mobility Simulator are used in the simulation (SUMO). The scenarios improved the GPSR's PDR, throughput, and packet loss performance. GPSR has the lowest performance for EED results.
Liu etal. in19 indicated that a Delay-aware and Backbone-based Geographic Routing (DBGR) protocol is presented for urban VANETs. According to simulation results, the proposed protocol outperforms existing protocols in terms of PDR and EED.
But in20 Ardakani etal. proposed a VANET cluster-based routing protocol that employs a new addressing system that assigns an address to each node depending on its mobility pattern. The network is subsequently partitioned in an address-centric way using the Hamming distance algorithm. When compared to two benchmarks, AODV and DSDV, this protocol enhances routing reachability while lowering routing EED and traffic received, according to simulation findings.
-
S. Daud etal. in21 showed an adaptive geographical routing for urban vehicular networks based on quality of transmission (AGQOT) is suggested. The proposed protocol can increase the network's performance in terms of PDR and EED.
-
P. K. Singhal etal. in22 presented in a VANET-based IoT context, a comparison of the performance of two possibly the best routing systems: (a) DSDV and (b) AODV. Delay, jitter, packet loss ratio, throughput transferred, and produced throughput are all factors to consider, and these two routing methods were compared.
-
M. K. Hasan etal. in23 suggested an upgraded AODV (EAODV) routing protocol using a selective route cache technique, during the route discovery phase, based on a source/destination pair. In terms of PDR, average EED, and normalised routing OH, simulation findings suggest that EAODV beats standard AODV.
Malik etal. in24 reported for VANETs, two existing routing method’s total performance i.e., AODV and DSR in this research. For a constant network size, simulation findings show that combining a good channel model with an efficient routing approach improves VANET link throughput.
Mahdi etal. in25 presented comparative analysis of five different node densities, and choose between the AODV, DSDV, and DSR protocols. For each protocol, various parameters such as (throughput, PDR, and EED). The DSR has a significantly better throughput than the AODV and DSDV, according to the findings. Because of the low average EED, DSDV is the best option.
Waseem etal. in26 presented a practical evaluation of the VANET topology in terms of time for high-traffic scenarios to achieve their goal, the researchers looked into three different routing systems: DSDV, AODV, AOMDV. The simulation results suggest that AOMDV outperforms the DSDV and AODV protocols in high-traffic locations. The AOMDV protocol improves overall network performance by achieving maximum throughput with minimal EED.
From the literature it is concluded that each technique has its own set of drawbacks and advantages that make it perfect for a specific situation. Most of the work in this field are utilizing NS-2 simulation tool and also not emphasizing the importance of SUMO. Very less work has been found on NS-3. As a result, the authors are using the NS-3 and SUMO tools for this work, comparing four routing protocols and recommending the optimum routing based on performance analysis. This research is using four routing protocols (DSDV, AODV, OLSR, DSR) for providing VANET infrastructure because these protocols are well suited to the given network and providing better result in the given situation.
Table 2, shows the comparison of related work with this research and concluded that in maximum work NS2 simulator is used as network simulator and different mobility simulators with different simulation parameters. In this research using three parameters (TR, OH, and PDR) and simulators (NS-3, SUMO) the results discussed in the next section with graphs.
Table 2
Comparison with Related Work
Sr. No. | Year | Article | Protocol | Network Simulator | Mobility Simulator | PDR | OH | TR |
1. | 2017 | [17] | CA-GPCR, GPCR, DSDV | NS3 | VanetMobiSim | CA-GPCR is more Suitable with higher PDR | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
2. | 2017 | [18] | GPSR | NS3 | SUMO | GPSR perform better in case of PDR | Not Applicable | GPSR perform better. |
3. | 2018 | [19] | DBGR, iCAR, GyTAR, GPSR | NS2 | VanetMobiSim | DBGR perform better (High PDR) | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
4. | Apr 2018 | [20] | ACR, AODV, DSDV | VEiNS | SUMO | ACR perform better (High PDR) | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
5. | 2018 | [21] | AGQOT, GPSR, GyTAR | NS2 | VanetMobiSim | AGQOT improve PDR | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
6. | 2019 | [22] | AODV, DSDV | NS2 | NSG2.1 | AODV perform better shows high PDR | Not Applicable | AODV was better |
7. | 2019 | [23] | AODV, EAODV | NS2 | - | Enhanced AODV was better | Not Applicable | Enhanced AODV was better |
8. | 2020 | [24] | AODV, DSR | Net-SIM | SUMO | DSR perform better shows high PDR | Not Applicable | DSR perform better |
9. | Jan 2021 | [25] | DSDV, AODV, DSR | NS2 | MOVE, SUMO | AODV is much better than DSDV, DSR | Not Applicable | DSR perform better than AODV, DSDV |
10. | Feb 2021 | [26] | AOMDV, AODV, DSDV | NS2 | SUMO | AODV outperform than AOMDV, DSDV | Not Applicable | AOMDV perform better |
11. | This paper | This paper | AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, None | NS3 | SUMO | AODV | DSR | DSR |