Minor Thesis Presentation
description
Transcript of Minor Thesis Presentation
Minor Thesis Presentation
By: Junaid M. ShaikhSupervisor: Dr. Ivan Lee
1
A Comparative Analysis of Routing
Protocols in VANET Environment
Using
2
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES WORKFLOW SIMULATIONS DEMO RESULTS EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORK
3
INTRODUCTION
Technology is moving us from wired to wireless networks Structured Networks (WLAN) Unstructured Networks (Mobile Ad hoc Network - MANET)
Vehicular Ad hoc Network – VANET
4
VANET
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
VANET APPLICATIONS
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
RESEARCH CONSIDERATION
Network Layer Ad hoc Routing Protocols
Proactive (routes update periodically) DSDV
Reactive (routes update on-demand) AODV AOMDV DSR
Nodes Movement
7
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
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
WORKFLOW
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
SIMULATIONS
City Model Density Levels
Low Medium High
Highway Model Density Levels
Low Medium High
11
CITY MODEL (Parameters)
Common Parameters
Variable Value
Simulation time 300 s
Topology size 4000 m x 7000 m
Routing Protocols AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV
Traffic Type TCP
Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable
No. of Nodes Max. Connections
Low 12 8
Medium 260 150
High 812 150
12
CITY MODEL (Mobility Traces)
Google Map View Simulator View
13
HIGHWAY MODEL (Parameters)
Common Parameters
Variable Value
Simulation time 300 s
Topology size 14000 m x 10000 m
Routing Protocols AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV
Traffic Type TCP
Specific Parameters
Density Level Variable
No. of Nodes Max. Connections
Low 370 150
Medium 837 150
High 1112 150
14
HIGHWAY MODEL (Mobility Traces)
Google Map View Simulator View
15
DEMO
CITY HIGHWAY
16
CITY
17
HIGHWAY
18
TRACE FILE & AWK SCRIPT
M 0.01000 7 (3076.65, 4672.97, 0.00), (3198.59, 4629.61), 13.65s 2.556838879 _1_ AGT --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0r 2.556838879 _1_ RTR --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0s 2.560742394 _1_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]r 2.561962728 _4_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]r 2.561963021 _6_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]s 2.604736825 _1_ RTR --- 2 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 2] [0 2 0 0->16] [0 0 0 0->0]
19
RESULTS (CITY)
City Model 3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files
Routing Metrics Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay
20
RESULTS (CITY)
21
RESULTS (CITY)
22
RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
Highway Model 3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files
Routing Metrics Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay
23
RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
24
RESULTS (HIGHWAY)
25
Weighted Evaluation Matrix
EVALUATION
Routing Protocols Weighting
Factor
Evaluative Routing Metrics
Total ScorePacket Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay
Rating Score Rating Score
AODV4 4 16 2 8 24
AOMDV4 4 16 2 8 24
DSDV3 2 6 3 9 15
DSR2 1 2 4 8 10
26
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
27
FUTURE WORK
Mobility Traces Adelaide’s Data
Utilize Test Bed New routing protocols
28
Thank you for listening. Q&A
29