International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)

AODV Routing Protocol Modification with Broadcasting

RREQ Packet in VANET
Soumen Saha1 , Dr.Utpal Roy2, Dr. D.D. Sinha3
1
Dept of CST, ICVP Jhargram, West Bengal
2
Department of Computer & System Sciences Siksha-Bhavana, Visva-Bharati
3
Dept of CSE University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India
Abstract-- Now a days a new ad-hoc type network is
introduce for vehicle. This can be use for all type Vehicle
propagation control in city and highway road map. This is
called vehicle ad-hoc network (VANET). There is several
open research topic for this VANET. The different routing
protocols is used for this VANET . Such as Ad-hoc on
Demand Distance Vector protocol(AODV) [1], Distance
Routing Protocol(DSR)[1], adaptive distance vector
protocol (ADV)[2] etc. The implementation and testing of
those protocol is very costly and difficult in real life
situation. Therefore we need some simulator for this Fig1: Ad-hoc VANET
purpose. Such as NCTUns, NS3, SUMO, OMneT++,
MiXiM, Dia, Subversion (SVN). NCTUns-6.[3] is such kind II. LITERATURE SURVEY
of simulator so that it has graphical environment which
help us to draw the various kind of graph easily and Earlier we have studies over VANET and found some
implement various types of routing protocol on this graph. different routing protocol performance[4-7] . There we
Hear all well known routing protocol is available. But we have obtained the result for different scenario[4,5],
found AODV is implemented on broadcast to it’s own different routing protocols [7], different type of data[6].
network but multicast for global VANET network. We finally found AODV is better than other routing
Therefore it seems a wastage of Route Request(RREQ)[1] protocol in VANET for non real time data.
packet for it’s neighbour networks. Therefore we modify We also studies the S.Y. Wang et al. [3], where we
the conventional AODV to broadcast to global network and
we got an enchantment in throughput for our modified
found the NCTUns[10,11] simulator for the VANET
AODV(MAODV). simulation. This simulator is such kind of simulator so
that it has graphical environment which help us to draw
Keywords--- VANET, Ad-hoc network, IP broadcast, the various kind of graph easily and implement various
AODV, Throughput, Packet Drop, Packet Collision, types of routing protocol on this graph. Hear all well
NCTUns6.0 network simulator. known routing protocol is available. But, we found
AODV is implemented on broadcast to it’s own
I. INTRODUCTION network(ie basically multicast) but multicast for global
In VANET the different routing protocol work on ad- VANET network. Therefore it seems a wastage of Route
basis formed network(Fig.1). But, the ad-network is Request(RREQ)[1] packet for it’s neighbour networks.
highly unstable as there is speed is important factor in
VANET. The members of formed ad-hoc network when III. PROPOSED WORK
out of the range of the existing ad-hoc network, it may We propose a scheme, that the neighbor network
fails to move. Therefore, we need some external node(Vehicle) can send RREQ and Route Reply(RREP)
equipment(road side equipment) to help those packet . This will some time more useful compared to
node(Vehicle) to move. But, other than that if we taken multicast(1.0.255.255) of IP scheme. In Fig.2 we found
the existing other Ad-hoc network, to help the re left side is working with only multicast running with
communicate with that isolate node (Vehicle), it will be AODV routing protocol, therefore the packet is only
more economic, as we do not need any extra equipment. within the home network (1.0.0.0/16) ie. left side.

439
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)
Now there is a situation, where a node (vehicle) is out
of range of a communication node of left side
(1.0.0.0/16) network. Therefore in this situation the out
of range node will fail to communicate. But, according to
our proposal, right side (2.0.0.0/16) network running with
modified AODV routing protocol(MAODV) will help in
this situation(Fig.2) to the node within the range of this
network, as it is designed for
broadcast(255.255.255.255).
Therefore the node has link breakage of right side
network also able to communicate with left side ad-hoc
network with the help of right side ad-hoc network.
MAODV(2.0.0.0/16)
With 255.255.255.255
multicast
AODV(1.0.0.0/16)
With 1.0.255.255
multicast
Fig2: MAODV broadcast it’s packet
We have taken AODV(Fig.3) protocol for the routing
as we found in our previous paper[4], this AODV is best
performance compared to other routing protocols.
DATA
RREQ RREP
Fig3: AODV works[1]
Performance metrics
Different performance metrics are used to check the
performance of routing protocols in various network
environments. In our study we have selected throughput
and packet drop to check the performance of VANET
routing protocols against each other. The reason for the
selection of these performance metrics is to check the
performance of routing protocols in highly mobile
environment of VANET. Moreover, these performance
metrics are used to check the effectiveness of VANET
routing protocols i.e. how well the protocol deliver
packets and how well the algorithm for a routing protocol
performs in order to discover the route towards
destination. The selected metrics for routing protocols
evaluation are as follows [8,9].
440
1) Throughput
Throughput is the average number of successfully
delivered data packets on a communication network or
network node. In other words throughput describes as the
total number of received packets at the destination out of
total transmitted packets [8]. Throughput is calculated in
bytes/sec or data packets per second. The simulation
result for throughput in NCTUns6.0 shows the total
received packets at destination in KB/Sec,
mathematically throughput is shown as follows:
Total number of received
packets at destination* packet size
Throughput (bytes/sec) = ----------------------------------------
Total simulation time
2) Packet Drop
Packet drop shows total number of data packets that
could not reach destination successfully. The reason for
packet drop may arise due to congestion, faulty hardware
and queue overflow etc. Packet drop affects the network
performance by consuming time and more bandwidth to
resend a packet. Lower packet drop rate shows higher
protocol performance.
3) Collision
The Collision of data packet is the number of packets
collides to each other due to congestion. It affects the
performance directly on the bandwidth. Lower packet
collision rate shows higher protocol performance.
IV. RESULT AND ANALYSIS
A. Simulator
There are several types of simulator such as NCTUns,
NS2, NS3, SUMO, OMneT++, MiXiM, Dia, Subversion
(SVN). But we have chosen NCTUns-6.0 for simulation
of our work. Before real-time testing we have run our
work by using this simulator.
The main characteristics[10] of NCTUns-6.0 are given
below(Fig.4)
 It directly uses the real-life Linux TCP/IP protocol
stack to generate high-fidelity simulation results
 It can run up any real-life UNIX-based application
program on a simulated node without any
modification.
 It can use any real-life UNIX network monitoring
tools
 Its setup and usage of a simulated network and
application programs are exactly the same as those
used in real-life IP networks
 It simulates many important networks.
 It simulates many important protocols.
 It finishes a network simulation case quickly
 It generates reliable and repeatable simulation
results.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)
 It provides a highly-integrated and professional
GUI environment
 It adopts a module-based architecture.
 It can be easily used as an emulator.
 It supports seamless integration of emulation and
simulation.

Fig5: Simulation Scenario

The above scenario(Fig.5) designed with left side road

structure with 1.0.0.0/16 sub net id and right side rode
structure with 2.0.0.0/16 subnet id. And AODV run with
Multicast in same network (1.0.255.255).But, MAODV
run with broadcast (255.255.255.255) to left and right
side both
C. Result:
Fig.4 NCTUns6.0 simulator
I. car 5 of each network
B. Testing scenario conditions of VANET:
 Network is taken ad-hoc and the path is absolutely 1. Packet Broadcast output for car 5 of each network
dynamic in nature.
 Lane Width is taken 30m
 Initial average distance is 500m in between
different car.
 Simulation time is taken 400sec on average
 RTS threshold is 3000bytes
 The car profile is taken five (20%---speed is
18km/hour, 20%---speed is 36km/hour, 20%---
speed is 50km/hour, 20%---speed is
60km/hour,20%---speed is 80km/hour) Fig6: AODV Vs MAODV IP broadcast graph (X-axis is time in Sec
 Number of lane is taken 2 and Y-axis is kb/sec)
 Number Network is taken 2(one of 1.0.0.0/16 net We have found result in Fig. 6, our modified AODV
id another is 2.0.0.0/16 net id) (MAODV) working principal is almost same in number
TABLE1 of packet for broadcast purpose compared to multicast in
SIMULATIONS ENVIROMENT PARAMETER FOR VANET original AODV working principal in NCTUns simulator.
Frequency (MHz) 2400 2. Collision of packets
fadingVar 10.0 The packet collision number is drastically reduced in
RiceanK 10.0
the MAODV approach (Fig. 7). As the traffic is less and
TxAntennaHieght (m) 1.5
the left side(1.0.0.0/16) nodes absorbs the some right
System Loss 1.0
Trans Power (dbm) 3.0
side(2.0.0.0/16) and this network packets is not confined
AverageBuilding Height (m) 10 within the network.
Street Width (m) 30
Average Building Distance (m) 80
Path Loss exponent 2.0
Shadowing Standard Deviation 4.0
CloseInDistance (m) 1.0
RxAntenna Height (m) 1.5
Number of Cars is taken for each 5,15,25
network

Fig:7 Number of Packet in collision in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is

time in sec and Y-axis number of packets)

441
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)
3. Drop of Packets Next we try to test further on more dance traffic
situation.
II. car 15 of each network
1. Packet Broadcast output for car 5 of each network

Fig8: Number of Packet drop in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time

in sec and Y-axis number of packets)

The packet drop also much less in MAODV scheme

(Fig.8), as it absorbs more compared to multicast.
Fig11: AODV Vs MAODV IP broadcast graph (X-axis is time in
4. In packet throughput to nodes Sec and Y-axis is kb/sec)

2. Collision of packets

Fig9: In throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec and

Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec) Fig:12: Number of Packet in collision in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis
is time in sec and Y-axis number of packets)
The above Fig.9 indicates the in throughput is less for
right side network (2.0.0.0/16) as it receive the same 3. Drop of Packets
number of packet from it’s own network. The neighbour
network (1.0.0.0/16) will not able to send any packet to
the right side network as it is different network.
5. Out packet throughput to nodes

Fig13: Number of Packet drop in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time

in sec and Y-axis number of packets)

4. In packet throughput to nodes

Fig10: Out throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec

and Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec)

In Out throughput (Fig.10) we found almost same

throughput for both AODV and MAODV. But, the
interesting fact is, that the out throughput is same for
both, although the AODV encounter more drop of packet
and more packet collision. Therefore our proposal
(MAODV) is better in terms of less packet drop and less
Fig14: In throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec
collision. and Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec)
442
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)
5. Out packet throughput to nodes 3. Drop of Packets

Fig18: Number of Packet drop in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time

Fig15: Out throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec in sec and Y-axis number of packets)
and Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec)
4. In packet throughput to nodes
Hear we found the number of packet broadcast is
again same for both(fig.11) . But the number of packet in
collision(fig.12) and packet drop(fig.13) incising as the
traffic incises. But incoming packet throughput (fig.14) is
looks reveres with AODV compared to MAODV. As,
traffic incises, the LHS side traffic need less reuse of
neighbour (RHS) side packet for maintaining Ad-hoc
network. But finally the out packet throughput is remain
same(fig.15 )
III. car 25 of each network
1. Packet Broadcast output for car 5 of each network Fig19: In throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec
and Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec)

5. Out packet throughput to nodes

Fig16: AODV Vs MAODV IP broadcast graph (X-axis is time in

Sec and Y-axis is kb/sec)

2. Collision of packets Fig20: Out throughput of AODV vs MAODV(X-axis is time in sec

and Y-axis is throughput in kb/sec)

On third testing results(fig.16-20) indicates almost

Fig:17 Number of Packet in collision in AODV vs MAODV(X-axis
is time in sec and Y-axis number of packets)
same result compared to second test (15 car each side
scenario)
Finally we have found a very result in that our
modified AODV (MAODV) working principal is far
better in the link breakage situation for low density traffic
situation, especially in highway scenario. The
performance with respect to Out throughput it this
situation is far better than conventional AODV working
principal in NCTUns simulator.

443
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2014)
V. CONCLUSION AND FEATURE WORK
We have found a very interesting result in Fig. 6-10
that, our modified AODV (MAODV) working principal
is far better in the link breakage and low traffic density
situation. The performance with respect to broadcast
throughput and Out throughput both situation is same
compared to conventional AODV working principal in
NCTUns simulator.
The only drawback of this proposal is, it will not work
better if traffic density is more. As, the number of packet
will increase (Fig.11-20) the performance is not
progressive in our proposal. Hear the other network’s
packet is not required for the neighbor. But it increases
the unnecessary traffic density and it causes more packet
drop and collision.
Therefore we have to propose some modification over
the new scheme to reduce the overhead to the nodes.
REFERENCES
[1] RFC of AODV,DSR: www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt,
www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4728.txt
[2] Boppana, et al. “An adaptive distance vector routing algorithm for
mobile, ad hoc networks” INFOCOM 2001.IEEE Xplore,Vol-3,
1753 – 1762, 2001.
[3] S.Y. Wang et al. The Design and Implementation of the NCTUns
1.0 Network Simulator, Computer Networks, Vol. 42, Issue 2,
June 2003, pp. 175-197.
444
[4] Soumen Saha, Dr. Utpal Roy, Dr.D.D. Sinha, Md. Arif ,
“Performance Analysis of VANET Scenario in Ad-hoc Network
by NCTUns “, IJICT (ISSN 0974-2239) ,Vol-3, No-7 ,575-581
,2013
[5] Soumen Saha, Dr. Utpal Roy, Dr.D.D. Sinha ,“VANET
Simulation in diffrent Indian City Scenario” ,IJEEE(ISSN 2231-
1297), Vol-3, No-9,2013
[6] Soumen Saha, Dr. Utpal Roy, Dr.D.D. Sinha, “Comparative study
of Ad-Hoc Protocols in MANET and VANET” , IJEEE(ISSN
2231-1297) , Vol-3, No-9,2013
[7] Soumen Saha, Dr. Utpal Roy, Dr.D.D. Sinha , ”Performance
comparison of various Ad-Hoc routing protocols of VANET in
Indian city scenario”, published at AIJRSTEM,
(ISSN(Online):2328-3580), Issue 5, Volume 1, 49-54, Feb 2014.
[8] Francisco J. Martinez1, Chai Keong Toh, Juan-CarlosCano,
Carlos T. Calafate and Pietro , A survey and comparative study of
simulators for vehicular and hoc networks (VANETs), published
at Wairless communication mobile computing of Special Issue:
Emerging Techniques for Wireless Vehicular Communications of
Wiley online Publication, July 2011 , Volume 11, Issue 7, pages
813–828
[9] H. Kawashima, “Japanese Perspective of Driver Information
Systems,” Transportation,vol.17,no. 3, Sept. 1990, pp.263–84
[10] The GUI User Manual for the NCTUns 6.0 Network Simulator
and Emulator. http://nsl.csie.nctu.edu.tw/nctuns.html- NCTUns-
6.0 manual
[11] The Protocol Developer Manual for the NCTUns6.0 Network
Simulator and Emulator