International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)

Answers to the reviews of the Paper ID# 30837

"Comparative study of data transfer by AODV, DSDV and OLSR protocols in the case of
VANET"
January 3, 2023
I would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful feedback. All comments from Reviewer
1 are highlighted in yellow, those from Reviewer 2 are highlighted in red, and those from
Reviewer 3 are highlighted in green.

Reviewer A:
The article has written well and very interesting but few comments to improve the quality of
the paper.
Comment 1:
Literature survey should be detailed and consider this article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050916305889
Response:
Answer: Our contribution is a comparative study of three routing protocols in a vehicular
network. In the bibliographic survey part, we have cited the most cited related works. We
have carefully updated our references by adding the proposed article as well as other
references. And based on the proposed article, we have added the following paragraph:
Praveen et al. [21] discuss a comparative analysis on the security part and more precisely the
black hole attack in the ad-hoc network using AODV and OLSR protocols. The simulation
was done using NS-2 network simulator. The simulation results show that the OLSR protocol
is the best when there is no attack and the number of source nodes is lower. The AODV
protocol outperforms when we consider the attack. In brief, we can say that the authors in this
comparative analysis do not mention the simulation parameters such as the number of nodes,
the topology, the mobility, and the pause time. These parameters have a direct influence on
the simulation results
[21] K.S. Praveen, H. L. Gururaj, and B. Ramesh, ”Comparative Analysis of Black Hole
Attack in Ad Hoc Network Using AODV and OLSR Protocols,” Procedia Computer Science,
Vol. 85, pp. 325-330, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.240.
To improve the state-of-the-art part, we also tried to revise this part of the manuscript. The
modifications made are underlined.
Comment 2:
Results and discussions are not appropriate.
Response:
In Results and discussions part, we have shown the results of our simulation based on a virtual
scenario generated by SUMO and processed by the NS-3 network simulator. Then we
1
discussed the results obtained. See the RESULT AND DISCUSSION part in the new version
of our manuscript, an extensive discussion has been added and the changes made are
underlined.
Reviewer B:
The paper should be major revised to improve the quality such as in the enclosed file.
The content of the attached file :
In this paper, the authors perform a comparison of AODV, OLSR, and DSDV routing
protocols for VANET scenarios to determine the fittest routing protocol. Based on the
simulation results, the authors also indicate 2 scenarios, AODV is fit for lower 75 vehicles
and OLSR is fit for higher 75 vehicles. In the reviewer's opinion, this work is attractive and
well presented, however, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:
Comment 1:
In the Introduction Section, the author presented some concepts such as MANETs, VANETs,
and FANETs, however, the main features of VANETs are not highlighted. The authors should
focus on emphasizing VANETs and their uniqueness such as architecture, operating
principles, high and pattern mobility, supported roadside units (RSU), and challenging issues.
The author should refer to "A Survey of QoS-aware Routing Protocols for the MANET-WSN
Convergence Scenarios in IoT Networks".
Response:
Referring to the proposed article "A Survey of QoS-aware Routing Protocols for the
MANET-WSN Convergence Scenarios in IoT Networks", we modified the introduction by
making several improvements (see the introduction part in the manuscript, the modifications
made are underlined).
Comment 2:
In Section 2, the authors analyzed some related works. However, they missed some recent
related works. I have searched randomly and then found some results in [1-2], Moreover, the
authors should mention the criteria to select these papers such as in period 05 recent years or
cited numbers, etc.
[1] A High-Performance Routing Protocol for Multimedia Applications in MANETs
[2] CEPRM: A Cloud-assisted Energy-Saving and Performance-Improving Routing
Mechanism for MANETs

Response:
We have selected only articles that deal with VANETs. We have selected the most recent and
most cited articles in the literature. Thanks for your proposition. We have added other articles
to the bibliography [1-5] and [21] and which we have discussed in the state-of-the-art section.

Comment 3:
In Section 3, the authors presented detailed three routing protocols and then perform related
simulations in Section 4. I have some comments, as follows:
- In Table 2, why did you set up the "node speed= 20 m/s"? In reality, the speed of vehicles
changes continually in a range [0-100]km, so you should set up "node speed" randomly in a
range.

2
 - What is "Overhead" mean in Figure 10? I don't find any definition of the "Overhead"
concept in your paper.

Response:
- In Table 2, why did you set up the "node speed= 20 m/s"? In reality, the speed of vehicles
changes continually in a range [0-100]km, so you should set up "node speed" randomly in a
range.

The SI (International System of Units) The SI (International System of Units) for

speed is m/s (meters per second), but speed can also be expressed in any unit of
distance per time. Other units are miles per hour (mph), kilometers per hour (km/h),
and kilometers per second (km/s). If we take 20m/s this is equivalent to 72 km/h, so
we are in the range of [0-100]km/h. In this article, we considered a fixed speed equal
to 20 m/s. This on the one hand, on the other hand, we have tried to use the same
simulation conditions that most researchers use in order to have the possibility of
verifying and comparing the results obtained. But your proposal is very interesting and
we promise to try to take it into account in future work.

- What is "Overhead" mean in Figure 10? I don't find any definition of the "Overhead"
concept in your paper.

 We have taken into consideration your remark and we have redefined overhead in this
part :

Overhead: This value characterizes the saturation level of the network. This is the
relationship between the extra routing packets and the packets received at the target
vehicles. The lower Overhead shows the highest network performance.
Mathematically:
𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 = (2)

Comment 4:
In recent research, they perform a performance comparison between typical 4 protocols:
AODV, DSR, OLSR, and DSDV. The results have shown that AODV is suitable for large-
scale networks and energy-saving while OLSR provides high performance. In my opinion,
you should have a short analysis of this closest work (Routing Algorithms for MANET-IoT
Networks: A Comprehensive Survey).
Finally, the author should double-check the format/typos/writing throughout the manuscript,
such as:
- You should use uniformly "Fig." or "Figure" throughout the paper.
- Why do you have two studies "[18] 2018, [19] 2018" in a row of Table 1?
- All Figures should enhance with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.
- You should remove some low-reputed journals or conferences, too old. Only should cite in a
range recent 3 years.

3
Response:
- In recent research, they perform a performance comparison between typical 4
protocols: AODV, DSR, OLSR, and DSDV. The results have shown that AODV is
suitable for large-scale networks and energy-saving while OLSR provides high
performance. In my opinion, you should have a short analysis of this closest work
(Routing Algorithms for MANET-IoT Networks: A Comprehensive Survey).

 The necessary adjustments have been made. See the RESULT AND DISCUSSION
part in the manuscript, an extensive discussion has been added and the changes made
are underlined.

- You should use uniformly "Fig." or "Figure" throughout the paper.

 We have done a complete proofreading of the document, and we have made the
necessary changes.

- Why do you have two studies "[18] 2018, [19] 2018" in a row of Table 1?

 Both articles discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the ZRP protocol. To keep
the table consistent (only one article per line) we have chosen to keep only the article
"A comparative study of reactive, proactive and hybrid routing protocol in wireless
sensor network under wormhole attack" and eliminate the other one.

- All Figures should enhance with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

 The necessary adjustments have been made.

- You should remove some low-reputed journals or conferences, too old. Only should
cite in a range recent 3 years.

 Since our article is a comparative study of topology-based routing protocols, it is quite

normal to find old references. This is the case of the following article which is in 2015
"Proficiency Analysis of AODV, DSR and TORA Ad-hoc Routing Protocols for
Energy Problem of holes in wireless sensor networks". However, after 2015, to our
knowledge, there are no more articles dealing with TORA. Note that the choice of
articles cited in this contribution takes into account the following two criteria: the most
recent and the most cited.

4
Reviewer H:
Comment 1: The Abstract (MAX 200 WORDS) should be informative and completely self-
explanatory (no citation in abstract), provide a clear statement of the problem, the proposed
approach or solution, and point out major findings and conclusions.
Response:
The necessary adjustments have been made.

Comment 2:
Please expand the abbreviation(s)/acronym(s),
Response:
This remark has been taken into account and the new title is:

Comparative study of proactive and reactive routing protocols in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network

Comment 3:
Please expand the abbreviation(s)/acronym(s).
Response:
The necessary adjustments have been made.
Comment 4:
Please break all paragraphs if less than 3 sentences into at least 3 sentences.
modify into an paragraph.
Response:
Respecting your comment and other comments from other reviewers, we have re-edited the
introductory part. See the new version of our paper. Changes have been highlighted.

Comment 5:
Please number the citations consecutively based on the order of appearance.
Response:
Taking this remark into account, we have updated the citation numbers after adding some
related works.
Comment 6:
Please provide the links to the researchers’ social media profiles of the authors as completely
as possible: Scopus, ORCID (Mandatory), Google Scholar, and Publons/Web of Science
ResearchID.
Response:
Links to authors' profiles on researchers' social networks have been added.