APPLICABILITY OF OVERLAY NON-DELAY TOLERANT POSITION-BASED PROTOCOLS IN HIGHWAYS AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR VANET

International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol.13, No.2, April 2021
DOI: 10.5121/ijwmn.2021.13202 9
APPLICABILITY OF OVERLAY NON-DELAY
TOLERANT POSITION-BASED PROTOCOLS IN
HIGHWAYS AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
FOR VANET
Mahmoud Ali Al Shugran
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Jerash University, Jerash
ABSTRACT
Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) is new sort in wireless ad-hoc networks. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)
communication is one of the main communication paradigms that provide a level of safety and convenience
to drivers and passengers on the road. In such environment, routing data packet is challenging due to
frequently changed of network topology because of highly dynamic nature of vehicles. Thus, routing in
VANETs in require for efficient protocols that guarantee message transmission among vehicles. Numerous
routing protocols and algorithms have been proposed or enhanced to solve the aforementioned problems.
Many position based routing protocols have been developed for routing messages that have been identified
to be appropriate for VANETs. This work explores the performances of selected unicast non-delay tolerant
overlay position-based routing protocols. The evaluation has been conducted in highway and urban
environment in two different scenarios. The evaluation metrics that are used are Packet Delivery Ratio
(PDR), Void Problem Occurrence (VPO), and Average Hop Count (AHC).
KEYWORDS
VANET, V2V, Routing protocols, PDR, VPO, AHC.
1. INTRODUCTION
Vehicular ad hoc network or Vehicular network (VANET) is a distributed self–configure, self-
routing and self–organize network with no need for administrator. Vehicles are the cornerstone of
VANET. Thus, VANET networks can set up routing paths along vehicles. The VANET is
implemented on city, urban and highway environments. In such environments, VANET networks
serve many safety and non-safety applications. The most challenging matter in VANETs is the
routing of data packets. This is because the frequent varying of vehicles’ speed that incurs
frequently topology changing. That results in breakage of link communication between vehicles.
Also, the variable of vehicles’ velocity contributes in a sparse network some time and some time
dense network. Hence, such type of scenarios changes the performance of the VANET network
very frequently [1, 2, 3].
In VANET, there are three types of communications are involved viz. Communication between
the vehicles (V2V), Vehicle to infrastructure communication (V2I) and cellular communication.
The V2V routing protocols on the basis of routing information’s and transmission strategies are
broadly categorized into unicast, multicast, broadcast [4]. The concern of this work is about
unicast category that is further subdivided into topology based and position based. Traditional
routing protocols related to this category are unable to fully address the new features and
requirements of VANETs. Firstly, the existing topology based or position based protocols are

10
designed for efficient routing with low latency and no congestion. Secondly these protocols are
designed for specific scenarios. Since dynamic topology of VANET conflict the routing
algorithm and at run time the network may attain any kind of scenario. To solve the routing
challenges in the vehicular networks, a numerous protocols are developed for VANETs.
Researchers found that position-based routing protocols are most convenient for VANET than
others. Thus, the concern of this paper focuses on investigating the available unicast non-delay
tolerant overlay position-based routing protocols.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 devoted to VANET communication
environment and applications. Section 3 discusses the routing issues in VANETS. Section 4
presents unicast routing protocols in VANET. Section 5 present detailed representative Non-DTN
Overlay position-based routing protocols. Next, section 6 shows the performance evaluation of
the selected protocols by giving a particular interest to specific performance metrics. Section 7
presents experimental results and discussion and finally, section 8 conclude this study and
suggest directions for future work.
2. VANET COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT AND APPLICATIONS
VANET is not restricted to space like indoor or outdoor. VANETs implemented in two different
environments; Highways environment and Rural environment. Communication on each
environment can be either vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication or vehicle to infrastructure on
road-unit (V2I communication. Thus, the intended routing algorithm that will be used in VANET
must adapt to the environment that will be deployed in and the communication type [5]. In
general VANET applications can be characterized on the basis of their functionalities; they can
be broadly categorized as safety and non-safety applications for the sake of commercial and
convenience. Safety applications primarily focus on passenger safety to mitigate the opportunity
of road accidents by avoiding intersection collision. Furthermore, safety applications alert for the
curve speed, cooperative forward collision alert, traffic signal and other applications. The non-
safety applications enlarge the on road passengers' satisfaction by providing different facilities
such as social media. Further, non-safety applications provide electronic toll collection system
that allows driver to pay toll online and preventing time wasting. Also, the non-safety
applications can provide parking lot payment, traffic management and many others services.
Compared to safety applications, the non-safety applications consume high bandwidth and
require significant network resources [6].
There are several important differences between an urban and a highway environment. These
differences have a major impact on communication in each environment that imposes critical
demand in designing an efficient routing protocol. In an urban environment, there are many
obstacles such as vehicles themselves, buildings, corners, and junctions that affect signal
propagation. Hence, the routing protocol for the urban environment should provide a mechanism
to avoid obstacles. On the other hand, signals propagate smoothly in the absence of obstacles in
the highway environment. Furthermore, from a routing point of view used routing algorithm can
perform several options to forward packets in an urban environment because there are many
streets, avenues that are close to each other. Thus, a driver can drive straight-ahead or the driver
can turn to a different road. Hence, the routing protocol for the urban environment should
maintain the nodes' neighbourhood always update. On the other hand, on a highway, there are
only a few entrances and exits and no crossroads; therefore, most of the time the vehicles can
only go forward. Thus, the routing algorithm has a very limited option in forwarding the packets.
Besides, the speed of vehicles and traffic lights has an important impact on node density and
connectivity. Since each environment has different condition and because speed inside urban is
low (usually limited to 50km/h) the connectivity and node density is high. On the other hand, in a

11
highway the speed is almost high about 120km/h, hence, the connectivity and node density is
low. Based on the differences between both environments, my study investigates if one routing
protocols can be efficiently used in both environments [7, 8].
3. ROUTING ISSUES IN VANET
In VANET, invention an efficient routing protocol that is satisfy VANET requirements is one of
the essential challenge that need to be investigated. Designing an efficient protocol for VANETs
is very crucial. As aforementioned, VANET challenges and its new characteristics compared to
other wireless networks are the main area of work for routing efficiency. Furthermore, the
Intelligent Transportation system (ITS) faces many challenges in routing paradigm for VANET.
The cornerstone of developing efficient routing protocol in VANET is to achieve successful
communication between nodes with a short rate of dropped packets and provide a minimal
amount of the overhead. The intended routing protocols for the VANETs must take into account
the highly dynamic topology. It’s obvious that, applying existing routing protocols in vehicular
networks is ineffectual. Therefore, modifying or enhancing the existing protocols is the usual
requirement to resolve the routing challenge in the VANETs or establishing new routing
protocols that satisfy the new VANET requirements. The specific features of VANET that they
are very dynamic environment since they are formed with vehicles that join and leave the
network very fast [5, 6].
As aforementioned, VANET possess some particular characteristics making them different from
the other wireless ad hoc networks in several aspects. In a brief the VANETs are characterized
firstly by their quick changes in network topology. Secondly, the link lifetime between vehicles is
very short mainly because of the Vehicles high speed in highway area and low density of vehicles
in urban area. Thirdly, there are different environment where VANET can be deployed that
imposes several requirements. Finally, there are different applications that are run over the
VANET which make it a unique environment that required special demand to be satisfied [5, 6].
4. UNICAST ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VANET
In VANET, efficient routing protocols have to deploy unique designs that guarantee reliable
communication between two communicating nodes with no disruption. Vehicular ad hoc
networks reinforce several communication patterns that can be classified into three categories
Unicast communication, Multicast/ Geocast communication and Broadcast communication. The
concern of this work focuses on Unicast approach. Unicast communication aims to send a data
packet from a single node to another single node. The targeted node can be reached via multi-hop
wireless communication. Some routing protocols that use the unicast paradigm may also need to
use a multicast paradigm too [6, 7, 8]. The main aim of a wireless ad hoc network routing
algorithm is to guarantee reliable communication between two communicating nodes correctly
and efficiently according to the expected QoS parameters. The formation of a route should satisfy
the bandwidth consumption with minimum overhead. This section will discuss the two main
categories of VANET routing protocols [6, 7, 8].
As shown in Figure 1 there are two well-known categories for data packet forwarding commonly
adopted in multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks for VANETs which are topology-based and
position-based routing protocols [9, 10, 11, 12]. Topology-based routing uses global information
about the network topology and the information about the communication links for making
routing decisions. In this case, every node maintains a routing table, which is the case of routing
protocols for MANETs. Position-based routing uses neighbouring location information to
perform packet forwarding [9, 10, 11, 12].

12
Figure 1. Data packet forwarding approaches for VANETs
4.1. Topology based Routing Protocols
Topology based protocols utilize the information about links that exist in the network to perform
data packet forwarding. In this case, every node maintains a routing table. These protocols use
either proactive (table-driven), reactive (on-demand) and hybrid approaches for routing. In
proactive approaches each vehicle has a routing table that should be updated frequently to have a
route for each other node in the network at all times. In VANET, the network topology changes
frequently, and because the nodes should be up to date with such changes, this may occupy a
significant part of the bandwidth. With reactive routing protocols routes are established only on
demand. Hence, an additional delay is required at the beginning of each demand to find the rout.
The hybrid protocols combine both reactive and proactive protocols. Hybrid protocols aim to
minimize routing delays and overhead in the route discovery for which the nodes are divided into
zones. These protocols are not effective in scenarios with high dynamic vehicles. The study by
several researchers expose that topology based routing protocols are impractical for VANETs
either due to the aforementioned reasons. All topology based routing protocols are important but
the concern of this paper focuses on available unicast position-based routing protocols [9]-[12].
4.2.Position based Routing Protocols
Several unicast routing protocols relies on position-based greedy forwarding strategy to provide
vehicle -to- vehicle communication. In position-based routing approach the movement of nodes
in VANET is limited to the road therefore; routing process using location information makes
sense. The major prerequisite for position-based routing is that a sender node can obtain the
current position of itself, neighbouring nodes as well as the destination through location service.
Thus, the routing decisions require location services such as the Global Position System (GPS)
device to determine the location of the participating nodes. Through using GPS, every vehicle
can continuously send beacon packets with its position information. Position based protocols are
suitable for VANETs since they offer a higher delivery ratio than topology-based routing
protocols in a highly mobile environment. They provide a minimum delay in establishing the
route and achieve good scalability compared to topology-based routing protocols. Three
procedures recognize the operation of position-based routing protocols which are; Path selection,
forwarding mechanism, and recovery strategy. Using a path selection algorithm is not mandatory
in position-based routing. This algorithm can be used with the routing protocol if it presents more
benefits to it. On the other hand, if the path selection algorithm is not used, there will be no extra
overhead but the misleading of packets may occur [9]-[12].
There are several packet-forwarding strategies used for position-based protocols viz. trajectory-
based forwarding, contention-based forwarding, opportunistic forwarding, greedy forwarding,

13
and hybrid forwarding. The concern of this paper is the greedy forwarding mechanism. There are
three main greedy-forwarding strategies: the traditional greedy approach, improved greedy, and
restricted greedy. Most current position-based protocols use a greedy forwarding mechanism to
route packets from a source to the destination. When applying a greedy algorithm, a source
vehicle includes the position of the data packet' destination and selects the next-hop depending on
the optimized criteria of the algorithm; for example the closest neighbour to the destination.
Similarly, each intermediate vehicle selects a next-hop vehicle until the packet reaches the
destination. To accomplish this, the vehicles should be able to periodically broadcast small
packets (called beacons) with random jitter to announce their position and enable other vehicles
to maintain a one-hop neighbour table. With high mobility in VANET, the beaconing frequency
can be adapted to the degree of mobility. Even though, a fundamental problem of inaccurate
position information is always present in VANET. A neighbour vehicle that is selected as a next-
hop may no longer be in transmission range. This leads to a significant decrease in the packet
delivery rate. To improve the accuracy of position information, it is possible to increase the
beaconing frequency. However, Periodic beaconing creates a lot of congestion collision
probability. The recovery strategy defines the actions that a node must perform when it does not
have any neighbour that meets the forwarding criteria. Based on the recovery methods position-
based routing protocols are subdivided into Delay Tolerant Network (DTN), Non-Delay Tolerant
Network (Non-DTN), and Hybrid [9]-[12].
4.2.1. The DTN position-based Routing Protocols
Routing with this strategy deploys the carry and forwarding recovery mechanism where the
sender node holds a packet in the cache until it finds a suitable next forwarding node. The carry
and forward mechanism aim to transfer the data packets between the nodes even with the absence
of the path between the communicating vehicles. The carry and forwarding recovery mechanism
needs extra architecture. The DTN strategy introduces a high delay in data transmission. But this
strategy is suitable for delay-tolerant applications. Thus, the DTN recovery approach has
increased its use in VANET routing protocols. As another position-based routing protocol
Vehicular Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) uses geographical knowledge needed by the routing
protocols [9]-[12]. The Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery (VADD) [13] and (GeOpps) [14]
Geographical Opportunistic Routing are well-known routing protocol belong to DTN.
4.2.2. The Non-DTN Position-based Routing Protocols
Routing with this strategy has the ability to change the forwarding criteria to find a suitable node
to forward the packet to avoid carrying it through using greedy forwarding approaches.
Therefore, Non-DTN protocols aim to decrease the delay at packets delivery from the source
node to the destination node. The Non-DTN protocols are appropriate to be used with critical
safety applications, which demand real-time response during data dissemination. Hence, the
delay time in the transmission is the main concern when designing a Non-DTN protocol. To
satisfy this demand, the shortest path method is usually adopted. Nevertheless, the shortest path
sometimes introduces some delay because of holes in the network. Many types of NON-DTN
protocols have been developed to handle this failure, namely, beacon, no-beacon, and hybrid
protocols. The concern of this work concentrates on the beacon approach which subdivided into
two categories non-overlay and overlay network [8]-[12].
4.2.2.1. Non-Overlay
The Non-overlay forwarding mechanism takes routing decisions at each hop. All protocols in the
Non-Overlay network use the greedy forwarding algorithm for sending data from source vehicle
to destination vehicle. When no neighbour is closer to the destination other than the current one

14
the greedy forwarding method can fail. In this case, the recovery strategy will be applied. One of
the earlier routing protocols that apply the non-overlay approach is the Greedy Perimeter
Stateless Routing (GPSR) [15].
4.2.2.2. Overlay:
An overlay network, logical links that connect all nodes are built on the top of another overlay
network to get information such as topology of area (maps), vehicle traffic information. Hence
the external information from the other networks viz. maps junctions is the points where special
strategies are implemented to make routing decisions. One of the earlier routing protocols that
apply the overlay approach is the Greedy Perimeter Coordinator Routing (GPCR) [16].
Furthermore, Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing at Junction (Gpsrj+) [17], Geographic Source
Routing with Directional Forwarding Approaches (DGSR)[18], Geographic Source
Routing(GSR) [19], Enhanced GyTAR (E-GyTAR) [20],Greedy Traffic-Aware Routing
(GyTAR) [21], The Dynamic Traffic Aware Routing (ITAR) [22],Directional Greedy Routing
(DGR) [23], Predictive Directional Greedy Routing (PDGR) [24], Directional Greedy routing
protocol (DGRP) [25], and Reliable Directional Greedy Routing (RDGR) [26]are routing
protocols belong to this category.
4.2.3. Hybrid Position-based Routing Protocols
The hybrid position-based routing protocols are a combination of non- DTN and DTN. This
category takes the advantage of both DTN and non-DTN categories to solve the disconnect issues
of other VANET routing protocols. One of the earlier routing protocols that apply the Hybrid
position-based Routing protocols approach is the Hybrid Geographic and DTN Routing with
Navigation Assistance in Urban Vehicular Networks environments (GeoDTN+Nav) [27].
5. REPRESENTATIVE NON-DTN OVERLAY POSITION-BASED ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
This section characterizes the unicast non-DTN overlay position-based routing protocols for
urban and highway environment, and provides a comprehensive comparison of the surveyed
protocols. Figure2 presents the surveyed protocols for urban and highway environment.
Figure 2. The Surveyed Unicast Non-DTN Overlay Position-based Routing Protocols

15
5.1. Urban Environment
5.1.1. Greedy Perimeter Coordinator Routing (GPCR)
GPCR [16] is a unicast position based routing protocol. GPCR is a vehicle-to-vehicle protocol
that is used in urban area. It is a street aware protocol. GPCR algorithm performs two strategies
to find the optimal routes. The strategies are: the restricted greedy forwarding on the basis of
prior selected route, and the perimeter mode. In GPCR, every node continuously sends beacon
packets with their own position and their node id. Also, the beacon includes information about
whether the sender is located on a junction or on a street. Each node is aware of position
information of its neighbour s, and a node can be considered a coordinator node when it has two
neighbour s that are within communication range of each other, but do not list each other as a
neighbour . GPCR makes routing decisions on the basis of streets and junctions instead of
individual nodes and their connectivity. Also, the coordinator node is responsible for making
routing decision without considering digital map. When a node wants to send a packet a location
service is used to find out the position of the final destination. Next, the restricted forwarding
mode imposes the packet holder node to forward the packets to a node that is located at the
junction. Therefore packets should always be forwarded to a Coordinator node on a junction
rather than being forwarded across the junction. To determine a coordinator, GPCR algorithm
uses two approaches the first one depends on Neighbour Table that were constructed in each node
through exploiting beacon messages. The second approach is the Correlation coefficient,
neighbour to find the correlation coefficient a node uses its position information and the position
information of its immediate nodes. In GPCR, when the restricted greedy fails to forward the data
packet i.e. packet fall in void, it uses recovery mode to overcome such problem. In the recovery
mode a junction node will be assigned based on the right hand rule to which junction the packet
should be forwarded. However, GPCR suffers from several issues; firstly; because GPCR
forwards data packets based on the node density of adjacent roads and the connectivity to the
destination, if the density of nodes is low or there is no connectivity to the destination, then the
delay time increase. Secondly, the restricted greedy forwarding needs more hops as compared to
simple greedy forwarding which also increase delay. Thirdly, the recovery mode also causes
extra delay in relaying the packet toward the destination which degrades the throughput of the
network. All of those drawbacks degrade the performance of the network.
5.1.2. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing Junction+ (GpsrJ+)
GpsrJ+ [17] is a unicast position based non-DTN overlay routing protocol. GpsrJ+ is a vehicle-
to-vehicle routing protocol which is proposed for the urban environment. It is designed to
improve GPCR performance based on minimal modification. GpsrJ+ algorithm consists of two
modes; it uses a special form of greedy forwarding i.e packets are greedily forwarded along road
segments as close to the destination as possible. When packets reach a void area, the node
switches to GpsrJ+ recovery mode. In the recovery mode, packets are greedily backtracked along
the perimeter of roads. GpsrJ+ reduces the dependency on junction node also it recovers packets
from the void problem by using digital maps. Each node sends a beacon message about its
coordinates and the road segments on which its neighbour s are located. GpsrJ+ utilizes
two-hop beaconing to predict the next road segment in which the packet should be forwarded
toward a destination. A source node and based on the road segments it obtains from its neighbour
s’ beacon messages, especially its junction neighbour s, the source node pre-computes the
segment where it’s next hop will be. If the pre-computed advancing segment is similar to the
road segment that the source node’s furthest neighbour is on, the source node will advance to its
furthest neighbour; or else, it will advance to its junction neighbour. However, if the coordinator
node has opposite direction from the current forwarding node, it chooses the coordinator node as

16
a next relay one. Accordingly, the major directional decisions are made at junctions. A major
advantage of GpsrJ+ protocol is it does not require a costly planarization plan. However,
GpsrJ+ algorithm when apply in realistic roads follow a highly complex trajectory even though it
uses a simple line trajectory. Further, GpsrJ+ protocol does not have a global view of the network
paths.
5.1.3. Geographic Source Routing with Directional Forwarding Approaches (DGSR)
DGSR [18] is a unicast position based non-DTN overlay routing protocol. DGSR is a street
awareness protocol proposed for the urban environment. DGSR is vehicle-to-vehicle routing
protocol. The DGSR protocol is an improvement version of geographic source routing (GSR)
protocol [19]. In DGSR, the source nodes which have packet to be forwarded get the position of
final destination node via location service. The DGSR protocol algorithm computes the shortest
path to the destination using the Dijkstra algorithm. The path is composed of a set of junctions
and each packet from source node follows the sequence of junctions to reach final destination.
The new improvement to DGSR algorithm is that the forwarding node uses directional greedy
forwarding to forward data packets towards the destination. In case forwarded packet stuck at
void, DGSR uses carry and forward strategy for local maximum problem. However, DGSR
protocol does not take into account the status of link while forwarding. Therefore, in case of high
mobility of vehicular nodes, it suffers from packet loss due to link breakage.
5.1.4. Enhanced Greedy Traffic Aware Routing Protocol (E-GyTAR)
E-GyTAR [20] is a unicast position based routing protocol. It is a vehicle-to-vehicle traffic
aware protocol proposed for the urban environment. E-GyTAR is an enhanced version of GyTAR
[21]. It uses location services to get the position of the destination node. Each vehicle maintains a
neighbour table, in this table the position, velocity, and direction of each neighbour vehicle are
saved. Further, this vehicle’s table is updated as a node receives a new beacon message. If the
vehicle wants to send a data packet towards the destination then it refers to its neighbour table to
find the optimal path. E-GyTAR has also two phases; dynamic junction selection mechanisms
based on directional density, and improve greedy forwarding for routing in between junction. E-
GyTAR algorithm selects optimal path on the basic of higher number of vehicles moving in the
direction of destination. The junction that is nearest to the destination and has the highest score
will be selected as a next relay intersection. It uses improved greedy packet forwarding strategy
to forward the packet between the junctions. In E-GyTAR, if the packet stuck in the void, then
carry and forward technique is used for recovery. The main issue associated with E-GyTAR
routing protocol is that it selects junctions based on directional density and ignores non-
directional density flows on a multi-lane road. If there is no directional density then data packet
will stuck in void area. Thus, E-GyTAR coverts to carry and forward technique which results in
more delay that degrade the performance of the network.
5.1.5. The Dynamic Traffic Aware Routing (ITAR)
ITAR [22] is a unicast position based routing protocol. ITAR is a traffic aware protocol proposed
for the urban environment. ITAR is vehicle-to-vehicle routing protocol. ITAR is an improved
version of E-GyTAR. ITAR algorithm improves junction selecting strategy, and recovery
strategy used by E-GyTAR. With ITAR, each vehicle has GPS, location service which is Grid
Location Service (GLS), digital maps, and Vehicular traffic estimation technique like, IFTIS on
board. ITAR selects the junctions that construct the routing path dynamically. When a source
generates a packet and each time a packet is at a junction, the neighbour ing junction was scored.
The junction with the highest score is selected as the next junction. This selecting mechanism
takes into account both the junction’s position and the consideration of vehicular traffic on the

17
street. Packets are forwarded through applying an improved greedy forwarding manner as E-
GyTAR does. When a packet encounters a local optimum, ITAR algorithm applies a conditional
carry and forward approach. The local optimal node should score itself and its neighbour
vehicles, and decide whether to carry the packet or forward it based on who is the closest to the
destination.
5.2. Highway Environment
5.2.1. Directional Greedy Routing (DGR)
In [23], the authors propose a protocol named DGR is a unicast position based non-DTN overlay
routing protocol. DGR is designed for the highway environments, therefore, unlike city
environment, it does not require junction and anchor point selection. DGR is a vehicle-to-vehicle
routing protocol. To get the location information of the destination, it requires static maps and
location services. Moreover, DGR assumes that the vehicles are aware of their velocity and
directional information. DGR uses directional greedy forwarding for sending the packets towards
the destination. In case, a source node wants to send a packet to a destination node, DGR
algorithm selects a node which is closest to the destination and is moving in the same direction.
Furthermore, if the packet holder does not have the vehicle in the direction of the destination then
it apply carry and forward recovery mode for certain specified time duration as threshold and try
to find out the next vehicle moving in the direction of destination. The Directional Greedy
Routing scheme intends to reduce routing loops in the forwarding process. However, may cause
more hops and delay.
5.2.2. Predictive Directional Greedy Routing (PDGR)
PDGR [24] is a unicast position based non-DTN overlay routing protocol. It is a vehicle-to-
vehicle protocol which is proposed for the highway environment. PDGR algorithm able to
forward packet to the most suitable next hop based on both current and predicable future
situations. Also it has static digital maps and GPS (or DGPS) installed to get its accurate
geographical location. PDGR applies Direction First Forwarding (DFF) strategy and Position
First Forwarding (PFF) strategy. Hence, the weighted score is computed from these two
strategies. The weighted score is estimated for the source node and its current neighbour s, and
potential neighbour s. When a source node wants to send packets to a destination, the destination
location is known in advance. Each vehicle has the knowledge of its own velocity and direction.
Nodes send beacon message continuously with fixed beaconing interval. Thus, each node in the
network constructs its own routing table. In the routing table; position information, motion
direction and ID of all one-hop neighbour s are maintained. PDGR takes both position and
direction into consideration when choosing next hop. The next hop is selected by calculating
weighted score of the two metrics. Additionally, a prediction approach is applied by considering
the packet carrier’s possible future neighbour s make routing more efficient in PDGR.
Furthermore, if the packet reaches void i.e. packet holder does not have a vehicle in the direction
of the destination then it apply carry and forward recovery mode until it find out the next vehicle
moving in the direction of destination. The main drawback of PDGR is the network
disconnection problem if the predicted node is selected as next relay-node that it may become out
of sender range.
5.2.3. Directional Greedy routing protocol (DGRP)
DGRP [25] is a unicast position based routing protocol. It is vehicle-to-vehicle which proposed
for urban environment. DGRP uses the two forwarding strategies greedy and perimeter. Further,
DGRP algorithm depends on DGR protocol with more improvements. DGRP predicts the

18
position of vehicle neighbouring nodes during the beacon interval. To predict the new positions,
DGRP algorithm uses the neighbour s’ speed and direction information provided in beacon
packets. A source node which has data packet to be forwarded predicts the position of its
neighbour’s nodes within the beacon interval. Next, it selects the most appropriate next
forwarding node. The selection process is based on the neighbour s which is closest to destination
or to the next intermediate node. The main drawbacks of DGRP: Each node has to compute the
speed and direction of motion, each forwarding node has to predict position of all its neighbour s,
and accuracy of position prediction method depends on frequency of change in speed and
direction. Such drawbacks result in more delay that affects the overall performance of DGRP.
5.2.4. Reliable Directional Greedy Routing (RDGR)
RDGR [26] is a reliable unicast position-based routing protocol. It is vehicle-to-vehicle which
proposed for urban environment. Further, RDGR algorithm depends on DGR protocol with more
improvements to increase its reliability. The RDGR approach obtains position and movement
information of its neighbouring nodes from GPS. The RDGR algorithm uses information of
vehicles’ position, speed, direction of motion i.e. movement information to predict link stability
of their neighbour s. The RDGR algorithm calculates link stability between neighbour nodes in
distributed fashion for reliable forwarding of data packet. The packet sender uses neighbour’s
link stability to select the most appropriate next forwarding node. It uses combination metrics of
distance, velocity, direction and link stability to decide about to which neighbour the given
packet should be forwarded. The RDGR algorithm incorporates potential score based strategy,
which reduces link breaks, enhances reliability of the route and improves packet delivery ratio.
6. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
The applicability of selected routing protocols in urban and highway environments is different.
These differences appeared due to the specification of each protocol, such differences have a
significant impact on the performance of each routing protocols. This work discusses the
properties for the routing protocols and adaptability in each environment. Table 1 and Table 2
present the specification of simulation parameters for both environments. In this section, the work
evaluates the performance of the selected protocols in NS-2.34. The researcher compared the
performance of DGR, PDGR, DGRP, and RDGR in highway environment and GPCR, Gpsr+,
DGSR, EGyTAR, and ITAR in urban environment.
6.1. Simulation Parameters
Table 1 shows Simulation Parameters for highway environment, and Table 2 shows Simulation
Parameters for Urban environment.
Table 1. Simulation parameters for highway environment
Simulation NS2.34
Scenario Area 5000 x 5000 m
Simulation NS2.34
Simulation time 300 Seconds
Vehicle Nodes 200
Transmission Range 250m
Movement model Random Waypoint
Minimum speed value 70 km/h
Maximum speed value 130 km/h
Hello packet size 12 bytes
Hello packet interval 1.5 second

19
Density between nodes 5 vehicles every 130 m
MAC layer protocol IEEE 802.11 DCF
Traffic Type CBR /UDP
Packet size 512 bytes
Channel bandwidth 2 Mbps
Radio propagation model Two Ray Ground Model
Table 2. Simulation parameters for urban environment
Simulation NS2.34
Simulation time 300 Seconds
Number of nodes 50-300
Transmission Range 250m
Movement model Modified Random Waypoint
Minimum speed value 10 km/h
Maximum speed value 50 km/h
Hello packet size and interval 12 bytes and 1.5 second
Density between nodes 1 vehicles every 10 m
MAC layer protocol IEEE 802.11 DCF
Traffic Type CBR/UDP
Packet size 512 bytes
Channel bandwidth 2 Mbps
Radio propagation model Two Ray Ground Model
6.2. Simulation Setup
For urban and highway environments the experiments are carried out in NS-2.34 simulator. The
evaluation metrics that are used are Packet Delivery Ratio, Void Problem Occurrence, and
Average Hop Count. Those metrics are chosen based on the required solution. It was required to
be sure that the data is exchanged between the vehicles in different Hops with the highest
delivery, and least void occurrence of the surveyed protocols. The performance of the selected
metrics has been evaluated in urban and highway environments. The simulation parameters are as
shown in table 1 and table 2. Two different scenarios have been conducted for each environment.
For the first scenario the number of vehicles varies from 50 vehicles up to 300 vehicles with fixed
speed 40 kmh for urban environment and 90 kmh in highway area. For the second scenario the
vehicles’ speed varies from 10kmh up to 50 kmh in urban area and from 70kmh up to 130kmh
in highway area with constant number of vehicles i.e. 150 nodes. Further, in each scenario 10
pairs of source-destination are randomly selected.
7. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1. Highway Environment
7.1.1. Various Numbers of Nodes
In the first scenario for highway area, a variance number of vehicles; 50, 100, 150, 200, 200, 250
and 300 are used and all vehicles move with 90 km/h. Figure 3 shows the impact of node density
on the surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
Figure 3(a) shows the packet delivery ratio for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR; researcher can
notice that the packet delivery ratio increases as number of node increases for all protocols. This
is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to select suitable neighbour node. The

20
packet delivery ratios of DGR and PDGR protocols are slightly the same. And PDGR slightly
outperform DGR in packet delivery ratio because of its prediction algorithm. DGRP outperforms
DGR and PDGR because of its new features. Further, RDGR outperforms all other protocol
because RDGR algorithm calculates the potential score for packet forwarding node and its
neighbour nodes to make forwarding decision.
Figure 3(b) shows the average number of hops for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR; researcher
can notice that the average number of hops increases as number of node increases for all
protocols. This is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to reach destination with
more hops.DGR and PDGR protocols haves lightly the same hops count, DGRP has less hops
count than DGR and PDGR, and RDGR has the least average number of hops compared to the
other protocols because of its selection criterion of the next forwarding node.
Figure 3(c) shows the void problem occurrence rate for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR;
researcher can notice that the void problem occurrence rate decreases as number of node
increases for all protocols. This is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to make
correct routing decision. RDGR has the least void problem occurrence rate compared to the other
protocols because of its selection criterion of the next forwarding node.
Figure 3. The impact of node density on the surveyed routing protocols based on the
selected performance metrics
7.1.2. Variety Movement Speeds
In the second scenario for highway area, a fixed number of 150vehicles, and a variety movement
speeds; 130, 120, 110, 100, 90, 80, and 70 Km/h were deployed. Figure 4 shows the impact of
mobility on surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
Figure 4(a) shows the packet delivery ratio for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR; researcher can
notice that the packet delivery ratio decreases as the speed of vehicles increases for all protocols.
This is because the increment in speed results more inaccuracy in position information which
increase packet loss opportunity, also it results in decreasing in link stability. RDGR outperforms
all other protocol because RDGR algorithm can manage the accuracy of position information
and link stability problems better than other protocols. Further, the packet delivery ratios of DGR
and PDGR protocols are slightly the same. Also, DGRP outperforms both DGR and PDGR
Protocols.
Figure 4(b) shows the average number of hops for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR; the results
indicate that the average number of hops increases as the speed of vehicles increases for all
protocols. The increment in hops number result more delay to make routing decision at each hop

21
which results in bad performance of the routing protocol. RDGR showed the least void problem
occurrence rate compared to the other protocols.
Figure 4(c) shows the void problem occurrence rate for DGR, PDGR, DGRP and RDGR;
researcher can notice that the increment in vehicles’ speeds results in higher occurrences of void
problem. This is because the increment in speed results more inaccuracy in position information
which of high opportunity to forward packet to wrong intermediate node, also it results in
decreasing in link stability that may results in link breakage between the communicating nodes.
RDGR showed the least void problem occurrence rate compared to the other protocols.
Figure 4. The impact of mobility on surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
7.2. Urban Environment
7.2.1. Various Numbers of Nodes
In the first scenario for urban area, a variance number of vehicles; 50, 100, 150, 200, 200, 250
and 300 are used and all vehicles move with 50 km/h. Figure 5 shows the impact of node density
on the surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
Figure 5(a) shows the packet delivery ratio for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and ITAR;
researcher can notice that the packet delivery ratio increases as number of node increases for all
protocols. This is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to select suitable
neighbour node. Since more nodes are involved in forwarding process, undeliverable packets
may create a loop and the same route formed by the same nodes in the same many hops is visited
again. However, ITAR protocol achieved highest packet delivery ratio and shows a steady
performance comparing to other protocols.
Figure 5(b) shows the average number of hops for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and ITAR;
researcher can notice that the average number of hops increases as number of node increases for
all protocols. This is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to reach destination
with more hops. However, ITAR protocol achieved lowest number of hops values and shows a
steady performance comparing to other protocols.
Figure 5(c) shows the void problem occurrence rate for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and
ITAR; researcher can notice that the void problem occurrence rate decreases as number of node
increases for all protocols. This is because more number of nodes provides opportunity to make
correct routing decision. However, ITAR protocol achieved lowest number of void problem
occurrence rate and shows a steady performance comparing to other protocols.

22
Figure 5. The impact of node density on the surveyed routing protocols based on the
selected performance metrics.
7.2.2. Variety Movement Speeds
In the second scenario for urban area, a fixed number of 150vehicles, and a variety movement
speeds; 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 Km/h were deployed. Figure 6 shows the impact of mobility on
surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
Figure 6(a) shows the packet delivery ratio for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and ITAR;
researcher can notice that the packet delivery ratio decreases as the speed of vehicles increases
for all protocols. This is because high mobility results in frequent topology changes that affect the
performance of the routing protocols. Frequent topology changes decrease in link stability
between vehicles neighbour s .ITAR shows better in packet delivery ratio, due to the enhanced
recovery mode it adopts. Further, wrong carrying decision of other protocols will contribute to
the packet loss rate.
Figure 6(b) shows the average number of hops for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and ITAR;
we can notice that the average number of hops increases as the speed of vehicles increases for all
protocols. The topology changes are proportional to speeds of the nodes that are also proportional
to stale position information of vehicle. Choosing a next relay-node with stale information results
in using a stale rout that incurs more hops to be traversed by the routed packet. ITAR shows
better performance in hops count compared to the other protocols. This trend occurs because
ITAR algorithm explicitly considers vehicle mobility characteristics to make forwarding
decision.
Figure 6(c) shows the void problem occurrence rate for GPCR, Gpsrj+, DGSR, EGyTAR and
ITAR; researcher can notice that the void problem occurrence rate increases as the speed of
vehicles increases for all protocols. The results indicate that ITAR performance is better in
compared to other protocols. The reason is the modification done in ITAR protocol, in which the
data packet can be received by the next relay node. This improvement was achieved at the
expense of extra delay.

23
Figure 6. The impact of mobility on surveyed routing protocols based on the selected performance metrics.
8. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The VANETs can be deployed in three different environments: highways, city and rural. In rural
areas, network is sparsely populated and hence vehicle to vehicle communication face the
problem of instability of links due to frequent topology change. The city environment contains
junctions and obstacles in the form of high rise buildings. The highways have relatively better
communication as most of the vehicle move along the same path; also, it contains no obstacles. In
VANETs, the design of efficient routing protocol for effective vehicular communications poses a
series of technical challenges. The need to design efficient and scalable routing protocols for
VANET makes position-based routing attractive choice. To accomplish this goal, this article
presents a vast number of routing protocol. The surveyed protocols are intended as an aid in the
difficult protocol comparison and selection task. The starting points of an analysis are the
particular characteristics of the VANET network. Once the environment where it should be set up
is established, the focus can move to the most stringent demands of the routing protocol and on
it’s the desired characteristic. The protocol choices can therefore be narrowed down to just a few
potential candidates from the already investigated position-based routing protocols that can
satisfy VANET needs. The future work direction will to develop a routing strategy that is
applicable to highways and city environments. That protocol will fulfil the requirement of routing
in vehicular Ad-hoc networks.
REFERENCES
[1] Mustafa., Hamdi & Lukman, Audah & Sami, Abduljabbar Rashid & Alaa, Hamid Mohammed,
Sameer, Alani & Ahmed, Shamil Mustafa, (2020 ) “A Review of Applications, Characteristics and
Challenges in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)”, 2020 International Congress on Human-
Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), Ankara, Turkey, 2020, pp. 1-
7.
[2] Alves Junior, Joilson & Wille, Emilio C. G., (2018) “Routing in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: Main
Characteristics and Tendencies”, Journal of Computer Networks and Communications Vol. 2018,
Article ID 1302123, 10 pages.
[3] Felipe, Cunha &Boukerche, Azzedine& Villas, Leandro &Viana, Aline &Loureiro, Antonio. (2014).
“Data Communication in VANETs: A Survey, Challenges and Applications”, Ad Hoc Networks”, 44.
[4] Rasheed, A.& Gillani, S. & Ajmal, S. & Qayyum, A. (2017) “Vehicular Ad Hoc Network
(VANET): A Survey, Challenges, and Applications”, Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks for Smart Cities.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 548. Springer, Singapore.
[5] Obaidat, M. & Khodjaeva ,M. & Holst ,J. & Ben Zid, M. (2020) “Security and Privacy Challenges in
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”, In: Mahmood Z. (eds) Connected Vehicles in the Internet of Things.
Springer, Cham.
[6] Brendha, R. & Prakash, V. S. J., (2017 ) “A survey on routing protocols for vehicular Ad Hoc
networks”, 2017 4th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems
(ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 2017, pp. 1-7.

24
[7] Kumar, T. & Reza, Ali. (2016). “A Survey On Unicast Routing Protocols For VANET”, International
Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science, Vol. 5,No. 5, pp 16555-16565 .
[8] Shah, Syed & Shiraz, Muhammad & Nasir, Mostofa& Md. Noor, Rafidah. (2014). “Unicast Routing
Protocols for Urban Vehicular Networks: Review, Taxonomy and Open Research Issues”, Journal of
Zhejiang University: Science C, 15, 489–513.
[9] Kumar, Sushil&Verma, Anil. (2015). “Position Based Routing Protocols in VANET: A Survey”,
Wireless Personal Communications”, 83.
[10] Srivastava, Ankita & Prakash, Arun & Tripathi Rajeev (2020) “Location based routing protocols in
VANET: Issues and existing solutions”, Vehicular Communications, vol. 23, 2020.
[11] Smiri, Safae&Boushaba, Abdelali& Ben Abbou, Rachid&Zahi, Azzedine. (2018). “Geographic and
topology based routing protocols in vehicular ad-hoc networks: Performance evaluation and QoS
analysis”, 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), Fez,
Morocco, 2018, pp. 1-8.
[12] Souaad Boussoufa-Lahlah, FouziSemchedine, LouizaBouallouche-Medjkoune (2015) “A Position-
based Routing Protocol for Vehicular ad Hoc Networks in a City Environment”, Procedia Computer
Science, Vol. No. 73, , Pages 102-108.
[13] Zhao J. & Cao G. (2008 ) “Vadd: Vehicle-assisted data delivery in vehicular ad hoc networks”, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 57(3):1910–1922,.
[14] Leontiadis, I., Mascolo, C (2007), “GeOpps: Geographical Opportunistic Routing for Vehicular
Networks”, World of wireless, Mobile and Multimedia networks 2007, WaWMo 2007 IEEE
International symposium, pp.1-6.
[15] Karp, B. & Kung, H. (2000) “GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for wireless networks,”
ACM MobiCom, no. MobiCom, pp. 243–254.
[16] Lochert, C. & Mauve, M. & F¨usler, H. & Hartenstein,H. (2005 ) “Geographic routing in city
scenarios”, ACM SIGMOBILE mobile computing and communications review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.
69–72,.
[17] Lee, K. & Haerri,J. & Lee, U. & Gerla, M. (2005) “Enhanced perimeter routing for geographic
forwarding protocols in urban vehicular scenarios”, In IEEE Globecom Workshops, pp. 1–10,.
[18] Bilal,S.M.& Khan, A.R. S. Ali (2016) “Review and performance analysis of position based routing
protocols”, Springer Wireless Person. Area Commun. Vol.16, No.73, pp. 1–13
[19] Lochert, C. H. & Hartenstein, J. Tian, H. & Füßler & Hermann, D. & Mauve, M. (2003) “A Routing
Strategy for Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks in City Environments”, In Proc. of IEEE IV'03, pp. 156--
161, Columbus, OH.
[20] Bilal SM & Madani SA & Khan IA. (2011) “Enhanced junction selection mechanism for routing
protocol in VANETs”, The International Arab Journal of Information Technology (IAJIT); Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 422–9.
[21] MoezJerbi, Senouci & RabahMeraihi & Yacine Ghamri-Doudane, (2007) “An improved vehicular ad
hoc routing protocol for city environments”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC’07), pp. 3972–3979.
[22] De-ling, HUANG & Chang, SU & Yu-song, YAN & Guang-xia, XU (2016) “A Dynamic Hop
Choosing Mechanism for Routing in VANETs”, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence:
Techniques and Applications (AITA 2016).
[23] Gong, J. & Xu, C. & Holle, J. (2007) “Directional Greedy Routing in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks”,
27th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW'07),
Toronto, Ont., , pp. 2-2.
[24] Gong, J. & Xu, C. & Holle, J. (2007) “Predictive Directional Greedy Routing in Vehicular Ad hoc
Networks”, 27th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops
(ICDCSW'07), Toronto, Ont., pp. 2-2.
[25] Kumar, R. & Rao, S. V. (2008) “Directional Greedy Routing Protocol (DGRP) in Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks”, International Conference on Information Technology, Bhubaneswar, 2008, pp. 183-188.
[26] Prasanth, K. & Duraiswamy, K. & Jayasudha, K. & Chandrasekar, C. “Improved packet forwarding
approach in Vehicular ad hoc networks using RDGR algorithm”, International Journal of Next-
Generation Networks, Vol. 2, No. 1.
[27] Cheng, PC. & Lee, K.C, & Gerla, M. (2010) “GeoDTN+NAV: A Hybrid Geographic and DTN
Routing with NavigationAssistance in Urban Vehicular Networks environments”, Mobile Networks
and Applications, February, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 61-82.

APPLICABILITY OF OVERLAY NON-DELAY TOLERANT POSITION-BASED PROTOCOLS IN HIGHWAYS AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR VANET

More Related Content

Similar to APPLICABILITY OF OVERLAY NON-DELAY TOLERANT POSITION-BASED PROTOCOLS IN HIGHWAYS AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR VANET (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

APPLICABILITY OF OVERLAY NON-DELAY TOLERANT POSITION-BASED PROTOCOLS IN HIGHWAYS AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR VANET