EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE 802.11 MAC AND 802.11 DCF IN VANET USING QUALNET

D.C. Wyld, et al. (Eds): CCSEA 2011, CS & IT 02, pp. 209–220, 2011.
© CS & IT-CSCP 2011 DOI: 10.5121/csit.2011.1220
EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND
HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE
802.11 MAC AND 802.11 DCF IN VANET USING
QUALNET
Manish Sharma1
and Gurpadam Singh2
1
Department of Physics, Govt. College, Dhaliara, H.P., India
2
Deparment of ECE, B.C.E.T.,Gurdaspur, Punjab, India
manikambli@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT
In VANET high speed is the real characteristics which leads to frequent breakdown,
interference etc. Therefore Performance of adhoc routing protocols is helpful to improve the
Quality of Service (QOS). In this paper we studied various adhoc routing protocols, Reactive,
Proactive & Hybrid, taking in to consideration parameters like speed, altitude, mobility etc in
real VANET scenario. The AODV and DYMO (Reactive), OLSR (Proactive) and ZRP (hybrid)
protocols are compared for IEEE 802.11(MAC) and IEEE 802.11(DCF) standard using
Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Since IEEE 802.11, covers both physical and data link layer.
Hence performance of the protocols in these layers helps to make a right selection of Protocol
for high speed mobility. Varying parameters of VANET shows that in the real traffic scenarios
proactive protocol performs more efficiently for IEEE 802.11 (MAC) and IEEE 802.11(DCF).
KEYWORDS
VANET, Ad hoc Routing, IEEE 802.11, MAC, DCF, Qualnet
1. INTRODUCTION
Vehicular Ad hoc Network (VANET) is a new communication paradigm that enables the
communication between vehicles moving at high speeds. It has been found that mobile terminals
in fast moving vehicles like cars, buses, trains are frequent signal breakdowns as compared to the
lots of pedestrians. Hence in order to improve QoS and energy conservation in fast moving
vehicles various light weight routing protocols needed to be studied in Physical and data link
layer. So that Right selection of the protocol can be made. There are mainly three types of routing
protocols, Reactive [1], Proactive [2], Hybrid [3]. These protocols have different criteria for
designing and classifying routing protocols for wireless ad hoc network. The protocols in focus
now days are Hybrid protocols and others [7]. Its use in the context of VANET’s along with
reactive and proactive is always an area under investigation. Routing protocols are always
challenging in the fast moving nodes as their performance degrades with speed. Such type of
networks are difficult to manage as fast handoff deteriorates signal quality, maximizes
Interference and other attenuation factors. The Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) working group
of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [4] develop standards for routing in dynamic
networks of both mobile and static nodes.
Here, the feasibility, the performance, and the limits of ad hoc communication using the three
types of protocols, is evaluated as per IEEE 802.11 (MAC and DCF) [5] and Potentials for
optimizing the deployed transport and routing Protocols is investigated. In this work, A VANET

210 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
model is designed which is based on road traffic information and includes high speed mobility at
higher altitude is then fed into an event-driven network simulation. Special care is taken to
provide realistic scenarios of both road traffic and network usage. This is accomplished by
simulating the scenario with the help of simulation tool Qualnet [6]. The protocols and their
various parameters of the transport, network, data link, and physical layers are provided by well-
tested implementations of this network simulation tool.
2. AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Routing protocol is a standard that controls how nodes decide how to route the incoming packets
between devices in a wireless domain & further Distinguished in many types. There are mainly
three types of routing protocols. Ad-hoc on demand vector distance vector (AODV), Dynamic
MANET On demand (DYMO) and Dynamic source routing (DSR) are the examples of reactive
routing protocols whereas Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and Fisheye state routing (FSR)
are the examples of proactive routing protocols. Hybrid routing protocols is the combination of
both proactive and reactive routing protocols, Temporary Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA),
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), Hazy Sighted Link State (HSLS) and Orderone Routing Protocol
(OOPR) are its examples. In our work the chosen protocols are AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRP.
2.1 Ad-hoc on demand vector distance vector (AODV) Routing Protocol
AODV [8] is a reactive protocol. The reactive routing protocols do not periodically update the
routing table. Instead, when there is some data to send, they initiate route discovery process
through flooding which is their main routing overhead. Reactive routing protocols also suffer
from the initial latency incurred in the route discovery process, which potentially makes them
unsuitable for safety applications. AODV is a well known distance vector routing protocol [13]
and actually works as follows. Whenever a node wants to start communication with another node,
it looks for an available path to the destination node, in its local routing table. If there is no path
available, then it broadcasts a route request (RREQ) message to its neighbourhood. Any node that
receives this message looks for a path leading to the destination node. If there is no path then, it
re-broadcasts the RREQ message and sets up a path leading to RREQ originating node. This
helps in establishing the end to end path when the same node receives route reply (RREP)
message. Every node follows this process until this RREQ message reaches to a node which has a
valid path to the destination node or RREQ message reaches to the destination node itself. Either
way the RREQ receiving node will send a RREP to the sender of RREQ message. In this way, the
RREP message arrives at the source node, which originally issued RREQ message. At the end of
this request-reply process a path between source and destination node is created and is available
for further communication. In scenarios where there is no route error (RERR) message is issued
for nodes that potentially received its RREP message. This message helps to update or recalculate
the path when an intermediate node leaves a network or loses its next hop neighbour. Every node
using AODV maintains a routing table, which contains the following information: a next hop
node, a sequence number and a hop count. All packets destined to the destination node are sent to
the next hop node. The sequence number acts as a form of time-stamping, and is a measure of the
freshness of a route. This helps in using the latest available path for the communication. The hop
count represents the current distance between the source and the destination node. It is important
to understand that AODV does not introduce routing overhead, until a RREQ is made. This is
helpful as bandwidth is not wasted unnecessarily by the routing protocol. But on the other hand
this introduces an initial latency, where a node has to wait for some time to find the path to the
destination and then start communication. This can be problematic for time critical and safety
related emergency applications.

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 211
2.2 Dynamic MANET On demand (DYMO) Routing Protocol
DYMO [9] is another reactive routing protocol that works in multi hop wireless networks. It is
currently being developed in the scope of IETF’s [4] MANET working group and is expected to
reach RFC status in the near future. DYMO is considered as a successor to the AODV routing
protocols. DYMO has a simple design and is easy to implement. The basic operations of DYMO
protocol are route discovery and route maintenance (I. Chakeres, & C. Perkins, 2006). When a
node wants to discover a path to a destination node, it initiates the route discovery operation. A
RREQ message is broadcast to the network. Every intermediate node participates in hop-by-hop
dissemination of this message and records a route to the originator. When a destination node
receives this RREQ message, it responds with a RREP message unicast toward the originating
node. Every node receiving this message creates a route to the destination node and eventually
this RREP message arrives at the originator of the RREQ message. It appears that DYMO work
much like the AODV routing protocol, but there is a subtle and important difference between the
two routing protocols. In addition to the route about the requested node, the originator of the
RREQ message using DYMO protocol will also get information about all intermediate nodes in
the newly discovered path. In AODV, only information about destination node and the next hop is
maintained, while in DYMO, path to every other intermediate node is also known.
2.3 Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol
OLSR [10] is the proactive routing protocol that is evaluated here. Proactive routing protocols
continuously update the routing table, thus generating sustained routing overhead. Basically
OLSR is an optimization of the classical link state algorithm adapted for the use in wireless ad
hoc networks. In OLSR, three levels of optimization are achieved. First, few nodes are selected as
Multipoint Relays (MPRs) [16] to broadcast the messages during the flooding process. This is in
contrast to what is done in classical flooding mechanism, where every node broadcasts the
messages and generates too much overhead traffic. OLSR achieved RFC status in 2003. Second
level of optimization is achieved by using only MPRs to generate link state information. This
results in minimizing the “number” of control messages flooded in the network. As a final level
of optimization, an MPR can chose to report only links between itself and those nodes which have
selected it as their MPR. This results in the distribution of partial link state information in the
network. OLSR periodically exchanges topology information with other nodes at regular
intervals. MPRs play a major role in the functionality of the protocol. Every node selects a subset
of its one hop neighbour nodes as MPR. MPRs periodically announce in the network that it has
reach ability to the nodes which have selected it as an MPR. Nodes which are not selected as
MPR by any node, will not broadcast information received from it. The functionality of OLSR
lies in the exchange of HELLO and TC messages. The periodic dissemination of HELLO packets
also enables a node to know whether a node or a set of nodes have selected it as MPR. This
information is known as ‘Multipoint Relay Selector Set’, and is critical to determine whether to
broadcast forward the information received from a node(s) or not. In a dynamic and rapidly
changing environment, this set of nodes can change over the time. HELLO messages are also
used for link sensing and neighbourhood detection. TC messages are used to provide every node
enough link-state information for the calculation of routes. Basically, a TC message is sent by a
node to advertise a set of links, which includes the links to all nodes of its MPR selector set. TC
message is only broadcast forwarded by MRPs and offers controlled flooding of the topology
information into the whole network. OLSR is designed to support large and dense wireless
networks. The levels of optimization discussed above, make it better suited for such networks.
OLSR is tailored for networks where the traffic is random and sporadic between large numbers of
nodes. It is also suitable for scenarios, where the communicating pairs change over time. Once the
communicating pair changes, a route to new pair is readily available, and no control traffic or
route discovery process is needed as in the case of reactive protocols. This can be beneficial for
situations where time critical or safety related data needs to be delivered with minimum possible
delay. Due to its proactive nature, OLSR periodically generates overhead traffic. Although it is

helpful in avoiding initial latency involved with route discovery, it uses precious network
bandwidth for its control traffic. But it is a sustained overhead, and does not start suddenly as is
the case with reactive protocols, when they start flooding the network with their control
information with some application data packets waiting. Over the years, both reactive and
proactive routing protocols have been used to enable communication in wireless ad hoc networks.
Each approach has its own pros and cons and is suitable for its respective scenarios.
2.4 Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP)
Hybrid routing combines characteristics of both reactive and proactive routing protocols to make
routing more scalable and efficient [11]. By and large hybrid routing protocols are zone based; it
means the number of nodes is divided into different zones to make route discovery and
maintenance more reliable for MANET. The need of these protocols arises with the deficiencies
of proactive and reactive routing and there is demand of such protocol that can resolve on demand
route discovery with a limited number of route searches. ZRP limits the range of proactive
routing methods to neighbouring nodes locally; however ZRP uses reactive routing to search the
desired nodes by querying the selective network nodes globally instead of sending the query to all
the nodes in network. ZRP uses “Intrazone” and “Interzone” routing to provide flexible route
discovery and route maintenance in the multiple ad hoc environments. Interzone routing performs
route discovery through reactive routing protocol globally while intrazone routing based on
proactive routing so as to maintain up-to-date route information locally within its own routing
range. The overall characteristic of ZRP is reduction in the network overhead that is caused by
proactive routing. It also handles the network delay that is caused by reactive routing protocols
performing route discovery more efficiently. Normal routing protocols which works well in fixed
networks does not show same performance in mobile ad hoc networks. In these networks routing
protocols should be more dynamic so that they quickly respond to topological changes. There is a
lot of work done on evaluating performance of various MANET routing protocols for constant bit
rate traffic.
3. IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.11[12] provides a cost effective and simple way for wireless networking. Actually
IEEE has defined the specification for LAN, called IEEE 802.11, which covers both physical and
data link layer [4]. The IEEE 802.11 Standard is by far the most widely deployed wireless LAN
protocol. This standard species the physical, MAC and link layer operation we utilize in our
simulation. Multiple physical layer encoding schemes are denned, each with a different data rate.
Part of each transmission uses the lowest most reliable data rate, which is 1 Mbps. At the MAC
layer[14] IEEE 802.11 uses both carrier sensing and virtual carrier sensing prior to sending data
to avoid collisions. Virtual carrier sensing is accomplished through the use of Request-To-Send
(RTS) and Clear-To-Send (CTS) control packets. When a node has a unicast data packet to send
to its neighbour, it broadcasts a short RTS control packet. If the neighbour receives this RTS
packet, then it responds with a CTS packet. If the source node receives the CTS, it transmits the
data packet. Other neighbours of the source and destination that receive the RTS or CTS packets
defer packet transmissions to avoid collisions by updating their network allocation vector (NAV).
The NAV is used to perform virtual channel sensing by indicating that the channel is busy. After
a destination properly receives a data packet, it sends an acknowledgment (ACK) to the source.
This signifies other that the packet was correctly received. This procedure (RTS-CTS-Data-ACK)
is called the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF). For small data packets the RTS and CTS
packets may not be used. If an ACK (or CTS) is not received by the source within a short time
limit after it sends a data packet (or RTS), the source will attempt to retransmit the packet up to
seven times. If no ACK (or CTS) is received after multiple retries, an error is issued by the
hardware indicating that a failure to send has occurred. Broadcast data packets are handled
differently than unicast data packets. Broadcast packets are sent without the RTS, CTS or ACK

control packets. These control messages are not needed because the data is simultaneously
transmitted to all neighbouring nodes.
IEEE 802.11 also supports power saving and security. Power saving allows packets to be buffered
even if the system is asleep.
3.1 802.11 Medium Access Control
The 802.11 MAC [12] mainly covers three functional areas Reliable Data Control, Access
Control and Security. For Reliable data control it includes a frame exchange protocol. In this if
source does not receive ACK (acknowledgement) within a short period of time due to data frame
damaged or returning ACK damaged, the source retransmit it.
In Access Control Function there are two modes: Distributed Access protocol which like Ethernet
distributes the decision to transmit over all the nodes using a carrier sense mechanism and
centralized access protocol, which involve regulation of transmission by a centralized decision
maker. A distributed access protocol makes sense for an adhoc wireless network .A centralized
access protocol is nature for configurations in which a number of wireless stations are
interconnected with one another and some sort of base stations that attaches to a backbone wired
LAN, it is highly useful for data of time sensitive or high priority.
MAC is required to provide fair access to resources & efficient utilization of Bandwidth. MAC
layer is also responsible for providing system authentication, association with an access point,
encryption and data delivery [14].In MAC the optional priority-based point coordination
function provides contention-free frame transfer for processing time-critical information
transfers. With this operating mode, a point coordinator resides in the access point to
control the transmission of frames from stations. When a station wants to send data, it
waits for short inter-frame spacing (SIFS), and then start transmission. If there is no data
to send the point coordinator waits for PCF inter-frame spacing (PIFS) and poll the next
station. PCF cannot provide quality of service (QOS) mainly due to delayed contention
period.
3.2 802.11 Distributed coordination Function
The end result for 802.11 is a MAC algorithm DFWMAC (Distributed foundation wireless MAC)
that provides a Distributed access control mechanism with an optional centralized control built on
top of that. The lower sublayer of the MAC layer is the Distributed coordination function.
(DCF)[15] Uses a contention algorithm to provide access to all traffic. Ordinary asynchronous
traffic directly uses DCF. If a station has a MAC frame to transmit it listens to the medium, if the
medium is idle the station may transmit, otherwise the station must wait until the current
transmission is complete. The DCF does not include collision detection function because it is not
practical in a wireless network. To ensure the smooth Functioning DCF includes a set of delays
that amounts to a priority scheme. The basic access mechanism, called Distributed Coordination
Function (DCF) is basically a Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance
mechanism (CSMA/CA). In CSMA/CA When a station wants to send, it senses the medium. If
the radio channel is idle for at least the duration of DCF inter-frame spacing (DIFS), the station
sends. If the medium is busy it waits until it is idle for DIFS. Then it enters a contention phase
choosing randomly a multiple slot-time within a contention window (CW) as a back off timer. If
the medium is idle when the timer expires, the station transmits. If the medium is busy before the
timer expires, the station stops the timer and starts it again after the channel is idle for DIFS [15].
After each unsuccessful transmission attempt the size of the CW size is doubled. As a
consequence, the waiting time increases and the probability of a concurrent transmission
decrease. As a result of this scheme the delay is increased when a high network load is present.
CSMA/CA does not overcome the hidden terminal problem, since collisions can still occur at the
receiver. Therefore an extension to DCF was made, introducing two new control packets and a

virtual channel reservation scheme[16] . It is called Distributed Coordination Function with
RTS/CTS extension. Using this scheme a station waits for the duration of DIFS and then sends a
request to send message (RTS). This includes a duration field specifying the expected time
needed for the transmission of data and acknowledgement. Every node overhearing the RTS
stores the medium allocation in his net allocation vector (NAV). The receiver waits for SIFS and
sends a clear to send (CTS), also including the duration field. Again, all nodes over hearing the
CTS set their NAV. From now the channel is reserved for the sender. He waits for SIFS and
transmits the data. The receiver responds with ACK after waiting SIFS.
4. SIMULATION TOOL
The adopted methodology for the results of this work (specifically comparative routing analyses)
is based on simulations near to the real time packages before any actual implementation. This is
accomplished by simulating the scenario with the help of simulation tool Qualnet [6].QualNet is a
comprehensive suite of tools for modelling large wired and wireless networks. It uses simulation
and emulation to predict the behaviour and performance of networks to improve their design,
operation and management. QualNet enables users to design new protocol models, Optimize new
and existing models, Design large wired and wireless networks using pre-configured or user-
designed models, Analyze the performance of networks and perform what-if analysis to optimize
them. QualNet is the preferable simulator for ease of operation. So, we found QualNet be the best
choice to implement our scenarios as we do not need every feature possible.
QualNet is a commercial simulator that grew out of GloMoSim, which was developed at the
University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA, and is distributed by Scalable Network
Technologies [6]. The QualNet simulator is C++ based. All protocols are implemented in a series
of C++ files and are called by the simulation kernel. QualNet comes with a java based graphical
user interface (GUI).It must be noted that Qualnet is a discrete event simulator which provides a
good balance between ease of use and extensibility and power in terms of what scenarios can be
simulated. Its considered, modular design makes it easier to modify than some other popular
simulation tools. Also, it does not have as much complexity as some tools, which results in a
shorter learning curve. Finally, it has quite advanced wireless modules with new technologies
being incorporated into the tool relatively quickly.
Moreover QualNet 802.11 model captures most of the key aspect of 802.11. It provides support
for both ad hoc and infrastructure modes of operation. Unlike some other simulators, it has a good
model of the different modulation and coding schemes that are used in 802.11and suitable for
both 802.11a and 802.11b[17] in this regard. A reasonably accurate model of the 802.11
Distributed Co-ordination Function (DCF) is also been implemented.
Table 1. Simulation Parameters
Simulator Qualnet Version 5.o.1
Terrain Size 1500 x 1500
Simulation time 3000s
No. Of Nodes 15
Mobility Random Way Point
Speed of Vehicles Min.=3m/s Max.=20m/s
Routing Protocols AODV,DYMO,OLSR,ZRP
Medium Access
protocol
802.11 MAC, 802.11 DCF
Tx Power=150dbm
Data size 512 bytes
Data Interval 250ms
No. of sessions 5
Altitude 1500

Weather mobility 100ms
Battery model Duracell 1500-AA
5. DESIGNING OF SCENARIO
The Qualnet Simulator is used, has a scalable network library and gives accurate and efficient
execution [18].The scenario is designed in such a way that it undertakes the real traffic
conditions. We have chosen 15 fast moving vehicles in the region of 1500X1500 m2
with the
random way point mobility model. There is also well defined path for some of the vehicles. It
shows wireless node connectivity of few vehicles using CBR application. The area for simulation
is Hilly area with altitude of 1500 meters. Weather mobility intervals is 100ms.Pathloss model is
two ray with maximum propagation distance of 100m.Battery model is Duracell 1500-AA.The
simulation is performed with different node mobility speed and CBR (Constant bit rate) traffic
flow. CBR traffic flows with 512 bytes are applied. Simulations is made in different speed
utilization with IEEE 802.11 Medium access control (MAC) and Distributed Coordination
Function (DCF) ad hoc mode and the channel frequency is 2.4 GHz and the data rate 2mbps. The
network protocol here applied is Internet Protocol version four (IPv4). By this proposed topology
the failure of node can be easily detected and it gives the way for the accuracy in their
performance.
Figure 1. Qualnet VANET Scenario
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The simulation result brings out some important characteristic differences between the routing
protocols. In all the simulation results OLSR outperforms the other protocols. This is because

OLSR is a proactive protocol and it pre determines the route in well defined manner. It uses
destination sequence numbers to ensure loop freedom at all times and it offers quick convergence
when the network topology changes. Due to this Broadcast sent/received for IEEE 802.11 DCF is
good for OLSR. In IEEE 802.11 MAC Packets from Network for OLSR protocol are very large
in number as compare to others. It also shows that the Signal received without errors (802.11) and
forwarded to MAC is also high. AODV and ZRP appear as the second best since both of these
having some common reactive characteristics. So their performance in VANET is quite average
The least considerable performance is of DYMO protocol.Actually DYMO is different in
working, although it is Reactive in nature. Besides route information about a requested target, a
node will also receive information about all intermediate nodes of a newly discovered path.
Therein lays a major difference Between DYMO and AODV, the latter of which only generates
Route table entries for the destination node and the next hop, while DYMO stores routes for each
intermediate hop. Hence its performance in IEEE 802.11 Medium access control (MAC) and
Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) is least considerable, Note that residual battery capacity
and Signal received with errors remains constant for all the protocols. This may be because of the
small simulation time.
Figure 2. Broadcast sent/received (802.11 DCF) for AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRP

Figure 3. (802.11 MAC) Packets from Network for AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRP
Figure 4. Signal received without/with errors (802.11) for AODV, DYMO, OLSR, and ZRP

Figure 5. Residual Battery capacity for AODV, DYMO, OLSR and ZRP
7. CONCLUSIONS
Evaluation of the feasibility and the expected quality of VANETs operated as per IEEE 802.11
(MAC) and IEEE 802.11 (DCF) with the routing protocol OLSR at higher altitude, shows
significant results. Because of its proactive nature data sent/receive is better than reactive and
hybrid protocols. There are also minimum errors in signal sent. Here Adhoc networks of vehicles
and static highway infrastructure can be successfully setup, maintained, and used with Qualnet
simulator. Simulation results therefore seem to encourage an adaptation of the OLSR protocols
for VANET use. So that problems (frequent breakdown, interference) perceived by users are
reacted to in a sensible way and application requirements are taken in to account when the
network demands high QoS(quality of service). The performance of the protocols in physical,
transport, data link and network layer gives important clues to improve the QoS. In future many
parameters like longitude, latitude, geographical location, traffic, can also be considered for the
exact results similar to real world. Since IEEE 802.11 is heart and soul for wireless
communication. Hence its performance at any level counts and shows the path for future
applications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are very thankful to Mr. Ashok Kumar Associate Prof. E & C Engg. NIT, Hamirpur and Dr.
Nidhi Sharma, lecturer, HPES for their support and guidance in this work.

REFERENCES
[1] Tony Lasson & Nicklas Hedman (1998)”Routing protocols in wireless Ad hoc
network”Lulea university of technology,Stockholm.
[2] Lee Kok Thong (2004) “Performance analysis of mobile adhoc routing protocols” thesis Naval post
graduate college, Monterey,California.
[3] Bilal Mustafa & Umar Waqas Raja (2010) “Issues of Routing in VANET” School of Computing at
Blekinge Institute of Technology.
[4] IEEE, “Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications
(1997),” IEEE Std. 802.11-1997.
[5] Behrouz A. Forouzan (2008) ”Data communications and Networking”, Networking series, Tata
Mcgraw-Hill publishers.
[6] “Qualnet simulator version 5.0.1”, Scalable Network Technologies,
http://www.scalable-networks.com/
[7] Imran Khan (2009) “Performance evaluation of Ad hoc routing protocols for Vehicular adhoc
networks” Mohammad Ali Jinnah University
[8] C. Perkins & E. Royer & S. Das, & K. Marina(2001), “Performance comparison of two on- demand
routing protocols for ad hoc networks,”' in IEEE Personal Communications..
[9] Christoph Sommer & FalkoDressler (2009) ” The DYMO Routing Protocol in VANET Scenarios”
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.
[10] T. Jacquet and P. Clausen. (2003, Oct.), “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)”,
IETF RFC 3626.
[11] Z.J. Hass, R. Pearlman, (1999) Zone routing protocol for ad-hoc networks, Internet Draft, draft ietf-
manet-zrp-02.txt,
[12] Charles M. Kozierok(September 2005) “The TCP/IP Guide” Version 3.
[13] M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki and E. Dutkiewicz(2004) , pp. 1–22, “A review of routing protocols for
mobile ad hoc networks”, Ad Hoc Networks 2.
[14] IEEE 802.11e/D13.0, (January 2005) Draft Supplement to Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
Control (MAC Specifications: Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality of Service (QoS)
Enhancements..
[15] Bilal Rauf, M Faisal Amjad, Kabeer Ahmed, Natinal University of Sciences and Technology,Pakistan
“ Performance Evaluation of IEEE 802.11 DCF in comparison with IEEE 802.11e EDCA”.
[16] W. Richards Stevens “TCP/IP I llustrated, Volume I: The Protocols” First Edition, Addison Wesley
Publishers.
[17] Douglas E. Comer “Internetworking with TCP/IP vol 1:Principles, Protocols,and Architecture”
Fourth Edition. Prentice hall publishers
[18] Rajesh Yadav , August 15, 2009 “A Survey of MAC Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks”,UbiCC
journal, Vol-4, No 3.

Authors
Manish Sharma received M.Sc. Degree in Physics
with specialisation in Electronics from H.N.B.
Garhwal University in 2001 & M. Phil. in Physics
with specialisation in Material Science from
Annamalai University in 2006.Presently he is
Pursuing his M.Tech. in Electronics &
Communication from Punjab Technical
University. He worked as faculty in Sri Sai
College of Engg. & Tech. Badhani Pathankot
from 2004 to 2009 & also officiated as HOD
Applied Science from 2005 to 2009 in the same
college.Currently he is working as Asst. Prof. in
the Dept. of Physics Govt. P.G. College Dhaliara
(H.P.).His Current research focuses on
Wireless Communication, VANET, MANET.
E-mail:manikambli@rediffmail.com
Gurpadam Singh is B.E. in Electrical &
Electronics Communication & M.Tech in
Electronics & Communication. Presently he is
pursuing PhD in ECE. He worked as a lecturer in
GNDP Ludhiana From 1996 to 2000. And in
BCET Gurdaspur from 2000 to till date. Presently
he is Associate Prof & also holding key positions
in the College. He is having several National &
international papers in his credits. He has also
organised various seminars & Conferences & a
member of ISTE.
E-mail:gurpadam@yahoo.com

EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE 802.11 MAC AND 802.11 DCF IN VANET USING QUALNET

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE 802.11 MAC AND 802.11 DCF IN VANET USING QUALNET (20)

More from cscpconf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

EVALUATION OF PROACTIVE, REACTIVE AND HYBRID AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR IEEE 802.11 MAC AND 802.11 DCF IN VANET USING QUALNET