The advances in next generation network and IoT have provided a promising opportunity to resolve the challenges caused by the increasing transportation issues. In this paper, we investigate the performance of different routing protocols in a Vehicular Delay Tolerant Network (VDTN) crossroad scenario. The mobility patterns of vehicles are generated by means of SUMO (Simulation of Urban MObility) and as communication protocol simulator is used ONE (Opportunistic Network Environment). We use Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Relay Delivery Ratio (RDR), hop count and delay as evaluation metrics. We compared the performance of six protocols and the simulation results show that for PDR the Epidemic protocol has better performance than other protocols. Considering RDR and hop count, the performance of Direct Delivery protocol is better than other protocols. While for delay, the performance of Epidemic protocol is better than other protocols.
L.Atzori, A.Iera and G.Morabito, The Internet of things: A survey, Computer Networks54(15) (2010), 2787–2805. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010.
2.
F.Bai, N.Sadagopan and A.Helmy, IMPORTANT: A framework to systematically analyze the impact of mobility on performance of routing protocols for Ad-hoc networks, in: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM-2003, 2003, pp. 825–835.
3.
P.Ball, Introduction to Discrete Event Simulation, University of Strathclyde, 1996.
4.
S.Bitam and A.Mellouk, ITS-cloud: Cloud computing for intelligent transportation system, in: Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf, 2012, pp. 2054–2059.
I.Chakeres and C.Perkins, Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) Routing, 2008, Internet Draft (draft-ietf-manet-dymo-14), Work in progress.
7.
D.Choffnes and F.Bustamante, STRAW: An integrated mobility and traffic model for VANETs, in: Proc. of the 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (CCRTS-2005), 2005, pp. 69–78.
8.
T.Clausen and P.Jacquet, Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR), in: IETF RFC 3626, 2003.
9.
G.De Marco, M.Tadauchi and L.Barolli, Description and analysis of a toolbox for vehicular networks simulation, in: Proc. of IEEE ICPADS/PMAC-2WN-2007, Vol. 2, 2007, pp. 1–6.
10.
Delay- and disruption-tolerant networks (DTNs) tutorial, NASA/JPL’s Interplanetary Internet (IPN) Project, 2012, http://www.warthman.com/images/DTN Tutorial v2.0.pdf.
11.
K.Fall, A delay-tolerant network architecture for challenged internets, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (SIGCOMM-2003), 2003, pp. 27–34.
12.
M.Fiore, J.Harri, F.Filali and C.Bonnet, Vehicular mobility simulation for VANETs, in: Proc. of the 40th Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS-2007), 2007, pp. 301–309. doi:10.1109/ANSS.2007.44.
13.
J.Harri, F.Filali and C.Bonnet, Mobility models for vehicular Ad Hoc networks: A survey and taxonomy, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials11(4) (2009), 19–41. doi:10.1109/SURV.2009.090403.
14.
W.He, G.Yan and L.D.Xu, Developing Vehicular Data Cloud Services in the IoT Environment, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics10(2) (2014).
15.
C.-M.Huang, K.-C.Lan and C.-Z.Tsai, A survey of Opportunistic Networks, in: 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 2008, pp. 1672–1677.
16.
Information Science Institute (ISI), Network Simulator Version 2 (NS-2), http://www.isi.edu/nsnam.
17.
A.Iwai and M.Aoyama, Automotive cloud service systems based on service-oriented architecture and its evaluation, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Cloud Comput, 2011, pp. 638–645.
18.
A.Keranen, Opportunistic Network Environment simulator, Special Assignment, Department of Communications and Networking, Helsinki University of Technology, 2008.
19.
A.Keranen, J.Ott and T.Karkkainen, The ONE simulator for DTN protocol evaluation, in: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUTools-2009), 2009, http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone/pub/the_one_simutools.pdf.
20.
J.Kraaier and U.Killat, The random waypoint city model, user distribution in a street-based mobility model for wireless network simulations, in: Proc. of WMASH-2005, Cologne, Germany, 2005, pp. 100–103.
21.
N.Laoutaris, G.Smaragdakis, P.Rodriguez and R.Sundaram, Delay tolerant bulk data transfers on the Internet, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS-2009), 2009.
22.
K.Nagel and M.Schreckenberg, A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic, Journal of Physics I France2 (1992), 2221–2229. doi:10.1051/jp1:1992277.
23.
C.Perkins, E.Belding-Royer and S.Das, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, in: IETF RFC 3561 (Experimental), 2003.
24.
M.Piorkowski, M.Raya, A.L.Lugo, M.Grossglauser and J.P.Hubaux, Joint traffic and network simulator for VANETs, in: Proc. of Mobile and Information Communication Systems Conference (MICS-2006), 2006, Available at: http://www.mics.ch/.
25.
N.Potnis and A.Mahajan, Mobility models for vehicular Ad hoc network simulations, in: Proc. of the 44th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, New York, 2006, pp. 746–747. doi:10.1145/1185448.1185615.
26.
N.Sadagopan, F.Bai, B.Krishnamachari and A.Helmy, PATHS: Analysis of path duration statistics and their impact on reactive MANET routing protocols, in: Proc. of the 4th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing (MobiHoc-2003), 2003, pp. 245–256.
L.Smith, R.Beckan, R.Anson, K.Nagel and M.Williams, TRANSIMS: Transportation analysis and simulation system, in: Proc. of the 5th National Transportation Planning Methods Applications Conference, LA-UR 95-1664, 1995.
29.
C.Sommer and F.Dressler, The DYMO routing protocol in VANET scenarios, in: Proc. of 66th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2007-Fall), 2007, pp. 16–20.
30.
E.Spaho, G.Mino, L.Barolli and F.Xhafa, Goodput and PDR analysis of AODV, OLSR and DYMO protocols for vehicular networks using CAVENET, International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing (IJGUC)2(2) (2011), 130–138. doi:10.1504/IJGUC.2011.040600.
