A hybrid geographic-DTN routing protocol based on fuzzy logic in vehicular ad hoc networks

Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Position-based routing algorithms were proposed to overcome the poor efficiency of traditional routing protocols in vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs); however, while selecting the next hop to send data packets in greedy mode, these algorithms encounter the so-called local maximum problem. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) improving the greedy routing efficiency and (2) reducing the chance of selecting an absurd node for routing. In fact, the proposed method in this paper is aimed at detecting the absurdity of each node before sending the packets to it. That is, sending packets to an absurd node will be avoided; accordingly, the packet will not be trapped in a local maximum. By applying fuzzy logic and parameters such as the number of neighbors, neighboring vehicles’ speed, their direction, and distance from a destination in the proposed method, a chance value is calculated for each neighbor node. Then, the node having the highest chance value among the neighbors is selected for greedy forwarding. In case the greedy forwarding fails, the proposed algorithm will switch to the perimeter forwarding mode for delivering packets to the destination. However, in case the perimeter forwarding also fails, DTN capability is used in the proposed method for delivering packets to the destination. The simulation results of the proposed method indicated that, due to using fuzzy logic and parameters such as nodes’ direction and speed and applying DTN forwarding approach, it was able to better improve packet delivery ratio and end-to-end delay when compared with GPSR, GPSR-DTN, and LSGO routing protocols.

Keywords

VANET Geographic routing Fuzzy logic Greedy Perimeter DTN 

References

  1. 1.
    Sharef BT, Alsaqour RA, Ismail M (2014) Vehicular communication ad hoc routing protocols: A survey. J Netw Comput. Appl 40(1):363–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Sultan S, Al-Doori MM, Al-Bayatti AH, Zedan H (2014) A comprehensive survey on vehicular Ad Hoc network. J Netw Comput Appl 37(1):380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu J, Wan J, Wang Q, Deng P, Zhou K, Qiao Y (2016) A survey on position-based routing for vehicular ad hoc networks. Telecommun Syst 62(1):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karp B, Kung H (2000) GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for wireless networks. ACM MobiCom, no. MobiCom, p 243–254Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Li, L. Zhao, X. Fan, and Y. Wang: Hybrid Position-Based and DTN Forwarding for Vehicular Sensor Networks. Int J Distrib Sens Networks, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 186146, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottwald S (2013) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: The foundations of application—from a mathematical point of view. Springer-Verlag, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu C, Ohzahata S, Kato T (2013) Flexible, portable, and practicable solution for routing in VANETs: A fuzzy constraint Q-learning approach. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 62(9):4251–4263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Khokhar, R. Md Noor, K. Ghafoor, C.-H. Ke, and M. A. Ngadi: Fuzzy-assisted social-based routing for urban vehicular environments. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw, vol. 2011, no. 1, p. 178, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bilal SM, Bernardos CJ, Guerrero C (2013) Position-based routing in vehicular networks: A survey. J Netw Comput Appl 36(2):685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar S, Verma AK (2015) Position Based Routing Protocols in VANET: A Survey. Wirel Pers Commun 83(4):2747–2772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fonseca A, Vazão T (2013) Applicability of position-based routing for VANET in highways and urban environment. J Netw Comput Appl 36(3):961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paul B, Ibrahim M, Abu Naser M (2011) Bikas: VANET Routing Protocols: Pros and Cons. Int J Comput Appl 20(3):28–34Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson DB, Maltz DA, Hu YC (2007) The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR). Technical Report, IETF MANET Working GroupCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perkins CC, Royer E, Das S (2003) RFC 3561 Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing. Technical Report, IETF Network Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clausen TH, Jacquet P (2003) Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR). Technical report, INRIACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beijar N (2002) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). Netw. Lab. Helsinki Univ. Technol. Finl., p 1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Kumar: Performance comparison of AODV and DSR Routing protocols in MANETs: Computer (Long. Beach. Calif)., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1059–1063, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Song T, Xia W, Song T, Shen L (2010) A cluster-based directional routing protocol in VANET. Int. Conf. Commun. Technol. Proceedings, ICCT, no. 2008, p 1172–1175Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santos RA, Edwards A, Edwards RM, Seed NL (2005) Performance evaluation of routing protocols in vehicular ad-hoc networks. Int J Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput 1(1/2):80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bachir A, Benslimane A (2003) A multicast protocol in ad hoc networks inter-vehicle geocast. IEEE Semiannu Veh Technol Conf 4:2456–2460Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kihl M, Sichitiu M, Ekeroth T, Rozenberg M (2007) Reliable geographical multicast routing in vehicular ad-hoc networks. WWIC, In, pp 315–325Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lochert C, Hartenstein H (2003) A routing strategy for vehicular ad hoc networks in city environments. Intell Veh 2000(1):156–161Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jabbarpour MR, Jalooli A, Shaghaghi E, Marefat A, Noor RM, Jung JJ (2015) Analyzing the impacts of velocity and density on intelligent position-based routing protocols. J Comput Sci 11:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. S. Raw, D. K. Lobiyal, and S. Das: An analytical approach to position-based routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. Commun Comput Inf Sci, vol. 335 CCIS, pp. 147–156, 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jerbi M, Meraihi R, Senouci S-M, Ghamri-Doudane Y (2006) GyTAR: improved greedy traffic aware routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks in city environments. ACM Proc. 3rd Int. Work. Veh. ad hoc networks., p 88–89Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tornell SM, Calafate CT, Cano JC, Manzoni P (2015) DTN protocols for vehicular networks: An application oriented overview. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 17(2):868–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bilal S, Madani S, Khan I (2011) Enhanced junction selection mechanism for routing protocol in VANETs. Int Arab J Inf Technol 8(4):422–429Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    X. Cai, Y. He, C. Zhao, L. Zhu, and C. Li: LSGO: Link State aware Geographic Opportunistic routing protocol for VANETs. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw, vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 96, 2014.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li C, Wang L, He Y, Zhao C, Lin H, Zhu L (2014) A link state aware geographic routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2014(1)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salkuyeh MA, Abolhassani B (2016) An Adaptive Multipath Geographic Routing for Video Transmission in Urban VANETs. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(10):2822–2831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Agrawal, R. S. Raw, T. Neeraj, and A. K. Misra: Fuzzy Logic based Greedy Routing (FLGR) in multi-hop vehicular ad hoc networks. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 8, no. 30, 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiang Y, Zheng L, Liu R, Sun W, Wang W (2013) GeoSVR: A map-based stateless VANET routing. Ad Hoc Netw 11(7):2125–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leontiadis I, Mascolo C (2007) GeOpps: Geographical opportunistic routing for vehicular networks. 2007 I.E. Int. Symp. a World Wireless, Mob. Multimed. Networks, WOWMOMGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cheng PC, Lee KC, Gerla M, Härri J (2010) GeoDTN+Nav: Geographic DTN routing with navigator prediction for urban vehicular environments. Mob Networks Appl 15(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Y. Li, P. hui, D. Jin, and S. Chen: Delay-tolerant network protocol testing and evaluation. IEEE Commun Mag, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 258–266, 2015.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Asgari M, Jumari K, Ismail M (2011) Analysis of Routing Protocols in Vehicular Ad Hoc Network Applications. Softw Eng Comput Syst 181:384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bazzi A, Zanella A (2016) Position based routing in crowd sensing vehicular networks. Ad Hoc Netw 36:409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sánchez-Carmona A, Robles S, Borrego C (2016) PrivHab+: A secure geographic routing protocol for DTN. Comput Commun 78:56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang S, Lin Y (2013) PassCAR: A passive clustering aided routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. Comput Commun 36(2):170–179MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hertkorn G, Krajzewicz D, Rössel (2002) SUMO Homepage. Available: http://sumo.sourceforge.net/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Shabestar BranchIslamic Azad UniversityShabestarIran

Personalised recommendations