On the Connectivity, Lifetime and Hop Count of Routes Determined Using the City Section and Manhattan Mobility Models for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks

  • Natarajan Meghanathan
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 40)

Abstract

The high-level contribution of this paper is a simulation based analysis of the network connectivity, hop count and lifetime of the routes determined for vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) using the City Section and Manhattan mobility models. The Random Waypoint mobility model is used as a benchmark in the simulation studies. Two kinds of paths are determined on the sequence of static graphs representing the topology over the duration of the network session: paths with the minimum hop count (using the Dijkstra algorithm) and stable paths with the longest lifetime (using our recently proposed OptPathTrans algorithm). Simulation results indicate that the City Section model provided higher network connectivity compared to the Manhattan model for all the network scenarios. Minimum hop paths and stable paths determined under the Manhattan model have a smaller lifetime and larger hop count compared to those determined using the City Section and Random Waypoint mobility models.

Keywords

Vehicular ad hoc networks Stable paths Minimum hop paths Connectivity Simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Taleb, T., Ochi, M., Jamalipour, A., Nei, K., Nemoto, Y.: An Efficient Vehicle-Heading Based Routing Protocol for VANET Networks. In: International Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, pp. 2199–2204. IEEE, Las Vegas (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siva Ram Murthy, C., Manoj, B.S.: Ad Hoc Wireless Networks: Architectures and Protocols. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meghanathan, N., Farago, A.: On the Stability of Paths, Steiner Trees and Connected Dominating Sets in Mobile Ad hoc Networks. Elsevier Ad hoc Networks 6(5), 744–769 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bettstetter, C., Hartenstein, H., Perez-Costa, X.: Stochastic Properties of the Random-Way Point Mobility Model. Wireless Networks 10(5), 555–567 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camp, T., Boleng, J., Davies, V.: A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research. Wireless Communication and Mobile Computing 2(5), 483–502 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bai, F., Sadagopan, N., Helmy, A.: IMPORTANT: A Framework to Systematically Analyze the Impact of Mobility on Performance of Routing Protocols for Ad hoc Networks. In: International Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 825–835. IEEE, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press/ McGraw Hill, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farago, A., Syrotiuk, V.R.: MERIT: A Scalable Approach for Protocol Assessment. Mobile Networks and Applications 8(5), 567–577 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T., Dutkiewicz, E.: A Review of Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad hoc Networks. Elsevier Ad hoc Networks 2(1), 1–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natarajan Meghanathan
    • 1
  1. 1.Jackson State UniversityJacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations