Advertisement

Improved AODV Based on TOPSIS and Fuzzy Algorithms in Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks

  • Esmaeil Amiri
  • Reza HooshmandEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

The ad-hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing protocol is one of the most widely used routing protocols in VANETs. The AODV finds the shortest path that is not desirable in networks with high mobility. In addition, in the AODV, path request messages are broadcasted by the source and middle vehicles, which increases the routing overhead. However, in this paper, each vehicle selects the most reliable neighbors in order to send path request. This selection is based on the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution algorithm. As a result, the destination vehicle receives the most reliable paths and uses the fuzzy algorithm to select the best route from the perspective of failure among all received routes. Simulation results show that the proposed method has lower end-to-end latency and higher throughput than the AODV.

Keywords

Vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET) TOPSIS algorithm Fuzzy algorithm AODV 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Eze, E. C., Zhang, S. J., Liu, E. J., et al. (2016). Advances in vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs): Challenges and road-map for future development. International Journal of Automation and Computing,13(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghori, M. R., Zamli, K. Z., Quosthoni, N., et al. (2018). Vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET). In IEEE international conference on innovative research and development (ICIRD) (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolluri, R. (2017). Reduction of routing overhead in vehicle-to-vehicle communication using clustering in vehicular ad hoc networks. Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, J., Wan, J., Wang, Q., et al. (2016). A survey on position-based routing for vehicular ad hoc networks. Telecommunication Systems,62(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiang, D., & Delgrossi, L. (2008). IEEE 802.11 p: Towards an international standard for wireless access in vehicular environments. In International conference in vehicle technology (pp 2036–2040).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharef, B. T., Alsaqour, R. A., & Ismail, M. (2014). Vehicular communication ad hoc routing protocols: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications,40, 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mammeri, A., & Boukerche, A. (2017). Inter-vehicle communication of warning information: An experimental study. Wireless Networks,23, 1837–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunning, G. J., Hsu, T. Y., Pepper, D. M., et al (2018). Inter vehicle communication system. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8307037B2/en. Redrived data August 10, 2018.
  9. 9.
    Suzuki, T., & Fujii, T. (2017). Joint routing and spectrum allocation for multi-hop inter-vehicle communication in cognitive radio networks. Intelligent Transportation Systems Research,15, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosati, L., Berioli, M., & Reali, G. (2008). On ant routing algorithms in ad hoc networks with critical connectivity’. Ad Hoc Networks,6, 827–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samara, G., & Al-Raba’nah, Y. (2017). Security issues in vehicular Ad Hoc networks (VANET): A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04263.
  12. 12.
    Reddy, T. B., Karthigeyan, I., Manoj, B. S., et al. (2006). Quality of service provisioning in ad hoc wireless networks: A survey of issues and solutions. Ad Hoc Networks,4, 83–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., Das, S. (2003). RFC3561: Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing, Network Working Group, July 2003. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoon, K., & Hwang, C. L. (1981). TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution)—A multiple attribute decision making, w: Multiple attribute decision making–methods and applications, a state-of-the-at survey. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kayacan, E., & Khanesar, M. A. (2015). Fuzzy neural networks for real time control applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Journal of Information and Control,8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenders, V., Wagner, J., May, M. (2006). Analyzing the Impact of Mobility in Ad Hoc Networks. In 2nd Int. workshop on Multi-hop ad hoc networks (pp. 39–46). Florence, Italy, May 26–26, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mullen, J., & Huang, H. (2005). Impact of multipath fading in wireless ad hoc networks. In 2nd ACM workshop on Performance evaluation of wireless ad hoc, sensor, and ubiquitous networks (pp. 181–188).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aoki, M., Saito, M., Aida, H., & Tokuda, H. (2003). ANARCH: A name resolution scheme for mobile ad hoc networks. In International Conference on advanced information networking and applications.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Djenouri, D., & Badache, N. (2003). An energy efficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc network. In The 2nd proceeding of the Mediterranean workshop on ad-hoc networks. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perkins, C. E., Bhagwat, P. (1994). Highly Dynamic Destination Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. Proceedings of the conference on communications architectures, protocols and applications (pp. 234–244). London, United Kingdom, August 31–September 02 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clausen, T., Jacquet, P. (2003). RFC 3626: Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR), Network Working Group, October 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanzo, L., & Tafazolli, R. (2007). A survey of QoS routing solutions for mobile ad hoc networks’. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,9, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eiza, M. H., Owens, T., Ni, Q., & Shi, Q. (2015). Situation-aware QoS routing algorithm for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,64, 5520–5535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jaffe, J. M. (1984). Algorithms for finding paths with multiple constraints. Networks,14, 95–116.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Korkmaz, T., & Krunz, M. (2001) Multi-constrained optimal path selection. INFOCOM (pp. 834–843).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chatterjee, S., & Das, S. (2015). Ant colony optimization based enhanced dynamic source routing algorithm for mobile Ad hoc network. Journal of Information Science,295, 67–90.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    NS2 Software (2018). https://github.com/hbatmit/ns2.35, Redrived data August 10, 2018.
  29. 29.
    Krajzewicz, D., Erdmann, J., Behrisch, M., et al. (2012). Recent development and applications of SUMO—Simulation of urban mobility. International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements,5, 128–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringShahid Sattari Aeronautical University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations