# A Review of Vehicle to Vehicle Communication Protocols for VANETs in the Urban Environment
## 4 Simulation and Analysis
### Results and Discussion  
For performance analysis, we used packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, and routing overhead as the performance metrics. Packet delivery ratio is the ratio of the data packets delivered successfully to the destination vehicular node to those generated by the source vehicular node [8]. The end-to-end delay is the average time taken for a packet to pass through the network from its source vehicular node to the destination vehicular node [2]. Routing overhead is the ratio of total control packets spawned to the total data packets delivered at the destinations during the entire simulation [2]. The detail of these metrics is provided in [30; 31; 32; 33].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Simulation/Scenario**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MAC/Routing**} \\ \hline Simulation time & 100 min & MAC protocol & 802.11 DCF \\ Map size & 2400 \(\times\) 2000 m\({}^{2}\) & Channel capacity & 54 Mbps \\ Mobility model & VanetMobiSim & Transmission range & 266 m \\ Number of intersections & 20 & Traffic model & 15 CBR connections \\ Number of double lane roads & 32 & Packet sending rate & 5 packets per second \\ Number of vehicles & 75–250 & Vehicle Speed & 35–60 km/h \\ Number of simulation runs & 4 & Packet size & 128 bytes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Simulation setup.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
**V2V Based Position** & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Comparative Characteristics**} \\ \hline
**Aware Protocols** & **Location Service** & **Vehicular** & **Jamatics** & **Precision** & **GPS** & **Digital Map** & **Strategy \& **Q Overcome** & **Environmental** & **Hop** & **Realistic** \\
**Awaer Protocols** & **Location Service** & **Weighted** & **Density** & **Selection** & **Based** & **Regulated** & **Regulated** & **Local Optimum** & **Contain** & **Mobility Flows** \\ \hline \hline GRS [2] & Yes & No & Static & No & Yes & Yes & Fall box on greedy mode & City & Single hop & Yes \\ CRC\({}_{1}\) & Yes & No & - & No & Yes & No & Right hand Bite & City & Single hop & Yes \\ GPSR+[41] & Yes & No & - & Yes & Yes & Yes & Pepiner Mode & City & Two hop & Yes \\ ASTR+[28] & Yes & No & Static & No & Yes & Yes & Recontent anchor path & City & Single hop & Yes \\ GJTR [15] & Yes & Yes & Dynamic & Yes & Yes & Yes & Carry and forward & City & Single hop & Yes \\ E-GTR [8] & Yes & Yes & Dynamic & Yes & Yes & Yes & Carry and forward & City & Single hop & Yes \\ TRO [2] & Yes & Yes & Dynamic & Yes & Yes & Yes & Carry and forward & City & Two hop & Yes \\ DSR [19] & Yes & no & Static & No & Yes & Yes & Carry and forward & City & Single hop & Yes \\ E-GJTR [18] & Yes & Yes & Dynamic & Yes & Yes & Yes & Carry and forward & City & Single hop & Yes \\ \hline \hline CSR: Geographic Source Routing: GCR: Greedyly Perimeter Coordinator Routing; GPSR+: Greedy Perimeter Staedens Routing Junctions; A-STAR: Anchor based Street and Traffic Aware Routing; G-GYAR: Greedy Traffic Aware Routing; G-GYAR: Enhanced Greedy Traffic Aware Routing; TROC: Traffic Flow Oriented Routing; LOSR: Directional Greedy Source Routing; E-GYARD. Enhanced Greedy Traffic Aware Routing Directional. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparative study of position aware routing protocols for urban environment.