# A Novel Context-Aware Reliable Routing Protocol and SVM Implementation in Vehicular Area Networks
## 5 Simulation Analysis  
For testing the efficiency of the proposed protocol, a 1000 \(\times\) 1000 area has been considered for simulation. The performance of the proposed protocol is contrasted to the CBLTR [21] and [PERSON] et al. [24] regarding the parameters such as Throughput, PDR, and E2E delay. Table 2 represents the Simulation parameters. To evaluate the proposed protocol, initially, 100 nodes are disseminated on the network area, and each vehicle is given continuous velocity from the range as follows: 50-70 km/h and 0-100 km/h. The major reason for considering the varying speed and density parameters in the simulation was to exclude the transmission and link failure among vehicles due to instability in speed and density among vehicles. Moreover, these two parameters perform a crucial role in the lifetime of the transmission connection and the superiority of routes established among the vehicles. PDR specifies the percentage of data packets arriving at the destination concerning the total number of packets transmitted to the destination. Table 3 shows the PDR variation by the vehicle's varying speed. With simulation results, the PDR decreases by increasing the velocity of vehicles. This is because, at high speed, the position of nodes varies more frequently, and hence more packets drop. By utilizing the weighting mechanism to select the next forwarding node in CBLTR [21], the node nearest to the destination is chosen. However, such nodes are generally near the boundary of the transmission region and leave it very quickly. In the proposed approach, the reliability of the route increases by considering various parameters and hence reduces the failure probability at higher speeds. Figure 5 shows the percentage improvement in PDR in the proposed protocol compared to [PERSON] et al. [24] and CBLTR [21] protocols with varying mobility. It is noted that in protocols [PERSON] et al. [24] and CBLTR [21], the packet delivery rate starts to decrease with an increase in vehicle velocity. However, in the proposed approach, the most reliable connection was chosen to utilize k-means, and the minimum cost node was elected (suitable velocity, nearer distance, and same direction as the existing node) and hence reducing the probability of route failure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Simulation Parameter** & **Simulation Value** \\ \hline Simulation Time & 1000–5000 s \\ Area & 1000 \(\times\) 1000 \\ Quantity of Vehicles & 50–100 \\ Transmission Range & 250 units \\ Vehicle velocity range & 10–60 kmph \\ Data packet & 1024 \\ MAC & 802.11 p \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation Parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Maximum Speed**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PDR**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **PDR Proposed** & **Aravindhan et al. [24]** & **CBLTR [21]** \\ \hline
1 & 0.956 & 0.921147 & 0.881252 \\ \hline
2 & 0.94114 & 0.91254 & 0.830825 \\ \hline
3 & 0.89547 & 0.83254 & 0.776322 \\ \hline
4 & 0.88471 & 0.85541 & 0.831066 \\ \hline
5 & 0.831148 & 0.82146 & 0.731932 \\ \hline
6 & 0.82114 & 0.80189 & 0.743047 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: PDR versus mobility. Tables 4-6 compare PDR with various vehicular nodes for the Proposed, [PERSON] et al. [24], and CBLTR [21] protocols in network areas 1000 \(\times\) 1000, 1200 \(\times\) 1200, and 1500 \(\times\) 1500, respectively. It demonstrates that the delivery rate initially increases with vehicular node density. This is because, with few vehicles on the roads, it is difficult to determine the nearby vehicles; hence, packets drop once the waiting time is over. CBLTR [21] has the least PDR compared to all other protocols. Moreover, CBLTR [21] requires discovering the route before transmitting the basic information. Due to the frequent variations in clusters in CBLTR [21], the created route must be preserved. Unlike CBLTR [21], [PERSON] et al. [24] only identify the next available forwarding node, and hence it adjusts much better than CBLTR [21] in the varying network topology of VANET.