---------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #1:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rating Category    Your Rating       Scale Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Work             
and Contribution     |-----|    5=Good solid work of some importance
                     |  4  |    3=Marginal work and minor contribution
                     |-----|    1=Very questionable work and contribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality                     
Novelty              |-----|    5=Contains an original contribution
                     |  3  |    3=Variation of a known concept 
                     |-----|    1=Complete lack of original ideas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of                      
Presentation         |-----|    5= Well written
                     |  5  |    3= Readable
                     |-----|    1= Needs considerable work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical                       
Correctness          |-----|    5=Good
                     |  4  |    3=Flaws but Easy to Correct 
                     |-----|    1=Several Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall                         
Rating               |-----|    5=Accept with Minor Revisions
                     |  5  |    3=Consider for Publication (Major Revision)
                     |-----|    1=Definitely reject 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 **Strengths***

The manuscript gives a very detailed but also comprehensive overview of ongoing work and tools of the current VANET research domain. The most important tools of each subdomain (network, mobility, integration tools) have been addressed.

**Weaknesses***
The section "recommendation" actually gives only small clues, which framework to take for specific simulation issues. I miss some more detailed information, why a special tool suits best for any of these issues.



Reviewer #2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Work and Contribution: 4
(5=Good solid work of some importance, 3=Marginal work and minor contribution, 1=Very questionable work and contribution)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality Novelty: 3
(5=Contains an original contribution, 3=Variation of a known concept, 1=Complete lack of original ideas)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Presentation: 5
(5= Well written, 3= Readable, 1= Needs considerable work)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Correctness: 4
(5=Good, 3=Flaws but Easy to Correct, 1=Several Flaws)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Rating: 4
(5=Accept with Minor Revisions, 3=Consider for Publication (Major Revision), 1=Definitely reject)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The paper gives a good overview of the huge amount of VANET simulation tools available. However, the comparison could have been a little more systematic from my point of view.