Integration of VANET-WiMAX Network
R.Gunasundari, T.Karthik, and V.Rajasekaran
Abstract—Along with the ongoing advances in dedicated short-range communication and wireless technologies, inter vehicular communication and road–vehicle communication have become possible, giving birth to a new network-type called Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET). The key role that VANETs can play in the realization of Intelligent Transport Systems has attracted the attention of major car manufacturers. In wireless networking domain, diverse wireless technologies are utilized for sharing data and providing data services. Among the available technologies,Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), are pre-dominantly used for widearea wireless data and voice services. On the other hand, VANETs are used for short range, high-speed communication among nearby vehicles, and between vehicles and roadside infrastructure units. Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication supports services such as car collision avoidance and road safety by exchanging warning messages across vehicles.Coupling the high data rates of IEEE 802.11p-based VANET and the wide coverage area of Wimax networks, envisions a VANET-WiMAX integrated network which is a better integration withQoS features. Simulations will be carried out using NCTUns to evaluate the performance metrics such as throughput and packet drop rates of the integrated network. Index Terms—IEEE 802.11p based VANET, Intelligent Transport Systems, Inter vehicular communication, WiMAX • R.Gunasundari is with the Department of Electronics and Communication, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India. • T.Karthik is with the Department of Electronics and Communication, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India. • V.Rajasekaran is with the Department of Electronics and Communication, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India.




exchangemore datathan in freeway scenarios, where the distances and velocities between vehicles are substantially higher. It is important to recall that in peer-to-peer communication, thedistance between peers must be small enough for the entire duration of the communication. Therefore, vehicles that predictable maintain lower speeds and spacing, along with many predictable stops, can transmit greater uninterruptedinformation streams. The speed and spacing factors lead us to consider the dynamics of vehicular movements, particularly inter-vehicular distance and their relative velocity and position as they move along to streets or roadways. Consequently, different models must be developed to predict vehicular movement in highly dynamic and varied real-world scenarios. Another issue that can affect IVC communication is the technology employed; each technology prioritizes different features, such as frequency, bandwidth, and transmission power.

In recent years, several intelligent transportation system initiatives and projects have been undertaken. These research and development trials are in progress and can be considered a first step towards development of vehicular communications network. The goal of these networks is to improve road safety and traffic efficiency as well as providing Internet services to vehicles.

1.1 Vehicular Communication An important aspect of inter-vehicular communication (IVC) is the environment in which the vehicles are moving. It is known that different physical environments lead to different performances. For example, in an urban scenario, vehicles will suffer more multi-path interference (when the simulated signal splits into many signal that come from different directions) than in a freeway scenario. Multi-path interference is very important because if the signal is split and arrives at a specific location from different angles, they will not arrive at the same time, and this will make understanding the signal sent difficult or impossible. Multi path interference is primarily caused by the presence of buildings and other obstacles (trees, communication towers, billboards, etc.) in urban environments cause diffraction and scattering. Moreover, researchers must also consider the different velocities implicit in different scenarios. . Generally, drivers require more time and a greater distance to come to a complete and safe stop. Vehicles will travel at a higher velocity and be more widely spaced in a freeway scenario because drivers require greater reaction times than in urban settings. Distance and relative velocity, therefore, are very important because they significantly influence communications. For example, in urban scenarios, intervehicular distances are very small for prolonged periods of

1.2 Overview of IEEE 802.11p Based on the standard draft of IEEE 802.11p [1], VANETs employ the technique of dedicated shortrange communication (DSRC) for the enhancement of driving safety, as well as comfort of automotive drivers. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission allocated 75 MHz of the DSRC spectrum at 5.9 GHz to be exclusively used for vehicle-to-vehicle and infrastructureto-vehicle communications. As shown in Fig. 1, the overall bandwidth is divided into seven frequency channels. CH178 is the control channel (CCH), which is used as a public channel for safety-relevant applications on the road. The other six channels are service channels (SCHs) for non-safety service applications for the


time because reduced spacing due to merging and frequent stops. Consequently, closely spaced vehiclescan frequency with the IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 1609 standard family. The IEEE 802.11p working group is investigating a new physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC) amendment of the 802.11 standard for VANETs. It employs the orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing technique on the PHY, which can provide up to a 27-Mb/s data rate with 10-MHz bandwidthand a 300–1000-m communication distance.

comfort of driving [2].Wireless access in vehicular environments (WAVE) is designed for an ITS on 5.9-GHz will look for downlink channel descriptor (DCD) and UCD (uplink channel descriptor) to get modulation and other parameters. The SS remains in synchronization with the BS as long as it continues to receive the DL-medium access protocol (MAP) and DCD messages. Finally, the SS will receive a set of transmission parameters from UCD as its UL channel. If no UL channel can be found after a suitable timeout period, the SS will continue scanning to find another DL channel. Once the UL parameters are obtained, the SS will perform the ranging process. The second stage is authentication where the BS authenticates and authorizes the SS. Then the BS performs akey exchange with the SS, such that the provided keys canenable the ciphering of transmission data. The third stage is registration. To register with the network, the SS and the BS will exchange registration request/response messages. The last stage is to establish IP connectivity. The SS gets its IP address and other parameters to establish IP connectivity. After this step, operational parameters can be transferred and connections can be set up.

Fig. 1 Frequency channel layout of a 5.9-GHz WAVE system

1.3 Overview of Mobile WiMAX The Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) is a wireless metropolitan area network based on IEEE 802.16 standard. It offers broadband wireless access that is capable of providing mobile users with quality of service (QoS) support as detailed in the latest amendment, IEEE 802.16e. It supports uplink and downlink data rates of tens of megabits per second for mobile access with a coverage area that spans several kilometers. The Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) standard, that is, the IEEE 802.16- 2004 standard supports point-to-multipoint (PMP) as well as mesh mode. In the PMP mode, multiple subscriber stations (SSs) are connected to one base station (BS) where the access channel from the BS to the SS is called the downlink (DL) channel, and the one from the SS to the BS is called the uplink (UL) channel. To support mobility, the IEEE has defined the IEEE 802.16e amendment, the mobile version of the 802.16 standard which is also known as mobile WiMAX. In mobile WiMAX battery life and handover are essential issues tosupport mobility between subnets in the same network domain (micromobility) and between two different network domains (macromobility).This new amendment aims at maintaining mobile clients connected to a MAN while moving around. It supports portable devices from mobile smart-phones and Personal digital assistants (PDAs) to notebook and laptop computers. IEEE 802.16e works in the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz frequency bands. During network entry a SS at first needs initial ranging to allocate CDMA codes in UL ranging opportunities. Then the SS is allowed to join the network to acquire correct transmitter parameters (timing offset and power level), a complete network entry process with a desired BS to join the network. After successful completion of initial ranging, the SS will request the BS to describe its available

1.4 Purpose of IEEE 802.11p and WiMAX in Vehicular Communication Among the communication technologies, in this paper we propose to compare two of the most often discussed in the ITS literature: mobile WiMAX and IEEE 802.11p [3]. IEEE 802.11p uses the radio spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for medium range and delay sensitive road safety applications. Mobile WiMAX, on the other hand, offers medium to long range connectivity, full support of mobility and high data rates with moderate delay. This work analyzes these technologies using NCTUns tool. NCTUns is a GUI based network simulator with lot of ease in designing and simulating the network. It is user friendly and provides lot of advantages like conviviality of interface such as GUI environment for editing a network topology, specifying network traffic, plotting performance curves, configuring the protocol stack used inside a network node, and playing back animations of logged packet transfers. It is much popular among the researches. Our objective is to study the feasibility of both technologies as communication media for vehicular networks by evaluating their performances in highway, sub-urban and urban environments and also to integrate both these networks for improved performance. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: Section 2 describes research related to IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 802.16-2004 technologies and Section 3 describes the scenarios simulated and results we obtained. Finally, Section 4 provides a summary of our work and future research. 2RELATED WORK
The most related reference to our work is the study performed in [4]. The authors examined the performance of the same two technologies, but they considered only ideal highway like case. Other works have focused on the integration of an 802.11p or an 802.16e simulation


modulation capability, coding schemes, and duplexing methods. During this stage, the SS will acquire a downlink (DL) channel. Once the SS finds a DL channel and synchronizes with the BS at the PHY level, the MAC layer Channel Access (EDCA) QoS extension supported by the 802.11p protocol. It has shown that fixing the size of the backoff window could decrease the throughput in V2I communication scenarios. Even so, some papers consider that EDCA, because is using CSMA/CA protocol, is quite heavy and needs too many messages to provide QoS functions. To cope with these problems, [8] propose a new point-to multipoint based TDD/TDMA technique on each downlink carrier for 802.11p wireless local area network rather than random access. In infrastructure mode, downlink is the transmission from the roadside unit to onboard units. They argue the proposed algorithm is outperforming IEEE 802.11a and IEEE 802.11p in high vehicle speed mobility and long distances. The IEEE group created the IEEE 802.11p (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments, (WAVE)) task force. The workforce established a new standard that essentially employs the same PHY layer of the IEEE 802.11a standard, but uses the 10 MHzbandwidth channel instead of the 20 MHz bandwidth of IEEE 802.11a. With respect to the MAC layer, WAVE is basedon a contention method (i.e. CSMA/CA), similar to other standards inthis group. The purpose of this standard is to provide the minimum set of specifications required to ensure interoperability between wireless devices attempting to communicate in potentially rapidly changing communications environments and in situations where message delivery must be completed in time frames much shorter than the minimum in 802.11-based infrastructure or ad-hoc networks [9].The used frequency spectrum in an 802.11p network is divided into one control channel (CCH) and several service channels (SCHs). The CCH is dedicated for nodes to exchange network control messages while SCHs are used by nodes to exchange their data packets and Wave Short Messages (WSMs). The link bandwidth of these channels is further divided into transmission cycles, each comprising a control frame and a service frame. The draft standard suggests that the duration of a frame (either a control or a service frame) is set to 50 milliseconds. Authors in [10] evaluated the Packet Error Rate (PER) performance degradation of the WAVE PHY layer due to the time-varying channel and the Doppler Effect. They conclude that the estimation process is significantly affected by rapid changes of the channel, severely affecting the PER performance, while the Inter-Carrier Interference (ICI) has little or no impact on the performance at small data rates. WAVE also has a limited transmission range; simulations carried out by [11] show that only 1% of communication attempts at 750m are successful in a highway scenario presenting multipath shadowing. The MAC layer in IEEE 802.11p has several significant drawbacks. For example, in vehicular scenarios, WAVE drops over 53% of packets sent according to simulation results [12]. Furthermore, results in [13] show that throughput decays as the number of vehicles increases. In fact, throughput decreases to almost zero with 20 concurrent transmissions. The authors thus conclude that WAVE is not scalable. Additionally, IEEE 802.11p does not support QoS, which is essential in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs). Authors in [14] report that the probability of collisions grows significantly as the number of nodes sending Access Classes (AC3)

model into simulators such as NCTUns [5,6]. Nevertheless, regarding vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications, most of the papers were interested in evaluating the 802.11p communication protocol and potentially enhancing it. The study performed in [7] has focused on the evaluation of the Enhanced Distributed collisions. As a result, packets destined for the CCH form longer cues which result in greater SCH intervals and higher end-to-end delay. WAVE technology cannot ensure time critical message dissemination (e.g. collision warnings), especially in dense scenarios or in the case of filled MAC queues. Authors in [15] developed a simulation framework for the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) standard using the NS2 simulator. Their framework included a handoff mechanism, but no realistic vehicular traffic models. As for mobile WiMAX technology, only a few works have attempted to study its feasibility as an access media for vehicular networks. An architecture for mobile WiMAX deployment in V2I scenarios has been proposed and evaluated through simulation by Aguado et al. [16]. They have shown mobile WiMAX as a competitive solution in V2I context. Other measurements carried out by Chou et al. [17] showed that, at distances under 100 m, WiFi performs better than WiMAX in term of throughput and delay. WiFi and WiMAX are developed for high rate internet applications and therefore usually provide high rate and highreliability but no real-time support. Recently, the IEEE 802.16-2004 taskforce actualized thisstandard to better permit it to handle QoS, mobility, and multi-hop relay communications. Networks using the Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) -MAC layer now can potentially meet a wider range of demands, including VCN. WiMAX is a nonprofit consortium supported by over 400 companies dedicated to creating profiles based on the IEEE 802.16-2004 standard. The first IEEE 802.16-2004 standard considers fixed nodes in a straight line with line of sight between the base station and each fixed remote node . Later, the IEEE 802.16e task force (TF) amended the original standard to provide mobility to end users (Mobile WiMAX [18]) in non-line-of- sight conditions. The most recent modification to IEEE 802.16e was in March, 2007. This modification, IEEE802.16j (approved in 2009), permits multi-hop relay communications. IEEE 802.16j operates in both transparent and non-transparent modes. In transparent mode, mobile stations (MS) must decode the control messages relayed from the base station (BS). In other words, they must operate within the physical coverage radius of the BS. In nontransparent mode, one of the relay stations (RS) provides the control messages to the MS. The main difference between the transparent and the non-transparent mode architecture is that in transparent mode, RS increases network capacity while in nontransparent mode, the RS extends the BS range. Additionally, the RS can be classified according to mobility and can be fixed (FRS), nomads (NRS) or mobiles (MRS). In [18] the authors propose a cross-layer protocol called Coordinated-External Peer Communication (CEPEC) for Internet-Access services and peer communications for vehicular networks. Their simulation results show that the proposed CEPEC protocol provides higher throughput with guaranteed fairness in multi-hop data delivery in vehicular networks when compared with the purely IEEE


increases. It is important to remember that a higher number of collisions can cause increased dead time, in which a channel is blocked and no useful data can be exchanged. Also, the continuous switching between the Control Chanel (CCH) and the Service Channel (SCH) use different packet cues, which amplifies the effects of range than WiFi, its latency can be significantly larger than that of WiFi at a short distance (e.g. less than 100m). Additionally, authors show the frame size´s value has a strong impact on the performance of WiMAX.

In this section, we perform a simulation study to verify the efficiency and performance of both technologies as a communication media applied in different communication environments and also their performance in integrated form. In order to evaluate the performance of both technologies, we carried out several simulations in the NCTUNs network simulator and emulator [20], which is a free network simulation tool that runs on Linux. The reason behind the decision to use this tool is that NCTUns provides reproducible and traceable results. The simulator tightly integrates network and traffic simulations and provides a fast feedback loop between them. Simulation models for mobile WiMAX with the support of several features (such as PHY OFDMA, PMP and TDD modes, QoS scheduling services, among others) and for 802.11p that supports IEEE802.11p On Board Units (OBUs) and Road Side Units (RSUs) are defined in NCTUns simulation tool. As the metrics of performance evaluation, we mainly use the throughput and the packet loss rate from the source node to the receptor node. The aim of these metrics is to quantitatively determine the packet loss average during the overall communication session and the average throughput obtainedfor the overall communication process.  Throughput is the average rate of successfully transmitted data packets over the communication channels’ capacities.  Packet Drop Fraction is the ratio of the number of unsuccessfully transmitted packets (i.e., as a result of packet drops) to the total number of packets sent from the sources. As previously mentioned, for our simulations, we use the NCTUns network simulator. Simulations were performed to verify if 802.11p and WiMAXintegrated network can ensure an acceptable performance for real time vehicular communication.

802.16-2004 based protocol. Authors in [19] examine the IEEE 802.16j multi-hop relay (MR) technology that improves vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. Finally, there are few studies that show comparative analysis between WiFi and WiMAX. In [17] authors report that while WiMAX can offer a longer communication the integrated network, one base station (BS) is mounted in the scenario where twenty-five vehicles are randomly distributed on the road. The vehicles are equipped with a wireless communication interface of both 802.11p and IEEE 802.16e. Themovement of all vehicles on the road is generated randomly by the simulator. In NCTUns, each vehicle can be specified with different auto-driving behaviors. A driving behavior is defined by a car profile. After inserting vehicles, one can specify what kind of profile should be applied to an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) car. We use the car profile tool included in NCTUns to define the behavior of the cars. This scenario consists of a constant bit-rate application running over User Datagram Protocol (UDP).

802.11p 400 Throughput(kbps) 300 200 100 0



1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Time(seconds)
Fig.2 Throughput in an Highway Scenario

802.11p Packet Drop(packets) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0



Standard Frequency Channel Bandwidth RSU Tx Power RSU Antenna Height MS Tx Power MS Antenna Height

Integrated network 3.5GHz and 5.9GHz 10 MHz 43 dBm 32 m 38dBm 1.5 m

1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729 Time(seconds)
Fig.3 Packet Drop in an Highway Scenario

3.2 Suburban and Urban Scenarios For performance evaluation in the sub urban scenario we consider a twenty five square km area fully covered by base stations. Two base stations (BSs) are mounted in the scenario where thirty cars are randomly distributed on the road. The vehicles are equipped with both


Distance between RSU’s

5 km

3.1 Highway Scenario To evaluate the integrated performance of both 802.11p and 802.16e technologies in highway scenario, we define a 10km zone that is fully covered by base stations. For may be considered to be scattered between the transmitter and receiver. In this form of scenario there is no single signal path that dominates and a statistical approach is required to the analysis of the overall nature of the radio communications channel. Rayleigh fading is a model that can be used to describe the form of fading that occurs when multipath propagation exists. The Rayleigh fading model can be used to analyze radio signal propagation on a statistical basis. It operates best under conditions when there is no dominant signal (e.g. direct line of sight signal), and in many instances cellular telephones being used in sub urban and dense urban environments fall into this category. Other examples where no dominant path generally exists are for ionospheric propagation where the signal reaches the receiver via a huge number of individual paths. Propagation using tropospheric ducting also exhibits the same patterns. Accordingly all these examples are ideal for the use of the Rayleigh fading or propagation model. In urban scenario, the same fading model is used since it suits the urban environment in the same way as the suburban environment. The environment we set up for urban is identical to the sub-urban environment in terms of area. But the only varying parameters are the number of cars employed, the number of buildings and the building height in that area. The values set to these parameters are higher in value when compared to the values set for the sub-urban scenario. Therefore the fading is more in this scenario. But since the speed of the vehicles in an urban environment is slower when compared to those in a suburban environment, the loss is not too severe. 4 CONCLUSION
Within the ITS field, many applications of a diverse nature are considered and thus their communication requirements differ significantly. This makes it difficult for one wireless access technology to support all or even most of these applications. For example, traffic safety applications typically have requirements like high reliability, low latency, and real-time communications. Efficiency and comfort applications have more relaxed requirements on latency whereas ITS applications involving voice or video have lower requirements on reliability. Further, some applications may need more than one wireless access technology to fulfill their full functionality, whereas, for other applications,more than one suitable technology could be recommended. This leads to the necessity to understand which is the most suitable in every specific context. Knowing the capabilities and limitations of these technologies, and knowing their availability are very important factors to make radio accesstechnology selection, so there is an increasing need for performance analysis of different access technologies. In this paper we studied the potential of IEEE 802.11p, mobile WiMAX and their integrated network as communication media for vehicular communications. In particular, the integrated network offers very good

802.11p and IEEE 802.16e interfaces. The other parameters such as the coverage area and link capacity of the two networks are similar to that of the highway scenario. The average height of the buildings isset to twelve metres and the average distance between the buildings is set to ten metres. The fading model used in this scenario Rayleigh fading. The Rayleigh fadingmodel is particularly useful in scenarios where the signal

802.11p Throughput(kbps) 150 100 50 0



1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729 Time(seconds)
Fig.4 Throughput in an Sub-urban Scenario

802.11p Packet Drop(packets) 250 200 150 100 50 0



1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729 Time(seconds)
Fig.5 Packet Drop in a Sub-urban Scenario

802.11p Throughput(kbps) 100 80 60 40 20 0



1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729 Time(seconds)
Fig.6 Throughput in an Urban Scenario


performances in terms of throughput (network capacity), coverage range and packet loss (the percentage of information that is transmitted but not received) as shown in Fig. (2-7). We must take into consideration the fact that this technology is predominantly dedicated to V2V communications found in VANET ad hoc networks. But there is no doubt that, by standardizing it, it will benefit major improvements in the V2I communications domain too. An ITS V2I-based communication system can choose between those two technologies or can use both, depending on the technical and economic considerations. Our proposed future work will be on integrating the IEEE 802.11p (for V2V) with next generation networks like LTE which will yield a better performance compared to existing vehicular communication networks.

802.11p Packet Drop(packets) 400 300 200 100 0



1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729 Time(seconds)
Fig.7 Packet Drop in an Urban Scenario


[12] KatrinBilstrup, Elisabeth Uhlemann, Erik G. Strom and Urban Bilstrup,“ Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11p MAC Method for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication,” in Vehicular Technology

Draft Amendment for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE), IEEE Std. P802.11p/D3.0, Jul. 2007.

[2]K. Abrougui, A. Boukerche, and R. W. N. Pazzi,“Design and evaluation of context-aware and location-based service discovery protocols for vehicular networks,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 717–735, Sep. 2011. [3]ETSI TS 202 663, “European profile standard for the physical and medium access control layer of Intelligent Transport Systems operating in the 5 GHz frequency band,” published by ETSI, Jan. 2010. [4] I.C. Msadaa, P. Cataldi and F. Filati,“A comparative study between 802.11p and Mobile WiMAX-based V2I Communications Networks,” in Forth International Conference on Next Generation

Conference, pp.1-5,2008.
[13] L. Stibor, Y. Zang, and H.-J. Reumerman,“Evaluation of communication distance of broadcast messages in a vehicular ad-hoc network using IEEE 802.11p,” in Proceedings of the

IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference
(WCNC '07), pp. 254-257, March 2007. [14] Stephan Eichler,“Performance Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11p WAVE Communication Standard,” in 66th IEEE Vehicular

Technology Conference (VTC-2007 Fall), pp. 2199-2203,
2007. [15] Balkrishna Sharma Gukhool and SoumayaCherkaoui,“Handoff in IEEE 802.11p-based vehicular networks,” in

Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies., Amman, July
2010, pp.186-191. [5] S.Y. Wang and C.L. Chou,“NCTUns Tool for Wireless Vehicular Communications Network Researches,” in Simulation Modeling








Communications Networks, pp. 1-5, 2009.
[16] M. Aguado, J. Matias, E. Jacob and M. Berbineau,“The WiMAX ASN Network in the V2I Scenario”, in Proc. of the 68th

and Theory, vol. 17, no. 7, Aug. 2009, pp. 1211-1226.
[6] S.Y. Wang and C.C. Lin,“NCTUns 5.0: A Network Simulator for IEEE 802.11p and 1609 Wireless Vehicular Network Researches,” in 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications,Calgary, Canada, Sept. 2008. [7] Y. Wang, B. Ahmed, B. Krishnamachari and K. Psounis,“IEEE 802.11p Performance Evaluation and Protocol Enhancement,” in Proc. of the 2008IEEE International Conference on Vehicular

IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 1-5.
[17] C. Chou, C. Li, W. Chien and K. Lan,“A Feasibility Study on Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communication: WiFi vs. WiMAX”, in Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Mobile Data

Management: Systems, Services and Middleware, May 2009,
pp. 397-398. [18] Kung Fairness Yang, ShumaoOu, for Hsiao-Hwa Chen, and JianghuaHe,“AMultihop Peer Communication Protocol with Guarantee IEEE 802.16-based Vehicular Networks,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 3358-3370, 2007. [19] Yu Ge, Su Wen, Yew-Hock Ang, and Ying-Chang Liang,“Optimal Relay Selection in IEEE 802.16j Multihop Relay vehicular Networks,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular

Electronics and Safety, Sept. 2008, pp. 317-322.

[8] R.A. Saeed, M.A. Abakar, A.A. Hassan and O.O. Khalifa,,“Design
and evaluation of lightweight IEEE 802.11p-based TDMA MAC method for road side-to-vehicle communications,” in 2010 IEEE

International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, May 2010, pp. 1-5

IEEE 802.11p/D3.0, IEEE Standards Activities Department, July

Technology, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 2198-2206, 2010.
[20] SIMREAL technology Homepage, NCTUNS network simulator and emulator. [Online]. Available: http://nsl10.csie.nctu.edu.tw/.

[10] Iulia Ivan, Philippe Besnier, MatthieuCrussiere, M´hamedDrissi, Lois Le Danvic, Mickael Huard, and Eric Lardjane,“Physical Layer Performance Analysis of V2V Communications in High Velocity Context,” in






Transportation Systems Telecommunications, pp. 409-414, 2009.


[Online].Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2008.446 [11] Yi Wang, Ahmed A, Krishnamachari B, and Psounis K,“IEEE 802.11p performance evaluation and protocol enhancement,” in

IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety, ICVES 2008, pp.317 – 322, 2008.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful