You are on page 1of 6



A Comparative study of MANET and

VANET Environment
Arzoo Dahiya , Dr.R.K.Chauhan

Abstract-On demand set up, fault tolerance and unconstrained connectivity are a couple of advantages ,that why mobile computing
continues to enjoy rapid growth. In last three decade ,tremendous improvement is made in research area of wireless adhoc network
and now a days ,one of the most attractive research topic is inter vehicle communication i.e. realization of mobile adhoc network
.VANETs have been recently attracting an increasing attention from both industry as well as research communities .A rich literature
in MANET exists, but the availability of traffic data and vehicle equipment motivate the researchers to explore the special
characteristics of VANET. In this paper we survey and compare from the literature ,the environment for MANET and VANET. Finally
we share a collection of useful references.

Index Terms-MANET, VANET, routing ,VN ,ITS etc.


1. Introduction In 1999, U.S. federal communication Commission

(FCC) allocated a block of spectrum in 5.850 to
MANETs consist of mobile/semi mobile nodes with 5.925 GHz band for applications primarily intended
no existing pre-established infrastructure. They to enhance the safety of our networks on roads
connect themselves in a decentralized, self- systems. In fact BMW, Fiat, Renault and some
organizing manner and also establish multi hop other organizations have united to develop a car-
routes. If the mobile nodes are vehicles then this to-car communication consortium, dedicated
type of network is called VANET(vehicular ad-hoc precisely to impose Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and
network). One important property that distinguishes Vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication,
MANET from VANET is that nodes move with vehicle share safety related information and access
higher avg. speed and number of nodes is location based services[1]. The wealth of
assumed to be very large. Vehicular networks information that could be obtained from vehicular
consist of vehicles and Road Side Units (RSU) networks is quite enormous, ranging from location
equipped with radios. Plummeting cost of and speed of emergency alerts and request for
electronic components and permanent willingness roadside assistance. In particular, many envisioned
of manufacturers to increase road safety and to safety related applications require that the vehicles
differentiate themselves from their competitors continuously broadcast their current position and
vehicles are becoming “Computer on Wheels” speed in so called heart beat messages. This
rather than “Computer N/W on Wheels”. messaging increases the awareness of vehicles
Convergence of forces from both the public and about their neighbors’ whereabouts and warns
private sector implies that in not-too-distant future drivers off dangerous situations. But the very
we are likely to see the total birth of vehicular n/w. richness of information also threatens to cause
deployment to come to a grinding halt if there is
adverse consumer reaction to technology.
Ms.Arzoo Dahiya isworking with Department of In this paper we start the discussion with the
I.T.,Lingaya’s University,Faridabad.
introduction of vehicular adhoc networks. Next we
Dr.R.K.Chauhan is Chairman,Deptt.Of Computer specify various unique characteristics of VANET
Science,Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. that differentiate it from MANET. We then examine
routing techniques for both MANET and VANET

and make a comparison study. Finally we end with 3. High application requirement on data
the discussion and few useful references. delivery. Important VANET applications are for
traffic safety to avoid road accidents; potentially
2. Unique VANET characteristics and including safety-of-life. These applications have
high requirements with respect to real time and
comparison with MANET
reliability. An end-to-end delay of seconds can
2.1 Unique VANET characteristics render a safety information meaningless.
Though Vehicular network share common
4. No confidentiality of safety information. For
characteristics with conventional ad-hoc sensor
safety application the information contained in a
network such as self organized and lack of central
message is of interest for all road users and hence
control. VANET have unique challenges that
not confidential.
impact the design of communication system and its
protocol security[2]. These challenges include- 5. Privacy. Communication capabilities in vehicles
might reveal information about the driver/user,
1. Potentially high number of nodes. Regarding
such as identifier, speed, position and mobility
VANETs as the technical basis for envisioned
pattern. Despite the need of message
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) we expect
authentication and non-repudiation of safety
that a large portion of vehicles will be equipped
messages, privacy of users and drivers should be
with communication capabilities for vehicular
respected in particular location privacy and
communication. Taking additionally potential road-
side units into account, VANET needs to be
scalable with a very high number of nodes. 2.2 Comparison of MANET and VANET
2. High mobility and frequent topology Mobile Ad-hoc networks and Vehicular Ad-hoc
changes. Nodes potentially move with high speed. networks are very much similar on various
Hence in certain scenarios such as when vehicle technical grounds but following are some
pass each other, the duration of time that remains parameters on the basis of which we can contrast
for exchange of data packets is rather small. Also, both environments.
intermediate nodes in a wireless multi-hop chain of
forwarding nodes can move quickly.

Sr.No. Parameters MANET VANET

1. Cost of Cheap Expensive
2. Change in Slow Frequent and very fast
3. Mobility Low High
4. Node Sparse Dense and frequently variable

5. Bandwidth Hundred Thousand kps

6. Range Upto Upto 500m
7. Node Depends Depend on lifetime of vehicle
Lifetime on power

8. Multihop Available Weakly available

9. Reliability Medium High
10. Moving Random Regular
pattern of
11. Addressing Attribute Location based
scheme based
12. Position Using Using GPS,RADAR
acquisition ultrasonic

Table1: Comparison of MANET and VANET[20]

3. Routing Techniques for MANET and  E.g. DSR ,

hitting the reality for VANET AODV,LMR,TORA,LAR,
3.1 Routing Protocols for MANET  Hierarchical
MANETs have numerous applications and each of  Position Based
such application involve different scenarios with  LAR
movement pattern, traffic rate and density  Power Aware
dependent on nature of interaction among the  ABR
participants and environment. Active research is  Signal Stability
been done in the area of exploiting the routing for  SSA
mobile networks but based on different application  Multicast
areas the classification is very vast. Routing  M-AODV
techniques can be on the basis of unicast or
multicast OR topology based OR QoS based OR And many more…….
power awareness based OR broadcast based etc.
As discussed above , the operational principles of Many protocols have been proposed within the
both VANET and MANET are same to some framework of internet engineering task force(IETF)
approach. Thus most of the routing strategies are for MANET.
taken from MANET but due to very high mobility
and node’s unpredictable behavior routing In Flat, Pro-active routing protocols, such as
protocols for MANET are not suited for vehicular Destination Sequence Distance
communication environment. So first of all we Vector(DSDV)[7],routes updates are periodically
discuss some not all routing and summarize their performed regardless of network load, network size
advantages and disadvantages. and bandwidth. Major point of these protocols is
that nodes maintain a constantly updated
Classification of current routing protocols[3]- understanding of network topology. reactive or on-
demand routing are designed to reduce the
MANET Routing Protocol overhead by maintaining information for active
routes only at the expense of delay due to route
 Flat search. This means that routes are determined and
 Pro-active(table-driven) maintained for nodes that require to send data to
 E.g.OLSR, particular destination. Route discovery occurs by
DSDV,WRP,GSR,FSR,S flooding a route request(RREQ) and route
TAR,DREAM,CGSRHSR response(RREP) packets through the network.
, This scheme is significant for Ad hoc environment
 Reactive(On demand) since battery power is conserved both by not

sending the advertisements and by not needing to that they conserve the bandwidth. but
receive them (A host could otherwise reduce its disadvantage is that each node is required to carry
power usage by putting itself in to the sleep or a GPS.
standby mode when they are not busy with other
tasks. Link breakage is reported by report error In signal stability protocols such as SSA[10],selects
message(RERR). routes based on location stability and signal
strength. In this approach routes stays longer thus
But since routes in vehicular networks are fragile, fewer route construction is needed. the
such protocols spend much time in discovering the disadvantage of this protocol is that when route
routes. So they are not suited for VANET. failure occurs no attempt is made to recover the
route delaying the route discovery.
Second category is hierarchical or hybrid such as
Zone Routing Protocol(ZRP)[8], divides the In last but not the least category of multicast
network into different zones. Intrazone is routing e.g. M-AODV[11] i.e. multicast extension of
performed by pro-active protocol. Inter-zone is AODV .It allows each node in the network to send
performed by reactive protocol. The advantage of out multicast data packets and the multicast data
this protocols is that it has reduced the packets are broadcast when propagating along the
communication overhead if we compare to multicast group tree.
traditional proactive protocols. Although they
present scalable route strategy for large scale
environment but their implementation has not
gained much popularity and not suited for VANET.

Position based routing such as Location Aided

Routing(LAR)[9], require that information about
physical position of the participating nodes in the
networks thus by reducing the overhead of
traditional flooding. Advantage of such technique is
3.2 Summary of MANET routing protocols[4]


Protocol Routing Frequency of Feature Advantage/Disadvantage

Structure updates
DSDV Flat Periodic updates Loop free Loop free/high overhead
WRP Flat Periodic updates Loop free Loop free/memory overhead
GSR Flat Periodic and Localized updates Localized updates/high
local updates memory overhead
FSR Flat Periodic and Controlled Reduces control
local updates frequency of overhead/reduces accuracy
STAR Hierarchical Conditional Minimizes control Low memory
updates overhead overhead/requires GPS
DREAM Flat Mobility based Controlled updates Low control overhead/cluster
updates maintenance
HSR Hierarchical Periodic updates Low control Disadv. is location
overhead management
Route metric Route maintained
method in
AODV Flat Freshest and Route table Adaptive to dynamic
shortest path topology/scalability problem
DSR Flat Shortest path Route cache Multiple routes/large delays
TORA Flat Shortest path Route table Multiple routes/temporary
ABR Flat Strongest Route table Route stability/scalability

associativity problem
SSA Flat Signal strength Route table Route stability/large delays
LAR Flat Shortest path Route cache Local route discovery/based
on source routing
ZRP Flat Shortest path Interzone/intrazone Less
tables commn.overhead/overlapping

4. Routing Protocols for VANET

In a vehicular environment three possible types of

architectures are possible.See fig.1

vehicular scenario regarding improvement in

packet delivery ratio.

4.2 Geographical Routing Geographical routing

or position based routing has been identified more
promising paradigm in VN. Two best known
protocols in literature are Greedy Perimeter
Stateless Routing(GPSR)[14] and Greedy
Fig.1-source[12] Perimeter Coordinator Routing(GPCR)[15].It works
best in open space scenarios with evenly
While it is all but impossible to come up with a distributed nodes. It gave good results when
routing approach that can be suitable for all compared to DSR in highway scenario.GPCR
VANET applications and can efficiently handle all works on the principle that packet should always
their inherent characteristics, attempts have been be forwarded on a junction called co-ordinator. The
made to develop some routing protocols authors showed that GPCR has higher delivery
specifically designed for particular applications like rate than GPSR. and slight increase in latency.
safety applications, content delivery in future
vehicular networks, provision of comfort 4.3 Cluster Based Routing
applications. Many routing techniques have been
proposed for traditional ad-hoc networks but due to Cluster based routing protocol was first developed
different characteristics of VN , they fail to fit in the by Jiang in 1999.Nodes of the wireless network are
scenario. In this paper we classify the routing into divided into several disjoint clusters. Each cluster
five categories- elects one node as cluster head. These heads are
responsible for routing process.
4.1 Ad-hoc routing and modification for

As mentioned earlier MANET and VANET share

the same principles, thus most ad-hoc routing
protocols are applicable such as AODV and DSR.
however most of the studies have shown that both Fig 2.Communication between two clusters using cluster
these protocols suffer from highly dynamic nature head.
of nodes i.e. they give low communication
throughput. Thus little modification need to be Protocols were proposed based on cluster
deployed to deal with dynamic mobility. for this two mechanism for MANET but due to driver’s
algorithms were proposed by Namboodiri et intentions and high speed etc. were not suited for
al.[13],to reduce the ill effects of route breakage as VN. For vehicular specific environment two known
faced in AODV .Two prediction based protocols are routing protocols in literature are Clustering for
PRAODV and PRAODV-M.PRAODV constructs open IVC Networks(COIN)[16] and Cluster Based
alternate routes before the end of estimated Flooding(CBR)[17]. COIN elects cluster head
lifetime while PRAODV-M selects maximum based on vehicle dynamic and driver’s intention
predicted life time among multiple route options. rather than communication range or ID as in ad-
These two protocols showed great utility in hoc networks and produced much more stable
structure.CBR works principally on location based

theory sending location request LREQ and location [10].R.Dube,C.D.Rais,K.Wang,S.Tripathi,,“Signal stability

reply LREP msg. In total cluster based routing can based adaptive routing (SSA) for ad-hoc mobile
achieve good scalability for large networks but networks”,computer science technical report,TR-3646,pages
extra overhead of formation of cluster and heads. 22,1996.
[11].Elizabeth M. Royer,“Multicast Ad hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector (MAODV) Routing”,internet draft,mobile ad-
4.4 Broadcast Routing hoc networking group,march 2000.

Broadcasting technique is used for sharing traffic [12].Fan li,Yu Wang,”Routing in vehicular adhoc networks:A
emergency conditions, advertisements etc. the way survey”,IEEE vehicular technology magazine,june 2007.
to achieve broadcasting is flooding and it is easy to [13]. V. Namboodiri, M. Agarwal, and L. Gao, “A study on the
be implemented. But its performance drops quickly feasibility of mobile gateways for vehicular ad-hoc networks,”
as networks grows larger. Two well known routing in Proceedings of the First International Workshop on
protocols are BROADCOMM[18] and Urban Multi- Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 66–75, 2004.
hop Broadcast Protocol(UMB)[19].BROADCOMM
[14]. B. Karp and H.T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy perimeter
works on hierarchical structure and it outperforms stateless routing for wireless networks,” in Proceedings of
flooding algorithm.UMB overcome the problem of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile
hidden nodes and packet collision. This protocol Computing and Networking (MobiCom), 2000.
give high success rate for heavy traffic density and
packet load. [15]. C. Lochert, M. Mauve, H. Füßler, and H. Hartenstein,
“Geographic routing in city scenarios,” ACM SIGMOBILE
Mobile Computing and Communications Review (MC2R),
5.Conclusion vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 69–72, Jan. 2005.

In this paper we discuss typical architectural [16]. J. Blum, A. Eskandarian, and L. Hoffman, “Mobility
management in IVC networks,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
features of vehicular network and compare it with
Symposium, 2003.
traditional mobile ad-hoc network. Table 1 draws
an outline of MANET and VANET routing [17]. R.A. Santos, A. Edwards, R. Edwards, and L. Seed,
principles. In general although this paper gives no “Performance evaluation of routing protocols in vehicular
technically practical results but presents an overall adhoc networks,” The International Journal of Ad Hoc and
picture of different routing challenges that are Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 80–91, 2005.
faced in vehicular environment and various routing [18]. M. Durresi, A. Durresi, and L. Barolli, “Emergency
procedures followed in both the networks. We broadcast protocol for intervehicle communications,” in
believe this paper will be helpful for future designer ICPADS ’05: Proceedings of the 11th International
in vehicular communication networks. Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems—
Workshops (ICPADS’05), 2005.
6. References [19].. G. Korkmaz, E. Ekici, F. Özgüner, and Ü. Özgüner,
“Urban multi-hop broadcast protocol for inter-vehicle
[1].Bryan Parno, Adrian Perrig, “Challenges in Securing communication systems,” in ACM International Workshop on
Vehicular Networks”, Poster presented at USENIX Security Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 76–85, 2004.
[2].Emanuel Fonseca,A.Festag,”A survey of Existing [20].T.H.Kim,W.K.Hong,H.Kim,”An effective multihop
approaches for secure ad-hoc routing and their applicability broadcast in vehicular adhoc networks”, proceedings 20th
to VANET”, NEC Network Laboratories,March 2006. International Conference on Architecture of Computing
[3] Frank Kargl “Secure Routing for Vehicular Networks.”. Systems, ARCS 2007, March 2007,springer.
SEVECOM Kick-off Workshop,2nd Feb,2006.
[4].M.Abolhasan,T.Wysocki,E.Dutkiewicz,”A review of
routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc Ms. Arzoo Dahiya is currently working as an Assistant
networks”, professor in I.T.Deptt,Lingaya’s University,Faridabad.
[5].C.liu,J.Kaiser,”A survey of mobile adhoc network routing
protocols”university of Ulm technical report series,No.2003- Prof. (Dr.) R. K. Chauhan is currently working as a
08,germany 2005. Chairman, Department of Computer Science and Application
[6]Y.B.Ko,N.H.Vaidya,”Location Aided Routing in mobile ad- in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. He has published
hoc networks”,proceedings ACM/IEEE Mobicomm,oct 1998. more than 70 research papers in International/National
[7] Mahdipour, E. Rahmani, A.M. Aminian, E. ,” Journal/Conference. He has guided 5 Ph.D. His research
Performance Evaluation of Destination-Sequenced Distance- interest includes Data Mining, DBMS and Networks.
Vector (DSDV) Routing Protocol”,
Proceeding March 2009 , page(s): 186 – 190, ISBN: 978-0-
[8]Z.Hass,”Zone routing protocols for adhoc
networks”,internet draft,draft-ietf-manet-zrp-02.txt.
[9] Martin Mauve, et al, “A Survey on position based routing
in ad-hoc networks “, IEEE Network Magazine 15 (6), pp. 30-
39, November 2001.

You might also like