You are on page 1of 11

Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Vehicular Communications


Cooperation advances on vehicular communications: A survey
João A.F.F. Dias a , Joel J.P.C. Rodrigues a , Liang Zhou b
Instituto de Telecomunicações, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vehicular communications refer to a wide range of networks adopted in environments characterized
Received 1 November 2013 by sparse connectivity, frequent network partitioning, intermittent connectivity, long propagation delays,
Received in revised form 27 November 2013 asymmetric data rates, and high error rates. These environments may also be characterized by a potential
Accepted 27 November 2013
non-existence of an end-to-end path. Cooperation among network nodes is crucial to address these
Available online 21 December 2013
challenging connectivity issues. In order to contribute for a better network performance, network nodes
Keywords: should to share their storage, bandwidth, and energy resources with each other. By sharing their
Mobile ad-hoc network resources each node contributes to store, carry, and forward network data in order to mutually enhance
Vehicular ad-hoc network the overall network performance. However, not all network nodes are able to cooperate and sometimes
Delay-tolerant network they may have an uncooperative behavior in order to save their own resources. Such behavior severely
Vehicular delay-tolerant network affects the network functionality and performance. Then, this survey overviews the most recent advances
Cooperation related to cooperation on vehicular communications. The goal of this work is not only to present how
Vehicular communications
cooperation between network nodes has advanced, but also to show the benefits and drawbacks of
cooperation, and to identify open issues providing guidelines for further contributions in this type of
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and services. By definition a vehicular network is a spontaneous
and self-organized network, where vehicles equipped with short-
In the last decades, wireless networks have been considered range wireless devices, communicate with each other to allow
to enable communications between any kinds of mobile devices communications with roadside infrastructure equipment or with
(e.g., personal computers, smartphones, sensors) [1]. Due to their other vehicles [6–8]. In such networks, nodes may be located in
massive acceptance by the research community different wireless line of sight or out of the ratio range depending on the amount of
networks standards have emerged allowing easy deployment of nodes that contribute to a multi-hop network.
applications. However, the deployment of such networks where a Vehicular networks have a wide range of applications that may
network infrastructure is not available may be a challenging task. influence our daily life [7,9]. For example, they may be used to
To solve some of the issues related to wireless networks deploy- improve road safety, to optimize traffic flow or road capacity. They
ment, Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs) [2,3] were proposed. In can also be used for monitoring purposes, such as monitoring net-
such networks, a collection of mobile nodes (i.e., mobile devices) works for sensor data collection. Vehicular networks may also be
equipped with wireless devices directly communicate with each applied to deploy commercial and entertainment applications (e.g.,
other, creating a temporary self-organized network with a random commercial advertisements, parking space availability, and multi-
topology without a centralized infrastructure [4]. This is particu- media content sharing). Lately, this type of networks has been used
larly useful because it allows the deployment of such networks in to provide connectivity to rural communities or remote regions,
a wide range of scenarios (e.g., coordination of rescue efforts in and to support communication between rescue teams and other
emergency situations and operation in remote areas) [5]. emergency services in catastrophe scenarios.
Recently, and taking advantages of the research work progresses Despite of their applicability, vehicular networks faces a num-
achieved in MANETs, the automotive industry and the research ber of technical challenges that must be overcome to make these
community joint efforts to propose new architectures based in networks widely considered. The highly dynamic network topology
vehicular communications. In vehicular networks, vehicles are ex- is one of these challenges and arises from the high mobility and
ploited in order to deploy a considerable number of applications speed of vehicles. This also led to short contact durations. Vehic-
ular networks are also characterized by intermittent connectivity
and significant loss rates. Such characteristics are a consequence of
E-mail addresses: (J.A.F.F. Dias), limited transmission ranges, radio obstacles (e.g., terrain, vegeta-
(J.J.P.C. Rodrigues), (L. Zhou). tion, buildings and tunnels) and interferences (e.g., high congestion

2214-2096/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Most of them con- and trucks). data from one specific source to all the interested receptors. tion in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs) are presented and tant to ensure that all the network nodes follow the pre-defined discussed. In VANETs. while Section 5 presents a compar- of data. buses. there are still open is- sues that should be solved. By placing these devices tion 6 concludes the paper and points some directions that may in crossroads. punishing them if they example. Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networks (DTNs) [12]. This type of nodes has a huge probability to be picked sidered three types of architectures: a pure V2V ad-hoc network. These devices have storage capabilities in order discussing and identifying some open research issues. a single routing protocol is not capable to self-adapt to are not cooperating. (i. Dias et al. These communications may be categorized into this paper are the following: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) or Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I).g. the cast. proaches for vehicular networks are discussed and analyzed. and VDTNs. in order to reach details on VANET architecture and how this architecture deals with its final destination.22]. In VANETs. the main contributions of network nodes. in VANETs traditional bandwidth or storage space that will force nodes to diverge from MANET protocols cannot be directly applied. cooperation between nodes. they ing protocols in dealing with networks with frequent fragmenta- should be stimulated to cooperate. it is still impor. Such difference limits nodes to longs to an individual user. increase the message delivery ratio and decrease the waste To overcome the above-presented issues several architectures of resource consumption) by presenting and classifying the most have been proposed. different applications that use distinct transmission facilities (e.3]. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 23 channels caused by high density of nodes). multicast/geocast. Section 2 forwarded based on a specific routing protocol. carrying messages from other users force hicles (V2V) or with roadside infrastructures (V2I). J. which are subject to traffic flow and traffic selfish and unwilling to forward messages to others in exchange regulations. Terminal nodes may be fixed on VDTNs and analyzes several strategies to deploy cooperation or mobile devices that are responsible for the origin or destination strategies in such architecture. [23] proposed a tax- havior. In order to avoid nodes to diverge from the protocol. ular networks. The first type is an ordinary node that be. Even whether a routing protocol has a good per.. such as Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs) recent and relevant proposals of cooperation approaches for vehic- [6–11]. of the network. the communication links between vehicles [20]. broadcast. relay and mobile. Furthermore. To design there are two types of incentives: reputation-based approaches new routing protocols for VANETs it is important to keep in mind [15–17] and credit-based approaches [18. and Ve. or a hybrid architecture cooperate. Section 4 overviews the state-of-the-art sidered: terminal. Moreover. and despite of these nodes are willing to a wired backbone with wireless last hop. If a contact opportunity is not available. or multicast). cars.. proach nodes collect credits as a reward by their cooperative be. in the credit-based ap. is that mobile nodes are vehicles. may be considered for vehicular networks. In the literature nodes to share their own storage space. vehicular networks. network. they have to face the overwhelming load of services for combining the previous two. Lin et al. cast routing is used to deliver data to a specific geographic region. VANETs • A review of the state of the art considering the most relevant are not able to deal with network partition. Thus. broadcast routing is used to deliver data to all nodes in the study is intended to be a helpful tool for the creation of new co. . Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks stated issues found in vehicular networks. The reason for this the protocol in order to avoid compromising its own data or re. three node types are con. Unicast routing establishes main concepts of these approaches may be used to proposed new a source-to-destination path.F. ative analysis between all the presented cooperation approaches. When this happen. However. In this section the most important contributions on coopera- formance when deployed into a vehicular network. In the reputation that different VANET applications have different requirements. In wireless networks Another solution is to design new routing protocols. such as wireless Although the similarities with MANETs. For approach nodes observe their neighbors. To do that it is highly important tion and rapid topology changes [21. vehicles are ex. Finally. In DTNs vehicular networks are identified in order to facilitate further vehicles are used to transport data between disconnected parts contributions. a discussion and open issues on coopera- hicular Delay-Tolerant Networks [13]. tion techniques for vehicular delay-tolerant networks are identified ploited as mobile nodes to allow communications between all to facilitate further contributions. as forwarders. Therefore.19]. the already to give them incentives. proposed routing protocols for MANETs must be adapted in order Several contributions were performed in wireless networks that to deal with the unique features of VANETs. This will consume resources soon.A. Sec- to store and forward large amount of data. data is The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. unicast. Section 3 summarizes the DTN ar- hicular communications and gather several contributions from the chitecture and enumerates the most important works on related above-presented architectures. VDTNs appear as a novel approach for ve. These approaches cannot be directly applied to vehicular onomy that divides routing protocols into three categories: uni- networks since an end-to-end path is not ensured. Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) were proposed as protocol. This Finally.g. In both approaches an end-to-end path is assumed. other nodes. considering VANETs. Nevertheless. disconnection and long contributions on cooperation approaches for different kinds of time delays. This node is characterized for being only move on roads. Despite all the above-mentioned architectures solve some of the 2. the number of contact opportunities increases and be considered for future work. This problem should be carefully studied if two types of a specific type of MANETs [2. Then.e. this paper also characterized by the lack of an end-to-end path between the aims to show how cooperation mechanisms are adapted to vehicu- source and destination nodes. and broadcast. On the other hand. side intersections. Relay nodes are stationary devices that are placed at road. DTNs proposed the store-carry-and-forward paradigm in order • A discussion and open issues on cooperation techniques for to deal with several open issues presented by VANETs.F. Multicast routing is used to deliver approaches or to adapt the already proposed approaches. In VDTNs. consequently increases the probability of data being delivery [14]. Geo- In this paper the most important cooperation proposals and ap. which results in a small effective lar networks in order to improve the overall network performance network diameter. data is stored until a new contact opportunity. taxis. The other type of nodes several approaches and architectures are considered to implement is a node with active mobility on the road (e. One of them is cooperation between networks nodes. However. Vehicular networks are operation approaches to be deployed on VDTNs. cooperation mechanisms. situation is mainly due to the huge difficulties of traditional rout- sources. vehicles may communicate with other ve- of nothing. The main difference between them nodes are considered. DTNs.

When a message arrives. To calculate the best rectly applied into VANETs. A node reputation score is calculated as the ratio between the VANETs [27]. OCEAN [32] scheme Following the MANETs approach.43] that uses as base the above-presented lect which nodes can use network services: subjective. route. Several routing protocols were also proposed using cooperation as a main principle. Sukumaran and Blessing [36] proposed a routing pro- As a subset of MANETs. possible route between two network nodes. and functional rep. Chen and Most of them rely on neighbor monitoring in order to calculate Kishore [40] proposed a cooperation strategy using a two-user ap- their trustiness [29]. [41] presented a dynamic pricing approach in every node composed by four main components: a monitor. Cooperation approaches for VANETs a routing protocol called Learning Automata based Fault-Tolerant Routing Algorithm (LAFTRA) that use Learning Automata (LA) to A well-built cooperative system can produce many benefits optimize the selection of paths by avoiding faulty nodes. In MANETs there are two types of cooperative ap. Chen et al. It is also extremely important to combine routing fits of being cooperative hopping that they can become cooperative protocols with other features such as cooperation mechanisms be. be found in the literature as may be seen in [37–39]. or without any loss or performance degradation. is detected. a path manager. the node is isolated and banned from network services. utation calculated using a specified function. from the partial opinions attached to the message. Misleading nodes are nodes this scheme nodes are rewarded every time they cooperate with that are part of a route finding but don’t forward any packet. indirect reputation calculated accord. At packets.31] message delivery delay. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 In order to improve the overall network performance is not ing Protocol (SRP) [34]. the authors proposed 2. avoided by all other nodes. For example. Similar schemes can be found CORE scheme [16] uses three different reputation types to se. to convince selfish nodes to cooperate presenting them the bene- istics of VANETs. To calculate the optimal path the creases. isolated from others nodes and eventually they are deprived from Following the same approach of this scheme. this scheme detects and punish nodes using a Reputation another partial opinion to the message before it is forwarded. With groups: misleading and selfish groups. other proposals can receiving any services from them. while another one. calculated schemes in order to propose economical mechanisms that dynam- based on direct observation. Nevertheless. in the literature [42. To perform such task. Together with the RMS this scheme try enough to design routing protocols that consider all the character. An opinion is calculated from indirect trust (if the sender that cooperation between nodes is performed forwarding packets is known). This approach will ensure a higher packet delivery rate than any pendency. the way MANETs stimulate nodes to cooperate method that calculates a node reputation score based on its behav- should be considered in order to adapt them to be deployed into ior. they cannot be directly ap. Dias et al. nodes can decide which route to follow. to the above-presented reputation-based approaches. Consequently. This bine or adapt some features of the above-presented schemes. in what concerns to route selection. However. nodes.F. the price to pay to use one of them de- by avoiding malicious nodes. this routing protocol uses overall network performance due to an increase of the delivery a “goodness value” that is increased each time a packet is success- data rate with fewer transmissions. while the trust with least virtual cost or a route with QoS that results in a higher manager use the information collected by the monitor to make cost for them. in this model with the increase of the routing decisions. As expected. If a node reputation score is lower than To ensure that the best interests of each node is preserved this a pre-defined threshold. In [45]. warded. and a reputation score. For reputation system uses two main concepts: the generation of opin- example. in [33]. the authors propose a reputation system for VANETs Another approach for reputation-based mechanisms is to com. a cooperative node will have more options reputation score of each node is considered. To avoid misbehavior from a combination of both. The Management System (RMS) as an extension of the Source Rout. then the node is added to a black list and scheme considers the nodes storage space limitations. For exam- culate which nodes are performing in the network with a selfish ple. the as main goal to encourage cooperation between nodes and pun. while cooperative nodes are re. For example. if a route itor helps nodes to detect any misbehavior node. This generated opinion is attached as nodes. The path manager calculates the optimal path number of possible routes. [44] proposes a scheme to stimulate cooperation behavior. nodes. the proposed routing protocol uses a selfish node isolation plied. this scheme implements a system ation. This system is implemented under the principle sage. erates it is rewarded being paid by the user who asks for cooper- ior nodes. When a node reputation score is lower than a specified the reputation-based systems. The mon. it was expected that cooperation tocol that makes use of mobile agents in order to calculate the best mechanisms proposals for this type of networks could be di.1. several cooperation mecha- uses a monitoring system with a reputation score in order to cal. This results in the increase of fully forwarded and decreased each time a packet delivery failure the network throughput. Mathews et al. that uses a routing scheme that gives two choices to network a trust manager. called Vehicle Ad-Hoc Network Reputation System (VARS). the authors propose a reputation system that has ions and the confidence decision. contributions related to cooperation approaches for VANETs.F. other path.A. nisms for VANETs have already began to be published. confidence decision is calculated by verifying the constraints based . It also allows nodes without data connec. receptor generates an opinion on the trustworthiness of this mes- ish selfish nodes. Nodes that diverge from protocol are divided into two between network nodes based on a coalitional game theory. This is. in [35]. With this approach each time a node coop- incentive nodes to cooperate by detecting and isolating misbehav. as priority nodes in order to create a path between the source A fully operational cooperative system also helps to reduce costs and destination nodes with the highest number of healthy nodes. proach and a pricing policy to encourage users to cooperate and Following the reputation-based approach several reputation guarantee benefits from that. this scheme rigorously shows selfish nodes don’t make part of a route finding and consequently that nodes faithfully following the established routing protocol. The next subsection overviews the most important picious node as a partially cooperative node. CONFIDANT scheme [30. By rewarding nodes. ically manage the cost and routes improving the overall network ing to information provided by other nodes. forwarded packets by this node and the total number of forwarded proaches: reputation-based and pricing-based mechanisms [28]. which leads to a decrease of the systems were proposed. nodes with a selfish behavior are threshold. by using relay nodes to decrease the network infrastructure de. To clas- when compared to traditional systems [24–26] by increasing the sify nodes into healthy or faulty nodes. With this scheme it was also introduced the concept of sus- tween nodes. Nodes with higher a “goodness value” will be choose tions to access Internet services.24 J. creating a balanced QoS network. don’t forward any packet. performance and decreasing the energy consumption. This approach is highlighted in [16] were authors studied Pricing-based incentives present themselves as an alternative several countermeasures to address with selfish behavior of nodes.

Summarily. The reputation of each node is set up to predict time schedules for their future position in the network. each node that participated in the forwarding process should regions in order to reach its final destination. This hop-by-hop operation between nodes in VANETs. In a non-cooperative scenario. DTNs set a hop-by-hop session P. The MSC is defined to avoid using an explicitly utility function or mapping rule. The DTN ar. and compound. The network environment has havior to interfere with the packet transmission. which enhances the reception reliability bundles. storing each vehicle needs to verify. bundle) delivery over constant share reward. The main goal of this to the destination node. several routing make the routing and forwarding decisions. Afterwards. a huge impact on the contact schedule between network nodes antee the packet integrity during all the delivery process. limited store capacity and energy) or just as a ma- licious behavior. Dias et al. 3. This approach allows bundles to travel between two or more tion. The operating process can tions given by each node in the forwarding tree. stores it (using some form of persistent storage) until a contact op- sage. based on runtime performance. As nodes move along predictable paths. When the packet reaches its final destina. the popularity nodes. By replicating it is used only a symbol. the authors states that DTN routing protocols assumes transmission media. This behavior may be caused by resources 3.F. The propagation of popular con. node density. A source node originates a bundle and node will receive a percentage as a reward for forwarding the mes. tween vehicles is used to calculate users satisfaction and also to decide the optimal upper and lower thresholds of the Media Ser. communications between containing a token in order to evaluate its correctness. tion of network resources (e. nodes will act as selfish nodes. portunity is available. This routing protocol makes use of previous contacts in order predict the next opportunity to transmit unique characteristics of cooperative environments (e.. protocols may be divided as forwarding-based or flooding-based. These scores are determined based on dynamic traffic density and the knowledge available about the network.g. nodes collaborate with each other. This is an unrealistic assumption . Contrary to this Symbol Level Network Coding (SLNC) [50] technique is used in or. This sat. Cooperation mechanisms for Delay-Tolerant Networks vice Counter (MSC) of each service. leading to ate a distributed media service scheme in Peer-To-Peer (P2P) based a poor performance of the network [58]. to increase the message delivery ratio. When a message is marked as a trusty mes. A malicious behavior performed by certain nodes This section overviews the main Delay Tolerant Networks may lead to network performance degradation. Caballero-Gil et al. When this opportunity become available the In [47]. lays. J. highly dynamic vehicular traffic.e. the authors use cooperation between vehicles to cre. formance can be improved through cooperation between network isfaction is affected by the gain perceived by users. which is promised by the source node to physically environments characterized by disruption and long de- each intermediate node.1. This will guar.59]. path to its final destination.54]. the protocol layer. data packets are forwarded hop-by-hop or scheduled. [52] proposed Moreover. and the cache allocation. DTNs overlay a fully cooperative environment. called bundle layer. and road topology) to Based on the above-presented types of contacts. which allows to interconnect regions that operate on different In [60]. bundle reaches its final destination. nodes happen in an unexpected way and may occur at any point of acceptance decisions will be made according to the token-proved the network. predicted. Knowing time and position of a node allows communication ses- Jerbi et al. Packet. network performance. Similar security ber of contact opportunities and the probability of bundles find a approaches may be found in [53. Predicted contacts require an analysis of the Routing protocol (GyTAR). of forwarding-base approach as they increase the bundle deliv- tents through the network is performed by specific cooperative ery probability and decrease the bundle delivery delay. flooding-based approaches do not use any network in- der to change the traditional packet level network coding.. Hao et al. Next subsection highlights the most important contribu- of the media service. coop- (DTNs) concepts and focuses on the cooperation problem in DTNs eration between nodes is highly important because it improve the presenting the most relevant proposals in this field. which depends on users satisfaction. The selection of the schemes were proposed for DTNs [55–57]. three verifier’s selection algorithms were proposed: in the interest of other nodes. These routing proto- next hop is made based on the scores attributed to each intersec. DTN contacts may be classified as opportunistic. This scheme implements a session enables asynchronous message (i. Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networks constraints (e. To overcome ios. The performance and competence of DTNs are affected by In VANETS cooperation between network nodes is not only used limited storage capacity and limited network bandwidth [58. With formation replicating bundles at each contact opportunity hoping this technique instead of using packets to calculate the error rate that the other node find a path to the destination.F.g. [48] proposes the improved Greedy Traffic Aware sions to be scheduled. these problems are accented by long and variable de- a cooperative message authentication protocol for urban scenar. In order to select verifiers in an ur. reducing the number of security messages that operative environments. above the transport layer. the final DTN store-carry-and-forward paradigm exploits the high mobil- contribution is calculated through the sum of the partial contribu. limited capability of nodes and consequently improves the overall chitecture [12] implements a store-carry-and-forward paradigm. In opportunistic contacts. data.. the authors presented CodeOn which is a high-rate cooperative Forwarding-based approaches use the available information on the Popular Content Distribution (PCD) for VANETs. the authors propose a dynamic trust-token (DDT) based bundle is forwarded to a node assuming that this node is closer on cooperation enhancement mechanism. With [55].A. of its benefits. instead of an end-to-end communication path. The overall network per- vehicular networks. approach. sage. it is possible evaluation correspondingly. [46] propose a scheme to stimulate co. To enable this important feature. Cooperation be. In DTNs routing information and the curve metric distance to destination.. Contrary to traditional Internet. In co- with each other. In this scheme a network to forward bundles using the best path. road traf. cols are deployed in DTNs according to the contact characteristics tion. but also ban scenario. In spite relay nodes dynamically selected for this purpose. fic density. This protocol allows vehicles to share their verification results these specific issues cooperation plays an important role. tions related to cooperation between network nodes in DTNs. This process will be repeated until the proposal is to detect and prevent nodes with uncooperative be. report its contribution to the source node. lays. This behavior increases the num- n-nearest. ity of nodes to operate in the network. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 25 on reputation levels. Each intermediate be described as follows. flooding-based approaches increase the consump- In [51]. most even distributed. bandwidth and storage). and forwarding bundles not only in their only interest. node mobility. In [49]. the proposed mechanism.g. and disruption. this type of routing protocols overcome the performance and thus the downloading rate. this will be announced to all the network nodes.

ing messages and routing information through the control plane In [66]. mechanisms to handle with uncooperative nodes are This section is dedicated to Vehicular Delay-Tolerant Networks not presented. On the other hand. mobile nodes on the work presented in [64] and uses it to reduce the number are exploited in order to implement the store-carry-and-forward of packets losses during communications between network nodes. Simulation studies prove that In order to improve the overall network performance. Finally. Both nodes use routing information to determine tween nodes in DTN routing protocols are evaluated using a theo. the data plane link connection neighbor as the neighbor forwards for it. which reduce packet losses in transmissions between fixed access points is very important for energy-constrained network nodes such as placed along roads and passing-by vehicles. In this concept a DTN node tries to send the most important techniques to enforce cooperation in VDTNs. stationary relay nodes [13. placed at of the access point.1. Finally. Afterwards.F. In the conducted studies Binary ver- If we take into account that the amount of data is already limited sion of Spray-and-Wait has the best performance. In [71]. The first one studies how Epidemic [67] and Two. VDTNs the performance of well-behaved nodes drops in the presence of may follow the same approach used for VANETs and DTNs.73]. These nodes are usually power- tween them in order to enable communications in areas where limited since they may run on solar panels or batteries. the data plane link range of each other. the high mobility of vehicles leads to short demic. The same authors pro. Vehicular Delay-Tolerant Networks constraints. a novel approach for vehicular networks by gather some important sidered cooperation mechanisms perform better under cooperative contributions from DTNs and Optical Burst Switching (OBS) [72]. and by placing the bundle layer courage nodes to have a cooperative behavior during a message below the network layer. This approach is very important because it not Cooperative ARQ scheme (C-ARQ) [63] were proposed as a new only ensures the optimization of the available data plane resources approach to stimulate cooperation in DTNs. They are used to ation mechanisms is proposed in [65]. A framework that makes use of two cooper- crossroads. With this approach fewer rout- theory model. The performance studies in this work are split tion is configured and activated on both nodes at the time t + t 1 . storage and policies is enforced in order to compare cooperative and non. An example of the interaction between VDTN network This scheme also predicts nodes trajectory. an improvement of the overall network performance. VDTN data plane selfish behavior. [61] proposes a new mechanism that tries to en. multiple layers of cooperation. between networks nodes is required. In this study nodes compete with overall network performance. scenarios that in non-cooperative ones. the authors present a new concept. or to a selfish behavior. the effects of different layers of node cooperation be. data plane connection is deactivated. Nodes nodes acting as resource hogs. In this work. These framework is based increase the number of contact opportunities. One of these conclusions is that algorithms that con. This study confirms that when nodes have a to allow node discovery. more of its own data and possibly forward less peer data than a typical well-behaved node. A set of equilibrium strategies for signaling and resources reservation (e. the data plane connec- retical framework.74]. but also allows power savings. physical obstacles and interferences also affect the pact of cooperation in DTNs. this comprehends the each other using a game theoretical scheme. To perform VDTN out-of-band signaling cooperation cooperative scenarios. of the control and data planes. Relay nodes are stationary nodes. the Epidemic rout. three different types of nodes are considered: terminal. paradigm. to a common strategy. storing and exchanging bundles with other net- cooperation. ing protocol is deployed in environments with different layers of To deploy the store-carry-and-forward paradigm.g. mobile nodes move along roads. and mobile. it is placed at the edge of the that in C-ARQ cooperation occurs in a packet-by-packet basis and VDTN network. After this time instant Hop [68] performs in terms of delivery probability when a fully co. and Binary version of Spray-and-Wait [69] under contact durations that limit the amount of data to be transferred. is not activated. TFT assumes that every node forwards as much traffic for a network nodes [13. if a tive ARQ) [64]. Performance evaluation studies show that with this ing decisions will be taken. One or more terminal nodes may have direct ac- in DC-ARQ the cooperation waits until vehicles are out of range cess to the Internet. which results in less complexity. In VDTNs there is no connectivity to access points. Usually. work is also proposed a scheme to stimulate cooperation between This short-link is only active during the estimated contact duration nodes. However this work presents several conclusions (VDTNs) main features and how cooperation should be used in or- about the impact of cooperation mechanisms in the performance der to improve the overall network performance. bandwidth). Next subsection overviews called “resource hog”. Then. which is always active is presented in [62]. tions contributes to a decrease of the overall network performance. VDTNs appear as of DTNs. time. to set a long-range link. The VDTN architecture is mainly characterized by the separation Buttyán et al. a simulation study is performed using Epi- work nodes. Another per- The VDTN control plane is performed using a low power and formance study of DTNs where nodes have a malicious behavior low bandwidth. Subsequently. storage and bandwidth). Cooperative techniques for Vehicular Delay-Tolerant Networks malicious behavior and accept all incoming messages sent by peer nodes. Also “resource hog” nodes may have a 4. the overall network performance decrease. lower cooperative mechanism implemented in each node contributes to cost and energy savings. This scheme tries to (e. since nodes are no longer in operative environment is assumed. However. but immediately drop them. into three parts. link connection. which bundles should be forwarded.F. Otherwise.A. a mobile node with the store-carry-and-forward paradigm is used to improve the and a relay node detect each other and start exchanging signal- overall network performance. if there are data bundles that should be exchanged between anism. Dias et al. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 since network nodes may be unable to cooperate due to resource 4. relay. short contact dura- a better flexibility to lower node cooperation.g. Altman [70] uses Two-Hop routing protocol to study the im. Terminal nodes may be fixed or mobile devices that act pose other cooperative scheme called DC-ARQ (Delayed Coopera- as messages (bundles) source and destination nodes. Two-Hop. Vehicles cooperate be. This approach enables the introduction of an IP over VDTN approach. which in conjunction nodes may be the following: at the time t + t 0 . with store-and-forward capabilities. In this uses a high-power and high bandwidth to set a short-range link. This scheme uses pair-wise tit-for-tat (TFT) incentive mech. should be encouraged to have a cooperative behavior and share . This mechanism takes several contributes from a game- routed instead of small IP packets.26 J. since it presents due to bandwidth and transmissions ranges. In addiction. The main difference between these two schemes is terminal node is a fixed device. Bundles are exchanged until the time t + t 2 .. which allows large messages to be exchange.

. to decide what should be done • Use a reputation management in response to nodes in each system. if the contact duration is not enough to trans- information in a cooperative way. This important concept improves the data node. other nodes’ behaviour. state information or bundle delivery notifications) and uses it to tant resource for nodes with limited energy resources.F. knowing the time that links are available. • A reputation mechanism is used out the reputation value of the to identify selfish nodes. enables the exchanged of any kind of information (e. which is an impor.F.A. Misra et al. T. This cooperative approach allows bundles from be- nodes [73]. Route Ranker. or even if a node buffer does not have that data plane links will be available in a communication between enough space. Bansal and Reputation-based approach • Direct first-hand observations of • Consider two types of routing Simulation M. With this cooperative behavior nodes data link connec. Mathews et al. by improve the overall network performance. Besides. ative behavior. warded and decreased each time • If an existing link fails. optimize the selection of paths at each node and the collec- by avoiding faulty nodes. two network nodes is calculated. Baker. Sukumaran and Reputation-based approach • The best possible route between • Employment of a monitoring Simulation V. cious behaviour of nodes and learn from them. Ranked-based routing. selfish. • Reputation system with network Simulation J. This approach also tions can be configured to be active only during that time. node called a suspicious node. • Implementation of five compo- nents: Neighbour Watch. tion. since it will be possible to avoid incom. or velocity. The VDTN architecture defines net. 2003. they exchange information such as geo. cooperative exchange of signaling information may also be work functions based on cooperation between nodes. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 27 Table 1 Summary of different kinds of cooperative proposals and their features for MANETs. S. such as storage plete data bundle transmissions and consequently the waste of link and link bandwidth. tive orchestration of the process • Introduction of a “goodness val. Chen and Pricing-based approach • Explore the fact that cooperation • Proposal of a two-user coopera.. Reputation-based approach • Use Learning Automata (LA) to • The learning process is executed Simulation 2012. alarms. • Use of a timing period to con- trol when the reputation should be updated. Buchegger and Reputation-based approach • Employ neighbourhood watch. Authors’ name Characteristics Proposal approach Conceptual characteristic Optimization Evaluation platform S. it is possible to calcu. alterna- a packet delivery failure is de. Simulation S. at all the nodes determines the ue” that is increased each time performance of the overall sys- a packet is successfully for. tem. current path. portunity. tive routes can be determined tected. S. Nodes exchange bundles between a source and a destination a contact opportunity. their resources with each other. The exchanged of this energy constraints. However.L. Anantvalee and Reputation-based approach • Introduction of a new type of • Implementation of a state model Simulation J. When nodes a useful tool that can be used to accept or deny a contact op- perform the control plane. state. selfish until they receive some that rewards the source. This also severely limits the . • Share information about mali. Malicious Traffic Rejection. neighbouring nodes. ing participation.. mechanism that helps to find 2010. have to deal with limited data plane resources.Y. In such conditions an unconditionally store capacity [75]. capacity cannot be taken as granted. C. misbehaviour: misleading and 2003. based on the goodness values. D.g. 2007. Cooperation in VDTNs may also be adopted at the data plane late the maximum number of bytes that can be exchanged during level. is beneficial when users’ channel tion model. which means one node with a good channel helps to relay the packet of a user who suffers from a poor channel. allows the prediction of time mit a complete bundle. the re- payment rewarding their cooper. Dias et al. Jaganathan. As VDTNs uses control plane to exchange informa. • Proposal of a QoS route model for communications between nodes. 2011. each time a node establishes a connection they plane link performance. Kishore. and Second Chance Mechanism. • Encouragement of proper rout. A contact opportunity must be denied if a node has graphical location. ing dropped and decreases power consumption. Boudec. lays and the destination nodes. conditions are distinct. routing This approach allows nodes to save power. Wu. • Applies the concept of “valuable cooperation”. J. S. Pricing-based approach • All network nodes start to be • Proposal of a pricing scheme Simulation 2008.

. sider several parameters. Li et al. on their behaviour.. while the second part is used for to improve the overall network performance.28 J. are divided into two parts. n-nearest fined according to their locations method. Chigan. transmission of other bundles due to short-lived links and finite The same study also focus on the cooperation problem at the data bandwidth. most-even distributed in relation to the sender. or distance between source and destination nodes. Zhou et al.F.. • Definition of three verifiers’ se- • Verifiers of each message are de. ing them the freedom to choose which messages to discard. instant performance to verify packet correctness.. scheme in Peer-To-Peer (P2P) scheme that jointly solves the based vehicular networks. Reputation-based approach • Three different areas are dis. which content dissemination. – • Distributed media service • Distributed media-service Simulation 2011. Reputation-based approach • Information about vehicular traf. • Use Neighborhood WatchDog to • Only intentional misbehaviour generate Trust Token based on nodes are considered. hicular networks. considered to protect packet enhancement mechanism. [76] studied the cooperation problem in plane link. The first part is reserved to store and and shows that cooperative exchange of signaling messages helps forward bundles to other node.. and fairness problems for • Aims at achieving maximal user P2P-based vehicular networks. ory to solve the forwarding co. This studies uses cooperation purposes. satisfaction and certain fairness by jointly considering media- aware distribution and oppor- tunistic transmission. Dias et al. Z. • Proposal of an incentive scheme Simulation 2011. ber of forwarding’s. Simulation et al.. To do such work. Reputation-based approach • Symbol level network coding • Proposal of CodeOn. sage needs to be forwarded in a • Lightweight approach that VANET. Jerbi et al.A. • Messages are forwarded only for • Performs network coding on nodes with a reputation score finer granularity of physical layer above the pre-defined threshold. all involved nodes have makes full use of the selfishness incentives to form a grand coali. fic density and the road topol. sending vehicle.F. proach presents considerable gains to the results presented in [73]. cryptography mechanisms are Token (DTT) based cooperation 2007. integrity. • Introduction of direct and indi- tributed every forwarding node rect trust as well as opinion pig- appends its own opinion about gybacking to enable confidence the message’s trustworthiness. P. M. • Each safety message carries • Proposal of cooperative message Simulation the location information of the authentication protocol (CMAP). Hao et al. • Each vehicle in the network knows its own position and speed using GPS. of the autonomous nodes. date. Incentive-based approach • Based on coalitional game the. and distribution area. • Each time a message is dis. Wang and Trust-token based approach • Symmetric and asymmetric • Proposal of a Dynamic Trust. authors assume that nodes resources VDTNs. F. symbols. Chen et al. node. Soares et al. tinguished: event area. cache up- depends on users satisfaction. • Design of a reputation system Simulation 2005. 2010. networks. such as • Incentives are defined by a con.. num- vex function. L. 2012. Y. lection algorithms. limited storage space of each • Ensure that whenever a mes. Caballero-Gil Incentive-based approach • Nodes are rewarded depending • To reward nodes. the network is considered. decisions on event messages. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 Table 2 Summary of different kinds of cooperative proposals and their features for VANETs. authors con. Dotzer et al. that takes into consideration the operation problem. Authors’ name Characteristics Proposal approach Conceptual characteristic Optimization Evaluation platform T. Performance studies enforce cooperation on control plane. traffic-aware routing protocol ogy to efficiently relay data in (GyTAR). a high-rate Simulation (SLNC) is used to combat the cooperative PCD scheme for ve- lossy wireless transmissions. The presented results shown that this ap- node location information to accept or deny a contact opportunity. packet delivery deadline. M. giv- tion. 2011. Simulation C. • Proposal of the improved greedy Simulation 2009. method. decision for very large vehicular ad hoc area..

which main goal is to provide a tool that allow network operate with the same percentage. Each node also main- sends more messages than the ones it receives. the Node Performance Cooperation (NPC) each time a bundle is successfully delivery to its final destination. to detect and isolate selfish • Nodes with a reputation score nodes. all network nodes to cooperate with a pre-defined cooperation More recently. the TFT mechanism for self- ate. operative mobile nodes are considered. other at the VDTN data Two of them based on nodes plane.A. plane.F. Simulation defined: one at the control eration mechanisms for VDTNs. 2013. Environment sions from AP to vehicles and ing a DTN architecture that op- from vehicles to vehicles. below the threshold are marked as misbehavior nodes and added to a black list. 10. For example. ity of vehicle road routes that cross opportunistically other ve- hicles to improve transfer deliv- ery of information. – • Two layers of cooperation are • Proposal of four different coop. J. which is and ex. This strategy also ensures that all network nodes co.81] and allows simulating the resources by ignoring contact requests from the blacklist nodes. Pozo et al. Simulation 2007. a pre-defined cooperative threshold. approaches takes into consideration nodes behavior and their rep- tion the node performance to choose the cooperative percentage of utation score. sages lose their value over time. [82]. and mes. • Proposal of a mechanism to dis. and on the road. U. To reward nodes. operative ARQ (C-ARQ) scheme Environment where connectivity with the APs to be used in vehicular networks is lost. ish users to optimize their own performance without significant degradation of system-wide per- formance. J. J. sages. and 30 co- in VDTNs. Similar to this approach. It was shown that the proposed their impact on the performance of VDTNs were evaluated. Shevade et al. • Propose of a variation of the Co. Incentive-based approach • Use a game-theory principle. tolerant information from APs ered: association. Four different scenarios with 5. • During a message exchange aware routing scheme based on nodes are incentive to cooper.. equilibria is considered. portunistically allows download- • Use a carry-and-forward mech.. AP.. • Proposal of a practical incentive. The approaches contribute to the improvement of the overall network first strategy. mittent connectivity. 15. duce packet losses of transmis. . A real map of Serra da Estrela re- VDTNs is presented [77]. Dias et al.M. gion were considered with 25 terminal nodes placed at real-word eration mechanisms in the most commonly used routing protocols sparse villages. This will allow nodes to save tension of the ONE simulator [80. Simulation studies tains a blacklist containing all nodes with a reputation score below were conducted using the VDTNsim tool [79]. tablished in the dark areas. Real 2008. Dias et al. Reputation-based approach • The network has a pre-defined • Proposal of a reputation system Simulation threshold that is used to classify with four different approaches nodes. • This model assumes that the • The efficiency of the social op- communication cost is higher timum with respect to Nashia than the storage cost.-Cruces et al. Simulation 2008. • Definition of a Vehicular Ad Real 2009. In order to accomplish such goal main difference between these two approaches is that in RMC four different reputation approaches were implemented to detect. O. the nodes to avoid contacts with selfish nodes in order to optimize authors propose the Random Mandatory Cooperation (RMC). sidered to stimulate cooperation courage selfish behaviour based between nodes. a reputation system for VDTNs were proposed percentage. The other two approaches takes into considera. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 29 Table 3 Summary of different kinds of cooperative proposals and their features for DTNs and VDTNs. using Epidemic and Binary four different cooperation strategies were presented in [78] and Spray-and-Wait routing protocols.. Characteristics Name of authors Proposal approach Conceptual characteristic Optimization Platform L. on the principles of barter. calculates the ratio between the number of sent and received mes. The the overall network performance. called Static Mandatory Cooperation (SMC) forces performance. schemes increase nodes reputation each node. ing packets when vehicles cross anism based on the predictabil. Another study about the impact of cooperation mechanisms in VDTN architectural approach. Hoc Network framework follow. J. performance.F.. 2013. where cars download delay- • Three distinct phases are consid. – • Use a DC-ARQ mechanism to re. suffering an inter- cooperative-ARQ. A node with a higher cooperative percentage is a node that schemes decrease this node reputation score.. Buttyan et al. Dias et al. Pricing-based approach • A game-theoretic model is con. This study focuses on the impact of coop. Each time a node drops a bundle without sent it at least once. the percentage that nodes cooperate in a contact opportunity is identify and avoid communications with selfish nodes. These four randomly chosen. Taking into consideration the above-presented study. reception.T. – • Cooperation among cars is es.

K.G. H. Nevada.E. Marti. for wireless ad-hoc and vehicular networks. Yousefi. A usage oriented analy- several issues (e.F. or transmis.g. Portugal. Li. References After a detailed analysis of the most recent cooperation tech- [1] M. Boston. [15] S. M.J. in: 2nd International issues is to stimulate nodes to cooperate among them. 15–16.M. Laouiti. Challenges to mobile ad hoc cooperation design. Manjunath. Hartenstein. In order to minimize the effect of such nodes in the network. Contrary to this approach. A. Ernst.P. Jakubiak. [4] N. Y. Scott. selfish node and uncooperative nodes. M.N. Germany. Farahmand. Xiamen. J. Many dif. in ad hoc networks. Next Generation Networks and Applications Group any resources in return. [Online] Available: http://www. munications. Rodrigues. This work has been partially supported by the Instituto de Tele- sume resources contributed by other nodes without paying with comunicações. Festag. Vehicular networks also model representation of Dakar region in Senegal. Although research efforts have been made on charter/manet-charter. 517–520. This can be a hard task due to the presence of in: Fifth IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC 2008) – 2nd IEEE Workshop on Broadband Wireless Access. Choia. J. Thoughts network performance. Cerf. M. Surv.C. Vehicle ad hoc networks: ap- 6. para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the PEst-OE/EEI/LA0008/2013 ison analysis between the above-described cooperative solutions and the SFRH/BD/86444/2012 projects.M. which can be a very chal. 2006. DTNs. M. in: 6th International Conference on Mobile Computing and pricing-based approaches. 2008. Discussion and open issues crease of the overall network performance.P. 211: Mobile and Wireless Communications Net- works. stimulated to cooperate. K. [8] S. mum relaying. • Complex Schedulers: Systems using multiple nodes relaying [5] D. Khaleda. Fall. Sousse. Both approaches are also considered to create cooperation pp. Transier. A. [12] V. in: IFIP International Federation for identified and suggested: Information Processing. energy. Hamburg. MobCom 2000. Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile prohibited from receiving messages. and 3 provide a summary and offer a compar. 27 real world introduce a new type of cooperative approaches based in trust to- medical clinics were considered to place VDTN terminal nodes that kens to identify and isolate selfish nodes. August 6–11. A. A. in: information between each other requires more sophisticated Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Coop- schedulers.G. Commun. pp. eration plays a key role because such networks implements a This work may be used as a base to propose more complex store-carry-and forward protocol. pp. 1–7.. Hooke. Muhlethaler. pp. Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations. [3] IETF MANET Working Group. Suri. K.html [Accessed: November 2013]. A layered architecture for ve- hicular delay-tolerant networks. cooperative nodes tolerant network performance with relay nodes. Germany.A. Zhang. • Synchronization and Security: Cooperative systems require [2] S. and particu. Portugal.H. the following open issues can be A survey on wireless ad hoc networks. R. 10 (3) (2008) 74–88. these tables highlight the classification of each solution into specific categories. Delhi. 2006.J. this is an incorrect assumption because nodes may be unwilling to cooper. Festag.R. 27–33. H.L. Giuli. H. Tunisia. L. T. April 2007. by National Funding from the FCT – Fundação Tables 1. 761–766. sion ranges) that must be solved in order to improve the overall [10] H. pp. 2000. assume fully cooperative network architecture. Rubinstein. China. WIT 2005. L. K. Most of the research studies presented up to now the overall network performance. Chengdu.B. Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs): chal- Vehicular networks are emerging as a possible solution to en- lenges and perspectives. Macker. Corson. A. niques for vehicular networks. F. However. which depends exclusively on co. [6] J. security issues in vehicular networks. Lai. China. not only to stimulate cooperation between nodes but also to iden. [11] M. These schedulers should determine in an accurate erative Work in Design. in: 6th International Conference on ITS Telecommuni- able communications where a path between the source and des. At reputation-based approaches. Dias et al. Soares. Las Vegas. in: First International Conference challenges can still being addressed. nodes are paid for their cooperative be. Hu. (NetGNA). Y. Soares. data integrity). Workshop on Intelligent Transportation. WIT 2006. CSCWD 2004. Burleigh. 2. Santab. Farahmand. 2501. 2006. works. IEEE Commun. Springer. frame. January 1999. Most of the proposed schemes for these munications. Torrent-Moreno. in: 3rd International Workshop on Intelligent Trans- tify and isolate selfish nodes. J. limited power.g. USA. An efficient pricing based protocol for larly security on existing cooperative routing protocols. Weiss. Moreover. and VDTNs. Tsukadaa. Füßler. M. Tutor.ietf. storage space. cations. March 14–15.J. P. I. March ferent cooperation approaches have been proposed in the literature 2005. some broadcasting in wireless ad hoc networks.30 J. in: 5th EuroNGI Conference are rewarded by increasing their reputation score in the network. 4 (5) (June 2009) 357–368. USA. havior. Several routing strategies act as traffic lenging task. the rewards that nodes The effective operation of vehicular networks depends on the receives when cooperate in a communication should be carefully cooperation between network nodes. M. Fortelle. portation. conducted studies have shown that schemes that cooperation between nodes. storage capacity. Aveiro. pp. T. while selfish and misbehavior nodes are punished and eventually 2009. F. July 1–3. In- dia. 2004.C. Torrent-Moreno. L. on Communications System Software and Middleware (Comsware). 912–916. 2006. A possible solution to solve some of these on a protocol architecture for vehicular ad-hoc networks. Campista. ITST 2006. vol. D. this type of networks has [9] Y. S. on Next Generation Internet Networks. tination may not be available. 2009. Durst. Narahari.M. July 5–8. 225–265. sis of vehicular networks: from technologies to applications. Rodrigues. NGI 2009. in: IEEE Symposium on Computers and Com- wireless ad-hoc networks. Fathy. Such networks may gather several contributions from [13] V. networks rely on two main approaches: reputation-based and [14] V.C. studied. punish nodes in a more aggressive way contribute to an increase of The studies already conducted show that vehicular networks the bundle delivery probability and consequently to the decreasing present significant gains in terms of performance when nodes are of the bundle average delivery delay. State of the art and research challenges for VANETs. However. Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol extra security and synchronization. Networking. pp. J. Acknowledgements ate in order to preserve their resources (e. J. Costa. Hamburg.G. Boston. reputation strategies and schedulers that contributes to increase of operation nodes. Toor. and proposals about node cooperation in vehicular com.F.S. It is also important to notice that mali- cious behavior of uncooperative nodes may contribute to the de- 5. Hartenstein. way the best nodes to cooperate in order to achieve an opti. M. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 Using the same simulation tool used in [78] and a map-based strategies for VANETs. Moraes. Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture. nodes can have a selfish behavior and con. O. 4838. Koucheryavy. Mousavi. [7] Y. Massachusetts. 1–33. System design for information dissemination in VANETs. Using 100 vehicles and five different reputa.N. Torgesson. Improving vehicular delay- pricing-based. Conclusion plications and related technical issues. This work summarizes the most important projects. Thus. for vehicular networks were also proposed basing its principles on tion thresholds. Baker. in general. .D. January 10–12. Duarte.J. M. June 21–23. J. In DTNs and VDTNs coop. ISCC 2009.M. pp.

Hu. 1–4. Towards efficient geo- cations.F. Mag. in: Lecture Notes ences and Systems (CISS). June 24–28. Hassan. J. A. L. August 27–31. Kishore. ICWCSC 2010. 2005. P. 13 (4) (2006) 84–92. in: 11th International [45] F. 62 (1) (October 2012) 4–23. October 8–10. CSE ’08.S. in: International Conference on Application Comput. Glasgow. 2008. M. C. (November 2009) 5048–5059. 401–412. Zhou. Routing strategies for delay-tolerant networks. Ana- [28] M. MD. On the effects of cooperation in DTNs. CA. AICT 2009. T.M. Bansal. Reputation-based system for encouraging the cooperation 8 (1) (2006) 24–37. 107–121. C.G. NV. Sprite: a simple. mun. 2011. in: International Conference on Helsinki. Zhong. Blessing. Qiu. Y. hoc networks. cooperation in wireless ad hoc networks. Portoroz. ICC 2007. 8 (5) (2003) 579–592. APCC 2009. in: In- Conference on Information Technology in Asia (CITA 11). Barter-based cooperation in delay- Mobile and Wireless Networks. [61] L. [51] L. Vaios. 454–456.-W. January 9–12. 117–131. Evaluation study on routing information protocol pp. 26 (3) (May 2010) 913–932. 2002. Japan. pp. F. Magiera. pp.F.-P. cooperation in self-organized vehicular networks. in: 11th IEEE International Joint Working Conference on Communications and Multimedia Security: Ad. Shevade. [54] Y. pp. Zhang. Chawla. [20] H. Technol. nol. A novel approach to incentive-cased heim. Brazil. Moh. Wu. J. 78–83. Zhang. S. 50 (6) (2012) 65–71. CA. [47] Z. Baltimore.M. [38] A. Vakilinia. pp. pp. Khorsandi. Venkataramani. Yehia. 60 (2) (February 2011) mun. 31 (9) (September 2013) 523–537. Y. DTN routing as a resource nications. 1055–1060. China. R. pp. S. less Ad Hoc Networks. in: IEEE International Symposium on [37] S. Abumansoor. C. Buchegger. Ayia Napa. Beijing. Wu. Stimulating cooperation in self-organizing mobile ad hoc [52] Y. in: 2010 2nd International Conference on Education [63] J. Baker. pp. July 6–9. in: IEEE International Conference on Communications. Routing protocols in delay tolerant networks: a [31] S. Medard. July ternational Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC 12–13. Anantvalee. I. August 2008. Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. Finland. 2002. Hunter. Lin. Mobile and Multimedia Networks. Chennikara-Varghese.Y. and dynamic source routing in Ad-Hoc network. [43] Z. Mathews. Surv. pp. 2010. Misra. Butty. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 31 [16] P. [44] T. An efficient reputation-based mechanism to [55] E. ing in multi-domain sensor network. H. Dynamic pricing approach for cooperation force node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks. system. Chen. ad hoc networks.NI/0307012. pricing-based ation of a cooperative ARQ protocol for delay-tolerant vehicular networks. 5. [27] L.L.-M. M. Self-policing mobile ad hoc networks by reputation pp. Computers and Communications (ITC-CSCC 2008). Z. Lou. Khalaj. 157–166. on Mobile and Uniquitous Systems: Networks and Services (MobiQuitous 2006) ICC 2007.J. J. Stimulating dissemination algorithm for vehicular networks. 2006. IEEE J. Stimulating cooperation in vehicular ad hoc [19] S. 332–337. Molva. Wireless Systems and Mobility in Next Generation Internet. 2007. vol. B. Observation-based cooperation enforcement in ad hoc net. [35] S. Wolfinger. Zhang.-L. pp. IEEE Commun. Technol. J.R. Hao. Sel. [39] S. IEEE Commun. Cheng. Q. Ghamru-Doudane. Boudec. O. 2006) – International Workshop on Delay Tolerant Mobile Networks (DTMN). Eng. Japan. VANETs. 43 (7) (July 2005) 101–107. J. MohammadNejad. Song.S. Nezhad. [58] A. October 14–16. O. Vasilakos. Ahmadian. Scotland. India. J. Haas. Reputation based localized access control for mobile dleware. A reputation-based mech. B.L. Refaei. Y. June 17–20. Tutor. Inf.M. tolerant personal wireless networks. Ananda. Caballero-Gil. 1987–1997. ACM enforce cooperation in MANETs. Incentive-Aware Routing in DTNs. Y. S. A. 2006. Small. Las Vegas. Tang. Chennai. 2007. forwarding protocols in wireless ad-hoc networks – An integrated approach 60 (2) (February 2011) 566–579. 2005. cheat-proof. Jing. June 18–21. [64] J. R. Z. Yang. Cheng. 2010. J.-S. Hao. Dotzer. Azerbaijan. Networking and pp. Bhiwal. City. PA. Routing protocols in vehicular ad hoc networks: vehicular networks using symbol level network coding. 2006. Azer. pp. W. July 17–21. Levine. Zhu. Y. in: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Commu- [25] P. San Jose. M. J. Paulo. Barceló-Ordinas. Countermeasure uncooperative behaviors with dynamic cols for inter-vehicle communications. W. [30] Z. August 28–September 2. Dohler. Khorsandi. S. 238–247. J. Tao. Froushani. 692–703. Lin. INFOCOM 2003. Wang. pp. E. Trullols. 3383–3388. Buttyán. a cross-layer approach. Y. V. Services. Li. Rev. Philadelphia. in: user cooperation strategy. Secure cooperative data downloading in vehicular ad London. 2010. Y. Srivastava. IEEE Trans. Balakrishnan. Morillo-Pozo. Areas Com- a survey and future perspectives. Mag. Mob. pp. Katti. delay tolerant networks: overview and challenges. Xu. A. pp. L. in Computer Science. Evaluating the capacity of resource-constrained DTNs. in: 6th International Symposium on Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Germany. Félegyházi. in: IFIP TC6/TC11 Sixth stimulation and QoS in mobile ad hoc networks. [32] S. WoWMoM 2005.H. Michiardi. November 17–19. pp. 2011. Y. pp. in: Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Ad-Hoc. W. Commun. Channel and PHY. A learning Vancouver. Song. Senouci.V. E. Panwar. Veh. MDDV: a mobility-centric data [46] P. [34] Z.A. 2009. I. Swattle. Burmester. J. Coope ration in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Guide to Wire- 2012) 275–285. 2nd International Conference on Communication Systems Software and Mid- [36] S. Hernandez-Goya. Germany. India. Vidal. Veh. March 23–25. 3–11. 2011. Florida. less Ad Hoc Networks – Computer Communications and Networks. 2011. 2003. Safaei. S. Krishna. M. using game theoretical and cryptographic techniques. 61 (1) (January [29] J.N. Routing in intermittently connected mobile ad hoc networks and works. Yang. P. pp. graphic routing in urban vehicular networks. Cyprus. Evalu- [40] C. Canada. Erkip. 373–384. Yamaguchi-Pref.M. Jones.M. On designing incentive-compatible routing and networks: a coalitional game theoretic approach. Scotland. in: 2011 45th Annual Conference on Information Sci. Wireless Communication and Sensor Computing. IEEE Wirel. L. ber 26–27. Fischer. A. MobiCom 2005. systems. Survey of routing proto. COMSWARE 2007. Baku. Kuching. S. in: 1st ACM Workshop on Ve. Springer. [50] S. Raafat. Li. 2008. Routing in vehicular ad hoc networks: a survey. M. Wang. IEEE J. L. for wireless mesh networks. IEEE Com- P2P-based vehicular networks. 2010. J. sight location verification in VANET. CA. in: International Conference on Commu. in: 3rd Annual International Conference trust-token in VANETs. Sukumaran. 1577–1580. submitted for publication. 192–197. Hubaux. pp. Networks. Reputation based on demand routing protocol a World of Wireless. Li.V. 5122. Canada. 143–148. Lee. June 22–24. Y.R. January 2–4. (GLOBECOM). pp. California. Providing a hybrid algorithm [18] S. in: 2011 IEEE Consumer Communica- anism for isolating selfish nodes in ad hoc networks. 1–6.L. 1–6. in: 15th Asia–Pacific Confer- hicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET 2004). S. Cooperation enforcement based on dynamic pric- [17] M. Performance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol. 1–4. Cooperation Incentives in Wire. December 3–7. Lee. in: 18th International Conference on [53] O. USA. Pozo. X. June 13–16. Glasgow.-Y.C. VARS: a vehicle ad-hoc network reputation Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. Technology Convergence (ICTC).E. automata-based fault-tolerant routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks. Li. Shen. IEEE Trans. García-Vidal. credit-based system for routing and cooperation based on dynamic pricing in wireless sensor net- for mobile ad-hoc networks. Katabi. 2007. July 17–21. pp. Z. in: The 23rd International Technical Conference on Cir- in: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc cuits/Systems. 2007. 2008. A cooperative ARQ for delay- Technology and Computer (ICETC). Chen. Research Report cs. pp. [49] M. Slovenia. Jeju. J. (2006). Fathy.P. Netw. [24] M. USA. 2004.. A secure cooperative approach for nonline-of- Telecommunications.T. 2008. 2 (2) (June 2007) 12–22. Cui. Wu. D.H. pp. WA. 388–393. [56] J.G. in: 2th International tions and Networking Conference (CCNC). San Francisco. pp. Septem. Sao vanced Communications and Multimedia Security. July 16–18. A cooperative message authentication protocol in networks. Cai. Tang. I. Chung. S. Liu. Buchegger. . tolerant vehicular networks. K. Dias et al. Cologne. CORE: A collaborative reputation mechanism to en. Areas Commun. Yang. Dóra. M. 5562–5566. Panagakis. Shanghai. in: Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the works. Veh. M. V2VCOM 2006. ICNP 2008.A. USA. R. Ward. in: 2012 IEEE Global Communications Conference. Y. Fujimoto. C. IEEE Trans. Jerbi. 2013. Barceló. ICDCS 2008. IEEE Veh. Torgheh. in: Supercomput. 226–236. Chen. V. Chen. 2003. Molina-Gil. in: 2011 7th International [59] Z. Cooperative wireless communications: nication 2008. pp. Sel. Sci. 346–349. Radha. SIGCOMM’08. October 19–22. Zhong. Switzerland. F. in: ACM SIGCOMM 2007. IEEE Trans. Trullols-Cruces. WOWMOM 2007. CodeOn: Cooperative popular content distribution for [23] Y. Chigan. M. 545–550. Boukerche. Caballero-Gil. J. A. Mag. USA. Zhong. Jaganathan. Tech. P. Sarawak. M. Eltoweissy. 1–6. [60] A. in: The 16th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.H. DaSilva. Tao. 2005. July 3–6. J. 3959–3964. Technol. [57] Z. January 7–12. 2008. Commun. MobiQuitous 2005. of Information and Communication Technologies. China. 2007. Shanghai. [62] U. comparative survey. Liu.A. in Conjunction with ACM MobiCom ence on Communications. 2009. 2009. Balasubramanian. pp. 47–56. A. H. Chen. [48] M. Boudee. 58 (9) [22] F. Bangalore. Guensler. Rasheed. R. Altintas. [41] D. Lausanne. in: The 28th International Conference on Dis- pp. Cooperative Communications: Hardware. 197–210. B. 29 (1) (January 2011) 223–235. [42] Z. Symbol-level network coding Wiley. Stavrakakis. T. L. Vajda. Shimonoseki Networking & Computing. J. March 30–April 3. S. San Diego. A. M. Distributed media services in [26] X. L. allocation problem. USA. Technol. Appl. of nodes in mobile ad hoc networks. Al-Mekhlafi. China. Ottawa. vol. Y. S. Making cooperation valuable: a delay-centric. Ó. October 1. pp. in: 2010 International Conference on Information and Communication IEEE Computer and Communications. An overview of cooperative communications. using mobile agent in mobile ad-hoc networks. K. Sukumaran. S. Workshops – Second International Workshop on Vehicle-to Vehicle Communi. Munich. Veh. pp. Safaei. 1–6. tributed Computing Systems. [33] T. 2004. 2010. Kyoto. Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing. [21] J.

N.A. Netw. 2005 – Workshop on Delay Tolerant Networking and Related Networks. WDTN. in delay tolerant networks.C. 2010. Ott. California.2683.1002/ett. 1–9. P. Denko.J. vehicular network framework. South Africa.J. in: Sixth Annual IEEE Communications Society Con. Raghavendra. in: 13th Inter- [74] N. Soares. F. J. 2013.N. A cooperative tions. http://dx. Tampere. Exploiting node lo.M. B. Cooperative Networking. 101–105. cations. 252–259. March 2–6. USA. Trullols-Cruces. Rome. Simulating mobility and DTNs with the ONE. F.N. vol.A. K. December 3–4. Rodrigues. The ONE simulator for DTN protocol evaluation.J. Solis. Appl. Germany. 33 (1) (January 2009) Computer-Aided Modeling Analysis and Design of Communication Links and 2–10.P.doi. D.P.D. mun. 18 (6) (December 2013) 867–878 (Springer US). Zhou. [79] V. in: IEEE International Conference on Communi. May 2010. Resta. M. Asokan.F. 2009.F.F.G. Alaska. 10. Garcia-Vidal. Isento. in: S. J. 101–115 (Chapter 7). ICC’09.C.32 J. Netw. Tse. L. Eur. Commun. T. Cooperation in DTN-based network archi- 2009.F. Emerg. Message fragmentation in opportunistic DTNs.N. June 23. pp.F.N. 2011. June 22–26. 10 (4) (August 2002) 477–486. PA. . Farahmand.J. ference on Sensor. IEEE CAMAD 2010. AOC 2008. strategies for vehicular delay-tolerant networks. in: Second International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques. 2005. 51 (10) (July 2007) 2867–2891. Italy. Farahmand. J. 23–27. (2013). 2009. pp.S.P. C. S.A.C. in: IEEE International Workshop on in mobile delay-tolerant networks. pp. Rodrigues. USA. pp. 5 (2) (February 2010) 92–105. Finland.C.doi/org/ routing. J. Grossglauser. Controlling resource hogs for vehicular delay-tolerant networks. Zhang. J. pp. T. J. Dias et al. 264–278. Keränen. Morillo-Pozo.A. Keränen. pp. J. The impact of cooperative networks. Dias. nodes on the performance of vehicular delay-tolerant networks. – General Symposium on Selected Areas in Communications. Dias. Kärkkäinen. Kärkkäinen. and isolate selfish nodes in vehicular delay-tolerant networks. [68] M. 1–6. USA.G. [78] J. Italy. Soares. J. Miami. Pavon-Marino.G. Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks. Levine. Neri. J.F. M. [67] X. Tools 2009. USA.C. Shu.doi. ITST 2013. Altman. pp. in: Network Control and Optimization. ISSN: works with two hop routing. ICC’10 SAS. August 22–26. F. Barcelo.J. Commun. / Vehicular Communications 1 (2014) 22–32 [65] O. Rodrigues. Rodrigues. Misra. throwboxes. Kostiainen.ch7. Kurose. J. A reputation system to identify Town. Soares. Wiley. Obaidat (Eds.F. Commun. Rodrigues. IEEE Trans. Comput.P. VDTNsim: a simulation tool [71] J. [69] T.J. Neglia. Performance modeling of epidemic ISBN 978-0-470-74915-9. L.J. Anchorage. 2008. 1–7. Dresden. The effects of node cooperation level on routing performance tunistic Communications.A.J. [80] J.O. IEEE/ACM Trans. J. http://dx. A.P. On the myths of optical burst switching. Competition and cooperation between nodes in delay tolerant net. J. J. Notes in Computer Science. Dias. 5894. Rome.G. Trans. Psounis. June 14–18. [81] A. 59 (9) (September 2011) 2574–2584. P. SECON [76] V. http://dx. Telecom- [70] E. Spray and wait: an efficient rout. Towsley. Cape [82] J. Corner. Rodrigues.J. in: ACM SIGCOMM 1007/s11036-013-0464-9. D. Mobility increases the capacity of ad hoc wireless [77] J. Technol. calization for performance improvement of vehicular delay-tolerant networks. in: 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communica. tectures. ing scheme for intermittently connected mobile networks.P. Netw. Spyropoulos. An energy-efficient architecture for DTN national Conference on Telecommunications for Intelligent Transport Systems. SIMU- [73] V. 776–784. Keränen.N. in press (Wiley. 2009. N. Newport Beach. Banerjee. [72] P. Ott. Ginzboorg. in: The 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communications (IEEE ICC 2010) J. Niu. in: Second International IEEE WoWMoM Workshop on Autonomic and Oppor- [66] G. Ott.F. K. Performance evaluation of cooperative 05. INFOCOM 2007.C.C. J. pp. Santi. Pitkänen. Philadelphia. Networks. pp. Mob. G.1002/9781119973584. 2009. M. in: Lecture 2161-3915) (published online in August 2013). J. 2007. [75] M.