11

CHAPTER 2

VEHICULAR AD HOC NETWORKS

This chapter provides an overview of Vehicular Ad hoc Networks

(VANETs), their characteristics and comparison with Mobile Ad hoc Networks
(MANETs). Various applications, different mobility models that can be adopted
for VANET simulations, different research trends and commercial initiatives are
briefly explained. The chapter presents an elaborate survey on related research
in the area of information transmission in VANETs, such as data dissemination
and routing.

2.1 OVERVIEW

Vehicular Ad hoc Networks are composed of mobile nodes, vehicles

equipped with On Board Units (OBU), and stationary nodes called Road Side
Units (RSU) attached to the infrastructure that will be deployed along the roads.
Both OBU and RSU devices have wireless/wired communication capabilities.
OBUs communicate with each other and with the RSUs in an ad hoc manner.
There are two important types of communication scenarios in vehicular
networks: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-RSU (V2R). Vehicular
Networks are required to employ variety of advanced wireless technologies such
as Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) standard (USDOT 2006)
- an enhanced version of the WiFi technology which is suitable for VANET
environments. The DSRC is developed to support data transfer in rapidly
 12

changing communication environments, like VANETs, where time critical

responses and high data rates are required.

2.2 CHARACTERISTICS

VANETs consist of radio-enabled vehicles which act as mobile nodes

as well as routers for other nodes. Some similarities of VANETs with other
ad hoc networks are short radio transmission range, self-organization, self
management, and low bandwidth. VANETs can be distinguished from other
kinds of ad hoc networks as described in (Wang and Li 2007):

1. Highly dynamic topology: The high speed movement of vehicles

causes the topology of VANETs to keep changing. For example,
assuming that the wireless transmission range of each vehicle is
250m, the distance between the two cars is 250m with their speeds
being 25m/s (60 mph) and that they are travelling in opposite
directions, then the link will last only for at most 5s.

2. Frequently disconnected network: When the vehicle density is

low, VANETs have a higher probability of getting disconnected
frequently.

3. Sufficient energy and storage: A characteristic feature of nodes in

VANETs is that nodes have ample energy and computing power
(including both storage and processing), since nodes are cars instead
of small hand held devices.

4. Geographical type of communication: Compared to other networks

VANETs often have a unique type of communication which
addresses geographical areas where packets need to be forwarded.
 13

5. Mobility modeling and predication: Due to the highly mobile nature

of nodes and dynamic topology, mobility model and predication
play an important role in network protocol design for VANETs.
Moreover, vehicular nodes are usually constrained by pre-built
highways, roads and streets, so given the speed and the street map,
the future position of the vehicle can be predicted.

6. Various communication environments: VANETs are usually

operated in highway or urban communication scenarios. In
highway traffic scenarios, the environment is relatively simple and
straightforward, while in city conditions it becomes much more
complex. The streets in a city are often separated by buildings, trees
and other obstacles. Therefore, there is not always a direct line of
communication.

7. Hard delay constraints: In some VANET applications, the network

does not require high data rates but has hard delay constraints. For
example, in an automatic highway system, when brake event occurs
the message should be transferred and received in a certain time to
avoid car crash. In these kind of applications, instead of average
delay, the maximum delay will be crucial.

8. Interaction with on-board sensors: It is assumed that the nodes are

equipped with on-board sensors to provide information which can
be used to form communication links for routing purposes. For
example, GPS receivers are increasingly becoming common in cars
which help to provide location information for routing purposes.
 14

2.3 COMPARISON WITH MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS

VANETs are a special case of MANETs, with their own unique set
of characteristics. Some common characteristics VANETs share with MANETs
are limited bandwidth, multi-hop communications between mobile nodes and
self-organization of the mobile nodes. When compared to MANETs in general,
VANETs have higher mobility, maybe upto 400 kmph, that result in rapid
change of topology. Vehicular nodes in VANETs have a constrained movement
which can be predictable, since movement of vehicles is normally restricted to
roads. One major advantage of VANETs over MANETs is that the vehicles
provide continuous power to their computing devices, unlike the nodes of
MANETs, where mechanisms to conserve battery life are required.

Factors that influence mobility in VANETs in comparison to

MANETs are described in (Potnis et al. 2006):

1. Layout of Streets: Streets force nodes to confine their movements

to well defined paths irrespective of their final destination. This
constrained movement pattern largely determines the distribution of
nodes and connectivity of the network. Streets can be of single or
multiple lanes and can allow either one-way or two-way traffic.

2. Traffic Control Mechanisms: The most common traffic control

mechanisms at intersections are the stop signs and traffic lights.
These mechanisms result in formation of clusters and queues of
vehicles at the intersections, and reduces their average speed of
movement. Reduced mobility implies more static nodes and slower
rate of route changes in the network. Besides reducing mobility,
 15

cluster formation also affects network performance by increasing

contention for the wireless channel.

3. Interdependent Vehicular Motion: Movement of every vehicle

is guided to a large extent by the movement of other vehicles
surrounding it. For example, a vehicle would maintain a minimum
distance from the one in front of it, increase or decrease its speed,
and may change to another lane to avoid congestion.

4. Speed Limit: The speed of the vehicle decides how quickly or how
slowly the vehicles position changes, which in turn determines how
quickly the network topology changes. Thus speed limit on a road
directly affects how often the existing routes are broken or new routes
are established.

5. Block Size: A city block can be considered as the smallest area

surrounded by streets, usually containing several buildings. Over an
area comprising many blocks, the size of a block plays an important
role in vehicular communication pattern.

2.4 APPLICATIONS

VANET applications can be broadly categorized into safety-related

applications and comfort-related applications.

1. Safety applications: Safety applications can significantly decrease

the number of road accidents. Studies show that, 60 percent of
accidents could be avoided if drivers were provided with a warning
 16

half a second prior to the collision. There are three major scenarios
in which safety applications could be very useful:-

(a) Accidents: Vehicles travel at a high speed on major roads as

a result of which drivers will have very little time to react
to the vehicle in front of them. If an accident occurs, the
approaching vehicles often crash before they can come to rest.
Safety applications could be used to warn cars of an accident
that may have occurred further along the road.

(b) Intersections: Driving near and through intersections is one

of the most complex challenges that drivers face because two
or more traffic flows intersect, and hence the possibility of
collision. The number of accidents would decrease if a safety
application warned the driver of an impending collision.

(c) Road Congestion: Safety applications could also be used to

provide drivers with the best routes to their destinations. This
would decrease congestion on the road and maintain a smooth
flow of traffic, thus increasing the capacity of the roads and
preventing traffic jams.

2. Comfort applications: User applications can provide road users with

information, advertisements and entertainment during their journey.

Two basic comfort related applications are described below:

(a) Internet Connectivity: Constant Internet access has become

a daily requirement for many of us and because many user
applications also require Internet connectivity, providing this
facility to vehicle occupants and other VANET applications is
important.
 17

(b) Peer-to-Peer Applications: To alleviate boredom, peer-to-peer

applications also are an interesting idea for VANETs.
Passengers on board could share music, movies, and so on and
chat with each other and play games. They also could stream
music or movies from special servers during long journeys.

2.5 INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Information Dissemination in VANETs is the distribution of

information among vehicles in a scalable fashion. Four central challenges have
been identified in the literature on information dissemination in VANETs as
described in (Hartenstein and Laberteaux ):

1. how to obtain the information, i.e., make local observations that form
a data basis for the application;

2. how to transport the information, i.e., deliver information to

participants in the VANET;

3. how to summarize measurements of the same or very similar

parameters made by distinct VANET participants, to reduce
redundancy when it is not possible to distribute all individual
observations

4. how to aggregate information on larger geographical entities,

considering the fact that network capacity constraints do not allow
for an arbitrarily detailed picture of distant regions.
 18

In the context of how to transport the information among vehicular

nodes, communication mechanisms like data dissemination, routing, etc., are
designed to support safe and comfort driving.

Data dissemination refers to distributing information to all nodes

in a certain geographic region. Its key focus is on conveying data related
to safety applications particularly real-time collision avoidance and warning
while routing methods are related to comfort (non-safety) applications.
Data dissemination protocols in VANETs rely on information transmission
techniques such as flooding, broadcasting or geocasting for transmission of
safety messages. Flooding is the process of diffusing the information generated
and received by a node to other approaching vehicles. Broadcasting is utilized
by a source vehicle to broadcast packets to all other vehicles in the network and
geocasting is used to deliver geocast packets to specific geographic regions.

Protocols related to data dissemination in VANETs are

proposed in (Tonguz et al. 2007), (Bronsted and Kristensen 2006),
(Dornbush and Joshi 2007). In (Tonguz et al. 2007), it is proposed to adapt the
broadcasts used to realize flooding depending on the density of the vehicular
traffic. A similar approach was proposed in (Bronsted and Kristensen 2006)
to use flooding only in the surrounding of the message’s source. This allows
vehicles close by to be informed very fast without having to flood a packet into
a large area. (Dornbush and Joshi 2007) in their study rely on techniques called
rumor spreading, gossip, or epidemic dissemination. More work on flooding
schemes for VANETs is discussed in (Oh et al. 2006), (Korkmaz et al. 2004),
(Korkmaz et al. 2006).
 19

In the data dissemination mechanism, each vehicle broadcasts

information about itself and the other vehicles it knows about. The
dissemination mechanism is scalable, since the number of broadcast messages is
limited, and they do not flood the network. Work in V-TRADE (Sun et al. 2000)
and Urban Multihop Broadcast (UMB) (Korkmaz et al. 2004) discuss
dissemination protocols. (Agarwal et al. 2007) and (Agarwal et al. 2008)
present the Directional Propagation Protocol (DPP). In the DPP approach,
the authors consider information dissemination along a highway. When the
traffic is dense, nodes within some region form a cluster. Within this cluster,
messages are shared with all nodes of this cluster. Another cluster-based
approach is presented by (Varghese et al. 2007). Here cars within a small region
autonomously form a cluster. Owing to the close vicinity, direct communication
between those cars is possible.

2.6 ROUTING

Routing is the act of moving information from a source to a

destination in an internetwork. During this process, at least one intermediate
node within the internetwork is encountered. The routing concept basically
involves two activities: firstly, determining optimal routing paths and secondly,
transferring the packets through an internetwork.

Routing in VANETs can be classified, based on the

information transmission techniques, into anycast, unicast, broadcast
and multicast routing. The unicast protocols send information from
one source to one receiver only, examples of which are Ad hoc
On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) (Perkins and Royer 1999), Greedy
Perimeter State Routing (GPSR) (Karp and Kung 2000), Dynamic Source
 20

Routing (DSR) (Johnson and Maltz 1996), Multi-Hop Routing Protocol

for Urban Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (MURU) (Mo et al. 2006),
etc. In contrast, anycast sends information to any node, e.g.
Anycast-AODV (A-AODV) (Wang et al. 2003); Broadcast protocols
send information to many nodes, like Multi-Hop Vehicular
Broadcast (MHVB) (Korkmaz et al. 2006) and multicast protocols such
as Group Header-based Multicasting (GHM) (Harshvardhan et al. 2006)
and Distributed Robust Geocasting Protocol (DRG) (Chen et al. 2007) send
information to a previously created group of nodes

2.6.1 Unicast routing

In unicast routing, information is transmitted over a network

from one host to another. Unicast routing protocols in VANETs are
grouped into topology-based unicast VANET protocols and location-based
unicast VANET protocols. Topology-based unicast VANET protocols
enable the exchange of data between distinct pairs of nodes, using
intermediate network participants for forwarding packets on their way to the
destination. Information about the node’s geographical position is not known.
Ad hoc On demand Distance Vector (AODV) (Perkins and Royer 1999),
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) (Johnson and Maltz 1996), Fisheye
State Routing (FSR) (Mario et al. 2000), Temporarily Ordered Routing
Algorithm (TORA) (Park and Corson 1998) and Border Node Based Routing
(BBR) (Zhang and Wolff 2007) protocols are some examples.

Location-based unicast routing protocols use additional information

about the node’s geographical position to find suitable routes. This information
may be, for example, the node’s Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates.
 21

Although several studies have shown that location based protocols are
well suited to mobile environments, providing location services, so that
a source node can obtain the location of the destination node, is a hard
challenge in VANETs (Jaap et al. 2005). Protocols Geographical Source
Routing (GSR) (Lochert et al. 2003), Greedy Perimeter State Routing (GPSR)
(Karp and Kung 2000), Multi-hop Routing Protocol for Urban Vehicular Ad
hoc Networks (MURU) (Mo et al. 2006), Anchor-based Street and traffic
Aware Routing (A-STAR) (Seet et al. 2004), Connectivity-Aware Routing
(CAR) (Musolesi and Mascolo 2009), Passive Geographic Routing (PGR)
(Xue et al. 2008) and Movement-Based Routing Algorithm for Vehicle Ad Hoc
Networks (MORA) (Boato and Granelli 2004) are some examples.

GPSR (Karp and Kung 2000) is a greedy routing protocol that

forwards the packet to the node that is geographically closest to the destination.
It is one of the best known position based protocols in literature. It combines
greedy routing with face routing by using face routing to get out of the local
minimum where greedy fails. It works best in a free open space scenario with
evenly distributed nodes.

GSR (Lochert et al. 2003) uses a map of the urban area. Using a
static street map and location information about each node, GSR computes a
route to a destination by forwarding messages along the streets. The sender of
a message computes a sequence of intersections that must be traversed in order
to reach the destination. GSR is an apriori algorithm for position based VANET
unicast routing.

A-STAR (Seet et al. 2004) uses the street map to compute the
sequence of junctions (anchors) through which a packet must pass to reach its
 22

destination. A-STAR differs from GSR and GPSR in two important aspects.
Firstly, it incorporates traffic awareness by using statically rated maps (counting
the number of city bus routes on each street to identify anchor paths of maximum
connectivity) or dynamically rated maps (dynamically monitoring the latest
traffic condition to identify the best anchor paths) to identify an anchor path with
high connectivity for packet delivery. Secondly, A-STAR employs a new local
recovery strategy for packets routed to a local minimum that is more suitable for
a city environment than the greedy approach of GSR and the perimeter-mode of
GPSR.

MURU (Mo et al. 2006) uses a new metric called the ”Expected
Disconnection Degree” (EDD), which estimates the quality of a route based on
factors such as vehicle position, speed and trajectory. MURU requires each
vehicle to know its own position and to have an external static street map
available. The presence of an efficient location service is also assumed. To
find a route to a destination, the source node calculates the shortest trajectory to
the destination, based on their locations and the static street map. It then initiates
a RREQ message, broadcasting it in a broadcast area that encloses the nearest
trajectory and is bounded by the positions of the source and destination. The
shortest trajectory is stored in the packet and is used as a directional guideline
for the RREQ message. Nodes outside of the ”broadcast area” will drop the
packet.

2.6.2 Topology based unicast routing

Topology based unicast protocols are classified into proactive,

reactive or hybrid protocols. Proactive protocols are table driven, reactive
routing protocols find routes on-demand basis and if a combination of both
 23

proactive and reactive routing methods are employed then such protocols are
termed hybrid routing protocols.

Proactive routing protocols maintain and update information on

routing between all nodes of a given network at all times. Route updates are
periodically performed regardless of network load, bandwidth constraints, and
network size. Routing information are stored in a variety of tables and are based
on received control traffic. Generation of control messages and route calculation
are driven by the routing tables. The main characteristic of proactive protocols is
that nodes maintain a constantly updated understanding of the network topology.
Consequently, a route to any node in the network is always available regardless
of whether it is needed or not. An example of this category is the Optimized Link
State routing (OLSR) protocol (Jacquet et al. 2001), the protocol’s performance
in realistic urban scenarios is evaluated under varying metrics such as node
mobility and vehicle density. In OLSR, each node periodically constructs and
maintains the set of neighbors that can be reached in 1-hop and 2-hops. Based on
this the dedicated Multi-point Relays (MPR) algorithm minimizes the number
of active relays needed to cover all 2-hop neighbors. These relays are called
MPRs. The sending node should select the MPR to forward packets. OLSR has
the mechanism for route repair in case of route error. The protocol was evaluated
for scenarios with varying velocities, data traffic rate and performances were
found beneficial for VANETs.

2.6.3 Reactive topology based unicast routing

In reactive routing protocols, route determination is invoked on a

demand or need basis. Thus, if a node wishes to initiate communication with
another host to which it has no route, a global-search procedure is employed.
 24

This route-search operation is based on classical flooding search algorithms.

Indeed, a Route-Request (RREQ) message is generated and flooded, sometimes
in a limited way, to other nodes. When the RREQ message reaches either the
destination or an intermediate node with a valid route entry to the destination,
a Route-Reply (RREP) message is sent back to the originator of the RREQ. A
route is then set up between the source and the destination. Reactive protocols
then remain passive until the established route becomes invalid or lost. Link
breakage is reported to the source via a RERR (Route-Error) message.

AODV is the most popular reactive protocol which is being employed

in much of VANET research work for simulation studies either directly or by
modifying it. In AODV, if a node wants to send data, it first initiates a route
discovery process. Neighbor nodes if they do not have an active route will
forward the packet to their neighbors until an active route is found or until the
maximum number of routes is reached. If an intermediate node knows the route
it will forward the route reply packet to the source in unicast mode. The source
node opens the route for sending the packet also the route repair process is
initiated in case of route failure.

DSR is a well known topology based reactive unicast routing

protocol for MANETs and has been successfully adapted to VANETs as well.
DSR is an on-demand routing protocol, in which each node has a route cache
to store the routes that are either used by the node or learnt by looking into the
packets that pass by. DSR searches for a route only when needed. Each node
maintains the known routes in its cache. A route consists of the full source route,
containing all the intermediate nodes in the route. New routes are discovered
by a source by flooding the network with route request messages. When the
destination receives a route request, it sends a route reply. The route reply
 25

sent by the destination accumulates all the nodes through which the route reply
propagates. When the route reply reaches the source, it gets the source route
to the destination from the reply. DSR has low overhead and is suitable for
networks in which not all nodes need a route to every other node in the network
and the user traffic is low.

Another example of a topology based reactive VANET protocol is

the Border Node Based Routing Protocol (BBR) (Zhang and Wolff 2007). This
protocol is proposed for VANETs in sparse and rural areas. The BBR protocol
is designed for sending messages from any node to any other node (unicast) or
from one node to all other nodes (broadcast) in a mobile ad hoc network. The
delivery of unicast messages is realized by combining the use of broadcast and
unicast. The goal of the BBR protocol is to optimize the broadcast behaviour
for ad hoc networks with low node density and high mobility.

Compared to reactive routing approaches, proactive protocols are

easier to implement and exhibit relative stability. However, by applying them to
a highly mobile environment such as VANETs, a storm of control messages is
required to maintain an accurate view of the network topology. This intuitively
results in heavy traffic contention, collisions of packets due to mass flooding
broadcasts between neighboring nodes and consequently, a significant waste
of the scarce wireless bandwidth. They can be used only for environments
where mobility is relatively static. Reactive routing protocols are thus preferred
for dynamically changing environments where nodes have a few number of
active routes. Traditionally, reactive protocols do not take into account mobility
parameters during route discovery, resulting in paths which often break in highly
mobile scenarios such as VANETs, causing excessive broadcasting and flooding
the entire network in order for new routes to be discovered.
 26

2.6.4 MANET protocols adapted for routing in VANETs

Applying traditional MANET’s routing protocols directly in the

VANET environment is inefficient since these methods do not take VANET’s
characteristics into consideration. Therefore, modifying MANET routing
protocols or developing new routing protocols specific for VANET are the
practical approaches to efficiently use routing methods in VANET. Researchers
in the area of VANETs have proposed routing algorithms by modifying
the various types of protocols already found successful in simulations of
MANETs to suit the behaviour of VANETs based on their applications.
Some examples are DAODV (Direction AODV) (Abedi et al. 2008),
AODV-MOPR (Menouar et al. 2007), MOPR-OLSR (Menouar et al. 2007) and
AODV-DFR (AODV-Directional Forwarded Routing) (Chen et al. 2006).

A few such protocols are briefly described in the following

paragraphs. AODV-MOPR, in vehicular environments, is a proposed method
which tries to predict the future vehicles’ positions in order to avoid link ruptures
so that frame loss rate is reduced while improving the network efficiency. The
protocol modifies MOPR by reducing the Receive Request (RREQ) packet size,
and therefore reducing its bandwidth control overhead. When receiving a new
RREQ packet an intermediate vehicle knows the position and the movement
information of the neighbor from where the RREQ came. Now, it has to
estimate this distance after a duration time that corresponds to the transmission
duration time, which is communicated over the RREQ packet. By knowing
the estimation of the future distance to the node from where the RREQ came,
and by knowing the communication range, the intermediate node can determine
whether the link between it and that previous vehicle is likely to cause a link
 27

failure or not. RREQ packet size remains constant along the route until reaching
the destination. When receiving a RREQ packet, an intermediate node updates
its routing table only if the corresponding new route is more stable than the
one saved in its local routing table. The algorithm was simulated for urban
scenario with a moderate density of vehicles and it was shown that the new
MOPR version decreases the probability of transmission link failures without
increasing the data size of the control packets in the networks.

OLSR-MOPR addresses the routing problem in VANETs for

applications related to comfort and infotainment. The algorithm functions in
two main steps, the MPR selection and the route determination phases. In
the first phase, the algorithm implements OLSR-based MPRs selection and in
the second phase MOPR-based routing route construction. The protocol was
simulated for highway scenarios.

In AODV-DFR, attempts are made to combine proactive, reactive and

position based routing methods. AODV-DFR utilizes the position information
of local neighboring nodes for selecting an alternate node if a path fails. When a
source initiates a communication session, if it has no route to the destination, it
first discovers the destination as in an on-demand fashion. Once the destination
is notified of the communication request, it initiates periodic routing updates.
Other nodes participate in propagating the updates throughout the network in a
proactive fashion. The protocol was proposed for urban scenarios.

2.7 MOBILITY MODELS

One of the important aspects when evaluating routing protocols for

VANETs is the mobility model that is chosen for behaviour of vehicular traffic.
 28

To get faithful and correct results in a simulation study, the mobility model
should be as realistic as possible. The earlier models used in MANETs, such as
the Random WayPoint (RWP), are unsuitable for the VANET application, where
the movements cannot take place freely in an open area. Instead, vehicles move
only within existing routes, constrained by many parameters such as roadway
conditions, route intersections, stop and traffic light signals, the presence of
other vehicles in front of the vehicle, etc.

When dealing with vehicular mobility modeling, some authors

(Fiore et al. 2007) have distinguished between macro-mobility and
micro-mobility. A macro-mobility model is described by the framework
which includes system parameters such as traffic density (number of vehicles
per km per lane) or traffic flow (number of vehicles per hour crossing some
point, usually intersection) while computing road capacity and the distribution
of the traffic in the road net. In contrast, micro-mobility models are modeled
based on the movement of each vehicle that participates in the traffic on the road,
traveling speed under different traffic conditions; acceleration, deceleration and
overtaking criteria; behaviour in the presence of road intersections and traffic
signs, general driving attitude related to drivers’ age or mood, etc,. A generic
VANET traffic simulator, uses both the microscopic and macroscopic models
in order to accurately evaluate the performance of a wide range of VANET
technologies .

In (Djenouri et al. 2008) some of the vehicular mobility models

specially devoted to VANET, or proposed in the general MANET context
but usable in VANET are described. Freeway (Bai et al. 2004) is a
generated-map-based model, in which the simulation area, represented by a
generated map, includes many freeways, each side of which is composed of
 29

many lanes. No urban routes, thus no intersections are considered in this model.
At the beginning of the simulation, the nodes are randomly placed in the lanes,
and move using history-based speeds. A security distance should be maintained
between two subsequent vehicles in a lane. If the distance between two vehicles
is less than this required minimal distance, the second one decelerates (a(t) is
forced to be less than 0) and lets the forward vehicle move away. Change of
lanes is not allowed in this model. The vehicle moves in the lane it is placed
in until reaching the simulation area limit, then it is placed again randomly in
another position, and the process is repeated.

Manhattan (Bai et al. 2004) is another generated-map-based model,

introduced to simulate an urban environment. Before starting a simulation, a
map containing vertical and horizontal roads is generated. The map has two
lanes, allowing the motion in the two directions (north/south for the vertical
roads and east/west for the horizontal ones). At the beginning of a simulation,
vehicles are randomly put on the roads. They then move continuously according
to history-based speeds (following the same formula like the freeway model). At
crossroads, the vehicle randomly chooses a direction to follow, i.e. continuing
straightforward, turning left, or turning right. The probability of each decision
is set by the authors respectively to 0:5, 0:25, 0:25. The security distance is also
used in this model, and nodes follow the same strategy as in the freeway model
to keep this distance.

City Section Mobility (CSM) (Davies ) can be viewed as a hybrid

model between Random Waypoint (RWP) and Manhattan, as it introduces the
principle of RWP, especially the pause-time and random selection destination,
within a generated-map-based area. At each step of the vehicles movement,
a random point is selected from the generated road map. After reaching the
 30

destination, it remains there for a pause-time, then the process is repeated.

The speed of nodes are constrained by the security distance, along with the
maximum speed limit of the road.

Stop Sign Model (SSM) (Potnis et al. 2006) is the first model that
integrates a traffic control mechanism. At each crossroad a stop signal is put,
which obliges vehicles to slow down and make a pause there. This model is
based on real maps of the TIGER/Lines database, but all roads are assigned
a single lane in each direction. A vehicle should never overtake its successor
(like in all the models presented before), and should tune its speed to keep the
security distance. If many vehicles arrive at an intersection at the same time they
make a queue, then each one waits for its successor to traverse the crossroads.
This results in gathering of nodes, and hugely affects the network connectivity
as well as the vehicle mobility (average speeds).

In the Traffic Sign Model (TSM) (Potnis et al. 2006), the stop signals
are replaced by traffic lights. A vehicle stops at a crossroad when it encounters
a red stoplight, otherwise it continues its movement. When the first vehicle
reaches the intersection, the light is randomly turned red with probability p (thus
turned green with probability 1-p). If it turns red it remains so for a random
delay (pause-time), forcing the vehicle as well as the ones behind it to stop.
After the delay, it turns green and the nodes traverse the crossroads one after the
other until the queue is empty.

The STreet RAndom Waypoint (STRAW) model

(Choffnes et al. 2005) is also a model relying on real maps of TIGER/line. Like
the other models (except freeway), the roads include one lane in each direction,
and is divided into segments. The model is basically composed of three
 31

modules: intra-segment mobility manager, inter-segment mobility manager,

and finally the route management and execution module. The security distance
is maintained, and overtaking is not allowed. At crossroads vehicles always
slow down, even when they change a segment and turn without a full stop,
which is realistic. The second module defines the traffic control mechanism,
which includes both stop signals and traffic lights, put on crossroads according
to the class of the intersected routes. In addition to this usual control form, the
module makes sure that the next segment to take contains enough available
space before the vehicle moves towards it. If it is fully busy, the vehicle waits
at the crossroads (at the end of the first segment). The last module selects the
routes to be taken by each vehicle during the simulation.

In (Karnadi et al. 2007) the authors propose the MObility model

for VEhicular network (MOVE), a VANET mobility model that uses the
Simulation of Urban Mobilty (SUMO) compiler (Krajzewicz et al. 2002),
which is a realistic vehicular traffic simulation model. SUMO is an open-source
application implemented in Java and integrates many realistic parameters, such
as realistic accelerations, the usage of real maps reflecting several types of
routes (with multiple lanes), as well as traffic lights defining priorities between
vehicles. Basically, MOVE is composed of two components; the road map
editor and the vehicle movement editor. The former serves to manually and
randomly generate a road map, either from TIGER/line files or Google earth
files, whereas the latter allows to specify the properties of each vehicle, like the
maximum speed, the acceleration, the probability of turning at crossroads, the
path to take etc.

The work presented in this thesis focusses on VANETs on freeways.

The Freeway Mobility Model was chosen for the study.
 32

2.8 RESEARCH TRENDS

There are numerous research challenges that still need to be

addressed until wide deployment of VANET becomes a reality.

1. Wireless Access technology: Several wireless access standards

are used as a base for VANET connectivity. Some technologies
include: Cellular technology, IEEE 802.11p based technology and
combined wireless access (that builds on the top of IEEE 802.11p,
incorporating a set of additional interface protocols).

2. Spectrum issues: The intended usage period for Vehicle-to-Vehicle

(V2V) communication system is estimated for at least 20 years and
within this time the spectrum availability has to be guaranteed.

3. Information Dissemination: When a message is disseminated to

locations beyond the transmission range, multi-hopping is used. This
is, however, a difficult task due to the highly dynamic nature of
inter-vehicle networks which results in their frequent fragmentation
into disconnected clusters.

4. Routing issues: MANET routing protocols have brought a lot

of attention during the last years, however in case of vehicular
networking certain network characteristics make these protocols
unsuitable. Frequent network partitioning in VANETs requires a
different approach.

5. Power management: Power management in VANET is about the

transmission power, which when too high, the transmission may
disrupt another transmission at a distant node due to interferences.
 33

This issue is important from the routing point of view: adjusting

transmission power, maximizing overall throughput and minimizing
interferences.

6. Security and Privacy: Security is an important issue in vehicular

communication systems. Several threats exist, including fake
messages causing disruption of traffic or even danger, compromising
drivers private information, etc.

7. Modeling and Simulation: Road traffic has certain properties that

cannot be easily modeled in a straight-forward way. One has to
either build a sophisticated road traffic mobility model on top of
some popular network simulator (ns-2, OPNET, GloMoSim), or use
mobility traces from another source.

8. Scalability issues: One of the main challenges inherent to the

deployment of VANETs is its operability, both in very sparse and in
highly overloaded networks. The number of active nodes (vehicles)
and protocol design have a great impact on scalability.

2.9 COMMERCIAL INITIATIVES

Leading car manufacturers jointly worked with national government

agencies to develop solutions to improve the overall safety of vehicular traffic
and for on-board entertainment applications. Different frequency bands have
been proposed for VANETs. The US Department of Transportation sponsored
the Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) standard (USDOT 2006)
for WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicle Environments). The IEEE 802.11
working group continues to amend 802.11p (Armstrong and Fisher 2007) and
 34

has proposed P1609.2 and P1609.4. These standards support Intelligent

Transport Systems (ITS) that communicate from Vehicle-to-Roadside (V2R),
Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), or both.

Considerable effort has been invested in experimenting with various

aspects of VANET systems and architectures and these trials are going on. To
a considerable degree, simulation complements the results of real-life industrial
trials. However in the end, actual implementations are an essential and
necessary part of the verification of the operation and accuracy of VANET
systems.

Early developments focused on the underlying wireless protocol

infrastructure and included physical and MAC protocol standardization such as
IEEE 802.11p, WAVE and DSRC. Subsequent developments and testing involve
the messaging systems and overlaying application architectures. In recent years,
many projects supported by automobile manufacturers, private companies and
research institutes have been proposed with the goal to create communication
platforms for Inter-Vehicle Communication (IVC).

In the USA, consortia such as the Vehicle Safety Consortium

(VSC-2) (2006-2009) have run a set of trials over the last four years in
coordination with the Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The work
of VSC-2 seeks to implement a common vehicle safety communication
architecture (including protocols, messaging systems and interfaces) necessary
to achieve inter-operability among different vehicle manufacturers. Further, this
work includes the implementation and verification testing of vehicle positioning
technology in conjunction with DSRC to support a variety of safety applications.
The Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) (2004-2009) Consortium provides
 35

coordination between key automobile manufacturers (Ford, General Motors,

Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW), IT suppliers,
U.S. Federal and state transportation departments, and professional associations.
The specific applications currently under development include warning drivers
of unsafe conditions and imminent collisions. Other USA-based trials include
the which is based on a consortium of Japanese and USA-based hi-tech vehicle
technology companies.

In the European Union (EU), the Car2Car communication group

is an organization comprising European vehicle manufacturers that is open
for providers, research associations and other partners. The Car2Car
Communications Consortium (C2C-CC) started trials in 2001 and demonstrated
the use of IEEE 802.11 WLAN technologies in order for the vehicles to
communicate with each other within the range of a few hundred meters. The
Car2Car communication trials are based on the following systems: Driver
assistance using new wireless technologies and design and development of
active safety applications. In addition, C2C-CC is a key contributor to the V2V
and V2I validation trial processes. Fleetnet (Festag et al. 2004) was an early
EU sponsored trial which built on the results of simulation experiments and a
software prototype called FleetNet Demonstrator (Hartenstein et al. 2003).

The IST European Project CarTALK2000

(Andreone and Ricerche 2005) focussed on co-operative driver assistance
systems. The Network on Wheels (NoW) project and trial was founded by
the automobile manufacturers (Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen), the Fraunhofer
Institute for Open Communication Systems, NEC Deutschland GmbH and
Siemens AG in 2004. NoW is a German research project which is supported
by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The communications
 36

protocols developed in NoW support both active safety and infotainment

applications and are providing an open communication platform for a broad
spectrum of applications. Cooperative Vehicles and Infrastructure Systems is
another EU-sponsored current project trial with the objective of increasing road
safety.

2.10 SUMMARY

The chapter has presented a detailed description of VANETs.

Their exclusive characteristics and comparison with MANETs are given.
Applications, both in safety and comfort related areas, research trends and
commercial initiatives are presented. The chapter has given an elaborate
description of related work in VANET unicast routing protocols. A survey of
VANET mobility models is also given in this chapter.