International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS (MANET)

(VEHICLE TO VEHICLE COMMUNICATION AS CASE STUDY)
Akintoye Oluwasegun Ogundiya1 Usman Jibril Wushishi2,
(Department of Management Information Systems, Cyprus International University
Lefkosa, North Cyprus. Email: erains4eva@yahoo.co.uk)
2
(Department of Management Information Systems, Cyprus International University
Lefkosa, North Cyprus. Email:wushi09@live.com)
1

ABSTRACT
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETS) is a set of complex
distributed systems consisting of wireless mobile nodes
which self-configures freely into ad-hoc network
topologies, enabling people and devices to internetwork
in places without any pre-existing communication
infrastructure. Having being around for over two
decades, the ad hoc networking concept is not a new one.
Emergence of new technologies has been firing up the
interests in research and development of MANET. The
purpose of this research is to overview mobile ad hoc
networks (MANET), the different routing protocols, and
review of MANET in a vehicle-to-vehicle
communication.
Keywords- adhoc network,
mobile ad-hoc
networks(MANET), routing, routing protocols, security
threats, vehicle-to-vehicle communication

I.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid increase in the numbers of mobile computing

and communication devices is leading to a great
revolution in our information society. There is a
migration between the era of Personal Computer
whereby a person uses one computing device into an era
where a person uses, at the same time, various electronic
platforms by which he can access all the needed
information anytime and anywhere (Ubiquitous
Computing age). The features of these devices make
wireless networks the best option for interconnection;
hence, the wireless community has been experiencing
some exponential growth. Instead of using some physical
cables, wireless networks uses some kind of radio
frequencies for transmission and receiving of data [2].
This eliminates the necessity for expensive cable laying
and maintenance costs. Wireless system setup is easy
and fast without a need for cabling through walls and
ceilings, and can be extended to areas that cannot be
wired. It adapts easily to changes in the network
configuration and offers more flexibility. The need for
rapid deployment of independent mobile users thus
conceived the application of Mobile Ad hoc Networks. A

MANET is an independent collection of mobile users

communicating
over
comparatively
bandwidth
constrained wireless links. The network topology
changes rapidly over time due to the mobility of the
nodes; the network is decentralised and there is
incorporation of routing functionalities into the mobile
nodes. Mobile cellular users can browse internet, check
e-mails; surfing the web from airports, railway stations
and other public places is applicable to travellers;
tourists can explore the Global Positioning Systems
(GPS) terminals to locate driving maps and tourist
attractions; researchers can share files and information
through wireless LANs in conferences; home users can
synchronize between portable devices and desktops for
file transfers [1].

II. OVERVIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Routing is the process of selecting the best paths in a
network in which to send data or network traffic. It is
performed for different types of networks including
transportation networks, telephone networks, and
electronic data networks. Routing schemes differ in their
mode of delivery; it could be unicast (message to a
single specific node), broadcast (message to all nodes in
the network), multicast (message to a group of nodes in
the network interested in receiving), anycast (message to
anyone out of a group of nodes, mostly nearest to the
source), and geocast (message to a geographical area).
Two basic activities are involved in routing; firstly,
knowing the optimal routing paths and secondly to
transfer the packets through an internetwork. Based on
their network structure, state information, routing
strategy, communication model, and so on, routing
protocol in MANET can be classified but they are mostly
classified based on their routing strategy and network
structure. The routing protocol can be classified into two
based on the routing strategy; table-driven (proactive)
and on-demand (reactive) routing protocols while based
on the network structure, they are classified as flat
routing, hierarchical routing, and geographic position
assisted routing [2].
160

www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

Fig. 1 Classification of ad hoc Routing Protocols [2]

A. PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE PROTOCOLS
1.PROACTIVE (TABLE-DRIVEN) ROUTING
PROTOCOLS
This is a routing protocol in which each node in the
network has a routing table and establishes connection
with other nodes in the network for the broadcast of the
data packets. The required number of hops in arriving at
each destination in the routing table is recorded at the
nodes for all the presented destinations; a sequence
number is used in tagging the routing entry created by
the destination node; each station broadcasts and updates
its routing table to retain stability. For each new route,
nodes have information such as: number of hops
required to get to that particular destination node; the
generation of new sequence number marked by the
destination; the destination address. This type of
protocols (proactive) is suitable for less number of nodes
in the networks because it requires updating node entries
for each node in the routing table for every node thereby
causing more Routing Overhead problem. It also
consumes more bandwidth in the routing table. One very
common example of Proactive Routing Protocols is
Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV).
The Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV)
employs the principle of the classical Bellman-Ford
Routing Algorithm but solves routing loop problem
which is characteristic in Bellman-Ford by the use of
sequence numbers. The sequence number distinguishes
old routes from new ones, hence avoiding the formation
of loops. Either full dump or incremental update
technique is employed in updating the routing table. In
the full dump technique, the whole routing table is being
sent to the neighbors and could bridge many networks
whereas in the incremental update technique, only
entries that have a metric change since the last update are
sent from the routing table and must fit in a packet. In a
relatively stable network, so as to avoid extra traffic,
incremental updates are sent. DSDV assures a loop-free
path as well as reduced count to infinity problems [3].
2.REACTIVE (ON DEMAND) ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A reactive protocol seeks for the route in an on-demand
mode and places the link in a way as to transmit and

receive packet from a source node to a destination node.

Flooding the route request (RREQ) packets all over the
network in an on-demand routing is used in the route
discovery process. Steady update of route tables with the
recent route topology is not indispensable in an ondemand concept. Hence, since routes are determined on
demand, it has lower overhead and uses flooding (global
search) concept. Most common examples of reactive
routing protocols are Ad-hoc On-demand Distance
Vector routing (AODV) and Dynamic Source Routing
(DSR).
In DSR, the transmitting node caches complete hop-byhop route to the destination node once packets are
flooded by a source node. The data packets transport the
transmitting route in the packet header. Route discovery
process dynamically determines a route in which both
the sender and receiver does not know the route
aforetime, thus flooding the data packets in network with
route request (RREQ) packets. Every neighboring node
receives the RREQ packets and flooding process
continues by retransmission of RREQ packet except
destination is gotten or the route cache has a route for
destination. Such a node responds by transmitting a route
reply (RREP) packet back to the real source node. The
RREQ steadily accumulates the route traversed across
the network. The source caches backward transmission
by RREP packets for subsequent use. A router error
(RERR) packet is sent to the source node once there is
damage in any connection on the source route [3].

Fig. 2: Dynamic Source Routing Protocol [3]

Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol
on the other hand is both an on-demand and table-driven
protocol. It is different from DSR in that it can support
multiple route cache entries for each destination; it has a
uniform packet size, and because of local changes,
AODV does not need system-wide broadcasts unlike
DSDV. It has the characteristics of both multicasting and
unicasting protocol within a uniform framework. The
destination node, source node and next hops are
161

www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

addressed with the use of IP addressing. Route

request/route reply cycle is used in building the AODV
routes. AODV utilizes sequence numbers which is
maintained at each destination to prevent routing loops
and determine freshness of routing information. One
important feature of the AODV is the conservation of
timer-based states in each node. Expiration of routing
table entry occurs once it is not used recently. Nodes are
notified with RERR packets when there is a breakage in
the next-hop link. Each progenitor node transmits the
RERR to its own set of predecessors for effective erasure
of all routes utilizing the broken link. AODV balances
vast numbers of mobile nodes; it is self-starting, and also
loop-free [3].
B.
HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOL
There are a number of globally reactive and locally
proactive routing protocol states [4]. The combination of
both proactive and reactive approaches, thereby bringing
the advantages of the two approaches is known as hybrid
routing protocols. An example of this is the Zone-based
Hierarchical Link State Routing Protocol (ZRP). A zone
containing the neighbors within a given number of hops
from the node is defined around each node in ZRP. Both
proactive and reactive algorithms are utilized by the
node to transmit packets both inside and outside of the
zone respectively.
C.
HIERARCHICAL ROUTING PROTOCOLS
ARCHITECTURE
This is a type of network topology consisting of multiple
layers in which top layers are viewed as principal of their
lower layer nodes. A gateway node is responsible
amongst clusters of nodes for communication with other
gateway nodes in other clusters. In such kind of design,
there is a distinct distribution of task. The gateway nodes
take responsibility of network topology storage while
communication of diverse control messages is dependent
on the cluster nodes. One major challenge in this
architecture is that there is a breakdown of the system
when a single node fails (Gateway node), thus the
gateway node is very critical for the networks operation
success. The Zone-based Hierarchical Link State (ZHLS)
routing protocol is a prominent example of the
hierarchical routing protocol architecture [4].
D.GEOGRAPHIC POSITION INFORMATION
ASSISTED ROUTING
This is a kind of routing in which rather than using the
network address, a packet is sent by the source to the
geographic location of the destination. It is principally
suggested for wireless networks. It can be dated back to
the 1980s in the area of interconnection networks and
packet radio networks when it was first proposed. This
type of routing necessitates that every node can establish
its own location and that the sender (transmitter) knows

the location of the receiver. With such information,

without prior route discovery or network topology
knowledge, packets can be routed to the destination.
Different strategies can be implemented in geographic
position information assisted routing which includes
greedy forwarding, directed flooding and hierarchical
routing. Hierarchical routing algorithms combine both
position-based and non-position based routing
algorithms. Greedy forwarding and directed flooding
algorithms transmits data to one or more neighbors,
respectively. Greedy forwarding transfers packet to the
closest neighbor apart from itself and has multiple
options when there are more than one close neighbor.
New rules are applied in a situation whereby there is no
close neighbor. In directed flooding, every neighbor
within the direction of the destination is sent packets by
the node [1].

III. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET
One of the major advantages of Proactive Routing
Protocol is that it provides a better quality of service
(QoS) compared to on-demand protocols. This is so due
to the constant update of routing information as routes to
all destinations are readily available and up to date, thus
end-to-end delay are reduced. Source nodes require
waiting for route discovery in on-demand protocols
before communication can occur; hence route discovery
latency
could
be
unbearable
in
real-time
communications. But on the other hand, proactive
protocols waste much network resources in maintaining
up-to-date status of network. A constant broadcast
reduces the size of effective adhoc network users in
DSDV due to the control message overhead growth.
Whereas reactive protocols have swift response time
because routes are discovered on demand whenever a
packet is needed to be sent to a destination that doesnt
lie on active path.
IV. INTRODUCTION OF V2V COMMUNICATION
Traffic accidents have been taking thousands of lives
each year. Studies show that about 60% roadway
collisions could be avoided if the driver of a vehicle was
provided with early warning at least one-half second
prior to an accident [8]. Human drivers suffer from
perception limitations on roadway emergency events
which results in large delay in propagating emergency
warnings.V2V communications are going to be an
important evolution of current wireless communications.
Emerging wireless technologies for vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) and vehicle-to-roadside (V2R) communications
such as DSRC (Dedicated short range communication)
are promising to dramatically reduce the number of fatal
roadway accidents by providing early warnings [8].
Adopting wireless technology into V2V is mandatory to
achieve reliability and efficiency [9].
162

www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

The Vehicle-to-vehicle system is a system that provides

cooperative collision warning. V2V communication
work with wireless protocol similar to Wi-Fi called
DSRC (Dedicated short Range Communication) adopted
in July 2003. Target is to take into account the inherent
characteristics of moving vehicles such as position,
direction and speed of vehicles. The DSRC protocol is
integrated into a GPS (Global Positioning System)
navigation to provide low cost and a communication
system that provides a 360-degrees range of similar
equipped vehicles. Previous research for V2V
communications has focused on two main areas, which
are, Medium Access Control (MAC) and message
forwarding. Although IEEE 802.11 MAC is considered
the de facto MAC protocol for DSRC [8] other
protocols, such as Time Division Multiple Access(TDMA-) based slotted MAC protocols have also been
proposed.
V. CHALLENGES IN V2V COMMUNICATION
Even though V2V communication may be beneficial,
wireless communication is typically unreliable [10].
However, due to packet collisions and the unreliability of
the wireless channel in highway traffic scenarios,
warning messages may not be correctly delivered in time
[8]. Specifically, the wireless channel between vehicles
is affected by various propagation phenomena, such as
shadowing and multipath fading. Multipath fading
occurs due to sometimes constructive, sometimes
destructive interference between two or more echoes of
the transmitted signal, arriving at the receiver at slightly
different times.
Using V2V communication, when a vehicle on the road
acts abnormally, e.g., deceleration exceeding a certain
threshold, dramatic change of moving direction, major
mechanical failure, etc. it is said to be an abnormal
vehicle (AV) [10]. An AV actively generates Emergency
Warning Messages (EWMs), which include the
geographical location, speed, acceleration and moving
direction of the AV, to warn other surrounding vehicles.
A receiver of the warning messages can then determine
the relevancy to the emergency based on the relative
motion between the AV and itself [10].
Challenge 1: Stringent delay requirements immediately
after the emergency
In general, the faster the warning messages are
successfully received by the endangered vehicles, the
higher the possibility for vehicle drivers to react.
Therefore, it is very important to achieve high delivery
ratio and low latency in delivering warning messages [8].
Challenge 2: Support of multiple co-existing AVs over a
longer period
After an emergency event happens, the AV can stay in
the abnormal state for a period of time. For example, if a

vehicle stops in the middle of a highway due to

mechanical failure, it remains hazardous to any
approaching vehicles, and hence, remains an abnormal
vehicle until it is removed off the road [10].
Challenge 3: Differentiation of emergency events and
elimination of redundant EWMs
Emergency events from AVs following different
lanes/trajectories usually have different impact on
surrounding vehicles, hence, should be differentiated
from each other [10].
Furthermore, in conventional broadcast protocols, a large
amount of overhead is broadcast within networks,
resulting in long contention and excessive packet
collisions [8].
VI.
SECURITY
THREATS
IN
V2V
COMMUNICATIONS
Some of the security threats in V2V communications
involve Availability, Authenticity, and Confidentiality.
1. Threat to Availability-The following threats of
availability of vehicle-2-vehicle communications has
been identified.
iDenial of Service Attack: DoS attacks can
be carried out by network insiders and
outsiders and renders the network
unavailable to authentic users by flooding
and jamming [11].
iiMalware: The introduction of malware, such
as viruses or worms, into VANETs has the
potential to cause serious disruption to its
operation [11].
iiiSpamming: The presence of spam messages
on VANETs elevates the risk of increased
transmission latency [11].
2. Threat to Authenticity- Providing authenticity in a
vehicular network involves protecting legitimate
nodes from inside and/or outside attackers
infiltrating the network using a false identity.
iGlobal Positioning System (GPS) Spoofing:
The GPS satellite maintains a location table
with the geographic location and identity of
all vehicles on the network [11]. An attacker
can fool other vehicles into thinking they are
different location by producing false reading
on the GPS system.
iiMessage Tampering: A threat to authenticity
can result from an attacker modifying the
messages exchanged in vehicle to vehicle or
vehicle
to
roadside
equipment
communication.
3. Threats to Confidentiality- Confidentiality of
messages exchanged between the nodes of a
vehicular network are particularly vulnerable with
163

www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

techniques such as the illegitimate collection of

messages through eavesdropping and the gathering
of location information available through the
transmission of broadcast messages.
VII. MOST SUITABLE PROTOCOL FOR V2V
COMMUNICATION
The Most suitable protocol for V2V is the Joint
V2V/V2R Communication protocol.
A joint vehicle-vehicle/vehicle-roadside communication
protocol is proposed for cooperative collision avoiding in
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) [8]. In this
protocol,
emergency
warning
messages
are
simultaneously transmitted via Vehicle-to-Vehicle
(V2V) and Vehicle-to-Roadside (V2R) communications
in order to achieve different multipath routing.
First, V2V and V2R (R2V) communications are
combined to suppress the impact of the unreliability of
the wireless channel by exploiting the multi-route
diversity.
Second, a mechanism similar to Intelligent Broadcast
with Implicit Acknowledgement (I-BIA) is employed to
reduce the redundant warning messages and
consequently reduce the packet collisions. [11] Third,
MC techniques are employed to eliminate co-channel
interference between V2V and V2R (R2V)
communications by assigning a different frequency band
to each.
VIII. SIMULATION RESULTS DISCUSSION
The performance of the proposed joint V2V/V2R (R2V)
communication protocol is put to test in a single-lane
highway traffic and a three-lane highway traffic
scenarios with the aid of real-time simulation test-bed
with IEEE 802.11b standard used. In the physical layer,
the receiver sensitivity is 93.0dBm, the IEEE 802.11b
data-rate is 2Mbps, and the noise factor is 10.0. The
transmission power in V2V communication mode is set
to 10.5dBm and 9.5dBm in V2R (R2V) communication.
Small-sized omnidirectional antennas with 0dB antenna
gain are used on vehicles, while big-sized
omnidirectional antennas with 20dB antenna gain are
installed on roadside units. The average transmit/receive
range for V2V communication is 125 meters and the
average transmit/receive range for V2R/R2V
communication is 1500 meters. Without loss of
generality, Rician fading channels with different K
factors are used to comparatively study the proposed
joint communication protocol. In the MAC layer, the
retransmission limit is 6. The emergency warning
message's size is 64 bytes. The periodic time for the
source vehicle to retransmit warning messages to the
roadside unit is set to 0.01 second, while the periodic
time for all vehicles to rebroadcast a warning message to
neighboring vehicles is set to 0.005 second. The random

duration waiting for warning messages from vehicles

behind is between 0 to 0.003 seconds [11].
Two cases are considered here, which are the singlelane and the multiple lane scenario where 15 vehicles are
driving at the speed of 30m/s and 45 vehicles are driving
at the speed of 30m/s respectively and the lane is of 3
meters width. The distance between vehicles is around
50 meters while the vehicle length is 4 meters. The main
focus here is to improve the message delivery ratio and
average delay i.e. latency
The performance of the proposed joint V2V/V2R (R2V)
communication protocol is put into test on a single-lane
highway traffic scenario. The message delivery ratio of
three communication protocols, which are, the protocol
using only V2V communication, the protocol using only
V2R (R2V) communication and the proposed joint
V2V/V2R (R2V) protocol, is studied and compared in
Figure 1 below where the k factor of the Rician
channel is 50.

Figure 3: Single-lane highway traffic scenario, Source

[11]
A multilane highway traffic scenario is used to
investigate the proposed joint V2V/V2R (R2V)
communication protocol, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 4: Multilane highway traffic scenario. Source [11]

164
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 2 Issue 11, November 2015, ISSN 2348 8050

IX. CONCLUSION
Rapid demand in mobile communication has spurred the
need for technological advancements in the
communication field. This research has thus reviewed
the mobile ad hoc network (MANET) and its routing
protocols, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages
of each. A case study of vehicle to vehicle
communication has been analyzed. Vehicles have the
ability to move fast therefore causing difficulties to
predict traffic variations, a joint V2V/V2R (R2V)
communication protocol has been proposed for collision
avoidance in order to improve the communication
reliability and achieve low latency.

[10]

[11]

for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications, Le

Theleme.
X. Yang, J. Liu, F. Zhao, Nitin H. Vaidya, A
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication Protocol for
Cooperative Collision Warning.
S. Zeadally, R. Hunt, Yuh-Shyan Chen, A.
Irwin, A. Hassan, Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
(VANETS): Status, Results, and Challenges.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Imrich Chlamtac, Marco Conti, Jennifer J.-N.

Liu, Mobile ad hoc networking: Imperatives
and Challenges
Atul Yadav, Parag Joshi, International Journal
of Electronics and Computer Science
Engineering Performance of Flat Routing
Protocols in MANET.
Basu Dev Shivahare, Charu Wahi, Shalini
Shivhare, International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering - (ISSN
2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2012) Comparison of Proactive and Reactive Routing
Protocols in Mobile Ad hoc Network Using
Routing Protocol Property.
Amit Shrivastava, Aravinth Raj Shanmogavel,
Avinash Mistry, Nitin Chander, Prashanth
Patlolla, Vivek Yadlapalli, Overview of
Routing Protocols in Manet and Enhancements
in Reactive Protocols.
Juan Carlos Cano, Pietro Manzoni1, A
Performance
Comparison
of
Energy
Consumption for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Routing Protocols2000)
(Ejiro .E. Igbesoko, Thaddeus OnyinyeEze, Mona
Ghassemian , Performance Analysis of MANET
Routing
Protocols
over
Different
Mobility Models, 2009).
,

(L. Ertaul, D. Ibrahim Evaluation of Secure

Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Network
2004)
B. Hu and H. Gharavi, International Journal of
Vehicular Technology Volume 2011 (2011),
Article ID 718048, 10 p, a Joint VehicleVehicle/Vehicle-Roadside
Communication
Protocol for Highway Traffic Safety.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/718048.
H. Menouar, M. Lenardi, and F. Filali, A
Movement prediction-based Routing Protocol

165
www.ijete.org