Vehicular Ad Hoc Network

(VANET): Enabling Secure and

Efficient Transportation System
Saira Gillani
M. A. Jinnah University
Imran Khan
M. A. Jinnah University
Shahid Qureshi
Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering
Amir Qayyum
M. A. Jinnah University

concept of ubiquitous computing for future. Vehicles

ABSTRACT
An ad hoc network consisting of vehicles has
emerged as an interesting but challenging domain where
lot of new application may find their place. In this paper,
a survey of potential applications, medium access control
schemes and routing protocols for VANETs is presented.
Applicability of various medium access (MAC) schemes
including IEEE 802.11p, which is the proposed MAC for
VANETs, is also given. In the routing area, various
protocols proposed for VANETs from the reactive,
proactive, hierarchical and position-based routing
schemes are discussed and analyzed.
INTRODUCTION
VEHICULAR Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) is a new
challenging network environment that pursues the
Manuscript received December 16, 2008; revised January 12, 2009.
S. Gillani is a member of Center of Research in Networks and Telecommunication
(CoReNeT) at M. A. Jinnah University, Islamabad (e-mail: sairagilani@yahoo.com).
I. Khan is a member of Center of Research in Networks and Telecommunication
(CoReNeT) at M. A. Jinnah University, Islamabad 44000 Pakistan (phone: +92-300-
539-7149; e-mail: imrankhan1984@gmail.com).
S. Qureshi is with the Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering, Islamabad,
44000, Pakistan and is a member of Center of Research in Networks and
Telecommunication (CoReNeT) (e-mail: mshahidqureshi@gmail.com).
A. Qayyum is the head of Center of Research in Networks and Telecommunication
(CoReNeT) at M. A. Jinnah University, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan (e-mail:
aqayyum@ieee.org).
equipped with wireless communication technologies
and acting like computers will be on our roads soon and
this will revolutionize our concept of traveling.
VANETs bring lot of possibilities for new range of
applications which will not only make our travel safer
but fun as well. Reaching to a destination or getting
help will be much easier. The concept of VANETs is
quite simple: by incorporating the wireless
communication and data sharing capabilities, the
vehicles can be turned into a network providing similar
services to the ones we are used to in our office or
home networks.
For the wide spread and ubiquitous use of VANETs, a
number of technical challenges exist. Several academic
and industrial projects were initiated to address these
challenges. One of the earliest European projects was
FleetNet (Sep 2000 – Dec 2003) [1]. Its objectives were
to develop a platform for inter-vehicular
communication, implement demonstrator applications
and then to standardize the solutions. Some other
prominent projects include Network on Wheels (NoW)
[2] and CarTALK2000 [3]. Car-to-Car Communication
Consortium (C2C-CC) [4] is an umbrella organization
overseeing VANET research activities in Europe. It
includes many automobile industry members like
Daimler, BMW, Audi, Fiat, Renault and some German
universities. The overall objective of C2C-CC is to
initiate, develop and oversee vehicle to vehicle
communication standards, business models and
regulatory matters in European Union.
VANETs are considered as an off-shoot of Mobile Ad
hoc Networks (MANETs), however they have some
distinguishing characteristics too. The solutions proposed
for MANETs need to be evaluated carefully in order to
be used in VANET context. In many ways VANETs are
also similar to MANETs. For example, both networks are
multi-hop mobile networks having dynamic topology.
There is no central entity, and nodes themselves route
data across the network. Both MANETs and VANETs
are rapidly deployable without the need of an
infrastructure.
MANET and VANET, both are mobile networks;
however, the mobility pattern of VANET nodes is such
that they move on specific paths (roads) and hence not in
random direction. This gives VANETs some advantage
over MANETs as the mobility pattern of VANET nodes
is predictable. MANETs are often characterized by
limited storage capacity, low battery and processing
power. VANETs, on the other hand, do not have such
limitations. Sufficient storage capacity and high
processing power can be easily made available in
vehicles. Moreover vehicles also have enough battery
power to allow for long range communication. Another
difference is highly dynamic topology of VANETs
because vehicles may move at high velocities. This
makes the lifetime of communication links between
nodes quite short. Node density is also unpredictable;
during rush hours the roads are crowded with vehicles,
whereas at other times lesser vehicles are there. Similarly
some roads have more traffic than other roads.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows; section 2
presents VANET applications and their requirements,
section 3 describes the MAC layer schemes that can be
used in VANETs, section 4 surveys the various routing
protocols proposed for VANETs and section 5 concludes
the paper.
APPLICATIONS
For the purpose of illustration, VANET applications
may be divided into following categories.
SAFETY APPLICATIONS
Road safety applications can play an important role in
avoiding accidents or at least minimizing the impact of
accidents, if accident is unavoidable. An early warning
system can alert the driver about the road scenario, e.g.,
an accident, thus giving the driver enough time to apply
brakes well before hitting the accident place. According
to a study, if the driver gets a warning half a second
before the collision, more than half of the accidents can
be avoided [5]. Another study found that collisions at
intersections account for almost half of the overall road
collisions [6]. This number can also be reduced with
the help of early warning system. Some other kind of
warning systems can also be deployed to avoid the
accidents, e.g., work zone warning, stopped vehicle
warning, low bridge warning for trucks, etc.
Safety applications demand strict time delay bounds.
Even a fraction of a second is important in decision
making. Thus the requirement of hard deadline posed
by the safety applications requires special handling at
lower layers. As network layer is concerned, not much
routing is involved in safety applications, because the
target audiences for the messages are usually in the
neighbourhood. Therefore the messages need not to be
sent to nodes more than one hop away. This fact puts
the whole burden on MAC layer, which needs to
deliver the message with minimum delay. Detailed
discussion on MAC layer and routing is presented in
later sections.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Another application for VANETs is to tackle road
congestions and provide the best route to a driver with
updated road conditions. This can involve the use of
some road side equipment e.g., intelligent traffic
signals, e-sign boards etc. Information about the road
congestions ahead can definitely help in reducing the
congestion and improving the capacity of roads. Some
other applications can also be envisioned like
automated call to emergency services, en-route and pre-
trip traffic assistance etc. An interesting application is
eToll plaza, where vehicles don’t need to stop to pay
toll fee. Vehicles can communicate with the roadside
infrastructure, where it can be recognized and a fee can
be charged against its account.
Congestion at road intersections can be handled in an
efficient manner using intelligent traffic signals. These
traffic signals can adjust themselves in response to the
traffic conditions at intersection and can even
communicate the status to neighbouring intersections.
Neighbouring intersections can thus display this
information on the e-sign boards and adjust their traffic
signals accordingly.
Traffic management applications extensively use the road
side infrastructure. Some infrastructure may be available
to be used by any user while some will need
subscription. For example, e-Toll infrastructure will
require a subscription to offer its services. For these
applications, the infrastructure needs to be managed and
updated. For these applications to work, the
infrastructure with relevant information needs to be
managed and controlled.
USER APPLICATIONS
Besides road safety applications, information and
entertainment applications are also envisioned for
VANETs. The passengers in a vehicle can enjoy the
facility of Internet connectivity where other traditional
wireless internet connectivity options (Wi-Fi, Wi-MAX
etc.) are not available. Even in the presence of such
options, a node connected to internet through these
options, can share its connectivity with other vehicles
through VANET. Peer-to-peer applications can also find
their place in VANETs, e.g., gaming, chatting, file
sharing, etc.
The messages sent by such type of applications usually
need to be delivered over multiple hops, hence routing
will be involved. However, routing in VANETs has its
own challenges which need to be addressed by the
routing protocol of the VANET. Lot of research is being
done in the routing domain also, which will be covered
in the routing section.
MEDIUM ACCESS CONTROL (MAC) SCHEMES
FOR VANETS
MAC layer protocols are responsible for maintaining
order and managing use of a shared medium. These
protocols decide which node will access the medium at
any time. As previously mentioned, safety critical
applications demand tight delay bounds. These
applications are designed to alert drivers about
immediate danger. So, a MAC scheme is needed to take
care of these strict application requirements.
There are two basic strategies for channel acquisition.
One is contention free or controlled access protocols, like
Time Division Multiplexing Access (TDMA) and
Frequency Division Multiplexing Access (FDMA), in
which access to the medium is pre-allocated. The
drawback of these protocols is that they need a central
entity responsible for fair distribution of channel
resources among nodes. The other is contention based or
random access protocols, like Carrier Sense Multiple
Access (CSMA), in which there is a single shared
broadcast channel. In these types of protocols, collision
may occur, and due to collisions, packets suffer
unbounded delays [7].
VANET protocols need to reduce the medium access
delay for traffic safety applications that demand shorter
delay to transmit data [8]. In addition to this, the
hidden and exposed terminal problem makes it
difficult to provide reliable communication in
wireless networks. Therefore, although deterministic
MAC protocols appear to be more suitable for
VANETs, the need of a central entity opposes the basic
theme of VANETs (an ad-hoc network of vehicles).
Hence, VANET must support contention based MAC
protocols.
There are many MAC issues in VANETs, like
prioritized access, unpredictable response and
reliability. These should be assured because these are
basic requirements of safety applications. The hidden
terminal problem and exposed node problem make
it difficult to provide reliable transmission in
wireless networks. Many MAC layer techniques are
available to solve these problems. Some MAC
protocols have been evaluated in VANETs perspective.
The European project FleetNet [1] proposes an
approach, Reliable R-Aloha (RR-Aloha) based on
slotted Aloha. It implements TDMA in a distributed
way where nodes perform a reservation to acquire slots
[9].
ADHOC MAC is a protocol based on the slotted time
structure [10]. It was developed for the CarTALK2000
project [3]. It provides a distributed reservation
protocol to dynamically establish a reliable single hop
broadcast channel (BCH). A drawback of ADHOC-
MAC is that the number of vehicles in same
communication range must not be greater than the
number of slots in the frame time [8]. Another MAC
protocol, Direct and Relay protocol for Vehicle
Communications (DRVC) has been developed for
higher reach ability than ordinary DSRC protocol [11].
IEEE 802.11 is most widely used wireless local area
network standard. This standard is based on CSMA/CA
and is employed in almost all variants of IEEE802.11
like 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and new coming
standard 802.11p. IEEE 802.11b uses Direct Sequence
Spread Spectrum (DSSS) as modulation scheme which
reduces multi path fading. IEEE 802.11a/g both use
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
as modulation scheme. IEEE 802.11 tackles hidden and
exposed node problem by using Request To Send (RTS)
and Clear To Send (CTS) mechanism. Both, 802.11b and
802.11g standards are used in many VANET prototypes,
e.g. NoW project used 802.11b standard in their
prototypes [2].
IEEE 802.11 variants like a/b/g/n are not suitable for
VANET because all these variants use unlicensed
frequency bands that are not specified for vehicular
environments. Another drawback of these variants is the
latency involved due to channel access, association and
authentication processes. In VANET, due to high speed
of vehicles, safety applications become meaningless if
the connection setup delay before the start of
communication is too long.
Currently, IEEE is working on the 802.11p - local area
network standard that is based on IEEE 802.11 Enhanced
Distributed Channel Access (EDCA). Wireless Access
for Vehicular Environment (WAVE) is an architecture
that defines a new standard for vehicular communication
[12]. Figure 1 illustrates the WAVE architecture.
Figure 1: Wireless Access Vehicular Environments (WAVE)
Architecture
Upper layer protocols and services requirements of
WAVE are described by IEEE 1609 standards. In Table
1 Operation of WAVE entities is briefly described. IEEE
802.11p provides foundation for WAVE signaling
technique and interface functions that are controlled by
the IEEE 802.11 MAC. It proposes to amend the overall
IEEE 802.11 standard [7]. It is envisioned to play an
anchor role for future inter-vehicular communication.
IEEE 802.11p starts from the allocation of 75MHz
Dedicated Short Range communication (DSRC)
spectrum at 5.9GHz band (U.S) and 5.8GHz band
(Japan and Europe) especially for vehicular
communication. This channel allocation is free but it
uses licensed frequency band. DSRC has seven
channels each with 10 MHz frequency band. One of the
channels is control channel which is specific for safety
applications and therefore is a high priority channel.
Other channels are service channels which can be used
for safety as well as non safety applications.
TABLE 1
OPERATIONS OF WAVE FUNCTIONAL ENTITIES
1609.1 Specifies the services and interfaces of the WAVE
Resource Manager application
1609.2 Defines secure message formats and processing
1609.3 Defines network and transport layer services
including addressing and routing, in support of
secure WAVE data exchange
1609.4 Enables operation of upper layers across multiple
channels, without requiring knowledge of PHY
parameters
802.11p Define the WAVE signaling technique and interface
functions that are controlled by the IEEE 802.11
MAC
ROUTING STRATEGIES FOR VANETS
VANETs consist of mobile nodes having dynamic
topology; hence the mechanism of finding, maintaining
and using routes for communication is not trivial for
fast moving vehicles. Short lifetime of communication
link, less path redundancy, unpredictable node density
and strict application requirements make routing in
VANETs quite challenging. In the related and similar
domain of MANETs, there has been extensive research
about the routing protocols during the past decade.
Early VANET prototypes and studies have used
MANET routing protocols as such, but later on, these
protocols are adapted for the VANET environment.
 Figure 2: Categories of routing protocols
In this survey, the routing protocols for VANETs are
classified into three main categories; ad hoc routing
protocols (developed for MANETs), position-based
routing protocols, and cluster-based routing protocols.
Additionally, a hybrid routing protocol, which combines
the first two approaches, is also discussed in brief. Figure
2 illustrates the routing protocols categories.
AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Because MANETs and VANETs have many similar
characteristics, hence early studies about VANETs made
use of the routing protocols developed for MANETs. Ad
hoc routing protocols are classified into two main
categories: proactive and reactive.
Proactive routing protocols continuously update the
routing table, thus generating sustained routing overhead,
whereas reactive routing protocols do not periodically
update the routing table. Instead, when there is some data
to send, they initiate route discovery process through
flooding which is their main routing overhead. Reactive
routing protocols also suffer from the initial latency
incurred in the route discovery process, which make
them unsuitable for safety applications. AODV [13],
DSR [14] and TORA [15] are the examples of reactive
routing protocols whereas OLSR [16], TBRPF [17] and
FSR [18] are the examples of proactive routing
protocols.
Several comparative studies [19], [20], [21] have been
conducted to evaluate performance of the ad hoc routing
protocols in VANETs. In [19] the performance of
AODV, DSR, TORA and FSR is evaluated. The
simulation carried out depicts an urban scenario; it shows
that AODV performed better than others. TORA suffered
due to high routing overhead, resulting in low
throughput. DSR and FSR both had similar performance
expect that DSR had higher average delay than FSR.
Another study carried out performance comparison of
AODV and OLSR in urban environments and found that
OLSR outperforms AODV in VANETs [20]. The study
uses many performance metrics (such as Packet Delivery
Ratio (PDR) against average velocity, Constant Bit Rate
(CBR) data generation, node density, Routing Overhead
Ratio (ROR) against CBR data generation and node
density, delay and average number of hops, etc.) and
evaluated protocols on them. OLSR was able to cope
with node density, end-to-end delays and has less ROR
and high PDR than AODV. When a path failed, the
proactive nature of OLSR allowed it to use another path
already present. AODV, on the other hand, first
discovered route and then used it. That’s why the PDR
of OLSR was higher, and ROR was lower than AODV.
In [21] AODV, DSR and OLSR are simulated to
measure their performance in urban environment with
traffic signals and stop signs. The results again show
that OLSR out performs both AODV and DSR in the
urban environment. Better throughput, little or no delay
and jitter make OLSR a better choice over other ad hoc
routing protocols. This study again builds a favorable
case for OLSR. In urban environments, the reactive
routing protocols suffer largely because of frequent link
failures, and network partitioning, while proactive
routing protocols avoid these problems. From [20] and
[21], it can be concluded that proactive routing
protocols are a better choice for urban environments.
POSITION BASED ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Constrained mobility of VANET nodes (restricted to
the roads) make it possible to leverage the benefits of
position based routing protocols. Many new vehicles
have on-board navigation system, which can be used to
obtain location information. Additionally, information
from digitized street maps can also provide location
information. GPSR is quite well known position based
routing protocol. GPSR works best in open spaces,
where there are no obstacles between the
communication nodes.
A study [22] shows that position based routing protocol
like Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) [23] is
able to perform better than ad hoc routing protocol like
DSR. The study simulated GPSR against DSR in a
highway scenario and showed near 100% PDR for
GPSR, whereas DSR performed poorly. However, the
performance of GPSR in urban scenario is not shown.
Another study addressed this point and showed that
obstacles found in urban environment, and where some
roads have more vehicles than others, often leads to
poor performance of GPSR [24]. Greedy Perimeter
Coordinator Routing (GPCR) [25] and Geographic
Source Routing (GSR) [26] are other two proposed
routing protocols, to improve the performance of GPSR
in urban environment.
Anchor-based Street and Traffic Aware Routing (A-
STAR) is another approach to overcome the problems
faced in the urban settings by position based routing
protocols [27]. A-STAR uses street maps to compute
the sequences of junctions, called Anchors, through
which a packet must pass. Paths are computed with
traffic awareness using Dijkstra’s shortest path
algorithm. If an anchor point is not reachable, it is
marked as ‘out-of-service’ temporarily, so that no other
node uses that particular anchor. In this study, A-STAR
is compared with GPSR and GSR in urban environment.
It shows that as the node density increases, A-STAR has
better delivery ratio as compared to both GPSR and
GSR. All three protocols have almost similar end-to-end
delay as number of nodes increase. In another scenario,
as the number of hops increase, i.e. sender and receiver
are far away from each other, A-STAR out performs both
GPSR and GSR in terms of accumulated number of
packets delivered. This performance gain is because of
the presence of dedicated points (anchors), which are
responsible for routing the packets.
Location Aware Routing (LAR) [28] is another position
based routing algorithm. It uses location information and
average speed of the destination, to mark an expected
zone that may contain destination node. A route request
is flooded in this small expected zone, creating a request
zone. Only the nodes inside the request zone participate
in routing of the data. In this study, LAR is compared
against pure flooding mechanism and it is shown that
LAR uses less routing packets per data packet as
compared to pure flooding, which is expected, as LAR
only floods a small portion of the network.
CLUSTER BASED ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Cluster-based routing (CBR) protocols make use of
virtually created groups [24]. Vehicles travelling on
highways often travel in segments. Hence vehicles
moving in the same direction may form a cluster. Each
cluster has one cluster-head, which is responsible for
intra and inter-cluster management functions. Intra-
cluster nodes communicate via direct links, whereas
inter-cluster communication is performed via cluster-
heads. An important issue in CBR is the formation of
clusters and the selection of the cluster-head.
Clustering for Open Inter Vehicular Communication
Networks (COIN) is a simple cluster-based routing
protocol [32]. The mechanism of forming cluster is same
as described above, except the selection of cluster-head.
This routing protocol uses an algorithm which makes use
of driver intentions and vehicular dynamics for selecting
cluster-head. Simulation studies show that by using this
algorithm, cluster life time is increased and changes in
cluster membership are reduced. This algorithm used
only those nodes as cluster heads that were able to lead
the cluster for longer duration. Fewer changes in cluster
membership improved performance considerably.
Another cluster-based routing protocol is Location
based Routing Algorithm with Cluster Based Flooding
(LORA_CBF) [33]. In this algorithm two new network
entities, gateway and cluster member, are introduced in
addition to the cluster-head. A gateway is a node
connected to more than one clusters while cluster
member is an ordinary node. Every cluster has only one
cluster-head. Packets are sent from source to
destination using greedy routing. If there is no route
available then a request message is generated. Only
cluster-heads and gateway will forward this message
and the reply against it. Simulations show an improved
performance by LORA_CBF as compared to reactive
routing protocols like AODV and DSR. However, the
comparison between cluster-based techniques and
proactive routing protocols is not given in this study.
Many cluster-based routing protocols have been
proposed for MANETs [29], [30], [31]. These protocols
may not be suitable for VANETs as they were
developed without considering the characteristics of
VANETs, like highly dynamic topology, short link life
time etc.
HYBRID ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Terminode Routing (TMNR) [34] is a hybrid approach
of both location based and table-driven routing
technique. TMNR essentially stores location
information of one and two hop neighbors in routing
table. Whenever there is some data to send, local
routing table is consulted and data is sent to next hop.
When there is no information stored about the
destination node, then a ‘Direct Path Technique’ (DPT)
is used. The ability of using position information and
table-driven routing technique has improved the
performance of TMNR.
A study [35], evaluates the performance of ad hoc,
position based and hybrid routing protocols. This study
has compiled comprehensive results of routing
protocols in high mobility and large obstacles
environment. Overall it was found that position based
routing protocols and TMNR have better performance
than ad hoc routing protocols as they offer better
routing for fast moving vehicles. Moreover, position
based and hybrid routing protocols can handle large
number of communicating nodes and cover large
terrain size than ad hoc routing protocols. In addition
to these protocols the study also compared two new
protocols; a contention based [36] and a connectionless
protocol [37]. Both protocols performed better than
position-based, ad hoc and hybrid protocols.

CONCLUSION
We have presented VANETs by highlighting three of
its important areas: applications, MAC layer schemes and
routing protocols. The applications envisioned are likely
to find their place in inter-vehicular communication,
hence making the widespread deployment of VANETs
possible in near future. Although various MAC schemes
are proposed for VANETs, but the key factors for their
success will be high reliability and minimum latency.
Several routing protocols, mostly the reactive and
position-based schemes are proposed for VANETs.
However we believe that proactive protocols will also
play a very important role in VANET scenario.
Moreover, there is lack of profound performance
evaluation of routing protocols in VANET context. The
few studies that are currently available are not only
limited in scope but also restricted to a specific scenario.
REFERENCES
[1] Hartenstein, H. et al., “Position-Aware Ad Hoc Wireless
Networks for Inter-Vehicle Communications: The FleetNet
Project,” MobiHoc ’01: Proc. 2nd ACM Int’l. Symp. Mobile Ad
Hoc Networking & Computing, New York: ACM Press, pp. 259–
62, 2001
[2] M. Torrent-Moreno, S. Schnaufer, R. Eigner, C. Catrinescu, and
J. Kunisch, "’NoW – Network on Wheels’: Project Objectives,
Technology and Achievements,” 5th International Workshop on
Intelligent Transportation (WIT), pages 211 - 216, Hamburg,
Germany, March 2008
[3] D. Reichardt, Miglietta, M. Moretti, L. Morsink, P. Schulz,
W. "CarTALK 2000: Safe and Comfortable Driving Based upon
Inter Vehicle Communication," Intelligent Vehicle Symposium,
2002. IEEE, volume 2, pp 545-550, Mar 2003
[4] “Car 2 Car Communiaction Consortium Manifesto,” version 1.1,
technical report, Aug 2007 Available: www.car-to-car.org
[5] C. D.Wang, and J. P. Thompson, “Apparatus and Method for
Motion Detection and Tracking of Objects in a Region for
Collision Avoidance Utilizing a Real-Time Adaptive
Probabilistic Neural Network”, U.S. patent no. 5,613,039, 1997
[6] Reducing Highway Fatalities, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts/road factsheet.htm
[7] K. Bilstrup, E. Uhlemann and E. G. Ström, “Medium Access
Control in Vehicular Networks Based on the Upcoming IEEE
802.11p Standard,” in Proceedings of. World Congress on ITS,
New York City, NY, Nov. 2008, 12 pages,” 2008.
[8] H. Menouar,; Filali, Fethi and Lenardi, Massimiliano “A Survey
and Qualitative Analysis of MAC Protocols for Vehicular Ad
Hoc Networks,” IEEE wireless communications, volume 13,
issue 5, pp 30-35 Oct 2006
[9] F. Borgonovo, A. Capone, M. Cesana, L. Fratta, "RR-ALOHA, a
Reliable R-ALOHA Broadcast Channel for Ad Hoc Inter-Vehicle
Communication Networks", Med-Hoc-Net, Baia Chia, Italy, 2002
[10] F. Borgonovo, A. Capone, M. Cesana, and L. Fratta. “ADHOC
MAC: A New Flexible and Reliable MAC Architecture for Ad
Hoc Networks,” In Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC’03), 2003
[11] H. Daizo, Iwahashi, T., Bandai, M., and Watanabe, “An Inter-
Vehicle Communication MAC Protocol Supported by Roadside
Communication and its Extension,” in Proceedings of the 1st
ACM international Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
Philadelphia, PA, USA, Oct 01, 2004
[12] Task Group p, IEEE P802.11p: Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments (WAVE), draft standard ed., IEEE Computer
Society, 2006.
[13] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, “Ad Hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,” RFC 3561,
Network Working Group, 2003
[14] D. Johnson, B., D. A. Maltz, and Y.-C. Hu, “The Dynamic
Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (DSR),”
draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt, 2004
[15] V. Park, S. Corson, "Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm
(TORA) Version 1 Functional Specification", IETF Internet
draft, work in progress, draft-ietf-manet-tora-spec-04.txt, 2001
[16] T. Clausen, et al., “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
(OLSR),” RFC 3626, Network Working Group, Oct. 2003
[17] R. Ogier, et al., “Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-
Path Forwarding (TBRPF),” RFC 3684, Network Working
Group, Feb. 2004
[18] M. Gerla, X. Hong, G. Pei, "Fisheye State Routing Protocol
(FSR)", IETF Internet Draft, work in progress, draft-ietf-manet-
fsr-03.txt, July 2002
[19] S. Jaap, M. Bechler, L. Wolf, "Evaluation of Routing Protocols
for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks in City Traffic
Scenarios,"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems Telecommunications
(ITST), Brest, France, June 2005
[20] J. Haerri, Filali, F., and Bonnet, C. "Performance Comparison
of AODV and OLSR in VANETs Urban Environments Under
Realistic Mobility Patterns," Proceedings of the 5th IFIP
Mediterranean Ad-Hoc Networking Workshop, June 14--17,
Lipari, Italy, 2006
[21] W. F. Chan, Moh Lim Sim, and Sze Wei Lee, "Performance
Analysis of Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Realistic
Mobility Pattern," Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International
Conference on Telecommunications and Malaysia
International Conference on Communications, 14-17, Penang,
Malaysia, May 2007
[22] H. Füßler, M. Mauve, H. Hartenstein, M. Kasemann, and D.
Vollmer, “Location based Routing for Vehicular Ad Hoc
Networks,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and
Communications Review (MC2R), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 47–49, Jan.
2003
[23] B. Karp, and H.T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless
Routing for Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of the
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing
and Networking (MobiCom), 2000.
[24] F. Li, Yu Wang, "Routing in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: A
survey," IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 2, issue 2,
pp. 12-22, Jun. 2007.
[25] C. Lochert, M. Mauve, H. Füßler, and H. Hartenstein,
“Geographic Routing in City Scenarios,” ACM SIGMOBILE
Mobile Computing and Communications Review (MC2R), vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 69–72, Jan. 2005.
[26] C. Lochert, H. Hartenstein, J. Tian, D. Herrmann, H. Füßler,
and M. Mauve, “A Routing Strategy for Vehicular Ad Hoc
Networks in City Environments,” in Proceedings of IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV2003), pp. 156–161, June
2003.
[27] G. Liu, B.-S. Lee, B.-C. Seet, C.H. Foh, K.J. Wong, and K.-K.
Lee, “A Routing Strategy for Metropolis Vehicular
Communications,” in International Conference on Information
Networking (ICOIN), pp. 134–143, 2004.
[28] Y. B. Ko, N.H. Vaidy, Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Research in Networks and Telecommunication (CoReNeT). His
Ad Hoc Network, Proceedings of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM’98, research interests include routing issues for wireless ad hoc
Dallas, Texas, United States, pp. 66–75. 1998 networks.
[29] C. R. Lin, and M. Gerla, “Adaptive Clustering for Mobile
Wireless Networks,” IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Amir Qayyum (aqayyum@ieee.org) received his Bachelors in
Communications, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1265–1275, 1997. Electrical Engineering from U.E.T., Lahore, Pakistan in 1991,
[30] B. Das, and V. Bharghavan, “Routing in Ad Hoc Networks then M.S. in Computer Engineering from E.S.I.M., France in
Using Minimum Connected Dominating Sets,” in 1997 IEEE 1995, then D.E.A. from University of Paris-Sud, France in 1996
International Conference on on Communications (ICC’97), vol. and then Doctorate from University of Paris-Sud, France in
1, pp. 376–380, 1997. 2000. He is currently a professor at M. A. Jinnah University,
[31] J. Wu, and H. Li, “A Dominating Set Based Routing Scheme in Islamabad and also the head of the Center of Research in
Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” the special issue on Wireless Networks and Telecommunication (CoReNeT). His current
Networks in the Telecommunication Systems Journal, vol. 3, pp. research interests include mobility management framework for
63–84, 2001. mobile devices, QoS and scalable multicast in IPv6 networks,
[32] J. Blum, A. Eskandarian, and L. Hoffman, “Mobility MANETs and VANETs, VoIP and network security.
Management in IVC Networks,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, 2003.
[33] R. Santos, A. Edwards, R. Edwards, and L. Seed, “Performance
Evaluation of Routing Protocols in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks,”
The International Journal of Ad hoc and Ubiquitous Computing,
vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 80–91, 2005.
[34] L. Blazevic, J. Le Boudec, S. Giordano, A Location-Based
Routing Method for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE
Transactions on Mobile Computing 4 (1) pp. 97-110 2005.
[35] H. Y. Ho, Ai H. Ho, and Kien A. Hua, “Routing Protocols for
Inter-Vehicular Networks: A Comparative Study in High-
Mobility and Large Obstacles Environments,” Computer
Communications Journal - Special Issue on Mobility Protocols
for ITS/VANET pp. 2767-2780. 2008.
[36] H. Fubler, J. Widmer, M. Kasemann, M. Mauve, H. Hartenstein,
Contention-Based Forwarding for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,
Elsevier’s Ad-Hoc Networks 1 (4) 351–369. 2003
[37] Y. H. Ho, A.H. Ho, K.A. Hua, G.L. Hamza-Lup, A
Connectionless Approach to Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, in:
Proceedings of Ninth International Symposium on Computers
and Communications (ISCC), vol. 1, Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 188–
195. 2004

BIOGRAPHY OF AUTHORS
Saira Gillani (sairagilani@yahoo.com) received her M.IT degree
in Information Technology from Bolan University, Quetta,
Baluchistan, Pakistan in 2004. She is an MS student at M.A.
Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan and is a member of
Center of Research in Networks and Telecommunication
(CoReNeT). Her current research activities include investigation
of MAC layer schemes for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks.

Imran Khan (imrankhan1984@gmail.com) received his BCS

degree in Computer Science from COMSATS Institute of
Information Technology, Wah Campus, Punjab, Pakistan in 2005.
He is currently an MS student at M. A. Jinnah University,
Islamabad, Pakistan and is a member of Center of Research in
Networks and Telecommunication (CoReNeT). His research
interests include network, transport layer and mobility
management issues of wireless mobile ad hoc networks.

Shahid Qureshi (mshahidqureshi@gmail.com) received his BE

degree in Software Engineering from National University of
Science and Technology (NUST), Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan
in 2001. Later he received his MS degree in Computer
Engineering from University of Engineering and Technology
(UET), Taxila, Punjab, Pakistan in 2006. Currently he is pursuing
his PhD from Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering
(C@SE), Islamabad, Pakistan, and is a member of Center of