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 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

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: +92-300539-7149; 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).

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.

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 pretrip traffic assistance etc. An interesting application is eToll plaza, where vehicles dont 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.

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

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.

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 ADHOCMAC 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

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

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.

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 1609.2 1609.3 Specifies the services and interfaces of the WAVE Resource Manager application Defines secure message formats and processing Defines network and transport layer services including addressing and routing, in support of secure WAVE data exchange Enables operation of upper layers across multiple channels, without requiring knowledge of PHY parameters Define the WAVE signaling technique and interface functions that are controlled by the IEEE 802.11 MAC

1609.4

802.11p

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 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.

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. Thats 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 (ASTAR) 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 Dijkstras 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. Intracluster nodes communicate via direct links, whereas inter-cluster communication is performed via clusterheads. 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.
[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16] [17]

[18]

REFERENCES
[1] Hartenstein, H. et al., Position-Aware Ad Hoc Wireless Networks for Inter-Vehicle Communications: The FleetNet Project, MobiHoc 01: Proc. 2nd ACM Intl. 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. Strm, 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 (WCNC03), 2003 [11] H. Daizo, Iwahashi, T., Bandai, M., and Watanabe, An InterVehicle Communication MAC Protocol Supported by Roadside

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

Communication and its Extension, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM international Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks Philadelphia, PA, USA, Oct 01, 2004 Task Group p, IEEE P802.11p: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE), draft standard ed., IEEE Computer Society, 2006. C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, Ad Hoc OnDemand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, RFC 3561, Network Working Group, 2003 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 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 T. Clausen, et al., Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR), RFC 3626, Network Working Group, Oct. 2003 R. Ogier, et al., Topology Dissemination Based on ReversePath Forwarding (TBRPF), RFC 3684, Network Working Group, Feb. 2004 M. Gerla, X. Hong, G. Pei, "Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR)", IETF Internet Draft, work in progress, draft-ietf-manetfsr-03.txt, July 2002 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 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 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 H. Fler, 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. 4749, Jan. 2003 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. 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. C. Lochert, M. Mauve, H. Fler, and H. Hartenstein, Geographic Routing in City Scenarios, ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review (MC2R), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6972, Jan. 2005. C. Lochert, H. Hartenstein, J. Tian, D. Herrmann, H. Fler, and M. Mauve, A Routing Strategy for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks in City Environments, in Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV2003), pp. 156161, June 2003. 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. 134143, 2004.

[27]

[28] Y. B. Ko, N.H. Vaidy, Location-Aided Routing (LAR) in Mobile Ad Hoc Network, Proceedings of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM98, Dallas, Texas, United States, pp. 6675. 1998 [29] C. R. Lin, and M. Gerla, Adaptive Clustering for Mobile Wireless Networks, IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 12651275, 1997. [30] B. Das, and V. Bharghavan, Routing in Ad Hoc Networks Using Minimum Connected Dominating Sets, in 1997 IEEE International Conference on on Communications (ICC97), vol. 1, pp. 376380, 1997. [31] J. Wu, and H. Li, A Dominating Set Based Routing Scheme in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, the special issue on Wireless Networks in the Telecommunication Systems Journal, vol. 3, pp. 6384, 2001. [32] J. Blum, A. Eskandarian, and L. Hoffman, Mobility 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. 8091, 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 HighMobility 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, Elseviers Ad-Hoc Networks 1 (4) 351369. 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

Research in Networks and Telecommunication (CoReNeT). His research interests include routing issues for wireless ad hoc networks. Amir Qayyum (aqayyum@ieee.org) received his Bachelors in Electrical Engineering from U.E.T., Lahore, Pakistan in 1991, then M.S. in Computer Engineering from E.S.I.M., France in 1995, then D.E.A. from University of Paris-Sud, France in 1996 and then Doctorate from University of Paris-Sud, France in 2000. He is currently a professor at M. A. Jinnah University, Islamabad and also the head of the Center of Research in Networks and Telecommunication (CoReNeT). His current research interests include mobility management framework for mobile devices, QoS and scalable multicast in IPv6 networks, MANETs and VANETs, VoIP and network security.

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