Comparative Study of VANET and MANET Routing Protocols

Prabhakar Ranjan1 , Kamal Kant Ahirwar2

Department of Computer Science & Engineering ,Amity University,Noida
1

prabhakar29may@gmail.com 2 kamalkant25@gmail.com

Abstract A Vehicular Ad-hoc Network (VANET) is a type of Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) that is used to provide communications between nearby vehicles, and between vehicles and fixed infrastructure on the roadside. Though VANET is a type of MANET but the routing protocols of MANET are not feasible with VANET and if they are even feasible then they are not able to provide the optimum throughput required for a fast changing vehicular ad-hoc network. The difference between VANET and MANET is that in VANET, the nodes are moving on predefined roads, and their trails arent too complicated and this is where the routing protocols have to be modified or changed. The differences in the architecture and characteristics have been studied in this paper to suggest the best out of the existing routing protocols. This paper presents the various protocols optimized for both the MANET and VANET. A protocol is analyzed from the existing reactive protocols which will be efficient for both the MANET and VANET.
Keywords Mobile Ad hoc network (MANET), Vehicular Ad-hoc Network (VANET), Proactive, Reactive, Mobility.

poor in VANETs [16]. The main problem with these protocols in VANETs environments is their route instability. The traditional node-centric view of the routes (i.e., an established route is a fixed succession of nodes between the source and destination) leads to frequent broken routes in the presence of VANETs high mobility [20], as illustrated in figure below. Consequently, many packets are dropped and the overhead due to route repairs or failure notifications increases significantly, leading to low delivery ratios and high transmission delays.

I. INTRODUCTION A mobile ad hoc network is a collection of two or more nodes equipped with wireless communications and networking capabilities without central network control, which may be referred to as an infrastructure-less mobile network. Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs) represent a rapidly emerging, particularly challenging class of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs). VANETs are distributed, self organizing communication networks built up by moving vehicles, and are thus characterized by a very high node mobility and limited degrees of freedom in the mobility patterns. We have a number of ad hoc routing protocols [3, 10, 12] for MANETs but when we have to deal with a VANET then we require ad hoc routing protocols that must adapt continuously to the unreliable conditions. Why MANET Protocols Not Feasible in VANETs: Analysis of traditional routing protocols for mobile adhoc networks (MANETs) demonstrated that their performance is

Fig. 1. Routes established as fixed successions of nodes break frequently in highly mobile VANETs. Route (S, N1, D) established at time t breaks at time t + t when N1 moves out of the transmission range of S.

II. MANET(INFRASTRUCTURE LESS(ADHOC)) ARCHITECTURE

AND CHARACTERISTICS

In ad hoc networks all nodes are mobile and can be connected dynamically in an arbitrary manner. As the range of each hosts wireless transmission is limited, so a host needs to enlist the aid of its nearby hosts in forwarding packets to the destination if it wants to communicate with hosts outside its transmission range. So all nodes of these networks behave as routers and take part in route discovery and maintenance of routes to other nodes in the network. The ad-hoc routing protocols can be divided into two categories:

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011) Copyright 2011 RG Education Society ISBN: 978-981-08-7932-7
517

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

Table-Driven Routing Protocols: In table driven routing protocols, consistent and up-to-date routing information to all nodes is maintained at each node. On-Demand Routing Protocols: In On-Demand routing protocols, the routes are created as and when required. When a source wants to send to a destination, it invokes the route discovery mechanisms to find the path to the destination.

4. Limited physical security: Mobile wireless networks are generally more prone to physical security threats than the infrastructure based networks. Hence, the increased possibility of eavesdropping, spoofing and denial-of-service attacks should be carefully considered. To reduce security threats some of the existing link security techniques are often applied within wireless networks. This provides the decentralized nature of network control in MANETs to be robust against the single points of failure of more centralized approaches. III. VANET ARCHITECTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS Wireless ad hoc networks have the characteristic to be infrastructure-less and do not depend on fixed infrastructure for communication and dissemination of information. The architecture of VANET consists of three categories: Pure cellular/WLAN, Pure Ad hoc and hybrid. VANET Characteristics: VANET may use fixed cellular gateways and WLAN/WiMax access points at traffic intersections to connect to the internet, gather traffic information or for routing purposes. This network architecture is called pure cellular or WLAN. VANET can comprise of both cellular network and WLAN to form a network. Stationery or fixed gateways around the road sides also provides connectivity to vehicles. In such a scenario all vehicles and road side devices form a pure mobile ad hoc networks. Hybrid architecture consists of both infrastructure networks and ad hoc networks together. No centralized authority is required in VANET as nodes can self organize and self manage the information in a distributed fashion. Since the nodes are mobile so data transmission is less reliable and sub optimal.

Fig. 2 . A Simple MANET Architecture

MANET Characteristics: 1. Dynamic topologies: Nodes are free to move arbitrarily; thus, the network topology--which is typically multihop--may change randomly and rapidly at unpredictable times, and may consist of both bidirectional and unidirectional links. 2. Bandwidth-constrained, variable capacity links: Wireless links have significantly lower capacity than their hardwired counterparts till date. In addition, the realized throughput of wireless communications--after accounting for the effects of multiple access, fading, noise, and interference conditions, etc.--is often much less than a radio's maximum transmission rate. One effect of the relatively low to moderate link capacities is that congestion is typically the norm rather than the exception, i.e. aggregate application demand will likely approach or exceed network capacity frequently. As the mobile network is often simply an extension of the fixed network infrastructure, MANET users will demand similar services. These demands will continue to increase as multimedia computing and collaborative networking applications rise. 3. Energy-constrained operation: Some or all of the nodes in a MANET may rely on batteries or other exhaustible means for their energy. The most important system design criteria for optimization may be energy conservation for these nodes.

518

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

Fig. 3. VANET Architectures

IV. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANET AND VANET Similar to mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs), nodes in VANETs self-organize and self-manage information in a distributed fashion without a centralized authority or a server dictating the communication. In this type of network, nodes engage themselves as servers and/or clients, thereby exchanging and sharing information like peers. Moreover, nodes are mobile, thus making data transmission less reliable and suboptimal. Apart from these characteristics, VANETs possess a few distinguishing characteristics [8], and hence presents itself as a particular class of MANETs: Highly Dynamic Topology: The topology formed by VANETs is always changing as vehicles are moving at high speed. On highways, vehicles are moving at the speed of 6070 mph (25 m/sec) and vary for different vehicles. If the radio range between two vehicles is 125 m then the link between the two vehicles would last at most 10 sec. Frequently Disconnected Network (Intermittent Connectivity): The highly dynamic topology results in frequently disconnected network since the link between two vehicles can quickly disappear while the two nodes are transmitting information. The problem is further worsened by varying node density where there are different frequency of nodes for different roads and highways. Moreover, disparate

node density during non rush hours results in disconnectivity of nodes. A robust routing protocol is hence needed to recognize the frequent disconnectivity and to provide an alternate link quickly to ensure uninterrupted communication. Patterned Mobility: Vehicles follow a trail or certain mobility pattern which is a function of the underlying roads, the traffic lights, the speed limits, traffic condition and driving behaviors of drivers. Because of the particular mobility pattern, evaluation of VANET routing protocols only makes sense from traces obtained from the pattern. There are several VANET mobility trace generators developed for the testing of VANET routing protocols in simulation. A realistic mobility traces were generated from vehicles [7] to test the protocols. Propagation Model: The propagation model in VANETs is usually not assumed to be free space because of the presence of buildings, trees, vehicles and other obstacles. A VANET propagation model should well consider the effects of static objects as well as potential interference of wireless communication from other vehicles or widely deployed personal access points. Unlimited Battery Power and Storage: The nodes in VANETs are not subject to power and storage limitation as in sensor networks, another class of ad hoc networks where nodes are mostly static. Nodes are assumed to have ample energy and computing power and hence the optimizing duty cycle is not as relevant as it is in sensor networks. On-board Sensors: In VANETs the nodes are assumed to be equipped with sensors to provide information for routing purposes. Many VANET routing protocols have assumed the availability of GPS unit from on-board Navigation system. Location information from GPS unit and speed from speedometer provides good examples for large amount of information that can possibly be obtained by sensors to be utilized to enhance routing decisions. V. ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET The routing protocols in a MANET can be classified as follows: Proactive protocols: In this type of routing protocol, each node in a network maintains one or more routing tables which are updated regularly. Each node sends a broadcast message to the entire network if there is a change in the network topology. However, it incurs additional overhead cost due to maintaining up-to-date information and as a result; throughput of the network may be affected but it provides the actual information to the availability of the network. Distance vector (DV) protocol, Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) protocol, Wireless Routing protocol Fisheye State Routing (FSR) protocol are the examples of Proactive protocols. Reactive Protocols: In this type of routing protocol, each node in a network discovers or maintains a route based on-

519

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

demand. It floods a control message by global broadcast during discovering a route and when route is discovered then bandwidth is used for data transmission. The main advantage is that this protocol needs less touting information but the disadvantages are that it produces huge control packets due to route discovery during topology changes which occurs frequently in MANETs and it incurs higher latency. The examples of this type of protocol are Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Ad-hoc On Demand Routing (AODV) and Associativity Based Routing (ABR) protocols. Hybrid Protocols: It is a combination of proactive and reactive protocols taking the best features from both worlds. An example of hybrid routing protocol is ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol). Three basic routing protocols have been analyzed in this paper, namely; DSR, AODV and FSR.

Fig. 4. Classification of Routing Protocols in MANET

Performance Analysis of MANETs: The simulation results [1, 2, 19] based on the study of various protocols bring out some important characteristic differences between the routing protocols. The presence of high mobility implies frequent link failures and each routing protocol reacts differently during link failures. The different basic working mechanism of these protocols leads to the differences in the performance. DSDV fails to converge below lower pause times. At higher rates of mobility (lower pause times), DSDV does poorly, dropping to a 70% packet delivery ratio. Nearly all of the dropped packets are lost because a stale routing table entry directed them to be forwarded over a broken link. DSDV maintains only one route per destination and since there are no alternate routes, each packet that the MAC layer is unable to deliver is dropped. Both DSR and AODV protocols deliver packets between 85% and 100% in all cases as the packet delivery ratio is independent of offered traffic load. DSDV uses the table-driven approach of maintaining routing information and it is not as adaptive to the route changes that occur during high mobility. In contrast, the ondemand protocols, AODV and DSR use the lazy approach to build the routing information as and when they are created, make them more adaptive and result in better performance, high packet delivery fraction and lower average end-to-end packet delays. The simulation results of Normalized Routing

Load graph with 30 and 40 sources that compare the performances of AODV and DSR lead us to the following conclusions: Effect of Mobility: In the presence of high mobility, link failures can happen very frequently. Link failures trigger new route discoveries in AODV since it has at most one route per destination in its routing table. Thus, the frequency of route discoveries in AODV is directly proportional to the number of route breaks. The reaction of DSR to link failures in comparison is mild and causes route discovery less often. The reason is the abundance of cached routes at each node. Thus, the route discovery is delayed in DSR until all cached routes fail. But with high mobility, the chance of the caches being stale is quite high in DSR. Eventually when a route discovery is initiated, the large number of replies received in response is associated with high MAC overhead and cause increased interference to data traffic. Hence, the cache staleness and high MAC overhead together result in significant degradation in performance for DSR in high mobility scenarios. In lower mobility scenarios, DSR often performs better than AODV, because the chances of find the route in one of the caches is much higher. However, due to the constrained simulation environment (lesser simulation time and lesser mobility models), the better performance of DSR over AODV couldnt be observed. Routing Load Effect: DSR almost always has a lower routing load than AODV. This can be attributed to the caching strategy used by DSR. By virtue of aggressive caching, DSR is more likely to find a route in the cache, and hence resorts to route discovery less frequently than AODV. VI. ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN VANET The routing protocols of VANETs fall into two major categories of topology-based and position-based routing. There are many advantages and disadvantages of these routing protocols. We explore the motivation behind their design and trace the evolution of these routing protocols and analyze there efiiciency with respect to MANETs as there are countless numbers of routing protocols [9, 14, 15] developed in MANETs, but they do not apply well to VANETs which represent a particularly challenging class of MANETs. They are distributed, self-organizing communication networks as described before.

Fig. 5. Classification of VANET Routing Protocols

The detailed coverage of relevant routing protocols and their impact on overall VANET architecture is incomplete without

520

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

a discussion of VANET topics and applications. The different types of VANET architectures can be as shown above in the figure. There are a number of MANET routing protocols and surveys written on them, we will therefore only restrict our attention to MANET routing protocols used in the VANET context. The various protocols used in the VANET context [8] can be described as follows: Fisheye State Routing (A proactive protocol):This is an efficient link state routing that maintains a topology map at each node and propagates link state updates with only immediate neighbors not the entire network[4]. Furthermore, the link state information is broadcast in different frequencies for different entries depending on their hop distance to the current node. Entries that are closer are broadcasted with larger frequency than the farther nodes. The imprecision in routing gets corrected as packets approach progressively closer to the destination due to the reduction in broadcast overhead. AODV Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector: In this routing, upon receipt of a broadcast query (RREQ), nodes record the address of the node sending the query in their routing table (Figure a) or the previous hop and is called backward learning. Upon arriving at the destination, a reply packet (RREP) is then sent through the complete path obtained from backward learning to the source (Figure b). At each step of the path, the node records its previous hop and establishes the forward path from the source.

Fig. 6. Propagation of Packets

This path is maintained as long as the source uses it. A link failure is reported recursively to the source which in turn triggers another query-response procedure to find a new route. AODV+PGB Preferred Group Broadcasting (PGB): This is a broadcasting mechanism and is aimed at reducing broadcast overhead associated with AODVs route discovery and thus provide route stability especially important in VANETs. The receivers then determine whether they are in the preferred group and which one in the group to broadcast

on the basis of the received signal. As only one node is allowed to broadcast and the preferred group is not necessarily the one that makes the most progress towards the destination, the route discovery might take longer than before. One more drawback is that broadcast can discontinue if the group is found to be empty due to presence of sparse networks. Packet duplication can also happen as two nodes in the preferred group can broadcast at the same time. According to Naumov[17] , the way to deal with broadcast duplication is to add packet's predecessors into the packet. This creates the same type of overhead in the packet as DSR. DSR Dynamic Source Routing (DSR): This uses source routing, as the sequence of intermediate nodes on the routing path is maintained in a data packet of the source. In DSR, the IDs of the intermediate nodes that it has traversed are copied in the query packet. The destination then retrieves the entire path from the query packet, and uses it to respond to the source. As a result, the source establishes a path to the destination. If the destination is allowed to send multiple route replies, the source node may receive and store multiple routes from the destination. When some link in the current route breaks then an alternate route is used. In a network with low mobility, this is an advantage over AODV as the alternative route can be tried before the DSR initiates another flood for route discovery. The first difference between AODV and DSR is that in AODV data packets carry the destination address, whereas in DSR, data packets carry the full routing information which shows that DSR has potentially more routing overheads than AODV. Furthermore, as the network diameter increases, the amount of overhead in the data packet continues to increase. The second difference is that in AODV, route reply packets carry the destination address and the sequence number, while in DSR, the route reply packets carry the address of each node along the route. TORA Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA): This routing belongs to a family of link reversal routing algorithms where the height of the tree rooted at the source is used to build a directed acyclic graph (DAG) toward the destination which directs the flow of packets and ensures their reachability to all the nodes. The node broadcasts the packet when it has a packet to send. Its neighbor then broadcasts the packet if it is the sending nodes downward link based on the DAG. A node constructs the directed graph by broadcasting a query packet. Upon receiving a query packet it will broadcast a reply packet, if it has a downward link to the destination; otherwise, it simply drops the packet. A node, upon receiving a reply packet, updates its height only if the height from the reply packet gives the minimum of all the heights from reply packets it has received so far. It then rebroadcasts the reply packet. The advantages of TORA are that the execution of the algorithm gives a route to all the nodes in the network and it reduces far-reaching control

521

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

messages to a set of neighboring nodes. However, since it provides a route to all the nodes in the network, maintenance of these routes is a cumbersome task, especially in highly dynamic VANETs. Broadcast Routing: Broadcast routing is frequently used in VANET for sharing, traffic, weather and emergency, road conditions among vehicles and delivering advertisements and announcements. Broadcastiing is used when messages need to be disseminated to the vehicles beyond the transmission range when multi hops are used. A node broadcasts a packet to all nodes in the network using flooding. This ensures the delivery of the packet but a disadvantage is that the bandwidth is wasted and nodes receive duplicates. In VANET, it performs better for a small number of nodes. Some of the broadcast routing protocols are BROADCOMM, UMB, V-TRADE, and DV-CAST.
TABLE I COMPARISON OF VANET ROUTING PROTOCOLS Reactive Cluster Proactive Broadcast Protocols Protocols Based Protocols Protocols Protocols Prior Forwarding Method Digital Map Requirement Virtual Infrastructure Requirement Realistic Traffic Flow Recovery Strategy Scenario Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding Yes Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No

from high delay. Its route overhead is comparable to FSR and higher than AODV since DSR keeps route information within the packet header. The common characteristic among all four routing protocols is their scalability problem as the performance is degraded with increase in network densities. An evaluation study was done on GSR, AODV, and DSR in a small part of a map of Berlin [13]. The movements of 955 vehicles were simulated by the traffic flow simulator Videlio [11], that incorporates a special lane changing model. This evaluation considered a basic form of obstacle modeling in the propagation model which stated that spaces between streets are assumed to be buildings and, therefore, prevent radio waves to propagate through them. These simulation results show that AODV performs better than DSR because large packet overhead creates a significant bandwidth overload and frequent route breakage due to the mobility of nodes. However, both of the topology-based reactive routing protocols do not perform as good as GSR.
TABLE III SUMMARY OF VANET PROTOCOLS Reactive Cluster Proactive Protocols Based Protocols Protocols Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding Yes

Protocols Prior Forwarding Method Digital Map Requirement Virtual Infrastructure Requirement Realistic Traffic Flow Recovery Strategy Scenario

Broadcast Protocols Wireless Multi Hop Forwarding No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes Yes Urban

Yes Yes Urban

No

Yes Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes Yes Urban

Yes Yes Urban

No

Yes Yes

Urban

Highway

Urban

Highway

Performance Analysis of VANETs: There has been a number of simulation results for VANETs[6, 18]. We will be considering only those routing protocols which are feasible with both the VANET and MANET. There is an evaluation of AODV, DSR, FSR, and TORA in city traffic scenarios on the network simulator ns-2. The city mobility model was based on a Manhattan-like road network of eight horizontal and vertical roads. The speed of the vehicles were determined based on the Intelligent-Driver Model (IDM) where a vehicles speed was adjusted by other surrounding vehicles and road topology such as intersections [5]. From their simulation, it was shown that AODV has the best performance and lowest control overhead. It is followed by FSR, DSR, and then TORA. In DSR the source routes change continuously due to high mobility and hence suffer

VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The study of the various routing protocols considered under MANET and VANET on the basis of their architectures and their performance analysis provides that the protocols which are feasible for a MANET will be feasible in the VANET too but there performance varies with varying traffic conditions and densities. If we look for the best out of the existing protocols then we find that the Reactive protocols will be the best if we want to use the same set of rules in both the VANET and MANET. Moreover AODV results to be the best among the various reactive protocols for both MANET and VANET based on previous research work and study and

522

Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (ACCT 2011)

can be used for both the VANET and MANET if we consider a common set of rules to be applied to both types of the ad hoc networks. From the analysis we find that there are very few routing protocols that can be applied to both the VANET and MANET and hence our future work is aimed at modifying the AODV protocol (which is currently the best protocol if applied to both VANET and MANET) so that it will be more efficient for both the VANETs and MANETs.

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

REFERENCES
[1] Al-Maashri A. and Ould-Khaoua M., Performance analysis of MANET routing protocols in the presence of self-similar traffic. In, Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks,2006, 14-16 November 2006, pages pp. 801-807, Tampa, Florida, USA. Deshmuk R., Ambhaika A., Performance Evaluation of AODV and DSR with Reference to Network Size, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887), Volume 11 No.8, December 2010. Elizabeth M. R. and Chai-Keong T.,,A review of current routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks, Technical report, University of California and Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, 1999. Gerla M., Hong X., Pei G.. Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for ad hoc networks,IETF Draft,2001. Helbing, D., Hennecke, A., Shvetsov, V., Treiber, M. (2002), Microand Macrosimulation of Freeway Traffic, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 35, no. 5/6, pp. 517-547, 2002. Jaap S., Bechler M., Wolf L. , Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks in City Traffic Scenarios, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Telecommunications, June, 2005. Jetcheva J.G., Hu Y.C., PalChaudhuri, S., Saha, A.K., Johnson, D.B., Design and evaluation of a metropolitan area multitier wireless ad hoc network architecture, Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 2003. Proceedings. Fifth IEEE Workshop on , vol., no., pp. 32-43, 9-10 Oct. 2003. Kevin C. Lee, Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla, Survey of Routing Protocols in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, Advances in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks: Developments and Challenges, IGI Global, Oct, 2009. Khaled Y. ,Heudiasyc lab. UMR UTC-CNRS 6599, Universit_e de Technologie de Compi_egne, France Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique INRIA,France, March 3,2008, Routing in vehicular ad hoc networks. Kohli S., Kaur B., Bindra S., A comparative study of Routing Protocols in VANET, http://www.rimtengg.com/iscet/proceedings/pdfs/misc/173.pdf . Kronjger, W. and Hermann D , Travel time estimation on the base of microscopic traffic flow simulation. ITS World Congress, 1999. Kuosmanen P., Classification of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols, Finnish Defence Forces, Naval Academy, www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s38030/k02/Papers/12-Petteri.pdf. Lochert C., Hartenstein H., Tian J., Fuler H., Hermann D., and Mauve M., A routing strategy for vehicular ad hoc networks in environments, in Proceedings IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium,Columbus,OH,USA,June 2003,pp. 156 161. Mauve M., Widmer A., and Hartenstein H., A survey on positionbased routing in mobile ad hoc networks, Network, IEEE, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 30 - 39, Nov/Dec 2001.

[19]

[20]

[2]

Mehran A., A review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks, Ad Hoc Networks, Vol.2 pp.1-22, 2004. Mustafa B. , Raja U.W. ,Issues of Routing in VANET, University essay from Blekinge Tekniska Hgskola/COM ,2010, http://denver.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/b1da115d9e5e4a47c1257758 005230c7/$file/IssuesofroutinginVANETmasterthesis.pdf. Naumov V. and Gross T., Connectivity-aware routing (car) in vehicular ad hoc networks, in Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, Anchorage, AK, USA, May 2007, pp.19191927. Nzouonta J., Rajgure N., Wang G., and Borcea C., VANET Routing on City Roads using Real-Time Vehicular Traffic Information, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 58, No. 7., 2009. Shah S., Khandre A., Shirole M. and Bhole G.. Performance Evaluation of Ad Hoc Routing Protocols Using NS2 Simulation, Mobile and Pervasive Computing, CoMPC2008. Sun X., Xia-miao L., College of Traffic and Transport Engineering,Central South University, Changsha 410075, China Study of the Feasibility of VANET and its Routing Protocols,2008,IEEE.

[3]

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

523