A REVIEW PAPER ON DIFFERENT ROUTING
PROTOCOLS OF VANETs
Shiwani
Computer Science and Engineering Dept.
DCRUSTM
Murthal, Sonipat, India
shiwanijaglan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are
an application of mobile ad hoc network
(MANET) that improve road safety and
provide travelers comfort. However they
differ from MANET by their architecture,
threats, attributes and applications. In this
paper we present information related to the
field, distinguish the main features
surrounding VANET, and a review of
different routing protocols used.
INTRODUCTION
VANETs stand for the Vehicular Ad-hoc
Networks. A VANET is a type of Mobile
Ad-hoc Network (MANET). A MANET is a
self forming network and very flexible,
which has some characteristics like dynamic
topologies, less bandwidth and energy
consumption and it can function without the
need of any centralized control. So VANET
is wireless communication between vehicle
to vehicle and vehicle to roadside
infrastructure based on wireless local area
network (WLAN) technology. Each node in
an ad hoc network acts as both a data
terminal and a router [2]. The nodes in the
network then use the wireless medium to
communicate with other nodes in their radio
range. The advantage of using ad hoc
networks is it is possible to deploy these
Dinesh Singh
Computer science and Engineering Dept.
DCRUSTM
Murthal, Sonipat, India
Dinesh.madhav@gmail.com
networks in areas where it isn't feasible to
install the needed infrastructure. Another
advantage of ad hoc networks is they can be
quickly deployed with no administrator
involvement. The legislation of a large scale
vehicular network would be a difficult task.
These reasons contribute to the ad hoc
networks being applied to vehicular
environments.
Components of VANETs
There are three components of VANET:
(i) On-Board Unit (OBU)
The OBU is equipped on a vehicle for inter-
vehicles communications or
communications between the vehicle and
roadside units. An antenna is equipped in an
OBU such that the vehicle communications
with each other or the roadside units can be
made.
(ii) Road Side Unit (RSU)
The RSU are allocated along the roads. The
main function of the roadside units is to
bypass the messages between the vehicles
and trust authority.
(iii) Trust Authority (TA)
The Trust Authority is a server which is
managed by a service provider or the
government. The function of a trust
authority is to maintain the service, to keep
the records of each vehicle or to issue the
certificate for each vehicle.
 3. Infrastructural Domain

The RSU can connect to the

infrastructural networks or to the
Internet, allowing the OBU to access the
infrastructure network.

AUs are registered with the OBU

to connect to any internet based host.
OBU can also communicate with
other hosts for non-safety
applications, using the
communication of cellular radio
networks (GSM, GPRS, UMTS,
HSDPA, WiMax and 4G)
Figure 1 Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (ref. to 22)

VANET Communication Domains

1. In- Vehicle Domain

This domain consists of an OBU and

one or multiple AUs.

The OBU provides a communication

link to the AU in order to execute
one or more of a set of applications
provided by the application provider
using the communication capabilities
of the OBU.

Fig 2(ref. to 23)

2. ADHOC Domain
Unique attributes of VANETs
The ad hoc domain on VANET
consists of vehicles equipped with  Predictable mobility
OBUs and a station along the road side,  Providing safe driving, improving
the RSU. passenger comfort and enhancing
traffic efficiency
Two types of communications are  No power constraints
there in the ad hoc domain:  Variable network density
1. Vehicle to vehicle  Rapid changes in network topology
communication (V2V)  Large scale network
2. Vehicle to infrastructure  High computational ability
communication (V2I)

Challenges and requirements in VANETs
 Signal fading
 Bandwidth limitations
 Connectivity
 Small effective diameter
 Security and privacy
 Routing protocol
Applications
Vehicle to vehicle and Vehicle to
infrastructure communications allow the
development of a large number of
applications and can provide a wide range of
information to drivers and travelers.
Categories:
1. Comfort and entertainment
applications: This category of
applications aims to improve drivers
and passengers comfort levels (make
the journey more pleasant) and
enhance traffic efficiency.
They can provide drivers or travelers with
1. Weather and traffic information
2. Detail the location of the nearest
restaurant, petrol station or hotel and
their prices
3. Passengers can access the internet
and send or receive instant messages
or play online games while the
vehicle is connected to the
infrastructure network
2. Security services:
1. Intersection collision avoidance
2. Public safety
3. Sign extension
4. Vehicle diagnostics and maintenance
5. Information from other vehicles
DIFFERENT ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) uses
cars as mobile nodes in a MANET to create
a mobile network. A VANET turns every
participating vehicle into a wireless router or
node, allowing vehicles approximately 100
to 300 meters of each other to connect and,
in turn, create a network with a wide range.
The routing protocols in VANET are
broadly classified into the following four
categories:-
Cluster based routing protocols
Broadcast based routing protocols
Geocast based routing protocols
Position based routing protocols
2.1) Geocast Based Routing Protocols
Geocast based routing protocol is a location
based multicast routing protocol. Every
participating node delivers the message to
other nodes that lie within a predefined
geographic region based on ZOR (Zone Of
Relevance). The principle is that the sender
vehicle need not deliver the message to
nodes beyond the ZOR.
In [17], the routing in Mobile Ad-hoc
Networks was described. Routing in mobile
Ad-hoc networks is quite a challenging task
since the nodes move arbitrarily, have
limited power back, topology changes and
lack of other resources. In other routing
protocols there is lot of routing overhead
due to the flooding of the messages. This
routing protocol is based on location
information in which neighboring nodes
which are in the forwarding zone will
rebroadcast route request packet and send a
route reply to the source. In this paper
location tracking and on demand protocol
was used. There are many methods of
locating the mobile nodes like Radio
location techniques, Global Positioning
System (GPS), the Bat system, the Cricket
Compass system and RADAR. This work
has made the combination of the location
tracking mechanism that has been
configured in the real MANET test bed with
geocasting capability. Each mobile node
(MN) has run the location tracking program
and stored the positioning table at the nodes
itself in a file. The data was in sequence and
started with the MAC address, IP address
and the distance to each neighbor from MN.
In [2], a protocol named GeoTORA was
proposed, as it was derived from the
Temporarily Ordered Routing Algorithm
(TORA) (unicast) routing protocol. Flooding
is also incorporated in GeoTORA, but it is
limited to nodes within a small region. This
integration of TORA and flooding can
significantly reduce the overhead of geocast
delivery, while maintaining reasonably high
accuracy. TORA is one of a family of link
reversal algorithms for routing in ad hoc
networks. For each possible destination in
the ad hoc network, TORA maintains a
destination-oriented directed acyclic graph
(DAG). In this graph structure, starting from
any node, if links are followed in their
logical direction, the path leads to the
intended destination. TORA uses the notion
of heights to determine the direction of each
link. Despite dynamic link failures, TORA
attempts to maintain the destination oriented
DAG such that each node can reach the
destination. To implement GeoTORA, they
firstly modified TORA to be able to perform
anycast. To perform an anycast, an anycast
group is defined - anycast group consists of
a subset of the nodes in the network. When a
node sends a message to the anycast group,
the message is delivered to any one member
of the anycast group. As simulation results
show, this integration of TORA and
flooding can significantly reduce the geocast
message overhead as compared to pure
flooding, while achieving high accuracy of
geocast delivery.
In [18], a protocol was proposed that
extends existing geocast protocols by
supporting a packet delivery system through
the use of adequate flooding. In simple
flooding, there are redundant
retransmissions of geocast messages,
increasing network traffic, potentially
resulting in broadcast storms. The paper
proposed a solution to this problem as
follows. Rather than having all nodes
participate in the packet transmission, only
the nodes that satisfy following two
conditions: those that have a transmission
range that is larger relative to the average
transmission range, and those that are able to
cover areas that are still uncovered. As a
consequence, this approach helps reduce the
number of transmissions. To stop a node
accepting duplicate packets, a unique
sequence numberis associated with each
packet, which is compared with previously
recorded (source, sequence) pairs. The
sequence number is a combination of the
MAC address of the sender and the time the
packet was sent. The protocol uses simple
logical comparisons based on a node’s
transmission range. The decision is made
using two matrices. The Map matrix
provides the information about the covered
and uncovered areas within the region, while
the Coverage matrix represents the area that
a node can cover by its transmission range.
Simulation results showed that by
eliminating the redundant retransmissions,
the protocol reduces data traffic and
overhead significantly, when compared with
simple flooding.
In [10] Vehicular delay-tolerant network
(VDTN) architecture was introduced to deal
with connectivity constraints. VDTN
assumes asynchronous, bundle-oriented
communication, and a store-carry-and-
forward routing paradigm. A routing
protocol for VDTNs should make the best
use of the tight resources available in
network nodes to create a multi-hop path
that exists over time. A VDTN routing
protocol, called GeoSpray, was proposed,
which takes routing decisions based on
geographical location data, and combines a
hybrid approach between multiple-copy and
single-copy schemes. First, it starts with a
multiple-copy scheme, spreading a limited
number of bundle copies, in order to exploit
alternative paths. Then, it switches to a
forwarding scheme, which takes advantage
of additional contact opportunities. In order
to improve resources utilization, it clears
delivered bundles across the network nodes.
It is shown that GeoSpray improves
significantly the delivery probability and
reduces the delivery delay, compared to
traditional location and non location-based
single-copy and multiple-copy routing
protocols.
In [14] GeoCross, a simple, yet novel, event-
driven geographic routing protocol is
proposed that removes cross-links
dynamically to avoid routing loops in urban
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs).
GeoCross exploits the natural planar feature
of urban maps without resorting to
cumbersome planarization. Its feature of
dynamic loop detection makes GeoCross
suitable for highly mobile VANET. We
have also shown that caching (GeoCross +
Cache) provides the same high packet
delivery ratio but uses fewer hops.
In [15] different VANET applications are
considered to make the routing protocol.
The comfort application drives the threats of
new entertainments for vehicular ad-hoc
networks (VANETs). The contentment
application usually keeps the delay-tolerant
facility; that is, messages initiated from a
specific vehicle at time t can be delivered
through VANETs to some vehicles within a
given constrained delay time λ. In the paper,
a new mobicast protocol is discussed to
support contentment applications for a
highway scenario in vehicular ad-hoc
networks (VANETs). All vehicles located in
a geographic zone at time t, the mobicast
routing is to disseminate the data message
initiated from a specific vehicle to all
vehicles which have ever appeared in the
zone at time t. This data dissemination must
be done before time t+λ through the carry-
and-forward technique. In addition, the
temporary network fragmentation problem is
considered in protocol design. In addition,
the low degree of channel utilization is kept
to reserve the resource for safety
applications. To illustrate the performance
achievement, simulation results are
examined in terms of message overhead,
dissemination successful rate, and
accumulative packet delivery delay.
2.2) Broadcast Based Routing Protocols
Broadcast based routing protocols include
simple flooding techniques or selective
forwarding schemes to counter this network
congestion. Following are listed some of the
research papers based on broadcast based
routing.
In [12] a new VANET routing protocol is
proposed, which tries to reduce the effect of
broadcast storm problem in VANETs. As
the number of vehicles becomes above a
certain value, the probability of packet
collisions and medium contentions among
vehicles which try to connect, get increased.
The proposed technique, namely Selective
Reliable Broadcast protocol (SRB), try to
limit the number of packet transmissions, by
selecting neighboring nodes, acting as relay
nodes. So the number of vehicles to which
the packet will be forwarded gets reduced,
without affecting network performance.
SRB uses the vehicular partitioning behavior
to select forwarding nodes. Each cluster is
automatically detected as a zone of interest,
whenever a vehicle is approaching, and
packets will be forwarded only to selected
vehicles, opportunistically elected as cluster-
heads. The main strengths of SRB are the
efficiency of detecting clusters and selecting
forwarding nodes in a fast way, in order to
limit the broadcast storm problem.
Simulation results have been carried out
both in urban and highway scenarios, to
show the effectiveness of SRB, in terms of
cluster detection and reduction of number of
selected forwarders.
In [19], an efficient form of flooding to
overcome problems such as collision,
redundancy and medium contention was
described. In high density network, linkage
is very high and extreme nodes coverage
resulted in packet collisions and limited
channels to cope with the network
congestions in the limited channels in
DSRC. To ease network traffic, opposite
direction nodes are used to relay the
emergency messages where an immobile
sender node broadcasts the message to
adjacent moving nodes. These nodes will
keep relaying the message until the final hop
and the final node will transmit the message
to a recipient node. The combination of
location based and time reservation based
methods ensures high delivery and lower
end-to-end delay of packet delivery. A node
calculates it’s waiting time from the given
time window that allows farthest node in the
relay node's range to have the waiting time
of the border node. Information losses could
occur both in low node and high node
density, resulted from packet drops. In low
node density, packet drops increase due to
low connectivity, thus contribute to low
success rate of receptions. In high node
density, packet collisions and channel fading
also contribute to the increase in packet loss
which leads to low success rate of receptions
by next relay nodes. In this paper, the time
reservation-based method calculates the time
reservation ratio provided for each node and
chooses a node with the lowest ratio to be
the next relay node. However, if there is
more than one node receiving lowest
duplicate packets, then the nodes distances
from the border will be compared and the
node nearest to the border will be chosen.
2.3) Cluster Based Routing Protocols
In cluster based routing, several clusters of
nodes are formed. Each cluster is
represented by a cluster head. Inter-cluster
communication is carried through cluster
heads whereas intra-cluster communication
is made through direct links. Following are
listed some of the research papers based on
cluster based routing.
In [11] it is said that developing multi-hop
routing protocols for urban VANETs is a
challenging task due to many factors such as
frequent network disconnections. Many
VANET routing protocols use a carry-and-
forward mechanism to deal with the
challenge. However, this mechanism
introduces a large packet delay, which might
be unacceptable for some applications. So in
the paper first the unique features of urban
VANET have been analyzed. They move
like clusters due to the influence of traffic
lights. So, the concept of using buses as the
mobile infrastructure to improve the
network connectivity is proposed. A novel
routing protocol named MIBR (Mobile
Infrastructure Based VANET Routing
Protocol)is also proposed. This protocol
makes full use of the buses, making them a
key component in route selecting and packet
forwarding. Simulation results show
significant performance improvement in
terms of packet delivery ratio and
throughput.
In [13] the energy constraint is considered to
form the protocol. To save energy, various
routing protocols for VANETs have been
proposed in recent years. However,
VANETs impose challenging issues to
routing. These issues consist of dynamical
road topology, various road obstacles, high
vehicle movement, and the fact that the
vehicle movement is constrained on roads
and traffic conditions. Moreover, the
movement is significantly influenced by
driving behaviors and vehicle categories. To
this end, all these behaviors are incorporated
into routing and ERBA for VANETs– an
energy-efficient routing protocol is
proposed. ERBA classifies vehicles into
several categories, and then leverages
vehicle movement trends to make routing
recommendation. It predicts the movement
trends by current directions and next
directions after going through the road
intersections. With the vehicular category
information, the driving behavior patterns,
the distance between the current sections
and the next intersections, ERBA propagates
information among vehicles with less energy
consumption. The proposed scheme is
validated by real urban scenarios extracted
from Shanghai Grid project. Experimental
results have shown that ERBA outperforms
the compared routing protocols with respect
to the end-end delay, the packet delivery
ratio and the path duration time.
In [16] one of the critical issues considered
is the design of scalable routing algorithms
that are robust to frequent path disruptions
caused by vehicles’ mobility. The paper
argues the use of information on vehicles’
movement information (e.g., position,
direction, speed, and digital mapping of
roads) to predict a possible link-breakage
event prior to its occurrence. Vehicles are
grouped according to their velocity vectors.
This kind of grouping ensures that vehicles,
belonging to the same group, are more likely
to establish stable single and multi hop paths
as they are moving together. Setting up
routes that involve only vehicles from the
same group guarantees a high level of stable
communication in VANETs. The scheme
presented in the paper also reduces the
overall traffic in highly mobile VANET
networks. The frequency of flood requests is
reduced by elongating the link duration of
the selected paths. To prevent broadcast
storms that may be intrigued during path
discovery operation, another scheme is also
introduced. The basic concept behind the
proposed scheme is to broadcast only
specific and well-defined packets, referred
to as “best packets” in the paper. The
performance of the scheme is evaluated
through computer simulations. Simulation
results indicate the benefits of the proposed
routing strategy in terms of increasing link
duration, reducing the number of link-
breakage events and increasing the end-to-
end throughput.
In [21], a novel K-hop Cluster-Based
Location Service (KCLS) protocol in mobile
ad hoc networks was presented, which is
able to well balance the trade-off between
the communication overheads and the
accuracy of location information. It provides
capability of cluster-level self-route
recovery against interlink failures because
the clustering architecture based on cluster
ID has flexible scalability in support of large
scale ad hoc networks and it reduce the
overheads by the use of simple cluster level
route and also provide more accurate
location information within the cluster and
nearby neighborhoods. The proposed KCLS
protocol not only suppress the increasing
rate of the total cost when the number of
hosts in the network increases but also
increases the hit probability of location
service and reduces the passive effect of
host mobility on control overhead as well.
Scalability was good and can self discover
the networks.
In [20], a cluster based routing protocol
dubbed Traffic Infrastructure Based Cluster
Routing Protocol with Handoff (TIBCRPH)
was proposed. All of the nodes are deployed
in two-dimension space. Each node is
location aware through some types of
positioning services. There is a location
service mechanism which enables the source
to detect position and velocity of destination
node. Links are bidirectional. TIBCRPH is
also high enough and the adaptability to the
change of node speed is better than other
protocols.
2.4) Position Based Routing Protocols
Position based/geographic routing employs
the awareness of vehicle about the position
of other vehicles to develop a routing
strategy.
In [3], a Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing
(GPSR) was proposed in which greedy
forwarding method is used in which the
neighbor which is closest to the destination
is used for forwarding the packet. All
devices have GPS which provides the
current location of the nodes and helps in
packet forwarding decision. Each node has
information about current position of other
nodes and also its neighbors and the
neighbors also help in making the packet
forwarding decision. GPSR protocol is
divided into two parts, 1) greedy forwarding
and the other is 2) perimeter forwarding. 1)
In greedy forwarding the node that is closest
to the destination is used to send the data. As
the sender node knows the destination node
so the greedy nodes are chosen (nodes closer
to destination) till the packet is delivered to
the destination.
2) Perimeter forwarding is used where the
greedy forwarding fails that is where there
no node closest to the destination. In
perimeter forwarding the nodes in void
region are used to forward the packet to the
destination. And use the right hand rule in
that case. In “right hand rule”, the paths are
traversed in the clockwise direction in the
void regions in order to reach the
destination. In case of the vehicular nodes
the greedy forwarding method is highly
unsuitable owing to their high mobility it’s
very difficult to maintain the next hop
neighbor information as it may go out of
range. As a consequence it will lead to the
packet loss. GPSR suffers from one more
problems that is the beacons may be lost due
to channel destruction or bad signal. As a
result it can lead to removal of neighboring
formation from location table. As a repair
strategy when greedy forwarding fails
GSPR uses planarized graphs. But these too
perform well only in highway scenarios
where there are no radio obstacles due to its
distributed algorithm. In case of a lot of
radio obstacles and their distributed nature
may lead to certain partition of network and
may lead to packet delivery impossible.
In [4], a new routing protocol named
AODV-VANET was proposed, which
incorporates the vehicles’ movement
information into the route discovery process
based on Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV). A Total Weight of the
Route is introduced to choose the best route
together with an expiration time estimation
to minimize the link breakages. The main
idea of the proposed routing protocol is to
incorporate the VANET features into
AODV for the route discovery process.
These characteristics include position,
speed, acceleration, direction of the vehicle
and the link quality between the
communicating vehicles. AODV is chosen
above all of the other reactive MANET
routing protocols due to its ability to quickly
react to network changes. On top of that, it
has an efficient route discovery method that
allows intermediate nodes, which have a
valid route to the destination node, to reply
to requests messages. In particular, the
changes are made to the AODVUU version
of the MANET routing protocol. One way to
determine whether a intermediate vehicle
should be chosen to route data packets is by
examining whether it is within the radio
range long enough so as to send all the
needed data packets. After the route
discovery process, the best route from the
source to the destination nodes is chosen.
However, along the connection path, a link
breakage still occurs if an intermediate
routing vehicle leaves the radio
communication range. To avoid link
ruptures and to establish reliable routes, the
expiration time of the chosen route is
estimated and initiates a new route discovery
process before the link breaks.
In [5], a new position-based routing strategy
was proposed with the consideration of
nodes moving direction for VANETs, called
DGR (Directional Greedy Routing) and
considering the fact that vehicles often have
predicable mobility, its extension PDGR
(Predictive Directional Greedy Routing) is
proposed to forward packet to the most
suitable next hop based on both current and
predicable future situations. Directional
Greedy Routing is based on greedy
forwarding under the consideration of nodes
movement. It consists of the two forwarding
strategies, Position First Forwarding and
Direction First Forwarding. In DGR, when
calculating weighted score for choosing next
hop, we only take into account the packet
carrier’s current neighbors. In fact, a further
prediction by considering the packet
carrier’s possible future neighbors can make
routing more efficient. Simulation results
have shown DGR and PDGR outperform
GPSR significantly in the terms of packet
delivery ratio, end-to-end delay and routing
overhead. Also these two strategies
outperform GSR. PDGR outperforms DGR
slightly because of the use of prediction.
In [6], a scheme that secures geographic
position-based routing was provided, which
has been widely accepted as the appropriate
one for vehicular communication. It
integrate security mechanisms to protect the
position-based routing functionality and
services (beaconing, multi-hop forwarding,
and geo-location discovery), and enhance
the network robustness. It proposes defense
mechanisms, relying both on cryptographic
primitives and plausibility checks mitigating
false position injection. The implementation
and initial measurements show that the
security overhead is low and the proposed
scheme deployable. Position-based routing
provides multi-hop communication in a
wireless ad hoc network. It assumes that
every node knows its geographic position,
e.g. by GPS, and maintains a location table
with ID and geographic positions of other
nodes as soft state. PBR supports geographic
unicast (GeoUnicast), topologically-scoped
broadcast (TSB, flooding from source to
nodes in n-hop neighborhood),
geographically-scoped broadcast
(GeoBroadcast, packet transport from source
to all nodes in a geographic area) and
geographically-scoped anycast (same as
GeoBroadcast, but to one of the nodes in the
area). Basically, PBR comprises three core
components: beaconing, a location service,
and forwarding. This paper has presented a
solution to secure a position-based routing
protocol for wireless multi-hop
communication in vehicular ad hoc
networks. This solution combines digital
signatures/certificates, plausibility checks,
and rate limitation. Digital signatures on a
hop-by-hop and end-to-end basis provide
authentication, integrity and non-
repudiation. Plausibility checks reduce the
impact of false positions on the routing
operation. Rate limitation reduces the effect
of packet injection on a large part of the
network. A main characteristic of the
solution is its deploying ability due to usage
of well-established security mechanisms.
In [7], a spatially aware packet routing
approach is proposed to predict permanent
topology holes caused by spatial constraints
and avoid them a forehand. This approach is
generic and can be used in combination with
any existing geographic forwarding protocol
as an extension. The use of a wireless
mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is
motivated to build an inter-vehicle
communication system. These multi-hop
networks consisting of vehicles on the road
allow to locally exchanging vehicle, traffic
and environment data to realize novel
cooperative driver assistance applications
and safety functions. The routing of data
packets (i.e. the addressing and forwarding
of messages) inside such an inter-vehicle
radio network is performed best by a
position-based routing protocol. However,
most existing position-based routing
protocols do not take into account the spatial
environment of the ad hoc network and its
impact on the mobile nodes' (or vehicles)
geographic distribution. In this paper,
Spatially Aware Routing (SAR) is
presented, a new routing approach that
makes use of spatial awareness for packet
forwarding. Relevant spatial information,
like the road network topology is extracted
from existing geographic databases, like
digital maps, to generate a simple graph-
based spatial model. Based on the spatial
model, a Source node can predict static
topology holes caused by spatial constraints,
like road geometry and layout of the mad
network. The sender then selects a
Geographic Source Route to avoid these
holes in packet forwarding. The simulation
results show that basic SAR can effectively
improve routing performance in situations
with permanent topology holes.
In [8], the improved greedy traffic-aware
routing protocol (GyTAR) was introduced.
GyTAR is an intersection-based
geographical routing protocol that is capable
of finding robust and optimal routes within
urban environments. Each vehicle in the
network knows its own position and speed
using GPS and can determine the position of
their neighboring intersections through
preloaded digital maps, which provides a
street-level map. And also each vehicle is
required to maintain a neighbor table where
the position, velocity, and direction of each
neighboring vehicle are recorded. This table
is built and updated owing to the periodic
exchange of Hello packets by all vehicles.
GyTAR scheme is organized into three
mechanisms: 1) a completely decentralized
scheme for the estimation of the vehicular
traffic density in city roads; 2) a mechanism
for the dynamic selection of the intersections
through which packets are forwarded to
reach their destination; and 3) an improved
greedy forwarding mechanism between two
intersections. Hence, using GyTAR, packets
will successively move closer toward the
destination along the streets where there are
enough vehicles providing connectivity. The
GyTAR protocol efficiently utilizes the
unique characteristics of vehicular
environments, like the highly dynamic
vehicular traffic, the road traffic density, and
the road topology, in making routing and
forwarding decisions. The selection of
intermediate intersections among road
segments is dynamically and sequentially
performed based on the scores attributed to
each intersection. The scores are determined
based on the dynamic traffic density
information and the curve metric distance to
the destination. The traffic density
information for intersection score
calculation is a decentralized mechanism in
GyTAR to dynamically estimate nearly
accurate vehicular traffic along traffic
roads, with a very low percentage of error.
The optimum values for the weighting
factors of the traffic density and distance
information components in the intersection
scores are evaluated, and their sensitivity is
analyzed, showing a good balance between
these two parameters. Simulation results
show that GyTAR performs better in terms
of throughput, delay, and routing overhead,
compared with other protocols (LAR and
GSR) proposed for vehicular networks.
[9]In case of the intersection node the
greedy mode is changed to the predictive
mode. This protocol suffers from the local
maximum problem for which right hand rule
is used to forward the packet to the
intersection for the decision-making.
CONCLUSION
This paper has provided a summary of
vehicular ad hoc networks discussing their
characteristics and motivations with a study
of VANET routing protocols that target
vehicle to vehicle communication. This
paper provides four categories of VANET
routing protocols that exist since previous
couple of years, giving a brief discussion of
the protocol working. This review paper has
given differences among major
classifications of routing protocols. In this
brief study on various VANET routing
protocols; different related research issues
and challenges/difficulties are represented
that require more effort and research to
address them.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Sultan S, et al. A comprehensive survey on vehicular Ad Hoc network. Journal of Network and Computer Applications
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2013.02.036i
2. Y. Ko and N.H. Vaidya, GeoTORA: A protocol for geocasting in mobile ad hoc networks, Proc. of the 8th International
Conference on Network Protocols, November 2000.
3. Karp B. and Kung H, Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2000), pp. 243-254, Boston, MA, August, 2000.
4. Xi Yu, et al. A Reliable Routing Protocol for VANET Communications, 2011 IEEE.
5. Jiayu Gong, et al. Predictive Directional Greedy Routing in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks, 27th International Conference on
Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2007 IEEE.
6. Festag A, et al. Secure Position-Based Routing for VANETs, 2007 IEEE
7. Tian J, et al. Spatially Aware Packet Routing for Mobile Ad Hoc Inter-Vehicle Radio Networks, 2003 IEEE.
8. Jerbi M, et al. Towards Efficient Geographic Routing in Urban Vehicular Networks, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 9, NOVEMBER 2009.
9. Lee K, et al. Enhanced Perimeter Routing for Geographic Forwarding Protocols in Urban Vehicular Scenarios, In Proc. Of
AutoNet'07, Washington, DC, Nov.2007.
10. V.N.G.J. Soares et al., GeoSpray: A geographic routing protocol for vehicular delay-tolerant networks, Informat. Fusion
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2011.11.003
11. Luo J, et al. A Mobile Infrastructure Based VANET Routing Protocol in the Urban Environment, 113 IEEE computer society,
2010 IEEE DOI 10.1109/CMC.2010.
12. Vegni A,et al. SRB: A Selective Reliable Broadcast Protocol for Safety Applications in VANETs. [Research Report] 2012.
<hal 00705311>
13. Zhang D, et al. An Energy-Efficient Routing Protocol Using Movement Trends in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks. Computer
Journal. 56(8):938-946. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxt028, 2013
14. Lee K, et al, GeoCross: A geographic routing protocol in the presence of loops in urban scenarios, Ad Hoc Netw. (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2009.12.005
15. Chen Y, et al. Mobicast Routing Protocol with Carry-and-Forward in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, Department of Computer
Science and Information Engineering, National Taipei University, Taipei Taiwan
16. Nemoto Y, Senior Member, IEEE et al. A Stable Routing Protocol to Support ITS Services in VANET Networks IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2007
17. Latiff L, et al. Location-based Geocasting and Forwarding (LGF) Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Network, Proceedings
of the Advanced Industrial Conference on Telecommunications/Service Assurance with Partial and Intermittent Resources
Conference/ELearning on Telecommunications Workshop, 2005 IEEE.
18. Hughes L, Maghsoudlou A. An Efficient Coverage-based Flooding Scheme for Geocasting in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,
Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA’06), 2006
IEEE
19. Nuri N., Hasbullah H, Strategy for Efficient Routing in VANET, 2010 IEEE
20. Wang T, Wang G, TIBCRPH: Traffic Infrastructure Based Cluster Routing Protocol with Handoff in VANET, 19th annual
Wireless and optical communication conference (WCC), IEEE Digital Library, pp 1-5, 2010.
21. Leng S, et al. A Novel Location-Service Protocol Based on k-Hop Clustering for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.
22. http://adrianlatorre.com/projects/pfc/img/vanet_full.jpg
23.http://www.seminarsonly.com/electrical%20&%20electronics/Intervehicle%20Commun ication.jpg