A comparative analysis of DSRC and 802.

11 over Vehicular Ad hoc Networks

Arijit Khan, Shatrugna Sadhu, and Muralikrishna Yeleswarapu Dept. of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara {arijitkhan, ssadhu, muralikrishna}@cs.ucsb.edu

ABSTRACT:

IEEE 802.11p/DSRC is a wireless communication protocol designed for vehicular ad hoc networks in order to support safety and commercial non-safety applications. The conventional 802.11 protocols are not suitable for these types of networks because of high vehicular mobility, faster topological changes, and requirements of high reliability and low latency for safety applications. In this paper, we present a detailed simulation study of the performance of both DSRC and 802.11 over Vehicular networks. We consider two different models of DSRC preemptive and non-preemptive. We also measure the reliability metrics both in network and application levels for different mobility scenarios. Keywords VANETs, DSRC, CCH, SCH, PDR, t-window safety reliability, throughput, FDM, TDM, Mobility patterns, safety and non-safety applications, network- and application-level reliability.

latency and interference. We already have 802.11 wireless networks standard wherein the mobile nodes can interact without using fixed infrastructures or centralized administration [10]. Various MAC protocols have also been proposed in order to efficiently share the medium in 802.11 networks. But, designing of MAC protocols is difficult for Vehicular Ad hoc NETworks (VANET) due to higher node mobility and faster topological changes. The above needs and requirements have been addressed by the Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) technology [1], which was adopted by ASTM and IEEE to provide a secure, reliable, and timely wireless communication component as an integral part for the intelligent transportation system (ITS) [1][2][3]. DSRC operates in the 75 MHz licensed spectrum at 5.9 GHz allocated by FCC in 1999. DSRCs physical layer is based on IEEE 802.11a and its media access control (MAC) layer is based on the generic IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function (DCF) [4]. However, for DSRC to be cost-effective, it is important to accommodate commercial nonsafety application support as well. One way of incorporating this co-existence of safety and non-safety applications is to provide separate channels for the applications. In fact, the entire 75 MHz licensed spectrum is divided into 7 different channels with 10 MHz channel bandwidth each [18]. However, the co-existence of safety and non-safety applications can also be achieved through a periodic Time Division Multiplexing scheme (TDM) [5]. To achieve this TDM in the application level, the IEEE communication standards in development for the 1

I. INTRODUCTION
For reducing the number of road accidents and thereby increasing road safety, the vehicles should be able to observe what is happening around them, foresee what will happen next, and take according protective reactions. This requires that the vehicles have the ability to converse with each other. It is of very grave importance that the information related to safety being transmitted must be sufficient and devoid of any form of delay or latency. Therefore, vehicular communication requires mechanisms which would ensure higher reliability and lower

DSRC band [12-16] propose time synchronization between the communicating units, with the preferred time method being Universal Coordinated Time. One method of obtaining this time can be the inclusion of a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver into each DSRC-equipped vehicle, as mentioned in [11]. In our project, we have performed a detailed simulation of DSRC and the existing 802.11 and measured both the network and application level reliability metrics which would help us gain a more credible insight into the performance of the DSRC protocol as compared to 802.11 protocols in VANETs. The main contributions of our work when compared to the existing literature are the following: 1) We measure the performance of DSRC for two distinct cases: a) the non-safety applications cannot be preempted and b) the non-safety applications can be preempted whenever any safety application interrupts. 2) We also measure the performance of both TCP and UDP, as non-safety applications over DSRC. TCP may represent any downloading service; whereas UDP mainly represents bursty or non-bursty applications (e.g. VoIP or Video communication). 3) We analyze the reliability metrics under varying non-safety UDP application data rates to determine how different such non-safety UDP applications perform in 802.11 and in DSRC. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we give a brief description of DSRC and summary of the related works. In Section 3, we explain our modeling of the DSRC protocol for simulation using NS2. Section 4 describes the simulation scenarios, over two different mobility patterns. Further analysis of various reliability metrics which would go on to corroborate the results is presented in Section 5 and finally our conclusion is in Section 6.

IEEE 802.11p PHY is very similar to IEEE 802.11a. The important parameter values in PHY for both the protocols are listed below in Table 1 [19]. Also, the transmission power may be higher (up to 44 dBm) in 802.11p compared to that in 802.11a. As mentioned earlier, 802.11p MAC layer is based on the generic IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function (DCF) [4]. Parameters Information data rate (Mbps) Modulation IEEE 802.11p 3, 4.5, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 27 BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64QAM Coding rate , , 3/4 Number of 52 (= 48+4) subcarriers OFDM 8s symbol duration Guard time 1.6s FFT period 6.4s Preamble 32s duration Subcarrier 0.15625MHz frequency spacing IEEE 802.11a 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 54 BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64QAM , , 3/4 52 (= 48+4) 4s

0.8s 3.2s 16s 0.3125MHz

Table 1: Comparison between 802.11a and 802.11p PHY parameters

II. RELATED WORKS:

WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments) or, 802.11p, is an IEEE standard which provides enhancements to the physical (PHY) and medium access control (MAC) layers for the DSRC protocol. Except for slight parameter changes to enable high user mobility, 2

The multi-channel operation of DSRC is an extension to the IEEE 802.11 WAVE mode that specifies how to support a multi-channel system with the IEEE 802.11 MAC and PHYs via a control channel (CCH) and multiple service channels (SCHs). The 802.11p PHY layer uses seven 10 MHz channels in the 5.9GHz band. As shown in Figure 1, the central channel is the CCH. The two channels at the edges of the spectrum are reserved for future advanced safety applications and long-range high-powered public safety communications respectively. The rest are SSHs. The CCH is restricted to only safety communications and occasional advertisements for services offered in the service channels [18]. The analysis in [6] based on extensive experimental data collected shows that DSRC wireless communication provides an adequate degree of communication reliability under various traffic environments, and that the packet

drops do not occur in bursts even under the harsh freeway traffic environment. This paper [6] was the first of its kind which characterized the application-level reliability of DSRC communication for Vehicle safety communication applications based on real-world experimental data. Simulation results in [8] indicate that 802.11a communication exhibits higher packet error rates and consequently lower channel capacity compared to DSRC. The implementation of DSRC prototype systems and the field trials in [7] prove that real time constraints are met and that complex transactions can be completed during a passage through the communication zone at regular driving speeds. The idea of implementing the multi-channel effect using TDM was first introduced in [5]. In [9], the authors have proposed a novel protocol called VeSOMAC, which can offer better vehicle safety through smaller and bounded packet latency compared to 802.11.

set val(ll) set val(ant) set val(ifqlen) set val(rp)

LL Antenna/OmniAntenna 20 DumbAgent

Code Fragment 1: use of PHY and MAC Ext Module

We also include the two tcl scripts, IEEE80211a.tcl and IEEE802-11p.tcl, (which are available in NS-2.33 and simulate 802.11a and 802.11p protocols respectively) in our simulation code. These two tcl scripts implement the changes in parameter values for 802.11a and 802.11p PHY and MAC. We hereby give a brief summary of the parameters defined in 802.11a and DSRC which helped us get the most accurate simulation model. The parameters names are self explanatory.
Phy/WirelessPhyExt set Pt_ 5.0e-2 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set freq_ 5.85e+9 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set HeaderDuration_ 0.000040 ;#40 us Phy/WirelessPhyExt set BasicModulationScheme_ 0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set PreambleCaptureSwitch_ 1 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set DataCaptureSwitch_ 0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set SINR_PreambleCapture_ 2.5118; ;# 4 dB Phy/WirelessPhyExt set SINR_DataCapture_ 100.0; ;# 10 dB Phy/WirelessPhyExt set PHY_DBG_ 0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set bandwidth_ 70e6 Mac/802_11Ext set CWMin_ 15 Mac/802_11Ext set CWMax_ 1023 Mac/802_11Ext set SlotTime_ 0.000013 Mac/802_11Ext set SIFS_ 0.000032 Mac/802_11Ext set ShortRetryLimit_ 7 Mac/802_11Ext set LongRetryLimit_ 4 Mac/802_11Ext set HeaderDuration_ 0.000040 Mac/802_11Ext set SymbolDuration_ 0.000008 Mac/802_11Ext set BasicModulationScheme_ 0 Mac/802_11Ext set use_802_11a_flag_ true Mac/802_11Ext set RTSThreshold_ 2346 Mac/802_11Ext set MAC_DBG 0
Code Fragment 2: DSRC PHY and MAC

Figure 1: channels in DSRC by FDM

III. MODELLING of DSRC in NS-2: For simulation, we have used NS-2.33, which is the most recent version of NS-2 [20], released in March, 2008. This version of NS-2 introduces two new modules: Mac802_11Ext and WirelessPhy-Ext. The extensions are based on Mac802_11 and WirelessPhy, but did a major modification to the original code, in order to provide a significantly higher level of simulation accuracy [21]. We have used these two modules in our simulation.
set val(chan) set val(prop) set val(netif) set val(mac) set val(ifq) Channel/WirelessChannel Propagation/Nakagami Phy/WirelessPhyExt Mac/802_11Ext Queue/DropTail/PriQueue

Note that, in Code Fragment 2, we set the freq_ parameter to 5.85e+9, or 5.85 GHz, to represent operation on DSRC band. We also set the transmission power of each car, Pt_, to 5.0e-2 to create a communication range of approximately 350 meters. While WAVE is designed to support multiple channels using FDM, the current implementation of ns-2 does not support channel management functions. So, we use TDM to 3

implement the multi-channel aspect of DSRC; and to get the same result as FDM, we set the bandwidth, bandwidth_, of the single available channel as 70MHz (see Code Fragment 2). Our TDM approach is explained in more details in the next section.
Phy/WirelessPhyExt set Pt_ 0.001 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set freq_ 5.18e+9 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set HeaderDuration_ 0.000020 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set BasicModulationScheme_ 0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set PreambleCaptureSwitch_ 1 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set DataCaptureSwitch_st_ tru0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set SINR_PreambleCapture_ 2.5118 ;# 4 dB Phy/WirelessPhyExt set SINR_DataCapture_ 100.0;# 10 dB Phy/WirelessPhyExt set trace_dist_2. 1e6 ;# PHY trace until distance of 1 Mio. km ("infinty") Phy/WirelessPhyExt set PHY_DBG_ 0 Phy/WirelessPhyExt set bandwidth_ 20e6 Mac/802_11Ext set CWMin_ 15 Mac/802_11Ext set CWMax_t m0_ 1.0 1023 Mac/802_11Ext set SlotTime_1_ 1.0 0.000009 Mac/802_11Ext set SIFS_ 0.000016 Mac/802_11Ext set ShortRetryLimit_ 7 Mac/802_11Ext set LongRetryLimit_0 4 Mac/802_11Ext set HeaderDuration_ 0.000020 Mac/802_11Ext set SymbolDuration_ 0.000004 Mac/802_11Ext set BasicModulationScheme_ 0 Mac/802_11Ext set use_802_11a_flag_ true Mac/802_11Ext set RTSThreshold_ 2346 Mac/802_11Ext set MAC_DBG 0
Code Fragment 3: 802.11 PHY and MAC

non-safety UDP applications, e.g. VoIP, video etc. Now the simulation is carried out for three cases: i) 802.11, ii) DSRC with non preemption, and iii) DSRC with preemption. In 802.11, all the safety and non-safety applications run concurrently. In DSRC, as we said earlier, the multi-channel effect is implemented using a periodic TDM scheme. For that reason, all the cars, using DSRC, are assumed to be synchronized. Each time slot is considered as 100ms; and within a time slot, we have seven equal shares (= 14.2ms) for seven different types of applications. This will produce the same results as having an FDM with seven noninterfering channels. For DSRC without preemption, out of these seven shares, one share is given to safety applications, one to non-safety UDP applications, and another to non-safety TCP applications. For DSRC with preemption, if some safety application arrives while other non-safety applications are still active; the non-safety application should be preempted. So, here the share for non-safety applications can decrease randomly. We also consider two different mobility/ traffic scenarios for all the three simulation models discussed above i.e. i) 802.11, ii) DSRC without preemption, and iii) DSRC with preemption. The traffic scenarios are as follows: Scenario-1. Urban Scenario: Here, the three cars are moving in an H arrangement of streets as shown in Figure 2. The initial and final coordinates of the cars, as used in our simulation, are also mentioned in Table 2. Recent research has shown that a fading radio propagation model, such as the Nakagami model, is best for simulation of a WAVE environment [22], [23]. As a result, we have configured our simulation to use the Nakagami propagation model (see Code Fragment 1). Code Fragment 4 shows the values of the Nakagami parameters set for an urban scenario [21]. Scenario-2. Free Way Scenario: Here, the three cars are moving in parallel along a highway as shown in Figure 3. The initial and final coordinates of the cars as used in our simulation are also mentioned in Table 3. Code fragment 5 4

IV. SIMULATION MODEL: Our simulation consists of three cars. The simulation region is 50 unit 50 unit in 2D. Total simulation time is 10 sec. We assume that each car is broadcasting safety messages with packet size = 100 bytes and interval between two successive packets = 10ms. Also, we assume that each car generates a new safety packet in every 100ms [5]. So, a car can repeat the broadcasting of same safety packet for at most 10 times. Moreover, four non-safety applications are running: a) One TCP application from car 0 to car 1, b) One TCP application from car 1 to car 2, c) One UDP application from car 0 to car 1, and d) One UDP application from car 1 to car 2. We vary the non safety UDP data rate from 1 Mbps to 8 Mbps in steps of 1 Mbps to emulate different

shows the values of the Nakagami parameters set for a freeway scenario [21].

memory less nature of VANET requirements, non bursty characteristics of packet losses and the design philosophy of repetitive broadcast [6].

Figure 2: Urban Scenario

Cars 0 1 2

Initial Position (1, 2) (47, 45) (1, 25)

Table 2: Urban Scenario

Final Position (2, 45) (45, 2) (45, 25)

Figure 3: FreeWay Scenario

Cars 0 1 2

Propagation/Nakagami set use_nakagami_dist_ true Propagation/Nakagami set gamma0_ 2.0 Propagation/Nakagami set gamma1_ 2.0 Propagation/Nakagami set gamma2_ 2.0 Propagation/Nakagami set d0_gamma_ 200 Propagation/Nakagami set d1_gamma_ 500 Propagation/Nakagami set m0_ 1.0 Propagation/Nakagami set m1_ 1.0 Propagation/Nakagami set m2_ 1.0 Propagation/Nakagami set d0_m_ 80 Propagation/Nakagami set d1_m_ 200
Code Fragment 4: Nakagami Urban Model

Initial Position (1, 2) (25, 2) (49, 1)

Table 3: FreeWay Scenario

Final Position (2, 45) (25, 49) (49, 48)

Propagation/Nakagami set use_nakagami_dist_ true Propagation/Nakagami set gamma0_ 1.9 Propagation/Nakagami set gamma1_ 3.8 Propagation/Nakagami set gamma2_ 3.8 Propagation/Nakagami set d0_gamma_ 200 Propagation/Nakagami set d1_gamma_ 500 Propagation/Nakagami set m0_ 1.5 Propagation/Nakagami set m1_ 0.75 Propagation/Nakagami set m2_ 0.75 Propagation/Nakagami set d0_m_ Propagation/Nakagami set d1_m_ 200
Code Fragment 5: Nakagami FreeWay Model

80

V. RESULTS and ANALYSIS: First, we shall define the performance metrics before giving an analysis of the results of simulation. Reliability is one of the most critical performance metrics for Vehicular Ad Hoc Network communication. Sometimes the reliability of DSRC-based VANET applications is quite satisfactory even under harsh environment (i.e. The Packet-Delivery ratio is low) due to 5

So, we have measured the reliability at two levels: 1) Communication level reliability and 2) Application level reliability. 1) Communication level reliability: a) Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) It is the ratio of the number of data packets received at the receiver to the total number of

packets transmitted at the sender. In the simulation, we measure the safety PDR, nonsafety UDP PDR, non-safety TCP PDR, and overall PDR. Figure 4 and 5 are the PDR vs. total non-safety UDP rate graph for urban scenario and freeway scenario respectively. 2) Application level reliability: a) T-Window Safety Reliability: It can be defined as the probability of receiving at least one safety packet from sender during each time slot 0.1 sec. It assures that the receiver is getting at least one new safety message from each sending node in every 0.1 sec; since the sending nodes generate new safety message in each 0.1 sec and broadcast it repetitively for that 0.1 sec until another new safety message is being generated. In our simulation model, we have measured the t-window safety reliabilities for all the 6 senderreceiver pairs among 3 nodes, and then calculate their average as the average t-window safety reliability for that experiment. The graphs for twindow safety reliability vs. total non-safety UDP rate are shown in Figure 6 and 7. b) Non-safety Throughput: It measures the total non-safety TCP and UDP throughput in the all receiving nodes. Figure 8 and 9 show graphs of non-safety throughput vs. total non-safety UDP rate. The 802.11a safety PDR is around 0.14 and 0.30 under urban and freeway traffic scenario respectively, whereas for DSRC (both preemptive and non-preemptive), these values are close to 0.91 and 0.95 respectively (see Figure 4 and 5). So, DSRC outperforms 802.11a in terms of communication level reliability. Moreover, the PDR of UDP non-safety application is also very poor (around 0.30) compared to that in DSRC (around 0.87) under urban traffic modeling. Only the PDR for TCP non-safety applications remains close to 1 irrespective of protocols and simulation scenarios (this is because of the congestion control mechanism of TCP); but we can easily find out from figure 8 and 9 that, TCP throughput decreases drastically for 802.11a. Also note that, our simulation results are slightly better in freeway scenario than in urban scenario. This is because the cars are moving in parallel in freeway model, whereas they are 6

moving in a very complex manner in the urban model.

Figure 4: PDR for Urban scenario

Figure 5: PDR for FreeWay scenario

The t-window safety reliability for 802.11a and DSRC (both preemptive and non-preemptive) are 0.42 and 0.98 respectively on an average under varying UDP rates (see Figure 6 and 7). So, DSRC performs very well compared to 802.11a in terms of t-window safety reliability. In 802.11a, TCP performs very poorly (0.7-1Kbps) in terms of throughput (see Figure 8 and 9). This is because of the presence of non-safety UDP applications and safety applications, which are not TCP friendly. But for DSRC, since there are dedicated time slots for each type of applications, the performance of TCP improves significantly (around 100 Kbps). From Figure 8 and 9, we can also figure out that the non-safety throughput for preemptive DSRC is less than that of nonpreemptive DSRC. This can be explained by the

fact that, for preemptive DSRC, the running nonsafety applications are preempted if any safety application interrupts. So, it is not a good idea to implement preemptive DSRC; as even for nonpreemptive DSRC, the other safety parameters (e.g. t-window safety reliability and safety PDR) are as good as those in preemptive DSRC.

250Kbps for freeway scenario and 105Kbps for urban scenario).

Figure 8: throughput for Urban Scenario

Figure 6: t-window safety reliability for Urban Scenario

Figure 9: throughput for FreeWay Scenario

Figure 7: t-window safety reliability for FreeWay Scenario

From Figure 8 and 9, it seems that a disadvantage of DSRC can be the low throughput for non-safety UDP applications when the non-safety UDP data rate is very high. However, the higher throughput of non-safety UDP applications in 802.11a is achieved at the cost of low throughput for nonsafety TCP applications and lower reliability for the safety applicaions. But, in DSRC, since every application is given a fixed and equal time-slot, the output is fair and the UDP non-safety throughput cannot go beyond a threshold value (around 7

VI. CONCLUSION: In this paper, we have analyzed how DSRC improves the performance of the safety application, as well as the non-safety applications. We have considered different traffic scenarios and two types of DSRC modeling. We also conclude that DSRC without preemption is better that DSRC with preemption; and overall performance in the freeway traffic scenario is better than that in the urban traffic scenario. The real implementation of DSRC is still an area of ongoing research, and we hope to measure the performance of DSRC with real implementation as a part of our future work. REFERENCES:
[1] ASTM E2213-03, Standard Specification for Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between

Roadside and Vehicle Systems 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, ASTM Intl., Jul. 2003. [2] The CAMP Vehicle Safety Communications Consortium, Vehicle Safety Communications Project Task 3 Final Report - Identify Intelligent Vehicle Safety Applications Enabled by DSRC, DOT HS 809 859 NHTSA, USDOT, 2005. [3] FCC, Amendments regarding DSRC, FCC, 2004. [4] IEEE 802.11 Working Group, Part 11: wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications, ANSI/IEEE Std. 802.11, Sept. 1999. [5] Z. Wang and M. Hassan, How much of DSRC is available for non-safety use, ACM VANET 2008, pp.23-29. [6] F. Bai and H. Krishnan, Reliability Analysis of DSRC Wireless Communication for Vehicle Safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, 2006. IEEE, pp. 355362. [7] C. Cseh, Architecture of the Dedicated Short-Range Communications Protocol, VTC 1998, IEEE, pp.2095-3000. [8] H. Menouar, M. Lenardi, and F. Filali, A survey and qualitative Analysis of MAC Protocols for vehicular ad hoc Networks (VANETs), Wireless Communications, IEEE, October 2006, vol. 13, Issue: 5, pp. 30-35. [9] F. Yu and S. Biswas, A Self-Organizing MAC Protocol for DSRC based Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, ICDCS Workshops 2007. [10] BreezeCom: A Technical Tutorial on the IEEE 802.11 Protocol, 1997. [11] A. Malarky, G. Z. Rafi, S. Safavi-Naeini, and L. Delgrossi, A Planar Dual Band GPS and DSRC Antenna for Road Vehicles, VTC Fall 2007. [12] Standards for Car Talk. The Institute, 07 March 2007, IEEE [13] Draft IEEE 802.11p, Draft Amendment to Standard for Information Technology Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and Metropolitan networks specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Amendment : Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments [14] IEEE Std 1609.1-2006, Trial-Use Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) Resource Manager [15] IEEE Std 1609.2-2006, Trial-Use Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments Security Services for Applications and Management Messages [16] IEEE Std 1609.3-2006, Trial-use Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking Services [17] IEEE Std 1609.4-2006, Trial-Use Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel Operation

[18] Q Chen, D Jiang, V Taliwal & L Delgrossi, IEEE 802.11 based Vehicular Communication Simulation Design for NS-2, VANET 2006. [19] C. F. Mecklenbruker1, A. Paier1, P. Belanovic, S. Shooshtary, N. M. Boix, M. Abbasi, M. Zaera, and T. Zemen, Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments, ftw. Member Tutorial: Traffic Telematics, 2008. [20] http://mailman.isi.edu/pipermail/ns-announce/2008March/000047.html [21] Q. Chen, F. Schmidt-Eisenlohr, and D. Jiang, Overhaul of IEEE 802.11 Modeling and Simulation in NS-2 (802.11Ext), http://dsn.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de/download/ Documentation-NS-2-80211Ext-2008-02-22.pdf [22] F. Schmidt-Eisenlohr, M. Torrent-Moreno, J. Mittag, and H. Hartenstein, Simulation platform for inter-vehicle communications and analysis of periodic information exchange, in Proc. 4th Conference on Wireless On demand Network Systems and Services (WONS), Obergurgl, pp. 50-58, Jan. 2007. [23] V. Taliwal, D. Jiang, H. Mangold, C. Chen, and R. Sengupta, Empirical Determination of Channel Characteristics for DSRC Vehicle-tovehicle Communication, in Proceedings of the ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET), Oct. 2004.