Survey-Comparing Characteristics of MANET and VANET with Routing

Protocol
#1 Rajkumar B. Pawar, Assistant Professor, Gharda Institute of Technology, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India
#2 Snehal R. Rane, Assistant Professor, Gharda Institute of Technology, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India
#1 rajpawar638@gmail.com, #2 snehalrane1983@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

An Intelligent two-step reservation procedure

combined with the advantages of EDCA
service differentiation. The former alleviates
the hidden node problem while the latter
ensures compatibility with the IEEE 802.11
standard. Through time domain observation,
typical wireless signal strength values seems to
exhibit some forms of mean-reverting and
discontinuous jumps behaviour. Wireless
Mesh Networks (WMNs) are increasingly
deployed to enable thousands of users to share,
create, and access live video streaming with
different characteristics and content, such as
video surveillance and football matches. The
development of in-service and non-intrusive
Quality of Experience assessment schemes for
real-time Internet videos with different
complexity and motion levels, Group of Picture
lengths, and characteristics, remains a
significant challenge. Wireless mesh networks
(WMNs) are considered as a promising
alternative to wired local or metropolitan area
networks. However, owing to their exposure to
various disruptive events, including natural
disasters, or human threats, many WMN
network elements located close to the failure
epicenter are frequently in danger of a
simultaneous failure, referred to as a region
failure.
Keywords: WMN, EDCA _ Hidden nodes, MAC protocol
_ QoS _ Wireless communications, Mobile Ad hoc
network(MANET),
Vehicular
Ad-hoc
Network
(VANET).

I.

INTRODUCTION

The IEEE 802.11 standard is currently one of the

most popular wireless access technologies. It
allows quick and simple configuration of local
broadband networks and greatly facilitates
Internet access. With the growth of the popularity
of IEEE 802.11, the number of available services
also increased and the need for Quality of Service
(QoS) provisioning became apparent. As a
remedy to this problem, the Enhanced Distributed
Channel Access (EDCA) function of the IEEE
802.11 standard was proposed [3].
Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs)
represent a rapidly emerging, particularly
challenging class of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
(MANETs). VANETs are distributed, selforganizing 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 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.
In networks with heterogeneous traffic, the
QoS requirements of each service should be
carefully taken into account. In particular, in the
case of simultaneous transmissions of multimedia
and data traffic the delay constraints of the
multimedia service should be primarily met. To
achieve this goal multimedia traffic should have
priority over data traffic. Within wireless ad-hoc
networks it is the EDCA function of the IEEE
802.11 standard which was designed to satisfy
this requirement

II.
a.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Routing Protocols:

We try to find out the best performance of

VANET on scenarios on the basis of Ad-hoc
routing. The only precondition is that all
vehicles should equipped with mobile
communicating device and sensor device and
those are much cheaper than agent based or
infrastructure based VANET.

Fig. 1.1: Ad-hoc routing protocol

III.
i.
Proactive Routing
Proactive routing protocols are based on shortest
path algorithms [7]. It maintains and update
information on routing among all nodes of a
given network at all times even if the paths are
not currently being used. Thus, even if some
paths are never used but updates regarding such
paths are constantly broadcasted among nodes
[13]. Route updates are periodically performed
regardless of network load, bandwidth
constraints.
ii. Reactive Routing
On demand or reactive routing protocols were
designed to overcome the overhead problem,
that was created by proactive routing protocols,
by maintaining only those routes that are
currently active [8]. These protocols implement
route determination on a demand or need basis
and maintain only the routes that are currently in
use, thereby reducing the burden on the network
when only a subset of available routes is in use

at any time [9]. AODV maintains and uses an

efficient method of routing that reduces network
load by broadcasting route discovery
mechanism and by dynamically updating
routing information at each intermediate node.
Route discovery in AODV can be done by
sending RREQ (Route Request) from a node
when it requires a route to send the data to a
particular destination. After sending RREQ,
node then waits for the RREP (Route Reply)
and if it does not receive any RREP within a
given time period, DSR, ADV and AODV can
be compared and evaluated based on the packet
delivery ratio, normalized MAC load,
normalized routing load, and average end-to-end
delay by altering the number of sources, speed,
and pause time.
III. MANET ARCHITECTURE & CHARACTERISTICS
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.
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.

IV.

VANET
ARCHITECTURE
CHARACTERISTICS

AND

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
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
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.

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 [7],
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.

Vulnerability is a weakness in security system. A

particular system may be vulnerable to
unauthorized data manipulation allowing data
access. MANET is more vulnerable than wired
network. These vulnerabilities can be challenges
and issues of MANET security.
Some of the vulnerabilities are as follows:1. Lack of centralized management
A centralized monitor server. The absence of
management makes the detection of attacks

difficult because it is not east to monitor the

traffic in a highly dynamic and large scale ad-hoc
network. Lack of centralized management will
impede trust management for nodes.
2. Resource availability: Resource availability
is a major issue in MANET. Providing secure
communication in such changing environment as
well as protection against specific threats and
attacks, leads to development of various security
schemes and architectures. Collaborative ad-hoc
environments also allow implementation of selforganized security mechanism.
3. Scalability: Due to mobility of nodes, scale of
ad-hoc network changing all the time. So
scalability is a major issue concerning security.
Security mechanism should be capable of
handling a large network as well as small ones. 4.
Cooperativeness:
Routing algorithm
for
MANETs usually assumes that nodes are
cooperative and non-malicious. As a result a
malicious attacker can easily become an
important routing agent and disrupt network
operation
by
disobeying
the
protocol
specifications.
5. Dynamic topology: Dynamic topology and
changeable nodes membership may disturb the
trust relationship among nodes. The trust may also
be disturbed if some nodes are detected as
compromised. This dynamic behavior could be 9
better protected with distributed and adaptive
security mechanisms. 6. Limited power supply:
The nodes in mobile ad-hoc network need to
consider restricted power supply, which will cause
several problems. A node in mobile ad-hoc
network may behave in a selfish manner when it
is finding that there is only limited power supply.
7.Bandwidth constraint: Variable low capacity
links exists as compared to wireless network
which are more susceptible to external noise,
interference and signal attenuation effects.

8. No predefined Boundary: In mobile ad- hoc

networks we cannot precisely define a physical
boundary of the network. The nodes work in a
nomadic environment where they are allowed to
join and leave the wireless network. As soon as an
adversary comes in the radio range of a node it
will be able to communicate with that node. The
attacks include Eavesdropping impersonation;
tempering, replay and Denial of Service (DoS).
V.

Authenticated Routing for Ad hoc

Networks

The Authenticated Routing for Ad hoc Networks

(ARAN) protocol, proposed in [6], is a standalone solution for securing routing in ad-hoc
networking environments. ARAN utilizes
cryptographic certificates in order to achieve the
security goals of authentication and nonrepudiation. ARAN, an on-demand secure ad hoc
routing protocol, consists of three distinct
operational stages, of which the first two are
compulsory and the third is optional. The first
stage is, in essence, a preliminary certification
process that requires the existence of a trusted
certification authority (CA). The protocol
assumes that each node knows a priori the
public key of the certification authority. The
second operational stage of the protocol is the
route discovery process that provides end-to-end
authentication. This ensures that the intended
destination was indeed reached.
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.
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 queryresponse 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 provides
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

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. Broadcasting 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, VTRADE, and DV-CAST.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper many types of attacks and secure
ad hoc routing protocols and some improvement
over new protocols discussed. Each protocol has a
different set of operational requirements and
provides protection against different attacks by
utilizing particular approaches. Therefore, most of
the protocols studied are related to AODV and
DSR routing protocols. A detailed comparison can
provide insight regarding the applicability of a
particular protocol for a specific application
domain. Also various issues in MANET and
VANET are discussed with comparison of both.
A security analysis is attempted focusing on the
applicability of the previously described solution.
The future scope of the paper is to more focus on
Byzantine attacks and their routing protocols.

REFERENCES
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.
2. IEEE 802.11, (2007, June), Wireless LAN medium
access control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specifications, IEEE Inc., USA: New York
3. Kevin C. Lee, Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla,Survey of
Routing Protocols in Vehicular AdHocNetworks,
RoutingBookChapterKLULMario.pdf.1096
Soumen Saha et al
4. M. Abolhasan, T. Wysocki and E. Dutkiewicz, A
review of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc
networks, Ad Hoc Networks 2, 2004, pp. 122.
5. N. H; Tony Larsson, Routing Protocols in
Wireless Ad Hoc Networks- A Simulation Study ,
Department Of Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering, Lule University of Technology,
Stockholm, 1998.
6. S. Yi, P. Naldurg, and R. Kravets, "Security-Aware
Ad hoc Routing for Wireless Networks," Proc. 2nd
ACM Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Net. and Comp.
(Mobihoc'01), Long Beach, CA, Oct. 2001, pp.
299302
7. 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.
8. Int. J. Communications, Network and System
Sciences, 2014, 7, 365-372 Published Online
September
2014
in
SciRes.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijcns
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijcns.2014.79038
9. H. Alshear and E. Horlait. An Optimized
Adaptive Broadcast Scheme for InterVehicle
Communication, in Proc. IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference (IEEE VTC2005Spring),
Stockholm, Sweden, May 2005.
10. Using Ad-hoc Inter-vehicle Networks For Regional
Alerts Qixiang Sun and Hector Garcia-Molina
Computer Science Department Stanford University
11. A new busy signal-based MAC protocol supporting
QoS for ad-hoc networks with hidden nodes by
Katarzyna Kosek-Szott Marek Natkaniec , Andrzej
R. Pach
1.