2011 11th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications

Cross-Network Information Dissemination in

VANETs
G. Ferrari and S. Busanelli

N. Iotti

Y. Kaplan

Wireless Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks Lab

Department of Information Engineering
University of Parma
I-43124 Parma, Italy
http://wasnlab.tlc.unipr.it/

Guglielmo Srl
Strada Parma 35/D5
43010 Pilastro di Langhirano (Parma)
Italy
http://www.guglielmo.biz/

Cellint Traffic Solutions Ltd

1 Bat Sheva Rd.,POB 1300
Lod 71100
Israel
http://www.cellint.com/

AbstractIn this work, we provide an overview of an innovative approach for effective cross-network information dissemination, with applications to Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs).
In particular, we describe the main approach followed in an
on-going bilateral Italy-Israel project (Cross-Network Effective
Traffic Alert Dissemination, X-NETAD). The X-NETAD project
leverages on the spontaneous formation of WiFi local VANETs,
with direct connections between neighboring vehicles, in order to
disseminate, very quickly and inexpensively, traffic alerts received
from the UMTS network.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Real time traffic alerting is a key issue in efficient transportation systems, for several reasons: from the perspective
of road operators, efficient traffic alerting allows congestion
reduction and smoother traffic flow; from the perspective of
drivers, the availability of reliable and updated information on
traffic incidents means time and gas saving, increased safety
and less stress; from the economic perspective, real time traffic
alerting will save time and gas and decrease CO2 emissions.
There are numerous systems that monitor traffic and detect
traffic congestion and traffic incidents, based on road sensors,
police reports, Global Positioning System (GPS) and cellularbased traffic data collection, and other means.
Cellint Traffic Solutions Ltd has developed an efficient and
accurate real time traffic detection systems (named TrafficSense), based mainly on data extraction from cellular networks [1]. TrafficSense relies on the existence of a cellular
network over the road areas to be monitored and is based on
the fact that, with extremely high probability, there is (at least)
a cellular phone inside each vehicle. Cellular phones are also a
good way to disseminate traffic information and supply drivers
with real time traffic alerts in their neighborhood (neighborhood can be defined as a circle of 20-50 km around the current
vehicle location). However, traffic alerts dissemination using
cellular phones have some inherent limitations. Using cellular
phones continuously for real time traffic alerts on the cellular
network (i.e., cellular Internet) has relatively high cost and
consumes a large amount of energy from the mobile phone.
Approximate location is required in order to receive relevant
traffic alerts. Location can be supplied by GPS. Currently, less
than 20% of the phones have a built-in GPS and, in addition,

978-1-61284-671-2/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

phones that have GPS are often located inside the vehicle so
that the GPS does not have line of sight to the satellites and
cannot determine the location.
Nowadays, most of the vehicles available on the market are
provided by sensorial, cognitive, and communication skills.
In particular, leveraging on Inter-Vehicular Communications
(IVCs)a set of technologies that gives networking capabilities to the vehiclesvehicles can create decentralized and selforganized vehicular networks, commonly denoted as Vehicular
Ad-hoc NETworks (VANETs), involving either vehicles and/or
fixed network nodes (e.g., road side units). VANETs have
a few unique characteristics: (i) the availability of virtually
unlimited energetic and computational resources (in each
vehicle); (ii) very dynamic network topologies, due to the
high average speed of the vehicles; (iii) nodes movements
constrained by the underlying road topology; (iv) broadcast
communications protocols, used as truly information-bearing
protocols (especially in multihop communication scenarios)
and not only as auxiliary supporting tools.
In recent years, many broadcast protocols for VANETs have
been proposed by the research community.
In [2], one can find a possible classification of broadcast
protocols. In [3], the authors focus, from a theoretical perspective, on efficient broadcasting for mobile ad hoc networks.
Position-based broadcast protocols (see [4] and references
therein) exploit the knowledge of some geographical characteristics of the network, to improve the retransmission efficiency.
For example, the Emergency Message Dissemination for Vehicular environments (EMDV) protocol achieves remarkable
performance exploiting pure geographical information and
information on the local network topology [5]. The major
drawback shared by all position-based protocols, however,
is the need for information on the network topology and
the geographical characteristics of the environment where the
nodes are located [5].
Since collecting this information may be very difficult,
several alternative broadcasting protocols have been recently
proposed with the goal of achieving the same performance
level of position-based protocols without the need for major information exchange. The Urban Multihop Broadcast
(UMB) [6], the Smart Broadcast (SB) [7], and the Binary

351

Partition Assisted Protocol (BPAB) [8], are good examples

of threshold-based protocols, based on the idea of partitioning
the transmission range of the source in distinct regions.
It can be shown that the so-called probabilistic broadcasting
protocols, in which nodes rebroadcast according to a certain
probability assignment function, can achieve a performance
level comparable with which guaranteed by threshold-based
protocols, but with a lower complexity [9][11].
The problem which arises is how to properly assign the
rebroadcast probability to each node. Intuitively, the farthest
node in the range of the transmitter should be given the
responsibility of rebroadcasting the packet, as this will yield
the highest forward progress. Thus, the rebroadcast probability
should be a function of the distance between the receiver
and the transmitter. In other words, the farther the receiving
node is from the transmitting one, the higher its associated
rebroadcast probability should be. A simple function, which
is commonly used for assigning the rebroadcast probability, is
of the form d/z, where d is the distance between receiving
and transmitting nodes, and z is the transmission range. With
this assignment, the rebroadcast probability is an increasing
linear function of the distance d [10], [12].
In this paper, we describe the innovative cross-network
approach, for effective information dissemination in vehicular
environments, proposed in the on-going Italy-Israel CrossNetwork Effective Traffic Alerts Dissemination (X-NETAD)
project [13]. The goal of the X-NETAD project is the design
and implementation of low cost, efficient and ubiquitous
traffic alerts dissemination to drivers. In particular, is envisions
the formation of ephemeral local VANETs, formed by one
primary vehicle surrounded by secondary vehicles. The
former vehicle acts as a gateway for traffic alerts coming
from the UMTS network, which are broadcasted to the latter
vehicles by means of WiFi broadcast communications.
II. X-NETAD:

THE I DEA

As of today, smartphones are gaining more and more

popularity. This new class of personal device assistants are
typically equipped with a dual interface, for cellular networks
(typically 3G UMTS networks) and WiFi networks. Therefore,
in the near future each vehicle will likely contain at least one
of these devices. The key idea of the X-NETAD approach
is that of leveraging on the spontaneous formation of WiFi
local VANETs, with direct connections between neighboring
vehicles, in order to disseminate traffic alerts and GPS location in the VANETs very quickly and inexpensively. More
precisely, the X-NETAD system will be designed in such a
way that, at any given time, only a small percentage (e.g.,
10%) of the vehicles (i.e., the smartphones inside the vehicles)
will be directly connected to the traffic alerts dissemination
system using cellular Internet over UMTS (i.e., to the TrafficSense system). These (primary) vehicles will then disseminate the same information, through WiFi communications, to
the other (secondary) vehicles, which cannot receive directly
UMTS traffic alerts, in their VANETs. To this end, a very
efficient broadcast technique for information dissemination

in VANETs, denoted as Irresponsible Forwarding (IF), has

recently been proposed [14]. IF assigns to each vehicle an
optimized rebroadcast probability, which takes into account the
surrounding vehicle spatial density and can be easily tuned:
this guarantees fast information dissemination even in the
presence of high vehicular traffic. The IF protocol does not
require the exchange of additional messages, therefore, it could
easily replace the legacy flooding protocol that is still used in
many projects related to the the Car 2 Car Communications
Consortium (C2C-CC) [15]. For instance, the geo-broadcasting
protocols defined within the GeoNet project (e.g., GeoBroadcast and TopoBroadcast) rely on the flooding protocol for
realizing multihop broadcast communications [16].
The X-NETAD project aims at designing and implementing
the proposed innovative traffic alerts dissemination system
based on a cross-network (cellular and WiFi) software application (to be developed by Guglielmo and the University of
Parma), easily downloadable and installable on dual-interface
(UMTS and WiFi) smartphones. An illustrative representation of the cross-network traffic alert dissemination system
envisioned by the X-NETAD project is shown in Fig. 1.
The innovative software application will allow these devices
to receive traffic alerts from the UMTS network, through a
cellular Internet-based traffic alerts dissemination system (to
be developed by Cellint), and quickly broadcast it (through
the use of the IF protocol) to all vehicles of its VANET. For
safety considerations, the traffic alerts will be disseminated
as audio messages rather than visual data, so that the drivers
attention will not be distracted by looking at its smartphone
screen. Besides extending the coverage and lowering the
operational costs of traffic alerts dissemination, the X-NETAD
project approach will also lead to mutual UMTS-WiFi network
optimization. For example, the vehicle spatial density can
be estimated analyzing the data collected by the traffic data
collection system (namely TrafficSense, that collects data from
the UMTS cellular network) and used by the IF protocol (in
WiFi VANETs) to optimize communications therein. On the
other hand, vehicles in a VANET that have a functional GPS
will broadcast (through WiFi communications) their locations
using the IF protocol so that the (primary) smartphone that
receives the traffic alerts from the cellular Internet (UMTS)
will know its approximate location, even without having a
functional GPS, and will disseminate only relevant traffic
alerts.
III. C ELLULAR BASED T RAFFIC C ONDITION E STIMATION
The traffic information disseminated by X-NETAD relies on
a proprietary technology developed by Cellint Traffic Solutions
Ltd and implemented in the TrafficSense system [1]. TrafficSense measures traffic data by analyzing the movement of
anonymous cellular phones in vehicles. TrafficSense measures
the exact travel-time of each anonymous vehicle over small
road intervals, every few hundred meters. By analyzing and
aggregating all the travel time samples over the coverage area
TrafficSense provides complete real-time traffic data for all
types of roads. The output data can then be extrapolated to

352

UMTS Trac Alert

WiFi IF-based Alert Broadcast

WiFi IF-based Alert Broadcast

WiFi IF-based Alert Broadcast

Fig. 1.

Illustrative X-NETAD traffic alerts dissemination scheme.

Fig. 3.

A typical linear network topology of a VANET.

traffic alerts from the primary user (which acts as local VANET
source) to all users forming the VANET.
A. Reference Scenario
Fig. 2.

TrafficSense system overview.

generate traffic predictions according to historical patterns and

the current road network status.
Cellints high accuracy traffic data is a result of its detection technology: unlike most cellular-based traffic suppliers,
Cellint does not use cell tower locations for triangulation.
The triangulation method is not accurate enough due to
signal obstructions, reflections and multipath and thus provides
poor traffic data. Instead, Cellint creates a reference database
by driving the roads and creating cellular signaling maps
named road signatures from ground truth drives. The road
signatures keep the exact locations of events on the cellular
network. This provides orders of magnitude better location
information, especially in urban areas, resulting in accurate
traffic information and real time detection of any change in
traffic. Cellints TrafficSense is the only cellular based traffic
detection system that was successfully tested against road
sensors by Departments of Transportation in Europe and the
USA. An illustrative representation of the TrafficSense system
architecture is shown in Fig. 2.
IV. E FFICIENT I NFORMATION D ISSEMINATION IN
VANET S THROUGH I RRESPONSIBLE F ORWARDING
In this section, we describe the basic idea of the probabilistic
dissemination protocol to be used in each VANET to propagate

Fig. 3 shows the linear network topology of reference.

We consider a one-dimensional wireless network with N
(receiving) nodes, under the assumption that the roads width
is considerably smaller than the transmission range of the
vehicles. Each node is uniquely identified by the indices
j {1, 2, . . . , N }. The source node, denoted as node 0, is
placed at the left end of the network.
The following preliminary assumptions are introduced to
derive simple, yet significant, insights. The inter-vehicle spacing is exponentially distributed with mean 1/s , where s
is the vehicle spatial density (dimension: [veh/m]). In other
words, the nodes positions are generated according to a
one-dimensional Poisson distribution with parameter s the
validity of this assumption is confirmed by empirical traffic
data [17]. Each vehicle has a fixed transmission range, denoted as z (dimension: [m])the transmission range depends,
obviously, on the transmit power. Each vehicle is equipped
with a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. As a result,
each vehicle knows its own position at any given time. The
network size (the line length) is set to L (dimension: [m]). For
generality, we denote as normalized network size the positive
real number norm , L/z, and we observe that s z (dimension: [veh]) represents the average number of vehicles within
a transmission range.
Each topology realization, consistent with the previous
assumptions, is obtained by iteratively generating the positions
of consecutive nodes (with exponentially distributed distance

353

between a pair of consecutive nodes). The generation process

stops as soon as d0,N +1 > L, where d0,N +1 is the (positive)
distance between the source node and the N + 1-th node.
Therefore, N is the random variable denoting the index of
the last generated node. In general, dj,k denotes the distance
between the two nodes j and k (j, k {1, . . . , N }). In order
to guarantee the significance of every scenario, we impose that
the 1-st node has to lie in the interval [0, z], i.e., d0,1 < z, so
that N > 1. Apparently, these requirements break the Poissonianity of nodes position process. However, conditionally
on d0,1 , the remaining nodes in the set {2, . . . , N } are still
distributed according to a Poisson point process of parameter
s . Considering that1 E[d0,1 ] 1/s , it is accurate to assume
that the number of nodes, denoted as N , N 1, in the
network region [d0,1 , L] (i.e., after the first node) has a Poisson
distribution with parameter s (L 1/s ) = s L 1.
On the basis of the previous assumptions, we want to
preliminary investigate the network connectivity (which does
not depend on the chosen broadcasting protocol). To this
end, we introduce the concept of last reachable node (identified by the index nreach ). Given that there are N nodes
in the network, for every pair of consecutive nodes, say
(j, j + 1), j [1, 2, . . . , N 1], since the distribution of
dj,j+1 is well approximated by an exponential distribution
with parameter s , there is (approximately) a probability
es z that dj,j+1 > z. We denote as j the minimum node
index such that dj ,j +1 > z. Clearly, if j exists, than the
(j + 1)-th node is unreachable from any node j < j + 1.
Therefore, the network is said topologically disconnected and
nreach = j . Conversely, if j does not exist, then the network
is topologically connected and nreach = N . Obviously, the
average value of the ratio nreach /N is a meaningful metric to
evaluate the connectivity level of the network.
In Fig. 4, E [nreach /N ] is shown as a function of the product
s z, considering both simulation and analytical results. More
precisely, the simulation results are obtained by averaging, for
each value of s z, the values of the ratio nreach /N obtained
over 1000 network topologies generated according to the
previous assumptions.2 Recalling that N = N 1 is approximately Poisson(s L 1), the average value E [nreach/N ] can
be analytically approximated as follows:





X
nreach
nreach

E
=
E
|N = j P {N = j}
1 + N
1 + N
j=0

X
j=0

1
(s L 1)j e(s L1)
E [nreach |N = j ]
. (1)
1+j
j!

Given that N = j, nreach can assume values between 1 (if

only the first node is connected) and j + 1 (if all nodes are
1 Given

that d0,1 < z, it follows that d0,1 has the truncated exponential
s es
probability density function fd0,1 ( ) = 1e
s z [U ( ) U ( z)],
where U () is the unit step function. It can be shown that E[d0,1 ] =
1/s z es z /(1 es z ) is well approximated by 1/s , i.e., by the
average value of a (non-truncated) exponential distribution.
2 Note that the assumption that d
0,1 < z, i.e., N 1, makes the chosen
metric meaningful.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Anal.
Sim.

0
1

10

15

20

s z [veh]

Fig. 4.

The average ratio E[nreach /N ] as a function of s z.

connected). More precisely


(1 PD ) PD
P {nreach = |N = j}
(1 PD )j

1j1
=j

where PD = es z is the probability that two consecutive

nodes are disconnected, i.e., that the distance between them is
longer than z. Therefore,
E [nreach |N = j ]

j1
X

(1 PD ) PD + j(1 PD )j

(2)

=1

and, inserting (2) into (1), the desired average value can be
approximated. As one can see from the results in Fig. 4, the
proposed analytical approximation is very accurate. It can be
observed that E [nreach /N ] is an increasing function of s z
that approaches 1 for s z 12 veh. In other words, for s z
12 veh the network is completely connected.
B. Probability Assignment Function
Let us consider a vehicle, at a generic distance d from the
source node (positioned at the origin of the horizontal axis),
within the transmission range of the source. In Fig. 3, Nz
denotes the number of nodes within the transmission range
of the source, i.e., d {d1 , d2 , . . . , dz }. According to the
idea of the IF protocol, the vehicle should rebroadcast the
packet only if the probability of finding another vehicle in
the consecutive interval of length z d is low; otherwise,
it should not. More specifically, when a vehicle receives a
packet, it compares its position with that of the transmitter
and computes its rebroadcast probability as follows:


s (z d)
p = exp
(3)
c
where d is the distance between the vehicle and the transmitter
and c 1 is a coefficient which can be selected to shape
the probability of rebroadcasting. The higher the value of c,
the higher the probability of rebroadcasting at any position d.
In the particular case with c = 1, the rebroadcast probability
reduces to the probability that there is no vehicle in the interval
of length z d.

354

TABLE I
M AIN IEEE 802.11 NETWORK SIMULATION PARAMETERS FOR IF.

s =0.01 veh/m, c=1

s =0.05 veh/m, c=1
s =0.01 veh/m, c=3
s =0.05 veh/m, c=3

0.8

s
z

0.6

norm
Packet Size
Carrier Freq.
Data rate
CWMIN

0.4

0.2

{1, 5}
{0.1, 100} pck/s
0.01 veh/m
{100, 300, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000} m
8
105 bytes
2.4 GHz
1 Mbps
31

0.1

50

100
d [m]

150

IF, c=1, =0.1 pck/s

IF, c=1, =100.0 pck/s
IF, c=5, =0.1 pck/s
IF, c=5, =100.0 pck/s
flood, =0.1 pck/s
flood, =100.0 pck/s

200
0.08

Fig. 5. Rebroadcast probability, as a function of the distance, with z =

200 m, c {1, 3}, and s z {0.01, 0.05} veh/m.

D [s]

0.06

In Fig. 5, the rebroadcast probability is shown, as a function

of the distance between the receiver and the transmitter, for
various values of c and s z. This figure can be interpreted as
follows. When d is small, the value of p is also small because
the receiving vehicle is very close to the transmitter and,
therefore, it should let the other node take the responsibility
of rebroadcasting. When d becomes larger, the value of p
becomes larger and approaches 1 when the node is at the
edge of the transmission range. Note that with the probability
assignment in (3), the node spatial density is also taken into
account. When the network is sparse, the overall rebroadcast
probability should be high (e.g., even if the receiving node is
relatively close to the transmitter) in order to ensure complete
reachability. As observed in Fig. 5, when s z decreases from
0.05 veh/m to 0.01 veh/m, the overall forwarding probability
also increases. In addition, the coefficient c is also effective at
shaping the rebroadcast probability, as the overall rebroadcast
probability can be increased by increasing the value of c.
C. IF in IEEE 802.11 Networks
Since communications are broadcast, correct packet reception cannot be acknowledged. Therefore, the packets are
never retransmitted and the Contention Window (CW) of
the backoff procedure of the Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) medium access control
(MAC) protocol is constant and equal to the value specified
by the parameter CWmin of the IEEE 802.11 standard [18].
Moreover, it is well known that broadcast communications
cannot exploit the Ready-To-Send/Clear-To-Send (RTS/CTS)
mechanism foreseen by the IEEE 802.11 standard. Hence, they
suffer from the hidden terminal problem, which inevitably
reduces the number of packets being able to propagate to the
farthest reachable node of the network. Note that the DCF
mechanism of the IEEE 802.11 standard obviously introduces
an additional channel access delay, proportional to the traffic
load and to the parameter CWmin , thus increasing the overall

0.04
c=5
flood

0.02

c=1

0
0

10
s z [veh]

15

20

Fig. 6. D as a function of s z, obtained for = 100 pck/s and =

0.1 pck/s. The curves are obtained for the IF protocol with c = 1, c = 5 and
for the flooding protocol (flood).

delay. We remark that while the traffic load is ineffective in

an ideal (collision-free) scenario, in an IEEE 802.11 network
scenario it will have a relevant impact.
The IF protocol is inserted on top of the IEEE 802.11
model presented in Network Simulator 2 (ns-2.34 [19]). Since
this work does not focus on physical layer issues, we adopt a
simple Friis free-space propagation model [20]. The relevant
parameters of the IEEE 802.11 network and of the IF protocol
are listed in Table I. In particular, we underline the choice of
a small packet size (105 bytes) to avoid fragmentation at the
MAC layer. Finally, in order to have a performance benchmark, we have also carried out simulations of the classical
flooding protocol, whose forwarding policy is trivial: every
node rebroadcasts any fresh packet with probability equal to
1 (i.e., always). All the results presented are accurate within
5% of the values shown with 95% confidence.
In Fig. 6, D is shown as a function of s z. One can observe
that in the saturation region (high values of s z) the flooding
protocol (denoted as flood in the figure) is very sensitive to
the traffic load, as shown by the explosion of the delay in the
case with = 100 pck/s. Conversely, all the IF curves exhibit
an attractive behavior, since they are slightly increasing in
the region with low network connectivity (small values s z),
while they become approximately constant in scenario with

355

high connectivity (s z 20). We stress the fact that all IF

schemes (with c = 1 and c = 5) have approximately the same
delay in the saturation region, whereas there is a gap for small
values of s z. This behavior is mostly due to the CSMA/CA
mechanism. In fact, in the poorly connected region the packets
experience, on average, a small number of hops. In addition,
the CSMA/CA mechanism has an impact mostly in the very
first hops experienced by the packet, when the traffic load is
more intense due to the proximity to the source.
D. On the Impact of Node Mobility
Since we have considered broadcasting applications where
a single information packet is transmitted by the source, it can
be immediately concluded that the mobility of the vehicles has
an impact only if the mobility level is sufficient to generate
relevant network topology variations during the propagation
time, throughout the network, of the information packet.
According to the results shown in Fig. 6, it can be concluded
that the maximum delay in the considered network schemes
is Dmax = 0.04 s. Consider a uni-directional highway traffic
with maximum allowed vehicle speed denoted as vmax and
with maximum speed difference, between any pair of randomly selected nodes, denoted as v . Considering vmax =
50 m/s (180 km/h) and (as a worst case speed variability level)
v = vmax = 50 m/s, the pair of vehicles corresponding
to v move away from each other, with respect to their
initial positions, of roughly 2 m during the end-to-end travel
time of the information packet, i.e., Dmax = 0.04 s. This
is a negligible displacement, with respect to the considered
minimum value of the transmission range z (100 m), and,
therefore, the performance analysis carried out remains basically unchangedsimulations results with the just described
mobility distribution do not show any noticeable variation.
We remark that if the broadcasting application involves the
transmission of an information flow, such as in a session with
hundreds of information packets to be distributed, then the
impact of mobility has to be carefully taken into account. In
this case, denoting as Npckflow the number of packets to
be transmitted by the source and neglecting the propagation
time in each transmission, it can be concluded that the total
transmission time is approximately equal to Npckflow Dmax .
Therefore, in this case the performance analysis carried out in
this work still applies provided that the following conditions
satisfied:
Npckflow Dmax vmax z
where we have implicitly considered the worst-case pair of
mobile nodes with speed difference v given by vmax .
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented an overview of the research
activities carried out in the on-going Italy-Israel X-NETAD
project [13]. The goal of the project is that of designing
an efficient cross-network vehicular information dissemination
system. The key idea is that of receiving traffic alerts from the
UMTS network and broadcast them very rapidly to all vehicles

in the neighborhood of the receiver (which acts as information

gateway). Preliminary results are very encouraging.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Part of this work is carried out under the one-year project
Cross-Network Effective Traffic Alerts Dissemination (XNETAD, Eureka Label E! 6252 [13]), sponsored by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Italy) and The Israeli Industry
Center for R&D (Israel) under the Israel-Italy Joint Innovation Program for Industrial, Scientific and Technological
Cooperation in R&D.
R EFERENCES
[1] Cellint TrafficSense, http://cellint.com/traffic data/traffic system.html.
[2] S. Ni, Y. Tseng, Y. Chen, and J. Sheu, The broadcast storm problem
in a mobile ad hoc network, in Proc. ACM Conf. on Mobile Comput.
and Networking (MOBICOM), Seattle, WA, USA, August 1999, pp.
151162.
[3] M. Khabbazian and V. K. Bhargava, Efficient broadcasting in mobile ad
hoc networks, IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 231245,
February 2009.
[4] M. Kihl, M. Sichitiu, and H. P. Joshi, Design and evaluation of two
geocast protocols for vehicular ad-hoc networks, Journal of Internet
Engineering, Klidarithmos Press, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 127135, June 2008.
[5] M. Torrent-Moreno, J. Mittag, P. Santi, and H. Hartenstein, Vehicle-tovehicle communication: Fair transmit power control for safety-critical
information, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 36843707,
September 2009.
[6] G. Korkmaz, E. Ekici, and F. Ozguner, Black-burst-based multihop
broadcast protocols for vehicular networks, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 31593167, September 2007.
[7] E. Fasolo, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, An effective broadcast scheme for
alert message propagation in vehicular ad hoc networks, in Proc. IEEE
International Conf. on Commun. (ICC), vol. 9, Istanbul, Turkey, June
2006, pp. 3960 3965.
[8] J. Sahoo, E. Wu, P. Sahu, and M. Gerla, BPAB: Binary partition assisted
emergency broadcast protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks, in Proc.
IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer Comm. and Networks (ICCCN), San
Francisco, CA, USA, August 2009, pp. 16.
[9] Z. J. Haas, J. Y. Halpern, and L. Li, Gossip-based ad hoc routing,
IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 479491, June 2006.
[10] N. Wisitpongphan, O. Tonguz, J. Parikh, P. Mudalige, F. Bai, and
V. Sadekar, Broadcast storm mitigation techniques in vehicular ad hoc
networks, IEEE Wireless Comm. Mag., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 8494, 2007.
[11] A. M. Hanashi, A. Siddique, I. Awan, and M. Woodward, Performance
evaluation of dynamic probabilistic broadcasting for flooding in mobile
ad hoc networks, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Elsevier,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 364 375, February 2009.
[12] Q. Zhang and D. P. Agrawal, Dynamic probabilistic broadcasting
in MANETs, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, SI on
Theoretical/Algorithmic aspects of Wireless Networks, Elsevier, vol. 2,
no. 65, pp. 220233, February 2005.
[13] Eureka project 6252 X-NETAD, http://www.eurekanetwork.org/project//id/6252.
[14] S. Busanelli, G. Ferrari, and S. Panichpapiboon, Efficient broadcasting in IEEE 802.11 networks through irresponsible forwarding, in
Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Honolulu, HA,
USA, December 2009.
[15] Car-to-Car Communication Consortium, http://www.car-2-car.org.
[16] Final GeoNet specification, GeoNet deliverable D2.2, January 2010,
http://www.geonet-project.eu/.
[17] N. Wisitpongphan, F. Bai, P. Mudalige, V. Sadekar, and O. K. Tonguz,
Routing in sparse vehicular ad hoc wireless networks, IEEE J. Select.
Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 15381556, October 2007.
[18] Insitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Std 802.11TM2007. Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, 2007.
[19] Network Simulator 2 (ns-2), http://isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
[20] T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications. Principles & Practice, 2nd
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2002.

356