SURVEY ON VANET
’
S LAYERED ARCHITECTURE,
SECURITY CHALLENGES AND TARGET
NETWORK SELECTION SCHEMES
C. Suganthi Evangeline
1,2and Vinoth Babu Kumaravelu
21
School of Electrical Sciences, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, India
2
School of Electronics Engineering, VIT University, Vellore, India E-Mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Vehicular Adhoc Network termed as VANET is a special type of Mobile Adhoc Network (MANET), where vehicles are the mobile nodes, which move with highly predictable mobility patterns. VANET solutions should be based on building new infrastructure and to implement new applications on transportation vehicles. Vehicle Traffic Safety Applications (TSA) can be the first step for safer roads. By increasing road safety, we can reduce and prevent the number of road accidents. The five layered architecture of VANET is formed from optimizing the seven layer Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model and its functionalities are dealt in this work. High mobility and dynamic topologies always lead to intermittent the Quality of Service (QoS), higher delay and packet dropping issues in the network. It is prime importance to ensure VANETs security as their deployment in the future must not compromise the safety and privacy of their users. The vehicles in VANET always need to be connected with the target network. Many decision making schemes are surveyed and presented in this work. This survey also deals with the study of QoS in VANET’s layered architecture and its related security threats in each layer of protocol stack.
Keywords: layered architecture, MANET, QoS, security, TSA, VANET.
1. OVERVIEW OF VANET
In recent days, vehicles are more intelligent and soon to be equipped with communication devices such as sensors that enable the possibility to the vehicle form a network between them within a wide range [1]. By using a Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) between moving vehicles, VANET offers a wireless communication. Using this communication technology, vehicles are able to share different kind of information ranging from safety to infotainment services [2]. Figure-1 deals with the VANET system model. It consists of vehicles as nodes, Road Side Unit (RSU) and has communication links between vehicles and also with RSU.VANET is expected to be used in following applications:
a) Safety Applications includes,
Traffic gathered in real time
Exchange of co-operative messages
Notifications of post-crash
Hazard Notification
Collision Warning
b) Commercial Applications includes,
Online access
Digital Map
Video Relay
Advertisement
c) Convenience Applications includes,
Diversion status
Toll Collection
Parking lot availability
d) Productive Applications includes,
Environmental Benefits
Fuel Saving
Time Utilization
Figure-1. VANET System model.
Figure- 2. Characteristics and Architecture of IVC.
The topology and mobility model plays a major role in designing the network protocol for VANET. The frequent changes in topology lead to disconnection in the network. The propagation model has supreme impact on the protocol performance because the propagation model
determines the number of vehicles and interference. The sensors needed for the vehicles derive power from the vehicle’s battery. Hence it has unlimited battery source and storage unlike wireless sensor network applications.
Table-1. Comparison of Communication Architecture [4].
Architecture Advantages Disadvantages Applications
Cellular/WLAN Can use both WLAN and 3G is available
Infrastructure cost /
Security issues Co-operative traffic monitoring
Adhoc Provide better
Connectivity Infrastructure cost Blind crossing
Hybrid Better coverage Seamless transition Real-time detour route computation
The frequency spectrum needed for vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication have been allocated by Federal Communication Commission (FCC). IEEE 802.11 based radio interface technology is been used for communication between vehicles. The new
amendment is IEEE 802.11p, which specify the new physical and medium access layer (MAC) for inter-vehicular communication [4]. From the Table-1, we can understand the comparison of communication architecture of VANET.
Table-2. Comparison of IEEE Standards [5].
Standard IEEE 802.11a IEEE 802.11b IEEE802.11p (DSRC)
Modulation OFDM DSSS OFDM
Frequency (GHz) 5.7-5.8 2.40-2.48 5.8-5.9
Bandwidth (MHz) 20 22 10/20
Number of overlapping/
non-overlapping channels 12/8 14/3 7/7
Maximum data rate (Mbps) 6 to 54 1 to 11 3 to 27/6 to 54
Approximate range (m) 120 140 >250
Table-2 summarizes the comparison between various IEEE standards. The modulation technique used in IEEE 802.11a and IEEE 802.11p is Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), and in IEEE 802.11b is
“How to provide QoS to the customers in transit?” is the toughest question to answer in VANET. The QoS parameters are generally described in delay and throughput for the wired networks. The reason behind the difficulty in providing the QoS in VANET is due to the high mobility and frequent topology changes.
There exist the following modes in vehicular communication
1.1 Vehicle to Infrastructure communication (V2I) 1.2 Vehicle to Vehicle communication (V2V) 1.3 Inter-Infrastructure communication (II)
1.1 Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I)
In V2I communication, vehicles are always connected with fixed infrastructure unit called Road Side Unit (RSU) with their wireless links so it can provide the user demands which includes internet access hot spot, mobile advertising, inter-vehicle chat, and games.
1.2 Vehicle to Vehicle Communication (V2V)
Vehicles communicate with another vehicle in the lane or opposite lane to gain the services like traffic state information, collision information and congestion status in the road.
1.3 Inter-Infrastructure Communication (II)
In this communication, vehicles communicate with RSU, which are connected to the Internet, resulting in a fixed infrastructure. This type of configuration offers the nodes (vehicles) the capability of communicating with each other. RSUs and vehicles combine together as a cooperative element and involve in the process of sharing and processing different types of information. Table-3 deals with the various layers of VANET and its corresponding IEEE standards.
Table-3. VANET Layered Architecture.
Higher Layer- IEEE 1609.1
Layer Number
ISO/OSI
Model Data Plane Management Plane
7 Application HTTP WAVE
Application
Network Services- IEEE 1609.2,
IEEE 1609.3
4 Transport TCP/UDP
WSMP WAVE Station Management Entity (WSME)
3 Network IPv6
2b
Data Link
802.2LLC
2a WAVE MAC MAC
Management
Lower Layers- IEEE 1609.4 IEEE802.11p
1b
Physical
WAVE Physical Layer Convergence
Protocol(PLCP) PHY Management
1a WAVE Physical Medium
Dependent (PMD)
2. PHYSICAL LAYER
a) DSRC & WAVE Standard
Due to high mobility of vehicles, the signal undergoes multipath fading and Doppler frequency shifts. These are evaluated for designing the protocols for physical layer communication. For test bed applications, V2V use radio and infra-red (IR) waves to communicate [6]. V2V communicate through very high frequencies like micro and millimetre waves. The waves which are infrared and millimetre category are used for line of sight (LOS) communication and others are used for broadcast communications.
The DSRC system operates in 5.9GHz is specifically used in VANET for public safety and infotainment applications [7]. In US, the FCC allocated 75
MHz in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band for DSRC, in contrast to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), which allocated 70 MHz in the 5.855-5.925 GHz band [7]. This communication system allows the vehicle speed of 200Km/hr and transmission range of about 1000m with data rate up to 27 Mbps.
Table-4. Modulation Coding Techniques [14].
Modulation Bit rate (Mbps)
Coding rate
Data rate (Mbps)
Data bits per OFDM
symbol
Bandwidth Efficiency Bits/sec/Hz
SNR BER
Binary Phase Shift Keying
(BPSK)
6 0.5 3 24 1 <11dB
10-4
0.75 4.6 36
Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK)
12 0.5 6 48 2 11dB-18dB
0.75 9 72
16 Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
(16-QAM)
24
0.5 12 96
4 19dB-24dB
0.75 18 144
64 Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
(64-QAM)
36
0.66 24 192
6 24dB-30dB
0.75 27 216
As the application of VANET ranges from safety to infotainment which includes accident alerts, weather conditions, road congestions, toll information, real time video, voice calls, internet access are need to meet the QoS to satisfy the customer during the travel. In physical layer the QoS is provided by proper selection of adaptive modulation schemes, which enhance the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and also reduce the bit error rate (BER). Traditional wireless communication systems built upon fixed modulation schemes does not scale well for the channels having randomly changing coefficients. Using adaptive modulation schemes, the performance metrics such as throughput, BER and other QoS parameters are improved in VANET. Recent researches convey that VANET systems are a step ahead than the traditional systems [9-13]. The modulation and coding schemes used for IEEE802.11p are listed in Table-4.
b) Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) in VANET
Based on OFDM, three channels are allocated with bandwidth of 5 MHz, 10MHz and 20MHz in IEEE 802.11 standard. For VANET communication, the universally accepted bandwidth is 10MHz and for IEEE 802.11a, 20MHz is commonly used [15]. The basic parameters in OFDM at 10 MHz include 48 number of subcarriers, 4 number of pilot subcarriers, which will provide total about 52 subcarriers. The frequency spacing for subcarrier is about 156.25KHz with 1.6 μsec of guard interval time which provides the total interval of about 8μsec.
MIMO system is responsible for providing wide coverage area and also supports diversity there by improving the throughput. The most challengeable task in research scenario of VANET is to provide QoS with efficient data rate [16]. The factors affecting the QoS parameters in physical layer are scattering, reflection which is dealt by MIMO by increasing the data traffic [17].
The fading problem in V2V channel is overcome by MIMO-OFDM technique. In Alamouti2x2 MIMO reduces the transmission power by 30% and improves the BER as well. But having a high data bit rate through 64-QAMwith less transmission power and low BER is still an issue.
2.1 Security in Physical Layer
The security threats are common in physical layer. The link characteristics are subjected to change rapidly. It is the responsibility of physical layer to adapt accordingly. The most familiar physical layer attacks in VANET are overhearing, interference, denial of service (DoS) and intercept or jam [18]. Furthermore, the intruder can eavesdrop or interrupt the service of wireless network. The problem of jamming of signals can be overcome by using hopping techniques such as spread spectrum. These techniques change frequency in a random style, which makes the capture of signal hard. The Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) is a method of transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching a carrier, using a pseudorandom sequence and at the same time makes the signal non coherent with impulse noise to the eavesdropper. On the other hand, DSSS symbolizes each data bit in the original signal by multiple bits in the transmitted signal through 11-bit Barker code [19]. Thereby using hopping pattern and de-spreading the code, the signal is protected from eavesdropping [20].
3. MAC LAYER
channel is shared based on the same. The first type of message includes the current status of vehicle such as position, speed and direction and this is of broadcast category [24]. The next type of message is called event driven mostly related to emergency messages which needs high transmission rate. The last type of message is about non-safety application purpose. Furthermore, in VANET,
the bandwidth has to be shared among the communicating vehicles [25]. In the following, we briefly discuss about the MAC protocols for VANETs found in literature. Table-5 compares MAC protocols used for VANET. The classification of MAC protocols for VANET is listed in Table-6.
Table-5. Comparison of MAC protocols [26].
Parameters/ MAC protocols
QoS Provisioning in 802.11e Networks [27]
*
DMEMD [28]
#
CVIA [29]
**
CVIA-QoS [30]
^
VCWC [31]
Usage of radio channels Χ Χ Χ
MAC layer support for
QoS Χ
End-to-end throughput Χ
Low latency in delivering
safety messages Χ Χ
*
Distributed MAC scheme for Emergency Message Dissemination.
#
Controlled Vehicular Internet Access.
**
Controlled Vehicular Internet Access protocol providing QoS.
^
Table-6. Classification of MAC protocols.
Category Protocols Description Feature Merits/Applications/Demerits
Time Based Protocols[32] RR-ALOHA[32] Reliable reservation ALOHA
Support point to point multi-hop communication
Solves hidden terminal and transmission collision problem
VeSOMAC [33] Vehicular Self-Organizing MAC
Support event based messaging and condition messaging
Suitable for real time applications DSRC Based Protocols IEEE 802.11 DCF[34] Distributed co-ordination function Use dynamic assignment channels
Solves hidden terminal problem, increases network throughput
VMESH[35] Vehicular Mesh Uses reservation
channel access scheme Support non-safety application
VCI[36] Variable CCH Interval Scheme
Uses multichannel adjustment mechanism
Provides public road safety services and driver comfort.
Directional
Antenna Based DMAC[37] Directional MAC
Random Access(Rely solely on control
packets Deafness problem COMB[38] Cell-based Orientation-aware MANET Broadcast
No handshake is
required Avoids network collision
Contention Based CSMA/CA [39] Carrier sense multiple access/ collision avoidance
Carrier sensing is done
before transmission Avoids collision
MACA[40]
Multiple access with collision
avoidance
Request to Send (RTS) and Clear To Send (CTS) Communication
Avoids data collision caused by hidden node problem
MACA-BI[40]
Multiple access with collision avoidance-By Invitation
RTS is suppressed only CTS can be viewed as invitation.
Improves efficiency and collision free
Contention- free approach[41]
LCA Location based channel access
Channel allocation is based on their geographical location
Delay bonded and suitable for real time application
SDMA
Self-organized architecture division multiple
access
Use space division
multiplexing Suitable for highway scenario
ADHOC-MAC[42] -
Distributed access
technique Broadcast radio communication
Hybrid Approach [43] CBMMAC Clustering based multichannel MAC
Vehicles in close proximity are grouped
as clusters
Suitable for highway traffic
MCTRP
Multichannel token ring
protocol
Independently organise nodes into
token rings
Delay is decreased and throughput is improved.
3.1 Security in MAC layer
IEEE 802.11 MAC is exposed to DOS attack in which the attacker makes use of binary exponential back-off scheme by adding or removing bits in ongoing transmission [18]. It also leads to capture effect in which attacker make use of the channel to transmit all its unwanted information but the lightly loaded user is left with sparse of bandwidth for transmission. But all these affects are overcome by setting the back-off timer value as
random number and also encryption can be improved by using algorithms such as Robust Secure Network (RSN), Advanced Encryption Standard Cipher block chain Message authentication code (AESCCM) [44].
4. NETWORK LAYER
minimum overhead, minimum distance, maximum data delivery, and minimum packet loss and with maximum throughput. The routing protocols can be classified in
many ways, according to different conditions such as protocols, strategy used, routing information, services, structures, algorithms, and so on.
Table-7. Classification of Routing Protocols.
Paper Category/Sub
category Protocol Description Strategy Used Limitations
[46]
Topology based/Proactive
DSDV
Destination Sequenced Distance
Vector
Distance vector
Increases overhead in large, broadcasting, no control over
network congestion.
[47] OLSR Optimized Link
State Routing Link State
Increased overhead and network complexity
[48] FSR Fish Eye State
Routing Table Entry
Suitable for low density and mobility less environment
[46]
Topology based/Reactive
AODV Adhoc On-demand
Distance Vector On demand
Large delay in route discovery, increases overhead
[49] DSR Dynamic State
Routing Multi hop
Multi route leads in overloading of packets
[50] Topology
based/Hybrid ZRP
Zone Based Routing Protocol
Nodes are grouped as zone
It is not suitable for dynamic environment
Position based/Delay
Tolerant Network
MOVE Motion Vector Routing
Roadside-vehicle Communication
It provides better performance for stable and
consistent routes.
[51] VADD Vehicle Assisted
Data Delivery
Store and Forward Scheme
Cause routing loop and consumes bandwidth for
redundancy packets
[52] GeOpps
Geographical Opportunistic
Routing
Forwarding scheme
Complexity in delay calculation for navigation
system.
[50]
Position based / Non Delay
Tolerant Network
GPSR Greedy Perimeter
Stateless Routing Greedy protocol
High mobility and frequent topology changes leads to
link failure.
[53] GPCR Greedy Perimeter
Coordinator Routing Greedy forwarding
Connectivity problem occurs in low density network and increase transmission delay
[54] RIPR
Reliability Improving Position
based Routing
Position based routing
Finding the neighbour node to transfer the packet is to be
done without any flaw.
[55] Position
based/Hybrid HLAR
Hybrid Location-based Adhoc
Routing
On demand routing Best reliable route is not guaranteed.
Table-7 demonstrates various routing protocols and also gives some information regarding the strategy used for routing such as on demand routing, clustering,
Table-8. Classification of Routing Protocols based on transmission strategy.
Paper Category Protocol Description Method Used Merits Demerits
[56] Broadcast DECA Distributed Efficient Clustering Approach store and forward transmission scheme Doesn’t use global position information, flexible Increased Overhead, decreases performance
[57] POCA
Position Aware Reliable Broadcasting
Protocol
Rebroadcasting based on nodes
position. Good reliability in higher density network Network will flood by rebroadcast from neighbouring nodes
[58] DV-CAST
Distributed Vehicular Broadcast Protocol Multi-hop Scheme Minimizes broadcasting overhead and it
is appropriate for light and crowded traffic
Increase end to end delay
[59] DADCQ
Distribution-Adaptive Distance with Channel. Quality Adaptive multi hop protocol Minimum transmission overhead Large message overhead [60] Multicast/ Geocast based ROVER Robust Vehicular Routing Protocol Control information are flooded and data
packets are unicasted
It improves the consistency and
efficiency in data transmission
Increase in Control packet overhead,
number of retransmission
leads to data delivery delay
[61] MOBICAST Mobile Geocast It is based on time aspect.
It satisfy the spatiotemporal
needs in VANET
It relies on GPS to know about network density [62] Multicast/ Clustering based COIN Clustering for open IVC Networks Clustering mechanism It improves scalability
Suitable for less mobility environment
[63] CBDRP
Cluster Based directional
Routing protocol
Clustering
Performs well in scalable environment
Maintains only uni-directional
links
[64] Unicast MURU
Multi-hop Routing Protocols for Urban VANET Delivery of Information from one source
to one destination. Privacy with less delay Frequent configuration and maintenance of link should be
done.
Table-8 presents the review on routing protocols based on transmission techniques involved and also provides the information about the methodology adopted along with merits and demerits.
4.1 Security Issues in Network Layer
In VANET, due to dynamic topology and mobility of vehicles, the problem of maintaining efficient route between the sender and receiver nodes(vehicles) is a challenging one [18]. To gain scalability in the network, the vehicles will act as router nodes and to provide communication for other vehicles in the road way scenario. In this case, any attack or intruder will execute
the attack during routing phase and leads to interrupt the overall communication process and also network will be disconnected from base station. Therefore, securing network layer from attacks will protect the system from degradation in the performance of QoS.
The network layer is prone to following attacks such as:
Routing cache poisoning attack [65]
Rushing attack [66]
Wormhole attack [67]
Blackhole attack [68]
5. TRANSPORT LAYER
One of the major issues of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in vehicular environment is its congestion control algorithm. TCP uses a window system based on acknowledgements received in which transmission window increases according to two phases such as exponential phase and linear increase phase. It reduces the window when timeout is reached. By using transport layer protocol, it interprets bit error as congestion and thereby reduce the congestion window, which lead in reduction of throughput of the network that will eventually affect the QoS. In [69], exhibit the general limitations of TCP-like approaches for AdHoc congestion control and particularly the limitations of TCP-ELNF. Arthur et al. [70]
demonstrated that TCP reordering has an in-negligible effect in Ad-Hoc and Vehicular networks. Adhoc-TCP (ATCP) presented in [71] is a protocol that inserts a layer between the transport and network layers respectively TCP and IP. By using the TCP persist mode and explicit congestion notification (ECN), this protocol can improve traditional TCP connections throughput up to 3 times in high BER scenarios. Bechler et al. [72] proposed a
modified version of ATCP, intended for vehicular scenarios. There are slight modifications to the original protocol, but an interesting idea of separating the Internet from the VANET by using proxy servers is exposed. This
approach leads to the deployment of optimized protocols in VANET by the use of proxy servers. HOP [73] is a block-switched protocol, which provides reliable single hop block transfer. In this approach, even if there is no end to end connectivity, the information can still crawl towards its destination because the protocol operates in a hop-by-hop style. Congestion control is performed by backpressure, a concept that might prove to perform well in VANETs [74]. The protocol used for unicast application in VANET is Vehicular Transport Protocol (VTP) [75]. It improves the performance of the system by probing the network and also it uses the statistical data. It is based on the path characteristics that are suitable for a transport protocol for vehicular networks. Mobile Control Transport Protocol (MCTP) [76] is based on similar principles of the Ad Hoc TCP protocol [71], which has the main goal to provide end-to-end QoS between a vehicle and an Internet host via RSU.
5.1 Security Issues in Transport Layer
The transport layer concerns with security measures such as authentication, securing end-to-end communication by encryption and also it includes delay handling, avoiding corruptions and losses. Some of the attacks in this layer are as given in the Table-9.
Table-9. Attacks in Transport Layer.
Paper Attacks Detection Method
[77] SYN flooding attack (Synchronisation
packet flooding) Anamoly detection
[78] Session Hijacking Encryption, Authentication and Random Session Identifier [79] TCP ACK Strom Packet Filtering Firewall
6. APPLICATION LAYER
The primary objective for the protocols in application layer should reduce the end-to-end delay while sending emergency messages and it should reach the target vehicle by maintaining the real time deadlines in order to provide QoS. In other applications such as infotainment services delay is inevitable. Vehicular Information Transfer Protocol (VITP) [81] is an application layer communication protocol to support distributed and Adhoc service infrastructure in VANET.
6.1 Security Issues in Application Layer
The two main attacks possible in application layer are malicious code attack and repudiation attack [83]. The malicious vehicles can send some malicious codes such as virus, Trojan horse. Also these codes can destroy vehicle applications and affect their services. A repudiation attack is an example of a application runs on the network that used to control, track and log users action thus encouraging malicious manipulation or spoofing the identification of new actions. Firewalls are used to protect from viruses and other infective programs. Application
As proposed in [18], the first scheme is application aware control scheme in which all available applications should be registered and updated periodically and sent to all other vehicles in VANET. The second scheme includes the unified routing scheme that a packet of certain application will be routed depending on demand and security demands.
7. TARGET SELECTION SCHEMES IN VANET Homogeneous network is not sufficient to provide ITS services. Due to dynamic topology and high mobility, the network which provides service to VANET should of heterogeneous type. This type of network use different radio access technologies (RAT) to provide services to the vehicle connected to it. In this work we provide the detail picture of techniques used in RAT selection by the vehicle. All works related to target network selection aims to reduce number of handoffs, reduce number of unnecessary handoffs.
network based on optimized parameter values. The proposed techniques in this paper follows two part, in which neural network approach is used to select the best access network and in second part, an approach to minimize total number of handoffs is carried out. The selection algorithm selects the best target network after analysing bandwidth, power consumption, signal to noise ratio, handoff latency, operation cost.
The proposed work in [85] gives a insight to achieve enhanced vertical handover based on fuzzy inference multiple attribute decision making (MADM) approach for heterogeneous networks. The optimal network is selected based on QoS parameters, speed of the node, battery level and signal strength. By combining fuzzy approach with MADM schemes the handover delays, blocking probability and throughput are evaluated and presented. The target networks analysed for the work are 3G/4G and Wi-Fi/WiMAX.
The computational complexity analysis in MADM for vertical handover in heterogeneous network is presented in [86]. In this fuzzy logic are used to estimate the need of handovers and determine the user satisfaction level based on the parameters like speed of the mobile, network load and service cost. In this the assignment of weights for criteria are assigned using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The consistency in network selection is improves by adopting fuzzy. The principal component analysis (PCA) is used to process the weight for QoS.
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is employed to select the best wireless network during handover [87]. It aims in providing low cost, less delay, high bandwidth and reduced number of handovers. The access networks considered in this work are Wi-Fi, WiMAX, LTE. The user preference attributes are latency, packet loss, throughput and cost.
The handover between WWAN and WLAN is implemented using fuzzy logic and presented in [88]. It evaluates available bandwidth, monetary cost, received signal strength and user preferences are considered as criteria for fuzzy inference engine. The fuzzy approach for vertical handover decision leads in reduced handover, decrease the probability of call blocking probability and dropping. A detailed evaluation study of various MADM approaches is presented in [89]. It evaluates the performance of vertical handoff under voice,data and cost connections. Artificial neural network (ANN) based vertical handover decision algorithm presented in [90] which aims in reducing handoff latency. The prominent inputs for deciding handover are RSSI, data rate and monetary cost. The ANN based approach is compared with other MADM approaches such as Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and other artificial intelligence based algorithms. The proposed method results in reduces handoff latency. The literatures stated in this section provides the sample for all other similar approaches.
8. CONCLUSIONS
For future intelligent transportation system, vehicular networking is the key enabling technology. These vehicles are equipped with communication devices,
which makes them to self-organize into collaborative network topology that makes the journey safer, reduce traffic congestion and also will provide infotainment services. For past decade, many projects in VANET have been carried out and also lead to many VANET standards to develop in order to improve the communication between vehicles and also to provide QoS. In this work, the layers and standards used in VANET have been discussed and also the security issues and overcome measures are also presented. In addition to this, to support the vehicles in selecting the target network during vertical handoff process is also surveyed and presented. This work provide an extensive framework for layered architecture, security challenges and target network selection which will provide a research overview to contribute towards VANET.
REFERENCES
[1] Yinghui Guo, Sebastian Schildt, Tobias Pogel, Stephan Rottmann, Lars Wolf. 2014. Mitigating Black hole attacks in a hybrid VDTN. Proc. Int. Symp. On A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks. pp. 1-6.
[2] Al-Sultan S., Al-Doori M. M., Al-Bayatti A. H., & Zedan H. 2014. A comprehensive survey on vehicular ad hoc network. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. pp. 380-392.
[3] Imad Jawhar, Nader Mohamed, Liren Zhang. 2010. Inter-vehicular Communication Systems, Protocols and Middleware. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Networking, Architecture and Storage, Macau, China.
[4] K. D. Wong, K. Tepe, W. Chen, M. Gerla. 2006. Inter vehicular communication. Proc. IEEE Wireless Communications. 13(5): 6-7.
[5] B. E. Bilgin and V. C. Gungor. 2013. Performance Comparison of IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 802.11b for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications in Highway, Rural, and Urban Areas. Proc. Int. Journal of Vehicular Technology.
[6] Panos Papadimitratos, Arnaud De La Fortelle, Knut Evenssen, Roberto Brignolo, and Stefano Cosenza. 2009. Vehicular communication systems: Enabling technologies, applications, and future outlook on intelligent transportation. in Communication Magazine. 47(11): 84-95.
Challenges, Standards and Solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.
[8] J.B. Kenney. 2011. Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) standards in the United States. Proc. of the IEEE. 99(7): 162-1182.
[9] D. Jiang and L. Delgrossi. 2008. IEEE 802.11p: Towards an international standard for wireless access in vehicular environments. in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf. VTC Spring. pp. 2036-2040.
[10]X. Zhu, X. Fang. 2005. Connectivity Enhancement Mechanism Based Adaptive Modulation for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. Proc. 5thInt. Conf. On Information, Communications and Signal Processing. pp. 589-592.
[11]M. R. Souryal, R. Vojcic, L. Pickholtz. 2006. Adaptive modulation in ad hoc DS/CDMA packet radio networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications. 54(4): 714-725.
[12]S. L. Gong, B. G. Kim, J. W. Lee. 2009. Opportunistic Scheduling and Adaptive Modulation in Wireless Networks with Network Coding. Proc. IEEE 69th Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC Spring). pp. 1-5.
[13]H. Chen, M. H. Ahmed. 2008. Throughput enhancement in cooperative diversity wireless networks using adaptive modulation. Proc. Canadian Conf. on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE). pp. 000527-000530.
[14]AB Al-Khalil, A Al-Sherbaz, SJ Turner. 2013. Enhancing the Physical Layer in V2V Communication Using OFDM - MIMO Techniques. In PGNet Liverpool.
[15]S. Habib, M.A. Hannan, M.S. Javadi, S.A. Samad, A.M. Muad and A. Hussain. 2013. Inter-Vehicle Wireless Communications Technologies, Issues and Challenges. Information Technology Journal. 12(4): 558-568.
[16]Ahmed Attia, Ahmad A. ElMoslimany, Amr El-Keyi, Tamer ElBatt, Fan Bai, and Cem Saraydar. 2012. MIMO Vehicular Networks: Research Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Communications. 7(7).
[17]Michael F. Kutsor. 2010. Application of UWB and MIMO Wireless Technologies to Tactical Networks in Austere Environments. MS Thesis, Naval
[18]Bassem Mokhtar, Mohamed Azab. 2015. Survey on Security Issues in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 54(4): 115-1126.
[19]Shahid Latif, Muhammad Kamran, Fahad Masoud, Muhammad Sohaib. 2012. Improving DSSS transmission security using Barker code along binary compliments (CBC12-DSSS). Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies, Pakistan.
[20]Mahipal Singh. 2013. Study of Multi-Channel Spread Spectrum Systems for Wireless Communication. Ph.D Thesis, Tezpur University.
[21]Imen Achour, Tarek Bejaoui, Anthony Busson, Sami Tabbane. 2016. Delay-based strategy for safety message dissemination in Vehicular Ad hoc NETworks: Slotted or continuous? Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Wireless Communication and Mobile Computing Conference, Cyprus. pp. 268-274.
[22]Robbi C. Manurung, Doan Perdana, Rendy Munadi. 2016. Performance evaluation Gauss-Markov mobility model in vehicular ad-hoc network with spearman correlation coefficient. Proc. IEEE Int. Seminar on Intelligent Technology and its Applications, Lombok, Indonesia.
[23]Chan-Ki Park1, Min-Woo Ryu2 and Kuk-Hyun Cho1. 2012. Survey of MAC Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. Smart Computing Review. 2(4).
[24]Marion Berbineau, Magnus Jonsson, Jean-Marie Bonnin, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Marina Aguado, Cristina Rico-Garcia, Hassan Ghannoum, Rashid Mehmood, Alexey Vine. 2013. Communication Technologies for Vehicles. Proc. 5th Int. Workshop, Nets4Cars/Nets4Trains.
[25]Felipe Domingos da Cunha, Azzedine Boukerche, Leandro Villas, Aline Carneiro Viana, Antonio A. F. Loureiro. 2014. Data Communication in VANETs: A Survey, Challenges and Applications. Research Report, RR-8498, INRIA Saclay; INRIA.
[26]P.W.H.M. Hornman. 2010. QoS support for traffic safety applications in VANET communication infrastructures. Proc.13thTwente Student Conf. on IT, Netherlands.
[28]Peng J. and Cheng L. 2007. A distributed MAC scheme for emergency message dissemination in vehicular ad hoc networks. in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 56(6): 3300-3308.
[29]Korkmaz G., Ekici E. and Ozguner F. 2006. A cross-layer multihop data delivery protocol with fairness guarantees for vehicular networks. in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 55(3): 865-875.
[30]Korkmaz G., Ekici E. and Ozguner F. 2006. Internet access protocol providing QoS in vehicular networks with infrastructure support. Proc. in IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conf. ITSC'06. pp. 1412-1417.
[31]Yang X., Liu L., Vaidya N.H., and Zhao F. 2004. A vehicle-to vehicle communication protocol for cooperative collision warning. Proc. in the first Annual Int. Conf. on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services. pp. 114-123.
[32]Mohamed Hadded, Paul Muhlethaler, Anis Laouiti. 2015. TDMA-Based MAC Protocols for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey, Qualitative Analysis, and Open Research. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 17(4): 2461-2492.
[33]F. Yu, S. Biswas. 2007. A self-re-organizing MAC protocol for inter-vehicle data transfer applications in vehicular ad hoc networks. Proc. ICIT. pp. 110-115.
[34]T. Sakurai and H. L. Vu. 2007. MAC access delay of IEEE 802.11 DCF. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications. 5(6): 1702-1710.
[35]Y. Zang, L. Stibor, B. Walke, H. J. Reumerman and A. Barroso. 2007. A novel MAC protocol for throughput sensitive applications in vehicular environments. in Proc. IEEE 65th Vehicular Technology Conf. pp. 2580-2584.
[36]Qing Wang, Supeng Leng, Member, Huirong Fu and Yan Zhang. 2012. An IEEE 802.11p-Based Multichannel MAC Scheme With Channel Coordination for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 13(2).
[37]Zhang S., Datta A. 2005. A Directional-Antenna Based MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. In: Gervasi O. et al. (eds) Computational
Science and Its Applications-ICCSA, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science. 3481. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[38]Rico Garcia, Cristina and Lehner, Andreas and Strang, Thomas. 2008. A Reliable MAC Protocol for Broadcast VANETs. Proc. In Workshop on Vehicle to Vehicle Communications, pp. 81-88. Library of University of Twente.
[39]Giang A.T., Busson, A and Renzo. M.D. 2016. Modeling and optimization of CSMA/CA in VANET. In Annals of Operations Research. 239(2): 553-568.
[40]Anis Laouiti, Amir Qayyum, Mohamad Naufal Mohamad Saad. 2014. Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks for Smart Cities. Proc. First Int. Workshop on Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.
[41]Saira Andleeb Gillani1, Peer Azmat Shah2, Amir Qayyum3, Halabi B. Hasbullah4. 2015. MAC Layer Challenges and Proposed Protocols for Vehicular Adhoc Networks. In book chapter: Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks for Smart Cities. pp. 3-13.
[42]Borgonovo F., Capone A., Cesana M., Fratta L. 2004. ADHOC MAC: new MAC architecture for ad hoc networks providing efficient and reliable point-to-point and broadcast services. Wireless Network. 10(4): 359-366.
[43]Mohamed Zain I.F., Awang A., Laouiti A. 2017. Hybrid MAC Protocols in VANET: A Survey. In: Laouiti A., Qayyum A., Mohamad Saad M. (eds) Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks for Smart Cities. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 548, Springer, Singapore.
[44]Yan Zhang, Jun Zheng, Miao Ma. 2008. Handbook of Research on Wireless Security. Information Science Reference. 1, New York.
[45]R. Jurdak. 2007. Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks: A Cross-Layer Design Perspective. Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 978-0-387-39022-2.
[46]Vijaya Laskhmi M., Avinash Patel, Linganagouda Kulkarni. 2011. QoS Parameter Analysis on AODV and DSDV Protocols in a Wireless Network. Int. Journal of Communication Network & Security. 1(1).
Comprehensive Study. ACM DIVANet’11, Miami, Florida, USA.
[48]Bijan Paul, Mohammed J. Islam. 2012. Survey over VANET Routing Protocols for Vehicle to Vehicle Communication. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSRJCE), ISSN: 2278-0661, ISBN: 2278-8727, 7(5): 01- 09.
[49]P. Singh. 2014. Comparative study between unicast and multicast routing protocols in different data rates using VANET. Proc. In IEEE Int. Conf. On issues and challenges. pp. 278-284, 7-8.
[50]Aji Setiabudi, Amalia Ayu Pratiwi, Ardiansyah, Doan Perdana, Riri Fitri Sari. 2016. Performance comparison of GPSR and ZRP routing protocols in VANET environment. Proc. of IEEE Region 10 Symp. Bali, Indonesia.
[51]Jing Zhao and Guohong Cao. 2008. VADD: Vehicle-Assisted Data Delivery in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 57(3).
[52]Llias Leontiadis, Cecilia Mascolo. 2007. GeOpps: Geographical Opportunistic Routing for Vehicular Networks. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. On a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, Espoo, Finland.
[53]Lochert C, Mauve M, Fußler H, Hartenstein H. 2005. Geographic routing in city scenarios. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review. 9(1): 69-72.
[54]Min-Woo Ryu, Si-Ho Cha, Jin-Gwang Koh, Seokjoong Kang, Kuk-Hyun Cho. 2011. Position-based Routing Algorithm for Improving Reliability of Inter-Vehicle Communication. KSII Transactions on Internet & Information Systems. 5(8): 388-1403.
[55]Al-Rabayah Mohammad. 2011. Hybrid location-based routing in ad-hoc wireless networks. Ph.D. Thesis, UNSW Sydney.
[56]Nawut Na Nakorn, Kultida Rojviboonchai. 2010. DECA: Density-aware reliable broadcasting in vehicular ad hoc networks. Proc. Int. Conf. on Electrical Engineering / Electronics Computer Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), Chiang Mai, Thailand.
[57]K. Na Nakom and K. Rojviboonchai. 2010. POCA: Position-Aware Reliable Broadcasting in VANET. Proc. 2nd Asia-Pacific Conf. of Information Processing APCIP20IO, Nanchang, China.
[58]O. K. Tonguz, N. Wisitpongphan, F. 2010. DV-CAST: A distributed vehicular broadcast protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Wireless Communications. 17(2): 47-57.
[59]S. Vijaya Kumar; A. Noble Mary Juliet. 2013. A Study and Analysis of DADCQ Protocol for VANET. Proc. Int. Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing – IJCSMC. 2(11).
[60]Allal S. and S. Boudjit. 2013. Geocast Routing Protocols for VANETs: Survey and Geometry-Driven Scheme Proposal. Journal of Internet Services and Information Security (JISIS). 3(1/2): 20-36.
[61]Yuh-Shyan Chen, Yun-Wei Lin, Sing-Ling Lee. 2009. A Mobicast Routing Protocol in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks. Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf. GLOBECOM.
[62]Blum J, Eskandarian A, Hoffman L. 2003. Mobility management in IVC networks. In: Proc. of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp, Columbus. Ohio, USA.
[63]Tao Song, Weiwei Xia, Tiecheng Song, Lianfeng Shen. 2010. A cluster-based directional routing protocol in VANET. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Communication Technology (ICCT), Nanjing, China.
[64]Zhaomin Mo, Hao Zhu, Kia Makki, Niki Pissinou. 2006. MURU: A Multi-Hop Routing Protocol for Urban Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. Proc. Third Annual Int. Conf. on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking & Services, San Jose, CA, USA.
[65]B. Wu, et al. 2007. A survey of attacks and
countermeasures in mobile ad hoc networks. in Wireless Network Security Springer. pp. 103-135.
[66]Y.-C. Hu, et al. 2003. Rushing attacks and defence in
wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. in Proc. of the 2nd ACM workshop on Wireless security. pp. 30-40.
[68]H. Deng et al. 2002. Routing security in wireless ad
hoc networks. IEEE Communication Magazine. pp. 70-75.
[69]J. Monks, P. Sinha and V. Bharghavan. 2000. Limitations of TCP-ELFN for ad hoc networks. in Proc. IEEE MOMUC '00, Tokyo, Japan.
[70]Colin M. Arthur, Andrew Lehane and David Harle. 2007. Keeping order: Determining the effect of TCP packet reordering. Proc. Int. Conf. on Networking and Services. 0, p. 116.
[71]J. Liu and S. Singh. 2001. ATCP: Tcp for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. 19(7): 1300-1315.
[72]Marc Bechler, Sven Jaap and Lars Wolf. 2005. An optimized TCP for internet access of vehicular ad hoc networks. in Proc. 4th Int. IFIP-TC6 Networking Conf.
[73]Ming Li, Devesh Agrawal, Deepak Ganesan and Arun Venkataramani. 2009. Block-switched networks: a new paradigm for wireless transport. in Proc. of the 6th USENIX Symp. on Networked systems design and implementation. pp. 423-436.
[74]Hulya Seferoglu, Eytan Modiano. 2013. TCP-Aware Backpressure Routing and Scheduling. Networking and Internet Architecture, Cornell University Library.
[75]Ralf Schmitz, Alain Leiggener, Andreas Festag, Lars Eggert and Wolfgang Effelsberg. 2006. Analysis of path characteristics and transport protocol design in vehicular ad hoc networks. In Proc. of the IEEE 63rd Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC’06). pp. 528-532.
[76]Marc Bechler, Sven Jaap and Lars Wolf. 2005. An optimized TCP for internet access of vehicular ad hoc networks. In Proc. 4th Int. IFIP-TC6 Networking Conf. (NETWORKING’05). pp. 869-880.
[77]S.H.C Haris, R.B. Ahmed, M.A.H.A. Ghani. 2010. Detecting TCP SYN flood attack based on Anamoly Detection. in Proc. IEEE Second Int. Conf. on Network Applications, Protocols and Services(2010).
[78]Rashmi Mishra, Sweta Singh, Akhilesh Singh. 2015. Session Seizure: Hijacking. in Proc. Nat. Conf. on Contemporary Computing and Informatics. pp. 227-229.
[79]J. Camenisch et al. 2011. TCP Ack Storm DoS
Attacks. 2011. Proc. IFIP Int. Federation for
Information Processing SEC 2011, IFIP AICT 354, pp. 29-40.
[80]C. Kaufman, et al. 2002. Network security: private
communication in a public world. Prentice Hall Press, ISBN-13: 978-0130460196.
[81]Marios D. Dikaiakosand SaifIqbal and Tamer Nadeemand Liviu Iftode. 2005. VITP: An information transfer protocol for vehicular computing. in Proc. 2nd ACM Int. Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET’05). pp. 30-39.
[82]Y.-C. Hu et al, “Ariadne: a secure on-demand routing protocol for ad hoc networks”, Wireless Networks, pp. 21–38 (2005).
[83]G Ram Mohana Reddy, Kiran M. 2016. Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Bio-Inspired Quality of Service Aware Routing Protocols. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, ISBN 9781498746854.
[84]Chandralekha M. R. S. & Praffula K. B. 2010. Minimization of number of handoff using genetic algorithm in heterogeneous wireless networks. International Journal of Latest Trends in Computing. 1(2): 24-28.
[85]Zineb A. B., Ayadi M. & Tabbane S. 2017. An enhanced vertical handover based on fuzzy inference MADM approach for heterogeneous networks. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 42(8): 3263-3274.
[86]Chinnappan A. & Balasubramanian R. 2016. Complexity–consistency trade-off in multi-attribute decision making for vertical handover in heterogeneous wireless networks. IET Networks. 5(1): 13-21.
[87]Goudarzi S., Hassan W. H., Anisi M. H., Soleymani A., Sookhak M., Khan M. K. ... & Zareei M. 2017. ABC-PSO for vertical handover in heterogeneous wireless networks. Neurocomputing. 256, 63-81.
[89]Drissi M. & Oumsis M. 2015. Performance evaluation of multi-criteria vertical handover for heterogeneous wireless networks. In Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), (pp. 1-5). IEEE (2015, March).
