A Comparative study of MANET and VANET Environment
Arzoo Dahiya , Dr.R.K.Chauhan

Abstract-On demand set up, fault tolerance and unconstrained connectivity are a couple of advantages ,that why mobile computing continues to enjoy rapid growth. In last three decade ,tremendous improvement is made in research area of wireless adhoc network and now a days ,one of the most attractive research topic is inter vehicle communication i.e. realization of mobile adhoc network .VANETs have been recently attracting an increasing attention from both industry as well as research communities .A rich literature in MANET exists, but the availability of traffic data and vehicle equipment motivate the researchers to explore the special characteristics of VANET. In this paper we survey and compare from the literature ,the environment for MANET and VANET. Finally we share a collection of useful references. Index Terms-MANET, VANET, routing ,VN ,ITS etc.


1. Introduction
MANETs consist of mobile/semi mobile nodes with no existing pre-established infrastructure. They connect themselves in a decentralized, selforganizing manner and also establish multi hop routes. If the mobile nodes are vehicles then this type of network is called VANET(vehicular ad-hoc network). One important property that distinguishes MANET from VANET is that nodes move with higher avg. speed and number of nodes is assumed to be very large. Vehicular networks consist of vehicles and Road Side Units (RSU) equipped with radios. Plummeting cost of electronic components and permanent willingness of manufacturers to increase road safety and to differentiate themselves from their competitors vehicles are becoming “Computer on Wheels” rather than “Computer N/W on Wheels”. Convergence of forces from both the public and private sector implies that in not-too-distant future we are likely to see the total birth of vehicular n/w.

In 1999, U.S. federal communication Commission (FCC) allocated a block of spectrum in 5.850 to 5.925 GHz band for applications primarily intended to enhance the safety of our networks on roads systems. In fact BMW, Fiat, Renault and some other organizations have united to develop a carto-car communication consortium, dedicated precisely to impose Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication, vehicle share safety related information and access location based services[1]. The wealth of information that could be obtained from vehicular networks is quite enormous, ranging from location and speed of emergency alerts and request for roadside assistance. In particular, many envisioned safety related applications require that the vehicles continuously broadcast their current position and speed in so called heart beat messages. This messaging increases the awareness of vehicles about their neighbors’ whereabouts and warns drivers off dangerous situations. But the very richness of information also threatens to cause deployment to come to a grinding halt if there is adverse consumer reaction to technology. In this paper we start the discussion with the introduction of vehicular adhoc networks. Next we specify various unique characteristics of VANET that differentiate it from MANET. We then examine routing techniques for both MANET and VANET

Ms.Arzoo Dahiya isworking with Department of I.T.,Lingaya’s University,Faridabad. Dr.R.K.Chauhan is Chairman,Deptt.Of Computer Science,Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra.



and make a comparison study. Finally we end with the discussion and few useful references.

2. Unique VANET characteristics and comparison with MANET
2.1 Unique VANET characteristics
Though Vehicular network share common characteristics with conventional ad-hoc sensor network such as self organized and lack of central control. VANET have unique challenges that impact the design of communication system and its protocol security[2]. These challenges include1. Potentially high number of nodes. Regarding VANETs as the technical basis for envisioned Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) we expect that a large portion of vehicles will be equipped with communication capabilities for vehicular communication. Taking additionally potential roadside units into account, VANET needs to be scalable with a very high number of nodes. 2. High mobility and frequent topology changes. Nodes potentially move with high speed. Hence in certain scenarios such as when vehicle pass each other, the duration of time that remains for exchange of data packets is rather small. Also, intermediate nodes in a wireless multi-hop chain of forwarding nodes can move quickly.

3. High application requirement on data delivery. Important VANET applications are for traffic safety to avoid road accidents; potentially including safety-of-life. These applications have high requirements with respect to real time and reliability. An end-to-end delay of seconds can render a safety information meaningless. 4. No confidentiality of safety information. For safety application the information contained in a message is of interest for all road users and hence not confidential. 5. Privacy. Communication capabilities in vehicles might reveal information about the driver/user, such as identifier, speed, position and mobility pattern. Despite the need of message authentication and non-repudiation of safety messages, privacy of users and drivers should be respected in particular location privacy and anonymity.

2.2 Comparison of MANET and VANET
Mobile Ad-hoc networks and Vehicular Ad-hoc networks are very much similar on various technical grounds but following are some parameters on the basis of which we can contrast both environments.

Sr.No. 1. 2.

Parameters Cost of production Change in n/w topology Mobility Node density Bandwidth Range Node Lifetime

MANET Cheap Slow

VANET Expensive Frequent and very fast

3. 4.

Low Sparse

High Dense and frequently variable

5. 6. 7.

Hundred kps Upto 100m Depends on power resource

Thousand kps Upto 500m Depend on lifetime of vehicle



8. 9. 10.

Multihop routing Reliability Moving pattern of nodes Addressing scheme Position acquisition

Available Medium Random

Weakly available High Regular

11. 12.

Attribute based Using ultrasonic

Location based Using GPS,RADAR

Table1: Comparison of MANET and VANET[20]

3. Routing Techniques for MANET and hitting the reality for VANET
3.1 Routing Protocols for MANET
MANETs have numerous applications and each of such application involve different scenarios with movement pattern, traffic rate and density dependent on nature of interaction among the participants and environment. Active research is been done in the area of exploiting the routing for mobile networks but based on different application areas the classification is very vast. Routing techniques can be on the basis of unicast or multicast OR topology based OR QoS based OR power awareness based OR broadcast based etc. As discussed above , the operational principles of both VANET and MANET are same to some approach. Thus most of the routing strategies are taken from MANET but due to very high mobility and node’s unpredictable behavior routing protocols for MANET are not suited for vehicular communication environment. So first of all we discuss some not all routing and summarize their advantages and disadvantages. Classification of current routing protocols[3]MANET Routing Protocol  Flat  Pro-active(table-driven)  E.g.OLSR, DSDV,WRP,GSR,FSR,S TAR,DREAM,CGSRHSR , Reactive(On demand)      Hierarchical


 Position Based  Power Aware  Signal Stability  Multicast 

And many more……. Many protocols have been proposed within the framework of internet engineering task force(IETF) for MANET. In Flat, Pro-active routing protocols, such as Destination Sequence Distance Vector(DSDV)[7],routes updates are periodically performed regardless of network load, network size and bandwidth. Major point of these protocols is that nodes maintain a constantly updated understanding of network topology. reactive or ondemand routing are designed to reduce the overhead by maintaining information for active routes only at the expense of delay due to route search. This means that routes are determined and maintained for nodes that require to send data to particular destination. Route discovery occurs by flooding a route request(RREQ) and route response(RREP) packets through the network. This scheme is significant for Ad hoc environment since battery power is conserved both by not



sending the advertisements and by not needing to receive them (A host could otherwise reduce its power usage by putting itself in to the sleep or standby mode when they are not busy with other tasks. Link breakage is reported by report error message(RERR). But since routes in vehicular networks are fragile, such protocols spend much time in discovering the routes. So they are not suited for VANET. Second category is hierarchical or hybrid such as Zone Routing Protocol(ZRP)[8], divides the network into different zones. Intrazone is performed by pro-active protocol. Inter-zone is performed by reactive protocol. The advantage of this protocols is that it has reduced the communication overhead if we compare to traditional proactive protocols. Although they present scalable route strategy for large scale environment but their implementation has not gained much popularity and not suited for VANET. Position based routing such as Location Aided Routing(LAR)[9], require that information about physical position of the participating nodes in the networks thus by reducing the overhead of traditional flooding. Advantage of such technique is

that they conserve the bandwidth. but disadvantage is that each node is required to carry a GPS. In signal stability protocols such as SSA[10],selects routes based on location stability and signal strength. In this approach routes stays longer thus fewer route construction is needed. the disadvantage of this protocol is that when route failure occurs no attempt is made to recover the route delaying the route discovery. In last but not the least category of multicast routing e.g. M-AODV[11] i.e. multicast extension of AODV .It allows each node in the network to send out multicast data packets and the multicast data packets are broadcast when propagating along the multicast group tree.

3.2 Summary of MANET routing protocols[4]


Routing Structure Flat Flat Flat Flat

Frequency of updates Periodic updates Periodic updates Periodic and local updates Periodic and local updates Conditional updates Mobility based updates Periodic updates Route metric method Freshest and shortest path Shortest path Shortest path Strongest

Feature Loop free Loop free Localized updates Controlled frequency of updates Minimizes control overhead Controlled updates Low control overhead Route maintained in Route table Route cache Route table Route table

Advantage/Disadvantage Loop free/high overhead Loop free/memory overhead Localized updates/high memory overhead Reduces control overhead/reduces accuracy Low memory overhead/requires GPS Low control overhead/cluster maintenance Disadv. is location management


Hierarchical Flat Hierarchical


Flat Flat Flat Flat

Adaptive to dynamic topology/scalability problem Multiple routes/large delays Multiple routes/temporary loops Route stability/scalability




Flat Flat Flat

associativity Signal strength Shortest path Shortest path

Route table Route cache Interzone/intrazone tables

problem Route stability/large delays Local route discovery/based on source routing Less commn.overhead/overlapping zones

4. Routing Protocols for VANET
In a vehicular environment three possible types of architectures are possible.See fig.1 vehicular scenario regarding packet delivery ratio. improvement in


While it is all but impossible to come up with a routing approach that can be suitable for all VANET applications and can efficiently handle all their inherent characteristics, attempts have been made to develop some routing protocols specifically designed for particular applications like safety applications, content delivery in future vehicular networks, provision of comfort applications. Many routing techniques have been proposed for traditional ad-hoc networks but due to different characteristics of VN , they fail to fit in the scenario. In this paper we classify the routing into five categories-

4.2 Geographical Routing Geographical routing or position based routing has been identified more promising paradigm in VN. Two best known protocols in literature are Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing(GPSR)[14] and Greedy Perimeter Coordinator Routing(GPCR)[15].It works best in open space scenarios with evenly distributed nodes. It gave good results when compared to DSR in highway scenario.GPCR works on the principle that packet should always be forwarded on a junction called co-ordinator. The authors showed that GPCR has higher delivery rate than GPSR. and slight increase in latency. 4.3 Cluster Based Routing
Cluster based routing protocol was first developed by Jiang in 1999.Nodes of the wireless network are divided into several disjoint clusters. Each cluster elects one node as cluster head. These heads are responsible for routing process.

4.1 Ad-hoc routing and modification for VANET
As mentioned earlier MANET and VANET share the same principles, thus most ad-hoc routing protocols are applicable such as AODV and DSR. however most of the studies have shown that both these protocols suffer from highly dynamic nature of nodes i.e. they give low communication throughput. Thus little modification need to be deployed to deal with dynamic mobility. for this two algorithms were proposed by Namboodiri et al.[13],to reduce the ill effects of route breakage as faced in AODV .Two prediction based protocols are PRAODV and PRAODV-M.PRAODV constructs alternate routes before the end of estimated lifetime while PRAODV-M selects maximum predicted life time among multiple route options. These two protocols showed great utility in

Fig 2.Communication between two clusters using cluster head.

Protocols were proposed based on cluster mechanism for MANET but due to driver’s intentions and high speed etc. were not suited for VN. For vehicular specific environment two known routing protocols in literature are Clustering for open IVC Networks(COIN)[16] and Cluster Based Flooding(CBR)[17]. COIN elects cluster head based on vehicle dynamic and driver’s intention rather than communication range or ID as in adhoc networks and produced much more stable structure.CBR works principally on location based


92  [10].R.Dube,C.D.Rais,K.Wang,S.Tripathi,,“Signal stability based adaptive routing (SSA) for ad-hoc mobile networks”,computer science technical report,TR-3646,pages 22,1996. [11].Elizabeth M. Royer,“Multicast Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (MAODV) Routing”,internet draft,mobile adhoc networking group,march 2000. [12].Fan li,Yu Wang,”Routing in vehicular adhoc networks:A survey”,IEEE vehicular technology magazine,june 2007. [13]. V. Namboodiri, M. Agarwal, and L. Gao, “A study on the feasibility of mobile gateways for vehicular ad-hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 66–75, 2004. [14]. B. Karp and H.T. Kung, “GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), 2000. [15]. C. Lochert, M. Mauve, H. Füßler, and H. Hartenstein, “Geographic routing in city scenarios,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review (MC2R), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 69–72, Jan. 2005. [16]. J. Blum, A. Eskandarian, and L. Hoffman, “Mobility management in IVC networks,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2003. [17]. R.A. Santos, A. Edwards, R. Edwards, and L. Seed, “Performance evaluation of routing protocols in vehicular adhoc networks,” The International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 80–91, 2005. [18]. M. Durresi, A. Durresi, and L. Barolli, “Emergency broadcast protocol for intervehicle communications,” in ICPADS ’05: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems— Workshops (ICPADS’05), 2005. [19].. G. Korkmaz, E. Ekici, F. Özgüner, and Ü. Özgüner, “Urban multi-hop broadcast protocol for inter-vehicle communication systems,” in ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 76–85, 2004. effective multihop [20].T.H.Kim,W.K.Hong,H.Kim,”An broadcast in vehicular adhoc networks”, proceedings 20th International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems, ARCS 2007, March 2007,springer.

theory sending location request LREQ and location reply LREP msg. In total cluster based routing can achieve good scalability for large networks but extra overhead of formation of cluster and heads.

4.4 Broadcast Routing
Broadcasting technique is used for sharing traffic emergency conditions, advertisements etc. the way to achieve broadcasting is flooding and it is easy to be implemented. But its performance drops quickly as networks grows larger. Two well known routing protocols are BROADCOMM[18] and Urban Multihop Broadcast Protocol(UMB)[19].BROADCOMM works on hierarchical structure and it outperforms flooding algorithm.UMB overcome the problem of hidden nodes and packet collision. This protocol give high success rate for heavy traffic density and packet load.

In this paper we discuss typical architectural features of vehicular network and compare it with traditional mobile ad-hoc network. Table 1 draws an outline of MANET and VANET routing principles. In general although this paper gives no technically practical results but presents an overall picture of different routing challenges that are faced in vehicular environment and various routing procedures followed in both the networks. We believe this paper will be helpful for future designer in vehicular communication networks.

6. References
[1].Bryan Parno, Adrian Perrig, “Challenges in Securing Vehicular Networks”, Poster presented at USENIX Security Symposium,August-04. [2].Emanuel Fonseca,A.Festag,”A survey of Existing approaches for secure ad-hoc routing and their applicability to VANET”, NEC Network Laboratories,March 2006. [3] Frank Kargl “Secure Routing for Vehicular Networks.”. SEVECOM Kick-off Workshop,2nd Feb,2006. [4].M.Abolhasan,T.Wysocki,E.Dutkiewicz,”A review of routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks”, [5].C.liu,J.Kaiser,”A survey of mobile adhoc network routing protocols”university of Ulm technical report series,No.200308,germany 2005. [6]Y.B.Ko,N.H.Vaidya,”Location Aided Routing in mobile adhoc networks”,proceedings ACM/IEEE Mobicomm,oct 1998. [7] Mahdipour, E. Rahmani, A.M. Aminian, E. ,” Performance Evaluation of Destination-Sequenced DistanceVector (DSDV) Routing Protocol”, Proceeding March 2009 , page(s): 186 – 190, ISBN: 978-07695-3567-8. [8]Z.Hass,”Zone routing protocols for adhoc networks”,internet draft,draft-ietf-manet-zrp-02.txt. [9] Martin Mauve, et al, “A Survey on position based routing in ad-hoc networks “, IEEE Network Magazine 15 (6), pp. 3039, November 2001.

Ms. Arzoo Dahiya is currently working as an Assistant professor in I.T.Deptt,Lingaya’s University,Faridabad. Prof. (Dr.) R. K. Chauhan is currently working as a Chairman, Department of Computer Science and Application in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. He has published more than 70 research papers in International/National Journal/Conference. He has guided 5 Ph.D. His research

interest includes Data Mining, DBMS and Networks.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times