REDUCING INTERFERENCES IN VANETS CONSISTING MAC

PROTOCOL AND CLUSTERING ALGORITHM

M.Ramkumar1,V.Murugan2
PGstudent1,Assistant Professor2
Bharath Niketan Engineering College - Aundipatty

sksmr124037@gmail.com1,muruganece09@gmail.com2
ABSTRACT
Vehicular ad hoc networks
(VANETs) are a subclass of MANETs
that is expected to have a key role in the
intelligent transportation systems of the
future. VANETs provide vehicle-tovehicle
and
vehicle-to-roadside
communication in order to support
safety and comfort applications. Despite
being a subclass of MANETs, VANETs
have fundamentally different behavior.
This project presents a scheme
consisting of a media access control
protocol and a clustering algorithm
designed to reduce interferences in
VANETs. Our scheme, which is intended
for safety applications in highway
environments,
employs
dynamic
multihop clustering, allows better
utilization of network resources, and
improves network performance.
Keywords: VANET, MANET,
multihop clustering
INTRODUCTION
Wireless
networks
provide
unprecedented freedom and mobility for
a growing number of laptop and PDA
users who no longer need wires to stay
connected with their workplace and the
Internet. Ironically, the very devices that
provide wireless service to these clients
need lots of wiring lots of wiring
themselves to connect to private
networks and the internet.

Wireless means transmitting signals

using radio waves as the medium instead
of wires. Wireless technologies are used
for tasks as simple as switching off the
sales force with information from an
automated enterprise application while
in the field. Now cordless keyboards and
mice, PDAs, pagers and digital and
cellular phones have become part of our
daily life.

Vehicular AD-HOC
(VANET):

networks

VANET means vehicular Adhoc

network and it is the technology which is
used to move vehicles as joint in
network to make a transportable
network. Participating vehicles become a
wireless connection or router through
vanet and it allow the vehicles almost to
connect 100 to 300 meters to each other
and in order to create a wide range
network, other vehicles are connected to
each other so the mobile internet is
made. It is supposed that the first
networks that will incorporate this
technology are fire and police mobiles to
interact with one another for security
reasons.
Technology Used:
Brilliant way to use Vehicular
Networking is defined in VANET or
Intelligent
Vehicular
Ad-Hoc
Networking. Multiple ad-hoc networking
technologies integrated in VANET such
as, ZigBee, IRA, WiMAX IEEE, and

Wi-Fi IEEE for convenient, effective,

exact, simple and plain communication
within automobiles on active mobility.
Useful procedures like communication
of media within automobiles can be
allowed as well process to follow the
automotive automobiles are also
favored. Security measures are defined
in vehicles by VANET, flowing
communication within automobiles,
edutainment and telemetric.
The most favorable target is the
more useful, efficient and safer roads
will built through vehicular networks by
informing to basic authorities and
drivers in time in the future. Another
target is to discover the advancement of
vehicular ad hoc networking (VANET)
wireless technologies. The purpose is to
secure and to make possible commercial
requests
through
range
of
communication systems and/or other
networks (VANET) which goes short to
medium. These technologies would
support main concern for critical time
secure communication and fulfill the
QOS needs of other multimedia software
or e-commerce mobile. Next goal to
create high-presentation, extremely
measurable and secured technologies of
VANET shows an unusual challenge to
the investigate community of wireless.
Specific restrictions normally assumed
in ad hoc networks are alleviated in
VANET yet. Such as, VANET might
assemble comparatively huge means of
computational.

Applications of VANET:
Mostly interests to MANETS
belong to the VANETS but the features
are different. Vehicles are likely to move
in structured way. The connection with
wayside equipment can similarly be
indicated absolutely accurately. In the

end, mostly automobiles are limited in

their motion range, such as being
controlled to pursue a paved way.
VANET
suggests
unlimited
advantage to companies of any size.
Vehicles access of fast speed internet
which will change the automobiles onboard system from an effective widget to
necessary
productivity
equipment,
making nearly any internet technology
accessible in the vehicle. Thus this
network does pretend specific security
concerns as one problem is no one can
type an email during driving safely. This
is not a potential limit of VANET as
productivity equipment. It permits the
time which has wasted for something in
waiting called dead time, has turned
into the time which is used to achieve
tasks called live time.
If a traveler downloads his email,
he can transform jam traffic into a
productive task and read on-board
system and read it himself if traffic
stuck. One can browse the internet when
someone is waiting in vehicle for a
relative or friend. If GPS system is
integrated it can give us a benefit about
traffic related to reports to support the
fastest way to work. Finally, it would
permit for free, like Skype or Google
Talk services within workers, reducing
telecommunications charges.

1.7 Technical description:

The AODV Routing protocol
uses an on-demand approach for finding
routes, that is, a route is established only
when it is required by a source node for
transmitting data packets. It employs
destination sequence numbers to identify
the most recent path. The major
difference between AODV and Dynamic

Source Routing (DSR) stems out from

the fact that DSR uses source routing in
which a data packet carries the complete
path to be traversed. However, in AODV,
the source node and the intermediate
nodes store the next-hop information
corresponding to each flow for data
packet transmission. In an on-demand
routing protocol, the source node floods
the RouteRequest packet in the network
when a route is not available for the
desired destination. It may obtain
multiple routes to different destinations
from a single RouteRequest. The major
difference between AODV and other ondemand routing protocols is that it uses a
destination
sequence
number
(DestSeqNum) to determine an up-todate path to the destination. A node
updates its path information only if the
DestSeqNum of the current packet
received is greater than the last
DestSeqNum stored at the nodeA
RouteRequest carries the source
identifier (SrcID), the destination
identifier (DestID), the source sequence
number (SrcSeqNum), the destination
sequence number (DestSeqNum), the
broadcast identifier (BcastID), and the
time to live (TTL) field. DestSeqNum
indicates the freshness of the route that
is accepted by the source. When an
intermediate
node
receives
a
RouteRequest, it either forwards it or
prepares a RouteReply if it has a valid
route to the destination. The validity of a
route at the intermediate node is
determined by comparing the sequence
number at the intermediate node with the
destination sequence number in the
RouteRequest packet. If a RouteRequest
is received multiple times, which is
indicated by the BcastID-SrcID pair, the
duplicate copies are discarded. All
intermediate nodes having valid routes
to the destination, or the destination

node itself, are allowed to send

RouteReply packets to the source. Every
intermediate node, while forwarding a
RouteRequest, enters the previous node
address and its BcastID. A timer is used
to delete this entry in case a RouteReply
is not received before the timer expires.
This helps in storing an active path at the
intermediate node as AODV does not
employ source routing of data packets.
When a node receives a RouteReply
packet, information about the previous
node from which the packet was
received is also stored in order to
forward the data packet to this next node
as the next hop toward the
destination.DSR includes source routes
in packet headers. Resulting large
headers
can
sometimes
degrade
performance-particularly when data
contents of a packet are small, AODV
attempts to improve on DSR by
maintaining routing tables at the nodes,
so that data packets do not have to
contain routes. AODV retains the
desirable feature of DSR that routes are
maintained only between nodes which
need to communicate. An intermediate
node may also send a Route Reply
(RREP) provided that it knows a more
recent path than the one previously
known to sender. Intermediate nodes that
forward the RREP, also record the next
hop to destination. A routing table entry
maintaining a reverse path is purged
after a timeout interval.. When the next
hop link in a routing table entry breaks,
all active neighbors are informed. Link
failures are propagated by means of
Route Error (RERR) messages, which
also update destination sequence
numbers. When node X is unable to
forward packet P (from node S to node
D) on link (X,Y), it generates a RERR
message. Node X increments the
destination sequence number for D

cached at node X. The incremented

sequence number N is included in the
RERR. When node S receives the
RERR, it initiates a new route discovery
for D using destination sequence number
at least as large as N .When node D
receives the route request with
destination sequence number N, node D
will set its sequence number to N, unless
it is already larger than N. Routes need
not be included in packet headers. Nodes
maintain routing tables containing
entries only for routes that are in active
use. At most one next-hop per
destination maintained at each nodeDSR may maintain several routes for a
single destination. Sequence numbers
are used to avoid old/broken routes.
Sequence numbers prevent formation of
routing loops. Unused routes expire even
if topology does not change.
1.8 Advantages: Routes are established
on demand and destination sequence
numbers are used to find the latest route
to the destination. Lower delay for
connection setup.

Represents

Transmission

of

RREQ.

Represents links on reverse path.

Fig 1.2 Route Discovery in AODV.

1.9 Disadvantage: AODV doesnt allow

handling unidirectional links. Multiple
Route Reply packets in response to a
single Route Request packet can lead to
heavy control overhead. Periodic
beaconing
leads
to
unnecessary
bandwidth consumption.

Represents a node that has received

RREQ for D from S.
Fig 1.1 Route Discovery in AODV

o Node C receives RREQ

from G and H, but does
not forward it again,
because node C has
already forwarded RREQ
once.

assumed a simple transmission-rangebased model to determine if nodes

correctly receive each other.
REFERENCES

Node D does not forward

RREQ, because Node D
is the intended target of
RREQ.

Fig 1.3 Route Discovery in AODV

5. CONCLUSION
In our Project the problem of
interference minimization for safety
applications in VANETs using the
highway model. We have created a new
multihop clustering approach, which is
fully distributed, uses local decisions,
and does not require a cluster-head
selection. Our GIM scheme allows
contention less channel access for both
collision avoidance and broadcasting
applications.
The
interference
measurements in our work use the
Neighborhood
Interference
Model,
which is more demanding (interference
wise) than the Receiver Centric Model
used in many other works however,
similarly to those same works, we

[1]. J. J. Blum, A. Eskandarian, and L. J.

Hoffman, Challenges of intervehicle ad hoc
networks, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 347 351, Dec. 2004.
[2]. E. M. Royer and C.-K. Toh, A review of
current routing protocols for ad-hoc mobile
wireless networks, IEEE Pers. Commun.,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 4655, Apr. 1999.

[3].

K. C. Lee, U. Lee, and M. Gerla,

Survey of routing protocols in vehicular ad
hoc networks, in Advances in Vehicular
Ad-Hoc Networks: Developments and
Challenges. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global,

Oct. 2009.
[4]. A. Skordylis and N. Trigoni, Delaybounded routing in vehicular ad-hoc
networks, in Proc. MobiHoc, 2008, pp.
341350.
[5]. L. Bononi andM. Di Felice, A cross layered
MAC and clustering scheme for efficient
broadcast, in Proc. IEEE MASS, 2007, pp.
18.
[6]. J. J. Haas and Y.-C. Hu, Communication
requirements for crash avoidance, in Proc.
VANET, Chicago, IL, USA, 2010, pp. 110.
[7]. P.
von
Rickenbach,
S.
Schmid,
R.Wattenhofer, and A. Zollinger, A robust
interference model for wireless ad-hoc
networks, in Proc. IEEE Parallel Distrib.
Process. Symp., 2005, pp. 18.