Advanced Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network (VANET) technology using Blockchain

Abstract

With rapid expansion in wireless technology, telecommunication is most explored fields of research and Vehicular Adhoc networks in particular. In this review, a VANET design is presented which focuses on high quality video streaming using data dissemination between high speed vehicles. It is achieved using best forwarder in every ring centered on the aggregate of all vehicles available in the network to reduce multi-hop routing. The emergency messages are authenticated using blockchain to have improved security of sensitive information. A comparison of routing protocols namely AODV, OLSR and DSDV is also presented in this review

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are very popular networks since they bring out more efficiency while transferring the data and meet all the safety requirements. They are used in many applications such as road transport, dangerous location alert, monitoring traffic, real-time video relay, calamity alert and a lot more. Robust routing protocols are needed to avoid collision of vehicles. The routing protocols of VANETs are classified as topology routing, dissemination routing, opportunistic routing and geographic routing according to their mode of operation.

By considering many important factors such as traffic, communication, reaction time into account, the algorithm is mainly used to reduce the number of accidents as far as possible. TrafficAware Routing (TAR) protocols are very powerful since they can handle frequent communication disruptions efficiently and hence, they are used in real-time traffic control. Many sensors are placed in the vehicles to broadcast the messages through the network. This plays a major role in preventing serious accidents. In this work transmission of alert messages, announcements, warning messages, calamity messages across the Ad-hoc networks is presented. The communication can be between the vehicles or between the vehicle and other infrastructure. Road Side Unit (RSU) plays a very important role in both cases as there are possibilities of fake messages being transmitted that could misguide the network and do harm more than good.

The location-based routing protocols are categorised as Geographical zone two tier routing (GZTR), Greedy perimeter stateless routing (GPSR) and Greedy border superiority routing (GBSR). The location of vehicles is changing every instant due to their very high speed. Therefore, location-based becomes an obvious necessity. GZTR divides the coverage area into different zones and allocates packets to every relay node of all the zones. It also identifies the best route between the source and the destination by taking both density and distance into consideration. Sometimes, protocols are chosen based on its ability to deliver the bulk of data packets also while maintaining integrity. In that view, protocols such as Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) protocol, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol, Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) are used. In this work, the 3 protocols are compared using NS3 simulation software in the same system through the performance parameters notably the end to end jitter delay, packet loss ratio, throughput and packet delivery ratio.

The main criteria presented in this study is to use a single VANET environment to handle both video transmission routing and data dissemination. The channel with better quality is selected to reduce the packet loss which incidentally is one of the major challenges faced during video transmission. The number of routing hops are reduced by adopting ring partition-based routing which also elevates the routing performance.

II. METHODOLOGY

A. Error Messages-Data Dissemination

Data dissemination is provides an additional layer of safety to transmitted messages in order to safeguard nearby fast moving vehicles. The beacon messages are sent from the vehicle to the RSU. The beacon message is basically a frame of data consisting of six different fields namely the speed of the vehicle, vehicle number, timestamp, the type of service, the length of message and the deadline. Frame structure of a beacon message is shown below in Figure 2.

1. OLSR Protocol: IN OLSR protocol, any update in a connections are broadcasted to all the nodes in a network thereby increasing the network overhead. OLSR transmits two messages namely the ping and a message to control the topology where Pings are used to find the data about the connection status and topology control message is used to broadcast the information to neignbouring nodes with the help of multi point relay (MPR) which reduces the overload much similar to pure link state protocol
2. DSDV Protocol: DSDV Protocol is an enhanced version of Bellman Ford Algorithm which resolved the problem of looping in routing by maintaining the sequence number information of each node. In DSDV, the metric used is the number of hops, which avoids looping problems during routing

B. Reactive Routing Protocol

In contrast to proactive protocol, reactive protocols do not contain information about all the nodes and has only information of nodes that it encounters instead. Protocols included here are AODV Protocol, DSR Protocol, DYMO Protocol

1. AODV Protocol: In Ad-hoc on demand Distance Vector Protocol, the nodes transmit the information related to the topology only on demand. Each node in the network acts like a router which gets the route information whenever there is a need to transmit data
2. DYMO Protocol: In Dynamic MANET on demand protocol is an addition to AODV which can be implemented as both reactive and proactive protocols
3. DSR Protocol: Dynamic Source Routing protocol is a productive protocol made for multi hop WANET routing. It is a auto adjust and configuring protocol that does not require any administration. The two-main functions of DSR protocol are route discovery and maintenance.

C. Hybrid Protocol

This is a combination of both proactive and reactive protocol which reduces the overhead and delays mainly attributed to the periodic sharing of topology information. It has been proven to improve the efficiency, throughput but trades off with latency in new routes. In this work, three protocols are considered for comparison study namely AODV, DSDV and OLSR protocol(s) and are simulated using NS3 simulation software.

IV.  SIMULATION SETUP

Ns3 simulator is a network simulator that performs network simulations and when combined with SUMO creates a VANET environment. It is a real-time application since real-time road map is used and real-time traffic is monitored. Primarily, C++ is used since it supports a considerably good Graphical User Interface (GUI). Ns3 is a C++ based simulation library and framework which provides an IDE which consisting of elliptical base, l graphical runtime environment and other tools. It is widely used as a platform for scientific as well as industrial purposes.

It has a modular architecture which makes the simulation kernel to embed seamlessly. It requires a linux operating system base for simulation. NS3 framework is used as a base along with other frameworks so that it can be utilised for simulating vehicular networks.

In this system, an Ns3 model is developed from modules in which communication takes place through error messages. All the modules are programmed in C++ with the Ns3 configuration and parameters being held as it logs the simulation runs. Post simulation, the code is linked with the user interface and simulation kernel and all the simulation results are logged along with the scalar and vector files which inturn are visualized using NetAnim software. The animation verifies the routing and the communication taking place between the vehicles

V.  RESULTS

In the simulation process as explained earlier, Open System Map Web Wizard tool which is a component of SUMO software is used to generate real time vehicular data as shown in Fig 5. The simulation then generates the vehicular data as shown in Table I, which explains the number of vehicles generated in the stipulated simulation time (150s in this system), total route length, depart delays and the time loss factor.

Conclusion

In the proposed system, the overall performance of the VANET is enhanced and the interference from unauthorized vehicles are prevented. The hash value stored in the cloud is close to 256 bits. The proposed system minimizes the probability of road accidents significantly by employing sequenced communication strategies. The security of the transmission is reaches its maximum level with the incorporation of blockchain technology. In the proposed system, three important concepts of VANETs are proposed namely lossless video transmission, error message dissemination and routing. The routing begins with hexagonal partitioning and best forwarder is selected for data transmission. A Verification is done before dissemination to evade any vulnerability. Video transmission is the challenge due to packet losses, deteriorating quality and so on. These issues are sorted through priority assignments to the video frames and Channel State identification is executed to select the most reliable channel which helps to transmit large videos even though the vehicle is highly mobile. It is also eminent that AODV protocol is more efficient in terms of throughput and number of packets sent where as OSLR and DSDV protocols are efficient in places where low loss systems are required. Depending upon the system requirements, the relevant protocol is dynamically selected.

References

[1] I.A.Abbasi and A.Shahid Khan, “A review of vehicle to vehicle communication protocols for vanets in the urban environment,” Future Internet, vol.10, no.2, p.14, 2018. [2] B.Paul and M.J.Islam, “Survey over vanet routing protocols for vehicle to vehicle communication”,IOSRJCE, vol.7, no.5,pp.1–9, 2012. [3] A.A.Taleb, “Vanet routing protocols and architectures: An overview”, vol.14, no.3, pp. 423–434, 2018. [4] M.A.Hoque, J.Rios-Torres, R.Arvin, A.Khattak, and S.Ahmed, “The extent of reliability for vehicle-to-vehicle communication in safety critical applications: An experimental study”, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol.24, no.3, pp.264–278, 2020. [5] C.R.He and G.Orosz, “Saving fuel using wireless vehicle-tovehicle communication”, American control conference (ACC), IEEE, pp.4946–4951, 2017 [6] K.C.Su, H.M.Wu, W.L.Chang, and Y.H.Chou, “Vehicle-to-vehicle communication system through wi-fi network using android smartphone”, International conference on connected vehicles and expo (ICCVE), IEEE, pp.191–196, 2012 [7] D.Singh, A.Sood, G.Thakur, N.Arora, and A.Kumar, “Design and implementation of wireless communication system for toll collection using lifi”, 4th International Conference on Signal Processing, Computing and Control (ISPCC), IEEE, pp.510–515, 2017 [8] J.Lianghai, M.Liu, A.Weinand, and H.D.Schotten, “Direct vehicle-tovehicle communication with infrastructure assistance in 5g network”, 16th Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop (Med-HocNet), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5. [9] M. A. Hoque, J. Rios-Torres, R. Arvin, A. Khattak, and S. Ahmed, “The extent of reliability for vehicle-to-vehicle communication in safety critical applications: An experimental study,” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 264–278, 2020. [10] O. Gehring and H. Fritz, “Practical results of a longitudinal control concept for truck platooning with vehicle to vehicle communication,” in Proceedings of Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, 1997, pp. 117–122. [11] M. Won, T. Park, and S. H. Son, “Toward mitigating phantom jam using vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1313–1324, 2016. [12] S. N. Shaikh and S. Patil, “A robust broadcast scheme for vehicle to vehicle communication system,” in 2016 Conference on Advances in Signal Processing (CASP), IEEE, 2016, pp. 301–305. [13] I. Takai, T. Harada, M. Andoh, K. Yasutomi, K. Kagawa, and S. Kawahito, “Optical vehicle-to-vehicle communication system using led transmitter and camera receiver,” IEEE photonics journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1–14, 2014. [14] M. I. Ashraf, C.-F. Liu, M. Bennis, and W. Saad, “Towards low-latency and ultra-reliable vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” in 2017 European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5 [15] G. Bulumulle and L. Boloni, “Reducing side-sweep accidents with vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 19,2016. doi: 10.3390/jsan5040019. [16] Y. Luo, Y. Xiang, K. Cao, and K. Li, “A dynamic automated lane change maneuver based on vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 62, pp. 87–102, 2016. [17] K. Mizui, M. Uchida, and M. Nakagawa, “Vehicle-to-vehicle communication and ranging system using spread spectrum technique (proposal of boomerang transmission system),” in IEEE 43rd Vehicular Technology Conference, IEEE, 1993, pp. 335–338. [18] J. Harding, G. Powell, R. Yoon, et al., “Vehicle-to-vehicle communications: Readiness of v2v technology for application.,” United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tech. Rep., 2014. [19] A. Carter, “The status of vehicle-to-vehicle communication as a means of improving crash prevention performance,” Tech. Rep. 05-0264, 2005, Tech. Rep., 2005 [20] X. Yang, L. Liu, N. H. Vaidya, and F. Zhao, “A vehicle-to-vehicle communication protocol for cooperative collision warning,” in The First Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004. MOBIQUITOUS 2004., IEEE, 2004, pp. 114–123 [21] J.W. Ding, C.-F. Wang, F.-H. Meng, and T.-Y. Wu, “Real-time vehicle route guidance using vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IET communications, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 870–883, 2010. [22] A. Hawbani, E. Torbosh, X. Wang, P. Sincak, L. Zhao, and A. AlDubai, “Fuzzy-based distributed protocol for vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 612–626, 2019 [23] T. Limbasiya and D. Das, “Lightweight secure message broadcasting protocol for vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 520–529, 2019. [24] S. Wei, Y. Zou, X. Zhang, T. Zhang, and X. Li, “An integrated longitudinal and lateral vehicle following control system with radar and vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1116–1127, 2019. “Wideband channel modeling and intercarrier interference cancellation for vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 434–448, 2013 [25] H. Yu, Z. He, and K. Niu, “Stdma for vehicle-to-vehicle communication in a highway scenario,” in 2013 5th IEEE International Symposium on Microwave, Antenna, Propagation and EMC Technologies for Wireless Communications, IEEE, 2013, pp. 133–138 [26] Muhammad Rizwan Ghori, Kamal Z. Zamli, Nik Quosthoni, Muhammad Hisyam, Mohamed Montaser, ”Vehicular Ad-hoc Network (VANET): Review”, IEEE International Conference on Innovative Research and Development (ICIRD), IEEE, 2018

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Dr. Usha Rani KR, Priyanka RV, Deepashree RJ, Priya RS, Nikita Siri NC. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.