See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353236448

Analysis of routing protocols for software-defined vehicular ad hoc networks

Article in International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations · May 2021

DOI: 10.1504/IJNVO.2021.114731

CITATION READS
1 35

2 authors:

Annapurna P Patil Lalitha Chinmayee Maheshkumar Hurali

Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering Shavige Malleswara Hills, Kumaraswamy L… M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology
81 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lalitha Chinmayee Maheshkumar Hurali on 18 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J.Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. x, No. x, 1–21 1

Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks

Annapurna P Patil
Professor,
Department of CSE,
Ramaiah Institute of Technology,
Bangalore, India
E-mail: [email protected]

Lalitha Chinmayee H M
Student,
Department of CSE,
Ramaiah Institute of Technology,
Bangalore, India
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: With the rapid development of smart cities, the significance of

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) has revolutionized the functioning of the
modern transportation system. Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) are
trending to be the backbones of the ITS. These VANETs, which are in the family
of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are characterized by high mobility and
dynamically changing topology, which in turn leads to frequent link breaks. With
many of the open challenges in VANETs to be addressed, it is strongly observed
that routing is an essential aspect of VANETs to study and experiment with, as it
majorly contributes to the overall network performance. Some of the challenges
that arise with respect to routing in VANETs are diminished Quality of Service
(QoS), heterogeneous networks, and security threats. These issues are efficiently
addressed by a networking paradigm called Software-Defined Networking (SDN).
The primary goal of this study is to bring out the current state of art in SDN based
routing in VANETs with the following two objectives. The first objective of this
study is to summarize the merits of SDN based routing in VANETs and provide
the researchers with an intricate knowledge of the SDN based routing protocols
for VANETs. The second objective is to propose a novel taxonomy of such
routing protocols based on the organization of the SDN controller, QoS metric,
security, heterogeneity, and type of communication. Our study has conclusive
analysis, which shows that the SDN based routing in VANETs has significant
benefits over the traditional network-based VANETs concerning QoS, Security,
and heterogeneity in the networks. This analysis would help the researchers to
venture on newer and more precise implementation in the area of SDN based
routing in VANETs.

Keywords: software defined vehicular ad hoc networks, vehicular ad hoc

networks, intelligent transportation systems, smart cities, software defined
networking, routing, VANETs, SDN, security, heterogeneity.

Biographical notes: Annapurna P Patil received her PhD from Visvesvaraya

Technological University (VTU) in 2014. She is currently a Professor in
Department of CSE in Ramaiah Institute of Technology (RIT). She is a Senior

Copyright © 201X Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
IEEE member, LMCSI, LMISTE, Member ACM, Faculty Advisor of IEEE
WIE at the RIT and held the IEEE WIR Chair, Bangalore Section, 2018. She
has several publications in reputed conferences and journals. She is involved
in collaborative works with CISCO, IBM, HPE, Nihon Communications Ltd,
Samsung, Bangalore for research projects. Her research interests span the area
of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Protocol Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Data
analytics, Advance Algorithms, Software Engineering, Distributed Computing,
Bio-Inspired Computing, IoT and Cloud.

Lalitha Chinmayee H M received her B.E degree in Electronics and

Communication from R.V. College of Engineering in 2015. She is currently
working towards her M. Tech degree in Ramaiah Institute of Technology (RIT).
She is a student member at IEEE Computer Society. Her research interests are
Vehicular ad hoc networks, multimedia streaming applications, machine learning
and network security.

1 Introduction

The ever-increasing need for mobility is leading to an increase in on-road traffic in recent
years. Due to increased traffic and incompetent traffic management systems, there is a surge
in traffic congestions, emergencies, accidents, and commute time and also reduced safety
and waste of non-renewable energy.
One of the ways to lessen the undesirable impacts of growing traffic and increase traffic
efficiency is by adopting a technology called Intelligent Transport System (ITS). The term
“ITS” was sanctioned by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 1994.
Intelligent Transport System addresses several worldwide challenges in the transport
domain, and they are: (a) To tackle the traffic congestion issue and optimize the overall
commute times. (b) To improve the safety of the vehicles on the road. (c) To enhance the
performance and efficiency of ITS applications. (d) To lessen the impact of transportation
on the environment.
There are three significant sets of ITS applications defined by the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). They are: (i) Traffic Safety Applications
like emergency vehicle warnings (ambulance, fire extinguishers, etc.), (ii) Traffic Efficiency
Applications like route guidance and navigation, and (iii) Value-added Services like
multimedia sharing over the internet. All of these applications require data transmission
from a source to one or many destinations over a network.
The key element of ITS is the Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs), and they
are self-organizing autonomous wireless networks belonging to the family of Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs). Such networks are formed by vehicles with intelligent
sensing devices embedded in them and are characterized by high mobility, dynamically
changing topology, and variable vehicular density. Due to these unique characteristics,
there are frequent link breaks in the network. Hence, the development and deployment of
an efficient routing protocol becomes a challenging task. Over the recent decade, several
routing protocols have been proposed to address the communication challenges in VANETs.
However, the routing protocols based on the traditional network paradigm show degraded
performance while handling frequent link breaks in the network and result in unreliable
communication [1][2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks3
In 2014, Ku et al. [8] first presented the suitability of a new networking paradigm called
the Software Defined Networks (SDN) to VANETs. SDN involves the separation of the
control and the data planes resulting in improved efficiency, flexibility, and management of
the network when compared to traditional networks. The SDN paradigm applied to VANETs
is termed as Software Defined Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (SDVNs) and is particularly
beneficial in the improvement of QoS, rapid deployment of new routing protocols, and
reliable communication.
Over a few years, many researchers have proposed SDN based routing in VANETs
in literature and have shown performance improvement compared to traditional routing
techniques. This survey aims to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the existing
research articles in SDN based routing and provide a systematic taxonomy for the same. Very
few articles discuss the taxonomy of such routing protocols, but they lack in considering
the metrics like the organization of the SDN controller, heterogeneity in the networks, and
type of communication for the classification.
As per our knowledge, this is the first research article that discusses all the classification
metrics for SDN based routing in one place. Also, we provide a qualitative comparison of
the various such routing protocols in the literature with respect to its characteristics (i.e.,
organization of the SDN controller, type of routing, fog computing, etc.) and performance
evaluation (i.e., network simulators, vehicular mobility generators, and usage scenarios).
The SDN architecture has few security vulnerabilities that are consequences of its
inherent characteristics like the presence of a centralized controller, abstracted devices at
the data plane, and packet forwarding based on the flow tables. Future research articles
that utilize the SDN architecture should also be aware of the potential security threats and
handle them efficiently in their work.
The main contributions of this paper are:

1. A comprehensive overview of the VANETs is provided by discussing its architecture,

characteristics, and existing research challenges.

2. An outline of the architecture, working, and distinguishing features of SDN is provided.

We also summarize the merits of SDN based routing over the traditional network-based
routing in VANETs.

3. A novel taxonomy for SDN based routing in VANETs is proposed to provide a

classification based on the organization of SDN controller, QoS metric, security,
heterogeneity, and type of communication.

4. Our analysis of SDN based routing in VANETs is presented with the help of a qualitative
comparison of various routing protocols available in literature.

5. Finally, we present the security vulnerabilities of the SDN architecture to make the
researchers aware of the potential security threats to the SDN based VANETs.

The organization of the survey is as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive

overview of VANETs. Section 3 provides an outline of the architecture, working and
distinguishing features of SDN and a summary of the benefits of SDN based routing in
VANETs. The proposed taxonomy of the SDN based routing in VANETs is presented in
Section 4. The subsections of Section 4 provide a brief description of the working principles
of the surveyed routing protocols. Section 5 of this survey provides a conclusive analysis
with a comparison of routing protocols discussed in Section 4 with respect to different
4 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M

Figure 1 A simplified view of VANET [9]

metrics like the characteristics (i.e., organization of SDN controller, type of routing, fog
computing, etc.) and performance evaluation (i.e., network simulators, vehicular mobility
generators, and usage scenarios). Section 5 also uncovers the security vulnerabilities of the
SDN architecture.

2 Overview Of Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) are self-organizing autonomous wireless networks

belonging to the family of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs). VANETs are formed by
vehicles with intelligent sensing devices embedded in them.

2.1 Architecture of VANETs

Figure 1 shows the architecture of VANETs comprising of vehicles, infrastructures like

roadside units (RSUs), Base stations (BSs), and communication channels. All the vehicles
in VANETs have an On-Board Unit (OBU) that is used to exchange information with the
RSUs, BSs and other vehicles. An OBU typically comprises of Global Positioning System
(GPS), a resource command processor (RCP), a memory with read/write operations, a User
Interface (UI) and a network device for wireless communication. Wireless radio access,
routing, controlling network congestion, data security, etc. are the functions of OBU in a
typical vehicular network. Another significant component of a VANET is an RSU which
acts like a stationary gateway that lets the vehicles to establish a connection to the internet.
These RSUs are equipped with a network device for Dedicated Short-Range Communication
(DSRC). The RSUs extend the network coverage of the vehicles and acts as a source of
information to the vehicles. The BSs are cellular base stations with 4G/3G/2G connectivity.
The communication channels in VANETs can be used for three different kinds of
communication, as shown in Figure 1. They are Inter vehicle communication (Vehicle
to Vehicle (V2V) communication), Vehicle to roadside communication (Vehicle to
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks5
Infrastructure communication (V2I) and Infrastructure to Vehicle (I2V) communication)
and the third one being Inter-roadside communication (Infrastructure to Infrastructure (I2I)
communication) [10] [11].

2.2 Unique characteristics of VANETs

The VANETs have several unique characteristics, and some of them are listed below: [12]
[13] [14] [15]
• High mobility: The vehicles in VANETs are highly mobile, and the vehicle movements
are constrained by road topology, road signs, and traffic patterns. Thus there is a hard
delay constraint for V2V communication.
• Dynamic network topology: The network topology in VANETs changes too quickly
according to the mobility of the nodes and driver behavior, and this results in frequent
link breaks in the network.
• Constant power supply: There is a constant power supply to the OBU of the vehicles,
and hence, power is not a critical issue in VANETs.
• Variable node density: The node density in VANETs varies depending on factors like
traffic jams, highway area, or suburban areas.
• High computational ability: The nodes in VANETs have high computational ability due
to the computation resources like processors, memory, and GPS on the OBU. Hence,
determining a vehicle’s position, speed, and direction with accuracy is easy.

2.3 Research challenges in VANETs

In providing an efficient transport system using VANETs, a lot of challenges arise that affect
the primary goals of VANETs. Such challenges are discussed below [14][16][17].
• Connectivity: Connectivity of a link is intermittent due to high mobility and dynamic
network topology in VANETs. So, VANETs require routing protocols with high
efficiency to address this issue.
• Security: Security, privacy, and intrusion detection are critical challenges in VANETs
due to the mobility of the nodes.
• Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity is another research challenge to be addressed as the
communication links can be based on cellular networks (4G, 5G) or other technologies
like WiMAX, IEEE 802.11p, etc.
• Signal fading: The obstacles between two communicating vehicles like other vehicles,
buildings cause signal fading. An efficient routing protocol should address this issue.
• Data management and storage: Data management and storage is a challenging area
in VANETs research as the nodes in the network produce a lot of data related to its
operation.
Over a few years, many researchers have addressed these challenges to improve the
performance of VANETs. Out of these challenges, efficient routing is still an important
aspect to be addressed.
6 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
2.4 Requirements of Routing Protocols for VANETs
With routing being an essential aspect of VANET communication, there are many
requirements in designing an efficient routing protocol for VANETs [16][17][18]:
• QoS: A routing protocol for VANETs should maintain Quality of Service (QOS) taking
dynamic topological changes in the network into consideration.
• Scalability: A routing protocol should be scalable, and the performance of the protocol
should not be affected with varying number of nodes in VANETs.
• Security: Security of a routing protocol is a significant field of interest in VANETs as
the vehicles are highly mobile and prone to attacks. Attacks such as data loss, data
tampering, eavesdropping on VANETs will have devastating consequences.
• Heterogeneity: A routing protocol should address the heterogeneity in the VANETs as
different types of communication technologies are used between various components
of the network like DSRC and IEEE 802.11p for V2V and 2G/3G/LTE for V2I
communication.

3 Software Defined Networking and its Benefits

Software Defined Networking (SDN) is a networking paradigm that provides a solution to

some of the issues in traditional networking such as Quality of Service, energy efficiency,
heterogeneity in networks. The benefits of SDN are due to the separation of the network
devices into the control plane and the data plane, as shown in Figure 2. The SDN devices
form the data plane, and the SDN controller forms the control plane. The separation of planes
improves efficiency, flexibility, and management of the network. The SDN devices have
only data packet forwarding functionality, and the SDN controller holds the global view
of the network and provides an abstracted view of the SDN devices to the apps. The apps
in Figure 2 are software programs for routing, security provisioning, load balancing, etc.
Initially, the controller downloads a flow table with information on incoming and outgoing
ports on to the SDN devices. In case a flow entry is not found in the device, the device
consults the SDN controller. OpenFlow is a standard protocol for such communication
between the SDN devices and the SDN controller [19][20][21].
Table 1 provides a comparison of traditional networks and Software Defined Networks.
The comparison table shows that the SDN has benefits over traditional networks related to
network management, cost, resource utilization, and time required for network updates.

3.1 Benefits of SDN applied to VANETs

The separation of planes in SDN is beneficial for VANETs as it can handle highly dynamic
behavior of VANETs. The logically centralized but physically distributed nature of SDN
helps in addressing a few research challenges in VANETs, as mentioned below [20][21].
• Increase in Packet Delivery Ratio: The overall packet delivery ratio (PDR) of the
network is increased in SDN based VANETs compared to traditional VANETs. The
increase is due to the availability of the global information of the network at the SDN
controller to find an optimal and stable route from one node to the other node in the
network.
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks7

Figure 2 SDN operation [19]

Table 1 Comparison of Traditional networking and Software Defined Networking (SDN)

Characteristics Traditional Networking Software Defined Networking
Easier as the control functions are
Difficult to maintain network
Network Management available only at the centralized
as the network can be huge
controller
Difficult to maintain a A global view is available at the
Network view
global network view centralized controller
Cost Maintenance cost is high Maintenance cost is low
Resource utilization Low High
Time required for update
High Low
or Troubleshooting

• Reduction in latency: The overall latency of the network is reduced due to the
availability of a global network view and with the application of fog computing
technologies in SDN based VANETs. Fog computing technology involves computing,
storing, or networking functionalities at devices that are closer to the data-producing
end devices.

• On-road Emergencies: Road Traffic Emergencies that occur in the VANETs can
be handled seamlessly due to the logically centralized nature of the SDN and the
availability of the global network view.

• Re-routing: The selection of a rerouting path in the SDN based VANETs is quicker
compared to traditional networking when a path break happens.

• Deployment of new routing protocols: Deployment of new routing protocols for

VANETs is easy due to the decoupling of data and control planes.

• Heterogeneity: The SDN based VANETs can handle heterogeneity in the network due
to the logically centralized nature of the SDN controller.

Due to the benefits of SDN for VANETs, as mentioned above, deploying them is very
beneficial in smart city environments and hence serves the goal of ITS.
8 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
4 Classification of SDN based Routing in VANETs

In recent years, Researchers have recommended several SDN based routing protocols for
VANETs. In this section, we propose a first of a kind taxonomy of SDN based routing
protocols for VANETs. We have surveyed many research articles available in literature
related to SDN based routing in VANETs and identified five high-level categories which
are listed as follows: Based on the organization of the SDN controller, based on the QoS
metric, protocols for secure communication, protocols for heterogeneous VANETs, and
based on communication type. The proposed taxonomy is as shown in Figure 3. Some of
the surveyed routing protocols fall into multiple categories as they address various issues
in VANETs.

• Based on the organization of the SDN controller: We classify the SDN based routing
protocols for VANETs into two categories based on the organization of the SDN
controller: Single controller and Multiple hierarchical controllers. In routing protocols
with a single controller, the control plane of the SDN architecture consists of only one
SDN controller, and in the case of Multiple hierarchical, multiple controllers present
at different levels constitute the control plane. Few of the routing protocols with a
single SDN controller are HRLB [22], SDGR [23], and routing protocols with multiple
hierarchical controllers are CR-SDVN [24], EEMSFV [25] , HSDV [26].
• Based on the QoS metric: QoS is an essential aspect of a communication network.
Most of the SDN based routing protocols for VANETs proposed in literature aim to
improve the QoS metrics like latency, packet delivery ratio, packet loss ratio, etc.
PBRDV [27], SDGR [23], SVAO [28], GeoBroadcast [29] are few of the SDN based
routing protocols addressing the QoS metrics in VANETs.
• For Secure communication: Security is a significant field of interest regarding routing
protocols for VANETs as the nodes are highly mobile and are susceptible to attacks.
Attacks on such networks will have devastating consequences, such as data loss, data
tampering, eavesdropping, etc. Few of SDN based routing protocols such as I-TAODV
[30], SD-TAODV [31] provide secure routing in VANETs.
• For Heterogeneous VANETs: The nodes in the VANETs employ different wireless
communication technologies to connect to other vehicles (V2V) and the RSUs, BSs
(V2I, I2V). Some of the vehicles use cellular networks like 3G, 4G, 5G, etc., while
some vehicles use the IEEE standard 802.11p which is proposed solely for V2V, V2I
communication in VANETs. Wireless communication technologies such as ZigBee,
WiMAX, and RFID are also used. Due to such heterogeneity in the network, data
transmission is challenging. SCGRP [32], CRS-MP [33] are few of the available SDN
based routing protocols in literature addressing heterogeneity in VANETs.
• Based on Communication type: Based on the type of communication between nodes
in the VANETs, we classify routing protocols as Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast
based. In Unicast routing protocols, a single sender and a single receiver are part of
the communication. Few of the unicast SDN based routing protocols are HRLB [22],
CR-SDVN [24], and HSDV [26]. Multicast routing is used in situations like traffic
jams, and accidents where data transmission to police, healthcare, etc. is required to
handle the emergency. EEMSFV [25] is an example of multicast SDN based routing
protocols proposed for VANETs. Broadcasting in VANETs is particularly helpful in
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks9

Figure 3 Taxonomy for SDN based routing protocols for VANETs

applications like the dissemination of alert/warning messages to vehicles in a particular

geographic area. GeoBroadcast [29] is an example of broadcast SDN based routing
protocols for VANETs.

4.1 Brief description of the working principles of the classified Routing protocols

In this section, we discuss the working principles and implementation details of the routing
protocols mentioned in the proposed taxonomy of Figure 3. We also provide the advantages
and disadvantages of each of these protocols.

4.1.1 Hierarchical Routing Scheme with Load Balancing (HRLB)

In [22], the authors propose a hierarchical routing scheme with load balancing for SDN
based VANETs. The performance evaluation of HRLB is done using NS-3 and SUMO tools.
10 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
The results show that the packet delivery ratio and throughput are higher, and the delay
and average hop count are lesser even with variable the node density and the vehicle speed
when compared to routing protocols like GPSR, GPSR-MA-LA, RPGR, VDLA, SCGRP.
The advantage of this protocol is the frequent network monitoring through the beacon
messages to detect any congestion. The provision of an alternate path by the controller
on congestion is another added advantage. However, the suitability of the HRLB protocol
for highway scenarios is not discussed by the author. As the traffic pattern in the highway
is directional, the relay node selection stages have to consider the lane properties of the
highway for HRLB to be efficient for highway scenarios.

4.1.2 A Cognitive Routing protocol for software defined vehicular networks (CR-
SDVN)
A cognitive routing protocol to find a stable path between a source node and a destination
node is proposed in [24]. The performance evaluation of CR-SDVN is done using NS-2.
The results show that the packet delivery ratio is higher, and the delay and control overhead
is lesser in comparison with HSDV, EPDM-R due to the presence of LCs.
The advantage of this routing protocol is the existence of the local controllers. It
reduces the number of back and forth communication between the nodes and the Main
Controller(MC), thereby reducing the control overhead. Another advantage of LCs is the
reduction in delay in finding a stable route. There are a few disadvantages of this protocol
related to accuracy and security. Since the relay node selection is based on Link Duration
Prediction (LDP), an inaccuracy in the calculation of LDP can result in a sub-optimal route.
The selection of relay nodes is based on the beacon messages; therefore, an adversary node
can potentially advertise itself as the best relay node and result in a breach of security.

4.1.3 Connectivity Aware Tribrid Routing Framework For A Generalized Software

Defined Vehicular Network
In [34], the authors propose a connectivity aware tribrid routing based on a Hierarchical
distributed SDVN (HD-SDVN) architecture. The performance evaluation of connectivity
aware Tribrid routing is done using NS-3. The results show that the packet delivery ratio
is higher when compared to SHORTEST, ROMSGP, SCF and the delay, routing overhead,
and path length are in line with the SHORTEST routing scheme.
The protocol addresses the potential connectivity issues that can occur in the network
like sparse density of nodes, unavailability of a link in the route through the broadcast-based
routing and store, carry forward technique. However, the usage of the SCF technique adds
a cost related to memory in the nodes. Moreover, security of the network is a concern due
to the agent nodes.

4.1.4 Energy-efficient multicast routing protocol based on SDN and fog computing
for vehicular networks (EEMSFV)
An energy-efficient multicasting routing protocol for vehicular networks based on SDN
is proposed in [25] by considering delay and bandwidth constraints. The performance
evaluation of EEMSFV is done using OMNET++ and SUMO tools. The results show that
the packet delivery ratio is higher and the delay, overhead, and energy consumption are
lower when compared to MABC and CVLMS.
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks11
The advantage of this protocol is the presence of local controllers which lessen the
burden on the main controller, and latency is reduced due to the localized global view at
the local controller. However, the disadvantage is the lack of security mechanisms in this
routing protocol.

4.1.5 Hierarchical software-defined VANET protocol (HSDV)

In [26], the authors propose a protocol called the Hierarchical software-defined VANET
(HSDV) to provide an alternative routing mechanism when the SDN controller is
unreachable or unresponsive for the nodes to obtain routing information. On SDN controller
failure, the majority of the protocols proposed in literature revert to traditional routing
protocols like AODV, DSDV, GPSR. The performance evaluation of HSDV is done using
NS-3 and SUMO. The results show that the packet delivery ratio and throughput are higher
and delay, control overhead is lower when compared to AODV, DSDV, and GPSR as failure
recovery protocols.
The unique feature of HSDV is that it has a recovery strategy when the main SDN
controller fails. However, HSDV does not address the security aspects of the routing
protocols.

4.1.6 Time Series Prediction QoS Routing Protocol Based on SDN (PBRDV)
In [27], the authors propose a routing protocol called PBRDV to overcome a few limitations
of the protocol proposed by Ku et al. [8]. The performance evaluation of PBRDV is done
using the NS-3 and SUMO. The results show that the packet delivery ratio is not affected
due to loss of connectivity with the SDN controller when compared to the performance of
routing protocol proposed in [8].
The advantage of PBRDV is the availability of flow rules for future time instances,
thus eliminating the need for frequent flow table updates by the controller. However, the
accuracy of the position prediction algorithm and topology prediction algorithm is a point
of concern in PBRDV.

4.1.7 SDN-based geographic routing (SDGR)

An SDN based geographic routing (SDGR) is proposed In [23] to tackle local maxima and
sparse connectivity issues in VANETs. The performance evaluation of SDGR is done using
NS-2 and SUMO and compared with AODV and GPSR. The results show that the packet
delivery ratio is higher and the delivery delay time is lesser when compared to AODV
and GPSR even with a varying number of nodes and vehicle speed. The SDGR protocol
involves computation at both the controller and the nodes for routing from a source node to a
destination node. The simulation scenario for evaluation of SDGR is the urban environment,
and the applicability of SDGR for highway scenarios is not discussed.

4.1.8 SDN based On-Demand Routing Protocol (SVAO)

An SDN based On-Demand Routing Protocol (SVAO) for VANETs is discussed in [28].
The performance evaluation of SVAO is done using NS-3 and SUMO tools. The results
show that the packet reception rate is higher, and the average packet delay is lesser in SVAO
when compared to OLSR, DSR, DSDV, and DB (Distanced-based routing protocol).
The advantage of SVAO is the presence of multiple SDN controllers to reduce delay
and control overhead. However, it is suitable only for dense networks and is evaluated only
12 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
for one-way roads. Also, the authors do not propose the applicability of SVAO to two-way
city roads and highway scenarios.

4.1.9 GeoBroadcast routing

In [29], the authors propose an SDN based routing scheme to periodically broadcast
messages to destination vehicles in a particular geographic area in VANETs. The
performance evaluation of GeoBroadcast routing is done using OpenNet which is a
combination of NS-3 and Mininet, and Floodlight as the SDN controller. The results show
that there is a significant reduction in control overhead, bandwidth consumption, and latency
when compared to geo broadcasting in traditional ITS based architecture [35].
The GeoBroadcast routing is a novel first of its kind SDN based geo broadcasting
routing protocol for VANETs. It has performance improvements with respect to controller
overhead, bandwidth consumption, and latency. However, the presence of GPS in RSUs is
mandatory in GeoBroadcast routing protocol.

4.1.10 SDN and fog-based intersection routing (SFIR)

A routing scheme for VANETs based on SDN and fog computing is discussed in [36] to
improve data forwarding in V2V communication. The performance evaluation of SFIR is
done using NS-2 and SUMO. The performance of GeoBroadcast is compared with AODV,
GPSR, and TORA for urban areas. The results show that SFIR has lesser delay time, better
performance with respect to packet delivery ratio and packet loss ratio.
The advantage of SFIR is the usage of retrieval mode when an intersection unreachable
due to sparse node density. The SFIR routing protocol is evaluated only for urban areas,
and the requirement of GPS is mandatory in the fog nodes in SFIR routing protocol.

4.1.11 Secure Hybrid SDN-Based and Multi-Metric Geographic Routing Protocol

In [37], a secure SDN based routing scheme for VANETs based on distributed trust
is proposed. The vehicular communications are encrypted with Advanced Encryption
Standard (AES). Java Agent DEvelopment Framework (JADE) is used to evaluate secure
HSDN-GRA protocol.
The Secure HSDN-GRA protocol needs to be evaluated with a network simulator like
NS2, NS3, etc. for packet delivery ratio, delay, and packet loss ratio.

4.1.12 Improvised Trust based Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector routing (I-
TAODV)
A secure routing scheme for SDN based vehicular networks called the improvised trust-
based ad hoc on-demand distance vector protocol (I-TAODV) is proposed in [30]. The
I-TAODV protocol is based on opportunistic routing. The performance evaluation of I-
TAODV is done using the OMNET++ simulation environment. The results show that the
I-TAODV scheme is better than AODV and SD-TAODV in terms of network throughput
and end to end delay.
In the I-TAODV routing scheme, the security the VANETs is enhanced using trust value
and the source routing data packet. The computation accuracy of trust value is crucial in
the I-TAODV routing scheme. However, the disadvantage is, an adversary can manipulate
the two trusted vehicles to succeed in an attack.
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks13
4.1.13 Software defined trust-based ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing
(SD-TAODV)
In [31], the authors propose a secure SDN based routing scheme for VANETs. In SD-
TAODV, the node trust value is used for routing instead of hop count as in traditional AODV.
The performance evaluation of SD-TAODV is done using OPNET simulator. The results
show that network throughput in SD-TAODV is higher than AODV protocol.
The SD-TAODV protocol enables secure routing based on AODV, but the higher end to
end delay is a matter of concern in time-critical applications.

4.1.14 SDN-enabled connectivity-aware geographical routing protocol (SCGRP)

An SDN-enabled connectivity-aware geographical routing protocol addressing
heterogeneity in VANETs is proposed in [32]. The performance evaluation of SCGRP
is done using Mininet-WiFi and SUMO tools. The simulations are performed in urban
scenarios with network heterogeneity and mobility. The results show that SCGRP has
better performance with respect to the network throughput, end to end delay and average
hop count when compared to CRP.
Very few SDN based routing protocols have addressed the heterogeneity aspect of
VANETs. SCGRP is one such routing protocol addressing heterogeneous VANETs. The
performance evaluation is done only in urban scenarios; evaluation of SCGRP in highway
scenarios is also necessary.

4.1.15 Centralized routing scheme with mobility prediction (CRS-MP)

In [33], an SDN based routing protocol for heterogeneous VANETs with mobility prediction
is proposed. The performance evaluation of this protocol is done in comparison with pure
V2V and V2I protocols. The results show that CRS-MP routing protocol performs better
in terms of delay when compared to pure V2V and V2I protocols.
Very few protocols for VANETs have addressed the heterogeneity aspect of VANETs.
CRS-MP is one such routing protocol addressing heterogeneous VANETs. The performance
evaluation is done only in urban scenarios; evaluation of CRS-MP in highway scenarios is
also necessary.

5 Analysis and Discussions

In this section, we provide a qualitative comparison of the SDN based routing protocols
for VANETs that are discussed in Section 4.1. The comparison is carried out based on the
characteristics and the performance evaluation parameters of the routing protocols. The
security vulnerabilities of the SDN architecture are also discussed in the latter part of this
section to make the researchers aware of the potential security threats to the SDN based
VANETs.

5.1 Qualitative comparison of the SDN based Routing protocols for VANETs

In this subsection, a qualitative comparison of SDN based routing protocols discussed

in Section 4.1 is provided. The comparison is based on the characteristics of the routing
protocols (i.e., organization of SDN controller, type of routing, fog computing, type of
14 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
fog node, GPS, V2V, V2I, I2I communication, controller failover strategy, and beacon
messages) and how the performance of these protocols are evaluated (i.e., network
simulators, vehicular mobility generators and usage scenarios).
Table 2 provides a comparison of the routing protocols, and we discuss each of the
metrics used in the comparison in the following paragraph.
Table 2 Comparison of SDN based routing protocols for VANETs (*NL – Not Listed)
Organization Controller Vehicular Type of
Type of Fog Type of Simulation Usage
Routing protocol of the GPS V2V V2I I2I failover mobility SDN
routing computing fog node environment scenario
controller strategy generator controller
SUMO
HRLB [22] Single unicast × - X X X × × NS3 Urban NL
trace file
NS2
Multiple Vehicles, Custom
CR-SDVN [24] unicast X X X X × × NS2 simulation NL
Hierarchical RSUs map
file
Connectivity
Multiple SUMO
aware tribrid unicast × - X X X × × NS3 University NL
Hierarchical trace file
[24]
Multiple Fog SUMO
EEMSFV [25] multicast X X X X X × OMNET++ Urban NL
Hierarchical controller trace file
Vehicles,
Multiple SUMO
HSDV [26] unicast X RSUs, X X X × X NS3 Urban NL
Hierarchical trace file
BSs
SUMO
PBRDV [27] Single unicast × - X X X × X NS3 Urban NL
trace file
SUMO
SDGR [23] Single unicast X Vehicles X X X × × NS2 Urban NL
trace file
Multiple SUMO
SVAO [28] unicast X RSUs X X X X × NS3 Urban NL
Hierarchical trace file
NS3
Custom
GeoBroadcast [29] Single broadcast × - X X X X × OpenNet simulation FloodLight
map
file
RSUs, SUMO
SFIR [36] Single unicast X X X X × × NS2 Urban NL
BSs trace file
Mobile
Secure HSDN Custom
Single unicast X Vehicles X X × × × JADE module in NL
-GRA [34] map
JADE
OMNET++
Custom
I-TAODV [30] Single unicast × - × X X × × OMNET++ simulation NL
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks15

map
file
OPNET
Custom
SD-TAODV [31] Single unicast × - × X X × × opnet simulation NL
map
file
SUMO
SCGRP [32] Single unicast × - X X X × × Mininet WiFi trace Urban OpenDayLight
file
RSUs,
CRS-MP [33] Single unicast X X X X × × NL NL Urban NL
BSs
16 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
• Organization of the Controller: We classified the SDN based routing protocols
into two types: Single controller and Multiple Hierarchical. In general, Multiple
hierarchical routing protocols are better than single controller routing protocols due
to the improvement in overall response time and reduced control overhead. However,
in environments with resource constraints, a single controller routing protocol is more
suitable than routing protocols with Multiple hierarchical controllers.
• Type of Routing: The SDN based routing protocols for VANETs can be classified
based on the type of routing like unicast, multicast and broadcast. While most of the
surveyed routing protocols are unicast, very few multicast and broadcast-based routing
protocols exist in literature. There is a compelling need for efficient multicast and
broadcast routing protocols for VANETs which are based on SDN.
• Fog Computing and Type of fog node: Fog computing technology involves computing,
storing or networking functionalities at devices that are closer to the data-producing
end devices. In VANETs, vehicles, RSUs or BSs can act like fog nodes or a dedicated
fog controller is used for computing purposes (as in [25]. Fog computing, along with
SDN architecture for routing in VANETs is tremendously helpful in handling the high
mobility of nodes. However, fog computing requires relatively powerful devices when
compared to the devices in a network without fog computing.
• GPS: A GPS module helps the vehicles in sending location coordinates to the SDN
controller to maintain global topology. All the SDN based routing protocol for VANETs
require GPS modules on the OBU of the vehicles.
• Communication in VANETs: There are three different kinds of communication in
VANETs, namely V2V, V2I, and I2I, as discussed in Section 2. We notice that most of
the surveyed routing protocols involve V2V and V2I communication to route data from
a source to destination. While only a few protocols like EEMSFV, SVAO, GeoBroadcast
involve I2I communication.
• Controller failover strategy: The SDN controller is a single point of failure in the SDN
architecture. A routing protocol with a controller failover strategy is necessary to avoid
degradation of QoS when there is a failure in controller operation or lost connection to
the SDN controller. Only few routing protocols like HSDV, PBRDV include a failover
strategy to maintain QoS. Hence an efficient SDN based routing protocol for VANETs
must have a controller failover strategy to maintain QoS in the network.
• Beacon messages: The nodes in VANETs periodically send beacon messages to the
controllers to maintain a global topology of the network. The beacon message in a
routing protocol contains a node’s position, speed, direction, and remaining buffer
size, etc. We notice the requirement of beacon messages in all the surveyed routing
protocols for VANETs.
• Simulation environment: For simulation of VANETs, many open-source environments
like NS2, NS3, OMNET++ are available. We observe from Table 2 that NS-2, NS-3,
OMNET++, OpenNet, OPNET, Mininet-WiFi, JADE are the simulators used in the
performance evaluation of SDN based routing protocols. NS-2, NS-3, OMNET++,
and OPNET are open-source network simulators, and OpenNet is a simulation
environment that combines controller functionalities of Mininet and wireless and
mobility capabilities of NS-3. JADE is a Java Agent DEvelopment Framework to
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks17
develop agent-based applications. Mininet-WiFi is an improved version of Mininet with
wireless capabilities. It can be concluded that NS3 followed by NS2 and OMNET++
are the most commonly used network simulator for SDN based VANETs. NS3 is widely
accepted by the research community for the simulation of VANETs.

• Vehicular mobility generators: The patterns of vehicle movements are needed to

simulate VANETs either by specifying mobility models in simulation files or by
using an external mobility trace file generated by vehicular mobility generators like
SUMO, VanetMobiSim, MOVE, etc. The advantage of using a vehicular mobility
generator over mobility models specified in network simulators is that the vehicular
mobility generators provide real traffic network for simulation of VANETs. We
notice that SUMO is the vehicular mobility generator that is used by the majority
of the research articles on SDN based routing protocols studied in this survey. The
widespread acceptance of SUMO is because it provides continuous development and
support with good GUI and smooth interoperability with the most commonly used
network simulators. Also, we observe that few of the routing protocols like CR-
SDVN, GeoBroadcast, I-TAODV are simulated by specifying the mobility models in
the network simulators.

• Usage scenario: There are two different usage scenarios for VANETs: urban and
highways. The traffic patterns in urban and highways are entirely different. The urban
scenario is characterized by complex road topology, dense traffic during peak hours at
certain junctions whereas highway scenario is characterized by simple road topology,
high vehicle density, and high speed. We notice that few of the routing protocols are
evaluated using a custom map generated solely for simulation purposes, while the rest
of them are evaluated solely for urban scenarios. From our study, we conclude that
none of the SDN based routing protocols available in literature for VANETs address
highway scenarios. There is a need for SDN based routing protocols for highway
scenarios to utilize the benefits of SDN for highway VANETs.

• Type of SDN controller: An SDN controller is a software application that mostly

runs over a server to manage the network and provide forwarding information to
the data plane devices. A few of the open-source SDN controller software available
are OpenDaylight, POX Floodlight, and NOX, etc. We notice that most of the
surveyed routing protocols use SDN controller developed from scratch and only a few
protocols like GeoBroadcast, SCGRP use open source SDN controllers Floodlight and
OpenDaylight, respectively. The open-source SDN controllers are better compared to
developing a controller from scratch due to its widespread acceptance by the research
community and facilitate easy comparison of different routing protocols with respect
to their performance.

5.2 Security vulnerabilities of SDN based vehicular ad hoc networks

The Software Defined Networks improve the Quality of Service, energy efficiency,
heterogeneity in networks compared to traditional networks. Although the Software Defined
Networks provide a high level of flexibility, programmability, and maintainability, the
security and privacy aspects of SDN based VANETs are still a point of concern. These two
have a significant impact on the users in the network.
18 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
The security threats in SDN are mainly due to its inherent characteristics like the presence
of a central controller, abstracted devices at the data plane and packet forwarding based on
the flow tables [21].
Firstly, the central controller is a single point of failure and attack in the network. Also,
if the network architecture has a hierarchy of controllers, the attacker can place an attack
on the controller with the least security measure to manipulate the entire network. A few
kinds of attacks on the SDN controller could be Denial of Service attack, Distributed Denial
of Service attack, controller identity spoofing, etc. The occurrence of such attacks in SDN
based VANETs can result in misleading vehicles to unsafe areas or in unwanted traffic
congestions.
Secondly, another feature of SDN which exposes the network to security threats is the
abstraction in the network. An abstracted view of the devices is created at the controller to
allow easy programmability, and the very same advantage could be misused by the attacker
to program the network for destructive purposes. This vulnerability allows the attacker in
the dissemination of critical information in the VANETs.
The third feature of SDN, which creates a security vulnerability, is forwarding based
on flow tables. An attacker can create a false flow to a data plane device and result in the
memory overflow at the device. As the data plane devices do not have any intelligence, it
cannot detect false flows. In VANETs such attacks can make critical emergency messages
unreachable to the appropriate authorities.
Researchers employing SDN architecture in VANETs should be aware of such security
vulnerabilities to realize all the benefits of SDN in VANETs.

6 Conclusion

Intelligent transport systems have become crucial in the development of smart cities and
VANETs, which are the key component of ITS is drawing more and more attention in recent
years. Such networks are characterized by high mobility, dynamically changing topology,
heterogeneity, etc. VANETs based on SDN architecture is proven to have many benefits
with respect to routing like improvement of QoS, security, and heterogeneity, etc. Many
SDN based routing protocols for VANETs are proposed in the literature.
In this article, we presented a novel and first of a kind taxonomy for the research articles
available in literature on SDN based routing in VANETs along with systematic description
and comparison. The focus of this research article was mainly on the clear and systematic
description of the taxonomy of existing SDN based routing protocols for VANETs. A
summary of such routing protocols as per the taxonomy, and a comparison of the same
with respect to its characteristics and performance evaluation was presented. Our analysis
provides the researchers with a holistic view of the current trends in this area and motivates
them for upcoming research works.
From our analysis, we notice there is a requirement for more research in SDN based
routing protocols for highway VANETs. Also, there is a compelling need for more SDN
based routing protocols addressing multicast, and broadcast scenarios.
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks19
References

[1] G. Dimitrakopoulos and P. Demestichas. Intelligent transportation systems. IEEE

Vehicular Technology Magazine, 5(1):77–84, March 2010.

[2] D. C. Steger-Vonmetz. Improving modal choice and transport efficiency with the virtual
ridesharing agency. In Proceedings. 2005 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems,
2005., pages 994–999, Sep. 2005.

[3] Division of Resources Management (DARM). Carpooling and you., 2005.

[4] Johann Andersen and Steve Sutcliffe. Intelligent transport systems (its)-an overview.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 33(18):99–106, 2000.

[5] U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). History of intelligent. transportation

systems (its), 2016.

[6] ETSI TR ETSI. 102 638 v1. 1.1, vehicular communications. Basic Set of Applications;
Definitions, 2009.

[7] Richard Bossom, Roberto Brignolo, Thierry Ernst, Knut Evensen, Alexander
Frötscher, Wolfgang Höfs, Juhani Jääskeläinen, Zeljko Jeftic, Paul Kompfner, Timo
Kosch, et al. D31 european its communication architecture. tech. rep, 2009.

[8] Ian Ku, You Lu, Mario Gerla, Rafael Lopes Gomes, Francesco Ongaro, Eduardo
Cerqueira, et al. Towards software-defined vanet: Architecture and services. In Med-
Hoc-Net, pages 103–110, 2014.

[9] Middlesex University London Vehicular Ad hoc Network (VANET) research group.
Vehicular ad hoc network (vanet), 2016.

[10] MA Razzaque, Ahmad Salehi, and Seyed M Cheraghi. Security and privacy in
vehicular ad-hoc networks: survey and the road ahead. In Wireless Networks and
Security, pages 107–132. Springer, 2013.

[11] Mohamed Nidhal Mejri, Jalel Ben-Othman, and Mohamed Hamdi. Survey on vanet
security challenges and possible cryptographic solutions. Vehicular Communications,
1(2):53–66, 2014.

[12] Zhaojun Lu, Gang Qu, and Zhenglin Liu. A survey on recent advances in vehicular
network security, trust, and privacy. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, 20(2):760–776, 2018.

[13] Anup Dhamgaye and Nekita Chavhan. Survey on security challenges in vanet 1.
International Journal of Computer Science and Network, 2:88–96, 2013.

[14] Saif Al-Sultan, Moath M Al-Doori, Ali H Al-Bayatti, and Hussien Zedan. A
comprehensive survey on vehicular ad hoc network. Journal of network and computer
applications, 37:380–392, 2014.

[15] Maria Azees, Pandi Vijayakumar, and Lazarus Jegatha Deborah. Comprehensive
survey on security services in vehicular ad-hoc networks. IET Intelligent Transport
Systems, 10(6):379–388, 2016.
20 Annapurna P Patil and Lalitha Chinmayee H M
[16] Amit Dua, Neeraj Kumar, and Seema Bawa. A systematic review on routing protocols
for vehicular ad hoc networks. Vehicular Communications, 1(1):33–52, 2014.
[17] MN Prashanth and Annapurna P Patil. Implementation of a secure and efficient
routing algorithm for vehicular ad hoc networks. In Advanced Computational and
Communication Paradigms, pages 241–249. Springer, 2018.
[18] Fan Li and Yu Wang. Routing in vehicular ad hoc networks: A survey. IEEE Vehicular
technology magazine, 2(2):12–22, 2007.
[19] Paul Goransson, Chuck Black, and Timothy Culver. Software defined networks: a
comprehensive approach. Morgan Kaufmann, 2016.
[20] Wafa Ben Jaballah, Mauro Conti, and Chhagan Lal. A survey on software-defined
vanets: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04577,
2019.
[21] Antonio Di Maio, Maria Palattella, Ridha Soua, Luca Lamorte, Xavier Vilajosana,
Jesus Alonso-Zarate, and Thomas Engel. Enabling sdn in vanets: What is the impact
on security? Sensors, 16(12):2077, 2016.
[22] Yangshui Gao, Zhilong Zhang, Dan Zhao, Yi Zhang, and Tao Luo. A hierarchical
routing scheme with load balancing in software defined vehicular ad hoc networks.
IEEE Access, 6:73774–73785, 2018.
[23] Xiang Ji, HuiQun Yu, GuiSheng Fan, and WenHao Fu. Sdgr: An sdn-based geographic
routing protocol for vanet. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Internet of
Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom)
and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data
(SmartData), pages 276–281. IEEE, 2016.
[24] Huma Ghafoor and Insoo Koo. Cr-sdvn: A cognitive routing protocol for software-
defined vehicular networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 18(4):1761–1772, 2017.
[25] Ahmed Jawad Kadhim and Seyed Amin Hosseini Seno. Energy-efficient multicast
routing protocol based on sdn and fog computing for vehicular networks. Ad Hoc
Networks, 84:68–81, 2019.
[26] Sergio Correia, Azzedine Boukerche, and Rodolfo I Meneguette. An architecture for
hierarchical software-defined vehicular networks. IEEE Communications Magazine,
55(7):80–86, 2017.
[27] Asif Uddin Khan and Bikram Kesari Ratha. Time series prediction qos routing in
software defined vehicular ad-hoc network. In 2015 International Conference on Man
and Machine Interfacing (MAMI), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2015.
[28] Baihong Dong, Weigang Wu, Zhiwei Yang, and Junjie Li. Software defined networking
based on-demand routing protocol in vehicle ad hoc networks. In 2016 12th
International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Sensor Networks (MSN), pages 207–
213. IEEE, 2016.
[29] Yu-Chun Liu, Chien Chen, and Suchandra Chakraborty. A software defined network
architecture for geobroadcast in vanets. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC), pages 6559–6564. IEEE, 2015.
Analysis Of Routing Protocols For Software Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks21
[30] Harsha Vasudev and Debasis Das. A trust based secure communication for software
defined vanets. In 2018 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN),
pages 316–321. IEEE, 2018.

[31] Dajun Zhang, Fei Richard Yu, Zhexiong Wei, and Azzedine Boukerche. Software-
defined vehicular ad hoc networks with trust management. In Proceedings of the 6th
ACM Symposium on Development and Analysis of Intelligent Vehicular Networks and
Applications, pages 41–49. ACM, 2016.
[32] Dharani Kumari Nooji Venkatramana, Shylaja Banagiri Srikantaiah, and Jayalakshmi
Moodabidri. Scgrp: Sdn-enabled connectivity-aware geographical routing protocol of
vanets for urban environment. IET Networks, 6(5):102–111, 2017.
[33] Yujie Tang, Nan Cheng, Wen Wu, Miao Wang, Yanpeng Dai, and Xuemin Shen. Delay-
minimization routing for heterogeneous vanets with machine learning based mobility
prediction. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 68(4):3967–3979, 2019.

[34] Kushan Sudheera Kalupahana Liyanage, Maode Ma, and Peter Han Joo Chong.
Connectivity aware tribrid routing framework for a generalized software defined
vehicular network. Computer Networks, 152:167–177, 2019.
[35] ETSI TS ETSI. 102 636 3, intelligent transport systems (its) vehicular communications.
GeoNetworking; Part 3: Network architecture, 2011.

[36] Naserali Noorani and Seyed Amin Hosseini Seno. Routing in vanets based on
intersection using sdn and fog computing. In 2018 8th International Conference on
Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), pages 339–344. IEEE, 2018.
[37] Lylia Alouache, Mohamed Maachaoui, Makhlouf Aliouat, and Rachid Chelouah.
Securing southbound interface of hsdn-gra vehicular routing protocol using a
distributed trust. In 2019 Fourth International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge
Computing (FMEC), pages 90–97. IEEE, 2019.

View publication stats