A Connectivity-Based Multi-Lane Routing Optimization Algorithm in Vehicular Communication



This paper proposed a connectivity-based multi-lane geographic routing protocol (CGRP) for vehicular ad hoc networks. The proposed CGRP is based on an effective selection of road intersections through which a package must pass from source to destination. The cooperative connectivity probability and delay are taken into consideration when choosing the most suitable path for delay-sensitive safety traffic. Analytical expressions for cooperative connectivity probability is derived based on a three-lanes path model. Geographical forwarding is used to transfer packets between any two intersections on the path, reducing the path sensitivity to individual node movements. Furthermore, forwarding packets between two adjacent intersections also depend on geographic location information. Neighbor nodes’ priority are assigned according to position, speed, direction and other factors. Node with the highest priority will be selected as the next hop. Numerical and simulation results show that the proposed algorithm outperforms the exsiting routing protocols in terms of the end-to-end delay and the number of hops with a little cost of routing overhead in city environments.


Vehicular ad-hoc network GRP Connectivity probability Priority 



This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (61771252, 61471203), Basic Research Program of Jiangsu Province (BK20171444), “The Six talents High Peaks” Funding Project of Jiangsu Province (DZXX-041), “1311”Talents Funding Project of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications.


  1. 1.
    Blum, J., Eskandarian, A., & Hoffman, L. (2004). Challenges of inter vehicle ad hoc networks. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation System, 5(4), 347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    He, R., Rutagemwa, H., & Shen, X. (2008). Differentiated Reliable Routing in Hybrid Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks. In IEEE international conference on communications (ICC ‘08), (pp. 2353–2358).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hrizi, F., Bonnet, C., Härri, J., & Filali, F. (2013). Adapting contention-based forwarding to urban vehicular topologies for active safety applications. Annals of telecommunications, 68(5–6), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang, Y., Li, S., & Shamo, D. (2002). Development of vehicle platoon distribution models and simulation of platoon movements on indian rural corridors. Traffic Control, Res. Program 72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lochert, C., Hartenstein, H., Tian, J., & Fussler, H. (2003). A routing strategy for vehicular ad hoc networks in city environments. In IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (pp. 156–161).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naumov, V., & Gross, T. R. (2007). Connectivity-aware routing (car) in vehicular ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1919–1927).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clausen, T., & Jacquet, P. (2003). RFC 3626: The optimized link-state routing protocol. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request For Comments.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, D. B., & Maltz, D. A. (1996). Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. Mobile Computing, 353, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lochert, C., Scheuermann, B., Wewetzer, C., Luebke, A., & Mauve, M. (2008). Data aggregation and roadside unit placement for a vanet traffic information system. In International workshop on vehicular ad hoc networks (Vanet 2008) (Vol. 11, pp. 49–65), San Francisco, California, USA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hussey, E. Huff, Z. Shinwari, and V. Hnatyshin, (2013). A comparative study of proactive and reactive geographical routing protocols for MANET. In 12th International conference on wireless network (ICWN’ 13), (pp. 1–6), Las Vegas, USA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li Zhiyuan. (2009). Geographic Routing Protocol and Simulation. In International workshop on computer science and engineering (Vol. 2, pp. 404–407).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dua, A., Kumar, N., & Bawa, S. (2014). A systematic review on routing protocols for vehicular ad hoc networks. Vehicular Communications, 1(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsiachris, S., Koltsidas, G., & Pavlidou, F. N. (2013). Junction-based geographic routing algorithm for vehicular ad hoc networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 71(2), 955–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sermpezis, P., Koltsidas, G., & Pavlidou, F. N. (2013). Investigating a junction-based multipath source routing algorithm for vanets. IEEE Communications Letters, 17(17), 600–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang, J. J., Li, Y. H., Liao, W., & Chang, I. C. (2012). Intersection-based routing for urban vehicular communications with traffic-light consideration. IEEE Wireless Communications, 19(1), 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karp, B., & Kung, H. T. (2005). GPSR: greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks. In ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (pp. 243–254).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cinlar, E. (2013). Introduction to Stochastic Processes. Mineola: Courier Dover Publications.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saleet, H., Basir, O., Langar, R., & Boutaba, R. (2010). Region-based location-service-management protocol for vanets. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 59(2), 917–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Communication and Information EngineeringNanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations