Privacy Treat Factors for VANET in Network Layer

Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 158)


For a long term of vehicle communication research, now, VANET is in a stage of implementation. However, most of the VANET researches focus on message transmission, address allocation, and secure communication. Vehicle is extremely personal device; therefore personal information, so called privacy has to be protected. There are three kinds of privacy including identity privacy, location privacy, and data privacy. Data privacy is easily achieved by encryption method in application layer. In this paper, we analysis the identity and location privacy treat factor, problem, and solutions in network layer which is the most important layer for end-to-end data transmission. Our analysis includes four IP families: IPv4, IPv6, Mobile IPv6, and Proxy Mobile IPv6. The result of this paper could guide a way to design a privacy protection solution and present existing solution’s trend.


VANET Identity Privacy Location Privacy Network Layer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kent, S.T., Millett, L.I.: IDs–not that easy: Questions about nationwide identity systems. Natl. Academy Pr. (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beresford, A.R., Stajano, F.: Location Privacy in Pervasive Computing. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2, 46–55 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuentes, J.M., González-Tablas, A.I., Ribagorda, A.: Overview of Security Issues in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagnulo, M., García-Martínez, A., Azcorra, A.: An Architecture for Network Layer Privacy. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2007, pp. 1509–1514. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Postel, J.: RFC 791: Internet Protocol (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Droms, R.: Dynamic host configuration protocol (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srisuresh, P., Holdrege, M.: RFC 2663. IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haddad, W., Nordmark, E., Dupontand, F., Bagnulo, M., Park, S., Patil, B.: Privacy for Mobile and Multi-homed Nodes: MoMiPriv Problem Statement (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trostle, J., Matsuoka, H., Tariq, M.M.B., Kempf, J., Kawahara, T., Jain, R.: Cryptographically Protected Prefixes for Location Privacy in IPv6. In: Martin, D., Serjantov, A. (eds.) PET 2004. LNCS, vol. 3424, pp. 142–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groat, S., Dunlop, M., Marchany, R., Tront, J.: The privacy implications of stateless IPv6 addressing. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research, pp. 1–4. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindqvist, J.: IPv6 is Bad for Your Privacy (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narten, T., Draves, R., Krishnan, S.: RFC 4941-Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6. IETF (September 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B.: SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., Carney, M.: Dynamic host sconfiguration protocol for IPv6, DHCPv6 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koodli, R.: RFC 4882: IP Address Location Privacy and Mobile IPv6: Problem Statement (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiu, Y.: RFC 5726: Mobile IPv6 Location Privacy Solutions (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Computer EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Information Communication EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations