IP Address Configuration in VANET using Centralized DHCP

Brijesh Kadri Mohandas

School of Information Technology and Engineering University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada bkadr038@uottawa.ca
Abstract Vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANET) are a mobile adhoc networking technology to facilitate vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside communication. A vehicle in VANET is considered to be an intelligent mobile node capable of communicating with its neighbors and other vehicles in the network. As in a mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) it is necessary to identify or address each vehicle in the vehicular ad-hoc network with a unique address. The current addressing mechanisms in VANET do not succeed in configuring the vehicle with a unique address. Furthermore, there is a need for address reconfigurations depending on the mobility patterns. In order to deal with these problems, we have presented a centralized addressing scheme for VANET using DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). Results obtained in our approach are compared against the results presented in one of the existing addressing mechanism in VANET. It is observed that our approach is efficient and feasible for vehicular ad-hoc networks. Keywords: Address Networks, DHCP. configuration, VANET, Vehicular

Ramiro Liscano
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, Canada rliscano@ieee.org represent a vehicle in the vehicular network). This allows the users / drivers to be aware of the conditions of the road and traffic while driving. Various services could be provided to users over the vehicular ad-hoc network, but the most significant among all is informing the drivers about an emergency situation. The vehicular ad-hoc network, in some ways, differs from the existing mobile ad-hoc networks. Nodes in MANET have a limited supply of power, whereas the vehicles have an unlimited power supply. In most cases the mobility pattern of the nodes in MANET is random, and for this reason a random waypoint mobility model has been specifically designed for use in MANET. This model is not suitable for vehicular networks as the vehicles follow strict mobility patterns in the direction towards the destination. Vehicles also experience frequent network disconnections depending on the mobility pattern. Another significant difference between VANET and MANET is the link stability. Depending on various factors like speed or route the lifetime of the link between two vehicles may last for a few seconds or a few hours. Routing in vehicular ad-hoc networks has attracted a lot of interest. Some of the existing mobile ad-hoc network routing protocols like Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) have been tested for vehicular ad-hoc networks. While using most of the address-based routing protocols, it is assumed that each participating node is assigned a unique address. In practice there is a need to have an efficient mechanism that can be used to assign unique addresses to vehicles. Existing distributed addressing algorithms used in mobile Ad-hoc networks are not suitable for vehicular networks. These schemes do not guarantee avoiding allocation of duplicate addresses in the network. Addressing in vehicular networks could be achieved by using Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [3], which is an extensively used address configuration protocol in computer networks. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) is an application layer protocol used to configure hosts in the computer communication network. DHCP supports automatic, dynamic and manual allocation of addresses. In the automatic approach, permanent addresses are assigned to the hosts by the DHCP server. In the dynamic approach, addresses are assigned by the DHCP server for a limited period of time

I.

INTRODUCTION

A vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET) is a network of intelligent vehicles capable of communicating with each other and also with the roadside units. VANET is an example application of mobile ad-hoc networking technology. Vehicles in VANET are equipped with sensors and actuators to collect useful information and to control the behavior of the vehicle. Information sent by these sensors is collected by a centralized onboard controller. Based on the requirement, this information can also be shared with the neighboring vehicles using the onboard radio device that is DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications) capable. DSRC is a medium range communication service that supports inter-vehicle and vehicleto-roadside communication. The IEEE working group and ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) have allotted a block of spectrum in the range of 5.850 to 5.925 GHz to provide this service. DSRC supports a very high data rate (6 54 Mbps) with a communication range of 1000 meters. The communication capability of a vehicle allows it to communicate directly with the neighboring vehicles that are in transmission range. Furthermore, vehicles can also communicate with distant vehicles using the ad-hoc mode [6] of communication relying on the intermediate nodes (The term node or vehicle has been interchangeably used in this paper to
This work was supported in part by Auto21 project F202-FVC

978-1-4244-2413-9/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

608

(lease period). In the manual approach, addresses are assigned by the network administrator and the DHCP server is used to convey the assigned address to the host. A dynamic approach allows reuse of the address that is no longer needed by the host. For this reason, a dynamic approach is used widely in the computer communication network. In this paper, we have used the dynamic addressing scheme to assign IP addresses to the vehicles. The addressing scheme proposed in [1] employs a distributed approach to assign IP address to vehicles. Addresses are assigned by dynamically elected leaders running the DHCP server. An address assigned by a leader is unique only within a group of leaders. The size of the group is a configurable parameter. The weakness of this algorithm is that duplicate addresses continue to exist in the network. The proposed scheme to reconfigure an address to avoid duplicate addresses will result in an increase in reconfigurations for different mobility models. Furthermore, each node should be capable of playing the role of group leader and should be able to assign IP addresses to other vehicles in the group. In this paper, we have dealt with the problem of address conflicts and re-configurations by using a centralized DHCP server. Address re-configuration in our approach is not necessary if the lease period of an address can be extended. Address conflict can be avoided by using proper address management throughout a city or a province. We have proposed a centralized addressing scheme by exploiting the architecture of vehicular ad-hoc network. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II, we have discussed an existing address configuration approach in VANET. In section III, we have proposed our approach. Our simulation results are presented in section IV. In section V, we have discussed our future work. Finally, in section VI, we conclude. II. BACKGROUND

Host configuration Protocol) server. Leaders are chosen in such a way that each node in the group is in the communication range of the group leader. Theoretically the size of a vehicular ad-hoc network is infinite. As a result it is not possible for each leader in the network to communicate with every other leader. Therefore the leader-based approach used in Vehicular Address Configuration is different from the traditional leader-based approach used in ad-hoc networks. The proposed address configuration protocol has two main tasks: leader management and address configuration. The main criterion for building and maintaining the leader chain is the distance. Initially, leaders are chosen such that the distance between two leaders is 200 meters. Eventually if the distance between two adjacent leaders exceeds a certain threshold, TH_MAX, a node in between these two leaders will place a request to become the leader. Such a request will be serviced by the leaders in the area to select only one node that detects this condition. The authors claim that in a freeway scenario, as the density of vehicles is high, there will be at least one node in between that can become the leader. If the distance between two leaders falls below a certain threshold, TH_MIN, then one of the leaders will become normal. Each leader, as a DHCP server, maintains a finite address set to assign IP addresses to vehicles. When a normal node/vehicle is ready for an address, it sends an address request to the nearest leader. When a leader receives an address request, it picks an available address from this address set and sends a reply (with the new address) to the requesting vehicle. On receiving the new address, the receiving node configures itself with the new IP address and makes a note of its current leader. Addresses assigned by one leader could be reassigned by another leader. Duplicate addresses may co-exist in the network. In order to overcome these problems, the Vehicular Address Configuration scheme defines a new parameter called SCOPE. The SCOPE of a leader is a set of leaders who are SCOPE hops away from the leader. In Fig. 1, vehicles A, B and C have been elected as leaders. If the SCOPE of a leader B is 1, addresses assigned by B will be unique among A, B and C. Same goes for leader A, if SCOPE of leader A is 1, addresses assigned by A will be unique among A, B and the one hop leader ahead of vehicle A. Each leader node broadcasts a hello packet with the address set maintained by the leader and also the set of leaders who are in its SCOPE. When a leader receives this hello packet, it will update its SCOPE table ignoring the leaders who are not in its SCOPE. Its will also update its address set if any duplicate address exists. When a normal node receives a hello packet, it checks for its leader in the SCOPE list. The absence of the leader in the SCOPE list of the hello packet is an indication that the vehicle has gone away from its leaders SCOPE. In such a case, the vehicle has to place a request for a new address from its neighboring leader.

Addressing each node is an important aspect in networking. For most of the address-based routing protocol, addressing is a prerequisite. Various addressing algorithms have been proposed for mobile ad-hoc networks. These are distributed in approach and are not well suitable for vehicular networks [1]. In mobile ad-hoc networks, it may not be feasible to use a centralized addressing scheme. For this reason, distributed approaches along with Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) are used. DAD procedure is an additional overhead and is not suitable for VANET. Furthermore, frequent reconfigurations to avoid duplicate addresses will lead to service disruptions. Addressing a vehicle in VANET is a challenging problem. The automatic IP addressing algorithm, Vehicular Address Configuration, proposed in [1] and [2], assigns IP address to vehicles using a distributed DHCP service. In this section, we have briefly discussed this approach and listed the drawbacks of this approach when used in VANET. The Vehicular Address Configuration (VAC) protocol is an application layer address configuration protocol. It does not rely on the underlying network or transport layer protocols. It is a dynamic leader-based approach where addresses are assigned by dynamically elected leaders running the DHCP (Dynamic

Figure 1. Leader chain depicting SCOPE of a leader

If a node enters the network and does not have an IP address, it first waits for a fixed interval, t_start, before requesting an address. In this period it collects the hello packets

609

received from its neighboring leader. After the t_start time units, the vehicle sends an address request to it nearest leader. After obtaining an address, it continues to listen to the hello packets to check if it has to become the leader or to verify if it has gone away from its leaders SCOPE. Therefore, two nodes under the same leader will not have the same IP address. Vehicular Address Configuration protocol has been tested for a linear network topology with high density of vehicles. Performance of Vehicular Address Configuration has been verified with various combinations of vehicle speeds. One main weakness of Vehicular Address Configuration protocol is that addresses assigned by the dynamically elected leader are unique only within the SCOPE of that leader. Practically, irrespective of the size of the SCOPE, it is not possible to maintain uniqueness with such an approach, as duplicate addresses continue to exist in the network. The assumption that two nodes can have the same address provided they do not communicate with each other does not hold for vehicular adhoc networks. Even if we succeed in resolving duplicate address problem in vehicular network by reconfigurations, the overhead in updating the routing table thereafter will be high. Another drawback is that each node should be capable of playing the role of the leader. Leaders should sacrifice some of their computing power in servicing other nodes in the network. There may be users / drivers in the network who are reluctant to share their resources. In such a case, Vehicular Address Configuration protocol may not be achievable. The main objective of Vehicular Address Configuration is to have a very small configuration time. Irrespective of the values of SCOPE, inter-arrival time and vel_gap, it was observed that vehicles were able to obtain an address in less than 70 milliseconds. When a node enters the network, it waits for t_start time units before sending an address request. In this period, it collects the hello packets from its neighboring leaders. During this time interval, a node does not have an address. Each leader broadcasts a hello packet every 800 milliseconds. Therefore, the value of t_start should be greater than 800 milliseconds for a node to receive hello packets in t_start time units. It is not clear if the parameter t_start has been considered in calculating the configuration time. Each node entering the network places a request for an address from its nearest leader. The minimum number of configurations for each node is therefore 1. When a node finds that it is between two leaders and the distance between the two leaders is greater than TH_MAX, then the node places a request to become the leader. Once this node is granted permission to become the leader, it changes its address to synchronize with its own address set. It is also possible for a node to go away from its leaders SCOPE, and in such a case the vehicle has to request for a new IP address from its nearest leader. From simulation results, it was found that the average number of address configuration for a node was less than or equal to 3. It was also found that the number of configurations increased with the increase in the inter-arrival time and vel_gap. In order to evaluate the performance of Vehicular Address Configuration, we have implemented this protocol in Qualnet [5] (version 3.8) simulation tool. The simulation model had 35

mobile nodes (vehicles) with a radio range of 400 meters. All the vehicles started at one point (0.0, 10.0) and moved towards the other end of the network, traveling a distance of 15000 meters. Nodes joined the network at different time intervals with an inter-arrival time of 1 to 3 seconds. A random speed between the configured minimum and maximum speeds was chosen for each vehicle independently. A mobility model was implemented for vehicles to move along the increasing x-axis (highway scenario). Each simulation was run for 250 seconds. The following three parameters had been used to evaluate the performance of the vehicular address configuration protocol: SCOPE, vel_gap and inter-arrival time. vel_gap is the difference between the minimum and maximum speeds of cars in the scenario. In Fig. 2, we have presented the plot of the Average Number of configuration vs. velocity gap. Velocity gap is the difference between the minimum and maximum speeds of the vehicle. As per the mobility model, each vehicle will travel at a speed chosen randomly in between the configured minimum and maximum speeds. It is observed that, the average number of configuration is greater than 1.5 and less than 3. One important observation from this plot is that the average number of configuration increases with the increase in velocity gap. The results presented in this paper for vehicular address configuration protocol and the results presented in [1] are for a very simple mobility scenario where in the vehicles traveled in one direction (highway scenario). The mobility pattern of vehicles in a real world scenario has a significant impact on the number of configurations (not shown in Fig. 2). In practice, the mobility pattern of a vehicle is complex and depends on various factors like route, driver intentions etc. Depending on these factors, the number of configurations using vehicular address configuration protocol will increase due to frequent network disconnections.
Average number of configurations vs. Velocity Gap
3.50

Average number of configurations

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Velocity Gap (m/s)

Figure 2. Average number of address configurations vs. velocity gap

When a vehicle changes its IP address or if it is assigned with a new address, it may be necessary to inform all the other vehicles in the network. The increase in number of configurations for each vehicle will result in the increase in the network layer messages (control messages to update routing table). This will reduce the throughput for an application service provided in VANET. Fig. 3 shows that the average validity period i.e. the average lifetime of the address reduces with the increase in the velocity

610

gap. The mobility model also has an impact on the lifetime of an address (not shown here).
Address validity period vs. Velocity Gap Average address validity period
200.00 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Velocity Gap (m/s)

Figure 3. Average validity period vs. velocity gap

Each vehicle in the vehicular network is equipped with a radio device. Using the concept of orthogonal channels, a single radio device installed on the vehicle can have two interfaces. One interface can be used for vehicle to roadside communication and the other interface can be used for intervehicle communication. Each interface can have its own IP address. In our approach, once a vehicle is under the coverage of a roadside unit, it places an address request to be used for inter-vehicle communication. Once it receives an address for inter-vehicle communication, it remains unchanged until the lease expires. A vehicle can continue to use the same address for inter-vehicle communication irrespective of whether it is under the coverage of same or different roadside unit. How mobility is handled across multiple roadside units is not addressed in this paper. Fig. 4 shows the vehicular network with roadside units and a centralized DHCP server. If a vehicle is not configured with an address for inter-vehicle communication, it broadcasts an address request. The nearest roadside unit that receives this message acts as a DHCP relay and forwards the address request to the centralized DHCP server. This address request is termed DHCP DISCOVER message in DHCP terminology. The server that receives this message will respond back with a DHCP OFFER message with the available network address. The roadside unit acting as relay agent will forward this message to the vehicle that requested an address.

The authors in [1] have also considered another approach of address assignment in vehicular ad-hoc networks. In this approach, the road-side units were configured as DHCP servers. Whenever a vehicle enters the coverage of a road-side unit, it requests for an address. When a vehicle goes out of the coverage of the current road-side unit and enters the coverage of new road-side unit, it has to obtain a new address. Only vehicles within the coverage of road-side unit have unique addresses. It was observed that, when road-side units were used as DHCP servers, the address validity time was a fixed small value. Whereas in the case Vehicular Address Configuration protocol, addresses were valid for a longer period before being reconfigured. III. CENTRALIZED ADDRESS CONFIGURATION

A vehicular network is an example application of MANET with additional features that creates room for new techniques to deal with challenging problem like address configuration. The architecture of vehicular ad-hoc network includes the roadside units that provide Internet access to the vehicles. Although the distribution of roadside units is not clear, it can be assumed that roadside units are deployed near traffic junctions, highways, gas stations, shopping malls and various other hot spots. Existing methods on vehicle addressing have not fully utilized the significant capabilities of DHCP and the architecture of vehicular ad-hoc networks. In our approach, we have utilized the capabilities of DHCP and VANET architecture to provide centralized DHCP service for the vehicles. At first we assume that there is a central authority to control address distribution and management. This responsibility can be taken up by vehicle manufactures or government agencies. DHCP servers are installed in cities to cover a large area or an entire city depending on vehicle densities. Redundant DHCP servers can be installed in order to provide fault tolerance. Some of these servers might be capable of extending the lease for an IP address assigned by a distant DHCP server. Such responsibilities can be assigned and managed by the central authority. Access to these servers is provided by roadside units. Roadside units are equipped with access points that provide Internet access to vehicles. These roadside units act as an interface between vehicles and DHCP servers that dynamically assign IP addresses to vehicles.

RSU 2

RSU 1

DHCP Server

RSU Roadside
Figure 4. Vehicular network with roadside unit and DHCP server.

If more than one DHCP server receives the DHCP DISCOVER message then the vehicle may receive multiple DHCP OFFERs. The vehicle chooses one server based of the offered configuration parameter (e.g. lease period). It then broadcasts a DHCP REQUEST message to that server. This message is relayed by the roadside unit to the DHCP server. The server selected by the vehicle will then respond back with a DHCP ACK message along with the address and configuration parameters. The servers that are not selected by the vehicles will use DHCP REQUEST message as a notification that the vehicle has declined the DHCP OFFER message. Using DHCP, a vehicle can also request an address for a specific time interval. If the DHCP server can service this request it will send a positive acknowledgement or else the

611

vehicle will receive a negative acknowledgement. Fig. 5 shows the messages exchanged between the vehicle and the DHCP server. A vehicle can release an address by sending a DHCP RELEASE message to the server if it no longer needs the assigned address. By doing this, vehicle surrenders it IP address and also cancels any remaining lease.
VEHICLE DHCP DISCOVER DHCP DISCOVER DHCP OFFER DHCP OFFER DHCP REQUEST DHCP REQUEST DHCP ACK DHCP ACK DHCP RELAY / ROADSIDE UNIT DHCP SERVER

DHCP Relay 1 / Node 3

DHCP Server / Node 1

DHCP Relay 2 / Node 2

Figure 6. Simulation Model

DHCP RELEASE

DHCP RELEASE

Figure 5. Messages exchanged between the vehicle and DHCP Server

At this point of time, it is not clear how the roadside units will be deployed in the vehicular network. For this reason, we assume that if the vehicle is not under the coverage of any roadside unit, it can request for an address using the backbone network like the mobile phone network. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

One important criterion in vehicular ad-hoc networks is the mobility model for vehicles. The existing random waypoint model is not suitable for vehicular ad-hoc networks. For this reason, we have modified the random waypoint model to make it suitable for vehicular networks. When the vehicle starts moving, it arbitrarily chooses a speed between the configured minimum and maximum speed, and drives towards the destination. Using the new model, vehicles moved along the Cartesian x terrain as in the highway scenario. Although it is a simple mobility model, this approach was sufficient to test the performance of our proposal. The following metrics have been used to evaluate the performance of our approach and compare it with vehicular address configuration protocol presented in [1]. A. Configuration time It was observed that once the vehicle entered the network and placed a request for an address it obtained an address in less than 8 milliseconds (configuration time = 7.82 ms). A vehicle was able to complete the transactions shown in Fig. 5 in less than 8 milliseconds. In practice various factors like the queuing delay, processing delay, propagation delay and transmission delay [7] plays an important role while calculating the configuration time. Parameters like the queuing delay and processing delay can not be estimated for this scenario. As a result, a configuration time of 8 milliseconds or less is not reasonable in vehicular networks. Address configuration time in vehicular networks exhibits similarities with some of the existing wireless computer network (Example: address configuration for wireless interface in laptop computers). We believe that the configuration time for a vehicle will be nearly equal to the address configuration time in a laptop computer. For this reason, we have taken 15 different traces while performing the address configuration in laptop computer and made a note of the different delays during the configuration. After taking an average of all the delays, we have simulated the same delays in our simulation model. It was observed that the configuration time was around 3.3 seconds. Even though the configuration time is much higher compared to the configuration time in Vehicular Address Configuration, the results presented here is reasonable.

The address configuration approach presented in this paper has been tested using the Qualnet simulation tool (version 3.8). A group of 50 vehicles (mobile nodes) joined the network at two different points (0.0; 100.0) and (0.0, 1700.0), with an inter-arrival time between 1 and 3 seconds. Each vehicle used an 802.11a radio with a data rate of 6 Mbps. The existing random waypoint mobility model was modified to make it suitable for vehicular scenario. Vehicles moved along the Cartesian x terrain with a speed chosen randomly between the minimum and maximum speeds specified in the mobility model for each vehicle. A new application layer protocol i.e. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, was added in Qualnet. The DHCP client, relay and the server functionalities was defined in this protocol. In the scenario, Node 1 was configured as a DHCP server, Node 2 and Node 3 were configured as DHCP relays (roadside units) and Node 4 to Node 53 were configured as vehicles (mobile nodes). Both the DHCP relays (Node 2 and Node 3) were connected to the DHCP server (node 1) by a 100 Mbps link. Node 2 and Node 3 also had a wireless interface used by the vehicles. A group of 25 vehicles entered the network from (0.0; 100.0) and obtained IP addresses from the DHCP server through Node 2 (roadside unit / DHCP relay). Another group of 25 vehicles entered the network from (0.0, 1700.0) and obtained IP addresses from the DHCP server through Node 3 (roadside unit / DHCP relay). Fig. 6 shows the snapshot of the model.

612

B. Number of configurations Number of configuration depends on various factors like the lease period, renewal timer and rebinding timer. Address reconfigurations are not necessary if the lease period can be extended. Lease period is a configurable parameter in the DHCP server and this interval can also be externally specified by the vehicle. In a local wireless network like home wireless network, the DHCP server is configured in wireless router. The duration of lease can be configured as 1 week, 1 day or even few hours based on the requirement. The renewal time is 1/2 of the lease period and the rebinding time is 7/8 of the lease period [3]. On the expiration of the renewal timer the vehicle will try to renew its address by sending a renewal request to the server that had allocated the address. If it fails to renew the address on the expiration of rebinding timer the vehicle will try to rebind to any active DHCP server. During this stage, the vehicle checks if any DHCP server can extend it current lease. If it fails to do so, on the expiration of the lease the vehicle moves to initialization stage and has to obtain a new address. C. Average lifetime of an address The average lifetime of an address depends on number of configurations. Increase in number of configurations in a centralized approach is very rare. As a result, the average lifetime of an address will be nearly equal to the time duration for which a vehicle uses the address. V. FUTURE WORK

We have observed that using Vehicular Address Configuration, Addresses assigned are unique only within the SCOPE of leaders. Duplicate addresses continue to exist in the network. Furthermore, the number of configurations increases with the increase in the inter-arrival time and vel_gap. Number of configurations also increases with different mobility models. For Vehicular Address Configuration, each node should be capable of playing the role of group leader and should be able to assign IP address to other vehicles in the group. In order to overcome the problems seen in distributed addressing scheme, we have presented a centralized addressing scheme for VANET using DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). Our simulation results are reasonable compared to Vehicular Address Configuration [1]. We conclude that centralized approach is efficient and is feasible for vehicular ad-hoc networks. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank Dr. Michel Barbeau from Carleton University for his comments and suggestions. REFERENCES
[1] Maria Fazio, Claudio E. Palazzi, Shirshanka Das and Mario Gerla, Facilitating Real-time Applications in VANETs through Fast Address Auto-configuration. In the proceedings of 4th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, Page(s): 981 985, Jan 2007. Maria Fazio, Claudio E. Palazzi, Shirshanka Das and Mario Gerla, Posters: Automatic IP address configuration in VANETs. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Vehicular ad hoc networks, Pages: 100 101, September 2006. R. Droms. IETF RFC 2131: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, March 1997. Berry Kercheval, DHCP A Guide to Dynamic TCP / IP Network Configuration. Prentice Hall PTR, 1999. Qualnet Software. http://www.scalable-networks.com/, 2007. Michel Barbeau and Evangelos Kranakis. Principles of Ad Hoc Networking. Wiley, 2007. Larry L. Peterson and Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks - A Systems Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.

[2]

The centralized DHCP service proposed for VANET has been tested in a highway scenario. We would like to further evaluate the performance of centralized DHCP in urban and city traffic scenarios considering seamless mobility across multiple roadside units. We intend to use SUMO (Simulation of Urban Mobility), a traffic simulation tool, to obtain vehicular mobility patterns. VI. CONCLUSION

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

In this paper we have reviewed an address configuration protocol in VANET called Vehicular Address Configuration.

613