_applied_  
_sciences_  
_Article_  
Secure and Efficient Multicast-Enabled Handover Scheme  
Pertaining to Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks in PMIPv6  
**[PERSON] 1\({}^{\copyright}\)**, [PERSON] 1\({}^{\copyright}\)**, [PERSON] 2\({}^{\copyright}\)** and [PERSON] 3\({}^{,}\)**\({}^{,}\)**\({}^{\copyright}\)**  
Footnote 1: footnotemark:  
Footnote 2: footnotemark:  
Footnote 3: footnotemark:  
Footnote 4: footnotemark:  
Footnote 5: footnotemark:  
Footnote 6: footnotemark:  
distance, or whether it can directly communicate with the roadside unit or not, a vehicle can connect with the roadside infrastructure in this situation, either in a multi-hop or single-hop method. This makes it possible to connect remote vehicles or the Internet over wide areas. Three different types of communication topologies are feasible in VANET: full ad hoc communication used in V2V communication, full cellular/WLAN communication in V2I, and hybrid communication occurs in V2I mode, whereby other vehicles can serve as gateways and use multi-hop routing to connect vehicles to roadside units (RSUs) [2]. Due to the highly mobile nature of vehicles, the vehicles in a VANET can frequently change their points of attachment. Additionally, vehicles must be reachable by hosts on the Internet, regardless of where they are at the current time. One of VANET's greatest and most challenging issues is mobility management [3; 4]. In order to locate a vehicle's point of attachment for location management [5], serving networks may use mobility management and, by using the facilities provided by handover management, maintain a vehicle's connection while it is moving [6]. As a result, mobility management must adhere to the following specifications. Seamless Mobility: The VANET should appear translucent, hiding the vehicles' ability to move about freely. Independent of the vehicle's present location, vehicles must be able to communicate with other vehicles and/or RSUs. The handoffs between access routers are also included in this, and a minimum delay should be ensured in the handoff process at the cost of authentication. Scalability and Efficiency: VANETs have the possibility of growing significantly, incorporating possibly hundreds of vehicles on a regular basis. As a result, the protocol methods/mechans need to be extremely scalable, and they must be efficient enough in terms of the overhead brought about by mobility management. VANET Properties: The mobility management must handle IPv6-based multi-hop communications along with various driving traits, such as the highly mobile nature of nodes. Secure: The handover process should be secure enough so that no unauthenticated vehicle can enter into the network. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has established several specifications that have been utilized to create several mobility management protocols. These protocols can be divided into two categories: host-based mobility management protocols and network-based mobility management protocols. While network-based mobility management protocols handle localized mobility, host-based mobility management protocols provide global mobility by allowing hosts to send mobility signaling. MIPv4 and MIPv6 [7; 8; 9], variants of the IP mobility protocol, permit the use of two distinct IP addresses, known as a fixed home address (HoA) and care of-address (CoA). MIPs (v4/v6) both encounter the problems of high packet losses and a high handover delay [9], which makes mobility inefficient. Host-based mobility management refers to several protocols, including MIPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6), which aims to reduce the signaling traffic issue between the home agent and correspondent node and regulate the excessive overhead, and Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6), which handles the issue of Quality of Service (QoS) for interactive program service applications that may be decreased by the packet loss and handover latency problems of MIPv6.