[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Informational October 3, 2019
Expires: April 5, 2020
IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement
and Use Cases
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12
Abstract
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of IP-
based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are vehicle-
to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) communications. First, this document explains use
cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it makes a problem
statement about key aspects in IP-based vehicular networking, such as
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and Security & Privacy.
For each key aspect, this document specifies requirements in IP-based
vehicular networking, and suggests the direction of solutions
satisfying those requirements.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
networking-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with
the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC-
based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC].
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended
WiFi standard 802.11 to enable driving safety services based on DSRC
for the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) system. The
Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link Layer (L2) issues are addressed in
IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while
IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers security aspects, IEEE 1609.3
[WAVE-1609.3] defines related services at network and transport
layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] specifies the multi-channel
operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a separate amendment, but was
later rolled into the base 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE
802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012
[IEEE-802.11-OCB].
Along with these WAVE standards, IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IP
protocols (e.g., MIPv4 [RFC5944], MIPv6 [RFC6275], and Proxy MIPv6
(PMIPv6) [RFC5213][RFC5844]) can be applied to vehicular networks.
In addition, ISO has approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network
protocols and services to be used for Communications Access for Land
Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6].
This document describes use cases and a problem statement about IP-
based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IP Wireless Access
in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the use
cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, it makes
a problem statement about key aspects in IPWAVE, namely, IPv6
Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and Security & Privacy. For
each key aspect of the problem statement, this document specifies
requirements in IP-based vehicular networking, and proposes the
direction of solutions fulfilling those requirements. This document
is intended to motivate development of key protocols for IPWAVE.
2. Terminology
This document uses the following definitions:
o Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make safety plan by
classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for
safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among
them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight
Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD].
o Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal
mobility information (e.g., position, speed, direction, and
acceleration/deceleration) of surrounding vehicles for both safety
and non-safety uses through sensing or communication [CASD].
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
o LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to
measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and
measuring the reflected pulsed light.
o Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IP addresses and
mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support
their address autoconfiguration and mobility management with a
binding table. An MA has end-to-end connections with RSUs under
its control.
o On-Board Unit (OBU): A node that has physical communication
devices (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and Cellular V2X (C-V2X)
[TS-23.285-3GPP]) for wireless communications with other OBUs and
RSUs, and may be connected to in-vehicle devices or networks. An
OBU is mounted on a vehicle.
o OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set". It is
differentiated from the Basic Service Set (BSS) mode in IEEE
802.11 standard. A node in OCB mode can directly transmit packets
to other nodes in its wireless range without the authentication or
association process defined in BSS mode [IEEE-802.11-OCB].
o Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air-
resistance for energy efficiency and reduce the number of drivers
such that only the leading vehicle has a driver and the other
vehicles are autonomous vehicles without a driver and closely
following the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning].
o Road-Side Unit (RSU): A node that has physical communication
devices (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and C-V2X) for wireless
communications with vehicles and is also connected to the Internet
through a router or switch for packet forwarding. An RSU can
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., DNS
server and edge computing server) in its internal network as an
edge computing system. An RSU is typically deployed on the road
infrastructure, either at an intersection or in a road segment,
but may also be located in a car parking area.
o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road
infrastructure information (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and loop
detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average vehicle
speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment), and
vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's identifier, position,
direction, speed, and trajectory as a navigation path). TCC is
included in a vehicular cloud for vehicular networks.
o Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an OBU for
wireless communication with other vehicles and RSUs. It has a
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
radio navigation receiver of Global Positioning System (GPS) for
efficient navigation.
o Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of
vehicles interconnected by wireless communication. Two vehicles
in a VANET can communicate with each other using other vehicles as
relays even where they are out of one-hop wireless communication
range.
o Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks,
having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding
elements (e.g., switch and router).
o Vehicle Detection Loop (i.e., Loop Detector): An inductive device
used for detecting vehicles passing or arriving at a certain
point, for instance, at an intersection with traffic lights or at
a ramp toward a highway. The relatively crude nature of the
loop's structure means that only metal masses above a certain size
are capable of triggering the detection.
o V2I2P: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Pedestrian".
o V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle".
o WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0].
3. Use Cases
This section explains use cases of V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. The
use cases of the V2X networking exclude the ones of the V2V and V2I
networking, but include Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to-
Device (V2D).
3.1. V2V
The use cases of V2V networking discussed in this section include
o Context-aware navigation for driving safety and collision
avoidance;
o Cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban roadway;
o Platooning in a highway;
o Cooperative environment sensing.
These four techniques will be important elements for self-driving
vehicles.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers
to drive safely by alerting the drivers about dangerous obstacles and
situations. That is, CASD navigator displays obstacles or
neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time
through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based
automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations,
namely, the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe, and safe
situations. This action plan can be put into action among multiple
vehicles using V2V networking.
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [CA-Cruise-Control] helps
vehicles to adapt their speed autonomously through V2V communication
among vehicles according to the mobility of their predecessor and
successor vehicles in an urban roadway or a highway. Thus, CACC can
help adjacent vehicles to efficiently adjust their speed in an
interactive way through V2V networking in order to avoid collision.
Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series of vehicles (e.g.,
trucks) to follow each other very closely. Trucks can use V2V
communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain
constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short
gaps (from 3 meters to 10 meters). Platooning can maximize the
throughput of vehicular traffic in a highway and reduce the gas
consumption because the leading vehicle can help the following
vehicles to experience less air resistance.
Cooperative-environment-sensing use cases suggest that vehicles can
share environmental information from various vehicle-mounted sensors,
such as radars, LiDARs, and cameras with other vehicles and
pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] introduces a millimeter-wave
vehicular communication for massive automotive sensing. A lot of
data can be generated by those sensors, and these data typically need
to be routed to different destinations. In addition, from the
perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected that driverless
vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles. Through the
cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can use
environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for better
interaction with the other vehicles and environment.
3.2. V2I
The use cases of V2I networking discussed in this section include
o Navigation service;
o Energy-efficient speed recommendation service;
o Accident notification service.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
A navigation service, for example, the Self-Adaptive Interactive
Navigation Tool (SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with
TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can
guide individual vehicles for appropriate navigation paths in real
time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving
paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let
them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the
accident spot into efficient detour paths.
A TCC can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a vehicle that
depends on its traffic environment. [Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel-
efficient route and speed plans for platooned trucks.
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency
vehicles) and TCC can be performed via either RSU or 4G-LTE networks.
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) [FirstNet] is
provided by the US government to establish, operate, and maintain an
interoperable public safety broadband network for safety and security
network services, e.g., emergency calls. The construction of the
nationwide FirstNet network requires each state in the US to have a
Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to the FirstNet's
network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed by 4G-LTE for
the communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure node (i.e.,
V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected that DSRC-based vehicular
networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I and V2V in near future.
3.3. V2X
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is
pedestrian protection service.
A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation
Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the
collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone
equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g.,
WiFi) with an RSU. Vehicles and pedestrians can also communicate
with each other via an RSU that delivers scheduling information for
wireless communication in order to save the smartphones' battery
through sleeping mode.
For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate
with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without RSU relaying. Light-
weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate directly
with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
4. Vehicular Networks
This section describes a vehicular network architecture supporting
V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks. Also, it
describes an internal network within a vehicle or RSU, and the
internetworking between the internal networks via DSRC links.
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud
*******************************************
* *
* +-----------------+ *
* | Mobility Anchor | *
* +-----------------+ *
* ^ *
* | Ethernet *
* v *
*******************************************
^ ^ ^
| Ethernet | Ethernet | Ethernet
| | |
v v v
+--------+ Ethernet +--------+ Ethernet +--------+
| RSU1 |<-------->| RSU2 |<---------->| RSU3 |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
^ ^ ^
: : :
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| : V2I | | : V2I | | : V2I |
| v | | v | | v |
+--------+ | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
|Vehicle1|===> |Vehicle2|===>| | |Vehicle3|===>| | |Vehicle4|===>|
+--------+<...>+--------+<........>+--------+ | | +--------+ |
V2V ^ V2V ^ | | ^ |
| : V2V | | : V2V | | : V2V |
| v | | v | | v |
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
| |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>|
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3
(Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
Figure 1: A Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Networking
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture
Figure 1 shows an architecture for V2I and V2V networking in a road
network. The vehicular network architecture contains vehicles, RSUs,
Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor as
components. However, some components in the vehicular network
architecture may not be needed for vehicular networking, such as
Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor.
As shown in this figure, RSUs as routers and vehicles with OBU have
wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless media
interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g.,
2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking. Note that
2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example
prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address
needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including
RSUs.
For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB,
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] specifies several details, including Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address
mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and
subnet structure. An Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of
transforming some parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and IPv6
network layer, which is located between IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical
link control layer and IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB
can be used for both V2V and V2I in IP-based vehicular networks.
In Figure 1, three RSUs (RSU1, RSU2, and RSU3) are deployed in the
road network and are connected to a Vehicular Cloud through the
Internet. A Traffic Control Center (TCC) is connected to the
Vehicular Cloud for the management of RSUs and vehicles in the road
network. A Mobility Anchor (MA) can be located in the TCC as its key
component for the mobility management of vehicles. Vehicle2,
Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 are wirelessly connected to RSU1, RSU2, and
RSU3, respectively. The three wireless networks of RSU1, RSU2, and
RSU3 can belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2,
and Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three different
prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3).
A single subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles in VANET. For
example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles (i.e., Vehicle1,
Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected VANET. Also, for
Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and Vehicle6) can construct
another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3, two vehicles (i.e.,
Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another connected VANET.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
In wireless subnets in vehicular networks (e.g., Subnet1 and Subnet2
in Figure 1), vehicles can construct a connected VANET (with an
arbitrary graph topology) and can communicate with each other via V2V
communication. Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V
communication, and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V
communication because they are within the wireless communication
range for each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate
with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., RSU2 and RSU3)
by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are not
within the wireless communication range for each other.
In vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be
considered for wireless communications. In vehicular networks, the
control plane can be separated from the data plane for efficient
mobility management and data forwarding. The mobility information of
a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle (e.g., position, speed, and
direction) can be used to accommodate mobility-aware proactive
protocols. Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a
home agent for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6
[RFC5213], so the TCC maintains the mobility information of vehicles
for location management. IP tunneling over the wireless link should
be avoided for performance efficiency.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
+-----------------+
(*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud |
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | +-----------------+
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| v | | v v |
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | DNS1 | |Router1| | | |Router3| | DNS2 | | Host3 | |
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| v v v | | v v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:20:1::/64 |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router2| | | |Router4| |Server1|...|ServerN| |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 |
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) RSU1 (Fixed Network1)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle Network and RSU Network
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking
This section discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's
internal network (i.e., moving network) and an RSU's internal network
(i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. Note that an RSU can
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., DNS
server and edge computing server) in its internal network as an edge
computing system.
A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect
control units in the vehicle. The internal network also supports
WiFi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and passenger's mobile
devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). It is reasonable to consider
the interaction between the internal network and an external network
within another vehicle or RSU.
As shown in Figure 2, the vehicle's moving network and the RSU's
fixed network are self-contained networks having multiple subnets and
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
having an edge router for the communication with another vehicle or
RSU. Internetworking between two internal networks via V2I
communication requires an exchange of network prefix and other
parameters through a prefix discovery mechanism, such as ND-based
prefix discovery [ID-Vehicular-ND]. For ND-based prefix discovery,
network prefixes and parameters should be registered with a vehicle's
router and an RSU router with an external network interface in
advance.
For an IP communication between a vehicle and an RSU or between two
neighboring vehicles, the network parameter discovery collects
information relevant to the link layer, MAC layer, and IP layer. The
link layer information includes wireless link layer parameters and
transmission power level. The MAC layer information includes the MAC
address of an external network interface for the internetworking with
another vehicle or RSU. The IP layer information includes the IP
address and prefix of an external network interface for the
internetworking with another vehicle or RSU.
Once the network parameter discovery and prefix exchange operations
have been performed, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's
moving network and the RSU's fixed network. A DNS service should be
supported for the DNS name resolution of in-vehicle devices within a
vehicle's internal network as well as for the DNS name resolution of
those devices from a remote host in the Internet (e.g., a customer's
web browser and an automotive service center system). The DNS names
of in-vehicle devices and their service names can be registered with
a DNS server in a vehicle or an RSU, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 also shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving
network and the RSU's fixed network. There exists an internal
network (Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS
Server (DNS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers
(Router1 and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed
Network1) inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (DNS2), one host
(Host3), the two routers (Router3 and Router4), and the collection of
servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road
networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation.
Vehicle1's Router1 (a mobile router) and RSU1's Router3 (a fixed
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
V2I networking. Thus, one host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
with one server (Server1) in RSU1 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between Vehicle1 and RSU1,
and RSU1's fixed network.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
(*)<..........>(*)
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | DNS1 | |Router1| | | |Router5| | DNS3 | | Host4 | |
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| v v v | | v v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:30:1::/64 |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router2| | | |Router6| | Host5 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:30:2::/64 |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking
This section discusses the internetworking between the moving
networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication.
Figure 3 shows internetworking between the moving networks of two
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving
Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS Server (DNS1), the
two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 and
Router2). There exists another internal network (Moving Network2)
inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has the DNS Server (DNS3), the two hosts
(Host4 and Host5), and the two routers (Router5 and Router6).
Vehicle1's Router1 (a mobile router) and Vehicle2's Router5 (a mobile
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
V2V networking. Thus, one host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
with one host (Host4) in Vehicle1 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between Vehicle1 and
Vehicle2, and Vehicle2's moving network.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
| | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| |Router1| | | |Router5| | | |Router7| |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | | | Host4 | | | | Host6 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3
<....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
Figure 4 shows multihop internetworking between the moving networks
of two vehicles in the same VANET. For example, Host1 in Vehicle1
can communicate with Host6 in Vehicle3 via Router 5 in Vehicle2 that
is an intermediate vehicle being connected to Vehicle1 and Vehicle3
in a linear topology as shown in the figure.
5. Problem Statement
In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned architecture
for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the
vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges
need to be completed in a time relatively small compared to the
lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an RSU, or between two
vehicles. This has a major impact on IPv6 neighbor discovery.
Mobility management is also vulnerable to disconnections that occur
before the completion of identity verification and tunnel management.
This is especially true given the unreliable nature of wireless
communications. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, proper
authorization for vehicular protocol messages must be assured in
order to prevent false reports of accidents or other mishaps on the
road, which would cause horrific misery in modern urban environments.
This section presents key topics such as neighbor discovery and
mobility management.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
5.1. Neighbor Discovery
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND) [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part
of the IPv6 protocol suite. IPv6 ND is designed for point-to-point
links and transit links (e.g., Ethernet). It assumes an efficient
and reliable support of multicast from the link layer for various
network operations such as MAC Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate
Address Detection (DAD).
DAD and ND-related parameters (e.g., Router Lifetime) need to be
extended to vehicular networking (e.g., V2V, V2I, and V2X). Vehicles
move quickly within the communication coverage of any particular
vehicle or RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange application
messages with each other, they need to be configured with a link-
local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND.
The legacy DAD assumes that a node with an IPv6 address can reach any
other node with the scope of its address at the time it claims its
address, and can hear any future claim for that address by another
party within the scope of its address for the duration of the address
ownership. However, the partitioning and merging of VANETs makes
this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The
merging and partitioning of VANETs occurs frequently in vehicular
networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (e.g., SLAAC). Due to the merging of VANETs,
two IPv6 addresses may conflict with each other though they were
unique before the merging. Also, the partitioning of a VANET may
make vehicles with the same prefix be physically unreachable. Also,
SLAAC should be extended to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to
the merging of VANETs. According to the merging and partitioning, a
destination vehicle (as an IP host) should be distinguished as either
an on-link host or off-link host even though the source vehicle uses
the same prefix with the destination vehicle.
The vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD
by defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD, and two
vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists a
communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and RSUs, as
shown in Figure 1. By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD, vehicles
can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the vehicular
network whenever they are connected to the vehicular infrastructure
or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET. A vehicular
infrastructure having RSUs and an MA can participate in the
vehicular-network-wide DAD for the sake of vehicles [RFC6775]. For
the vehicle as an IPv6 node, deriving a unique IPv6 address from a
globally unique MAC address creates a privacy issue. Refer to
Section 6 for the discussion about such a privacy issue.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) interval should be adjusted for high-speed
vehicles and vehicle density. As vehicles move faster, the NA
interval should decrease (e.g., from 1 sec to 0.5 sec) for the NA
messages to reach the neighboring vehicles promptly. Also, as
vehicle density is higher, the NA interval should increase (e.g.,
from 0.5 sec to 1 sec) for the NA messages to reduce collision
probability with other NA messages.
According to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report], an extra 0.5 second of
warning time can prevent about 60% of the collisions of vehicles
moving closely in a roadway. A warning message should be exchanged
every 0.5 second. Thus, if the ND messages (e.g., NS and NA) are
used as warning messages, they should be exchanged every 0.5 second.
For IP-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation,
adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular network, this
bounded data delivery is critical. Implementations for such
applications are not available yet. ND needs work to support IP-
based safety applications.
5.1.1. Link Model
IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions for the link model that
do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless link [VIP-WAVE]
[RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the
connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However,
interference and different levels of transmission power may cause
asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result,
a new vehicular link model should consider the asymmetry of
dynamically changing vehicular wireless links.
There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the
different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global
types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all
interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with
on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IP link.
However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship
between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless
links and the characteristics of VANET.
A VANET can have multiple links between pairs of vehicles within
wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two
vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless
communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each
other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix is assigned to VANETs
in vehicular networks. Even though two vehicles in the same VANET
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
configure their IPv6 addresses with the same IPv6 prefix, they may
not communicate with each other not in a one hop in the same VANET
because of the multihop network connectivity. Thus, in this case,
the concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two
vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate
directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two
different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate
with each other. When these two VANETs converge to one VANET, the
two vehicles can communicate with each other in a multihop fashion.
From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider
the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle
mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on-
link prefix and off-link prefix according to the one-hop reachability
among the vehicles in an appropriate way. If the vehicles with the
same prefix are reachable with each other in one hop, the prefix
should be on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with
the same prefix are not reachable with each other in one hop due to
either the multi-hop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions,
the prefix should be off-link.
The vehicular link model needs to support the multihop routing in a
connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6
prefix are connected in one hop or multiple hops. It also needs to
support the multihop routing in multiple connected VANETs via an RSU
that has the wireless connectivity with each VANET. For example, in
Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are
configured with their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope
IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each
other via either multi-hop V2V or multi-hop V2I2V. When two vehicles
of Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 are connected in a VANET, it will be more
efficient for them to communicate with each other via VANET rather
than RSUs. On the other hand, when the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and
Vehicle3 are far away from the communication range in separate VANETs
and under two different RSUs, they can communicate with each other
through the relay of RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two separate VANETs can
merge into one network via RSU(s). Also, newly arriving vehicles can
merge two separate VANETs into one VANET if they can play a role of a
relay node for those VANETs.
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym
For the protection of drivers' privacy, a pseudonym of a MAC address
of a vehicle's network interface should be used, so that the MAC
address can be changed periodically. However, although such a
pseudonym of a MAC address can protect some extent of privacy of a
vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle
identification by other fingerprint information, for example, the
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
scrambler seed embedded in IEEE 802.11-OCB frames [Scrambler-Attack].
The pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the
MAC address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP) session with an IPv6
address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not implemented and
tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular networking.
In the ETSI standards, for the sake of security and privacy, an ITS
station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network interface
identities (e.g., MAC address) and the corresponding IPv6 addresses
[Identity-Management]. Whenever the network interface identifier
changes, the IPv6 address based on the network interface identifier
should be updated, and the uniqueness of the address should be
performed through the DAD procedure. For vehicular networks with
high mobility and density, this DAD should be performed efficiently
with minimum overhead so that the vehicles can exchange warning
messages with each other every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report].
For the continuity of an end-to-end (E2E) transport-layer (e.g., TCP,
UDP, and SCTP) session, with a mobility management scheme (e.g.,
MIPv6 and PMIPv6), the new IP address for the transport-layer session
can be notified to an appropriate end point, and the packets of the
session should be forwarded to their destinations with the changed
network interface identifier and IPv6 address. This mobility
management overhead for pseudonyms should be minimized for efficient
operations in vehicular networks having lots of vehicles.
5.1.3. Routing
For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via RSUs,
a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may be
required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the
subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run
both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of
control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems].
The merging of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and a VANET routing
protocol allows the efficient wireless channel utilization. A
routing protocol for VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in the
air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the routing
information in VANET with a dynamic network topology if the IPv6 ND
is used to check the neighborhood of each vehicle, and can be
extended to compute each vehicle's routing table in VANET.
Vehicular ND can be extended to accommodate routing functionality
with a prefix discovery option. The ND extension can allow vehicles
to exchange their prefixes in a multihop fashion [ID-Vehicular-ND].
With the exchanged prefixes, they can compute their routing table (or
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
IPv6 ND's neighbor cache) for the VANETs with a distance-vector
algorithm [Intro-to-Algorithms].
5.2. Mobility Management
The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end
points requires an efficient mobility management including location
management and handover. Most of vehicles are equipped with a GPS
receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding
smartphone App. The GPS receiver may not provide vehicles with
accurate location information in adverse, local environments such as
building area and tunnel. The location precision can be improved by
the assistance from the RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS receiver
for location information.
With a GPS navigator, an efficient mobility management will be
possible by vehicles periodically reporting their current position
and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the vehicular
infrastructure (having RSUs and an MA in TCC) [ID-Vehicular-MM].
This vehicular infrastructure can predict the future positions of the
vehicles with their mobility information (i.e., the current position,
speed, direction, and trajectory) for the efficient mobility
management (e.g., proactive handover). For a better proactive
handover, link-layer parameters, such as the signal strength of a
link-layer frame (e.g., Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI)
[VIP-WAVE]), can be used to determine the moment of a handover
between RSUs along with mobility information.
By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure can
better support RSUs to perform efficient DAD, data packet routing,
horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links using a
homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e., handover
in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in advance
along with the movement of the vehicle [ID-Vehicular-MM]. For
example, when a vehicle is moving into the wireless link under
another RSU belonging to a different subnet, the RSU can proactively
perform the DAD for the sake of the vehicle, reducing IPv6 control
traffic overhead in the wireless link. To prevent a hacker from
impersonating RSUs as bogus RSUs, RSUs and MA in the vehicular
infrastructure need to have secure channels via IPsec.
Therefore, with a proactive handover and a multihop DAD in vehicular
networks, RSUs needs to efficiently forward data packets from the
wired network (or the wireless network) to a moving destination
vehicle along its trajectory.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
6. Security Considerations
This section discusses security and privacy for IP-based vehicular
networking. The security and privacy are one of key components in
IP-based vehicular networking, such as neighbor discovery and
mobility management, so they need to be analyzed in depth.
Strong security measures shall protect vehicles roaming in road
networks from the attacks of malicious nodes, which are controlled by
hackers. For safety applications, the cooperation among vehicles is
assumed. Malicious nodes may disseminate wrong driving information
(e.g., location, speed, and direction) to make driving be unsafe.
Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with multiple false
identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe maneuver. This sybil
attack should be prevented through the cooperation between good
vehicles and RSUs. Note that good vehicles are ones with valid
certificates that are determined by the authentication process with
an authentication server in the vehicular network. Applications on
IP-based vehicular networking, which are resilient to such a sybil
attack, are not developed and tested yet.
Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X
networking in vehicular networks. Only authorized vehicles should be
allowed to use vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices and
mobile devices in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle
devices and mobile devices in another vehicle, and other servers in
an RSU in a secure way. Even a perfectly authorized and legitimate
vehicle may be hacked to run malicious applications to track and
collect other vehicles' information. For this case, an attack
mitigation process may be required to reduce the aftermath of the
malicious behaviors.
A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user certificate along
with in-vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to
efficiently authenticate a vehicle or a user through a road
infrastructure node (e.g., RSU) connected to an authentication server
in TCC. Also, Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates can be
used for secure E2E vehicle communications.
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel between a mobile
router in a vehicle and a fixed router in an RSU should be
established, as shown in Figure 2. Also, for secure V2V
communication, a secure channel between a mobile router in a vehicle
and a mobile router in another vehicle should be established, as
shown in Figure 3.
To prevent an adversary from tracking a vehicle with its MAC address
or IPv6 address, MAC address pseudonym should be provided to the
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
vehicle; that is, each vehicle should periodically update its MAC
address and the corresponding IPv6 address as suggested in
[RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses
should not interrupt the E2E communications between two vehicles (or
between a vehicle and an RSU) in terms of transport layer for a long-
living higher-layer session. However, if this pseudonym is performed
without strong E2E confidentiality, there will be no privacy benefit
from changing MAC and IP addresses, because an adversary can see the
change of the MAC and IP addresses and track the vehicle with those
addresses.
For the IPv6 ND, the vehicular-network-wide DAD is required for the
uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface.
This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that makes the DAD-related
ND packets are disseminated over the VANET and vehicular network
including the RSUs and the MA. The vehicles and RSUs need to filter
out suspicious ND traffic in advance.
For the mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct
multiple virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with the RSU and
the MA. This registration makes the RSU and MA waste their
resources. The RSU and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is
genuine or bogus in the mobility management.
7. Informative References
[Automotive-Sensing]
Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R.
Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular
Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing",
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016.
[CA-Cruise-Control]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", [Online]
Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control,
2017.
[CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A
Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular
Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud
(DC2), March 2016.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
[DSRC] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between
Roadside and Vehicle Systems - 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short
Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
ASTM E2213-03(2010), October 2010.
[EU-2008-671-EC]
European Union, "Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 on
the Harmonised Use of Radio Spectrum in the 5875 - 5905
MHz Frequency Band for Safety-related Applications of
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)", EU 2008/671/EC,
August 2008.
[FirstNet]
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet)", [Online]
Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012.
[FirstNet-Report]
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017.
[Fuel-Efficient]
van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas,
"Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons",
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
January 2018.
[ID-Multicast-Problems]
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC.
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-06 (work
in progress), July 2019.
[ID-Vehicular-MM]
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular
Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks",
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-01 (work
in progress), July 2019.
[ID-Vehicular-ND]
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular
Neighbor Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks",
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-07 (work
in progress), July 2019.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
[Identity-Management]
Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer
Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th
International Conference on ITS Telecommunications,
November 2010.
[IEEE-802.11-OCB]
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std
802.11-2016, December 2016.
[IEEE-802.11p]
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6:
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std
802.11p-2010, June 2010.
[Intro-to-Algorithms]
H. Cormen, T., E. Leiserson, C., L. Rivest, R., and C.
Stein, "Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed.", The
MIT Press, July 2009.
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB]
Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic
Support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks Operating
Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-
80211-OCB)", draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49 (work
in progress), July 2019.
[ISO-ITS-IPv6]
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems -
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012.
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.
[RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July
2003.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June
2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support in IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May
2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, April 2014.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
[SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT:
Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based
Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016.
[SAINTplus]
Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D.
Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+
for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization",
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
June 2017.
[SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation
Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular
Networks", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015.
[Scrambler-Attack]
Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff,
"The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on
Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015
International Conference on Computing, Networking and
Communications (ICNC), February 2015.
[Timing-Attack]
Matte, C., Cunche, M., Rousseau, F., and M. Vanhoef,
"Defeating MAC Address Randomization Through Timing
Attacks", ACM the 9th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy
in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec '16), July 2016.
[Truck-Platooning]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", [Online] Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017.
[TS-23.285-3GPP]
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for V2X Services", 3GPP
TS 23.285, June 2018.
[VIP-WAVE]
Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the
Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular
Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, March 2013.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
[WAVE-1609.0]
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std
1609.0-2013, March 2014.
[WAVE-1609.2]
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments - Security Services for
Applications and Management Messages", IEEE Std
1609.2-2016, March 2016.
[WAVE-1609.3]
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking
Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016.
[WAVE-1609.4]
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel
Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
networking-11:
o This version is revised based on the comments from Charlie Perkins
and Sandra Cespedes.
o In Section 5, the problem statement is revisd with easily
identifiable problems.
o In Section 1, the description of GeoNetworking (GN) protocols
(i.e., geographic routing) is removed because the GN protocols are
not relevant to the IPWAVE's use cases.
o In Section 2, the terms of OCB, Context-Awareness, Platooning, and
Class-Based Safety Plan are clarified.
o In Section 2, the definition of an RSU is revised so that it can
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (including
DNS server and edge computing server) as an edge computing system
because the RSU is regularly a router or switch.
o In Section 4.1, a general vehicular network architecture is
proposed for the problem statement along with Figure 1. This
figure clarifies that a single subnet prefix can span multiple
vehicles that construct a subnet. Also, some components in the
vehicular network architecture may not be needed such as Vehicular
Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor.
o In Section 5.1.1, the motivation of a new link model as a
vehicular link model is added. The "on-link" and "off-link" for
prefixes are classified according to the subnet topology of VANET.
o In Section 5.1.1, the merging and partitioning of VANETs is
described, and the requirements of the IPv6 ND are addressed for
the merging and partitioning as a problem statement.
o In Section 5.1.2, a citation of [Scrambler-Attack], which uses the
scrambler seed in the IEEE 802.11-OCB frames as fingerprint
information, is added to show the insufficiency of the MAC address
pseudonym for privacy.
o In Section 5.1, the subsection of Prefix Dissemination/Exchange is
removed because the Prefix Dissemination/Exchange subsection
discusses a solution rather than a problem or requirement.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
o In Section 5.1.3, the motivation of merging the IPv6 ND and a
VANET routing protocol is explained to improve wireless channel
utilization by removing redundant neighbor information exchange.
o The text of the problems and requirements of security and privacy
in vehicular networks are moved to Section 6.
o In Section 6, the compromise of a perfectly authorized and
legitimate vehicle is described as a security problem to be
considered.
o In Section 3.3, the description of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) is
concised to deliver the clear concept of the direct communication
between a vehicle and a pedestrian.
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Education (2017R1D1A1B03035885).
This work was supported in part by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and
ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center)
support program (IITP-2019-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP
(Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion).
This work was supported in part by the French research project
DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded
by the European Commission I (636537-H2020).
Appendix C. Contributors
This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly
benefiting from inputs and texts by Rex Buddenberg (Naval
Postgraduate School), Thierry Ernst (YoGoKo), Bokor Laszlo (Budapest
University of Technology and Economics), Jose Santa Lozanoi
(Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), Francois Simon (Pilot),
Sri Gundavelli (Cisco), Erik Nordmark, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche
Telekom), and Pascal Thubert (Cisco). The authors sincerely
appreciate their contributions.
The following are co-authors of this document:
Nabil Benamar
Department of Computer Sciences
High School of Technology of Meknes
Moulay Ismail University
Morocco
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36
EMail: benamar73@gmail.com
Sandra Cespedes
NIC Chile Research Labs
Universidad de Chile
Av. Blanco Encalada 1975
Santiago
Chile
Phone: +56 2 29784093
EMail: scespede@niclabs.cl
Jerome Haerri
Communication Systems Department
EURECOM
Sophia-Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34
EMail: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr
Dapeng Liu
Alibaba
Beijing, Beijing 100022
China
Phone: +86 13911788933
EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com
Tae (Tom) Oh
Department of Information Sciences and Technologies
Rochester Institute of Technology
One Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5603
USA
Phone: +1 585 475 7642
EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu
Charles E. Perkins
Futurewei Inc.
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Phone: +1 408 330 4586
EMail: charliep@computer.org
Alexandre Petrescu
CEA, LIST
CEA Saclay
Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190
France
Phone: +33169089223
EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
Yiwen Chris Shen
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4106
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php
Michelle Wetterwald
FBConsulting
21, Route de Luxembourg
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633
Luxembourg
EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com
Author's Address
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement October 2019
Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor)
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
Jeong, Ed. Expires April 5, 2020 [Page 31]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/