draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-00.txt | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-01.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Network Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | Network Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | |||
Intended status: Informational October 30, 2017 | Intended status: Informational November 13, 2017 | |||
Expires: May 3, 2018 | Expires: May 17, 2018 | |||
IP-based Vehicular Networking: Use Cases, Survey and Problem Statement | IP-based Vehicular Networking: Use Cases, Survey and Problem Statement | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-00 | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-01 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document discusses use cases, survey, and problem statement on | This document discusses use cases, survey, and problem statement on | |||
IP-based vehicular networks, which are considered a key component of | IP-based vehicular networks, which are considered a key component of | |||
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The main topics of | Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The main topics of | |||
vehicular networking are vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to- | vehicular networking are vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to- | |||
infrastructure (V2I), and infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) networking. | infrastructure (V2I), and infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) networking. | |||
First, this document surveys use cases using V2V and V2I networking. | First, this document surveys use cases using V2V and V2I networking. | |||
Second, this document deals with some critical aspects in vehicular | Second, this document deals with some critical aspects in vehicular | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 31 ¶ | |||
activities, IP address autoconfiguration, routing, mobility | activities, IP address autoconfiguration, routing, mobility | |||
management, DNS naming service, service discovery, and security and | management, DNS naming service, service discovery, and security and | |||
privacy. For each aspect, this document discusses problem statement | privacy. For each aspect, this document discusses problem statement | |||
to analyze the gap between the state-of-the-art techniques and | to analyze the gap between the state-of-the-art techniques and | |||
requirements in IP-based vehicular networking. Finally, this | requirements in IP-based vehicular networking. Finally, this | |||
document articulates discussions including the summary and analysis | document articulates discussions including the summary and analysis | |||
of vehicular networking aspects and raises deployment issues. | of vehicular networking aspects and raises deployment issues. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2018. | |||
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | ||||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | ||||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.1. V2V Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. V2I Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.2. V2I Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.2. V2V Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4. Vehicular Network Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Vehicular Network Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.1. Existing Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.1. Existing Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.1.1. VIP-WAVE: On the Feasibility of IP Communications | 4.1.1. VIP-WAVE: IP in 802.11p Vehicular Networks . . . . . 7 | |||
in 802.11p Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.1.2. IPv6 Operation for WAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
4.1.2. IPv6 Operation for WAVE - Wireless Access in | 4.1.3. Multicast Framework for Vehicular Networks . . . . . 9 | |||
Vehicular Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.1.4. Joint IP Networking and Radio Architecture . . . . . 9 | |||
4.1.3. A Framework for IP and non-IP Multicast Services | 4.1.5. Mobile Internet Access in FleetNet . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
for Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.1.6. A Layered Architecture for Vehicular DTNs . . . . . . 11 | |||
4.1.4. Joint IP Networking and Radio Architecture for | 4.2. V2I and V2V Internetworking Problem Statement . . . . . . 12 | |||
Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.2.1. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
4.1.5. Mobile Internet Access in FleetNet . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2.2. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
4.1.6. A Layered Architecture for Vehicular | 5. Standardization Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
Delay-Tolerant Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5.1. IEEE Guide for WAVE - Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
4.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.2. IEEE Standard for WAVE - Networking Services . . . . . . 17 | |||
4.2.1. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5.3. ETSI Intelligent Transport Systems: GeoNetwork-IPv6 . . . 18 | |||
4.2.2. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.4. ISO Intelligent Transport Systems: IPv6 over CALM . . . . 18 | |||
5. Standardization Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 6. IP Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
5.1. IEEE Guide for Wireless Access in Vehicular | 6.1. Existing Protocols for Address Autoconfiguration . . . . 19 | |||
Environments (WAVE) - Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 6.1.1. Automatic IP Address Configuration in VANETs . . . . 19 | |||
5.2. IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular | 6.1.2. Using Lane/Position Information . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
Environments (WAVE) - Networking Services . . . . . . . . 18 | 6.1.3. GeoSAC: Scalable Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . 20 | |||
5.3. ETSI Intelligent Transport Systems: Transmission of | 6.1.4. Cross-layer Identities Management in ITS Stations . . 21 | |||
IPv6 Packets over GeoNetworking Protocols . . . . . . . . 19 | 6.2. Problem Statement for IP Address Autoconfiguration . . . 22 | |||
5.4. ISO Intelligent Transport Systems: Communications | 6.2.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) Using IPv6 Networking . . . 19 | 6.2.2. IP Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
6. IP Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 7. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
6.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 7.1. Existing Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
6.1.1. Automatic IP Address Configuration in VANETs . . . . . 20 | 7.1.1. Experimental Evaluation for IPv6 over GeoNet . . . . 24 | |||
6.1.2. Routing and Address Assignment using Lane/Position | 7.1.2. Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery . 24 | |||
Information in a Vehicular Ad-hoc Network . . . . . . 21 | 7.2. Routing Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
6.1.3. GeoSAC: Scalable Address Autoconfiguration for | 8. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
VANET Using Geographic Networking Concepts . . . . . . 21 | 8.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
6.1.4. Cross-layer Identities Management in ITS Stations . . 22 | 8.1.1. Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Network Fragmentation 25 | |||
6.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 8.1.2. Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management . 26 | |||
6.2.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 8.1.3. Hybrid Architecture for Network Mobility Management . 27 | |||
6.2.2. IP Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 8.1.4. NEMO-Enabled Localized Mobility Support . . . . . . . 28 | |||
7. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 8.1.5. Network Mobility for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks . . . 29 | |||
7.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 8.1.6. Performance Analysis of P-NEMO for ITS . . . . . . . 29 | |||
7.1.1. Experimental Evaluation for IPv6 over VANET | 8.1.7. Integration of VANets and Fixed IP Networks . . . . . 30 | |||
Geographic Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 8.1.8. SDN-based Mobility Management for 5G Networks . . . . 30 | |||
7.1.2. Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery | 8.1.9. IP Mobility for VANETs: Challenges and Solutions . . 31 | |||
Protocol for VANets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 8.2. Problem Statement for Mobility-Management . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
7.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9. DNS Naming Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
8. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
8.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9.1.1. Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
8.1.1. An IP Passing Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc | 9.1.2. DNS Name Autoconfiguration for IoT Devices . . . . . 33 | |||
Networks with Network Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
8.1.2. A Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility | 10. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
Management for Supporting Highly Mobile Users . . . . 27 | 10.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
8.1.3. A Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility | 10.1.1. mDNS-based Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
Management Architecture for Network Mobility . . . . . 28 | 10.1.2. ND-based Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
8.1.4. NEMO-Enabled Localized Mobility Support for | 10.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
Internet Access in Automotive Scenarios . . . . . . . 29 | 11. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
8.1.5. Network Mobility Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc | 11.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 11.1.1. Securing Vehicular IPv6 Communications . . . . . . . 36 | |||
8.1.6. Performance Analysis of PMIPv6-Based Network | 11.1.2. Authentication and Access Control . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
MObility for Intelligent Transportation Systems . . . 30 | 11.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
8.1.7. A Novel Mobility Management Scheme for Integration | 12. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
of Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks and Fixed IP Networks . . 31 | 12.1. Summary and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
8.1.8. SDN-based Distributed Mobility Management for 5G | 12.2. Deployment Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
8.1.9. IP Mobility Management for Vehicular Communication | 14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
Networks: Challenges and Solutions . . . . . . . . . . 32 | Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | |||
8.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | |||
9. DNS Naming Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | Appendix C. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | |||
9.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | networking-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | |||
9.1.1. Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | |||
9.1.2. DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Internet-of-Things | ||||
Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | ||||
9.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | ||||
10. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
10.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
10.1.1. mDNS-based Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
10.1.2. ND-based Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
10.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
11. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
11.1. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
11.1.1. Securing Vehicular IPv6 Communications . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
11.1.2. Providing Authentication and Access Control in | ||||
Vehicular Network Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | ||||
11.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | ||||
12. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | ||||
12.1. Summary and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | ||||
12.2. Deployment Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | ||||
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | ||||
14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | ||||
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | ||||
Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Nowadays vehicular networks have been focused on the driving safety, | Vehicular networks have been focused on the driving safety, driving | |||
driving efficiency, and entertainment in road networks. Federal | efficiency, and entertainment in road networks. The Federal | |||
Communications Commission (FCC) in the US allocated wireless channels | Communications Commission (FCC) in the US allocated wireless channels | |||
for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) service in the | for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) service in the | |||
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Radio Service in the 5.850- | Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Radio Service in the | |||
5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band). DSRC-based wireless communications | 5.850-5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band). DSRC-based wireless | |||
can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure | communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to- | |||
(V2I), and infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) networking. | infrastructure (V2I), and infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) networking. | |||
For the driving safety service based on the DSRC, IEEE has | For driving safety services based on the DSRC, IEEE has standardized | |||
standardized Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) | Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) standards, such as | |||
standards, such as IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p], IEEE 1609.2 | IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p], IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2], IEEE 1609.3 | |||
[WAVE-1609.2], IEEE 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3], and IEEE 1609.4 | [WAVE-1609.3], and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4]. Note that IEEE 802.11p | |||
[WAVE-1609.4]. Note that IEEE 802.11p has been finalized as IEEE | has been published as IEEE 802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic | |||
802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) | Service Set (OCB) [IEEE-802.11-OCB] in 2012. Along with these WAVE | |||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] in 2012. Along with these WAVE standards, IPv6 and | standards, IPv6 and Mobile IP protocols (e.g., MIPv4 and MIPv6) can | |||
Mobile IP protocols (e.g., MIPv4 and MIPv6) can be extended to | be extended to vehicular networks [RFC2460][RFC6275]. | |||
vehicular networks [RFC2460][RFC6275]. | ||||
This document discusses use cases, survey, and problem statement on | This document discusses use cases, survey, and problem statements | |||
IP-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems | related to IP-based vehicular networking for Intelligent | |||
(ITS). First, This document surveys the use cases using V2V and V2I | Transportation Systems (ITS). This document first surveys the use | |||
networking in the ITS. Second, this document deals with some | cases for using V2V and V2I networking in the ITS. Second, this | |||
critical aspects in vehicular networking, such as vehicular network | document deals with some critical aspects in vehicular networking, | |||
architectures, standardization activities, IP address | such as vehicular network architectures, standardization activities, | |||
autoconfiguration, routing, mobility management, DNS naming service, | IP address autoconfiguration, routing, mobility management, DNS | |||
service discovery, and security and privacy. For each aspect, this | naming service, service discovery, and security and privacy. For | |||
document shows problem statement to analyze the gap between the | each aspect, this document shows problem statement to analyze the gap | |||
state-of-the-art techniques and requirements in IP-based vehicular | between the state-of-the-art techniques and requirements in IP-based | |||
networking. Finally, this document addresses discussions including | vehicular networking. Finally, this document addresses discussions | |||
the summary and analysis of vehicular networking aspects, raising | including the summary and analysis of vehicular networking aspects, | |||
deployment issues in road environments. | raising deployment issues in road environments. | |||
Based on the use cases, survey, and problem statement of this | Based on the use cases, survey, and problem statement of this | |||
document, we can specify the requirements for vehicular networks for | document, we can specify the requirements for vehicular networks for | |||
the intended purposes, such as the driving safety, driving | the intended purposes, such as the driving safety, driving | |||
efficiency, and entertainment. As a consequence, this will make it | efficiency, and entertainment. As a consequence, this will make it | |||
possible to design a network architecture and protocols for vehicular | possible to design a network architecture and protocols for vehicular | |||
networking. | networking. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
This document defines the following new terms: | This document uses the following definitions: | |||
o Road-Side Unit (RSU): A node that has Dedicated Short-Range | o Road-Side Unit (RSU): A node that has Dedicated Short-Range | |||
Communications (DSRC) device for wireless communications with | Communications (DSRC) device for wireless communications with | |||
vehicles and is also connected to the Internet as a router or | vehicles and is also connected to the Internet as a router or | |||
switch for packet forwarding. An RSU is deployed either at an | switch for packet forwarding. An RSU is deployed either at an | |||
intersection or in a road segment. | intersection or in a road segment. | |||
o On-Board Unit (OBU): A node that has a DSRC device for wireless | o On-Board Unit (OBU): A node that has a DSRC device for wireless | |||
communications with other OBUs and RSUs. An OBU is mounted on a | communications with other OBUs and RSUs. An OBU is mounted on a | |||
vehicle. It is assumed that a radio navigation receiver (e.g., | vehicle. It is assumed that a radio navigation receiver (e.g., | |||
Global Positioning System (GPS)) is included in a vehicle with an | Global Positioning System (GPS)) is included in a vehicle with an | |||
OBU for efficient navigation. | OBU for efficient navigation. | |||
o Vehicle Detection Loop (or Loop Detector): An inductive device | ||||
used for detecting vehicles passing or arriving at a certain | ||||
point, for instance approaching a traffic light or in motorway | ||||
traffic. 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 Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road | o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road | |||
infrastructure information (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and loop | infrastructure information (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and loop | |||
detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average vehicle | detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average vehicle | |||
speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment), and | speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment), and | |||
vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's identifier, position, | vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's identifier, position, | |||
direction, speed, and trajectory as a navigation path). TCC is | direction, speed, and trajectory as a navigation path). TCC is | |||
included in a vehicular cloud for vehicular networks. Exemplary | included in a vehicular cloud for vehicular networks. Example | |||
functions of TCC include the management of evacuation routes, the | functions of TCC include the management of evacuation routes, the | |||
monitoring of pedestrians and bike traffic, the monitoring of | monitoring of real-time mass transit operations, and real-time | |||
real-time transit operations, and real-time responsive traffic | responsive traffic signal systems. Thus, TCC is the nerve center | |||
signal systems. Thus, TCC is the nerve center of most freeway | of most freeway management sytems such that data is collected, | |||
management sytems such that data is collected, processed, and | processed, and fused with other operational and control data, and | |||
fused with other operational and control data, and is also | is also synthesized to produce "information" distributed to | |||
synthesized to produce "information" distributed to stakeholders, | stakeholders, other agencies, and traveling public. TCC is called | |||
other agencies, and traveling public. TCC is called Traffic | Traffic Management Center (TMC) in the US. TCC can communicate | |||
Management Center (TMC) in the US. TCC can communicate with road | with road infrastructure nodes (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and | |||
infrastructure nodes (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and loop | loop detectors) to share measurement data and management | |||
detectors) to share measurement data and management information by | information by an application-layer protocol. | |||
an application-layer protocol. | ||||
o WAVE: Acronym for "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" | ||||
3. Use Cases | 3. Use Cases | |||
This section shows use cases of V2V and V2I networking. | This section provides use cases of V2V and V2I networking. | |||
3.1. V2V Use Cases | 3.1. V2I Use Cases | |||
The use cases of V2I networking include navigation service, fuel- | The use cases of V2I networking include navigation service, fuel- | |||
efficient speed recommendation service, and accident notification | efficient speed recommendation service, and accident notification | |||
service. | service. | |||
A navigation service, such as Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation | A navigation service, such as the Self-Adaptive Interactive | |||
Tool (called SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with TCC | Navigation Tool (called SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking | |||
for the global road traffic optimization and can guide individual | interacts with TCC for the global road traffic optimization and can | |||
vehicles for appropriate navigation paths in real time. The enhanced | guide individual vehicles for appropriate navigation paths in real | |||
SAINT (called SAINT+) [SAINTplus] can give the fast moving paths for | time. The enhanced SAINT (called SAINT+) [SAINTplus] can give the | |||
emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) toward accident | fast moving paths for emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire | |||
spots while providing efficient detour paths to vehicles around the | engine) toward accident spots while providing other vehicles with | |||
accidents spots. | efficient detour paths. | |||
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency | The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency | |||
vehicles) and TCC can be performed via either RSU or 4G-LTE networks. | vehicles) and TCC can be performed via either RSU or 4G-LTE networks. | |||
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) [FirstNet] is | The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) [FirstNet] is | |||
provided by the US government to establish, operate, and maintain an | provided by the US government to establish, operate, and maintain an | |||
interoperable public safety broadband network for safety and security | interoperable public safety broadband network for safety and security | |||
network services, such as emergency calls. The construction of the | network services, such as emergency calls. The construction of the | |||
nationwide FirstNet network requires each state in the US to have a | nationwide FirstNet network requires each state in the US to have a | |||
Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to FirstNet's network | Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to FirstNet's network | |||
core. The current RAN is mainly constructed by 4G-LTE, but DSRC- | core. The current RAN is mainly constructed by 4G-LTE, but DSRC- | |||
based vehicular networks can be used in near future. | based vehicular networks can be used in near future. | |||
A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation | A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation | |||
Application (called SANA) [SANA], using V2I networking can reduce the | Application (called SANA) [SANA], using V2I networking can reduce the | |||
collision of a pedestrian and a vehicle, which have a smartphone, in | collision of a pedestrian and a vehicle, which have a smartphone, in | |||
a road network. Vehicles and pedestrians can communicate with each | a road network. Vehicles and pedestrians can communicate with each | |||
other via an RSU that delivers scheduling information for wireless | other via an RSU that delivers scheduling information for wireless | |||
communication to save the smartphones' battery. | communication to save the smartphones' battery. | |||
3.2. V2I Use Cases | 3.2. V2V Use Cases | |||
The use cases of V2V networking include context-aware navigator for | The use cases of V2V networking include context-aware navigation for | |||
driving safety, cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban | driving safety, cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban | |||
roadway, and platooning in a highway. These are three techniques | roadway, and platooning in a highway. These three techniques will be | |||
that will be important elements for self-driving. | important elements for self-driving vehicles. | |||
Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers | Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers | |||
to drive safely by letting the drivers recognize dangerous obstacles | to drive safely by letting the drivers recognize dangerous obstacles | |||
and situations. That is, CASD navigator displays obstables or | and situations. That is, CASD navigator displays obstables or | |||
neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time | neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time | |||
through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based | through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based | |||
automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations, such | automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations, such | |||
as the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe and safe | as the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe and safe | |||
situations. This action plan can be performed among vehicles through | situations. This action plan can be performed among vehicles through | |||
V2V networking. | V2V networking. | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶ | |||
4. Vehicular Network Architectures | 4. Vehicular Network Architectures | |||
This section surveys vehicular network architectures based on IP | This section surveys vehicular network architectures based on IP | |||
along with various radio technologies, and then discusses problem | along with various radio technologies, and then discusses problem | |||
statement for a vehicular network architecture for IP-based vehicular | statement for a vehicular network architecture for IP-based vehicular | |||
networking. | networking. | |||
4.1. Existing Architectures | 4.1. Existing Architectures | |||
4.1.1. VIP-WAVE: On the Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p | 4.1.1. VIP-WAVE: IP in 802.11p Vehicular Networks | |||
Vehicular Networks | ||||
Cespedes et al. proposed a vehicular IP in WAVE called VIP-WAVE for | Cespedes et al. proposed a vehicular IP in WAVE called VIP-WAVE for | |||
I2V and V2I networking [VIP-WAVE]. IEEE 1609.3 specified a WAVE | I2V and V2I networking [VIP-WAVE]. IEEE 1609.3 specified a WAVE | |||
stack of protocols and includes IPv6 as a network layer protocol in | stack of protocols and includes IPv6 as a network layer protocol in | |||
data plane [WAVE-1609.3]. The standard WAVE does not support | data plane [WAVE-1609.3]. The standard WAVE does not support | |||
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), seamless communications for | Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) of IPv6 Stateless Address | |||
Internet services, and multi-hop communications between a vehicle and | Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] due to its own efficient IP | |||
an infrastructure node (e.g., RSU). To overcome these limitations of | address configuration based on a WAVE Service Advertisement (WSA) | |||
management frame [WAVE-1609.3], seamless communications for Internet | ||||
services, and multi-hop communications between a vehicle and an | ||||
infrastructure node (e.g., RSU). To overcome these limitations of | ||||
the standard WAVE for IP-based networking, VIP-WAVE enhances the | the standard WAVE for IP-based networking, VIP-WAVE enhances the | |||
standard WAVE by the following three schemes: (i) an efficient | standard WAVE by the following three schemes: (i) an efficient | |||
mechanism for the IPv6 address assignment and DAD, (ii) on-demand IP | mechanism for the IPv6 address assignment and DAD, (ii) on-demand IP | |||
mobility based on Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), and (iii) one-hop and | mobility based on Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), and (iii) one-hop and | |||
two-hop communications for I2V and V2I networking. | two-hop communications for I2V and V2I networking. | |||
In WAVE, IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol is not recommended due | In WAVE, IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol is not recommended due | |||
to the overhead of ND against the timely and prompt communications in | to the overhead of ND against the timely and prompt communications in | |||
vehicular networking. By WAVE service advertisement (WAS) management | vehicular networking. By WAVE service advertisement (WAS) management | |||
frame, an RSU can provide vehicles with IP configuration information | frame, an RSU can provide vehicles with IP configuration information | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 24 ¶ | |||
vehicle as a packet relay by sending a relay service announcement. | vehicle as a packet relay by sending a relay service announcement. | |||
When it receives this relay service announcement and is within the | When it receives this relay service announcement and is within the | |||
communication range of an RSU, another vehicle registers itself into | communication range of an RSU, another vehicle registers itself into | |||
the RSU as a relay and notifies the relay-requester vehicle of a | the RSU as a relay and notifies the relay-requester vehicle of a | |||
relay maintenance announcement. | relay maintenance announcement. | |||
Thus, VIP-WAVE is a good candidate for I2V and V2I networking, | Thus, VIP-WAVE is a good candidate for I2V and V2I networking, | |||
supporting an enhanced ND, handover, and two-hop communications | supporting an enhanced ND, handover, and two-hop communications | |||
through a relay. | through a relay. | |||
4.1.2. IPv6 Operation for WAVE - Wireless Access in Vehicular | 4.1.2. IPv6 Operation for WAVE | |||
Environments | ||||
Baccelli et al. provided an analysis of the operation of IPv6 as it | Baccelli et al. provided an analysis of the operation of IPv6 as it | |||
has been described by the IEEE WAVE standards 1609 [IPv6-WAVE]. | has been described by the IEEE WAVE standards 1609 [IPv6-WAVE]. | |||
Although the main focus of WAVE has been the timely delivery of | Although the main focus of WAVE has been the timely delivery of | |||
safety related information, the deployment of IP-based entertainment | safety related information, the deployment of IP-based entertainment | |||
applications is also considered. Thus, in order to support | applications is also considered. Thus, in order to support | |||
entertainment traffic, WAVE supports IPv6 and transport protocols | entertainment traffic, WAVE supports IPv6 and transport protocols | |||
such as TCP and UDP. | such as TCP and UDP. | |||
In the analysis provided in [IPv6-WAVE], it is identified that the | In the analysis provided in [IPv6-WAVE], it is identified that the | |||
IEEE 1609.3 standard's recommendations for IPv6 operation over WAVE | IEEE 1609.3 standard's recommendations for IPv6 operation over WAVE | |||
are rather minimal. Protocols on which the operation of IPv6 relies | are rather minimal. Protocols on which the operation of IPv6 relies | |||
for IP address configuration and IP-to-link-layer address translation | for IP address configuration and IP-to-link-layer address translation | |||
(e.g., IPv6 ND protocol) are not recommended in the standard. | (e.g., IPv6 ND protocol) are not recommended in the standard. | |||
Additionally, IPv6 works under certain assumptions for the link model | Additionally, IPv6 implementations work under certain assumptions for | |||
that do not necessarily hold in WAVE. For instance, IPv6 assumes | the link model that do not necessarily hold in WAVE. For instance, | |||
symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring interfaces. However, | some IPv6 implementations assume symmetry in the connectivity among | |||
interference and different levels of transmission power may cause | neighboring interfaces. However, interference and different levels | |||
unidirectional links to appear in a WAVE link model. Also, in an | of transmission power may cause unidirectional links to appear in a | |||
IPv6 link, it is assumed that all interfaces which are configured | WAVE link model. Also, in an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all | |||
with the same subnet prefix are on the same IP link. Hence, there is | interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix are on | |||
a relationship between link and prefix, besides the different scopes | the same IP link. Hence, there is a relationship between link and | |||
that are expected from the link-local and global types of IPv6 | prefix, besides the different scopes that are expected from the link- | |||
addresses. Such a relationship does not hold in a WAVE link model | local and global types of IPv6 addresses. Such a relationship does | |||
due to node mobility and highly dynamic topology. | not hold in a WAVE link model due to node mobility and highly dynamic | |||
topology. | ||||
Baccellii et al. concluded that the use of the standard IPv6 protocol | Baccelli et al. concluded that the use of the standard IPv6 protocol | |||
stack, as the IEEE 1609 family of specifications stipulate, is not | stack, as the IEEE 1609 family of specifications stipulate, is not | |||
sufficient. Instead, the addressing assignment should follow | sufficient. Instead, the addressing assignment should follow | |||
considerations for ad-hoc link models, defined in [RFC5889], which | considerations for ad-hoc link models, defined in [RFC5889], which | |||
are similar to the characteristics of the WAVE link model. In terms | are similar to the characteristics of the WAVE link model. In terms | |||
of the supporting protocols for IPv6, such as ND, DHCP, or stateless | of the supporting protocols for IPv6, such as ND, DHCP, or stateless | |||
auto-configuration, which rely largely on multicast, do not operate | auto-configuration, which rely largely on multicast, do not operate | |||
as expected in the case where the WAVE link model does not have the | as expected in the case where the WAVE link model does not have the | |||
same behavior expected for multicast IPv6 traffic due to nodes' | same behavior expected for multicast IPv6 traffic due to nodes' | |||
mobility and link variability. Additional challenges such as the | mobility and link variability. Additional challenges such as the | |||
support of pseudonimity through MAC address change along with the | support of pseudonimity through MAC address change along with the | |||
suitability of traditional TCP applications are discussed by the | suitability of traditional TCP applications are discussed by the | |||
authors since they require the design of appropriate solutions. | authors since those challenges require the design of appropriate | |||
solutions. | ||||
4.1.3. A Framework for IP and non-IP Multicast Services for Vehicular | 4.1.3. Multicast Framework for Vehicular Networks | |||
Networks | ||||
Jemaa et al. presented a framework that enables deploying multicast | Jemaa et al. presented a framework that enables deploying multicast | |||
services for vehicular networks in Infrastructure-based scenarios | services for vehicular networks in Infrastructure-based scenarios | |||
[VNET-Framework]. This framework deals with two phases: (i) | [VNET-Framework]. This framework deals with two phases: (i) | |||
Initialization or bootstrapping phase that includes a geographic | Initialization or bootstrapping phase that includes a geographic | |||
multicast auto-configuration process and a group membership building | multicast auto-configuration process and a group membership building | |||
method and (ii) Multicast traffic dissemination phase that includes a | method and (ii) Multicast traffic dissemination phase that includes a | |||
network selecting mechanism on the transmission side and a receiver- | network selecting mechanism on the transmission side and a receiver- | |||
based multicast delivery in the reception side. To this end, authors | based multicast delivery in the reception side. To this end, the | |||
define a distributed mechanism that allows the vehicles to configure | authors define a distributed mechanism that allows the vehicles to | |||
a common multicast address: Geographic Multicast Address Auto- | configure a common multicast address: Geographic Multicast Address | |||
configuration (GMAA), which allows a vehicle to configure its own | Auto-configuration (GMAA), which allows a vehicle to configure its | |||
address without signaling. A vehicle may also be able to change the | own address without signaling. A vehicle may also be able to change | |||
multicast address to which it is subscribed when it changes its | the multicast address to which it is subscribed when it changes its | |||
location. | location. | |||
This framework suggests a network selecting approach that allows IP | This framework suggests a network selecting approach that allows IP | |||
and non-IP multicast data delivery in the sender side. Then, to meet | and non-IP multicast data delivery on the sender side. Then, to meet | |||
the challenges of multicast address auto-configuration, the authors | the challenges of multicast address auto-configuration, the authors | |||
propose a distributed geographic multicast auto-addressing mechanism | propose a distributed geographic multicast auto-addressing mechanism | |||
for multicast groups of vehicles, and a simple multicast data | for multicast groups of vehicles, and a simple multicast data | |||
delivery scheme in hybrid networks from a server to the group of | delivery scheme in hybrid networks from a server to the group of | |||
moving vehicles. However, this study lacks simulations related to | moving vehicles. However, the GMAA study lacks simulations related | |||
performance assessment. | to performance assessment. | |||
4.1.4. Joint IP Networking and Radio Architecture for Vehicular | 4.1.4. Joint IP Networking and Radio Architecture | |||
Networks | ||||
Petrescu et al. defined the joined IP networking and radio | Petrescu et al. defined the joint IP networking and radio | |||
architecture for V2V and V2I communication in [Joint-IP-Networking]. | architecture for V2V and V2I communication in [Joint-IP-Networking]. | |||
The paper proposes to consider an IP topology in a similar way as a | The paper proposes to consider an IP topology in a similar way as a | |||
radio link topology, in the sense that an IP subnet would correspond | radio link topology, in the sense that an IP subnet would correspond | |||
to the range of 1-hop vehicular communication. The paper defines | to the range of 1-hop vehicular communication. The paper defines | |||
three types of vehicles: Leaf Vehicle (LV), Range Extending Vehicle | three types of vehicles: Leaf Vehicle (LV), Range Extending Vehicle | |||
(REV), and Internet Vehicle (IV). The first class corresponds to the | (REV), and Internet Vehicle (IV). The first class corresponds to the | |||
largest set of communicating vehicles (or network nodes within a | largest set of communicating vehicles (or network nodes within a | |||
vehicle), while the role of the second class is to build an IP relay | vehicle), while the role of the second class is to build an IP relay | |||
between two IP-subnet and two sub-IP networks. Finally, the last | between two IP-subnet and two sub-IP networks. Finally, the last | |||
class corresponds to vehicles being connected to Internet. Based on | class corresponds to vehicles being connected to Internet. Based on | |||
these three classes, the paper defines six types of IP topologies | these three classes, the paper defines six types of IP topologies | |||
corresponding to V2V communication between two LVs in direct range, | corresponding to V2V communication between two LVs in direct range, | |||
or two LVs over a range extending vehicle, or V2I communication again | or two LVs over a range extending vehicle, or V2I communication again | |||
either directly via an IV, via another vehicles being IV, or via an | either directly via an IV, via another vehicles being IV, or via an | |||
REV connecting to an IV. | REV connecting to an IV. | |||
Considering a toy example of a vehicular train, where LV would be in- | Consider a simplified example of a vehicular train, where LV would be | |||
wagon communicating nodes, REV would be inter-wagon relays, and IV | in-wagon communicating nodes, REV would be inter-wagon relays, and IV | |||
would be one node (e.g., train head) connected to Internet. Petrescu | would be one node (e.g., train head) connected to Internet. Petrescu | |||
et al. defined the required mechanisms to build subnetworks, and | et al. defined the required mechanisms to build subnetworks, and | |||
evaluated the protocol time that is required to build such networks. | evaluated the protocol time that is required to build such networks. | |||
Although no simulation-based evaluation is conducted, the initial | Although no simulation-based evaluation is conducted, the initial | |||
analysis shows a long initial connection overhead, which should be | analysis shows a long initial connection overhead, which should be | |||
alleviated once the multi-wagon remains stable. However, this | alleviated once the multi-wagon remains stable. However, this | |||
approach does not describe what would happen in the case of a dynamic | approach does not describe what would happen in the case of a dynamic | |||
multi-hop vehicular network, where such overhead would end up being | multi-hop vehicular network, where such overhead would end up being | |||
too high for V2V/V2I IP-based vehicular applications. | too high for V2V/V2I IP-based vehicular applications. | |||
One other aspect described in this paper is to join the IP-layer | One other aspect described in their paper is to join the IP-layer | |||
relaying with radio-link channels. This paper suggests to separate | relaying with radio-link channels. Their paper proposes separating | |||
different subnetworks in different WiFi/ITS-G5 channels, which could | different subnetworks in different WiFi/ITS-G5 channels, which could | |||
be advertised by the REV. Accordingly, the overall interference | be advertised by the REV. Accordingly, the overall interference | |||
could be controlled within each subnetwork. This statement is | could be controlled within each subnetwork. This approach is similar | |||
similar to multi-channel topology management proposals in multi-hop | to multi-channel topology management proposals in multi-hop sensor | |||
sensor networks, yet adapted to an IP topology. | networks, yet adapted to an IP topology. | |||
In conclusion, this paper proposes to classify an IP multi-hop | Their paper concludes that the generally complex multi-hop IP | |||
vehicular network in three classes of vehicles: Leaf Vehicle (LV), | vehicular topology could be represented by only six different | |||
Range Extending Vehicle (REV), and Internet Vehicle (IV). It | topologies, which could be further analyzed and optimized. A prefix | |||
suggests that the generally complex multi-hop IP vehicular topology | dissemination protocol is proposed for one of the topologies. | |||
could be represented by only six different topologies, which could be | ||||
further analyzed and optimized. A prefix dissemination protocol is | ||||
proposed for one of the topologies. | ||||
4.1.5. Mobile Internet Access in FleetNet | 4.1.5. Mobile Internet Access in FleetNet | |||
Bechler et al. described the FleetNet project approach to integrate | Bechler et al. described the FleetNet project approach to integrate | |||
Internet Access in future vehicular networks [FleetNet]. The paper | Internet Access in future vehicular networks [FleetNet]. The | |||
is most probably one of the first paper to address this aspect, and | FleetNet paper is probably one of the first papers to address this | |||
in many ways, introduces concepts that will be later used in MIPv6 or | aspect, and in many ways, introduces concepts that will be later used | |||
other subsequent IP mobility management schemes. The paper describes | in MIPv6 or other subsequent IP mobility management schemes. The | |||
a V2I architecture consisting of Vehicles, Internet Gateways (IGW), | paper describes a V2I architecture consisting of Vehicles, Internet | |||
Proxy, and Corresponding Nodes (CN). Considering that vehicular | Gateways (IGW), Proxy, and Corresponding Nodes (CN). Considering | |||
networks are required to use IPv6 addresses and also the new wireless | that vehicular networks are required to use IPv6 addresses and also | |||
access technology ITS-G5 (new at that time), one of the challenges is | the new wireless access technology ITS-G5 (new at that time), one of | |||
to bridge the two different networks (i.e., VANET and IP4/IPv6 | the challenges is to bridge the two different networks (i.e., VANET | |||
Internet). Accordingly, the paper introduces a Fleetnet Gateway | and IPv4/IPv6 Internet). Accordingly, the paper introduces a | |||
(FGW), which allows vehicles in IPv6 to access the IPv4 Internet and | Fleetnet Gateway (FGW), which allows vehicles in IPv6 to access the | |||
to bridge two types of networks and radio access technologies. | IPv4 Internet and to bridge two types of networks and radio access | |||
Another challenge is to keep the active addressing and flows while | technologies. Another challenge is to keep the active addressing and | |||
vehicles move between FGWs. Accordingly, the paper introduces a | flows while vehicles move between FGWs. Accordingly, the paper | |||
proxy node, a cranked-up MIP Home Agent, which can re-route flows to | introduces a proxy node, a hybrid MIP Home Agent, which can re-route | |||
the new FGW as well as acting as a local IPv4-IPv6 NAT. | flows to the new FGW as well as acting as a local IPv4-IPv6 NAT. | |||
The authors from the paper mostly observed two issues that VANET | The authors from the paper mostly observed two issues that VANET | |||
brings into the traditional IP mobility. First, VANET vehicles must | brings into the traditional IP mobility. First, VANET vehicles must | |||
mostly be addressed from the Internet directly, and do not | mostly be addressed from the Internet directly, and do not | |||
specifically have a Home Network. Accordingly, VANET vehicles | specifically have a Home Network. Accordingly, VANET vehicles | |||
require a globally (predefined) unique IPv6 address, while an IPv6 | require a globally (predefined) unique IPv6 address, while an IPv6 | |||
co-located care-of address (CCoA) is a newly allocated IPv6 address | co-located care-of address (CCoA) is a newly allocated IPv6 address | |||
every time a vehicle would enter a new IGW radio range. Second, | every time a vehicle would enter a new IGW radio range. Second, | |||
VANET links are known to be unreliable and short, and the extensive | VANET links are known to be unreliable and short, and the extensive | |||
use of IP tunneling on-the-air was judged not efficient. | use of IP tunneling on-the-air was judged not efficient. | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 39 ¶ | |||
This is a pioneer paper, which contributed to changing MIP and led to | This is a pioneer paper, which contributed to changing MIP and led to | |||
the new IPv6 architecture currently known as Proxy-MIP and the | the new IPv6 architecture currently known as Proxy-MIP and the | |||
subsequent DMM-PMIP. Three key messages can be yet kept in mind. | subsequent DMM-PMIP. Three key messages can be yet kept in mind. | |||
First, unlike the Internet, vehicles can be more prominently directly | First, unlike the Internet, vehicles can be more prominently directly | |||
addressed than the Internet traffic, and do not have a Home Network | addressed than the Internet traffic, and do not have a Home Network | |||
in the traditional MIP sense. Second, IP tunneling should be avoided | in the traditional MIP sense. Second, IP tunneling should be avoided | |||
as much as possible over the air. Third, the protocol-based mobility | as much as possible over the air. Third, the protocol-based mobility | |||
(induced by the physical mobility) must be kept hidden to both the | (induced by the physical mobility) must be kept hidden to both the | |||
vehicle and the correspondent node (CN). | vehicle and the correspondent node (CN). | |||
4.1.6. A Layered Architecture for Vehicular Delay-Tolerant Networks | 4.1.6. A Layered Architecture for Vehicular DTNs | |||
Soares et al. addressed the case of delay tolerant vehicular network | Soares et al. addressed the case of delay tolerant vehicular network | |||
[Vehicular-DTN]. For delay tolerant or disruption tolerant networks, | [Vehicular-DTN]. For delay tolerant or disruption tolerant networks, | |||
rather than building a complex VANET-IP multi-hop route, vehicles may | rather than building a complex VANET-IP multi-hop route, vehicles may | |||
also be used to carry packets closer to the destination or directly | also be used to carry packets closer to the destination or directly | |||
to the destination. The authors built the well-accepted DTN Bundle | to the destination. The authors built the well-accepted DTN Bundle | |||
architecture and protocol to propose a VANET extension. They | architecture and protocol to propose a VANET extension. They | |||
introduced three types of VANET nodes: (i) terminal nodes (requiring | introduced three types of VANET nodes: (i) terminal nodes (requiring | |||
data), (ii) mobile nodes (carrying data along their routes), and | data), (ii) mobile nodes (carrying data along their routes), and | |||
(iii) relay nodes (storing data at cross-roads of mobile nodes as | (iii) relay nodes (storing data at cross-roads of mobile nodes as | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 19 ¶ | |||
communication for small Control plane packets and use DTN in-band for | communication for small Control plane packets and use DTN in-band for | |||
the Data plane. The paper then further describes the different | the Data plane. The paper then further describes the different | |||
layers from the Control and the Data planes. One interesting aspect | layers from the Control and the Data planes. One interesting aspect | |||
is the positioning of the Bundle layer between L2 and L3, rather than | is the positioning of the Bundle layer between L2 and L3, rather than | |||
above TCP/IP as for the DTN Bundle architecture. The authors claimed | above TCP/IP as for the DTN Bundle architecture. The authors claimed | |||
this to be required first to keep bundle aggregation/disaggregation | this to be required first to keep bundle aggregation/disaggregation | |||
transparent to IP, as well as to allow bundle transmission over | transparent to IP, as well as to allow bundle transmission over | |||
multiple access technologies (described as MAC/PHY layers in the | multiple access technologies (described as MAC/PHY layers in the | |||
paper). | paper). | |||
Although the DTN architectures evolved since the paper has been | Although DTN architectures have evolved since the paper was written, | |||
written, this paper addresses IP mobility management from a different | the Vehicular-DTN paper takes a different approach to IP mobility | |||
approach. An important aspect is to separate the Control plane from | management. An important aspect is to separate the Control plane | |||
the Data plane to allow a large flexibility in a Control plane to | from the Data plane to allow a large flexibility in a Control plane | |||
coordinate a heterogeneous radio access technology (RAT) Data plane. | to coordinate a heterogeneous radio access technology (RAT) Data | |||
plane. | ||||
4.2. Problem Statement | 4.2. V2I and V2V Internetworking Problem Statement | |||
This section provides a problem statement of a vehicular network | This section provides a problem statement of a vehicular network | |||
architecture of IPv6-based V2I and V2V networking. The main focus in | architecture of IPv6-based V2I and V2V networking. The main focus in | |||
this document is one-hop networking between a vehicle and an RSU or | this document is one-hop networking between a vehicle and an RSU or | |||
between two neighboring vehicles. However, this document does not | between two neighboring vehicles. However, this document does not | |||
address all multi-hop networking scenarios of vehicles and RSUs. | address all multi-hop networking scenarios of vehicles and RSUs. | |||
Also, the problems focus on the network layer (i.e., IPv6 protocol | Also, the focus is on the network layer (i.e., IPv6 protocol stack) | |||
stack) rather than the MAC layer and the transport layer (e.g., TCP, | rather than the MAC layer and the transport layer (e.g., TCP, UDP, | |||
UDP, and SCTP). | and SCTP). | |||
Figure 1 shows a vehicular network architecture for V2I and V2V | Figure 1 shows an architecture for V2I and V2V networking in a road | |||
networking in a road network. The two RSUs (RSU1 and RSU2) are | network. The two RSUs (RSU1 and RSU2) are deployed in the road | |||
deployed in the road network and are connected to a Vehicular Cloud | network and are connected to a Vehicular Cloud through the Internet. | |||
through the Internet. TCC is connected to the Vehicular Cloud and | TCC is connected to the Vehicular Cloud and the two vehicles | |||
the two vehicles (Vehicle1 and Vehicle2) are wirelessly connected to | (Vehicle1 and Vehicle2) are wirelessly connected to RSU1, and the | |||
RSU1, and the last vehicle (Vehicle3) is wirelessly connected to | last vehicle (Vehicle3) is wirelessly connected to RSU2. Vehicle1 | |||
RSU2. Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V communication, | can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V communication, and Vehicle2 can | |||
and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V communication. | communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V communication. Vehicle1 can | |||
Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle3 via RSU1 and RSU2 via V2I | communicate with Vehicle3 via RSU1 and RSU2 via V2I communication. | |||
communication. | ||||
*-------------* | *-------------* | |||
* * .-------. | * * .-------. | |||
* Vehicular Cloud *<------>| TCC | | * Vehicular Cloud *<------>| TCC | | |||
* * ._______. | * * ._______. | |||
*-------------* | *-------------* | |||
^ ^ | ^ ^ | |||
| | | | | | |||
| | | | | | |||
v v | v v | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 31 ¶ | |||
.--------. .--------. .--------. | .--------. .--------. .--------. | |||
|Vehicle1|=> |Vehicle2|=> |Vehicle3|=> | |Vehicle1|=> |Vehicle2|=> |Vehicle3|=> | |||
| |<....>| |<....>| | | | |<....>| |<....>| | | |||
.________. .________. .________. | .________. .________. .________. | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link => Moving Direction | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link => Moving Direction | |||
Figure 1: A Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Networking | Figure 1: A Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Networking | |||
In vehicular networks, unidirectional links exist and must be | In vehicular networks, unidirectional links exist and must be | |||
considered. Control Plane must be separated from Data Plane. ID/ | considered. The control plane must be separated from data plane. | |||
Pseudonym change requires a lightweight DAD. IP tunneling should be | ID/Pseudonym change requires a lightweight DAD. IP tunneling should | |||
avoided. Vehicles do not have a Home Network. Protocol-based | be avoided. The mobility information of a mobile device (e.g., | |||
mobility must be kept hidden to both the vehicle and the | vehicle), such as trajectory, position, speed, and direction, can be | |||
correspondent node (CN). A vehicular network architecture may be | used by the mobile device and infrastructure nodes (e.g., TCC and | |||
composed of three types of vehicles: Leaf Vehicle, Range Extending | RSU) for the accommodation of proactive protocols because it is | |||
Vehicle, and Internet Vehicle[Joint-IP-Networking]. | usually equipped with a GPS receiver. Vehicles can use the TCC as | |||
its Home Network, so the TCC maintains the mobility information of | ||||
vehicles for location management. A vehicular network architecture | ||||
may be composed of three types of vehicles in Figure 1: Leaf Vehicle, | ||||
Range Extending Vehicle, and Internet Vehicle[Joint-IP-Networking]. | ||||
This section also discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's | This section also discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's | |||
moving network and an RSU's fixed network. | moving network and an RSU's fixed network. | |||
4.2.1. V2I-based Internetworking | 4.2.1. V2I-based Internetworking | |||
As shown in Figure 2, the vehicle's moving network and the RSU's | As shown in Figure 2, the vehicle's moving network and the RSU's | |||
fixed network are internal networks having multiple subnets and | fixed network are self-contained networks having multiple subnets and | |||
having an edge router for the communication with another vehicle or | having an edge router for the communication with another vehicle or | |||
RSU. The method of prefix assignment for each subnet inside the | RSU. The method of prefix assignment for each subnet inside the | |||
vehicle's mobile network and the RSU's fixed network is out of scope | vehicle's mobile network and the RSU's fixed network is out of scope | |||
for this document. The internetworking between two internal networks | for this document. Internetworking between two internal networks via | |||
via either V2I or V2V communication requires an exchange of network | either V2I or V2V communication requires an exchange of network | |||
prefix and other parameters. | prefix and other parameters. | |||
The network parameter discovery collects networking information for | ||||
an IP communication between a vehicle and an RSU or between two | ||||
neighboring vehicles, such as link layer, MAC layer, and IP layer | ||||
information. The link layer information includes wireless link layer | ||||
parameters, such as wireless media (e.g., IEEE 802.11 OCB, LTE D2D, | ||||
Bluetooth, and LiFi) and a 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. | ||||
(*)<..........>(*) | (*)<..........>(*) | |||
| | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | |||
.------------------------------. .---------------------------------. | .------------------------------. .---------------------------------. | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| .-------. .------. .-------. | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | |||
| | Host1 | |RDNSS1| |Router1| | | |Router3| |RDNSS2| | Host3 | | | | | Host1 | |RDNSS1| |Router1| | | |Router3| |RDNSS2| | Host3 | | | |||
| ._______. .______. ._______. | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | |||
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v v v | | v v v | | | v v v | | v v v | | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 49 ¶ | |||
| v v | | v v v | | | v v | | v v v | | |||
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- | | | ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- | | |||
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 | | |||
.______________________________. ._________________________________. | .______________________________. ._________________________________. | |||
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) RSU1 (Fixed Network1) | Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) RSU1 (Fixed Network1) | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle Network and RSU Network | Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle Network and RSU Network | |||
The network parameter discovery collects networking information for | ||||
an IP communication between a vehicle and an RSU or between two | ||||
neighboring vehicles, such as link layer, MAC layer, and IP layer | ||||
information. The link layer information includes wireless link layer | ||||
parameters, such as wireless media (e.g., IEEE 802.11 OCB, LTE D2D, | ||||
Bluetooth, and LiFi) and a 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 | Once the network parameter discovery and prefix exchange operations | |||
are performed, unicast of packets can be supported between the | have been performed, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's | |||
vehicle's moving network and the RSU's fixed network. The DNS naming | moving network and the RSU's fixed network. DNS should be supported | |||
service should be supported for the DNS name resolution for hosts or | to enable name resolution for hosts or servers residing either in the | |||
servers residing either in the vehicle's moving network or the RSU's | vehicle's moving network or the RSU's fixed network. | |||
fixed network. | ||||
Figure 2 shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving network | Figure 2 shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving network | |||
and the RSU's fixed network. There exists an internal network | and the RSU's fixed network. There exists an internal network | |||
(Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS Server | (Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS Server | |||
(RDNSS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers | (RDNSS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers | |||
(Router1 and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed | (Router1 and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed | |||
Network1) inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (RDNSS2), one host | Network1) inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (RDNSS2), one host | |||
(Host3), the two routers (Router3 and Router4), and the collection of | (Host3), the two routers (Router3 and Router4), and the collection of | |||
servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road | servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road | |||
networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation. | networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation. | |||
Vehicle1's Router1 (called mobile router) and RSU1's Router3 (called | Vehicle1's Router1 (called mobile router) and RSU1's Router3 (called | |||
fixed router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) | fixed router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) | |||
for I2V networking. | for I2V networking. | |||
This document addresses the internetworking between the vehicle's | This document addresses the internetworking between the vehicle's | |||
moving network and the RSU's fixed network in Figure 2 and the | moving network and the RSU's fixed network in Figure 2 and the | |||
required enhancement of IPv6 protocol suite for the V2I networking | required enhancement of IPv6 protocol suite for the V2I networking. | |||
service. | ||||
(*)<..........>(*) | (*)<..........>(*) | |||
| | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | |||
.------------------------------. .---------------------------------. | .------------------------------. .---------------------------------. | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| .-------. .------. .-------. | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | .-------. .------. .-------. | | |||
| | Host1 | |RDNSS1| |Router1| | | |Router3| |RDNSS2| | Host3 | | | | | Host1 | |RDNSS1| |Router1| | | |Router3| |RDNSS2| | Host3 | | | |||
| ._______. .______. ._______. | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | ._______. .______. ._______. | | |||
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
skipping to change at page 17, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 24 ¶ | |||
two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 and | two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 and | |||
Router2). There exists another internal network (Moving Network2) | Router2). There exists another internal network (Moving Network2) | |||
inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has the DNS Server (RDNSS2), the two hosts | inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has the DNS Server (RDNSS2), the two hosts | |||
(Host3 and Host4), and the two routers (Router3 and Router4). | (Host3 and Host4), and the two routers (Router3 and Router4). | |||
Vehicle1's Router1 (called mobile router) and Vehicle2's Router3 | Vehicle1's Router1 (called mobile router) and Vehicle2's Router3 | |||
(called mobile router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link | (called mobile router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link | |||
(e.g., DSRC) for V2V networking. | (e.g., DSRC) for V2V networking. | |||
This document describes the internetworking between the moving | This document describes the internetworking between the moving | |||
networks of two neighboring vehicles in Figure 3 and the required | networks of two neighboring vehicles in Figure 3 and the required | |||
enhancement of IPv6 protocol suite for the V2V networking service. | enhancement of IPv6 protocol suite for the V2V networking. | |||
5. Standardization Activities | 5. Standardization Activities | |||
This section surveys standard activities for vehicular networks in | This section surveys standard activities for vehicular networks in | |||
standards developing organizations. | standards developing organizations. | |||
5.1. IEEE Guide for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - | 5.1. IEEE Guide for WAVE - Architecture | |||
Architecture | ||||
IEEE 1609 is a suite of standards for Wireless Access in Vehicular | IEEE 1609 is a suite of standards for Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
Environments (WAVE) developed in the IEEE Vehicular Technology | Environments (WAVE) developed in the IEEE Vehicular Technology | |||
Society (VTS). They define an architecture and a complementary | Society (VTS). They define an architecture and a complementary | |||
standardized set of services and interfaces that collectively enable | standardized set of services and interfaces that collectively enable | |||
secure vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) | secure vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) | |||
wireless communications. | wireless communications. | |||
IEEE 1609.0 provides a description of the WAVE system architecture | IEEE 1609.0 provides a description of the WAVE system architecture | |||
and operations (called WAVE reference model) [WAVE-1609.0]. The | and operations (called WAVE reference model) [WAVE-1609.0]. The | |||
skipping to change at page 18, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 14 ¶ | |||
Link Control (LLC) header, used to identify the networking protocol | Link Control (LLC) header, used to identify the networking protocol | |||
to be employed above the LLC protocol. In particular, it specifies | to be employed above the LLC protocol. In particular, it specifies | |||
the use of two Ethertype values (i.e., two networking protocols), | the use of two Ethertype values (i.e., two networking protocols), | |||
such as IPv6 and WSMP. | such as IPv6 and WSMP. | |||
Regarding the upper layers, while WAVE communications use standard | Regarding the upper layers, while WAVE communications use standard | |||
port numbers for IPv6-based protocols (e.g., TCP, UDP), they use a | port numbers for IPv6-based protocols (e.g., TCP, UDP), they use a | |||
Provider Service Identifier (PSID) as an identifier in the context of | Provider Service Identifier (PSID) as an identifier in the context of | |||
WSMP. | WSMP. | |||
5.2. IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) | 5.2. IEEE Standard for WAVE - Networking Services | |||
- Networking Services | ||||
IEEE 1609.3 defines services operating at the network and transport | IEEE 1609.3 defines services operating at the network and transport | |||
layers, in support of wireless connectivity among vehicle-based | layers, in support of wireless connectivity among vehicle-based | |||
devices, and between fixed roadside devices and vehicle-based devices | devices, and between fixed roadside devices and vehicle-based devices | |||
using the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short-Range Communications/Wireless | using the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short-Range Communications/Wireless | |||
Access in Vehicular Environments (DSRC/WAVE) mode [WAVE-1609.3]. | Access in Vehicular Environments (DSRC/WAVE) mode [WAVE-1609.3]. | |||
WAVE Networking Services represent layer 3 (networking) and layer 4 | WAVE Networking Services represent layer 3 (networking) and layer 4 | |||
(transport) of the OSI communications stack. The purpose is then to | (transport) of the OSI communications stack. The purpose is then to | |||
provide addressing and routing services within a WAVE system, | provide addressing and routing services within a WAVE system, | |||
skipping to change at page 18, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 45 ¶ | |||
The document provides requirements for IPv6 configuration, in | The document provides requirements for IPv6 configuration, in | |||
particular for the address setting. It specifies the details of the | particular for the address setting. It specifies the details of the | |||
different service primitives, among which is the WAVE Routing | different service primitives, among which is the WAVE Routing | |||
Advertisement (WRA), part of the WAVE Service Advertisement (WSA). | Advertisement (WRA), part of the WAVE Service Advertisement (WSA). | |||
When present, the WRA provides information about infrastructure | When present, the WRA provides information about infrastructure | |||
internetwork connectivity, allowing receiving devices to be | internetwork connectivity, allowing receiving devices to be | |||
configured to participate in the advertised IPv6 network. For | configured to participate in the advertised IPv6 network. For | |||
example, an RSU can broadcast in the WRA portion of its WSA all the | example, an RSU can broadcast in the WRA portion of its WSA all the | |||
information necessary for an OBU to access an application-service | information necessary for an OBU to access an application-service | |||
available over IPv6 through the RSU as a router. This feature | available over IPv6 through the RSU as a router. This feature | |||
removes the need for an IPv6 Router Advertisement message, which are | removes the need for IPv6 Router Advertisement messages, which are | |||
based on ICMPv6. | based on ICMPv6. | |||
5.3. ETSI Intelligent Transport Systems: Transmission of IPv6 Packets | 5.3. ETSI Intelligent Transport Systems: GeoNetwork-IPv6 | |||
over GeoNetworking Protocols | ||||
ETSI published a standard specifing the transmission of IPv6 packets | ETSI published a standard specifying the transmission of IPv6 packets | |||
over the ETSI GeoNetworking (GN) protocol [ETSI-GeoNetworking] | over the ETSI GeoNetworking (GN) protocol [ETSI-GeoNetworking] | |||
[ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP]. IPv6 packet transmission over GN is defined in | [ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP]. IPv6 packet transmission over GN is defined in | |||
ETSI EN 302 636-6-1 [ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP] using a protocol adaptation | ETSI EN 302 636-6-1 [ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP] using a protocol adaptation | |||
sub-layer called "GeoNetworking to IPv6 Adaptation Sub-Layer | sub-layer called "GeoNetworking to IPv6 Adaptation Sub-Layer | |||
(GN6ASL)". It enables an ITS station (ITS-S) running the GN protocol | (GN6ASL)". It enables an ITS station (ITS-S) running the GN protocol | |||
and an IPv6-compliant protocol layer to: (i) exchange IPv6 packets | and an IPv6-compliant protocol layer to: (i) exchange IPv6 packets | |||
with other ITS-S; (ii) acquire globally routable IPv6 unicast | with other ITS-S; (ii) acquire globally routable IPv6 unicast | |||
addresses and communicate with any IPv6 host located in the Internet | addresses and communicate with any IPv6 host located in the Internet | |||
by having the direct connectivity to the Internet or via other relay | by having the direct connectivity to the Internet or via other relay | |||
ITS stations; (iii) perform operations as a Mobile Router for network | ITS stations; (iii) perform operations as a Mobile Router for network | |||
mobility [RFC3963]. | mobility [RFC3963]. | |||
The document introduces three types of virtual link, the first one | The document introduces three types of virtual link, the first one | |||
providing symmetric reachability by means of stable geographically | providing symmetric reachability by means of stable geographically | |||
scoped boundaries and two others that can be used when the dynamic | scoped boundaries and two others that can be used when the dynamic | |||
definition of the broadcast domain is required. The combination of | definition of the broadcast domain is required. The combination of | |||
these three types of virtual link in the same station allows running | these three types of virtual link in the same station allows running | |||
the IPv6 ND protocol including Stateless Address Autoconfiguration | the IPv6 ND protocol including SLAAC [RFC4862] as well as | |||
(SLAAC) [RFC4862] as well as distributing other IPv6 link-local | distributing other IPv6 link-local multicast traffic and, at the same | |||
multicast traffic and, at the same time, reaching nodes that are | time, reaching nodes that are outside specific geographic boundaries. | |||
outside specific geographic boundaries. The IPv6 virtual link types | The IPv6 virtual link types are provided by the GN6ASL to IPv6 in the | |||
are provided by the GN6ASL to IPv6 in the form of virtual network | form of virtual network interfaces. | |||
interfaces. | ||||
The document also describes how to support bridging on top of the | The document also describes how to support bridging on top of the | |||
GN6ASL, how IPv6 packets are encapsulated IN GN packets and | GN6ASL, how IPv6 packets are encapsulated in GN packets and | |||
delivered, as well as the support of IPv6 multicast and anycast | delivered, as well as the support of IPv6 multicast and anycast | |||
traffic, and neighbor discovery. For latency reasons, the standard | traffic, and neighbor discovery. For latency reasons, the standard | |||
strongly recommends to use SLAAC for the address configuration. | strongly recommends to use SLAAC for the address configuration. | |||
Finally, the document includes the required operations to support the | Finally, the document includes the required operations to support the | |||
change of pseudonym, e.g., changing IPv6 addresses when the GN | change of pseudonym, e.g., changing IPv6 addresses when the GN | |||
address is changed, in order to prevent attackers from tracking the | address is changed, in order to prevent attackers from tracking the | |||
ITS-S. | ITS-S. | |||
5.4. ISO Intelligent Transport Systems: Communications Access for Land | 5.4. ISO Intelligent Transport Systems: IPv6 over CALM | |||
Mobiles (CALM) Using IPv6 Networking | ||||
ISO published a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and | ISO published a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and | |||
services [ISO-ITS-IPv6]. These services are necessary to support the | services for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) | |||
global reachability of ITS-S, the continuous Internet connectivity | [ISO-ITS-IPv6]. These services are necessary to support the global | |||
for ITS-S, and the handover functionality required to maintain such | reachability of ITS-S, the continuous Internet connectivity for ITS- | |||
S, and the handover functionality required to maintain such | ||||
connectivity. This functionality also allows legacy devices to | connectivity. This functionality also allows legacy devices to | |||
effectively use an ITS-S as an access router to connect to the | effectively use an ITS-S as an access router to connect to the | |||
Internet. Essentially, this specification describes how IPv6 is | Internet. Essentially, this specification describes how IPv6 is | |||
configured to support ITS-S and provides the associated management | configured to support ITS-S and provides the associated management | |||
functionality. | functionality. | |||
The requirements apply to all types of nodes implementing IPv6: | The requirements apply to all types of nodes implementing IPv6: | |||
personal, vehicle, roadside, or central node. The standard defines | personal, vehicle, roadside, or central node. The standard defines | |||
IPv6 functional modules that are necessary in an IPv6 ITS-S, covering | IPv6 functional modules that are necessary in an IPv6 ITS-S, covering | |||
IPv6 forwarding, interface between IPv6 and lower layers (e.g., LAN | IPv6 forwarding, interface between IPv6 and lower layers (e.g., LAN | |||
interface), mobility management, and IPv6 security. It defines the | interface), mobility management, and IPv6 security. It defines the | |||
mechanisms to be used to configure the IPv6 address for static nodes | mechanisms to be used to configure the IPv6 address for static nodes | |||
as well as for mobile nodes, while maintaining the addressing | as well as for mobile nodes, while maintaining reachability from the | |||
reachability from the Internet. | Internet. | |||
6. IP Address Autoconfiguration | 6. IP Address Autoconfiguration | |||
This section surveys IP address autoconfiguration schemes for | This section surveys IP address autoconfiguration schemes for | |||
vehicular networks, and then discusses problem statement for IP | vehicular networks, and then discusses problem statement for IP | |||
addressing and address autoconfiguration for vehicular networking. | addressing and address autoconfiguration for vehicular networking. | |||
6.1. Existing Protocols | 6.1. Existing Protocols for Address Autoconfiguration | |||
6.1.1. Automatic IP Address Configuration in VANETs | 6.1.1. Automatic IP Address Configuration in VANETs | |||
Fazio et al. proposed a vehicular address configuration called VAC | Fazio et al. proposed a vehicular address configuration called VAC | |||
for automatic IP address configuration in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks | for automatic IP address configuration in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks | |||
(VANET) [Address-Autoconf]. VAC uses a distributed dynamic host | (VANET) [Address-Autoconf]. VAC uses a distributed dynamic host | |||
configuration protocol (DHCP). This scheme uses a leader playing a | configuration protocol (DHCP). This scheme uses a leader playing a | |||
role of a DHCP server within a cluster having connected vehicles | role of a DHCP server within a cluster having connected vehicles | |||
within a VANET. In a connected VANET, vehicles are connected with | within a VANET. In a connected VANET, vehicles are connected with | |||
each other with the communication range. In this VANET, VAC | each other within communication range. In this VANET, VAC | |||
dynamically elects a leader-vehicle to quickly provide vehicles with | dynamically elects a leader-vehicle to quickly provide vehicles with | |||
unique IP addresses. The leader-vehicle maintains updated | unique IP addresses. The leader-vehicle maintains updated | |||
information on configured addressed in its connected VANET. It aims | information on configured addresses in its connected VANET. It aims | |||
at the reduction of the frequency of IP address reconfiguration due | at the reduction of the frequency of IP address reconfiguration due | |||
to mobility. | to mobility. | |||
VAC defines the concept of SCOPE as a delimited geographic area where | VAC defines "SCOPE" to be a delimited geographic area within which IP | |||
IP addresses are guaranteed to be unique. When it is allocated an IP | addresses are guaranteed to be unique. When a vehicle is allocated | |||
address from a leader-vehicle with a scope, a vehicle is guaranteed | an IP address from a leader-vehicle with a scope, it is guaranteed to | |||
to have a unique IP address while moving within the scope of the | have a unique IP address while moving within the scope of the leader- | |||
leader-vehicle. If it moves out of the scope of the leader vehicle, | vehicle. If it moves out of the scope of the leader vehicle, it | |||
it needs to ask for another IP address from another leader-vehicle so | needs to ask for another IP address from another leader-vehicle so | |||
that its IP address can be unique within the scope of the new leader- | that its IP address can be unique within the scope of the new leader- | |||
vehicle. This approach may allow for less frequent change of an IP | vehicle. This approach may allow for less frequent change of an IP | |||
address than the address allocation from a fixed Internet gateway. | address than the address allocation from a fixed Internet gateway. | |||
Thus, VAC can support a feasible address autoconfiguration for V2V | Thus, VAC can support a feasible address autoconfiguration for V2V | |||
scenarios, but the overhead to guarantee the uniqueness of IP | scenarios, but the overhead to guarantee the uniqueness of IP | |||
addresses is not ignorable under high-speed mobility. | addresses is not ignorable under high-speed mobility. | |||
6.1.2. Routing and Address Assignment using Lane/Position Information | 6.1.2. Using Lane/Position Information | |||
in a Vehicular Ad-hoc Network | ||||
Kato et al. proposed an IPv6 address assignment scheme using lane and | Kato et al. proposed an IPv6 address assignment scheme using lane and | |||
position information [Address-Assignment]. In this addressing | position information [Address-Assignment]. In this addressing | |||
scheme, each lane of a road segment has a unique IPv6 prefix. When | scheme, each lane of a road segment has a unique IPv6 prefix. When | |||
it moves in a lane in a road segment, a vehicle autoconfigures its | it moves in a lane in a road segment, a vehicle autoconfigures its | |||
IPv6 address with its MAC address and the prefix assigned to the | IPv6 address with its MAC address and the prefix assigned to the | |||
lane. A group of vehicles constructs a connected VANET within the | lane. A group of vehicles constructs a connected VANET within the | |||
same subnet such that their IPv6 addresses have the same prefix. | same subnet such that their IPv6 addresses have the same prefix. | |||
Whenever it moves to another lane, a vehicle updates its IPv6 address | Whenever it moves to another lane, a vehicle updates its IPv6 address | |||
with the prefix corresponding to the new lane and also joins the | with the prefix corresponding to the new lane and also joins the | |||
group corresponding to the lane. | group corresponding to the lane. | |||
However, this address autoconfiguration scheme may have much overhead | However, this address autoconfiguration scheme may have too much | |||
in the case where vehicles change their lanes frequently in highway. | overhead when vehicles change their lanes frequently on the highway. | |||
6.1.3. GeoSAC: Scalable Address Autoconfiguration for VANET Using | 6.1.3. GeoSAC: Scalable Address Autoconfiguration | |||
Geographic Networking Concepts | ||||
Baldessari et al. proposed an IPv6 scalable address autoconfiguration | Baldessari et al. proposed an IPv6 scalable address autoconfiguration | |||
scheme called GeoSAC for vehicular networks [GeoSAC]. GeoSAC uses | scheme called GeoSAC for vehicular networks [GeoSAC]. GeoSAC uses | |||
geographic networking concepts such that it combines the standard | geographic networking concepts such that it combines the standard | |||
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) and geographic routing functionality. | IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) and geographic routing functionality. | |||
It matches geographically-scoped network partitions to individual | It matches geographically-scoped network partitions to individual | |||
IPv6 multicast-capable links. In the standard IPv6, all nodes within | IPv6 multicast-capable links. In the standard IPv6, all nodes within | |||
the same link must communicate with each other, but due to the | the same link must communicate with each other, but due to the | |||
characteristics of wireless links, this concept of a link is not | characteristics of wireless links, this concept of a link is not | |||
clear in vehicular networks. GeoSAC defines a link as a geographic | clear in vehicular networks. GeoSAC defines a link as a geographic | |||
area having a network partition. This geographic area can have a | area having a network partition. This geographic area can have a | |||
connected VANET. Thus, vehicles within the same VANET in a specific | connected VANET. Thus, vehicles within the same VANET in a specific | |||
geographic area are regarded as staying in the same link, that is, an | geographic area are regarded as staying in the same link, that is, an | |||
IPv6 multicast link. | IPv6 multicast link. | |||
This paper identifies four key requirements of IPv6 address | The GeoSAC paper identifies eight key requirements of IPv6 address | |||
autoconfiguration for vehicular networks: (i) the configuration of | autoconfiguration for vehicular networks: (i) the configuration of | |||
globally valid addresses, (ii) a low complexity for address | globally valid addresses, (ii) a low complexity for address | |||
autoconfiguration, (iii) a minimum signaling overhead of address | autoconfiguration, (iii) a minimum signaling overhead of address | |||
autoconfiguration, (iv) the support of network mobility through | autoconfiguration, (iv) the support of network mobility through | |||
movement detection, (v) an efficient gateway selection from multiple | movement detection, (v) an efficient gateway selection from multiple | |||
RSUs, (vi) a fully distributed address autoconfiguration for network | RSUs, (vi) a fully distributed address autoconfiguration for network | |||
security, (vii) the authentication and integrity of signaling | security, (vii) the authentication and integrity of signaling | |||
messages, and (viii) the privacy protection of vehicles' users. | messages, and (viii) the privacy protection of vehicles' users. | |||
To support the proposed link concept, GeoSAC performs ad hoc routing | To support the proposed link concept, GeoSAC performs ad hoc routing | |||
skipping to change at page 22, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 18 ¶ | |||
area and an IPv6 prefix belonging to an RSU, this paper takes | area and an IPv6 prefix belonging to an RSU, this paper takes | |||
advantage of an extended DNS service, using GPS-based addressing and | advantage of an extended DNS service, using GPS-based addressing and | |||
routing along with geographic IPv6 prefix format [GeoSAC]. | routing along with geographic IPv6 prefix format [GeoSAC]. | |||
Thus, GeoSAC can support the IPv6 link concept through geographic | Thus, GeoSAC can support the IPv6 link concept through geographic | |||
routing within a specific geographic area. | routing within a specific geographic area. | |||
6.1.4. Cross-layer Identities Management in ITS Stations | 6.1.4. Cross-layer Identities Management in ITS Stations | |||
ITS and vehicular networks are built on the concept of an ITS station | ITS and vehicular networks are built on the concept of an ITS station | |||
(e.g., vehicle and RSU), which is a common reference model inspired | (ITS-S) (e.g., vehicle and RSU), which is a common reference model | |||
from the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard | inspired from the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard | |||
[Identity-Management]. In vehicular networks using multiple access | [Identity-Management]. In vehicular networks using multiple access | |||
network technologies through a cross-layer architecture, a vehicle | network technologies through a cross-layer architecture, a vehicle | |||
with an OBU may have multiple identities corresponding to the access | with an OBU may have multiple identities corresponding to the access | |||
network interfaces. Wetterwald et al. conducted a comprehensive | network interfaces. Wetterwald et al. conducted a comprehensive | |||
study of the cross-layer identity management in vehicular networks | study of the cross-layer identity management in vehicular networks | |||
using multiple access network technologies, which constitutes a | using multiple access network technologies, which constitutes a | |||
fundamental element of the ITS architecture [Identity-Management]. | fundamental element of the ITS architecture [Identity-Management]. | |||
Besides considerations related to the case where ETSI GeoNetworking | Besides considerations related to the case where ETSI GeoNetworking | |||
[ETSI-GeoNetworking] is used, this paper analyzes the major | [ETSI-GeoNetworking] is used, this paper analyzes the major | |||
requirements and constraints weighing on the identities of ITS | requirements and constraints weighing on the identities of ITS | |||
stations, e.g., privacy and compatibility with safety applications | stations, e.g., privacy and compatibility with safety applications | |||
and communications. The concerns related to security and privacy of | and communications. The concerns related to security and privacy of | |||
the users need to be addressed for vehicular networking, considering | the users need to be addressed for vehicular networking, considering | |||
all the protocol layers simultaneously. In other words, for security | all the protocol layers. In other words, for security and privacy | |||
and privacy constraints to be met, the IPv6 address of a vehicle | constraints to be met, the IPv6 address of a vehicle should be | |||
should be derived from a pseudonym-based MAC address and renewed | derived from a pseudonym-based MAC address and renewed simultaneously | |||
simultaneously with that changing MAC address. This dynamically | with that changing MAC address. By dynamically changing its IPv6 | |||
changing IPv6 address can prevent the ITS station from being tracked | address, an ITS-S can avoid being tracked by a hacker. However, | |||
by a hacker. However, this address renewal cannot be applied at any | sometimes this address update cannot be applied; in some situations, | |||
time because in some situations, the continuity of the knowledge | continuous knowledge about the surrounding vehicles is required. | |||
about the surrounding vehicles is required. | ||||
Also, this paper defines a cross-layer framework that fulfills the | Also, the ITS-S Identity Management paper defines a cross-layer | |||
requirements on the identities of ITS stations and analyzes | framework that fulfills the requirements on the identities of ITS | |||
systematically, layer by layer, how an ITS station can be identified | stations and analyzes systematically, layer by layer, how an ITS | |||
uniquely and safely, whether it is a moving station (e.g., car and | station can be identified uniquely and safely, whether it is a moving | |||
bus using temporary trusted pseudonyms) or a static station (e.g., | station (e.g., car or bus using temporary trusted pseudonyms) or a | |||
RSU and central station). This paper has been applied to the | static station (e.g., RSU and central station). This paper has been | |||
specific case of the ETSI GeoNetworking as the network layer, but an | applied to the specific case of the ETSI GeoNetworking as the network | |||
identical reasoning should be applied to IPv6 over 802.11 in Outside | layer, but an identical reasoning should be applied to IPv6 over | |||
the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) mode now. | 802.11 in Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) mode now. | |||
6.2. Problem Statement | 6.2. Problem Statement for IP Address Autoconfiguration | |||
This section discusses IP addressing for the V2I and V2V networking. | This section discusses IP addressing for the V2I and V2V networking. | |||
There are two approaches for IPv6 addressing in vehicular networks. | There are two approaches for IPv6 addressing in vehicular networks. | |||
The first is to use unique local IPv6 unicast addresses (ULAs) for | The first is to use unique local IPv6 unicast addresses (ULAs) for | |||
vehicular networks [RFC4193]. The other is to use global IPv6 | vehicular networks [RFC4193]. The other is to use global IPv6 | |||
addresses for the interoperability with the Internet [RFC4291]. The | addresses for the interoperability with the Internet [RFC4291]. The | |||
former approach is often used by Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) for | former approach has been used sometimes by Mobile Ad Hoc Networks | |||
an isolated subnet. This approach can support the emergency | (MANET) for an isolated subnet. This approach can support the | |||
notification service and navigation service in road networks. | emergency notification service and navigation service in road | |||
However, for general Internet services (e.g., email access, web | networks. However, for general Internet services (e.g., email | |||
surfing and entertainment services), the latter approach is required. | access, web surfing and entertainment services), the latter approach | |||
is required. | ||||
For global IP addresses, there are two choices: a multi-link subnet | For global IP addresses, there are two choices: a multi-link subnet | |||
approach for multiple RSUs and a single subnet approach per RSU. In | approach for multiple RSUs and a single subnet approach per RSU. In | |||
the multi-link subnet approach, which is similar to ULA for MANET, | the multi-link subnet approach, which is similar to ULA for MANET, | |||
RSUs play a role of layer-2 (L2) switches and the router | RSUs play a role of layer-2 (L2) switches and the router | |||
interconnected with the RSUs is required. The router maintains the | interconnected with the RSUs is required. The router maintains the | |||
location of each vehicle belonging to an RSU for L2 switching. In | location of each vehicle belonging to an RSU for L2 switching. In | |||
the single subnet approach per RSU, which is similar to the legacy | the single subnet approach per RSU, which is similar to the legacy | |||
subnet in the Internet, each RSU plays the role of a (layer-3) | subnet in the Internet, each RSU plays the role of a (layer-3) | |||
router. | router. | |||
6.2.1. Neighbor Discovery | 6.2.1. Neighbor Discovery | |||
Neighbor Discovery (ND) is a core part of IPv6 protocol suite | Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol | |||
[RFC4861]. This section discusses an extension of ND for V2I | suite. This section discusses the need for modifying ND for use with | |||
networking. The vehicles are moving fast within the communication | V2I networking. The vehicles are moving fast within the | |||
coverage of an RSU. The external link between the vehicle and the | communication coverage of an RSU. The external link between the | |||
RSU can be used for V2I networking, as shown in Figure 2. | vehicle and the RSU can be used for V2I networking, as shown in | |||
Figure 2. | ||||
ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor | ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor | |||
Advertisement (NA) interval should be adjusted for high-speed | Advertisement (NA) interval should be adjusted for high-speed | |||
vehicles and vehicle density. As vehicles move faster, the NA | vehicles and vehicle density. As vehicles move faster, the NA | |||
interval should decrease for the NA messages to reach the neighboring | interval should decrease for the NA messages to reach the neighboring | |||
vehicles promptly. Also, as vehicle density is higher, the NA | vehicles promptly. Also, as vehicle density is higher, the NA | |||
interval should increase for the NA messages to collide with other NA | interval should increase for the NA messages to collide with other NA | |||
messages with lower collision probability. | messages with lower collision probability. | |||
6.2.2. IP Address Autoconfiguration | 6.2.2. IP Address Autoconfiguration | |||
skipping to change at page 24, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 21 ¶ | |||
periodically report their movement information (e.g., position, | periodically report their movement information (e.g., position, | |||
trajectory, speed, and direction) to TCC, TCC can coordinate the RSUs | trajectory, speed, and direction) to TCC, TCC can coordinate the RSUs | |||
under its control for the proactive IP address configuration of the | under its control for the proactive IP address configuration of the | |||
vehicles with the mobility information of the vehicles. DHCPv6 (or | vehicles with the mobility information of the vehicles. DHCPv6 (or | |||
Stateless DHCPv6) can be used for the IP address autoconfiguration | Stateless DHCPv6) can be used for the IP address autoconfiguration | |||
[RFC3315][RFC3736]. | [RFC3315][RFC3736]. | |||
In the case of a single subnet per RSU, the delay to change IPv6 | In the case of a single subnet per RSU, the delay to change IPv6 | |||
address through DHCPv6 procedure is not suitable since vehicles move | address through DHCPv6 procedure is not suitable since vehicles move | |||
fast. Some modifications are required for the high-speed vehicles | fast. Some modifications are required for the high-speed vehicles | |||
that quickly crosses the communication coverages of multiple RSUs. | that quickly traverses the communication coverages of multiple RSUs. | |||
Some modifications are required for both stateless address | Some modifications are required for both stateless address | |||
autoconfiguration and DHCPv6. Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) can be used for | autoconfiguration and DHCPv6. Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) can be used for | |||
the fast update of a vehicle's care-of address for the current RSU to | the fast update of a vehicle's care-of address for the current RSU to | |||
communicate with the vehicle [RFC6275]. | communicate with the vehicle [RFC6275]. | |||
For IP address autoconfiguration in V2V, vehicles can autoconfigure | For IP address autoconfiguration in V2V, vehicles can autoconfigure | |||
their address using prefixes for ULAs for vehicular networks | their address using prefixes for ULAs for vehicular networks | |||
[RFC4193]. | [RFC4193]. | |||
High-speed mobility should be considered for a light-overhead address | High-speed mobility should be considered for a light-overhead address | |||
skipping to change at page 24, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 47 ¶ | |||
IPv6 ND should be extended to support the concept of a link for an | IPv6 ND should be extended to support the concept of a link for an | |||
IPv6 prefix in terms of multicast. Ad Hoc routing is required for | IPv6 prefix in terms of multicast. Ad Hoc routing is required for | |||
the multicast in a connected VANET with the same IPv6 prefix | the multicast in a connected VANET with the same IPv6 prefix | |||
[GeoSAC]. A rapid DAD should be supported to prevent or reduce IPv6 | [GeoSAC]. A rapid DAD should be supported to prevent or reduce IPv6 | |||
address conflicts. | address conflicts. | |||
In the ETSI GeoNetworking, for the sake of security and privacy, an | In the ETSI GeoNetworking, for the sake of security and privacy, an | |||
ITS station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network | ITS station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network | |||
interface identities and the corresponding IPv6 addresses | interface identities and the corresponding IPv6 addresses | |||
[Identity-Management]. For the continuity of an end-to-end transport | [Identity-Management]. For the continuity of an end-to-end transport | |||
session, the cross-layer identity management should be performed | session, the cross-layer identity management has to be performed | |||
carefully. | carefully. | |||
7. Routing | 7. Routing | |||
This section surveys routing in vehicular networks, and then | This section surveys routing in vehicular networks, and then | |||
discusses problem statement for routing in vehicular networks. | discusses problem statement for routing in vehicular networks. | |||
7.1. Existing Protocols | 7.1. Existing Routing Protocols | |||
7.1.1. Experimental Evaluation for IPv6 over VANET Geographic Routing | 7.1.1. Experimental Evaluation for IPv6 over GeoNet | |||
Tsukada et al. presented a work that aims at combining IPv6 | Tsukada et al. presented a work that aims at combining IPv6 | |||
networking and a Car-to-Car Network routing protocol (called C2CNet) | networking and a Car-to-Car Network routing protocol (called C2CNet) | |||
proposed by the Car2Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC), which is | proposed by the Car2Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC), which is | |||
an architecture using a geographic routing protocol | an architecture using a geographic routing protocol | |||
[VANET-Geo-Routing]. In C2C-CC architecture, C2CNet layer is located | [VANET-Geo-Routing]. In the C2C-CC architecture, the C2CNet layer is | |||
between IPv6 and link layers. Thus, an IPv6 packet is delivered with | located between IPv6 and link layers. Thus, an IPv6 packet is | |||
outer C2CNet header, which introduces the challenge of how to support | delivered with an outer C2CNet header, which introduces the challenge | |||
the communication types defined in C2CNet in IPv6 layer. | of how to support the communication types defined in C2CNet in IPv6 | |||
layer. | ||||
The main goal of GeoNet is to enhance these specifications and create | The main goal of GeoNet is to enhance the C2C specifications and | |||
a prototype software implementation interfacing with IPv6. C2CNet is | create a prototype software implementation interfacing with IPv6. | |||
specified in C2C-CC as a geographic routing protocol. | C2CNet is specified in C2C-CC as a geographic routing protocol. | |||
In order to assess the performance of this protocol, the authors | In order to assess the performance of C2CNet, the authors measured | |||
measured the network performance with UDP and ICMPv6 traffic using | the network performance with UDP and ICMPv6 traffic using iperf and | |||
iperf and ping6. The test results show that IPv6 over C2CNet does | ping6. The test results show that IPv6 over C2CNet does not have too | |||
not have too much delay (less than 4ms with a single hop) and is | much delay (less than 4ms with a single hop) and is feasible for | |||
feasible for vehicle communication. In the outdoor testbed, they | vehicle communication. In the outdoor testbed, they developed | |||
developed AnaVANET to enable hop-by-hop performance measurement and | AnaVANET to enable hop-by-hop performance measurement and position | |||
position trace of the vehicles. | trace of the vehicles. | |||
The combination of IPv6 multicast and GeoBroadcast was implemented, | The combination of IPv6 multicast and GeoBroadcast was implemented; | |||
however, the authors did not evaluate the performance with such a | however, the authors did not evaluate the performance with such a | |||
scenario. One of the reasons is that a sufficiently high number of | scenario. One of the reasons is that a sufficiently high number of | |||
receivers are necessary to properly evaluate multicast but | receivers are necessary to properly evaluate multicast but | |||
experimental evaluation is limited in the number of vehicles (4 in | experimental evaluation is limited in the number of vehicles (4 in | |||
this study). | this study). | |||
7.1.2. Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery Protocol for | 7.1.2. Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery | |||
VANets | ||||
Abrougui et al. presented a gateway discovery scheme for VANET, | Abrougui et al. presented a gateway discovery scheme for VANET, | |||
called Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery (LAGAD) | called Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and Discovery (LAGAD) | |||
mechanism[LAGAD]. LAGAD enables vehicles to route packets toward the | mechanism[LAGAD]. LAGAD enables vehicles to route packets toward the | |||
closest gateway quickly by discovering nearby gateways. The major | closest gateway quickly by discovering nearby gateways. The major | |||
problem that LAGAD tackles is to determin the radius of advertisement | problem that LAGAD tackles is to determine the radius of | |||
zone of a gateway, which considers location and velocity of a | advertisement zone of a gateway, which depends on the location and | |||
vehicle. | velocity of a vehicle. | |||
A gateway sends advertisement (GAdv) messages perodically to one-hop | A gateway sends advertisement (GAdv) messages perodically to | |||
vehicles. When receiving a request message from a vehicle, the | neighboring vehicles. When receiving a request message from a | |||
gateway replies to the source vehicle by a gateway reply (GRep) | vehicle, the gateway replies to the source vehicle by a gateway reply | |||
message. The GRep message contains the location information of the | (GRep) message. The GRep message contains the location information | |||
gateway and the subnet prefix of the gateway by which the source | of the gateway and the subnet prefix of the gateway by which the | |||
vehicle can send data packet via the gateway. Then, the gateway | source vehicle can send data packet via the gateway. The gateway | |||
sends GAdv messages through all vehicles within an advertisement zone | sends GAdv messages through all vehicles within an advertisement zone | |||
built based on the velocity of the source vehicle. | built based on the velocity of the source vehicle. | |||
The source vehicle starts gateway discovery process by sending | The source vehicle starts gateway discovery process by sending | |||
routing request packets. The routing request packets is encapsulated | routing request packets. The routing request packet is encapsulated | |||
into a Gateway Reactive Discovery (GRD) packet or a GReq message to | into a Gateway Reactive Discovery (GRD) packet or a GReq message to | |||
send to the sourrounding vehilces. The GRD contains both discovery | send to the surrounding vehicles. The GRD contains both discovery | |||
and routing information as well as the location and the velocity of | and routing information as well as the location and the velocity of | |||
the source vehicle. Meanwhile, the intermediate vehicles in an | the source vehicle. Meanwhile, the intermediate vehicles in an | |||
advertisement zone of the gateway forward packets sent from the | advertisement zone of the gateway forward packets sent from the | |||
source vehicle. The gateway continuously updates the advertisement | source vehicle. The gateway continuously updates the advertisement | |||
zone whenever receiving a new data packet from the source vehicle. | zone whenever receiving a new data packet from the source vehicle. | |||
7.2. Problem Statement | 7.2. Routing Problem Statement | |||
IP address autoconfiguration should be manipulated to support the | IP address autoconfiguration should be modified to support the | |||
efficient networking. Due to network fragmentation, vehicles cannot | efficient networking. Due to network fragmentation, vehicles | |||
communicate with each other temporarily. IPv6 ND should consider the | sometimes cannot communicate with each other temporarily. IPv6 ND | |||
temporary network fragmentation. IPv6 link concept can be supported | should consider the temporary network fragmentation. IPv6 link | |||
by Geographic routing to connect vehicles with the same IPv6 prefix. | concept can be supported by Geographic routing to connect vehicles | |||
with the same IPv6 prefix. | ||||
The gateway advertisement and discovery process for routing in VANET | The gateway advertisement and discovery process for routing in VANET | |||
can work probably when the density of vehicle in a road network is | can probably work when the density of vehicle in a road network is | |||
not sparse. A sparse vehicular network challenges the gateway | not sparse. A sparse vehicular network challenges the gateway | |||
discovery since the network fragmentation interrupts the discovery | discovery since network fragmentation interrupts the discovery | |||
process. | process. | |||
8. Mobility Management | 8. Mobility Management | |||
This section surveys mobility management schemes in vehicular | This section surveys mobility management schemes in vehicular | |||
networks to support handover, and then discusses problem statement | networks to support handover, and then discusses problem statement | |||
for mobility management in vehicular networks. | for mobility management in vehicular networks. | |||
8.1. Existing Protocols | 8.1. Existing Protocols | |||
8.1.1. An IP Passing Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with | 8.1.1. Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Network Fragmentation | |||
Network Fragmentation | ||||
Chen et al. tackled the issue of network fragmentation in VANET | Chen et al. tackled the issue of network fragmentation in VANET | |||
environments [IP-Passing-Protocol]. The paper proposes a protocol | environments [IP-Passing-Protocol]. The paper proposes a protocol | |||
that can postpone the time to release IP addresses to the DHCP server | that can postpone the time to release IP addresses to the DHCP server | |||
and select a faster way to get the vehicle's new IP address, when the | and select a faster way to get the vehicle's new IP address, when the | |||
vehicle density is low or the speeds of vehicles are varied. In such | vehicle density is low or the speeds of vehicles are varied. In such | |||
circumstances, the vehicle may not be able to communicate with the | circumstances, the vehicle may not be able to communicate with the | |||
intended vehicle either directly or through multi-hop relays as a | intended vehicle either directly or through multi-hop relays as a | |||
consequence of network fragmentation. | consequence of network fragmentation. | |||
skipping to change at page 27, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 45 ¶ | |||
Simulations results show that for the proposed protocol, network | Simulations results show that for the proposed protocol, network | |||
fragmentation ratio incurs less impact. Vehicle speed and density | fragmentation ratio incurs less impact. Vehicle speed and density | |||
has great impact on the performance of the IP passing protocol | has great impact on the performance of the IP passing protocol | |||
because vehicle speed and vehicle density will affect network | because vehicle speed and vehicle density will affect network | |||
fragmentation ratio. A longer IP lifetime can provide a vehicle with | fragmentation ratio. A longer IP lifetime can provide a vehicle with | |||
more chances to acquire its IP address through IP passing. | more chances to acquire its IP address through IP passing. | |||
Simulation results show that the proposed scheme can reduce IP | Simulation results show that the proposed scheme can reduce IP | |||
acquisition time and packet loss rate, so extend IP lifetime with | acquisition time and packet loss rate, so extend IP lifetime with | |||
extra message overhead. | extra message overhead. | |||
8.1.2. A Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management for | 8.1.2. Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management | |||
Supporting Highly Mobile Users | ||||
Nguyen et al. proposed a hybrid centralized-distributed mobility | Nguyen et al. proposed a hybrid centralized-distributed mobility | |||
management called H-DMM to support highly mobile vehicles [H-DMM]. | management called H-DMM to support highly mobile vehicles [H-DMM]. | |||
The legacy DMM is not suitable for high-speed scenarios because it | Legacy mobility management systems are not suitable for high-speed | |||
requires additional registration delay proportional to the distance | scenarios because a registration delay is imposed proportional to the | |||
between a vehicle and its anchor network. H-DMM is designed to | distance between a vehicle and its anchor network. H-DMM is designed | |||
satisfy a set of requirements, such as service disruption time, end- | to satisfy requirements such as service disruption time, end-to-end | |||
to-end delay, packet delivery cost, and tunneling cost. | delay, packet delivery cost, and tunneling cost. | |||
H-DMM adopts a central node called central mobility anchor (CMA), | H-DMM proposes a central node called central mobility anchor (CMA), | |||
which plays the role of a local mobility anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6. | which plays the role of a local mobility anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6. | |||
When it enters a mobile access router (MAR) as an access router, a | When it enters a mobile access router (MAR) as an access router, a | |||
vehicle obtains a prefix from the MAR (called MAR-prefix) according | vehicle obtains a prefix from the MAR (called MAR-prefix) according | |||
to the legacy DMM protocol. In addition, it obtains another prefix | to the legacy DMM protocol. In addition, it obtains another prefix | |||
from the CMA (called LMA-prefix) for a PMIPv6 domain. Whenever it | from the CMA (called LMA-prefix) for a PMIPv6 domain. Whenever it | |||
performs a handover between the subnets for two adjacent MARs, a | performs a handover between the subnets for two adjacent MARs, a | |||
vehicle keeps the LMA-prefix while obtaining a new prefix from the | vehicle keeps the LMA-prefix while obtaining a new prefix from the | |||
new MAR. For a new data exchange with a new CN, the vehicle can | new MAR. For a new data exchange with a new CN, the vehicle can | |||
select the MAR-prefix or the LMA-prefix for its own source IPv6 | select the MAR-prefix or the LMA-prefix for its own source IPv6 | |||
address. If the number of active prefixes is greater than a | address. If the number of active prefixes is greater than a | |||
threshold, the vehicle uses the LMA-prefix-based IPv6 address as its | threshold, the vehicle uses the LMA-prefix-based IPv6 address as its | |||
source address. In addition, it can continue receiving data packets | source address. In addition, it can continue receiving data packets | |||
with the destination IPv6 addresses based on the previous prefixes | with the destination IPv6 addresses based on the previous prefixes | |||
through the legacy DMM protocol. | through the legacy DMM protocol. | |||
Thus, H-DMM can support an efficient tunneling for a high-speed | Thus, H-DMM can support an efficient tunneling for a high-speed | |||
vehicle that moves fast across the subnets of two adjacent MARs. | vehicle that moves fast across the subnets of two adjacent MARs. | |||
However, when H-DMM asks a vehicle to perform DAD for the uniqueness | However, when H-DMM asks a vehicle to perform DAD for the uniqueness | |||
test of its configured IPv6 address in the subnet of the next MAR, | test of its configured IPv6 address in the subnet of the next MAR, | |||
the activation of the configured IPv6 address for networking will | the activation of the configured IPv6 address for networking will be | |||
take a delay. This indicates that a proactive DAD by a network | delayed. This indicates that a proactive DAD by a network component | |||
component (i.e., MAR and LMA) can shorten the address configuration | (i.e., MAR and LMA) can shorten the address configuration delay of | |||
delay of the current DAD triggered by a vehicle. | the current DAD triggered by a vehicle. | |||
8.1.3. A Hybrid Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management | 8.1.3. Hybrid Architecture for Network Mobility Management | |||
Architecture for Network Mobility | ||||
Nguyen et al. proposed H-NEMO, a hybrid centralized-distributed | Nguyen et al. proposed H-NEMO, a hybrid centralized-distributed | |||
mobility management scheme to handle IP mobility of moving vehicles | mobility management scheme to handle IP mobility of moving vehicles | |||
[H-NEMO]. The standard Network Mobility (NEMO) basic support, which | [H-NEMO]. The standard Network Mobility (NEMO) basic support, which | |||
is a centralized scheme for network mobility, provides IP mobility | is a centralized scheme for network mobility, provides IP mobility | |||
for a group of users in a moving vehicle, but also inherits the | for a group of users in a moving vehicle, but also inherits the | |||
drawbacks from Mobile IPv6, such as suboptimal routing and signaling | drawbacks from Mobile IPv6, such as suboptimal routing and signaling | |||
overhead in nested scenarios as well as reliability and scalability | overhead in nested scenarios as well as reliability and scalability | |||
issues. On the contrary, distributed schemes such as the recently | issues. On the contrary, distributed schemes such as the recently | |||
proposed Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) locates the mobility | proposed Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) locates the mobility | |||
skipping to change at page 29, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 18 ¶ | |||
anchor and one from the mobile access router (MAR). In this way, the | anchor and one from the mobile access router (MAR). In this way, the | |||
MR/MN may choose a more stable prefix for long-lived flows to be | MR/MN may choose a more stable prefix for long-lived flows to be | |||
routed via the central mobility anchor and the MAR-prefix for short- | routed via the central mobility anchor and the MAR-prefix for short- | |||
lived flows to be routed following the DMM concept. The multi-hop | lived flows to be routed following the DMM concept. The multi-hop | |||
scenario is considered under the concept of a nested-NEMO. | scenario is considered under the concept of a nested-NEMO. | |||
Nguyen et al. did not provide simulation-based evaluations, but they | Nguyen et al. did not provide simulation-based evaluations, but they | |||
provided an analytical evaluation that considered signaling and | provided an analytical evaluation that considered signaling and | |||
packet delivery costs, and showed that H-NEMO outperforms the | packet delivery costs, and showed that H-NEMO outperforms the | |||
previous proposals, which are either centralized or distributed ones | previous proposals, which are either centralized or distributed ones | |||
with NEMO support. In particular cases, such as the signaling cost, | with NEMO support. For some measures, such as the signaling cost, | |||
H-NEMO is more costly than centralized schemes when the velocity of | H-NEMO may be more costly than centralized schemes when the velocity | |||
the node is increasing, but behaves better in terms of packet | of the node is increasing, but behaves better in terms of packet | |||
delivery cost and handover delay. | delivery cost and handover delay. | |||
8.1.4. NEMO-Enabled Localized Mobility Support for Internet Access in | 8.1.4. NEMO-Enabled Localized Mobility Support | |||
Automotive Scenarios | ||||
In [NEMO-LMS], authors proposed an architecture to enable IP mobility | In [NEMO-LMS], the authors proposed an architecture to enable IP | |||
for moving networks in a network-based mobility scheme based on | mobility for moving networks using a network-based mobility scheme | |||
PMIPv6. In PMIPv6, only mobile terminals are provided with IP | based on PMIPv6. In PMIPv6, only mobile terminals are provided with | |||
mobility. Different from host-based mobility, PMIPv6 shifts the | IP mobility. In contrast to from host-based mobility, PMIPv6 shifts | |||
signaling to the network side, so that the mobile access gateway | the signaling to the network side, so that the mobile access gateway | |||
(MAG) is in charge of detecting connection/disconnection of the | (MAG) is in charge of detecting connection/disconnection of the | |||
mobile node, upon which the signaling to the Local Mobility Anchor | mobile node, upon which the signaling to the Local Mobility Anchor | |||
(LMA) is triggered to guarantee a stable IP addressing assignment | (LMA) is triggered to guarantee a stable IP addressing assignment | |||
when the mobile node performs handover to a new MAG. | when the mobile node performs handover to a new MAG. | |||
Soto et al. proposed NEMO support in PMIPv6 (N-PMIP). In this | Soto et al. proposed NEMO support in PMIPv6 (N-PMIP). In this | |||
scheme, the functionality of the MAG is extended to the mobile router | scheme, the functionality of the MAG is extended to the mobile router | |||
(MR), also called a mobile MAG (mMAG). The functionality of the | (MR), also called a mobile MAG (mMAG). The functionality of the | |||
mobile terminal remains unchanged, but it can receive an IPv6 prefix | mobile terminal remains unchanged, but it can receive an IPv6 prefix | |||
belonging to the PMIPv6 domain through the new functionality of the | belonging to the PMIPv6 domain through the new functionality of the | |||
mMAG. Therefore, in N-PMIP, the mobile terminal connects to the MR | mMAG. Therefore, in N-PMIP, the mobile terminal connects to the MR | |||
as if it is connecting to a fixed MAG, and the MR connects to the | as if it is connecting to a fixed MAG, and the MR connects to the | |||
fixed MAG with the standardized signaling of PMIPv6. When the mobile | fixed MAG using PMIPv6 signaling. When the mobile terminal roams to | |||
terminal roams to a new MAG or a new MR, the network forwards the | a new MAG or a new MR, the network forwards the packets through the | |||
packets through the LMA. Hence, N-PMIP defines an extended | LMA. Hence, N-PMIP defines an extended functionality in the LMA that | |||
functionality in the LMA that enables a recursive lookup. First, it | enables a recursive lookup. First, it locates the binding entry | |||
locates the binding entry corresponding to the mMAGr. Next, it | corresponding to the mMAG. Next, it locates the entry corresponding | |||
locates the entry corresponding to the fixed MAG, after which the LMA | to the fixed MAG, after which the LMA can encapsulate packets to the | |||
can encapsulate packets to the mMAG to which the mobile terminal is | mMAG to which the mobile terminal is currently connected. | |||
currently connected. | ||||
The performance of N-PMIP was evaluated through simulations and | The performance of N-PMIP was evaluated through simulations and | |||
compared to a NEMO+MIPv6+PMIPv6 scheme, with better results obtained | compared to a NEMO+MIPv6+PMIPv6 scheme, with better results obtained | |||
in N-PMIP. The work did not consider the case of multi-hop | in N-PMIP. The work did not consider the case of multi-hop | |||
connectivity in the vehicular scenario. In addition, since the MR | connectivity in the vehicular scenario. In addition, since the MR | |||
should be a trusted entity in the PMIP domain, it requires specific | should be a trusted entity in the PMIP domain, it requires specific | |||
security associations that were not addressed in [NEMO-LMS]. | security associations that were not addressed in [NEMO-LMS]. | |||
8.1.5. Network Mobility Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks | 8.1.5. Network Mobility for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks | |||
Chen et al. proposed a network mobility protocol to reduce handoff | Chen et al. proposed a network mobility protocol to reduce handoff | |||
delay and maintain Internet connectivity to moving vehicles in a | delay and maintain Internet connectivity to moving vehicles in a | |||
highway [NEMO-VANET]. In this work, vehicles can acquire IP | highway [NEMO-VANET]. In this work, vehicles can acquire IP | |||
addresses from other vehicles through V2V communications. At the | addresses from other vehicles through V2V communications. At the | |||
time the vehicle goes out of the coverage of the base station, | time the vehicle goes out of the coverage of the base station, | |||
another vehicle may assist the roaming car to acquire a new IP | another vehicle may assist the roaming car to acquire a new IP | |||
address. Also, cars on the same or opposite lane are entitled to | address. Also, cars on the same or opposite lane are authorized to | |||
assist the vehicle to perform a pre-handoff. | assist the vehicle to perform a pre-handoff. | |||
Authors assumed that the wireless connectivity is provided by WiFi | The authors assumed that the wireless connectivity is provided by | |||
and WiMAX access networks. Also, they considered scenarios in which | WiFi and WiMAX access networks. Also, they considered scenarios in | |||
a single vehicle, i.e., a bus, may need two mobile routers in order | which a single vehicle, i.e., a bus, may need two mobile routers in | |||
to have an effective pre-handoff procedure. Evaluations are | order to have an effective pre-handoff procedure. Evaluations are | |||
performed through simulations and the comparison schemes are the | performed through simulations and the comparison schemes are the | |||
standard NEMO Basic Support protocol and the fast NEMO Basic Support | standard NEMO Basic Support protocol and the fast NEMO Basic Support | |||
protocol. Authors did not mention applicability of the scheme in | protocol. Authors did not mention applicability of the scheme in | |||
other scenarios such as in urban transport schemes. | other scenarios such as in urban transport schemes. | |||
8.1.6. Performance Analysis of PMIPv6-Based Network MObility for | 8.1.6. Performance Analysis of P-NEMO for ITS | |||
Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||
Lee et al. proposed P-NEMO, which is an IP mobility management scheme | Lee et al. proposed P-NEMO, which is a PMIPv6-based IP mobility | |||
to maintain the Internet connectivity at the vehicle as a mobile | management scheme to maintain the Internet connectivity at the | |||
network, and provides a make-before-break mechanism when vehicles | vehicle as a mobile network, and provides a make-before-break | |||
switch to a new access network [PMIP-NEMO-Analysis]. Since the | mechanism when vehicles switch to a new access network | |||
standard PMIPv6 only supports mobility for a single node, the | [PMIP-NEMO-Analysis]. Since the standard PMIPv6 only supports | |||
solution in [PMIP-NEMO-Analysis] adapts the protocol to reduce the | mobility for a single node, the solution in [PMIP-NEMO-Analysis] | |||
signaling when a local network is to be served by the in-vehicle | adapts the protocol to reduce the signaling when a local network is | |||
mobile router. To achieve this, P-NEMO extends the binding update | to be served by an in-vehicle mobile router. To achieve this, P-NEMO | |||
lists at both MAG and LMA, so that the mobile router (MR) can receive | extends the binding update lists at both MAG and LMA, so that the | |||
a home network prefix (HNP) and a mobile network prefix (MNP). The | mobile router (MR) can receive a home network prefix (HNP) and a | |||
latter prefix enables mobility for the moving network, instead of a | mobile network prefix (MNP). The latter prefix enables mobility for | |||
single node as in the standard PMIPv6. | the moving network, instead of a single node as in the standard | |||
PMIPv6. | ||||
An additional feature is proposed by Lee et al. named fast P-NEMO | An additional feature is proposed by Lee et al. named fast P-NEMO | |||
(FP-NEMO). It adopts the fast handover approach standardized for | (FP-NEMO). It adopts the fast handover approach standardized for | |||
PMIPv6 in [RFC5949] with both predictive and reactive modes. The | PMIPv6 in [RFC5949] with both predictive and reactive modes. The | |||
difference of the proposed feature with the standard version is that | difference of the proposed feature with the standard version is that | |||
by using the extensions provided by P-NEMO, the predictive | by using the extensions provided by P-NEMO, the predictive | |||
transferring of the context from the old MAG to the new MAG also | transferring of the context from the old MAG to the new MAG also | |||
includes information for the moving network, i.e., the MNP, so that | includes information for the moving network, i.e., the MNP. In that | |||
mobility support can be achieved not only for the mobile router, but | way, mobility support can be achieved not only for the mobile router, | |||
also for mobile nodes traveling with the vehicle. | but also for mobile nodes traveling with the vehicle. | |||
The performance of P-NEMO and F-NEMO is only evaluated through an | The performance of P-NEMO and F-NEMO is evaluated through an | |||
analytical model that is compared to the standard NEMO-BS. No | analytical model that is compared only to the standard NEMO-BS. No | |||
comparison was provided to other schemes that enable network mobility | comparison was provided to other schemes that enable network mobility | |||
in PMIPv6 domains, such as the one presented in [NEMO-LMS]. | in PMIPv6 domains, such as the one presented in [NEMO-LMS]. | |||
8.1.7. A Novel Mobility Management Scheme for Integration of Vehicular | 8.1.7. Integration of VANets and Fixed IP Networks | |||
Ad Hoc Networks and Fixed IP Networks | ||||
Peng et al. proposed a novel mobility management scheme for | Peng et al. proposed a novel mobility management scheme for | |||
integration of VANET and fixed IP networks [VNET-MM]. The proposed | integration of VANET and fixed IP networks [VNET-MM]. The proposed | |||
scheme deals with mobility of vehicles based on a street layout | scheme deals with mobility of vehicles based on a street layout | |||
instead of a general two dimensional ad hoc network. This scheme | instead of a general two dimensional ad hoc network. This scheme | |||
makes use of the information provided by vehicular networks to reduce | makes use of the information provided by vehicular networks to reduce | |||
mobility management overhead. It allows multiple base stations that | mobility management overhead. It allows multiple base stations that | |||
are close to a destination vehicle to discover the connection to the | are close to a destination vehicle to discover the connection to the | |||
vehicle simultaneously, which leads to an improvement of the | vehicle simultaneously, which leads to an improvement of the | |||
connectivity and data delivery ratio without redundant messages. The | connectivity and data delivery ratio without redundant messages. The | |||
performance was assessed by using a road traffic simulator called | performance was assessed by using a road traffic simulator called | |||
SUMO (Simulation of Urban Mobility). | SUMO (Simulation of Urban Mobility). | |||
8.1.8. SDN-based Distributed Mobility Management for 5G Networks | 8.1.8. SDN-based Mobility Management for 5G Networks | |||
Nguyen et al. extended their previous works on a vehicular adapted | Nguyen et al. extended their previous works on a vehicular adapted | |||
DMM considering a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) architecture | DMM considering a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) architecture | |||
[SDN-DMM]. On one hand, in their previous work, Nguyen et al. | [SDN-DMM]. On one hand, in their previous work, Nguyen et al. | |||
proposed DMM-PMIP and DMM-MIP architectures for VANET. The major | proposed DMM-PMIP and DMM-MIP architectures for VANET. The major | |||
innovation behind DMM is to distribute the Mobility Functions (MF) | innovation behind DMM is to distribute the Mobility Functions (MFs) | |||
through the network instead of concentrating them in one bottleneck | through the network instead of concentrating them in one bottleneck | |||
MF, or in a hierarchically organized backbone of MF. Highly mobile | MF, or in a hierarchically organized backbone of MFs. Highly mobile | |||
vehicular networks impose frequent IP route optimizations that lead | vehicular networks impose frequent IP route optimizations that lead | |||
to suboptimal routes (detours) between CN and vehicles. The | to suboptimal routes (detours) between CN and vehicles. The | |||
suboptimality critically increases by nested or hierarchical MF | suboptimality critically increases when there are nested or | |||
nodes. Therefore, flattening the IP mobility architecture | hierarchical MF nodes. Therefore, flattening the IP mobility | |||
significantly reduces detours, as it is the role of the last MF to | architecture significantly reduces detours, as it is the role of the | |||
get the closest next MF (in most cases nearby). Yet, with an MF | last MF to get the closest next MF (in most cases nearby). Yet, with | |||
being distributed throughout the network, a Control plane becomes | an MF being distributed throughout the network, a Control plane | |||
necessary in order to provide a solution for CN to address vehicles. | becomes necessary in order to provide a solution for CN to address | |||
The various solutions developed by Nguyen at al. not only showed the | vehicles. The various solutions developed by Nguyen at al. not only | |||
large benefit of a DMM approach for IPv6 mobility management, but | showed the large benefit of a DMM approach for IPv6 mobility | |||
also emphasized the critical role of an efficient Control plane. | management, but also emphasized the critical role of an efficient | |||
Control plane. | ||||
One the other hand, SDN recently appeared and gained a big attention | One the other hand, SDN has recently gained attention from the | |||
from the Internet Networking community due to its capacity to provide | Internet Networking community due to its capacity to provide a | |||
a significantly higher scalability of highly dynamic flows, which is | significantly higher scalability of highly dynamic flows, which is | |||
required by future 5G dynamic networks. In particular, SDN also | required by future 5G dynamic networks In particular, SDN also | |||
suggests a strict separation between a Control plane (SDN-Controller) | suggests a strict separation between a Control plane (SDN-Controller) | |||
and a Data plane (OpenFlow Switches) based on the OpenFlow standard. | and a Data plane (OpenFlow Switches) based on the OpenFlow standard. | |||
Such an architecture has two advantages that are critical for IP | Such an architecture has two advantages that are critical for IP | |||
mobility management in VANET. First, unlike traditional routing | mobility management in VANET. First, unlike traditional routing | |||
mechanisms, OpenFlow focuses on flows rather than optimized routes. | mechanisms, OpenFlow focuses on flows rather than optimized routes. | |||
Accordingly, they can optimize routing based on flows (grouping | Accordingly, they can optimize routing based on flows (grouping | |||
multiple flows in one route, or allowing one flow to have different | multiple flows in one route, or allowing one flow to have different | |||
routes), and can detect broken flows much earlier than the | routes), and can detect broken flows much earlier than the | |||
traditional networking solutions. Second, SDN controllers may | traditional networking solutions. Second, SDN controllers may | |||
dynamically reprogram (reconfigure) OpenFlow Switches (OFS) to always | dynamically reprogram (reconfigure) OpenFlow Switches (OFS) to always | |||
keep an optimal route between CN and a vehicular node. | keep an optimal route between CN and a vehicular node. | |||
Nguyen et. al observed the mutual benefits IPv6 DMM could obtain from | Nguyen et. al observed the mutual benefits IPv6 DMM could obtain from | |||
an SDN architecture, and then proposed an SDN-based DMM for VANET. | an SDN architecture, and then proposed an SDN-based DMM for VANET. | |||
In their proposed architecture, a PMIP-DMM is used, where MF is OFS | In their proposed architecture, a PMIP-DMM is used, where MF is OFS | |||
for the Data plane, and one or more SDN controllers handle the | for the Data plane, and one or more SDN controllers handle the | |||
Control plane. The evaluation and prototype in the paper prove that | Control plane. The evaluation and prototype in the paper prove that | |||
the proposed architecture can provide a higher scalability than the | the proposed architecture can provide a higher scalability than the | |||
standard DMM. | standard DMM. | |||
This paper makes several observations leading to a strong suggestions | The SDN-DMM paper makes several observations leading to a strong | |||
that IP mobility management should be based on an SDN architecture. | suggestion that IP mobility management should be based on an SDN | |||
First, SDN will be integrated into future Internet and 5G in a near | architecture. First, SDN will be integrated into future Internet and | |||
future. Second, after separating the Identity and Routing | 5G in the near future. Second, after separating the Identity and | |||
addressing, IP mobility management further requires to separate the | Routing addressing, IP mobility management further requires to | |||
Control from the Data plane if it needs to remain scalable for VANET. | separate the Control from the Data plane if it needs to remain | |||
Finally, Flow-based routing (in particular OpenFlow standard) will be | scalable for VANET. Finally, Flow-based routing (in particular | |||
required in future heterogeneous vehicular networks (e.g., multi-RAT | OpenFlow standard) will be required in future heterogeneous vehicular | |||
and multi-protocol) and the SDN coupled with DMM provides a double | networks (e.g., multi-RAT and multi-protocol) and the SDN coupled | |||
benefit of dynamic flow detection/reconfiguration and short(-er) | with DMM provides a double benefit of dynamic flow detection/ | |||
route optimizations. | reconfiguration and short(-er) route optimizations. | |||
8.1.9. IP Mobility Management for Vehicular Communication Networks: | 8.1.9. IP Mobility for VANETs: Challenges and Solutions | |||
Challenges and Solutions | ||||
Cespedes et al. provided a survey of the challenges for NEMO Basic | Cespedes et al. provided a survey of the challenges for NEMO Basic | |||
Support for VANET [Vehicular-IP-MM]. NEMO allows the management of a | Support for VANET [Vehicular-IP-MM]. NEMO allows the management of a | |||
group of nodes (a mobile network) rather than a single node. | group of nodes (a mobile network) rather than a single node. | |||
However, although a vehicle and even a platoon of vehicles could be | However, although a vehicle and even a platoon of vehicles could be | |||
seen as a group of nodes, NEMO has not been designed considering the | seen as a group of nodes, NEMO has not been designed considering the | |||
particularities of VANET. For example, NEMO builds a tunnel between | particularities of VANET. For example, NEMO builds a tunnel between | |||
an MR (on board of a vehicle) and its HA, which in a VANET context is | an MR (on board of a vehicle) and its HA, which in a VANET context is | |||
suboptimal, for instance due to over-the-air tunneling cost, the | suboptimal, for instance due to over-the-air tunneling cost. Also, a | |||
detour taken to pass by the MR's HA even if the CN is nearby, or the | detour may be taken by the MR's HA, even if the CN is nearby. | |||
route optimization when the MR moves to a new AR. | Furthermore, route optimization is needed when the MR moves to a new | |||
AR. | ||||
Cespedes et al. first summarize the requirements of IP mobility | Cespedes et al. first summarize the requirements of IP mobility | |||
management, such as reduced power at end-device, reduced handover | management, such as reduced power at end-device, reduced handover | |||
event, reduced complexity, or reduced bandwidth consumption. VANET | event, reduced complexity, or reduced bandwidth consumption. VANET | |||
adds the following requirements, such as minimum signaling for route | adds the following requirements, such as minimum signaling for route | |||
optimization (RO), per-flow separability, security and binding | optimization (RO), per-flow separability, security and binding | |||
privacy protection, multi-homing, and switching HA. As observed, | privacy protection, multi-homing, and switching HA. As observed, | |||
these provide several challenges to IP mobility and NEMO BS for | these provide several challenges to IP mobility and NEMO BS for | |||
VANET. | VANET. | |||
Cespedes et al. then describe various optimization schemes available | Cespedes et al. then describe various optimization schemes available | |||
for NEMO BS. Considering a single hop connection to CN, one major | for NEMO BS. Considering a single hop connection to CN, one major | |||
optimization direction is to avoid the HA detour and reach the CN | optimization direction is to avoid the HA detour and reach the CN | |||
directly. In that direction, a few optimizations are proposed, such | directly. In that direction, a few optimizations are proposed, such | |||
as creating an IP tunnel between the MR and the CR directly, creating | as creating an IP tunnel between the MR and the CR directly, creating | |||
an IP tunnel between the MR and a CR (rather than the HA), a | an IP tunnel between the MR and a CR (rather than the HA), a | |||
delegation mechanism allowing Visiting Nodes to use MIPv6 directly | delegation mechanism allowing visiting nodes to use MIPv6 directly | |||
rather than NEMO or finally intra-NEMO optimization for a direct path | rather than NEMO or finally intra-NEMO optimization for a direct path | |||
within NEMO bypassing HAs. | within NEMO bypassing HAs. | |||
Specific to VANET, multi-hop connection is possible to the fixed | Specific to VANET, multi-hop connection is possible to the fixed | |||
network. In that case, NEMO BS must be enhanced to avoid that the | network. In that case, NEMO BS must be enhanced to avoid requiring | |||
path to immediate neighbors must pass by the respective HAs instead | that the path to immediate neighbors must pass by the respective HAs | |||
of directly. More specifically, two approaches are proposed to rely | instead of directly. More specifically, two approaches are proposed | |||
on VANET sub-IP multi-hop routing to hide a NEMO complex topology | to rely on VANET sub-IP multi-hop routing to hide a NEMO complex | |||
(e.g., Nested NEMO) and provide a direct route between two VANET | topology (e.g., Nested NEMO) and provide a direct route between two | |||
nodes. Generally, one major challenge is security and privacy when | VANET nodes. Generally, one major challenge is security and privacy | |||
opening a multi-hop route between a VANET and a CN. Heterogeneous | when opening a multi-hop route between a VANET and a CN. | |||
multi-hop in a VANET (e.g., relying on various access technologies) | Heterogeneous multi-hop in a VANET (e.g., relying on various access | |||
corresponds to another challenge for NEMO BS as well. | technologies) corresponds to another challenge for NEMO BS as well. | |||
Cespedes et al. conclude their paper with an overview of critical | Cespedes et al. conclude their paper with an overview of critical | |||
research challenges, such as Anchor Point location, the optimized | research challenges, such as Anchor Point location, the optimized | |||
usage of geographic information at the subIP as well as at the IP | usage of geographic information at the subIP as well as at the IP | |||
level to improve NEMO BS, security and privacy, and the addressing | level to improve NEMO BS, security and privacy, and the addressing | |||
allocation schema for NEMO. | allocation schema for NEMO. | |||
In summary, this paper illustrates that NEMO BS for VANET should | In summary, this paper illustrates that NEMO BS for VANET should | |||
avoid the HA detour as well as opening IP tunnels over the air. | avoid the HA detour as well as opening IP tunnels over the air. | |||
Also, NEMO BS could use geographic information for subIP routing when | Also, NEMO BS could use geographic information for subIP routing when | |||
a direct link between vehicles is required to reach an AR, but also | a direct link between vehicles is required to reach an AR, but also | |||
anticipate handovers and optimize ROs. From an addressing | anticipate handovers and optimize ROs. From an addressing | |||
perspective, dynamic MNP assignments should be preferred, but should | perspective, dynamic MNP assignments should be preferred, but should | |||
be secured in particular during binding update (BU). | be secured in particular during binding update (BU). | |||
8.2. Problem Statement | 8.2. Problem Statement for Mobility-Management | |||
This section discusses an IP mobility support in V2I networking. In | This section discusses an IP mobility support in V2I networking. In | |||
a single subnet per RSU, vehicles continually cross the communication | a single subnet per RSU, vehicles continually cross the communication | |||
coverages of adjacent RSUs. During this crossing, TCP/UDP sessions | coverages of adjacent RSUs. During this crossing, TCP/UDP sessions | |||
can be maintained through IP mobility support, such as MIPv6 | can be maintained through IP mobility support, such as MIPv6 | |||
[RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 [RFC5213][RFC5949], and Distributed Mobility | [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 [RFC5213][RFC5949], and Distributed Mobility | |||
Management (DMM) [RFC7333][RFC7429]. Since vehicles move fast along | Management (DMM) [RFC7333][RFC7429]. Since vehicles move fast along | |||
roadways, high speed should be enabled by the parameter configuration | roadways, high speed should be enabled by the parameter configuration | |||
in the IP mobility management. With the periodic reports of the | in the IP mobility management. With the periodic reports of the | |||
movement information from the vehicles, TCC can coordinate RSUs and | movement information from the vehicles, TCC can coordinate RSUs and | |||
other network compoments under its control for the proactive mobility | other network compoments under its control for the proactive mobility | |||
management of the vehicles along the movement of the vehicles. | management of the vehicles along the movement of the vehicles. | |||
To support the mobility of a vehicle's moving network, Network | To support the mobility of a vehicle's moving network, Network | |||
Mobility Basic Support Protocol (NEMO) can be used [RFC3963]. Like | Mobility Basic Support Protocol (NEMO) can be used [RFC3963]. Like | |||
skipping to change at page 34, line 49 ¶ | skipping to change at page 33, line 43 ¶ | |||
9.1.1. Multicast DNS | 9.1.1. Multicast DNS | |||
Multicast DNS (mDNS)[RFC6762] allows devices in one-hop communication | Multicast DNS (mDNS)[RFC6762] allows devices in one-hop communication | |||
range to resolve each other's DNS name into the corresponding IP | range to resolve each other's DNS name into the corresponding IP | |||
address in multicast. Each device has a DNS resolver and a DNS | address in multicast. Each device has a DNS resolver and a DNS | |||
server. The DNS resolver generates a DNS query for the device's | server. The DNS resolver generates a DNS query for the device's | |||
application and the DNS server responds to a DNS query corresponding | application and the DNS server responds to a DNS query corresponding | |||
to its device's DNS name. | to its device's DNS name. | |||
9.1.2. DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Internet-of-Things Devices | 9.1.2. DNS Name Autoconfiguration for IoT Devices | |||
DNS Name Autoconfiguration (DNSNA) [ID-DNSNA] proposes a DNS naming | DNS Name Autoconfiguration (DNSNA) [ID-DNSNA] proposes a DNS naming | |||
service for Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices in a large-scale | service for Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices in a large-scale | |||
network. | network. | |||
The DNS naming service of DNSNA consists of four steps, such as DNS | The DNS naming service of DNSNA consists of four steps, such as DNS | |||
name generation, DNS name duplication detection, DNS name | name generation, DNS name duplication detection, DNS name | |||
registration, and DNS name list retrieval. | registration, and DNS name list retrieval. | |||
First, in DNS name generation, DNSNA allows each IoT device to | First, in DNS name generation, DNSNA allows each IoT device to | |||
skipping to change at page 38, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 37, line 9 ¶ | |||
role of an Access Router (AR) for Vehicle ITS-S's MR to provide the | role of an Access Router (AR) for Vehicle ITS-S's MR to provide the | |||
Internet connectivity for Vehicle ITS-S via wireless interfaces, such | Internet connectivity for Vehicle ITS-S via wireless interfaces, such | |||
as IEEE 802.11p, WiFi, and WiMAX. In the case where Roadside ITS-S | as IEEE 802.11p, WiFi, and WiMAX. In the case where Roadside ITS-S | |||
is not available to Vehicle ITS-S, Vehicle ITS-S communicates with | is not available to Vehicle ITS-S, Vehicle ITS-S communicates with | |||
Central ITS-S via cellular networks (e.g., 3G). The secure | Central ITS-S via cellular networks (e.g., 3G). The secure | |||
communication scheme enhances the NEMO protocol that interworks with | communication scheme enhances the NEMO protocol that interworks with | |||
IKEv2 and IPsec in network mobility in vehicular networks. | IKEv2 and IPsec in network mobility in vehicular networks. | |||
The authors implemented their scheme and evaluated its performance in | The authors implemented their scheme and evaluated its performance in | |||
a real testbed. This testbed supports two wireless networks, such as | a real testbed. This testbed supports two wireless networks, such as | |||
IEEE 802.11p and 3G. The in-vehicle devices (or hosts) in Vehicle | IEEE 802.11p and 3G. The in-vehicle devices (or hosts) in Vehicle | |||
ITS-S are connected to an MR of Vehicle ITS-S via IEEE 802.11g. The | ITS-S are connected to an MR of Vehicle ITS-S via IEEE 802.11g. The | |||
test results show that their scheme supports promising secure IPv6 | test results show that their scheme supports promising secure IPv6 | |||
communications with a low impact on communication performance. | communications with a low impact on communication performance. | |||
11.1.2. Providing Authentication and Access Control in Vehicular | 11.1.2. Authentication and Access Control | |||
Network Environment | ||||
Moustafa et al. proposed a security scheme providing authentication, | Moustafa et al. proposed a security scheme providing authentication, | |||
authorization, and accounting (AAA) services in vehicular networks | authorization, and accounting (AAA) services in vehicular networks | |||
[VNET-AAA]. This secuirty scheme aims at the support of safe and | [VNET-AAA]. This secuirty scheme aims at the support of safe and | |||
reliable data services in vehicular networks. It authenticates | reliable data services in vehicular networks. It authenticates | |||
vehicles as mobile clients to use the network access and various | vehicles as mobile clients to use the network access and various | |||
services that are provided by service providers. Also, it ensures a | services that are provided by service providers. Also, it ensures a | |||
confidential data transfer between communicating parties (e.g., | confidential data transfer between communicating parties (e.g., | |||
vehicle and infrastructure node) by using IEEE 802.11i (i.e., WPA2) | vehicle and infrastructure node) by using IEEE 802.11i (i.e., WPA2) | |||
for secure layer-2 links. | for secure layer-2 links. | |||
skipping to change at page 41, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 40, line 11 ¶ | |||
Section 11 discusses security and privacy for IP-based vehicular | Section 11 discusses security and privacy for IP-based vehicular | |||
networking. | networking. | |||
The security for key components in vehicular networking, such as IP | The security for key components in vehicular networking, such as IP | |||
address autoconfiguration, routing, mobility management, DNS naming | address autoconfiguration, routing, mobility management, DNS naming | |||
service, and service discovery, needs to be analyzed in depth. | service, and service discovery, needs to be analyzed in depth. | |||
14. Informative References | 14. Informative References | |||
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing | [Address-Assignment] | |||
Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, | Kato, T., Kadowaki, K., Koita, T., and K. Sato, "Routing | |||
September 2010. | and Address Assignment using Lane/Position Information in | |||
a Vehicular Ad-hoc Network", IEEE Asia-Pacific Services | ||||
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., | Computing Conference, December 2008. | |||
and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic | ||||
Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005. | ||||
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., | [Address-Autoconf] | |||
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile | Fazio, M., Palazzi, C., Das, S., and M. Gerla, "Automatic | |||
IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. | IP Address Configuration in VANETs", ACM International | |||
Workshop on Vehicular Inter-Networking, September 2016. | ||||
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, | [CA-Cuise-Control] | |||
B., and F. Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy | California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | |||
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949, September 2010. | (PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", [Online] | |||
Available: | ||||
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and- | ||||
connected-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control, | ||||
2017. | ||||
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and | [CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A | |||
J. Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed | Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular | |||
Mobility Management", RFC 7333, August 2014. | Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud | |||
(DC2), March 2016. | ||||
[RFC7429] Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and | [ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP] | |||
CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility | ETSI Technical Committee Intelligent Transport Systems, | |||
Management: Current Practices and Gap | "Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular | |||
Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015. | Communications; GeoNetworking; Part 6: Internet | |||
Integration; Sub-part 1: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over | ||||
GeoNetworking Protocols", ETSI EN 302 636-6-1, October | ||||
2013. | ||||
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, | [ETSI-GeoNetworking] | |||
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, | ETSI Technical Committee Intelligent Transport Systems, | |||
December 1998. | "Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular | |||
Communications; GeoNetworking; Part 4: Geographical | ||||
addressing and forwarding for point-to-point and point-to- | ||||
multipoint communications; Sub-part 1: Media-Independent | ||||
Functionality", ETSI EN 302 636-4-1, May 2014. | ||||
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, | [FirstNet] | |||
"Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, | U.S. National Telecommunications and Information | |||
July 2011. | Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority | |||
(FirstNet)", [Online] | ||||
Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012. | ||||
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 | [FleetNet] | |||
Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. | Bechler, M., Franz, W., and L. Wolf, "Mobile Internet | |||
Access in FleetNet", 13th Fachtagung Kommunikation in | ||||
verteilten Systemen, February 2001. | ||||
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 | [GeoSAC] Baldessari, R., Bernardos, C., and M. Calderon, "GeoSAC - | |||
Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, | Scalable Address Autoconfiguration for VANET Using | |||
February 2006. | Geographic Networking Concepts", IEEE International | |||
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio | ||||
Communications, September 2008. | ||||
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. | [H-DMM] Nguyen, T. and C. Bonnet, "A Hybrid Centralized- | |||
Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 | Distributed Mobility Management for Supporting Highly | |||
(IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007. | Mobile Users", IEEE International Conference on | |||
Communications, June 2015. | ||||
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 | [H-NEMO] Nguyen, T. and C. Bonnet, "A Hybrid Centralized- | |||
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", | Distributed Mobility Management Architecture for Network | |||
RFC 4862, September 2007. | Mobility", IEEE International Symposium on a World of | |||
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, June 2015. | ||||
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, | [ID-DNSNA] | |||
T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host | Jeong, J., Ed., Lee, S., and J. Park, "DNS Name | |||
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", | Autoconfiguration for Internet of Things Devices", draft- | |||
RFC 3315, July 2003. | jeong-ipwave-iot-dns-autoconf-01 (work in progress), | |||
October 2017. | ||||
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host | [ID-Vehicular-ND] | |||
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for | Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Jo, Y., Jeong, J., and J. Lee, | |||
IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. | "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Prefix and Service Discovery | |||
in Vehicular Networks", draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular- | ||||
neighbor-discovery-01 (work in progress), October 2017. | ||||
[Address-Autoconf] Fazio, M., Palazzi, C., Das, S., and M. Gerla, | [Identity-Management] | |||
"Automatic IP Address Configuration in | Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer | |||
VANETs", ACM International Workshop on | Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th | |||
Vehicular Inter-Networking, September 2016. | International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | |||
November 2010. | ||||
[Address-Assignment] Kato, T., Kadowaki, K., Koita, T., and K. | [IEEE-802.11-OCB] | |||
Sato, "Routing and Address Assignment using | IEEE 802.11 Working Group, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium | |||
Lane/Position Information in a Vehicular Ad- | Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) | |||
hoc Network", IEEE Asia-Pacific Services | Specifications", IEEE Std 802.11-2012, February 2012. | |||
Computing Conference, December 2008. | ||||
[GeoSAC] Baldessari, R., Bernardos, C., and M. | [IEEE-802.11p] | |||
Calderon, "GeoSAC - Scalable Address | IEEE 802.11 Working Group, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium | |||
Autoconfiguration for VANET Using Geographic | Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) | |||
Networking Concepts", IEEE International | Specifications - Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio | Environments", IEEE Std 802.11p-2010, June 2010. | |||
Communications, September 2008. | ||||
[Identity-Management] Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, | [IP-Passing-Protocol] | |||
"Cross-layer Identities Management in ITS | Chen, Y., Hsu, C., and W. Yi, "An IP Passing Protocol for | |||
Stations", The 10th International Conference | Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Network Fragmentation", | |||
on ITS Telecommunications, November 2010. | Elsevier Computers & Mathematics with Applications, | |||
January 2012. | ||||
[VIP-WAVE] Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: | [IPv6-WAVE] | |||
Baccelli, E., Clausen, T., and R. Wakikawa, "IPv6 | ||||
Operation for WAVE - Wireless Access in Vehicular | ||||
Environments", IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference, | ||||
December 2010. | ||||
On the Feasibility of IP Communications in | [ISO-ITS-IPv6] | |||
802.11p Vehicular Networks", IEEE Transactions | ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | |||
on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | |||
March 2013. | Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. | |||
[IPv6-WAVE] Baccelli, E., Clausen, T., and R. Wakikawa, | [Joint-IP-Networking] | |||
"IPv6 Operation for WAVE - Wireless Access in | Petrescu, A., Boc, M., and C. Ibars, "Joint IP Networking | |||
Vehicular Environments", IEEE Vehicular | and Radio Architecture for Vehicular Networks", | |||
Networking Conference, December 2010. | 11th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | |||
August 2011. | ||||
[VNET-Framework] Jemaa, I., Shagdar, O., and T. Ernst, "A | [LAGAD] Abrougui, K., Boukerche, A., and R. Pazzi, "Location-Aided | |||
Framework for IP and non-IP Multicast Services | Gateway Advertisement and Discovery Protocol for VANets", | |||
for Vehicular Networks", Third International | IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 59, No. 8, | |||
Conference on the Network of the Future, | October 2010. | |||
November 2012. | ||||
[Joint-IP-Networking] Petrescu, A., Boc, M., and C. Ibars, "Joint IP | [NEMO-LMS] | |||
Networking and Radio Architecture for | Soto, I., Bernardos, C., Calderon, M., Banchs, A., and A. | |||
Vehicular Networks", 11th International | Azcorra, "NEMO-Enabled Localized Mobility Support for | |||
Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | Internet Access in Automotive Scenarios", | |||
August 2011. | IEEE Communications Magazine, May 2009. | |||
[FleetNet] Bechler, M., Franz, W., and L. Wolf, "Mobile | [NEMO-VANET] | |||
Internet Access in FleetNet", 13th Fachtagung | Chen, Y., Hsu, C., and C. Cheng, "Network Mobility | |||
Kommunikation in verteilten Systemen, | Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks", | |||
February 2001. | Wiley International Journal of Communication Systems, | |||
November 2014. | ||||
[Vehicular-DTN] Soares, V., Farahmand, F., and J. Rodrigues, | [PMIP-NEMO-Analysis] | |||
"A Layered Architecture for Vehicular Delay- | Lee, J., Ernst, T., and N. Chilamkurti, "Performance | |||
Tolerant Networks", IEEE Symposium on | Analysis of PMIPv6-Based Network Mobility for Intelligent | |||
Computers and Communications, July 2009. | Transportation Systems", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular | |||
Technology, January 2012. | ||||
[IP-Passing-Protocol] Chen, Y., Hsu, C., and W. Yi, "An IP Passing | [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", | |||
Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with | RFC 1034, November 1987. | |||
Network Fragmentation", Elsevier Computers & | ||||
Mathematics with Applications, January 2012. | ||||
[VANET-Geo-Routing] Tsukada, M., Jemaa, I., Menouar, H., Zhang, | [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and | |||
W., Goleva, M., and T. Ernst, "Experimental | Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987. | |||
Evaluation for IPv6 over VANET Geographic | ||||
Routing", IEEE International Wireless | ||||
Communications and Mobile Computing | ||||
Conference, June 2010. | ||||
[LAGAD] Abrougui, K., Boukerche, A., and R. Pazzi, | [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | |||
"Location-Aided Gateway Advertisement and | (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. | |||
Discovery Protocol for VANets", | ||||
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, | ||||
Vol. 59, No. 8, October 2010. | ||||
[H-DMM] Nguyen, T. and C. Bonnet, "A Hybrid | [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for | |||
Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management | Specifying the Location of Services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, | |||
for Supporting Highly Mobile Users", | February 2000. | |||
IEEE International Conference on | ||||
Communications, June 2015. | ||||
[H-NEMO] Nguyen, T. and C. Bonnet, "A Hybrid | [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, | |||
Centralized-Distributed Mobility Management | C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | |||
Architecture for Network Mobility", | for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. | |||
IEEE International Symposium on a World of | ||||
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, | ||||
June 2015. | ||||
[NEMO-LMS] Soto, I., Bernardos, C., Calderon, M., Banchs, | [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | |||
A., and A. Azcorra, "NEMO-Enabled Localized | (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. | |||
Mobility Support for Internet Access in | ||||
Automotive Scenarios", IEEE Communications | ||||
Magazine, May 2009. | ||||
[NEMO-VANET] Chen, Y., Hsu, C., and C. Cheng, "Network | [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. | |||
Mobility Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc | Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", | |||
Networks", Wiley International Journal of | RFC 3963, January 2005. | |||
Communication Systems, November 2014. | ||||
[PMIP-NEMO-Analysis] Lee, J., Ernst, T., and N. Chilamkurti, | [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, | |||
"Performance Analysis of PMIPv6-Based Network | "Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June | |||
MObility for Intelligent Transportation | 2005. | |||
Systems", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular | ||||
Technology, January 2012. | ||||
[VNET-MM] Peng, Y. and J. Chang, "A Novel Mobility | [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast | |||
Management Scheme for Integration of Vehicular | Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. | |||
Ad Hoc Networks and Fixed IP Networks", | ||||
Springer Mobile Networks and Applications, | ||||
February 2010. | ||||
[SDN-DMM] Nguyen, T., Bonnet, C., and J. Harri, "SDN- | [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing | |||
based Distributed Mobility Management for 5G | Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. | |||
Networks", IEEE Wireless Communications and | ||||
Networking Conference, April 2016. | ||||
[Vehicular-IP-MM] Cespedes, S., Shen, X., and C. Lazo, "IP | [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | |||
Mobility Management for Vehicular | "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | |||
Communication Networks: Challenges and | September 2007. | |||
Solutions", IEEE Communications Magazine, | ||||
May 2011. | ||||
[Securing-VCOMM] Fernandez, P., Santa, J., Bernal, F., and A. | [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless | |||
Skarmeta, "Securing Vehicular IPv6 | Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. | |||
Communications", IEEE Transactions on | ||||
Dependable and Secure Computing, January 2016. | ||||
[VNET-AAA] Moustafa, H., Bourdon, G., and Y. Gourhant, | [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy | |||
"Providing Authentication and Access Control | Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in | |||
in Vehicular Network Environment", IFIP TC- | IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. | |||
11 International Information Security | ||||
Conference, May 2006. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11p] IEEE 802.11 Working Group, "Part 11: Wireless | [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., | |||
LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical | and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. | |||
Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6: | ||||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", | ||||
IEEE Std 802.11p-2010, June 2010. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] IEEE 802.11 Working Group, "Part 11: Wireless | [RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad | |||
LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical | Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010. | |||
Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std 802.11- | ||||
2012, February 2012. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.0] IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for | [RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F. | |||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments | Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949, | |||
(WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std 1609.0-2013, | September 2010. | |||
March 2014. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.2] IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for | [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility | |||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments - | Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. | |||
Security Services for Applications and | ||||
Management Messages", IEEE Std 1609.2-2016, | ||||
March 2016. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.3] IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for | [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, | |||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments | February 2013. | |||
(WAVE) - Networking Services", IEEE Std | ||||
1609.3-2016, April 2016. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.4] IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for | [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service | |||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments | Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013. | |||
(WAVE) - Multi-Channel Operation", IEEE Std | ||||
1609.4-2016, March 2016. | ||||
[ETSI-GeoNetworking] ETSI Technical Committee Intelligent Transport | [RFC7333] Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, | |||
Systems, "Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); | "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", | |||
Vehicular Communications; GeoNetworking; Part | RFC 7333, August 2014. | |||
4: Geographical addressing and forwarding for | ||||
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint | ||||
communications; Sub-part 1: Media-Independent | ||||
Functionality", ETSI EN 302 636-4-1, May 2014. | ||||
[ETSI-GeoNetwork-IP] ETSI Technical Committee Intelligent Transport | [RFC7429] Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and CJ. | |||
Systems, "Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); | Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current | |||
Vehicular Communications; GeoNetworking; Part | Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015. | |||
6: Internet Integration; Sub-part 1: | ||||
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over | ||||
GeoNetworking Protocols", ETSI EN 302 636-6-1, | ||||
October 2013. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | [SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT: | |||
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) | Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based | |||
- IPv6 Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. | Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on | |||
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016. | ||||
[SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. | [SAINTplus] | |||
Du, "SAINT: Self-Adaptive Interactive | Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D. | |||
Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based Vehicular | Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+ | |||
Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on | for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", | |||
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, | IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | |||
June 2016. | June 2017. | |||
[SAINTplus] Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, | [SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation | |||
E., and D. Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive | Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular | |||
Interactive Navigation Tool+ for Emergency | Networks", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science | |||
Service Delivery Optimization", | (LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015. | |||
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent | ||||
Transportation Systems, June 2017. | ||||
[SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware | [SDN-DMM] Nguyen, T., Bonnet, C., and J. Harri, "SDN-based | |||
Navigation Application for Pedestrian | Distributed Mobility Management for 5G Networks", | |||
Protection in Vehicular Networks", | IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, | |||
Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science | April 2016. | |||
(LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015. | ||||
[FirstNet] U.S. National Telecommunications and | [Securing-VCOMM] | |||
Information Administration (NTIA), "First | Fernandez, P., Santa, J., Bernal, F., and A. Skarmeta, | |||
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)", | "Securing Vehicular IPv6 Communications", | |||
[Online] Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, | IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, | |||
2012. | January 2016. | |||
[CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, | [Truck-Platooning] | |||
"CASD: A Framework of Context-Awareness Safety | California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | |||
Driving in Vehicular Networks", International | (PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", [Online] Available: | |||
Workshop on Device Centric Cloud (DC2), | http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and- | |||
March 2016. | connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017. | |||
[CA-Cuise-Control] California Partners for Advanced | [VANET-Geo-Routing] | |||
Transportation Technology (PATH), "Cooperative | Tsukada, M., Jemaa, I., Menouar, H., Zhang, W., Goleva, | |||
Adaptive Cruise Control", [Online] Available: | M., and T. Ernst, "Experimental Evaluation for IPv6 over | |||
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/ | VANET Geographic Routing", IEEE International Wireless | |||
automated-and-connected-vehicles/ | Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, June 2010. | |||
cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control, 2017. | ||||
[Truck-Platooning] California Partners for Advanced | [Vehicular-DTN] | |||
Transportation Technology (PATH), "Automated | Soares, V., Farahmand, F., and J. Rodrigues, "A Layered | |||
Truck Platooning", [Online] Available: http:// | Architecture for Vehicular Delay-Tolerant Networks", | |||
www.path.berkeley.edu/research/ | IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, July 2009. | |||
automated-and-connected-vehicles/ | ||||
truck-platooning, 2017. | ||||
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. | [Vehicular-IP-MM] | |||
Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for | Cespedes, S., Shen, X., and C. Lazo, "IP Mobility | |||
Security", RFC 4086, June 2005. | Management for Vehicular Communication Networks: | |||
Challenges and Solutions", IEEE Communications Magazine, | ||||
May 2011. | ||||
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, | [VIP-WAVE] | |||
"Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address | Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the | |||
Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, | Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular | |||
September 2007. | Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation | |||
Systems, March 2013. | ||||
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and | [VNET-AAA] | |||
Facilities", RFC 1034, November 1987. | Moustafa, H., Bourdon, G., and Y. Gourhant, "Providing | |||
Authentication and Access Control in Vehicular Network | ||||
Environment", IFIP TC-11 International Information | ||||
Security Conference, May 2006. | ||||
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - | [VNET-Framework] | |||
Implementation and Specification", RFC 1035, | Jemaa, I., Shagdar, O., and T. Ernst, "A Framework for IP | |||
November 1987. | and non-IP Multicast Services for Vehicular Networks", | |||
Third International Conference on the Network of the | ||||
Future, November 2012. | ||||
[ID-DNSNA] Jeong, J., Ed., Lee, S., and J. Park, "DNS | [VNET-MM] Peng, Y. and J. Chang, "A Novel Mobility Management Scheme | |||
Name Autoconfiguration for Internet of Things | for Integration of Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks and Fixed IP | |||
Devices", | Networks", Springer Mobile Networks and Applications, | |||
draft-jeong-ipwave-iot-dns-autoconf-01 (work | February 2010. | |||
in progress), October 2017. | ||||
[ID-Vehicular-ND] Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Jo, Y., Jeong, J., | [WAVE-1609.0] | |||
and J. Lee, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for | IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access | |||
Prefix and Service Discovery in Vehicular | in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std | |||
Networks", draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular- | 1609.0-2013, March 2014. | |||
neighbor-discovery-01 (work in progress), | ||||
October 2017. | ||||
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", | [WAVE-1609.2] | |||
RFC 6762, February 2013. | 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. | ||||
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based | [WAVE-1609.3] | |||
Service Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013. | IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | |||
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking | ||||
Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016. | ||||
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A | [WAVE-1609.4] | |||
DNS RR for Specifying the Location of Services | IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | |||
(DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. | Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel | |||
Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016. | ||||
Appendix A. Acknowledgments | Appendix A. Acknowledgments | |||
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the | This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the | |||
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of | National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of | |||
Education (2017R1D1A1B03035885). This work was supported in part by | Education (2017R1D1A1B03035885). This work was supported in part by | |||
the Global Research Laboratory Program (2013K1A1A2A02078326) through | the Global Research Laboratory Program (2013K1A1A2A02078326) through | |||
NRF and the DGIST Research and Development Program (CPS Global | NRF and the DGIST Research and Development Program (CPS Global | |||
Center) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. This work was | Center) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT. This work was | |||
supported in part by the French research project DataTweet (ANR-13- | supported in part by the French research project DataTweet (ANR-13- | |||
skipping to change at page 48, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 47, line 26 ¶ | |||
Appendix B. Contributors | Appendix B. Contributors | |||
This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly | This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly | |||
benefiting from inputs and texts by Rex Buddenberg (Naval | benefiting from inputs and texts by Rex Buddenberg (Naval | |||
Postgraduate School), Thierry Ernst (YoGoKo), Bokor Laszlo (Budapest | Postgraduate School), Thierry Ernst (YoGoKo), Bokor Laszlo (Budapest | |||
University of Technology and Economics), Jose Santa Lozanoi | University of Technology and Economics), Jose Santa Lozanoi | |||
(Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), and Francois Simon | (Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), and Francois Simon | |||
(Pilot). The authors sincerely appreciate their contributions. | (Pilot). The authors sincerely appreciate their contributions. | |||
The following are contributing authors of this document as co- | The following are co-authors of this document: | |||
authors: | ||||
Nabil Benamar | Nabil Benamar | |||
Department of Computer Sciences | Department of Computer Sciences | |||
High School of Technology of Meknes | High School of Technology of Meknes | |||
Moulay Ismail University | Moulay Ismail University | |||
Morocco | Morocco | |||
Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36 | Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36 | |||
EMail: benamar73@gmail.com | EMail: benamar73@gmail.com | |||
skipping to change at page 49, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 48, line 28 ¶ | |||
Tae (Tom) Oh | Tae (Tom) Oh | |||
Department of Information Sciences and Technologies | Department of Information Sciences and Technologies | |||
Rochester Institute of Technology | Rochester Institute of Technology | |||
One Lomb Memorial Drive | One Lomb Memorial Drive | |||
Rochester, NY 14623-5603 | Rochester, NY 14623-5603 | |||
USA | USA | |||
Phone: +1 585 475 7642 | Phone: +1 585 475 7642 | |||
EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | |||
Charles E. Perkins | Charles E. Perkins | |||
Futurewei Inc. | Futurewei Inc. | |||
2330 Central Expressway | 2330 Central Expressway | |||
Santa Clara, CA 95050 | Santa Clara, CA 95050 | |||
USA | USA | |||
Phone: +1 408 330 4586 | Phone: +1 408 330 4586 | |||
EMail: charliep@computer.org | EMail: charliep@computer.org | |||
Alex Petrescu | Alex Petrescu | |||
CEA, LIST | CEA, LIST | |||
skipping to change at page 50, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 49, line 23 ¶ | |||
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php | URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php | |||
Michelle Wetterwald | Michelle Wetterwald | |||
FBConsulting | FBConsulting | |||
21, Route de Luxembourg | 21, Route de Luxembourg | |||
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633 | Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633 | |||
Luxembourg | Luxembourg | |||
EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | |||
Author's Address | Appendix C. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-00 | |||
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | ||||
networking-00: | ||||
o In Section 4.2, The mobility information of a mobile device (e.g., | ||||
vehicle) can be used by the mobile device and infrastructure nodes | ||||
(e.g., TCC and RSU) for enhancing protocol performance. | ||||
o In Section 4.2, Vehicles can use the TCC as its Home Network, so | ||||
the TCC maintains the mobility information of vehicles for | ||||
location management. | ||||
o The contents are clarified with typo corrections and rephrasing. | ||||
Author's Address | ||||
Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor) | Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor) | |||
Department of Software | Department of Software | |||
Sungkyunkwan University | Sungkyunkwan University | |||
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | |||
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419 | Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419 | |||
Republic of Korea | Republic of Korea | |||
Phone: +82 31 299 4957 | Phone: +82 31 299 4957 | |||
Fax: +82 31 290 7996 | Fax: +82 31 290 7996 | |||
EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu | EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu | |||
End of changes. 191 change blocks. | ||||
761 lines changed or deleted | 727 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |