draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-09.txt | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-10.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | |||
Intended status: Informational May 24, 2019 | Intended status: Informational July 8, 2019 | |||
Expires: November 25, 2019 | Expires: January 9, 2020 | |||
IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement | IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement | |||
and Use Cases | and Use Cases | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-09 | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-10 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of IP- | This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of IP- | |||
based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems | based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems | |||
(ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are vehicle- | (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are vehicle- | |||
to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to- | to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to- | |||
everything (V2X) communications. First, this document explains use | everything (V2X) communications. First, this document explains use | |||
cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it makes a problem | cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it makes a problem | |||
statement about key aspects in IP-based vehicular networking, such as | statement about key aspects in IP-based vehicular networking, such as | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶ | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | 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." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2019 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 | |||
(https://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 | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 22 ¶ | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
5.1.3. Prefix Dissemination/Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.1.3. Prefix Dissemination/Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
5.1.4. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.1.4. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
5.3. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 5.3. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | |||
networking-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | networking-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety | Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety | |||
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | |||
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US | networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US | |||
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications | allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications | |||
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with | (DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with | |||
the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC- | the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC- | |||
based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), | based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 45 ¶ | |||
Figure 1: A Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Networking | Figure 1: A Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Networking | |||
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture | 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture | |||
Figure 1 shows an architecture for V2I and V2V networking in a road | Figure 1 shows an architecture for V2I and V2V networking in a road | |||
network. As shown in this figure, RSUs as routers and vehicles with | network. As shown in this figure, RSUs as routers and vehicles with | |||
OBU have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Also, it is assumed | OBU have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Also, it is assumed | |||
that such the wireless media interfaces are autoconfigured with a | that such the wireless media interfaces are autoconfigured with a | |||
global IPv6 prefix (e.g., 2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and | global IPv6 prefix (e.g., 2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and | |||
V2I networking. | V2I networking. Note that 2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix | |||
[RFC3849] for example prefixes in this document, and also that any | ||||
routable IPv6 address needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular | ||||
network including RSUs. | ||||
Especially, for IPv6 packets transporting over IEEE 802.11-OCB, | Especially, for IPv6 packets transporting over IEEE 802.11-OCB, | |||
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] specifies several details, such as Maximum | [IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] specifies several details, such as Maximum | |||
Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address | Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address | |||
mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and | mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and | |||
subnet structure. Especially, an Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is | subnet structure. Especially, an Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is | |||
in charge of transforming some parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC | in charge of transforming some parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC | |||
layer and IPv6 network layer, which is located between IEEE | layer and IPv6 network layer, which is located between IEEE | |||
802.11-OCB's logical link control layer and IPv6 network layer. This | 802.11-OCB's logical link control layer and IPv6 network layer. This | |||
IPv6 over 802.11-OCB can be used for both V2V and V2I in IP-based | IPv6 over 802.11-OCB can be used for both V2V and V2I in IP-based | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 24 ¶ | |||
information. The link layer information includes wireless link layer | information. The link layer information includes wireless link layer | |||
parameters, such as wireless media (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and LTE- | parameters, such as wireless media (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and LTE- | |||
V2X) and a transmission power level. The MAC layer information | V2X) and a transmission power level. The MAC layer information | |||
includes the MAC address of an external network interface for the | includes the MAC address of an external network interface for the | |||
internetworking with another vehicle or RSU. The IP layer | internetworking with another vehicle or RSU. The IP layer | |||
information includes the IP address and prefix of an external network | information includes the IP address and prefix of an external network | |||
interface for the internetworking with another vehicle or RSU. | 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 | |||
have been performed, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's | have been performed, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's | |||
moving network and the RSU's fixed network. DNS services should be | moving network and the RSU's fixed network. A DNS service should be | |||
supported to enable name resolution for hosts or servers residing | supported for the DNS name resolution of in-vehicle devices within a | |||
either in the vehicle's moving network or the RSU's fixed network. | vehicle's internal network as well as for the DNS name resolution of | |||
It is assumed that the DNS names of in-vehicle devices and their | those devices from a remote host in the Internet for on-line | |||
service names are registered into a DNS server in a vehicle or an | diagnosis (e.g., an automotive service center server). It is assumed | |||
RSU, as shown in Figure 2. | that the DNS names of in-vehicle devices and their service names are | |||
registered into a DNS server in a vehicle or an RSU, as shown in | ||||
Figure 2. | ||||
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 | |||
(DNS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 | (DNS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 | |||
and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed Network1) | and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed Network1) | |||
inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (DNS2), one host (Host3), the | inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (DNS2), one host (Host3), the | |||
two routers (Router3 and Router4), and the collection of servers | two routers (Router3 and Router4), and the collection of servers | |||
(Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road networks, such | (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road networks, such | |||
as the emergency notification and navigation. Vehicle1's Router1 | as the emergency notification and navigation. Vehicle1's Router1 | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 35 ¶ | |||
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 (e.g., from 1 sec to 0.5 sec) for the NA | interval should decrease (e.g., from 1 sec to 0.5 sec) for the NA | |||
messages to reach the neighboring vehicles promptly. Also, as | messages to reach the neighboring vehicles promptly. Also, as | |||
vehicle density is higher, the NA interval should increase (e.g., | vehicle density is higher, the NA interval should increase (e.g., | |||
from 0.5 sec to 1 sec) for the NA messages to reduce collision | from 0.5 sec to 1 sec) for the NA messages to reduce collision | |||
probability with other NA messages. | probability with other NA messages. | |||
When ND is used in vehicular networks, the communication delay (i.e., | According to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety | |||
latency) between two vehicles should be bounded to a certain | Administration (NHTSA) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report], an extra 0.5 second of | |||
threshold (e.g., 500 ms) for collision-avoidance message exchange | warning time can prevent about 60% of the collisions of vehicles | |||
[CASD]. For IP-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware | moving closely in a roadway. A warning message should be exchanged | |||
navigation, adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular | every 0.5 seconds. Thus, if the ND messages (e.g., NS and NA) are | |||
network, this bounded data delivery is critical. The real | used as warning messages, they should be exchanged every 0.5 second. | |||
implementations for such applications are not available yet. Thus, | ||||
ND needs to appropriately operate to support IP-based safety | For IP-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation, | |||
applications. | adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular network, this | |||
bounded data delivery is critical. The real implementations for such | ||||
applications are not available yet. Thus, ND needs to appropriately | ||||
operate to support IP-based safety applications. | ||||
5.1.1. Link Model | 5.1.1. Link Model | |||
IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions for the link model that | IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions for the link model that | |||
do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless link [VIP-WAVE] | do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless link [VIP-WAVE] | |||
[RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the | [RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the | |||
connectivity among neighboring interfaces. However, interference and | connectivity among neighboring interfaces. However, interference and | |||
different levels of transmission power may cause unidirectional links | different levels of transmission power may cause unidirectional links | |||
to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, a new vehicular | to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, a new vehicular | |||
link model is required for a dynamically changing vehicular wireless | link model is required for a dynamically changing vehicular wireless | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 34 ¶ | |||
because of the multihop network connectivity. Thus, in this case, | because of the multihop network connectivity. Thus, in this case, | |||
the concept of a on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two | the concept of a on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two | |||
vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate | vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate | |||
directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two | directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two | |||
different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate | different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate | |||
with each other. When these two VANETs are converged into one VANET, | with each other. When these two VANETs are converged into one VANET, | |||
the two vehicles can communicate with each other in a multihop | the two vehicles can communicate with each other in a multihop | |||
fashion. Therefore, a vehicular link model should consider the | fashion. Therefore, a vehicular link model should consider the | |||
frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle mobility. | frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle mobility. | |||
An IPv6 prefix can be used in a multi-link subnet as an extended | The vehicular link model needs to support the multihop routing in a | |||
subnet. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) needs to be | connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6 | |||
performed even in the multiple links where all of the links are | prefix are connected in one hop or multiple hops. It also needs to | |||
configured with the same subnet prefix [RFC4861][RFC4862]. Thus, a | support the multhop routing in multiple connected VANETs via an RSU | |||
vehicular link model can consider a multi-hop V2V (or V2I) over a | that has the wireless connectivity with each VANET. For example, | |||
multi-link subnet in a vehicular network having multiple VANETs and | assume that Vehicle1, Vehicle 2, and Vehicle3 are configured with | |||
RSUs, as shown in Figure 1. For example, in this figure, vehicles | their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope IPv6 prefix. | |||
(i.e., Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3) in Subnet1 and Subnet2 | Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each other via either | |||
having RSU1 and RSU2, respectively, construct a multi-link subnet | multi-hop V2V or multi-hop V2I2V. When two vehicles (e.g., Vehicle1 | |||
with VANETs and RSUs. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate | and Vehicle3 in Figure 1) are connected in a VANET, it will be more | |||
with each other via either multi-hop V2V or multi-hop V2I2V. When | efficient for them to communicate with each other via VANET rather | |||
two vehicles (e.g., Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 in Figure 1) are connected | than RSUs. On the other hand, when two vehicles (e.g., Vehicle1 and | |||
in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them to communicate with | Vehicle3) are far away from the communication range in separate | |||
each other via VANET rather than RSUs. On the other hand, when two | VANETs and under two different RSUs, they can communicate with each | |||
vehicles (e.g., Vehicle1 and Vehicle3) are far away from the | other through the relay of RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two separate VANETs | |||
communication range in separate VANETs and under two different RSUs, | can merge into one network via RSU(s). Also, newly arriving vehicles | |||
they can communicate with each other through the relay of RSUs via | can merge two separate VANETs into one VANET if they can play a role | |||
V2I2V. | of a relay node for those VANETs. | |||
Therefore, IPv6 ND needs to be extended for an efficient Vehicular | ||||
Neighbor Discovey (VND) to support the concept of an IPv6 link | ||||
corresponding to an IPv6 prefix even in a multi-link subnet | ||||
consisting of multiple vehicles and RSUs [ID-Vehicular-ND]. | ||||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym | |||
For the protection of drivers' privacy, the pseudonym of a MAC | For the protection of drivers' privacy, the pseudonym of a MAC | |||
address of a vehicle's network interface should be used, with the | address of a vehicle's network interface should be used, with the | |||
help of which the MAC address can be changed periodically. The | help of which the MAC address can be changed periodically. The | |||
pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the MAC | pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the MAC | |||
address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP) session with an IPv6 | address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP) session with an IPv6 | |||
address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not implemented and | address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not implemented and | |||
tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular networking. | tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular networking. | |||
skipping to change at page 17, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 12 ¶ | |||
networks without a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV | networks without a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV | |||
[RFC3561] and OLSRv2 [RFC7181]). | [RFC3561] and OLSRv2 [RFC7181]). | |||
5.1.4. Routing | 5.1.4. Routing | |||
For multihop V2V communications in a VANET (or a multi-link subnet), | For multihop V2V communications in a VANET (or a multi-link subnet), | |||
a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may be | a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may be | |||
required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the | required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the | |||
subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run | subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run | |||
both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of | both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of | |||
control traffic overhead. As a feasible approach, Vehicular ND can | control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems]. As a feasible | |||
be extended to accommodate routing functionality with a prefix | approach, Vehicular ND can be extended to accommodate routing | |||
discovery option. In this case, there is no need to run a separate | functionality with a prefix discovery option. In this case, there is | |||
vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in VANETs. The ND extension can | no need to run a separate vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in | |||
allow vehicles to exchange their prefixes in a multihop fashion | VANETs. The ND extension can allow vehicles to exchange their | |||
[ID-Vehicular-ND]. With the exchanged prefixes, they can compute | prefixes in a multihop fashion [ID-Vehicular-ND]. With the exchanged | |||
their routing table (or IPv6 ND's neighbor cache) for the multi-link | prefixes, they can compute their routing table (or IPv6 ND's neighbor | |||
subnet with a distance-vector algorithm [Intro-to-Algorithms]. | cache) for the multi-link subnet with a distance-vector algorithm | |||
[Intro-to-Algorithms]. | ||||
Also, an efficient, rapid DAD needs to be supported in a vehicular | Also, an efficient, rapid DAD needs to be supported in a vehicular | |||
network having multiple VANETs (or a multi-link subnet) to prevent or | network having multiple VANETs (or a multi-link subnet) to prevent or | |||
reduce IPv6 address conflicts in such a subnet. A feasible approach | reduce IPv6 address conflicts in such a subnet. A feasible approach | |||
is to use a multi-hop DAD optimization for the efficient vehicular- | is to use a multi-hop DAD optimization for the efficient vehicular- | |||
network-wide DAD [RFC6775][RFC8505]. | network-wide DAD [RFC6775][RFC8505]. | |||
5.2. Mobility Management | 5.2. Mobility Management | |||
The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end | The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end | |||
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 35 ¶ | |||
5.3. Security and Privacy | 5.3. Security and Privacy | |||
Strong security measures shall protect vehicles roaming in road | Strong security measures shall protect vehicles roaming in road | |||
networks from the attacks of malicious nodes, which are controlled by | networks from the attacks of malicious nodes, which are controlled by | |||
hackers. For safety applications, the cooperation among vehicles is | hackers. For safety applications, the cooperation among vehicles is | |||
assumed. Malicious nodes may disseminate wrong driving information | assumed. Malicious nodes may disseminate wrong driving information | |||
(e.g., location, speed, and direction) to make driving be unsafe. | (e.g., location, speed, and direction) to make driving be unsafe. | |||
Sybil attack, which tries to illude a vehicle with multiple false | Sybil attack, which tries to illude a vehicle with multiple false | |||
identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe maneuver. This sybil | identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe maneuver. This sybil | |||
attack should be prevented through the cooperation between good | attack should be prevented through the cooperation between good | |||
vehicles and RSUs. Applications on IP-based vehicular networking, | vehicles and RSUs. Note that good vehicles are ones with valid | |||
which are resilient to such a sybil attack, are not developed and | certificates that are determined by the authentication process with | |||
tested yet. | an authentication server in the vehicular network. Applications on | |||
IP-based vehicular networking, which are resilient to such a sybil | ||||
attack, are not developed and tested yet. | ||||
Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X | Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X | |||
networking in vehicular networks. Only authorized vehicles should be | networking in vehicular networks. Only authorized vehicles should be | |||
allowed to use vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices and | allowed to use vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices and | |||
mobile devices in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle | mobile devices in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle | |||
devices and mobile devices in another vehicle, and other servers in | devices and mobile devices in another vehicle, and other servers in | |||
an RSU in a secure way. | an RSU in a secure way. | |||
A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user certificate along | A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user certificate along | |||
with in-vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to | with in-vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to | |||
skipping to change at page 19, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 27 ¶ | |||
address and the corresponding IPv6 address as suggested in | address and the corresponding IPv6 address as suggested in | |||
[RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses | [RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses | |||
should not interrupt the E2E communications between two vehicular | should not interrupt the E2E communications between two vehicular | |||
nodes (e.g., vehicle and RSU) in terms of transport layer for a long- | nodes (e.g., vehicle and RSU) in terms of transport layer for a long- | |||
living higher-layer session. However, if this pseudonym is performed | living higher-layer session. However, if this pseudonym is performed | |||
without strong E2E confidentiality, there will be no privacy benefit | without strong E2E confidentiality, there will be no privacy benefit | |||
from changing MAC and IP addresses, because an adversary can see the | from changing MAC and IP addresses, because an adversary can see the | |||
change of the MAC and IP addresses and track the vehicle with those | change of the MAC and IP addresses and track the vehicle with those | |||
addresses. | addresses. | |||
For the IPv6 ND, the vehicular-network-wide DAD is required for the | ||||
uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface. | ||||
This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that makes the DAD-related | ||||
ND packets are disseminated over the VANET and vehicular network | ||||
including the RSU and the MA. The vehicles and RSUs need to filter | ||||
out suspicious ND traffic in advance. | ||||
For the mobility management, a malicious vehicle constructs multiple | ||||
virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with the RSU and the MA. | ||||
This registration makes the RSU and MA waste their resources. The | ||||
RSU and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is genuine or bogus in | ||||
the mobility management. | ||||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
This document discussed security and privacy for IP-based vehicular | This document discussed security and privacy for IP-based vehicular | |||
networking. | networking. | |||
The security and privacy for key components in IP-based vehicular | The security and privacy for key components in IP-based vehicular | |||
networking, such as neighbor discovery and mobility management, need | networking, such as neighbor discovery and mobility management, need | |||
to be analyzed in depth. | to be analyzed in depth. | |||
7. Informative References | 7. Informative References | |||
skipping to change at page 21, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 29 ¶ | |||
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT | First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT | |||
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband | TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband | |||
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017. | Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017. | |||
[Fuel-Efficient] | [Fuel-Efficient] | |||
van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas, | van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas, | |||
"Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons", | "Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons", | |||
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | |||
January 2018. | January 2018. | |||
[ID-Multicast-Problems] | ||||
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. | ||||
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | ||||
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-06 (work | ||||
in progress), July 2019. | ||||
[ID-Vehicular-MM] | [ID-Vehicular-MM] | |||
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular | Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular | |||
Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", | Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", | |||
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-00 (work | draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-01 (work | |||
in progress), March 2019. | in progress), July 2019. | |||
[ID-Vehicular-ND] | [ID-Vehicular-ND] | |||
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "IPv6 Neighbor | Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular | |||
Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", draft-jeong- | Neighbor Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", | |||
ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-06 (work in progress), | draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-07 (work | |||
March 2019. | in progress), July 2019. | |||
[Identity-Management] | [Identity-Management] | |||
Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer | Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer | |||
Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th | Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th | |||
International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | |||
November 2010. | November 2010. | |||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] | [IEEE-802.11-OCB] | |||
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | |||
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std | Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std | |||
skipping to change at page 21, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 22 ¶ | |||
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6: | Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6: | |||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std | Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std | |||
802.11p-2010, June 2010. | 802.11p-2010, June 2010. | |||
[Intro-to-Algorithms] | [Intro-to-Algorithms] | |||
H. Cormen, T., E. Leiserson, C., L. Rivest, R., and C. | H. Cormen, T., E. Leiserson, C., L. Rivest, R., and C. | |||
Stein, "Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed.", The | Stein, "Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed.", The | |||
MIT Press, July 2009. | MIT Press, July 2009. | |||
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] | [IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] | |||
Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, | Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic | |||
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks | Support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks Operating | |||
operating in mode Outside the Context of a Basic Service | Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over- | |||
Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)", draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over- | 80211-OCB)", draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49 (work | |||
80211ocb-45 (work in progress), April 2019. | in progress), July 2019. | |||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] | [ISO-ITS-IPv6] | |||
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | |||
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | |||
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. | Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. | |||
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report] | ||||
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), | ||||
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems | ||||
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000. | ||||
[RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On- | [RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On- | |||
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July | Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July | |||
2003. | 2003. | |||
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix | ||||
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. | ||||
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, | [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, | |||
"Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June | "Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June | |||
2005. | 2005. | |||
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | |||
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | |||
September 2007. | September 2007. | |||
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless | [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless | |||
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. | Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. | |||
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 5 ¶ | |||
[WAVE-1609.3] | [WAVE-1609.3] | |||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | |||
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking | Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking | |||
Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016. | Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016. | |||
[WAVE-1609.4] | [WAVE-1609.4] | |||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | |||
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel | Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel | |||
Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016. | Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016. | |||
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-08 | Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-09 | |||
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | |||
networking-08: | networking-09: | |||
o This version is revised based on the comments from Charlie Perkins | o This version is revised based on the comments from Charlie | |||
and Sri Gundavelli. | Perkins. | |||
o This version focuses on the problem statement about IP-based | o For the question on the preference on a multi-link subnet model, | |||
vehicular networking, such as IPv6 neighbor discovery, mobility | the revision does not suggest the multi-link subnet model as a | |||
management, and security & privacy. | possible solution, focusing on the characteristics and | |||
requirements for a vehicular link model. | ||||
o The motivation about DNS in a vehicle network is addressed | ||||
clearly. | ||||
o The timing importance of ND is addressed with a reference to | ||||
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. | ||||
o The Security Considerations are expanded with cross references to | ||||
other parts of the document such as IPv6 ND and mobility | ||||
management. | ||||
o 2001:DB8::/32 is a reserved prefix for use in documentation | ||||
[RFC3849]. Any routable IPv6 address needs to be routable in a | ||||
VANET and a vehicular network including RSUs. | ||||
o With an example in Figure 1, it is suggested that two separate | ||||
VANETs can merge into one network. | ||||
o A suggestion is made about how to distinguish good nodes from bad | ||||
nodes with an authentication process. | ||||
Appendix B. Acknowledgments | Appendix B. 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). | Education (2017R1D1A1B03035885). | |||
This work was supported in part by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and | This work was supported in part by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and | |||
ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) | ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) | |||
support program (IITP-2019-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP | support program (IITP-2019-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP | |||
End of changes. 23 change blocks. | ||||
79 lines changed or deleted | 133 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |