draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12.txt | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-13.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | |||
Intended status: Informational October 3, 2019 | Intended status: Informational January 6, 2020 | |||
Expires: April 5, 2020 | Expires: July 9, 2020 | |||
IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement | IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem | |||
and Use Cases | Statement and Use Cases | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-13 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of IP- | This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of | |||
based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems | IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation | |||
(ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are vehicle- | Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are | |||
to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to- | vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and | |||
everything (V2X) communications. First, this document explains use | vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document | |||
cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it makes a problem | explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it | |||
statement about key aspects in IP-based vehicular networking, such as | makes a problem statement about key aspects in IPv6-based vehicular | |||
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and Security & Privacy. | networking, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and | |||
For each key aspect, this document specifies requirements in IP-based | Security & Privacy. For each key aspect, this document specifies | |||
vehicular networking, and suggests the direction of solutions | requirements for IPv6-based vehicular networking. | |||
satisfying those requirements. | ||||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted 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). 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 April 5, 2020. | This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2020. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2020 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 | |||
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | |||
networking-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | networking-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
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 3, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶ | |||
Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link Layer (L2) issues are addressed in | Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link Layer (L2) issues are addressed in | |||
IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while | IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while | |||
IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 | IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 | |||
[WAVE-1609.3] defines related services at network and transport | [WAVE-1609.3] defines related services at network and transport | |||
layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] specifies the multi-channel | layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] specifies the multi-channel | |||
operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a separate amendment, but was | operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a separate amendment, but was | |||
later rolled into the base 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE | later rolled into the base 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE | |||
802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012 | 802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012 | |||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | |||
Along with these WAVE standards, IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IP | Along with these WAVE standards, IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IPv6 | |||
protocols (e.g., MIPv4 [RFC5944], MIPv6 [RFC6275], and Proxy MIPv6 | protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], and Proxy MIPv6 | |||
(PMIPv6) [RFC5213][RFC5844]) can be applied to vehicular networks. | (PMIPv6) [RFC5213]) can be applied to vehicular networks. In | |||
In addition, ISO has approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network | addition, ISO has approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network | |||
protocols and services to be used for Communications Access for Land | protocols and services to be used for Communications Access for Land | |||
Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6]. | Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6]. | |||
This document describes use cases and a problem statement about IP- | This document describes use cases and a problem statement about | |||
based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IP Wireless Access | IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 Wireless | |||
in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the use | Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the | |||
cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, it makes | use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, it | |||
a problem statement about key aspects in IPWAVE, namely, IPv6 | makes a problem statement about key aspects in IPWAVE, namely, IPv6 | |||
Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and Security & Privacy. For | Neighbor Discovery (ND), Mobility Management (MM), and Security & | |||
each key aspect of the problem statement, this document specifies | Privacy (SP). For each key aspect of the problem statement, this | |||
requirements in IP-based vehicular networking, and proposes the | document specifies requirements for IPv6-based vehicular networking. | |||
direction of solutions fulfilling those requirements. This document | This document is intended to motivate development of key protocols | |||
is intended to motivate development of key protocols for IPWAVE. | for IPWAVE. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
This document uses the following definitions: | This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8691]. In | |||
addition, the following terms are defined below: | ||||
o Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make safety plan by | o Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make safety plan by | |||
classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for | classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for | |||
safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among | safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among | |||
them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight | them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight | |||
Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD]. | Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD]. | |||
o Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal | o Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal | |||
mobility information (e.g., position, speed, direction, and | mobility information (e.g., position, speed, direction, and | |||
acceleration/deceleration) of surrounding vehicles for both safety | acceleration/deceleration) of surrounding vehicles for both safety | |||
and non-safety uses through sensing or communication [CASD]. | and non-safety uses through sensing or communication [CASD]. | |||
o Edge Computing (EC): It is the local computing near an access | ||||
network (i.e., edge network) for the sake of vehicles and | ||||
pedestrians. | ||||
o Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server) | ||||
for edge computing for the sake of vehicles and pedestrians. | ||||
o Edge Network (EN): In is an access network that has an IP-RSU for | ||||
wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and | ||||
wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP- | ||||
RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a radio receiver of | ||||
Global Positioning System (GPS) for its position recognition and | ||||
the localization service for the sake of vehicles. | ||||
o IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a | ||||
computer situated in a vehicle such as a car, bicycle, or similar. | ||||
It has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11 | ||||
and has an "OBU" transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface | ||||
that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP]. See the | ||||
definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691]. | ||||
o IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road. | ||||
It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless | ||||
PHY/MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is | ||||
configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates | ||||
with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB | ||||
mode. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in C-V2X along | ||||
with an "RSU" transceiver. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access | ||||
Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless | ||||
Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition | ||||
of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691]. | ||||
o LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to | o LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to | |||
measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and | measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and | |||
measuring the reflected pulsed light. | measuring the reflected pulsed light. | |||
o Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IP addresses and | o Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and | |||
mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support | mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support | |||
their address autoconfiguration and mobility management with a | their IPv6 address autoconfiguration and mobility management with | |||
binding table. An MA has end-to-end connections with RSUs under | a binding table. An MA has End-to-End (E2E) connections with IP- | |||
its control. | RSUs under its control for the address autoconfiguration and | |||
mobility management of the vehicles. This MA can play a role of a | ||||
Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] for vehicles | ||||
moving in the road network . | ||||
o On-Board Unit (OBU): A node that has physical communication | o OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set - BSS". It is a | |||
devices (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and Cellular V2X (C-V2X) | mode of operation in which a Station (STA) is not a member of a | |||
[TS-23.285-3GPP]) for wireless communications with other OBUs and | BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, | |||
RSUs, and may be connected to in-vehicle devices or networks. An | association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | |||
OBU is mounted on a vehicle. | ||||
o OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set". It is | o 802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std | |||
differentiated from the Basic Service Set (BSS) mode in IEEE | 802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute | |||
802.11 standard. A node in OCB mode can directly transmit packets | dot11OCBActivited is 'true'. | |||
to other nodes in its wireless range without the authentication or | ||||
association process defined in BSS mode [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | ||||
o Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air- | o Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air- | |||
resistance for energy efficiency and reduce the number of drivers | resistance for energy efficiency and reduce the number of drivers | |||
such that only the leading vehicle has a driver and the other | such that only the leading vehicle has a driver and the other | |||
vehicles are autonomous vehicles without a driver and closely | vehicles are autonomous vehicles without a driver and closely | |||
following the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning]. | following the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning]. | |||
o Road-Side Unit (RSU): A node that has physical communication | ||||
devices (e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and C-V2X) for wireless | ||||
communications with vehicles and is also connected to the Internet | ||||
through a router or switch for packet forwarding. An RSU can | ||||
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., DNS | ||||
server and edge computing server) in its internal network as an | ||||
edge computing system. An RSU is typically deployed on the road | ||||
infrastructure, either at an intersection or in a road segment, | ||||
but may also be located in a car parking area. | ||||
o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road | o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road | |||
infrastructure information (e.g., RSUs, traffic signals, and loop | infrastructure information (e.g., IP-RSUs, traffic signals, and | |||
detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average vehicle | loop detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average | |||
speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment), and | vehicle speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment), | |||
vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's identifier, position, | and 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. | included in a vehicular cloud for vehicular networks. | |||
o Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an OBU for | o Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU | |||
wireless communication with other vehicles and RSUs. It has a | for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It | |||
radio navigation receiver of Global Positioning System (GPS) for | has a radio navigation receiver of Global Positioning System (GPS) | |||
efficient navigation. | for efficient navigation. | |||
o Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of | o Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of | |||
vehicles interconnected by wireless communication. Two vehicles | vehicles interconnected by wireless communication. Two vehicles | |||
in a VANET can communicate with each other using other vehicles as | in a VANET can communicate with each other using other vehicles as | |||
relays even where they are out of one-hop wireless communication | relays even where they are out of one-hop wireless communication | |||
range. | range. | |||
o Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks, | o Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks, | |||
having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding | having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding | |||
elements (e.g., switch and router). | elements (e.g., switch and router). | |||
o Vehicle Detection Loop (i.e., Loop Detector): An inductive device | o Vehicle Detection Loop (i.e., Loop Detector): An inductive device | |||
used for detecting vehicles passing or arriving at a certain | used for detecting vehicles passing or arriving at a certain | |||
point, for instance, at an intersection with traffic lights or at | point, for instance, at an intersection with traffic lights or at | |||
a ramp toward a highway. The relatively crude nature of the | a ramp toward a highway. The relatively crude nature of the | |||
loop's structure means that only metal masses above a certain size | loop's structure means that only metal masses above a certain size | |||
are capable of triggering the detection. | are capable of triggering the detection. | |||
o V2I2P: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Pedestrian". | o V2D: "Vehicle to Device". It is the wireless communication | |||
between a vehicle and a device (e.g., IoT device). | ||||
o V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". | o V2P: "Vehicle to Pedestrian". It is the wireless communication | |||
between a vehicle and a pedestrian's mobile device (e.g., | ||||
smartphone). | ||||
o V2I2P: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Pedestrian". It is the | ||||
wireless communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian's mobile | ||||
device (e.g., smartphone) via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP- | ||||
RSU). | ||||
o V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". It is the wireless | ||||
communication between a vehicle and another vehicle via an | ||||
infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). | ||||
o VIP: "Vehicular Internet Protocol". It is an IPv6 extension for | ||||
vehicular networks including V2V, V2I, and V2X. | ||||
o VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management". It is an IPv6-based | ||||
mobility management for vehicular networks. | ||||
o VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery". It is an IPv6 ND extension | ||||
for vehicular networks. | ||||
o VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy". It is an IPv6-based | ||||
security and privacy for vehicular networks. | ||||
o WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0]. | o WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0]. | |||
3. Use Cases | 3. Use Cases | |||
This section explains use cases of V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. The | This section explains use cases of V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. The | |||
use cases of the V2X networking exclude the ones of the V2V and V2I | use cases of the V2X networking exclude the ones of the V2V and V2I | |||
networking, but include Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to- | networking, but include Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to- | |||
Device (V2D). | Device (V2D). | |||
Since IP is widely used among various computing devices in the | ||||
Internet, it is expected that the use cases in this section need to | ||||
work on top of IPv6 as the network layer protocol. Thus, the IPv6 | ||||
for these use cases should be extended for vehicular IPv6 such that | ||||
the IPv6 can support the functions of the network layer protocol such | ||||
as Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND), Vehicular Mobility Management | ||||
(VMM), and Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP) in vehicular | ||||
networks. Refer to Section 5 for the problem statement of the | ||||
requirements of the vehicular IPv6. | ||||
3.1. V2V | 3.1. V2V | |||
The use cases of V2V networking discussed in this section include | The use cases of V2V networking discussed in this section include | |||
o Context-aware navigation for driving safety and collision | o Context-aware navigation for driving safety and collision | |||
avoidance; | avoidance; | |||
o Cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban roadway; | o Cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban roadway; | |||
o Platooning in a highway; | o Platooning in a highway; | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 11 ¶ | |||
pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] introduces a millimeter-wave | pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] introduces a millimeter-wave | |||
vehicular communication for massive automotive sensing. A lot of | vehicular communication for massive automotive sensing. A lot of | |||
data can be generated by those sensors, and these data typically need | data can be generated by those sensors, and these data typically need | |||
to be routed to different destinations. In addition, from the | to be routed to different destinations. In addition, from the | |||
perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected that driverless | perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected that driverless | |||
vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles. Through the | vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles. Through the | |||
cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can use | cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can use | |||
environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for better | environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for better | |||
interaction with the other vehicles and environment. | interaction with the other vehicles and environment. | |||
To support the applications of these V2V use cases, the functions of | ||||
IPv6 such as VND and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based packet | ||||
exchange and the secure, safe communication between two vehicles. | ||||
3.2. V2I | 3.2. V2I | |||
The use cases of V2I networking discussed in this section include | The use cases of V2I networking discussed in this section include | |||
o Navigation service; | o Navigation service; | |||
o Energy-efficient speed recommendation service; | o Energy-efficient speed recommendation service; | |||
o Accident notification service. | o Accident notification service. | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶ | |||
time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving | time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving | |||
paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let | paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let | |||
them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the | them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the | |||
accident spot into efficient detour paths. | accident spot into efficient detour paths. | |||
A TCC can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a vehicle that | A TCC can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a vehicle that | |||
depends on its traffic environment. [Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel- | depends on its traffic environment. [Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel- | |||
efficient route and speed plans for platooned trucks. | efficient route and speed plans for platooned trucks. | |||
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 IP-RSU or 4G-LTE | |||
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) [FirstNet] is | networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) | |||
provided by the US government to establish, operate, and maintain an | [FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate, | |||
interoperable public safety broadband network for safety and security | and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for | |||
network services, e.g., emergency calls. The construction of the | safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The | |||
nationwide FirstNet network requires each state in the US to have a | construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state | |||
Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to the FirstNet's | in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to | |||
network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed by 4G-LTE for | the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed | |||
the communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure node (i.e., | by 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an | |||
V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected that DSRC-based vehicular | infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected | |||
networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I and V2V in near future. | that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I | |||
and V2V in near future. | ||||
To support the applications of these V2I use cases, the functions of | ||||
IPv6 such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based | ||||
packet exchange, the transport-layer session continuity, and the | ||||
secure, safe communication between a vehicle and a server in the | ||||
vehicular cloud. | ||||
3.3. V2X | 3.3. V2X | |||
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is | The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is | |||
pedestrian protection service. | pedestrian protection service. | |||
A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation | A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation | |||
Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the | Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the | |||
collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone | collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone | |||
equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g., | equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g., | |||
WiFi) with an RSU. Vehicles and pedestrians can also communicate | WiFi) with an IP-RSU. Vehicles and pedestrians can also communicate | |||
with each other via an RSU that delivers scheduling information for | with each other via an IP-RSU. An edge computing device behind the | |||
wireless communication in order to save the smartphones' battery | IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles and | |||
through sleeping mode. | pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the sake | |||
of them. This scheduling can save the battery of each pedestrian's | ||||
smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode before the | ||||
communication with vehicles, considering their mobility. | ||||
For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate | For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate | |||
with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without RSU relaying. Light- | with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without IP-RSU relaying. | |||
weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate directly | Light-weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate | |||
with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V. | directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V. | |||
To support the applications of these V2X use cases, the functions of | ||||
IPv6 such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based | ||||
packet exchange, the transport-layer session continuity, and the | ||||
secure, safe communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian either | ||||
directly or indirectly via an IP-RSU. | ||||
4. Vehicular Networks | 4. Vehicular Networks | |||
This section describes a vehicular network architecture supporting | This section describes an exemplary vehicular network architecture | |||
V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks. Also, it | supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks. | |||
describes an internal network within a vehicle or RSU, and the | It describes an internal network within a vehicle or an edge network | |||
internetworking between the internal networks via DSRC links. | (called EN). It explains not only the internetworking between the | |||
internal networks of a vehicle and an EN via wireless links, but also | ||||
the internetworking between the internal networks of two vehicles via | ||||
wireless links. | ||||
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud | Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud | |||
******************************************* | ******************************************* | |||
* * | +-------------+ * * | |||
* +-----------------+ * | |Corresponding| * +-----------------+ * | |||
* | Mobility Anchor | * | | Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | * | |||
* +-----------------+ * | +-------------+ * +-----------------+ * | |||
* ^ * | * ^ * | |||
* | Ethernet * | * | * | |||
* v * | * v * | |||
******************************************* | ******************************************* | |||
^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ | |||
| Ethernet | Ethernet | Ethernet | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
v v v | v v v | |||
+--------+ Ethernet +--------+ Ethernet +--------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| RSU1 |<-------->| RSU2 |<---------->| RSU3 | | | IP-RSU1 |<--------->| IP-RSU2 |<--------->| IP-RSU3 | | |||
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ | |||
: : : | : : : | |||
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ | |||
| : V2I | | : V2I | | : V2I | | | : V2I | | : V2I | | : V2I | | |||
| v | | v | | v | | | v | | v | | v | | |||
+--------+ | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | |||
|Vehicle1|===> |Vehicle2|===>| | |Vehicle3|===>| | |Vehicle4|===>| | |Vehicle1|===> |Vehicle2|===>| | |Vehicle3|===>| | |Vehicle4|===>| | |||
+--------+<...>+--------+<........>+--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+<...>+--------+<........>+--------+ | | +--------+ | | |||
V2V ^ V2V ^ | | ^ | | V2V ^ V2V ^ | | ^ | | |||
| : V2V | | : V2V | | : V2V | | | : V2V | | : V2V | | : V2V | | |||
| v | | v | | v | | | v | | v | | v | | |||
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | |||
| |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>| | | |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>| | |||
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | |||
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ | |||
Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3 | Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3 | |||
(Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3) | (Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3) | |||
<----> 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: An Exemplary Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V | |||
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 exemplary vehicular network architecture for V2I | |||
network. The vehicular network architecture contains vehicles, RSUs, | and V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture | |||
Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor as | contains vehicles, IP-RSUs, Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, | |||
components. However, some components in the vehicular network | and Mobility Anchor as components. However, some components in the | |||
architecture may not be needed for vehicular networking, such as | vehicular network architecture may not be needed for vehicular | |||
Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor. | networks, such as Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and | |||
Mobility Anchor. | ||||
As shown in this figure, RSUs as routers and vehicles with OBU have | As shown in this figure, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU | |||
wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless media | have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless | |||
interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g., | media interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g., | |||
2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking. Note that | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking. Note that | |||
2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example | 2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example | |||
prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address | prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address | |||
needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including | needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP- | |||
RSUs. | RSUs. | |||
For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, | For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] | |||
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] specifies several details, including Maximum | specifies several details, including Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU), | |||
Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address | frame format, link-local address, address mapping for unicast and | |||
mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and | multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and subnet structure. An | |||
subnet structure. An Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of | Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of transforming some | |||
transforming some parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and IPv6 | parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and IPv6 network layer, | |||
network layer, which is located between IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical | which is located between IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical link control layer | |||
link control layer and IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB | and IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB can be used for | |||
can be used for both V2V and V2I in IP-based vehicular networks. | both V2V and V2I in IPv6-based vehicular networks. | |||
In Figure 1, three RSUs (RSU1, RSU2, and RSU3) are deployed in the | In Figure 1, three IP-RSUs (IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3) are | |||
road network and are connected to a Vehicular Cloud through the | deployed in the road network and are connected with each other | |||
Internet. A Traffic Control Center (TCC) is connected to the | through the wired networks (e.g., Ethernet), which are part of a | |||
Vehicular Cloud for the management of RSUs and vehicles in the road | Vehicular Cloud. A Traffic Control Center (TCC) is connected to the | |||
network. A Mobility Anchor (MA) can be located in the TCC as its key | Vehicular Cloud for the management of IP-RSUs and vehicles in the | |||
component for the mobility management of vehicles. Vehicle2, | road network. A Mobility Anchor (MA) may be located in the TCC as a | |||
Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 are wirelessly connected to RSU1, RSU2, and | mobility management controller, which is a controller for the | |||
RSU3, respectively. The three wireless networks of RSU1, RSU2, and | mobility management of vehicles. Vehicle2, Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 | |||
RSU3 can belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, | are wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, | |||
and Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three different | respectively. The three wireless networks of IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and | |||
prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3). | IP-RSU3 can belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1, | |||
Subnet2, and Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three | ||||
different prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3). | ||||
A single subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles in VANET. For | A single subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles in VANET. For | |||
example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles (i.e., Vehicle1, | example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles (i.e., Vehicle1, | |||
Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected VANET. Also, for | Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected VANET. Also, for | |||
Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and Vehicle6) can construct | Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and Vehicle6) can construct | |||
another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3, two vehicles (i.e., | another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3, two vehicles (i.e., | |||
Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another connected VANET. | Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another connected VANET. | |||
In wireless subnets in vehicular networks (e.g., Subnet1 and Subnet2 | In wireless subnets in vehicular networks (e.g., Subnet1 and Subnet2 | |||
in Figure 1), vehicles can construct a connected VANET (with an | in Figure 1), vehicles can construct a connected VANET (with an | |||
arbitrary graph topology) and can communicate with each other via V2V | arbitrary graph topology) and can communicate with each other via V2V | |||
communication. Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V | communication. Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V | |||
communication, and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V | communication, and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V | |||
communication because they are within the wireless communication | communication because they are within the wireless communication | |||
range for each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate | range for each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate | |||
with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., RSU2 and RSU3) | with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., IP-RSU2 and IP- | |||
by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are not | RSU3) by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are | |||
within the wireless communication range for each other. | not within the wireless communication range for each other. | |||
In vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be | An IPv6 mobility solution is needed in vehicular networks so that a | |||
considered for wireless communications. In vehicular networks, the | vehicle's TCP session can be continued while it moves from an IP- | |||
control plane can be separated from the data plane for efficient | RSU's wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In | |||
mobility management and data forwarding. The mobility information of | Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session with a | |||
a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle (e.g., position, speed, and | corresponding node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move from IP- | |||
direction) can be used to accommodate mobility-aware proactive | RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage. In this | |||
protocols. Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a | case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a host- | |||
home agent for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 | based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a | |||
[RFC5213], so the TCC maintains the mobility information of vehicles | network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]). | |||
for location management. IP tunneling over the wireless link should | In the host-based mobility scheme, an IP-RSU plays a role of a home | |||
be avoided for performance efficiency. | agent in a visited network. On the other hand, in the network-based | |||
mobility scheme, an MA plays a role of a mobility management | ||||
controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6, and an | ||||
IP-RSU plays a role of an access router such as a Mobile Access | ||||
Gateway (MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. | ||||
In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the | ||||
data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding. | ||||
The separation of the control plane and data plane can be performed | ||||
by the Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149]. An MA can | ||||
configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and vehicles for mobility | ||||
management, location management, and security services in an | ||||
efficient way. | ||||
The mobility information of a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle | ||||
(e.g., position, speed, and direction) can be used to accommodate | ||||
mobility-aware proactive handover schemes, which can perform the | ||||
handover of a vehicle according to its mobility and the wireless | ||||
signal strength of a vehicle and an IP-RSU in a proactive way. | ||||
Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent | ||||
for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 [RFC5213], | ||||
so the TCC maintains the mobility information of vehicles for | ||||
location management. IP tunneling over the wireless link should be | ||||
avoided for performance efficiency. Also, in vehicular networks, | ||||
asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be considered for wireless | ||||
communications such as V2V and V2I. | ||||
+-----------------+ | +-----------------+ | |||
(*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud | | (*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud | | |||
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | +-----------------+ | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | +-----------------+ | |||
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | |||
| v | | v v | | | v | | v v | | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host1 | | DNS1 | |Router1| | | |Router3| | DNS2 | | Host3 | | | | | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | | | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v v v | | v v v | | | v v | | v v | | |||
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- | | | ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- | | |||
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:20:1::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:20:1::/64 | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v | | v | | | v | | v | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host2 | |Router2| | | |Router4| |Server1|...|ServerN| | | | | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| |Server1|...|ServerN| | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| 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) EN1 (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 and Edge Network | |||
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking | 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking | |||
This section discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's | This section discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's | |||
internal network (i.e., moving network) and an RSU's internal network | internal network (i.e., moving network) and an EN's internal network | |||
(i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. Note that an RSU can | (i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. Note that an EN can | |||
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., DNS | accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, | |||
server and edge computing server) in its internal network as an edge | navigation server, and DNS server) in its internal network. | |||
computing system. | ||||
A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect | A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect | |||
control units in the vehicle. The internal network also supports | Electronic Control Units (ECUs) in the vehicle. The internal network | |||
WiFi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and passenger's mobile | can support WiFi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and | |||
devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). It is reasonable to consider | passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). The network | |||
the interaction between the internal network and an external network | topology and subnetting depend on each vendor's network configuration | |||
within another vehicle or RSU. | for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider the | |||
interaction between the internal network and an external network | ||||
As shown in Figure 2, the vehicle's moving network and the RSU's | within another vehicle or an EN. | |||
fixed network are self-contained networks having multiple subnets and | ||||
having an edge router for the communication with another vehicle or | ||||
RSU. Internetworking between two internal networks via V2I | ||||
communication requires an exchange of network prefix and other | ||||
parameters through a prefix discovery mechanism, such as ND-based | ||||
prefix discovery [ID-Vehicular-ND]. For ND-based prefix discovery, | ||||
network prefixes and parameters should be registered with a vehicle's | ||||
router and an RSU router with an external network interface in | ||||
advance. | ||||
For an IP communication between a vehicle and an RSU or between two | ||||
neighboring vehicles, the network parameter discovery collects | ||||
information relevant to the link layer, MAC layer, and IP layer. The | ||||
link layer information includes wireless link layer parameters and | ||||
transmission power level. The MAC layer information includes the MAC | ||||
address of an external network interface for the internetworking with | ||||
another vehicle or RSU. The IP layer information includes the IP | ||||
address and prefix of an external network interface for the | ||||
internetworking with another vehicle or RSU. | ||||
Once the network parameter discovery and prefix exchange operations | As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving | |||
have been performed, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's | network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having | |||
moving network and the RSU's fixed network. A DNS service should be | multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU) | |||
supported for the DNS name resolution of in-vehicle devices within a | for the communication with another vehicle or another EN. | |||
vehicle's internal network as well as for the DNS name resolution of | Internetworking between two internal networks via V2I communication | |||
those devices from a remote host in the Internet (e.g., a customer's | requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network | |||
web browser and an automotive service center system). The DNS names | prefixes of the internal networks. | |||
of in-vehicle devices and their service names can be registered with | ||||
a DNS server in a vehicle or an RSU, as shown in Figure 2. | ||||
Figure 2 also shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving | Figure 2 also shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving | |||
network and the RSU's fixed network. There exists an internal | network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network | |||
network (Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS | (Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and | |||
Server (DNS1), the two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers | Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another | |||
(Router1 and Router2). There exists another internal network (Fixed | internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host | |||
Network1) inside RSU1. RSU1 has the DNS Server (DNS2), one host | (Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), 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 (a mobile router) and RSU1's Router3 (a fixed | Vehicle1's IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and EN1's IP-RSU1 (as a fixed | |||
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for | router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for | |||
V2I networking. Thus, one host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | V2I networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | |||
with one server (Server1) in RSU1 for a vehicular service through | with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through | |||
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between Vehicle1 and RSU1, | Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | |||
and RSU1's fixed network. | RSU1, and EN1's fixed network. | |||
For an IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between | ||||
two neighboring IP-OBUs, network parameters need to be shared among | ||||
them, such as MAC layer and IPv6 layer information. The MAC layer | ||||
information includes wireless link layer parameters, transmission | ||||
power level, the MAC address of an external network interface for the | ||||
internetworking with another IP-OBU or IP-RSU. The IPv6 layer | ||||
information includes the IPv6 address and network prefix of an | ||||
external network interface for the internetworking with another IP- | ||||
OBU or IP-RSU. | ||||
Through the exchange of network parameters and network prefixes among | ||||
internal networks, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's | ||||
moving network and the EN's fixed network. Thus, V2I requires an | ||||
efficient exchange protocol for network parameters and an efficient | ||||
routing protocol for network prefixes. | ||||
(*)<..........>(*) | (*)<..........>(*) | |||
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | |||
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | |||
| v | | v | | | v | | v | | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host1 | | DNS1 | |Router1| | | |Router5| | DNS3 | | Host4 | | | | | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | Host3 | | | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v v v | | v v v | | | v v | | v v | | |||
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- | | | ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- | | |||
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:30:1::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:30:1::/64 | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v | | v | | | v | | v | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host2 | |Router2| | | |Router6| | Host5 | | | | | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| | Host4 | | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| v v | | v v | | | v v | | v v | | |||
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- | | | ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- | | |||
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:30:2::/64 | | | 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:30:2::/64 | | |||
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | |||
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2) | Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2) | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles | |||
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking | 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking | |||
This section discusses the internetworking between the moving | This section discusses the internetworking between the moving | |||
networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication. | networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication. | |||
Figure 3 shows internetworking between the moving networks of two | Figure 3 shows internetworking between the moving networks of two | |||
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving | neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving | |||
Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has the DNS Server (DNS1), the | Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2), | |||
two hosts (Host1 and Host2), and the two routers (Router1 and | and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal | |||
Router2). There exists another internal network (Moving Network2) | network (Moving Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts | |||
inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has the DNS Server (DNS3), the two hosts | (Host3 and Host4), and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2). Vehicle1's | |||
(Host4 and Host5), and the two routers (Router5 and Router6). | IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile | |||
Vehicle1's Router1 (a mobile router) and Vehicle2's Router5 (a mobile | ||||
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for | router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for | |||
V2V networking. Thus, one host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | |||
with one host (Host4) in Vehicle1 for a vehicular service through | with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through | |||
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between Vehicle1 and | Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | |||
Vehicle2, and Vehicle2's moving network. | OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network. | |||
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| |Router1| | | |Router5| | | |Router7| | | | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| | Host1 | | | | Host4 | | | | Host6 | | | | | Host1 | | | | Host2 | | | | Host3 | | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3 | Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3 | |||
<....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | |||
Figure 4 shows multihop internetworking between the moving networks | Figure 4 shows multihop internetworking between the moving networks | |||
of two vehicles in the same VANET. For example, Host1 in Vehicle1 | of two vehicles in the same VANET. For example, Host1 in Vehicle1 | |||
can communicate with Host6 in Vehicle3 via Router 5 in Vehicle2 that | can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP- | |||
is an intermediate vehicle being connected to Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 | OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in a linear topology as | |||
in a linear topology as shown in the figure. | shown in the figure. | |||
5. Problem Statement | 5. Problem Statement | |||
In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned architecture | In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned architecture | |||
for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome | for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome | |||
certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the | certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the | |||
vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges | vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges | |||
need to be completed in a time relatively small compared to the | need to be completed in a time relatively small compared to the | |||
lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an RSU, or between two | lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two | |||
vehicles. This has a major impact on IPv6 neighbor discovery. | vehicles. This has a major impact on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND). | |||
Mobility management is also vulnerable to disconnections that occur | Mobility Management (MM) is also vulnerable to disconnections that | |||
before the completion of identity verification and tunnel management. | occur before the completion of identity verification and tunnel | |||
This is especially true given the unreliable nature of wireless | management. This is especially true given the unreliable nature of | |||
communications. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, proper | wireless communications. Thus, this section presents key topics such | |||
authorization for vehicular protocol messages must be assured in | as neighbor discovery and mobility management. | |||
order to prevent false reports of accidents or other mishaps on the | ||||
road, which would cause horrific misery in modern urban environments. | ||||
This section presents key topics such as neighbor discovery and | ||||
mobility management. | ||||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery | |||
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND) [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part | IPv6 ND [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol suite. | |||
of the IPv6 protocol suite. IPv6 ND is designed for point-to-point | IPv6 ND is designed for point-to-point links and transit links (e.g., | |||
links and transit links (e.g., Ethernet). It assumes an efficient | Ethernet). It assumes an efficient and reliable support of multicast | |||
and reliable support of multicast from the link layer for various | from the link layer for various network operations such as MAC | |||
network operations such as MAC Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate | Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). | |||
Address Detection (DAD). | ||||
DAD and ND-related parameters (e.g., Router Lifetime) need to be | Vehicles move quickly within the communication coverage of any | |||
extended to vehicular networking (e.g., V2V, V2I, and V2X). Vehicles | particular vehicle or IP-RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange | |||
move quickly within the communication coverage of any particular | application messages with each other, they need to be configured with | |||
vehicle or RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange application | a link-local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND. | |||
messages with each other, they need to be configured with a link- | ||||
local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND. | ||||
The legacy DAD assumes that a node with an IPv6 address can reach any | The legacy DAD assumes that a node with an IPv6 address can reach any | |||
other node with the scope of its address at the time it claims its | other node with the scope of its address at the time it claims its | |||
address, and can hear any future claim for that address by another | address, and can hear any future claim for that address by another | |||
party within the scope of its address for the duration of the address | party within the scope of its address for the duration of the address | |||
ownership. However, the partitioning and merging of VANETs makes | ownership. However, the partitioning and merging of VANETs makes | |||
this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The | this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The | |||
merging and partitioning of VANETs occurs frequently in vehicular | merging and partitioning of VANETs occurs frequently in vehicular | |||
networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the | networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the | |||
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (e.g., SLAAC). Due to the merging of VANETs, | IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) | |||
two IPv6 addresses may conflict with each other though they were | [RFC4862]. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may | |||
unique before the merging. Also, the partitioning of a VANET may | conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging. | |||
make vehicles with the same prefix be physically unreachable. Also, | Also, the partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same | |||
SLAAC should be extended to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to | prefix be physically unreachable. Also, SLAAC needs to prevent IPv6 | |||
the merging of VANETs. According to the merging and partitioning, a | address duplication due to the merging of VANETs. According to the | |||
destination vehicle (as an IP host) should be distinguished as either | merging and partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) | |||
an on-link host or off-link host even though the source vehicle uses | needs to be distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link | |||
the same prefix with the destination vehicle. | host even though the source vehicle uses the same prefix with the | |||
destination vehicle. | ||||
The vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD | To efficiently prevent the IPv6 address duplication due to the VANET | |||
by defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD, and two | partitioning and merging from happing in vehicular networks, the | |||
vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists a | vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by | |||
communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and RSUs, as | defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD. In this | |||
shown in Figure 1. By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD, vehicles | case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists | |||
can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the vehicular | a communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and IP- | |||
network whenever they are connected to the vehicular infrastructure | RSUs, as shown in Figure 1. By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD, | |||
or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET. A vehicular | vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the | |||
infrastructure having RSUs and an MA can participate in the | vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular | |||
vehicular-network-wide DAD for the sake of vehicles [RFC6775]. For | infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET. | |||
the vehicle as an IPv6 node, deriving a unique IPv6 address from a | ||||
globally unique MAC address creates a privacy issue. Refer to | ||||
Section 6 for the discussion about such a privacy issue. | ||||
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 need to 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. | |||
According to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety | For IPv6-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation, | |||
Administration (NHTSA) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report], an extra 0.5 second of | adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular networks, the | |||
warning time can prevent about 60% of the collisions of vehicles | delay-bounded data delivery is critical. Implementations for such | |||
moving closely in a roadway. A warning message should be exchanged | applications are not available yet. IPv6 ND needs to efficiently | |||
every 0.5 second. Thus, if the ND messages (e.g., NS and NA) are | work to support IPv6-based safety applications. | |||
used as warning messages, they should be exchanged every 0.5 second. | ||||
For IP-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation, | ||||
adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular network, this | ||||
bounded data delivery is critical. Implementations for such | ||||
applications are not available yet. ND needs work to support IP- | ||||
based safety applications. | ||||
5.1.1. Link Model | 5.1.1. Link Model | |||
A prefix model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the | ||||
communication between two vehicles with the same prefix regardless of | ||||
the vehicular network topology as long as there exist bidirectional | ||||
E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including VANETs and | ||||
IP-RSUs. This prefix model allows vehicles with the same prefix to | ||||
communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and | ||||
multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs. | ||||
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 | |||
[RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the | [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume | |||
connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However, | symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. | |||
interference and different levels of transmission power may cause | However, radio interference and different levels of transmission | |||
asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, | power may cause asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless | |||
a new vehicular link model should consider the asymmetry of | links. As a result, a new vehicular link model needs to consider the | |||
dynamically changing vehicular wireless links. | asymmetry of dynamically changing vehicular wireless links. | |||
There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the | There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the | |||
different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global | different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global | |||
types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all | types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all | |||
interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with | interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with | |||
on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IP link. | on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link. | |||
However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship | However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship | |||
between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless | between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless | |||
links and the characteristics of VANET. | links and the characteristics of VANET. | |||
A VANET can have multiple links between pairs of vehicles within | A VANET can have multiple links between pairs of vehicles within | |||
wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two | wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two | |||
vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless | vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless | |||
communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each | communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each | |||
other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix is assigned to VANETs | other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix is assigned to VANETs | |||
in vehicular networks. Even though two vehicles in the same VANET | in vehicular networks. Even though two vehicles in the same VANET | |||
configure their IPv6 addresses with the same IPv6 prefix, they may | configure their IPv6 addresses with the same IPv6 prefix, they may | |||
not communicate with each other not in a one hop in the same VANET | not communicate with each other not in a one hop in the same VANET | |||
because of the multihop network connectivity. Thus, in this case, | because of the multihop network connectivity between them. Thus, in | |||
the concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two | this case, the concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold | |||
vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate | because two vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot | |||
directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two | communicate directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are | |||
different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate | located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they | |||
with each other. When these two VANETs converge to one VANET, the | cannot communicate with each other. When these two VANETs converge | |||
two vehicles can communicate with each other in a multihop fashion. | to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with each other in a | |||
multihop fashion, for example, wheh they are Vehicle1 and Vehicle3, | ||||
as shown in Figure 4. | ||||
From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider | From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider | |||
the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle | the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle | |||
mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on- | mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on- | |||
link prefix and off-link prefix according to the one-hop reachability | link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of | |||
among the vehicles in an appropriate way. If the vehicles with the | vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable | |||
same prefix are reachable with each other in one hop, the prefix | network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same | |||
should be on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with | prefix are reachable with each other in one hop, the prefix should be | |||
the same prefix are not reachable with each other in one hop due to | on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same | |||
either the multi-hop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, | prefix are not reachable with each other in one hop due to either the | |||
the prefix should be off-link. | multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix | |||
should be off-link. | ||||
The vehicular link model needs to support the multihop routing in a | The vehicular link model needs to support the multihop routing in a | |||
connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6 | connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6 | |||
prefix are connected in one hop or multiple hops. It also needs to | prefix are connected in one hop or multiple hops. It also needs to | |||
support the multihop routing in multiple connected VANETs via an RSU | support the multihop routing in multiple connected VANETs through | |||
that has the wireless connectivity with each VANET. For example, in | infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSU) where they are connected to the | |||
Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are | infrastructure. For example, in Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, | |||
configured with their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope | Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are configured with their IPv6 addresses based | |||
IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each | on the same global-scope IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also | |||
other via either multi-hop V2V or multi-hop V2I2V. When two vehicles | communicate with each other via either multihop V2V or multihop | |||
of Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 are connected in a VANET, it will be more | V2I2V. When the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 are connected | |||
efficient for them to communicate with each other via VANET rather | in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them to directly | |||
than RSUs. On the other hand, when the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and | communicate with each other via VANET rather than indirectly via IP- | |||
RSUs. On the other hand, when the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and | ||||
Vehicle3 are far away from the communication range in separate VANETs | Vehicle3 are far away from the communication range in separate VANETs | |||
and under two different RSUs, they can communicate with each other | and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with each other | |||
through the relay of RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two separate VANETs can | through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two separate VANETs | |||
merge into one network via RSU(s). Also, newly arriving vehicles can | can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s). Also, newly arriving | |||
merge two separate VANETs into one VANET if they can play a role of a | vehicles can merge two separate VANETs into one VANET if they can | |||
relay node for those VANETs. | play a role of a relay node for those VANETs. | |||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym | |||
For the protection of drivers' privacy, a pseudonym of a MAC address | For the protection of drivers' privacy, a pseudonym of a MAC address | |||
of a vehicle's network interface should be used, so that the MAC | of a vehicle's network interface should be used, so that the MAC | |||
address can be changed periodically. However, although such a | address can be changed periodically. However, although such a | |||
pseudonym of a MAC address can protect some extent of privacy of a | pseudonym of a MAC address can protect some extent of privacy of a | |||
vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle | vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle | |||
identification by other fingerprint information, for example, the | identification by other fingerprint information, for example, the | |||
scrambler seed embedded in IEEE 802.11-OCB frames [Scrambler-Attack]. | scrambler seed embedded in IEEE 802.11-OCB frames [Scrambler-Attack]. | |||
The pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the | The pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the | |||
MAC address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP) session with an IPv6 | MAC address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP and and SCTP) session | |||
address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not implemented and | with an IPv6 address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not | |||
tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular networking. | implemented and tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular | |||
networking. | ||||
In the ETSI standards, for the sake of security and privacy, an ITS | In the ETSI standards, for the sake of security and privacy, an ITS | |||
station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network interface | station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network interface | |||
identities (e.g., MAC address) and the corresponding IPv6 addresses | identities (e.g., MAC address) and the corresponding IPv6 addresses | |||
[Identity-Management]. Whenever the network interface identifier | [Identity-Management]. Whenever the network interface identifier | |||
changes, the IPv6 address based on the network interface identifier | changes, the IPv6 address based on the network interface identifier | |||
should be updated, and the uniqueness of the address should be | needs to be updated, and the uniqueness of the address needs to be | |||
performed through the DAD procedure. For vehicular networks with | checked through the DAD procedure. For vehicular networks with high | |||
high mobility and density, this DAD should be performed efficiently | mobility and density, this DAD needs to be performed efficiently with | |||
with minimum overhead so that the vehicles can exchange warning | minimum overhead so that the vehicles can exchange application | |||
messages with each other every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. | messages (e.g., collision avoidance and accident notification) with | |||
each other with a short interval (e.g., 0.5 second) | ||||
For the continuity of an end-to-end (E2E) transport-layer (e.g., TCP, | [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. | |||
UDP, and SCTP) session, with a mobility management scheme (e.g., | ||||
MIPv6 and PMIPv6), the new IP address for the transport-layer session | ||||
can be notified to an appropriate end point, and the packets of the | ||||
session should be forwarded to their destinations with the changed | ||||
network interface identifier and IPv6 address. This mobility | ||||
management overhead for pseudonyms should be minimized for efficient | ||||
operations in vehicular networks having lots of vehicles. | ||||
5.1.3. Routing | 5.1.3. Routing | |||
For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via RSUs, | For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP- | |||
a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may be | RSUs, a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may | |||
required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the | be required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the | |||
subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run | 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 [ID-Multicast-Problems]. | control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems]. | |||
The merging of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and a VANET routing | A routing protocol for VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in | |||
protocol allows the efficient wireless channel utilization. A | the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the | |||
routing protocol for VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in the | routing information in VANET with a dynamic network topology because | |||
air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the routing | the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each vehicle. Thus, | |||
information in VANET with a dynamic network topology if the IPv6 ND | the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the IPv6 ND to | |||
is used to check the neighborhood of each vehicle, and can be | minimize its control overhead. | |||
extended to compute each vehicle's routing table in VANET. | ||||
Vehicular ND can be extended to accommodate routing functionality | ||||
with a prefix discovery option. The ND extension can allow vehicles | ||||
to exchange their prefixes in a multihop fashion [ID-Vehicular-ND]. | ||||
With the exchanged prefixes, they can compute their routing table (or | ||||
IPv6 ND's neighbor cache) for the VANETs with a distance-vector | ||||
algorithm [Intro-to-Algorithms]. | ||||
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 | |||
points requires an efficient mobility management including location | points requires an efficient mobility management including location | |||
management and handover. Most of vehicles are equipped with a GPS | management and handover. Most of vehicles are equipped with a GPS | |||
receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | |||
smartphone App. The GPS receiver may not provide vehicles with | smartphone App. Note that The GPS receiver may not provide vehicles | |||
accurate location information in adverse, local environments such as | with accurate location information in adverse environments such as a | |||
building area and tunnel. The location precision can be improved by | building area and tunnel. The location precision can be improved by | |||
the assistance from the RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS receiver | the assistance from the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS | |||
for location information. | receiver for location information. | |||
With a GPS navigator, an efficient mobility management will be | With a GPS navigator, an efficient mobility management can be | |||
possible by vehicles periodically reporting their current position | performed with the help of vehicles periodically reporting their | |||
and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the vehicular | current position and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the | |||
infrastructure (having RSUs and an MA in TCC) [ID-Vehicular-MM]. | vehicular infrastructure (having IP-RSUs and an MA in TCC). This | |||
This vehicular infrastructure can predict the future positions of the | vehicular infrastructure can predict the future positions of the | |||
vehicles with their mobility information (i.e., the current position, | vehicles with their mobility information (i.e., the current position, | |||
speed, direction, and trajectory) for the efficient mobility | speed, direction, and trajectory) for the efficient mobility | |||
management (e.g., proactive handover). For a better proactive | management (e.g., proactive handover). For a better proactive | |||
handover, link-layer parameters, such as the signal strength of a | handover, link-layer parameters, such as the signal strength of a | |||
link-layer frame (e.g., Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI) | link-layer frame (e.g., Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI) | |||
[VIP-WAVE]), can be used to determine the moment of a handover | [VIP-WAVE]), can be used to determine the moment of a handover | |||
between RSUs along with mobility information. | between IP-RSUs along with mobility information. | |||
By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure can | By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure | |||
better support RSUs to perform efficient DAD, data packet routing, | needs to better support IP-RSUs to perform efficient SLAAC, data | |||
horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links using a | forwarding, horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links | |||
homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e., handover | using a homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e., | |||
in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in advance | handover in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in | |||
along with the movement of the vehicle [ID-Vehicular-MM]. For | advance along with the movement of the vehicle. | |||
example, when a vehicle is moving into the wireless link under | ||||
another RSU belonging to a different subnet, the RSU can proactively | ||||
perform the DAD for the sake of the vehicle, reducing IPv6 control | ||||
traffic overhead in the wireless link. To prevent a hacker from | ||||
impersonating RSUs as bogus RSUs, RSUs and MA in the vehicular | ||||
infrastructure need to have secure channels via IPsec. | ||||
Therefore, with a proactive handover and a multihop DAD in vehicular | For example, as shown in Figure 1, when a vehicle (e.g., Vehicle2) is | |||
networks, RSUs needs to efficiently forward data packets from the | moving from the coverage of an IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU1) into the | |||
wired network (or the wireless network) to a moving destination | coverage of another IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU2) belonging to a different | |||
vehicle along its trajectory. | subnet, the IP-RSUs can proactively support the IPv6 mobility of the | |||
vehicle, while performing the SLAAC, data forwarding, and handover | ||||
for the sake of the vehicle. | ||||
Therefore, for the proactive and seamless IPv6 mobility of vehicles, | ||||
the vehicular infrastructure (including IP-RSUs and MA) needs to | ||||
efficiently perform the mobility management of the vehicles with | ||||
their mobility information and link-layer information. | ||||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
This section discusses security and privacy for IP-based vehicular | This section discusses security and privacy for IPv6-based vehicular | |||
networking. The security and privacy are one of key components in | networking. The security and privacy is one of key components in | |||
IP-based vehicular networking, such as neighbor discovery and | IPv6-based vehicular networking along with neighbor discovery and | |||
mobility management, so they need to be analyzed in depth. | mobility management. | |||
Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X | ||||
networking. Only authorized vehicles need to be allowed to use the | ||||
vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., ECU) and | ||||
mobile devices (e.g., smartphone) in a vehicle need to communicate | ||||
with other in-vehicle devices and mobile devices in another vehicle, | ||||
and other servers in an IP-RSU in a secure way. Even a perfectly | ||||
authorized and legitimate vehicle may be hacked to run malicious | ||||
applications to track and collect its and other vehicles' | ||||
information. For this case, an attack mitigation process may be | ||||
required to reduce the aftermath of the malicious behaviors. | ||||
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 confuse a vehicle with multiple false | ||||
identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe maneuver. This sybil | ||||
attack should be prevented through the cooperation between good | ||||
vehicles and RSUs. Note that good vehicles are ones with valid | ||||
certificates that are determined by the authentication process with | ||||
an authentication server in the vehicular network. Applications on | ||||
IP-based vehicular networking, which are resilient to such a sybil | ||||
attack, are not developed and tested yet. | ||||
Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X | For example, Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with | |||
networking in vehicular networks. Only authorized vehicles should be | multiple false identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe | |||
allowed to use vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices and | maneuver. This sybil attack needs to be prevented through the | |||
mobile devices in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle | cooperation between good vehicles and IP-RSUs. Note that good | |||
devices and mobile devices in another vehicle, and other servers in | vehicles are ones with valid certificates that are determined by the | |||
an RSU in a secure way. Even a perfectly authorized and legitimate | authentication process with an authentication server in the vehicular | |||
vehicle may be hacked to run malicious applications to track and | cloud. However, applications on IPv6-based vehicular networking, | |||
collect other vehicles' information. For this case, an attack | which are resilient to such a sybil attack, are not developed and | |||
mitigation process may be required to reduce the aftermath of the | tested yet. | |||
malicious behaviors. | ||||
A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user certificate along | To identify the genuineness of vehicles against malicious vehicles, | |||
with in-vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to | an authentication method is required. A Vehicle Identification | |||
efficiently authenticate a vehicle or a user through a road | Number (VIN) and a user certificate along with in-vehicle device's | |||
infrastructure node (e.g., RSU) connected to an authentication server | identifier generation can be used to efficiently authenticate a | |||
in TCC. Also, Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates can be | vehicle or a user through a road infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) | |||
used for secure E2E vehicle communications. | connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud. Also, | |||
Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates can be used for the | ||||
vehicle authentication to allow secure E2E vehicle communications. | ||||
To identify the genuineness of vehicles against malicious vehicles, | ||||
an authentication method is required. For vehicle authentication, | ||||
information available from a vehicle or a driver (e.g., Vehicle | ||||
Identification Number (VIN) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) | ||||
certificate [RFC8446]) needs to be used to efficiently authenticate a | ||||
vehicle or a user with the help of a road infrastructure node (e.g., | ||||
IP-RSU) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud. | ||||
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel between a mobile | For secure V2I communication, a secure channel between a mobile | |||
router in a vehicle and a fixed router in an RSU should be | router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e., IP-RSU) | |||
established, as shown in Figure 2. Also, for secure V2V | in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2. Also, for | |||
communication, a secure channel between a mobile router in a vehicle | secure V2V communication, a secure channel between a mobile router | |||
and a mobile router in another vehicle should be established, as | (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in | |||
shown in Figure 3. | another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3. | |||
To prevent an adversary from tracking a vehicle with its MAC address | To prevent an adversary from tracking a vehicle with its MAC address | |||
or IPv6 address, MAC address pseudonym should be provided to the | or IPv6 address, MAC address pseudonym needs to be provided to the | |||
vehicle; that is, each vehicle should periodically update its MAC | vehicle; that is, each vehicle periodically updates its MAC address | |||
address and the corresponding IPv6 address as suggested in | and the corresponding IPv6 address [RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an | |||
[RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses | update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the E2E | |||
should not interrupt the E2E communications between two vehicles (or | communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an IP- | |||
between a vehicle and an RSU) in terms of transport layer for a long- | RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this | |||
living higher-layer session. However, if this pseudonym is performed | pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality, there will | |||
without strong E2E confidentiality, there will be no privacy benefit | be no privacy benefit from changing MAC and IPv6 addresses, because | |||
from changing MAC and IP addresses, because an adversary can see the | an adversary can observe the change of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and | |||
change of the MAC and IP addresses and track the vehicle with those | track the vehicle with those addresses. | |||
addresses. | ||||
For the IPv6 ND, the vehicular-network-wide DAD is required for the | For the IPv6 ND, the DAD is required for the uniqueness of the IPv6 | |||
uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface. | address of a vehicle's wireless interface. This DAD can be used as a | |||
This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that makes the DAD-related | flooding attack that makes the DAD-related ND packets are | |||
ND packets are disseminated over the VANET and vehicular network | disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. Thus, the | |||
including the RSUs and the MA. The vehicles and RSUs need to filter | vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out suspicious ND traffic in | |||
out suspicious ND traffic in advance. | advance. | |||
For the mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct | For the mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct | |||
multiple virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with the RSU and | multiple virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with IP-RSUs and | |||
the MA. This registration makes the RSU and MA waste their | MA. This registration makes the IP-RSUs and MA waste their | |||
resources. The RSU and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is | resources. The IP-RSUs and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is | |||
genuine or bogus in the mobility management. | genuine or bogus in the mobility management. Also, the | |||
confidentiality of control packets and data packets among IP-RSUs and | ||||
MA, the E2E paths (e.g., tunnels) need to be protected by secure | ||||
communication channels. In addition, to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA | ||||
from interfering IPv6 mobility of vehicles, the mutual authentication | ||||
among them needs to be performed by certificates (e.g., TLS | ||||
certificate). | ||||
7. Informative References | 7. Informative References | |||
[Automotive-Sensing] | [Automotive-Sensing] | |||
Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R. | Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R. | |||
Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular | Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular | |||
Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing", | Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing", | |||
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016. | IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016. | |||
[CA-Cruise-Control] | [CA-Cruise-Control] | |||
skipping to change at page 22, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 32 ¶ | |||
[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] | [ID-Multicast-Problems] | |||
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. | Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. | |||
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | |||
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-06 (work | Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11 (work | |||
in progress), July 2019. | in progress), December 2019. | |||
[ID-Vehicular-MM] | ||||
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular | ||||
Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", | ||||
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-01 (work | ||||
in progress), July 2019. | ||||
[ID-Vehicular-ND] | ||||
Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., and Z. Xiang, "Vehicular | ||||
Neighbor Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", | ||||
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-07 (work | ||||
in progress), July 2019. | ||||
[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 | |||
802.11-2016, December 2016. | 802.11-2016, December 2016. | |||
[IEEE-802.11p] | [IEEE-802.11p] | |||
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | |||
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] | ||||
H. Cormen, T., E. Leiserson, C., L. Rivest, R., and C. | ||||
Stein, "Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed.", The | ||||
MIT Press, July 2009. | ||||
[IPv6-over-802.11-OCB] | ||||
Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic | ||||
Support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks Operating | ||||
Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over- | ||||
80211-OCB)", draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49 (work | ||||
in progress), July 2019. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] | [ISO-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] | [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] | |||
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), | |||
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems | "Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems | |||
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000. | (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. | |||
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", | ||||
RFC 3753, June 2004. | ||||
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix | [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix | |||
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. | 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. | |||
skipping to change at page 24, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 44 ¶ | |||
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. | Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. | |||
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy | [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy | |||
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in | Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in | |||
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. | IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. | |||
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., | [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., | |||
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", | Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", | |||
RFC 5213, August 2008. | RFC 5213, August 2008. | |||
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy | [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And | |||
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. | Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol | |||
Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. | ||||
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad | [RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad | |||
Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010. | Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010. | |||
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support in IPv4, Revised", | ||||
RFC 5944, November 2010. | ||||
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May | [RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May | |||
2011. | 2011. | |||
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility | [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility | |||
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. | Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. | |||
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, | [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, | |||
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power | "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, | Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, | |||
November 2012. | November 2012. | |||
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined | ||||
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider | ||||
Environment", RFC 7149, March 2014. | ||||
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, | [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, | |||
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", | "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", | |||
RFC 7181, April 2014. | RFC 7181, April 2014. | |||
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | |||
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017. | (IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017. | |||
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | ||||
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018. | ||||
[RFC8691] Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic | ||||
Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of | ||||
a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691, | ||||
December 2019. | ||||
[SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT: | [SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT: | |||
Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based | Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based | |||
Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on | Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on | |||
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016. | Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016. | |||
[SAINTplus] | [SAINTplus] | |||
Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D. | Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D. | |||
Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+ | Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+ | |||
for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", | for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", | |||
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | |||
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, 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-11 | Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 | |||
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- | |||
networking-11: | networking-12: | |||
o This version is revised based on the comments from Charlie Perkins | ||||
and Sandra Cespedes. | ||||
o In Section 5, the problem statement is revisd with easily | ||||
identifiable problems. | ||||
o In Section 1, the description of GeoNetworking (GN) protocols | ||||
(i.e., geographic routing) is removed because the GN protocols are | ||||
not relevant to the IPWAVE's use cases. | ||||
o In Section 2, the terms of OCB, Context-Awareness, Platooning, and | ||||
Class-Based Safety Plan are clarified. | ||||
o In Section 2, the definition of an RSU is revised so that it can | ||||
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (including | ||||
DNS server and edge computing server) as an edge computing system | ||||
because the RSU is regularly a router or switch. | ||||
o In Section 4.1, a general vehicular network architecture is | ||||
proposed for the problem statement along with Figure 1. This | ||||
figure clarifies that a single subnet prefix can span multiple | ||||
vehicles that construct a subnet. Also, some components in the | ||||
vehicular network architecture may not be needed such as Vehicular | ||||
Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and Mobility Anchor. | ||||
o In Section 5.1.1, the motivation of a new link model as a | ||||
vehicular link model is added. The "on-link" and "off-link" for | ||||
prefixes are classified according to the subnet topology of VANET. | ||||
o In Section 5.1.1, the merging and partitioning of VANETs is | ||||
described, and the requirements of the IPv6 ND are addressed for | ||||
the merging and partitioning as a problem statement. | ||||
o In Section 5.1.2, a citation of [Scrambler-Attack], which uses the | ||||
scrambler seed in the IEEE 802.11-OCB frames as fingerprint | ||||
information, is added to show the insufficiency of the MAC address | ||||
pseudonym for privacy. | ||||
o In Section 5.1, the subsection of Prefix Dissemination/Exchange is | ||||
removed because the Prefix Dissemination/Exchange subsection | ||||
discusses a solution rather than a problem or requirement. | ||||
o In Section 5.1.3, the motivation of merging the IPv6 ND and a | o This version is revised based on the comments from Carlos | |||
VANET routing protocol is explained to improve wireless channel | Bernardos. | |||
utilization by removing redundant neighbor information exchange. | ||||
o The text of the problems and requirements of security and privacy | o This version focuses on problems rather than solutions for IPWAVE. | |||
in vehicular networks are moved to Section 6. | Also, this version addresses the requirements of IPv6 neighbor | |||
discovery, mobility management, and security and privacy. | ||||
o In Section 6, the compromise of a perfectly authorized and | o In Section 2, IP-OBU and IP-RSU are used instead of OBU and RSU, | |||
legitimate vehicle is described as a security problem to be | respectively. | |||
considered. | ||||
o In Section 3.3, the description of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) is | o In Section 4.1, an exemplary vehicular network architecture is | |||
concised to deliver the clear concept of the direct communication | illustrated for the problem statement as Figure 1. | |||
between a vehicle and a pedestrian. | ||||
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 | |||
skipping to change at page 28, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 46 ¶ | |||
by the European Commission I (636537-H2020). | by the European Commission I (636537-H2020). | |||
Appendix C. Contributors | Appendix C. 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), Francois Simon (Pilot), | (Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), Francois Simon (Pilot), | |||
Sri Gundavelli (Cisco), Erik Nordmark, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche | Sri Gundavelli (Cisco), Erik Nordmark, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche | |||
Telekom), and Pascal Thubert (Cisco). The authors sincerely | Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ | |||
appreciate their contributions. | Housley (Vigil Security), and Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom). The authors | |||
sincerely appreciate their contributions. | ||||
The following are co-authors of this document: | The following are co-authors of this document: | |||
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 | |||
Sandra Cespedes | Sandra Cespedes | |||
NIC Chile Research Labs | NIC Chile Research Labs | |||
Universidad de Chile | Universidad de Chile | |||
Av. Blanco Encalada 1975 | Av. Blanco Encalada 1975 | |||
Santiago | Santiago | |||
Chile | Chile | |||
End of changes. 101 change blocks. | ||||
546 lines changed or deleted | 592 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/ |