Overview of Vehicular Networking

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Scenario

What are in a vehicular network

Vehicles (on-board unit) Road side unit/equipment Communication protocols
Vehicle to vehicle Vehicle to road side Vehicle to handheld device

Network infrastructure GPS (optional?) Back-end system

Connected car scenario

Difference of communications

Applications of a vehicle network

Safety
Intersection warning
Vehicle-based Infrastructure-based

Vehicle probe
Travel time estimation Environmental data collection Road surface data collection

Emergency vehicle
preemptive traffic control

Navigation

Intelligent Traffic control with telematics

Telematics vs. ITS

Telematics
The integrated use of telecommunications and informatics within road vehicles

ITS (intelligent transportation system)

add information and communications technology to transport infrastructure and vehicles

Traffic control
Intersection Approach Too long. Vehicle Traffic Light Approach

Too short.

Approach Approach

SCOOT (Split, Cycle and Offset Pre-timed Traffic light Optimization Technique) Limited!! SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System)

Intersection

: Detector
Case1: Queue is too long Unfair..

70sec 30sec 70sec 60sec 50sec 50sec Case2: Some problems in the intersection 50sec 60sec 50sec

70sec

30sec 70sec

TrafficView : Controller

Green time may be extended : Controller

Too many vehicles. I must wait

Case2: Vehicles in Case1: pedestrian the Intersection

Is this for real?

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

National initiatives
US
VII (Vehicle Infrastructure Integration)

Europe
i2010 ERTICO

VII goal
Safety
E.g. reduce number of car accidents

Driving quality
E.g. shorter driving time

New Market
E.g. applications that run on vehicle OBU

VII business model

Government
builds network infrastructure (DSRC) Subsidize auto-maker for OBU & application development

Auto-maker
All new cars sold in US are VII-compliant Allow government to run safety-related application on OBU

VII vision

VII consortium
Auto-makers: OBE and applications
Ford GM DCX (DaimlerChrysler) BMW VW Nissan Toyota Honda

State DOT (Department of Transportation): network infrastructure and RSE

Subcontract to Booz Allen Hamilton (a global consulting firm)

Schedule
$54M $3B

Planned deployment

System architecture

(our focus in this course)

On-board equipment (OBE)

Road-Side equipment (RSE)

End-to-End Communication

Putting all together

Multiple applications on top of DSRC

Current deployment

Future traffic estimate

WiMax --- 60% DSRC --- 10% WiFi --- 10% Satellite --- 10% Cellular (e.g. UMTS) --- 10%

Dual Mode OBE

OBE can be dual mode
Public application (safety, information)
DSRC
Mandatory by VII 27Mbps, 1km range 802.11p (PHY, MAC), 1609 (upper layer extension)

Private application (voice, infotainment, navigation)

WiMax, WiFi, Cellular
Value differentiator of auto-maker OBE

What are in a vehicular network?

What are in a vehicular network?

Communication protocols

i2010
A European Information Society for growth and employment the European Commission's strategic policy framework laying out broad policy guidelines for the information society and the media in the years up to 2010 3 flagship initiatives
Intelligent Car Digital Libraries Ageing Well in the Information Society

Intelligent Car
Night vision

Advanced cruise control

Use radar to maintain safe distance

Intelligent car
CyberCars
Driver-less Run at low speed (30km/hr) Can avoid obstacles Park automatically With a fee, users would have access right

CyberCars2
Follow-up project Focus on V-to-V and V-toinfrastructure communication

Intelligent Car
CarTalk project
Focus on vehicle-tovehicle communication Information is transmitted from one car to another car Vehicles nearby form an ad-hoc network

ERTICO
Europe-based ERTICO represents the interests and expertise of around 100 Partners provides a platform for its Partners to define common research & development needs acquires and manages publicly funded ITS development & deployment projects on behalf of its Partners Plan the deployment of ITS Influence decision makers and opinion leaders

Organization
Board members
Industry
Renault Volkswagen AG Siemens FIAT/IVECO Navteq Robert Bosch

Public Authorities
UK Department for Transport Slovenian Ministry of Transport Swedish Road Administration

Infrastructure Operators
ASFA Thales Vodafone

Users
ADAC RACC

Others
TNO

projects
Safety
ADASIS Forum advancing map-enhanced driver assistance systems AIDE enhancing safety with adaptive driver assistance systems ERTRAC contributing to European road transport research priorities eSafety Forum making Europe's roads safer for everyone FeedMAP enabling quick and inexpensive map updates GST creating easy access to dynamic safety services HeavyRoute supporting quicker and safer freight transport IP PReVENT supporting the driver, preventing accidents MAPS&ADAS using digital maps to improve road safety RESPONSE3 bringing ADAS to market quickly and safely SAFESPOT supporting smart vehicles on safe roads SpeedAlert Forum keeping drivers informed of speed limits at all times

Security
EOS building a European security partnership for the 21st century EURAM generating a European risk assessment methodology for critical infrastructures

Efficiency & Environment

AGILE making the most of satellite navigation services CVIS facilitating vehicle and infrastructure cooperation DEPN dismantling non-technical barriers to CVIS deployment FOAM building a framework for open application management ETNITE improving ITS training and education FRAME Forum providing continuity and compatibility for European ITS architecture RCI contributing to free-flow road charging SISTER promoting the integration of satellite and terrestrial communication with Galileo for road transport

E-call
A mandate for all vehicles in EU after 2010/9 Under eSafety Forum

E-call requirement

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Formed by wireless hosts which may be mobile Without (necessarily) using a pre-existing infrastructure Routes between nodes may potentially contain multiple hops

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

May need to traverse multiple links to reach a destination
A

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET)

Mobility causes route changes

Why Ad Hoc Networks ?

Ease of deployment Speed of deployment Decreased dependence on infrastructure

To summarize

Many Applications
Personal area networking
cell phone, laptop, ear phone, wrist watch

Military environments
soldiers, tanks, planes

Civilian environments
Mesh networks taxi cab network meeting rooms sports stadiums boats, small aircraft

Emergency operations
search-and-rescue policing and fire fighting

Applications: Vehicular Ad-hoc network

Applications: Wireless Sensor Network

Applications: Mesh Network

Many Variations
Fully Symmetric Environment
all nodes have identical capabilities and responsibilities

Asymmetric Capabilities
transmission ranges and radios may differ battery life at different nodes may differ processing capacity may be different at different nodes speed of movement

Asymmetric Responsibilities
only some nodes may route packets some nodes may act as leaders of nearby nodes (e.g., cluster head)

Many Variations
Traffic characteristics may differ in different ad hoc networks
bit rate timeliness constraints reliability requirements unicast / multicast / geocast host-based addressing / content-based addressing / capability-based addressing

May co-exist (and co-operate) with an infrastructure-based network

Many Variations
Mobility patterns may be different
people sitting at an airport lounge New York taxi cabs kids playing military movements personal area network

Mobility characteristics
speed predictability direction of movement pattern of movement uniformity (or lack thereof) of mobility characteristics among different nodes

Challenges
Limited wireless transmission range Broadcast nature of the wireless medium Hidden terminal problem (see next slide) Packet losses due to transmission errors Mobility-induced route changes Mobility-induced packet losses Battery constraints Potentially frequent network partitions Ease of snooping on wireless transmissions (security hazard)

Hidden Terminal Problem

Nodes A and C cannot hear each other Transmissions by nodes A and C can collide at node B Nodes A and C are hidden from each other

Research on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

Variations in capabilities & responsibilities X Variations in traffic characteristics, mobility models, etc. X Performance criteria (e.g., optimize throughput, reduce energy consumption) = Significant research activity

The Holy Grail

A one-size-fits-all solution
Perhaps using an adaptive/hybrid approach that can adapt to situation at hand

Difficult problem Many solutions proposed trying to address a sub-space of the problem domain

VANET vs. MANET

VANET (Vehicular Ad-hoc Network) can be considered a subset of MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc Network)
Nodes do not move in any random direction Nodes are powered (energy is not an issue) Node contact time is limited
Intermittent connectivity might occur

Node speed is bounded

Mostly high speed, but occasionally stop and slow moving

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

802.11p
WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environment) Based on .11a 5.9GHz Data rate: 6-27Mbps Designed for general Internet access, can be used for ETC as well 7 licensed channels Use open off-the-shelf chipset and software Vehicle-to-roadside and vehicle-to-vehicle Command-response and peer-to-peer
Critical Safety of Life
Ch 172
5.850 5.860

Control Channel
Ch 174
5.870

High Power Public Safety

Ch 180
5.900

Ch 176
5.880

Ch 178
5.890

Ch 182
5.910

Ch 184
5.920

Service Channels

Frequency (GHz)

Service Channels

802.11p
Target for high speed vehicle Short latency (<50ms) for MAC Random MAC address for preserving privacy IPv6 for network layer (with header compression allowed) Multiple stack options above network layer

Some technical terms

DSRC (dedicated short-range communication)
Apply to many forms of short-range low-latency radio 5.85 to 5.925GHz in North America

OBU: a device performs the functions of 802.11 station with additional WAVE functions RSU: a device performs the functions of 802.11 access point with additional WAVE functions WBSS (WAVE basic service set): A set of OBUs operating in a WAVE mode controller by an RSU WIBSS (WAVE independent basic service set): A set of OBUs operating in a WAVE mode that forms a selfcontained network
Do not use beacons Connection is created/tore-down on-dmand

WAVE
Differences from 802.11
High reliability Low latency
From association to end of data exchange < 100ms

Channel access
Control channel
Broadcast (no reply)

Service channel
Data transmission

If an OBU does not hear anything within 100ms, it switches back to control channel

Power control
Pubic safety application are allowed higher power transmission than private application The reference point for RF power is the center of front bumper of the vehicle

Safety-related message
Get higher priority during transmission Normally sent on control channel Use EDCA (.11e)

802.16
aka WiMax
Wireless Metro Internet

Fast last mile access to network Target Applications

Data Voice Video Real time videoconferencing

Fast cable/fiber to end user is expensive

Usage Scenarios

Comparison of wireless standards

Why WiMax?
Better spectral efficiency than 3G
Consider multiple antennas right from the start OFDM is more amenable to MIMO implementation

Higher peak data rate Higher average throughput Support more symmetric linnks Lower cost
IP architecture from bottom up

But 3G has a better mobility support

Why WiMax?
Better spectral efficiency than 3G
Consider multiple antennas right from the start OFDM is more amenable to MIMO implementation

Higher peak data rate Higher average throughput Support more symmetric linnks Lower cost
IP architecture from bottom up

But 3G has a better mobility support

802.20
Target for very high mobility
> 250 kmph Operate below 3.5GHz 4Mbps downlink and 1.5Mbps uplink Still under developing
Lack of consensus Issues with the standardization process

802.22
Target for rural and remote area Define a cognitive radio
Take advantage of unused TV channels Operate in VHF and low UHF bands and lead to greater range

M-Taiwan Project

WiMax Network Usage Model

WiMax Features
Broad bandwidth
Up to 134.4 Mbit/s in 28 MHz channel (in 2-66 GHz)
32Mb/s -134.4Mb/s 1.25/2.5/5/10/14/20/25/28MHz per channel (3.5/7/8.75/13.5MHz)

Supports multiple services simultaneously with full QoS

Efficiently transport IPv4, IPv6, ATM, Ethernet, etc. Wireless transportation system (ferry)

Bandwidth on demand (frame by frame)

Similar to HIPERLAN Type II (frame-based protocol) and DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications) Centralized control

MAC designed for efficient used of spectrum Comprehensive, modern, and extensible security

 Supports multiple frequency allocations from 2-66 GHz in 802.16 (10-66GHz), 802.16a (2-11GHz)and 802.16e (<6GHz) 700MHz
Single carrier (SC) for line-of-sightsituations OFDM and OFDMA (MC) for non-line-of-sight situations
OFDM: orthogonal frequency division multiplexing OFDMA: orthogonal frequency division multiple access
OFDMA = 1.25 MHz, 2.5, 5, 10, 14 and 20 MHz channels (and more)

Access schemes: TDD (time division duplex) and FDD (frequency division duplex) Link adaptation: Adaptive modulation and coding Point-to-multipoint (star) topology and mesh network extension Support for adaptive antennas and space-time coding (in 802.16a) Extension to mobility

TDM vs. OFDM

802.16 vs. 802.16e

Downlink data rate: 9.4Mbps vs. 46Mbps Uplink data rate: 3.3Mbps vs. 7Mbps Multiplexing: TDM vs. OFDMA Modulation: both use QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM Coverage: 3-5 miles vs. 2 miles Frequency band: 3.5GHz/5.8GHz vs. 2.3GHz/ 2.5GHz/3.5GHz
5.8GHz is license-exempt

802.15.1
aka Bluetooth For the last 10 meters

Target products
Intelligent devices
PC Cellular phone PDA

Audio peripheral
Headset Speaker Stereo receiver

Data peripheral
Keyboard Mouse Camera Printers

Embedded applications
Cars: power lock control Grocery store update MIDI music instrument

Usage models
Computer to Computer File Transfer Synchronization 3 in 1 Phone Ultimate Headset Computer Speakerphone Cordless Computer Conference Table ..

characteristics
Unlicensed 2.4GHz radio band
ISM (industrial, scientific,medical) band -Available worldwide Also used by Microwave ovens, 802.11, HomeRF

Gross data rate of 1 Mbit/s Basic 10m range extended to 100m with amplifiers TDMA -TDD -Frequency hopping]
hopping to a new frequency 1600 times a second

small packet size Mixed voice / data paths Encryption Low power Low cost Extremely small

Piconet
A piconet is characterized by the master
Frequency hopping scheme Access code Timing synchronization

Master determines the bit rate allocated to each slave Slaves do not synchronize to the master
Calculate offsets to masterBluetooth clock s Monitor timing drift

Only one master

Dynamically selected Roles can be switched

Up to 7 active slaves
Active piconet

Up to 255 parked slaves

Can be reactivated quickly

No central network structure

Ad-hoc network

Scatternet

Scatternet
Interconnected piconets One master per piconet Few devices shared between piconets
Master/Slave Slave/Slave Need special features

No central network structure

Ad-hoc network

Scatternet applications

Data exchange across piconets

802.15.4
aka ZIGBEE Also target Personal Area Networks market Designed for the wide ranging automation applications Operates in the
868MHz band at a data rate of 20Kbps in Europe 914MHz band at 40Kbps in the USA, 2.4GHz ISM bands Worldwide at a maximum datarate of 250Kbps.

features
Standards-based Interoperability and worldwide usability Low data-rates Ultra low power consumption Very small protocol stack Support for small to excessively large networks Simple design Security Reliability

Bluetooth vs. Zigbee

Bluetooth aims to cover more applications
Introduce complexity increase cost and power consumption

Data rate
Bluetooth
Higher data rate audio, graphics and pictures, file transfer over small networks performance of a Bluetooth network drops when more than 8 devices are present

ZigBee
better suited for transmitting smaller packets over large networks mostly static networks with many, infrequently used devices
like home automation, toys, remote controls, etc.

can handle 65000+ devices.

power
Bluetooth
Aim as a cable replacement for items like phones, laptop computers and headsets
expect regular charging and use a power model like a mobile phone

ZigBee
limited power requirement
better for devices where the battery is rarely replaced designed to optimize slave power requirements (> 2 years)

latency
Bluetooth
3 seconds to either join a network or to change to active from sleeping state
though faster in accessing the channel (around 2ms).

ZigBee
outstanding choice for timing critical, low power applications
The join time for a new slave is typically 30ms slave changing from sleeping to active, or accessing the channel is typically 15ms

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Why VANET simulation?

Real-world experimentation
Currently no test-bed available Hard to explore scalability Classical problem with repeatability

Emulation
Uses real sw/hw in simulated environment to ensure accuracy Higher scalability, but still limited

 Network simulation (e.g. NS-2, GloMoSim, SWANS)

Scalable to large number of nodes Easy to vary system configuration Repeatability

Desirable simulation characteristics

Scalability - interesting problem instances Generalizable - should enable a wide range of scenarios Feedback loop - enable self-steering (e.g., traffic advisory) Close correspondence with real world

A realistic mobility model is crucial to the evaluation of VANET protocols and applications

The importance of a mobility model

Mobility key component of VANET simulators Mobility constraints (e.g., streets, buildings)
Affects velocities and distances between nodes, which affects radio transmission

Nodes should physically interact with one another

E.g., avoid collisions

Central to feedback loop many scenarios in

Cars can change trajectory in response to data

What we want for VANET mobility

Random waypoint considered harmful

Random Waypoint (RWP)
Benefits
Simple Low overhead Common

Disadvantages
NOT representative of mobility for worst-case or general-case performance Nodes cannot interact wrt mobility Encourages use of open field simulation

RWP effects on wireless communication

Every position on map is a waypoint with equal probability
Artificially high density near center of map

Nodes generally cannot leave the field

Data does not leave the field

Arbitrary stopping points and stopping times

Affects links among nodes

Arbitrary speeds and speed distributions

Mobility traces
Advantages
Represents real motion Little overhead in simulation

Disadvantages
Difficult to obtain Rarely distributed (legal issues) Difficult to generalize Does not allow feedback loop

Vehicular motion
Congestion leads to hot spots at intersections Vehicles spend more time near intersections even when uncongested

Car mobility & wireless communication

Nodes tend to spend more time at intersections
Increases interference in this region Can reduce connectivity

Buildings further reduce connectivity between nodes on different streets Nodes often travel in opposite or orthogonal directions
Short interaction time window

Vehicular congestion slows nodes

Can stabilize topology, but can reduce overall connectivity

A new mobility model for VANETs is needed

Network Mobility
IETF NEMO WG
RFC 3963 : Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol (Jan. 2005)

Extension of Mobile IPv6 Mobile Router (MR)

Operates Mobile IPv6 Establishes a bi-directional tunnel to its corresponding Home Agent (HA)

Network Mobility
CN_MN 2::

Internet Internet
7::

BU

4::

All traffic must pass through the bidirectional tunnel between the MR and its corresponding HA. =>Triangular routing
2

MR 2 LFN 5:: 6:: LFR

HA_MR 4::2->7::2 5::/prefixlen, 6::/prefixlen forward to MR

114

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Security Issues for VANET

Nodes may be misbehave or try to compromise security at all layers of the protocol stack

MAC Layer
Disobey protocol specifications for selfish gains Denial-of-service attacks

MAC Layer Misbehavior

Access Point Access Point
Wireless Wireless channel channel Wireless Wireless channel channel

C B

Nodes are required to follow Medium Access Control (MAC) rules Misbehaving nodes may violate MAC rules

Example
We will illustrate MAC layer misbehavior with example misbehaviors that can occur with IEEE 802.11 DCF protocol

One Possible Misbehaviors

Causing collisions with other hosts RTS or CTS Those hosts will exponentially backoff on packet loss, giving free channel to the misbehaving host

Another possible Misbehaviors: Impatient Transmitters

Smaller backoff intervals Shorter Interframe Spacings

 Impatient Transmitters
Backoff from biased distribution
Example: Always select a small backoff value
B1 = 1
Misbehaving node

B1 = 1 Transmit

Transmit

Well-behaved node

wait B2 = 20 B2 = 19

wait

Network Layer
Misbehaving hosts may create many hazards May disrupt route discovery and maintenance: Force use of poor routes (e.g., long routes) Delay, drop, corrupt, misroute packets May degrade performance by making good routes look bad

Watchdog Approach
Verify whether a node has forwarded a packet or not

B sends packet to C A B C D E

Watchdog Approach
Verify whether a node has forwarded a packet or not B can learn whether C has forwarded packet or not B can also know whether packet is tampered with if no per-link encryption

C forwards packet to D A B C D E

B overhears C Forwarding the packet

Watchdog Approach: Buffering & Failure Detection

Forwarding by C may not be immediate: B must buffer packets for some time, and compare them with overheard packets
Buffered packet can be removed on a match

If packet stays in buffer at B too long, a failure tally node C is incremented for If the failure rate is above a threshold, C is determined as misbehaving, and source node informed

Secure communication and anonymity

Assume that every node has a unique and static Global ID (GID) and a set of pseudonyms (PID) used as network addresses that can change during communication Nodes exchange their GID and the GID public key prior to unicast communications between them Despite we can have unicast communications using PIDs we cannot know the other persons identity
127

Applying asymmetric cryptography, a pseudonym is associated with a public/private key pair. A certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority (CA) binds public key and GID A node can change its pseudonym and associated signature and certificate in order to prevent identity and location tracking

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Transport Layer (End-to-End Communication)

How to secure end-to-end communication? Need to know keys to be used for secure communication May want to anonymize the communication

Two routes: A-B-D-F (BAD), A-C-D-F (GOOD)

Source Destination

Fig. 1. A link rupture event is more likely to occur between vehicles A, B, and D.

131

Geographical routing

Destination Node

Choose node A (the closest node) for the next hop

Source Node

Restricted Greedy Routing

Repair strategy based on real street

Detecting junctions

Beacon message Correlation coefficient

Intermittent connectivity on the road

Drive-thru Interent
Wireless LANs are pervasive Can we use wireless LANs on the road to provide Internet access? WLANs => connectivity islands How to deal with intermittent connectivy and exploit short connection period?

Connection splitting

Overview Vehicular Network

Scope Projects MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Protocols Mobility Security Transport Information Dissemination

Information Dissemination
Motivation & Scenario
Two cars crash while traveling southbound on a highway, nearby vehicles cooperate to:
inform the closest ambulance and police stations alert approaching vehicles telling them to slow down notify the highway entrances north of the accident

Messages should ideally propagate

towards specific target areas along the routes where the vehicle density is higher

Information Dissemination
How to route messages towards specific target areas while considering the underlying vehicle density Assuming each vehicle knows its geographical location and communication range
How to find the preferred paths to reach the target areas?