A taxonomy of wireless

networks

2008/10/1

Examples

2008/10/1

Ad Hoc Networks
Non-infrastructure
Fixed and Mobile Nodes
Special Classes of Ad Hoc Networks
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
Wireless Mesh Networks
Wireless Sensor Networks
Bluetooth Scatternets

What is a VANET
(Vehicular Ad hoc NETwork)?
Roadside
base station

Emergency
event

Inter-vehicle
communications
Vehicle-to-roadside
communications

A taxonomy of vehicular
communication systems

Inter-vehicle communication
(IVC) Systems
IVC systems are completely infrastructure-free; only

onboard units (OBUs) sometimes also called invehicle equipment (IVE) are needed.

IVC systems
Single-hop and multi-hop IVCs (SIVCs and MIVCs).
SIVC systems are useful for applications requiring

short-range communications (e.g., lane merging,

automatic cruise control)
MIVC systems are more complex than SIVCs but
can also support applications that require long-range
communications (e.g., traffic monitoring)

IVC systems

a) Single-hop IVC system

b) multi-hop IVC system

Roadside-to-Vehicle
Communication (RVC) Systems
RVC systems assume that all communications take

place between roadside infrastructure (including

roadside units [RSUs]) and OBUs.
Depending on the application, two different types of

infrastructure can be distinguished

Sparse RVC (SRVC) system
Ubiquitous RVC (URVC) system

RVC Systems SRVC

SRVC systems are capable of providing

communication services at hot spots.

A busy intersection scheduling its traffic light, a gas
station advertising its existence (and prices), and
parking availability at an airport, are examples of
applications requiring an SRVC system.
An SRVC system can be deployed gradually, thus
not requiring substantial investments before any
available benefits.

RVC Systems -URVC

A URVC system : providing all roads with high-speed

communication would enable applications

unavailable with any of the other systems.
Unfortunately, a URVC system may require

considerable investments for providing full (even

significant) coverage of existing roadways
(especially in large countries like the United States)

Hybrid Vehicular Communication

(HVC) Systems
HVC systems are proposed for extending the range of

RVC systems.
In HVC systems vehicles communicate with roadside
infrastructure even when they are not in direct wireless
range by using other vehicles as mobile routers.
An HVC system enables the same applications as an
RVC system with a larger transmission range.
The main advantage is that it requires less roadside
infrastructure. However, one disadvantage is that
network connectivity may not be guaranteed in
scenarios with low vehicle density.

IVC vs. MANET (1/6)

MANETs are wireless multihop networks that lack

infrastructure, and are decentralized and selforganizing

IVC systems satisfy all these requirements, and are
therefore a special class of MANETs

IVC vs. MANET (2/6)

There are several characteristics that differentiate IVCs

from the common assumptions made in the MANET

literature:
Applications

Addressing
Rate of Link Changes
Mobility Model

Energy Efficiency

IVC vs. MANET (3/6)

Applications
While most MANET articles do not address specific
applications, the common assumption in MANET
literature is that MANET applications are identical (or
similar) to those enabled by the Internet.
In contrast, as we show later, IVCs have completely
different applications. An important consequence of the
difference in the applications is the difference in the
addressing modes.

IVC vs. MANET (4/6)

Addressing
Faithful to the Internet model, MANET applications
require point-to-point (unicast) with fixed
addressing; that is, the recipient of a message is
another node in the network specified by its IP address.
IVC applications often require dissemination of the
messages to many nodes (multicast) that satisfy some
geographical constraints and possibly other criteria (e.g.,
direction of movement). The need for this addressing
mode requires a significantly different routing paradigm.

IVC vs. MANET (5/6)

Rate of Link Changes
In MANETs, the nodes are assumed to have moderate
mobility. This assumption allows MANET routing
protocols (e.g., Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector,
AODV) to establish end-to-end paths that are valid for a
reasonable amount of time and only occasionally need
repairs.
In IVC applications, it is shown that due to the high
degree of mobility of the nodes involved, even
multi-hop paths that only use nodes moving in the same
direction on a highway have a lifetime comparable to the
time needed to discover the path.

IVC vs. MANET (6/6)

Mobility Model
In MANETs, the random waypoint (RWP) is (by far) the
most commonly employed mobility model. However, for
IVC systems, most existing literature recognized that
RWP would be a very poor approximation of real
vehicular mobility; instead, detailed vehicular traffic
simulators are used.
Energy Efficiency
While in MANETs a significant body of literature is
concerned with power-efficient protocols, IVC enjoys a
practically unlimited power supply.

Why Vehicular Networks?

Safety
On US highways (2004):

42,800 Fatalities, 2.8 Million Injuries

~$230.6 Billion cost to society

Combat the awful side-effects of road traffic

In the EU, around 40000 people die yearly on the roads; more
than 1.5 millions are injured
Traffic jams generate a tremendous waste of time and of fuel
Most of these problems can be solved by providing

appropriate information to the driver or to the

vehicle

 Efficiency
Traffic jams waste time and fuel
In 2003, US drivers lost a total of 3.5 billion hours and
5.7 billion gallons of fuel to traffic congestion
Profit
Safety features and high-tech devices have become
product differentiators

Examples

Emergence of Vehicular Networks

In 1999, US FCC allocated 5.850-5.925 GHz band to

promote safe and efficient highways

Intended for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure

communication

EUs Car2Car Consortium has prototypes in March 2006

http://www.car-to-car.org/

Radio standard for Dedicated Short-Range

Communications (DSRC)
Based on an extension of 802.11

OBU for each equipped vehicle

(Assumptions)
A central processing unit (CPU) that implements the

applications and communication protocols

A wireless transceiver that transmits and receives data
to/from the neighboring vehicles and roadside
A GPS receiver that provides relatively accurate
positioning and time synchronization information
Appropriate sensors to measure the various
parameters that have to be measured and eventually
transmitted
An input/output interface that allows human
interaction with the system

A Modern Vehicle
Event data recorder (EDR)

Forward radar

Positioning system

(GPS)

Communication
facility

Rear radar
Human-Machine Interface Display

Computing platform

A modern vehicle is a network of sensors/actuators on wheels !

Applications for VANETs

Public Safety Applications
Traffic Management Applications
Traffic Coordination and Assistance Applications
Traveler Information Support Applications
Comfort Applications
Air pollution emission measurement and
reduction
Law enforcement
Broadband services

Applications (details)
Congestion detection

Border clearance

Vehicle platooning

Adaptive cruise control

Road conditions warning Drive-through payment

Collision alert
Stoplight assistant
Emergency vehicle
warning
Deceleration warning
Toll collection

Merge assistance

Congestion Detection
Vehicles detect congestion when:
# Vehicles > Threshold 1
Speed < Threshold 2
Relay congestion information
Hop-by-hop message forwarding
Other vehicles can choose alternate routes

Congestion Detection

Deceleration Warning
Prevent pile-ups when a vehicle decelerates rapidly

Public Safety Applications (1/2)

Public safety applications are geared primarily toward

avoiding accidents and loss of life of the occupants of

vehicles.
Collision warning systems have the potential to
reduce the number of vehicle collisions in several
scenarios.

Public Safety Applications (2/2)

Safety applications have obvious real-time constraints,

as drivers have to be notified before the information is

no longer useful. Either an MIVC or a URVC (SRVC for
intersections) can be used for these applications. It is
possible that, depending on the communication range,
an SIVC may be sufficient for these applications.
In terms of addressing, the destinations in these
applications will not be individual vehicles, but rather
any relevant vehicle. The zone of relevance (ZOR)
(also known as the target area) is determined by
the particular application.

Traffic Management Applications

Traffic management applications are focused on

improving traffic flow, thus reducing both congestion

as well as accidents resulting from congestion, and
reducing travel time
Traffic monitoring
Traffic light scheduling
Emergency vehicles

Traffic Coordination and Assistance

Applications
Platooning (i.e., forming tight columns of vehicles

closely following each other on highways)

Passing and lane change assistance may reduce or
eliminate risks during these maneuvers, since they are
often the source of serious accidents.

Traveler Information Support

Applications
Local information such as local updated maps,

the location of gas stations, parking areas, and

schedules of local museums can be downloaded
from selected infrastructure places or from other
local vehicles. Advertisements with, for example,
gas or hamburger prices may be sent to approaching
vehicles.
Road warnings of many types (e.g., ice, oil, or
water on the road, low bridges, or bumps) may easily
be deployed by authorities simply by dropping a
beacon in the relevant area.

Comfort Applications (1/4)

This class of applications may be motivated by the

desire of passengers to communicate with either other

vehicles or ground-based destinations such as Internet
hosts or the public service telephone network (PSTN).

Comfort Applications (2/4)

Targeted vehicular communications allow localized

communications (potentially multi-hop) between two

vehicles. Voice, instant messaging, or similar
communications may occur between the occupants
of vehicle caravans traveling together for long
distances, or between law enforcement vehicles and
their victims.
Note that this application does not scale to large

network sizes.

Comfort Applications (3/4)

Vehicle to land-based destination communications is

arguably a very useful capability as it may enable an

entire array of applications, from email and media
streaming to Web browsing and voice over IP.
Unfortunately, land-based access requires a URVC

system that may be prohibitively expensive in the near

future.

Comfort Applications (4/4)

Tolls for roads and bridges can be collected

automatically. Many nonstandard systems exist and

work well.
Parking payments can be made promptly and
conveniently.
Repair and maintenance records can be recorded at
the garages performing them.
Multimedia files such as DVDs, music, news, audio
books, pre-recorded shows can be uploaded to the
cars entertainment system while the car is in the
garage.

The relationship among the IEEE

1609 and IEEE 802.11 standards
IEEE 1609.1,
et al

UPPER
LAYERS

IEEE 1609.3

NETWORK
LAYER

IEEE 1609.4
IEEE 802.11p

LOWER
LAYERS

MEDIUM

WAVE
SECURITY
SERVICES

IEEE 1609.2

DSRC Spectrum Allocation

In 1999, the U.S. Federal Communication Commission

allocated 75MHz of Dedicated Short Range

Communications (DSRC) spectrum at 5.9 GHz to be
used exclusively for vehicle-to-vehicle and
infrastructure-to-vehicle communications.

802.11 WAVE mode

A station in WAVE mode can send and receive data

frames with the wildcard BSSID with To DS and From

DS fields both set to 0, regardless of whether it is a
member of a WAVE BSS.
A WAVE BSS (WBSS) is a type of BSS consisting of a
set of cooperating stations in WAVE mode that
communicate using a common BSSID. A WBSS is
initialized when a radio in WAVE mode sends a WAVE
beacon, which includes all necessary information for a
receiver to join.

 A radio joins a WBSS when it is configured to send and

receive data frames with the BSSID defined for that WBSS.
Conversely, it ceases to belong to a WBSS when its MAC
stops sending and receiving frames that use the BSSID of that
WBSS.
A station shall not be a member of more than one WBSS at
one time. A station in WAVE mode shall not join an
infrastructure BSS or IBSS, and it shall not use active or
passive scanning, and lastly it shall not use MAC
authentication or association procedures.
A WBSS ceases to exist when it has no members. The
initiating radio is no different from any other member after the
establishment of a WBSS. Therefore, a WBSS can continue if
the initiating radio ceases to be a member.

MULTI-CHANNEL OPERATIONS
(P1609.4)
SCOPE
describes multi-channel wireless radio
operations, that uses the IEEE 802.11p, WAVE
mode, medium access control and physical
layers, including the operation of control channel
and service channel interval timers, parameters
for priority access, channel switching and routing,
management services, and primitives designed
for multi-channel operations.

NETWORKING SERVICES (P1609.3)

SCOPE
define services, operating at the network and
transport layers, in support of wireless
connectivity among vehicle-based devices, and
between fixed roadside devices and vehiclebased devices using the 5.9 GHz DSRC/WAVE
mode.

RESOURCE MANAGER (P1609.1)

SCOPE
describe the services and interfaces, including
security and privacy protection mechanisms,
associated with the DSRC Resource Manager
operating at 5.9GHz band authorized by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
and to satisfy the Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) wireless communications
requirements.

Security Services for Applications and

Management Messages (P1609.2)
SCOPE
defines secure message formats and

processing of secure messages, within the

DSRC/WAVE system.
defines methods for securing WAVE
management messages and application
messages, with the exception of anonymitypreserving vehicle safety messages.
describes administrative functions necessary
to support the core security function.

Issues of VANET
Security
DSRC and collision warning
Broadcast and routing
Information dissemination
Data access
Address configuration

Suk-Bok Lee, Gabriel Pan, J.S Park, Mario Gerla and

Songwu Lu,
ACM MobiHoc, 2007

Secure Dissemination Framework

SSD: Signature-Seeking Drive
Secure incentives for cooperative nodes
No tamper-proof h/w assumptions
No game theoretic approaches
Leverages a PKI (public key infrastructure)
A set of ad dissemination designs

SSD: Overview
Vehicular Authority
(VA)

Certified Ad

Request for
Ad permission

Ad Distribution Point
(ADP)
ADI

After verifying ADI,

Vehicle u may agree to disseminate the
ad.

SSD: Overview
Rw
w
v
ADI
Rv
u

Vehicle-Vehicle Communication

Vehicle ukeeps forwarding ADI

In return, receiving vehicles v, wprovide signed-receiptsto u.
While driving its way, u may collect as many receipts as it forwards ADI.

SSD: Overview
Vehicular Authority (VA)

Charge

Transaction
Record
Colleted
receipts

ADI
Rw
Rv

.
.
.
Receipts are exchangeable with virtual cash at Virtual Cashier (e.g. gas station)
;predefined amount of cash is reserved for each receipt-providing node, too.
VA charges the restaurantsuch virtual cash induced by ADIs

Uncooperative Model
Selfish nodes
Seek to maximize their own profit
Malicious nodes
Try to intentionally disrupt the system
We may encourage selfish nodes to participate in the

network with an incentive model, yet malicious nodes

try to
attack the weak point of the model.
Secure incentive !

Ad Dissemination Models

One-level advertisement
Local advertising
Most users receive the ad,

with reasonable # of
forwarding nodes

Multi-level advertisement
Intensive advertising over

the wide area

Yong Ding, Chen Wang, and Li Xiao,

ACM VANET, 2007

A Static-Node Assisted Adaptive Routing

Protocol in Vehicular Networks
Multi-hop routing

protocols in vehicular
networks
MDDV [VANET04],

VADD[Infocom06]

Basic Idea
Use geographic routing
Macro level: packets are
routed intersection to
intersection
Micro level: packets are
routed vehicle to vehicle

Motivation
Under high vehicle densities

Both MDDV and VADD work

well
Under low vehicle densities
When a packet reaches an
intersection, there might not
be any vehicle available to
deliver the packet to the
next intersection at the
moment.
MDDV: not considered
VADD: Route the packet
through the best currently
available path
A detoured path may be
taken

S
Z

XY

SADV Design
Basic Idea:
A packet in node A wants to be delivered to a
destination
The best path to deliver the packet is through the
northward road
The packet is stored in the static node for a while
The packet is delivered northward when node C comes

SADV Design
Transactions of packets at

static nodes
Forward the packet along the

best path
If the best path is not
available currently, store the
packet and wait
Buffer management

Transactions of packets in

vehicles along roads

Greedy geographic

forwarding used to route the

packet to the next static node

Yang Zhang, Jing Zhao and Guohong Cao,

ACM VANET, 2007

The Big Picture

Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks -

VANET
Moving Vehicles
RoadSide Units (RSU)

Local broadcasting infostations

802.11 access point

Applications
Commercial Advertisement
Real-Time Traffic
Digital Map Downloading

Task
Service Scheduling of Vehicle-

Roadside Data Access

Challenges
Bandwidth Competition
All requests compete for
the same limited
bandwidth.
Time Constraint
Vehicles are moving and
they only stay in the
RSU area for a short
period of time.
Data Upload/Download
The miss of upload
leads to data staleness.

Assumptions and Performance

Metrics
Assumptions
Location-aware and Deadline-aware
The RSU maintains a service cycle

Service non-preemptive

Performance Metrics
Service Ratio
Ratio of the number of requests served before the service
deadline to the total number of arriving requests.
Data Quality
Percentage of fresh data access.
Tradeoff !!!

Naive Scheduling Policies

First Come First Serve

(FCFS): the request with the

earliest arrival time will be
served first.
First Deadline First (FDF):
the request with the most
urgency will be served first.
Smallest Datasize First
(SDF): the data with a
smallest size will be served
first.
workload

D*S Scheduling
Intuition
Given two requests with the same deadline, the one

asking for a small size data should be served first.

Given two requests asking for the data items with
same size, the one with an earlier deadline should be
served first.

Basic Idea
Assign each arrival request a service value based on

its deadline and data size, called DS_value as its

service priority weight.
DS_value=(Deadline CurrentClock)*DataSize

Implementation of D*S
Dual-List
Search from the top of
D_list
Set MinS and MinD
Search D_List and
S_list alternatively
Stops when the
checked entry goes
across MinD or MinS,
or when the search
reaches the halfway of
both lists.

Download Optimization: Broadcasting

Observation
several requests may ask for downloading the same data
item.
wireless communication is broadcast in nature.
Basic Idea
delay some requested data and broadcast it before the
deadlines, then several requests may be served via a
single broadcast.
the data with more pending requests should be served
first.
DSN_value=(Deadline CurrentClock)*DataSize/Number

D*S/N: Selection of Representative

Deadline
When calculating their

DSN value, we need to

assign each pending
request group a single
deadline to estimate the
urgency of the whole
group.

The Problem of D*S/N

Data Quality !!!
DSN_value=(Deadline CurrentClock)*DataSize/Number
For upload request, it is not necessary to maintain several
update requests for one data item since only the last update
is useful.
Number value of update requests is always 1, which makes
it not fair for update requests to compete for the
bandwidth.
D*S/N can improve the system service ratio but sacrifice
the service opportunity of update requests, which degrades
the data quality for downloading.

Upload Optimization: 2-Step Scheduling

Basic Idea
two priority queues: one for the update requests and

the other for the download requests.

the data server provides two queues with different
bandwidth (i.e., service probability).

Benefits of Using Two Separate Priority Queues

only need to compare the download queue and update

queue instead of individual updates and downloads.

update and download queues can have their own
priority scheduling schemes.

Reference
Chien-Chung Shen, Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANET),

, , 2007.
, Data Dissemination, Service Discovery, and Applications
in Vehicle Ad Hoc Networks ,
, , 2008.
Daniel Jiang and Luca Delgrossi, IEEE 802.11p: Towards an
International Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments,
Vehicular Technology Conference, 2008. VTC Spring 2008. IEEE
11-14 May 2008 Page(s):2036 2040.
Tom Kurihara, IEEE DSRC Application Services (P1609), doc:IEEE
802.11-07-2134-00-000p, 2007.