A taxonomy of wireless

networks

2008/10/1
Examples

2008/10/1 4
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 in-
vehicle 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 self-
organizing
 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 40’000 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
 EU’s 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)

Positioning system (GPS)

Forward radar

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 • Merge assistance
• Stoplight assistant
• Emergency vehicle
• warning
• Deceleration warning
• Toll collection
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
car’s entertainment system while the car is in the
garage.
The relationship among the IEEE
1609 and IEEE 802.11 standards
IEEE 1609.1, UPPER
et al LAYERS
WAVE
NETWORK SECURITY
IEEE 1609.3 IEEE 1609.2
LAYER SERVICES

IEEE 1609.4 LOWER

IEEE 802.11p LAYERS

MEDIUM
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 vehicle-
based 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 anonymity-
preserving 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)

Request for Certified Ad

Ad permission

Ad Distribution Point
(ADP)
ADI

After verifying ADI,

u Vehicle u may agree to disseminate the
ad.
SSD: Overview
Rw
w

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)

Transaction
Record
Charge
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 ADI’s
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 Multi-level advertisement

• Local advertising • Intensive advertising over
the wide area
• Most users receive the ad,
with reasonable # of
forwarding nodes
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 [VANET’04],
VADD[Infocom’06]
S
 Basic Idea
 Use geographic routing
 Macro level: packets are
routed intersection to
intersection D
 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 S
intersection, there might not
be any vehicle available to Z XY
deliver the packet to the
next intersection at the
moment.
 MDDV: not considered
D
 VADD: Route the packet
through the best currently
available path
 A detoured path may be
taken
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),” 「車載資通
訊」短期課程, 國立台北大學三峽校區, 2007.
 陳宗禧教授, “Data Dissemination, Service Discovery, and Applications
in Vehicle Ad Hoc Networks ,“「車載隨意行動網路」學界短期課程推廣
暨產學座談會, 私立淡江大學, 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.