rfc9365.original | rfc9365.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Jeong, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | Request for Comments: 9365 Sungkyunkwan University | |||
Intended status: Informational 24 October 2022 | Category: Informational March 2023 | |||
Expires: 27 April 2023 | ISSN: 2070-1721 | |||
IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem | IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem | |||
Statement and Use Cases | Statement and Use Cases | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-30 | ||||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of | This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation | IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation | |||
Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are | Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are | |||
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and | vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and | |||
vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document | vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document | |||
explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, for | explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, for | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | |||
IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, | IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, mobility management, | |||
and Security & Privacy). | as well as security and privacy). | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | published for informational purposes. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | ||||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | ||||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | received public review and has been approved for publication by the | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents | |||
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet | ||||
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 April 2023. | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | ||||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9365. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the | |||
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described | |||
in the Revised BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Terminology | |||
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3. Use Cases | |||
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.1. V2V | |||
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.2. V2I | |||
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.3. V2X | |||
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4. Vehicular Networks | |||
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture | |||
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.2. V2I-Based Internetworking | |||
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 4.3. V2V-Based Internetworking | |||
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5. Problem Statement | |||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery | |||
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 5.1.1. Link Model | |||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym | |||
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 5.1.3. Routing | |||
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 5.2. Mobility Management | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 6. Security Considerations | |||
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 32 | 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery | |||
6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 34 | 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management | |||
6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 6.3. Other Threats | |||
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8.1. Normative References | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | 8.2. Informative References | |||
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 50 | Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V | |||
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 50 | Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking | |||
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 52 | Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I | |||
Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-based Vehicular | Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-Based Vehicular | |||
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 | Networks | |||
Appendix E. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | Acknowledgments | |||
Appendix F. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | Contributors | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 | Author's Address | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving road | Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving road | |||
safety and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | safety and efficiency and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | |||
networks. To proliferate the use cases of vehicular networks, | networks. To proliferate the use cases of vehicular networks, | |||
several governments and private organizations have committed to | several governments and private organizations have committed to | |||
allocate dedicated spectrum for vehicular communications. The | allocating dedicated spectrum for vehicular communications. The | |||
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US allocated wireless | Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US allocated wireless | |||
channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) [DSRC] in | channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) [DSRC] in | |||
the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with the frequency band | the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with the frequency band | |||
of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). In November 2020, the FCC | of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). In November 2020, the FCC | |||
adjusted the lower 45 MHz (i.e., 5.850 - 5.895 GHz) of the 5.9 GHz | adjusted the lower 45 MHz (i.e., 5.850 - 5.895 GHz) of the 5.9 GHz | |||
band for unlicensed use instead of DSRC-dedicated use | band for unlicensed use instead of DSRC-dedicated use | |||
[FCC-ITS-Modification]. DSRC-based wireless communications can | [FCC-ITS-Modification]. DSRC-based wireless communications can | |||
support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), | support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), | |||
and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) networking. The European Union (EU) | and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) networking. The European Union (EU) | |||
allocated radio spectrum for safety-related and non-safety-related | allocated radio spectrum for safety-related and non-safety-related | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at line 116 ¶ | |||
part of the Commission Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC]. Most | part of the Commission Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC]. Most | |||
other countries and regions in the world have adopted the 5.9 GHz | other countries and regions in the world have adopted the 5.9 GHz | |||
band for vehicular networks, though different countries use different | band for vehicular networks, though different countries use different | |||
ways to divide the band into channels. | ways to divide the band into channels. | |||
For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended | For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended | |||
standard 802.11 (commonly known as Wi-Fi) to enable safe driving | standard 802.11 (commonly known as Wi-Fi) to enable safe driving | |||
services based on DSRC for the Wireless Access in Vehicular | services based on DSRC for the Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
Environments (WAVE) system. The Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link | Environments (WAVE) system. The Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link | |||
Layer (L2) issues are addressed in IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for | Layer (L2) issues are addressed in IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for | |||
the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers | the PHY and MAC layers of the DSRC, while IEEE Std 1609.2 | |||
security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3] defines related services | [WAVE-1609.2] covers security aspects, IEEE Std 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3] | |||
at network and transport layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] | defines related services at network and transport layers, and IEEE | |||
specifies the multichannel operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a | Std 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] specifies the multichannel operation. IEEE | |||
separate amendment, but was later rolled into the base 802.11 | 802.11p was first a separate amendment but was later rolled into the | |||
standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE 802.11 Outside the Context of a | base 802.11 standard (IEEE Std 802.11-2012) as IEEE 802.11 Outside | |||
Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012 [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012 [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | |||
3GPP has standardized Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) | 3GPP has standardized Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) | |||
communications to support V2X in LTE mobile networks (called LTE V2X) | communications to support V2X in LTE mobile networks (called LTE V2X) | |||
and V2X in 5G mobile networks (called 5G V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] | and V2X in 5G mobile networks (called 5G V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] | |||
[TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. With C-V2X, vehicles can directly | [TR-22.886-3GPP] [TS-23.287-3GPP]. With C-V2X, vehicles can directly | |||
communicate with each other without relay nodes (e.g., eNodeB in LTE | communicate with each other without relay nodes (e.g., eNodeB in LTE | |||
and gNodeB in 5G). | and gNodeB in 5G). | |||
Along with these WAVE standards and C-V2X standards, regardless of a | Along with these WAVE standards and C-V2X standards, regardless of a | |||
wireless access technology under the IP stack of a vehicle, vehicular | wireless access technology under the IP stack of a vehicle, vehicular | |||
networks can operate IP mobility with IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IPv6 | networks can operate IP mobility with IPv6 [RFC8200], that is, Mobile | |||
protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 (PMIPv6) | IPv6 protocols, e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy Mobile | |||
[RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], Network | IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) | |||
Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963], and Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) | [RFC7333], Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963], and the Locator/ID | |||
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. In addition, ISO has approved a standard | Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300]. In addition, ISO has approved | |||
specifying the IPv6 network protocols and services to be used for | a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and services to be | |||
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) | used for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6] | |||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6][ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1]. | [ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1]. | |||
This document describes use cases and a problem statement about | This document describes use cases and a problem statement about | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 Wireless | IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 Wireless | |||
Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the | Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the | |||
use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, for | use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, for | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | |||
IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, | IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, mobility management, | |||
and Security & Privacy) so that those protocols can be tailored to | as well as security and privacy) so that those protocols can be | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networking. Thus, this document is intended to | tailored to IPv6-based vehicular networking. Thus, this document is | |||
motivate development of key protocols for IPWAVE. | intended to motivate development of key protocols for IPWAVE. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8691]. In | This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8691]. In | |||
addition, the following terms are defined below: | addition, the following terms are defined below: | |||
* Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal | 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]. | |||
* DMM: "Distributed Mobility Management" [RFC7333][RFC7429]. | Distributed Mobility Management (DMM): See [RFC7333] [RFC7429]. | |||
* Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server) | Edge Computing Device (ECD): This is a computing device (or server) | |||
at edge for vehicles and vulnerable road users. It co-locates | at the edge of the network for vehicles and vulnerable road users. | |||
with or connects to an IP-RSU, which has a powerful computing | It co-locates with or connects to an IP Roadside Unit (IP-RSU), | |||
capability for different kinds of computing tasks, such as image | which has a powerful computing capability for different kinds of | |||
processing and classification. | computing tasks, such as image processing and classification. | |||
* Edge Network (EN): It is an access network that has an IP-RSU for | Edge Network (EN): This is an access network that has an IP-RSU for | |||
wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and | wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP On-Board | |||
wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP- | Unit (IP-OBU) and wired communication with other network devices | |||
RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a global navigation | (e.g., routers, IP-RSUs, ECDs, servers, and Mobility Anchors | |||
satellite system (GNSS), such as Global Positioning System (GPS), | (MAs)). It may use a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) | |||
radio receiver for its position recognition and the localization | such as Global Positioning System (GPS) with a GNSS receiver for | |||
service for the sake of vehicles. | its position recognition and the localization service for the sake | |||
of vehicles. | ||||
* IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a | Evolved Node B (eNodeB): This is a base station entity that supports | |||
computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike, | the Long Term Evolution (LTE) air interface. | |||
motorcycle, and a similar one), which has a basic processing | ||||
ability and can be driven by a low-power CPU (e.g., ARM). It has | ||||
at least one IP interface that runs in IEEE 802.11-OCB and has an | ||||
"OBU" transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in | ||||
Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] | ||||
[TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play the role of a | ||||
router connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) | ||||
inside a vehicle. See the definition of the term "IP-OBU" in | ||||
[RFC8691]. | ||||
* IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road. | Internet Protocol On-Board Unit (IP-OBU): An IP-OBU denotes a | |||
It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless | computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, electric bike, | |||
motorcycle, or similar), which has a basic processing ability and | ||||
can be driven by a low-power CPU (e.g., ARM). It has at least one | ||||
IP interface that runs in IEEE 802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" | ||||
transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in | ||||
Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] [TR-22.886-3GPP] | ||||
[TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play the role of a router connecting | ||||
multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) inside a vehicle. See | ||||
the definition of the term "IP-OBU" in [RFC8691]. | ||||
IP Roadside Unit (IP-RSU): 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 | 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 | configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. An | |||
with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB | IP-RSU communicates with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link | |||
mode. Also, it may have a third IP-enabled wireless interface | operating in OCB mode. One of its IP-enabled interfaces is | |||
running in 3GPP C-V2X in addition to the IP-RSU defined in | connected to the wired network for wired communication with other | |||
[RFC8691]. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access Network Router | network devices (e.g., routers, IP-RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MAs). | |||
(ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless Termination Point | Also, it may have another IP-enabled wireless interface running in | |||
(WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition of the term "IP- | 3GPP C-V2X in addition to the IP-RSU defined in [RFC8691]. An IP- | |||
RSU" in [RFC8691]. | 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 "IP-RSU" in [RFC8691]. | ||||
* LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to | Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR): This is a method for measuring | |||
measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and | a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and | |||
measuring the reflected pulsed light. | measuring the reflected pulsed light. | |||
* Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and | Mobility Anchor (MA): This is a node that maintains IPv6 addresses | |||
mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support | and mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support | |||
their IPv6 address autoconfiguration and mobility management with | their IPv6 address autoconfiguration and mobility management with | |||
a binding table. An MA has End-to-End (E2E) connections (e.g., | a binding table. An MA has end-to-end (E2E) connections (e.g., | |||
tunnels) with IP-RSUs under its control for the address | tunnels) with IP-RSUs under its control for the IPv6 address | |||
autoconfiguration and mobility management of the vehicles. This | autoconfiguration and mobility management of the vehicles. This | |||
MA is similar to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] | MA is similar to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] | |||
for network-based mobility management. | for network-based mobility management. | |||
* OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set - BSS". It is a | Next Generation Node B (gNodeB): This is a base station entity that | |||
mode of operation in which a Station (STA) is not a member of a | supports the 5G New Radio (NR) air interface. | |||
BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, | ||||
association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | ||||
* 802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std | Outside the Context of a BSS (OCB): This is a mode of operation in | |||
which a station (STA) is not a member of a Basic Service Set (BSS) | ||||
and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, | ||||
or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. | ||||
802.11-OCB: This refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std | ||||
802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute | 802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute | |||
dot11OCBActivited is 'true'. | dot11OCBActivated is 'true'. | |||
* Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air- | 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 lead 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 | |||
follow the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning]. | follow the lead vehicle [Truck-Platooning]. | |||
* Traffic Control Center (TCC): A system that manages road | Traffic Control Center (TCC): This is a system that manages road | |||
infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSUs, MAs, traffic signals, and | infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSUs, MAs, traffic signals, and | |||
loop detectors), and also maintains vehicular traffic statistics | loop detectors) and also maintains vehicular traffic statistics | |||
(e.g., average vehicle speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per | (e.g., average vehicle speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per | |||
road segment) and vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's | road segment) and vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's | |||
identifier, position, direction, speed, and trajectory as a | identifier, position, direction, speed, and trajectory as a | |||
navigation path). TCC is part of a vehicular cloud for vehicular | navigation path). TCC is part of a Vehicular Cloud for vehicular | |||
networks. | networks. | |||
* Urban Air Mobility (UAM): It refers to using lower-altitude | Urban Air Mobility (UAM): This refers to using lower-altitude | |||
aircraft to transport passengers or cargo in urban and suburban | aircraft to transport passengers or cargo in urban and suburban | |||
areas. The carriers used for UAM can be manned or unmanned | areas. The carriers used for UAM can be manned or unmanned | |||
vehicles, which can include traditional helicopters, electrical | vehicles, which can include helicopters, electric vertical take- | |||
vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft (eVTOL), and unmanned aerial | off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles | |||
vehicles (UAV). | (UAVs). | |||
* Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU | Vehicle: This is a node that has an IP-OBU for wireless | |||
for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It | communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It has a GNSS | |||
has a GNSS radio navigation receiver for efficient navigation. | radio navigation receiver for efficient navigation. Any device | |||
Any device having an IP-OBU and a GNSS receiver (e.g., smartphone | having an IP-OBU and a GNSS receiver (e.g., smartphone and tablet | |||
and tablet PC) can be regarded as a vehicle in this document. | PC) can be regarded as a vehicle in this document. | |||
* Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of | Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): This is 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. | |||
* Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks, | Vehicular Cloud: This is a cloud infrastructure for vehicular | |||
having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding | networks, having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network | |||
elements (e.g., switch and router). | forwarding elements (e.g., switch and router). | |||
* V2D: "Vehicle to Device". It is the wireless communication | Vehicle to Device (V2D): This is the wireless communication between | |||
between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and IoT device). | a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and IoT (Internet of | |||
Things) device). | ||||
* V2P: "Vehicle to Pedestrian". It is the wireless communication | Vehicle to Pedestrian (V2P): This is the wireless communication | |||
between a vehicle and a pedestrian's device (e.g., smartphone and | between a vehicle and a pedestrian's device (e.g., smartphone and | |||
IoT device). | IoT device). | |||
* V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". It is the wireless | Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle (V2I2V): This is the wireless | |||
communication between a vehicle and another vehicle via an | communication between a vehicle and another vehicle via an | |||
infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). | infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). | |||
* V2I2X: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Everything". It is the | Vehicle to Infrastructure to Everything (V2I2X): This is the | |||
wireless communication between a vehicle and another entity (e.g., | wireless communication between a vehicle and another entity (e.g., | |||
vehicle, smartphone, and IoT device) via an infrastructure node | vehicle, smartphone, and IoT device) via an infrastructure node | |||
(e.g., IP-RSU). | (e.g., IP-RSU). | |||
* V2X: "Vehicle to Everything". It is the wireless communication | Vehicle to Everything (V2X): This is the wireless communication | |||
between a vehicle and any entity (e.g., vehicle, infrastructure | between a vehicle and any entity (e.g., vehicle, infrastructure | |||
node, smartphone, and IoT device), including V2V, V2I, and V2D. | node, smartphone, and IoT device), including V2V, V2I, V2D, and | |||
V2P. | ||||
* VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management". It is an IPv6-based | Vehicular Mobility Management (VMM): This is IPv6-based mobility | |||
mobility management for vehicular networks. | management for vehicular networks. | |||
* VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery". It is an IPv6 ND extension | Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND): This is an IPv6 ND (Neighbor | |||
for vehicular networks. | Discovery) extension for vehicular networks. | |||
* VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy". It is an IPv6-based | Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP): This is IPv6-based security | |||
security and privacy term for vehicular networks. | and privacy for vehicular networks. | |||
* WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0]. | Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE): See [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). | |||
IP is widely used among popular end-user devices (e.g., smartphone | IP is widely used among popular end-user devices (e.g., smartphone | |||
and tablet) in the Internet. Applications (e.g., navigator | and tablet) in the Internet. Applications (e.g., navigator | |||
application) for those devices can be extended such that the V2V use | application) for those devices can be extended such that the V2V use | |||
cases in this section can work with IPv6 as a network layer protocol | cases in this section can work with IPv6 as a network layer protocol | |||
and IEEE 802.11-OCB as a link layer protocol. In addition, IPv6 | and IEEE 802.11-OCB as a link-layer protocol. In addition, IPv6 | |||
security needs to be extended to support those V2V use cases in a | security needs to be extended to support those V2V use cases in a | |||
safe, secure, privacy-preserving way. | safe, secure, privacy-preserving way. | |||
The use cases presented in this section serve as the description and | The use cases presented in this section serve as the description and | |||
motivation for the need to augment IPv6 and its protocols to | motivation for the need to augment IPv6 and its protocols to | |||
facilitate "Vehicular IPv6". Section 5 summarizes the overall | facilitate "Vehicular IPv6". Section 5 summarizes the overall | |||
problem statement and IPv6 requirements. Note that the adjective | problem statement and IPv6 requirements. Note that the adjective | |||
"Vehicular" in this document is used to represent extensions of | "Vehicular" in this document is used to represent extensions of | |||
existing protocols such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, IPv6 Mobility | existing protocols, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, IPv6 Mobility | |||
Management (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and DMM [RFC7429]), and IPv6 | Management (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and DMM [RFC7429]), and IPv6 | |||
Security and Privacy Mechanisms rather than new "vehicular-specific" | Security and Privacy Mechanisms rather than new "vehicular-specific" | |||
functions. | functions. | |||
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: | |||
* Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance; | * Context-aware navigation for driving safely and avoiding | |||
collisions | ||||
* Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility | * Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility | |||
(UAM); | (UAM) | |||
* Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway; | * Cooperative adaptive cruise control on a roadway | |||
* Platooning in a highway; | * Platooning on a highway | |||
* Cooperative environment sensing. | * Cooperative environment sensing | |||
The above use cases are examples for using V2V networking, which can | The above use cases are examples for using V2V networking, which can | |||
be extended to other terrestrial vehicles, river/sea ships, railed | be extended to other terrestrial vehicles, river/sea ships, railed | |||
vehicles, or UAM end systems. | vehicles, or UAM end systems. | |||
Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers | A Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help | |||
to drive safely by alerting them to dangerous obstacles and | drivers to drive safely as a context-aware navigation service [CNP] | |||
situations. That is, a CASD navigator displays obstacles or | by alerting them to dangerous obstacles and situations. That is, a | |||
neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time | CASD navigator displays obstacles or neighboring vehicles relevant to | |||
through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based | possible collisions in real time through V2V networking. CASD | |||
automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations, | provides vehicles with a class-based automatic safety action plan | |||
namely, the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe, and safe | that considers three situations, namely, the Line-of-Sight unsafe, | |||
situations. This action plan can be put into action among multiple | Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe, and safe situations. This action plan can | |||
vehicles using V2V networking. | be put into action among multiple vehicles using V2V networking. | |||
A collision avoidance service of UAM end systems in air can be | A service for collision avoidance of in-air UAM end systems is one | |||
envisioned as a use case in air vehicular environments | possible use case in air vehicular environments [UAM-ITS]. This use | |||
[I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its]. This use case is similar to the | case is similar to that of a context-aware navigator for terrestrial | |||
context-aware navigator for terrestrial vehicles. Through V2V | vehicles. Through V2V coordination, those UAM end systems (e.g., | |||
coordination, those UAM end systems (e.g., drones) can avoid a | drones) can avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., collision) in three- | |||
dangerous situation (e.g., collision) in three-dimensional space | dimensional space rather than two-dimensional space for terrestrial | |||
rather than two-dimensional space for terrestrial vehicles. Also, | vehicles. Also, a UAM end system (e.g., flying car), when only a few | |||
UAM end systems (e.g., flying car) with only a few meters off the | hundred meters off the ground, can communicate with terrestrial | |||
ground can communicate with terrestrial vehicles with wireless | vehicles with wireless communication technologies (e.g., DSRC, LTE, | |||
communication technologies (e.g., DSRC, LTE, and C-V2X). Thus, V2V | and C-V2X). Thus, V2V means any vehicle to any vehicle, whether the | |||
means any vehicle to any vehicle, whether the vehicles are ground- | vehicles are ground level or not. | |||
level or not. | ||||
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [CA-Cruise-Control] helps | Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [CA-Cruise-Control] helps | |||
individual vehicles to adapt their speed autonomously through V2V | individual vehicles to adapt their speed autonomously through V2V | |||
communication among vehicles according to the mobility of their | communication among vehicles according to the mobility of their | |||
predecessor and successor vehicles in an urban roadway or a highway. | predecessor and successor vehicles on an urban roadway or a highway. | |||
Thus, CACC can help adjacent vehicles to efficiently adjust their | Thus, CACC can help adjacent vehicles to efficiently adjust their | |||
speed in an interactive way through V2V networking in order to avoid | speed in an interactive way through V2V networking in order to avoid | |||
a collision. | a collision. | |||
Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series (or group) of vehicles | Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series (or group) of vehicles | |||
(e.g., trucks) to follow each other very closely. Trucks can use V2V | (e.g., trucks) to follow each other very closely. Vehicles can use | |||
communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain | V2V communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain | |||
constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short | constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short | |||
gaps (from 3 meters to 10 meters). Platooning can maximize the | gaps (from 3 to 10 meters). Platooning can maximize the throughput | |||
throughput of vehicular traffic in a highway and reduce the gas | of vehicular traffic on a highway and reduce the gas consumption | |||
consumption because the leading vehicle can help the following | because the lead vehicle can help the following vehicles experience | |||
vehicles to experience less air resistance. | less air resistance. | |||
Cooperative-environment-sensing use cases suggest that vehicles can | Cooperative-environment-sensing use cases suggest that vehicles can | |||
share environmental information (e.g., air pollution, hazards/ | share environmental information (e.g., air pollution, hazards, | |||
obstacles, slippery areas by snow or rain, road accidents, traffic | obstacles, slippery areas by snow or rain, road accidents, traffic | |||
congestion, and driving behaviors of neighboring vehicles) from | congestion, and driving behaviors of neighboring vehicles) from | |||
various vehicle-mounted sensors, such as radars, LiDARs, and cameras, | various vehicle-mounted sensors, such as radars, LiDAR systems, and | |||
with other vehicles and pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] introduces | cameras, with other vehicles and pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] | |||
millimeter-wave vehicular communication for massive automotive | introduces millimeter-wave vehicular communication for massive | |||
sensing. A lot of data can be generated by those sensors, and these | automotive sensing. A lot of data can be generated by those sensors, | |||
data typically need to be routed to different destinations. In | and these data typically need to be routed to different destinations. | |||
addition, from the perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected | In addition, from the perspective of driverless vehicles, it is | |||
that driverless vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles. | expected that driverless vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated | |||
Through cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can | vehicles. Through cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated | |||
use environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for | vehicles can use environmental information sensed by driverless | |||
better interaction with the other vehicles and environment. Vehicles | vehicles for better interaction with the other vehicles and | |||
can also share their intended maneuvering information (e.g., lane | environment. Vehicles can also share their intended maneuvering | |||
change, speed change, ramp in-and-out, cut-in, and abrupt braking) | information (e.g., lane change, speed change, ramp in-and-out, cut- | |||
with neighboring vehicles. Thus, this information sharing can help | in, and abrupt braking) with neighboring vehicles. Thus, this | |||
the vehicles behave as more efficient traffic flows and minimize | information sharing can help the vehicles behave as more efficient | |||
unnecessary acceleration and deceleration to achieve the best ride | traffic flows and minimize unnecessary acceleration and deceleration | |||
comfort. | to achieve the best ride comfort. | |||
To support applications of these V2V use cases, the required | To support applications of these V2V use cases, the required | |||
functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange in both control | functions of IPv6 include (a) IPv6-based packet exchange in both | |||
and data planes, and secure, safe communication between two vehicles. | control and data planes and (b) secure, safe communication between | |||
For the support of V2V under multiple radio technologies (e.g., DSRC | two vehicles. For the support of V2V under multiple radio | |||
and 5G V2X), refer to Appendix A. | technologies (e.g., DSRC and 5G V2X), refer to Appendix A. | |||
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: | |||
* Navigation service; | * Navigation service | |||
* Energy-efficient speed recommendation service; | * Energy-efficient speed recommendation service | |||
* Accident notification service; | * Accident notification service | |||
* Electric vehicle (EV) charging service; | * Electric Vehicle (EV) charging service | |||
* UAM navigation service with efficient battery charging. | * UAM navigation service with efficient battery charging | |||
A navigation service, for example, the Self-Adaptive Interactive | A navigation service (for example, the Self-Adaptive Interactive | |||
Navigation Tool (SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with | Navigation Tool [SAINT]) that uses V2I networking interacts with a | |||
a TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and | TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can | |||
can guide individual vehicles along appropriate navigation paths in | guide individual vehicles along appropriate navigation paths in real | |||
real time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast | time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast-moving | |||
moving paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) | paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let | |||
to let them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles | them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the | |||
near the accident spot into efficient detour paths. | accident spot into efficient detour paths. | |||
Either a TCC or an ECD can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a | Either a TCC or an ECD can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a | |||
vehicle that depends on its traffic environment and traffic signal | vehicle that depends on its traffic environment and traffic signal | |||
scheduling [SignalGuru]. For example, when a vehicle approaches an | scheduling [SignalGuru]. For example, when a vehicle approaches an | |||
intersection area and a red traffic light for the vehicle becomes | intersection area and a red traffic light for the vehicle becomes | |||
turned on, it needs to reduce its speed to save fuel consumption. In | turned on, it needs to reduce its speed to save fuel consumption. In | |||
this case, either a TCC or an ECD, which has the up-to-date | this case, either a TCC or an ECD, which has the up-to-date | |||
trajectory of the vehicle and the traffic light schedule, can notify | trajectory of the vehicle and the traffic light schedule, can notify | |||
the vehicle of an appropriate speed for fuel efficiency. | the vehicle of an appropriate speed for fuel efficiency. | |||
[Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel-efficient route and speed plans for | [Fuel-Efficient] covers fuel-efficient route and speed plans for | |||
platooned trucks. | platooned trucks. | |||
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency | The emergency communication between vehicles in an accident (or | |||
vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU, 4G-LTE or 5G | emergency-response vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either | |||
networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) | IP-RSUs or 4G-LTE or 5G networks. The First Responder Network | |||
[FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate, | Authority [FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, | |||
and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for | operate, and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband | |||
safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The | network for safety and security network services, e.g., emergency | |||
construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state | calls. The construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires | |||
in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to | each state in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will | |||
the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed | connect to the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly | |||
using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an | constructed using 4G-LTE for communication between a vehicle and an | |||
infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected | infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected | |||
that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I | that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I | |||
and V2V in the near future. An equivalent project in Europe is | and V2V in the near future. An equivalent project in Europe is | |||
called Public Safety Communications Europe (PSCE) [PSCE], which is | called Public Safety Communications Europe [PSCE], which is | |||
developing a network for emergency communications. | developing a network for emergency communications. | |||
An EV charging service with V2I can facilitate the efficient battery | An EV charging service with V2I can facilitate the efficient battery | |||
charging of EVs. In the case where an EV charging station is | charging of EVs. In the case where an EV charging station is | |||
connected to an IP-RSU, an EV can be guided toward the deck of the EV | connected to an IP-RSU, an EV can be guided toward the deck of the EV | |||
charging station or be notified that the charging station is out of | charging station or be notified that the charging station is out of | |||
service through a battery charging server connected to the IP-RSU. | service through a battery charging server connected to the IP-RSU. | |||
In addition to this EV charging service, other value-added services | In addition to this EV charging service, other value-added services | |||
(e.g., firmware/software update over-the-air and media streaming) can | (e.g., firmware/software update over-the-air and media streaming) can | |||
be provided to an EV while it is charging its battery at the EV | be provided to an EV while it is charging its battery at the EV | |||
charging station. For a UAM navigation service, an efficient battery | charging station. For a UAM navigation service, an efficient battery | |||
charging plan can improve the battery charging schedule of UAM end | charging plan can improve the battery charging schedule of UAM end | |||
systems (e.g., drone) for long-distance flying [CBDN]. For this | systems (e.g., drones) for long-distance flying [CBDN]. For this | |||
battery charging schedule, a UAM end system can communicate with a | battery charging schedule, a UAM end system can communicate with a | |||
cloud server via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). This cloud | cloud server via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). This cloud | |||
server can coordinate the battery charging schedules of multiple UAM | server can coordinate the battery charging schedules of multiple UAM | |||
end systems for their efficient navigation path, considering flight | end systems for their efficient navigation path, considering flight | |||
time from their current position to a battery charging station, | time from their current position to a battery charging station, | |||
waiting time in a waiting queue at the station, and battery charging | waiting time in a waiting queue at the station, and battery charging | |||
time at the station. | time at the station. | |||
In some scenarios such as vehicles moving in highways or staying in | In some scenarios, such as vehicles moving on highways or staying in | |||
parking lots, a V2V2I network is necessary for vehicles to access the | parking lots, a V2V2I network is necessary for vehicles to access the | |||
Internet since some vehicles may not be covered by an IP-RSU. For | Internet since some vehicles may not be covered by an IP-RSU. For | |||
those vehicles, a few relay vehicles can help to build the Internet | those vehicles, a few relay vehicles can help to build the Internet | |||
access. For the nested NEMO described in [RFC4888], hosts inside a | access. For the nested NEMO described in [RFC4888], hosts inside a | |||
vehicle shown in Figure 3 for the case of V2V2I may have the same | vehicle shown in Figure 3 for the case of V2V2I may have the same | |||
issue in the nested NEMO scenario. | issue in the nested NEMO scenario. | |||
To better support these use cases, the existing IPv6 protocol must be | To better support these use cases, the existing IPv6 protocol must be | |||
augmented either through protocol changes or by including a new | augmented either through protocol changes or by including a new | |||
adaptation layer in the architecture that efficiently maps IPv6 to a | adaptation layer in the architecture that efficiently maps IPv6 to a | |||
diversity of link layer technologies. Augmentation is necessary to | diversity of link-layer technologies. Augmentation is necessary to | |||
support wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs | support wireless multihop V2I communications on a highway where RSUs | |||
are sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless coverage | are sparsely deployed so that a vehicle can reach the wireless | |||
of an IP-RSU through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate | coverage of an IP-RSU through the multihop data forwarding of | |||
vehicles as packet forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for | intermediate vehicles as packet forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be | |||
multihop V2I communications. | extended for multihop V2I communications. | |||
To support applications of these V2I use cases, the required | To support applications of these V2I use cases, the required | |||
functions of IPv6 include IPv6 communication enablement with | functions of IPv6 include IPv6 communication enablement with | |||
neighborhood discovery and IPv6 address management, reachability with | neighborhood discovery and IPv6 address management; reachability with | |||
adapted network models and routing methods, transport-layer session | adapted network models and routing methods; transport-layer session | |||
continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle and an | continuity; and secure, safe communication between a vehicle and an | |||
infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) in the vehicular network. | infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) in the vehicular network. | |||
3.3. V2X | 3.3. V2X | |||
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is for a | The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is for a | |||
vulnerable road user (VRU) (e.g., pedestrian and cyclist) protection | protection service for a vulnerable road user (VRU), e.g., a | |||
service. Note that the application area of this use case is | pedestrian or cyclist. Note that the application area of this use | |||
currently limited to a specific environment, such as construction | case is currently limited to a specific environment, such as | |||
sites, plants, and factories, since not every VRU (e.g., children) in | construction sites, plants, and factories, since not every VRU in a | |||
a public area (e.g., streets) is equipped with a smart device (e.g., | public area is equipped with a smart device (e.g., not every child on | |||
smartphone, smart watch, and tablet). | a road has a smartphone, smart watch, or tablet). | |||
A VRU protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation Application | A VRU protection service, such as the Safety-Aware Navigation | |||
(SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the collision of a | Application [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the collision | |||
vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone equipped with a | of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone equipped with a | |||
network device for wireless communication (e.g., Wi-Fi, DSRC, 4G/5G | network device for wireless communication (e.g., Wi-Fi, DSRC, 4G/5G | |||
V2X, and BLE) with an IP-RSU. Vehicles and pedestrians can also | V2X, and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)) with an IP-RSU. Vehicles and | |||
communicate with each other via an IP-RSU. An edge computing device | pedestrians can also communicate with each other via an IP-RSU. An | |||
behind the IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles | ECD behind the IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from | |||
and pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the | vehicles and pedestrians, and then compute wireless communication | |||
sake of them. This scheduling can save the battery of each | scheduling for the sake of them. This scheduling can save the | |||
pedestrian's smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode | battery of each pedestrian's smartphone by allowing it to work in | |||
before the communication with vehicles, considering their mobility. | sleeping mode before communication with vehicles, considering their | |||
The location information of a VRU from a smart device (e.g., | mobility. The location information of a VRU from a smart device | |||
smartphone) is multicasted only to the nearby vehicles. The true | (e.g., smartphone) is multicasted only to the nearby vehicles. The | |||
identifiers of a VRU's smart device shall be protected, and only the | true identifiers of a VRU's smart device shall be protected, and only | |||
type of the VRU, such as pedestrian, cyclist, and scooter, is | the type of the VRU, such as pedestrian, cyclist, or scooter, is | |||
disclosed to the nearby vehicles. | disclosed to the nearby vehicles. | |||
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 IP-RSU relaying. | with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without IP-RSU relaying. | |||
Light-weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate | Light-weight mobile nodes, such as bicycles, may also communicate | |||
directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V. Note that | directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V. Note that | |||
it is true that either a pedestrian or a cyclist may have a higher | it is true that either a pedestrian or a cyclist may have a higher | |||
risk of being hit by a vehicle if they are not with a smartphone in | risk of being hit by a vehicle if they are not with a smartphone in | |||
the current setting. For this case, other human sensing technologies | the current setting. For this case, other human-sensing technologies | |||
(e.g., moving object detection in images and wireless signal-based | (e.g., moving-object detection in images and wireless signal-based | |||
human movement detection [LIFS][DFC]) can be used to provide the | human movement detection [LIFS] [DFC]) can be used to provide motion | |||
motion information of them to vehicles. A vehicle by V2V2I | information to vehicles. A vehicle by V2V2I networking can obtain a | |||
networking can obtain the motion information of a VRU via an IP-RSU | VRU's motion information via an IP-RSU that either employs or | |||
that either employs or connects to a human sensing technology. | connects to a human-sensing technology. | |||
The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes | The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes | |||
in order to support wireless multihop V2X or V2I2X communications in | in order to support wireless multihop V2X or V2I2X communications in | |||
an urban road network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a | an urban road network where RSUs are deployed at intersections so | |||
vehicle (or a pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless | that a vehicle (or a pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless | |||
coverage of an IP-RSU through the multihop data forwarding of | coverage of an IP-RSU through the multihop data forwarding of | |||
intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians' smartphones) as packet | intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians' smartphones) as packet | |||
forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X or | forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X or | |||
V2I2X communications. | V2I2X communications. | |||
To support applications of these V2X use cases, the required | To support applications of these V2X use cases, the required | |||
functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange, transport-layer | functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange; transport-layer | |||
session continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle | session continuity; secure, safe communication between a vehicle and | |||
and a pedestrian either directly or indirectly via an IP-RSU, and the | a pedestrian either directly or indirectly via an IP-RSU; and the | |||
protection of identifiers of either a vehicle or smart device (such | protection of identifiers of either a vehicle or smart device (such | |||
as MAC address and IPv6 address), which is discussed in detail in | as the Media Access Control (MAC) address and IPv6 address), which is | |||
Section 6.3. | discussed in detail in Section 6.3. | |||
4. Vehicular Networks | 4. Vehicular Networks | |||
This section describes the context for vehicular networks supporting | This section describes the context for vehicular networks supporting | |||
V2V, V2I, and V2X communications. It describes an internal network | V2V, V2I, and V2X communications and describes an internal network | |||
within a vehicle or an edge network (called EN). It explains not | within a vehicle or an Edge Network (EN). Additionally, this section | |||
only the internetworking between the internal networks of a vehicle | explains not only the internetworking between the internal networks | |||
and an EN via wireless links, but also the internetworking between | of a vehicle and an EN via wireless links but also the | |||
the internal networks of two vehicles via wireless links. | internetworking between the internal networks of two vehicles via | |||
wireless links. | ||||
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud | Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud | |||
******************************************* | ******************************************* | |||
+-------------+ * * | +-------------+ * * | |||
|Correspondent| * +-----------------+ * | |Correspondent| * +-----------------+ * | |||
| Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | * | | Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | * | |||
+-------------+ * +-----------------+ * | +-------------+ * +-----------------+ * | |||
* ^ * | * ^ * | |||
* | * | * | * | |||
* v * | * v * | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at line 627 ¶ | |||
V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture contains | V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture contains | |||
vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, Traffic | vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, Traffic | |||
Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. These components | Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. These components | |||
are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into vehicular networks | are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into vehicular networks | |||
in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility Anchor, Traffic | in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility Anchor, Traffic | |||
Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be needed for the | Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be needed for the | |||
vehicular networks according to target use cases in Section 3. | vehicular networks according to target use cases in Section 3. | |||
Existing network architectures, such as the network architectures of | Existing network architectures, such as the network architectures of | |||
PMIPv6 [RFC5213], RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy | PMIPv6 [RFC5213], RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy | |||
Networks) [RFC6550], and AERO/OMNI | Networks) [RFC6550], Automatic Extended Route Optimization [AERO], | |||
[I-D.templin-6man-aero][I-D.templin-6man-omni], can be extended to a | and Overlay Multilink Network Interface [OMNI], can be extended to a | |||
vehicular network architecture for multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as | vehicular network architecture for multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as | |||
shown in Figure 1. Refer to Appendix B for the detailed discussion | shown in Figure 1. Refer to Appendix B for the detailed discussion | |||
on multihop V2X networking by RPL and OMNI. Also, refer to | on multihop V2X networking by RPL and OMNI. Also, refer to | |||
Appendix A for the description of how OMNI is designed to support the | Appendix A for the description of how OMNI is designed to support the | |||
use of multiple radio technologies in V2X. Note that though AERO/ | use of multiple radio technologies in V2X. Note that though AERO/ | |||
OMNI is not actually deployed in the industry, this AERO/OMNI is | OMNI is not actually deployed in the industry, this AERO/OMNI is | |||
mentioned as a possible approach for vehicular networks in this | mentioned as a possible approach for vehicular networks in this | |||
document. | document. | |||
As shown in Figure 1, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU | As shown in Figure 1, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at line 656 ¶ | |||
wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, respectively. | wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, respectively. | |||
The three wireless networks of IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3 can | The three wireless networks of IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3 can | |||
belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, and | belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, and | |||
Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three different | Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three different | |||
prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3). | prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3). | |||
Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an IP-RSU share a prefix just | Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an IP-RSU share a prefix just | |||
as mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi access point in a wireless | as mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi access point in a wireless | |||
LAN. This is a natural characteristic in infrastructure-based | LAN. This is a natural characteristic in infrastructure-based | |||
wireless networks. For example, in Figure 1, two vehicles (i.e., | wireless networks. For example, in Figure 1, two vehicles (i.e., | |||
Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can use Prefix 1 to configure their IPv6 | Vehicle2 and Vehicle5) can use Prefix1 to configure their IPv6 global | |||
global addresses for V2I communication. Alternatively, mobile nodes | addresses for V2I communication. Alternatively, two vehicles can | |||
can employ a "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses (BYOA)" (or "Bring-Your-Own- | employ a "Bring Your Own Addresses (BYOA)" (or "Bring Your Own Prefix | |||
Prefix (BYOP)") technique using their own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses | (BYOP)") technique using their own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) | |||
(ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless network. | [RFC4193] over the wireless network. | |||
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 of each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate | range of each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate | |||
with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., IP-RSU2 and IP- | with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., IP-RSU2 and IP- | |||
RSU3) by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are | RSU3) by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are | |||
not within the wireless communication range of each other. | not within the wireless communication range of each other. | |||
As a basic definition for IPv6 packets transported over IEEE | As a basic definition for IPv6 packets transported over IEEE | |||
802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] specifies several details, including Maximum | 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] specifies several details, including Maximum | |||
Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address | Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address | |||
mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and | mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and | |||
subnet structure. | subnet structure. | |||
An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of | An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of | |||
communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's | communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's | |||
TCP session can be continued, or UDP packets can be delivered to a | TCP session can be continued or that UDP packets can be delivered to | |||
vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an IP-RSU's | a vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an IP- | |||
wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In | RSU's wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In | |||
Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session (or a UDP session) | Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session (or a UDP session) | |||
with a correspondent node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move | with a correspondent node in the Vehicular Cloud, Vehicle2 can move | |||
from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage. In | from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage. In | |||
this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a | this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a | |||
host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a | host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a | |||
network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213], | network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213], | |||
NEMO [RFC3963] [RFC4885] [RFC4888], and AERO | NEMO [RFC3963] [RFC4885] [RFC4888], and AERO [AERO]). This document | |||
[I-D.templin-6man-aero]). This document describes issues in mobility | describes issues in mobility management for vehicular networks in | |||
management for vehicular networks in Section 5.2. For improving TCP | Section 5.2. For improving TCP session continuity or successful UDP | |||
session continuity or successful UDP packet delivery, the multi-path | packet delivery, the Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC8684] or QUIC protocol | |||
TCP (MPTCP) [RFC8684] or QUIC protocol [RFC9000] can also be used. | [RFC9000] can also be used. IP-OBUs, however, may still experience | |||
IP-OBUs, however, may still experience more session time-out and re- | more session time-out and re-establishment procedures due to lossy | |||
establishment procedures due to lossy connections among vehicles | connections among vehicles caused by the high mobility dynamics of | |||
caused by the high mobility dynamics of them. | them. | |||
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., mobile network) and an EN's internal network | internal network (i.e., mobile network) and an EN's internal network | |||
(i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. The internal network of | (i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. The internal network of | |||
a vehicle is nowadays constructed with Ethernet by many automotive | a vehicle is nowadays constructed with Ethernet by many automotive | |||
vendors [In-Car-Network]. Note that an EN can accommodate multiple | vendors [In-Car-Network]. Note that an EN can accommodate multiple | |||
routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, navigation server, and | routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, navigation server, and | |||
DNS server) in its internal network. | DNS server) in its internal network. | |||
A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect | A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect | |||
skipping to change at page 16, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at line 724 ¶ | |||
for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider interactions | for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider interactions | |||
between the internal network of a vehicle and that of another vehicle | between the internal network of a vehicle and that of another vehicle | |||
or an EN. Note that it is dangerous if the internal network of a | or an EN. Note that it is dangerous if the internal network of a | |||
vehicle is controlled by a malicious party. These dangers can | vehicle is controlled by a malicious party. These dangers can | |||
include unauthorized driving control input and unauthorized driving | include unauthorized driving control input and unauthorized driving | |||
information disclosure to an unauthorized third party. A malicious | information disclosure to an unauthorized third party. A malicious | |||
party can be a group of hackers, a criminal group, and a competitor | party can be a group of hackers, a criminal group, and a competitor | |||
for industrial espionage or sabotage. To minimize this kind of risk, | for industrial espionage or sabotage. To minimize this kind of risk, | |||
an augmented identification and verification protocol, which has an | an augmented identification and verification protocol, which has an | |||
extra means, shall be implemented based on a basic identity | extra means, shall be implemented based on a basic identity | |||
verification process. These extra means can be certificate-based, | verification process. These extra means could include approaches | |||
biometric, credit-based, and one-time passcode (OTP) approaches in | based on certificates, biometrics, credit, or One-Time Passwords | |||
addition to a used approach [RFC8002]. The parties of the | (OTPs) in addition to Host Identity Protocol certificates [RFC8002]. | |||
verification protocol can be from a built-in verification protocol in | The parties of the verification protocol can be from a built-in | |||
the current vehicle, which is pre-installed by a vehicle vendor. The | verification protocol in the current vehicle, which is pre-installed | |||
parties can also be from any verification authorities that have the | by a vehicle vendor. The parties can also be from any verification | |||
database of authenticated users. The security properties provided by | authorities that have the database of authenticated users. The | |||
a verification protocol can be identity-related information, such as | security properties provided by a verification protocol can be | |||
the genuineness of an identity, the authenticity of an identity, and | identity-related information, such as the genuineness of an identity, | |||
the ownership of an identity [RFC7427]. | the authenticity of an identity, and the ownership of an identity | |||
[RFC7427]. | ||||
The augmented identification and verification protocol with extra | The augmented identification and verification protocol with extra | |||
means can support security properties such as the identification and | means can support security properties such as the identification and | |||
verification of a vehicle, driver, and passenger. First, a credit- | verification of a vehicle, driver, and passenger. First, a credit- | |||
based means is to let a vehicle classify the received messages sent | based method is when a vehicle classifies the messages it received | |||
by another host to different severity levels for driving safety in | from another host into various levels based on their potential | |||
order to calculate the credit for the sender. Based on an | effects on driving safety in order to calculate the credit of that | |||
accumulated credit, a correspondent node can verify the other party | sender. Based on accumulated credit, a correspondent node can verify | |||
to see whether it is genuine or not. Second, a certificate-based | the other party to see whether it is genuine or not. Second, a | |||
means includes a user certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) | certificate-based method includes a user certificate (e.g., X.509 | |||
to authenticate a vehicle or its driver. Third, a biometric means | certificate [RFC5280]) to authenticate a vehicle or its driver. | |||
includes a fingerprint, face or voice to authenticate a driver or | Third, a biometric method includes a fingerprint, face, or voice to | |||
passenger. Lastly, one-time passcode (called OTP) means lets another | authenticate a driver or passenger. Lastly, an OTP-based method lets | |||
already-authenticated device (e.g., smartphone and tablet) of a | another already-authenticated device (e.g., smartphone and tablet) of | |||
driver or passenger be used to authenticate a driver or passenger. | a driver or passenger be used to authenticate a driver or passenger. | |||
+-----------------+ | +-----------------+ | |||
(*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud | | (*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud | | |||
(2001:db8:1:1::/64) | | | +-----------------+ | (2001:db8:1:1::/64) | | | +-----------------+ | |||
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | |||
| v | | v v | | | v | | v v | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | | | | | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
skipping to change at page 17, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at line 784 ¶ | |||
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | |||
Vehicle1 (Mobile Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1) | Vehicle1 (Mobile Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1) | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network | Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network | |||
As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's mobile | As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's mobile | |||
network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having | network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having | |||
multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU) | multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU) | |||
for the communication with another vehicle or another EN. The | for communication with another vehicle or another EN. The | |||
internetworking between two internal networks via V2I communication | internetworking between two internal networks via V2I communication | |||
requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network | requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network | |||
prefixes of the internal networks. For the efficiency, the network | prefixes of the internal networks. For the efficiency, the network | |||
prefixes of the internal networks (as a mobile network) in a vehicle | prefixes of the internal networks (as a mobile network) in a vehicle | |||
need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a | need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a | |||
mobile network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix | mobile network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix | |||
(MNP) [RFC3963]. | (MNP) [RFC3963]. | |||
Figure 2 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's mobile | Figure 2 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's mobile | |||
network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network | network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network | |||
(Mobile Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and | (Mobile Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and | |||
Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another | Host2) and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another | |||
internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host | internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host | |||
(Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), and the collection of | (Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), 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 IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and EN1's IP-RSU1 (as 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, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | V2I networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | |||
with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through | with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through | |||
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | Vehicle1's mobile network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | |||
RSU1, and EN1's fixed network. | RSU1, and EN1's fixed network. | |||
For the IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between | For the IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between | |||
two neighboring IP-OBUs, they need to know the network parameters, | two neighboring IP-OBUs, they need to know the network parameters, | |||
which include MAC layer and IPv6 layer information. The MAC layer | which include MAC layer and IPv6 layer information. The MAC layer | |||
information includes wireless link layer parameters, transmission | information includes wireless link-layer parameters, transmission | |||
power level, and the MAC address of an external network interface for | power level, and the MAC address of an external network interface for | |||
the internetworking with another IP-OBU or IP-RSU. The IPv6 layer | the internetworking with another IP-OBU or IP-RSU. The IPv6 layer | |||
information includes the IPv6 address and network prefix of an | information includes the IPv6 address and network prefix of an | |||
external network interface for the internetworking with another IP- | external network interface for the internetworking with another IP- | |||
OBU or IP-RSU. | OBU or IP-RSU. | |||
Through the mutual knowledge of the network parameters of internal | Through the mutual knowledge of the network parameters of internal | |||
networks, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's moving | networks, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's mobile | |||
network and the EN's fixed network. Thus, V2I requires an efficient | network and the EN's fixed network. Thus, V2I requires an efficient | |||
protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters. Note that | protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters. Note that | |||
from a security point of view, a perimeter-based policy enforcement | from a security point of view, perimeter-based policy enforcement | |||
can be applied to protect parts of the internal network of a vehicle. | [RFC9099] can be applied to protect parts of the internal network of | |||
a vehicle. | ||||
As shown in Figure 2, the addresses used for IPv6 transmissions over | As shown in Figure 2, the addresses used for IPv6 transmissions over | |||
the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be link-local | the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be IPv6 link- | |||
IPv6 addresses, ULAs, or global IPv6 addresses. When IPv6 addresses | local addresses, ULAs, or IPv6 global addresses. When IPv6 addresses | |||
are used, wireless interface configuration and control overhead for | are used, wireless interface configuration and control overhead for | |||
DAD [RFC4862] and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) | Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4862] and Multicast Listener | |||
[RFC2710][RFC3810] should be minimized to support V2I and V2X | Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] [RFC3810] should be minimized to support | |||
communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways. | V2I and V2X communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways. | |||
Let us consider the upload/download time of a ground vehicle when it | Let us consider the upload/download time of a ground vehicle when it | |||
passes through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For | passes through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For | |||
a given typical setting where 1km is the maximum DSRC communication | a given typical setting where 1 km is the maximum DSRC communication | |||
range [DSRC] and 100km/h is the speed limit in highway for ground | range [DSRC] and 100 km/h is the speed limit on highways for ground | |||
vehicles, the dwelling time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by | vehicles, the dwelling time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by | |||
dividing the diameter of the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC | dividing the diameter of the 2 km (i.e., two times the DSRC | |||
communication range where an IP-RSU is located in the center of the | communication range where an IP-RSU is located in the center of the | |||
circle of wireless communication) by the speed limit of 100km/h | circle of wireless communication) by the speed limit of 100 km/h | |||
(i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 seconds, a vehicle passing through | (i.e., about 28 m/s). For the 72 seconds, a vehicle passing through | |||
the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and download data packets to/ | the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and download data packets to/ | |||
from the IP-RSU. For special cases such as emergency vehicles moving | from the IP-RSU. For special cases, such as emergency vehicles | |||
above the speed limit, the dwelling time is relatively shorter than | moving above the speed limit, the dwelling time is relatively shorter | |||
that of other vehicles. For cases of airborne vehicles, considering | than that of other vehicles. For cases of airborne vehicles (i.e., | |||
a higher flying speed and a higher altitude, the dwelling time can be | aircraft), considering a higher flying speed and a higher altitude, | |||
much shorter. | the dwelling time can be much shorter. | |||
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 mobile | |||
networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication. | networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication. | |||
(*)<..........>(*) | (*)<..........>(*) | |||
(2001:db8:1:1::/64) | | | (2001:db8:1:1::/64) | | | |||
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ | |||
| v | | v | | | v | | v | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | Host3 | | | | | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | Host3 | | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
skipping to change at page 20, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at line 881 ¶ | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | |||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| 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 (Mobile Network1) Vehicle2 (Mobile Network2) | Vehicle1 (Mobile Network1) Vehicle2 (Mobile Network2) | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles | Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles | |||
Figure 3 shows the internetworking between the mobile networks of two | Figure 3 shows the internetworking between the mobile networks of two | |||
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Mobile | neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Mobile | |||
Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2), | Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2) | |||
and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal | and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal | |||
network (Mobile Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts | network (Mobile Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts | |||
(Host3 and Host4), and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2). Vehicle1's | (Host3 and Host4) and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2). Vehicle1's | |||
IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile | IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as 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, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate | |||
with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through | with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through | |||
Vehicle1's mobile network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | Vehicle1's mobile network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- | |||
OBU2, and Vehicle2's mobile network. | OBU2, and Vehicle2's mobile network. | |||
As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 4 shows the linear network | As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 4 shows a linear network | |||
topology of platooning vehicles for V2V communications where Vehicle3 | topology of platooning vehicles for V2V communications where Vehicle3 | |||
is the leading vehicle with a driver, and Vehicle2 and Vehicle1 are | is the lead vehicle with a driver, and Vehicle2 and Vehicle1 are the | |||
the following vehicles without drivers. From a security point of | following vehicles without drivers. From a security point of view, | |||
view, before vehicles can be platooned, they shall be mutually | before vehicles can be platooned, they shall be mutually | |||
authenticated to reduce possible security risks. | authenticated to reduce possible security risks. | |||
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| | | | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| ^ | | ^ | | ^ | | | ^ | | ^ | | ^ | | |||
skipping to change at page 21, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at line 934 ¶ | |||
Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | |||
As shown in Figure 4, multihop internetworking is feasible among the | As shown in Figure 4, multihop internetworking is feasible among the | |||
mobile networks of three vehicles in the same VANET. For example, | mobile networks of three vehicles in the same VANET. For example, | |||
Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1 | Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1 | |||
in Vehicle1, IP-OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the | in Vehicle1, IP-OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the | |||
VANET, as shown in the figure. | VANET, as shown in the figure. | |||
In this section, the link between two vehicles is assumed to be | In this section, the link between two vehicles is assumed to be | |||
stable for single-hop wireless communication regardless of the sight | stable for single-hop wireless communication regardless of the sight | |||
relationship such as line of sight and non-line of sight, as shown in | relationship, such as Line-of-Sight and Non-Line-of-Sight, as shown | |||
Figure 3. Even in Figure 4, the three vehicles are connected to each | in Figure 3. Even in Figure 4, the three vehicles are connected to | |||
other with a linear topology, however, multihop V2V communication can | each other with a linear topology, however, multihop V2V | |||
accommodate any network topology (i.e., an arbitrary graph) over | communication can accommodate any network topology (i.e., an | |||
VANET routing protocols. | arbitrary graph) over VANET routing protocols. | |||
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | | |IP-OBU3| | | | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | | |IP-OBU3| | | |||
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | |||
| ^ | | ^ | | ^ | | | ^ | | ^ | | ^ | | |||
| | |=====> | | | | | |=====> | | | |=====> | | | | | |=====> | |||
skipping to change at page 21, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at line 964 ¶ | |||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
Vehicle1 EN1 Vehicle3 | Vehicle1 EN1 Vehicle3 | |||
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction | <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction | |||
(*) Antenna | (*) Antenna | |||
Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks | |||
via IP-RSU (V2I2V) | via IP-RSU (V2I2V) | |||
As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking between two vehicles | As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking between two vehicles | |||
is feasible via an infrastructure node (i.e., IP-RSU) with wireless | is feasible via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) with wireless | |||
connectivity among the mobile networks of two vehicles and the fixed | connectivity among the mobile networks of two vehicles and the fixed | |||
network of an edge network (denoted as EN1) in the same VANET. For | network of an edge network (denoted as EN1) in the same VANET. For | |||
example, Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via | example, Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via | |||
IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP-RSU1 in EN1, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the | IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP-RSU1 in EN1, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the | |||
VANET, as shown in the figure. | VANET, as shown in the figure. | |||
For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND optimization | For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND optimization | |||
defined in MANET [RFC6130] [RFC7466] improves the classical IPv6 ND | defined in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) [RFC6130] [RFC7466] | |||
in terms of tracking neighbor information with up to two hops and | improves the classical IPv6 ND in terms of tracking neighbor | |||
introducing several extensible Information Bases, which serves the | information with up to two hops and introducing several extensible | |||
MANET routing protocols such as the different versions of Optimized | Information Bases. This improvement serves the MANET routing | |||
Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181], Open Shortest | protocols, such as the different versions of Optimized Link State | |||
Path First (OSPF) derivatives (e.g., [RFC5614]), and Dynamic Link | Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181], Open Shortest Path First | |||
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] with its extensions [RFC8629] | (OSPF) derivatives (e.g., [RFC5614]), and Dynamic Link Exchange | |||
[RFC8757]. In short, the MANET ND mainly deals with maintaining | Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] with its extensions [RFC8629] [RFC8757]. | |||
extended network neighbors to enhance the link reliability. However, | In short, the MANET ND mainly deals with maintaining extended network | |||
an ND protocol in vehicular networks shall consider more about the | neighbors to enhance the link reliability. However, an ND protocol | |||
geographical mobility information of vehicles as an important | in vehicular networks shall consider more about the geographical | |||
resource for serving various purposes to improve the reliability, | mobility information of vehicles as an important resource for serving | |||
e.g., vehicle driving safety, intelligent transportation | various purposes to improve the reliability, e.g., vehicle driving | |||
implementations, and advanced mobility services. For a more reliable | safety, intelligent transportation implementations, and advanced | |||
V2V networking, some redundancy mechanisms should be provided in L3 | mobility services. For a more reliable V2V networking, some | |||
in cases of the failure of L2. For different use cases, the optimal | redundancy mechanisms should be provided in L3 in cases of the | |||
solution to improve V2V networking reliability may vary. For | failure of L2. For different use cases, the optimal solution to | |||
example, a group of vehicles in platooning may have stabler neighbors | improve V2V networking reliability may vary. For example, a group of | |||
than freely moving vehicles, as described in Section 3.1. | platooning vehicles may have stabler neighbors than freely moving | |||
vehicles, as described in Section 3.1. | ||||
5. Problem Statement | 5. Problem Statement | |||
In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in | In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in | |||
Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome | Section 4.1, 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 relatively short time compared to the | need to be completed in a relatively short time compared to the | |||
lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two | lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU or between two | |||
vehicles. In these cases, vehicles may not have enough time either | vehicles. In these cases, vehicles may not have enough time either | |||
to build link-layer connections with each other and may rely more on | to build link-layer connections with each other and may rely more on | |||
connections with infrastructure. In other cases, the relative speed | connections with infrastructure. In other cases, the relative speed | |||
between vehicles may be low when vehicles move toward the same | between vehicles may be low when vehicles move toward the same | |||
direction or are platooned. For those cases, vehicles can have more | direction or are platooned. For those cases, vehicles can have more | |||
time to build and maintain connections with each other. | time to build and maintain connections with each other. | |||
For safe driving, vehicles need to exchange application messages | For safe driving, vehicles need to exchange application messages | |||
every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] to let drivers take an action to | every 0.5 seconds [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] to let drivers take an action | |||
avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., vehicle collision), so the IPv6 | to avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., vehicle collision), so the IPv6 | |||
control plane (e.g., ND procedure and DAD) needs to support this | control plane (e.g., ND procedure and DAD) needs to support this | |||
order of magnitude for application message exchanges. Also, | order of magnitude for application message exchanges. Also, | |||
considering the communication range of DSRC (up to 1km) and 100km/h | considering the communication range of DSRC (up to 1 km) and 100 km/h | |||
as the speed limit in highway (some countries can have much higher | as the speed limit on highways (some countries can have much higher | |||
speed limit or even no limit, e.g., Germany), the lifetime of a link | speed limits or even no limit, e.g., Germany), the lifetime of a link | |||
between a vehicle and an IP-RSU is in the order of a minute (e.g., | between a vehicle and an IP-RSU is in the order of a minute (e.g., | |||
about 72 seconds), and the lifetime of a link between two vehicles is | about 72 seconds), and the lifetime of a link between two vehicles is | |||
about a half minute. Note that if two vehicles are moving in the | about a half minute. Note that if two vehicles are moving in the | |||
opposite directions in a roadway, the relative speed of this case is | opposite directions in a roadway, the relative speed of this case is | |||
two times the relative speed of a vehicle passing through an IP-RSU. | two times the relative speed of a vehicle passing through an IP-RSU. | |||
This relative speed leads the half of the link lifetime between the | This relative speed causes the lifetime of the wireless link between | |||
vehicle and the IP-RSU. In reality, the DSRC communication range is | the vehicle and the IP-RSU to be halved. In reality, the DSRC | |||
around 500m, so the link lifetime will be a half of the maximum time. | communication range is around 500 m, so the link lifetime will be | |||
The time constraint of a wireless link between two nodes (e.g., | half of the maximum time. The time constraint of a wireless link | |||
vehicle and IP-RSU) needs to be considered because it may affect the | between two nodes (e.g., vehicle and IP-RSU) needs to be considered | |||
lifetime of a session involving the link. The lifetime of a session | because it may affect the lifetime of a session involving the link. | |||
varies depending on the session's type such as a web surfing, voice | The lifetime of a session varies depending on the session's type, | |||
call over IP, DNS query, and context-aware navigation (in | such as web surfing, a voice call over IP, a DNS query, or context- | |||
Section 3.1). Regardless of a session's type, to guide all the IPv6 | aware navigation (in Section 3.1). Regardless of a session's type, | |||
packets to their destination host(s), IP mobility should be supported | to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination host(s), IP | |||
for the session. In a V2V scenario (e.g., context-aware navigation), | mobility should be supported for the session. In a V2V scenario | |||
the IPv6 packets of a vehicle should be delivered to relevant | (e.g., context-aware navigation [CNP]), the IPv6 packets of a vehicle | |||
vehicles efficiently (e.g., multicasting). With this observation, | should be delivered to relevant vehicles efficiently (e.g., | |||
IPv6 protocol exchanges need to be done as short as possible to | multicasting). With this observation, IPv6 protocol exchanges need | |||
support the message exchanges of various applications in vehicular | to be performed as quickly as possible to support the message | |||
networks. | exchanges of various applications in vehicular networks. | |||
Therefore, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact | Therefore, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact | |||
on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND). Mobility Management (MM) is also | on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND). Mobility Management (MM) is also | |||
vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the completion of | vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the completion of | |||
identity verification and tunnel management. This is especially true | identity verification and tunnel management. This is especially true | |||
given the unreliable nature of wireless communication. Meanwhile, | given the unreliable nature of wireless communication. Meanwhile, | |||
the bandwidth of the wireless link determined by the lower layers | the bandwidth of the wireless link determined by the lower layers | |||
(i.e., link and PHY layers) can affect the transmission time of | (i.e., PHY and link layers) can affect the transmission time of | |||
control messages of the upper layers (e.g., IPv6) and the continuity | control messages of the upper layers (e.g., IPv6) and the continuity | |||
of sessions in the higher layers (e.g., IPv6, TCP, and UDP). Hence, | of sessions in the higher layers (e.g., IPv6, TCP, and UDP). Hence, | |||
the bandwidth selection according to Modulation and Coding Scheme | the bandwidth selection according to the Modulation and Coding Scheme | |||
(MCS) also affects the vehicular network connectivity. Note that | (MCS) also affects the vehicular network connectivity. Note that | |||
usually the higher bandwidth gives the shorter communication range | usually the higher bandwidth gives the shorter communication range | |||
and the higher packet error rate at the receiving side, which may | and the higher packet error rate at the receiving side, which may | |||
reduce the reliability of control message exchanges of the higher | reduce the reliability of control message exchanges of the higher | |||
layers (e.g., IPv6). This section presents key topics such as | layers (e.g., IPv6). This section presents key topics, such as | |||
neighbor discovery and mobility management for links and sessions in | neighbor discovery and mobility management for links and sessions in | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networks. Note that the detailed discussion on | IPv6-based vehicular networks. Note that the detailed discussion on | |||
the transport-layer session mobility and usage of available bandwidth | the transport-layer session mobility and usage of available bandwidth | |||
to fulfill the use cases is left as potential future work. | to fulfill the use cases is left as potential future work. | |||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery | |||
IPv6 ND [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol suite. | IPv6 ND [RFC4861] [RFC4862] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol | |||
IPv6 ND is designed for link types including point-to-point, | suite. IPv6 ND is designed for link types including point-to-point, | |||
multicast-capable (e.g., Ethernet) and Non-Broadcast Multiple Access | multicast-capable (e.g., Ethernet), and Non-Broadcast Multiple Access | |||
(NBMA). It assumes the efficient and reliable support of multicast | (NBMA). It assumes the efficient and reliable support of multicast | |||
and unicast from the link layer for various network operations such | and unicast from the link layer for various network operations, such | |||
as MAC Address Resolution (AR), DAD, MLD and Neighbor Unreachability | as MAC Address Resolution (AR), DAD, MLD, and Neighbor Unreachability | |||
Detection (NUD). | Detection (NUD) [RFC4861] [RFC4862] [RFC2710] [RFC3810]. | |||
Vehicles move quickly within the communication coverage of any | Vehicles move quickly within the communication coverage of any | |||
particular vehicle or IP-RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange | particular vehicle or IP-RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange | |||
application messages with each other, they need IPv6 addresses to run | application messages with each other, they need IPv6 addresses to run | |||
IPv6 ND. | IPv6 ND. | |||
The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are efficient DAD | The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are efficient DAD | |||
and NUD operations. An efficient DAD is required to reduce the | and NUD operations. An efficient DAD is required to reduce the | |||
overhead of DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, | overhead of DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, | |||
which can guarantee the uniqueness of a vehicle's global IPv6 | which can guarantee the uniqueness of a vehicle's global IPv6 | |||
address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of the | address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of the | |||
NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which can | NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which can | |||
guarantee the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in terms | guarantee the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in terms | |||
of adjacent vehicles and RSUs. | of adjacent vehicles and IP-RSUs. | |||
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 be not valid frequently in vehicular networks. The | this assumption not valid frequently in vehicular networks. The | |||
merging and partitioning of VANETs frequently occurs in vehicular | partitioning and merging of VANETs frequently occurs in vehicular | |||
networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the | networks. This partitioning and merging should be considered for | |||
IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) | IPv6 ND, such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) | |||
[RFC4862]. SLAAC is not compatible with merging and partitioning, | [RFC4862]. SLAAC is not compatible with the partitioning and | |||
and additional work is needed for ND to operate properly under those | merging, and additional work is needed for ND to operate properly | |||
circumstances. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may | under those circumstances. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 | |||
conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging. | addresses may conflict with each other though they were unique before | |||
An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA or IP-RSU (as | the merging. An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA | |||
Registrar in RPL) to check the uniqueness of an IPv6 address that | or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the uniqueness of an IPv6 | |||
will be configured by a vehicle as DAD. Also, the partitioning of a | address that will be configured by a vehicle as DAD. Also, the | |||
VANET may make vehicles with the same prefix be physically | partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same prefix be | |||
unreachable. An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA | physically unreachable. An address lookup operation may be conducted | |||
or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the existence of a vehicle | by an MA or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the existence of a | |||
under the network coverage of the MA or IP-RSU as NUD. Thus, SLAAC | vehicle under the network coverage of the MA or IP-RSU as NUD. Thus, | |||
needs to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the merging of | SLAAC needs to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the merging of | |||
VANETs, and IPv6 ND needs to detect unreachable neighboring vehicles | VANETs, and IPv6 ND needs to detect unreachable neighboring vehicles | |||
due to the partitioning of a VANET. According to the merging and | due to the partitioning of a VANET. According to the partitioning | |||
partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) needs to be | and merging, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) needs to be | |||
distinguished as either an on-link host or a not-onlink host even | distinguished as a host that is either on-link or not on-link even | |||
though the source vehicle can use the same prefix as the destination | though the source vehicle can use the same prefix as the destination | |||
vehicle [I-D.ietf-intarea-ippl]. | vehicle [IPPL]. | |||
To efficiently prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the VANET | To efficiently prevent IPv6 address duplication (due to the VANET | |||
partitioning and merging from happening in vehicular networks, the | partitioning and merging) from happening in vehicular networks, the | |||
vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by | vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by | |||
defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD. In this | defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD. In this | |||
case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists | case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists | |||
a communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and IP- | a communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and IP- | |||
RSUs, as shown in Figure 1. By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD, | RSUs, as shown in Figure 1. By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD, | |||
vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the | vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the | |||
vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular | vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular | |||
infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET. | infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET. | |||
For vehicular networks with high mobility and density, DAD needs to | For vehicular networks with high mobility and density, DAD needs to | |||
be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the vehicles | be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the vehicles | |||
can exchange driving safety messages (e.g., collision avoidance and | can exchange driving safety messages (e.g., collision avoidance and | |||
accident notification) with each other with a short interval | accident notification) with each other with a short interval as | |||
suggested by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) | suggested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | |||
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. Since the partitioning and merging of vehicular | (NHTSA) of the U.S. [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. Since the partitioning and | |||
networks may require re-perform DAD process repeatedly, the link | merging of vehicular networks may require re-performing the DAD | |||
scope of vehicles may be limited to a small area, which may delay the | process repeatedly, the link scope of vehicles may be limited to a | |||
exchange of driving safety messages. Driving safety messages can | small area, which may delay the exchange of driving safety messages. | |||
include a vehicle's mobility information (i.e., position, speed, | Driving safety messages can include a vehicle's mobility information | |||
direction, and acceleration/deceleration) that is critical to other | (e.g., position, speed, direction, and acceleration/deceleration) | |||
vehicles. The exchange interval of this message is recommended to be | that is critical to other vehicles. The exchange interval of this | |||
less than 0.5 second, which is required for a driver to avoid an | message is recommended to be less than 0.5 seconds, which is required | |||
emergency situation, such as a rear-end crash. | for a driver to avoid an emergency situation, such as a rear-end | |||
crash. | ||||
ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor | ND time-related parameters, such as router lifetime and Neighbor | |||
Advertisement (NA) interval need to be adjusted for vehicle speed and | Advertisement (NA) interval, need to be adjusted for vehicle speed | |||
vehicle density. For example, the NA interval needs to be | and vehicle density. For example, the NA interval needs to be | |||
dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the | dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the | |||
vehicle can maintain its neighboring vehicles in a stable way, | vehicle can maintain its position relative to its neighboring | |||
considering the collision probability with the NA messages sent by | vehicles in a stable way, considering the collision probability with | |||
other vehicles. The ND time-related parameters can be an operational | the NA messages sent by other vehicles. The ND time-related | |||
setting or an optimization point particularly for vehicular networks. | parameters can be an operational setting or an optimization point | |||
Note that the link-scope multicast messages in ND protocol may cause | particularly for vehicular networks. Note that the link-scope | |||
the performance issue in vehicular networks. [RFC9119] suggests | multicast messages in the ND protocol may cause a performance issue | |||
several optimization approaches for the issue. | in vehicular networks. [RFC9119] suggests several optimization | |||
approaches for the issue. | ||||
For IPv6-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation, | For IPv6-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation, | |||
adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular networks, the | adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular networks, the | |||
delay-bounded data delivery is critical. IPv6 ND needs to work to | delay-bounded data delivery is critical. IPv6 ND needs to work to | |||
support those IPv6-based safety applications efficiently. | support those IPv6-based safety applications efficiently. | |||
[I-D.jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery] introduces a | [VEHICULAR-ND] introduces a Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND) | |||
Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND) process as an extension of IPv6 ND | process as an extension of IPv6 ND for IP-based vehicular networks. | |||
for IP-based vehicular networks. | ||||
From the interoperability point of view, in IPv6-based vehicular | From the interoperability point of view, in IPv6-based vehicular | |||
networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum changes with the legacy IPv6 | networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum changes from the legacy IPv6 | |||
ND used in the Internet, including DAD and NUD operations, so that | ND used in the Internet, including DAD and NUD operations, so that | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networks can be seamlessly connected to other | IPv6-based vehicular networks can be seamlessly connected to other | |||
intelligent transportation elements (e.g., traffic signals, | intelligent transportation elements (e.g., traffic signals, | |||
pedestrian wearable devices, electric scooters, and bus stops) that | pedestrian wearable devices, electric scooters, and bus stops) that | |||
use the standard IPv6 network settings. | use the standard IPv6 network settings. | |||
5.1.1. Link Model | 5.1.1. Link Model | |||
A subnet model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the | A subnet model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate | |||
communication between two vehicles with the same prefix regardless of | communication between two vehicles with the same prefix regardless of | |||
the vehicular network topology as long as there exist bidirectional | the vehicular network topology as long as there exist bidirectional | |||
E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including VANETs and | E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including VANETs and | |||
IP-RSUs. This subnet model allows vehicles with the same prefix to | IP-RSUs. This subnet model allows vehicles with the same prefix to | |||
communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and | communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and | |||
multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs. | multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs. [WIRELESS-ND] introduces other | |||
[I-D.thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless] introduces other issues in an | issues in an IPv6 subnet model. | |||
IPv6 subnet model. | ||||
IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions that do not necessarily | IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions that do not necessarily | |||
hold for vehicular wireless access link types [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]. | hold for vehicular wireless access link types [VIP-WAVE] [RFC5889]. | |||
For instance, some IPv6 protocols such as NUD [RFC4861] and MIPv6 | For instance, some IPv6 protocols, such as NUD [RFC4861] and MIPv6 | |||
[RFC6275] assume symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring | [RFC6275], assume symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring | |||
interfaces. However, radio interference and different levels of | interfaces. However, radio interference and different levels of | |||
transmission power may cause asymmetric links to appear in vehicular | transmission power may cause asymmetric links to appear in vehicular | |||
wireless links [RFC6250]. As a result, a new vehicular link model | wireless links [RFC6250]. As a result, a new vehicular link model | |||
needs to consider the asymmetry of dynamically changing vehicular | needs to consider the asymmetry of dynamically changing vehicular | |||
wireless links. | 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, unique-local, | different scopes that are expected from the link-local, unique-local, | |||
and global types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is defined | and global types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is defined | |||
that all interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix | that all interfaces that are configured with the same subnet prefix | |||
and with on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 | and with the on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an | |||
link. However, the vehicular link model needs to define the | IPv6 link. However, the vehicular link model needs to define the | |||
relationship between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of | relationship between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of | |||
wireless links and the characteristics of VANET. | wireless links and the characteristics of VANET. | |||
A VANET can have a single link between each vehicle pair within | A VANET can have a single link between each vehicle pair within the | |||
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 (or an IPv6 ULA | other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix (or an IPv6 ULA | |||
prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks. Considering | prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks. Considering | |||
that two vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses | that two vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses | |||
with the same IPv6 prefix, if they are not in one hop (that is, they | with the same IPv6 prefix, if they are not connected in one hop (that | |||
have the multihop network connectivity between them), then they may | is, they have multihop network connectivity between them), then they | |||
not be able to communicate with each other. Thus, in this case, the | may not be able to communicate with each other. Thus, in this case, | |||
concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two vehicles | the concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two | |||
with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate directly with | vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate | |||
each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two different | directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two | |||
VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate with each | different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate | |||
other. When these two VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles | with each other. On the other hand, when these two VANETs converge | |||
can communicate with each other in a multihop fashion, for example, | to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with each other in a | |||
when they are Vehicle1 and Vehicle3, as shown in Figure 4. | multihop fashion, for example, when 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 a prefix | |||
link prefix and not-onlink prefix according to the network topology | that is on-link and a prefix that is not on-link according to the | |||
of vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop | network topology of vehicles, such as a one-hop reachable network and | |||
reachable network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with | a multihop reachable network (or partitioned networks). If the | |||
the same prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix | vehicles with the same prefix are reachable from each other in one | |||
should be on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with | hop, the prefix should be on-link. On the other hand, if some of the | |||
the same prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to | vehicles with the same prefix are not reachable from each other in | |||
either the multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the | one hop due to either the multihop topology in the VANET or multiple | |||
prefix should be not-onlink. In most cases in vehicular networks, | partitions, the prefix should not be on-link. In most cases in | |||
due to the partitioning and merging of VANETs, and the multihop | vehicular networks, due to the partitioning and merging of VANETs and | |||
network topology of VANETS, not-onlink prefixes will be used for | the multihop network topology of VANETs, prefixes that are not on- | |||
vehicles as default. | link will be used for vehicles as default. | |||
The vehicular link model needs to support multihop routing in a | The vehicular link model needs to support 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 (or the same IPv6 ULA prefix) are connected in one hop or | prefix (or the same IPv6 ULA prefix) are connected in one hop or | |||
multiple hops. It also needs to support the multihop routing in | multiple hops. It also needs to support the multihop routing in | |||
multiple connected VANETs through infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSU) | multiple connected VANETs through infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSU) | |||
where they are connected to the infrastructure. For example, in | where they are connected to the infrastructure. For example, in | |||
Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are | Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are | |||
configured with their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope | configured with their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope | |||
IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each | IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each | |||
other via either multihop V2V or multihop V2I2V. When Vehicle1 and | other via either multihop V2V or multihop V2I2V. When Vehicle1 and | |||
Vehicle3 are connected in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them | Vehicle3 are connected in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them | |||
to communicate with each other directly via VANET rather than | to communicate with each other directly via VANET rather than | |||
indirectly via IP-RSUs. On the other hand, when Vehicle1 and | indirectly via IP-RSUs. On the other hand, when Vehicle1 and | |||
Vehicle3 are far away from direct communication range in separate | Vehicle3 are farther apart than the direct communication range in two | |||
VANETs and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with | separate VANETs and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate | |||
each other through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two | with each other through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, the | |||
separate VANETs can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s). Also, | two separate VANETs can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s). Also, | |||
newly arriving vehicles can merge two separate VANETs into one VANET | newly arriving vehicles can merge the two separate VANETs into one | |||
if they can play the role of a relay node for those VANETs. | VANET if they can play the role of a relay node for those VANETs. | |||
Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, the vehicular link model | Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, the vehicular link model | |||
should have minimum changes for interoperability with standard IPv6 | should have minimum changes for interoperability with standard IPv6 | |||
links efficiently to support IPv6 DAD, MLD and NUD operations. | links efficiently to support IPv6 DAD, MLD, and NUD operations. | |||
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 to some extent the privacy of | pseudonym of a MAC address can protect to some extent the privacy of | |||
a vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle | a 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]. | |||
Note that [MAC-ADD-RAN] discusses more about MAC address | ||||
Note that [I-D.ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization] discusses more | randomization, and [RCM-USE-CASES] describes several use cases for | |||
about MAC address randomization, and [I-D.ietf-madinas-use-cases] | MAC address randomization. | |||
describes several use cases for MAC address randomization. | ||||
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 | |||
needs to be updated, and the uniqueness of the address needs to be | needs to be updated, and the uniqueness of the address needs to be | |||
checked through DAD procedure. | checked through a DAD procedure. | |||
5.1.3. Routing | 5.1.3. Routing | |||
For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP- | For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP- | |||
RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) routing protocol may | RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) routing protocol may | |||
be 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 [RFC9119]. | control traffic overhead [RFC9119]. | |||
A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in | A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in | |||
the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the | the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the | |||
routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology | routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology | |||
because the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each | because IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each vehicle. | |||
vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the | Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of IPv6 ND to | |||
IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead. | minimize its control overhead. | |||
RPL [RFC6550] defines a routing protocol for low-power and lossy | RPL [RFC6550] defines a routing LLN protocol, which constructs and | |||
networks, which constructs and maintains Destination-Oriented | maintains Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs) | |||
Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs) optimized by an Objective Function | optimized by an Objective Function (OF). A defined OF provides route | |||
(OF). A defined OF provides route selection and optimization within | selection and optimization within an RPL topology. The RPL nodes use | |||
an RPL topology. The RPL nodes use an anisotropic Distance Vector | an anisotropic Distance Vector (DV) approach to form a DODAG by | |||
(DV) approach to form a DODAG by discovering and aggressively | discovering and aggressively maintaining the upward default route | |||
maintaining the upward default route toward the root of the DODAG. | toward the root of the DODAG. Downward routes follow the same DODAG, | |||
Downward routes follow the same DODAG, with lazy maintenance and | with lazy maintenance and stretched peer-to-peer (P2P) routing in the | |||
stretched Peer-to-Peer (P2P) routing in the so-called storing mode. | so-called storing mode. It is well-designed to reduce the | |||
It is well-designed to reduce the topological knowledge and routing | topological knowledge and routing state that needs to be exchanged. | |||
state that needs to be exchanged. As a result, the routing protocol | As a result, the routing protocol overhead is minimized, which allows | |||
overhead is minimized, which allows either highly constrained stable | either highly constrained stable networks or less constrained, highly | |||
networks or less constrained, highly dynamic networks. Refer to | dynamic networks. Refer to Appendix B for the detailed description | |||
Appendix B for the detailed description of RPL for multihop V2X | of RPL for multihop V2X networking. | |||
networking. | ||||
An address registration extension for 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power | An address registration extension for 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
Wireless Personal Area Network) in [RFC8505] can support light-weight | Wireless Personal Area Network) in [RFC8505] can support light-weight | |||
mobility for nodes moving through different parents. [RFC8505], as | mobility for nodes moving through different parents. The extension | |||
opposed to [RFC4861], is stateful and proactively installs the ND | described in [RFC8505] is stateful and proactively installs the ND | |||
cache entries, which saves broadcasts and provides deterministic | cache entries; this saves broadcasts and provides deterministic | |||
presence information for IPv6 addresses. Mainly it updates the | presence information for IPv6 addresses. Mainly, it updates the | |||
Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in [RFC6775] to | Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in [RFC6775] to | |||
include a status field that can indicate the movement of a node and | include a status field (which can indicate the movement of a node) | |||
optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a sequence number that | and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field (which is a sequence | |||
can be used to determine the most recent location of a node. Thus, | number that can be used to determine the most recent location of a | |||
RPL can use the information provided by the Extended ARO (EARO) | node). Thus, RPL can use the information provided by the Extended | |||
defined in [RFC8505] to deal with a certain level of node mobility. | ARO (EARO) defined in [RFC8505] to deal with a certain level of node | |||
When a leaf node moves to the coverage of another parent node, it | mobility. When a leaf node moves to the coverage of another parent | |||
should de-register its addresses to the previous parent node and | node, it should de-register its addresses with the previous parent | |||
register itself with a new parent node along with an incremented TID. | node and register itself with a new parent node along with an | |||
incremented TID. | ||||
RPL can be used in IPv6-based vehicular networks, but it is primarily | RPL can be used in IPv6-based vehicular networks, but it is primarily | |||
designed for low-power networks, which puts energy efficiency first. | designed for low-power networks, which puts energy efficiency first. | |||
For using it in IPv6-based vehicular networks, there have not been | For using it in IPv6-based vehicular networks, there have not been | |||
actual experiences and practical implementations, though it was | actual experiences and practical implementations, though it was | |||
tested in IoT low-power and lossy networks (LLN) scenarios. Another | tested in IoT Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN) scenarios. Another | |||
concern is that RPL may generate excessive topology discovery | concern is that RPL may generate excessive topology discovery | |||
messages in a highly moving environment such as vehicular networks. | messages in a highly moving environment, such as vehicular networks. | |||
This issue can be an operational or optimization point for a | This issue can be an operational or optimization point for a | |||
practitioner. | practitioner. | |||
Moreover, due to bandwidth and energy constraints, RPL does not | Moreover, due to bandwidth and energy constraints, RPL does not | |||
suggest using a proactive mechanism (e.g., keepalive) to maintain | suggest using a proactive mechanism (e.g., keepalive) to maintain | |||
accurate routing adjacencies such as Bidirectional Forwarding | accurate routing adjacencies, such as Bidirectional Forwarding | |||
Detection [RFC5881] and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol | Detection [RFC5881] and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol | |||
[RFC6130]. As a result, due to the mobility of vehicles, network | [RFC6130]. As a result, due to the mobility of vehicles, network | |||
fragmentation may not be detected quickly and the routing of packets | fragmentation may not be detected quickly, and the routing of packets | |||
between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure node may | between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure node may | |||
fail. | fail. | |||
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 | |||
points requires efficient mobility management including location | endpoints requires efficient mobility management including location | |||
management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GNSS | management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GNSS | |||
receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | |||
smartphone App. Note that the GNSS receiver may not provide vehicles | smartphone app. Note that the GNSS receiver may not provide vehicles | |||
with accurate location information in adverse environments such as a | with accurate location information in adverse environments, such as a | |||
building area or a tunnel. The location precision can be improved | building area or a tunnel. The location precision can be improved | |||
with assistance of the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GNSS | with assistance of the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GNSS | |||
receiver for location information. | receiver for location information. | |||
With a GNSS navigator, efficient mobility management can be performed | With a GNSS navigator, efficient mobility management can be performed | |||
with the help of vehicles periodically reporting their current | with the help of vehicles periodically reporting their current | |||
position and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the vehicular | position and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the vehicular | |||
infrastructure (having IP-RSUs and an MA in TCC). This vehicular | infrastructure (having IP-RSUs and an MA in TCC). This vehicular | |||
infrastructure can predict the future positions of the vehicles from | infrastructure can predict the future positions of the vehicles from | |||
their mobility information (i.e., the current position, speed, | their mobility information (e.g., the current position, speed, | |||
direction, and trajectory) for efficient mobility management (e.g., | direction, and trajectory) for efficient mobility management (e.g., | |||
proactive handover). For a better proactive handover, link-layer | proactive handover). For a better proactive handover, link-layer | |||
parameters, such as the signal strength of a link-layer frame (e.g., | parameters, such as the signal strength of a link-layer frame (e.g., | |||
Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI) [VIP-WAVE]), can be used to | Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI) [VIP-WAVE]), can be used to | |||
determine the moment of a handover between IP-RSUs along with | determine the moment of a handover between IP-RSUs along with | |||
mobility information. | mobility information. | |||
By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure | By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure | |||
needs to better support IP-RSUs to perform efficient SLAAC, data | needs to better support IP-RSUs to perform efficient SLAAC, data | |||
forwarding, horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links | forwarding, horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links | |||
using a homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e., | using a homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e., | |||
handover in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in | handover in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in | |||
advance along with the movement of the vehicle. | advance along with the movement of the vehicle. | |||
For example, as shown in Figure 1, when a vehicle (e.g., Vehicle2) is | For example, as shown in Figure 1, when a vehicle (e.g., Vehicle2) is | |||
moving from the coverage of an IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU1) into the | moving from the coverage of an IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU1) into the | |||
coverage of another IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU2) belonging to a different | coverage of another IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU2) belonging to a different | |||
subnet, the IP-RSUs can proactively support the IPv6 mobility of the | subnet, the IP-RSUs can proactively support the IPv6 mobility of the | |||
vehicle, while performing the SLAAC, data forwarding, and handover | vehicle while performing the SLAAC, data forwarding, and handover for | |||
for the sake of the vehicle. | the sake of the vehicle. | |||
For a mobility management scheme in a domain, where the wireless | For a mobility management scheme in a domain, where the wireless | |||
subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient | subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient | |||
vehicular-network-wide DAD is required. On the other hand, for a | vehicular-network-wide DAD is required. On the other hand, for a | |||
mobility management scheme with a unique prefix per mobile node | mobility management scheme with a unique prefix per mobile node | |||
(e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]), DAD is not required because the IPv6 | (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]), DAD is not required because the IPv6 | |||
address of a vehicle's external wireless interface is guaranteed to | address of a vehicle's external wireless interface is guaranteed to | |||
be unique. There is a trade-off between the prefix usage efficiency | be unique. There is a trade-off between the prefix usage efficiency | |||
and DAD overhead. Thus, the IPv6 address autoconfiguration for | and DAD overhead. Thus, the IPv6 address autoconfiguration for | |||
vehicular networks needs to consider this trade-off to support | vehicular networks needs to consider this trade-off to support | |||
efficient mobility management. | efficient mobility management. | |||
Even though the SLAAC with classic ND costs a DAD during mobility | Even though SLAAC with classic ND costs DAD overhead during mobility | |||
management, the SLAAC with [RFC8505] and/or AERO/OMNI do not cost a | management, SLAAC with the registration extension specified in | |||
DAD. SLAAC for vehicular networks needs to consider the minimization | [RFC8505] and/or with AERO/OMNI does not cost DAD overhead. SLAAC | |||
of the cost of DAD with the help of an infrastructure node (e.g., IP- | for vehicular networks needs to consider the minimization of the cost | |||
RSU and MA). Using an infrastructure prefix over VANET allows direct | of DAD with the help of an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU and MA). | |||
routability to the Internet through the multihop V2I toward an IP- | Using an infrastructure prefix over VANET allows direct routability | |||
RSU. On the other hand, a BYOA does not allow such direct | to the Internet through the multihop V2I toward an IP-RSU. On the | |||
routability to the Internet since the BYOA is not topologically | other hand, a BYOA does not allow such direct routability to the | |||
correct, that is, not routable in the Internet. In addition, a | Internet since the BYOA is not topologically correct, that is, not | |||
vehicle configured with a BYOA needs a tunnel home (e.g., IP-RSU) | routable in the Internet. In addition, a vehicle configured with a | |||
connected to the Internet, and the vehicle needs to know which | BYOA needs a tunnel home (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to the Internet, | |||
neighboring vehicle is reachable inside the VANET toward the tunnel | and the vehicle needs to know which neighboring vehicle is reachable | |||
home. There is non-negligible control overhead to set up and | inside the VANET toward the tunnel home. There is non-negligible | |||
maintain routes to such a tunnel home [RFC4888] over the VANET. | control overhead to set up and maintain routes to such a tunnel home | |||
[RFC4888] over the VANET. | ||||
For the case of a multihomed network, a vehicle can follow the first- | For the case of a multihomed network, a vehicle can follow the first- | |||
hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. For example, an | hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. For example, an | |||
IP-OBU inside a vehicle may connect to an IP-RSU that has multiple | IP-OBU inside a vehicle may connect to an IP-RSU that has multiple | |||
routers behind. In this scenario, because the IP-OBU can have | routers behind. In this scenario, because the IP-OBU can have | |||
multiple prefixes from those routers, the default router selection, | multiple prefixes from those routers, the default router selection, | |||
source address selection, and packet redirect process should follow | source address selection, and packet redirect process should follow | |||
the guidelines in [RFC8028]. That is, the vehicle should select its | the guidelines in [RFC8028]. That is, the vehicle should select its | |||
default router for each prefix by preferring the router that | default router for each prefix by preferring the router that | |||
advertised the prefix. | advertised the prefix. | |||
Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent | Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent | |||
for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275], PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and | for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275], PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and | |||
NEMO [RFC3963], so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the | NEMO [RFC3963], so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the | |||
mobility information of vehicles for location management. Also, in | mobility information of vehicles for location management. Also, in | |||
vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be | vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be | |||
considered for wireless communications such as V2V and V2I. | considered for wireless communications, such as V2V and V2I. | |||
[I-D.jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management] discusses a | [VEHICULAR-MM] discusses a Vehicular Mobility Management (VMM) scheme | |||
Vehicular Mobility Management (VMM) scheme to proactively do handover | to proactively do handover for vehicles. | |||
for vehicles. | ||||
Therefore, for the proactive and seamless IPv6 mobility of vehicles, | Therefore, for the proactive and seamless IPv6 mobility of vehicles, | |||
the vehicular infrastructure (including IP-RSUs and MA) needs to | the vehicular infrastructure (including IP-RSUs and MA) needs to | |||
efficiently perform the mobility management of the vehicles with | efficiently perform the mobility management of the vehicles with | |||
their mobility information and link-layer information. Also, in | their mobility information and link-layer information. Also, in | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 mobility management should have | IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 mobility management should have | |||
minimum changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6 | minimum changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6 | |||
mobility management schemes such as PMIPv6, DMM, LISP, and AERO. | mobility management schemes, such as PMIPv6, DMM, LISP, and AERO. | |||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
This section discusses security and privacy for IPv6-based vehicular | This section discusses security and privacy for IPv6-based vehicular | |||
networking. Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X | networking. Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X | |||
networking along with neighbor discovery and mobility management. | networking along with neighbor discovery and mobility management. | |||
Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated to each other by a | Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated to each other by a | |||
password, a key, and/or a fingerprint in order to participate in | password, a key, and/or a fingerprint in order to participate in | |||
vehicular networking. For the authentication in vehicular networks, | vehicular networking. For the authentication in vehicular networks, | |||
vehicular cloud needs to support a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) | the Vehicular Cloud needs to support a Public Key Infrastructure | |||
efficiently, as either a dedicated or a co-located component inside a | (PKI) efficiently, as either a dedicated or a co-located component | |||
TCC. To provide safe interaction between vehicles or between a | inside a TCC. To provide safe interaction between vehicles or | |||
vehicle and infrastructure, only authenticated nodes (i.e., vehicle | between a vehicle and infrastructure, only authenticated nodes (i.e., | |||
and infrastructure node) can participate in vehicular networks. | vehicle and infrastructure nodes) can participate in vehicular | |||
Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., ECU) and a driver/passenger's mobile | networks. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., ECUs) and a driver/ | |||
devices (e.g., smartphone and tablet PC) in a vehicle need to | passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablet PCs) in a | |||
communicate with other in-vehicle devices and another driver/ | vehicle need to securely communicate with other in-vehicle devices, | |||
passenger's mobile devices in another vehicle, or other servers | another driver/passenger's mobile devices in another vehicle, or | |||
behind an IP-RSU securely. Even though a vehicle is perfectly | other servers behind an IP-RSU. Even though a vehicle is perfectly | |||
authenticated by another entity and legitimate to use the data | authenticated by another entity and legitimate to use the data | |||
generated by another vehicle, it may be hacked for running malicious | generated by another vehicle, it may be hacked by malicious | |||
applications to track and collect its and other vehicles' | applications that track and collect its and other vehicles' | |||
information. In this case, an attack mitigation process may be | information. In this case, an attack mitigation process may be | |||
required to reduce the aftermath of malicious behaviors. Note that | required to reduce the aftermath of malicious behaviors. Note that | |||
when driver/passenger's mobile devices are connected to a vehicle's | when a driver/passenger's mobile devices are connected to a vehicle's | |||
internal network, the vehicle may be more vulnerable to possible | internal network, the vehicle may be more vulnerable to possible | |||
attacks from external networks due to the exposure of its in-flight | attacks from external networks due to the exposure of its in-flight | |||
traffic packets. [I-D.jeong-ipwave-security-privacy] discusses | traffic packets. [SEC-PRIV] discusses several types of threats for | |||
several types of threats for Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP). | Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP). | |||
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between | For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between | |||
a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e., | a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e., | |||
IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2 | IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2 | |||
[RFC4301][RFC4302] [RFC4303][RFC4308] [RFC7296]. Also, for secure | [RFC4301] [RFC4302] [RFC4303] [RFC4308] [RFC7296]. Also, for secure | |||
V2V communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile | V2V communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile | |||
router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) | router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) | |||
in another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3. | in another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3. | |||
For secure V2I/V2V communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an | For secure V2I/V2V communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an | |||
in-vehicle device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to | in-vehicle device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to | |||
establish a secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in | establish a secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in | |||
another vehicle or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a | another vehicle or another element in a Vehicular Cloud (e.g., a | |||
server). Note that any key management approach can be used for the | server). Note that any key management approach can be used for the | |||
secure communication, and particularly for IPv6-based vehicular | secure communication, and particularly for IPv6-based vehicular | |||
networks, a new or enhanced key management approach resilient to | networks, a new or enhanced key management approach resilient to | |||
wireless networks is required. | wireless networks is required. | |||
IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for | IEEE Std 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for | |||
applications and management messages, but this WAVE specification is | applications and management messages, but this WAVE specification is | |||
optional. Thus, if the link layer does not support the security of a | optional. Thus, if the link layer does not support the security of a | |||
WAVE frame, either the network layer or the transport layer needs to | WAVE frame, either the network layer or the transport layer needs to | |||
support security services for the WAVE frames. | support security services for the WAVE frame. | |||
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery | 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery | |||
For the classical IPv6 ND (i.e., the legacy ND), DAD is required to | For the classical IPv6 ND (i.e., the legacy ND), DAD is required to | |||
ensure the uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless | ensure the uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless | |||
interface. This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that uses the | interface. This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that uses the | |||
DAD-related ND packets disseminated over the VANET or vehicular | DAD-related ND packets disseminated over the VANET or vehicular | |||
networks. [RFC6959] introduces threats enabled by IP source address | networks. [RFC6959] introduces threats enabled by IP source address | |||
spoofing. This possibility indicates that vehicles and IP-RSUs need | spoofing. This possibility indicates that vehicles and IP-RSUs need | |||
to filter out suspicious ND traffic in advance. [RFC8928] introduces | to filter out suspicious ND traffic in advance. [RFC8928] introduces | |||
a mechanism that protects the ownership of an address for 6loWPAN ND | a mechanism that protects the ownership of an address for 6LoWPAN ND | |||
from address theft and impersonation attacks. Based on the SEND | from address theft and impersonation attacks. Based on the SEND | |||
[RFC3971] mechanism, the authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) | mechanism [RFC3971], the authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) | |||
can be conducted by only selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification | can be conducted by only selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification | |||
path toward trusted parties. For authenticating other vehicles, | path toward trusted parties. For authenticating other vehicles, | |||
cryptographically generated addresses (CGA) can be used to verify the | Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) can be used to verify | |||
true owner of a received ND message, which requires using the CGA ND | the true owner of a received ND message, which requires using the CGA | |||
option in the ND protocol. This CGA can protect vehicles against DAD | ND option in the ND protocol. This CGA can protect vehicles against | |||
flooding by DAD filtering based on the verification for the true | DAD flooding by DAD filtering based on the verification for the true | |||
owner of the received DAD message. For a general protection of the | owner of the received DAD message. For a general protection of the | |||
ND mechanism, the RSA Signature ND option can also be used to protect | ND mechanism, the RSA Signature ND option can also be used to protect | |||
the integrity of the messages by public key signatures. For a more | the integrity of the messages by public key signatures. For a more | |||
advanced authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based | advanced authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based | |||
approach [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. However, for a scenario | approach [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. However, for a scenario | |||
where a trustable router or an authentication path cannot be | where a trustable router or an authentication path cannot be | |||
obtained, it is desirable to find a solution in which vehicles and | obtained, it is desirable to find a solution in which vehicles and | |||
infrastructures can authenticate each other without any support from | infrastructure nodes can authenticate each other without any support | |||
a third party. | from a third party. | |||
When applying the classical IPv6 ND process to VANET, one of the | When applying the classical IPv6 ND process to VANET, one of the | |||
security issues is that an IP-RSU (or an IP-OBU) as a router may | security issues is that an IP-RSU (or IP-OBU) as a router may receive | |||
receive deliberate or accidental DoS attacks from network scans that | deliberate or accidental DoS attacks from network scans that probe | |||
probe devices on a VANET. In this scenario, the IP-RSU can be | devices on a VANET. In this scenario, the IP-RSU (or IP-OBU) can be | |||
overwhelmed for processing the network scan requests so that the | overwhelmed by processing the network scan requests so that the | |||
capacity and resources of IP-RSU are exhausted, causing the failure | capacity and resources of the IP-RSU (or IP-OBU) are exhausted, | |||
of receiving normal ND messages from other hosts for network address | causing the failure of receiving normal ND messages from other hosts | |||
resolution. [RFC6583] describes more about the operational problems | for network address resolution. [RFC6583] describes more about the | |||
in the classical IPv6 ND mechanism that can be vulnerable to | operational problems in the classical IPv6 ND mechanism that can be | |||
deliberate or accidental DoS attacks and suggests several | vulnerable to deliberate or accidental DoS attacks and suggests | |||
implementation guidelines and operational mitigation techniques for | several implementation guidelines and operational mitigation | |||
those problems. Nevertheless, for running IPv6 ND in VANET, those | techniques for those problems. Nevertheless, for running IPv6 ND in | |||
issues can be more acute since the movements of vehicles can be so | VANET, those issues can be acuter since the movements of vehicles can | |||
diverse that it leaves a large room for rogue behaviors, and the | be so diverse that there is a wider opportunity for rogue behaviors, | |||
failure of networking among vehicles may cause grave consequences. | and the failure of networking among vehicles may lead to grave | |||
consequences. | ||||
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 that are controlled by | |||
hackers. For safe driving applications (e.g., context-aware | hackers. For safe driving applications (e.g., context-aware | |||
navigation, cooperative adaptive cruise control, and platooning), as | navigation, cooperative adaptive cruise control, and platooning), as | |||
explained in Section 3.1, the cooperative action among vehicles is | explained in Section 3.1, the cooperative action 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) for disturbing safe driving. | (e.g., location, speed, and direction) for disturbing safe driving. | |||
For example, a Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with | For example, a Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with | |||
multiple false identities, may disturb a vehicle from taking a safe | multiple false identities, may disturb a vehicle from taking a safe | |||
maneuver. Since cybersecurity issues in vehicular networks may cause | maneuver. Since cybersecurity issues in vehicular networks may cause | |||
physical vehicle safety issues, it may be necessary to consider those | physical vehicle safety issues, it may be necessary to consider those | |||
physical security concerns when designing protocols in IPWAVE. | physical safety concerns when designing protocols in IPWAVE. | |||
To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication | To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication | |||
method may be required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) (or a | method may be required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) (or a | |||
vehicle manufacturer certificate) and a user certificate (e.g., X.509 | vehicle manufacturer certificate) and a user certificate (e.g., X.509 | |||
certificate [RFC5280]) along with an in-vehicle device's identifier | certificate [RFC5280]) along with an in-vehicle device's identifier | |||
generation can be used to efficiently authenticate a vehicle or its | generation can be used to efficiently authenticate a vehicle or its | |||
driver (having a user certificate) through a road infrastructure node | driver (having a user certificate) through a road infrastructure node | |||
(e.g., IP-RSU) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular | (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to an authentication server in the Vehicular | |||
cloud. This authentication can be used to identify the vehicle that | Cloud. This authentication can be used to identify the vehicle that | |||
will communicate with an infrastructure node or another vehicle. In | will communicate with an infrastructure node or another vehicle. In | |||
the case where a vehicle has an internal network (called Moving | the case where a vehicle has an internal network (called a mobile | |||
Network) and elements in the network (e.g., in-vehicle devices and a | network) and elements in the network (e.g., in-vehicle devices and a | |||
user's mobile devices), as shown in Figure 2, the elements in the | user's mobile devices), as shown in Figure 2, the elements in the | |||
network need to be authenticated individually for safe | network need to be authenticated individually for safe | |||
authentication. Also, Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates | authentication. Also, Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates | |||
[RFC8446][RFC5280] can be used for an element's authentication to | [RFC8446] [RFC5280] can be used for an element's authentication to | |||
allow secure E2E vehicular communications between an element in a | allow secure E2E vehicular communications between an element in a | |||
vehicle and another element in a server in a vehicular cloud, or | vehicle and another element in a server in a Vehicular Cloud or | |||
between an element in a vehicle and another element in another | between an element in a vehicle and another element in another | |||
vehicle. | vehicle. | |||
6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management | 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management | |||
For mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct multiple | For mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct multiple | |||
virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with IP-RSUs and MA. This | virtual bogus vehicles and register them with IP-RSUs and MAs. This | |||
registration makes the IP-RSUs and MA waste their resources. The IP- | registration makes the IP-RSUs and MAs waste their resources. The | |||
RSUs and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is genuine or bogus | IP-RSUs and MAs need to determine whether a vehicle is genuine or | |||
in mobility management. Also, the confidentiality of control packets | bogus in mobility management. Also, for the confidentiality of | |||
and data packets among IP-RSUs and MA, the E2E paths (e.g., tunnels) | control packets and data packets between IP-RSUs and MAs, the E2E | |||
need to be protected by secure communication channels. In addition, | paths (e.g., tunnels) need to be protected by secure communication | |||
to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6 | channels. In addition, to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MAs from | |||
mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication among them needs to be | interfering with the IPv6 mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication | |||
performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate). | among the IP-RSUs, MAs, and vehicles needs to be performed by | |||
certificates (e.g., TLS certificate). | ||||
6.3. Other Threats | 6.3. Other Threats | |||
For the setup of a secure channel over IPsec or TLS, the multihop V2I | For the setup of a secure channel over IPsec or TLS, the multihop V2I | |||
communications over DSRC or 5G V2X (or LTE V2X) is required in a | communications over DSRC or 5G V2X (or LTE V2X) is required on a | |||
highway. In this case, multiple intermediate vehicles as relay nodes | highway. In this case, multiple intermediate vehicles as relay nodes | |||
can help to forward association and authentication messages toward an | can help to forward association and authentication messages toward an | |||
IP-RSU (gNodeB or eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in | IP-RSU (or gNodeB/eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in | |||
the vehicular cloud. In this kind of process, the authentication | the Vehicular Cloud. In this kind of process, the authentication | |||
messages forwarded by each vehicle can be delayed or lost, which may | messages forwarded by each vehicle can be delayed or lost, which may | |||
increase the construction time of a connection or some vehicles may | increase the construction time of a connection or cause some vehicles | |||
not be able to be authenticated. | to not be able to be authenticated. | |||
Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid certificates by | Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid certificates by | |||
an authentication server in the vehicular cloud, the authenticated | an authentication server in the Vehicular Cloud, the authenticated | |||
vehicles may harm other vehicles. To deal with this kind of security | vehicles may harm other vehicles. To deal with this kind of security | |||
issue, for monitoring suspicious behaviors, vehicles' communication | issue, for monitoring suspicious behaviors, vehicles' communication | |||
activities can be recorded in either a centralized approach through a | activities can be recorded in either a centralized approach through a | |||
logging server (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a decentralized | logging server (e.g., TCC) in the Vehicular Cloud or a decentralized | |||
approach (e.g., an edge computing device and blockchain [Bitcoin]) by | approach (e.g., an ECD and blockchain [Bitcoin]) by the help of other | |||
the help of other vehicles and infrastructure. | vehicles and infrastructure. | |||
There are trade-offs between centralized and decentralized approaches | There are trade-offs between centralized and decentralized approaches | |||
in logging for vehicles' behaviors (e.g., location, speed, direction, | in logging of vehicles' behaviors (e.g., location, speed, direction, | |||
acceleration, deceleration, and lane change) and communication | acceleration/deceleration, and lane change) and communication | |||
activities (e.g., transmission time, reception time, and packet types | activities (e.g., transmission time, reception time, and packet | |||
such as TCP, UDP, SCTP, QUIC, HTTP, and HTTPS). A centralized | types, such as TCP, UDP, SCTP, QUIC, HTTP, and HTTPS). A centralized | |||
approach is more efficient than a decentralized approach in terms of | approach is more efficient than a decentralized approach in terms of | |||
logging data collection and processing in a central server in the | log data collection and processing in a central server in the | |||
vehicular cloud. However, the centralized approach may cause a | Vehicular Cloud. However, the centralized approach may cause a | |||
higher delay than a decentralized approach in terms of the analysis | higher delay than a decentralized approach in terms of the analysis | |||
of the logging data and counteraction in a local edge computing | of the log data and counteraction in a local ECD or a distributed | |||
device or a distributed database like a blockchain. The centralized | database like a blockchain. The centralized approach stores log data | |||
approach stores logging data collected from VANET into a remote | collected from VANET into a remote logging server in a Vehicular | |||
logging server in a vehicular cloud as a central cloud, so it takes | Cloud as a central cloud, so it takes time to deliver the log data to | |||
time to deliver the logging data to a remote logging server. On the | a remote logging server. On the other hand, the decentralized | |||
other hand, the decentralized approach stores the logging data into a | approach stores the log data into a nearby edge computing device as a | |||
nearby edge computing device as a local logging server or a nearby | local logging server or a nearby blockchain node, which participates | |||
blockchain node, which participates in a blockchain network. On the | in a blockchain network. On the stored log data, an analyzer needs | |||
stored logging data, an analyzer needs to perform a machine learning | to perform a machine learning technique (e.g., deep learning) and | |||
technique (e.g., Deep Learning) and seek suspicious behaviors of the | seek suspicious behaviors of the vehicles. If such an analyzer is | |||
vehicles. If such an analyzer is located either within or near the | located either within or near the edge computing device, it can | |||
edge computing device, it can access the logging data with a short | access the log data with a short delay, analyze it quickly, and | |||
delay, analyze it quickly, and generate feedback to allow for a quick | generate feedback to allow for a quick counteraction against such | |||
counteraction against such malicious behaviors. On the other hand, | malicious behaviors. On the other hand, if the Vehicular Cloud with | |||
if the vehicular cloud with the logging data is far away from a | the log data is far away from a problematic VANET with malicious | |||
problematic VANET with malicious behaviors, the centralized approach | behaviors, the centralized approach takes a longer time with the | |||
takes a long time with the analysis with the logging data and the | analysis of the log data and the decision-making on malicious | |||
decision-making on malicious behaviors than the decentralized | behaviors than the decentralized approach. If the log data is | |||
approach. If the logging data is encrypted by a secret key, it can | encrypted by a secret key, it can be protected from the observation | |||
be protected from the observation of a hacker. The secret key | of a hacker. The secret key sharing among legal vehicles, ECDs, and | |||
sharing among legal vehicles, edge computing devices, and vehicular | Vehicular Clouds should be supported efficiently. | |||
clouds should be supported efficiently. | ||||
Logging information can release privacy breakage of a vehicle. The | Log data can release privacy breakage of a vehicle. The log data can | |||
logging information can contain the MAC address and IPv6 address for | contain the MAC address and IPv6 address for a vehicle's wireless | |||
a vehicle's wireless network interface. If the unique MAC address of | network interface. If the unique MAC address of the wireless network | |||
the wireless network interface is used, a hacker can track the | interface is used, a hacker can track the vehicle with that MAC | |||
vehicle with that MAC address, so can track the privacy information | address and can track the privacy information of the vehicle's driver | |||
of the vehicle's driver (e.g., location information). To prevent | (e.g., location information). To prevent this privacy breakage, a | |||
this privacy breakage, a MAC address pseudonym can be used for the | MAC address pseudonym can be used for the MAC address of the wireless | |||
MAC address of the wireless network interface, and the corresponding | network interface, and the corresponding IPv6 address should be based | |||
IPv6 address should be based on such a MAC address pseudonym. By | on such a MAC address pseudonym. By solving a privacy issue of a | |||
solving a privacy issue of a vehicle's identity in logging, vehicles | vehicle's identity in logging, vehicles may observe each other's | |||
may observe activities of each other to identify any misbehavior | activities to identify any misbehaviors without privacy breakage. | |||
without privacy breakage. Once identifying a misbehavior, a vehicle | Once identifying a misbehavior, a vehicle shall have a way to either | |||
shall have a way to either isolate itself from others or isolate a | isolate itself from others or isolate a suspicious vehicle by | |||
suspicious vehicle by informing other vehicles. | informing other vehicles. | |||
For completely secure vehicular networks, we shall embrace the | For completely secure vehicular networks, we shall embrace the | |||
concept of "zero-trust" for vehicles in which no vehicle is trustable | concept of "zero-trust" for vehicles where no vehicle is trustable | |||
and verifying every message (such as IPv6 control messages including | and verifying every message (such as IPv6 control messages including | |||
ND, DAD, NUD, and application layer messages) is necessary. In this | ND, DAD, NUD, and application-layer messages) is necessary. In this | |||
way, vehicular networks can defense many possible cyberattacks. | way, vehicular networks can defend against many possible | |||
Thus, we need to have an efficient zero-trust framework or mechanism | cyberattacks. Thus, we need to have an efficient zero-trust | |||
for the vehicular networks. | framework or mechanism for vehicular networks. | |||
For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities from malicious | For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities from malicious | |||
vehicles, which it is difficult for other normal vehicles to identify | vehicles, as it is difficult for other normal vehicles to identify | |||
them, an additional and advanced approach is needed. One possible | them, an additional and advanced approach is needed. One possible | |||
approach is to use a blockchain-based approach [Bitcoin] as an IPv6 | approach is to use a blockchain-based approach [Bitcoin] as an IPv6 | |||
security checking framework. Each IPv6 packet from a vehicle can be | security checking framework. Each IPv6 packet from a vehicle can be | |||
treated as a transaction and the neighboring vehicles can play the | treated as a transaction, and the neighboring vehicles can play the | |||
role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain [Bitcoin] | role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain [Bitcoin] | |||
[Vehicular-BlockChain]. For a blockchain's efficient consensus in | [Vehicular-BlockChain]. For a blockchain's efficient consensus in | |||
vehicular networks having fast moving vehicles, a new consensus | vehicular networks having fast-moving vehicles, either a new | |||
algorithm needs to be developed, or an existing consensus algorithm | consensus algorithm needs to be developed, or an existing consensus | |||
needs to be enhanced. In addition, a consensus-based mechanism for | algorithm needs to be enhanced. In addition, a consensus-based | |||
the security of vehicular networks in the IPv6 layer can also be | mechanism for the security of vehicular networks in the IPv6 layer | |||
considered. A group of servers as blockchain infrastructure can be | can also be considered. A group of servers as blockchain | |||
part of the security checking process in the IP layer. | infrastructure can be part of the security checking process in the IP | |||
layer. | ||||
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, especially for a long-living transport-layer session | or IPv6 address, especially for a long-living transport-layer session | |||
(e.g., voice call over IP and video streaming service), a MAC address | (e.g., voice call over IP and video streaming service), a MAC address | |||
pseudonym needs to be provided to each vehicle; that is, each vehicle | pseudonym needs to be provided to each vehicle; that is, each vehicle | |||
periodically updates its MAC address and its IPv6 address needs to be | periodically updates its MAC address, and the vehicle's IPv6 address | |||
updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086][RFC8981]. | needs to be updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086] | |||
Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the | [RFC8981]. Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not | |||
E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an | interrupt the E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a | |||
IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this | vehicle and an IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. | |||
pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using | However, if this pseudonym is performed without strong E2E | |||
either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing | confidentiality (using either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy | |||
MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change | benefit from changing MAC and IPv6 addresses because an adversary can | |||
of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those | observe the change of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the | |||
addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address | vehicle with those addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and | |||
update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality. | the IPv6 address update should be performed with strong E2E | |||
confidentiality. | ||||
The privacy exposure to the TCC and via V2I is mostly about the | The privacy exposure to the TCC via V2I is mostly about the location | |||
location information of vehicles, and may also include other in- | information of vehicles and may also include other in-vehicle | |||
vehicle activities such as transactions of credit cards. The | activities, such as transactions of credit cards. The assumed, | |||
assumed, trusted actors are the owner of a vehicle, an authorized | trusted actors are the owner of a vehicle, an authorized vehicle | |||
vehicle service provider (e.g., navigation service provider), and an | service provider (e.g., navigation service provider), and an | |||
authorized vehicle manufacturer for providing after-sales services. | authorized vehicle manufacturer for providing after-sales services. | |||
In addition, privacy concerns for excessively collecting vehicle | In addition, privacy concerns for excessively collecting vehicle | |||
activities from roadway operators such as public transportation | activities from roadway operators, such as public transportation | |||
administrators and private contractors may also pose threats on | administrators and private contractors, may also pose threats on | |||
violating privacy rights of vehicles. It might be interesting to | violating privacy rights of vehicles. It might be interesting to | |||
find a solution from a technology point of view along with public | find a solution from a technological point of view along with public | |||
policy development for the issue. | policy development for the issue. | |||
The "multicasting" of the location information of a VRU's smartphone | The "multicasting" of the location information of a VRU's smartphone | |||
means IPv6 multicasting. There is a possible security attack related | means IPv6 multicasting. There is a possible security attack related | |||
to this multicasting. Attackers can use "fake identifiers" as source | to this multicasting. Attackers can use "fake identifiers" as source | |||
IPv6 addresses of their devices to generate IPv6 packets and | IPv6 addresses of their devices to generate IPv6 packets and | |||
multicast them to nearby vehicles in order to make a confusion that | multicast them to nearby vehicles in order to cause confusion that | |||
those vehicles are surrounded by other vehicles or pedestrians. As a | those vehicles are surrounded by other vehicles or pedestrians. As a | |||
result, navigation services (e.g., Google Maps [Google-Maps] and Waze | result, navigation services (e.g., Google Maps [Google-Maps] and Waze | |||
[Waze]) can be confused with fake road traffic by those vehicles or | [Waze]) can be confused with fake road traffic by those vehicles or | |||
smartphones with "fake identifiers" [Fake-Identifier-Attack]. This | smartphones with "fake identifiers" [Fake-Identifier-Attack]. This | |||
attack with "fake identifiers" should be detected and handled by | attack with "fake identifiers" should be detected and handled by | |||
vehicular networks. To cope with this attack, both legal vehicles | vehicular networks. To cope with this attack, both legal vehicles | |||
and legal VRUs' smartphones can be registered with a traffic control | and legal VRUs' smartphones can be registered with a TCC and their | |||
center (called TCC) and their locations can be tracked by the TCC. | locations can be tracked by the TCC. With this tracking, the TCC can | |||
With this tracking, the TCC can tell the road traffic conditions | tell the road traffic conditions caused by those vehicles and | |||
caused by those vehicles and smartphones. In addition, to prevent | smartphones. In addition, to prevent hackers from tracking the | |||
hackers from tracking the locations of those vehicles and | locations of those vehicles and smartphones, either a MAC address | |||
smartphones, either a MAC address pseudonym | pseudonym [MAC-ADD-RAN] or secure IPv6 address generation [RFC7721] | |||
[I-D.ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization] or secure IPv6 address | can be used to protect the privacy of those vehicles and smartphones. | |||
generation [RFC7721] can be used to protect the privacy of those | ||||
vehicles and smartphones. | ||||
7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
This document does not require any IANA actions. | This document has no IANA actions. | |||
8. References | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
[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, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. | |||
skipping to change at page 38, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1749 ¶ | |||
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. | 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. | |||
[RFC8691] Benamar, N., Härri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic | [RFC8691] Benamar, N., Härri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic | |||
Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of | Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of | |||
a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691, | a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8691, December 2019, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8691, December 2019, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8691>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8691>. | |||
8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
[AERO] Templin, F. L., Ed., "Automatic Extended Route | ||||
Optimization (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-templin-intarea-aero-11, 10 January 2023, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin- | ||||
intarea-aero-11>. | ||||
[Automotive-Sensing] | ||||
Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., Bhat, | ||||
C., and R. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular Communication | ||||
to Support Massive Automotive Sensing", IEEE | ||||
Communications Magazine, Volume 54, Issue 12, pp. 160-167, | ||||
DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2016.1600071CM, December 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2016.1600071CM>. | ||||
[Bitcoin] Nakamoto, S., "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash | ||||
System", <https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>. | ||||
[CA-Cruise-Control] | ||||
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | ||||
(PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", | ||||
<https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and- | ||||
automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control>. | ||||
[CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. H. Son, "CASD: A | ||||
Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular | ||||
Networks", 30th International Conference on Advanced | ||||
Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), | ||||
DOI 10.1109/WAINA.2016.74, March 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/WAINA.2016.74>. | ||||
[CBDN] Kim, J., Kim, S., Jeong, J., Kim, H., Park, J., and T. | ||||
Kim, "CBDN: Cloud-Based Drone Navigation for Efficient | ||||
Battery Charging in Drone Networks", IEEE Transactions on | ||||
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 20, Issue 11, | ||||
pp. 4174-4191, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2018.2883058, November | ||||
2019, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2018.2883058>. | ||||
[CNP] Mugabarigira, B., Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and H. | ||||
Jeong, "Context-Aware Navigation Protocol for Safe Driving | ||||
in Vehicular Cyber-Physical Systems", IEEE Transactions on | ||||
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 24, Issue 1, | ||||
pp. 128-138, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2022.3210753, January 2023, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3210753>. | ||||
[DFC] Jeong, J., Shen, Y., Kim, S., Choe, D., Lee, K., and Y. | ||||
Kim, "DFC: Device-free human counting through WiFi fine- | ||||
grained subcarrier information", IET Communications, | ||||
Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 337-350, DOI 10.1049/cmu2.12043, | ||||
February 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1049/cmu2.12043>. | ||||
[DSRC] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for | ||||
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between | ||||
Roadside and Vehicle Systems - 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short | ||||
Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) | ||||
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", | ||||
ASTM E2213-03(2010), DOI 10.1520/E2213-03R10, September | ||||
2018, <https://doi.org/10.1520/E2213-03R10>. | ||||
[EU-2008-671-EC] | ||||
European Union, "COMMISSION DECISION of 5 August 2008 on | ||||
the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 5 875-5 905 | ||||
MHz frequency band for safety-related applications of | ||||
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)", EU 2008/671/EC, | ||||
August 2008, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- | ||||
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0671&rid=7>. | ||||
[Fake-Identifier-Attack] | ||||
ABC News, "Berlin artist uses handcart full of smartphones | ||||
to trick Google Maps' traffic algorithm into thinking | ||||
there is traffic jam", February 2020, | ||||
<https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-04/man-creates-fake- | ||||
traffic-jam-on-google-maps-by-carting-99-phones/11929136>. | ||||
[FCC-ITS-Modification] | ||||
Federal Communications Commission, "FCC Modernizes 5.9 GHz | ||||
Band to Improve Wi-Fi and Automotive Safety", November | ||||
2020, <https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-59-ghz- | ||||
band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0>. | ||||
[FirstNet] FirstNet Authority, "First Responder Network Authority | | ||||
FirstNet", <https://www.firstnet.gov/>. | ||||
[FirstNet-Report] | ||||
FirstNet, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS, Advancing | ||||
Public Safety Broadband Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, | ||||
December 2017, <https://www.firstnet.gov/system/tdf/ | ||||
FirstNet-Annual-Report- | ||||
FY2017.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=449>. | ||||
[FPC-DMM] Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S., | ||||
Moses, D., and C. E. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding | ||||
Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14, 22 September | ||||
2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- | ||||
dmm-fpc-cpdp-14>. | ||||
[Fuel-Efficient] | ||||
van de Hoef, S., Johansson, K., and D. Dimarogonas, "Fuel- | ||||
Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons", IEEE | ||||
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume | ||||
19, Issue 1, pp. 102-112, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2017.2700021, | ||||
January 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2017.2700021>. | ||||
[Google-Maps] | ||||
Google, "Google Maps", <https://www.google.com/maps/>. | ||||
[Identity-Management] | ||||
Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer | ||||
identities management in ITS stations", 10th IEEE | ||||
International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | ||||
November 2010, | ||||
<https://www.eurecom.fr/fr/publication/3205>. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] | ||||
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology - | ||||
Telecommunications and information exchange between | ||||
systems Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific | ||||
requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control | ||||
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", | ||||
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995, IEEE Std 802.11-2016, | ||||
December 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995>. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11p] | ||||
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local | ||||
and metropolitan area networks-- Specific requirements-- | ||||
Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | ||||
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Amendment 6: Wireless | ||||
Access in Vehicular Environments", | ||||
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5514475, IEEE Std 802.11p-2010, | ||||
July 2010, <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5514475>. | ||||
[In-Car-Network] | ||||
Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a | ||||
future IP/Ethernet-based in-car network for real-time | ||||
applications", Proceedings of the 48th Design Automation | ||||
Conference, pp. 7-12, DOI 10.1145/2024724.2024727, June | ||||
2011, <https://doi.org/10.1145/2024724.2024727>. | ||||
[IPPL] Nordmark, E., "IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned | ||||
Links", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | ||||
intarea-ippl-00, 30 March 2017, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea- | ||||
ippl-00>. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] | ||||
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent transport systems - | ||||
Communications access for land mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | ||||
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012, | ||||
<https://www.iso.org/standard/46549.html>. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1] | ||||
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent transport systems - | ||||
Communications access for land mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | ||||
Networking - Amendment 1", ISO 21210:2012/AMD 1:2017, | ||||
September 2017, <https://www.iso.org/standard/65691.html>. | ||||
[LIFS] Wang, J., Xiong, J., Jiang, H., Jamieson, K., Chen, X., | ||||
Fang, D., and C. Wang, "Low Human-Effort, Device-Free | ||||
Localization with Fine-Grained Subcarrier Information", | ||||
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, Volume 17, Issue | ||||
11, pp. 2550-2563, DOI 10.1109/TMC.2018.2812746, November | ||||
2018, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2018.2812746>. | ||||
[MAC-ADD-RAN] | ||||
Zúñiga, JC., Bernardos, CJ., Ed., and A. Andersdotter, | ||||
"MAC address randomization", Work in Progress, Internet- | ||||
Draft, draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-04, 22 | ||||
October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | ||||
draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-04>. | ||||
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report] | ||||
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), | ||||
"Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS) Program | ||||
Final Report", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000, | ||||
<https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/ACAS/ | ||||
ACAS_index.htm>. | ||||
[OMNI] Templin, F. L., Ed., "Transmission of IP Packets over | ||||
Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in | ||||
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-intarea-omni-25, | ||||
15 February 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | ||||
draft-templin-intarea-omni-25>. | ||||
[PARCELS] Templin, F. L., Ed., "IP Parcels", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-intarea-parcels-51, 15 | ||||
February 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | ||||
draft-templin-intarea-parcels-51>. | ||||
[PSCE] European Commission, "PSCEurope Public Safety | ||||
Communications Europe", <https://www.psc-europe.eu/>. | ||||
[RCM-USE-CASES] | ||||
Henry, J. and Y. Lee, "Randomized and Changing MAC Address | ||||
Use Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | ||||
madinas-use-cases-03, 6 October 2022, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-madinas- | ||||
use-cases-03>. | ||||
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast | [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast | |||
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, | Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>. | |||
[RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link | [RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link | |||
State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, | State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003, | DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>. | |||
skipping to change at page 39, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2006 ¶ | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>. | |||
[RFC4308] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308, | [RFC4308] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4308, December 2005, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4308, December 2005, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4308>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4308>. | |||
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU | [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU | |||
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, | Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. | |||
[RFC4885] Ernst, T. and Y. H-Lach, "Network Mobility Support | [RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support | |||
Terminology", RFC 4885, DOI 10.17487/RFC4885, July 2007, | Terminology", RFC 4885, DOI 10.17487/RFC4885, July 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4885>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4885>. | |||
[RFC4888] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network | [RFC4888] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network | |||
Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888, | Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4888, July 2007, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4888, July 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4888>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4888>. | |||
[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", | |||
skipping to change at page 41, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2098 ¶ | |||
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. | [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. | |||
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 | Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 | |||
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October | (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October | |||
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. | 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. | |||
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. | [RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. | |||
Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility | Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility | |||
Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014, | Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>. | |||
[RFC7427] Kivinen, T. and J. Snyder, "Signature Authentication in | ||||
the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 7427, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7427, January 2015, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7427>. | ||||
[RFC7429] Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and | [RFC7429] Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and | |||
CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current | CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current | |||
Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, | Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>. | |||
[RFC7427] Kivinen, T. and J. Snyder, "Signature Authentication in | ||||
the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 7427, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7427, January 2015, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7427>. | ||||
[RFC7466] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "An Optimization for the | [RFC7466] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "An Optimization for the | |||
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery | Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery | |||
Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 7466, DOI 10.17487/RFC7466, March | Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 7466, DOI 10.17487/RFC7466, March | |||
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7466>. | 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7466>. | |||
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy | [RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy | |||
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", | Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", | |||
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, | RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>. | |||
skipping to change at page 43, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2184 ¶ | |||
"Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address | "Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address | |||
Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 8981, | Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 8981, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>. | |||
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based | [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based | |||
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, | Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>. | |||
[RFC9099] Vyncke, É., Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey, | ||||
"Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", | ||||
RFC 9099, DOI 10.17487/RFC9099, August 2021, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9099>. | ||||
[RFC9119] Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. | [RFC9119] Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. | |||
Zúñiga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | Zúñiga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | |||
Media", RFC 9119, DOI 10.17487/RFC9119, October 2021, | Media", RFC 9119, DOI 10.17487/RFC9119, October 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9119>. | |||
[I-D.ietf-intarea-ippl] | [RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | |||
Nordmark, E., "IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned | Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol | |||
Links", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022, | |||
intarea-ippl-00, 30 March 2017, | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>. | |||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-ippl- | ||||
00.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] | ||||
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | ||||
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", | ||||
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- | ||||
rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp- | ||||
rfc6830bis-38.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.templin-6man-aero] | ||||
Templin, F., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization | ||||
(AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin- | ||||
6man-aero-63, 12 October 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero- | ||||
63.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.templin-6man-omni] | ||||
Templin, F., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay | ||||
Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-74, 12 October | ||||
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man- | ||||
omni-74.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its] | ||||
Fred Templin, L., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for | ||||
Intelligent Transportation Systems", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-ipwave-uam-its-04, 4 January | ||||
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin- | ||||
ipwave-uam-its-04.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels] | ||||
Templin, F., "IP Parcels", Work in Progress, Internet- | ||||
Draft, draft-templin-intarea-parcels-16, 6 October 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-intarea- | ||||
parcels-16.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp] | ||||
Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S., | ||||
Moses, D., and E. Charles Perkins, "Protocol for | ||||
Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM", Work in | ||||
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14, 22 | ||||
September 2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- | ||||
ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless] | ||||
Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless | ||||
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | ||||
thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-12, 11 October 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6- | ||||
over-wireless-12.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization] | ||||
Zúñiga, J. C., Bernardos, C. J., and A. Andersdotter, "MAC | ||||
address randomization", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-04, 22 | ||||
October 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf- | ||||
madinas-mac-address-randomization-04.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-madinas-use-cases] | ||||
Henry, J. and Y. Lee, "Randomized and Changing MAC Address | ||||
Use Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | ||||
madinas-use-cases-03, 6 October 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-madinas-use- | ||||
cases-03.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery] | ||||
Jeong, J. P., Shen, Y. C., Kwon, J., and S. Cespedes, | ||||
"Vehicular Neighbor Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular | ||||
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jeong- | ||||
ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-14, 25 July 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jeong-ipwave- | ||||
vehicular-neighbor-discovery-14.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management] | ||||
Jeong, J. P., Mugabarigira, B. A., Shen, Y. C., and H. | ||||
Jung, "Vehicular Mobility Management for IP-Based | ||||
Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-08, 25 | ||||
July 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jeong- | ||||
ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-08.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.jeong-ipwave-security-privacy] | ||||
Jeong, J. P., Shen, Y. C., Jung, H., Park, J., and T. T. | ||||
Oh, "Basic Support for Security and Privacy in IP-Based | ||||
Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-jeong-ipwave-security-privacy-06, 25 July 2022, | ||||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jeong-ipwave- | ||||
security-privacy-06.txt>. | ||||
[DSRC] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for | ||||
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between | ||||
Roadside and Vehicle Systems - 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short | ||||
Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) | ||||
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", | ||||
ASTM E2213-03(2010), October 2010. | ||||
[EU-2008-671-EC] | ||||
European Union, "Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 on | ||||
the Harmonised Use of Radio Spectrum in the 5875 - 5905 | ||||
MHz Frequency Band for Safety-related Applications of | ||||
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)", EU 2008/671/EC, | ||||
August 2008. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11p] | ||||
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | ||||
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6: | ||||
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std | ||||
802.11p-2010, June 2010. | ||||
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] | ||||
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and | ||||
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std | ||||
802.11-2016, December 2016. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.0] | ||||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access | ||||
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std | ||||
1609.0-2013, March 2014. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.2] | ||||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | ||||
Access in Vehicular Environments - Security Services for | ||||
Applications and Management Messages", IEEE Std | ||||
1609.2-2016, March 2016. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.3] | ||||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | ||||
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking | ||||
Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016. | ||||
[WAVE-1609.4] | ||||
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless | ||||
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel | ||||
Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] | ||||
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | ||||
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | ||||
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. | ||||
[ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1] | ||||
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - | ||||
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 | ||||
Networking - Amendment 1", ISO 21210:2012/AMD 1:2017, | ||||
September 2017. | ||||
[TS-23.285-3GPP] | ||||
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for V2X Services", 3GPP | ||||
TS 23.285/Version 16.2.0, December 2019. | ||||
[TR-22.886-3GPP] | ||||
3GPP, "Study on Enhancement of 3GPP Support for 5G V2X | ||||
Services", 3GPP TR 22.886/Version 16.2.0, December 2018. | ||||
[TS-23.287-3GPP] | ||||
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to | ||||
Support Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Services", 3GPP | ||||
TS 23.287/Version 16.2.0, March 2020. | ||||
[VIP-WAVE] Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the | ||||
Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular | ||||
Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation | ||||
Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, March 2013. | ||||
[Identity-Management] | ||||
Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer | ||||
Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th | ||||
International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, | ||||
November 2010. | ||||
[SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT: | [SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. H. C. Du, | |||
Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based | "SAINT: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for | |||
Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on | Cloud-Based Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE | |||
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016. | Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Volume 65, Issue 6, | |||
pp. 4053-4067, DOI 10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958, June 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958>. | ||||
[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+ | H. C. Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation | |||
for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", | Tool+ for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", IEEE | |||
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume | |||
June 2017. | 19, Issue 4, pp. 1038-1053, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881, | |||
June 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881>. | ||||
[SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation | [SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation | |||
Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular | Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular | |||
Networks", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science | Networks", Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series | |||
(LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015. | (LNISA, Volume 9502), DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27293-1_12, | |||
December 2015, | ||||
[CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A | <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27293-1_12>. | |||
Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular | ||||
Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud | ||||
(DC2), March 2016. | ||||
[CA-Cruise-Control] | ||||
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | ||||
(PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", Available: | ||||
https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and- | ||||
automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control, | ||||
2022. | ||||
[Truck-Platooning] | ||||
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | ||||
(PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", Available: | ||||
https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and- | ||||
automated-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2022. | ||||
[FirstNet] U.S. National Telecommunications and Information | ||||
Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority | ||||
(FirstNet)", Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2022. | ||||
[PSCE] European Commission, "Public Safety Communications Europe | [Scrambler-Attack] | |||
(PSCE)", Available: https://www.psc-europe.eu/, 2022. | Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff, | |||
"The scrambler attack: A robust physical layer attack on | ||||
location privacy in vehicular networks", 2015 | ||||
International Conference on Computing, Networking and | ||||
Communications (ICNC), DOI 10.1109/ICCNC.2015.7069376, | ||||
February 2015, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCNC.2015.7069376>. | ||||
[FirstNet-Report] | [SEC-PRIV] Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Jung, H., Park, J., and T. Oh, | |||
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT | "Basic Support for Security and Privacy in IP-Based | |||
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband | Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017. | draft-jeong-ipwave-security-privacy-06, 25 July 2022, | |||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave- | ||||
security-privacy-06>. | ||||
[SignalGuru] | [SignalGuru] | |||
Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru: | Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru: | |||
Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal | leveraging mobile phones for collaborative traffic signal | |||
Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011. | schedule advisory", MobiSys '11: Proceedings of the 9th | |||
international conference on Mobile systems, applications, | ||||
and services, pp. 127-140, DOI 10.1145/1999995.2000008, | ||||
June 2011, <https://doi.org/10.1145/1999995.2000008>. | ||||
[Fuel-Efficient] | [TR-22.886-3GPP] | |||
van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas, | 3GPP, "Study on enhancement of 3GPP support for 5G V2X | |||
"Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons", | services", 3GPP TS 22.886 16.2.0, December 2018, | |||
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
January 2018. | SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3108>. | |||
[Automotive-Sensing] | [Truck-Platooning] | |||
Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R. | California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology | |||
Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular | (PATH), "Truck Platooning", | |||
Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing", | <https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and- | |||
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016. | automated-vehicles/truck-platooning>. | |||
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report] | [TS-23.285-3GPP] | |||
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), | 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for V2X services", 3GPP | |||
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems | TS 23.285 16.2.0, December 2019, | |||
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000. | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3078>. | ||||
[CBDN] Kim, J., Kim, S., Jeong, J., Kim, H., Park, J., and T. | [TS-23.287-3GPP] | |||
Kim, "CBDN: Cloud-Based Drone Navigation for Efficient | 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to | |||
Battery Charging in Drone Networks", IEEE Transactions on | support Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) services", 3GPP | |||
Intelligent Transportation Systems, November 2019. | TS 23.287 16.2.0, March 2020, | |||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | ||||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3578>. | ||||
[LIFS] Wang, J., Xiong, J., Jiang, H., Jamieson, K., Chen, X., | [UAM-ITS] Templin, F., Ed., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for | |||
Fang, D., and C. Wang, "Low Human-Effort, Device-Free | Intelligent Transportation Systems", Work in Progress, | |||
Localization with Fine-Grained Subcarrier Information", | Internet-Draft, draft-templin-ipwave-uam-its-04, 4 January | |||
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, November 2018. | 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | |||
templin-ipwave-uam-its-04>. | ||||
[DFC] Jeong, J., Shen, Y., Kim, S., Choe, D., Lee, K., and Y. | [Vehicular-BlockChain] | |||
Kim, "DFC: Device-free human counting through WiFi fine- | Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S., and R. Jurdak, | |||
grained subcarrier information", IET Communications, | "BlockChain: A Distributed Solution to Automotive Security | |||
January 2021. | and Privacy", IEEE Communications Magazine, Volume 55, | |||
Issue 12, pp. 119-125, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700879, | ||||
December 2017, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700879>. | ||||
[In-Car-Network] | [VEHICULAR-MM] | |||
Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a | Jeong, J., Ed., Mugabarigira, B., Shen, Y., and H. Jung, | |||
Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time | "Vehicular Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular | |||
Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference | Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jeong- | |||
(DAC), June 2011. | ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-09, 4 February 2023, | |||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave- | ||||
vehicular-mobility-management-09>. | ||||
[Scrambler-Attack] | [VEHICULAR-ND] | |||
Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff, | Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Kwon, J., and S. Cespedes, | |||
"The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on | "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular | |||
Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015 | Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jeong- | |||
International Conference on Computing, Networking and | ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-15, 4 February 2023, | |||
Communications (ICNC), February 2015. | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave- | |||
vehicular-neighbor-discovery-15>. | ||||
[Bitcoin] Nakamoto, S., "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash | [VIP-WAVE] Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the | |||
System", URL: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, May 2009. | Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular | |||
Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation | ||||
Systems, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 82-97, | ||||
DOI 10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387, March 2013, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387>. | ||||
[Vehicular-BlockChain] | [WAVE-1609.0] | |||
Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S., and R. Jurdak, | IEEE, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
"BlockChain: A Distributed Solution to Automotive Security | Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", | |||
and Privacy", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55, No. | DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6755433, IEEE Std 1609.0-2013, | |||
12, December 2017. | March 2014, | |||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6755433>. | ||||
[FCC-ITS-Modification] | [WAVE-1609.2] | |||
Federal Communications Commission, "Use of the 5.850-5.925 | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
GHz Band, First Report and Order, Further Notice of | Environments - Security Services for Applications and | |||
Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification, | Management Messages", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7426684, | |||
FCC 19-138", Available: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc- | IEEE Std 1609.2-2016, March 2016, | |||
modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive- | <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7426684>. | |||
safety-0, November 2020. | ||||
[Fake-Identifier-Attack] | [WAVE-1609.3] | |||
ABC News, "German man fools Google Maps' traffic | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
algorithm", | Environments (WAVE) - Networking Services", | |||
Available: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-04/man- | DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7458115, IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, | |||
creates-fake-traffic-jam-on-google-maps-by-carting- | April 2016, | |||
99-phones/11929136, February 2020. | <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7458115>. | |||
[Google-Maps] | [WAVE-1609.4] | |||
Google, "Google Maps", | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular | |||
Available: https://www.google.com/maps/, 2022. | Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel Operation", | |||
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7435228, IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, | ||||
March 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7435228>. | ||||
[Waze] Google, "Google Maps", Available: https://www.waze.com/, | [Waze] Google, "Waze", <https://www.waze.com/>. | |||
2022. | ||||
[WIRELESS-ND] | ||||
Thubert, P., Ed., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless | ||||
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | ||||
thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-12, 11 October 2022, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-6man- | ||||
ipv6-over-wireless-12>. | ||||
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V | Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V | |||
Vehicular networks may consist of multiple radio technologies such as | Vehicular networks may consist of multiple radio technologies, such | |||
DSRC and 5G V2X. Although a Layer-2 solution can provide support for | as DSRC and 5G V2X (or LTE V2X). Although a Layer 2 solution can | |||
multihop communications in vehicular networks, the scalability issue | provide support for multihop communications in vehicular networks, | |||
related to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need to | the scalability issue related to multihop forwarding still remains | |||
disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away destinations. In | when vehicles need to disseminate or forward packets toward | |||
addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer protocol | destinations that are multiple hops away. In addition, the | |||
can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC protocols, such as | IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network-layer protocol can | |||
DSRC and 5G V2X. Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be | accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC protocols, such as | |||
augmented through the addition of a virtual interface (e.g., OMNI | DSRC and 5G V2X (or LTE V2X). Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol | |||
[I-D.templin-6man-omni] and DLEP [RFC8175]) and/or protocol changes | can be augmented through the addition of a virtual interface (e.g., | |||
in order to support both wireless single-hop/multihop V2V | OMNI [OMNI] and DLEP [RFC8175]) and/or protocol changes in order to | |||
communications and multiple radio technologies in vehicular networks. | support both wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and | |||
In such a way, vehicles can communicate with each other by V2V | multiple radio technologies in vehicular networks. In such a way, | |||
communications to share either an emergency situation or road hazard | vehicles can communicate with each other by V2V communications to | |||
information in a highway having multiple kinds of radio technologies. | share either an emergency situation or road hazard information on a | |||
highway having multiple radio technologies. | ||||
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking | Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking | |||
The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing | The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing | |||
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay | Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay | |||
Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-6man-omni] with AERO | Multilink Network Interface [OMNI] with AERO [AERO]. | |||
[I-D.templin-6man-aero] . | ||||
RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks | RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks | |||
(LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building | (LLNs) as being mostly designed for home automation routing, building | |||
automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It | automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It | |||
uses a Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) to | uses a Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) to | |||
construct routing paths for hosts (e.g., IoT devices) in a network. | construct routing paths for hosts (e.g., IoT devices) in a network. | |||
The DODAG uses an objective function (OF) for route selection and | The DODAG uses an Objective Function (OF) for route selection and | |||
optimization within the network. A user can use different routing | optimization within the network. A user can use different routing | |||
metrics to define an OF for a specific scenario. RPL supports | metrics to define an OF for a specific scenario. RPL supports | |||
multipoint-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and point-to-point traffic, | multipoint-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and point-to-point traffic; | |||
and the major traffic flow is the multipoint-to-point traffic. For | and the major traffic flow is the multipoint-to-point traffic. For | |||
example, in a highway scenario, a vehicle may not access an IP-RSU | example, in a highway scenario, a vehicle may not access an IP-RSU | |||
directly because of the distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). | directly because of the distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). | |||
In this case, the RPL can be extended to support a multihop V2I since | In this case, the RPL can be extended to support a multihop V2I since | |||
a vehicle can take advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to | a vehicle can take advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to | |||
reach the IP-RSU. Also, RPL can be extended to support both multihop | reach the IP-RSU. Also, RPL can be extended to support both multihop | |||
V2V and V2X in the similar way. | V2V and V2X in the similar way. | |||
RPL is primarily designed to minimize the control plane activity, | RPL is primarily designed to minimize the control plane activity, | |||
which is the relative amount of routing protocol exchanges versus | which is the relative amount of routing protocol exchanges versus | |||
data traffic; this approach is beneficial for situations where the | data traffic; this approach is beneficial for situations where the | |||
power and bandwidth are scarce (e.g., an IoT LLN where RPL is | power and bandwidth are scarce (e.g., an IoT LLN where RPL is | |||
typically used today), but also in situations of high relative | typically used today), but also in situations of high relative | |||
mobility between the nodes in the network (also known as swarming, | mobility between the nodes in the network (also known as swarming, | |||
e.g., within a variable set of vehicles with a similar global motion, | e.g., within a variable set of vehicles with a similar global motion, | |||
or a variable set of drones flying toward the same direction). | or a variable set of drones flying toward the same direction). | |||
To reduce the routing exchanges, RPL leverages a Distance Vector (DV) | To reduce the routing exchanges, RPL leverages a Distance Vector (DV) | |||
approach, which does not need a global knowledge of the topology, and | approach, which does not need a global knowledge of the topology, and | |||
only optimizes the routes to and from the root, allowing Peer-to-Peer | only optimizes the routes to and from the root, allowing peer-to-peer | |||
(P2P) paths to be stretched. Although RPL installs its routes | (P2P) paths to be stretched. Although RPL installs its routes | |||
proactively, it only maintains them lazily, that is, in reaction to | proactively, it only maintains them lazily, that is, in reaction to | |||
actual traffic, or as a slow background activity. Additionally, RPL | actual traffic or as a slow background activity. Additionally, RPL | |||
leverages the concept of an objective function (called OF), which | leverages the concept of an OF, which allows adapting the activity of | |||
allows adapting the activity of the routing protocol to use cases, | the routing protocol to use cases, e.g., type, speed, and quality of | |||
e.g., type, speed, and quality of the radios. RPL does not need | the radios. RPL does not need to converge and provides connectivity | |||
converge, and provides connectivity to most nodes most of the time. | to most nodes most of the time. The default route toward the root is | |||
The default route toward the root is maintained aggressively and may | maintained aggressively and may change while a packet progresses | |||
change while a packet progresses without causing loops, so the packet | without causing loops, so the packet will still reach the root. | |||
will still reach the root. There are two modes for routing in RPL | There are two modes for routing in RPL: non-storing mode and storing | |||
such as non-storing mode and storing mode. In non-storing mode, a | mode. In non-storing mode, a node inside the mesh or swarm that | |||
node inside the mesh/swarm that changes its point(s) of attachment to | changes its point(s) of attachment to the graph informs the root with | |||
the graph informs the root with a single unicast packet flowing along | a single unicast packet flowing along the default route, and the | |||
the default route, and the connectivity is restored immediately; this | connectivity is restored immediately; this mode is preferable for use | |||
mode is preferable for use cases where Internet connectivity is | cases where Internet connectivity is dominant. On the other hand, in | |||
dominant. On the other hand, in storing mode, the routing stretch is | storing mode, the routing stretch is reduced for better P2P | |||
reduced, for a better P2P connectivity, while the Internet | connectivity, and the Internet connectivity is restored more slowly | |||
connectivity is restored more slowly, during the time for the DV | during the time for the DV operation to operate hop-by-hop. While an | |||
operation to operate hop-by-hop. While an RPL topology can quickly | RPL topology can quickly scale up and down and fit the needs of | |||
scale up and down and fits the needs of mobility of vehicles, the | mobility of vehicles, the total performance of the system will also | |||
total performance of the system will also depend on how quickly a | depend on how quickly a node can form an address, join the mesh | |||
node can form an address, join the mesh (including Authentication, | (including Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)), and | |||
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)), and manage its global mobility | manage its global mobility to become reachable from another node | |||
to become reachable from another node outside the mesh. | outside the mesh. | |||
OMNI defines a protocol for the transmission of IPv6 packets over | OMNI defines a protocol for the transmission of IPv6 packets over | |||
Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces | Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces | |||
governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports | governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports | |||
multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding | multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding | |||
hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports | hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports | |||
multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure | multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure | |||
access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface | access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface | |||
supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications | supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications | |||
use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD | use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD | |||
Messaging. | messaging. | |||
In OMNI protocol, an OMNI virtual interface can have a ULA [RFC4193] | In the OMNI protocol, an OMNI virtual interface can have a ULA | |||
indeed, but wireless physical interfaces associated with the OMNI | [RFC4193] indeed, but wireless physical interfaces associated with | |||
virtual interface are using any prefix. The ULA supports both V2V | the OMNI virtual interface can use any prefixes. The ULA supports | |||
and V2I multihop forwarding within the vehicular network (e.g., via a | both V2V and V2I multihop forwarding within the vehicular network | |||
VANET routing protocol) while each vehicle can communicate with | (e.g., via a VANET routing protocol) while each vehicle can | |||
Internet correspondents using global IPv6 addresses via OMNI | communicate with Internet correspondents using IPv6 global addresses | |||
interface encapsulation over the wireless interface. | via OMNI interface encapsulation over the wireless interface. | |||
For the control traffic overhead for running both vehicular ND and a | For the control traffic overhead for running both vehicular ND and a | |||
VANET routing protocol, the AERO/OMNI approach may avoid this issue | VANET routing protocol, the AERO/OMNI approach may avoid this issue | |||
by using MANET routing protocols only (i.e., no multicast of IPv6 ND | by using MANET routing protocols only (i.e., no multicast of IPv6 ND | |||
messaging) in the wireless underlay network while applying efficient | messaging) in the wireless underlay network while applying efficient | |||
unicast IPv6 ND messaging in the OMNI overlay on an as-needed basis | unicast IPv6 ND messaging in the OMNI overlay on an as-needed basis | |||
for router discovery and NUD. This greatly reduces the overhead for | for router discovery and NUD. This greatly reduces the overhead for | |||
VANET-wide multicasting while providing agile accommodation for | VANET-wide multicasting while providing agile accommodation for | |||
dynamic topology changes. | dynamic topology changes. | |||
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I | Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I | |||
The seamless application communication between two vehicles or | The seamless application communication between two vehicles or | |||
between a vehicle and an infrastructure node requires mobility | between a vehicle and an infrastructure node requires mobility | |||
management in vehicular networks. The mobility management schemes | management in vehicular networks. The mobility management schemes | |||
include a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, | include a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, | |||
and software-defined networking scheme. | and software-defined networking scheme. | |||
In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a | In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays the | |||
role of a home agent. On the other hand, in the network-based | role of a home agent. On the other hand, in the network-based | |||
mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6, an MA plays a role of a mobility | mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6), an MA plays the role of a mobility | |||
management controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in | management controller, such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in | |||
PMIPv6, which also serves vehicles as a home agent, and an IP-RSU | PMIPv6, which also serves vehicles as a home agent, and an IP-RSU | |||
plays a role of an access router such as a Mobile Access Gateway | plays the role of an access router, such as a Mobile Access Gateway | |||
(MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. The host-based mobility scheme needs | (MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. The host-based mobility scheme needs | |||
client functionality in IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile node for | client functionality in the IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile node | |||
mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home | for mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home | |||
agent. On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme does not | agent. On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme does not | |||
need such a client functionality for a vehicle because the network | need such client functionality of a vehicle because the network | |||
infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility agent | infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility agent | |||
handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home agent | handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home agent | |||
(e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle. | (e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle. | |||
There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue in the | There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue in the | |||
network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a | network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a | |||
large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs. In this case, a | large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs. In this case, a | |||
distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the | distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the | |||
scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular | scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular | |||
network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route | network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route | |||
optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the | optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the | |||
network-based mobility scheme. All these mobility approaches (i.e., | network-based mobility scheme. All these mobility approaches (i.e., | |||
a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and | a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and | |||
distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a combination | distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a combination | |||
of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles | of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles | |||
moving fast and moving along with the relatively predictable | moving fast and moving along with relatively predictable trajectories | |||
trajectories along the roadways. | along the roadways. | |||
In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the | In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the | |||
data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding by | data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding by | |||
using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) | using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149] | |||
[RFC7149][I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp]. Note that Forwarding Policy | [FPC-DMM]. Note that Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in | |||
Configuration (FPC) in [I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp], which is a flexible | [FPC-DMM], which is a flexible mobility management system, can manage | |||
mobility management system, can manage the separation of data-plane | the separation of data plane and control plane in DMM. In SDN, the | |||
and control-plane in DMM. In SDN, the control plane and data plane | control plane and data plane are separated for the efficient | |||
are separated for the efficient management of forwarding elements | management of forwarding elements (e.g., switches and routers) where | |||
(e.g., switches and routers) where an SDN controller configures the | an SDN controller configures the forwarding elements in a centralized | |||
forwarding elements in a centralized way and they perform packet | way, and they perform packet forwarding according to their forwarding | |||
forwarding according to their forwarding tables that are configured | tables that are configured by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN | |||
by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN controller needs to | controller needs to efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and | |||
efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and vehicles for | vehicles for mobility management and security services. | |||
mobility management, location management, and security services. | ||||
Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-based Vehicular Networks | Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-Based Vehicular Networks | |||
The wireless and/or wired-line links in paths between both mobile | The wireless and/or wired-line links in paths between both mobile | |||
nodes and fixed network correspondents may configure a variety of | nodes and fixed network correspondents may configure a variety of | |||
Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs), where all IPv6 links are required | Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs), where all IPv6 links are required | |||
to support a minimum MTU of 1280 octets and may support larger MTUs. | to support a minimum MTU of 1280 octets and may support larger MTUs. | |||
Unfortunately, determining the path MTU (i.e., the minimum link MTU | Unfortunately, determining the path MTU (i.e., the minimum link MTU | |||
in the path) has proven to be inefficient and unreliable due to the | in the path) has proven to be inefficient and unreliable due to the | |||
uncertain nature of the loss-oriented ICMPv6 messaging service used | uncertain nature of the loss-oriented ICMPv6 messaging service used | |||
for path MTU discovery. Recent developments have produced a more | for path MTU discovery. Recent developments have produced a more | |||
reliable path MTU determination service for TCP [RFC4821] and UDP | reliable path MTU determination service for TCP [RFC4821] and UDP | |||
[RFC8899] however the MTUs discovered are always limited by the most | [RFC8899]; however, the MTUs discovered are always limited by the | |||
restrictive link MTU in the path (often 1500 octets or smaller). | most restrictive link MTU in the path (often 1500 octets or smaller). | |||
The AERO/OMNI service addresses the MTU issue by introducing a new | The AERO/OMNI service addresses the MTU issue by introducing a new | |||
layer in the Internet architecture known as the "OMNI Adaptation | layer in the Internet architecture known as the "OMNI Adaptation | |||
Layer (OAL)". The OAL allows end systems that configure an OMNI | Layer (OAL)". The OAL allows end systems that configure an OMNI | |||
interface to utilize a full 65535 octet MTU by leveraging the IPv6 | interface to utilize a full 65535-octet MTU by leveraging the IPv6 | |||
fragmentation and reassembly service during encapsulation to produce | fragmentation and reassembly service during encapsulation to produce | |||
fragment sizes that are assured of traversing the path without loss | fragment sizes that are assured of traversing the path without loss | |||
due to a size restriction. (This allows end systems to send packets | due to a size restriction. Thus, this allows end systems to send | |||
that are often much larger than the actual path MTU.) | packets that are often much larger than the actual path MTU. | |||
Performance studies over the course of many decades have proven that | Performance studies over the course of many decades have proven that | |||
applications will see greater performance by sending smaller numbers | applications will see greater performance by sending smaller numbers | |||
of large packets (as opposed to larger numbers of small packets) even | of large packets (as opposed to larger numbers of small packets) even | |||
if fragmentation is needed. The OAL further supports even larger | if fragmentation is needed. The OAL further supports even larger | |||
packet sizes through the IP Parcels construct | packet sizes through the IP Parcels construct [PARCELS], which | |||
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels] which provides "packets-in-packet" | provides "packets-in-packet" encapsulation for a total size up to 4 | |||
encapsulation for a total size up to 4MB. Together, the OAL and IP | MB. Together, the OAL and IP Parcels will provide a revolutionary | |||
Parcels will provide a revolutionary new capability for greater | new capability for greater efficiency in both mobile and fixed | |||
efficiency in both mobile and fixed networks. On the other hand, due | networks. On the other hand, due to the highly dynamic nature of | |||
to the high dynamics of vehicular networks, a high packet loss may | vehicular networks, a high packet loss may not be able to be avoided. | |||
not be able to be avoided. The high packet loss on IP parcels can | The high packet loss on IP Parcels can simultaneously cause multiple | |||
simultaneously cause multiple TCP sessions to experience packet re- | TCP sessions to experience packet retransmissions, session time-out, | |||
transmissions, session time-out, or re-establishment of the sessions. | or re-establishment of the sessions. Other protocols, such as MPTCP | |||
Other protocols such as MPTCP and QUIC may also experience the | and QUIC, may also experience similar issues. A mechanism for | |||
similar issue. A mechanism for mitigating this issue in OAL and IP | mitigating this issue in OAL and IP Parcels should be considered. | |||
Parcels should be considered. | ||||
Appendix E. Acknowledgments | Acknowledgments | |||
This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications | This work was supported by a grant from the Institute of Information | |||
Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea | & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) funded by | |||
MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based | the Korea MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, | |||
Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized | Cloud-based Security Intelligence Technology Development for the | |||
Security Service Provisioning). | Customized Security Service Provisioning). | |||
This work was supported in part by the MSIT, Korea, under the ITRC | This work was supported in part by the MSIT, Korea, under the ITRC | |||
(Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP- | (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP- | |||
2022-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP. | 2022-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP. | |||
This work was supported in part by the IITP (2020-0-00395-003, | This work was supported in part by the IITP (2020-0-00395-003, | |||
Standard Development of Blockchain based Network Management | Standard Development of Blockchain-based Network Management | |||
Automation Technology). | Automation Technology). | |||
This work was supported in part by the French research project | This work was supported in part by the French research project | |||
DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded | DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded | |||
by the European Commission I (636537-H2020). | by the European Commission I (636537-H2020). | |||
This work was supported in part by the Cisco University Research | This work was supported in part by the Cisco University Research | |||
Program Fund, Grant # 2019-199458 (3696), and by ANID Chile Basal | Program Fund, Grant # 2019-199458 (3696), and by ANID Chile Basal | |||
Project FB0008. | Project FB0008. | |||
Appendix F. Contributors | Contributors | |||
This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly | This document is a group work of the 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 (Zededa), Dirk von Hugo | |||
Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ | (Deutsche Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), | |||
Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom), Nancy Cam-Winget | Russ Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Cisco), Nancy Cam- | |||
(Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI), | Winget (Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park | |||
Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil | (ETRI), Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil | |||
University), Zhiwei Yan (CNNIC), YongJoon Joe (LSware), Peter E. Yee | University), Zhiwei Yan (CNNIC), YongJoon Joe (LSware), Peter E. Yee | |||
(Akayla), and Erik Kline. The authors sincerely appreciate their | (Akayla), and Erik Kline (Aalyria). The authors sincerely appreciate | |||
contributions. | their contributions. | |||
The following are co-authors of this document: | ||||
Nabil Benamar - | ||||
Department of Computer Sciences, High School of Technology of Meknes, | ||||
Moulay Ismail University, Morocco, Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36, Email: | ||||
benamar73@gmail.com | ||||
Sandra Cespedes - | ||||
NIC Chile Research Labs, Universidad de Chile, Av. Blanco Encalada | The following are coauthors of this document: | |||
1975, Santiago, Chile, Phone: +56 2 29784093, Email: | ||||
scespede@niclabs.cl | ||||
Jerome Haerri - | Nabil Benamar | |||
Department of Computer Sciences, | ||||
High School of Technology of Meknes | ||||
Moulay Ismail University | ||||
Morocco | ||||
Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36 | ||||
Email: benamar73@gmail.com | ||||
Communication Systems Department, EURECOM, Sophia-Antipolis, France, | Sandra Cespedes | |||
Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34, Email: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr | NIC Chile Research Labs | |||
Universidad de Chile | ||||
Av. Blanco Encalada 1975 | ||||
Santiago | ||||
Chile | ||||
Phone: +56 2 29784093 | ||||
Email: scespede@niclabs.cl | ||||
Dapeng Liu - | Jérôme Härri | |||
Communication Systems Department | ||||
EURECOM | ||||
Sophia-Antipolis | ||||
France | ||||
Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34 | ||||
Email: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr | ||||
Alibaba, Beijing, Beijing 100022, China, Phone: +86 13911788933, | Dapeng Liu | |||
Alibaba | ||||
Beijing | ||||
100022 | ||||
China | ||||
Phone: +86 13911788933 | ||||
Email: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com | Email: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com | |||
Tae (Tom) Oh - | Tae (Tom) Oh | |||
Department of Information Sciences and Technologies | ||||
Department of Information Sciences and Technologies, Rochester | Rochester Institute of Technology | |||
Institute of Technology, One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY | One Lomb Memorial Drive | |||
14623-5603, USA, Phone: +1 585 475 7642, Email: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | Rochester, NY 14623-5603 | |||
United States of America | ||||
Charles E. Perkins - | Phone: +1 585 475 7642 | |||
Email: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | ||||
Futurewei Inc., 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA, | ||||
Phone: +1 408 330 4586, Email: charliep@computer.org | ||||
Alexandre Petrescu - | ||||
CEA, LIST, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190, France, | Charles E. Perkins | |||
Phone: +33169089223, Email: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr | Futurewei Inc. | |||
2330 Central Expressway, | ||||
Santa Clara, CA 95050 | ||||
United States of America | ||||
Phone: +1 408 330 4586, | ||||
Email: charliep@computer.org | ||||
Yiwen Chris Shen - | Alexandre Petrescu | |||
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Sungkyunkwan | CEA, LIST, CEA Saclay | |||
University, 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419, | 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette | |||
Republic of Korea, Phone: +82 31 299 4106, Fax: +82 31 290 7996, | France | |||
Email: chrisshen@skku.edu, URI: https://chrisshen.github.io | Phone: +33169089223 | |||
Email: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr | ||||
Michelle Wetterwald - | Yiwen Chris Shen | |||
Department of Computer Science & Engineering | ||||
Sungkyunkwan University | ||||
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | ||||
Suwon | ||||
Gyeonggi-Do | ||||
16419 | ||||
Republic of Korea | ||||
Phone: +82 31 299 4106 | ||||
Email: chrisshen@skku.edu | ||||
URI: https://chrisshen.github.io | ||||
FBConsulting, 21, Route de Luxembourg, Wasserbillig, Luxembourg | Michelle Wetterwald | |||
L-6633, Luxembourg, Email: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | FBConsulting | |||
21, Route de Luxembourg, | ||||
L-L-6633, Wasserbillig, | ||||
Luxembourg | ||||
Email: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | ||||
Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor) | Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor) | |||
Department of Computer Science and Engineering | Department of Computer Science and Engineering | |||
Sungkyunkwan University | Sungkyunkwan University | |||
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | |||
Suwon | Suwon | |||
Gyeonggi-Do | Gyeonggi-Do | |||
16419 | 16419 | |||
End of changes. 269 change blocks. | ||||
1159 lines changed or deleted | 1249 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |