[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Informational January 6, 2020
Expires: July 9, 2020
IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem
Statement and Use Cases
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-13
Abstract
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and
vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document
explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, it
makes a problem statement about key aspects in IPv6-based vehicular
networking, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and
Security & Privacy. For each key aspect, this document specifies
requirements for IPv6-based vehicular networking.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
networking-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with
the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC-
based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC].
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended
WiFi standard 802.11 to enable driving safety services based on DSRC
for the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) system. The
Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link Layer (L2) issues are addressed in
IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while
IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers security aspects, IEEE 1609.3
[WAVE-1609.3] defines related services at network and transport
layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] specifies the multi-channel
operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a separate amendment, but was
later rolled into the base 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE
802.11 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012
[IEEE-802.11-OCB].
Along with these WAVE standards, IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IPv6
protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], and Proxy MIPv6
(PMIPv6) [RFC5213]) can be applied to vehicular networks. In
addition, ISO has approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network
protocols and services to be used for Communications Access for Land
Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6].
This document describes use cases and a problem statement about
IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it introduces the
use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. Next, it
makes a problem statement about key aspects in IPWAVE, namely, IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND), Mobility Management (MM), and Security &
Privacy (SP). For each key aspect of the problem statement, this
document specifies requirements for IPv6-based vehicular networking.
This document is intended to motivate development of key protocols
for IPWAVE.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8691]. In
addition, the following terms are defined below:
o Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make safety plan by
classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for
safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among
them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight
Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD].
o Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal
mobility information (e.g., position, speed, direction, and
acceleration/deceleration) of surrounding vehicles for both safety
and non-safety uses through sensing or communication [CASD].
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
o Edge Computing (EC): It is the local computing near an access
network (i.e., edge network) for the sake of vehicles and
pedestrians.
o Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server)
for edge computing for the sake of vehicles and pedestrians.
o Edge Network (EN): In is an access network that has an IP-RSU for
wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and
wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP-
RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a radio receiver of
Global Positioning System (GPS) for its position recognition and
the localization service for the sake of vehicles.
o IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a
computer situated in a vehicle such as a car, bicycle, or similar.
It has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11
and has an "OBU" transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface
that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP]. See the
definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691].
o IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road.
It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless
PHY/MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is
configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates
with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB
mode. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in C-V2X along
with an "RSU" transceiver. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access
Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless
Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition
of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691].
o LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to
measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and
measuring the reflected pulsed light.
o Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and
mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support
their IPv6 address autoconfiguration and mobility management with
a binding table. An MA has End-to-End (E2E) connections with IP-
RSUs under its control for the address autoconfiguration and
mobility management of the vehicles. This MA can play a role of a
Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] for vehicles
moving in the road network .
o OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set - BSS". It is a
mode of operation in which a Station (STA) is not a member of a
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication,
association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB].
o 802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std
802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute
dot11OCBActivited is 'true'.
o Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air-
resistance for energy efficiency and reduce the number of drivers
such that only the leading vehicle has a driver and the other
vehicles are autonomous vehicles without a driver and closely
following the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning].
o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A node that maintains road
infrastructure information (e.g., IP-RSUs, traffic signals, and
loop detectors), vehicular traffic statistics (e.g., average
vehicle speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per road segment),
and vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's identifier, position,
direction, speed, and trajectory as a navigation path). TCC is
included in a vehicular cloud for vehicular networks.
o Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU
for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It
has a radio navigation receiver of Global Positioning System (GPS)
for efficient navigation.
o Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of
vehicles interconnected by wireless communication. Two vehicles
in a VANET can communicate with each other using other vehicles as
relays even where they are out of one-hop wireless communication
range.
o Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks,
having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding
elements (e.g., switch and router).
o Vehicle Detection Loop (i.e., Loop Detector): An inductive device
used for detecting vehicles passing or arriving at a certain
point, for instance, at an intersection with traffic lights or at
a ramp toward a highway. The relatively crude nature of the
loop's structure means that only metal masses above a certain size
are capable of triggering the detection.
o V2D: "Vehicle to Device". It is the wireless communication
between a vehicle and a device (e.g., IoT device).
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
o V2P: "Vehicle to Pedestrian". It is the wireless communication
between a vehicle and a pedestrian's mobile device (e.g.,
smartphone).
o V2I2P: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Pedestrian". It is the
wireless communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian's mobile
device (e.g., smartphone) via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-
RSU).
o V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". It is the wireless
communication between a vehicle and another vehicle via an
infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU).
o VIP: "Vehicular Internet Protocol". It is an IPv6 extension for
vehicular networks including V2V, V2I, and V2X.
o VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management". It is an IPv6-based
mobility management for vehicular networks.
o VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery". It is an IPv6 ND extension
for vehicular networks.
o VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy". It is an IPv6-based
security and privacy for vehicular networks.
o WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0].
3. Use Cases
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
networking, but include Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to-
Device (V2D).
Since IP is widely used among various computing devices in the
Internet, it is expected that the use cases in this section need to
work on top of IPv6 as the network layer protocol. Thus, the IPv6
for these use cases should be extended for vehicular IPv6 such that
the IPv6 can support the functions of the network layer protocol such
as Vehicular Neighbor Discovery (VND), Vehicular Mobility Management
(VMM), and Vehicular Security and Privacy (VSP) in vehicular
networks. Refer to Section 5 for the problem statement of the
requirements of the vehicular IPv6.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
3.1. V2V
The use cases of V2V networking discussed in this section include
o Context-aware navigation for driving safety and collision
avoidance;
o Cooperative adaptive cruise control in an urban roadway;
o Platooning in a highway;
o Cooperative environment sensing.
These four techniques will be important elements for self-driving
vehicles.
Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers
to drive safely by alerting the drivers about dangerous obstacles and
situations. That is, CASD navigator displays obstacles or
neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time
through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based
automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations,
namely, the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe, and safe
situations. This action plan can be put into action among multiple
vehicles using V2V networking.
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [CA-Cruise-Control] helps
vehicles to adapt their speed autonomously through V2V communication
among vehicles according to the mobility of their predecessor and
successor vehicles in an urban roadway or a highway. Thus, CACC can
help adjacent vehicles to efficiently adjust their speed in an
interactive way through V2V networking in order to avoid collision.
Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series of vehicles (e.g.,
trucks) to follow each other very closely. Trucks can use V2V
communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain
constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short
gaps (from 3 meters to 10 meters). Platooning can maximize the
throughput of vehicular traffic in a highway and reduce the gas
consumption because the leading vehicle can help the following
vehicles to experience less air resistance.
Cooperative-environment-sensing use cases suggest that vehicles can
share environmental information from various vehicle-mounted sensors,
such as radars, LiDARs, and cameras with other vehicles and
pedestrians. [Automotive-Sensing] introduces a millimeter-wave
vehicular communication for massive automotive sensing. A lot of
data can be generated by those sensors, and these data typically need
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
to be routed to different destinations. In addition, from the
perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected that driverless
vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles. Through the
cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can use
environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for better
interaction with the other vehicles and environment.
To support the applications of these V2V use cases, the functions of
IPv6 such as VND and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based packet
exchange and the secure, safe communication between two vehicles.
3.2. V2I
The use cases of V2I networking discussed in this section include
o Navigation service;
o Energy-efficient speed recommendation service;
o Accident notification service.
A navigation service, for example, the Self-Adaptive Interactive
Navigation Tool (SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with
TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can
guide individual vehicles for appropriate navigation paths in real
time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving
paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let
them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the
accident spot into efficient detour paths.
A TCC can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a vehicle that
depends on its traffic environment. [Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel-
efficient route and speed plans for platooned trucks.
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency
vehicles) and TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU or 4G-LTE
networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
[FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate,
and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for
safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The
construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state
in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to
the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed
by 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an
infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected
that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I
and V2V in near future.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
To support the applications of these V2I use cases, the functions of
IPv6 such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based
packet exchange, the transport-layer session continuity, and the
secure, safe communication between a vehicle and a server in the
vehicular cloud.
3.3. V2X
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is
pedestrian protection service.
A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation
Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the
collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone
equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g.,
WiFi) with an IP-RSU. Vehicles and pedestrians can also communicate
with each other via an IP-RSU. An edge computing device behind the
IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles and
pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the sake
of them. This scheduling can save the battery of each pedestrian's
smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode before the
communication with vehicles, considering their mobility.
For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate
with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without IP-RSU relaying.
Light-weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate
directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V.
To support the applications of these V2X use cases, the functions of
IPv6 such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisite for the IPv6-based
packet exchange, the transport-layer session continuity, and the
secure, safe communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian either
directly or indirectly via an IP-RSU.
4. Vehicular Networks
This section describes an exemplary vehicular network architecture
supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks.
It describes an internal network within a vehicle or an edge network
(called EN). It explains not only the internetworking between the
internal networks of a vehicle and an EN via wireless links, but also
the internetworking between the internal networks of two vehicles via
wireless links.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud
*******************************************
+-------------+ * *
|Corresponding| * +-----------------+ *
| Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | *
+-------------+ * +-----------------+ *
* ^ *
* | *
* v *
*******************************************
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
v v v
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| IP-RSU1 |<--------->| IP-RSU2 |<--------->| IP-RSU3 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
^ ^ ^
: : :
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| : V2I | | : V2I | | : V2I |
| v | | v | | v |
+--------+ | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
|Vehicle1|===> |Vehicle2|===>| | |Vehicle3|===>| | |Vehicle4|===>|
+--------+<...>+--------+<........>+--------+ | | +--------+ |
V2V ^ V2V ^ | | ^ |
| : V2V | | : V2V | | : V2V |
| v | | v | | v |
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
| |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>|
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3
(Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
Figure 1: An Exemplary Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture
Figure 1 shows an exemplary vehicular network architecture for V2I
and V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture
contains vehicles, IP-RSUs, Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center,
and Mobility Anchor as components. However, some components in the
vehicular network architecture may not be needed for vehicular
networks, such as Vehicular Cloud, Traffic Control Center, and
Mobility Anchor.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
As shown in this figure, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU
have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless
media interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g.,
2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking. Note that
2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example
prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address
needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP-
RSUs.
For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691]
specifies several details, including Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU),
frame format, link-local address, address mapping for unicast and
multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and subnet structure. An
Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of transforming some
parameters between IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and IPv6 network layer,
which is located between IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical link control layer
and IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB can be used for
both V2V and V2I in IPv6-based vehicular networks.
In Figure 1, three IP-RSUs (IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3) are
deployed in the road network and are connected with each other
through the wired networks (e.g., Ethernet), which are part of a
Vehicular Cloud. A Traffic Control Center (TCC) is connected to the
Vehicular Cloud for the management of IP-RSUs and vehicles in the
road network. A Mobility Anchor (MA) may be located in the TCC as a
mobility management controller, which is a controller for the
mobility management of vehicles. Vehicle2, Vehicle3, and Vehicle4
are wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3,
respectively. The three wireless networks of IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and
IP-RSU3 can belong to three different subnets (i.e., Subnet1,
Subnet2, and Subnet3), respectively. Those three subnets use three
different prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and Prefix3).
A single subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles in VANET. For
example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles (i.e., Vehicle1,
Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected VANET. Also, for
Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and Vehicle6) can construct
another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3, two vehicles (i.e.,
Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another connected VANET.
In wireless subnets in vehicular networks (e.g., Subnet1 and Subnet2
in Figure 1), vehicles can construct a connected VANET (with an
arbitrary graph topology) and can communicate with each other via V2V
communication. Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V
communication, and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V
communication because they are within the wireless communication
range for each other. On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate
with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., IP-RSU2 and IP-
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
RSU3) by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are
not within the wireless communication range for each other.
An IPv6 mobility solution is needed in vehicular networks so that a
vehicle's TCP session can be continued while it moves from an IP-
RSU's wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In
Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session with a
corresponding node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move 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 host-
based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a
network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]).
In the host-based mobility scheme, an IP-RSU plays a role of a home
agent in a visited network. On the other hand, in the network-based
mobility scheme, an MA plays a role of a mobility management
controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6, and an
IP-RSU plays a role of an access router such as a Mobile Access
Gateway (MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213].
In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the
data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding.
The separation of the control plane and data plane can be performed
by the Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149]. An MA can
configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and vehicles for mobility
management, location management, and security services in an
efficient way.
The mobility information of a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle
(e.g., position, speed, and direction) can be used to accommodate
mobility-aware proactive handover schemes, which can perform the
handover of a vehicle according to its mobility and the wireless
signal strength of a vehicle and an IP-RSU in a proactive way.
Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent
for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 [RFC5213],
so the TCC maintains the mobility information of vehicles for
location management. IP tunneling over the wireless link should be
avoided for performance efficiency. Also, in vehicular networks,
asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be considered for wireless
communications such as V2V and V2I.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
+-----------------+
(*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud |
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | | | +-----------------+
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| v | | v v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:20:1::/64 |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| |Server1|...|ServerN| |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 |
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking
This section discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's
internal network (i.e., moving network) and an EN's internal network
(i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. Note that an EN can
accommodate multiple routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs,
navigation server, and DNS server) in its internal network.
A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect
Electronic Control Units (ECUs) in the vehicle. The internal network
can support WiFi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and
passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). The network
topology and subnetting depend on each vendor's network configuration
for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider the
interaction between the internal network and an external network
within another vehicle or an EN.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving
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)
for the communication with another vehicle or another EN.
Internetworking between two internal networks via V2I communication
requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network
prefixes of the internal networks.
Figure 2 also shows internetworking between the vehicle's moving
network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network
(Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and
Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another
internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host
(Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), and the collection of
servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road
networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation.
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
V2I networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
RSU1, and EN1's fixed network.
For an IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between
two neighboring IP-OBUs, network parameters need to be shared among
them, such as MAC layer and IPv6 layer information. The MAC layer
information includes wireless link layer parameters, transmission
power level, the MAC address of an external network interface for the
internetworking with another IP-OBU or IP-RSU. The IPv6 layer
information includes the IPv6 address and network prefix of an
external network interface for the internetworking with another IP-
OBU or IP-RSU.
Through the exchange of network parameters and network prefixes among
internal networks, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's
moving network and the EN's fixed network. Thus, V2I requires an
efficient exchange protocol for network parameters and an efficient
routing protocol for network prefixes.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
(*)<..........>(*)
2001:DB8:1:1::/64 | |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | Host3 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^ | | ^ 2001:DB8:30:1::/64 |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| | Host4 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ---------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:30:2::/64 |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking
This section discusses the internetworking between the moving
networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication.
Figure 3 shows internetworking between the moving networks of two
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving
Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2),
and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal
network (Moving Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts
(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
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
with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
| | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | | | Host2 | | | | Host3 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3
<....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
Figure 4 shows multihop internetworking between the moving networks
of two vehicles in the same VANET. For example, Host1 in Vehicle1
can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP-
OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in a linear topology as
shown in the figure.
5. Problem Statement
In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned architecture
for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the
vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges
need to be completed in a time relatively small compared to the
lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two
vehicles. This has a major impact on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND).
Mobility Management (MM) is also vulnerable to disconnections that
occur before the completion of identity verification and tunnel
management. This is especially true given the unreliable nature of
wireless communications. Thus, this section presents key topics such
as neighbor discovery and mobility management.
5.1. Neighbor Discovery
IPv6 ND [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol suite.
IPv6 ND is designed for point-to-point links and transit links (e.g.,
Ethernet). It assumes an efficient and reliable support of multicast
from the link layer for various network operations such as MAC
Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
Vehicles move quickly within the communication coverage of any
particular vehicle or IP-RSU. Before the vehicles can exchange
application messages with each other, they need to be configured with
a link-local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND.
The legacy DAD assumes that a node with an IPv6 address can reach any
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
party within the scope of its address for the duration of the address
ownership. However, the partitioning and merging of VANETs makes
this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The
merging and partitioning of VANETs occurs frequently in vehicular
networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the
IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
[RFC4862]. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may
conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging.
Also, the partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same
prefix be physically unreachable. Also, SLAAC needs to prevent IPv6
address duplication due to the merging of VANETs. According to the
merging and partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host)
needs to be distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link
host even though the source vehicle uses the same prefix with the
destination vehicle.
To efficiently prevent the IPv6 address duplication due to the VANET
partitioning and merging from happing in vehicular networks, the
vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by
defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD. In this
case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists
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,
vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the
vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular
infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET.
ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) interval need to be adjusted for high-speed
vehicles and vehicle density. As vehicles move faster, the NA
interval should decrease (e.g., from 1 sec to 0.5 sec) for the NA
messages to reach the neighboring vehicles promptly. Also, as
vehicle density is higher, the NA interval should increase (e.g.,
from 0.5 sec to 1 sec) for the NA messages to reduce collision
probability with other NA messages.
For IPv6-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation,
adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular networks, the
delay-bounded data delivery is critical. Implementations for such
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
applications are not available yet. IPv6 ND needs to efficiently
work to support IPv6-based safety applications.
5.1.1. Link Model
A prefix model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the
communication between two vehicles with the same prefix regardless of
the vehicular network topology as long as there exist bidirectional
E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including VANETs and
IP-RSUs. This prefix model allows vehicles with the same prefix to
communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and
multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs.
IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions for the link model that
do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless link
[VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume
symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250].
However, radio interference and different levels of transmission
power may cause asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless
links. As a result, a new vehicular link model needs to consider the
asymmetry of dynamically changing vehicular wireless links.
There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the
different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global
types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all
interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with
on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link.
However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship
between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless
links and the characteristics of VANET.
A VANET can have multiple links between pairs of vehicles within
wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two
vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless
communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each
other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix is assigned to VANETs
in vehicular networks. Even though two vehicles in the same VANET
configure their IPv6 addresses with the same IPv6 prefix, they may
not communicate with each other not in a one hop in the same VANET
because of the multihop network connectivity between them. Thus, in
this case, the concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold
because two vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot
communicate directly with each other. Also, when two vehicles are
located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they
cannot communicate with each other. When these two VANETs converge
to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with each other in a
multihop fashion, for example, wheh they are Vehicle1 and Vehicle3,
as shown in Figure 4.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider
the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle
mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on-
link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of
vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable
network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same
prefix are reachable with each other in one hop, the prefix should be
on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same
prefix are not reachable with each other in one hop due to either the
multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix
should be off-link.
The vehicular link model needs to support the multihop routing in a
connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6
prefix are connected in one hop or multiple hops. It also needs to
support the multihop routing in multiple connected VANETs through
infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSU) where they are connected to the
infrastructure. For example, in Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1,
Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are configured with their IPv6 addresses based
on the same global-scope IPv6 prefix. Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also
communicate with each other via either multihop V2V or multihop
V2I2V. When the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 are connected
in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them to directly
communicate with each other via VANET rather than indirectly via IP-
RSUs. On the other hand, when the two vehicles of Vehicle1 and
Vehicle3 are far away from the communication range in separate VANETs
and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with each other
through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two separate VANETs
can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s). Also, newly arriving
vehicles can merge two separate VANETs into one VANET if they can
play a role of a relay node for those VANETs.
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym
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
address can be changed periodically. However, although such a
pseudonym of a MAC address can protect some extent of privacy of a
vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle
identification by other fingerprint information, for example, the
scrambler seed embedded in IEEE 802.11-OCB frames [Scrambler-Attack].
The pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the
MAC address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP and and SCTP) session
with an IPv6 address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not
implemented and tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular
networking.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
In the ETSI standards, for the sake of security and privacy, an ITS
station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network interface
identities (e.g., MAC address) and the corresponding IPv6 addresses
[Identity-Management]. Whenever 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
checked through the DAD procedure. For vehicular networks with high
mobility and density, this DAD needs to be performed efficiently with
minimum overhead so that the vehicles can exchange application
messages (e.g., collision avoidance and accident notification) with
each other with a short interval (e.g., 0.5 second)
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report].
5.1.3. Routing
For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP-
RSUs, a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV and OLSRv2) may
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
both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of
control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems].
A routing protocol for VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in
the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the
routing information in VANET with a dynamic network topology because
the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each vehicle. Thus,
the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the IPv6 ND to
minimize its control overhead.
5.2. Mobility Management
The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end
points requires an efficient mobility management including location
management and handover. Most of vehicles are equipped with a GPS
receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding
smartphone App. Note that The GPS receiver may not provide vehicles
with accurate location information in adverse environments such as a
building area and tunnel. The location precision can be improved by
the assistance from the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS
receiver for location information.
With a GPS navigator, an efficient mobility management can be
performed with the help of vehicles periodically reporting their
current position and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the
vehicular infrastructure (having IP-RSUs and an MA in TCC). This
vehicular infrastructure can predict the future positions of the
vehicles with their mobility information (i.e., the current position,
speed, direction, and trajectory) for the efficient mobility
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
management (e.g., proactive handover). For a better proactive
handover, link-layer parameters, such as the signal strength of a
link-layer frame (e.g., Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI)
[VIP-WAVE]), can be used to determine the moment of a handover
between IP-RSUs along with mobility information.
By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure
needs to better support IP-RSUs to perform efficient SLAAC, data
forwarding, horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links
using a homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e.,
handover in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in
advance along with the movement of the vehicle.
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
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
vehicle, while performing the SLAAC, data forwarding, and handover
for the sake of the vehicle.
Therefore, for the proactive and seamless IPv6 mobility of vehicles,
the vehicular infrastructure (including IP-RSUs and MA) needs to
efficiently perform the mobility management of the vehicles with
their mobility information and link-layer information.
6. Security Considerations
This section discusses security and privacy for IPv6-based vehicular
networking. The security and privacy is one of key components in
IPv6-based vehicular networking along with neighbor discovery and
mobility management.
Security and privacy are paramount in the V2I, V2V, and V2X
networking. Only authorized vehicles need to be allowed to use the
vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., ECU) and
mobile devices (e.g., smartphone) in a vehicle need to communicate
with other in-vehicle devices and mobile devices in another vehicle,
and other servers in an IP-RSU in a secure way. Even a perfectly
authorized and legitimate vehicle may be hacked to run malicious
applications to track and collect its and other vehicles'
information. For this case, an attack mitigation process may be
required to reduce the aftermath of the malicious behaviors.
Strong security measures shall protect vehicles roaming in road
networks from the attacks of malicious nodes, which are controlled by
hackers. For safety applications, the cooperation among vehicles is
assumed. Malicious nodes may disseminate wrong driving information
(e.g., location, speed, and direction) to make driving be unsafe.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
For example, Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with
multiple false identities, disturbs a vehicle in taking a safe
maneuver. This sybil attack needs to be prevented through the
cooperation between good vehicles and IP-RSUs. Note that good
vehicles are ones with valid certificates that are determined by the
authentication process with an authentication server in the vehicular
cloud. However, applications on IPv6-based vehicular networking,
which are resilient to such a sybil attack, are not developed and
tested yet.
To identify the genuineness of vehicles against malicious vehicles,
an authentication method is required. A Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) and a user certificate along with in-vehicle device's
identifier generation can be used to efficiently authenticate a
vehicle or a user through a road infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU)
connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud. Also,
Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates can be used for the
vehicle authentication to allow secure E2E vehicle communications.
To identify the genuineness of vehicles against malicious vehicles,
an authentication method is required. For vehicle authentication,
information available from a vehicle or a driver (e.g., Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)
certificate [RFC8446]) needs to be used to efficiently authenticate a
vehicle or a user with the help of a road infrastructure node (e.g.,
IP-RSU) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud.
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel between a mobile
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. Also, for
secure V2V communication, a secure channel between a mobile 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.
To prevent an adversary from tracking a vehicle with its MAC address
or IPv6 address, MAC address pseudonym needs to be provided to the
vehicle; that is, each vehicle periodically updates its MAC address
and the corresponding IPv6 address [RFC4086][RFC4941]. Such an
update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the E2E
communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an IP-
RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this
pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality, there will
be no privacy benefit from changing MAC and IPv6 addresses, because
an adversary can observe the change of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and
track the vehicle with those addresses.
For the IPv6 ND, the DAD is required for the uniqueness of the IPv6
address of a vehicle's wireless interface. This DAD can be used as a
flooding attack that makes the DAD-related ND packets are
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. Thus, the
vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out suspicious ND traffic in
advance.
For the mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct
multiple virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with IP-RSUs and
MA. This registration makes the IP-RSUs and MA waste their
resources. The IP-RSUs and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is
genuine or bogus in the mobility management. Also, the
confidentiality of control packets and data packets among IP-RSUs and
MA, the E2E paths (e.g., tunnels) need to be protected by secure
communication channels. In addition, to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA
from interfering IPv6 mobility of vehicles, the mutual authentication
among them needs to be performed by certificates (e.g., TLS
certificate).
7. Informative References
[Automotive-Sensing]
Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R.
Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular
Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing",
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016.
[CA-Cruise-Control]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", [Online]
Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control,
2017.
[CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A
Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular
Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud
(DC2), March 2016.
[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.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
[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.
[FirstNet]
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet)", [Online]
Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012.
[FirstNet-Report]
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017.
[Fuel-Efficient]
van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas,
"Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons",
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
January 2018.
[ID-Multicast-Problems]
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC.
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11 (work
in progress), December 2019.
[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.
[IEEE-802.11-OCB]
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std
802.11-2016, December 2016.
[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.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
[ISO-ITS-IPv6]
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems -
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012.
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.
[RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July
2003.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June
2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May
2011.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, March 2014.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, April 2014.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018.
[RFC8691] Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic
Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of
a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691,
December 2019.
[SAINT] Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT:
Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based
Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016.
[SAINTplus]
Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D.
Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+
for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization",
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
June 2017.
[SANA] Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation
Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular
Networks", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
[Scrambler-Attack]
Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff,
"The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on
Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015
International Conference on Computing, Networking and
Communications (ICNC), February 2015.
[Timing-Attack]
Matte, C., Cunche, M., Rousseau, F., and M. Vanhoef,
"Defeating MAC Address Randomization Through Timing
Attacks", ACM the 9th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy
in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec '16), July 2016.
[Truck-Platooning]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", [Online] Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017.
[TS-23.285-3GPP]
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for V2X Services", 3GPP
TS 23.285, June 2018.
[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.
[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.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
[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.
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
Appendix A. Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
networking-12:
o This version is revised based on the comments from Carlos
Bernardos.
o This version focuses on problems rather than solutions for IPWAVE.
Also, this version addresses the requirements of IPv6 neighbor
discovery, mobility management, and security and privacy.
o In Section 2, IP-OBU and IP-RSU are used instead of OBU and RSU,
respectively.
o In Section 4.1, an exemplary vehicular network architecture is
illustrated for the problem statement as Figure 1.
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Education (2017R1D1A1B03035885).
This work was supported in part by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and
ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center)
support program (IITP-2019-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP
(Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion).
This work was supported in part by the French research project
DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded
by the European Commission I (636537-H2020).
Appendix C. Contributors
This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly
benefiting from inputs and texts by Rex Buddenberg (Naval
Postgraduate School), Thierry Ernst (YoGoKo), Bokor Laszlo (Budapest
University of Technology and Economics), Jose Santa Lozanoi
(Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), Francois Simon (Pilot),
Sri Gundavelli (Cisco), Erik Nordmark, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche
Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ
Housley (Vigil Security), and Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom). The authors
sincerely appreciate their contributions.
The following are co-authors of this document:
Nabil Benamar
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
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 1975
Santiago
Chile
Phone: +56 2 29784093
EMail: scespede@niclabs.cl
Jerome Haerri
Communication Systems Department
EURECOM
Sophia-Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34
EMail: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr
Dapeng Liu
Alibaba
Beijing, Beijing 100022
China
Phone: +86 13911788933
EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com
Tae (Tom) Oh
Department of Information Sciences and Technologies
Rochester Institute of Technology
One Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5603
USA
Phone: +1 585 475 7642
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu
Charles E. Perkins
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
Phone: +33169089223
EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
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
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php
Michelle Wetterwald
FBConsulting
21, Route de Luxembourg
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633
Luxembourg
EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IPWAVE Problem Statement January 2020
Author's Address
Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor)
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
Jeong, Ed. Expires July 9, 2020 [Page 32]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/