draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20.txt   draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21.txt 
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Informational March 18, 2021 Intended status: Informational 30 August 2021
Expires: September 19, 2021 Expires: 3 March 2022
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-20 draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 March 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 44
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 45
Appendix D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix E. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with (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- 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), based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
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] and Mobile IPv6
protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 (PMIPv6) protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 (PMIPv6)
[RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], Locator/ [RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], Network
ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830BIS], and Asymmetric Extended Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963], Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Route Optimization (AERO) [RFC6706BIS]). In addition, ISO has [RFC6830BIS], and Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)
approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and [RFC6706BIS]). In addition, ISO has approved a standard specifying
services to be used for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) the IPv6 network protocols and services to be used for Communications
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] [ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1]. Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6][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), and then enumerates requirements for the and Security & Privacy), and then enumerates requirements for the
extensions of those IPv6 protocols, which are tailored to IPv6-based extensions of those IPv6 protocols, which are tailored to IPv6-based
vehicular networking. Thus, this document is intended to motivate vehicular networking. Thus, this document is intended to motivate
development of key protocols for IPWAVE. 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:
o Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make a safety plan by * Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make a safety plan by
classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for
safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among
them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight them. The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight
Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD]. Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD].
o 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].
o DMM: "Distributed Mobility Management" [RFC7333][RFC7429]. * DMM: "Distributed Mobility Management" [RFC7333][RFC7429].
o Edge Computing (EC): It is the local computing near an access * Edge Computing (EC): It is the local computing near an access
network (i.e., edge network) for the sake of vehicles and network (i.e., edge network) for the sake of vehicles and
pedestrians. pedestrians.
o Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server) * Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server)
for edge computing for the sake of vehicles and pedestrians. for edge computing for the sake of vehicles and pedestrians.
o Edge Network (EN): It is an access network that has an IP-RSU for * Edge Network (EN): It 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-OBU and
wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP- wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP-
RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a Global Positioning RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a Global Positioning
System (GPS) radio receiver for its position recognition and the System (GPS) radio receiver for its position recognition and the
localization service for the sake of vehicles. localization service for the sake of vehicles.
o IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a * IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a
computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike, computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike,
motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., smartphone and motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., smartphone and
IoT device). It has at least one IP interface that runs in IEEE IoT device). 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 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] interface that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP]
[TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. See the definition of the term [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play a role of a router
"OBU" in [RFC8691]. connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) inside a
vehicle. See the definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691].
o IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road. * IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road.
It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless 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. An IP-RSU communicates
with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB 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 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 with an "RSU" transceiver. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access
Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless
Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition
of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691]. of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691].
o LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to * LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device to
measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and
measuring the reflected pulsed light. measuring the reflected pulsed light.
o Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and * Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and
mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support 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 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.
o OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set - BSS". It is a * 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 mode of operation in which a Station (STA) is not a member of a
BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication,
association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB]. association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB].
o 802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std * 802.11-OCB: It 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'. dot11OCBActivited is 'true'.
o 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 leading 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 leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning].
o Traffic Control Center (TCC): A system that manages road * Traffic Control Center (TCC): 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.
o Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU * Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU
for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. It
has a GPS radio navigation receiver for efficient navigation. Any has a GPS radio navigation receiver for efficient navigation. Any
device having an IP-OBU and a GPS receiver (e.g., smartphone and device having an IP-OBU and a GPS receiver (e.g., smartphone and
tablet PC) can be regarded as a vehicle in this document. tablet PC) can be regarded as a vehicle in this document.
o Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of * Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): 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.
o Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks, * Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks,
having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding
elements (e.g., switch and router). elements (e.g., switch and router).
o V2D: "Vehicle to Device". It is the wireless communication * V2D: "Vehicle to Device". It is the wireless communication
between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and IoT device). between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and IoT device).
o V2I2D: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Device". It is the wireless * V2I2D: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Device". It is the wireless
communication between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and communication between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and
IoT device) via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU). IoT device) via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU).
o V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". It is the wireless * V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle". It 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).
o V2I2X: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Everything". It is the * V2I2X: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Everything". It 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).
o V2X: "Vehicle to Everything". It is the wireless communication * V2X: "Vehicle to Everything". It 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, and V2D.
o VIP: "Vehicular Internet Protocol". It is an IPv6 extension for * VIP: "Vehicular Internet Protocol". It is an IPv6 extension for
vehicular networks including V2V, V2I, and V2X. vehicular networks including V2V, V2I, and V2X.
o VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management". It is an IPv6-based * VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management". It is an IPv6-based
mobility management for vehicular networks. mobility management for vehicular networks.
o VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery". It is an IPv6 ND extension * VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery". It is an IPv6 ND extension
for vehicular networks. for vehicular networks.
o VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy". It is an IPv6-based * VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy". It is an IPv6-based
security and privacy for vehicular networks. security and privacy for vehicular networks.
o WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0]. * WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [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
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
"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
o Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance; * Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance;
o Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway; * Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway;
o Platooning in a highway; * Platooning in a highway;
o Cooperative environment sensing; * Cooperative environment sensing;
o Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility * Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility
(UAM) [UAM-ITS]. (UAM) [UAM-ITS].
These five techniques will be important elements for autonomous These five techniques will be important elements for autonomous
vehicles, which may be either terrestrial vehicles or UAM end vehicles, which may be either terrestrial vehicles or UAM end
systems. systems.
Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers
to drive safely by alerting them to dangerous obstacles and to drive safely by alerting them to dangerous obstacles and
situations. That is, a CASD navigator displays obstacles or situations. That is, a CASD navigator displays obstacles or
neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
To encourage more vehicles to participate in this cooperative To encourage more vehicles to participate in this cooperative
environmental sensing, a reward system will be needed. Sensing environmental sensing, a reward system will be needed. Sensing
activities of each vehicle need to be logged in either a central way activities of each vehicle need to be logged in either a central way
through a logging server (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a through a logging server (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a
distributed way (e.g., blockchain [Bitcoin]) through other vehicles distributed way (e.g., blockchain [Bitcoin]) through other vehicles
or infrastructure. In the case of a blockchain, each sensing message or infrastructure. In the case of a blockchain, each sensing message
from a vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring from a vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring
vehicles can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a vehicles can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a
blockchain [Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain]. blockchain [Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain].
Although a Layer-2 solution can provide a support for multihop To support applications of these V2V use cases, the required
communications in vehicular networks, the scalability issue related functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange and secure, safe
to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need to communication between two vehicles. For the support of V2V under
disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away destinations. In multiple radio technologies (e.g., DSRC and 5G V2X), refer to
addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer protocol Appendix A.
can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC protocols, such as
5G V2X and DSRC. Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be
augmented through the addition of an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI)
Interface [OMNI] and/or protocol changes in order to support both
wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and multiple radio
technologies in vehicular networks. In such a way, vehicles can
communicate with each other by V2V communications to share either an
emergency situation or road hazard in a highway having multiple kinds
of radio technologies, such as 5G V2X and DSRC.
To support applications of these V2V use cases, the functions of IPv6
such as VND and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet exchange
and secure, safe communication between two vehicles.
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
o Navigation service; * Navigation service;
o Energy-efficient speed recommendation service; * Energy-efficient speed recommendation service;
o Accident notification service; * Accident notification service;
o Electric vehicle (EV) charging service; * Electric vehicle (EV) charging service;
o 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 a Navigation Tool(SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with a
TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can
guide individual vehicles along appropriate navigation paths in real guide individual vehicles along appropriate navigation paths in real
time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving time. The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving
paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let
them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the
accident spot into efficient detour paths. accident spot into efficient detour paths.
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 10
battery charging schedule of UAM end systems (e.g., drone) for long- battery charging schedule of UAM end systems (e.g., drone) for long-
distance flying [CBDN]. For this battery charging schedule, a UAM distance flying [CBDN]. For this battery charging schedule, a UAM
end system can communicate with an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) end system can communicate with an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU)
toward a cloud server via V2I communications. This cloud server can toward a cloud server via V2I communications. This cloud server can
coordinate the battery charging schedules of multiple UAM end systems coordinate the battery charging schedules of multiple UAM end systems
for their efficient navigation path, considering flight time from for their efficient navigation path, considering flight time from
their current position to a battery charging station, waiting time in their current position to a battery charging station, waiting time in
a waiting queue at the station, and battery charging time at the a waiting queue at the station, and battery charging time at the
station. station.
The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the addition of The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes
an OMNI interface and/or protocol changes in order to support in order to support wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway
wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs are where RSUs are sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless
sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless coverage of an coverage of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of
RSU through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles. intermediate vehicles. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop
Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2I communications. V2I communications.
To support applications of these V2I use cases, the functions of IPv6 To support applications of these V2I use cases, the required
such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange, transport-layer
exchange, transport-layer session continuity, and secure, safe session continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle
communication between a vehicle and a server in the vehicular cloud. and an 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
pedestrian protection service. pedestrian protection service.
A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation
Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the
collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone
equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g., Wi- equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g., Wi-
skipping to change at page 11, line 39 skipping to change at page 11, line 44
pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the sake pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the sake
of them. This scheduling can save the battery of each pedestrian's of them. This scheduling can save the battery of each pedestrian's
smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode before the smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode before the
communication with vehicles, considering their mobility. communication with vehicles, considering their mobility.
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. directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V.
The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the addition of The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes
an OMNI interface and/or protocol changes in order to support in order to support wireless multihop V2X or V2I2X communications in
wireless multihop V2X (or V2I2X) communications in an urban road an urban road network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a
network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a vehicle (or a vehicle (or a pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless
pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless coverage of an RSU coverage of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of
through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles (or intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians' smartphones) as packet
pedestrians' smartphones). Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X or
multihop V2X (or V2I2X) communications. V2I2X communications.
To support applications of these V2X use cases, the functions of IPv6 To support applications of these V2X use cases, the required
such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange, transport-layer
exchange, transport-layer session continuity, and secure, safe session continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle
communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian either directly or and a pedestrian either directly or indirectly via an IP-RSU.
indirectly via an IP-RSU.
4. Vehicular Networks 4. Vehicular Networks
This section describes an example vehicular network architecture This section describes the context for vehicular networks supporting
supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks. V2V, V2I, and V2X communications. It describes an internal network
It describes an internal network within a vehicle or an edge network within a vehicle or an edge network (called EN). It explains not
(called EN). It explains not only the internetworking between the only the internetworking between the internal networks of a vehicle
internal networks of a vehicle and an EN via wireless links, but also and an EN via wireless links, but also the internetworking between
the internetworking between the internal networks of two vehicles via the internal networks of two vehicles via wireless links.
wireless links.
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud
******************************************* *******************************************
+-------------+ * * +-------------+ * *
|Corresponding| * +-----------------+ * |Corresponding| * +-----------------+ *
| Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | * | Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | *
+-------------+ * +-----------------+ * +-------------+ * +-----------------+ *
* ^ * * ^ *
* | * * | *
* v * * v *
skipping to change at page 12, line 52 skipping to change at page 13, line 42
| v | | v | | v | | v | | v | | v |
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
| |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>| | |Vehicle5|===> | | |Vehicle6|===>| | |Vehicle7|==>|
| +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | +--------+ |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3 Subnet1 Subnet2 Subnet3
(Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3) (Prefix1) (Prefix2) (Prefix3)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
Figure 1: An Example Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V Figure 1: An Example Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture
Figure 1 shows an example vehicular network architecture for V2I and Figure 1 shows an example vehicular network architecture for V2I and
V2V in a road network [OMNI]. The vehicular network architecture V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture contains
contains vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, Traffic
Traffic Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. Note that Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. These components
the components of the vehicular network architecture can be mapped to are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into vehicular networks
those of an IP-based aeronautical network architecture in [OMNI], as in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility Anchor, Traffic
shown in Figure 2. Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be needed for the
vehicular networks according to target use cases in Section 3.
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Vehicular Network | Aeronautical Network |
+===================+====================================+
| IP-RSU | Access Router (AR) |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Vehicle (IP-OBU) | Mobile Node (MN) |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Moving Network | End User Network (EUN) |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Mobility Anchor | Mobility Service Endpoint (MSE) |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Vehicular Cloud | Internetwork (INET) Routing System |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Mapping between Vehicular Network Components and
Aeronautical Network Components
These components are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into
vehicular networks in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility
Anchor, Traffic Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be
needed for the vehicular networks according to target use cases in
Section 3.
An existing network architecture (e.g., an IP-based aeronautical
network architecture [OMNI][UAM-ITS], a network architecture of
PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and a low-power and lossy network architecture
[RFC6550]) can be extended to a vehicular network architecture for
multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as shown in Figure 1. In a highway
scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU directly because of the
distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). For example, the OMNI
interface and/or RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
Networks) [RFC6550] can be extended to support a multihop V2I since a
vehicle can take advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to reach
the RSU. Also, RPL can be extended to support both multihop V2V and
V2X in the similar way.
Wireless communications needs to be considered for end systems for
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) such as flying cars and taxis [UAM-ITS].
These UAM end systems may have multiple wireless transmission media Existing network architectures, such as the network architectures of
interfaces (e.g., cellular, communications satellite (SATCOM), short- PMIPv6 [RFC5213], RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
range omni-directional interfaces), which are offered by different Networks) [RFC6550], and OMNI (Overlay Multilink Network Interface)
data link service providers. To support not only the mobility [OMNI], can be extended to a vehicular network architecture for
management of the UAM end systems, but also the multihop and multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as shown in Figure 1. Refer to
multilink communications of the UAM interfaces, the UAM end systems Appendix B for the detailed discussion on multihop V2X networking by
can employ an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) interface [OMNI] as a RPL and OMNI.
virtual Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) connection to a serving
ground domain infrastructure. This infrastructure can be configured
over the underlying data links. The OMNI interface and its link
model provide a means of multilink, multihop and mobility
coordination to the legacy IPv6 ND messaging [RFC4861] according to
the NBMA principle. Thus, the OMNI link model can support efficient
UAM internetworking services without additional mobility messaging,
and without any modification to the IPv6 ND messaging services or
link model.
As shown in this figure, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU As shown in this figure, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU
have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless have wireless media interfaces for VANET. Furthermore, the wireless
media interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g., 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:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking. Note that
2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example 2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example
prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address
needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP- needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP-
RSUs. RSUs.
skipping to change at page 14, line 50 skipping to change at page 14, line 52
(i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, and Subnet3), respectively. Those three (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, and Subnet3), respectively. Those three
subnets use three different prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and subnets use three different prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and
Prefix3). Prefix3).
Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an RSU share a prefix just as Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an RSU share a prefix just as
mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi access point in a wireless 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 Prefix 1 to configure their IPv6
global addresses for V2I communication. Alternatively, mobile nodes global addresses for V2I communication. Alternatively, mobile nodes
can employ an OMNI interface and use their own IPv6 Unique Local can employ a "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses (BYOA)" technique using their
Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless network without own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless
requiring the messaging of IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration network, which does not require the messaging (e.g., Duplicate
(SLAAC) [RFC4862], which uses an on-link prefix provided by the Address Detection (DAD)) of IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(visited) wireless LAN; this technique is known as "Bring-Your-Own- (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
Addresses".
A single subnet prefix announced by an RSU 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. Alternatively, each vehicle could employ an OMNI
interface with their own ULAs such that no topologically-oriented
subnet prefixes need be announced by the RSU.
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.
For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] As a basic definition for IPv6 packets transported over IEEE
specifies several details, including Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU), 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] specifies several details, including Maximum
frame format, link-local address, address mapping for unicast and Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address
multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and subnet structure. An mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and
Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of transforming some subnet structure.
parameters between the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and the IPv6 network
layer, which is located between the IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical link
control layer and the IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB
can be used for both V2V and V2I in IPv6-based vehicular networks.
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 UDP packets can be delivered to a
vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an IP-RSU's vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an IP-RSU's
wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In 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 corresponding node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move with a corresponding 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] and network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and
AERO [RFC6706BIS]). AERO [RFC6706BIS]). This document describes issues in mobility
management for vehicular networks in Section 5.2.
In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a
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
management controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in
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
(MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. The host-based mobility scheme needs
client functionality in IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile node for
mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home
agent. On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme does not
need such a client functionality for a vehicle because the network
infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility agent
handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home agent
(e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle.
There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue in the
network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a
large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs. In this case, a
distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the
scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular
network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route
optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the
network-based mobility scheme. All these mobility approaches (i.e.,
a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and
distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a combination
of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles
moving fast and moving along with the relatively predictable
trajectories along the roadways.
In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the
data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding by
using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
[RFC7149][DMM-FPC]. Note that Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC)
in [DMM-FPC], which is a flexible mobility management system, can
manage the separation of data-plane and control-plane in DMM. In
SDN, the control plane and data plane are separated for the efficient
management of forwarding elements (e.g., switches and routers) where
an SDN controller configures the forwarding elements in a centralized
way and they perform packet forwarding according to their forwarding
tables that are configured by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN
controller needs to efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and
vehicles for mobility management, location management, and security
services.
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 (or an MA inside 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.
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., moving network) and an EN's internal network internal network (i.e., moving 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.
skipping to change at page 18, line 33 skipping to change at page 16, line 42
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v v | | v v | | v v v |
| ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- | | ---------------------------- | | ------------------------------- |
| 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:10:2::/64 | | 2001:DB8:20:2::/64 |
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1) Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 3: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network
As shown in Figure 3, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving
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 the 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 moving network) in a vehicle prefixes of the internal networks (as a moving network) in a vehicle
need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a
moving network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix moving network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix
(MNP) [OMNI]. (MNP) [RFC3963].
Figure 3 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's moving Figure 2 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's moving
network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network
(Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and (Moving 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 28 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
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 moving
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. protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters.
As shown in Figure 3, 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 either the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be link-local
global IPv6 addresses, or IPv6 ULAs as long as IPv6 packets can be IPv6 addresses, ULAs, or global IPv6 addresses. When global IPv6
routed within vehicular networks [OMNI]. When global IPv6 addresses addresses are used, wireless interface configuration and control
are used, wireless interface configuration and control overhead for 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 V2I communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways.
and V2X communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways; when
ULAs and the OMNI interface are used, no DAD nor MLD messaging is
needed.
Let us consider the upload/download time of a vehicle when it passes Let us consider the upload/download time of a vehicle when it passes
through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For a through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For a
given typical setting where 1km is the maximum DSRC communication given typical setting where 1km is the maximum DSRC communication
range [DSRC] and 100km/h is the speed limit in highway, the dwelling range [DSRC] and 100km/h is the speed limit in highway, the dwelling
time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by dividing the diameter of time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by dividing the diameter of
the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC communication range where an IP-RSU the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC communication range where an IP-RSU
is located in the center of the circle of wireless communication) by is located in the center of the circle of wireless communication) by
the speed limit of 100km/h (i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 seconds, the speed limit of 100km/h (i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 seconds,
a vehicle passing through the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and a vehicle passing through the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and
skipping to change at page 20, line 37 skipping to change at page 19, line 32
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 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 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2) Vehicle1 (Moving Network1) Vehicle2 (Moving Network2)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 4: Internetworking between Two Vehicles Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles
Figure 4 shows the internetworking between the moving networks of two Figure 3 shows the internetworking between the moving networks of two
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving
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 (Moving Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts network (Moving 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. Alternatively, Vehicle1 and Vehicle2 employ an OMNI V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
interface and use IPv6 ULAs for V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through
in Vehicle1 can communicate with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
a vehicular service through Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network.
link between IP-OBU1 and IP-OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network.
As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 5 shows the linear network As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 4 shows the 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 leading vehicle with a driver, and Vehicle2 and Vehicle1 are
the following vehicles without drivers. the following vehicles without drivers.
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| | | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-OBU2| | | |IP-OBU3| |
skipping to change at page 21, line 30 skipping to change at page 20, line 25
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | | | Host2 | | | | Host3 | | | | Host1 | | | | Host2 | | | | Host3 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3 Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
(*) Antenna (*) Antenna
Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking is feasible among the As shown in Figure 4, multihop internetworking is feasible among the
moving networks of three vehicles in the same VANET. For example, moving 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
linear network, as shown in the figure. VANET, as shown in the figure.
In this section, the link between two vehicles is assumed to be
stable for single-hop wireless communication regardless of the sight
relationship such as line of sight and non-line of sight, as shown in
Figure 3. Even in Figure 4, the three vehicles are connected to each
other with a linear topology, however, multihop V2V communication can
accommodate any network topology (i.e., an arbitrary graph) over
VANET routing protocols.
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
| | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | | |IP-OBU3| |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| ^ | | ^ | | ^ |
| | |=====> | | | | | |=====>
| v | | v | | v |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | Host1 | | | | Host2 | | | | Host3 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Vehicle1 EN1 Vehicle3
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
(*) Antenna
Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
via IP-RSU (V2I2V)
As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking between two vehicles
is feasible via an infrastructure node (i.e., IP-RSU) with wireless
connectivity among the moving networks of two vehicles and the fixed
network of an edge network (denoted as EN1) in the same VANET. For
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
VANET, as shown in the figure.
For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND optimization
defined in MANET [RFC6130] [RFC7466] improves the classical IPv6 ND
in terms of tracking neighbor information with up to two hops and
introducing several extensible Information Bases, which serves the
MANET routing protocols such as the difference versions of Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181] [RFC7188]
[RFC7722] [RFC7779] [RFC8218] and the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol
(DLEP) with its extensions [RFC8175] [RFC8629] [RFC8651] [RFC8703]
[RFC8757]. In short, the MANET ND mainly deals with maintaining
extended network neighbors. However, an ND protocol in vehicular
networks shall consider more about the geographical mobility
information of vehicles as an important resource for serving various
purposes to improve the reliability, e.g., vehicle driving safety,
intelligent transportation implementations, and advanced mobility
services. For a more reliable V2V networking, some redundancy
mechanisms should be provided in L3 in the case of the failure of L2.
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 time relatively short compared to the need to be completed in a time relatively short 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. vehicles.
Note that if two vehicles are moving in the opposite directions in a For safe driving, vehicles need to exchange application messages
every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] to let drivers take an action to
avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., vehicle collision), so IPv6
protocol exchanges need to support this order of magnitude for
application message exchanges. Also, considering the communication
range of DSRC (up to 1km) and 100km/h as the speed limit in highway,
the lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU is 72 seconds,
and the lifetime of a link between two vehicles is 36 seconds. Note
that if two vehicles are moving in the opposite directions in a
roadway, the relative speed of this case is two times the relative roadway, the relative speed of this case is two times the relative
speed of a vehicle passing through an RSU. The time constraint of a speed of a vehicle passing through an RSU. This relative speed leads
wireless link between two nodes needs to be considered because it may the half of the link lifetime between the vehicle and the IP-RSU. In
affect the lifetime of a session involving the link. reality, the DSRC communication range is around 500m, so the link
lifetime will be a half of the maximum time. The time constraint of
The lifetime of a session varies depending on the session's type such a wireless link between two nodes (e.g., vehicle and IP-RSU) needs to
as a web surfing, voice call over IP, and DNS query. Regardless of a be considered because it may affect the lifetime of a session
session's type, to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination involving the link. The lifetime of a session varies depending on
host, IP mobility should be supported for the session. the session's type such as a web surfing, voice call over IP, DNS
query, and context-aware navigation (in Section 3.1). Regardless of
a session's type, to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination
host(s), IP mobility should be supported for the session. In a V2V
scenario (e.g., context-aware navigation), the IPv6 packets of a
vehicle should be delivered to relevant vehicles in an efficient way
(e.g., multicasting). With this observation, IPv6 protocol exchanges
need to be done as short as possible to support the message exchanges
of various applications in vehicular networks.
Thus, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact on Therefore, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact
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. This section given the unreliable nature of wireless communication. Meanwhile,
presents key topics such as neighbor discovery and mobility the bandwidth of the wireless link determined by the lower layers
management. (i.e., link and PHY layers) can affect the transmission time of
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
the bandwidth selection according to Modulation and Coding Scheme
(MCS) also affects the vehicular network connectivity. Note that
usually the higher bandwidth gives the shorter communication range
and the higher packet error rate at the receiving side, which may
reduce the reliability of control message exchanges of the higher
layers (e.g., IPv6). This section presents key topics such as
neighbor discovery and mobility management for links and sessions in
IPv6-based vehicular networks.
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 suite.
IPv6 ND is designed for link types including point-to-point, 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).
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 to be configured with 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. a link-local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run 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 the DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road overhead of the DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road
network, which guaranteeing the uniqueness of a vehicle's global IPv6 network, which can guarantee the uniqueness of a vehicle's global
address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of the IPv6 address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of
NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which the NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which
guaranteeing the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in can guarantee the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in
terms of adjacent vehicles and RSUs. terms of adjacent vehicles and 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 frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks. The
merging and partitioning of VANETs frequently occurs in vehicular merging and partitioning of VANETs frequently occurs in vehicular
networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the networks. This merging and partitioning should be considered for the
IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
[RFC4862]. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may [RFC4862]. Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may
conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging. conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging.
An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA or IP-RSU (as
Also, the partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same Registrar in RPL) to check the uniqueness of an IPv6 address that
prefix be physically unreachable. Also, SLAAC needs to prevent IPv6 will be configured by a vehicle as DAD. Also, the partitioning of a
address duplication due to the merging of VANETs. According to the VANET may make vehicles with the same prefix be physically
merging and partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) unreachable. An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA
needs to be distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the existence of a vehicle
host even though the source vehicle uses the same prefix as the under the network coverage of the MA or IP-RSU as NUD. Thus, SLAAC
destination vehicle. needs to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the merging of
VANETs, and IPv6 ND needs to detect unreachable neighboring vehicles
due to the partitioning of a VANET. 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 can use the same prefix as the destination
vehicle [ID-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, the DAD needs
to be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the
vehicles can exchange driving safety messages (e.g., collision
avoidance and accident notification) with each other with a short
interval suggested by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. Since the partitioning and
merging of vehicular networks may require re-perform the DAD process
repeatedly, the link scope of vehicles may be limited to a small
area, which may delay the exchange of driving safety messages.
Driving safety messages can include a vehicle's mobility information
(i.e., position, speed, direction, and acceleration/deceleration)
that is critical to other vehicles. The exchange interval of this
message is recommended to be less than 0.5 second, which is required
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 and
vehicle density. For example, the NA interval needs to be 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 neighboring vehicles in a stable way,
considering the collision probability with the NA messages sent by considering the collision probability with the NA messages sent by
other vehicles. other vehicles. The ND time-related parameters can be an operational
setting or an optimization point particularly for vehicular networks.
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.
Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum From the interoperability point of view, in IPv6-based vehicular
changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6 ND used in the networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum changes with the legacy IPv6
Internet, including the DAD and NUD operations. ND used in the Internet, including the DAD and NUD operations, so
that IPv6-based vehicular networks can be seamlessly connected to
other intelligent transportation elements (e.g., traffic signals,
pedestrian wearable devices, electric scooters, and bus stops) that
use the standard IPv6 network settings.
5.1.1. Link Model 5.1.1. Link Model
A prefix model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the A subnet model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the
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 prefix 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. Note that the OMNI interface multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs. [IPoWIRELESS] introduces other
supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications issues in an IPv6 subnet model.
use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD
messaging.
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 other than OMNI/NBMA hold for vehicular wireless access link types [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889].
[VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]; the rest of this section discusses implications For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the connectivity
for those link types that do not apply when the OMNI/NBMA link model among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However, radio interference
is used. For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the and different levels of transmission power may cause asymmetric links
connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However, radio to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, a new vehicular
interference and different levels of transmission power may cause link model needs to consider the asymmetry of dynamically changing
asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, vehicular wireless links.
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 There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the
different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global
types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is defined that all
interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with
on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link. on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link.
However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship
between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless
links and the characteristics of VANET. 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
wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 5. 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. Even though two prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks. Even though two
vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses with the vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses with the
same IPv6 prefix, they may not communicate with each other not in one same IPv6 prefix, they may not communicate with each other not in one
hop in the same VANET because of the multihop network connectivity hop in the same VANET because of the multihop network connectivity
between them. Thus, in this case, the concept of an on-link IPv6 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 does not hold because two vehicles with the same on-link IPv6
prefix cannot communicate directly with each other. Also, when two prefix cannot communicate directly with each other. Also, when two
vehicles are located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6 vehicles are located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6
prefix, they cannot communicate with each other. When these two prefix, they cannot communicate with each other. When these two
VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with
each other in a multihop fashion, for example, when they are Vehicle1 each other in a multihop fashion, for example, when they are Vehicle1
and Vehicle3, as shown in Figure 5. 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 an on-
link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of
vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable
network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same
prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix should be prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix should be
on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same
prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to either the prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to either the
multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix
should be off-link. should be off-link. In most cases in vehicular networks, due to the
partitioning and merging of VANETs, and the multihop network topology
of VANETS, off-link prefixes 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
skipping to change at page 25, line 30 skipping to change at page 27, line 8
Vehicle3 are far away from direct communication range in separate Vehicle3 are far away from direct communication range in separate
VANETs and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with VANETs and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with
each other through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two each other through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V. Thus, two
separate VANETs can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s). Also, 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 two separate VANETs into one VANET
if they can play the role of a relay node for those VANETs. 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 in an efficient fashion to support IPv6 DAD, MLD and NUD links in an efficient fashion to support IPv6 DAD, MLD and NUD
operations. When the OMNI NBMA link model is used, there are no link operations.
model changes nor DAD/MLD messaging required.
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].
skipping to change at page 26, line 8 skipping to change at page 27, line 33
networking. networking.
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 the DAD procedure. checked through the DAD procedure.
For vehicular networks with high mobility and density, the DAD needs
to be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the
vehicles can exchange a driving safety message (e.g., collision
avoidance and accident notification) with each other with a short
interval (e.g., 0.5 second) by a technical report from NHTSA
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report].
Such a driving safety message may include a vehicle's mobility
information (i.e., position, speed, direction, and acceleration/
deceleration). The exchange interval of this message is 0.5 second,
which is required to allow a driver to avoid a rear-end crash from
another vehicle.
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 [ID-Multicast-Problems]. control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems].
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 the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each
vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the
IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead. IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead.
RPL [RFC6550] defines a routing protocol for low-power and lossy
networks, which constructs and maintains DODAGs optimized by an
Objective Function (OF). A defined OF provides route selection and
optimization within a RPL topology. A node in a DODAG uses DODAG
Information Objects (DIOs) messages to discover and maintain the
upward routes toward the root node.
An address registration extension for 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network) in [RFC8505] can support light-weight
mobility for nodes moving through different parents. Mainly it
updates the Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in
[RFC6775] to include a status field that can indicate the movement of
a node and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a sequence
number that can be used to determine the most recent location of a
node.
RPL can use the information provided by the extended ARO defined in
[RFC8505] to deal with a certain level of node mobility. When a leaf
node moves to the coverage of another parent node, it should de-
register its addresses to the previous parent node and register
itself with a new parent node along with an incremented TID.
Although RPL can be used in IPv6-based vehicular networks, it is
primarily designed for lossy networks, which puts energy efficiency
first. In addition, the topology it considers may not quickly scale
up and down for IPv6-based vehicular networks, since the mobility of
vehicles is much more diverse with a high speed, so it can frequently
alter a tree-like topology formed by RPL, which may cause network
fragmentation and merging with more control traffic.
Moreover, due to bandwidth and energy constraints, RPL does not
suggest to use a proactive mechanism (e.g., keepalive) to maintain
accurate routing adjacencies such as Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection [RFC5881] and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
[RFC6130]. As a result, due to the mobility of vehicles, the network
fragmentation is not detected quickly and the routing of packets
between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure node may
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 end
points requires efficient mobility management including location points requires efficient mobility management including location
management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GPS management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GPS
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 GPS receiver may not provide vehicles smartphone App. Note that the GPS 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 GPS with assistance of the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS
skipping to change at page 27, line 27 skipping to change at page 29, line 34
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 the sake of the vehicle. for the sake of the vehicle.
For a mobility management scheme in a shared link, 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. If DHCPv6 is used to assign vehicular-network-wide DAD is required. If DHCPv6 is used to assign
a unique IPv6 address to each vehicle in this shared link, the DAD is a unique IPv6 address to each vehicle in this shared link, the DAD is
not required. On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme not required. On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme
with a unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and OMNI with a unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]), DAD is
[OMNI]), DAD is not required because the IPv6 address of a vehicle's not required because the IPv6 address of a vehicle's external
external wireless interface is guaranteed to be unique. There is a wireless interface is guaranteed to be unique. There is a tradeoff
tradeoff between the prefix usage efficiency and DAD overhead. Thus, between the prefix usage efficiency and DAD overhead. Thus, the IPv6
the IPv6 address autoconfiguration for vehicular networks needs to address autoconfiguration for vehicular networks needs to consider
consider this tradeoff to support efficient mobility management. this tradeoff to support efficient mobility management.
Even though the SLAAC with classic ND costs a DAD during mobility
management, the SLAAC with [RFC8505] does not cost a DAD. SLAAC for
vehicular networks needs to consider the minimization of the cost of
DAD with the help of an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU and MA).
Using an infrastructure prefix over VANET allows direct routability
to the Internet through the multihop V2I toward an IP-RSU. On the
other hand, a BYOA does not allow such direct routability to the
Internet since the BYOA is not topologically correct, that is, not
routable in the Internet. In addition, a vehicle configured with a
BYOA needs a tunnel home (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to the Internet,
and the vehicle needs to know which neighboring vehicle is reachable
inside the VANET toward the tunnel home. There is nonnegligible
control overhead to set up and maintain routes to such a tunnel home
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]. That is, the hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. For example, an
vehicle should select its default router for each prefix by IP-OBU inside a vehicle may connect to an IP-RSU that has multiple
preferring the router that advertised the prefix. routers behind. In this scenario, because the IP-OBU can have
multiple prefixes from those routers, the default router selection,
source address selection, and packet redirect process should follow
the guidelines in [RFC8028]. That is, the vehicle should select its
default router for each prefix by preferring the router that
advertised the prefix.
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 (or an MA inside 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.
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 key components of IPv6-based networking. Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X
vehicular networking along with neighbor discovery and mobility networking along with neighbor discovery and mobility management.
management.
Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X networking.
Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated in order to Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated in order to
participate in vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., participate in vehicular networking. For the authentication in
vehicular networks, vehicular cloud needs to support a kind of Public
Key Infrastructure (PKI) in an efficient way. To provide safe
interaction between vehicles or between a vehicle and infrastructure,
only authenticated nodes (i.e., vehicle and infrastructure node) can
participate in vehicular networks. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g.,
ECU) and a driver/passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone and ECU) and a driver/passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone and
tablet PC) in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle tablet PC) in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle
devices and another driver/passenger's mobile devices in another devices and another driver/passenger's mobile devices in another
vehicle, or other servers behind an IP-RSU in a secure way. Even vehicle, or other servers behind an IP-RSU in a secure way. Even
though a vehicle is perfectly authenticated and legitimate, it may be though a vehicle is perfectly authenticated and legitimate, it may be
hacked for running malicious applications to track and collect its hacked for running malicious applications to track and collect its
and other vehicles' information. In this case, an attack mitigation and other vehicles' information. In this case, an attack mitigation
process may be required to reduce the aftermath of malicious process may be required to reduce the aftermath of malicious
behaviors. behaviors.
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.,
IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2
[RFC4301][RFC4302] [RFC4303][RFC4308] [RFC7296]. Also, for secure
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)
in another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3.
For secure communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an in-
vehicle device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to
establish a secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in
another vehicle or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a
server). IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for
applications and management messages, but this WAVE specification is
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
support security services for the WAVE frames.
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery
For the classical IPv6 ND, the DAD is required to 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 DAD-related
ND packets disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks.
[RFC6959] introduces threats enabled by IP source address spoofing.
This possibility indicates that vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter
out suspicious ND traffic in advance. [RFC8928] introduces a
mechanism that protects the ownership of an address for 6loWPAN ND
from address theft and impersonation attacks. Based on the SEND
[RFC3971] mechanism, the authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs)
can be conducted by only selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification
path toward trusted parties. For authenticating other vehicles, the
cryptographically generated address (CGA) can be used to verify the
true owner of a received ND message, which requires to use the CGA ND
option in the ND protocols. For a general protection of the 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
advanced authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based
approach [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. However, for a scenario
where a trustable router or an authentication path cannot be
obtained, it is desirable to find a solution in which vehicles and
infrastructures can authenticate each other without any support from
a third party.
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
receive deliberate or accidental DoS attacks from network scans that
probe devices on a VANET. In this scenario, the IP-RSU can be
overwhelmed for processing the network scan requests so that the
capacity and resources of IP-RSU are exhausted, causing the failure
of receiving normal ND messages from other hosts for network address
resolution. [RFC6583] describes more about the operational problems
in the classical IPv6 ND mechanism that can be vulnerable to
deliberate or accidental DoS attacks and suggests several
implementation guidelines and operational mitigation techniques for
those problems. Nevertheless, for running IPv6 ND in VANET, those
issues can be more acute since the movements of vehicles can be so
diverse that it leaves a large room for rogue behaviors, and the
failure of networking among vehicles may cause 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, which 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. maneuver.
Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid certificates by
an authentication server in the vehicular cloud, the authenticated
vehicles may harm other vehicles, so their communication activities
need to be logged in either a central way through a logging server
(e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a distributed way (e.g.,
blockchain [Bitcoin]) along with other vehicles or infrastructure.
For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities of malicious nodes,
a blockchain technology can be used [Bitcoin]. Each message from a
vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring vehicles
can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain
[Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain]. For a blockchain's efficient
consensus in vehicular networks having fast moving vehicles, a new
consensus algorithm needs to be developed or an existing consensus
algorithm needs to be enhanced.
To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication
method is required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user method may be required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a
certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) along with an in- user certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) along with an
vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to efficiently in-vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to efficiently
authenticate a vehicle or its driver (having a user certificate) authenticate a vehicle or its driver (having a user certificate)
through a road infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to an through a road infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to an
authentication server in the vehicular cloud. This authentication authentication server in the vehicular cloud. This authentication
can be used to identify the vehicle that will communicate with an can be used to identify the vehicle that will communicate with an
infrastructure node or another vehicle. In the case where a vehicle infrastructure node or another vehicle. In the case where a vehicle
has an internal network (called Moving Network) and elements in the has an internal network (called Moving Network) and elements in the
network (e.g., in-vehicle devices and a user's mobile devices), as network (e.g., in-vehicle devices and a user's mobile devices), as
shown in Figure 3, the elements in the network need to be shown in Figure 2, the elements in the network need to be
authenticated individually for safe authentication. Also, Transport authenticated individually for safe authentication. Also, Transport
Layer Security (TLS) certificates [RFC8446][RFC5280] can be used for Layer Security (TLS) certificates [RFC8446][RFC5280] can be used for
an element's authentication to allow secure E2E vehicular an element's authentication to allow secure E2E vehicular
communications between an element in a vehicle and another element in communications between an element in a vehicle and another element in
a server in a vehicular cloud, or between an element in a vehicle and a server in a vehicular cloud, or between an element in a vehicle and
another element in another vehicle. another element in another vehicle.
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management
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 3 For mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct multiple
[RFC4301][RFC4302][RFC4303][RFC4308][RFC7296]. Also, for secure V2V virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with IP-RSUs and MA. This
communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile router registration makes the IP-RSUs and MA waste their resources. The IP-
(i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in RSUs and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is genuine or bogus
another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 4. For in mobility management. Also, the confidentiality of control packets
secure communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an in-vehicle and data packets among IP-RSUs and MA, the E2E paths (e.g., tunnels)
device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to establish a need to be protected by secure communication channels. In addition,
secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in another vehicle to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6
or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a server). Even mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication among them needs to be
though IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate).
applications and management messages, this WAVE specification is
optional. Thus, if WAVE does not support the security of a WAVE 6.3. Other Threats
frame, either the network layer or the transport layer needs to
support security services for the WAVE frames.
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 is required in a highway for the communications over DSRC or 5G V2X (or LTE V2X) is required in a
authentication by involving multiple intermediate vehicles as relay highway. In this case, multiple intermediate vehicles as relay nodes
nodes toward an IP-RSU connected to an authentication server in the can help forward association and authentication messages toward an
vehicular cloud. The V2I communications over 5G V2X (or LTE V2X) is IP-RSU (gNodeB, or eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in
required to allow a vehicle to communicate directly with a gNodeB (or the vehicular cloud. In this kind of process, the authentication
eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud. messages forwarded by each vehicle can be delayed or lost, which may
increase the construction time of a connection or some vehicles may
not be able to be authenticated.
Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid certificates by
an authentication server in the vehicular cloud, the authenticated
vehicles may harm other vehicles. To deal with this kind of security
issue, for monitoring suspicious behaviors, vehicles' communication
activities can be recorded in either a central way through a logging
server (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a distributed way (e.g.,
blockchain [Bitcoin]) along with other vehicles or infrastructure.
To solve the issue ultimately, we need a solution where, without
privacy breakage, vehicles may observe activities of each other to
identify any misbehavior. Once identifying a misbehavior, a vehicle
shall have a way to either isolate itself from others or isolate a
suspicious vehicle by informing other vehicles. Alternatively, for
completely secure vehicular networks, we shall embrace the concept of
"zero-trust" for vehicles in which no vehicle is trustable and
verifying every message is necessary. For doing so, we shall have an
efficient zero-trust framework or mechanism for vehicular networks.
For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities of malicious nodes,
a blockchain technology can be used [Bitcoin]. Each message from a
vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring vehicles
can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain
[Bitcoin] [Vehicular-BlockChain]. For a blockchain's efficient
consensus in vehicular networks having fast moving vehicles, a new
consensus algorithm needs to be developed or an existing consensus
algorithm needs to be enhanced.
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 its IPv6 address needs to be
updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086][RFC4941]. updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086][RFC4941].
Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the
E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an
IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this
pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using
either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing
MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change
of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those
addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address
update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality. update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality.
skipping to change at page 30, line 15 skipping to change at page 34, line 42
Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the
E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an
IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session. However, if this
pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using
either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing
MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change
of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those
addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address addresses. Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address
update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality. update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality.
For the IPv6 ND, the DAD is required to 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 DAD-related ND packets
disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. This possibility
indicates that the vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out suspicious
ND traffic in advance. Based on the SEND [RFC3971] mechanism, the
authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) can be conducted by only
selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification path toward trusted
parties. For authenticating other vehicles, the cryptographically
generated address (CGA) can be used to verify the true owner of a
received ND message, which requires to use the CGA ND option in the
ND protocols. For a general protection of the 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 advanced
authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based mechanism
[Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used.
For 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 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 with the IPv6
mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication among them needs to be
performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate).
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions. This document does not require any IANA actions.
8. Informative References 8. 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.
[Bitcoin] Nakamoto, S., "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash
System", URL: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, May 2009.
[CA-Cruise-Control]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", 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.
[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, November 2019.
[DMM-FPC] Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S., 8.1. Normative References
Moses, D., and C. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding Policy
Configuration (FPC) in DMM", draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14
(work in progress), September 2020.
[DSRC] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for [RFC8691] Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of
Roadside and Vehicle Systems - 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691,
Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8691>.
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
ASTM E2213-03(2010), October 2010.
[EU-2008-671-EC] [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
European Union, "Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 on (IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017,
the Harmonised Use of Radio Spectrum in the 5875 - 5905 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200>.
MHz Frequency Band for Safety-related Applications of
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)", EU 2008/671/EC,
August 2008.
[FirstNet] [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011,
Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6275>.
(FirstNet)", Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012.
[FirstNet-Report] [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband RFC 5213, August 2008,
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5213>.
[Fuel-Efficient] [RFC7333] Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen,
van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management",
"Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons", RFC 7333, August 2014,
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7333>.
January 2018.
[ID-Multicast-Problems] [RFC7429] Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and CJ.
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015,
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-13 (work <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7429>.
in progress), February 2021.
[Identity-Management] [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th RFC 3963, January 2005,
International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3963>.
November 2010.
[IEEE-802.11-OCB] [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
802.11-2016, December 2016. Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6550>.
[IEEE-802.11p] [RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
"Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and RFC 3753, June 2004,
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3753>.
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std
802.11p-2010, June 2010.
[In-Car-Network] [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And
Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009,
Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5415>.
(DAC), June 2011.
[ISO-ITS-IPv6] [RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 Environment", RFC 7149, March 2014,
Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7149>.
[ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1] [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems - "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6 September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.
Networking - Amendment 1", ISO 21210:2012/AMD 1:2017,
September 2017.
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report] [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007,
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4862>.
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.
[OMNI] Templin, F. and A. Whyman, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", draft- Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005,
templin-6man-omni-interface-97 (work in progress), March <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4193>.
2021.
[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, October Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999. 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2710>.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3810>.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure [RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5889>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June "Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June
2005. 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4086>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4941>.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3849>.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6250>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4301>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
2005. 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4302>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005. RFC 4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4303>.
[RFC4308] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308, [RFC4308] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308,
December 2005. December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4308>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
September 2007. (IKEv2)", RFC 7296, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7296>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8028>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005,
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3971>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
RFC 5213, August 2008. Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8505>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. November 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6775>.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5881>.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010. Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
RFC 6130, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6130>.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May [RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
2011. Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6583>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC8928] Thubert, P., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8928>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., [RFC3626] Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "Optimized Link State Routing
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, October 2003,
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3626>.
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
[RFC6706BIS] [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
Templin, F., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
(AERO)", draft-templin-intarea-6706bis-95 (work in RFC 7181, April 2014,
progress), March 2021. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7181>.
[RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7188>.
[RFC7722] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for
the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2
(OLSRv2)", RFC 7722, December 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7722>.
[RFC7779] Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric
Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State
Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7779>.
[RFC8218] Yi, J. and B. Parrein, "Multipath Extension for the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)",
RFC 8218, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8218>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8175>.
[RFC8629] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol
(DLEP) Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension", RFC 8629, July
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8629>.
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8651>.
[RFC8703] Taylor, R. and S. Ratliff, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol
(DLEP) Link Identifier Extension", RFC 8703, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8703>.
[RFC8757] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol
(DLEP) Latency Range Extension", RFC 8757, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8757>.
[RFC7466] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "An Optimization for the
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery
Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 7466, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7466>.
8.2. Informative References
[ID-IPPL] Nordmark, E., "IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned
Links", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
intarea-ippl-00, March 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-
ippl-00>.
[RFC6830BIS] [RFC6830BIS]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), November Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
2020. rfc6830bis-36, November 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-36>.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined [RFC6706BIS]
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider Templin, F., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
Environment", RFC 7149, March 2014. (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
intarea-6706bis-99, March 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-
intarea-6706bis-99>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. [OMNI] Templin, F. and A. Whyman, "Transmission of IP Packets
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in
(IKEv2)", RFC 7296, October 2014. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-41,
August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
templin-6man-omni-41>.
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, [UAM-ITS] Templin, F., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for
"Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", Intelligent Transportation Systems", Work in Progress,
RFC 7333, August 2014. Internet-Draft, draft-templin-ipwave-uam-its-04, January
2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
templin-ipwave-uam-its-04>.
[RFC7429] Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and CJ. [DMM-FPC] Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S.,
Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current Moses, D., and C. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding Policy
Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015. Configuration (FPC) in DMM", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14, September 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-
cpdp-14>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by [ID-Multicast-Problems]
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, November 2016. Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC.
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
Media", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-15, July 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mboned-
ieee802-mcast-problems-15>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [DSRC] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017. 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.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol [EU-2008-671-EC]
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018. 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.
[RFC8691] Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic [IEEE-802.11p]
Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691, Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6:
December 2019. 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. Du, "SAINT:
Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based
Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016. Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016.
[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+ Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+
for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization", for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization",
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
June 2017. June 2017.
[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", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015. (LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015.
[Scrambler-Attack] [CASD] Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A
Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff, Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular
"The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud
Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015 (DC2), March 2016.
International Conference on Computing, Networking and
Communications (ICNC), February 2015.
[SignalGuru]
Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru:
Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal
Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011.
[TR-22.886-3GPP] [CA-Cruise-Control]
3GPP, "Study on Enhancement of 3GPP Support for 5G V2X California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
Services", 3GPP TR 22.886/Version 16.2.0, December 2018. (PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control,
2017.
[Truck-Platooning] [Truck-Platooning]
California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
(PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", Available: (PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", Available:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and- http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017. connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017.
[TS-23.285-3GPP] [FirstNet] U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for V2X Services", 3GPP Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority
TS 23.285/Version 16.2.0, December 2019. (FirstNet)", Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012.
[TS-23.287-3GPP] [FirstNet-Report]
3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT
Support Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Services", 3GPP TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband
TS 23.287/Version 16.2.0, March 2020. Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017.
[UAM-ITS] Templin, F., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for [SignalGuru]
Intelligent Transportation Systems", draft-templin-ipwave- Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru:
uam-its-04 (work in progress), January 2021. Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal
Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011.
[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.
[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.
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.
[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, November 2019.
[In-Car-Network]
Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a
Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time
Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference
(DAC), June 2011.
[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.
[Bitcoin] Nakamoto, S., "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash
System", URL: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, May 2009.
[Vehicular-BlockChain] [Vehicular-BlockChain]
Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S., and R. Jurdak, Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S., and R. Jurdak,
"BlockChain: A Distributed Solution to Automotive Security "BlockChain: A Distributed Solution to Automotive Security
and Privacy", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55, No. and Privacy", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55, No.
12, December 2017. 12, December 2017.
[VIP-WAVE] [IPoWIRELESS]
Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless
Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09, May 2021,
Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, March 2013. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-6man-
ipv6-over-wireless-09>.
[WAVE-1609.0] [RFC6959] McPherson, D., Baker, F., and J. Halpern, "Source Address
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access Validation Improvement (SAVI) Threat Scope", RFC 6959, May
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6959>.
1609.0-2013, March 2014.
[WAVE-1609.2] Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V
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] Vehicular networks may consist of multiple radio technologies such as
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless DSRC and 5G V2X. Although a Layer-2 solution can provide a support
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking for multihop communications in vehicular networks, the scalability
Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016. issue related to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need
to disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away destinations.
In addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer
protocol can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC
protocols, such as DSRC and 5G V2X. Therefore, the existing IPv6
protocol can be augmented through the addition of a virtual interface
(e.g., Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface [OMNI]) and/or
protocol changes in order to support both wireless single-hop/
multihop V2V communications and multiple radio technologies in
vehicular networks. In such a way, vehicles can communicate with
each other by V2V communications to share either an emergency
situation or road hazard information in a highway having multiple
kinds of radio technologies.
[WAVE-1609.4] Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking
IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel
Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay
Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [OMNI].
RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks
(LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building
automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It
uses a destination oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG) to
construct routing paths for hosts in a network. The DODAG uses an
objective function (OF) for route selection and optimization within
the network. A user can use different routing metrics to define an
OF for a specific scenario. RPL supports multipoint-to-point, point-
to-multipoint, and point-to-point traffic, and the major traffic flow
is the multipoint-to-point traffic. For example, in a highway
scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU 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 a vehicle can take
advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to reach the RSU. Also,
RPL can be extended to support both multihop V2V and V2X in the
similar way.
OMNI defines a protocol for the transmission of IPv6 packets over
Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces
governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports
multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding
hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports
multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure
access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface
supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications
use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD
Messaging.
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I
The seamless application communication between two vehicles or
between a vehicle and an infrastructure node requires mobility
management in vehicular networks. The mobility management schemes
include a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme,
and software-defined networking scheme.
In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a
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
management controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in
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
(MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. The host-based mobility scheme needs
client functionality in IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile node for
mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home
agent. On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme does not
need such a client functionality for a vehicle because the network
infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility agent
handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home agent
(e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle.
There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue in the
network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a
large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs. In this case, a
distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the
scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular
network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route
optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the
network-based mobility scheme. All these mobility approaches (i.e.,
a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and
distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a combination
of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles
moving fast and moving along with the relatively predictable
trajectories along the roadways.
In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the
data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding by
using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
[RFC7149][DMM-FPC]. Note that Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC)
in [DMM-FPC], which is a flexible mobility management system, can
manage the separation of data-plane and control-plane in DMM. In
SDN, the control plane and data plane are separated for the efficient
management of forwarding elements (e.g., switches and routers) where
an SDN controller configures the forwarding elements in a centralized
way and they perform packet forwarding according to their forwarding
tables that are configured by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN
controller needs to efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and
vehicles for mobility management, location management, and security
services.
Appendix D. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications
Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea
MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based
Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized
Security Service Provisioning). 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-
2020-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP. 2021-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP.
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).
Appendix B. Contributors This work was supported in part by the Cisco University Research
Program Fund, Grant # 2019-199458 (3696), and by ANID Chile Basal
Project FB0008.
Appendix E. Contributors
This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly This document is a group work of 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, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche
Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ
Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom), Nancy Cam-Winget Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom), Nancy Cam-Winget
(Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI), (Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI),
Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil 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. The authors sincerely appreciate their
contributions. contributions.
The following are co-authors of this document: The following are co-authors of this document:
Nabil Benamar Nabil Benamar Department of Computer Sciences High School of
Department of Computer Sciences Technology of Meknes Moulay Ismail University Morocco Phone: +212 6
High School of Technology of Meknes 70 83 22 36 EMail: benamar73@gmail.com
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
EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu
Charles E. Perkins Sandra Cespedes NIC Chile Research Labs Universidad de Chile Av.
Futurewei Inc. Blanco Encalada 1975 Santiago Chile Phone: +56 2 29784093 EMail:
2330 Central Expressway scespede@niclabs.cl
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Phone: +1 408 330 4586 Jerome Haerri Communication Systems Department EURECOM Sophia-
EMail: charliep@computer.org Antipolis France Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34 EMail:
Alexandre Petrescu jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr
CEA, LIST
CEA Saclay
Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190
France
Phone: +33169089223 Dapeng Liu Alibaba Beijing, Beijing 100022 China Phone: +86
EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr 13911788933 EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com
Yiwen Chris Shen Tae (Tom) Oh Department of Information Sciences and Technologies
Department of Computer Science & Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology One Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester,
Sungkyunkwan University NY 14623-5603 USA Phone: +1 585 475 7642 EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu Charles E. Perkins Futurewei Inc. 2330 Central Expressway Santa
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419 Clara, CA 95050 USA Phone: +1 408 330 4586 EMail:
Republic of Korea charliep@computer.org
Phone: +82 31 299 4106 Alexandre Petrescu CEA, LIST CEA Saclay Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France
Fax: +82 31 290 7996 91190 France Phone: +33169089223 EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php
Michelle Wetterwald Yiwen Chris Shen Department of Computer Science & Engineering
FBConsulting Sungkyunkwan University 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do
21, Route de Luxembourg 16419 Republic of Korea Phone: +82 31 299 4106 Fax: +82 31 290 7996
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633 EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-
Luxembourg shen.php
EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com Michelle Wetterwald FBConsulting 21, Route de Luxembourg
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633 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, Gyeonggi-Do 16419 Suwon
Gyeonggi-Do
16419
Republic of Korea Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957 Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Fax: +82 31 290 7996 Email: pauljeong@skku.edu
EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
 End of changes. 171 change blocks. 
739 lines changed or deleted 1017 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/