Reliable and Efficient Routing Protocols for Vehicular Communication Networks Transfer Presentation Katsaros Konstantinos PhD Student Supervisor: Dr. M. Dianati Co-supervisor: Prof. R. Tafazolli Outline Introduction Scope, Objectives, Challenges Routing in VANETs Taxonomy, Forwarding techniques, Recovery strategies, Cross-layering Achievements so far Proposed CLWPR (System model, design characteristics) Performance evaluation Future plan Konstantinos Katsaros 2 Scope • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Application of Information and Communication Technologies for future transport systems – In order to: • Improve safety and traffic management • Provide infotainment services. • Vehicular Communications is an important part of ITS. – Cellular (3G, LTE) and Dedicated Short Range Communications (IEEE 802.11p / WAVE) Konstantinos Katsaros 3 VANETs: Challenges & Opportunities • Are a category of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) with specific characteristics: – Less strict energy and computational constraints – Highly dynamic – Predictable mobility patterns – High density of nodes Konstantinos Katsaros 4 Objectives of this work • To design reliable and efficient routing protocols by exploiting: – Position and mobility information in order to increase efficiency – PHY and MAC information in order to increase reliability • To design a Location Service – that can provide position information for the routing protocols Konstantinos Katsaros 5 BACKGROUND Overview of routing and forwarding protocols for MANETs and VANETs Konstantinos Katsaros 6 Routing Taxonomy Topology Based Advantages Disadvantages Proactive Do not flood entire network Fast path selection Overhead to maintain tables Reactive Do not maintain routing tables Initial delay for route discovery Flood a route request Combination of proactive and reactive in different operation stages Hybrid Routing Protocols for VANETs Hierarchical Exploit clusters with similar characteristics Overhead to maintain clusters Flooding Low complexity, high data reception Flood entire network Without Navigation Rely on local information only Need a location service (LS), more prone to local maximum problem With Navigation Exploit mobility of nodes, less prone to local maximum Need a LS, increased overhead due to enhanced beaconing Position Based Konstantinos Katsaros 7 Position-based Forwarding without Navigation 6 1 5 7 2 S D 3 4 Konstantinos Katsaros 8 Random Positive Nearest Most Forward Forwarding in Greedy Compass Forwarding Progress Radius 8 Local Maximum Problem & Recovery Techniques Recovery strategies: S D Konstantinos Katsaros Drop packet Enhanced Greedy (random retransmission once) Carry-n-Forward Coloring Left hand rule Perimeter routing 9 Position-based Forwarding with Navigation 1. “Anchor” points at junctions with coordinator nodes 2. Enhanced beacon messages with velocity/heading 3. Position prediction policy (dead reckoning) 4. Estimation of link lifetime 5. Vehicle traffic information (max velocity, traffic density) Recovery From Local Maximum Re-route using different anchor points (with or without deletion) Konstantinos Katsaros 10 Cross-Layer Optimization of Routing Protocols • Network layer with PHY and MAC: Use channel/link quality information for routing decision • Network layer with Transport and Application: Provide different levels of priorities on packets Konstantinos Katsaros 11 CROSS-LAYER POSITION BASED ROUTING (CLWPR) Proposed routing protocol: system model and design characteristics Konstantinos Katsaros 12 System Model • Important Assumptions: – Position and navigation information are available (e.g., using GPS) – Nodes are equipped with the IEEE 802.11p based communication facility Konstantinos Katsaros 13 Main Features of CLWPR • Unicast, multi-hop, cross-layer, opportunistic routing • Neighbor discovery based on periodic 1-hop “HELLO” messages – “HELLO” message content: position, velocity, heading, road id, node utilization, MAC information, number of cached packets total size 52bytes • • • • Use of position prediction and “curvemetric” distance Use of SNIR information from “HELLO” messages Employ carry-n-forward strategy for local-maximum Combine metrics in a weighting function used for forwarding decisions Konstantinos Katsaros 14 Weighting Function for Next Hop Selection 𝑾𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 = 𝑓1 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 + 𝑓2 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 + 𝑓3 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑅𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑓4 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑓5 𝑀𝐴𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜 + 𝑓6 𝐶𝑛𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜 + 𝑓7 𝑆𝑁𝐼𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜 The node with the least weight will be selected Currently fi weights are fixed – open issue to optimize them or use adaptive values Konstantinos Katsaros 15 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Simulation setup, initial results, performance analysis and comparison Konstantinos Katsaros 16 Simulations Setup • Performance metrics – Packet Deliver Ratio (PDR), – End-to-End Delay, – network overhead. • • • • • • • Use ns-3 for simulations 5x5 grid network, 200 and 100 vehicles scenarios 10 concurrent vehicle-to-vehicle connections UDP packets (512 Bytes) with 2 sec interval IEEE 802.11p, 3Mbps, RTS/CTS enabled Two-Ray-Ground model Konstantinos Katsaros 17 Comparison with GPSR Increased PDR Reduced end-to-end delay — Increased overhead due to larger HELLO messages Konstantinos Katsaros 18 Impact of HELLO interval and prediction Prediction improves PDR More frequent HELLO increases PDR Network overhead could be reduced by increasing HELLO interval for the same PDR threshold. Konstantinos Katsaros 19 Influence of navigation Navigation improves PDR Increasing weight of navigation information has positive effect in higher vehicle speeds Konstantinos Katsaros 20 Influence of SNIR SNIR information reduces end-to-end delay — Due to propagation model used, not big improvements Expect more when shadowing is included Konstantinos Katsaros 21 Influence of Carry-n-Forward Increased PDR with time of caching — Increased end-to-end delay with time of caching Konstantinos Katsaros 22 FUTURE WORK CWPR optimization, proposed location service, impact assessment and security issues Konstantinos Katsaros 23 Future Work (1) • CLWPR Optimization – Use realistic propagation model – Optimize all weighting parameters • Location Service (a) – RSUs as distributed database – Co-operation between nodes • Reduce number and latency of queries Konstantinos Katsaros 24 Future Work (2) • Location Service (b) – heterogeneous network – Use of UMTS technologies for control and signaling to provide location service • Impact Assessment – Asses impact of ITS applications on network reliability • Security Issues – Analyze potential threats on reliability of vehicular networks, specially for Location services Konstantinos Katsaros 25 Work Plan Konstantinos Katsaros 26 Publications • Current: – K. Katsaros, et al. “CLWPR - A novel cross-layer optimized position based routing protocol for VANETs", in IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference, pp. 200-207, 2011 – K. Katsaros, et al. “Application of Vehicular Communications for Improving the Efficiency of Traffic in Urban Areas", accepted in Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2011. – K. Katsaros, et al. ”Performance Analysis of a Green Light Optimized Speed Advisory (GLOSA) application using an integrated cooperative ITS simulation platform", in Proceedings of IEEE International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 918 - 923, 2011 • Planned: – Survey Paper on routing protocols for VANETs – Conf. paper @ NS-3 Workshop in SIMUTools 2012, regarding the architecture and implementation (Nov. ‘11) – Journal article @ JSAC on Vehicular Communications extending CLWPR paper (Feb. ‘12) Konstantinos Katsaros 27 QUESTIONS Email: K.Katsaros@surrey.ac.uk www: info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/K.Katsaros/ Konstantinos Katsaros 28 Current work Propagation Loss Model for urban environment, initial results Konstantinos Katsaros 29 Winner B1 model for urban V2V Use propagation models from [1] taking into account buildings and shadowing with LOS and NLOS components [1] IST-WINNER D1.1.2 P. Kyösti, et al., "WINNER II Channel Models", September 2007. Available at: https://www.ist-winner.org/WINNER2-Deliverables/D1.1.2v1.1.pdf Konstantinos Katsaros 30 TwoRayGround Vs. Winner in network graph / connections Konstantinos Katsaros 31 TwoRayGround Vs. Winner in PDR PDR Vs. Velocity TRG-BENCH Winner-BENCH TRG-PREDICT Winner-PREDICT 100 Packet Delivery Ratio (5) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Node Average Velocity (m/s) Konstantinos Katsaros 32 30 35 Cross-Layer Designs (1) • Network layer with PHY and MAC: Use channel/link quality information for routing decision – Link Residual Time – SNR info for MuiltiPoint Relay selection – MAC layer position information for prediction – MAC retransmissions – DeReHQ [1]: Delay, Reliability and Hop count – PROMPT [2]: Delay aware routing and robust MAC – MAC collaboration for heterogeneous networks [1] Z. Niu, W. Yao, Q. Ni, and Y. Song, “Study on QoS Support in 802.11e-based Multi-hop Vehicular Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” in IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, pp. 705 –710, 2007. [2] B. Jarupan and E. Ekici, “PROMPT: A cross-layer position-based communication protocol for delayaware vehicular access networks,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 8, pp. 489–505, July 2010. Konstantinos Katsaros 33 Cross-Layer Designs (2) • Network layer with transport and Application: Provide different levels of priorities on packets – VTP (Vehicular Transport Protocol) – Optimization of TCP and GPSR with vehicle mobility (adaptive beacon interval) • Network layer with multiple layers – Joint MAC, Network and Transport [1] [1] L. Zhou, B. Zheng, B. Geller, a. Wei, S. Xu, and Y. Li, “Cross-layer rate control, medium access control and routing design in cooperative VANET”, Computer Communications, vol. 31, pp. 2870– 2882, July 2008 Konstantinos Katsaros 34 Location Services • Flooding based: All nodes host it – Proactive: DREAM – Reactive: LAR, MALM (mobility assisted) • Rendezvous based: Some nodes host it – Quorum: divide node set into two subsets (update and query) – Hashing (according to node ID or location): define server nodes using a hash function – RLSMP (Region-based Location Service Management Protocol) and MG-LSM (Mobile Group Location Service Management) designed for VANETs utilizing mobility information Konstantinos Katsaros 35