< draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-27.txt   draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28.txt >
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Informational 22 February 2022 Intended status: Informational 30 March 2022
Expires: 26 August 2022 Expires: 1 October 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-27 draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28
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 26 August 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 October 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 32 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 45 Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 46
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 47 Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 48
Appendix D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-based Vehicular
Appendix E. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix E. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix F. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
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),
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC]. Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC]. Most countries and regions in
the world have adopted the same frequency allocation for vehicular
networks.
For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended
standard 802.11 (commonly known as Wi-Fi) to enable safe driving standard 802.11 (commonly known as Wi-Fi) to enable safe driving
services based on DSRC for the Wireless Access in Vehicular services based on DSRC for the Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments (WAVE) system. The Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link Environments (WAVE) system. The Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link
Layer (L2) issues are addressed in IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for Layer (L2) issues are addressed in IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for
the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers
security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3] defines related services security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3] defines related services
at network and transport layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4] at network and transport layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4]
specifies the multi-channel operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a specifies the multi-channel operation. IEEE 802.11p was first a
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
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], Network [RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], Network
Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963], Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963], Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], and Automatic Extended Route Optimization [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], and Automatic Extended Route Optimization
(AERO) [I-D.templin-6man-aero]). In addition, ISO has approved a based on the Overlay Multilink Network Interface (AERO/OMNI)
standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and services to be [I-D.templin-6man-aero] [I-D.templin-6man-omni]). In addition, ISO
used for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) has approved a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and
services to be used for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM)
[ISO-ITS-IPv6][ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1]. [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
skipping to change at page 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
* 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.
* 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 motorcycle, and a similar one). It has at least one IP interface
Internet-of-Things (IoT) device). It has at least one IP that runs in IEEE 802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" transceiver. Also,
interface that runs in IEEE 802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" it may have an IP interface that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X)
transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in [TS-23.285-3GPP] [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play a
Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] role of a router connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle
[TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play a role of a router devices) inside a vehicle. See the definition of the term "OBU"
connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) inside a in [RFC8691].
vehicle. See the definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691].
* 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 the third IP-enabled wireless interface
with an "RSU" transceiver. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access running in 3GPP C-V2X in addition to the IP-RSU defined in
Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless [RFC8691]. An IP-RSU is similar to an Access Network Router
Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless Termination Point
of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691]. (WTP), defined in [RFC5415]. See the definition of the term "RSU"
in [RFC8691].
* 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.
* 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 term for vehicular networks.
* 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
application) for those devices can be extended such that the V2V use application) for those devices can be extended such that the V2V use
cases in this section can work with IPv6 as a network layer protocol cases in this section can work with IPv6 as a network layer protocol
and IEEE 802.11-OCB as a link layer protocol. In addition, IPv6 and IEEE 802.11-OCB as a link layer protocol. In addition, IPv6
security needs to be extended to support those V2V use cases in a security needs to be extended to support those V2V use cases in a
safe, secure, privacy-preserving way. safe, secure, privacy-preserving way.
The use cases presented in this section serve as the description and The use cases presented in this section serve as the description and
motivation for the need to extend IPv6 and its protocols to motivation for the need to augment IPv6 and its protocols to
facilitate "Vehicular IPv6". Section 5 summarizes the overall facilitate "Vehicular IPv6". Section 5 summarizes the overall
problem statement and IPv6 requirements. Note that the adjective problem statement and IPv6 requirements. Note that the adjective
"Vehicular" in this document is used to represent extensions of "Vehicular" in this document is used to represent extensions of
existing protocols such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, IPv6 Mobility existing protocols such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, IPv6 Mobility
Management (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and DMM [RFC7429]), and IPv6 Management (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and DMM [RFC7429]), and IPv6
Security and Privacy Mechanisms rather than new "vehicular-specific" Security and Privacy Mechanisms rather than new "vehicular-specific"
functions. functions.
3.1. V2V 3.1. V2V
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
* Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance; * Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance;
* Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway; * Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway;
* Platooning in a highway; * Platooning in a highway;
* Cooperative environment sensing; * Cooperative environment sensing;
* Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility * Collision avoidance service of end systems of Urban Air Mobility
(UAM) [I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its]. (UAM).
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
through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based through V2V networking. CASD provides vehicles with a class-based
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
use environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for use environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for
better interaction with the other vehicles and environment. Vehicles better interaction with the other vehicles and environment. Vehicles
can also share their intended maneuvering information (e.g., lane can also share their intended maneuvering information (e.g., lane
change, speed change, ramp in-and-out, cut-in, and abrupt braking) change, speed change, ramp in-and-out, cut-in, and abrupt braking)
with neighboring vehicles. Thus, this information sharing can help with neighboring vehicles. Thus, this information sharing can help
the vehicles behave as more efficient traffic flows and minimize the vehicles behave as more efficient traffic flows and minimize
unnecessary acceleration and deceleration to achieve the best ride unnecessary acceleration and deceleration to achieve the best ride
comfort. comfort.
A collision avoidance service of UAM end systems in air can be A collision avoidance service of UAM end systems in air can be
envisioned as a use case in air vehicular environments. This use envisioned as a use case in air vehicular environments
case is similar to the context-aware navigator for terrestrial [I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its]. This use case is similar to the
vehicles. Through V2V coordination, those UAM end systems (e.g., context-aware navigator for terrestrial vehicles. Through V2V
drones) can avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., collision) in three- coordination, those UAM end systems (e.g., drones) can avoid a
dimensional space rather than two-dimensional space for terrestrial dangerous situation (e.g., collision) in three-dimensional space
vehicles. Also, UAM end systems (e.g., flying car) with only a few rather than two-dimensional space for terrestrial vehicles. Also,
meters off the ground can communicate with terrestrial vehicles with UAM end systems (e.g., flying car) with only a few meters off the
wireless communication technologies (e.g., DSRC, LTE, and C-V2X). ground can communicate with terrestrial vehicles with wireless
Thus, V2V means any vehicle to any vehicle, whether the vehicles are communication technologies (e.g., DSRC, LTE, and C-V2X). Thus, V2V
ground-level or not. means any vehicle to any vehicle, whether the vehicles are ground-
level or not.
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].
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
[FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate, [FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate,
and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for
safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The
construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state
in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to
the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed
using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an
infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected
that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I
and V2V in the near future. and V2V in the near future. An equivalent project in Europe is
called Public Safety Communications Europe (PSCE) [PSCE], which is
developing a network for emergency communications.
An EV charging service with V2I can facilitate the efficient battery An EV charging service with V2I can facilitate the efficient battery
charging of EVs. In the case where an EV charging station is charging of EVs. In the case where an EV charging station is
connected to an IP-RSU, an EV can be guided toward the deck of the EV connected to an IP-RSU, an EV can be guided toward the deck of the EV
charging station through a battery charging server connected to the charging station or be notified that the charging station is out of
IP-RSU. In addition to this EV charging service, other value-added service through a battery charging server connected to the IP-RSU.
services (e.g., air firmware/software update and media streaming) can In addition to this EV charging service, other value-added services
be provided to an EV while it is charging its battery at the EV (e.g., air firmware/software update and media streaming) can be
charging station. provided to an EV while it is charging its battery at the EV charging
station.
A UAM navigation service with efficient battery charging can plan the A UAM navigation service with efficient battery charging can plan the
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 protocol changes In some scenarios such as vehicles moving in highways or staying in
in order to support wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway parking lots, a V2V2I network is necessary for vehicles to access the
where RSUs are sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless Internet since some vehicles may not be covered by an RSU. For those
coverage of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of vehicles, a few relay vehicles can help to build the Internet access.
intermediate vehicles. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop For the nested NEMO described in [RFC4888], hosts inside a vehicle
V2I communications. shown in Figure 3 for the case of V2V2I may have the same issue in
the nested NEMO scenario.
To better support these use cases, the existing IPv6 protocol must be
augmented either through protocol changes or by including a new
adaptation layer in the architecture that efficiently maps IPv6 to a
diversity of link layer technologies. Augmentation is necessary to
support wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs
are sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless coverage
of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate
vehicles as packet forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for
multihop V2I communications.
To support applications of these V2I use cases, the required To support applications of these V2I use cases, the required
functions of IPv6 include IPv6-based packet exchange, transport-layer functions of IPv6 include IPv6 communication enablement with
session continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle neighborhood discovery and IPv6 address management, reachability with
and an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) in the vehicular network. adapted network models and routing methods, transport-layer session
continuity, and secure, safe communication between a vehicle 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 42 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
with each other via an IP-RSU. An edge computing device behind the with each other via an IP-RSU. An edge computing device behind the
IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles and IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles and
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. Note that
it is true that a pedestrian or a cyclist may have a higher risk of
being hit by a vehicle if they are not with a smartphone in the
current setting. For this case, other human sensing technologies
(e.g., moving object detection in images and wireless signal-based
human movement detection [LIFS] [DFC]) can be used to provide the
motion information of them to vehicles. A vehicle by V2V2I
networking can obtain the motion information of a vulnerable road
user via an IP-RSU that either employs or connects to a human sensing
technology.
The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through protocol changes
in order to support wireless multihop V2X or V2I2X communications in in order to support wireless multihop V2X or V2I2X communications in
an urban road network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a an urban road network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a
vehicle (or a pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless vehicle (or a pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless
coverage of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of coverage of an RSU through the multihop data forwarding of
intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians' smartphones) as packet intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians' smartphones) as packet
forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X or forwarders. Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X or
V2I2X communications. V2I2X communications.
skipping to change at page 13, line 8 skipping to change at page 14, line 8
This section describes the context for vehicular networks supporting This section describes the context for vehicular networks supporting
V2V, V2I, and V2X communications. It describes an internal network V2V, V2I, and V2X communications. It describes an internal network
within a vehicle or an edge network (called EN). It explains not within a vehicle or an edge network (called EN). It explains not
only the internetworking between the internal networks of a vehicle only the internetworking between the internal networks of a vehicle
and an EN via wireless links, but also the internetworking between and an EN via wireless links, but also the internetworking between
the internal networks of two vehicles via wireless links. the internal networks of two vehicles via wireless links.
Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud
******************************************* *******************************************
+-------------+ * * +-------------+ * *
|Corresponding| * +-----------------+ * |Correspondent| * +-----------------+ *
| Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | * | Node |<->* | Mobility Anchor | *
+-------------+ * +-----------------+ * +-------------+ * +-----------------+ *
* ^ * * ^ *
* | * * | *
* v * * v *
******************************************* *******************************************
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
v v v v v v
skipping to change at page 14, line 8 skipping to change at page 15, line 8
V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture contains V2V in a road network. The vehicular network architecture contains
vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, Traffic vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility Anchor, Traffic
Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. These components Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components. These components
are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into vehicular networks are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into vehicular networks
in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility Anchor, Traffic in various ways. Some of them (e.g., Mobility Anchor, Traffic
Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be needed for the Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be needed for the
vehicular networks according to target use cases in Section 3. vehicular networks according to target use cases in Section 3.
Existing network architectures, such as the network architectures of Existing network architectures, such as the network architectures of
PMIPv6 [RFC5213], RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy PMIPv6 [RFC5213], RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
Networks) [RFC6550], and OMNI (Overlay Multilink Network Interface) Networks) [RFC6550], and AERO/OMNI
[I-D.templin-6man-omni], can be extended to a vehicular network [I-D.templin-6man-aero][I-D.templin-6man-omni], can be extended to a
architecture for multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as shown in Figure 1. vehicular network architecture for multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as
Refer to Appendix B for the detailed discussion on multihop V2X shown in Figure 1. Refer to Appendix B for the detailed discussion
networking by RPL and OMNI. Also, refer to Appendix A for the on multihop V2X networking by RPL and OMNI. Also, refer to
description of how OMNI can support the use of multiple radio Appendix A for the description of how OMNI is designed to support the
technologies in V2X. use of multiple radio technologies in V2X.
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.
2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example
prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address
needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP-
RSUs.
In Figure 1, three IP-RSUs (IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3) are In Figure 1, three IP-RSUs (IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3) are
deployed in the road network and are connected with each other deployed in the road network and are connected with each other
through the wired networks (e.g., Ethernet). A Traffic Control through the wired networks (e.g., Ethernet). A Traffic Control
Center (TCC) is connected to the Vehicular Cloud for the management Center (TCC) is connected to the Vehicular Cloud for the management
of IP-RSUs and vehicles in the road network. A Mobility Anchor (MA) of IP-RSUs and vehicles in the road network. A Mobility Anchor (MA)
may be located in the TCC as a mobility management controller. may be located in the TCC as a mobility management controller.
Vehicle2, Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 are wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1, Vehicle2, Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 are wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1,
IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, respectively. The three wireless networks of IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, respectively. The three wireless networks of
IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3 can belong to three different subnets IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3 can belong to three different subnets
(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 a "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses (BYOA)" technique using their can employ a "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses (BYOA)" (or "Bring-Your-Own-
own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless Prefix (BYOP)") technique using their own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses
network, which does not require the messaging (e.g., Duplicate (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless network, which does not require
Address Detection (DAD)) of IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration the messaging (e.g., Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)) of IPv6
(SLAAC) [RFC4862]. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
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
skipping to change at page 15, line 28 skipping to change at page 16, line 21
Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address Transmission Unit (MTU), frame format, link-local address, address
mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and mapping for unicast and multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and
subnet structure. subnet structure.
An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of
communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's
TCP session can be continued, or UDP packets can be delivered to a TCP session can be continued, or 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 correspondent node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move
from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage. In from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage. In
this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a
host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a
network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213],
AERO [I-D.templin-6man-aero]). This document describes issues in NEMO [RFC3963][RFC4885] [RFC4888], and AERO [I-D.templin-6man-aero]).
mobility management for vehicular networks in Section 5.2. This document describes issues in mobility management for vehicular
networks in Section 5.2.
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., mobile network) and an EN's internal network
(i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. The internal network of (i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication. The internal network of
a vehicle is nowadays constructed with Ethernet by many automotive a vehicle is nowadays constructed with Ethernet by many automotive
vendors [In-Car-Network]. Note that an EN can accommodate multiple vendors [In-Car-Network]. Note that an EN can accommodate multiple
routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, navigation server, and routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, navigation server, and
DNS server) in its internal network. DNS server) in its internal network.
A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect
Electronic Control Units (ECUs) in the vehicle. The internal network Electronic Control Units (ECUs) in the vehicle. The internal network
can support Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and can support Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and
passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). The network passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet). The network
topology and subnetting depend on each vendor's network configuration topology and subnetting depend on each vendor's network configuration
for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider the for a vehicle and an EN. It is reasonable to consider the
interaction between the internal network and an external network interaction between the internal network and an external network
within another vehicle or an EN. within another vehicle or an EN. Note that it is dangerous if the
internal network of a vehicle is controlled by a malicious party. To
minimize this kind of risk, an reinforced identification and
verification protocol shall be implemented.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
(*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud | (*)<........>(*) +----->| Vehicular Cloud |
(2001:DB8:1:1::/64) | | | +-----------------+ (2001:DB8:1:1::/64) | | | +-----------------+
+------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| v | | v v | | v | | v v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | | | | Host1 | |IP-OBU1| | | |IP-RSU1| | Host3 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
skipping to change at page 16, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 29
| v | | v | | v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| |Server1|...|ServerN| | | | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| |Server1|...|ServerN| |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 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 (Mobile Network1) EN1 (Fixed Network1)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network Figure 2: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network
As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving As shown in Figure 2, as internal networks, a vehicle's mobile
network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having
multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU) multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU)
for the communication with another vehicle or another EN. The for 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 mobile network) in a vehicle
need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a
moving network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix mobile network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix
(MNP) [RFC3963]. (MNP) [RFC3963].
Figure 2 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's moving Figure 2 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's mobile
network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network network and the EN's fixed network. There exists an internal network
(Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and (Mobile Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and
Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another
internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1. EN1 has one host
(Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), and the collection of (Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), and the collection of
servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road
networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation. networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation.
Vehicle1's IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and EN1's IP-RSU1 (as a fixed Vehicle1's IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and EN1's IP-RSU1 (as a fixed
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
V2I networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate V2I networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
skipping to change at page 18, line 13 skipping to change at page 18, line 36
protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters. protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters.
As shown in Figure 2, the addresses used for IPv6 transmissions over As shown in Figure 2, the addresses used for IPv6 transmissions over
the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be link-local the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be link-local
IPv6 addresses, ULAs, or global IPv6 addresses. When global IPv6 IPv6 addresses, ULAs, or global IPv6 addresses. When global IPv6
addresses are used, wireless interface configuration and control addresses are used, wireless interface configuration and control
overhead for DAD [RFC4862] and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) overhead for DAD [RFC4862] and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)
[RFC2710][RFC3810] should be minimized to support V2I and V2X [RFC2710][RFC3810] should be minimized to support V2I and V2X
communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways. communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways.
Let us consider the upload/download time of a vehicle when it passes Let us consider the upload/download time of a ground vehicle when it
through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For a passes through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For
given typical setting where 1km is the maximum DSRC communication a 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 for ground
time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by dividing the diameter of vehicles, the dwelling time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by
the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC communication range where an IP-RSU dividing the diameter of the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC
is located in the center of the circle of wireless communication) by communication range where an IP-RSU is located in the center of the
the speed limit of 100km/h (i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 seconds, circle of wireless communication) by the speed limit of 100km/h
a vehicle passing through the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and (i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 seconds, a vehicle passing through
download data packets to/from the IP-RSU. the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and download data packets to/
from the IP-RSU. For special cases such as emergency vehicles moving
above the speed limit, the dwelling time is relatively shorter than
that of other vehicles. For cases of airborne vehicles, considering
a higher flying speed and a higher altitude, the dwelling time can be
much shorter.
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking
This section discusses the internetworking between the moving This section discusses the internetworking between the moving
networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication. networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication.
(*)<..........>(*) (*)<..........>(*)
(2001:DB8:1:1::/64) | | (2001:DB8:1:1::/64) | |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| v | | v | | v | | v |
skipping to change at page 19, line 28 skipping to change at page 19, line 33
| v | | v | | v | | v |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| | Host4 | | | | Host2 | |Router1| | | |Router2| | Host4 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +-------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 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 (Mobile Network1) Vehicle2 (Mobile Network2)
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link (*) Antenna
Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles Figure 3: Internetworking between Two Vehicles
Figure 3 shows the internetworking between the moving networks of two Figure 3 shows the internetworking between the mobile networks of two
neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Moving neighboring vehicles. There exists an internal network (Mobile
Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2), Network1) inside Vehicle1. Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2),
and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1). There exists another internal
network (Moving Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts network (Mobile Network2) inside Vehicle2. Vehicle2 has two hosts
(Host3 and Host4), and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2). Vehicle1's (Host3 and Host4), and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2). Vehicle1's
IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile
router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate V2V networking. Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through
Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP- Vehicle1's mobile network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network. OBU2, and Vehicle2's mobile network.
As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 4 shows the linear network As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 4 shows 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.
(*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*) (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 20, line 28 skipping to change at page 20, line 33
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3 Vehicle1 Vehicle2 Vehicle3
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
(*) Antenna (*) Antenna
Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks Figure 4: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
As shown in Figure 4, multihop internetworking is feasible among the As shown in Figure 4, multihop internetworking is feasible among the
moving networks of three vehicles in the same VANET. For example, mobile networks of three vehicles in the same VANET. For example,
Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1 Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1
in Vehicle1, IP-OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the in Vehicle1, IP-OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the
VANET, as shown in the figure. VANET, as shown in the figure.
In this section, the link between two vehicles is assumed to be In this section, the link between two vehicles is assumed to be
stable for single-hop wireless communication regardless of the sight stable for single-hop wireless communication regardless of the sight
relationship such as line of sight and non-line of sight, as shown in relationship such as line of sight and non-line of sight, as shown in
Figure 3. Even in Figure 4, the three vehicles are connected to each Figure 3. Even in Figure 4, the three vehicles are connected to each
other with a linear topology, however, multihop V2V communication can other with a linear topology, however, multihop V2V communication can
accommodate any network topology (i.e., an arbitrary graph) over accommodate any network topology (i.e., an arbitrary graph) over
skipping to change at page 21, line 30 skipping to change at page 21, line 30
Vehicle1 EN1 Vehicle3 Vehicle1 EN1 Vehicle3
<----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction <----> Wired Link <....> Wireless Link ===> Moving Direction
(*) Antenna (*) Antenna
Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks
via IP-RSU (V2I2V) via IP-RSU (V2I2V)
As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking between two vehicles As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking between two vehicles
is feasible via an infrastructure node (i.e., IP-RSU) with wireless is feasible via an infrastructure node (i.e., IP-RSU) with wireless
connectivity among the moving networks of two vehicles and the fixed connectivity among the mobile networks of two vehicles and the fixed
network of an edge network (denoted as EN1) in the same VANET. For network of an edge network (denoted as EN1) in the same VANET. For
example, Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via example, Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via
IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP-RSU1 in EN1, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the IP-OBU1 in Vehicle1, IP-RSU1 in EN1, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the
VANET, as shown in the figure. VANET, as shown in the figure.
For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND optimization For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND optimization
defined in MANET [RFC6130] [RFC7466] improves the classical IPv6 ND defined in MANET [RFC6130] [RFC7466] improves the classical IPv6 ND
in terms of tracking neighbor information with up to two hops and in terms of tracking neighbor information with up to two hops and
introducing several extensible Information Bases, which serves the introducing several extensible Information Bases, which serves the
MANET routing protocols such as the difference versions of Optimized MANET routing protocols such as the different versions of Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181] [RFC7188] Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181], Open Shortest
[RFC7722] [RFC7779] [RFC8218] and the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol Path First (OSPF) derivatives (e.g., [RFC5614]), and Dynamic Link
(DLEP) with its extensions [RFC8175] [RFC8629] [RFC8651] [RFC8703] Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] with its extensions [RFC8629]
[RFC8757]. In short, the MANET ND mainly deals with maintaining [RFC8757]. In short, the MANET ND mainly deals with maintaining
extended network neighbors. However, an ND protocol in vehicular extended network neighbors to enhance the link reliability. However,
networks shall consider more about the geographical mobility an ND protocol in vehicular networks shall consider more about the
information of vehicles as an important resource for serving various geographical mobility information of vehicles as an important
purposes to improve the reliability, e.g., vehicle driving safety, resource for serving various purposes to improve the reliability,
intelligent transportation implementations, and advanced mobility e.g., vehicle driving safety, intelligent transportation
services. For a more reliable V2V networking, some redundancy implementations, and advanced mobility services. For a more reliable
mechanisms should be provided in L3 in the case of the failure of L2. V2V networking, some redundancy mechanisms should be provided in L3
in cases of the failure of L2. For different use cases, the optimal
solution to improve V2V networking reliability may vary. For
example, a group of vehicles in platooning may have stabler neighbors
than freely moving vehicles, as described in Section 3.1.
5. Problem Statement 5. Problem Statement
In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in
Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the
vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges
need to be completed in a time relatively short compared to the need to be completed in a relatively short time compared to the
lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two
vehicles. vehicles.
For safe driving, vehicles need to exchange application messages For safe driving, vehicles need to exchange application messages
every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] to let drivers take an action to every 0.5 second [NHTSA-ACAS-Report] to let drivers take an action to
avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., vehicle collision), so IPv6 avoid a dangerous situation (e.g., vehicle collision), so IPv6
protocol exchanges need to support this order of magnitude for protocol exchanges need to support this order of magnitude for
application message exchanges. Also, considering the communication application message exchanges. Also, considering the communication
range of DSRC (up to 1km) and 100km/h as the speed limit in highway, 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, the lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU is in the
and the lifetime of a link between two vehicles is 36 seconds. Note order of a minute (e.g., about 72 seconds), and the lifetime of a
that if two vehicles are moving in the opposite directions in a link between two vehicles is about a half minute. Note that if two
roadway, the relative speed of this case is two times the relative vehicles are moving in the opposite directions in a roadway, the
speed of a vehicle passing through an RSU. This relative speed leads relative speed of this case is two times the relative speed of a
the half of the link lifetime between the vehicle and the IP-RSU. In vehicle passing through an RSU. This relative speed leads the half
reality, the DSRC communication range is around 500m, so the link of the link lifetime between the vehicle and the IP-RSU. In reality,
lifetime will be a half of the maximum time. The time constraint of the DSRC communication range is around 500m, so the link lifetime
a wireless link between two nodes (e.g., vehicle and IP-RSU) needs to will be a half of the maximum time. The time constraint of a
wireless link between two nodes (e.g., vehicle and IP-RSU) needs to
be considered because it may affect the lifetime of a session be considered because it may affect the lifetime of a session
involving the link. The lifetime of a session varies depending on involving the link. The lifetime of a session varies depending on
the session's type such as a web surfing, voice call over IP, DNS 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 query, and context-aware navigation (in Section 3.1). Regardless of
a session's type, to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination 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 host(s), IP mobility should be supported for the session. In a V2V
scenario (e.g., context-aware navigation), the IPv6 packets of a scenario (e.g., context-aware navigation), the IPv6 packets of a
vehicle should be delivered to relevant vehicles in an efficient way vehicle should be delivered to relevant vehicles in an efficient way
(e.g., multicasting). With this observation, IPv6 protocol exchanges (e.g., multicasting). With this observation, IPv6 protocol exchanges
need to be done as short as possible to support the message exchanges need to be done as short as possible to support the message exchanges
skipping to change at page 23, line 23 skipping to change at page 23, line 28
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 IPv6 addresses to run
a link-local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND. IPv6 ND.
The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are efficient DAD The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are efficient DAD
and NUD operations. An efficient DAD is required to reduce the and NUD operations. An efficient DAD is required to reduce the
overhead of the DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road overhead of DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network,
network, which can guarantee the uniqueness of a vehicle's global which can guarantee the uniqueness of a vehicle's global IPv6
IPv6 address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of address. An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of the
the NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which can
can guarantee the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in guarantee the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in terms
terms of adjacent vehicles and RSUs. 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)
skipping to change at page 24, line 9 skipping to change at page 24, line 14
Registrar in RPL) to check the uniqueness of an IPv6 address that Registrar in RPL) to check the uniqueness of an IPv6 address that
will be configured by a vehicle as DAD. Also, the partitioning of a will be configured by a vehicle as DAD. Also, the partitioning of a
VANET may make vehicles with the same prefix be physically VANET may make vehicles with the same prefix be physically
unreachable. An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA unreachable. An address lookup operation may be conducted by an MA
or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the existence of a vehicle or IP-RSU (as Registrar in RPL) to check the existence of a vehicle
under the network coverage of the MA or IP-RSU as NUD. Thus, SLAAC under the network coverage of the MA or IP-RSU as NUD. Thus, SLAAC
needs to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the merging of needs to prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the merging of
VANETs, and IPv6 ND needs to detect unreachable neighboring vehicles VANETs, and IPv6 ND needs to detect unreachable neighboring vehicles
due to the partitioning of a VANET. According to the merging and due to the partitioning of a VANET. According to the merging and
partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) needs to be partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) needs to be
distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link host even distinguished as either an on-link host or a not-onlink host even
though the source vehicle can use the same prefix as the destination though the source vehicle can use the same prefix as the destination
vehicle [I-D.ietf-intarea-ippl]. vehicle [I-D.ietf-intarea-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 For vehicular networks with high mobility and density, DAD needs to
to be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the vehicles
vehicles can exchange driving safety messages (e.g., collision can exchange driving safety messages (e.g., collision avoidance and
avoidance and accident notification) with each other with a short accident notification) with each other with a short interval
interval suggested by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety suggested by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
Administration) [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. Since the partitioning and [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. Since the partitioning and merging of vehicular
merging of vehicular networks may require re-perform the DAD process networks may require re-perform DAD process repeatedly, the link
repeatedly, the link scope of vehicles may be limited to a small scope of vehicles may be limited to a small area, which may delay the
area, which may delay the exchange of driving safety messages. exchange of driving safety messages. Driving safety messages can
Driving safety messages can include a vehicle's mobility information include a vehicle's mobility information (i.e., position, speed,
(i.e., position, speed, direction, and acceleration/deceleration) direction, and acceleration/deceleration) that is critical to other
that is critical to other vehicles. The exchange interval of this vehicles. The exchange interval of this message is recommended to be
message is recommended to be less than 0.5 second, which is required less than 0.5 second, which is required for a driver to avoid an
for a driver to avoid an emergency situation, such as a rear-end emergency situation, such as a rear-end crash.
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. The ND time-related parameters can be an operational other vehicles. The ND time-related parameters can be an operational
setting or an optimization point particularly for vehicular networks. 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.
From the interoperability point of view, in IPv6-based vehicular From the interoperability point of view, in IPv6-based vehicular
networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum changes with the legacy IPv6 networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum changes with the legacy IPv6
ND used in the Internet, including the DAD and NUD operations, so ND used in the Internet, including DAD and NUD operations, so that
that IPv6-based vehicular networks can be seamlessly connected to IPv6-based vehicular networks can be seamlessly connected to other
other intelligent transportation elements (e.g., traffic signals, intelligent transportation elements (e.g., traffic signals,
pedestrian wearable devices, electric scooters, and bus stops) that pedestrian wearable devices, electric scooters, and bus stops) that
use the standard IPv6 network settings. use the standard IPv6 network settings.
5.1.1. Link Model 5.1.1. Link Model
A subnet model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the A subnet model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate 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 subnet model allows vehicles with the same prefix to IP-RSUs. This subnet model allows vehicles with the same prefix to
skipping to change at page 25, line 40 skipping to change at page 25, line 40
IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions that do not necessarily IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions that do not necessarily
hold for vehicular wireless access link types [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]. hold for vehicular wireless access link types [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889].
For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the connectivity For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume symmetry in the connectivity
among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However, radio interference among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250]. However, radio interference
and different levels of transmission power may cause asymmetric links and different levels of transmission power may cause asymmetric links
to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, a new vehicular to appear in vehicular wireless links. As a result, a new vehicular
link model needs to consider the asymmetry of dynamically changing link model needs to consider the asymmetry of dynamically changing
vehicular wireless links. 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, unique-local,
types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is defined that all and global types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is defined
interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with that all interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix
on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link. and with on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6
However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship link. However, the vehicular link model needs to define the
between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless relationship between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of
links and the characteristics of VANET. wireless links and the characteristics of VANET.
A VANET can have a single link between each vehicle pair within A VANET can have a single link between each vehicle pair within
wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 4. When two
vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless
communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each
other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix (or an IPv6 ULA other. Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix (or an IPv6 ULA
prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks. Even though two prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks. Considering
vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses with the that two vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses
same IPv6 prefix, they may not communicate with each other not in one with the same IPv6 prefix, if they are not in one hop (that is, they
hop in the same VANET because of the multihop network connectivity have the multihop network connectivity between them), then they may
between them. Thus, in this case, the concept of an on-link IPv6 not be able to communicate with each other. Thus, in this case, the
prefix does not hold because two vehicles with the same on-link IPv6 concept of an on-link IPv6 prefix does not hold because two vehicles
prefix cannot communicate directly with each other. Also, when two with the same on-link IPv6 prefix cannot communicate directly with
vehicles are located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6 each other. Also, when two vehicles are located in two different
prefix, they cannot communicate with each other. When these two VANETs with the same IPv6 prefix, they cannot communicate with each
VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with other. When these two VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles
each other in a multihop fashion, for example, when they are Vehicle1 can communicate with each other in a multihop fashion, for example,
and Vehicle3, as shown in Figure 4. when they are Vehicle1 and Vehicle3, as shown in Figure 4.
From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider
the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle
mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on- mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on-
link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of link prefix and not-onlink prefix according to the network topology
vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable of vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop
network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same reachable network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with
prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix should be the same prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix
on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same should be on-link. On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with
prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to either the the same prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to
multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix either the multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the
should be off-link. In most cases in vehicular networks, due to the prefix should be not-onlink. In most cases in vehicular networks,
partitioning and merging of VANETs, and the multihop network topology due to the partitioning and merging of VANETs, and the multihop
of VANETS, off-link prefixes will be used for vehicles as default. network topology of VANETS, not-onlink 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 27, line 31 skipping to change at page 27, line 31
an IPv6 address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not an IPv6 address pair. However, the pseudonym handling is not
implemented and tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular implemented and tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular
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 DAD procedure.
5.1.3. Routing 5.1.3. Routing
For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP- For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP-
RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) routing protocol may RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) routing protocol may
be required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the be required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the
subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly to run
both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of
control traffic overhead [RFC9119]. control traffic overhead [RFC9119].
skipping to change at page 30, line 8 skipping to change at page 30, line 8
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 domain, where the wireless For a mobility management scheme in a domain, where the wireless
subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient
vehicular-network-wide DAD is required. 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, DAD is not
not required. On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme required. On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme with a
with a unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]), DAD is unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]), DAD is not
not required because the IPv6 address of a vehicle's external required because the IPv6 address of a vehicle's external wireless
wireless interface is guaranteed to be unique. There is a tradeoff interface is guaranteed to be unique. There is a tradeoff between
between the prefix usage efficiency and DAD overhead. Thus, the IPv6 the prefix usage efficiency and DAD overhead. Thus, the IPv6 address
address autoconfiguration for vehicular networks needs to consider autoconfiguration for vehicular networks needs to consider this
this tradeoff to support efficient mobility management. tradeoff to support efficient mobility management.
Even though the SLAAC with classic ND costs a DAD during mobility Even though the SLAAC with classic ND costs a DAD during mobility
management, the SLAAC with [RFC8505] does not cost a DAD. SLAAC for management, the SLAAC with [RFC8505] and/or AERO/OMNI do not cost a
vehicular networks needs to consider the minimization of the cost of DAD. SLAAC for vehicular networks needs to consider the minimization
DAD with the help of an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU and MA). of the cost of DAD with the help of an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-
Using an infrastructure prefix over VANET allows direct routability RSU and MA). Using an infrastructure prefix over VANET allows direct
to the Internet through the multihop V2I toward an IP-RSU. On the routability to the Internet through the multihop V2I toward an IP-
other hand, a BYOA does not allow such direct routability to the RSU. On the other hand, a BYOA does not allow such direct
Internet since the BYOA is not topologically correct, that is, not routability to the Internet since the BYOA is not topologically
routable in the Internet. In addition, a vehicle configured with a correct, that is, not routable in the Internet. In addition, a
BYOA needs a tunnel home (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to the Internet, vehicle configured with a BYOA needs a tunnel home (e.g., IP-RSU)
and the vehicle needs to know which neighboring vehicle is reachable connected to the Internet, and the vehicle needs to know which
inside the VANET toward the tunnel home. There is nonnegligible neighboring vehicle is reachable inside the VANET toward the tunnel
control overhead to set up and maintain routes to such a tunnel home home. There is nonnegligible control overhead to set up and maintain
over the VANET. routes to such a tunnel home [RFC4888] over the VANET.
For the case of a multihomed network, a vehicle can follow the first- For the case of a multihomed network, a vehicle can follow the first-
hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. For example, an hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. For example, an
IP-OBU inside a vehicle may connect to an IP-RSU that has multiple IP-OBU inside a vehicle may connect to an IP-RSU that has multiple
routers behind. In this scenario, because the IP-OBU can have routers behind. In this scenario, because the IP-OBU can have
multiple prefixes from those routers, the default router selection, multiple prefixes from those routers, the default router selection,
source address selection, and packet redirect process should follow source address selection, and packet redirect process should follow
the guidelines in [RFC8028]. That is, the vehicle should select its the guidelines in [RFC8028]. That is, the vehicle should select its
default router for each prefix by preferring the router that default router for each prefix by preferring the router that
advertised the prefix. advertised the prefix.
Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent
for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 [RFC5213], for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275], PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and
so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the mobility NEMO [RFC3963], so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the
information of vehicles for location management. IP tunneling over mobility information of vehicles for location management. Also, in
the wireless link should be avoided for performance efficiency. vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and must be
Also, in vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and considered for wireless communications such as V2V and V2I.
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
skipping to change at page 31, line 30 skipping to change at page 31, line 29
only authenticated nodes (i.e., vehicle and infrastructure node) can only authenticated nodes (i.e., vehicle and infrastructure node) can
participate in vehicular networks. Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g., 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. Note that when driver/passenger's mobile devices are
connected to a vehicle's internal network, the vehicle may be more
vulnerable to possible attacks from external networks.
For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between
a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e., a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e.,
IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2 IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 2
[RFC4301][RFC4302] [RFC4303][RFC4308] [RFC7296]. Also, for secure [RFC4301][RFC4302] [RFC4303][RFC4308] [RFC7296]. Also, for secure
V2V communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile V2V communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile
router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU)
in another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3. in another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3.
For secure communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an in- For secure communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an in-
vehicle device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to vehicle device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to
establish a secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in establish a secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in
another vehicle or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a another vehicle or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a
server). IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for server). IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for
applications and management messages, but this WAVE specification is applications and management messages, but this WAVE specification is
optional. Thus, if the link layer does not support the security of a optional. Thus, if the link layer does not support the security of a
WAVE frame, either the network layer or the transport layer needs to WAVE frame, either the network layer or the transport layer needs to
support security services for the WAVE frames. support security services for the WAVE frames.
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery
For the classical IPv6 ND, the DAD is required to ensure the For the classical IPv6 ND, DAD is required to ensure the uniqueness
uniqueness of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface. of the IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface. This DAD can
This DAD can be used as a flooding attack that uses the DAD-related be used as a flooding attack that uses the DAD-related ND packets
ND packets disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. [RFC6959]
[RFC6959] introduces threats enabled by IP source address spoofing. introduces threats enabled by IP source address spoofing. This
This possibility indicates that vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter possibility indicates that vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out
out suspicious ND traffic in advance. [RFC8928] introduces a suspicious ND traffic in advance. [RFC8928] introduces a mechanism
mechanism that protects the ownership of an address for 6loWPAN ND that protects the ownership of an address for 6loWPAN ND from address
from address theft and impersonation attacks. Based on the SEND theft and impersonation attacks. Based on the SEND [RFC3971]
[RFC3971] mechanism, the authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) mechanism, the authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) can be
can be conducted by only selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification conducted by only selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification path
path toward trusted parties. For authenticating other vehicles, the toward trusted parties. For authenticating other vehicles, the
cryptographically generated address (CGA) can be used to verify 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 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 option in the ND protocols. For a general protection of the ND
mechanism, the RSA Signature ND option can also be used to protect mechanism, the RSA Signature ND option can also be used to protect
the integrity of the messages by public key signatures. For a more the integrity of the messages by public key signatures. For a more
advanced authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based advanced authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based
approach [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. However, for a scenario approach [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. However, for a scenario
where a trustable router or an authentication path cannot be where a trustable router or an authentication path cannot be
obtained, it is desirable to find a solution in which vehicles and obtained, it is desirable to find a solution in which vehicles and
infrastructures can authenticate each other without any support from infrastructures can authenticate each other without any support from
skipping to change at page 33, line 7 skipping to change at page 33, line 7
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. Since cyber security issues in vehicular networks may
cause physical vehicle safety issues, it may be necessary to consider
those physical security concerns when designing protocols in IPWAVE.
To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication
method may be required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a method may be required. A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a
user certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) along with an user certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) along with an
in-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
skipping to change at page 34, line 45 skipping to change at page 35, line 19
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][RFC8981]. updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086][RFC8981].
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. Privacy
concerns for excessively collecting vehicle activities from roadway
operators such as public transportation administrators and private
contractors may also pose threats on violating privacy rights of
vehicles. It might be interesting to find a solution from a
technology point of view along with public policy development for the
issue.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions. This document does not require any IANA actions.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link [RFC3626] Clausen, T., Ed. and P. Jacquet, Ed., "Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3626, October 2003,
skipping to change at page 36, line 27 skipping to change at page 37, line 10
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", RFC 4885, DOI 10.17487/RFC4885, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4885>.
[RFC4888] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network
Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4888, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4888>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley, [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>.
[RFC5614] Ogier, R. and P. Spagnolo, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS)
Flooding", RFC 5614, DOI 10.17487/RFC5614, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5614>.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing [RFC5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing
Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC5889, Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC5889,
September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5889>. September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5889>.
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
skipping to change at page 37, line 46 skipping to change at page 38, line 46
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined [RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014, Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014, RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7188, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7188>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. [RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014, Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
skipping to change at page 38, line 26 skipping to change at page 39, line 21
CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>.
[RFC7466] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "An Optimization for the [RFC7466] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "An Optimization for the
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery
Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 7466, DOI 10.17487/RFC7466, March Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 7466, DOI 10.17487/RFC7466, March
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7466>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7466>.
[RFC7722] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for
the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2
(OLSRv2)", RFC 7722, DOI 10.17487/RFC7722, December 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7779, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7779>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by [RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8218] Yi, J. and B. Parrein, "Multipath Extension for the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)",
RFC 8218, DOI 10.17487/RFC8218, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8218>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[RFC8629] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange [RFC8629] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension", RFC 8629, Protocol (DLEP) Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension", RFC 8629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8629, July 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8629, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8629>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8629>.
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.
[RFC8691] Benamar, N., Härri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic [RFC8691] Benamar, N., Härri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic
Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of
a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691, a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8691, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8691, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8691>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8691>.
[RFC8703] Taylor, R. and S. Ratliff, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol
(DLEP) Link Identifier Extension", RFC 8703,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8703, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8703>.
[RFC8757] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange [RFC8757] Cheng, B. and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension", RFC 8757, Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension", RFC 8757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8757, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8757, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8757>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8757>.
[RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, [RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
"Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>. 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>.
skipping to change at page 40, line 18 skipping to change at page 40, line 34
DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>.
[RFC9119] Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC. [RFC9119] Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC.
Zúñiga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless Zúñiga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
Media", RFC 9119, DOI 10.17487/RFC9119, October 2021, Media", RFC 9119, DOI 10.17487/RFC9119, October 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9119>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC6959] McPherson, D., Baker, F., and J. Halpern, "Source Address [RFC6959] McPherson, D., Baker, F., and J. Halpern, "Source Address
Validation Improvement (SAVI) Threat Scope", RFC 6959, Validation Improvement (SAVI) Threat Scope", RFC 6959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6959, May 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6959, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6959>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6959>.
[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-ippl] [I-D.ietf-intarea-ippl]
Nordmark, E., "IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned Nordmark, E., "IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned
Links", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- Links", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
intarea-ippl-00, 30 March 2017, intarea-ippl-00, 30 March 2017,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-ippl- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-ippl-
00.txt>. 00.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-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)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020, rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-36.txt>. rfc6830bis-36.txt>.
[I-D.templin-6man-aero] [I-D.templin-6man-aero]
Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin- (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
6man-aero-38, 31 December 2021, 6man-aero-40, 7 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero-
38.txt>. 40.txt>.
[I-D.templin-6man-omni] [I-D.templin-6man-omni]
Templin, F. L. and T. Whyman, "Transmission of IP Packets Templin, F. L., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay
over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress,
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-52, 31 Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-55, 7 March 2022,
December 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-omni-
templin-6man-omni-52.txt>. 55.txt>.
[I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its] [I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its]
Templin, F. L., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for Templin, F. L., "Urban Air Mobility Implications for
Intelligent Transportation Systems", Work in Progress, Intelligent Transportation Systems", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-ipwave-uam-its-04, 4 January Internet-Draft, draft-templin-ipwave-uam-its-04, 4 January
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin- 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-
ipwave-uam-its-04.txt>. ipwave-uam-its-04.txt>.
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels]
Templin, F. L., "IP Parcels", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-templin-intarea-parcels-09, 10 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-intarea-
parcels-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp] [I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp]
Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S., Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S.,
Moses, D., and C. E. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding Moses, D., and C. E. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding
Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM", Work in Progress, Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14, 22 September Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-14, 22 September
2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc- 2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-
cpdp-14.txt>. cpdp-14.txt>.
[I-D.thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless] [I-D.thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless]
Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless
skipping to change at page 44, line 9 skipping to change at page 44, line 50
[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:
https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and- https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-
automated-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2022. automated-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2022.
[FirstNet] U.S. National Telecommunications and Information [FirstNet] U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet)", Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2022. (FirstNet)", Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2022.
[PSCE] European Commission, "Public Safety Communications Europe
(PSCE)", Available: https://www.psc-europe.eu/, 2022.
[FirstNet-Report] [FirstNet-Report]
First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT
TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband
Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017. Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017.
[SignalGuru] [SignalGuru]
Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru: Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru:
Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal
Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011. Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011.
skipping to change at page 44, line 41 skipping to change at page 45, line 37
[NHTSA-ACAS-Report] [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
"Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems "Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
(ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000. (ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.
[CBDN] Kim, J., Kim, S., Jeong, J., Kim, H., Park, J., and T. [CBDN] Kim, J., Kim, S., Jeong, J., Kim, H., Park, J., and T.
Kim, "CBDN: Cloud-Based Drone Navigation for Efficient Kim, "CBDN: Cloud-Based Drone Navigation for Efficient
Battery Charging in Drone Networks", IEEE Transactions on Battery Charging in Drone Networks", IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, November 2019. Intelligent Transportation Systems, November 2019.
[LIFS] Wang, J., Xiong, J., Jiang, H., Jamieson, K., Chen, X.,
Fang, D., and C. Wang, "Low Human-Effort, Device-Free
Localization with Fine-Grained Subcarrier Information",
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, November 2018.
[DFC] Jeong, J., Shen, Y., Kim, S., Choe, D., Lee, K., and Y.
Kim, "DFC: Device-free human counting through WiFi fine-
grained subcarrier information", IET Communications,
January 2021.
[In-Car-Network] [In-Car-Network]
Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a
Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time
Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference
(DAC), June 2011. (DAC), June 2011.
[Scrambler-Attack] [Scrambler-Attack]
Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff, Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff,
"The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on "The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on
Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015 Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015
skipping to change at page 45, line 17 skipping to change at page 46, line 24
[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.
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V
Vehicular networks may consist of multiple radio technologies such as Vehicular networks may consist of multiple radio technologies such as
DSRC and 5G V2X. Although a Layer-2 solution can provide a support DSRC and 5G V2X. Although a Layer-2 solution can provide support for
for multihop communications in vehicular networks, the scalability multihop communications in vehicular networks, the scalability issue
issue related to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need related to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need to
to disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away destinations. disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away destinations. In
In addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer protocol
protocol can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC protocols, such as
protocols, such as DSRC and 5G V2X. Therefore, the existing IPv6 DSRC and 5G V2X. Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be
protocol can be augmented through the addition of a virtual interface augmented through the addition of a virtual interface (e.g., OMNI
(e.g., Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface [I-D.templin-6man-omni] and DLEP [RFC8175]) and/or protocol changes
[I-D.templin-6man-omni]) and/or protocol changes in order to support in order to support both wireless single-hop/multihop V2V
both wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and multiple communications and multiple radio technologies in vehicular networks.
radio technologies in vehicular networks. In such a way, vehicles In such a way, vehicles can communicate with each other by V2V
can communicate with each other by V2V communications to share either communications to share either an emergency situation or road hazard
an emergency situation or road hazard information in a highway having information in a highway having multiple kinds of radio technologies.
multiple kinds of radio technologies.
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking
The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay
Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-6man-omni].
RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks
(LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building (LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building
automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It
skipping to change at page 47, line 21 skipping to change at page 48, line 16
Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces
governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports
multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding
hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports
multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure
access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface
supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications
use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD
Messaging. Messaging.
In OMNI protocol, each wireless media interface is configured with an
IPv6 Unique Local Address (ULA) [RFC4193] that is assured unique
within the vehicular network according to AERO/OMNI and [RFC5889].
The ULA supports both V2V and V2I multihop forwarding within the
vehicular network (e.g., via a VANET routing protocol) while each
vehicle can communicate with Internet correspondents using global
IPv6 addresses via OMNI interface encapsulation over the wireless
interface.
For the control traffic overhead for running both vehicular ND and a
VANET routing protocol, the AERO/OMNI approach may avoid this issue
by using MANET routing protocols only (i.e., no multicast of IPv6 ND
messaging) in the wireless underlay network while applying efficient
unicast IPv6 ND messaging in the OMNI overlay on an as-needed basis
for router discovery and NUD. This greatly reduces the overhead for
VANET-wide multicasting while providing agile accommodation for
dynamic topology changes.
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I
The seamless application communication between two vehicles or The seamless application communication between two vehicles or
between a vehicle and an infrastructure node requires mobility between a vehicle and an infrastructure node requires mobility
management in vehicular networks. The mobility management schemes management in vehicular networks. The mobility management schemes
include a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, include a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme,
and software-defined networking scheme. and software-defined networking scheme.
In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a
role of a home agent. On the other hand, in the network-based role of a home agent. On the other hand, in the network-based
skipping to change at page 48, line 25 skipping to change at page 49, line 37
mobility management system, can manage the separation of data-plane mobility management system, can manage the separation of data-plane
and control-plane in DMM. In SDN, the control plane and data plane and control-plane in DMM. In SDN, the control plane and data plane
are separated for the efficient management of forwarding elements are separated for the efficient management of forwarding elements
(e.g., switches and routers) where an SDN controller configures the (e.g., switches and routers) where an SDN controller configures the
forwarding elements in a centralized way and they perform packet forwarding elements in a centralized way and they perform packet
forwarding according to their forwarding tables that are configured forwarding according to their forwarding tables that are configured
by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN controller needs to by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN controller needs to
efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and vehicles for efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and vehicles for
mobility management, location management, and security services. mobility management, location management, and security services.
Appendix D. Acknowledgments Appendix D. Support of MTU Diversity for IP-based Vehicular Networks
The wireless and/or wired-line links in paths between both mobile
nodes and fixed network correspondents may configure a variety of
Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs), where all IPv6 links are required
to support a minimum MTU of 1280 octets and may support larger MTUs.
Unfortunately, determining the path MTU (i.e., the minimum link MTU
in the path) has proven to be inefficient and unreliable due to the
uncertain nature of the loss-oriented ICMPv6 messaging service used
for path MTU discovery. Recent developments have produced a more
reliable path MTU determination service for TCP [RFC4821] and UDP
[RFC8899] however the MTUs discovered are always limited by the most
restrictive link MTU in the path (often 1500 octets or smaller).
The AERO/OMNI service addresses the MTU issue by introducing a new
layer in the Internet architecture known as the "OMNI Adaptation
Layer (OAL)". The OAL allows end systems that configure an OMNI
interface to utilize a full 65535 octet MTU by leveraging the IPv6
fragmentation and reassembly service during encapsulation to produce
fragment sizes that are assured of traversing the path without loss
due to a size restriction. (This allows end systems to send packets
that are often much larger than the actual path MTU.)
Performance studies over the course of many decades have proven that
applications will see greater performance by sending smaller numbers
of large packets (as opposed to larger numbers of small packets) even
if fragmentation is needed. The OAL further supports even larger
packet sizes through the IP Parcels construct
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels] which provides "packets-in-packet"
encapsulation for a total size up to 4MB. Together, the OAL and IP
Parcels will provide a revolutionary new capability for greater
efficiency in both mobile and fixed networks.
Appendix E. 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-
2021-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP. 2021-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP.
skipping to change at page 49, line 5 skipping to change at page 51, line 5
Technology). Technology).
This work was supported in part by the French research project This work was supported in part by the French research project
DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded
by the European Commission I (636537-H2020). by the European Commission I (636537-H2020).
This work was supported in part by the Cisco University Research This work was supported in part by the Cisco University Research
Program Fund, Grant # 2019-199458 (3696), and by ANID Chile Basal Program Fund, Grant # 2019-199458 (3696), and by ANID Chile Basal
Project FB0008. Project FB0008.
Appendix E. Contributors Appendix F. 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),
 End of changes. 80 change blocks. 
289 lines changed or deleted 400 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/