Subject: [its] About route exchange and autoconfiguration for vehicles (V2V)

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:04:22 +0200

Participants to the ITS informal meeting,

During the meeting we have seen a number of presentations about which we
should discuss further problem statements (PMIP-bus-passenger,
IP-over-802.11p, DNS for geonetworking, DLEP/modemLPA).  I will list
them separately.  You too, do not hesitate to issue it on this list as
soon as you feel comfortable.

One of the aspects presented I am interested in (not the only) is
the following: V2V (only a few Vs).

In some work we do, we consider a typical vehicle on a highway.  This
has an IP network within with several subnets.  It also has several
"egress" interfaces of different kinds (3G, WiFi), multiple by kind.
This vehicle is able to connect to different types of fixed
infrastructure (not limited to LTE, WiFi, WiFi adhoc, RSU, Iridium)
_and_ to other vehicles directly.

With this picture, there may be a connectivity problem in several
aspects.  One of the aspects we consider more advanced is the use of IP
autoconfiguration mechanisms and IP route exchange directly between
vehicles, or maybe through RSU (just layer2, maybe).

In this picture, the basic problems to be solved would be the following:
- how to auto-configure addresses within the vehicle (ULA? prefix
   obtained from infrastructure? other?)
- how to inform a vehicle about each others' addresses, such that
   direct communication between vehicles is possible?
- existing routing protocols do not typically assign addresses, so
   which pair of routing protocol/address assignment would best fit?

IETF offers a number a tools to achieve this, I am not sure where to
start listing them.

However, the scope of this would be nice to be very limited.  All kinds
of vehicle configurations may not be supported by a single pair of
autoconf mechanism/routing protocol.  It may be possible that only the
very simple network configurations (maybe max. 10 vehicles in a limited
area, constantly in range) could be supported with a new simple
mechanism to be designed.

When I present this I am often asked:
- a vehicle would have almost always a SIM card, so ubiquitous LTE
   connectivity, so why is there any need to use WiFi egress on the
   vehicle?  Could there exist a vehicle without LTE but with WiFi?
- WiFi adhoc mode is too short range and vehicles moving too fast to
   have time to produce attachments.
- how would V2V2V2...2V work? (I dont know, I only mean V2V)
- would this V2V work with "advertisement" billboard vehicles?
- and the classic: would vehicle manufacturers be interested in these
   scenarios?

What do you think?

Alex

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:39 -0700

> the following: V2V (only a few Vs).
Alex, this is how the other half lives.  Over in the (US) emergency
services world, there is a half-century history of land mobile radio,
partially polluted by P25 (European analog is TETRA).  All working in RF
bandwidths of 25kHz or less.  
	But this world is being upset by 'broadband'.  (The term is used in
Congressional legislation, but it's not defined).  This is willy-nilly
heading toward extension of the internet, using LTE as the layer 1/2
protocol of choice for the pylon-to ____ radio-WAN space.  
	The emergency services folks froth about 'talk around' -- their term
for communicating with the terrestrial internet services aren't
available.  In LMR, you commonly shift to 'everybody on the same freq',
which forces you to half-duplex operations.  'Talk around' is just as
bereft of crisp definition as the rest of the terms in this discussion.
But there's clearly an element of ad hoc in the conversation.
	Is this what you're getting at with 'V2V'?  If you get the incessant
firehose of hype, using this year's terms, 'cloud' without the cloud.