Subject: [its] n-hop routing protocols for vehicular communications - MANET

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:20 +0100

Hello ITS participants,

While working on Charter Proposal we are distinguishing between 1-hop
V2V communications (a single subnet between several vehicles), and n-hop
communications (vehicle-to-vehicle-to-vehicle, each time a different
subnet between vehicles).

I would like to ask participants whether there is interest in n-hop
routing protocols for vehicular communications.

Is work needed on MANET protocols for this?

Are there special requirements for this? (i.e. a case where a MANET
protocol is not sufficient for n-hop vehicular communications).

Yours,

Alex

---

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:11:37 -0400

Hello all,

IMHO, n-hop routing protocols (based on MANET) are not much needed to be
discussed at least at this moment.

One-hop IP communications for ITS seem enough to be studied in the first
stage at the IETF. For instance, in EU, a combination of IPv6 and
Geonetworking (i.e., a special designed protocol for vehicular
communications that support one-hop and n-hop routing based on geographical
information taken from GPS) has been specified at the ETSI ITS TC and
tested at the FP7 project, GeoNet. IPv6 packets over Geonetworking are
delivered in a manner of one-hop and n-hop while utilizing geographical
information. For instance, IPv6 packets are sent to multiple receivers in a
specific geographical area. It make that from the view point of IPv6, it is
one-hop, but it is actually n-hops as the IPv6 packets are forwarded as
many as needed to reach to the destination.

In this way, routing performance is better and the n-hop topology maintain
cost is removed.

Cheers.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> communications (vehicle-to-vehicle-to-**vehicle, each time a different
> ______________________________**_________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>

-- 
RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:29:12 +0100

Hi Alex,

I don't think MANET WG has considered the use-case of ITS WG as we
stated in our charter, and I don't think they will recharter either
because they still not completed the two standards required for them
(I am an active participant in MANET WG). This MANET WG still not
defined its subnets, which is important for ITS WG and I tried with
that WG, but they want to postpone, or they think it is dangerous (as
they mentioned twice).

IMHO, the ITS should consider 1-hop and n-hops data-transports, but
for different purposes from other IETF-WGs. For example in RFC6130
protocols the 1-hop and 2-hop of nieghbors is considered for route
discovery. I think in the ITS we may include transport-service
discovery of nieghbors. In MANET the routing n-hops are all
infrastructure-less but in ITS may involve both. In MANET-WG routings
always assumes that all Router Machines (i.e. as we are taliking M2M)
have the same MANET-routing protocol, in ITS-WG we need to assume that
all Router Machines have the proposed ITS protocol.

In addition, to make the steps simple in works we may start with the
1-hop for infrastructure and 1-hop for infrastructureless, but then we
make n-hop. Alex, I would like to know your opinion as well,

Abdussalam Baryun
university of Glamorgan, UK

On 3/13/13, Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:00:21 +0100

> Is work needed on MANET protocols for this?

Yes, I recommend the use of DSRv2 which I am trying to complete. The
AODVv2 is also an option,

> protocol is not sufficient for n-hop vehicular communications).

as long as the MANET WG don't want to consider defining L2
technologies used then I think will not be sufficient. I will update
my draft that was about defining MANET subnets and to including v2v
technology.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-technology-00.txt

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:51:09 +0100

Do you mean GeoNet in layer 2 or layer 3 tested at FP7 project, is
there reference?

AB

---

From: Manabu Tsukada <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:33:37 +0100

Hi Abdussalam,

GeoNetworking is in layer 3, however it also works as sub-layer from IPv6 point of view. We call it as IPv6 GeoNetworking (GN6). IP packet is encapsulated by GeoNetworking header. 

GN6 adaptation sub-layer (GN6ASL) provides GeoNetworking layer interface to IPv6. In our Linux implementation (http://www.cargeo6.org/), the GeoNetworking interface is shown like Ethernet Type (like eth0). Thus the IP layer protocols works on top of GeoNetworking. 

The GeoNet project (FP7) finished in 2010. The specification and evaluation are available here. http://www.geonet-project.eu/.  

However, we should discuss based on ETSI GeoNetworking standards in 2013. 
 - GeoNetworking (ETSI-TS-102-636-4-1, ETSI-TS-102-636-4-2, ETSI-TS-102-636-5-1) 
 - IPv6 GeoNetworking (ETSI-TS-102-636-6-1)

The result of GeoNet project (FP7) and ETSI GeoNetworking has similar concept but it is not exactly same as protocols. 

Regards,
Manabu

>>> protocol is not sufficient for n-hop vehicular communications).

---
Manabu TSUKADA <[email-masked]>
INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt France - Project Team IMARA