Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REGULAR PAPER
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 December 2013
Accepted 7 July 2015
Keywords:
Vehicular network
IPv6
Road domain
Road segment
Cluster
a b s t r a c t
This paper proposes a cross-layer mobility handover scheme for IPv6-based vehicular networks. In this
scheme, the architecture for vehicular networks is proposed and it is made up of three hierarchies including road domains, road segments and clusters. A vehicular network is made up of multiple road domains,
a road domain consists of multiple road segments, and a road segment includes multiple clusters. Based
on this architecture, the cluster generation algorithm based on the link duration time is proposed, and
the cross-layer mobility handover algorithm is presented. In the handover algorithm, the handover in
the network layer (L3) is launched before the one in the link layer (L2). Through the L3 handover process
the information on the L2 handover can be acquired in order to achieve the fast L2 handover. Moreover,
during the L3 handover process, a vehicle does not need to be congured with a care-of address, so the
L3 handover delay and packet loss are reduced. The performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated,
and the data results show that this scheme shortens the handover delay and lowers the packet loss rate.
2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
With the technology development of vehicular networks and
the emergence of new applications, it is necessary to connect vehicular networks to the Internet in order to meet users demands for
new applications [1,2]. These applications require vehicular networks to support seamless wireless Internet services in vehicles
with high speed [3].
In wireless networks, the total handover is made up of the L2
handover and L3 handover. In the L2 handover, the channel scanning is time-consuming, and it is a main factor inuencing the
handover delay [4]. In the L3 handover, the care-of address conguration occupies a large proportion of the L3 handover delay. The
L3 handover standards such as mobile Internet protocol version 6
(MIPv6) [5] are typically applied in the wired networks. When these
protocols are applied in wireless networks, they cannot work efciently due to high packet loss and long delay [6]. Moreover, these
L3 handover protocols are totally separated from the L2 handover
ones, and they do not help improve the L2 handover performance.
In order to shorten the total handover delay and lower the
packet loss, this paper proposes a cross-layer mobility handover
scheme for vehicular networks. The main goal of this scheme is to
2. Related work
In wireless networks, two kinds of handovers are included,
namely the L2 handover and L3 handover.
2.1. L2 handover
In the L2 handover, the channel scanning is time-consuming,
and it is a main factor inuencing the handover delay [4]. Therefore,
the L2 handover schemes focus on reducing the scanning delay.
Chiu et al. [7] propose a fast handover scheme where the information on the physical layer is shared with the link layer in order to
reduce the handover delay. This scheme operates based on mobile
multi-hop relay technique that allows inter-vehicle communications to access the Internet via a relay vehicle. In Ref. [8], the
channels usually used by access points are selected in order to avoid
the full scanning process and reduce the scanning delay.
In Refs. [9,10], a mobile node rst performs the full pre-scanning
process in order to get the information on all neighbor access points.
Based on the information, the mobile node selects the best access
point to perform the L2 handover. The data results show that the
L2 handover delay is reduced to some extent.
2.2. L3 handover
The L3 handover standards such as MIPv6 [5] are typically
applied in wired networks. When these protocols are applied in
wireless networks, they cannot work efciently due to high packet
loss and long delay [6].
Islam and Huh [11] propose the sensor PMIPv6 (SPMIPv6).
SPMIPv6 presents the network architecture and message formats
for the mobility handover process, and it also evaluates the mobility
handover cost. The results show that SPMIPv6 reduces the mobility handover cost signicantly. In Ref. [12], the mobility handover
process is achieved in the link layer, so the mobility handover delay
and cost are reduced.
Bag et al. [13] propose a scheme which reduces both the mobility
handover cost and tunnel establishment cost. This scheme depends
on dispatch types to determine source or destination of a packet. As
a result, intermediate nodes forwarding a packet have to identify
all dispatch types in order to determine the next hop, so the delay
is increased and the network scalability is also limited. Moreover,
a header structure is added between the adaptation layer and the
network layer, so the transmission delay is increased.
Denko and Wei [14] propose a mobility management scheme for
integrating MANETs into the Internet using multiple mobile gateway (MGs) and foreign agents (FAs). This scheme extends the ad hoc
on demand distance vector (AODV) and MIP to achieve the integration. The simulation results show that the use of both multiple MGs
and the hybrid gate discovery mechanism enhances the network
performance. Fan et al. [15] provide the localized mobility management scheme in mesh networks which uses the multi-path routing
to achieve the mobility handover. However, this scheme requires
some special signaling costs to deal with mobile terminals, so the
delay is prolonged to some extent.
Lee et al. [16] use an intermediate-mobile access gateway
(iMAG) to perform the mobility handover for vehicular networks.
iMAG must be geographically located between the home domain
and foreign domain, so this scheme cannot support the global
mobility management. In addition, iMAG must store the information on all road-side units, and maintaining the information
consumes a lot of network resources.
In Ref. [17], clusters are employed to improve the mobility handover performance. In this scheme, cluster heads are in charge of IP
mobility for other vehicles. Wang and Qian [18] propose a mobility handover scheme for IPv6-based vehicular networks, and this
1515
scheme improves the handover performance to some extent. However, this scheme does not use the information in the link layer to
shorten the handover delay.
Kim et al. [19] propose an enhanced PFMIPv6 (ePFMIPv6) for
vehicular networks. In ePFMIPv6, the serving MAG pre-establishes
a tunnel with multiple candidate MAGs. When the serving MAG
performs the mobility handover, it can forward the packets to the
next MAG. ePFMIPv6 shortens the mobility handover delay and
lowers the packet loss, but it increases the mobility handover cost.
In the above L3 handover schemes, a mobile node needs to be
congured with a care-of address. These schemes do not address
how to reduce the care-of address conguration delay although the
care-of address conguration delay occupies a large proportion of
the L3 handover delay.
1516
Tij =
(1)
where
a = vi cos i vj cos j
b = xi xj
c = vi sin i vj sin j
d = yi yj
Fig. 1. Architecture.
Table 1
IPv6 address structure.
(128-i-j) bits
i bits
j bits
RD ID
RS ID
Vehicle ID
In this scheme, a base station stores the geographical coordinates and working channels of its neighbor base stations, and a CH
periodically broadcasts a DSRC message whose payload includes
the mobile angle, speed and geographic coordinate. The work in
Ref. [23] has shown that a node can determine the neighbor node
with the best communication performance via listening to a DSRC
message from its neighbors. This scheme adopts the method in Ref.
[23] to determine the next RS where a CH is entering. It is assumed
that the CH C1 is located in the RS S1 which is identied by the
base station B1. Then, B1 can acquire C1s mobile angle, speed and
geographic coordinate through receiving a DSRC message from C1.
If B1 detects that C1 is leaving its communication range, then it
calculates the link duration time between C1 and its neighbor base
stations according to formula (1) and selects as C1s next base station the base station B2 with the largest link duration time. That is,
the RS identied by B2 is C1s next RS.
3.4.1. CH inter-RS handover
If B1 and B2 belong to one RD where the AR is R1, then B1
launches the following operations:
1) B1 sends R1 a Handover message whose payload is the addresses
of C1 and B2.
2) After R1 receives the Handover message, it updates C1s associate base station with B2 and returns a Handover-Ack message
to B1.
3) After B1 receives the Handover-Ack message, it sends C1 a Handover message whose payload is B2s working channel.
4) After C1 receives the Handover message, it uses B2s working
channel to directly switch to B2 and begins to receive the data
messages from B2, as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b).
In Fig. 2(a) and (b), at the time T1, C1 is leaving B1s communication range and entering the next RS identied by B2, R1 stores the
associate relationship between C1 and B1, and B1 launches the CH
inter-RS handover by sending a Handover message. At the time T2,
C1 switches to B2 and R1 stores the associate relationship between
C1 and B2. At this stage, the CH inter-RS handover process ends.
3.4.2. CH inter-RD handover
If B1 belongs to the RD where the AR is R1 and B2 belongs to the
RD where the AR is R2, then B1 launches the following operations:
1) B1 sends R2 a Handover message whose payload is the addresses
of C1 and B2.
2) After R2 receives the Handover message, it can determine
that B1 belongs to the different RD by checking B1s address.
1517
1518
1519
In Fig. 5(a) and (b), at the time T1, M1 is leaving C1s communication range and entering the next cluster identied by C2, R1
and B1 store the associate relationship between M1 and C1, and C1
launches the CM inter-RS handover by sending a Handover message. At the time T2, M1 switches to C2 and marks C2 as its CH, and
In Fig. 6(a) and (b), at the time T1, M1 is leaving C1s communication range and entering the next cluster identied by C2, R1
and B1 store the associate relationship between M1 and C1, and C1
launches the CM inter-RD handover by sending a Handover message. At the time T2, M1 switches to C2 and marks C2 as its CH, and
1520
4. Analysis
4.1. Handover delay
4.1.1. CH handover delay
Based on Fig. 2(b), the CH inter-RS mobility handover delay
TCH-RS is made up of the L3 handover delay TL3-CH-RS and the L2
handover delay TL2 , as shown in Eq. (2) where tHandover /tHandover-Ack
is the delay of transmitting a Handover/Handover-Ack message
between two neighbor nodes, DAR-BS is the distance between an
AR and a base station in the same RD, and DBS-CH is the distance
between a base station and a CH in the same RS.
TCH-RS = TL3-CH-RS + TL2
where
TL3-CH-RS = tHandover DAR-BS + tHandover-Ack DAR-BS
(3)
(4)
+ tHandover DCH-CM
Based on Fig. 5(b), the CM inter-RS mobility handover delay
TCM-RS consists of the L3 handover delay TL3-CM-RS and the L2 handover delay TL2 , as shown in Eq. (5).
TCM-RS = TL3-CM-RS + TL2
(2)
+ tHandover DBS-CH
Based on Fig. 3(b), the CH inter-RD mobility handover delay
TCH-RD is made up of the L3 handover delay TL3-CH-RD and the
L2 handover delay TL2 , as shown in Eq. (3) where DAR-HR is the
where
TL3-CM-RS = (tHandover + tHandover-Ack ) DAR-BS
(5)
(6)
2r
0
(7)
gCH (xy)p1 (y)dy
(8)
PCH-RD =
(9)
(10)
PCM-RS =
(12)
1521
Table 2
Simulation parameters.
Parameters
Values
1030 m/s
25 ms
12 km
200300 m
5 ms
1
4
10
0.95
500 s
TL2
R
r
tHandover /tHandover-Ack
DAR-BS /DBS-CH /DCH-CM
DAR-HR /DAR-DR
Rounds
Condence level
Simulation time
PCM-RD
=
p2 (x)
(13)
Based on Eqs. (14) and (15) [26], PCH-RS , PCH-RD , PCM-CH , PCM-RS
and PCM-RD can be evaluated.
gBS (x) =
0; otherwise
gCH (x) =
1; x R
1; x r
0; otherwise
(14)
(15)
5. Simulation
NS-2 is used to evaluate the performance of the proposed
scheme. In this scheme, the link protocol adopts the IEEE 802.11p
standard which is dened by Ref. [27], so the simulation parameters
are set based on Ref. [27], as shown in Table 2. In the simulation,
after a node starts it periodically broadcasts a BasicSafetyMessage
at a rate of every 100 ms. The average speed of a vehicle ranges
from 10 m/s to 30 m/s, and the L2 handover delay is set to 25 ms.
The average data of 10 simulation rounds are used to evaluate the
handover delay and packet loss rate, and the simulation time for
one round is 500 s. The trafc model follows Poisson distribution.
In Poisson process, the number of events in a given interval follows
Poisson distribution [28,29]. In the trafc model, Poisson process is
used to describe the arrivals of vehicles in a given interval. That is,
in a given period the number of vehicles arriving follows Poisson
distribution.
5.1. The effect of speed
5.1.1. The effect of speed on CH
When R is 1 km, the CH handover delay and packet loss rate
based on speed are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
With the increase in speed, the frequency of a CH performing the
inter-RS/inter-RD mobility handover increases and the link stability weakens, so both the network trafc and the packet loss rate
grow, as shown in Fig. 8. Since the retransmission of the lost packets causes the extra delay, there is a slight increment in the delay,
as shown in Fig. 7. From Figs. 7 and 8, it can be seen that both the
inter-RS handover delay and packet loss rate are lower than the
inter-RD ones.
5.1.2. The effect of speed on CM
When r is 250 m, the CM handover delay and packet loss rate
based on speed are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
1522
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
120
100
100
80
Delay(ms)
Delay(ms)
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
10
15
20
25
30
Speed(m/s)
1000
1200
1400
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
1600
1800
2000
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
5
4
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
Loss rate()
Loss rate()
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
2
1
0
10
15
20
25
1.5
1
0.5
30
Speed(m/s)
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Intra-RS-Ana
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
Intra-RS-Sim
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
100
Delay(ms)
80
60
40
20
0
10
15
20
25
30
Speed(m/s)
Fig. 9. CM handover delay based on speed.
Intra-RS-Ana
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
Intra-RS-Sim
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
10
8
Loss rate()
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
Speed(m/s)
Fig. 10. CM packet loss rate based on speed.
30
Intra-RS-Ana
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
120
Intra-RS-Sim
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
Proposed
Standard
ePFM IPv6
90
80
Delay(ms)
100
Delay(ms)
1523
80
60
70
60
40
50
20
20
0
200
225
250
275
22
24
26
28
30
Speed(m/s)
300
r
Fig. 13. CM handover delay based on r.
Proposed
Standard
ePFM IPv6
Intra-RS-Ana
Inter-RS-Ana
Inter-RD-Ana
Intra-RS-Sim
Inter-RS-Sim
Inter-RD-Sim
10
Loss rate()
8
6
4
Loss rate(%)
8
6
4
2
0
20
22
24
26
28
30
Speed(m/s)
0
200
225
250
275
300
5.3. Comparison
From Fig. 7 to Fig. 14, it can be seen that the delay and packet loss
rate in the simulation do not totally match the ones in the analysis,
and the main reasons are analyzed as follows:
1524
Proposed
Standard
ePFM IPv6
100
Delay(ms)
90
80
References
70
60
50
200
225
250
275
300
r
Fig. 17. Delay comparison based on communication range.
Proposed
Standard
ePFM IPv6
4
3
Loss rate(%)
Acknowledgements
2
1
0
200
225
250
275
300
r
Fig. 18. Loss rate comparison based on communication range.
From Fig. 15 to Fig. 18, it can be seen that the proposed scheme
has better performance than the standard and ePFMIPv6. In the
standard and ePMIPv6, a vehicle needs to be congured with a
new care-of address, so the frequent change of a vehicles address
increases the packet loss rate. In addition, a vehicle needs to scan
all channels to achieve the L2 handover, so the total handover delay
and packet loss rate grow. In the proposed scheme, the L3 handover
is performed before the L2 one. Through the L3 handover process, a
vehicle can achieve the L2 handover without scanning all channels,
so the L2 handover delay is shortened and the packet loss rate is
lowered. Moreover, during the L3 handover process, a vehicle does
not need to be congured with a care-of address, so the handover
delay in L3 is reduced and the packet loss is decreased.
6. Conclusion
This paper proposes a cross-layer mobility handover scheme for
IPv6-based vehicular networks. In this scheme, the L3 handover is
performed before the L2 one, and through the L3 handover process
a vehicle can achieve the fast L2 handover. Moreover, during the L3
handover process, a vehicle does not need to be congured with a
care-of address.
The performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated and the
data results show that this scheme improves the handover performance.
[1] IEEE 1609 WG.1609. 3-2010 IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments (WAVE) Networking Services. IEEE Std 1609. 3-2010 (Revision
of IEEE Std 1609.3-2007), 2010.
[2] Gerla M, Kleinrock L. Vehicular networks and the future of the mobile internet.
Comput Netw 2011;55(2):45769.
[3] Park JT, Chun SM. Fast mobility management for delay-sensitive applications
in vehicular networks. Commun Lett IEEE 2011;15(1):313.
[4] Mishra A, Shin M, Arbaugh W. An empirical analysis of the IEEE
802.11 MAC layer handoff process. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev
2003;33(2):93102.
[5] Perkins C, Johnson D, Arkko J. Mobility Support in IPv6. RFC 6275; 2011.
[6] Kun Zhu, Dusit Niyato, Ping Wang, Ekram Hossain, Dong In Kim. Mobility and
handoff management in vehicular networks: a survey. Wirel Commun Mob
Comput 2011;11(4):45976.
[7] Chiu K, Hwang R, Chen Y. Cross-layer design vehicle-assisted handover scheme
in VANETs. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 2011;11(7):91628.
[8] Shin S, Forte AG, Rawat AS, et al. Reducing MAC layer handoff latency in IEEE
802.11 wireless LANs. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on
Mobility management & wireless access protocols. ACM; 2004. p. 1926.
[9] Ramani I, Savage S. SyncScan: practical fast handoff for 802.11 infrastructure
networks. In: INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings IEEE, vol. 1. IEEE; 2005. p.
67584.
[10] Wu H, Tan K, Zhang Y, et al. Proactive scan: Fast handoff with smart triggers for
802.11 wireless LAN. In: INFOCOM 2007. 26th IEEE international conference on
computer communications, IEEE. IEEE; 2007. p. 74957.
[11] Islam MM, Huh EN. Sensor proxy mobile IPv6 (SPMIPv6) a novel scheme for
mobility supported IP-WSNs. Sensors 2011;11(2):186587.
[12] Wang X, Zhong S, Zhou R. A mobility support scheme for 6LoWPAN. Comput
Commun 2012;35(3):392404.
[13] Bag G, Raza MT, Kim KH, et al. LoWMob: intra-PAN mobility support schemes
for 6LoWPAN. Sensors 2009;9(7):584477.
[14] Denko MK, Wei C. A multi-gateway-based architecture for integrating ad hoc
networks with the internet using multiple foreign agents. Int J Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput 2008;3(2):99110.
[15] Fan Y, Zhang J, Shen X. Mobility-aware multi-path forwarding scheme for wireless mesh networks. In: Wireless communications and networking conference,
2008. WCNC 2008. IEEE. IEEE; 2008. p. 233742.
[16] Lee KW, Seo WK, Cho YZ, et al. Inter-domain handover scheme using an intermediate mobile access gateway for seamless service in vehicular networks. Int
J Commun Syst 2010;23(910):112744.
[17] Boukerche A, Zhang Z, Fei X. Reducing handoff latency for NEMO-based vehicular ad hoc networks. In: Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM
2011), 2011 IEEE. IEEE; 2011. p. 15.
[18] Wang X, Qian H. A mobility handover scheme for IPv6-based vehicular ad hoc
networks. Wirel Pers Commun 2013;70(4):184157.
[19] Kim MS, Lee SK, Golmie N. Enhanced fast handover for proxy mobile IPv6 in
vehicular networks. Wirel Netw 2012;18(4):40111.
[20] Wang X, Zhong S. Research on IPv6 address conguration for a VANET. J Parallel
Distrib Comput 2013;73(6):75766.
[21] Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Message Set Dictionary. SAE
J2735; 2009.
[22] Benslimane A, Barghi S, Assi C. An efcient routing protocol for connecting
vehicular networks to the Internet. Pervasive Mob Comput 2011;7(1):98113.
[23] Xiaonan Wang, Huanyan Qian. Constructing a VANET based on cluster chains.
Int J Commun Syst 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dac.2484.
[24] Tan WL, Lau WC, Yue OC, et al. Analytical models and performance evaluation
of drive-thru internet systems. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2011;29(1):20722.
[25] Tonguz OK, Viriyasitavat W, Bai F. Modeling urban trafc: a cellular automata
approach. IEEE Commun Mag 2009;47(5):14250.
[26] Ng SC, Zhang W, Zhang Y, et al. Analysis of access and connectivity probabilities
in vehicular relay networks. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2011;29(1):14050.
[27] 802.11p-2010 IEEE Standard for Information technology Local and
metropolitan area networks Specic requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specications Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments; 2010.
[28] Cannizzaro F, Greco G, Rizzo S, et al. Results of the measurements carried
out in order to verify the validity of the Poisson-exponential distribution in
radioactive decay events. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 1978;29(11):64951.
[29] Frank A. Haight handbook of the Poisson distribution. New York: John Wiley &
Sons; 1967.