vehicular network applications n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Vehicular Network Applications PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Vehicular Network Applications

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 38

Vehicular Network Applications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Vehicular Network Applications. VoIP Web Email Cab scheduling Congestion detection Vehicle platooning Road hazard warning Collision alert Stoplight assistant. Toll collection Deceleration warning Emergency vehicle warning Border clearance Traction updates Flat tire warning

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Vehicular Network Applications' - kay-jensen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
vehicular network applications
Vehicular Network Applications
  • VoIP
  • Web
  • Email
  • Cab scheduling
  • Congestion detection
  • Vehicle platooning
  • Road hazard warning
  • Collision alert
  • Stoplight assistant
  • Toll collection
  • Deceleration warning
  • Emergency vehicle warning
  • Border clearance
  • Traction updates
  • Flat tire warning
  • Merge assistance
congestion detection
Congestion Detection
  • Vehicles detect congestion when:
    • # Vehicles > Threshold 1
    • Speed < Threshold 2
  • Relay congestion information
    • Hop-by-hop message forwarding
    • Other vehicles can choose alternate routes
deceleration warning
Deceleration Warning
  • Prevent pile-ups when a vehicle decelerates rapidly
wireless technologies for vehicular networks
Wireless Technologies for Vehicular Networks
  • Cellular networks
    • High coverage, low bandwidth, expensive
  • WiFi networks
    • Moderate coverage, high bandwidth, free
  • Combine all of them to achieve low cost, high bandwidth, and high coverage

InteractiveWiFi Connectivity from Moving Vehicles

Aruna Balasubramanian, Ratul Mahajan

Arun Venkataramani, Brian N Levine, John Zahorjan

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Microsoft Research

University of Washington

target scenarios
Target Scenarios
  • A car is within the range of multiple APs
    • How common?
  • Low data rate but low delay
    • Alternatives?
  • Given enough coverage, can WiFi technology be used to access mainstream applications from vehicles?
  • Existing work shows
    • the feasibility of WiFi access at vehicular speeds
    • focus on non-interactive applications. e.g., road monitoring


  • Can popular applications be supported using vehicular WiFi today?
    • Performance is poor due to frequent disruptions
  • How can we improve application performance?
    • ViFi, a new handoff protocol that significantly reduces disruptions
  • Does ViFi really improve application performance?
    • VoIP, short TCP transfers
vanlan vehicular testbed
VanLAN: Vehicular Testbed

Uses MS campus vans

Base stations(BSes) are deployed on roadside buildings

Currently 2 vans, 11 BSes

measurement study
Measurement study
  • Study application performance in vehicular WiFi setting
    • Focus on basic connectivity
  • Study performance of different handoff policies
  • Trace-driven analysis
    • Nodes send periodic packets and log receptions
handoff policies studied
Handoff policies studied
  • Practical hard handoff
    • Associate with one BS
    • Current 802.11
  • Ideal hard handoff
    • Use future knowledge
    • Impractical
handoff policies studied1
Handoff policies studied
  • Practical hard handoff
    • Associate with one BS
    • Current 802.11
  • Ideal hard handoff
    • Use future knowledge
    • Impractical
  • Ideal soft handoff
    • Use all BSes in range
    • Performance upper bound
comparison of handoff policies
Comparison of handoff policies


  • Summary
  • Performance of interactive applications poor when using existing handoff policies
  • Soft handoff policy can decrease disruptions and improve performance of interactive applications

Practical hard handoff

Ideal hard handoff

Ideal soft handoff

  • Can popular applications be accessed using vehicular WiFi?
  • How can we improve application performance?
    • ViFi, a practical diversity-based handoff protocol
  • Does ViFi really improve application performance?
    • VoIP, short TCP transfers
design a practical soft handoff policy
Design a practical soft handoff policy
  • Goal: Leverage multiple BSes in range
    • How often do we have multiple BSes?
    • Not straightforward
  • Constraints in Vehicular WiFi
  • 1. Inter-BS backplane often bandwidth-constrained
  • 2. Interactive applications require timely delivery
  • 3. Fine-grained scheduling of packets difficult


why are existing solutions inadequate
Why are existing solutions inadequate?
  • Opportunistic protocols for WiFi mesh (ExOR, MORE)
    • Uses batching: Not suitable for interactive applications
  • Path diversity protocols for enterprise WLANs (Divert)
    • Assumes BSes are connected through a high speed back plane
  • Soft handoff protocols for cellular (CDMA-based)
    • Packet scheduling at fine time scales
    • Signals can be combined

ViFi protocol set up

  • Vehicle chooses anchor BS
    • Anchor responsible for vehicle’s packets
  • Vehicle chooses a set of BSes in range to be auxiliaries
    • e.g., B, C and D can be chosen as auxiliaries
    • ViFi leverages packets overheard by the auxiliary







ViFi protocol

  • Source transmits a packet
  • If destination receives, it transmits an ack
  • If auxiliary overhears packet but not ack, it probabilistically relays to destination
  • If destination received relay, it transmits an ack
  • If no ack within retransmission interval, source retransmits



Downstream: Anchor to vehicle











Upstream: Vehicle to anchor


Why relaying is effective?

  • Losses are bursty
  • Independence
      • Losses from different senders independent
      • Losses at different receivers independent













Guidelines for probability computation

  • 1. Make a collective relaying decision and limit the total number of relays
  • 2. Give preference to auxiliary with good connectivity with destination
  • How to make a collective decision without per-packet coordination overhead?

Determine the relaying probability

  • Goal: Compute relaying probability RB of auxiliary B
  • Step 1: The probability that auxiliary B is considering relaying
    • CB = P(B heard the packet) . P(B did not hear ack)
  • Step 2: The expected number of relays by B is
    • E(B) = CB¢RB
  • Step 3: Formulate ViFi probability equation,  E(x) = 1
      • to solve uniquely, set RB proportional to P(destination hears B)

Step 4: B estimates P(auxiliary considering relaying) and P(destination heard auxiliary) for each auxiliary

  • ViFi: Practical soft handoff protocol uses probabilistic relaying for coordination without per-packet coordination cost

ViFi Implementation

  • Implemented ViFi in windows operating system
    • Use broadcast transmission at the MAC layer
    • No rate adaptation
  • Deployed ViFi on VanLAN BSes and vehicles
  • Can popular applications be accessed using vehicular WiFi?
    • Due to frequent disruptions, performance is poor
  • How can we improve application performance?
    • ViFi, a practical diversity-based soft handoff protocol
  • Does ViFi really improve application performance?
  • Evaluation based on VanLAN deployment
    • ViFi reduces disruptions
    • ViFi improves application performance
    • ViFi’s probabilistic relaying is efficient
  • Also in the paper: Trace-driven evaluation on DieselNet testbed at UMass, Amherst
    • Results qualitatively consistent
vifi improves voip performance
ViFi improves VoIP performance
  • Use G.729 codec

> 100%



Practical hard


Length of voice call before disruption

Disruption = When mean opinion score (mos) is lower than a threshold

vifi improves performance of short tcp transfers
ViFi improves performance of short TCP transfers
  • Workload: repeatedly download/upload 10KB files

> 50%

> 100%





Number of transfers before disruption

Median transfer time (sec)

Disruption = lack of progress for 10 seconds

vifi uses medium efficiently
ViFi uses medium efficiently
  • Efficiency:
  • Number of unique packets delivered/ Number of packets sent
  • It’s efficient for their testbed, but may not be the case in general. Why?



Practical hard


  • Improves performance of interactive applications for vehicular WiFi networks
    • Interactive applications perform poorly in vehicular settings due to frequent disruptions
    • ViFi, a diversity-based handoff protocol significantly reduces disruptions
    • Experiments on VanLAN shows that ViFi significantly improves performance of VoIP and short TCP transfers
  • Interesting problem domain
  • Target low-bandwidth applications, for which cellular networks are sufficient
  • Have multiple APs within range tuned into the same channel
    • May not be common and lose spatial diversity
  • Use the lowest data rate
  • Common to have multiple or fewer than 1 relay(s) for each tx
  • Relay is not compelling
    • Uplink: sufficient to relay data to one AP
    • Downlink: if best AP is selected, the need for relay is low
  • If relay has to be used, MORE like opportunistic routing may be more efficient
    • They dismissed opportunistic routing due to its potential large delay due to batch
    • But their delay can be high since retx timeout is generally large in order to account for variable contention delay
  • People want to communicate while on the move
    • Average one way commute (2005):
      • US: 24.3min, World: 40min
    • Passengers want to watch videos, listen to songs, etc.
  • Why not just use cellular networks?
    • Expensive: $30-$60/month
      • 5GB/month -> 2Kbps!
      • 40% 3G capable devices have no 3G plan
      • iPod Touch sales ~ iPhone sales
    • Bandwidth and backhaul limitations
      • Limited video quality (96-128kbps, < 10min long)
      • Carriers interested in WiFi offloading
    • Arms race between
      • Increase in cellular bandwidth
      • Higher resolution screens and videos
  • Goal: Enable high bandwidth applications (e.g., video) in vehicular networks via WiFi

opportunistic wifi connectivity
Opportunistic WiFi connectivity
  • Gas stations and local shops deploy APs


  • Devices in vehicles contact roadside APs
  • Passengers watch videos, download files
  • Compelling usage scenario
    • Taxi companies provide value-added services to passengers
  • Previous work: low-bandwidth applications
  • We focus on delivering high-bandwidth content
    • e.g. video streaming
synergy among connections
Synergy among connections

High b/w, low coverage

High b/w, short-lived

Mesh Network

Wireless LAN


High b/w, persistent

Internet Access

Vehicle Relay

Low b/w, persistent

High b/w, high delay



New techniques for replication optimization

Goal: Fully utilize wireless bandwidth during contact

Optimized wireline replication to Internet-connected APs

Replication using vehicular relays to unconnected APs

Use mesh for replication and caching

New algorithm for mobility prediction

Predict set of APs that will be visited by vehicle

Critical for success of replication techniques

Algorithm: voting among K nearest trajectories

evaluation methodology
Trace-driven simulation and emulation

San Francisco cabs, Seattle buses, Shanghai cabs

Two testbeds on UT campus

802.11b: 14 APs deployed inside 8 campus buildings, 20-60ft from the road

802.11n: 4 APs outdoor, 1-5ft from the road

Smartphone and laptop clients

HP iPAQ and HTC Tilt

Stream H.264 videos at 64Kbps

Evaluation Methodology

13, 14





7,8,9,10, 11,12



summary vehicular content distribution
Summary: Vehicular Content Distribution
  • KNT: A new mobility prediction algorithm
    • Based on voting among K nearest trajectories
    • 25-94% more accurate than 1st and 2nd order Markov models
  • A series of novel replication schemes
    • Optimized wireline replication and mesh replication
    • Opportunistic vehicular relay based replication
  • Extensive evaluation: simulation + testbed + emulation
    • Simulation using San Francisco taxi and Seattle bus traces
      • 3-6x of no replication, 2-4x of wireline or vehicular alone
    • Full-fledged prototype deployed on two real testbeds
      • 14-node 802.11b testbed and 4-node 802.11n testbed
      • 4.2-7.8x gain over no replication
    • Emulab emulation with real AP/controller and emulated vehicles
      • Show system works at scale and is efficient
      • Validate our trace-driven simulator