The effects of quality of service on vehicular network pseudonym distribution in congested urban environments

Vehicular networks are meant to exist wherever the road will take them. This includes small towns, rural highways, suburbs, downtown urban centers, and urban highways. The density of vehicles varies greatly across these environments. This work looks at the effects of implementing Quality of Service (QoS) as well as a relatively similar method that inserts stochastic delays in pseudonym (PN) transmission in the two urban settings of a downtown grid and an urban highway, both under heavily congested conditions. The simulated results (using ns-3) are compared to previous work that examined communication suppression (as opposed to priority as in this work). Four metrics are used for method comparison: average overall background data throughput, average overall PNs distributed, maximum number of PNs distributed, and the distribution of the PNs across the vehicles as a function of need. While some of the results obtained were expected, the overall conclusion that implementing quality of service, or even a simplistic imitation, can significantly improve the overall data throughput and provide more PNs is an interesting result.

[1]  Gongjun Yan,et al.  Provisioning Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Quality of Service , 2010, BWCCA.

[2]  Qi Meng,et al.  P2P Computing in Design of VANET Routing Protocol , 2007, 2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing.

[3]  Jie Luo,et al.  A Mobile Infrastructure Based VANET Routing Protocol in the Urban Environment , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing.

[4]  J. Benin,et al.  Vehicular Network simulation propagation loss model parameter standardization in ns-3 and beyond , 2012, 2012 Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon.

[5]  Fan Bai,et al.  Mobile Vehicle-to-Vehicle Narrow-Band Channel Measurement and Characterization of the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Frequency Band , 2007, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[6]  Michael Weber,et al.  Pseudonym-On-Demand: A New Pseudonym Refill Strategy for Vehicular Communications , 2008, 2008 IEEE 68th Vehicular Technology Conference.

[7]  Luca Delgrossi,et al.  Optimal data rate selection for vehicle safety communications , 2008, VANET '08.

[8]  Panagiotis Papadimitratos,et al.  Secure vehicular communication systems: design and architecture , 2008, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[9]  Fan Yu,et al.  A Self-Organizing MAC Protocol for DSRC based Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks , 2007, 27th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW'07).

[10]  Gongjun Yan,et al.  Provisioning Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks with Quality of Service , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications.

[11]  M. Torrent-Moreno,et al.  Inter-vehicle communications: assessing information dissemination under safety constraints , 2007, 2007 Fourth Annual Conference on Wireless on Demand Network Systems and Services.

[12]  Fan Bai,et al.  Toward understanding characteristics of dedicated short range communications (DSRC) from a perspective of vehicular network engineers , 2010, MobiCom.

[13]  Mahbub Hassan,et al.  How much of dsrc is available for non-safety use? , 2008, VANET '08.

[14]  Elaine Shi,et al.  TACKing Together Efficient Authentication, Revocation, and Privacy in VANETs , 2009, 2009 6th Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks.

[15]  J. Banks,et al.  Discrete-Event System Simulation , 1995 .

[16]  Henry L. Owen,et al.  Framework to Support Per Second Shifts of Pseudonyms in Regional VANETs , 2010, 2010 IEEE 72nd Vehicular Technology Conference - Fall.

[17]  Henry L. Owen,et al.  Unified pseudonym distribution in VANETs , 2010, 2010 IEEE 6th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications.

[18]  Henry L. Owen,et al.  Vehicular network pseudonym distribution in congested urban environments , 2012 .

[19]  Pooja Rani,et al.  Performance Comparison of VANET Routing Protocols , 2011, 2011 7th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing.

[20]  Hariharan Krishnan,et al.  Experimental Measurements and Modeling for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Wireless Channels , 2006, IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference.

[21]  George F. Riley,et al.  The ns-3 Network Simulator , 2010, Modeling and Tools for Network Simulation.

[22]  A. Downs.  TRAFFIC: WHY IT'S GETTING WORSE, WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO , 2004 .

[23]  Yau-Hwang Kuo,et al.  A hybrid traffic geographic routing with cooperative traffic information collection scheme in VANET , 2011, 13th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT2011).

[24]  O.K. Tonguz,et al.  What is the Best Achievable QoS for Unicast Routing in VANETs? , 2008, 2008 IEEE Globecom Workshops.

[25]  Panagiotis Papadimitratos,et al.  Eviction of Misbehaving and Faulty Nodes in Vehicular Networks , 2007, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[26]  Javier Gozálvez,et al.  Road traffic congestion detection through cooperative Vehicle-to-Vehicle communications , 2010, IEEE Local Computer Network Conference.

[27]  Srdjan Capkun,et al.  The security and privacy of smart vehicles , 2004, IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine.

[28]  Qiang Ni,et al.  Study on QoS Support in 802.11e-based Multi-hop Vehicular Wireless Ad Hoc Networks , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control.

[29]  L. Brunie,et al.  CoFFee: Cooperative and inFrastructure-Free peer-to-peer system for VANET , 2009, 2009 9th International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems Telecommunications, (ITST).