anavanet: an experiment and visualization tool for vehicular networks

AnaVANET: an experiment and visualization tool

for vehicular networks

TRIDENTCOM 2014 Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

6th, May, 2014

Manabu Tsukada Inria,fr => UTokyo,jpJosé Santa UMU,esSatoshi Matsuura NAIST, jpThierry Ernst Mines ParisTech, frKazutoshi Fujikawa NAIST, jp

www.anavanet.net AnaVANET: an experiment and visualization tool for vehicular networks

Outline

2

Background Issue and requirements for VANET evaluation Evaluation methodology AnaVANET Evaluation of NEMO over IPv6 GeoNetworking

http://www.anavanet.net


Vehicular Networking

3

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Systems to achieve road safety, traffic efficiency and comfort Cooperative ITS Systems where multiple ITS Stations share information to achieve better road safety, traffic efficiency and comfort Vehicle, Roadside, Central and Personal ITS Stations

Communication

Vehicle ITS Station

Central ITS Station

Personal ITS Station

Roadside ITS Station

✓Road safety✓Traffic efficiency✓Comfort



Network Layer Protocols for vehicular Networking

4

Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) wireless communications in dynamic topologies without any infrastructure VANET or MANET Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) global connectivity of nodes to the Internet Internet Mobility (Mobile IPv6, NEMO)

AODV OLSR GeoNetworking,C2CNet

Mobile IPv6 NEMO

Network Layer Protocols for vehicular communications

Topology basedPosition based

Reactive ProactiveNetwork mobilityHost mobility

Infrastructure basedInfrastructure less (VANET or MANET)



Issues on vehicular networks evaluation

5

Common end-to-end evaluation tools such as ping6 and iperf 1. Unawareness of communication path 2. Unawareness of per-hop network

performance in the communication path 3. Unawareness of vehicles’ movement

Sender（ping6, iperf）

Receiver



Requirements on vehicular network evaluation

6

1. Path detection 2. Communication performance in links 3. Geographical awareness 4. Intuitive visualization 5. Independence from network protocols 6. Independence from devices 7. Adaptation to various scenarios 8. Easiness for data collection



Overview of Evaluation Methodology

7

The evaluation goals are to analyze which testing conditions affect which performance indicators using target network protocols.

Distance Static Urban Highway

Packet size, Send rate

TCP window size, Max segment size

Packet size, send interval

Testing Scenarios

Data Flows

Hardware (CPU, Memory), Antenna, Wireless setting(frequency, data rate)Testbed platform

Performance Indicators

AnaVANETPDR, throughput, Jitter,

Hop count Throughput RTT, PDR, Hop count

Infrastructure-basedInfrastructure less(NEMO)(OLSR / C2CNet / IPv6 GeoNetworking)

Test

ing

Con

ditio

ns

Target Network Protocols(Examples)

Number of Vehicles

UDP TCP ICMPv6



Testbed platform

8

V2V and V2I network ARs and MRs OS: Linux 2.6.29.6 Wireless configuration •frequency 2.422Ghz •Data rate 6 Mbits/s

NEMO is supported GeoNetworking is supported

WirelessWirelessMR1

MNN1cable

MR2

MNN2cable

MR3 MR4

Vehicular Network

Infrastructure Network

AR1AR2

IPv6 InternetHA1



Testing Scenarios

9

Location Scenarios INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt installations Number of vehicles Up to four vehicles are considered in our case Mobility Scenarios Distance Static

Urban Highway

parked ~10km/h

Obstacle Obstacle

parked parked

parked parked

packet

~100km/h

~100km/h

~100km/h

Obstacle~30km/h

~30km/h

~30km/h



Data Flows and Performance Indicators

10

Data Flows UDP TCP ICMPv6 Performance Indicators Packet Delivery Ratio Round Trip Time Bandwidth Jitter

Geographic metric Hop count Speed Position of cars Distance between cars

Sender（ping6, iperf）

Receiver



Overview of the AnaVANET system

11

Generate packets with UDP, TCP and ICMPv6 Capture packets in all the nodes Trace them packet by packet

MNN1(Sender)

MNN2(Receiver)MR1 MR4 MR2

Cable CableWireless Wireless

UDP / ICMPv6traffic generation

iperf / ping6log

tcpdumplog

GPSlog

tcpdumplog

GPSlog

tcpdumplog

GPSlog

iperflog

AnaVANET

(optional)(optional)

XMLstatistics

Packettrace

GnuplotWeb font-end(Google maps)AnaVANET Web viewer

Graphshttp://anavanet.net/

MR3

tcpdumplog

GPSlog

Wireless



Output examples

12

Google maps shows the performance indicators with Movement Distance Obstacles

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Graphs generated by gnuplot shows as follow

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NE

MO

sta

tus

Time (seconds)

Fail

Success

0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

Echo Request via AR2 0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

Echo Request via AR1

0

100

200

300

400

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

tance

(m

)

RT

T (

ms)

Distance between MR and AR1Distance between MR and AR2

RTT



IPv6 GeoNetworking using NEMO (ICMPv6)

13

64 bytes in 0.5s interval RTT is about 5ms Binding registrations are lost in the south road

Handover without packet loss 120m from AR2, 50m from AR1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NE

MO

sta

tus

Time (seconds)

Fail

Success

0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

Echo Request via AR2 0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

Echo Request via AR1

0

100

200

300

400

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

tan

ce (

m)

RT

T (

ms)


RTT

AR2

AR1

MR

0

20

40

60

80

100

RTT (ms)

RTTPacket loss

Binding registration SuccessBinding registration Fail

RTT (ms)

http://anavanet.net/demo-vienna/?analysis=1296754401




IPv6 GeoNetworking using NEMO (UDP)

14

1250 Bytes packet with 1 Mbps rate UDP packets are lost during 4 seconds in handover

Disconnection time after the binding registration failure was seven seconds (= 1 + 2 + 4)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

NE

MO

sta

tus

Time (seconds)

Fail

Success

0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

PDR to AR2 0

20

40

60

80

100

PD

R (

%)

PDR to AR1

0

100

200

300

400

0

100

200

300

400

500

Dis

tan

ce (

m)

Th

rou

gh

pu

t (K

bits

/se

c)


Throughput

AR2

AR1

MR

0

20

40

60

80

100

PDR (%)

PDR to AR1PDR to AR2

Binding registration SuccessBinding registration Fail

PDR (%)





Conclusions and future works

15

Conclusions Analysis of evaluation of vehicular networks Evaluation methodology •Analysis of metric impacts the network performance •Performance indicators Design and Implementation of AnaVANET Evaluation of IPv6 GeoNetworking using NEMO Future work Link layer extension i.e. channel quality, load ratio Support for multicast data flows Evaluation of real Cooperative ITS application


Thank you for attention

Manabu Tsukada <[email protected]>

mailto:[email protected]

anavanet: an experiment and visualization tool for vehicular networks

Software

visualization tool

vehicular networking4vehicle

vehicular networksissues

vehicular networkstridentcom

vehicular networksrequirements

vehicular network evaluation61

intuitive visualization

network performance