[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Internet Engineering Task Force                     Georgios Karagiannis
Internet-Draft                                             Geert Heijenk
Intended status: Informational                      University of Twente
Expires: March 23, 2014                                   Andreas Festag
                  Technical University Dresden & NEC Laboratories Europe
                                                      Alexandru Petrescu
                                                                     CEA
                                                          Alison Chaiken
                                       Mentor Embedded Software Division
                                                      September 23, 2013



               Internet-wide Geo-networking Problem Statement
           draft-karagiannis-problem-statement-geonetworking-00

Abstract

   This document describes the need of specifying Internet-wide
   location-aware forwarding protocol solutions that provide
   packet routing using geographical positions for packet transport.


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 1]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013


Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
2. Use cases and scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Open Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22




































Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 2]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

1.  Introduction

1.1 Motivation

   Internet-based applications use IP addresses to address a node that
   can be a host, a server or a router. Scenarios and use cases exist
   where nodes are being addressed using their geographical
   location instead of their IP address. The most obvious use cases are
   related to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and vehicular
   networking, environmental monitoring, consumer electronic devices
   (e.g. cameras) and scientific instruments. In this document we will
   mainly focus on ITS and vehicular networking. An ITS use case is, for
   example, a traffic jam or a chain collision, where all vehicles
   heading towards the potential hazard should be warned. In particular,
   for vehicles ahead that are moving away from the hazardous location,
   the information is not relevant anymore. In such dangerous situation
   geo-networking can offer great support to applications that require
   geographical addressing.

   Internet-wide Geo-Networking is a location-aware forwarding protocol
   that provides packet routing using geographical positions for packet
   transport over the Internet. Vehicular networking can be considered
   as one of the most important enabling technologies required to
   implement a myriad of applications related to vehicles, vehicle
   traffic, drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Two main types of
   vehicle communication networks can be distinguished. In the Vehicle-
   to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication network packets are exchanged
   among vehicles using an infrastructure that can be Internet-wide. The
   second type is Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, where packets
   are exchanged among vehicles without the need for a communication
   infrastructure. Hybrid scenarios that combine V2V and V2I
   communication appear reasonable.

   Intelligent Transportation Systems aim to improve the operation of
   vehicles, manage vehicle traffic, assist drivers with safety and
   other information, along with provisioning of convenience
   applications. Prime examples of ITS services include automated toll
   collection systems, driver assist systems and other information
   provisioning systems. Over the last decade, the development of ITS
   services has been backed up by coordinated efforts for
   standardization and formation of consortia and other governmental and
   industrial bodies that aim to set the guiding principles,
   requirements, and first takes on solutions for ITS-related
   communication systems that primarily involve vehicles and users
   within vehicles.

   The main challenges that are associated with Internet-wide geo-
   networking are:
     o) support of geo-addressing, where geographical information
        should be available in the addressing mechanism, such that
        packets can be forwarded to a target geographical area. The
        geographical area may either be specified by the source
        (application) or might not be specified at all.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 3]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

     o) support of Internet-wide geo-routing, where data packets that
        are generated by source nodes placed anywhere in the
        Internet are forwarded over multiple hops by using the
        position of the destination node(s) and the positions of
        intermediate nodes for the routing decisions.
     o) creation of a forwarding method that comprises a local-computer
        decision algorithm which can deterministically compare
        IP/geographical addresses present in a packet to IP/geographical
        addresses present in a local database, a database mixed (IP and
        geographical) topology distribution algorithm among several
        computers, and a IP/geographical path construction algorithm
        which acts on the IP/geographical database.
     o) the use of a single consensual geodesic datum which may be used
        by present and future GNSSs by as many as possible network
        operators, and agreed datum conversion methods.
     o) representation of precision in IP addressing.  IP addresses are
        precise and unique, whereas geographical coordinates involve
        notions of precision and accuracy.

   Geo-addressing:
   In [RFC2009], three families of solutions are described to
   integrate the concept of physical location into the current
   design of Internet that relies on logical addressing. These
   families of solutions are: (1) Application layer solutions, (2)
   GPS-Multicast solution. (3) Unicast IP routing extended to
   deal with GPS addresses. In particular, [RFC2009] specifies how GPS
   positioning is used for destination addresses. A GPS address could
   be represented by using: (1) closed polygons, such as circle
   (center point, radius), where, any node that lies within the
   defined geographic area could receive a message, (2) site-name
   as a geographic access path, where a message can be sent to a
   specific site by specifying its location in terms of real-word
   names such as names of site, city, township, county, state, etc.
   [ETSI-EN-302-636-4-1] specifies geographical addressing for point-to-
   point and point-to-multipoint communications over short range
   wireless communication technologies, such as ITS-G5, for vehicle-to-
   vehicle communication.
   Also other solutions for geo-addressing have been specified, but
   none of them have been applied for Internet-wide geo-networking.

   Geo-routing:
   A significant number of geo-routing protocols are available, see
   e.g., [KaAl11] for a survey. These protocols can mainly be divided in
   two categories. The first category focuses on unicast routing, and
   the second covers broadcast routing. [ETSI-EN-302-636-4-1] an sub-IP-
   routing protocol with unicast and broadcast forwarding schemes for
   multi-hop and ad hoc communication among vehicles and between
   vehicles and roadside station utilizing geographical positions.
   [ETSI-EN-302-636-6-1] has standardized the transmission of IPv6
   packets over ETSI GeoNetworking that can be used for the forwarding
   of IPv6 packets using the position of the destination node(s) and the
   positions of intermediate nodes for the routing decisions. However,
   these geo-routing protocols are not designed for Internet-wide geo-
   networking.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 4]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

1.2 Goal

   Internet-wide geo-networking targets at IP-layer extensions that
   allow source nodes anywhere in the Internet to geo(broad/any)cast
   packets to all/any node(s) with geo-location awareness within an
   arbitrary, source-specified destination area.


1.3.  Terminology
   On Board Unit (OBU)

      a processing and communication feature that is located in a
      vehicle, which provides an application runtime environment,
      positioning, security and communications functions and interfaces
      to other vehicles including human machine interfaces.  OBU is also
      known as OBE (On-Board Equipment).

   Road Side Unit (RSU)

      equipment located along highways, at traffic intersections and
      other type of locations where timely communications with vehicles
      are needed.  Each RSU includes DSRC radio, a positioning system
      and a router to route packets back through the infrastructure
      network.  RSU is also known as RSE (Road Side Equipment)

   Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)

      (same as in [draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req]): a generic
      communication mode in which data packets are exchanged between two
      vehicles, either directly or traversing multiple vehicles, without
      involving any node in the infrastructure.

   Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I)

      generic communication mode in which data packets sent by a vehicle
      traverse a communication infrastructure.

   Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (I2V)

      generic communication mode in which data packets received by a
      vehicle traverse a communication infrastructure.

   Host vehicle

      a vehicle that uses the ITS application.

   Traffic safety application

      application that is primarily applied to decrease the probability
      of traffic accidents and the loss of life of the occupants of
      vehicles.




Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 5]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

  Geographically-scoped broadcast (or geocast), see [C2C-CC_Manifesto]

      forwarding mechanism that is used to transport data from a single
      node to all nodes within a target area that is specified
      geographical positions, e.g. defined by a geographic region. The
      geographic region is determined by a geometric shape, such as
      circle and rectangle.

   Geographical Unicast (or geounicast) see [C2C-CC_Manifesto]

      Forwarding mechanism that is used for unidirectional data
      transport from a single node (source) to a single node
      (destination) by means of direct communication or by multiple hops
      based on C2C Communication specific addresses that include node
      identifier, geographical position, and time information.


   Geographically-scoped anycast (or geoanycast), see [C2C-CC_Manifesto]

      forwarding mechanism that transports data from a single node to
      any of the nodes within a geographically area. Compared to
      geographically-scoped broadcast, with geographically-scoped
      anycast a packet is not forwarded inside of the geographic area
      when the packet has reached the area.

1.4. Organization of This Document

   This document is organized as follows. Section 2 describes several
   Geo-networking use cases an scenarios.  Section 3 describes the
   requirements that need to be fulfilled by the Internet-wide
   Geo-networking solution. The open design issues are discussed in
   Section 4. Section 5 describes possible solutions of realizing the
   Internet-wide Geo-networking solution. Section 6 describes the
   security considerations. The acknowledgement section is provided in
   Section 8.

2.  Use cases and scenarios

2.1 Scenario

   The scenario that is considered in this document for the support of
   Internet-wide geo-networking is shown in Figure 1. This scenario
   shows a source node, which can be located anywhere, and is
   interconnected with access routers via the Internet. The packets
   generated by the source are routed through the Internet using the
   typical destination address based routing up to the access routers.
   Geo-routing is then used to forward the packets towards the
   destination area where the recipients are located. In the destination
   area the packets are geo-broadcasted to all the recipients within the
   destination area.





Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 6]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

                                                     Coverage
                                                       Area
                                                       - ~ -
                                                     `       `
                                                   '           '
                                    +------+     `               `
                                 ___|Access|____`                 `
                +----------+    /   |Router|   +`-----------------`+
               /            \  /    +------+   | `          O    ` |
  +------+    /              \/                |   '   - ~ -   '   |
  |Source|___/    Internet    \                |     `   O   `     |
  | Node |   \                /                |   '   - ~ -   '   |
  +------+    \              /\     +------+   | `               ` |
               \            /  \____|Access|____,             O   `|
                +----------+        |Router|   |`                 `|
                                    +------+   | `               ` |
                                               |   '           '   |
                                               |     ` - ~ - `     |
                                               |  Destination Area |
                                               +-------------------+

                                                  O Destination Nodes

                 Figure 1: Internet-wide geo-networking scenario

2.2 Use cases

   The use cases considered in this section are vehicular networking use
   cases. However, Internet-wide geo-networking can be applied to any
   use case that is similar to these vehicular use cases where source
   nodes anywhere in the Internet are able to geo(broad/any)cast packets
   to all/any node(s) with geo-location awareness within an arbitrary,
   source-specified destination area.

   Vehicular networking can be considered as one of the most important
   enabling technologies needed to support various types of traffic
   applications, such as infotainment type of applications, traffic
   efficiency & management and traffic safety applications.

   Traffic safety applications are those that are primarily applied to
   decrease the probability of traffic accidents and the loss of life of
   the occupants of vehicles.  Note that VSC and VSC-A projects focus on
   vehicle-to-vehicle safety.  Another project called CICAS-V
   (Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems - Violation)
   discuss the traffic safety application over vehicle-to-infrastructure
   communication.

   Traffic efficiency & management applications are focusing on
   improving the vehicle traffic flow, traffic coordination and traffic
   assistance.  Moreover, traffic efficiency & management applications
   are focusing on providing updated local information, maps and in
   general messages of relevance limited in space and/or time.



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   Infotainment types of applications are the applications that are
   neither traffic safety applications nor traffic efficiency &
   management applications.  Such applications are supported by e.g.,
   media downloading use cases.
   Such vehicular applications are defined by several initiatives:
      o the USA VSC (Vehicular Safety Communications) and VSC-A (VSC-
        Applications) projects.

      O the European Car-to-Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC)
        [C2C-CC] and the ETSI TC ITS [ETSI TC ITS], [ETSI-TR-102-638]
        with the additional support of some EU funded research projects,
        such as SEVECOM [SEVECOM], SAFESPOT [SAFESPOT], CVIS [CVIS].
        PREDRIVE-C2x [PREDRIVE-C2x], GEONET [GEONET].


   The USA Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) consortium, see
   [VSC], is supported among others by CAMP (Crash Avoidance Metrics
   Partnership).  CAMP is a partnership that has been formed in 1995 by
   Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation.  The objective of
   CAMP is to accelerate the implementation of crash avoidance
   countermeasures to improve traffic safety by investigating and
   developing new technologies.  VSC has been realized in two phases.

   The descriptions of the relevant traffic safety applications are
   taken from [draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements].

   The first phase, denoted as VSC started in 2002 and ended in 2004.
   The second phase started in 2006 and ends in 2009.  VSC focused and
   is focusing on traffic safety related applications.  In 2006, The VSC
   2 consortium in cooperation with USDOT initiated a three-year
   collaborative effort in the area of wireless-based safety
   applications under the Vehicle Safety Communications - Applications
   (VSC-A) project, see [VSC-A].  The VSC2 consortium consists of the
   following members; Mercedes-Benz, Ford, General Motors, Honda &
   Toyota.  The main goal of this project is to develop and test
   communications-based vehicle safety systems to determine whether
   vehicle positioning in combination with the DSRC at 5.9 GHz can
   improve the autonomous vehicle-based safety systems and/or enable new
   communication-based safety applications.

   The WAVE Short Message Protocol [IEEE 1609.3] was designed
   specifically to offer a more efficient (smaller size) alternative to
   TCP or UDP over IP, for 1-hop messages that require no routing.

   The European Car-to-Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC) is
   an industry consortium of car manufacturers and electronics suppliers
   that focuses on the definition of an European standard for vehicular
   communication protocols.

   The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Technical
   Committee (TC) Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) was established in
   October 2007 with the goal of developing and maintaining standards,
   specifications and other deliverables to support the development and
   the implementation of ITS service provision.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   It is foreseen that ETSI ITS will be the reference standardization
   body of the future European ITS standards, and actually the C2C-CC
   provides recommendations to the ETSI TC ITS.

   The following subsections describe use cases that can be implemented
   using either V2I or V2V. When V2V is applied, the use of Internet-
   wide Geo-networking solution is not required.

   2.2.1 Traffic safety use cases

     In VSC, see [VSC] 34 vehicle application scenarios have been
   identified, evaluated and ranked.  From this evaluation, a subset of
   eight significant near- and mid-term traffic safety applications have
   been selected: (1) cooperative forward collision warning, (2) curve
   speed warning, (3) pre-crash sensing, (4) traffic signal violation
   warning, (5) lane-change warning, (6) emergency electronic brake
   light, (7) left turn assistant, (8) stop sign movement assistant.  A
   brief description of these applications is given below (for more
   details, see [VSC]):

   o  Traffic signal violation warning: it informs and warns the driver
      to stop at a legally prescribed location in the situation that the
      traffic signal indicates a stop and it is estimated that the
      driver will be in violation.

   o  Curve speed warning - Rollover Warning: aids the driver in
      negotiating speeds at appropriate speeds.

   o  Emergency Electronic Brake Lights: it is used to inform vehicles
      that a vehicle brakes hard.  In particular in this situation a
      warning message is sent to the vehicles moving behind the vehicle
      that brakes hard.

   o  Pre-crash sensing: it prepares the driver for an unavoidable and
      imminent collision.
   o  Cooperative Forward Collision Warning: aids the driver in
      mitigating or avoiding collisions with the rear-end vehicles in
      the forward path of travel through driver notification or warnings
      of an unavoidable collision.  This application does not attempt to
      control the vehicle to avoid an unavoidable collision.

   o  Left Turn Assistant: it informs the driver about oncoming traffic
      in order to assist him in making a left turn at a signalized
      intersection without a phasing left turn arrow.

   o  Lane Change Warning: it warns the driver if an intended lane
      change may cause a crash with a nearby moving vehicle.

   o  Stop Sign Movement Assistance: it warns the driver that the
      vehicle is nearby an intersection, which will be passed after
      having stopped at a stop sign.




Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 9]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   In the VSC-A project an additional investigation has been performed,
   on traffic safety applications that can be used in crash immitment
   scenarios, see [VSC-A].  The following 7 traffic safety applications
   have been selected for implementation in the VSC-A test bed.

   o  Emergency Electronic Brake Light: is a traffic safety application
      that is the same as the Emergency Electronic Brake Light
      application defined in the VSC project, see above.

   o  Forward Collision warning: is a traffic safety application that is
      the same as the Cooperative Forward Collision Warning application
      defined in the VSC project, see above.

   o  Intersection Movement Assist: is a traffic is intended to warn the
      driver of a vehicle when it is not safe to enter an intersection
      due to high collision probability with other vehicles.  It is
      similar to the Stop Sign Movement Assistance application defined
      in the VSC project, see above.

   o  Blind Spot Warning & Lane Change Warning: it is similar to the
      Lane Change Warning application defined in the VSC project, see
      above.  In the Blind Spot Warning application the driver of a host
      vehicle is informed that another vehicle is moving in an adjacent
      lane and that this vehicle is positioned in a blind spot zone of
      the host vehicle.

   o  Do Not Pass Warning: this is an application that was not
      investigated in the VSC project.  It is intended to warn the
      driver of a host vehicle during a passing maneuver attempt when a
      slower vehicle, ahead and in the same lane, cannot be safely
      passed using a passing zone which is occupied by vehicles with the
      opposite direction of travel.

      In addition, the application provides advisory information that is
      intended to inform the driver of the host vehicle that the passing
      zone is occupied when a passing maneuver is not being attempted.

   o  Control Loss Warning: this is an application that was not
      investigated in the VSC project.  It is intended to enable the
      driver of a host vehicle to generate and broadcast a control- loss
      event to surrounding vehicles.  Upon receiving this information
      the surrounding vehicle determines the relevance of the event and
      provides a warning to the driver, if appropriate.

   The Car to Car Communication Consortium specified a number of traffic
   safety use cases. The following three are considered as being the
   main traffic safety use cases, see [C2C-CC_Manifesto]:
     o Cooperative Forward Collision Warning: this use case tries to
       provide assistance to the driver. Vehicles share (anonymously)
       information such as position, speed and direction. This enables
       the prediction of an imminent rear-end collision, by each vehicle
       monitoring the behavior of its own driver and the information of
       neighboring vehicles. If a potential risk is detected, the
       vehicle warns the driver.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 10]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

       This use case requires: the ability for all vehicles to share
       Information with each other over a distance of about 20 to 200
       meters, accurate relative positioning of the vehicles, trust
       relationships among the vehicles and a reasonable market
       penetration (at least 10%).

     o Pre-Crash Sensing/Warning: this use case is similar to the
       previous one, but in this case the collision is identified as
       unavoidable, and then the involved vehicles exchange more precise
       information to optimize the usage of actuators such as airbags,
       seat belt pre-tensors, etc...
       This use case requires basically the same abilities that the
       previous one, restricting the needed communication range to 20 to
       100 meters, and adding the requirement of a fast and reliable
       connection between the involved cars.

     o Hazardous Location V2V Notification: this use case is based on
       the share of information that relates to dangerous locations on
       the road, among vehicles, and also among vehicles and the road
       infrastructure. On one hand, vehicles may detect the dangerous
       locations from sensors in the vehicle or from events such as the
       actuation of the ESP (Electronic Stability Program).

       On the other hand, recipients of this information may use it to
       properly configure active safety systems and/or warn the driver.
       This use case requires: vehicles to trust other vehicles and
       roadside units, reasonable market penetration, the ability of
       vehicles to share information about a specific geographic
       location over multiple-hops and the ability to validate
       information propagated through multiple hops.

   2.2.2 Traffic efficiency and management use cases

     Such applications are focusing on improving the vehicle traffic
     flow, traffic coordination and traffic assistance and provide
     updated local information, maps and in general, messages of
     relevance bounded in space and/or time. Two typical groups of this
     type of applications are speed management and co-operative
     navigation are two typical groups of this type of applications
     [ETSI-TR-102-638], [KaAl11].
     o) Speed management:
     Speed management applications aim to assist the driver to manage
     the speed of his/her vehicle for smooth driving and to avoid
     unnecessary stopping. Regulatory/contextual speed limit
     notification and green light optimal speed advisory are two
     examples of this type.

     o) Co-operative navigation
     This type of applications is used to increase the traffic
     efficiency by managing the navigation of vehicles through
     cooperation among vehicles and through cooperation between vehicles
     and road side units. Some examples of this type are traffic
     information and recommended itinerary provisioning, co-operative
     adaptive cruise control and platooning.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 11]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   2.2.3 Infotainment Applications

   Such applications are neither traffic safety applications nor traffic
   efficiency & management applications and are mainly supported by
   e.g., media downloading use cases, see [CVIS], [C2C-CC_Manifesto],
   [ETSI-TR-102-638], [PREDRIVE-C2x], [KaAl11]:

   o) Co-operative local services
   This type of applications focus on infotainment that can be obtained
   from locally based services such as point of interest notification,
   local electronic commerce and media downloading.

   b) Global Internet services
   In this type of applications the focus is on data that can be
   obtained from global Internet services. Typical examples are
   Communities services, which include insurance and financial services,
   fleet management and parking zone management, and ITS station life
   cycle, which focus on software and data updates.


   3. Requirements

   This section includes the requirements that need to be fulfilled by
   Internet geo-networking solutions and are based on
   [ETSI-EN-302-636-1].

   3.1 Functionality requirements

   This section describes the functionality requirements that need to be
   supported by the Internet-wide geo-networking solution.

   3.1.1 No changes to existing routing infrastructure

   The Internet geo-networking solution MUST NOT impose any changes on
   the existing Internet-wide routing infrastructure.

   3.1.2 Minimal changes to the IP layer in source nodes

   The changes on the IP layer used by the source nodes, i.e., the nodes
   that are making use of Internet-wide geo-networking SHOULD be
   minimized.

   3.1.3 Communication mode

   The geoanycast, geounicast and geobroadcast communication modes MUST
   be supported by the Internet-wide geo-networking solution.

   3.1.4 Geo-addressing

   Geographical information MUST be available in the addressing
   mechanism, such that packets can be forwarded to a target
   geographical area.



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 12]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

  3.1.5 Internet-wide geo-routing

   The Internet geo-networking solution MUST enable the forwarding of
   packets over multiple hops by using the position of the destination
   node(s) and the positions of intermediate nodes for the routing
   decisions. The Internet geo-routing solution SHOULD be able to
   operate without predefining the set of possible destination areas.

   3.1.6 Internet-wide geo-networking and IPv6

   The Internet geo-networking solution MUST support transparently
   the routing of IPv6 packets.

   3.1.7 Data congestion control

   Data congestion control functions SHOULD be supported in order to in
   order to keep network load at an acceptable level and eliminate
   unnecessary duplicates of packets with limited control overhead.

  3.1.8 Security and privacy

   The Internet-wide geo-networking solution MUST support security
   objectives for all supported communication modes. Security objectives
   particularly include integrity, privacy and non-repudiation and
   SHOULD protect the network and transport layer protocol headers.
   In addition the Internet-wide geo-networking solution MUST also
   protect privacy, i.e. provide confidentiality to personal data such
   as node identifier and location.

  3.2 Performance requirements
   This section describes the performance requirements that need to be
   supported by the Internet-wide geo-networking solution.

  3.2.1 Low-latency communications

   The Internet geo-networking solution SHOULD support low latency
   communications. This requirement mainly applies to traffic safety and
   traffic efficiency applications.

  3.2.2 Reliable communications

    The Internet geo-networking solution SHOULD support reliable
    communications with the highest reliability for traffic safety
    messages.

  3.2.3 Low signaling, routing and packet forwarding overhead

    The signaling, routing and packet forwarding overhead SHOULD be
    minimized.






Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 13]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   3.2.4 Priority support

    The Internet geo-networking solution SHOULD support packets with
    different priorities with the highest priority for critical
    traffic safety packets.

   3.2.5 Scalability

   The Internet geo-networking solution SHOULD be able to maintain its
   performance to acceptable levels even when it is applied to:

    o) global coverage with small geocast areas

    o) large traffic volumes (large flows)

    o) large number of active sources


4. Open Design Issues

   This section describes the Internet wide geo-networking open design
   issues that can be addressed by the IETF.

4.1 Geo-addressing in the wired Internet:

   The Standard Internet routers are not aware of geo-networking
   functionality. Therefore, the used addresses used must be regular
   addresses that route to / via the Access Router.
   In particular, regarding unicast and multicast addresses the
   following issues can be identified.

   o) Using unicast addresses for all destination areas: does not scale
      well and packets are sent multiple times on the wireless interface
   o) Unicast addresses of relevant access routers: can be realized by
      using e.g., tunneling.
   o) Using multicast addresses to specify destination areas: A standard
      router should know how to route that means that it should use a
      predefined multicast address. This implies that an arbitrary,
      source-specified destination area cannot be coded this way.
      Alternatively, packet could be sent to set of predefined areas
      which together include the source-specified destination area
      (further filtering at destination). However, suppose one multicast
      address per access point covering 300 x 300 ? 105 m^2. This would
      imply 5 * 1014 / 105 = 5 * 109 multicast addresses to cover the
      earth. This is far too many addresses that can be maintained by
      nowadays routers in their routing tables. A solution could be to
      define larger predefined areas. In this case however, many useless
      packet transmissions will need to be supported. It can be,
      therefore, deduced that normal use of multicast addresses does not
      scale. Meaning that other solutions are needed, such (1)
      aggregation of multicast addresses into "larger" multicast
      addresses, (2) support of a routing hierarchy for geocasting.



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 14]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

4.2 Exchanging destination area information

   Until all routers in the Internet are geo-aware, or until a
   sufficient level of multicast address aggregation has been achieved
   to have a manageable total number of multicast addresses, we need a
   way for the source node to reach the (right) first geo-aware access
   router, e.g., RSU, (over the standard Internet). In addition to that
   the destination area specification needs to be exchanged at this
   first geo-aware access router.  This can be achieved only if
   there is precise knowledge about the location of this destination
   node. The destination area specification has to be carried in the
   packet, using one of the following options:
      o) Specify this information in the IP destination address
         (tunneled in wired Internet)
      o) Use IP header extensions (not processed by standard Internet
         routers)
      o) Carry this information in the application layer header

4.3 Lookup and translation of destination area to IP address

   When a source that needs to disseminate information in a destination
   area it will need to lookup and translate the destination area into a
   standard IPv6 address of the first geo-aware access router, e.g.,
   RSU, which is routable in the standard Internet.
   The destination area can be specified by an application at the
   source, and does not have to coincide with known (predefined) areas,
   e.g., corresponding with the coverage area of an AR (e.g., RSU), or
   with the area covered by a predefined multicast address. This can be
   realized using location databases that provide the mapping between
   the destination area and the IPv6 address of the first geo-aware
   access router, e.g., RSU. Examples of such location databases are:

   o) Application specific location database
   o) DNS extended with location records and queries
   o) Table of known multicast addresses

4.4 Updating the location database

   The location databases that stores the mapping between the
   destination areas and the IPv6 addresses of the first geo-aware
   access router, e.g., RSU, need to be dynamically maintained and be up
   to date. Meaning that whenever new destination areas are identified
   or when the mapping between the stored destination areas and the
   associated IPv6 addresses change the location database needs to be
   updated.


5. Possible solutions

   This section presents two possible ways of how the Intern-wide geo-
   networking solution can be designed. These solutions are the extended
   DNS and GeoServer. The extended DNS solution uses GPS coordinates to
   address geo-location. However, also other types of coordinates, such
   as the Galileo coordinates could be used for this purpose.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 15]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

5.1 Extended DNS

   One of the ingredients for Internet-wide geo-networking is a
   (distributed) database, able to resolve a geographical area to
   relevant IP addresses. Source nodes wishing to send geo-networking
   packets can then resolve the destination area of (a flow of) packets
   to a number of IP addresses, and send the packets to these
   destination addresses.

   One direction for solutions is to extend the DNS system for this
   purpose, see [FiHe11].  Rather than modifying the DNS protocol,
   requiring new top level domains or requiring changes in the routing
   behavior of today's Internet, this proposal is relying on the use DNS
   LOC (location) resource records defined in the [RFC1876]. Through the
   use of LOC records, geographical information about hosts, networks,
   and subnets can be stored in the DNS files. By performing then
   forward DNS lookups, geographical information about hosts or domains
   can be obtained. Current implementation of DNS, such as NSD, support
   LOC records to be inserted in the master file. This LOC record can
   then be used to specify the location of an end-host, the coverage
   area of an access router or access point, or the area in which the
   members of a multicast group are spread.
   The key point in this proposal is the use of LOC records as primary
   key in the forward DNS lookup in order to return IP addresses
   associated with geographical locations. In other words, we introduce
   a new primary key into DNS besides the already existing ones
   (hostnames and IP addresses). The extended version of DNS extends the
   DNS server with capabilities to handle queries for an area within a
   domain. Upon receiving a query with such a specified area, the
   extended DNS server should return resource records for all names for
   which the area specified in a LOC record overlaps with the area
   specified in the query, and are also sub-domains of the domain
   specified in the query.
   These addresses can then be used by the source as destination address
   for its geocast packets.
   A possible format for a query is to replace the lowest-level
   subdomain by a location description:

   "("dlat [mlat [slat [mslat]]] "N"|"S" dlon [mlon [ slon [ mslon]]]
   "E"|"W" alt["m"] size["m"]")".domain

   Here, dlat, mlat, slat and mslat specify the latitude of the center
   of the destination area in degree, minute, second, and millisecond,
   North ("N") or South ("S") respectively. Similarly, dlon, mlon, slon
   and mslon specify the longitude of the center of the destination area
   in degree, minute, second, and millisecond East ("E") or West ("W")
   respectively. Further, alt is the altitude in meters; size the size
   of the destination area in meters and domain specifies the domain to
   search in. Such an approach scopes geographical queries to a certain
   domain. In order to allow for name servers to delegate location
   queries to servers responsible for subdomains, for each delegated
   subdomain the latter servers must maintain a bounding box of their
   subdomains and make sure that also their parent server has its up-to-
   date bounding box.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 16]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   To this end, a new record type BND is used in this proposal.
   Dynamic DNS update, as specified in [RFC2136] can be used to update
   BND and LOC records.
   Different levels of granularity are possible w.r.t. location
   representation in DNS. If LOC records are stored for individual end-
   hosts, a significant load for dynamic updates of LOC records may be
   caused by mobile nodes. Alternatively, (stationary) access routers or
   access points may store a LOC record specifying their coverage area,
   and forward geocast packets to their coverage area. As a third
   alternative, multicast addresses may be used to represent areas,
   allowing host to subscribe to an area-specific multicast address
   ([GEONET]).

   Note: if the destination location is somehow specified in the packet,
   additional packet filtering can be done by destination hosts, using
   their exact, current location.
                                Internet
                 /--------------------^--------------------\
       /                                            +--------+
       |      +------+             'Geo'            |Extended|
       |      | Back | ---------------------------> |  DNS   |
       |      |Office| <--------------------------- | (eDNS) |
       |      +------+             'IP'             +--------+
       |         |
       |         |
      <          |                     " "802.11p
       |         |                   `      `
       |         +                 `    _ RSU `
       |          \ IP           `    =|o|=     `
       |           \           '      =|o|=       '
       |            +--------->'      =|@|=       '
       |                       '        |         '
       \                        ` " "   |       `
   Infrastructure-based        `  `    `      `
   Comm _____________________`______`____`_ `__________________________
   Infrastructure-less     `           " " `
   Communications         '       __        '802.11p
       /                  '     _/  L\__    '
       |                  '    (_,.__,._)   '
       |                   ` " " `'  `'    `                " " 802.11p
       |                  `  `   `       `               `       `
      < - - - - - - - - ` - - - ` -`- -`- -  - - - - - ` - - - - - ` -
       |              `           " "`               `               `
       |             '     ___         '            '     ___         '
       |             '   _/  L\__      '            '   _/  L\__      '
       \             '  (_,.__,._)     '            '  (_,.__,._)     '
                      `   `'  `'      `              `   `'  `'      `
        ________________`__________ `__________________`___________`___
                          `      `                       `       `
                             " " 802.11p                    " "

              Figure 2: The extended DNS scenario



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 17]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

5.1.1 Dynamic IP address-to-geographical Address Resolution

   A method similar to the name resolution (DNS) method can be provided.
   The user of this method may query a server in this way:
   it provides it an IP address and obtains in return the geographical
   coordinates of where the interface assigned that IP address is
   situated, or vice-versa. The method should also work for groups of IP
   addresses (prefixes) and three-dimensional regions.

5.2 GeoServer

   A design approach for Internet-wide geo-networking is to introduce a
   new network element that serves as a message reflector to facilitate
   the communication among vehicles. This network element functions as a
   server. It processes incoming messages from each vehicle, aggregates
   these messages when appropriate, and redistributes the messages to
   other vehicles. Since this server is typically responsible for a
   geographical area, it is termed GeoServer. The main functionality of
   a GeoServer is to provide vehicles with geographical-related services
   such as for traffic safety and traffic efficiency & management and
   infotainment-type of applications. The GeoServer is linked to an
   application server; both might be co-located. The application
   scenario is illustrated in Figure 3.


                                                     Coverage
                                                       Area
                                                       - ~ -
                                                     `       `
  +-------+                                         '           '
  | App   |                          +------+     `               `
  | Server|                       ___|Access|____`                 `
  +-------+      +----------+    /   |Router|   +`-----------------`+
      |         /            \  /    +------+   | `          O    ` |
  +-------+    /              \/                |   '   - ~ -   '   |
  | Geo   |___/    Internet    \                |     `   O   `     |
  | Server|   \                /                |   '   - ~ -   '   |
  +-------+    \              /\     +------+   | `               ` |
                \            /  \____|Access|____,             O   `|
                 +----------+        |Router|   |`                 `|
                                     +------+   | `               ` |
                                                |   '           '   |
                                                |     ` - ~ - `     |
                                                |  Destination Area |
                                                +-------------------+

                                                   O Destination Nodes

       Figure 3: GeoServer scenario

   Applications may work vehicle or AppServer-triggered. In a typical
   vehicle-triggered scenario, the vehicle may detect a road works or
   obstacle by any means (local sensors, communication over other media
   or user input), triggers a message and sends it to the GeoServer.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 18]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   The GeoServer can either forwards the messages directly to the
   destination area or involve the AppServer for information aggregation
   before forwarding the data.  In the GeoServer-triggered scenario, the
   application server acts as originator of a message, based on data
   aggregation or information from a traffic management center or static
   configuration.

   The scenario requires three main communication tasks [ITSWC2012],
   [WANG2013]: location updates, event reporting and geographical
   messaging (GeoMessaging). Location updates are periodically sent from
   the vehicle to the GeoServer.  Their transmission can be triggered
   query-based, time-based, distance-based, grid-based (or a
   combination) (see [ITSWC2011]). If the driver or the vehicle detects
   an event, then the event will be reported to the GeoServer.  The
   GeoServer enables the distribution  of messages  to  vehicles  in
   a geographical area.  The GeoServer also takes care of periodic re-
   transmission of the warning during the lifetime of the event, i.e.
   the repetition of the messages in order to keep the information alive
   in the destination area when vehicles start their journey or enter
   the area.

6.  Security Considerations

   According to requirement 3.8.1, the Internet-wide geo-networking
   solution MUST support security objectives for all supported
   communication modes. Security objectives particularly include
   integrity, privacy and non-repudiation and SHOULD protect the network
   and transport layer protocol headers. In addition the Internet-wide
   geo-networking solution MUST also protect privacy, i.e. provide
   confidentiality to personal data such as node identifier and
   location.



7.  IANA Considerations
   No IANA considerations are considered in this document.

8.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank the members of the IETF ITS community for
   their comments and discussions. Furthermore, we would like to thank
   the authors of the Internet draft [draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-
   requirements], G. Karagiannis, R. Wakikawa, J. Kenney, C. J.
   Bernardos and F. Kargl, since some parts of the traffic safety
   application descriptions are taken from the mentioned draft.

9.  Normative References


10.  Informative References


   [C2C-CC] C2C-CC official website, http://www.car-2-car.org/,
   (visited in October 2009).

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 19]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   [C2C-CC_MANIFESTO] Car to Car Communication Consortium, "Car to Car
   Communication Consortium Manifesto: Overview of the C2C-CC System",
   C2C-CC, version 1.1, 2007.

   [CVIS] CVIS EU FP6 project website, http://www.cvisproject.org,
   (visited in October 2009).

   [draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req] Baldessari, R., Ernst, T,
   Festag, A., Lenardi, M., "Automotive industry requirements for NEMO
   Route Optimmization", draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02,
   (Work in progress), 2009.

   [draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements] Karagiannis, G.,
   Wakikawa, R., Kenney, J., Bernardos, C.J., Kargl, F.,"Traffic
   safety applications requirements, IETF Internet draft (work in
   progress), draft-karagiannis-
   traffic-safety-requirements-02.txt, February 2010;

   [ETSI TC ITS] ETSI official website, http://www.etsi.org/, (visited
   in October 2009).

   [ETSI-TR-102-638] ETSI TR 102 638, "Intelligent Transport System
   (ITS); Vehicular Communications; Basic Set of Applications;
   Definition", ETSI specification TR 102 638, v.1.1.1, June 2009.

   [ETSI-EN-302-636-1] ETSI TS 102 636-1 V1.1.1, "Intelligent Transport
   Systems (ITS); Vehicular Communications; GeoNetworking; Part 1:
   Requirements", ETSI Specification ETSI TS 102 636-1 V1.1.1, March
   2010

   [ETSI-EN-302-636-4-1] ETSI TS 102 636-4-1, "Intelligent Transport
   Systems (ITS); Vehicular communications; GeoNetworking; Part 4:
   Geographical addressing and forwarding for point-to-point and point-
   to-multipoint communications; Sub-part 1: Media-Independent
   Functionality", ETSI specification ETSI TS 102 636-4-1 V1.1.1, June
   2011

   [ETSI-EN-302-636-6-1] ETSI TS 102 636-6-1 V1.1.1, "Intelligent
   Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular Communications; GeoNetworking;
   Part 6: Internet Integration; Sub-part 1: Transmission of IPv6
   Packets over GeoNetworking Protocols", ETSI specification ETSI TS 102
   636-6-1 V1.1.1, March 2011

   [FiHe11] Fioreze, T. and Heijenk, G.J. (2011) Extending the Domain
   Name System (DNS) to Provide Geographical Addressing Towards
   Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs). In: 2011 IEEE Vehicular
   Networking Conference (VNC), 14 - 16 Nov 2011, Amsterdam, The
   Netherlands. pp. 70-77. IEEE. ISBN 978-1-4673-0047-6

   [GEONET] GeoNet EU FP7 project website, http://www.geonet-project.eu,
   (visited in October 2009).

   [IEEE 1609.3] IEEE Std P1609.3, "IEEE Trial-Use Standard for Wireless
   Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE)-Networking Services", 2007.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 20]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

   [KaAl11] Karagiannis, G. Altintas, O., Ekici,E., Heijenk, G.J.,
   Jarupan, B., Lin, K., Weil, T., "Vehicular networking: A survey and
   tutorial on requirements, architectures, challenges, standards and
   solutions", IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 13 (4). pp. 584-
   616. ISSN 1553-877X, 2011.

   [ITSWC2012] A. Festag, M. Wiecker, N. Zahariev: "Safety and
   Traffic Efficiency Appllications for GeoMessaging over Cellular
   Networks", 19th ITS World Congress and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria,
   October 2012

   [ITSWC2011] G.  Jodlauk, R.  Rembarz, Z.  Xu:  "An Optimized
   Grid-Based Geocasting Method for Cellular Mobile Networks", in
   Proc. 18th ITS World Congress, Orlando, USA, Oct. 2011

   [WANG2013] S. Wang, L. Le, N. Zahariev, and K. K. Leung:
   "Centralized Rate Control Mechanism for Cellular-Based Vehicular
   Networks", accepted for IEEE Global Communications Conference
   GLOBECOM) 2013, Dec. 2013.

   [PREDRIVE-C2x] Pre-Drive C2X EU FP7 project website,
    http://www.pre-drive-c2x.eu, (visited in October 2009).

   [RFC2009] T. Imielinski and J. Navas, "GPS-Based Addressing and
   Routing",  RFC 2009, November 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
    Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC1876] C. Davis, P. Vixie, T. Goodwin, I. Dickinson, "A Means for
   Expressing Location Information in the Domain Name System", RFC 1876,
   January 1996.

   [RFC2136] P. Vixie, S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, "Dynamic
   Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April
   1997.

   [SAFESPOT] SAFESPOT EU FP6 project website,
   http://www.safespot-eu.org, (visited in October 2009).

   [SEVECOM] SEVECOM EU FP6 project website, http://www.sevecom.org,
   (visited in October 2009).

   [VSC] Vehicle Safety Communications Project, Final Report, DOT HS 810
   591, April 2006.

   [VSC-A] Vehicle Safety Communications - Applications (VSC-A) Project,
   Final Annual Report, DOT HS 811 073, January 2009.

   [VSC-A_1609.2] VSC-A presentation, "Security in VSC-A", slides
   presented at IEEE 1609 meeting on August 26 - 28, 2008, to be found
   via: http://vii.path.berkeley.edu/1609_wave/aug08/presentations/
   VSCA-1609_080827.pdf


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 21]

Internet-Draft Internet-wide Geo-networking Prob. Stat. September 2013

11.  Authors' Address

   Georgios Karagiannis
   University of Twente
   P.O. Box 217
   7500 AE Enschede,
   The Netherlands
   EMail: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl

   Geert Heijenk
   University of Twente
   P.O. Box 217
   7500 AE Enschede,
   The Netherlands
   EMail: geert.heijenkg@utwente.nl

   Andreas Festag
   Technical University Dresden & NEC Laboratories Europe
   Germany
   Email: andreas.festag@ifn.et.tu-dresden.de?;

   Alexandru Petrescu
   CEA
   Communicating Systems Laboratory, Point Courrier 173
   Palaiseau,   F-91120
   France
   Phone: +33(0)169089223
   Email: alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr

   Alison Chaiken
   Mentor Embedded Software Division
   46871 Bayside Parkway
   Fremont, CA 94538
   USA   Email: alison@she-devel.com
















Karagiannis, et al.   Expires March 23, 2014                   [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/