[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

IPWAVE Working Group                                       J. Jeong, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                   Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Informational                             June 29, 2020
Expires: December 31, 2020


    IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem
                        Statement and Use Cases
               draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-15

Abstract

   This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
   IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
   Systems (ITS).  The main scenarios of vehicular communications are
   vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and
   vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications.  First, this document
   explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking.  Next, for
   IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current
   IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management,
   and Security & Privacy), and then lists up requirements for the
   extensions of those IPv6 protocols for IPv6-based vehicular
   networking.

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 https://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 December 31, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   (https://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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  V2V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  V2I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  V2X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Vehicular Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Vehicular Network Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   5.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.1.  Neighbor Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.1.1.  Link Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       5.1.2.  MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       5.1.3.  Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.2.  Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
                networking-14  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Appendix C.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38

1.  Introduction

   Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
   and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
   networks.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
   allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
   (DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with
   the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band).  DSRC-
   based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
   vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
   networking.  The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
   safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
   frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
   Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC].



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   For direct inter-vehicular wireless connectivity, IEEE has amended
   standard 802.11 (commonly known as Wi-Fi) to enable safe driving
   services based on DSRC for the Wireless Access in Vehicular
   Environments (WAVE) system.  The Physical Layer (L1) and Data Link
   Layer (L2) issues are addressed in IEEE 802.11p [IEEE-802.11p] for
   the PHY and MAC of the DSRC, while IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] covers
   security aspects, IEEE 1609.3 [WAVE-1609.3] defines related services
   at network and transport layers, and IEEE 1609.4 [WAVE-1609.4]
   specifies the multi-channel operation.  IEEE 802.11p was first a
   separate amendment, but was later rolled into the base 802.11
   standard (IEEE 802.11-2012) as IEEE 802.11 Outside the Context of a
   Basic Service Set (OCB) in 2012 [IEEE-802.11-OCB].

   3GPP has standardized Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X)
   communications to support V2X in LTE mobile networks (called LTE V2X)
   and V2X in 5G mobile networks (called 5G V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP]
   [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP].  With C-V2X, vehicles can directly
   communicate with each other without relay nodes (e.g., eNodeB in LTE
   and gNodeB in 5G).

   Along with these WAVE standards and C-V2X standards, regardless of a
   wireless access technology under the IP stack of a vehicle, vehicular
   networks can operate IP mobility with IPv6 [RFC8200] and Mobile IPv6
   protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 (PMIPv6)
   [RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], Locator/
   ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830], and Asymmetric Extended
   Route Optimization (AERO) [RFC6706]).  In addition, ISO has approved
   a standard specifying the IPv6 network protocols and services to be
   used for Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) [ISO-ITS-IPv6]
   [ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1].

   This document describes use cases and a problem statement about
   IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 Wireless
   Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE).  First, it introduces the
   use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS.  Next, for
   IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current
   IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management,
   and Security & Privacy), and then lists up requirements for the
   extensions of those IPv6 protocols, which are tailored to IPv6-based
   vehicular networking.  Thus, this document is intended to motivate
   development of key protocols for IPWAVE.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8691].  In
   addition, the following terms are defined below:





Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   o  Class-Based Safety Plan: A vehicle can make a safety plan by
      classifying the surrounding vehicles into different groups for
      safety purposes according to the geometrical relationship among
      them.  The vehicle groups can be classified as Line-of-Sight
      Unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight Unsafe, and Safe groups [CASD].

   o  Context-Awareness: A vehicle can be aware of spatial-temporal
      mobility information (e.g., position, speed, direction, and
      acceleration/deceleration) of surrounding vehicles for both safety
      and non-safety uses through sensing or communication [CASD].

   o  DMM: "Distributed Mobility Management" [RFC7333][RFC7429].

   o  Edge Computing (EC): It is the local computing near an access
      network (i.e., edge network) for the sake of vehicles and
      pedestrians.

   o  Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or server)
      for edge computing for the sake of vehicles and pedestrians.

   o  Edge Network (EN): It is an access network that has an IP-RSU for
      wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and
      wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP-
      RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA).  It may have a Global Positioning
      System (GPS) radio receiver for its position recognition and the
      localization service for the sake of vehicles.

   o  IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a
      computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike,
      motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., smartphone and
      IoT device).  It has at least one IP interface that runs in IEEE
      802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" transceiver.  Also, it may have an IP
      interface that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP]
      [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP].  See the definition of the term
      "OBU" in [RFC8691].

   o  IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road.
      It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces.  The wireless
      PHY/MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is
      configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode.  An IP-RSU communicates
      with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB
      mode.  Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in C-V2X along
      with an "RSU" transceiver.  An IP-RSU is similar to an Access
      Network Router (ANR), defined in [RFC3753], and a Wireless
      Termination Point (WTP), defined in [RFC5415].  See the definition
      of the term "RSU" in [RFC8691].





Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   o  LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging".  It is a scanning device to
      measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light and
      measuring the reflected pulsed light.

   o  Mobility Anchor (MA): A node that maintains IPv6 addresses and
      mobility information of vehicles in a road network to support
      their IPv6 address autoconfiguration and mobility management with
      a binding table.  An MA has End-to-End (E2E) connections (e.g.,
      tunnels) with IP-RSUs under its control for the address
      autoconfiguration and mobility management of the vehicles.  This
      MA is similar to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]
      for network-based mobility management.

   o  OCB: "Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set - BSS".  It is a
      mode of operation in which a Station (STA) is not a member of a
      BSS and does not utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication,
      association, or data confidentiality [IEEE-802.11-OCB].

   o  802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std
      802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute
      dot11OCBActivited is 'true'.

   o  Platooning: Moving vehicles can be grouped together to reduce air-
      resistance for energy efficiency and reduce the number of drivers
      such that only the leading vehicle has a driver, and the other
      vehicles are autonomous vehicles without a driver and closely
      follow the leading vehicle [Truck-Platooning].

   o  Traffic Control Center (TCC): A system that manages road
      infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSUs, MAs, traffic signals, and
      loop detectors), and also maintains vehicular traffic statistics
      (e.g., average vehicle speed and vehicle inter-arrival time per
      road segment) and vehicle information (e.g., a vehicle's
      identifier, position, direction, speed, and trajectory as a
      navigation path).  TCC is part of a vehicular cloud for vehicular
      networks.

   o  Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an IP-OBU
      for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs.  It
      has a GPS radio navigation receiver for efficient navigation.  Any
      device having an IP-OBU and a GPS receiver (e.g., smartphone and
      table PC) can be regarded as a vehicle in this document.

   o  Vehicular Ad Hoc Network (VANET): A network that consists of
      vehicles interconnected by wireless communication.  Two vehicles
      in a VANET can communicate with each other using other vehicles as
      relays even where they are out of one-hop wireless communication
      range.



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   o  Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks,
      having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding
      elements (e.g., switch and router).

   o  V2D: "Vehicle to Device".  It is the wireless communication
      between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and IoT device).

   o  V2I2D: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Device".  It is the wireless
      communication between a vehicle and a device (e.g., smartphone and
      IoT device) via an infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU).

   o  V2I2V: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Vehicle".  It is the wireless
      communication between a vehicle and another vehicle via an
      infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU).

   o  V2I2X: "Vehicle to Infrastructure to Everything".  It is the
      wireless communication between a vehicle and another entity (e.g.,
      vehicle, smartphone, and IoT device) via an infrastructure node
      (e.g., IP-RSU).

   o  V2X: "Vehicle to Everything".  It is the wireless communication
      between a vehicle and any entity (e.g., vehicle, infrastructure
      node, smartphone, and IoT device), including V2V, V2I, and V2D.

   o  VIP: "Vehicular Internet Protocol".  It is an IPv6 extension for
      vehicular networks including V2V, V2I, and V2X.

   o  VMM: "Vehicular Mobility Management".  It is an IPv6-based
      mobility management for vehicular networks.

   o  VND: "Vehicular Neighbor Discovery".  It is an IPv6 ND extension
      for vehicular networks.

   o  VSP: "Vehicular Security and Privacy".  It is an IPv6-based
      security and privacy for vehicular networks.

   o  WAVE: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments" [WAVE-1609.0].

3.  Use Cases

   This section explains use cases of V2V, V2I, and V2X networking.  The
   use cases of the V2X networking exclude the ones of the V2V and V2I
   networking, but include Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) and Vehicle-to-
   Device (V2D).

   IP is widely used among popular end-user devices (e.g., smartphone
   and tablet) in the Internet.  Applications (e.g., navigator
   application) for those devices can be extended such that the V2V use



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   cases in this section can work with IPv6 as a network layer protocol
   and IEEE 802.11-OCB as a link layer protocol.  In addition, IPv6
   security needs to be extended to support those V2V use cases in a
   safe, secure, privacy-preserving way.

   The use cases presented in this section serve as the description and
   motivation for the need to extend IPv6 and its protocols to
   facilitate "Vehicular IPv6".  Section 5 summarizes the overall
   problem statement and IPv6 requirements.  Note that the adjective
   "Vehicular" in this document is used to represent extensions of
   existing protocols such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, IPv6 Mobility
   Management (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and DMM [RFC7429]), and IPv6
   Security and Privacy Mechanisms rather than new "vehicular-specific"
   functions.  Refer to Section 5 for the problem statement of the
   requirements of vehicular IPv6.

3.1.  V2V

   The use cases of V2V networking discussed in this section include

   o  Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision avoidance;

   o  Cooperative adaptive cruise control in a roadway;

   o  Platooning in a highway;

   o  Cooperative environment sensing.

   These four techniques will be important elements for self-driving
   vehicles.

   Context-Aware Safety Driving (CASD) navigator [CASD] can help drivers
   to drive safely by alerting them to dangerous obstacles and
   situations.  That is, a CASD navigator displays obstacles or
   neighboring vehicles relevant to possible collisions in real-time
   through V2V networking.  CASD provides vehicles with a class-based
   automatic safety action plan, which considers three situations,
   namely, the Line-of-Sight unsafe, Non-Line-of-Sight unsafe, and safe
   situations.  This action plan can be put into action among multiple
   vehicles using V2V networking.

   Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [CA-Cruise-Control] helps
   individual vehicles to adapt their speed autonomously through V2V
   communication among vehicles according to the mobility of their
   predecessor and successor vehicles in an urban roadway or a highway.
   Thus, CACC can help adjacent vehicles to efficiently adjust their
   speed in an interactive way through V2V networking in order to avoid
   a collision.



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series (or group) of vehicles
   (e.g., trucks) to follow each other very closely.  Trucks can use V2V
   communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain
   constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short
   gaps (from 3 meters to 10 meters).  Platooning can maximize the
   throughput of vehicular traffic in a highway and reduce the gas
   consumption because the leading vehicle can help the following
   vehicles to experience less air resistance.

   Cooperative-environment-sensing use cases suggest that vehicles can
   share environmental information (e.g., air pollution, hazards/
   obstacles, slippery areas by snow or rain, road accidents, traffic
   congestion, and driving behaviors of neighboring vehicles) from
   various vehicle-mounted sensors, such as radars, LiDARs, and cameras,
   with other vehicles and pedestrians.  [Automotive-Sensing] introduces
   millimeter-wave vehicular communication for massive automotive
   sensing.  A lot of data can be generated by those sensors, and these
   data typically need to be routed to different destinations.  In
   addition, from the perspective of driverless vehicles, it is expected
   that driverless vehicles can be mixed with driver-operated vehicles.
   Through cooperative environment sensing, driver-operated vehicles can
   use environmental information sensed by driverless vehicles for
   better interaction with the other vehicles and environment.  Vehicles
   can also share their intended maneuvering information (e.g., lane
   change, speed change, ramp in-and-out, cut-in, and abrupt braking)
   with neighboring vehicles.  Thus, this information sharing can help
   the vehicles behave as more efficient traffic flows and minimize
   unnecessary acceleration and deceleration to achieve the best ride
   comfort.

   To encourage more vehicles to participate in this cooperative
   environmental sensing, a reward system will be needed.  Sensing
   activities of each vehicle need to be logged in either a central way
   through a logging server (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a
   distributed way (e.g., blockchain [Bitcoin]) through other vehicles
   or infrastructure.  In the case of a blockchain, each sensing message
   from a vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring
   vehicles can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a
   blockchain such as Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS)
   [Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain].

   The existing IPv6 protocol does not support wireless single-hop V2V
   communications as well as wireless multihop V2V communications.
   Thus, the IPv6 needs to support both single-hop and multihop
   communications in a wireless medium so that vehicles can communicate
   with each other by V2V communications to share either an emergency
   situation or road hazard in a highway.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   To support applications of these V2V use cases, the functions of IPv6
   such as VND and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet exchange
   and secure, safe communication between two vehicles.

3.2.  V2I

   The use cases of V2I networking discussed in this section include

   o  Navigation service;

   o  Energy-efficient speed recommendation service;

   o  Accident notification service;

   o  Electric vehicle (EV) charging service.

   A navigation service, for example, the Self-Adaptive Interactive
   Navigation Tool(SAINT) [SAINT], using V2I networking interacts with a
   TCC for the large-scale/long-range road traffic optimization and can
   guide individual vehicles along appropriate navigation paths in real
   time.  The enhanced version of SAINT [SAINTplus] can give fast moving
   paths to emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulance and fire engine) to let
   them reach an accident spot while redirecting other vehicles near the
   accident spot into efficient detour paths.

   Either a TCC or an ECD can recommend an energy-efficient speed to a
   vehicle that depends on its traffic environment and traffic signal
   scheduling [SignalGuru].  For example, when a vehicle approaches an
   intersection area and a red traffic light for the vehicle becomes
   turned on, it needs to reduce its speed to save fuel consumption.  In
   this case, either a TCC or an ECD, which has the up-to-date
   trajectory of the vehicle and the traffic light schedule, can notify
   the vehicle of an appropriate speed for fuel efficiency.
   [Fuel-Efficient] studies fuel-efficient route and speed plans for
   platooned trucks.

   The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency
   vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU or 4G-LTE
   networks.  The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
   [FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate,
   and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for
   safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls.  The
   construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state
   in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to
   the FirstNet's network core.  The current RAN is mainly constructed
   using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an
   infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I
   and V2V in the near future.

   An EV charging service with V2I can facilitates the efficient battery
   charging of EVs.  In the case where an EV charging station is
   connected to an IP-RSU, an EV can be guided toward the deck of the EV
   charging station through a battery charging server connected to the
   IP-RSU.  In addition to this EV charging service, other value-added
   services (e.g., air firmware/software update and media streaming) can
   be provided to an EV while it is charging its battery at the EV
   charging station.

   The existing IPv6 protocol does not support wireless multihop V2I
   communications in a highway where RSUs are sparsely deployed, so a
   vehicle can reach the wireless coverage of an RSU through the
   multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles.  Thus, IPv6 needs
   to be extended for multihop V2I communications.

   To support applications of these V2I use cases, the functions of IPv6
   such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet
   exchange, transport-layer session continuity, and secure, safe
   communication between a vehicle and a server in the vehicular cloud.

3.3.  V2X

   The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is for a
   pedestrian protection service.

   A pedestrian protection service, such as Safety-Aware Navigation
   Application (SANA) [SANA], using V2I2P networking can reduce the
   collision of a vehicle and a pedestrian carrying a smartphone
   equipped with a network device for wireless communication (e.g., Wi-
   Fi) with an IP-RSU.  Vehicles and pedestrians can also communicate
   with each other via an IP-RSU.  An edge computing device behind the
   IP-RSU can collect the mobility information from vehicles and
   pedestrians, compute wireless communication scheduling for the sake
   of them.  This scheduling can save the battery of each pedestrian's
   smartphone by allowing it to work in sleeping mode before the
   communication with vehicles, considering their mobility.

   For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate
   with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without IP-RSU relaying.
   Light-weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate
   directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V.

   The existing IPv6 protocol does not support wireless multihop V2X (or
   V2I2X) communications in an urban road network where RSUs are
   deployed at intersections, so a vehicle (or a pedestrian's



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   smartphone) can reach the wireless coverage of an RSU through the
   multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles (or pedestrians'
   smartphones).  Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2X (or
   V2I2X) communications.

   To support applications of these V2X use cases, the functions of IPv6
   such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet
   exchange, transport-layer session continuity, and secure, safe
   communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian either directly or
   indirectly via an IP-RSU.

4.  Vehicular Networks

   This section describes an example vehicular network architecture
   supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks.
   It describes an internal network within a vehicle or an edge network
   (called EN).  It explains not only the internetworking between the
   internal networks of a vehicle and an EN via wireless links, but also
   the internetworking between the internal networks of two vehicles via
   wireless links.

4.1.  Vehicular Network Architecture

   Figure 1 shows an example vehicular network architecture for V2I and
   V2V in a road network [OMNI-Interface].  The vehicular network
   architecture contains vehicles (including IP-OBU), IP-RSUs, Mobility
   Anchor, Traffic Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud as components.
   Note that the components of the vehicular network architecture can be
   mapped to those of an IP-based aeronautical network architecture in
   [OMNI-Interface], as shown in Figure 2.





















Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


                     Traffic Control Center in Vehicular Cloud
                    *******************************************
+-------------+    *                                           *
|Corresponding|   *             +-----------------+             *
|    Node     |<->*             | Mobility Anchor |             *
+-------------+   *             +-----------------+             *
                  *                      ^                      *
                  *                      |                      *
                   *                     v                     *
                    *******************************************
                    ^                   ^                     ^
                    |                   |                     |
                    |                   |                     |
                    v                   v                     v
              +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
              | IP-RSU1 |<--------->| IP-RSU2 |<--------->| IP-RSU3 |
              +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
                  ^                     ^                    ^
                  :                     :                    :
           +-----------------+ +-----------------+   +-----------------+
           |      : V2I      | |        : V2I    |   |       : V2I     |
           |      v          | |        v        |   |       v         |
+--------+ |   +--------+    | |   +--------+    |   |   +--------+    |
|Vehicle1|===> |Vehicle2|===>| |   |Vehicle3|===>|   |   |Vehicle4|===>|
+--------+<...>+--------+<........>+--------+    |   |   +--------+    |
           V2V     ^         V2V        ^        |   |        ^        |
           |       : V2V     | |        : V2V    |   |        : V2V    |
           |       v         | |        v        |   |        v        |
           |  +--------+     | |   +--------+    |   |    +--------+   |
           |  |Vehicle5|===> | |   |Vehicle6|===>|   |    |Vehicle7|==>|
           |  +--------+     | |   +--------+    |   |    +--------+   |
           +-----------------+ +-----------------+   +-----------------+
                 Subnet1              Subnet2              Subnet3
                (Prefix1)            (Prefix2)            (Prefix3)

        <----> Wired Link   <....> Wireless Link   ===> Moving Direction

    Figure 1: An Example Vehicular Network Architecture for V2I and V2V













Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


        +-------------------+------------------------------------+
        | Vehicular Network | Aeronautical Network               |
        +===================+====================================+
        | IP-RSU            | Access Router (AR)                 |
        +-------------------+------------------------------------+
        | Vehicle (IP-OBU)  | Mobile Node (MN)                   |
        +-------------------+------------------------------------+
        | Moving Network    | End User Network (EUN)             |
        +-------------------+------------------------------------+
        | Mobility Anchor   | Mobility Service Endpoint (MSE)    |
        +-------------------+------------------------------------+
        | Vehicular Cloud   | Internetwork (INET) Routing System |
        +-------------------+------------------------------------+

        Figure 2: Mapping between Vehicular Network Components and
                      Aeronautical Network Components

   These components are not mandatory, and they can be deployed into
   vehicular networks in various ways.  Some of them (e.g., Mobility
   Anchor, Traffic Control Center, and Vehicular Cloud) may not be
   needed for the vehicular networks according to target use cases in
   Section 3.

   An existing network architecture (e.g., an IP-based aeronautical
   network architecture [OMNI-Interface], a network architecture of
   PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and a low-power and lossy network architecture
   [RFC6550]) can be extended to a vehicular network architecture for
   multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as shown in Figure 1.  In a highway
   scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU directly because of the
   distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km).  For example, RPL (IPv6
   Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] can be
   extended to support a multihop V2I since a vehicle can take advantage
   of other vehicles as relay nodes to reach the RSU.  Also, RPL can be
   extended to support both multihop V2V and V2X in the similar way.

   As shown in this figure, IP-RSUs as routers and vehicles with IP-OBU
   have wireless media interfaces for VANET.  Furthermore, the wireless
   media interfaces are autoconfigured with a global IPv6 prefix (e.g.,
   2001:DB8:1:1::/64) to support both V2V and V2I networking.  Note that
   2001:DB8::/32 is a documentation prefix [RFC3849] for example
   prefixes in this document, and also that any routable IPv6 address
   needs to be routable in a VANET and a vehicular network including IP-
   RSUs.

   In Figure 1, three IP-RSUs (IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3) are
   deployed in the road network and are connected with each other
   through the wired networks (e.g., Ethernet).  A Traffic Control
   Center (TCC) is connected to the Vehicular Cloud for the management



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   of IP-RSUs and vehicles in the road network.  A Mobility Anchor (MA)
   may be located in the TCC as a mobility management controller.
   Vehicle2, Vehicle3, and Vehicle4 are wirelessly connected to IP-RSU1,
   IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3, respectively.  The three wireless networks of
   IP-RSU1, IP-RSU2, and IP-RSU3 can belong to three different subnets
   (i.e., Subnet1, Subnet2, and Subnet3), respectively.  Those three
   subnets use three different prefixes (i.e., Prefix1, Prefix2, and
   Prefix3).

   Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an RSU share a prefix such
   that mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi access point in a
   wireless LAN.  This is a natural characteristic in infrastructure-
   based wireless networks.  For example, in Figure 1, two vehicles
   (i.e., Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can use Prefix 1 to configure their
   IPv6 global addresses for V2I communication.

   A single subnet prefix announced by an RSU can span multiple vehicles
   in VANET.  For example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles
   (i.e., Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected
   VANET.  Also, for Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and
   Vehicle6) can construct another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3,
   two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another
   connected VANET.

   In wireless subnets in vehicular networks (e.g., Subnet1 and Subnet2
   in Figure 1), vehicles can construct a connected VANET (with an
   arbitrary graph topology) and can communicate with each other via V2V
   communication.  Vehicle1 can communicate with Vehicle2 via V2V
   communication, and Vehicle2 can communicate with Vehicle3 via V2V
   communication because they are within the wireless communication
   range of each other.  On the other hand, Vehicle3 can communicate
   with Vehicle4 via the vehicular infrastructure (i.e., IP-RSU2 and IP-
   RSU3) by employing V2I (i.e., V2I2V) communication because they are
   not within the wireless communication range of each other.

   For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691]
   specifies several details, including Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU),
   frame format, link-local address, address mapping for unicast and
   multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and subnet structure.  An
   Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of transforming some
   parameters between the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and the IPv6 network
   layer, which is located between the IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical link
   control layer and the IPv6 network layer.  This IPv6 over 802.11-OCB
   can be used for both V2V and V2I in IPv6-based vehicular networks.

   An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of
   communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's
   TCP session can be continued, or UDP packets can be delivered to a



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an IP-RSU's
   wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage.  In
   Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session (or a UDP session)
   with a corresponding node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can move
   from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless coverage.  In
   this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by either a
   host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a
   network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213]).

   In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a
   role of a home agent.  On the other hand, in the network-based
   mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6, an MA plays a role of a mobility
   management controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in
   PMIPv6, which also serves vehicles as a home agent, and an IP-RSU
   plays a role of an access router such as a Mobile Access Gateway
   (MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213].  The host-based mobility scheme needs
   client functionality in IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile node for
   mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home
   agent.  On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme does not
   need such a client functionality for a vehicle because the network
   infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility agent
   handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home agent
   (e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle.

   There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue in the
   network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a
   large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs.  In this case, a
   distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the
   scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular
   network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route
   optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the
   network-based mobility scheme.  All these mobility approaches (i.e.,
   a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and
   distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a combination
   of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles
   moving fast and moving along with the relatively predictable
   trajectories along the roadways.

   In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the
   data plane for efficient mobility management and data forwarding by
   using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
   [RFC7149][DMM-FPC].  Note that Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC)
   in [DMM-FPC], which is a flexible mobility management system, can
   manage the separation of data-plane and control-plane in DMM.  In
   SDN, the control plane and data plane are separated for the efficient
   management of forwarding elements (e.g., switches and routers) where
   an SDN controller configures the forwarding elements in a centralized
   way and they perform packet forwarding according to their forwarding



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   tables that are configured by the SDN controller.  An MA as an SDN
   controller needs to efficiently configure and monitor its IP-RSUs and
   vehicles for mobility management, location management, and security
   services.

   The mobility information of a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle
   (e.g., position, speed, and direction) can be used to accommodate
   mobility-aware proactive handover schemes, which can perform the
   handover of a vehicle according to its mobility and the wireless
   signal strength of a vehicle and an IP-RSU in a proactive way.

   Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent
   for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 [RFC5213],
   so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the mobility
   information of vehicles for location management.  IP tunneling over
   the wireless link should be avoided for performance efficiency.
   Also, in vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and
   must be considered for wireless communications such as V2V and V2I.

4.2.  V2I-based Internetworking

   This section discusses the internetworking between a vehicle's
   internal network (i.e., moving network) and an EN's internal network
   (i.e., fixed network) via V2I communication.  The internal network of
   a vehicle is nowadays constructed with Ethernet by many automotive
   vendors [In-Car-Network].  Note that an EN can accommodate multiple
   routers (or switches) and servers (e.g., ECDs, navigation server, and
   DNS server) in its internal network.

   A vehicle's internal network often uses Ethernet to interconnect
   Electronic Control Units (ECUs) in the vehicle.  The internal network
   can support Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to accommodate a driver's and
   passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone or tablet).  The network
   topology and subnetting depend on each vendor's network configuration
   for a vehicle and an EN.  It is reasonable to consider the
   interaction between the internal network and an external network
   within another vehicle or an EN.

   As shown in Figure 3, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving
   network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks having
   multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and IP-RSU)
   for the communication with another vehicle or another EN.  The
   internetworking between two internal networks via V2I communication
   requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network
   prefixes of the internal networks.  For the efficiency, the network
   prefixes of the internal networks (as a moving network) in a vehicle
   need to be delegated and configured automatically.  Note that a




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   moving network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network Prefix
   (MNP) [OMNI-Interface].

                                                    +-----------------+
                           (*)<........>(*)  +----->| Vehicular Cloud |
          2001:DB8:1:1::/64 |            |   |      +-----------------+
   +------------------------------+  +---------------------------------+
   |                        v     |  |   v   v                         |
   | +-------+          +-------+ |  | +-------+          +-------+    |
   | | Host1 |          |IP-OBU1| |  | |IP-RSU1|          | Host3 |    |
   | +-------+          +-------+ |  | +-------+          +-------+    |
   |     ^                  ^     |  |     ^                  ^        |
   |     |                  |     |  |     |                  |        |
   |     v                  v     |  |     v                  v        |
   | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- |
   | 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^         |  |     ^ 2001:DB8:20:1::/64        |
   |                    |         |  |     |                           |
   |                    v         |  |     v                           |
   | +-------+      +-------+     |  | +-------+ +-------+   +-------+ |
   | | Host2 |      |Router1|     |  | |Router2| |Server1|...|ServerN| |
   | +-------+      +-------+     |  | +-------+ +-------+   +-------+ |
   |     ^              ^         |  |     ^         ^           ^     |
   |     |              |         |  |     |         |           |     |
   |     v              v         |  |     v         v           v     |
   | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- |
   |      2001:DB8:10:2::/64      |  |       2001:DB8:20:2::/64        |
   +------------------------------+  +---------------------------------+
      Vehicle1 (Moving Network1)            EN1 (Fixed Network1)

      <----> Wired Link   <....> Wireless Link   (*) Antenna

        Figure 3: Internetworking between Vehicle and Edge Network

   Figure 3 also shows the internetworking between the vehicle's moving
   network and the EN's fixed network.  There exists an internal network
   (Moving Network1) inside Vehicle1.  Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and
   Host2), and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1).  There exists another
   internal network (Fixed Network1) inside EN1.  EN1 has one host
   (Host3), two routers (IP-RSU1 and Router2), and the collection of
   servers (Server1 to ServerN) for various services in the road
   networks, such as the emergency notification and navigation.
   Vehicle1's IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and EN1's IP-RSU1 (as a fixed
   router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
   V2I networking.  Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
   with a server (Server1) in EN1 for a vehicular service through
   Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
   RSU1, and EN1's fixed network.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   For the IPv6 communication between an IP-OBU and an IP-RSU or between
   two neighboring IP-OBUs, they need to know the network parameters,
   which include MAC layer and IPv6 layer information.  The MAC layer
   information includes wireless link layer parameters, transmission
   power level, and the MAC address of an external network interface for
   the internetworking with another IP-OBU or IP-RSU.  The IPv6 layer
   information includes the IPv6 address and network prefix of an
   external network interface for the internetworking with another IP-
   OBU or IP-RSU.

   Through the mutual knowledge of the network parameters of internal
   networks, packets can be transmitted between the vehicle's moving
   network and the EN's fixed network.  Thus, V2I requires an efficient
   protocol for the mutual knowledge of network parameters.

   As shown in Figure 3, global IPv6 addresses are used for the wireless
   link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU, but IPv6 Unique Local
   Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] can also be used for those wireless link
   interfaces as long as IPv6 packets can be routed to them in the
   vehicular networks [OMNI-Interface].  For the guarantee of the
   uniqueness of an IPv6 address, the configuration and control overhead
   of the DAD of the wireless link interfaces should be minimized to
   support the V2I and V2X communications of vehicles moving fast along
   roadways.

4.3.  V2V-based Internetworking

   This section discusses the internetworking between the moving
   networks of two neighboring vehicles via V2V communication.

   Figure 4 shows the internetworking between the moving networks of two
   neighboring vehicles.  There exists an internal network (Moving
   Network1) inside Vehicle1.  Vehicle1 has two hosts (Host1 and Host2),
   and two routers (IP-OBU1 and Router1).  There exists another internal
   network (Moving Network2) inside Vehicle2.  Vehicle2 has two hosts
   (Host3 and Host4), and two routers (IP-OBU2 and Router2).  Vehicle1's
   IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router) and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile
   router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for an external link (e.g., DSRC) for
   V2V networking.  Thus, a host (Host1) in Vehicle1 can communicate
   with another host (Host3) in Vehicle2 for a vehicular service through
   Vehicle1's moving network, a wireless link between IP-OBU1 and IP-
   OBU2, and Vehicle2's moving network.









Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


                           (*)<..........>(*)
          2001:DB8:1:1::/64 |              |
   +------------------------------+  +------------------------------+
   |                        v     |  |     v                        |
   | +-------+          +-------+ |  | +-------+          +-------+ |
   | | Host1 |          |IP-OBU1| |  | |IP-OBU2|          | Host3 | |
   | +-------+          +-------+ |  | +-------+          +-------+ |
   |     ^                  ^     |  |     ^                  ^     |
   |     |                  |     |  |     |                  |     |
   |     v                  v     |  |     v                  v     |
   | ---------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |
   | 2001:DB8:10:1::/64 ^         |  |         ^ 2001:DB8:30:1::/64 |
   |                    |         |  |         |                    |
   |                    v         |  |         v                    |
   | +-------+      +-------+     |  |     +-------+      +-------+ |
   | | Host2 |      |Router1|     |  |     |Router2|      | Host4 | |
   | +-------+      +-------+     |  |     +-------+      +-------+ |
   |     ^              ^         |  |         ^              ^     |
   |     |              |         |  |         |              |     |
   |     v              v         |  |         v              v     |
   | ---------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |
   |      2001:DB8:10:2::/64      |  |       2001:DB8:30:2::/64     |
   +------------------------------+  +------------------------------+
      Vehicle1 (Moving Network1)        Vehicle2 (Moving Network2)

      <----> Wired Link   <....> Wireless Link   (*) Antenna

              Figure 4: Internetworking between Two Vehicles

   As a V2V use case in Section 3.1, Figure 5 shows the linear network
   topology of platooning vehicles for V2V communications where Vehicle3
   is the leading vehicle with a driver, and Vehicle2 and Vehicle1 are
   the following vehicles without drivers.


















Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


        (*)<..................>(*)<..................>(*)
         |                      |                      |
   +-----------+          +-----------+          +-----------+
   |           |          |           |          |           |
   | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |
   | |IP-OBU1| |          | |IP-OBU2| |          | |IP-OBU3| |
   | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |
   |     ^     |          |     ^     |          |     ^     |
   |     |     |=====>    |     |     |=====>    |     |     |=====>
   |     v     |          |     v     |          |     v     |
   | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |
   | | Host1 | |          | | Host2 | |          | | Host3 | |
   | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |          | +-------+ |
   |           |          |           |          |           |
   +-----------+          +-----------+          +-----------+
      Vehicle1               Vehicle2               Vehicle3

    <----> Wired Link   <....> Wireless Link   ===> Moving Direction
    (*) Antenna

      Figure 5: Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks

   As shown in Figure 5, multihop internetworking is feasible among the
   moving networks of three vehicles in the same VANET.  For example,
   Host1 in Vehicle1 can communicate with Host3 in Vehicle3 via IP-OBU1
   in Vehicle1, IP-OBU2 in Vehicle2, and IP-OBU3 in Vehicle3 in the
   linear network, as shown in the figure.

5.  Problem Statement

   In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in
   Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
   certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking.  Since the
   vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges
   need to be completed in a time relatively short compared to the
   lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two
   vehicles.

   Note that if two vehicles are moving in the opposite directions in a
   roadway, the relative speed of this case is two times the relative
   speed of a vehicle passing through an RSU.  The time constraint of a
   wireless link between two nodes needs to be considered because it may
   affect the lifetime of a session involving the link.

   The lifetime of a session varies depending on the session's type such
   as a web surfing, voice call over IP, and DNS query.  Regardless of a
   session's type, to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination
   host, IP mobility should be supported for the session.



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   Thus, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact on
   IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND).  Mobility Management (MM) is also
   vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the completion of
   identity verification and tunnel management.  This is especially true
   given the unreliable nature of wireless communication.  This section
   presents key topics such as neighbor discovery and mobility
   management.

5.1.  Neighbor Discovery

   IPv6 ND [RFC4861][RFC4862] is a core part of the IPv6 protocol suite.
   IPv6 ND is designed for point-to-point links and transit links (e.g.,
   Ethernet).  It assumes the efficient and reliable support of
   multicast and unicast from the link layer for various network
   operations such as MAC Address Resolution (AR), Duplicate Address
   Detection (DAD), and Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD).

   Vehicles move quickly within the communication coverage of any
   particular vehicle or IP-RSU.  Before the vehicles can exchange
   application messages with each other, they need to be configured with
   a link-local IPv6 address or a global IPv6 address, and run IPv6 ND.

   The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are efficient DAD
   and NUD operations.  An efficient DAD is required to reduce the
   overhead of the DAD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road
   network, which guaranteeing the uniqueness of a vehicle's global IPv6
   address.  An efficient NUD is required to reduce the overhead of the
   NUD packets during a vehicle's travel in a road network, which
   guaranteeing the accurate neighborhood information of a vehicle in
   terms of adjacent vehicles and RSUs.

   The legacy DAD assumes that a node with an IPv6 address can reach any
   other node with the scope of its address at the time it claims its
   address, and can hear any future claim for that address by another
   party within the scope of its address for the duration of the address
   ownership.  However, the partitioning and merging of VANETs makes
   this assumption frequently invalid in vehicular networks.  The
   merging and partitioning of VANETs frequently occurs in vehicular
   networks.  This merging and partitioning should be considered for the
   IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
   [RFC4862].  Due to the merging of VANETs, two IPv6 addresses may
   conflict with each other though they were unique before the merging.
   Also, the partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same
   prefix be physically unreachable.  Also, SLAAC needs to prevent IPv6
   address duplication due to the merging of VANETs.  According to the
   merging and partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host)
   needs to be distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   host even though the source vehicle uses the same prefix as the
   destination vehicle.

   To efficiently prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the VANET
   partitioning and merging from happening in vehicular networks, the
   vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by
   defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD.  In this
   case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there exists
   a communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and IP-
   RSUs, as shown in Figure 1.  By using the vehicular-network-wide DAD,
   vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the
   vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular
   infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of VANET.

   ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor
   Advertisement (NA) interval need to be adjusted for vehicle speed and
   vehicle density.  For example, the NA interval needs to be
   dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the
   vehicle can maintain its neighboring vehicles in a stable way,
   considering the collision probability with the NA messages sent by
   other vehicles.

   For IPv6-based safety applications (e.g., context-aware navigation,
   adaptive cruise control, and platooning) in vehicular networks, the
   delay-bounded data delivery is critical.  IPv6 ND needs to work to
   support those IPv6-based safety applications efficiently.

   Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 ND should have minimum
   changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6 ND used in the
   Internet, including the DAD and NUD operations.

5.1.1.  Link Model

   A prefix model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the
   communication between two vehicles with the same prefix regardless of
   the vehicular network topology as long as there exist bidirectional
   E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including VANETs and
   IP-RSUs.  This prefix model allows vehicles with the same prefix to
   communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and
   multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs.  Note that the OMNI link model
   supports these multihop V2V and V2I through an OMNI multilink service
   [OMNI-Interface].

   IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions for the link model that
   do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless link
   [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889].  For instance, some IPv6 protocols assume
   symmetry in the connectivity among neighboring interfaces [RFC6250].
   However, radio interference and different levels of transmission



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   power may cause asymmetric links to appear in vehicular wireless
   links.  As a result, a new vehicular link model needs to consider the
   asymmetry of dynamically changing vehicular wireless links.

   There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the
   different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global
   types of IPv6 addresses.  In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all
   interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix and with
   on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link.
   However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship
   between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless
   links and the characteristics of VANET.

   A VANET can have a single link between each vehicle pair within
   wireless communication range, as shown in Figure 5.  When two
   vehicles belong to the same VANET, but they are out of wireless
   communication range, they cannot communicate directly with each
   other.  Suppose that a global-scope IPv6 prefix (or an IPv6 ULA
   prefix) is assigned to VANETs in vehicular networks.  Even though two
   vehicles in the same VANET configure their IPv6 addresses with the
   same IPv6 prefix, they may not communicate with each other not in one
   hop in the same VANET because of the multihop network connectivity
   between them.  Thus, in this case, the concept of an on-link IPv6
   prefix does not hold because two vehicles with the same on-link IPv6
   prefix cannot communicate directly with each other.  Also, when two
   vehicles are located in two different VANETs with the same IPv6
   prefix, they cannot communicate with each other.  When these two
   VANETs converge to one VANET, the two vehicles can communicate with
   each other in a multihop fashion, for example, when they are Vehicle1
   and Vehicle3, as shown in Figure 5.

   From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should consider
   the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle
   mobility.  Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on-
   link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network topology of
   vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop reachable
   network (or partitioned networks).  If the vehicles with the same
   prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix should be
   on-link.  On the other hand, if some of the vehicles with the same
   prefix are not reachable from each other in one hop due to either the
   multihop topology in the VANET or multiple partitions, the prefix
   should be off-link.

   The vehicular link model needs to support multihop routing in a
   connected VANET where the vehicles with the same global-scope IPv6
   prefix (or the same IPv6 ULA prefix) are connected in one hop or
   multiple hops.  It also needs to support the multihop routing in
   multiple connected VANETs through infrastructure nodes (e.g., IP-RSU)



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   where they are connected to the infrastructure.  For example, in
   Figure 1, suppose that Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle3 are
   configured with their IPv6 addresses based on the same global-scope
   IPv6 prefix.  Vehicle1 and Vehicle3 can also communicate with each
   other via either multihop V2V or multihop V2I2V.  When Vehicle1 and
   Vehicle3 are connected in a VANET, it will be more efficient for them
   to communicate with each other directly via VANET rather than
   indirectly via IP-RSUs.  On the other hand, when Vehicle1 and
   Vehicle3 are far away from direct communication range in separate
   VANETs and under two different IP-RSUs, they can communicate with
   each other through the relay of IP-RSUs via V2I2V.  Thus, two
   separate VANETs can merge into one network via IP-RSU(s).  Also,
   newly arriving vehicles can merge two separate VANETs into one VANET
   if they can play the role of a relay node for those VANETs.

   Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, the vehicular link model
   should have minimum changes for the interoperability with the legacy
   IPv6 link model in an efficient fashion to support the IPv6 DAD and
   NUD operations.

5.1.2.  MAC Address Pseudonym

   For the protection of drivers' privacy, a pseudonym of a MAC address
   of a vehicle's network interface should be used, so that the MAC
   address can be changed periodically.  However, although such a
   pseudonym of a MAC address can protect to some extent the privacy of
   a vehicle, it may not be able to resist attacks on vehicle
   identification by other fingerprint information, for example, the
   scrambler seed embedded in IEEE 802.11-OCB frames [Scrambler-Attack].
   The pseudonym of a MAC address affects an IPv6 address based on the
   MAC address, and a transport-layer (e.g., TCP and SCTP) session with
   an IPv6 address pair.  However, the pseudonym handling is not
   implemented and tested yet for applications on IP-based vehicular
   networking.

   In the ETSI standards, for the sake of security and privacy, an ITS
   station (e.g., vehicle) can use pseudonyms for its network interface
   identities (e.g., MAC address) and the corresponding IPv6 addresses
   [Identity-Management].  Whenever the network interface identifier
   changes, the IPv6 address based on the network interface identifier
   needs to be updated, and the uniqueness of the address needs to be
   checked through the DAD procedure.  For vehicular networks with high
   mobility and density, this DAD needs to be performed efficiently with
   minimum overhead so that the vehicles can exchange application
   messages (e.g., collision avoidance and accident notification) with
   each other with a short interval (e.g., 0.5 second)
   [NHTSA-ACAS-Report].




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


5.1.3.  Routing

   For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs via IP-
   RSUs, a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g., AODV or OLSRv2) may
   be required to support both unicast and multicast in the links of the
   subnet with the same IPv6 prefix.  However, it will be costly to run
   both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in terms of
   control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems].

   A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in
   the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the
   routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology
   because the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each
   vehicle.  Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the
   IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead.

5.2.  Mobility Management

   The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end
   points requires efficient mobility management including location
   management and handover.  Most vehicles are equipped with a GPS
   receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding
   smartphone App.  Note that the GPS receiver may not provide vehicles
   with accurate location information in adverse environments such as a
   building area or a tunnel.  The location precision can be improved
   with assistance of the IP-RSUs or a cellular system with a GPS
   receiver for location information.

   With a GPS navigator, efficient mobility management can be performed
   with the help of vehicles periodically reporting their current
   position and trajectory (i.e., navigation path) to the vehicular
   infrastructure (having IP-RSUs and an MA in TCC).  This vehicular
   infrastructure can predict the future positions of the vehicles from
   their mobility information (i.e., the current position, speed,
   direction, and trajectory) for efficient mobility management (e.g.,
   proactive handover).  For a better proactive handover, link-layer
   parameters, such as the signal strength of a link-layer frame (e.g.,
   Received Channel Power Indicator (RCPI) [VIP-WAVE]), can be used to
   determine the moment of a handover between IP-RSUs along with
   mobility information.

   By predicting a vehicle's mobility, the vehicular infrastructure
   needs to better support IP-RSUs to perform efficient SLAAC, data
   forwarding, horizontal handover (i.e., handover in wireless links
   using a homogeneous radio technology), and vertical handover (i.e.,
   handover in wireless links using heterogeneous radio technologies) in
   advance along with the movement of the vehicle.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   For example, as shown in Figure 1, when a vehicle (e.g., Vehicle2) is
   moving from the coverage of an IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU1) into the
   coverage of another IP-RSU (e.g., IP-RSU2) belonging to a different
   subnet, the IP-RSUs can proactively support the IPv6 mobility of the
   vehicle, while performing the SLAAC, data forwarding, and handover
   for the sake of the vehicle.

   For a mobility management scheme in a shared link, where the wireless
   subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient
   vehicular-network-wide DAD is required.  If DHCPv6 is used to assign
   a unique IPv6 address to each vehicle in this shared link, the DAD is
   not required.  On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme
   with a unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] and OMNI
   [OMNI-Interface]), DAD is not required because the IPv6 address of a
   vehicle's external wireless interface is guaranteed to be unique.
   There is a tradeoff between the prefix usage efficiency and DAD
   overhead.  Thus, the IPv6 address autoconfiguration for vehicular
   networks needs to consider this tradeoff to support efficient
   mobility management.

   Therefore, for the proactive and seamless IPv6 mobility of vehicles,
   the vehicular infrastructure (including IP-RSUs and MA) needs to
   efficiently perform the mobility management of the vehicles with
   their mobility information and link-layer information.  Also, in
   IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 mobility management should have
   minimum changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6
   mobility management schemes such as PMIPv6, DMM, LISP, and AERO.

6.  Security Considerations

   This section discusses security and privacy for IPv6-based vehicular
   networking.  Security and privacy are key components of IPv6-based
   vehicular networking along with neighbor discovery and mobility
   management.

   Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X networking.
   Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated in order to
   participate in vehicular networking.  Also, in-vehicle devices (e.g.,
   ECU) and a driver/passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone and
   tablet PC) in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle
   devices and another driver/passenger's mobile devices in another
   vehicle, or other servers behind an IP-RSU in a secure way.  Even
   though a vehicle is perfectly authenticated and legitimate, it may be
   hacked for running malicious applications to track and collect its
   and other vehicles' information.  In this case, an attack mitigation
   process may be required to reduce the aftermath of malicious
   behaviors.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   Strong security measures shall protect vehicles roaming in road
   networks from the attacks of malicious nodes, which are controlled by
   hackers.  For safe driving applications (e.g., context-aware
   navigation, cooperative adaptive cruise control, and platooning), as
   explained in Section 3.1, the cooperative action among vehicles is
   assumed.  Malicious nodes may disseminate wrong driving information
   (e.g., location, speed, and direction) for disturbing safe driving.
   For example, a Sybil attack, which tries to confuse a vehicle with
   multiple false identities, may disturb a vehicle from taking a safe
   maneuver.

   Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid certificates by
   an authentication server in the vehicular cloud, the authenticated
   vehicles may harm other vehicles, so their communication activities
   need to be logged in either a central way through a logging server
   (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a distributed way (e.g.,
   blockchain [Bitcoin]) along with other vehicles or infrastructure.
   For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities of malicious nodes,
   a blockchain technology can be used [Bitcoin].  Each message from a
   vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring vehicles
   can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain such
   as PoW and PoS [Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain].

   To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication
   method is required.  A Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and a user
   certificate (e.g., X.509 certificate [RFC5280]) along with an in-
   vehicle device's identifier generation can be used to efficiently
   authenticate a vehicle or its driver (having a user certificate)
   through a road infrastructure node (e.g., IP-RSU) connected to an
   authentication server in the vehicular cloud.  This authentication
   can be used to identify the vehicle that will communicate with an
   infrastructure node or another vehicle.  In the case where a vehicle
   has an internal network (called Moving Network) and elements in the
   network (e.g., in-vehicle devices and a user's mobile devices), as
   shown in Figure 3, the elements in the network need to be
   authenticated individually for safe authentication.  Also, Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) certificates [RFC8446][RFC5280] can be used for
   an element's authentication to allow secure E2E vehicular
   communications between an element in a vehicle and another element in
   a server in a vehicular cloud, or between an element in a vehicle and
   another element in another vehicle.

   For secure V2I communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between
   a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a fixed router (i.e.,
   IP-RSU) in an EN needs to be established, as shown in Figure 3
   [RFC4301][RFC4302][RFC4303][RFC4308][RFC7296].  Also, for secure V2V
   communication, a secure channel (e.g., IPsec) between a mobile router
   (i.e., IP-OBU) in a vehicle and a mobile router (i.e., IP-OBU) in



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   another vehicle needs to be established, as shown in Figure 4.  For
   secure communication, an element in a vehicle (e.g., an in-vehicle
   device and a driver/passenger's mobile device) needs to establish a
   secure connection (e.g., TLS) with another element in another vehicle
   or another element in a vehicular cloud (e.g., a server).  Even
   though IEEE 1609.2 [WAVE-1609.2] specifies security services for
   applications and management messages.  This WAVE specification is
   optional, so if WAVE does not support the security of a WAVE frame,
   either the network layer or the transport layer needs to support
   security services for the WAVE frames.

   For the setup of a secure channel over IPsec or TLS, the multihop V2I
   communications over DSRC is required in a highway for the
   authentication by involving multiple intermediate vehicles as relay
   nodes toward an IP-RSU connected to an authentication server in the
   vehicular cloud.  The V2I communications over 5G V2X (or LTE V2X) is
   required to allow a vehicle to communicate directly with a gNodeB (or
   eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular cloud.

   To prevent an adversary from tracking a vehicle with its MAC address
   or IPv6 address, especially for a long-living transport-layer session
   (e.g., voice call over IP and video streaming service), a MAC address
   pseudonym needs to be provided to each vehicle; that is, each vehicle
   periodically updates its MAC address and its IPv6 address needs to be
   updated accordingly by the MAC address change [RFC4086][RFC4941].
   Such an update of the MAC and IPv6 addresses should not interrupt the
   E2E communications between two vehicles (or between a vehicle and an
   IP-RSU) for a long-living transport-layer session.  However, if this
   pseudonym is performed without strong E2E confidentiality (using
   either IPsec or TLS), there will be no privacy benefit from changing
   MAC and IPv6 addresses, because an adversary can observe the change
   of the MAC and IPv6 addresses and track the vehicle with those
   addresses.  Thus, the MAC address pseudonym and the IPv6 address
   update should be performed with strong E2E confidentiality.

   For the IPv6 ND, the DAD is required to ensure the uniqueness of the
   IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface.  This DAD can be used
   as a flooding attack that uses the DAD-related ND packets
   disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks.  Thus, the
   vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out suspicious ND traffic in
   advance.

   For mobility management, a malicious vehicle can construct multiple
   virtual bogus vehicles, and register them with IP-RSUs and MA.  This
   registration makes the IP-RSUs and MA waste their resources.  The IP-
   RSUs and MA need to determine whether a vehicle is genuine or bogus
   in mobility management.  Also, the confidentiality of control packets
   and data packets among IP-RSUs and MA, the E2E paths (e.g., tunnels)



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   need to be protected by secure communication channels.  In addition,
   to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6
   mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication among them needs to be
   performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate).

7.  Informative References

   [Automotive-Sensing]
              Choi, J., Va, V., Gonzalez-Prelcic, N., Daniels, R., R.
              Bhat, C., and R. W. Heath, "Millimeter-Wave Vehicular
              Communication to Support Massive Automotive Sensing",
              IEEE Communications Magazine, December 2016.

   [Bitcoin]  Nakamoto, S., "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash
              System", URL: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, May 2009.

   [CA-Cruise-Control]
              California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
              (PATH), "Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control", [Online]
              Available:
              http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
              connected-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control,
              2017.

   [CASD]     Shen, Y., Jeong, J., Oh, T., and S. Son, "CASD: A
              Framework of Context-Awareness Safety Driving in Vehicular
              Networks", International Workshop on Device Centric Cloud
              (DC2), March 2016.

   [DMM-FPC]  Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S.,
              Moses, D., and C. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding Policy
              Configuration (FPC) in DMM", draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-13
              (work in progress), March 2020.

   [DSRC]     ASTM International, "Standard Specification for
              Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between
              Roadside and Vehicle Systems - 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short
              Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC)
              and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
              ASTM E2213-03(2010), October 2010.

   [EU-2008-671-EC]
              European Union, "Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 on
              the Harmonised Use of Radio Spectrum in the 5875 - 5905
              MHz Frequency Band for Safety-related Applications of
              Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)", EU 2008/671/EC,
              August 2008.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [FirstNet]
              U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
              Administration (NTIA), "First Responder Network Authority
              (FirstNet)", [Online]
              Available: https://www.firstnet.gov/, 2012.

   [FirstNet-Report]
              First Responder Network Authority, "FY 2017: ANNUAL REPORT
              TO CONGRESS, Advancing Public Safety Broadband
              Communications", FirstNet FY 2017, December 2017.

   [Fuel-Efficient]
              van de Hoef, S., H. Johansson, K., and D. V. Dimarogonas,
              "Fuel-Efficient En Route Formation of Truck Platoons",
              IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
              January 2018.

   [ID-Multicast-Problems]
              Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and JC.
              Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
              Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11 (work
              in progress), December 2019.

   [Identity-Management]
              Wetterwald, M., Hrizi, F., and P. Cataldi, "Cross-layer
              Identities Management in ITS Stations", The 10th
              International Conference on ITS Telecommunications,
              November 2010.

   [IEEE-802.11-OCB]
              "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
              Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std
              802.11-2016, December 2016.

   [IEEE-802.11p]
              "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
              Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 6:
              Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments", IEEE Std
              802.11p-2010, June 2010.

   [In-Car-Network]
              Lim, H., Volker, L., and D. Herrscher, "Challenges in a
              Future IP/Ethernet-based In-Car Network for Real-Time
              Applications", ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference
              (DAC), June 2011.






Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [ISO-ITS-IPv6]
              ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems -
              Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6
              Networking", ISO 21210:2012, June 2012.

   [ISO-ITS-IPv6-AMD1]
              ISO/TC 204, "Intelligent Transport Systems -
              Communications Access for Land Mobiles (CALM) - IPv6
              Networking - Amendment 1", ISO 21210:2012/AMD 1:2017,
              September 2017.

   [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]
              National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
              "Final Report of Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems
              (ACAS) Program", DOT HS 809 080, August 2000.

   [OMNI-Interface]
              Templin, F. and A. Whyman, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
              over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", draft-
              templin-6man-omni-interface-24 (work in progress), June
              2020.

   [RFC3561]  Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-
              Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July
              2003.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [RFC3849]  Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June
              2005.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
              2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [RFC4308]  Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308,
              December 2005.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
              Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 5213, August 2008.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5415]  Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And
              Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.

   [RFC5889]  Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
              Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.

   [RFC6250]  Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May
              2011.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
              Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
              Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.

   [RFC6706]  Templin, F., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization
              (AERO)", RFC 6706, August 2012.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
              "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
              November 2012.



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
              2013.

   [RFC7149]  Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
              Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
              Environment", RFC 7149, March 2014.

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
              RFC 7181, April 2014.

   [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
              Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", RFC 7296, October 2014.

   [RFC7333]  Chan, H., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen,
              "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management",
              RFC 7333, August 2014.

   [RFC7429]  Liu, D., Zuniga, JC., Seite, P., Chan, H., and CJ.
              Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
              Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, January 2015.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 8200, July 2017.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018.

   [RFC8691]  Benamar, N., Haerri, J., Lee, J., and T. Ernst, "Basic
              Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context of
              a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11", RFC 8691,
              December 2019.

   [SAINT]    Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. Du, "SAINT:
              Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based
              Vehicular Traffic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on
              Vehicular Technology, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016.

   [SAINTplus]
              Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D.
              Du, "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+
              for Emergency Service Delivery Optimization",
              IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
              June 2017.





Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [SANA]     Hwang, T. and J. Jeong, "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation
              Application for Pedestrian Protection in Vehicular
              Networks", Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science
              (LNCS), Vol. 9502, December 2015.

   [Scrambler-Attack]
              Bloessl, B., Sommer, C., Dressier, F., and D. Eckhoff,
              "The Scrambler Attack: A Robust Physical Layer Attack on
              Location Privacy in Vehicular Networks", IEEE 2015
              International Conference on Computing, Networking and
              Communications (ICNC), February 2015.

   [SignalGuru]
              Koukoumidis, E., Peh, L., and M. Martonosi, "SignalGuru:
              Leveraging Mobile Phones for Collaborative Traffic Signal
              Schedule Advisory", ACM MobiSys, June 2011.

   [TR-22.886-3GPP]
              3GPP, "Study on Enhancement of 3GPP Support for 5G V2X
              Services", 3GPP TR 22.886/Version 16.2.0, December 2018.

   [Truck-Platooning]
              California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology
              (PATH), "Automated Truck Platooning", [Online] Available:
              http://www.path.berkeley.edu/research/automated-and-
              connected-vehicles/truck-platooning, 2017.

   [TS-23.285-3GPP]
              3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for V2X Services", 3GPP
              TS 23.285/Version 16.2.0, December 2019.

   [TS-23.287-3GPP]
              3GPP, "Architecture Enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to
              Support Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Services", 3GPP
              TS 23.287/Version 16.2.0, March 2020.

   [Vehicular-BlockChain]
              Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S., and R. Jurdak,
              "BlockChain: A Distributed Solution to Automotive Security
              and Privacy", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55, No.
              12, December 2017.

   [VIP-WAVE]
              Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the
              Feasibility of IP Communications in 802.11p Vehicular
              Networks", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
              Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, March 2013.




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   [WAVE-1609.0]
              IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Guide for Wireless Access
              in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Architecture", IEEE Std
              1609.0-2013, March 2014.

   [WAVE-1609.2]
              IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
              Access in Vehicular Environments - Security Services for
              Applications and Management Messages", IEEE Std
              1609.2-2016, March 2016.

   [WAVE-1609.3]
              IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
              Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking
              Services", IEEE Std 1609.3-2016, April 2016.

   [WAVE-1609.4]
              IEEE 1609 Working Group, "IEEE Standard for Wireless
              Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-Channel
              Operation", IEEE Std 1609.4-2016, March 2016.































Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


Appendix A.  Changes from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14

   The following changes are made from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
   networking-14:

   o  This version is revised based on the comments from eight
      reviewers: Nancy Cam-Winget (Cisco), Fred L.  Templin (The Boeing
      Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI), Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai
      Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil University), Zhiwei Yan (CNNIC),
      Yong-Joon Joe (LSware), and Peter E.  Yee (Akayla).

Appendix B.  Acknowledgments

   This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications
   Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea
   MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based
   Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized
   Security Service Provisioning).

   This work was supported in part by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and
   ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center)
   support program (IITP-2019-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP
   (Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion).

   This work was supported in part by the French research project
   DataTweet (ANR-13-INFR-0008) and in part by the HIGHTS project funded
   by the European Commission I (636537-H2020).

Appendix C.  Contributors

   This document is a group work of IPWAVE working group, greatly
   benefiting from inputs and texts by Rex Buddenberg (Naval
   Postgraduate School), Thierry Ernst (YoGoKo), Bokor Laszlo (Budapest
   University of Technology and Economics), Jose Santa Lozanoi
   (Universidad of Murcia), Richard Roy (MIT), Francois Simon (Pilot),
   Sri Gundavelli (Cisco), Erik Nordmark, Dirk von Hugo (Deutsche
   Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ
   Housley (Vigil Security), and Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom).  The authors
   sincerely appreciate their contributions.

   The following are co-authors of this document:

   Nabil Benamar
   Department of Computer Sciences
   High School of Technology of Meknes
   Moulay Ismail University
   Morocco




Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36
   EMail: benamar73@gmail.com


   Sandra Cespedes
   NIC Chile Research Labs
   Universidad de Chile
   Av.  Blanco Encalada 1975
   Santiago
   Chile


   Phone: +56 2 29784093
   EMail: scespede@niclabs.cl


   Jerome Haerri
   Communication Systems Department
   EURECOM
   Sophia-Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34
   EMail: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr


   Dapeng Liu
   Alibaba
   Beijing, Beijing 100022
   China

   Phone: +86 13911788933
   EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com


   Tae (Tom) Oh
   Department of Information Sciences and Technologies
   Rochester Institute of Technology
   One Lomb Memorial Drive
   Rochester, NY 14623-5603
   USA

   Phone: +1 585 475 7642
   EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu


   Charles E.  Perkins
   Futurewei Inc.



Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA 95050
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 330 4586
   EMail: charliep@computer.org


   Alexandre Petrescu
   CEA, LIST
   CEA Saclay
   Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190
   France

   Phone: +33169089223
   EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr


   Yiwen Chris Shen
   Department of Computer Science & Engineering
   Sungkyunkwan University
   2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
   Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 31 299 4106
   Fax: +82 31 290 7996
   EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu
   URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris-shen.php


   Michelle Wetterwald
   FBConsulting
   21, Route de Luxembourg
   Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633
   Luxembourg

   EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com


Author's Address










Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft          IPWAVE Problem Statement               June 2020


   Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor)
   Department of Computer Science and Engineering
   Sungkyunkwan University
   2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
   Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do  16419
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 31 299 4957
   Fax:   +82 31 290 7996
   EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu
   URI:   http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php








































Jeong, Ed.              Expires December 31, 2020              [Page 39]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/