1. Comparative Evaluation
OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing Protocol)
Routing protocol for MANETs - IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) RFC 3626.
A new clustering structure for VANET 11019
Lucas RIVOIRARD a, Martine WAHL a, Patrick SONDI b, Marion BERBINEAU a, Dominique GRUYER c
a Univ Lille Nord de France, F-59000 Lille, IFSTTAR, COSYS, LEOST, F-59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq
b Univ. Littoral Côte d‘Opale, LISIC - EA 4491, F-62228 Calais, France
c IFSTTAR, COSYS, LIVIC, F-78000 Versailles, France
CBL versus OLSR results
Vehicular communication technologies Vehicle to infrastructure - V2I
Vehicle to vehicule - V2V
Our proposal: CBL (Chain Branch Leaf)
http://www.digitaltrends.com/ http:// motorvehicleregs.com/
• DECENTRALIZED
• Low cost deployment, integrated in the vehicle
• Collaborative ad hoc cooperative network
• Need to structure the network:
• CENTRALIZED
• Expensive deployment for road managers
(≈5000€ per road side unit)
• What happens if a terminal fails?
• Terminal block maintenance
• Park management (update...)
MULTIPOINT
RELAY
Features:
• Routing protocol for VANETs
• Pro-active distributed
algorithm
• One-hop Clusters
Leaf node : an ordinary
node that links to the
nearest branch node.
Branch node : a relay node
responsible of a group of
leaf nodes. Elected by
other nodes to forward
application messages and
build a chain.
ROAD
NETWORK
CLUSTERING
CBL Components
A chain: a virtual backbone consisting of a set of relay nodes.
Objective: to offer, via V2V communication,
a routing service enabling communications in
close and distant environments.
Objective: to limit the routing
traffic to free up bandwidth for
application exchanges
Road Context:
•5-km highway section (2x3 lanes)
•Traffic density 2400 vehicles/hour
•5/6 cars, 1/6 trucks
•Krauβ model
Technology Context:
•IEEE 802.11p - 500 m range – 12 Mbit/s
Periodic routing traffic:
•HELLO / Topology Control (TC)
Two cases for routing parameters:
Case A: RFC 3626 (ex. HELLO periodicity: 2 s)
Case B: ½ case A (e. g. HELLO periodicity: 1 s)
Number of relay nodes
Transmission rate of routing messages in bits/s
OLSR: 10 times more
TC traffic generated
OLSR and CBL: same
traffic HELLO
HELLO and TC traffic
highly sensitive to
routing parameters
60-80 nodes for OLSR (70-88% of network nodes)
15-25 nodes for CBL (15-25% of network nodes)
Number of relay nodes not sensitive to routing
parameters (case A and B)
IP delays grow with the distance between the
source and destination nodes.
IP delays are lower for CBL than for OLSR.
Ex. (105,42) 90% of IP delays are below 4.6 ms
for CBL and 5.4 ms for OLSR.
CDF of IP delays (ms) between nodes (63-42; 1km far), (83-42; 2km), and (105-42; 3km)
• L. Rivoirard, M. Wahl, P. Sondi, M. Berbineau, and D. Gruyer, “Chain-Branch-Leaf: a Clustering Scheme for Vehicular Networks Using Only V2V Communications”,
Journal, Ad Hoc Networks ,vol. 68, pp. 70-84, January 2018, disponible en ligne depuis le 10/10/2017, doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2017.10.007
• L. Rivoirard, M. Wahl, P. Sondi, M. Berbineau, and D. Gruyer, “From Multipoint Relaying to Chain-Branch-Leaf: Improving the Clustering in OLSR for Vehicular Ad
hoc Networks”, the 24th IEEE SCVT symposium, 14 Nov 2017, Leuven, Belgium.
• L. Rivoirard, M. Wahl, P. Sondi, M. Berbineau, and D. Gruyer, “CBL: A Clustering Scheme for VANETs”, the Sixth International Conference on Advances in Vehicular
Systems, Technologies and Applications, 24-27 Jul 2017, Nice, France
lucas.rivoirard@ifsttar.fr
martine.wahl@ifsttar.fr
Flooding
MPR
Future work
Evaluation of ITS applications using CBL routing services in VANETs:
• Ego-localization
• Extended perception
Conclusion - performance CBL versus OLSR
CBL ↘ x4 of routing traffic => ↗ bandwidth for ITS application traffic
Max (7-hops ≈ 3 km) IP delays = 6.5 ms < 10 ms (real-time process automation)
HELLO Topology control (TC)
ROUTING PROTOCOLS
