Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure ...jmarty/papers/Sciwinet_TRB_20140801...19...

Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Communication in 1 Heterogeneous Wireless Network - Performance Evaluation 2

Kakan Chandra Dey, Ph.D. 3 Postdoctoral Fellow, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering 4

18G Lowry Hall, Clemson University, SC 29634 5 Email: [email protected] 6

Tel: +1-(313) 523-0865, Fax: +1-(864) 656-2670 7 8

Anjan Rayamajhi 9 PhD Student, School of Computing, 10

211 McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634 11 Email: [email protected] 12

Tel: +1-(864)-633-8659, Fax: +1-(864)-656-0145 13 14

Parth Bhavsar, Ph.D. 15 Postdoctoral Fellow, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering 16

123 Lowry Hall, Clemson University, SC 29634 17 Email:[email protected] 18

Tel: +1-(404) 574-9552, Fax: +1-(864) 656-2670 19 20

Sean Stamm 21 Undergraduate Student, University of North Carolina at Asheville 22

Email: [email protected], Tel: +1-(828) 989-4355 23 24

Mashrur Chowdhury,* Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE 25 Eugene Douglas Mays Professor of Transportation 26

Glenn Department of Civil Engineering 27 216 Lowry Hall, Clemson University, SC 29634 28

Email: [email protected] 29 Tel: +1-(864) 656-3313, Fax: +1-(864) 656-2670 30

31 Jim Martin, Ph.D. 32 Associate Professor 33

School of Computing, Clemson University 34 211 McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634 35

Email: [email protected] 36 Tel: +1-(864)-656-4529, Fax: +1-(864)-656-0145 37

38 39 40 41 *Corresponding author 42 Number of Figures = 15 43 Word count= 7554 (3804 words +250*15 figures and tables) 44 Submission date: August 1, 2014 45

Dey, Rayamajhi, Bhavsar, Stamm, Chowdhury and Martin 1

ABSTRACT 1 Connected Vehicle Technology (CVT) requires wireless data communication between devices 2 within vehicles and between vehicles (V2V) and vehicle to infrastructure (V2I). To support these 3 growing wireless communication demands in CVT, integration of multiple communication 4 technologies is crucial. Evaluation of different wireless network performances for V2V and V2I 5 communication is a prerequisite to robust wireless communication network design and 6 development for CVT applications. Though dedicated short range communication (DSRC) has 7 been considered as the primary communication technology in V2V and V2I communication for 8 safety critical applications, utilization of other wireless technologies such as cellular, Wi-Fi, and 9 WiMAX technologies can supplement longer range communications and throughput 10 requirements that could not be supported by DSRC communications alone or during DSRC 11 communication failure. For a broad range of CVT applications, a viable communication option 12 should include V2V and V2I capable of utilizing a heterogeneous wireless network without 13 losing connectivity while moving from one communication technology range to another. 14 Optimum utilization of existing built networks, such as Wi-Fi and cellular networks will reduce 15 the need for massive investment of new V2V and V2I communication networks. In this study, 16 we have evaluated the performance of Wi-Fi and cellular technologies in Clemson University’s 17 heterogeneous wireless network (HetNet) for V2V and V2I communications. Our field 18 evaluations show that HetNet provides a viable option for various CVT applications beyond 19 DSRC. 20 21


INTRODUCTION 1 A robust and seamless communication network is essential for connected transportation systems. 2 Availability of reliable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) 3 communication is the most critical component of connected transportation systems. Connected 4 transportation systems will bring numerous advantages in terms of improved traffic safety, 5 efficient traffic operations, and improved mobility performance. Connected vehicle technology 6 (CVT) is enabled by V2V and V2I communications. One of the primary challenges of V2V and 7 V2I is that communication is required when vehicles are moving at high speeds. Though there 8 are several communication options available, such as Wi-Fi, WiMAX, Cellular, and DSRC- not 9 all can support low latency, accuracy, and the reliability of data transmission required for safety 10 applications (1). While the USDOT is committed to the use of Dedicated Short Range 11 Communication (DSRC) for safety-related V2V to V2I applications, policy makers have realized 12 that relying only on DSRC may prove detrimental to the connected transportation system; as a 13 result, they are promoting research efforts for all wireless technologies that can enhance V2V 14 and V2I communications (1). The wireless communication research community has been looking 15 for specific Wi-Fi, WiMAX and cellular communication technologies to combine with DSRC to 16 provide multi-channel communication (2). However availability of discrete Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and 17 cellular network coverage often creates a heterogeneous network (HetNet). Moving from one 18 network to another network requires mobile devices to perform successful handoffs between 19 wireless networks for continuous connectivity. 20

In this research, the authors explored the potential of a heterogeneous wireless network to 21 provide connectivity for V2V and V2I communications. To conduct field experiments, the 22 authors utilized a Clemson University Science Wireless Network (SciWiNet) infrastructure, 23 which supports WiMAX, 3G and LTE as well as the campus-wide Wi-Fi network. This 24 SciWiNet project is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support a mobile 25 virtual network operator (MVNO) for academic research communities (3). In this study 26 SciWiNet and the campus-wide Wi-Fi network were utilized to form a HetNet for V2V and V2I 27 communication evaluation. The objectives of this research were to: 28

• assess the current state of wireless coverage on the Clemson University’s campus for 29 supporting the V2V and V2I communications; 30

• evaluate the performance of HetNet for V2I communications; and 31 • evaluate the performance of HetNet for V2V communications. 32

PREVIOUS STUDIES ON HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS NETWORK 33 Heterogeneous wireless communications have differences in characteristics such as security 34 requirement, data rates and coverage radius (4). However, in everyday scenario, mobile devices 35 access heterogeneous networks for continuous connectivity. Routing data traffic during 36 movement of mobile hosts has been considered a major issue of importance since the wide 37 adoption of mobile devices such as smart phone and laptop computers (5). One of the big 38 challenges in heterogeneous wireless networks is the handoff duration, which requires the user to 39 switch from one network to another network. However, handoff time between networks requires 40 significant time which hampers the user experience and reliability of the heterogeneous network 41 (4). A modified version of the MIPv6 handoff protocol, PMIPv6, could be more appropriate for 42 localized application while MIPv6 could be utilized for global mobility to minimize the handoff 43 time (6). PFMIPv6, a handoff scheme, communicates with next wireless access point by 44 measuring mobile node’s signal strength (7). Ning et al. (2014) proposed a Markov-decision 45


process-based handoff algorithm, which considers received signal strength as a primary measure 1 of effectiveness (MOE) to minimize average handoff frequency (8). In another study of 2 simultaneous binding enabling PMIPv6 (SPMIPv6), researchers were able to reduce handoff 3 time within one round trip time (RTT), which is less than 10 ms (9). To minimize the packet loss 4 during hand-off scenarios, Baojiang proposed a packet routing strategy which can provide 5 advance information to en-route networks to reduce authentication time and thereby transmit 6 overlapped packets from en-route network (10). A similar study found that authentication and 7 security information provided to a local key holder to process quick authentication processing 8 could reduce handoff time significantly in a heterogeneous network, which included WiMAX 9 and Wi-Fi. (11). Magagula et al. introduced a network-wide handoff coordinator to reduce 10 handoff time (12). Kim et al. developed a layer-3 IP based handoff strategy in WiMAX mesh 11 networks to minimize handoff latency and packet loss (13). Wisitpongphan and Bai (2013) 12 developed a multi-Criteria Ad hoc Real-time Streaming (CARS) algorithm to improve the 13 quality of service in a multi-hop vehicular network enabled by DSRC technology (14). CARS 14 algorithms continuously monitored the signal strength between available networks and switched 15 between networks to maximize video streaming quality (14). Several studies reported the 16 centralized resources allocation for a heterogeneous network rather than distributed systems (15-17 17). Researchers also compared different algorithms used in different handoff schemes. Stevens-18 Navarro and Wong (2006) compared four handoff algorithms (MEW, SAW, TOPSIS, and GRA) 19 considering different performance criteria and reported that MEW, SAW, and TOPSIS were very 20 similar when compared against all performance criteria, but GRA performed better (18). To 21 evaluate the performance of heterogeneous networks for IPv4, Izard et al. (2014) developed an 22 open source test-bed which resolved triangular routing issues for the Global Environment for 23 Network Innovations (GENI) project sponsored by NSF (19). Though there has been a 24 substantial amount of research conducted to develop more efficient ways for fast handoff—to the 25 best of our knowledge-there are no studies which have investigated heterogeneous network 26 performance in connected vehicle scenarios. Our objective covers that facet of understanding 27 handoff behavior in connected vehicles with vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure 28 connectivity tests. 29

METHOD 30 This study was performed in three phases. In the first phase we developed a wireless coverage 31 map of the main campus of Clemson University, and based on this coverage map, we identified 32 locations for V2I and V2V handoff tests. Phase 2 and Phase 3 included V2I and V2V handoff 33 tests. An application layer handoff testing tool using UDP and TCP sockets was created for this 34 study. The objective was to understand seamless communication between vehicles in a HetNet 35 system subjected to hard handoff. The tool was designed to detect hard handoff controlled by a 36 Linux Network Manager. The detection of hard handoff was followed by creating a new socket 37 and reattempting the connection. The tool recorded information regarding the handoff such as the 38 interface being used before and after the handoff, packet loss during handoff, and the time 39 needed for the handoff to complete. The detailed description of each phase is provided in the 40 subsequent sections. 41

Phase 1: Develop wireless coverage map for Clemson University’s main campus for V2V 42 and V2I communication evaluation 43

To identify locations for wireless connectivity for V2I and V2V communication, it is necessary 44 to develop a wireless coverage map. To develop the coverage map of Wi-Fi and SciWiNet 45


around main campus, we utilized Android phone apps, “CyberTiger” and “SciWiNet”, which 1 were developed in the Networking Laboratory at Clemson University (20-21). We developed the 2 coverage map by driving, walking and biking around the campus with an Android smartphone 3 running one of the apps. The previously studied coverage map of SciWiNet’s 3G/4G coverage, 4 available at www.sciwinet.org, was also used for this study. The primary objective was to 5 develop different network coverage maps and to identify a particular route that could be used for 6 handoff testing using the tool our team had developed for V2V and V2I communications. 7 Phase 2: Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) handoff tests 8

To evaluate the efficacy of V2I data communication in a HetNet (Objective 2), a client-to-server 9 packet transfer model was developed, in which the client sends data to a server with GPS 10 coordinates, time stamps, and signal strengths at different network interfaces including currently 11 used interface by Layer 3 for packet routing. Field tests were conducted in a HetNet with Wi-Fi 12 and SciWiNet connectivity. As shown in Figure 1, the campus Wi-Fi was available near the 13 Clemson University Brooks Center for the Performing Arts, but the vehicle lost the Wi-Fi signal 14 as it moved out of the Wi-Fi range. Initially all packets were routed using the Wi-Fi interface, 15 and when first going out of range, the Linux Network Manager took charge switching with a 16 handoff at Layer 2 to the next available network, which in this case was SciWiNet. A vertical 17 handoff was defined for the case when the underlying network changed during the handoff. This 18 was a hard-handoff where a connection was broken before attempting to reconnect. Our testing 19 tool was designed to detect such a handoff at Layer 3 and make appropriate changes so that 20 devices (both in-vehicle and infrastructure) remain connected after the handoff. UDP and TCP 21 data communication protocol-based tests were performed multiple times. Data was collected for 22 (i) the number of packet lost between client and server during handoff, and (ii) the time between 23 successive packets during handoff. Number of packets lost over time for multiple tests and 24 throughputs were calculated. 25 26


1 FIGURE 1 V2I field test experiment setup. 2

Phase 3: Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) handoff tests 3 Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) handoffs were tested using ad-hoc Wi-Fi networks and SciWiNet. 4 Coping with the changing IP address of a server node as it moved along coverage areas of 5 different network technologies was the technical challenge added in this case. To solve this 6 problem, an ad-hoc Wi-Fi connection was used for the initial setup where public IP address of 7 the server node under a different network interface was shared with a connecting client node. 8 Established connection between client and server underwent handoff when the two vehicles 9 moved away from each other. To investigate impact of vehicle speed on handoff, tests were 10 conducted at 15 mph and 25 mph speeds. After the handoff occurred from ad-hoc Wi-Fi network 11 to SciWiNet, communication between vehicles continued in SciWiNet. Linux laptops with 12 commodity hardware - Aircard 341U were used to connect to SciWinet. Our testing tool was 13 again able to detect the handoff as it happened in V2V tests. When vehicles were out of Wi-Fi 14


range, the tool maintained the socket and tried to recover from handoff. V2V field test sites are 1 shown in Figure 2 and the flow chart for V2V communication tests is illustrated in Figure 3. 2 3

4 5

FIGURE 2 V2V communication experiment set up. 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


1

2

FIELD EVALUATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3

Phase 1 test results 4

Using the Android phone apps, a figurative coverage map based on signal presence, ping tests, 5 latency tests, and TCP and UDP bandwidth tests were used to understand the status of SciWiNet 6 and Wi-Fi around campus area. One of the tests was designed to help the researchers to 7 understand the leaked Wi-Fi from campus buildings surrounding the reflection pool as well as 8 3G and LTE coverage around the same route (Figure 4). This gave us intuition about testing 9 handoffs while switching from Wi-Fi to SciWiNet near buildings where Wi-Fi network was 10 available. Similarly, a campus coverage map was studied from the online SciWiNet map website 11 (Figure 5) which helped us identify the route we had to take for V2V tests. 12 13

FIGURE 3 V2V communication field test data transfer flowchart.


1 FIGURE 4 Wi-Fi (left), LTE (middle) and 3G (right) Coverage map around Reflection Pool 2 on Campus. 3

4 FIGURE 5. Coverage map of SciWiNet in Clemson University. 5


V2I communication tests were conducted in both UDP and TCP mode. Number of packets lost 7 during handoff between client and server from Wi-Fi network to SciWiNet was calculated. 8 Packet loss rate was higher during the handoff. Figure 1 shows the field test setup and the route, 9 which tvehicles took to evaluate the HetNet handoff scenario from Wi-Fi network to SciWiNet. 10 Packet loss during handoff from Wi-Fi to SciWiNet is presented for TCP mode in Figures 6 and 11 7, and for UDP mode in Figure 8 and 9. When vehicles were within Wi-Fi range, inter-packet 12 arrival time was about five seconds for both TCP and UDP mode. The high inter packet arrival 13 time was due to the testing tool losing GPS fix every time, which was an issue the team hopes to 14 overcome in future. Handoff occurred when vehicle drove out of Wi-Fi network into SciWiNet. 15 In both TCP and UDP handoff scenarios, the packet loss time and time between arrivals of 16 successive packets were similar (Figure 6 to 9). 17

Signal Strength Legends:

Signal Strength Legends:


1 FIGURE 6 Packets lost with TCP mode at server end. 2

3 FIGURE 7 Time between packets with TCP mode at the server end. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Num

ber

of p

acke

ts lo

st

Packet loss seen at the server with TCP connection

test1 test2 test3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Tim

e be

twee

n pa

cket

s (s

econ

ds)

Time between packets seen at the server with TCP connection

test1 test2 test3


1

2 FIGURE 8 Packets lost with UDP mode at server end. 3

4

5 FIGURE 9 Time between packets with UDP mode at the server end. 6


Test 1: UDP mode at low speed test 8 Data transfer at maximum allowable speed of 1 Mbps with 1000 bytes of datagram size was 9 started using ad-hoc Wi-Fi network between two vehicles traveling in the opposite direction. 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Num

ber

of p

acke

t los

t Packet loss observed at the server with UDP

test1 test2 test3 test4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Tim

e be

twee

n pa

cket

s (s

econ

ds)

Time between packets observed at the server with UDP

test1 test2 test3 test4


First communication was established when vehicles were close through ad-hoc Wi-Fi which was 1 followed by handoff to SciWiNet as the vehicles moved away from each other (Figures 10 and 2 11). Handoff happened at low packet loss but a large number of packets lost and delays were 3 observed with SciWiNet. The packet arrival rate was less in Wi-Fi; furthermore, in SciWiNet, 4 after a certain distance, packet loss began. Similarly arrival time between successive packets was 5 found to be higher due to packet loss (Figures 10 and 11). Initially a longer time was observed 6 between successive packets, and that was due to the exchange of IP address between server and 7 client. The packet loss in SciWiNet could be accounted to increased routing time in the 8 SciWiNet infrastructure. 9

10 FIGURE 10 V2V communication in HetNet, UDP mode, vehicle speed 15 mph. 11

12 13

FIGURE 11 V2V communication in HetNet, time between packets with TCP mode, vehicle 14 speed 15 mph. 15

Test 2: UDP mode test at 25 mph 16 A similar test at 25 mph was conducted for UDP mode with vehicles carrying laptops with 17 NetGear SciWiNet dongle (AirCard 341U), which drove in opposite directions. For each test run, 18 Wi-Fi Ad-hoc network was created and connection was established between vehicles while they 19

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Time index

Num

ber

of p

acke

t los

t

UDP Packet loss at speed 15 Mph

Handoff occureed

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time index

Tim

e be

twee

n pa

cket

s

Time Between Successive Packets at Speed 15 mph


were moving in opposite directions and when in Wi-Fi range of the ad-hoc network. Multiple test 1 runs were performed covering scenarios where the vehicles were moving in opposite directions, 2 and they were at stopped at the same red light. As the vehicles were driven away they maintained 3 connection by switching to SciWiNet through handoff. Figures 12 and 13 show packet loss seen 4 in UDP and also a peak packet loss due to handoff. It can be seen that the switching time of 5 vertical handoff was less than 4 seconds. 6

7 FIGURE 12 V2V communication in HetNet, UDP mode, vehicle speed 25 mph. 8

9 FIGURE 13 V2V communication in HetNet, time between packets with UDP mode, vehicle 10 speed 25 mph. 11

Test 3: TCP mode test at 25 mph 12 TCP mode was applied for maintaining transport layer for V2V communication at speed of 25 13 mph (Figures 14 and 15). Two test runs were conducted and each produced similar results. The 14 maximum allowable for TCP was dropped down to 100 Kbps. The first 4 seconds in Run 1 was 15 due to the client waiting for server to send the IP address during initialization. As expected, TCP 16 had no packet loss apart from the handoff. 17

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time index

Num

ber

of p

acke

t los

t

UDP Packet loss at speed 25 mph

Handoff

-0.5 0

0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5

Time index

Tim

e be

twee

n pa

cket

s

Time between successive packets at 25 mph

Handoff


1

2 FIGURE 14 V2V communication in HetNet, TCP mode, vehicle speed 25 mph. 3

4 FIGURE 15 V2V communication in HetNet, time between packets with TCP mode, vehicle 5 speed 25 mph. 6

CONCLUSIONS 7 To utilize the full potential of connected vehicles, seamless communications for V2V and V2I 8 applications is required. Latency, security and reliability requirements of different connected 9 vehicle applications involve multiple wireless communication options at the same time. Though 10 dedicated short range communication (DSRC) has been considered as the primary 11 communication technology in V2V and V2I communication for safety critical applications, 12 utilization of other wireless technologies such as cellular, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX technologies can 13 supplement longer range communications and throughput requirements that could not be 14 supported by DSRC communications alone or during DSRC communication failure. For a broad 15 range of CVT applications, a viable communication option should include V2V and V2I capable 16 of utilizing a heterogeneous wireless network without losing connectivity while moving from 17 one communication technology range to another. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time index

Num

ber

of p

acke

t los

t

TCP packet loss during handover at 25 mph Run 1 Run 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time index

Tim

e be

twee

n pa

cket

s

Time between packets at 25 mph Run 1 Run 2

Handoff Handoff


As homogenous communication networks will not be available everywhere, it will 1 require V2V and V2I communication to switch from one type of network to another in a HetNet 2 environment (e.g., Wi-Fi to WiMAX/cellular). Fundamentally, these different networks have not 3 been designed for seamless transfer from one network to another for moving nodes. To develop 4 robust synchronized HetNet, networks needs to be reconfigurable. In this study we have explored 5 the potential of V2V and V2I in HetNet with Wi-Fi and cellular network to access the re-6 configurability performance. We observed that when switching/handoff between networks, it 7 takes several seconds to establish connection and resume data transfer. That means, HetNet will 8 perform better for non-safety applications such as traffic management, and will provide 9 additional connectivity for safety critical connected vehicle applications. 10

Current research focused on V2V communication at 25 MPH because of the limitations 11 of the existing test bed at Clemson. Future research will include evaluating V2V communication 12 tests for a heterogeneous network with vehicle speeds higher than 25 mph. This study focused on 13 only two vehicles which will be expanded to multiple vehicles in the follow-up research. 14

REFERENCES 15 1. RITA, Overview of Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Technology, 2014. 16

Link: http://www.its.dot.gov/DSRC/#sthash.pegMwDx3.dpuf. Accessed on July 27, 17 2014. 18

2. Dar, K., M. Bakhouya, J. Gaber, M. Wack, and P. Lorenz, Wireless communication 19 technologies for ITS applications [Topics in Automotive Networking]. Communications 20 Magazine, IEEE, 48(5), 156-162, 2010. 21

3. Martin, J., K.C. Wang, I. Seskar, SciWiNet: a Science Wireless Network for the Research 22 Community, 2014. Link: http://sciwinet.org/#nsf. Accessed on July 27, 2014. 23

4. Magagula, L., and H.A. Chan, Optimized handover delay in Proxy Mobile IPv6 using 24 IEEE802.21 MIH Services, Southern Africa telecommunication networks and 25 applications conference, 2008. 26

5. Giovanardi, A., and G. Mazzini, Transparent mobile IP: an approach and implementation. 27 In Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM'97, IEEE (Vol. 3, pp. 1861-28 1865). IEEE, 1997. 29

6. Kong, K. S., W. Lee, Y. H. Han, M. K. Shin, and H. You, Mobility management for all-30 IP mobile networks: mobile IPv6 vs. proxy mobile IPv6, Wireless Communications, 31 IEEE, 15(2), 36-45, 2008. 32

7. Kim, M. S., S. Lee, D. Cypher, and N. Golmie, Fast handover latency analysis in proxy 33 mobile IPv6. In Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM 2010), 2010 34 IEEE (pp. 1-5). IEEE, 2010. 35

8. Ning, Z., Q. Song, Y. Liu, F. Wang, and X. Wu, Markov-based vertical handoff decision 36 algorithms in heterogeneous wireless networks. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 37 40(2), 456-472, 2014. 38

9. Bargh, M., B. Hulsebosch, H. Eertink, G. Heijenk, J. Idserda, J. Laganier, A.R. Prasad, 39 and A. Zugenmaier, Reducing handover latency in future IP-based wireless networks: 40 Proxy Mobile IPv6 with simultaneous binding, In World of Wireless, Mobile and 41 Multimedia Networks, WoWMoM 2008. 2008 International Symposium on a, pp. 1-10. 42 IEEE, 2008. 43


10. Baojiang, W., An Efficient Fast Handoff Scheme with Network Mobility in 1 Heterogeneous Networks, 6th International ICST Conference on Communications and 2 Networking in China (CHINACOM), 2011. 3

11. Huang, K-L., K-H. Chi, J-T. Wang, and C-C. Tseng, A Fast Authentication Scheme for 4 WiMAX–WLAN Vertical Handover, Wireless Personal Communications, Volume 71, 5 Issue 1, pp 555-575, 2013. 6

12. Magagula, L. A., H. A. Chan, and O. E. Falowo, Achieving seamless mobility through 7 handover coordination in a network-based localized mobility managed heterogeneous 8 environment. In Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), IEEE 9 21st International Symposium on (pp. 2505-2510). IEEE, 2010. 10

13. Kim, M., J. M. Kim, H. S. Kim, and I. K. Ra, A proxy mobile IP based layer-3 handover 11 scheme for mobile WiMAX based wireless mesh networks. In Ubiquitous and Future 12 Networks (ICUFN), 2010 Second International Conference on (pp. 33-38). IEEE, 2010. 13

14. Wisitpongphan, N., and F. Bai, Microscopic Experimental Evaluation of Multi-hop 14 Video Streaming Protocol in Vehicular Networks, IEEE Vehicular Networking 15 Conference, 2013. 16

15. Amin, R., J. Martin, and H. Russell, Assessing Performance Gains Via the Use of Global 17 Resource Controller for Realistic Heterogeneous Wireless Networks, Proceedings of the 18 IEEE WCNC Conference, 2014. 19

16. Li, L., M. Pal, and Y. Yang, Proportional Fairness in Multi-Rate Wireless LANs, 20 Proceedings of INFOCOM, pp. 1004-1012, 2008. 21

17. Baid, A., M. Schapira, and I. Seskar, Network Co-operation for Client-AP Association 22 Optimization, Proceedings of International Workshop on Resource Allocation and 23 Cooperation in Wireless Networks, 2012. 24

18. Enrique, S-N., and V.W.S. Wong, Comparison between vertical handoff decision 25 algorithms for heterogeneous wireless networks, Vehicular technology conference, VTC 26 2006-Spring. IEEE 63rd, vol. 2, pp. 947-951. IEEE, 2006. 27

19. Izard, R., A. Hodges, J. Liu, J. Martin, K.C. Wang, K. Xu, An Openflow Testbed for the 28 Evaluation of Vertical Handover Decision Algorithms in Heterogeneous Wireless 29 Networks, to appear in the Proceedings of TRIDENT, 2014. 30

20. CyberTiger, 2014, http://cybertiger.clemson.edu/, Accessed on August 1, 2014 31 21. SciWiNet, Tools and Services provided by SciWiNet, 2014 32

http://www.sypharc.com/sciwinet/OldStuff/SciWiNet-Tools.html, Accessed on August 1, 33 2014 34

Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure ...jmarty/papers/Sciwinet_TRB_20140801...19...

Documents

Transcript of Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure ...jmarty/papers/Sciwinet_TRB_20140801...19...