Comparing LIMERIC and DCC approaches for VANET channel congestion control

G. Bansal, Bin Cheng, Ali Rostami, Katrin Sjöberg, J. Kenney, M. Gruteser
{"title":"Comparing LIMERIC and DCC approaches for VANET channel congestion control","authors":"G. Bansal, Bin Cheng, Ali Rostami, Katrin Sjöberg, J. Kenney, M. Gruteser","doi":"10.1109/WIVEC.2014.6953217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Channel congestion is one of the major challenges for IEEE 802.11p-based vehicular ad hoc networks. Unless controlled, congestion increases with vehicle density, leading to high packet loss and degraded safety application performance. In this paper, we study two classes of congestion control - reactive and adaptive. The reactive approach is represented by the Decentralized Congestion Control (DCC) framework defined in ETSI. The adaptive approach is represented by the LIMERIC linear control algorithm. Both approaches control safety message transmission as a function of channel load (i.e. Channel Busy Ratio, CBR). A reactive approach uses CBR directly, defining an appropriate transmission behavior for each CBR value, e.g. via a table lookup. By contrast, an adaptive approach identifies the transmission behavior that drives CBR to a target channel load, thus achieving the best message throughput possible for any given vehicle density. The paper considers two variations of DCC, one in which it serves as a traffic shaping “gatekeeper” above the MAC sublayer, and another in which it additionally limits safety message generation at the facilities layer. The paper has two main results. First, it is shown that LIMERIC generally outperforms both DCC variations in a winding road scenario with various vehicle densities. Inter-packet reception gap and position tracking error are the primary metrics. This advantage is due to primarily LIMERIC's ability to achieve a target load consistent with maximum throughput and vehicle awareness. Second, it is shown that both DCC variations are subject to steady state oscillations, and the case in which DCC also limits message generation is subject to truly unstable variations. The paper uses NS-2 simulation results to support these conclusions.","PeriodicalId":410528,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 6th International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications (WiVeC 2014)","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE 6th International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications (WiVeC 2014)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WIVEC.2014.6953217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Channel congestion is one of the major challenges for IEEE 802.11p-based vehicular ad hoc networks. Unless controlled, congestion increases with vehicle density, leading to high packet loss and degraded safety application performance. In this paper, we study two classes of congestion control - reactive and adaptive. The reactive approach is represented by the Decentralized Congestion Control (DCC) framework defined in ETSI. The adaptive approach is represented by the LIMERIC linear control algorithm. Both approaches control safety message transmission as a function of channel load (i.e. Channel Busy Ratio, CBR). A reactive approach uses CBR directly, defining an appropriate transmission behavior for each CBR value, e.g. via a table lookup. By contrast, an adaptive approach identifies the transmission behavior that drives CBR to a target channel load, thus achieving the best message throughput possible for any given vehicle density. The paper considers two variations of DCC, one in which it serves as a traffic shaping “gatekeeper” above the MAC sublayer, and another in which it additionally limits safety message generation at the facilities layer. The paper has two main results. First, it is shown that LIMERIC generally outperforms both DCC variations in a winding road scenario with various vehicle densities. Inter-packet reception gap and position tracking error are the primary metrics. This advantage is due to primarily LIMERIC's ability to achieve a target load consistent with maximum throughput and vehicle awareness. Second, it is shown that both DCC variations are subject to steady state oscillations, and the case in which DCC also limits message generation is subject to truly unstable variations. The paper uses NS-2 simulation results to support these conclusions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较LIMERIC和DCC方法在VANET信道拥塞控制中的应用
信道拥塞是基于IEEE 802.11p的车辆自组织网络面临的主要挑战之一。如果不加以控制,拥塞会随着车辆密度的增加而增加,从而导致高丢包率和降低安全应用性能。本文研究了两类拥塞控制——反应型和自适应型。响应式方法由ETSI中定义的分散拥塞控制(DCC)框架表示。自适应方法由LIMERIC线性控制算法表示。两种方法都将安全消息传输控制为信道负载的函数(即信道忙度比,CBR)。响应式方法直接使用CBR,为每个CBR值定义适当的传输行为,例如通过表查找。相比之下,自适应方法识别驱动CBR到目标信道负载的传输行为,从而在任何给定的车辆密度下实现最佳消息吞吐量。本文考虑了DCC的两种变体,其中一种是在MAC子层之上作为流量塑造的“看门人”,另一种是在设施层额外限制安全消息的生成。这篇论文有两个主要结论。首先,在不同车辆密度的蜿蜒道路场景中,LIMERIC总体上优于两种DCC变化。包间接收间隙和位置跟踪误差是主要的度量。这一优势主要是由于LIMERIC能够实现与最大吞吐量和车辆感知一致的目标负载。其次,本文表明,两种DCC变化都受到稳态振荡的影响,而DCC也限制消息生成的情况则受到真正不稳定变化的影响。本文用NS-2模拟结果来支持这些结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Towards zero on-site testing: Advanced traffic management & control systems simulation framework including communication KPIs and response to failure events A V2X communication system and its performance evaluation test bed Signal-to-noise ratio modeling for vehicle-to-infrastructure communications Cooperative localization based on topology matching Finite-state Markov channel modeling for vehicle-to-infrastructure communications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1