1 / 50

CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection for Vehicular Networks

CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection for Vehicular Networks. Pravin Shankar spravin@cs.rutgers.edu. Tamer Nadeem tamer.nadeem@siemens.com. Justinian Rosca justinian.rosca@siemens.com. Liviu Iftode iftode@cs.rutgers.edu. Vehicular networks today. Ubiquity of WiFi

irma
Download Presentation

CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection for Vehicular Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection for Vehicular Networks Pravin Shankar spravin@cs.rutgers.edu Tamer Nadeem tamer.nadeem@siemens.com Justinian Rosca justinian.rosca@siemens.com Liviu Iftode iftode@cs.rutgers.edu

  2. Vehicular networks today • Ubiquity of WiFi • Cheaper, higher peak throughput compared to cellular • New applications • Traffic Management • Urban Sensing (eg. Cartel) • In-car Entertainment • Social Networking (eg. RoadSpeak, MicroBlog) Requirement: High throughput

  3. What is rate selection? • 802.11 PHY: multiple transmission rates • 8 bitrates in 802.11a/g (6 – 54 Mbps) • 8 bitrates in 802.11p (3 – 27 Mbps) • Different modulation and coding schemes Bitrate Link Quality

  4. Rate selection problem in vehicular networks Low quality link Low quality link High quality link 54 Mbps 6 Mbps 6 Mbps Rate Selection:Select the best transmission rate based on link quality in real-time to obtain maximum throughput

  5. Outline • Introduction • Existing solutions • CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  6. Existing rate selection algorithms • ARF (1996), RBAR (2001), OAR(2004), AMRR (2004), ONOE (2005), SampleRate (2005), RRAA (2006) (and many more…) • Basic scheme in all existing algorithms • Estimation:Use physical layer or link layer metrics to estimate the link quality • (Re)Action:Switch to lower/higher rate Question: How well do these algorithms work in vehicular environments?

  7. Existing schemes + vehicular networks: Experiment • Outdoor experiments comparing • SampleRate [2005] • AMRR [2004] • ONOE [2005] • 5 runs per rate algorithm • 5 runs per fixed rate • Slow Mobility: 25 mph • Metrics • Average goodput • Supremum goodput (maximum among all runs for all rates)

  8. Existing schemes + vehicular networks: Results Underutilization of link capacity

  9. Existing schemes + vehicular networks: Analysis • Rapid change in link quality due to distance, speed, density of cars • Problems: • Estimation delay • Sampling requirement • Collisions vs. channel errors

  10. Problem 1: Estimation delay 54 Mbps 24 Mbps 6 Mbps • Link conditions change faster than the estimation window - the rate adaptation lags behind

  11. Problem 2: Sampling Requirement • When an idle client starts transmitting,there are no recent samples in the estimation window • Packet scheduling causes bursty traffic • Results in anomalous behavior

  12. Problem 3: Collisions vs. errors • Hidden-station induced losses should not trigger rate adaptation [CARA06, RRAA06] • Lower rate prolongs packet transmission time, aggravating channel collisions • Use of RTS/CTS causes additional overhead

  13. Outline • Introduction • Existing solutions • CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  14. CARS at a glance • Rapid change in link quality due to distance, speed (context) • Vehicular nodes already have this context information • Use this cross-layer information at the link layer to estimate link quality and perform proactive rate selection

  15. CARS: reactive + proactive Link Quality: Error Function • EC = f(distance, speed, bitrate, len) • Proactive • Predicted error as a function of context information • EH = f(bitrate, len) • Reactive • Short-term loss statistics from estimation window

  16. Proactive rate selection using Ec EC = f(distance, speed, bitrate, len) • Model link error rate as a function of context information and transmission rate • Empirically derivedusing data from outdoor experiments • Simple model is sufficient because of discrete rates in 802.11 • Context recalculation frequency = 100 ms

  17. CARS Algorithm

  18. CARS Implementation • The CARS algorithm was implemented on the open-source MadWifi wireless driver • ~ 520 lines of C code • Context information obtained from TrafficView [2004] • Generic /proc interface: • Any other app can be extended to provide a similar interface • Extensively tested by means of vehicular field trials and simulations

  19. Outline • Introduction • Existing solutions • CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  20. CARS Evaluation • Effect of Mobility: How does CARS adapt to fast changing link conditions? (Field trial) • Effect of Collisions: How robust is CARS to packet losses due to collisions? (Field trial) • Effect of Density of Vehicles: How does the throughput improvement scale over large number of vehicles? (Simulation study)

  21. Effect of mobility: Setup Scenarios • Stationary: Base case • Cars are stationary next to each other. • SlowMoving: A simple moving scenario • Cars are driving around the Rutgers campus: ~25mph speeds • FastMoving: A more stressful moving scenario • Cars are driving on New Jersey Turnpike: ~70mph speeds in high car/truck traffic conditions • Intermittent: A scenario with intermittent connectivity • Cars move in and out of each other's range periodically - Hot-spot scenario Workload: • UDP traffic from TX to RX using iperf • Duration of experiment - 5 minutes

  22. Effect of mobility: Results SampleRate 50 CARS 40 30 Goodput (Mbps) 20 10 0 Stationary SlowMoving FastMoving Intermittent Scenario

  23. Effect of mobility: Analysis Scenario: Intermittent Reactive vs. Proactive

  24. Effect of vehicle density - Setup • Hotspot scenario: • Road of length 5000 m with multiple lanes • Base station in the middle of the road • Workload: • Video stream: 1500 packets of size 1000 bytes each • UDP: transmission rate 100 packets per second • RTS/CTS disabled • Max_retransmits: 4 • ns-2 with microscopic traffic generator • Compared CARS with AARF and SampleRate

  25. Effect of vehicle density - Results

  26. Effect of vehicle density - Analysis

  27. Outline • Introduction • Existing solutions • CARS: Context Aware Rate Selection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  28. Conclusion • Existing rate adaptation algorithms under-utilize vehicular network capacity • CARS: uses context information to perform fastrate selection • Significant goodput improvement over existing algorithms

  29. Backup Slides

  30. Limitations of CARS model • Other effects (non-modelled) can cause packet loss, eg. multipath, shadowing, environmental effects (rain or snow), background interference • Solution: Fall-back mode (α=0) Enter Fall-back mode if predicted packet loss – measured packet loss > Threshold • Future work: Better modeling

  31. Signal strength based rate adaptation Moving Vehicles (25 mph) Stationary Vehicles • RSSI Spikes (average 5 dB, peaks of upto 14 dB) • Moving vehicles: large-scale path loss is more significant than small-scale fading • Overhead due to 4-way RTS-CTS-DATA-ACK handshake [Kemp08] • 802.11 frame format (CTS) needs to be extended

  32. Estimation window size • SampleRate default ew_size = 10 sec • We modify SampleRate to ew_size = 1 sec • Vehicle with speed 65 mph moves 30m in 1 sec • Optimal rate could be different for distances separated by 30m • Problem with very small estimation window: Insufficient samples in estimation window [RRAA06] • Future work: Estimation window size tuning

  33. Capture Effect • When there is a collision between the transmitter's frame and a frame sent by a hidden node, the transmitted frame will be successfully demodulated if • Pt and Pj are the received power from transmitter and hidden node • αr: threshold ratio at transmission rate r • Implications on rate adaptation: αr varies with r • Existing collision-aware rate adaptation algorithms do not consider capture effect • Future work: model capture effect and use it to guide our rate adaptation scheme

  34. Existing Models • Existing models in literature • Effect of Distance: • Free space path loss model • Two ray propagation model in LOS environment • More complex fading models (Rician, Rayleigh, …) • Effect of Mobility: • Delay tap model • Ray models with Rician delay profiles • It is unclear how closely the outdoor VANET environment resembles the existing models • Our model is empirically derived using data from extensive outdoor experiments

  35. Load and Overhead Comparison Load: average airtime needed to transmit one packetOverhead: average non-useful airtime needed to transmit one packet Load Overhead

  36. Effect of Collisions Scenario: Stationary vehicles located close to hot-spot (to guarantee high-quality links)

  37. Evaluation - Mobility - Scenarios Speed (mph) Distance (m) Elapsed Time (Sec) Elapsed Time (Sec)

  38. CARS multi-rate retry chain

  39. Existing Rate Adaptation Algorithms • Auto Rate Fallback [Kamerman et al. ‘97] • Drop the transmission rate on successive packet losses and increase it on successive successful packet transmits • Adaptive ARF [Lacage et al. ‘04] • Uses dynamic instead of fixed frame error thresholds to decrease/increase rate • Robust Rate Adaptation Algorithm [Wong et al. ‘06] • Uses a short-term loss ratio to opportunistically adapt to dynamic channel variations

  40. Existing Rate Adaptation Algorithms • SampleRate [Bicket et al. ‘06] • Throughput-based scheme • Goal is to minimize the mean packet transmission time • Sends periodic probe packets at other rates • Collision-Aware Rate Adaptation [Kim et al. ‘06] • Goal is to distinguish different causes of packet loss • Collisions • Channel Errors • Proposes an adaptive RTS/CTS scheme to prevent hidden-station induced collisions

  41. What is context in vehicular networks? • Typical vehicular applications make use of location and neighbor information obtained using • GPS device • Traffic/Safety application • Vehicles thus have real-time context information about the environment • Examples of context information • Distance between transmitter and receiver • Relative speed between transmitter and receiver Direct and predictable source of information about link quality

  42. Effect of collisions • Scenarios: • Base: Base case • Hidden-Node: Collisions due to hidden node • Workload: • UDP traffic: iperf • Duration: 5 mins • TX rate - 3 Mbps • IX is out of carrier sensing range of TX 250% improvement

  43. Effect of collisions Transmission Rate (Mbps) Sequence Number

  44. CARS Evaluation – Field Trial Low Mobility: 25 mph 5 runs per rate algorithm

  45. Context Aware Rate Selection (CARS) - Approach • Use context information to “learn” the link quality EC = f(distance, speed, bitrate, len) • Proactive • Predicts large-scale path loss due to mobility • Use short-term loss statistics to exploit short-term opportunistic gain EH = f(bitrate, len) • Reactive at very small time scale • Handles loss due to small-scale fading

  46. Putting the two pieces together • Issue: • When to use EC and when to use EH? • Answer: • Weighted decision function PER = α. EC(ctx,rate,len)+(1-α). EH(rate,len) • Use context information (vehicle speed) to assign weights α = max(0,min(1,speed/S)) S = 30 m/s (= 65 mph)

  47. CARS Algorithm

  48. Experiment Trajectory

  49. CARS Algorithm

  50. Effect of vehicle density

More Related