A Novel Channel Selection Architecture in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks

Hiraku Okada
Center for Transdisciplinary Research Niigata University Niigata, 9502181, Japan Email: hiraku@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp

Tomoaki Goi
Grad. Sch. of Science & Technology Niigata University Niigata, 9502181, Japan Email: tgoi@net.ie.niigata-u.ac.jp

Kenichi Mase
Grad. Sch. of Science & Technology Niigata University Niigata, 9502181, Japan Email: mase@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp

AbstractVehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are promising applications of a mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). In VANETs, conditions of wireless link change very much due to mobility of nodes. Multi-interface and multi-channel architecture could improve the performance of VANETs, but this architecture is required to be robust against the frequent change of wireless link conditions. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-interface and multi-channel architecture for VANETs. In our proposed architecture, each node is equipped with multiple interfaces whose number is the same with the number of channels. An interface selection layer is introduced so that a node selects transmitting channel dynamically. Interface selection algorithm is also proposed so as to mitigate interference from neighbor nodes. We evaluate the system performance by computer simulation, and show that total throughput can be much improved by our proposed architecture. Index TermsVANET, multi-interface, multi-channel, dynamic channel selection

is assigned to the virtual interface of each node, and it is used for a routing protocol. When a node sends a packet, it selects one interface by interface selection algorithm so that interference from neighbor nodes is minimized. On the other hand, a node can listen to all channels, and receive packets transmitted on all channels simultaneously. In our proposed architecture, the interface selection algorithm is very important for improvement of system performance. We propose to use both channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate in order to consider interference at a sender node and a receiver node. The expected transmission delay time (ETDT), which considers both of them, is proposed as the metric for interface selection. We also evaluate the performance of our proposed architecture, and clarify the effectiveness of it. II. S YSTEM A RCHITECTURE Figure 1 shows our proposed architecture. Interface selection layer is inserted between network layer and data link layer. This layer consists of a virtual interface and an interface selector. An IP address is assigned to the virtual interface, and used for a routing protocol. The interface selector is controlled by interface selection algorithm. Channels are uniquely allocated to real interfaces, respectively. When a node is going to send a packet to a next-hop node, the virtual interface gets it from IP queue, and forwards it to a real interface by the interface selection algorithm. When a node receives a packet from a neighbor node (or packets simultaneously from some neighbor nodes on some channels), it is forwarded to network layer via the virtual interface. This architecture can change a channel without any update of routing table, and can receive packets from all channels simultaneously. Therefore, the transmitting channel can be selected dynamically so that interference from neighbor nodes is minimized even if wireless conditions changes so much. III. I NTERFACE S ELECTION A LGORITHM The interface selection algorithm consists of measurement, check, and selection processes. The owchart of the interface selection algorithm is shown in Figure 2. The measurement process estimates wireless channel conditions by measuring channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate during a past measurement interval. After that, this algorithm checks

I. I NTRODUCTION Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are promising applications of a mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). A lot of researchers are working on VANETs for driving support services, trafc information services, user communication and information services [1], [2]. In wireless mesh networks, performance improvement by using multiple interfaces and multiple channels were discussed [3], [4]. Every node is equipped with multi-interface, in which the number of interfaces is less than the number of channels in general. Under the assumption that nodes do not move and the conditions of wireless link hardly change, a channel is assigned to the interface so that interference from neighbor nodes will be minimized [5]. In VANETs, conditions of wireless link change very much because due to mobility of nodes. Of course, multi-interface and multi-channel could improve the performance of VANETs, but the same scheme with wireless mesh networks cannot be used. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-interface and multichannel architecture for VANETs. In our proposed architecture, the number of interfaces is the same with the number of channels. All channels are allocated to all interfaces, respectively, so every node can use all channels. Similar to wireless bonding proposed in [6], a virtual interface is introduced between network layer and data link layer. Only one IP address

Network layer

IP queue

Virtual interface Interface selection layer Interface A

Fig. 1.
Yes No Transmission failure rate Rf < Xf? Yes Do not change the interface Calculate WS-ETT of all channels Select an interface which has the smallest WS-ETT

Interface selection algorithm Interface D Interface B Interface C

Data link layer

Ch. 1 Ch. 2 Ch. 3 Ch. 4

System architecture.

due to bad signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and collisions by hidden terminals at the receiver node. Note that bad SNR results in continuous packet transmission errors. In this case, control messages of a routing protocol cannot be received and this link is removed from candidates of routes. Therefore, we can say that the transmission failure indicates inuence of hidden terminal problems at the receiver node, and it can estimate the interference at the receiver node. Therefore, both of them should be considered in order to minimize interference from neighbor nodes. In the followings, behavior of each process is described. A. Measurement Process In this process, each node calculates channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate from the measurement results during the past measurement interval. 1) Channel Occupancy Ratio: Channel occupancy ratio is measured by sensing a channel. Network allocation vector (NAV) may be used for measurement of channel occupancy ratio, where NAV indicates the time duration in which channel is reserved for transmission of packets. Let Tm and Tb be measurement interval and sum of busy time, respectively. The channel occupancy ratio can be derived by Tb . (1) Tm 2) Transmission Failure Rate: Transmission failure ratio is measured by counting receptions of ACKs at a sender node. In IEEE 802.11, ACK is replied to a sender node by a receiver node when the receiver node receives a unicast packet. The sender node counts the number of unicast packets, which include retransmitted unicast packets, for every receiver node. The sender node also counts the number of ACKs from the receiver node. Let Nu and Na be the number of transmissions of unicast packets to the receiver node and the number of receiving ACKs from it. Transmission failure rate for this receiver node can be obtained by Rch = Rf = B. Check Process In this process, each node decides whether the current transmitting channel should be changed or not according to the channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate, which are measured in the measurement process. We dene the threshold Xch and Xf as that of channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate, respectively. If one or both of measured values are beyond the predened thresholds, a node moves to the selection process and tries to change the current transmitting channel in the selection process. Otherwise, it uses the current transmitting channel continuously. C. Selection Process In this process, new transmitting channel is selected by using ETDT. ETDT is dened as the expected delay time until successful transmission of a packet. Expected transmission time (ETT) Nu Na . Nu (2)

Start Measure wireless channel conditions during measurement interval No Channel occupancy ratio Rch < Xch?

End

Fig. 2.

Flowchart of interface selection algorithm.

whether the current channel should be changed or not according to the measurement results of channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate. If it decides to change the current channel, new channel is selected by using ETDT, which is calculated by channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate. These processes are carried out every time the virtual interface receives a packet from the IP queue. In this paper, both channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate are used for indices of wireless channel conditions, where channel occupancy ratio is dened as the time ratio of busy duration and transmission failure rate is dened as a rate that a sender node does not receive an acknowledgement (ACK) from a receiver node. Why should both of them be used? So as to mitigate interference from neighbor nodes, we should consider interference at both a sender node and a receiver node. Channel occupancy ratio indicates channel congestion at a sender node, and interference at the sender node can be estimated by it. Transmission failure rate indicates wireless link conditions between a sender node and a receiver node. Transmission failure is mainly caused by reception error

is similar and well-known link metric [7]. The difference with ETT, ETDT considers waiting time due to busy of channel and packet collisions because of hidden terminals. ETDT is calculated from the channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate during the past measurement interval. Let us assume a wireless link as an M/M/1(1) queueing model [8]. This assumption is available if no collisions in a wireless link, random packet generation and exponential packet length are assumed. Of course, practical wireless link is much more complicated, but we try to calculate ETDT by the simple equation. Furthermore, we assume that the trafc intensity is approximated by the measured channel occupancy ratio. By using the M/M/1(1) queueing model, average waiting time for transmission of a packet can be derived by W = Rch (1 + Rch ) , 3 1 Rch (3)

TABLE I S IMULATION SETTINGS . Simulator Area Mobility, average interval max. speed, pause time number of nodes Initial node location Routing Mac & Phy, data rate Number of interfaces Number of channels Path loss model Application, packet size, interval Measurement interval QualNet 4.0 [9] 200,000 m 1,000 1,000 m2 NS model, Random waypoint, 100 m 15 m/sec, 1 sec 100 Uniform distribution AODV IEEE 802.11b, 2 Mbps 4 4 Two ray CBR, 512 bytes, 0.2 sec 1 sec

where average packet time length is normalized by 1. The expected number of transmissions until a packet is successfully received by the receiver node can be derived by Nsuc = 1 . 1 Rf (4)

For comparison, performances of the following methods are also evaluated. Channel occupancy ratio: In the check process, channel occupancy ratio is only used. Instead of ETDT, channel occupancy ratio is employed in the selection process. Transmission failure rate: Almost the same with Channel occupancy ratio, but transmission failure rate is used in spite of channel occupancy ratio. Random: An interface is randomly selected in the selection process. L3: Virtual interface is not used, and IP addresses are assigned to all interfaces. An interface is selected by a routing protocol in network layer. Cyclic: This is valid only for NS model. Channels are assigned to nodes cyclically, that is, channel 1 is assigned to node 1, channel 2 is assigned to node 2, and so on. When the all channels are assigned, the channel 1 is assigned to the next node. This method will achieve the optimum performance in the linear topology, but it is not practical. B. Threshold of Channel Occupancy Ratio and Transmission Failure Rate In the check process, thresholds of channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate should be decided. There will be optimum values. At rst, we investigate the optimum values of these thresholds. Figure 3 shows the maximum total throughput as a parameters of the thresholds of channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate. Total throughput means the sum of throughput of each ow, and maximum means it takes the largest value when total offered load is changed. From this gure, we can obtain the optimum performance when the channel occupancy ratio is 65 % and the transmission failure rate is 30 %. If we want to select a channel at every measurement interval, we only set both thresholds low. In such a case, maximum throughput becomes worse than that of

Finally, ETDT is obtained by multiplexing Nsuc and average waiting time, that is, = Nsuc W . (5)

When a node moves to the selection process, it calculates ETDT for all channels. Then it selects a channel which has the smallest value of ETDT. Note that transmission failure rate is measured only if an unicast packet is sent. If a real interface does not send any unicast packets during the past measurement interval, transmission failure rate of this interface is set to 0. IV. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES In this section, we evaluate the system performance by computer simulation. A. Simulation Settings Table I shows simulation parameters. QualNet [9] is employed as a simulator. Two mobility models are used. One is Nagel & Schreckenberg (NS) model [10], and the other is random waypoint model. NS model can approximate the mobility of practical car, but it can be applied only to linear topology. Furthermore, NS model does not consider more than one lane, so it cannot approximate car passing. Then we also use the random waypoint model to evaluate the system performance in two-dimensional area, where random waypoint model is widely used because of its simplicity. Ad hoc ondemand distance vector (AODV) [11] is used as a routing protocol. The number of interfaces and the number of channels are 4. Trafc ow model is constant bit rate (CBR), in which xed-size packets are periodically generated. The packet size is 512 bytes, and packet generation interval is 0.2 seconds. In the simulation, the number of ows is changed so that system performance is evaluated in various total offered load.

Max. total throughput (Mbps)

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

2.0 1.8

Total throughput (Mbps)

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

Random L3 Channel Trans. failure Proposed Cyclic

50

Thresho 60 65 70 ld 75 channel of occupati on ratio (%)

55

80 40

ld of (%) Thresho n failure rate sio transmis

35

30

25

20

Fig. 3. Maximum total throughput as a parameters of thresholds of channel occupancy ratio and transmission failure rate.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Total offered load (Mbps)

(a) NS model.
1.6

Total throughput (Mbps)

the optimum case. Therefore frequent change of transmitting channel degrades the throughput performance. In the following discussions, we use the optimum values of the thresholds. C. Total Throughput Figure 4 shows total throughput. Simulation results of NS model are shown in Figure 4(a), and those of random waypoint model are shown in Figure 4(b). In both gures, total throughput of our proposed method is the larger than that of the other methods expect for the cyclic method. As mentioned before, the cyclic method will achieve the optimum performance in the linear topology. Total throughput of our proposed method comes closed to that of the cyclic method. So it can be said that our proposed method can improve total throughput effectively. Total throughput of channel occupancy ratio method and transmission failure rate method is larger than that of random method and L3 method. The channel occupancy ratio method and the transmission failure rate method can improve the total throughput, but only one of them cannot achieve the best performance. D. Channel Reuse Factor In order to investigate channel allocation characteristics, we evaluate a channel reuse factor. The channel reuse factor is dened as the number of nodes from a certain node to the next nodes which uses the same channel when a packet is transmitted. For example, a packet is transmitted from node 1 to node 3 via node 2. If node 1 and node 3 use the same channel and node 2 uses the different channel, channel reuse factor is 2. If node 1 and node 2 use the same channel, channel reuse factor is 1. It is preferable that the channel reuse factor becomes larger. Figure 5 shows the complementary cumulative probability density of channel reuse factor. In Figure 5(a), the probability of large channel reuse factor of our proposed method is larger than that of the other methods. Therefore, our proposed method can increase channel reuse factor. Furthermore, the same feature is obtained from Figure 5(b). In not only linear

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

Random L3 Channel Trans. failure Proposed

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Total offered load (Mbps)

(b) Random waypoint model. Fig. 4. Total throughput.

topology but also dynamic mobility model, our proposed method can improve the channel reuse factor. E. Interface Selection Rate and Change Probability Interface selection rate and interface change probability are evaluated in this section. Interface selection rate is dened as the rate that a node moves to the selection process, and interface change probability is dened as the probability that a channel different from the current one is selected in the selection process. Figures 6 and 7 show the interface selection rate and the interface change probability, respectively. In this gure, channel means that a node moves to the channel selection process because the channel occupancy ratio is beyond the threshold. Trans. failure indicates it occurs when the transmission failure rate is beyond the threshold. From this gure, interface selection rate of channel occupancy ratio is much larger than that of transmission failure rate, but the interface change probability of the channel occupancy ratio is smaller than that of transmission failure rate. Ideally, interface change probability should be 100 %, so channel occupancy ratio is

Complementary cumulative probability density (%)

Interface selection rate (counts/sec)

100

0.40

NS model Random waypoint model

0.30

80

60

0.20

Threshold of channel occupancy ratio

40

20

Random L3 Channel Trans. failure Proposed

0.10

0.00

Threshold of transmission failure rate

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Total offered load (Mbps)

Fig. 6.
100

Reuse factor
(a) NS model. Interface selection rate of our proposed method.

Complementary cumulative probability density (%)

100

Interface change probability (%)

80

90

Threshold of transmission failure rate

60

80

Threshold of channel occupancy ratio

40

20

Random L3 Channel Trans. failure Proposed

70

60

NS model Random waypoint model

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

50

Reuse factor
(b) Random waypoint model. Fig. 7. Complementary cumulative probability density of channel reuse

Total offered load (Mbps)

Interface change probability of our proposed method.

Fig. 5. factor.

slightly sensitive. V. C ONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have proposed a multi-interface and multichannel architecture for VANETs. In our proposed architecture, each node is equipped with multiple interfaces whose number is the same with the number of channels. An interface selection layer is introduced so that a node selects transmitting channel dynamically. The interface selection algorithm has been proposed so as to mitigate the interference from the neighbor nodes. We have also evaluated the system performance by computer simulation, and shown much improvement of total throughput by our proposed architecture. R EFERENCES
[1] H. Menouar, F. Filali, and M. Lenardi, A survey and qualitative analysis of MAC protocols for vehicular ad hoc networks, IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3035, Oct. 2006. [2] K. Mase, Inter-vehicle communications and mobile ad hoc networks, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. J89-B, no. 6, pp. 824835, Jun. 2006.

[3] P. Kyasanur, J. So, C. Chereddi, and N. H. Vaidya, Multichannel mesh networks: Challenges and protocols, IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 3036, Apr. 2006. [4] E. Shim, S. Baek, J. Kim, and D. Kim, Multi-channel multi-interface MAC protocol in wireless ad hoc networks, in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2008, pp. 24482453. [5] A. Raniwala, K. Gopalan, and T. Chiueh, Centralized channel assignment and routing algorithms for multi-channel wireless mesh networks, ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 5065, Apr. 2004. [6] S. H. Kim and Y. B. Ko, Wireless bonding for maximizing throughput in multi-radio mesh networks, in Proc. IEEE International Conference of Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2007, pp. 570576. [7] R. Draves, J. Padhye, and B. Zill, Routing in multi-radio, multi-hop wireless mesh networks, in Proc. ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, 2004, pp. 114128. [8] L. Kleinrock, Queueing systems volume 1: Theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1975. [9] Scalable Network Technologie, http://www.scalable-networks.com/. [10] K. Nagel and M. Schreckenberg, A cellular automaton model for freeway trafc, Journal de Physique, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 22212229, 1992. [11] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing, in IETF RFC 3561, Jul. 2003.