Geographic Routing in Vehicular

Ad Hoc Urban Networks

Kevin C. Lee
Computer Science Department
University of California, Los Angeles
Advisor: Dr. Mario Gerla

1
Motivation for VANET

Safety/Traffic applications

Accident notification

Road hazard alert

Wide range of possible applications:

Content applications (CarTorrent)

Weather info, restaurant locations

Ad download, music download, Infotainment

Peer-to-peer citizen surveillance

Forensic accident or crime site investigations

Terrorist alert

Multi-hop routing scheme necessary

2
 Possible Routing Solutions VANET
Characteristics
• Rapidly and
Take care of
dynamically
complete
changing network
disconnectivity
topologies
• Confined
mobility by roads
Not too scalable • Disconnectivity
typical

Long route establishment;

susceptible to route breaks Take care of
intermittent
disconnectivity
Take care of
low S/N ratio
Routing inefficiency; low PDR

Can’t avoid void; 3

open path all the time!
Anatomy of GPSR

Greedy mode

Nodes learn 1-hop
neighbors’ positions
from beaconing

A node forwards packets
to its neighbor closest to
D

Greedy traversal not
always possible!
x is a local maximum to
D; 4
w and y are far from D
Anatomy of GPSR (2)

Recovery mode y z

Face traversal

By right-hand rule

Face change x
D
F4
F3

F2

F1
Walking sequence:
F1 -> F2 -> F3 -> F4
X
5
Planarization

Face traversal requires
planar graph: cross edges
result in routing loops

GG and RNG
planarization algorithms

Their faults

Unit-disk assumption

High hop count

Accurate localization
6
Limitations of Geographic Routing in VANET

Planarization overhead

Routing inefficiency due to

Planarization

New paradigm still generates inefficiency

Missing junctions cause routing loops!

Low throughput due to

Signal interference in urban environments

Routing without regard of context information

7
My Contributions

No planarization

Roads naturally formed a “planar” graph

No routing inefficiency

Junction look-ahead

Remove routing loops from missing junction

Improve route throughput

Opportunistic forwarding due to channel fading from
interference

Density helps route away the void to minimize recovery

Combine delay tolerant network (DTN) to handle
end-to-end disconnectivity
8
Outline of My Talk

TO-GO: Route on planar graph formed by roads

Eliminate inefficiency by junction-lookahead

Opportunistic forwarding to improve packet delivery

GeoCross: Route in spite of routing loops

LOUVRE: Peer-to-peer density estimation to avoid void
and backtracking

GeoDTN+Nav: Context info to provide threshold to
switch to DTN

Ongoing and Future work:

Vehicular-Airborne network for emergency
responses to handle complete ground disconnectivity

VANET applications

9
State of the Art in VANET Georouting: GPCR

Eliminate planarization by routing

along roads

Roads naturally formed a “planar”
graph

Greedily forward until
junctions so as not to miss
best route to the destination

Drawback: Inefficiency in
routing as packets always
stop @ junction nodes
10
GPCR Inefficiency
GPCR Routing Bypass Junction

Bypass Junction

Greedy Mode Perimeter Mode Greedy Mode

Perimeter Mode

Total Hops: 16 Total Hops: 12

11
(+25%)
My Solution: Junction Look-ahead

Recovery mode
DB > AD => S to J
DB < AD => S to B

Greedy mode
If B exists, Forward directly
forward to J to A
Road 1 12
instead
Opportunistic Forwarding Motivation

Forward to node making biggest progress

Drawback: Furthest node often fails to
receive because of high error rate

Low signal. Packet drop!

13
TO-GO Set Construction

Node forwards to a set of nodes

Construct a set between the current node
and the target node

Nodes in a set can hear each other and
contend the channel

Node closest to the destination wins the
contention and is chosen to be the next
forwarding node (priority scheduling)

Equivalent to finding a clique, NP-hard!
14
 Heuristic for TO-GO Set Construction

Requires two-hop neighbors and Bloom filter (ref.
paper)

O(n2), where n is number of C’s neighbors

From remaining, C picks its neighbor M that has most

Pick C’s neighbors that can hear C
neighbors; add to the set if the rest of neighbors in C are
& the target node
neighbors with M
TO-GO Priority Scheduling

Nodes contend based on timer,
dist (receiving node, target node)
T =C×
dist (sending node, target node)

Packet duplication possible because of

Nodes’ proximity => Similar T, AND

Time to suppress > Time T goes off

Impose further constraint in set selection:
T N − T N < δ δ is the minimum time interval
k i
for suppression, for all nodes Ni
in FS 16
TO-GO Evaluation: Set up

Qualnet 3.95

1800m x 300m

CBR rate: 1460 bytes/sec

VanetMobisim, vehicular traffic generator

Avg. vehicle speed, 25 miles/hour

Inter-road blocking model

TX range 250m

Number of nodes 75 to 150

20 runs, 95% confidence interval

17
 TO-GO Evaluation: Error-Free vs. Error-Prone
1 1

0.8 0.8

PDR (%)
0.6 0.6
PDR (%)

GPSR
GpsrJ+
0.4 GPCR 0.4
TO-GO
GpsrJ+
0.2 0.2
TO-GO
0
0
0 1 2 4 6 8 10
50 75 100 125 150
Standard Deviation
Node Density

GPCR, GpsrJ+, TO-GO similar in PDR, GPSR always falls

behind

@ σ = 10, TO-GO’s PDR remains @ 98% but GpsrJ+ @ 58%

18
Outline of My Talk

TO-GO: Route on planar graph formed by roads

Eliminate inefficiency by junction-lookahead

Opportunistic forwarding to improve packet delivery

GeoCross: Route in spite of routing loops

LOUVRE: Peer-to-peer density estimation to avoid void
and backtracking

GeoDTN+Nav: Context info to provide threshold to
switch to DTN

Ongoing and Future work:

Vehicular-Airborne network for emergency reponses
to handle complete ground disconnectivity

VANET applications

19
GeoCross Overview

Problem of cross links still exist without
planarization! => mainly empty junctions!

Cross links cause routing loops

20
Routing loop!!
Cross Link Detection Protocol
(CLDP) to Cross Link Problem

Algorithm:

Probe

Record

Analyze

Notify

Disadvantages: Notify A

Extra control message

Proactive scheme not suitable for high mobility

Not necessary to remove all such links

Long convergence time

21
GeoCross Approach

Removes cross links only when necessary

Basic operations:

Piggyback roads and junctions as packet loops
back

Determine the presence of cross links

Continue forwarding in existing loop

Route around the offending cross link

No additional control messages

Dynamic loop detection suitable to VANET
22
 GeoCross Example
S, R1, [R1R2], R2, B, R3, C, R4, D, R5, [R5R6], R6, E,
R7, F, R8, B => No cross link, continue forwarding

Can’t forward
b/c UR: [R5R6]

S, R1, [R1R2], R2, B, R3, C, R4,

D, R5, [R5R6],
UR: R6, E, R7,
[R5R6], F, R8,
continue
B, R2, [R2R1], R1, Sloop
existing
23
Packet reaches destination
GeoCross Evaluation

Compare GPSR, GPCR, GeoCross, Optimal Flooding

Optimal flooding provides benchmark

Snapshot of the trace of 100 nodes

100 runs

10 random src-dest pairs/run

GPCR and GeoCross
PDR minimal diff =>
No cross links GeoCross

Cross links removed GPCR/GPSR

improve PDR

24
GeoCross Summary

Non-planarity still exists with graph formed
by roads because of missing junction nodes

GeoCross, a lightweight, event-driven
geographic routing protocol that removes
cross links dynamically on a need basis to
avoid loops

25
Outline of My Talk

TO-GO: Route on planar graph formed by roads

Eliminate inefficiency by junction-lookahead

Opportunistic forwarding to improve packet delivery

GeoCross: Route in spite of routing loops

LOUVRE: Peer-to-peer density estimation to avoid void
and backtracking

GeoDTN+Nav: Context info to provide threshold to
switch to DTN

Ongoing and Future work:

Vehicular-Airborne network for emergency
responses to handle complete ground disconnectivity

VANET applications

26
LOUVRE Motivation

Recovery mode often expensive;
backtracking takes too many steps, but

Low communication density on D
road segments not detectable!
?

End-to-End route optimization Road 1

impossible! S

Two challenges for urban geo-routing

1. Intra-road communication density estimation
2. Global junction routing

27
LOUVRE Routing

Density Estimation Accuracy
decreases

Peer to Peer Computes
and TX
density

Finite number of road densities
(scalability) density

Density gets more accurate Records

expires

with proximity to the road Road A # unique

Neighbors
(freshness)

Global-junction routing

Overlay nodes: Road junctions

Overlay links: Road segment
between junctions

Proactive Dijkstra shortest path
on the overlay

Geographic routing on the
underlay
28
LOUVRE Operation

Proactive overlay routes creation

Avoids road element with local maxima!

Grid-limited overlay topology

Optimal route for src-dest on the same grid

Optimal overlay gateway node to reach nodes
on neighboring grids
3 3 3

0 3
0 0

0 5 5
3
Density Overlay
> Thresh = 3 routes
s 2
s 3 3
s
29
LOUVRE Example

For S to reach D, roads 5, 2, 3, 8, and 11 are followed

Conventional geographic routing fails when greedily delivering
through road 4 due to the lack of relays after road 4

The dotted arrows show LOUVRE routing from S in grid 1 to D’ in
grid 2 30
LOUVRE Evaluation

1000m x 1000m
Washington D.C. map

100 nodes, 20% to 50%
mobility

10 simulation runs of
1460-byte CBR traffic
from 50s to 300s

Measurement of PDR & Hop Count with
95% conf. int.
31
 LOUVRE
PDR
Evaluation Hop Count
1.2 30
1 25
0.8 20
GPSR GPSR
0.6 15
GPCR GPCR
0.4 10
LOUVRE LOUVRE
0.2 5
0 0
20% 30% 40% 50% 20% 30% 40% 50%

LOUVRE has global vision of density

distribution and local maxima => highest PDR

Hop count a bit higher than GPCR due to
delivery of unsuccessful packets by LOUVRE
32
LOUVRE Future Work

Current P2P density estimation scheme too
expensive! 1 … … …
9 … … …
… 4 … …
… 3 … … 4 1
… …… …
… …
… …
3 … … …
… … 6 … … …… …. …
… 9 … … 4 … …
… … ….5 7
… … 6 … 2 … … 11 4
…
5 2
… … …. 7 … … …. …

Current P2P density estimate scheme does not

take non-uniform road density into account in
inferring connectivity
33
 LOUVRE Future Work (contd.)

Histogram-based scheme: each car has a
histogram of cars in each segment

What is the appropriate segment size (SS) for
accuracy and fast convergence?

How frequent is false negative due to no cars in
the last segment < SS?
1 2 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Cars on each seg. 1 2 1 0

34
Outline of My Talk

TO-GO: Route on planar graph formed by roads

Eliminate inefficiency by junction-lookahead

Opportunistic forwarding to improve packet delivery

GeoCross: Route in spite of routing loops

LOUVRE: Peer-to-peer density estimation to avoid void
and backtracking

GeoDTN+Nav: Context info to provide threshold to
switch to DTN

Ongoing and Future work:

Vehicular-Airborne network for emergency
responses to handle complete ground disconnectivity

VANET applications

35
GeoDTN+Nav Goal

Aim to improve packet delivery in a disconnected
VANET

Inspired by:

DTN

Not all applications require real-time delivery

LER (Last Encounter Routing), 7DS, ZebraNet, …

Mobility helps data dissemination

Basic idea:

Exploit vehicles’ mobility

Use DTN mechanism to store, carry and forward

Deliver packets between disconnected networks
36
GeoDTN+Nav Contributions

Virtual Navigation Interface
(VNI) is installed on every
vehicle

A lightweight wrapper interface
interacts with data sources

Provide Nav Info (Dest, Path,
Direction) and Confidence

3 modes of operations: Greedy, Recovery, and
DTN

Use VNI to determine when to switch and who to
forward in DTN mode

Use context information along with hop count to
determine whether to switch to DTN
37
 GeoDTN+Nav Evaluation

1500m x
Normalized PDR (w/ Optimal)

Optimal
1.4 GPSR/GPCR(RAND)
GeoDTN+NAV(RAND) 4000m
1.2 GPSR/GPCR(UNIM)
GeoDTN+NAV(UNIM)
50 randomly
1
moving nodes
0.8

Additional 40
0.6
GeoDTN ‘bus’ nodes
0.4
GPSR/GPCR
20 random src
0.2 nodes to a
0
fixed dest
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of ’Bus’ Nodes

GeoDTN+Nav performs at least 12%+

over GPSR/GPCR
38
Ongoing and Future Work

LOUVRE: Histogram-based scheme of density
information to minimize storage overhead

Vehicular-Airborne network to handle ground
disconnectivity due to

Emergency such as Katrina-type of event

Ground APs are completely destroyed

Exploiting planned trajectories of airborne network

Exploiting satellite links to minimize end-to-end
delay

Multicast + DTN for military applications

39
Scientific Contributions

In the new paradigm of planar graph by roads,

We improve routing efficiency (TO-GO)

We perform cross link removal to eliminate routing
loops (GeoCross)

We avoid voids and backtracking by peer-to-peer
density estimation scheme (LOUVRE)

We handle end-to-end intermittent disconnetivity
by using contextual information (GeoDTN+Nav)

Combine Airborne and Vehicular network to
handle broken communication arise from
natural disaster or terrorist attacks
40
Publications

“GeoCross: A Geographic Routing Protocol in the Presence of Loops in Urban Scenarios,” Kevin C.
Lee, Payne Cheng, Jerome Haerri, Mario Gerla, submitted

"TO-GO: TOpology-assist Geo-Oppertunistic Routing in Urban Vehicular Grids", Kevin C. Lee,

Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla, WONS 2009 , Snowbird, Utah, February. 2009

"LOUVRE: Landmark Overlays for Urban Vehicular Routing Environments", Kevin C. Lee, Michael
Le, Jerome Haerri, Mario Gerla, WiVeC 2008, Calgary, Canada, March. 2008

"GeoDTN+Nav: A Hybrid Geographic and DTN Routing with Navigation Assistance in Urban
Vehicular Network", Pei-Chun Cheng, Kevin C. Lee, Mario Gerla, Jerome Haerri,
MobiQuitous/ISVCS 2008, best paper award, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, July. 2008

"GeoDTN+Nav: A Hybrid Geographic and DTN Routing with Navigation Assistance in Urban
Vehicular Network", Pei-Chun Cheng, Kevin C. Lee, Mario Gerla, Jerome Haerri, JNC submission

"Enhanced Perimeter Routing for Geographic Forwarding Protocols in Urban Vehicular Scenarios",
Kevin C. Lee, Jerome Haerri, Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla, Autonet'07, Washington, D.C., November.
2007

"First Experience with CarTorrent in a Real Vehicular Ad Hoc Network Testbed", Kevin C. Lee,
SeungHoon Lee, Ryan Cheung, Uichin Lee, Mario Gerla, VANET MOVE ’07, Anchorage, Alaska,
May. 2007

41