Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Evaluation of Greedy and CBF for ETSI non-area GeoNetworking: The impact of DCC

Oscar Amador, Maria Calderon, Manuel Urueña, Ignacio Soto

TL;DR

It is found that Greedy Forwarding, when combined with DCC, is extremely ineffective even with optimizations, and Non-Area CBFs (both ETSI CBF and an optimized version called S-FoT+) outperform Greedy Forwarding both in highway and urban scenarios.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the performance of the two ETSI non-area forwarding algorithms in the GeoNetworking specification: Greedy Forwarding and Non-Area Contention-Based Forwarding (CBF). Non-area forwarding occurs when a packet is sent to a geographical Destination Area from a node located outside of this area, e.g., when a vehicle wants to alert of hazardous events to other vehicles located in a distant geographical area. The evaluation has been carried out both in urban and highway scenarios and takes into account the complete ETSI Architecture, including the interaction with the Decentralized Congestion Control (DCC) mechanism. We have also compared ETSI-defined mechanisms with optimizations found in the literature. Our main findings are that Greedy Forwarding, when combined with DCC, is extremely ineffective even with optimizations, and Non-Area CBFs (both ETSI CBF and an optimized version called S-FoT+) outperform Greedy Forwarding both in highway and urban scenarios.

Evaluation of Greedy and CBF for ETSI non-area GeoNetworking: The impact of DCC

TL;DR

It is found that Greedy Forwarding, when combined with DCC, is extremely ineffective even with optimizations, and Non-Area CBFs (both ETSI CBF and an optimized version called S-FoT+) outperform Greedy Forwarding both in highway and urban scenarios.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the performance of the two ETSI non-area forwarding algorithms in the GeoNetworking specification: Greedy Forwarding and Non-Area Contention-Based Forwarding (CBF). Non-area forwarding occurs when a packet is sent to a geographical Destination Area from a node located outside of this area, e.g., when a vehicle wants to alert of hazardous events to other vehicles located in a distant geographical area. The evaluation has been carried out both in urban and highway scenarios and takes into account the complete ETSI Architecture, including the interaction with the Decentralized Congestion Control (DCC) mechanism. We have also compared ETSI-defined mechanisms with optimizations found in the literature. Our main findings are that Greedy Forwarding, when combined with DCC, is extremely ineffective even with optimizations, and Non-Area CBFs (both ETSI CBF and an optimized version called S-FoT+) outperform Greedy Forwarding both in highway and urban scenarios.
Paper Structure (16 sections, 22 figures, 5 tables)

This paper contains 16 sections, 22 figures, 5 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Background
  3. ETSI ITS Architecture
  4. Greedy Forwarding
  5. Stale neighbor information in Greedy Forwarding
  6. Too greedy neighbor selection by Greedy Forwarding
  7. ETSI Non-Area CBF
  8. S-FoT+
  9. Evaluation Parameters
  10. Combination of Non-Area and Area Mechanisms
  11. Simulation Parameters
  12. Performance Metrics
  13. Evaluation of Highway Scenarios
  14. Evaluation of Urban Scenarios
  15. Related Work
  16. ...and 1 more sections

Figures (22)

  • Figure 1: Warning dissemination with the source inside the Destination Area (map from https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)
  • Figure 2: Warning dissemination with the source outside the Destination Area (map from https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)
  • Figure 3: ETSI ITS Architecture
  • Figure 4: Greedy Forwarding
  • Figure 5: Learning neighbor positions through CAM or Beacon messages
  • ...and 17 more figures