Ethernet is considered as a future communication standard for distributed embedded systems in the automotive and industrial domains. A key challenge is the deterministic low-latency transport of Ethernet frames, as many safety-critical real-time applications in these domains have tight timing requirements. Time-sensitive networking (TSN) is an upcoming set of Ethernet standards, which (among other things) address these requirements by specifying new quality of service mechanisms in the form of different traffic shapers. In this paper, we consider TSN's time-aware and peristaltic shapers and evaluate whether these shapers are able to fulfill these strict timing requirements. We present a formal timing analysis, which is a key requirement for the adoption of Ethernet in safety-critical real-time systems, to derive worst-case latency bounds for each shaper. We use a realistic automotive Ethernet setup to compare these shapers to each other and against Ethernet following IEEE 802.1Q. I. INTRODUCTION Packet-switched Ethernet will be used in next-generation automotive communication architectures, as traditional buses such as CAN or FlexRay cannot keep pace with the increasing bandwidth and scalability requirements of advanced driver assistance and infotainment systems. As a switched network, Ethernet provides a scalable, high-speed, and cost-effective communication platform, which allows arbitrary topologies. However, as each switch output port is a point of arbitration, Ethernet exhibits a complex timing behavior, which must be verified thoroughly before it can be used in timing-and safety-critical systems. Ethernet is anticipated to serve as an in-vehicle communication backbone, where is must be able to transport traffic streams of mixed-criticality. This requires quality of service (QoS) mechanisms, in order to provide deterministic timing guarantees to critical traffic. Standard Ethernet following IEEE 802.1Q introduced 8 traffic classes. These classes can be used to prioritize traffic, which is typically implemented by a static-priority non-preemptive (SPNP) scheduler at each output port in each switch and endpoint. This limited number of classes requires that multiple traffic streams share a class. Traffic within a shared class is usually scheduled in FIFO order. Ethernet AVB [1] introduced standardized traffic shaping by using a credit-based shaper (CBS) to ensure that shaped traffic classes do not exceed their preconfigured bandwidth bounds. This CBS, however, only shapes the highest priorities, i.e. it introduces additional shaping delays to the most critical ones, which is undesirable for latency-sensitive traffic. Currently, a new set of Ethernet QoS mechanisms is being evaluated for standardization under the name of time-sensitive networking (TSN) [2]. One of TSN's goals is the development of new traffic shapers, which offer tight and deterministic end-to-end latencies for real-time This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement ...
Future in-vehicle networks will use Ethernet as their communication backbone. As many automotive applications are latency-sensitive and have strict real-time requirements, a key challenge in automotive network design is the deterministic low-latency transport of latency-critical Ethernet frames. Timesensitive networking (TSN) is an upcoming set of Ethernet standards, which address these requirements by specifying new quality of service mechanisms in the form of different traffic shapers. One of these traffic shapers is the burst-limiting shaper (BLS). In this paper, we evaluate whether BLS is able to fulfill these strict timing requirements. We present a formal timing analysis for BLS in order to compute worst-case latency bounds. We use a realistic automotive Ethernet setup to compare BLS against Ethernet AVB and Ethernet following IEEE 802.1Q.
Software defined networking (SDN) aims to standardize the control and configuration of network infrastructure. It consolidates network control by moving the network's control plane to a (logically) centralized controller and downgrading switches to simple forwarding devices. This offers huge advantages for future automotive Ethernet networks, including admission control (e.g. to prevent/limit congestion) or network reconfiguration (e.g. in case of faults), both based on a centralized view of the current network state. SDN's centralized architecture, however, requires additional communication, which entails a certain overhead. If SDN is used in safety-critical realtime networks, this communication is subject to strict timing requirements. In this paper, we present a formal analysis based evaluation of the general suitability of SDN for time-sensitive networks including overhead, scalability, and timing guarantees by using a realistic automotive setup.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.