Evaluation of 5G-NR V2N Connectivity in a Centralized Cooperative Lane Change Scenario

Abstract

By means of system-level simulations, we analyze in this paper the performance of Vehicle-to-Network (V2N) connectivity based on the 5th Generation -New Radio (5G-NR) as a support to Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility (CCAM), in light of both network and Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) deployments. Focusing on a canonical centralized Cooperative Lane Change (CLC) use case that involves three vehicles in a cross-border highway environment, we assess the link reliability and the End-to-End (E2E) latency of all the messages involved in the CLC negotiation phase (from/to interconnected MECs hosting the centralized maneuvering application), while assuming different deployment configurations and the coexistence with a second demanding vehicular service running over the same radio resources. On this occasion, we illustrate possible benefits from Bandwidth Partitioning (BWP) on Uplink (UL) latency, as well as from an hypothetically tight cooperation between Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) on reliability and continuity, leveraging low-latency inter-MEC transactions and seamless cross-border handover capabilities.

Evaluation of 5GNR-based Cooperative Collision Avoidance (CoCA)

“…Both MEC deployment architectures have also been considered in the evaluation, including fully decentralized and highly centralized schemes. For instance, under a highly centralized MEC hypothesis, the overall E2E latency integrates extra delays related to backhaul and core network which are mainly distance-driven, we then assumed 2 ms for each component [9]. This corresponds to lower bounds (typically, under the coarse assumption of 1ms/100km for fiber transport).…”

“…UEs are equipped with onboard CoCA/LDM systems to interpret merged CPMs or warning messages from gNodeB, hence requiring low-latency interfaces for information exchange between MEC services and UEs. We also consider several MEC deployment configurations, including fully decentralized (i.e., 1 MEC per gNodeB) and highly centralized (i.e., one per operator data center) schemes [9].…”

“…Finally, so as to improve link reliability, the Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) protocol is activated with a maximum of 3 re-transmissions.In NS-3, the RAN latency between a source and a destination (e.g., typically, for an UL CPM message from a vehicle up to the gNodeB) can be simulated up to the application level, while accounting for jitter at the radio level depending on link quality, resource scheduling and network load. Beyond the RAN aspects mentioned above, other latency components on top (backhaul, core network) are not explicitly simulated either but represented as abstract bounds (Cf [9] section III-D).…”

“…The latency is the delay of a packet transmission in a cellular network and can be contributed by the RAN, backhaul, core network, and data center/Internet. The latency simulated at RAN level through NS-3 is first evaluated independently and then integrated within an overall latency budget, given various assumptions regarding MEC deployment [9]. Both unconstrained and latencyconstrained reliability (PDR) at link level is also assessed.…”

Techno-Economic Analysis of MEC Clustering Models for Seamless CCAM Service Provision

“…MNOs and MEC service providers have been looking for deployment models that help reach trade-offs between the required service KPIs and deployment costs. In order to illustrate the impact of MEC placement on E2E latency, system-level simulations were carried out by Poli et al [13] within a centralized Cooperative Lane Change (CLC) use case involving three vehicles. The targeted round-trip latency is typically in the order of tens of ms, while the exchange delay requirement should be kept lower than 100 ms from the generation time to the reception time [15].…”