We evaluated the UDP access method using anycast addresses, the retransmission function using ACK, and the data transfer function between edge servers, in terms of the packet loss rate, throughput, and latency of each system. For each scenario, we conducted 20 trials of a 5-minute simulation.
AccEss Method Using Anycast Address
We compared our proposed UDP access method using anycast addresses with the conventional TCP access method using unicast addresses. First, we explain the evaluation results obtained with one vehicle. As shown in Fig. 8, the packet loss rate was \(0\,\%\) for all trials with the TCP access method. For the UDP access method, the average packet loss rate \(\mu\) was \(0.05\,\%\) and the \(95\,\%\) confidence interval by the chi-squared distribution was \(0.033\,\% \le \mu \le 0.058\,\%\). The reason for this result is that UDP is a connectionless protocol, so packet loss may occur when there is no retransmission function in the upper protocol.
Next, we measured the throughput on the vehicle side, which sends the data, and on the edge server side, which receives it. As shown in Fig. 9, the sending throughput averaged 18.1Kbps for both the TCP access method and the UDP access method, and the receiving throughput averaged 18.0Kbps for both access methods.
Finally, we measured the latency as the time it took for the data sent from the vehicle to reach the dynamic map application on the edge server that needed the data. As shown in Fig. 10, for the TCP access method, the average latency was 7.9ms with a \(95\,\%\) confidence interval of \(7.7 ms \le \mu \le 8.2 ms\). For the UDP access method, the average latency was 5.1ms with a \(95\,\%\) confidence interval of \(4.9 ms \le \mu \le 5.3 ms\). The latency of the TCP access method using the unicast address was large because of the influence of TCPs three-way handshake and retransmission control, whereas the proposed UDP access method using the anycast address enabled communication with low latency.
This experiment was performed not only with the measurement vehicle but also with simulated load vehicles running around the same course. Specifically, we ran the simulation with 1000, 3000, 5000, 7500, 10000, and 12000 load vehicles. We assumed that all the load vehicles ran at varying speeds and sent data to the edge server in the same way as the measurement vehicle.
As shown in Fig. 11, with the TCP access method using the unicast address, the packet loss rate remained low up to a certain number of vehicles but then increased rapidly. This may be due to the fact that our system reached its throughput limit because of the use of TCP. In contrast, with the UDP access method using the anycast address, the packet loss rate remained lower than with the TCP access method even as the number of vehicles increased. However, some packet loss occurred even with a small number of vehicles because of the use of UDP.
Figure 12 shows the throughput of the server at the receiving end when the number of vehicles was varied. With the proposed UDP access method, the throughput increased as the number of vehicles increased, with an upper limit of about 950Mbps, beyond which packets were discarded. As for the TCP access method, the upper limit was about 650Mbps, and packets beyond that were also discarded. This may be due to the fact that the throughput of TCP decreases with the RTT. For dynamic maps that send and receive huge amounts of data, higher throughput would make the UDP access method more effective. In this experiment, we used Ethernet to verify the effectiveness of the access method. However, actual vehicles are expected to communicate wirelessly, and the RTT is likely to decrease; thus, the proposed method would be effective because it can achieve high throughput independently of the RTT.
As shown in Fig. 13, the latency with the UDP access method using the anycast address did not change significantly as the number of vehicles increased, whereas the latency of the TCP access method using the unicast address did increase with the number of vehicles. This increasing tendency with the TCP access method was probably due to the influence of TCPs retransmission control and congestion control. In a dynamic map system, real-time performance is a very important issue, and the shorter the latency in sending and receiving data, the better. Accordingly, the proposed UDP access method has the benefit of providing data transmission with very low latency as compared to TCP communication.
ACK Retransmission
As described in Section 5.1, our proposed UDP access method using anycast addresses can be used in dynamic map systems to efficiently manage a large number of vehicles. However, UDP communication is less reliable and more prone to packet loss as compared to TCP communication. In our experiment, as shown in Fig. 8, the UDP access method caused slightly more packet loss than the TCP access method. Accordingly, we implemented the ACK retransmission function described in Section 2 to improve the reliability of the proposed UDP access method, and we compared the performance with and without ACK retransmission.
First, we explain the evaluation results obtained with only one measurement vehicle. As shown in Fig. 8, the average packet loss rate was \(0.05\,\%\) without the ACK retransmission function, but it was reduced to \(0\,\%\) in all trials by implementing the retransmission function. As shown in Fig. 9, the throughputs of the sending vehicle and the receiving server averaged 18.1 and 18.0Kbps, respectively, both with and without ACK retransmission. Furthermore, the average latency was 6.0ms both with and without ACK retransmission, as shown in Fig. 10.
This experiment was also performed with simulated load vehicles (1000, 3000, 5000, 7500, 10000, and 12000) running around the same course. The load vehicles ran at different speeds and sent data to the edge server in the same way as the measurement vehicle.
As shown in Fig. 11, the packet loss rate with the ACK retransmission function remained lower than that without the retransmission function even when the number of vehicles increased. When the number exceeded approximately 10000, a small amount of packet loss occurred even with the retransmission function, but this was because the sent packets exceeded 1Gbps, which was the bandwidth of the dynamic map system used in this experiment.
Figure 12 shows that the throughput of the server at the receiving end increased as the number of vehicles increased, with or without the ACK retransmission function. The throughput was capped at about 950Mbps, and packets beyond that were discarded.
Finally, as shown in Fig. 13, there was almost no difference in latency between the cases with and without the ACK retransmission function. The slightly larger latency with ACK retransmission was probably due to the delay caused by retransmission when packet loss occurred.
Data Transfer Between Edge Servers
As described in Section 2, when edge servers are deployed to construct a dynamic map, each edge server needs to aggregate the data of all vehicles in the area where it operates. However, in the proposed system with a UDP access method using the anycast address, the data sent by a vehicle is not always received by the target edge server. Therefore, we implemented a function to transfer data between edge servers as needed. Basically, the operating area is determined according to the reception range of each edge server, so the number of vehicles that require data transfer is expected to be small, but it may depend on the communication situation. Accordingly, we evaluated the performance of the system with and without data transfer between edge servers. We ran the same simulation as above and compared the performance between the case without data transfer, in which the data sent from a vehicle was always received by the target edge server, and the case with data transfer, in which the data was always received by a non-target edge server and then transferred.
Again, we first describe the evaluation results obtained with only one measurement vehicle. As shown in Fig. 14, the packet loss rate was \(0\,\%\) in all trials regardless of whether data was transferred between the edge servers. The latency, shown in Fig. 15, averaged 4.9ms without data transfer, with a \(95\,\%\) confidence interval of \(4.8 ms \le \mu \le 5.0 ms\); with data transfer between the edge servers, the mean latency was 5.6ms with a \(95\,\%\) confidence interval of \(5.5 ms \le \mu \le 5.7 ms\).
This experiment was also performed with simulated load vehicles (1000, 3000, 5000, 7500, 10000, and 12000) running around the same course. The load vehicles ran at different speeds and sent data to the edge server in the same way as the measurement vehicle.
As shown in Fig. 16, the packet loss rate remained similar regardless of the data transfer between the edge servers even when the number of vehicles increased. This result is similar to the result described in Section 5.2 for the proposed system with the ACK retransmission function. The packet loss rate increased when the number of vehicles exceeded about 10000, but this again occurred when the sent packets exceeded 1Gbps, the bandwidth of the dynamic map system.
As shown in Fig. 17, the latency was slightly higher when there was data transfer between edge servers than when there was no data transfer. However, this difference did not increase as the number of vehicles increased, and the latency was still lower than that of the conventional TCP access method using unicast addresses.