sensors

Review
Software-Defined Network-Based Vehicular
Networks: A Position Paper on Their Modeling
and Implementation
Lionel Nkenyereye 1 , Lewis Nkenyereye 2,*, S. M. Riazul Islam 3 , Yoon-Ho Choi 4 ,
Muhammad Bilal 5 and Jong-Wook Jang 1, *
1
Department of Computer Engineering, Dong-Eui University, Busan 614-714, Korea
2
Department of Computer and Information Security, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
4
Division of Computer and Electronics Systems Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Yongin-si 17035, Korea
5
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (L.N.); [email protected] (J.-W.J.)
check Eoj
Received: 15 August 2019; Accepted: 30 August 2019; Published: 31 August 2019 updates

Abstract: There is a strong devotion in the automotive industry to be part of a wider progression
towards the Fifth Generation (5G) era. In-vehicle integration costs between cellular and vehicle-to-
vehicle networks using Dedicated Short Range Communication could be avoided by adopting
Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) technology with the possibility to re-use the existing mobile
network infrastructure. More and more, with the emergence of Software Defined Networks, the
flexibility and the programmability of the network have not only impacted the design of new
vehicular network architectures but also the implementation of V2X services in future intelligent
transportation systems. In this paper, we define the concepts that help evaluate software-defined-based
vehicular network systems in the literature based on their modeling and implementation schemes.
We first overview the current studies available in the literature on C-V2X technology in support of
V2X applications. We then present the different architectures and their underlying system models
for LTE-V2X communications. We later describe the key ideas of software-defined networks and
their concepts for V2X services. Lastly, we provide a comparative analysis of existing SDN-based
vehicular network system grouped according to their modeling and simulation concepts. We
provide a discussion and highlight vehicular ad-hoc networks’ challenges handled by SDN-based
vehicular networks.

Keywords: software-defined vehicular network; vehicle-to-everything (V2X); modeling and

implementation; software defined network

1. Introduction
Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications are definite technologies in vehicular networks
to drastically reduce road accidents and enable a high-level of vehicle automation. For years, the
technology of choice for V2X, on one hand, has been Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) [1],
which is based on IEEE802.11p technology [1,2]. On the other hand, Cellular-V2X (C-V2X) technology
is seen as a new communication standard supporting V2X services [3]. LTE-V2X technology is a
derivative of the cellular uplink technology that maintains similarity with the current LTE systems [2].
Furthermore, the focus on V2X technology expands the availability of a wide range of services
that include cloud-based vehicular services and edge computing [3]. Therefore, vehicles access

Sensors 2019, 19, 3788; doi:10.3390/s19173788www.mdpi.com /journal/sensors

Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 2 of 14

these cloud-based services through road side units (RSUs). Thus, RSUs increase the reliability of
disseminating critical safety messages to a large number of vehicles [4].
RSUs are communication nodes with the vehicular networks. This means that the vehicle needs
to have access to road infrastructures through RSUs using infrastructure-based communications
(hereafter V2I) [5]. For instance, RSUs forward received messages to intelligent transportations system
(ITS) application servers by exploiting wide area networks [5]. Although communication capabilities
between vehicles depend highly on the number of RSUs deployed and their coverage, RSUs are surely
costly to deploy and to maintain. Consequently; there is a trade-off between full connectivity through
RSUs and the deployment cost. To overcome the deployment cost of RSUs, road operators (ROs)
can additionally leverage spectrum owned by mobile network operators (MNOs) to control traffic
management services. In this situation, ROs are certainly expected to deploy and manage public-sector
RSUs [6]. Following this, the ROs can enter into business arrangements with MNOs to surely deploy
RSUs and run V2X services provided by ITS’s authorities [6]. Therefore, MNOs should leverage
existing cellular infrastructure to promote efficient deployment of V2X services.
Though the IEEE 802.11p was tested, automotive makers have manifested interest in C-V2X
technology and question the applicability of the IEEE 802.11p for enabling many new V2X services.
These doubts about the use of IEEE 802.11p coincides with the emerging of the fifth generation (5G)
technology which aims to reduce network management through automation [7]. Furthermore, the
commitment of automotive OEMs to test cellular communication for V2X motivated them to be part of
a wider progression of 5G era [7]. The key technology of 5G design is mainly focused on the automation
of network resources by using network slicing [8] which in turn is based on two new network
technologies: network function virtualization (NFV) and software-defined networks (SDNs) [9]. The
SDN concept together with edge computing could resolve most issues in vehicular networks such as
irregular connectivity packet loss rate [8,10]. Therefore, software-defined-based vehicular network
(SDVN) systems [8,10] improve resource utilization, selection of best routes, and facilitate network
programming [9]. These SDVN architectures define local SDN domains through clustering in order to
access the global intelligence of the network managed by the SDN controller [11,12].
There is a considerable amount of research work on SDVN [8–12] that focuses on different
concepts, including the definition of SDN, software entities of the control plane, routing protocols
using SDN-based VANET, etc. Some authors have proposed innovative architectures based on existing
V2X scenarios that provide optimization results of their proposed architecture. There is also a number
of surveys [13,14] that summarize the current work in the literature. However, it is quite challenging
for most of the researchers to quickly decide which proposed solution could be suitable for their use
case from schemes that propose modeling, architecture, and optimization.
In this paper, we provide a review of published articles in the literature to comprehend the present
state of research concerning software-defined networks-based vehicular networks with a particular
focus on the articles whose contributions include modeling and implementation. Consequently, we
performed a search on Google Scholar with the following keywords: software-defined networks,
software-defined networks-based vehicular networks and modeling and implementation. In addition,
we used the same keywords on other three research web engines, namely ScienceDirect, IEEE and
ACM. Since SDN and VANETs are relatively new topics, we did not retrieve a huge number of papers
that required an established protocol for evaluation and selection. Therefore, articles were manually
selected or excluded if a given article provides clear modeling and implementation techniques. Other
criteria were used in the selection such as significance, citation or rank of the publication venue.
In this work, we mainly focus on providing implicit literature that focuses on classifying existing
SDVN solutions based on their modeling and implementation. To the best of our knowledge, it is the
first work that groups SDVNs based on their modeling and implementation schemes. Therefore, in
this paper the main contributions are summarized as follows:

• We first overview the current studies available in the literature on C-V2X technology in support of
V2X applications.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 3 of 14

• We then present the different architectures and their underlying system model for LTE-
V2X communications.
• We also describe the keys ideas of software-defined networks and their concepts for V2X services.
• We define four elements that are considered for modeling and implementations of SDN for
vehicular networks. We then present a comparative analysis for existing schemes grouped
according to their modeling and simulation concepts.
• We provide a discussion and highlight vehicular adhoc network(VANET)’ s challenges handled
by SDN based vehicular network.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the current studies and technologies for V2X
services are detailed in Section2. A comparative study of architectures and a system model of LTE-V2X
communication in the implementation of V2X services are discussed in Section3. The modeling and
implementation of software-defined vehicular networks for V2X is detailed in Section4, together with
a definition of SDN, before briefly discussing findings on the comparative study of existing SDN based
vehicular network in Section5. Finally we conclude our work in Section6.

2. Current Studies and Technologies for V2X Services

This section relates the evolution of vehicles equipped either with IEEE 802.11 p or C-V2X wireless
communication technologies for deploying V2X services. This section describes the V2X and C-V2X
communications modes. A comparative study of existing architectures and a system model of LTE-V2X
communication in the implementation of V2X services are detailed.

2.1. V2X Communication Modes

A vehicle can interact with its environment through various types of communication as specified
in [15]:
(1) Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V): A type of communication, in which User Equipements (UEs) (such as
vehicles) communicate using V2V services.
(2) Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P): A type of communication, in which both UEs (vehicle, pedestrian)
communicate using V2P services.
(3) Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I): A type of communication, in which one part is a vehicle- capable
user equipement (VUE) and an RSU entity, both communicating using V2I services.
(4) Vehicle-to-Network (V2N): A type of communication, in which one part is vehicle-capable user
equipment (VUE) and the other part is a V2X application server on the cloud for instance, both
communicating using V2N services. As shown in Figure1, V2N relates to any communication
between vehicles and computing infrastructures such as RSU deployed either with eNodeB or
like a standalone stationary UE [15].

Figure 1. 3GPP Release 14 [16] for V2X services using direct communication over side link PC5
and LTE-Uu.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 4 of 14

2.2. Evolution of Vehicles Using V2X Services

The study on the socio-economic benefits of cellular V2X [17] conducted by “The Analysys
Mason” [17] specifies four (4) case scenarios to study the evolution of vehicles either equipped with
IEEE802.11 or C-V2X technologies for deploying V2X services. These case scenarios are numbered
from one (1) to four (4). Scenario one (1) is the case adoption of C-V2X and IEEE 802.11p in the absence
of any government measures. The second scenario is the case all new vehicles to support ITS services
using IEEE 802.11 p in 2020; the third scenario is the case in 2023 all new vehicles are equipped with
LTE PC5. The fourth scenario is the case the Equitable 5.9GHz use is adopted for V2X communications.
Lessons learned from the study in [17] are described in Table1, which summarizes case scenarios
about V2X communications and relevant challenges. In the absence of any government regulations, V2V
would use IEEE802.11p or LTE-V2X PC5 [18]. This means that no-direct communication interoperability
between IEEE 802.11p and PC5 exists. Therefore, V2V is possible via cellular LTE and vehicles without
IEEE802.11p or PC5 will use V2I and V2P via LTE-Uu of a smartphone brought in the vehicle. The
case scenario 2 concerns all new vehicles that will use IEEE 802.11p in 2020 to support ITS services.
Although vehicles without IEEE 802.11p would not communicate via V2V and V2I, vehicles equipped
with IEEE 802.11p and LTE Uu could communicate via the cellular network. The challenge of the
scenario case 3 (all new vehicles equipped with LTE PC5) would dictate ROs to add PC5-based RSU to
existing RSUs potential. This means that vehicles without PC5 enabled would have to use V2I via
smartphone. The case scenario 4 that predicts the use of Equitable 5.9GHz would allow automotive
OEMs to use IEEE 802.11 p for V2V/V2I and Cellular (LTE-Uu) for V2N. In conclusion, the base case
(case scenario 1) and equitable 5.9GHz RSU (case scenario 4) [19] deployment are thus suggested to be
the most profitable way to deploy V2X services based on the net benefit perspective.

Table 1. Use Case scenarios to study the penetration of V2X services. The study was carried out by
Analysys Mason [17].

Vehicular
Scenario# Description Remarks
Communication
Adoption of C-V2X and IEEE V2V is possible via cellular LTE
V2V using IEEE802.11p or
Base case 802.11p in the absence of any and V2I and V2P via LTE-Uu of
LTE-V2X PC5
government measures a smartphone
Road operators should install
In 2020, all new vehicles to support
Scenario 2 IEEE 802.11p for V2V and V2I new RSUs or expand them to
ITS services via IEEE 2020
support V2I
In 2023, all new vehicles equipped Road operators add PC5-based
Scenario 3 V2V and V2I via LTE PC5
with LTE PC5 RSU to existing RSUs
IEEE 802.11 p for V2V/V2I,
Division spectrum for V2V
Scenario 4 Equitable 5.9GHz use Cellular(LTE-Uu) for V2N and
based PC5 and IEEE 802.11p
others use PC5 for V2V/V2I

The number of vehicles equipped with embedded C-V2X communication technology is expected
to increase as shown in Figure2. Even though after a while we would expect C-V2X to be equipped in
a greater number of vehicles, vehicles which do not have embedded C-V2X would use LTE PC5-based
smartphones for accessing V2I and V2P services. In this context, the base case (scenario 1) seems to be
the one to be adopted by many automotive makers. A key challenge in this scenario is predicted when
different automotive OEMs would deploy different V2V communication solutions. Consequently; the
inefficient use of the equitable 5.9GHz spectrum could occur due to no direct-communication
interoperability of the two technologies (C-V2X and IEEE802.11p).
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 5 of 14

Figure 2. Evolution of the number of vehicles using V2X services in base case scenario 1 (Table1) of
vehicular technology [17].

2.3. 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular-V2X

3GPP Release 14 [16] for V2X services using direct communication over side link PC5 and LTE-Uu
is shown in Figure2. Direct communication uses links over the side link PC5 reference interface.
In fact, side link PC5 defines features based on proximity service (ProSe) which is adapted for V2V
communication scenarios [16]. PC5 communication mode enables V2I communication between
vehicles and road infrastructures such as traffic control lights. In addition, V2N service uses LTE-Uu
for allowing communication between vehicle and computing infrastructures, for example, an RSU
implemented either with an eNodeB or as a standalone stationary UE, central cloud computing.
A vehicular enabled UE exchanges data with deployed computing infrastructures over the LTE-Uu
interface through RSU. The RSU broadcasts V2X messages towards multiple vehicles enabled UEs in a
target area through the evolved multimedia broadcast multicast service (eMBMS) [16]. V2N serves
VUEs in communication with an application server hosting ITS management applications, referred as
a V2X Application Server (AS), which would provide a global state of traffic, the management of it,
and service information [16,19–22].
Actually, cellular communication today represents the most embraced solution to collect data from
vehicles and retransmit them to the network through RSUs. This avoids having to build new or set-ups
expensive installations of RSUs [23,24]. To address admittedly V2X services use cases, the technical
specification group (TSG), radio access networked (RAN) define V2V service using device-to-device
(D2D) as specified in Release 12 [21]. Thus, a direct communication interface called sidelink (or PC5
interface) was thereafter specified in Release 14 [16] to allow direct communication link between
devices. In addition, improvements to this interface have been added within Release 14 to study the
V2V use cases in the ITS 5.9 GHz band and more specifically in [22].

3. A Comparative Study of Architectures and a System Model of LTE-V2X Communication in the

Implementation of V2X Services
Important research on LTE-V2X communication in implementing V2X services has started to
show relevant results. The relevant results of existing works focus mostly on the following network
concepts: (i) long-term evolution-vehicle (LTE-V) standard supporting V2V communications using PC5
in LTE [25], (ii) methodical and assimilated V2X solution based on time-division LTE (TD-LTE) [26],
(iii) multi-channel licensed-assisted access (LAA) schemes to enlarge multi-carrier Wi-Fi network [27].
We identify the following categories of work addressing system model of LTE-V2X communication in
the implementation of V2X services:

(1) Relevant use cases and requirements for V2X services

(2) Design choices determining the performance of LTE-V2X communications
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 6 of 14

3.1. Relevant Use cases and Requirements for V2X Services

Boban et al. [28] describe the benefits of vehicles cooperating through V2X communication. They
define descriptions and requirements of some relevant use cases which would be supported by future
V2X communications systems. Among relevant use cases presented, some of them are bandwidth-
demanding applications with high link reliability estimated to reach 99%. Considering latency, the
authors mentioned that a low latency with a value below 10 ms is required for most of relevant uses
cases. Therefore, these relevant uses cases require a high throughput of tens of Mb/s per vehicle.
In addition, Seo et al. [4] provide a survey of the service flow and conditions of the V2X services
based on LTE systems. They also discuss relevant scenarios suitable for an operational LTE-based
V2X services system. Their work reveals some challenges such as high mobility and high density of
vehicle which would bring a great impact in designing practical and technical solutions to satisfy the
requirements of V2X services.

3.2. Design Choices Determining the Performance of LTE-V2X Communication

Masegosa and al. [25] put forward an overview of the long-term evolution-vehicle (LTE-V)
standard supporting V2V communications using LTE’s direct interface known as PC5 in LTE. The
overview of physical layers changes presented under release 14 for LTE-V allows both communications
modes 3 and 4 of the LTE-V. LTE-V is under study and its specifications would be published in Release
15 [6]. This Release 15 defines specifications on fifth-generation (5G) for supporting both V2X services
and self-driving vehicles’ applications. Indeed, the goal of Masegosa and al.’s work [25] was to review
V2X Communications under mode 3 and mode 4 with LTE-V. In mode 3, the resources are assigned by
the cellular network while mode 4 does not depend on cellular coverage, and vehicles autonomously
take their radio resources using a relegated scheduling scheme supported by congestion control.
The results of the works in [25] discusses the performance achieved by the most major wireless
technology IEEE 802.11p compared to LTE-V when vehicles transmit 10 packets per second (pps) to
a distance of 160 m. In case the 802.11p data rate is increased to 18 Mb/s to a distance up to 160m,
IEEE 802.11p achieves a smaller packets data rate (PDR) than LTE-V thanks to the physical layer
performance and the overriding effect of propagation. The authors analyzed also the performance of
(LTE-V) standard when the channel load increases, this means when a vehicle transmits 50 packets per
second (pps); the results show that the packet collisions become the primary source of errors.
Chen et al., [26] put forward a long-term evolution (LTE)-V model with a contribution on a
methodical and assimilated V2X solution based on time-division LTE (TD-LTE). The main idea is
the use of a centralized architecture that highlights features of TD-LTE and LTE-V-cell optimizes
radio resource management for supporting better V2I. The results from their study are compared
with the well-known wireless technology, IEEE 802.11p. The comparison reveals that LTE-V inherits
the advantages of TD-LTE, including local features of TD-LTE and LTE-V-cell for supporting V2I
communication implemented based on a centralized architecture. Therefore, they suggested that
LTE-V would consort new features to overcome the challenges of V2V communications, such as
congestion control.
Mukherjee et al. [27] studied the impact of unlicensed spectrum operation on the LTE physical
layer architecture and the study of farther enhancements about licensed-assisted access (LAA). They
present a brief survey of valuables enhancements for LAA for upcoming LTE releases. The experimental
results of their proposed system expose clearly that from the synchronization point of analysis and the
influence on the non-substitute Wi-Fi network, both classes of multi-channel LAA LBT schemes are
realizable and can enlarge the performance of a multi-carrier Wi-Fi network assimilated when it is
synchronizing with another Wi-Fi network.
Kawasaki et al. [29] proposed a performance evaluation between two methods of LTE-based V2X.
The two methods are Uu-based LTE-V2X based and PC5-based LTE-V2X which is supported by device
to device (D2D) communication [22]. The authors argue that queuing latency is significantly affected
by bandwidth allocation, latency, parallel degree (PD) both in PC5-based and Uu-based. The authors
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 7 of 14

reveal that the numbers of admissible parallel transfer are decided by different factors in Uu-based
and PC5-based LTE V2X. However, in case the number of parallel transfer is equivalent to a larger
logical bandwidth, queuing latency is estimated to remain smaller. The experimental evaluation results
show that at PD=8, Uu-based was recorded to have the latency of 69.91msec and PC5-based LTE to
have a latency of 11.82msec. To sum up, the latency of PC5-based had only 16.9% of the latency in
Uu-based. PC5-based LTE unveiled to retain a better performance than Uu-based while PC5-based
requires additional functions compared to the existing LTE.

4. Modeling and Implementations of Software-Defined Vehicular Networks for V2X

4.1. Definition of Software-Defined Networks

Software-defined networks (SDNs) [30] are based on the separation of data and control planes.
In SDNs, communication between the control layer and network layer takes place through the SDN
control protocol because the control plane and forwarding plane are decoupled. Based on this principle
of decoupling data and control plane, a standard protocol with multivendor support was needed
for enabling communication between SDN‘s layers. As a result, OpenFlow was developed for this
purpose [30]. OpenFlow was the first open-source control protocol for communicating between the
SDN controller and the network devices. OpenFlow enables the implementation of a user application
program to manipulate directly network devices without implementing various network protocols.
Furthermore, OpenFlow maintains what it calls a flow table [31] on the network device (forwarding
devices). The flow table contains information on how the data needs to be forwarded [30]. The SDN
controller can then use OpenFlow to program the network devices of an OpenFlow-enabled switch by
altering this flow table [32]. To program the forwarding information and set up the path across the
network, the OpenFlow architecture supports two modes of operation, reactive and proactive [33]. The
reactive mode is the default method of implementing SDN using OpenFlow and assumes that there is
no intelligence of a control layer running on the network devices. In this mode, the first packet of the
data traffic received on any of the forwarding nodes is sent to the SDN controller, and then the SDN
controller uses this information to program the flow across of the whole network. In proactive mode,
the SDN controller is preconfigured with some default flow values, and the traffic flow is programmed
preemptively as soon as the switch is brought up. SDN controller and switches exchange the flow of
information over the network using a secure channel such as Secure Socket Layer (SSL) or Transport
Layer Security (TLS) while the OpenFlow manages communication between network layer and control
layers [34,35].

4.2. Software-Defined Networks and their Concept in Vehicular Networks for Deploying V2X Services
The control layer plane is responsible for collecting and maintaining the status of all SDN cellular
network devices, RSUs, and the vehicles [8]. An example of such SDN deployment in V2X services
could be the route prediction on demand. The application could monitor vehicles on the roads
and provides additional route prediction paths at a certain time of the day or when the vehicles are
temporarily disconnected due to the high speed of the vehicles. The control layer would have to
provide with the information about the vehicle’s future route based on the Global Positioning System
(GPS) or a navigation system [11]. The ability to deploy V2X services through SDN concepts is perhaps
the most significant for automakers to solve the challenges of the no-direct interoperability of vehicle’s
wireless interface. Today, deployment of V2X services demands higher agility in network restoration,
massive scalability, faster deployment, and operating expense optimization [36]. Therefore, V2X
services cannot simply afford to be slowed down by the lack of speed in human-driven processes.
Automakers’ onboard wireless communication interfaces have been traditionally specific to their
vehicles. Automakers offer limited support for allowing external network devices to make decisions
based on the logic and constraints across the vehicular networks. SDN offers a solution by linking V2X
services to the vehicular network and bridging the challenge that existed with manual control and
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 8 of 14

management processes. In addition, maximum use of automated tools and application have become a
necessity to meet the V2X service demands. Automation and programmability capability are needed
to support the provisioning of V2X services, the monitoring, and interpreting of V2X networks devices
data. Therefore, automated tools implement run-time changes based on high mobility of vehicular
networks, road traffic loads, and disconnection due to a high speed.
Since the SDN puts the intelligence of the vehicular networks in a central controlling software
called SDN controller which conveys vehicular routing protocols to VANET’s wireless nodes (such
vehicles, RSUs). In fact, the vehicular routing protocols automatically react to the vehicle’s mobility
since the global view of the network is permanently available on SDN Controller. Therefore, the
dissemination of routing path based on the vehicle’s speed could be built directly into the SDN
controller. Alternatively, the open protocols to manage the V2X applications can run on the top of the
SDN controller using the northbound bound APIS [30] to proceed down the routing policies and rules
to the controller and southbound APIS [30] to convey routing policies from SDN controller to the V2X
forwarding devices. In conclusion, features of the SDN should handle the issue of high mobility and
then improve V2X messages exchanged in a heterogeneous VANET architecture.

4.3. Architecture Overview of Software-Defined Vehicular Networks

Figure3depicts the components of various wireless communications in the software-defined
vehicular network. To allow an SDN-based vehicular network (SDVN), simulation conducted on it
leads to a certain number of SDN components. The SDN controller is the central logical intelligence of
the SDN-based vehicular system. The SDN controller has a generalized and global view of the vehicular
network and implements Openflow protocol to handle routing policies to eNB-type RSU controller on
RSU. In fact, eNB-type RSU controller deployed on the edge of the vehicular network shortens the
decision of generating new routing packets undefined in forwarding devices’ flow tables. The SDN
controller V2X network management conveys routing policies to UEs (vehicles) by implementing ITS’s
goals set up on the cloud or at the edge of the network for lowering processing decisions. The SDN
controller is not only responsible to provide the whole performance but also provide routing rules
for wireless devices (vehicles) selecting best routing paths to their destinations in VANET. OpenFlow
enabled V2X-EU is the SDN wireless node and is responsible to control the data plane elements [12].
Data plane on vehicle implements OpenFlow protocol and is embedded in the OnBoard Diagnostic
Unit (OBU). Furthermore, data plane elements are the VUEs that perform control message in term
of routing policies from the eNB-type RSU controller to execute predefined actions which state ITS’s
goals once implemented in the application plane of the SDVN.

4.4. Modeling and Implementations of SDN for Vehicular Networks

The study of existing works on SDN-based vehicular networks was conducted based on the four
(4) basics elements of modeling and simulation scheme [37]. First, we identified the targeted drawback
that the researchers addressed. The second element is the classification of the existing SDVNs or
VANETs system on which belong the addressed drawback. The third is the systems analysis which
allows identifying parts of the SDVN system that are relevant to the problem. Finally, the model of the
proposed solution, in turn, provides the implementation of the model related to the SDVN system in
considering the outputs of its system analysis. Modeling and simulation scheme of existing work on
SDVN was proposed to study the issues of several problems that originate from the complexity of ITS’s
applications understudy in VANETs and Internet of Vehicles. Thus, the models of software-defined
vehicular networks contribute as a network technology to provide a solution to current VANETs’
applications. In addition, SDVN is considered as a system because it is a part of VANET technology
that will influence the design of future vehicular network architectures. The summary of the modeling
and simulation schemes of existing works on SDN-based vehicular networks is described in Table 2.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 9 of 14

eNB-type RSU controller SDN Controller V2X

Network Management

OpemFlow Enabled
Switch Open-Flow
openFlow enabled-V2X
Tree protocol EU (data
Plane)
openFlow openFlow
protocol protocol

Open-Flow Open-Flow
enabled-V2X enabled-V2X
EU (data EU (data
Plane) Plane)

Tree
control plane communication via southbound
protocol

forwardinng plane communication

Figure 3. Software-Defined Vehicular Network. Data plane on vehicle implements OpenFlow protocol
and is embedded in the OnBoard Diagnostic Unit (OBU). The SDN controller has a Generalized
Vehicular cloud Openflow Controller on RSU. The SDN controller conveys routing policies to UEs
(Vehicles) by implementing ITS’s goals set up on the cloud.

Mainly, a VANET deals with systems in its objectives in a way of filling the separation between
heterogeneity caused by communications interfaces equipped in vehicles or infrastructure-based
communication. For instance, let us consider the fact that high mobility of vehicles causes dynamic
topology change that in turn generates packet losses in the network, therefore routing protocols in
mobile entities to effectively handle the short lifetime link are required. To this, the modeling and
implementation of this issue conducted by the authors in [12] and summarized in Table2show that
it is an SDVN’s challenge and the research community suggests what could be done to solve the
problem. The system analysis which represents the entities of the system that are relevant to the
problem discloses trace of message overhead between vehicles (data planes entities) and the SDN
controller. To this end, researchers should quickly decode that message overhead between vehicles
(data plane) and SDN controller is the root cause, therefore, the implementation of the solution to
a new problem related to routing protocols that could break link quality would start on message
overhead on the SDN controller. Thus, the model proposed by the authors in [12] involves a new
routing protocol that improves the packet delivery ratio by selecting stable routes with the lowest
latency to control the overhead message on the SDN controller. Inalterability in protocol deployment
due to the heterogeneity of wireless infrastructures prompted the authors in [38] to provide a system
analysis that centers on abstracting heterogeneous wireless nodes as SDN switches enabled OpenFlow
and designing SDN controller to manage dynamically network resources.
The output of the system analysis prompts the authors in [38] to propose a solution model that
includes an adaptive protocol for heterogeneous multihop routing, a topology that enables SDN
management overhead via the status of SDN switches and finally provide use cases of SDVN-enabled
V2V, V2I, and V2N. To improve the performance in communication by mitigating the connectivity loss
between vehicles and central SDN controller in [39], the authors suggested a system analysis based on
selecting local SDN controller domains through clustering concepts. They proposed a hierarchical
SDNV as the implementation model to decrease connectivity loss at the SDN controller, consequently;
enhance the robustness of internetworking of data plane entities.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 10 of 14

Table 2. Summary of related works on SDN based vehicular networks grouped according to the
modeling and implementation scheme.
Model of the Proposed
Description of the Problem System System Analysis
Architecture
Hierarchical placement of SDN
Connectivity loss between vehicles and Local SDN controller domains controllers decrease
SDVN
SDN controller [39] through clustering connectivity latency between
them
Track message overhead Control the overhead of the
Routing in mobile cloud [12] SDN-based routing between vehicles and SDN controller and packet
controller delivery ratio
RSU micro-datacenter,
Amount of data transfered for Analyze throughput,
SDVN stochastic switching for
multimedia applications [1] end-to-end delay
reconfiguration overhead
Deploy adaptive protocol for
Abstract heterogeneous
heterogeneous multihop
Heterogeneity of wireless wireless nodes as SDN
routing; mitigate SDN
infrastructures and inalterable in SDVANETs switches enabled OpenFlow
management overhead via
protocol [38] Allocate network resources
status of SDN switches; SDN
through SDN controler
enabled V2V, V2I and V2N.
SDN supports hybrid mode,
Software-defined Control plane is distributed Fog computing concept is
Efficient resource utilization [11]
Cloud /Fog network between SDN controller, BS adding to provide FSDN
and RSU
Latency control mechanisms:
Software-defined Mobile Software-defined cloud/edge
Latency control [10] radio access steering at the
Edge computing vehicular networking
base stations (BSs)
Local knowledge of Cellular network integrated
Latency control [40] on Multiple core
Software-defined surroundings nodes, SDN with network Model, SDN
network for autonomous driving
VANET with 5G controller, Broadcast beacon control eNB infrastructure,
vehicle
message RSU controller controls RSU
Optimize southbound
communication via rebating
Control communication:
Latency control and cost on cellular Software-defined mechanism, game equilibrium,
VANET based, cellular
network [32] VANET with 5G two-stage leader-follower
network-based, hybrid-based
game for best decision between
vehicle and controller
Topology of SDN controller,
Software-Defined Extend modeling of node car
Dynamic resource management [14] Model of Node in
VANETs in mininet-WiFi
Mininet-WiFi
Vehicular networking; Vehicle network architecture
for resource management,
Control latency communication [13] heterogeneity of radio Model SDHVNet architecture
SDN controller, redesign of
access technologies
existing vehicular networks

ITS scenarios in future VANETS require quality of service (QoS)s and efficient utilization of
network resources for enabling autonomous driving. The authors in [11], [14] addressed the challenge
of efficient resource utilization. In [11], the system on which the problem is associated use the fog(edge)
computing technology, thus the SDN-based fog network is evaluated to propose location-aware services
with less communication latency. To this end, the system analysis centers on the deployment of the SDN
to support hybrid mode (central-based and distributed-based configuration of SDN controller) and on
the configuration of control plane (SDN controller) in distributed mode with both the base station (BS)
and RSU. Considering the outputs of the SDN-based fog computing, the authors in [11] propose a
model that combines edge(fog) computing services for allowing heterogeneous communication access
for V2V, V2I, and V2N. The authors in [14] provide a system analysis that centers of the topology
deployment of SDN controller and the possibility to model communication nodes (vehicles) as an
SDN switch using the open-source simulation tool known as Mininet-WiFi [14]. The proposed model
offers efficient utilization of network resource after modeling the vehicle as a node using Mininet-WiFi.
Taking mobile edge computing step further, the authors in [10] investigate the possibility of deploying
VANET’s application with low-latency and high-reliability communication delay in software-defined
mobile edge computing. The system analysis provided by the authors in [10] takes into consideration
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 11 of 14

the edge vehicular network architecture which in turns provide a modeling solution on how to control
the communication latency through radio access steering at the base station.
The advancement of 5G in the automotive field brings the integration of VANETS and 5G
technology to construct 5G software-defined vehicular network with SDN technology as a primary key
enabler. The authors in [32,40] investigated the challenge of communication latency and the cost on
multiple core network for the autonomous driving vehicle. The modeling and implementation of [32]
provide a systematic analysis based on the control of latency at VANET position, the cellular network-
or hybrid-based (VANET and cellular position). The outputs of the system analysis prompt the authors
in [32] to model their solution for decreasing communication latency by optimizing southbound
communication via both rebating mechanism and the use of game equilibrium associated with the
two-stage leader-follower game in order to select best routing paths between vehicle and controller.
In [40], the modeling concepts centers on the system analysis based on broadcasting V2V beaconing
messages so that the local knowledge of surroundings nodes and their topology are available at
the SDN controller. After system analysis, the proposed solution provides a model that includes
the integration of SDN controller, eNB infrastructures, RSU controller and 5G to design 5G based
SDN concept.
The full transformation of VANET into SDVN requires to model SDVN solutions not only based
on system architectures of SDVN but also based on mathematical analysis. Since the SDVN integrates
the use of the SDN concept on the VANETs, a mathematically-based model is the natural modeling
language to break up complexity problems and make VANETs’ and SDVNs’ challenges tractable.
Mathematical-based theory applied to SDVN should bring further improvements and variations for
allowing SDN to fully enhance VANETs, consequently, minimizing latency and cost, safety message
delivery using heterogeneous communication interfaces [41]. A thorough mathematical model theory
for all the above–analyzed articles that would lead to a new proposed concept that along with its
implementation shall be addressed in future work.

5. Discussion
In this section, we summarize our findings from the classification of SDVNs based on the
modeling and implementation schemes. The modeling strategy used in this paper to break up SDVNs’
architecture helps to sort out existing VANETs’ challenges addressed by integrating the SDN concept
in VANETs. Some of the problems and system analysis in the process of modeling for problem-solving
have been covered in Section4.4, however, the rest of this section covers the summary of the four
elements on which we centered the modeling of existing SDVN architecture in order to comprehend
the current VANET’s challenges solved by SDVN system. The simplicity of modeling proposed in this
paper aims at encouraging a research combination towards SDVN with 5G and with edge computing
as an alternative solution for future VANET’s applications. Based on our study, we provide SDVNs’
systems analysis of existing SDVN architecture.
The comparative study of existing SDVN based on the modeling and implementation scheme
as shown in Table2provides a list of a number of VANET issues addressing the full transformation
of VANETs to SDVN. To this end, the identified VANET issues handled over to SDVN systems are
summarized in the following contributions: firstly, the contributions in [10,13,32,39,40] that address
the issue of loss of connectivity by controlling the data plane latency, secondly, the contributions of
authors in [12] that are related to routing protocols in the mobile cloud environment, thirdly, the
contributions from authors in [11,14] which address the issue of resource utilization. Finally, the
authors in [1] provide a study on the amount of data transferred for multimedia applications. Lastly,
the contributions in [32,40] address the issue of communication latency and the cost of using multiple
core network for autonomous vehicles.
Moreover, handover control and proper allocation of radio resource were analyzed in [42] to
mitigate the challenge of mobility management and transmission delay. The mobility management in
VANETs increases delays in the transmission where handover procedures are not properly implemented.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 12 of 14

To this, SDVN with fog computing would allow meeting the requirements of low transmission delay by
adopting a hybrid handover scheme, optimizing radio resource allocation through the Markov decision
process [42]. However, inefficient control for high mobility that causes unsteady wireless channel for
SDVN and latency on the distribution of commands from controllers and interworking breach through
heterogeneous networks were among ongoing VANETs’ challenges to contend with SDVN. In addition,
network slicing and NFV [25] in SDVN introduce potential research opportunities. In fact, SDN allows
operative network slicing in a dynamic topology. The NFV with the use of hypervisor has the task of
adjusting OpenFlow in the way to enable heterogeneous network interworking.
The system analysis of SDVN systems identifies components, architectures, protocols directly
linked to the SDVN challenge addressed. Note that there are six (6) architecture systems of SDN- based
vehicular network proposed in the literature: SDVN [1,39], SDN-based routing [12], software-defined
VANETs (SDVANETs) [14,38], SDN-based cloud/mobile (fog/edge) computing [10,11], software-
defined VANET with 5G [32,40]. A comprehensive study of SDVN architecture, its benefits and
services are described in [36]. Although six systems of SDVN architectures are currently
implemented and simulated, system analysis provides insights to relevant components,
architectures, protocols and simulation tools to be considered before providing a solution model to
VANET’s challenge. In fact, we can list a few of SDVN system’s analysis as summarized in Table2:
placement of SDN controller [11,13,14,39,40], communication control VANET-based or cellular
network-based [32], local knowledge of surrounding nodes via beacon or geo-broadcast messages
[39,42], network simulator tools such as Mininet-WiFi [14], trace of overhead messages between
vehicles and SDN controllers [1].
Comprehensive surveys on the software-defined networks in [41,43] lack a comparative study on
the system analysis of existing SDVNs to point out SDVN components, architectures and algorithms
investigated to tackle SDVN drawbacks. Authors in [41,43] investigate SDVN architectures to identify
their benefits and challenges against the VANETs regarding communication in [41], and security
in [43]. Within the existing SDVN solutions, technology for SDN controllers, implementation tool
for the OpenFlow protocol have been proposed, yet a comprehensive study on SDVN architectures
based on the modeling will provide the required insights on the components needed for further
enhancements. Since the system analysis of SDVN systems provide key enabling technologies for
investigating SDVENs’ challenges, the solution model proposed in the implementation based the
system analysis entities in SDVN shows potential research opportunities towards an efficient SDVN
that could allow a huge number of next-generation VANET applications.

6. Conclusions
Software-defined networks (SDNs) are a network technology based on the separation of data
and control planes. This paper mainly focuses on discussing implicit literature that concentrates on
classifying existing SDVN solutions based on their modeling and implementation. In addition, this
work provides an overview of the current studies available in the literature on C-V2X applications in
support of V2X applications. The keys ideas of software-defined networks and their concepts for V2X
services were also presented. We show that the simplicity of modeling that was proposed provides a
detailed analysis of known solutions including SDVN or SDVN with 5G, SDVN-based cloud/mobile
edge computing in order to solve current VANET issues in most cases. Loss of connectivity between
vehicles and SDN controllers, routing in mobile (edge) cloud computing, were among the issues tacked
by existing solutions such as SDVN, software-defined edge computing, SDVN with 5G and SDN-based
routing that are currently implemented in order to solve current and ongoing VANETs challenges.
Lastly, we discussed some guidelines for future research work.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, L.N.; methodology, investigation,

writing—review and editing, L.N.; formal analysis, validation, editing S.M.R.I.; supervision Y.H.C, visualization,
M.B.; writing—review and editing, ressources, funding acquisition, J.J.W.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported the BB21+ project in 2019.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 13 of 14

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mohammad, A.S.; Ala, A.F.; Mohsen, G. Software-Defined Networking for RSU clouds in support of the
Internet of Vehicles. IEEE Internet Things J. 2015, 2, 133–144.
2. Ke, Z.; Yuming, M.; Supeng, L.; Yejun, H.; Yan, Z. Mobile-Edge Computing for Vehicular networks. IEEE
Vehic. Technol. Mag. 2017, 12, 36–44.
3. Campolo, C.; Molinaro, A.; Menichella, F. 5G Network Slicing for Vehicle-to-Everything Services. IEEE Wirel.
Commun. 2017, 24, 38–45. [CrossRef]
4. Seo, H.; Lee, K.D.; Yasukawa, S.; Peng, Y.; Sartori, P. LTE Evolution for Vehicle-to-Everything Services. IEEE
Commun. Mag. 2016, 6, 22–28. [CrossRef]
5. Silva, M.C.; Masini, M.B.; Ferrari, G.; Thibault, I. A Survey on Infrastructure-Based Vehicular Networks. Mob.
Inf. Syst. 2017, 2017, 1–28. [CrossRef]
6. 5G Americas V2X Cellular Solutions. Available online:http: //www.5gamericas.org/files/2914/7769/1296/
5GA_V2X_Report_FINAL_for_upload.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
7. 5GAA, White Papers, Toward Fully Connected Vehicles: Edge Computing for Advanced Automotive
Communications. Available online:http: //5gaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/5GAA_T-170219-
whitepaper-EdgeComputing_5GAA.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
8. Jianqi, L.; Jiafu, W.; Bi, Z.; Qinruo, W.; Houbing, S.; Meikang, Q. A Scalable and Quick-Response Software
Defined Vehicular Network Assisted by Mobile Edge Computing. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 94–100.
9. He, X.; Ren, Z.; Shi, C.; Fang, J. A Novel Load Balancing Strategy of Software-Defined Cloud/Fog Networking
on the Internet of Vehicles. China Commun. 2016, 13, 140–149. [CrossRef]
10. Deng, J.D.; Lien, S.Y.; Lin, C.C.; Hung, C.S.; Chen, W.B. Latency Control in Software-Defined Mobile-Edge
vehicular Networking. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 87–93. [CrossRef]
11. Truong, B.N.; Lee, M.G.; Doudane, G.Y. Software Defined Networking-based Vehicular Adhoc Network with
Fog Computing. In Proceedings of the 2015 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network
Management (IM), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 11–15 May 2015.
12. Ku, I.; Lu, Y.; Gerla, M.; Ongaro, F.; Gomes, L.R.; Cerqueira, E. Towards Software-Defined VANET:
Architecture and Services. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Mediterranean AdHoc Networking Workshop
(MED-HOC-NET), Piran, Slovenia, 2–4 June 2014; pp. 103–110.
13. Adnan, M.; Wei, E.Z.; Quan, Z.S. Software-Defined Heterogeneous Vehicular Networking: The Architectural
Design and Open Challenges. Future Internet 2019, 11, 1–17.
14. Ramon, D.R.F.; Claudia, C.; Christian, E.R.; Antonella, M. From Theory to Experimental Evaluation: Resource
Management in Software-Defined Vehicular Networks. IEEE 2017, 5, 1–8.
15. Wang, X.; Mao, S.; Gong, M.X. An overview of 3GPP cellular vehicle-to-everything standards. Get Mobile.
2017, 21, 19–25. [CrossRef]
16. 3GPP. Study on LTE Support for Vehicle to Everything(V2X) Services. Available online:https:
//portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2898(accessed
on 31 August 2019).
17. Rebbeck, T.; Stewart, J.; Lacour, H.A.; Lillen, A.; McClure, D.; Dunoyer, A. Socio-Economic Benefits of
Cellular V2X, Final Report for 5GAA. Available online:http: //www.analysysmason.com/contentassets/
b1bd66c1baf443be9678b483619f2f3d/analysys-mason-report-for-5gaa-on-socio-economic-benefits-of-
cellular-v2x.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
18. US Department of transportation. The smart/Connected City and Its Implications for Connected
Transportation. Available online:www.its.dot.gov /index.htm(accessed on 31 August 2019).
19. 3GPP. LTE-Based V2X Services. Available online:http: //www.tech-invite.com/3m36/tinv-3gpp-36-885.html
(accessed on 31 August 2019).
20. 3GPP. Liaison Statement from 3GPP RAN on LTE-Based Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication. Available online:
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1798-v2x_r14(accessed on 31 August 2019).
21. 3GPP. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio. Available online:https: //www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136300_
136399/136300/09.04.00_60/ts_136300v090400p.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
Sensors 2019, 19, 3788 14 of 14

22. 3GPP. Study on the Enhancement of 3GPP Support 5G V2X Services. TR 22.886. 2016. Available online:
https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/22-series.htm(accessed on 31 August 2019).
23. Wang, X.; Mao, S.; Gong, M.X. An Overview of 3GPP Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Standards. Available
online:https: //www.sigmobile.org/pubs/getmobile/articles/Vol21Issue3_2.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
24. 3GPP. Service Requirements for V2X Services. Available online:https: //portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/
Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2989(accessed on 31 August 2019).
25. Masegosa, M.R.; Gozalvez, J. A New 5G Technology for Short-Range Vehicle-to-Everything Communications.
IEEE Vehicular Tech. 2017, 10, 30–39. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, A.; Hu, J.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, L. LTE-V: A TD-LTE-Based V2X Solution for Future Vehicular Network. IEEE
Internet of Things J. 2016, 3, 907–1005. [CrossRef]
27. Mukherjee, A.; Cheng, J.; Falahati, S.; Koorapaty, H.; Kang, D.H.; Karaki, R.; Falconetti, L.; Larsson, D.
Licensed-Assisted Access LTE: Coexistence with IEEE 802.11 and the Evolution toward 5G. IEEE Commun.
Mag 2016, 54, 50–57. [CrossRef]
28. Boban, M.; Kousaridas, A.; Manolakis, K.; Eichinger, J.; Xu, W. Use Cases, Requirements, and
Design Considerations for 5G V2X. Available online:https: //arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01754.pdf(accessed on
31 August 2019).
29. Kawasaki, R.; Onishi, H.; Murase, T. Performance Evaluation on V2X Communication with PC5-based and
uu-based LTE in Crash Warning Application. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 6th Global Conferenceon
Consumer Electronics (GCCE2017), Nagoya, Japan, 24–27 October 2017.
30. Kreutz, D.; Ramos, M.V.F.; Veissimo, E.P.; Rothenberg, E.C.; Azodolmplky, S.; Uhlig, S. Software-Defined
Networking: A Comprehensive Survey. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 14–76. [CrossRef]
31. Fei, H. Network Innovation through OpenFlow and SDN: Principles and Design; CRC Publishing: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2016.
32. Li, H.; Dong, M.; Ota, K. Control Plane Optimization in Software-Defined Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE
T.Veh.Technol. 2016, 65, 7895–7904. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, Y.; Ding, Y.A.; Tarkoma, S. Software-Defined Networking in Mobile Access Networks; Department of
Computer Science, University of Helsinki: Helsinki, Finland, 2013 19 September; pp. 1–29.
34. Software-Defined Network. What Is It, How Does It Work, and What Is Good for. Available online:
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~{}msagiv/courses/rsdn/SDN-TAU.pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
35. Chayapathi, R.; Hassan, F.S.; Shah, P. Software defined Networking (SDN). In Network Functions Virtualization
(NFV) with A Touch of SD; Addison-Wesley Professional: Boston, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 0-13-446305-6.
36. Toufga, S.; Owezarski, P.; Abdellatif, S.; Villemur, T. A SDN hybrid architecture for vehicular networks:
Applications to Intelligent Transport System. In Proceedings of the 9th Europen Congress on Embedded
Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS), Toulouse, France, 31 Januray–2 February 2018; pp. 1–8.
37. James, E.C. An Introduction to the Use of Modelig and Simulation throughout the Systems Engineering
Process. Available online:https: //ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/systemtutorial/14907.
pdf(accessed on 31 August 2019).
38. Zongjian, H.; Jiannong, C.; Xuefeng, L. Enabling rapid innovation for heterogeneous vehicular
communications. IEEE 2016, 30, 10–15.
39. Sergio, C.; Azzedine, B.; Rodolfo, I.M. An Architecture for Hierarchical Software-Defined vehicular Networks.
IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 80–86.
40. Piyush, D.; Mohsin, R.; Hoa, L.; Nauman, A. Software-Defined Approach for Communication in Autonomous
Transportation Systems. Energy Web 2017, 4, 1–9.
41. Manisha, C.; Sandeep, H.; Krishn, K.M.; Arun, K.S.; Zhigao, Z. A survey on Software-defined networking in
vehicular ad hoc networks: Challenges, applications and use cases. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 35, 830–840.
42. Yeomin, Z.; Haijun, Z.; Keping, L.; Qiang, Z.; Xiaoming, X. Software-Defined and Fog-Computing-Based
Next Generation Vehicular Networks. IEEE commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 34–41.
43. Wafa, B.J.; Mauro, C.; Chhagan, L. Software-Defined VANETs: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Available online:https: //arxiv.org/abs/1904.04577(accessed on 31 August 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).