隨著科技的進步，現今許多的技術瓶頸已經不斷的被突破。以軟體定義網路(SDN)為例，其正挑戰著舊有的網路環境。但是車輛系統一直是走封閉的系統環境，車輛製造商以隱私、安全、無法即時反應車輛資訊以及網路速度太慢為由，一直固守著傳統留下的原則，維持各自一套不為人知的資訊系統。高速的行動通訊系統，加上本研究以軟體定義網路的架構導入到車載資通訊系統(Telematics)的新應用，使得車載資通訊系統有統一的協定而又不失其保密性。
本研究促使多元應用提供車用標準介面及函式，結合車載資通訊系統跟軟體定義網路，達到相輔相成的效果。本研究軟體定義網路(SDN)使用OpenFlow交換器1.3版與NOX控制器1.3版為基礎，將車載CAN資料解譯之後包裝在OpenFlow控制訊息中。使得控制器與交換器在發送或回應訊息可以用OpenFlow訊息格式封裝後發送或接收。
本研究最重要的是提供車載資通訊系統開放並標準化的介面及應用，透過新的應用介面對有OpenFlow及非OpenFlow機制協定做比較。發現在模擬少數車輛時，以非OpenFlow的機制在傳送接收訊息，延遲時間會比較短。但在模擬多台車輛時，由於OpenFlow機制針對多執行緒的效能進行處理，所以延遲時間有較佳的效果，而非OpenFlow對此沒有提及，導至延遲時間長短不一。本研究測試得到：在32個模擬車輛時，使用OpenFlow的延遲時間，減少約6.4%。由此可見，當連線數愈多時，OpenFlow的整體機制會優於非OpenFlow的整體機制。
本研究的車輛間(V2V) SDN機制與現行的車輛間(V2V) DSRC機制進行比較，得到模擬結果為：在大於8輛車時的延遲傳遞時間(Latency)，車輛間(V2V) SDN的傳遞訊息速度會優於車輛間(V2V) DSRC。

Following the improvement of technology, many kind of problems have been solved. The networking technology keeps updating for newer generation and changing the solution for connectivity. For example, the Software Defined Networking (SDN) is challenging traditional networking infrastructure. However, the vehicle systems are still under proprietary closed environment. Because of the safety, privacy, non-real-time update mechanism, and bad performance of network transport concerns, vehicle manufacturers still follow traditional principle of design and try to own the information ecosystem. As the latest generation mobile communication providing faster and stable backbone, this study seeks to implement the infrastructure of Software Defined Network (SDN) into telematics application. By using SDN and mobile communication technologies vehicle information systems can have a standard protocol and stable infrastructure.
This study was designed to research a diversity of applications that could provide a standard interfaces and functions for vehicle information systems. The aim is to integrate SDN into vehicle information systems in order to improve the performance. In this study, the Software Defined Network (SDN) is build based on OpenFlow Switch v1.3 and NOX Controller v1.3. The vehicle information framework is build in away that after parsing the CAN data of vehicle, then data is packaged into OpenFlow control message. When sending or replying information, either the controller or switch prepare the message for sending or receiving as OpenFlow messaging format. In addition to packaging the telematics messages into OpenFlow messages, this framework can be used in vehicle to vehicle communication as well.
The most ambitious part of this study is to provide an open interface and a standard protocol for the application of telematics. When comparing the application interface of OpenFlow with non-OpenFlow mechanism, this study found the performance of OpenFlow based mechanism is different. In the tests simulating only a few vehicles, the latency was shorter in non-OpenFlow based framework when sending or receiving messages. However, when simulating greater number of vehicles, due to multi-threaded performance of OpeFlow mechanism, the latency can be handled by the system thus providing more flexibility or better overall performance. Non-OpenFlow mechanism might not take into account a larger number of multithreading, thus the latency performance may not be stable. In the tests in this study the different of latency between OpenFlow and non-OpenFlow mechanism was found to be 6.4% for the advantage of non-OpenFlow mechanism. However, while accounting for multithreaded performance, when the number of vehicles increases, the OpenFlow mechanism can provide a better performance than non-OpenFlow mechanism.
In conclusion, while comparing the V2V SDN and the V2V DSRC the result of the simulation shows that the latency of V2V SDN is shorter than V2V DSRC, when the network of vehicles consists of more than 8 vehicles.

[1] Z. Li, H. Jing and Z. Liu , "Design of application layer software and interface circuit for the MOST network in vehicle," Proceedings of the Control Conference (CCC), pp.7720-7725, 2013
[2] H. Zinner, J. Noebauer, J. Seitz＋and and T. Waas, “A Comparison of Time Synchronization in AVB and FlexRay in-vehicle networks,” Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Intelligent Solutions in Embedded Systems (WISES), pp.67-72, 2011
[3] H. Lim, D. Herrscher and F. Charri, "Performance Comparision of IEEE 802.1Q and IEEE 802.1 AVB In and Ethernet-Based In-Vehicle Network,” Proceedings of International Conference on Computing Technology and Information Management (ICCM), pp.1-6, 2012
[4] D. Drutskoy, E. Keller and J. Rexford, "Scalable Network Virtualization in Software-Defined Networks," IEEE Internet Computing, vol.17, no.2, pp.20-27, 2013
[5] K.C. Lee, A. Piechowicz, M. Gerla, A. Tiwari, A. Ganguli and D. Krzysiak, "Delay tolerant Mobility Aware Routing/Mobility Dissemination Protocol for the airborne network," Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference, pp.1-7, 2009.
[6] B. Addis, D. Ardagna, B. Panicucci, M. Squillante and L. Zhang, "A Hierarchical Approach for the Resource Management of Very Large Cloud Platforms," IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, no.99,2013.
[7] B. Ahlgren, P.A. Aranda, P. Chemouil, S. Oueslati, L.M. Correia, H. Karl, M. Sollner and A. Welin, ”Content, Connectivity and Cloud: Ingredients for the Network of the Future,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol.49, no.7, pp.62-70, 2011.
[8] K. Bakshi, “Considerations for Cloud Data Center: Framework, architecture and adoption,” Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp.1-7, 2011.
[9] L. Sarzyniec, T. Buchert, E. Jeanvoine and L. Nussbaum, "Design and Evaluation of a Virtual Experimental Environment for Distributed Systems," Proceedings of Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), pp.172-179, 2013.
[10] Y. Simmhan, V. Prasanna, S. Aman, A. Kumbhare, R. Liu, S. Stevens and Q. Zhao, "Cloud-Based Software Platform For Big Data Analytics In Smart Grids," Proceedings of the Computing in Science & Engineering, no.99, pp.1-1, 2013.
[11] C. Perng, T. Li and R. Chang, "Cloud Analytics for Capacity Planning and Instant VM Provisioning," IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, pp.1-14, 2013.
[12] M. Jarschel, S. Oechsner, D. Schlosser, R. Pries, S. Goll and P. Tran-Gia, "Modeling and performance evaluation of an OpenFlow architecture," Proceedings of the International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), pp.1-7 2011.
[13] X. Yang, J. Liu, N. Vaidya and F. Zhao, "A vehicle-to-vehicle communication protocol for cooperative collision warning," The First Annual International Conference on Proceedings of Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems Networking and Services, pp.114-123, Aug. 2004.
[14] J. Fukuyama, "A delay time analysis for multi-hop V2V communications over a linear VANET," Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC), pp.1-7, 2009.
[15] Q. Wang, Mr. Oya and N. Takagi, "One design of ideal vehicle models in adaptive steering driver-vehicle systems," Proceedings of the International Conference on Modelling Identification and Control (ICMIC), pp.203-208, 2010.
[16] V. Palagummi, M. Hunter and R. Fujimoto, “Defining ‘Critical Speed’ in Driver-Vehicle Systems,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp.4155-4160, 2013.
[17] C. Huang, C. Yang, C. Hu and A. Vinel, "An open Telematics Service Providing Framework using the P2P-like paradigm based on the somecast protocol," Proceedings of the Baltic Congress on Future Internet Communications (BCFIC Riga), pp.198-205, 2011