10BASE-T1S popularity is taking off rapidly, and numerous real-world implementations are being developed. With these implementations numerous challenges exist including the desire to employ the more advanced features of the technology and even use not yet standardized functionality. In this workshop, we will discuss nuances that are likely apparent to subject matter experts, but not yet widespread knowledge. For example:
•  When did choosing a media converter become more complicated than looking for a specific Automotive Ethernet PHY?
•  Why are TSN and frame priorities somehow unimportant?
•  And the great philosophical dilemma: To burst, or not to burst?

The training will cover:
- Overview and Motivation of MACsec in Automotive.
- MACsec (headers, modes, important aspects).
- MKA (Interaction, Key Hierarchy, Modes, Rekeying).
- Synergies between MACsec and other technologies.
- MACsec in AUTOSAR (Classic and Adaptive Platform).
Many OEMs are currently evaluating, designing in, or implementing MACsec for the next vehicle architecture: MACsec is currently the most discussed security solution for Automotive Ethernet. This training covers MACsec and MKA with a focus on how these work in the Automotive environment and gives you all the insights, so that you can lead the conversation.

Volvo Cars is on a journey from traditional domain-oriented E/E architecture with core networking predominantly based on CAN, to a zone-oriented E/E architecture with core compute and a core network predominantly based on Ethernet. This talk will provide an overview of the main steps of this journey along with some of the main challenges and hurdles along the way, and a few wishes to Automotive Ethernet community for future developments.

In-vehicle high-speed communication is dominated by video traffic. With the number of cameras creating this video traffic continuously increasing – especially owing to the move of the industry towards autonomous driving – the need for performant in-vehicle high-speed communication technologies is ever more pressing. But what does performant mean?
When we think of performant in the context of communication technologies, we typically think in data rates, latency, and EMC robustness. However, for the ever more homologation critical uses of high-speed communication links, other aspects like a secured semiconductor supply and a high product diversity become equally important; aspects that can typically be achieved by technologies based on an open standard only.
This presentation will give an insight on the efforts and status to achieve a standardized in-vehicle high-speed communication.

As a keynote of the AEC in 2022, Stellantis and Marvell made a joint presentation that included slides comparing 10BASE-T1S with CAN XL. It has raised many questions and discussions. Let's continue the discussion in an interactive session and share elements of OEMs and a tier 1! And it will be time to make an update about bit rates, topology, RAMS, interoperability, a homogeneous ecosystem, interchangeability, costs... We will try to be as scalable and seamless as possible. And it will be time to evaluate the progress about features that were mentioned in 2022: topology, RAMS, handling of priorities, latency, time synchronisation, MACsec or equivalent, fragmentation and interchangeability.

The role of Remote Control Protocol (RCP) in a software centric Automotive Ethernet Environment

The introduction of remote controlled edge nodes promises to simplify the automotive network architecture and expedite the integration of new capabilities into the next generation car. This paper will examine the benefits and challenges of incorporating remote controlled edge nodes into a software centric automotive architecture. These topics will include:
• Software loading on compute resources
• Implications for AUTOSAR integration
• Impact on the update process for software defined vehicles
• Network resource usage and quality of service
We will also look at the positioning of the hardware abstraction layer in the overall architecture and the implications for maintainability and flexibility based on these decisions.

System design considerations and standardized optimization measures
Shortcoming of current Stacks
TCP/IP Offloading
Multicore-enabled Stacks
Further Optimization measures (CDD)
Theoretical discussion plus practical measurements

BMW was the first car manufacturer to introduce Ethernet into series production cars in 2008. Since these early days, BMW has not only adopted different Automotive Ethernet physical layers and speed grades, but also developed and added different strategies on protocol level, with changes and new developments stretching far into the future. This presentation will provide an insight into the different uses and plans for Automotive Ethernet at BMW in the upcoming 2029 and 2033 architectures. Focus items are remote control, Ethernet for time critical control use cases (FlexRay replacement), high-speed camera and sensor connectivity with ASA-ML(E), as well as the different protocol concepts (AUTOSAR/SOME-IP, 1722, EIP, …) going along with it.

Single pair Ethernet in combination with Ethernet endpoints provides a scalable basis for the direct control of sensors and actuators in zonal vehicle networks. As recently shown, this approach is also ideal for driving high-resolution light functions. The ability to transmit different parallel data streams to actuators opens a wide field for new applications. Here, we show a method for stabilising high-resolution light projections in driving operation. The stabilization of the light image is based on an inertial measurement unit that records vehicle movements in real-time. An algorithm in a central control unit continuously calculates correction values for the position and distortion compensation of the light distribution and sends this data to the lamp via Ethernet, preferably 10BASE-T1S. Two methods are combined in a proof of concept: predictive correction with video data rate and image shifting in the headlamp’s frame buffer at high frequency.

Vehicle capabilities are developing towards higher levels of autonomy in the coming years. With it comes more sensors and higher precision requirements, and thus more data need to be proceed. As a consequence, ADAS systems are changing towards centralized architecture to support sensor fusion, and especially raw-sensor fusion. Optimizing the all-around performance of multimodal perception systems is key to success. Moving towards raw data streaming, radar sensors bear challenges for the in-vehicle network such as higher data load, low latency requirements, synchronization of sensors, timestamping and bursty data traffic. Based on Ethernet radar sensor networks, pros and cons of centralized and distributed architectures for ADAS and Autonomous vehicles are explored. Considering integration challenges, radar performance

Advanced driver assistance systems ( ADAS ) rely on sensors and algorithms to perceive and navigate environments accurately, quickly and safely. Automotive Ethernet technology, whose primary function is high-speed data transfer, can improve ADAS time synchronization for sensor data fusion to < 1 ns.

In this paper, we will explore the technical challenges in achieving highly accurate time synchronization using existing solutions on the medium access control ( MAC ) and interface device physical layers
( PHYs ) , as well as variable latency with the introduction of MAC security ( MACsec ) to meet cybersecurity needs. We will share an architecture adopted on Texas Instruments automotive Ethernet PHYs that mitigates these challenges by achieving subnanosecond accuracy, along with lab-measurement data on time-synchronization accuracy with MACsec interworking

The Plugfest event is focused on the interoperability between vendors with different MKA implementations. This session will cover the MACsec Plugfest preliminary results and share the experiences learned during the event.

Zonal architecture will require transmission lines supporting different speeds. The cabling technology for Automotive Ethernet has been standardized precisely from a protocol point of view. However, Automotive application goes even beyond the compliance with transmission performance parameters: the impact of harsh environments on the cables needs to be considered. The use cases shared in this contribution illustrate how to combine the RF performance as specified in international standards with “classical cable requirements” to achieve robust solutions. The RF performance impacted by environmental conditions is key focus when selecting the appropriate cabling solution for specific use cases.

How can wiring harness suppliers contribute tackling the most compelling topics that arise in conjunction with the ADAS use case of high-speed data channels? OPEN Alliance TC9 channel and component specifications allow maintaining the building block strategy at the OEM within a defined topology space without the necessity of validating each in-vehicle link topology through simulations and/or measurements. To date there is no general consensus on how to practically implement 10BASE-T1S wiring best. Rosenberger developed a daisy chain solution based on the established MTD connector interface, that supports point-to-point links and multi-drop applications, putting into practice customer- and application demands. Usability is proven by simulation- and measurement results, covering electrical- and EMC-compliance to international standards. The presentation concludes by encouraging discussion on the reliability of daisy-chain systems versus switched networks in safety-critical applications.

Time Sync over Ethernet is a complex topic even when looking at a single standard and more so when the environment contains a mixture of AUTOSAR and non-AUTOSAR nodes. How does e.g. AUTOSAR Time sync compare to gPTP/802.1AS? And how do the “dialects”, -2011, -2020 and AVNU, differ?

While ongoing work in AUTOSAR is bringing the solutions closer there are important differences that need to be accounted for in the current AUTOSTAR Classic release. Until improvements are published, and the stacks updated to comply with the new requirements, understanding of these differences will be highly relevant for years to come.

In this talk we introduce and compare the commonly used time sync variants, identifying differences, advantages, and potential problems. We detail best practices to ensure the whole vehicle can be harmonized in a single time sync domain, pointing out pitfalls related to configuration parameters and topology decisions that can lead to problems.

The advancements in CASE and SDV are prompting a shift towards Centralized-Zone architecture in vehicle electronic platforms. This involves connecting sensors and actuators to Zone ECUs, then to a central ECU via a high-capacity backbone network with Ethernet. However, adopting Ethernet as the backbone demands redundancy against failures. While several redundancy protocols exist, their automotive application remains not-defined.
This presentation evaluates redundancy protocols like Link Aggregation (LA), Rapid Spanning Tree (RSTP), and 802.1CB Frame Replication and Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) for automotive use. Factors like failover time and bandwidth utilization, alongside experimental results, will be considered. Also an optimal solution will be proposed, showcasing a bandwidth-efficient method merging 802.1CB FRER with Multi-Single Loop, facilitating dynamic network adjustments.
This contributes to the evolution of efficient electronic platform in automotive applications.

Cheap legacy communication buses like CAN, LIN, or I2C will not vanish from vehicles any time soon. In the era of central compute and zonal architecture a lot of discussions are had about transporting their data over Ethernet. This has been, maybe not surprisingly, a challenge ever since Ethernet began its way into the car more than 10 years ago. The initial Autosar SocketAdaptor was in fact pretending to be just another PDU transporting bus like CAN before it got enriched with service orientation through SOME/IP. With IEEE1722 it seems some people are looking to get back to basics and simplify the transport of e.g. CAN messages without the SoA overhead. This talk will look at options and pitfalls, both implemented and feasible, on how to transport legacy bus information over Ethernet.

Interoperability testing is a key task in the automotive industry to identify connectivity issues between Phys. IOP tests for 100(0)BASE-T1 have now been established for years and are widely recognised as a tool in automotive testing activities. However, with the rise of new technologies (such as 10BASE-T1S), the framework of such tests is evolving. While it was comparatively easy to adapt 100BASE-T1 test cases to higher speedgrades, it is harder to adjust current tests to 10BASE-T1S. E.g. a link status is not available in a 10BASE-T1S network, which is the base for many 100BASE-T1 IOP Phy tests. Other parameters such as signal quality can still be retrieved and already known tests can be adapted to the new technology. This talk will compare 100(0)BASE-T1 with 10BASE-T1S networks, focusing on similarities and differences in physical parameters, topologies and communication patterns with regard to IOP tests. Thereby possible solutions will be presented and open points will be discussed.

The unique characteristics associated with a multidrop topology and the PLCA sublayer has been a significant challenge in developing 10BASE-T1S interoperability and compliance test specifications. Per the IEEE specification, the multidrop mixing segment is bounded by length and node count but many permutations can be derived from its flexible definition; which has lead to confusion and slow adoption of an industry recognized test setup. Additionally, node placement and stub length will introduce reflections in the signaling that can create an excessively stressful test environments for the 10BASE-T1S receiver. These challenges are being addressed by exploring new test methodologies and practices to characterize signal integrity of both the PHY transmitter, as well as multidrop node positioning to identify guidelines for implementing a mixing segment adequate for PHY receiver verification.