Slashdot Mirror


Your Next Car's Electronics Will Likely Be Connected By Ethernet

Lucas123 writes "As the sophistication of automotive electronics advances, from autonomous driving capabilities to three-dimensional cameras, the industry is in need of greater bandwidth to connect devices to a car's head unit. Enter Ethernet. Industry standards groups are working to make 100Mbps and 1Gbps Ethernet de facto standards within the industry. Currently, there are as many as nine proprietary auto networking specifications, including LIN, CAN/CAN-FD, MOST and FlexRay. FlexRay, for example, has a 10Mbps transmission rate. Making Ethernet the standard in the automotive industry could also open avenues for new apps. For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays." This might get us into trouble when the Cylons show up.

12 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays."

    Imagine!

    Except they're already doing it now on their fondleslabs.

    1. Re:Imagine by bob_super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's a stupid summary, probably from someone who doesn't have a clue on what the current buses do.
      Nobody's saying "Man, I wish my CAN bus had more bandwidth so I could stream!

      And really, people, if you're going to change the bus, can't you make the new one based on plastic fiber and cheap LEDs, so that we stop having fried computers every time a cable gets bad?

    2. Re:Imagine by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's messed up is the article itself, especially in the belief that automakers will want to switch to this. Right now Cadillac and Lincoln cars have been using fibre in their cars for the 'drive-by-wire' system for years. As well as in parts of the HUD, and rear-display systems. Beleive you and me, they want to use this, because it's reallllly expensive it if gets toasted, and they have to replace part of the harness. This isn't really a job your layman can do, compared to say pulling and restringing an entire wiring harness inside the cab. That's something anyone with a bit of patience and weekend or two can do.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. What?? by plebeian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lucas123 wants to stream audio and video across the same switches as his throttle by wire?????, I say we sell tickets to this event!

    --
    "I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions."
    1. Re:What?? by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:What?? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No thanks. I don't want to deal with my car getting hacked/stolen/monitored/remote controlled, which is infinitely more likely than this overwrought system.. I don't mind it for medical care, but not for my car. Cars should be stupid simple.

  3. Re: Stop reinventing the wheel. by jxander · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    This signature is false.
  4. People seem to be misunderstanding by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is about the L1 PHY layer, not the L2 Data Link layer. There is no reason to assume this means your car will be using TCP/IP. The diagram in TFA clearly indicates that the PHY layer being discussed here is independent of the protocol.

    In fact, the included diagram seems to indicate broadcom is pitching some kind of adapter device which would enable inclusion of the new L1 layer with no changes whatsoever to the programming of the devices on either end. One would hope that such a thing would be only considered a stop-gap measure while they reworked their components to use the new bus natively in future models. History clearly shows that such adapters tend to be inefficient.

  5. No by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it's good enough for commercial aircraft it's good enough for your car.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:No by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And? The network between the brake pedal and the brake doesn't give a flying fsck about the state of the driver, just make abso-%$#@!-ing-lutely sure that nothing the user (or a malfunctioning/malicious app ) can interfere with the signal. For starters don't put anything user-accessible on the same network - insert a heavily firewalled router at least, and preferably an old-fashioned air-gap.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  6. Shared networking with user services? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What a horrible, horrible idea. Not the ethernet aspect, that makes sense, reinventing the wheel is usually a bad idea, and especially so when the competition has a multi-decade lead on eliminating bugs and malicious exploits and offers cheap, reliable off-the-shelf hardware. No, it's the idea of putting anything whatsoever user-accessible on the internal network I object to. If this data bus is carrying the information that tells my increasingly fly-by-wire care to apply the brakes or turn right to avoid oncomming semis then all it takes is one misbehaving flappy-bird clone spamming the network at the wrong moment to kill me, to say nothing of malicious attacks. There's absolutely no reason *anything* but internal systems communication should be on that network. Period. If you want an media network fine, but that can probably be provided far more cheaply and conveniently by including an airgapped $10 wireless hub with a 10' range that can only talk directly to things like the steering-wheel mounted media controls and the dashboard LCD/windshield HUD. And maybe a cellular modem. You're in a pretty decent approximation of a Faraday cage, so non-malicious outside interference should be minimal, and any communication with the mission-critical network should be heavily firewalled, at an absolute minimum. Not much reason to allow bi-directional communication at all - "spam" the wireless network with multicast up-to-the-second system and diagnostc data and you're good, at 0.01% of total bandwidth. No reason for anything not physically connected to be able to say a %$#@!* thing to the mission-critical components. If ever there was a non-hyperbolic use of the term "mission critical", maintaining control of a car is it.

    * %$#@! - when no variation of "fuck" is strong enough. Bonus points if you can pronounce it. Q-Bert did, but then he had that hose-nose to work with.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. Re:Huh? by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ethernet may work all the time - but there are no guarantees on packet latency. The basis of ethernet is that all traffic is equal; nobody has priority.

    Which, to me, sounds all wrong. I'd much rather the packet from the collision-avoidance system to the brake system saying "holy shit stop NOW" gets higher priority than the next packet of Justin Bieber headed to the back seat.