agenda introduction state the problems with regular mobile ip goals fast handover bicasting...
TRANSCRIPT
The Assar ProjectLooking at real-time properties using Fast Handover,
Bicast and Hierarchical MIP based on Mobile IPv6.
Handover extensions inMobile IPv6
Final Presentation
May 29, 2002
Project members:
Niklas Damberg
David Garcia Ternero
Mikael Jangelind
Björn Jonsson
Marcus Lind
Agenda Introduction State the problems with regular Mobile IP• Goals • Fast Handover• Bicasting• Hierarchical Mobile IP• Video• Summary of conclusions• Acknowledgements• Your questions
GoalsThe Assar project's goals have been to:• investigate the drafted extensions Fast
Handover, Bicasting and Hierarchical MIP for Mobile IPv6.
• investigate if it's theoretically possible to handle telephone voice over IP using Mobile IPv6 with these extensions.
Fast Handover
An extension to improve handover properties in MIPv6
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1
RtSolPr
AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
RtSolPr
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
HI
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
HI
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1
HACK(nCoA)
AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
HACK(nCoA)
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
PrRtAdv(nCoA)
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
PrRtAdv(nCoA)
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
F-BU
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
F-BU
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1
F-BACK
AP2 AP3
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
F-BACK
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
F-NA
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
F-NA
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
BU
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
BU
TunnelAR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
BU
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Conclusions• Packets are directed to the right destination in
the time from the handover process starts and until all incoming packets uses the new care-of address.
• If the Layer-2 is not performed directly, there are packet delays.
• If the buffer is not big enough, there are also lost packets.
Bicasting
A Fast Handover Extension
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Packet loss
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Packet loss
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Using Bicasting
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Using Bicasting
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Using Bicasting
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Ping Ponging
AR1 AR2
Router
AP1 AP2 AP3
Ping Ponging
Regular MIPv6 handover
AR
AP AP
AR
AP APL2 L2L2 +L3
Using Bicasting and Fast handover to decouple Layer 2 and 3
AR
AP AP
AR
AP APL2 L2L2
L3
Mobile NodeOld Access
Router
New Access
Router
Corresponding
node
L2 HO
Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover
RtSolPr
HI
HACK
PrRtAdv
F-BU
Cache
F-NA
F-BACK
L3 HO
Rt Adv
BU Ack
BU
(Rt Sol)
Tunnelling of Forwarding
Timing ambiguity
Mobile Node
Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover
RtSolPr
HI
HACK
PrRtAdv
F-BU
Cache
F-NA
F-BACK
L3 HO
Rt Adv
BU Ack
BU
(Rt Sol)
No packets Tunnelling of Forwarding
Old Access
Router
New Access
Router
Corresponding
node
L2 HO
Mobile Node
Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover
RtSolPr
HI
HACK
PrRtAdv
F-BU
Cache
F-NA
F-BACK
L3 HO
Rt Adv
BU Ack
BU
(Rt Sol)
Duplicated packets
Tunnelling of Forwarding
Old Access
Router
New Access
Router
Corresponding
node
No packets
L2 HO
Advantages with bicasting
• Minimize packet loss at the Mobile Node.• Remove the timing ambiguity during
handover.• Decoupling of the L3 and L2 handover.• Less service disruption in the case of ping-
pong movement.
Disadvantage
• The increased overhead sent in the network
Hierarchical MIPv6
• Reduces the signalling with nodes that may be far.
• Improves the handover latency.
MAP: Mobility Anchor Point
• Correspondent node sends the packets to the MAP.
• MAP redirects the packets to the Mobile Node.
HA CN
INTERNET
MAP
AR1 AR2
MN
MAP domain
HA CN
INTERNET
MAP1
R1 R2 MAP2
AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4 AR5
MAP domain 2
MAP domain 1
Routers that advertise the performance of MAP1
Routers that advertise the presence of MAP2
Mobile Node: 3 different IP addresses
• Home Address: valid on all the Internet.• Regional Care-of Addresses: valid on the MAP
domain.• On-link Care-of Address: valid on the link.
Bindings
• Correspodent Node, Home Agent: (Home Address -- Regional Care-of Address)
• Mobility Anchor Point:(Regional Care-of Address -- On-Link Care-of Address)
Handover
• Mobile Node registers a new on-link Care-of Address in the MAP.
• MAP is located near the Mobile Node.• No need to communicate with Correspodent
Nodes that may be very far.
Combination of the 3 draftscompared with only Fast Handover and Bicasting
Handover within a MAP domain• Reduction of the signalling.• Improvement of the redirection path.• No improvements in the packet loss period.
• Bottleneck and single point of failure.
Combination of the 3 draftscompared with only Fast Handover and Bicasting
Handover to another MAP domain• No advantages!
Conclusions
• Reduces the signalling with Correspondent Node , Home Agent.
• Improves the handover latency.• Possible combination with Fast Handover and
Bicasting.
• We created an improved model of Hierarchical MIPv6.
Conclusions cont.
• Bottleneck• It is possible to achieve real-time properties
but it depends on Layer-2 triggers and Layer-2 handover time.
Video
Summary of conclusions• Fast Handover:
It’s possible to have real-time properties but it’s necessary to have some coordination with the Layer-2 handover.
• Fast Handover with Bicasting:It’s possible to have real-time properties without coordination with the Layer-2 handover.
Summary of conclusions• Hierarchical Mobile IP:
It’s possible to have real-time properties but it depends on the Layer-2 handover time that must remain as small as possible.
• Fast Handover, Bicasting and Hierarchical MIP:Can improve the handover performance.
Acknowlegdements• Our principals:
Conny Larsson and Ulf Olsson from Ericsson
• Our coaches: Jiang Wu and Jon-Olov Vatn from KTH
• Hesham Soliman from Ericsson
Questions