agenda introduction state the problems with regular mobile ip goals fast handover bicasting...

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