IEEE Wireless Communications 2008 Mobility Management for AllIP

IEEE Wireless Communications, 2008 Mobility Management for All-IP Mobile Networks: Mobile IPv 6 vs. Proxy Mobile IPv 6 Ki-Sik Kong; Wonjun Lee; Korea University Youn-Hee Han; Korea university of Technology and Education Myung-Ki Shin; Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) Heung. Ryeol You Korea Telecommunication (KT) 1

Outline • • • Introduction Why Network-Based Mobility Management: PMIPv 6 Qualitative Analysis Quantitative Analysis Concluding Remarks 2

Introduction • “anywhere, anytime, and any way” high-speed Internet access – IEEE 802. 16 d/e, WCDMA – IETF, 3 GPP, ITU-T • All-IP mobile networks – Expected to combine the Internet and telecommunication networks • Mobility management – Location Management – Handover Management 3

Introduction (cont. ) • Mobile IPv 4, Mobile IPv 6 – Handover latency, packet loss, and signaling overhead – slowly deployed in real implementations – “the handover latencies associated with MIPv 4/v 6 do not provide the quality of service (Qo. S) guarantees required for real-time applications” • Proxy Mobile IPv 6 (PMIPv 6) – the IETF NETLMM WG – Network-based – expected to expedite the real deployment of IP mobility management 4

• Global Mobility Management Protocol [$] – A mobility protocol used by the mobile node to change the global, end-to-end routing of packets when movement causes a topology change. • Localized Mobility Management [$] – Any protocol that maintains the IP connectivity and reachability of a mobile node when the mobile node moves – signaling is confined to an access network. [$] J. Kempf (Do. Co. Mo), Problem Statement for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM), April 2007, IETF RFC 4830. 5

Why Network-Based Mobility Management? • Mobile IPv 4/6, hierarchical Mobile IPv 6 (HMIPv 6), fast handover for Mobile IPv 6 (FMIPv 6) – Require protocol stack modification of the MN • Increased complexity • Network-based mobility management approach – the serving network handles the mobility management on behalf of the MN – the MN is not required to participate in any mobility-related signaling 6

salient features and advantages of Proxy Mobile IPv 6 (PMIPv 6) • Deployment perspective – does not require any modification of MNs • expected to accelerate the practical deployment – multiple global mobility management protocols can be supported • Performance perspective – Host-based approach • mobility related signaling and tunneled messages exchanged on the wireless link • Wireless channel access delay and wireless transmission delay – Network-based network layer approach • the serving network controls the mobility management on behalf of the MN – No additional signal on the wireless link 7

• Network service provider perspective – network-based mobility management • enhance manageability and flexibility – enabling network service providers to control network traffic – Easily be expected from legacy cellular system, such as IS-41, GSM • Similar to GPRS – PMIPv 6 could be used in any IP-based network 8

Network-Based Mobility Management: PMIPv 6 • Primary features [4][8] – – – Support for unmodified MNs Support for IPv 4 and IPv 6 Efficient use of wireless resources Link technology agnostic Handover performance improvement • extends MIPv 6 signaling and reuses many concepts • Support an MN in a topologically localized domain [4] J. Kempf, “Problem Statement for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM), ” IETF RFC 4830, Apr. 2007. [8] J. Kempf, “Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM), ” IETF RFC 4831, Apr. 2007. 9

Overview of PMIPv 6 access authentication 10

LMA address, supported address configuration mode, and so on from the policy store 11

PBU/PBA [* ] [*] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdhury and B. Patil, Proxy Mobile IPv 6, Aug. 2008, IETF RFC 5213. 12

Outline • • • Introduction Why Network-Based Mobility Management: PMIPv 6 Qualitative Analysis Quantitative Analysis Concluding Remarks 13

typically a shared tunnel 14

15

Outline • • • Introduction Why Network-Based Mobility Management: PMIPv 6 Qualitative Analysis Quantitative Analysis Concluding Remarks 16

• handover latency – the time that elapses between the moment the layer 2 handover completes and the moment the MN can receive the first data packet after moving to the new point of attachment. – – the movement detection delay (TMD), address configuration delay (TDAD), the delay involved in performing the AAA procedure (TAAA), and location registration delay (TREG) 17

• TMD = (Min. Rtr. Adv. Interval + Max. Rtr. Adv. Interval)/4 • TDAD = Retrans. Timer × Dup. Addr. Detect. Transmits • TAAA = 2 × 2 ta = 4 ta • TREGMIPv 6 = 2(tmr + tra + tah) + 2(tmr + tra + tac) + 2(tmr + tra + tah+ thc) Reg. to HA Reg. to CN RR. procedure to CN • TREGHMIPv 6 = 2(tmr + tra + tam) Reg. to MAP • TREGPMIPv 6 = 2 tam Reg. to LMA • DHOMIPv 6 = TMD + TDAD + TAAA + TREGMIPv 6 • DHOHMIPv 6 = TMD + TDAD + TAAA + TREGHMIPv 6 • DHOPMIPv 6 = TAAA + TREGPMIPv 6 + tmr + tra 18

Impact of Wireless Link Delay (tmr) 19

Impact of Delay between MN and CN (tmr+tra+tac) reg. to CN needed 20

Impact of Movement Detection Delay (TMD) No TMD needed 21

Conclusion • first to provide qualitative and quantitative analyses of MIPv 6 and PMIPv 6 – demonstrate the superiority of PMIPv 6 • PMIPv 6 could be considered a promising compromise between telecommunications and Internet communities. – reflects telecommunication operators’ favor, enabling them to manage and control their networks more efficiently • interactions between MIPv 6 and PMIPv 6 is possible • Future research – explore cross layering • e. g. , PMIPv 6 over IEEE 802. 11 or 802. 16 e networks – route optimization – fast handover 22

comments • Host-based vs. Network-based mobility management – Mobile IPv 6 Hi. MIPv 6, FMIPv 6 Proxy Mobile IPv 6 • Handover performance of PMIPv 6 – Qo. S is easy to be achieved – Multiple interface • Soft handover, fault tolerance, load balancing – seamless handover • Proxy Mobile IPv 6 + NEMO 23