Motivation for Context Aware Mobility

1
Motivation for Context Aware Mobility

• 69th IETF Chicago MobOpts WG
• Eranga Perera (NICTA), Blume O. (Alcatel-Lucent),
  Georgiades M. (Uni of Surrey), Hepworth E.
  (Siemens), Jochen E., (NSN)

2
Context Aware Mobility

• Use of context information pertaining to a
  mobility scenario for mobility management
  decision making
• The problem statement
• What exactly is context?
• What are the architectural implications of using
  context in mobility management decision making

3
Main motivation for this work

• Hype about context
• (IETF experimental standards CXTP, CARD, IEEE
  802.21, L2 abstractions for L3 handovers)
• However no coherent manner or relevant WG looking
  into this work specifically from the perspective
  of mobility protocols/architectures
• ? Thus seeking to create enough interest in this
  area to make it more focused/goal oriented

4
Motivations for Context aware mobility

• Use of context for mobility management decisions
  enhances the performance
• Load sharing
• Enables functionalities according to a users
  expectation .

5
What is Context?

• Definition of context for mobility management
  purposes
• Context (as defined in RFC 3753)
• The information on the current state of a
  routing related service required to re-establish
  the routing-related service on a new subnet
  without having to perform the entire protocol
  exchange with the MN from scratch

6
Context a much wider scope?

• Technology is sophisticated enough to obtain much
  more information pertaining to a mobility
  scenario
• Does routing related state take into
  consideration all aspects of context pertaining
  to a next generation mobility scenario
• If not what is context, do we need to redefine
  this term

7
Context for mobility management purposes

• Service context (what type of services are being
  used, i.e. what bandwidth and delay requirements
  exist)
• Security context (keys and authentication)
• Device context (capabilities of the MN)
• Mobility context (speed, HO rate, available
  candidate
• access networks)
• Flow control context (status of IP packets in the
  queues, e.g. for forwarding or for detection of
  transmission bottlenecks)

8
Possible areas (1/5)

• Should mobility management protocols incorporate
  context aware decision making?
• If mobility management protocols does context
  aware decision making would it solve issues such
  as race conditions?

9
Possible areas (2/5)

• Should the architecture be such that a standard
  is available to cater to choose between different
  mobility protocols according to the context?
• Should such an architecture take into
  consideration only Mobile IP variants (MIPv4,
  MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, PMIPv6, DS-MIPv6 ) or
  different protocols such as HIP, SIP for context
  aware mobility management?

10
Possible areas (3/5)

• Verify the impact of certain context cues on
  mobility management decisions (For example if
  there is access to information such as network
  load what would be the performance gain of having
  such context information)

11
Possible areas (4/5)

• Is a cross layer mobility management protocol
  which takes into consideration state changes
  at each layer in performing handovers a more
  viable option?

12
Possible areas (5/5)

• Should a context aware mobility management
  architecture allow for arbitrary new sensor and
  information types to be introduced into the
  system at run-time?

13
Conclusion

• The discussed use case scenarios etc. point
  towards HO initiation/preparation separate from
  HO execution
• To make use of context then the way to go would
  be to support coexistence of mobility management
  protocols that could be triggered according to
  the mobility context