Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6

1
Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6

• Youngjune GwonJames KempfAlper YeginRavi Jain
• DoCoMo Communications Labs USA

2
Objective

• Determine signaling scalability of HMIPv6,
  FMIPv6, and combined HMIP and FMIP (HFMIPv6).
• Compare signaling scalability against standard
  MIPv6 (SMIP).
• Use a piecewise simulation to assess.
• Removes need to implement the protocols in a
  simulator.
• Reduces amount of compute time needed to perform
  simulation.

3
Piecewise Simulation Procedure

• Simulate mobility traces for 100K mobile nodes.
• Custom developed mobility simulator used.
• Measure per handover signaling costs and
  latencies on actual implementations of the
  protocols.
• SMIP implementation is MIPL.
• FMIP implementation from DoCoMo (03 draft).
• HMIP implementation from Monash.
• HFMIP integration performed by DoCoMo.
• Straightforward, could be further optimized.
• Not draft-jung-mobileip-fastho-hmipv6-01.txt.
• Simulate aggregate signaling cost using mobility
  traces, traffic model, and per handover
  measurements.

4
Mobility Model

• Mobility model from ETSI (i.e. 3GPP) Technical
  Report 101 112 v3.2.0 (Release 98), ETSI, April
  1998 used.
• 100K users simulated.
• Two levels of mobility
• Pedestrian mobility suitable for WLAN.
• Vehicle mobility suitable for WAN.

WAN Mobility Model
WLAN Mobility Model
5
Wireless Access Network Model

• 100 x 100 km planar area.
• Two wireless networks
• WAN 1 km radius cells.
• WLAN 100 m radius cells.
• Optimal packing of wireless cells into hexagonal
  geometry.
• Single access point per cell.

6
Wired Backhaul Model

• Star topology.
• Access routers connected to multiple access
  points.
• All cells under one access routers are in same
  subnet.
• Aggregation routers connected to access routers.
• HMIP MAP above aggregation router (when
  appropriate).
• Measured 10, 20, and 50 ARs per MAP or Access
  Network.
• Results only presented here for 20.

7
Traffic Models

• Two models
• Real time Voice over IP.
• Web traffic.
• Voice
• Poisson arrival process.
• Mean call duration 120 seconds.
• Markov process for transition between talking and
  silence states.
• Data
• Poisson arrival process.
• Time between sessions is Pareto.
• Refs
• Voice ETSI Technical Report TR 101 112 v3.2.0
  (Release 98), ETSI, April 1998.
• Data Shankaranarayanan, N., et al., Performance
  of a Shared Packet Wireless Network with
  Interactive Data Users, Mobile Networks and
  Applications (MONET), Vol. 8, pp. 279 293, June
  2003.

8
Results Number of Handovers Per Hour
9
Results Handover Signaling Load
10
Results Mean IP Blackout Duration
11
Results Handover Packet Loss
Data Packets
Voice Packets
12
Results Traffic Tunnel Overhead
Percent Tunneled Packets
100
90
FMIP HMIP
80
70
60
50
Percent (Per AR)
40
30
20
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of APs per AR
Tunneled vs. Untunneled Packets
Total Tunneled Packets
13
Conclusions

• More APs per AR results in decreased signaling
  load at IP level.
• No surprise here.
• HMIP has lower handover signaling cost.
• FMIP has lower handover blackout time and lower
  handover packet loss.
• But more APs per AR reduces HMIP blackout time
  and packet loss to slightly more than FMIP.
• FMIP has much less traffic tunnel overhead.
• Bottom line
• FMIP should be simplified to reduce amount of
  over the air signaling associated with IP
  handover.