NSIS Mobility Issues

1
NSIS Mobility Issues

• Hannes Tschofenig
• Henning Schulzrinne

2
Possible requirements

• Local signaling onlyIf a local route change
  happens then the signaling message exchange
  should be kept local.
• No strong-couplingNo strong-coupling with a
  macro/micro-mobility protocol (I.e. in-band
  signaling adding QoS signaling information to a
  mobility protocol)
• Flow identifier change Flow identifier
  adaptations along the path should be possible
• Double reservationsDouble reservations should
  be avoided
• Interworking with existing micro-mobility
  protocols and Seamoby context transfer

3
Flow Identifier Handling

• A flow identifier might change along the path
  because of the following reasons
• Changing Care-of address
• Hierarchical mobility schemes
• Tunneling
• IPSec
• NAT
• IPv4 to IPv6 transition
• Problematic Inappropriately selected flow
  identifier might require end-to-end signaling
• Bad Ineffective QoS reservation (e.g. due to
  NAT or tunnels)

4
Mobility Uplink Reservation
oCoA
AR(old)
Crossover Router
CN
NSIS Create
AR(new)
nCoA
Data

5
Mobility Uplink Reservation
NSIS Delete
oCoA
AR(old)
Movement
Crossover Router
CN
AR(new)
nCoA
Data

6
Mobility Uplink Reservation
AR(old)
Crossover Router
NSIS Response
CN
Also possible Query along the new paths(cost
and resource availability)
AR(new)
nCoA
Data

7
Mobility Downlink Reservation
AR(old)
Movement
MAP
CN
Registration RequestBinding Update
NSIS Signaling
AR(new)

• Protocol interaction is similar to a regular
  route change.
• Interactions with micro-mobility software (at
  MAP) can lead to performance improvements

Data

8
Conclusion

• Separation between session and flow identifier
  already provides a number of advantages
• Additional performance improvements can be
  obtained by interacting with mobility protocols
  (via APIs, triggers)
• Some generic limitations (e.g. flow identifier
  update) cannot be avoided.