Master Thesis Presentation

1
Master Thesis PresentationSimulating mobility
in a realistic networking environment

• Supervisor George Polyzos
• Examiner George Xylomenos
• Student Dimitrios Charoulis

2
Introduction

• Early days of the Internet
• government-funded research network on top of PSTN
• overlay that complemented the PSTN
  infrastructure by adding packet-switching
• goal was to support the needs of researchers
  (file transfer)
• Internet Evolution
• mass market platform ? new needs
• bandwidth hungry applications
• real-time constraints
• content evolution
• portable networking devices

3
Why Mobility ?

• Mobility not to lose connection in application
  level while
• changing network interface
• At first there was no provisioning for mobile
  users.
• great evolution of wireless technologies
• increase of portable devices
• increase of wireless networks
• ?need to keep portable devices connected
• Mobility issues in IP
• Dual role of IP addresses
• Identification of location and end-host id
• Unicast routing
• ?Mobility offered as an add-on with protocol
  enhancements

4
Whats new with IPv6

• Flexible header size
• one or more extension headers may be used to
  include additional information
• extension headers have one or more options
• Interfaces may have more than one registered
  addresses
• Stateless/Serverless address autoconfiguration
  (except for statefull address configuration, i.e.
  DHCPv6)

5
Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
HA_BC HA_BC


HA_BC HA_BC
HoA CoA

CN_BC CN_BC
HoA CoA

Home Agent
CN_BC CN_BC


MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL


If BU valid update BC and send BA to MN
Correspondents Network
Home Network
Internet
Return Routability Procedure
MN detects movement forms a new CoA
Send Binding Update to HA
Binding Cache Home-Address ? Care-of-Address Bin
ding Update List HoA, CoA ? Destination
HA processes BU, updates BC sends a Binding
Acknowledgement
Tunnel between HA and MN
Assign Home-Address
At first place traffic towards MN comes through
HA ? TRIANGLE ROUTING
MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL
HoA CoA HA

MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL
HoA CoA HA
HoA CoA CN
Foreign Network
6
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6)
HA_BC HA_BC

HA_BC HA_BC
HoA RCoA
CN_BC CN_BC

CN_BC CN_BC
HoA RCoA
Home Agent
MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL



Correspondents Network
Home Network
Internet
Assign Home-Address
Mobile Anchor Point
Send BU to MAP
Send BU to HA

• In new MAP domain configure two CoAs
• On-Link-Care-of-Address (LCoA)
• Regional-Care-of-Address (RCoA)

Return Routability Procedure
MAP_BC MAP_BC
RCoA LCoA
MAP_BC MAP_BC

MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL
RCoA LCoA MAP


MN_BUL MN_BUL MN_BUL
RCoA LCoA MAP
HoA RCoA HA

Foreign Network
7
MIPv6 Vs HMIPv6
MIPv6 HMIPv6
Handles micro- and macro- mobility the same way Separates micro- from macro - mobility
Not suitable for recent handovers Good performance in micro-mobility handovers
No special requirements in foreign network architecture Requires Mobile Anchor Point and Access Router
May be used only for micro-mobility purposes
Reduces signaling overhead to core network


8
Simulation scenario topology
. . .
. . . . . .
9
Simulation scenario parameters
Parameter Value
Number of Mobile Nodes 10(10)90
Number of Correspondent Nodes 10(10)90
Wired connections bandwidth 100 Mbps 10 Mbps
Propagation delay in core links 2ms
Propagation delay in network link 0,3ms
Type of traffic UDP
Data rate 135 Kbps
Packet size 256 Bytes
10
Simulation results I

• HMIPv6-S1 outperforms MIPv6 (on average 12,5
  more handovers)
• When MNs gt 60, HMIPv6-S2 performs worst than
  other HMIP scenarios

11
Simulation results II

• When MNs gt60, HMIPv6-S1 and HMIPv6-S2
  performance resembles MIPv6 s
• Datagram encapsulation/decapsulation
  processing-overhead on few MAPs reaches wired
  link delay and packet processing in core routers
• HMIPv6-S3 outperforms MIPv6 every time

12
Simulation results III

• Change in L3HandoverLatency does not imply a
  proportional change in L3HandoverPacketLoss
• Again when MNs increases over 60, HMIPv6-S1 and
  HMIPv6-S2 lose their advantage over MIPv6

13
Simulation results IV

• HMIPv6 reduces signaling towards HA and MN as
  most times MAP is the only entity to be informed.
• Though signaling inside network is slightly
  increased ( BU ? HA goes with BU ?MAP)

14

• Thank you !

15
Appendix
16
UNC campus network topology
17
(No Transcript)