Date post: | 04-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jocelyn-robertson |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Master Thesis Presentation
“Simulating mobility in a realistic networking environment”
Supervisor : George PolyzosExaminer : George Xylomenos
Student : Dimitrios Charoulis
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
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 networksneed 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
What’s 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)
Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
Internet
Foreign Network
Home Network Correspondent’s Network
Home AgentHA_BC
CN_BC
MN_BUL
Binding Cache:Home-Address Care-of-Address
Binding Update List:HoA, CoA Destination
Assign Home-AddressMN detects movement & forms a new CoASend Binding Update to HA
MN_BUL
HoA CoA HA
HA processes BU, updates BC & sends a Binding Acknowledgement
HA_BC
HoA CoA
Tunnel between HA and MN
At first place traffic towards MN comes through HA TRIANGLE ROUTING
Return Routability Procedure
CN_BC
HoA CoA
If BU valid update BC and send BA to MN
MN_BUL
HoA CoA HA
HoA CoA CN
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6)
Internet
Foreign Network
Home Network Correspondent’s Network
Home Agent
Mobile Anchor Point
MN_BUL
HA_BC CN_BC
MAP_BC
Assign Home-AddressIn new MAP domain configure two CoAs :• On-Link-Care-of-Address (LCoA)• Regional-Care-of-Address (RCoA)
Send BU to MAP
MN_BULRCoA LCoA MAP
MAP_BC
RCoA LCoA
Send BU to HA
HA_BC
HoA RCoA
MN_BULRCoA LCoA MAP
HoA RCoA HA
Return Routability Procedure
CN_BC
HoA RCoA
MIPv6 Vs HMIPv6MIPv6 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 RouterMay be used only for micro-mobility purposesReduces signaling overhead to core network
Simulation scenario topology
.
.
.
. . . . . .
Simulation scenario parametersParameter ValueNumber 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
Simulation results I
• HMIPv6-S1 outperforms MIPv6 (on average 12,5% more handovers)• When #MNs > 60, HMIPv6-S2 performs worst than other HMIP scenarios
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Total Number of Handoffs
MIPv6HMIPv6-S1HMIPv6-S2HMIPv6-S3
Num of MNs
Num
of H
ando
ffs
Simulation results II
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Total L3HandoverLatency
MIPv6HMIPv6-S1HMIPv6-S2HMIPv6-S3
Num of MNs
Tim
e (s
ec)
• When #MNs >60, 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
Simulation results III
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Total L3HandoverPacketLoss
MIPv6HMIPv6-S1HMIPv6-S2HMIPv6-S3
Num of MNs
Num
of p
acke
ts
• 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
Simulation results IV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Number of BUs to the Home Agent
MIPv6HMIPv6-S1HMIPv6-S2HMIPv6-S3
Num of MNs
Num
of B
Us
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)
Thank you !
Appendix
UNC campus network topology