Presentation on theme: "1 Mobility Management for All-IP Mobile Networks: Mobile IPv6 vs. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Ki-Sik Kong; Wonjun Lee; Korea University Youn-Hee Han; Korea university."— Presentation transcript:
1 Mobility Management for All-IP Mobile Networks: Mobile IPv6 vs. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Ki-Sik Kong; Wonjun Lee; Korea University Youn-Hee Han; Korea university of Technology and Education Myung-Ki Shin; Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) HeungRyeol You Korea Telecommunication (KT) IEEE Wireless Communications, 2008
Introduction “anywhere, anytime, and any way” high-speed Internet access –IEEE 802.16d/e, WCDMA –IETF, 3GPP, ITU-T All-IP mobile networks –Expected to combine the Internet and telecommunication networks Mobility management –Location Management –Handover Management 3
Introduction (cont.) Mobile IPv4, Mobile IPv6 –Handover latency, packet loss, and signaling overhead –slowly deployed in real implementations –“the handover latencies associated with MIPv4/v6 do not provide the quality of service (QoS) guarantees required for real-time applications” Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) –the IETF NETLMM WG –Network-based –expected to expedite the real deployment of IP mobility management 4
Global Mobility Management Protocol [$] –A mobility protocol used by the mobile node to change the global, end-to-end routing of packets when movement causes a topology change. Localized Mobility Management [$] –Any protocol that maintains the IP connectivity and reachability of a mobile node when the mobile node moves –signaling is confined to an access network. 5 [$] J. Kempf (DoCoMo), Problem Statement for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM), April 2007, IETF RFC 4830.
Why Network-Based Mobility Management? Mobile IPv4/6, hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6), fast handover for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) –Require protocol stack modification of the MN Increased complexity Network-based mobility management approach –the serving network handles the mobility management on behalf of the MN –the MN is not required to participate in any mobility-related signaling 6
salient features and advantages of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Deployment perspective –does not require any modification of MNs expected to accelerate the practical deployment –multiple global mobility management protocols can be supported Performance perspective –Host-based approach mobility related signaling and tunneled messages exchanged on the wireless link Wireless channel access delay and wireless transmission delay –Network-based network layer approach the serving network controls the mobility management on behalf of the MN –No additional signal on the wireless link 7
Network service provider perspective –network-based mobility management enhance manageability and flexibility –enabling network service providers to control network traffic –Easily be expected from legacy cellular system, such as IS-41, GSM Similar to GPRS –PMIPv6 could be used in any IP-based network 8
Network-Based Mobility Management: PMIPv6 Primary features  –Support for unmodified MNs –Support for IPv4 and IPv6 –Efficient use of wireless resources –Link technology agnostic –Handover performance improvement extends MIPv6 signaling and reuses many concepts Support an MN in a topologically localized domain 9  J. Kempf, “Problem Statement for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM),” IETF RFC 4830, Apr. 2007.  J. Kempf, “Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM),” IETF RFC 4831, Apr. 2007.
handover latency –the time that elapses between the moment the layer 2 handover completes and the moment the MN can receive the first data packet after moving to the new point of attachment. –the movement detection delay (T MD ), –address configuration delay (T DAD ), –the delay involved in performing the AAA procedure (T AAA ), and –location registration delay (T REG ) 17
T MD = (MinRtrAdvInterval + MaxRtrAdvInterval)/4 T DAD = RetransTimer × DupAddrDetectTransmits T AAA = 2 × 2t a = 4t a T REG MIPv6 = 2(t mr + t ra + t ah ) + 2(t mr + t ra + t ac ) + 2(t mr + t ra + t ah + t hc ) T REG HMIPv6 = 2(t mr + t ra + t am ) T REG PMIPv6 = 2t am D HO MIPv6 = T MD + T DAD + T AAA + T REG MIPv6 D HO HMIPv6 = T MD + T DAD + T AAA + T REG HMIPv6 D HO PMIPv6 = T AAA + T REG PMIPv6 + t mr + t ra 18 Reg. to HA Reg. to CNRR. procedure to CN Reg. to MAP Reg. to LMA
Impact of Delay between MN and CN (t mr +t ra +t ac ) 20 reg. to CN needed
Impact of Movement Detection Delay (T MD ) 21 No T MD needed
Conclusion first to provide qualitative and quantitative analyses of MIPv6 and PMIPv6 –demonstrate the superiority of PMIPv6 PMIPv6 could be considered a promising compromise between telecommunications and Internet communities. –reflects telecommunication operators’ favor, enabling them to manage and control their networks more efficiently interactions between MIPv6 and PMIPv6 is possible Future research –explore cross layering e.g., PMIPv6 over IEEE 802.11 or 802.16e networks –route optimization –fast handover 22
comments Host-based vs. Network-based mobility management –Mobile IPv6 HiMIPv6, FMIPv6 Proxy Mobile IPv6 Handover performance of PMIPv6 –QoS is easy to be achieved –Multiple interface Soft handover, fault tolerance, load balancing –seamless handover Proxy Mobile IPv6 + NEMO 23