Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) Melia Telemaco.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) Melia Telemaco."— Presentation transcript:

1 DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) Melia Telemaco (Alcatel-Lucent) Pierrick Seite (France Telecom) H. Anthony Chan (Huawei) Wassim Haddad (Ericsson) Hui Deng (China Mobile) Elena Demaria (Telecom Italia) Carlos Bernardos (UC3M) Jun Song (ZTE) Nov. 2010

2 Outline Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor Summary

3 Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management - Background and Current Status IETF#78 Bar Bof China Mobile/KDDI/France Telecom/Telecom Italia Alcatel-Lucent/Ericsson/Tellabs/Huawei/ZTE/UC3M/NSN Finished PS/Scenario drafts More discussion in IETF MEXT DMM session in IETF#79 IETF#78 Barbof Around 30 attendees 5 presentations Interest group Next

4 Assumptions and Methodology of DMM Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management - Assumptions and Methodology Based on current mobility architecture No New Mobility Architecture Progressive Approach Deployment considerations -> protocol extensions Dynamic Anchoring -> Distributed Anchoring

5 Flat Data Plane Offload traffic to the nearest GW Centralized Control Plane Centralized control and management DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend Mobile Network is Evolving Towards Flat Architecture Flat Network Architecture Wi-Fi User Plane: Flat Account User Data Policy Management Control Plane: Centralized BSC BTS SGSN GGSN 2G RNC NB SGSN GGSN 3G eNB SGW PGW LTE/SAE LTE Driving Force of Network Architecture Evolution 3GPP is Specifying LIPA(Local IP Access) and SIPTO (Selected IP Traffic Offload) Architecture Traffic Offloading Traffic is increasing very fast in the era of Mobile Internet Operator needs to lower the operation cost Content is Distributed to Network Edge CND/Cache

6 Backhaul Residential / Enterprise network H(e)NB H(e)NB- GW Mobile Operator Core Network MN LIPA L-GW DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend Local IP Access ( LIPA ) Scenario

7 All the Traffic Needs to go through an Centralized Anchoring Point Content servers and cache servers are getting deployed at the edge of the network (, which is good for fixed network providers and users) Centralized mobility anchor in the mobile core is not very suitable for accessing the localized content server scenario L-GW Local Content Internet P-GW L-GW S-GW L-GW Centralized Mobility Anchor Anchoring at the local gateway (L-GW) is beneficial for both operators (efficient resource usage) and end users (lower latency) It becomes more efficient if the L-GW allows the mobile to choose a seamless connection or a shortest-path connection (valid only at the current location) Mobility Anchor Needs to be Distributed along with the Local Gateways DMM Introduction - Motivation

8 Outline Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor Summary

9 Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor Infrequent Mobility for Mobile Internet Users Mobile devices remain attached to the same point of attachment Application may Not Require Mobility Example : YouTube/hulu/Web However, current mobility support has been designed to be always on Maintain the context for each mobile subscriber as long as they are connected to the network. This can result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing costs for the service provider. Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many applications suggest that mobility can be provided dynamically, thus simplifying the context maintained in the different nodes of the mobile network. Mobility Anchor Need to be Dynamically Assigned

10 Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor MA1 MA MA2 MA CN MN It should be enough to provide handover capability only when it is really needed. If the mobile host is nomadic meaning once attached, rarely moved, or is idle in most of time If the mobile node moves away from MA1, while maintaining communications, two mobility anchors will come into play. MA1 for the traffic initiated via MA1,MA2 for traffic initiated via MA2 Dynamic Anchor Example MA: Mobility Agent

11 Outline Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor Summary

12 Problem Statement of Centralized Mobility Anchor Distributed Mobility Management Concept MA: mobility Agent Home network with Centralized Mobility Anchor Visited network MN CN MA MN CN

13 Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(1) Routing Routing via a centralized anchor is often longer, so that those mobility protocol deployments that lack optimization extensions results in non- optimal routes, affecting performance Routing optimization may be an integral part of a distributed design. MA MN CN

14 As mobile network becomes more flattened, centralized mobility management can become more non-optimal, especially as the content servers in a content delivery network (CDN) are moving closer to the access network In contrast, distributed mobility management can support both hierarchical network and more flattened network. SGW MN P-GW CDN/ Cache server CDN/ Cache server CDN/ Cache server Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor- (2) Non-Optimal for Flat Architecture

15 Centralized route maintenance and context maintenance for a large number of mobile hosts is more difficult to scale. Distributed Mobility Agent maintain less context MA Mobility domain MN2 MN5 MN8 MN0 MN12MN14 Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(3) Scalability

16 Excessive signaling overhead should be avoided when end nodes are able to communicate end-to-end Capability to selectively turn off signaling that are not needed by the end hosts will reduce the handover delay Home network with MA Visited network MN CN Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(4) Signaling Overhead

17 Scalability may worsen when lacking mechanism to distinguish whether there are real need for mobility support Dynamic mobility management, i.e., to selectively provide mobility support, is needed and may be better implemented with distributed mobility management. MN2 MN3 MN1 MN4 MN5 MN7 MN8 MN6 MN9 MN0 MN12 MN13 MN11 MN14 MN15 Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(5) Dynamic Mobility

18 Deployment is complicated with numerous variants and extensions of mobile IP These variants and extensions may be better integrated in a distributed and dynamic design which can selectively adapt to the needs. L-GW Local Content Internet P-GW L-GW S-GW L-GW Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(6) Integration Different Mobile IP

19 Centralized approach is generally more vulnerable to a single point of failure and attack Requiring duplication and backups, Distributed approach intrinsically mitigates the problem to a local network so that the needed protection can be simpler. MA MN CN Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(7) Single Point of Failure

20 Outline Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor Summary

21 Summary - Motivation of New Mobility Management Mobility Management Need Optimization Traffic/Mobility Model Changed Operator Need to Simplify Network and Reduce Cost Network Architecture is Evolving Traffic offloading is leading to evolve the network architecture towards flat architecture Current Mobility management is not optimized for flat architecture “Always-on Mobility Support” causes waste of network recourse Mobile Internet traffic grows very fast, mobile operator’s network faces challenges All traffic going to mobile core network model will increase the cost Cache/CDN is leading distribution of content to network edge Mobility model is changed: : low mobility/smart applications Centralized anchor will lead to no-optimal route and too much tunnels in flat architecture Large amount of mobility context management leads to high cost of network element To support telecom level high availability, centralized anchor have to be designed complex Why new mobility management? Mobility anchor also need to be distributed to network edge to support traffic offloading Dynamic Mobility can reduce the complexity and reduce cost

22 Summary – What We Have Now Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management Other drafts

23 P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “Distributed or Centralized Mobility?” Proceedings of Global Communications Conference (GlobeCom 2009). M. Fisher, F.U. Anderson, A. Kopsel, G. Schafer, and M. Schlager, “A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE,” 19th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, (PIMRC 2008). L. Zhang, R. Wakikawa, and Z. Zhu, “Support Mobility in the Global Internet,” Proceedings of ACM Workshop on MICNET, MobiCom 2009, Beijing, China, 21 September P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “A Distributed Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP Architectures,” Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security, (NTMS 2008). H. Anthony Chan, “Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility Anchors,” GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Seamless Wireless Mobility, Miami, USA, 6-10 December H. Anthony Chan, “Integrating PMIP into LISP Network,” draft-chan-lisp-pmip- 00.txt, October Other references

24 Thanks ! Q&A


Download ppt "DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) Melia Telemaco."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google