1 TIMIP HET-NETs ‘04, 28 July 2004 Micro-Mobility Performance Evaluation of a Terminal Independent Mobile Architecture TIMIP - Paper 84 Pedro Estrela, Teresa Vazão, Mário Serafim Nunes IST/INESC-ID, Portugal

2 Outline n Introduction ä Proposed Framework Model (simplified) ä TIMIP Protocol / Architecture n Simulation Studies ä NS2 Simulation Scenario ä Experiments Evaluation n Conclusions

3 Proposed Framework Model n Proposed Framework Model (simplified) ä Classifies existing protocols by their operations type and their efficiency ä Considers both Handover and Stable Operations Efficiency ä Protocol Efficiency = Handover Efficiency + Resource Optimization Efficiency ä More details in the Paper (including protocol classification) PhaseOperationsDifferentiating pointProposed Models Detection Mobile movement detection Layer 2 interactions/ dependence? Passive, Reactive, Predictive, Active Registration Network routing tables update Location and number of updated nodes? Inter-Domain, Intra-Domain, Cluster Execution Data packets RoutingShortest paths used?Non-Optimized, Optimized State MaintenanceMaintenance Cost?Explicit, InBand

4 TIMIP/sMIP – Architecture n TIMIP – Terminal Independent Mobility for IP ä Micro-Mobility proposal with surrogate behaviour and high efficiency ä Terminal Independence - support for any IP terminal  Detection and registration are both performed / generated at network side only ä Efficiency  Detection – Reactive Model – Highest possible in network side  Registration – Cluster Model – Update Messages follow the shortest paths between the APs  Execution – InBand State Maintenance – IP data traffic of the mobiles refresh routing paths  Execution – Optimized Routing – Packets follow shortest paths inside the network

5 NS2 Simulation Studies n NS Simulator featuring ä TIMIP protocol simulation ä CIMS v1.0 mobility protocols: HAWAII (MSF) / Hierarchal MIP/ Cellular IP (hard handoff) ä Modified infra-structured behaviour with multiple channels (hard handoffs forced) n Simulation Scenario ä One Mobile Node / Multiple APs ä Increasing hierarchal link delays ä Intra/Inter domain CBR Traffic generation n Objective: Evaluate Efficiency ä Handover Efficiency by protocol ä Execution Efficiency by protocol

6 Experiment A – Registration n Test probes: ä CBR intra domain probes to MN, moving from node 9 to node 10 ä METRIC: Hard Handoff Lost probes measure Handover Latency n Handover Latency – Intra Domain traffic results ä TIMIP – Time needed to reach crosshover node 4 (close to new AP) ä HAWAII MSF – Time needed to reach Old AP (node 9) + OOO ä Cellular IP – Time needed to reach CrossHover node 1 (close to GW) ä Hierarchical MIP – Time needed to reach the domain’s GW (node 0) HANDOVER

7 Experiment A – Registration n Test probes: ä CBR inter domain probes to MN, moving from node 9 to node 10 ä METRIC: Hard Handoff Lost probes measure Handover Latency n Handover Latency – Inter Domain traffic results ä TIMIP / HAWAII / Cellular IP – Time needed to reach CrossHover node 1 ä Hierarchical MIP – Time needed to reach the domain’s GW (node 0) n This experiment is also capable to evaluate execution phase efficiency (in the paper) HANDOVER

8 Experiment B – Execution n Test probes: ä CBR intra domain Traffic to MN, moving through all APs ä METRIC: Sum of packets forwarded in all nodes per time interval measure Resource Optimization n Resource Optimization – Intra Domain traffic results ä TIMIP – decreasing utilization, subject to location inside network ä HAWAII – similar values (+ handover instants visible) ä HMIP – all packets are forced to pass through the GW ä Cellular IP – similar to HMIP + packets completely exit the domain AP 8AP 10AP 9AP 11

9 Experiment B – Execution n Test probes: ä CBR inter domain probes to MN, moving through all APs ä METRIC: Sum of packets forwarded in all nodes per time interval measure Resource Optimization n Resource Optimization – Inter Domain traffic results ä All protocols - Similar utilization, in all locations ä HAWAII - Out-of-Order effect also visible in the graph (= increased network utilisation) AP 8AP 10AP 9AP 11

10 Conclusions n Conclusions ä TIMIP: micro-mobility protocol with Terminal Independence and Efficiency ä TIMIP’s Efficiency – classified via proposed Framework  Detection – Reactive Model (closest: MIP fast-handovers Triggers)  Registration – Cluster Model(closest: HAWAII)  Execution n In-Band State Maintenance(closest: Cellular IP) n Optimized Routing(closest: HAWAII) n Future Work ä Multicast ä QoS Support ä IPv6 Networks Support + IPv4 Terminal Independence ä Non Hierarchical Networks

11 Questions? Thank You!