1. 1 WP2.5 - Multi-level Mobility Support in IP-based HAP Networks Roman Novak Jozef Stefan Institute

2. 2 Introduction alternative communication scenarios all-IP approach mobility architecture support for multi-level mobility route optimization issues conclusion

3. 3 Communication Scenarios alternatives stand-alone vs. integrated network transparent payload vs. switching payload four network architectures standalone platform scenario scenario with the network of platforms connected via ground stations (GSs) scenario with platform interconnection via interplatform links (IPLs) scenario with platform to satellite links (PSLs)

4. 4 Network Architecture

5. 5 All-IP Approach IP in the native mode, not only for transport purposes the architecture can be build from the scratch why IP: prevalent fixed networking standard simple and stateless complexity pushed to the edge

6. 6 Mobility Architecture mobility of vehicles and passengers wireless links within the network Micro mobility Macro mobility Access mobility

7. 7 Access-level Mobility within single HAP coverage area loose coupling with IP-mobility exploits specifics of link layer access control to a link

8. 8 Macro-mobility Mobile-IP, SIP, Multicast two-level Mobile IP route optimization is well-defined for top- level Mobile IP, multi-level mobility poses difficulties inefficient inter- and intra-platform communications

9. 9 Routing in Two-level MIP MN HA CN MN MR HA HAP MR HAP - High Altitude Platform MN - Mobile Node MR - Mobile Router HA - Home Agent CN - Correspondent Node a) HAP-to-Internet b) HAP-to-HAP MN 1 HA MN 2 HA MN 1 MN 2 MR 2 HA MR 2 HAP 2 MR 1 HA HAP 1 MR 1

10. 10 MIP Route Optimization CN MN MR HA HAP MR a) HAP-to-Internet b) HAP-to-HAP MN 1 MN 2 MR 2 HA MR 2 HAP 2 MR 1 HA HAP 1 MR 1

11. 11 Micro-mobility movement detection and registration latency of MIP tree-like hierarchy of local routers Cellular IP, Hawaii, TeleMIP tunnel-based schemes Hierarchical MIP (HMIP) route optimality issue: anchor node is included in most communications alternative: platform vs. ground based anchor node

12. 12 HMIP-based Route Optimization MN MR MAP - Mobility Anchor Point a) HAP-to-Internet MAP HAP b) HAP-to-HAP MN 1 MN 2 MAP HAP 1 MR 1 MR 2 HAP 2 CN

13. 13 Conclusion HAPs can be deployed within different architectures adequate mobility architecture need to be defined multi-level mobility solutions are under development intra-domain route optimization issue for HMIP-based multi-level mobility

14. 14 Document Properties