1 / 14

Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management

Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management. Hidetoshi Yokota , KDDI Lab Pierrick Seite , France Telecom-Orange Elena Demaria , Telecom Italia Zhen Cao , China Mobile Dapeng Liu , China Mobile H. Anthony Chan , Huawei Technologies Charlie Perkins , Tellabs

elden
Download Presentation

Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management Hidetoshi Yokota, KDDI Lab PierrickSeite, France Telecom-Orange Elena Demaria, Telecom Italia Zhen Cao, China Mobile Dapeng Liu, China Mobile H. Anthony Chan, Huawei Technologies Charlie Perkins, Tellabs TelemacoMeria, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs Hui Deng, China Mobile Wassim Haddad, Ericsson IETF79 MEXT WG

  2. Background and motivation • Mobile data is literally growing exponentially • Smartphones generate much more traffic than plain old mobile phones • Mobile operators are starting to offload mobile traffic to WiFi networks and deploy local Content Delivery Network • Standardization for mobile data offload is underway in other SDOs • 3GPP LIPA/SIPTO • This issue is not only for one SDO, but for the whole Internet • Renovate the conventional mobile network • More distributed and scalable model IETF79 MEXT WG

  3. Where to distribute…? HA/LMA Core-level Mobile Core Network AR-level AR/FA/MAG Access Network AP Access-level MH Host-level IETF79 MEXT WG

  4. Core-level distribution Internet • Keep existing hierarchy • Traffic and mobility bindings are distributed over HA/LMAs • Handover, signaling and/or routing may be needed between HAs/LMAs Core-level HA/LMA HA/LMA HA/LMA AR/FA/MAG AR-level AR/FA/MAG AR/FA/MAG AP AP AP MH MH IETF79 MEXT WG

  5. AR-level distribution • Role of HA/LMA is regressed • Traffic and mobility bindings are distributed over ARs • Signaling and routing needed between ARs Internet HA/LMA AR-level AR/FA/MAG AR/FA/MAG AR/FA/MAG AP AP AP MH MH IETF79 MEXT WG

  6. Access-level distribution • Role of mobile core is regressed • Part of AR functionality is combined with AP • Access Node (AN) =AP+AR • Distribute traffic and mobility bindings over ANs • Signaling and routing needed between ANs Internet HA/LMA FA/MAG Access-level AN AN AN MH MH IETF79 MEXT WG

  7. Host-level distribution • Peer-to-peer communication between MHs • More independent of the mobile network • Signaling and routing needed between MHs Internet Mobile Core Access NW Host-level MH MH IETF79 MEXT WG

  8. How to distribute…? • Possible approaches for Distributed Mobility Management • Partially distributed approach • Fully distributed approach IETF79 MEXT WG

  9. Partially distributed approach (I) • Control and data plane separation • Control plane: Centralized • Data plane: Distributed ControlFunction Registration Registration Route Setup Route Setup MA MA MA MA MA MH1 MH2 MA: Mobility Anchor IETF79 MEXT WG

  10. Partially distributed approach (II) • Dynamic mobility management • Mobility is provided on demand MH CH1 CH2 MH CHn mobility binding mobility binding MH1 MH1 AR1 AR2 IP1 IP1 IP2 MH MH MH1 MH1 MHn IETF79 MEXT WG

  11. Fully distributed approach MA MA MA MA MA MH1 MH2 MA: Mobility Anchor (including control function) • Dynamic mobility management also applies • Selection of the appropriate mobility anchor is an issue Both control and data planes are distributed IETF79 MEXT WG 11

  12. Mobility anchor selection in fully distributed approach • Ex.1: broadcast/multicast approach • No routing is needed • Good for regional area, probably not for global MA MA MA MA MA MH1 MH2 IETF79 MEXT WG

  13. Mobility anchor selection in fully distributed approach (cont’d) • Ex.2: Search & delivery • Efficient look-up mechanisms exist, but still takes time to discover the corresponding MAscalability issue could remain MA MA MA MA MA MH1 MH2 IETF79 MEXT WG

  14. Analysis and proposal • More flat architecture is preferred for effective distribution • Flexible and manageable routing is needed for selective traffic offloadAR/Access-level distribution • Scalability must be consideredPartially distributed approach is likely to be more practical so far IETF79 MEXT WG

More Related