1 / 35

Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies

Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University. Multi-layered Mobility Management for Survivable Network. Outline. Motivation Related Work Technology Description SIP based Mobility Management

fraley
Download Presentation

Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies

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. Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University Multi-layered Mobility Management for Survivable Network

  2. Outline • Motivation • Related Work • Technology Description • SIP based Mobility Management • MIP-LR (Mobile IP with Location Register) • MMP (Micro Mobility Management) • Integrated Approach • Simulation/Experimental Results • Conclusions/Future Work

  3. Motivation • Propose an Integrated Mobility Management Approach for Survivable Network that will: • Support Personal mobility independent of user location across domains using unique URI scheme • Support session and service mobility independent of the network attached • Provide continuous connectivity support for Real-Time (RTP/UDP/IP- e.g., audio/video streaming) and Non-Real-time (TCP/IP- e.g., ftp, telnet) application • Provide intra-domain and inter-domain terminal mobility (pre-session and mid-session) • Survivability and reliability by replicating server functionality in the nodes in the air and on the ground • Bound by handoff delay and latency budget for real-time application • Use best features of each mobility management scheme

  4. Multimedia Protocol Stack Media Transport Quality of Service media encaps (H.261. MPEG) Signaling DHCP/DRCP SAP SDP SIP Application Application Daemon H.323 RSVP RTCP RTSP DNS RTP LDAP TCP UDP MMP MIPv6 ICMP IGMP MIP variant Kernel Network MIP-LR IPv4, IPv6, IP Multicast PPP AAL3/4 AAL5 PPP 188-220 ADDSI Link 802.11 V.34 Physical SONET ATM HCLOS EPLRS SINCGARS Application Layer approach Network Layer

  5. Related Work and Brief Comparison

  6. IMM Technology Description • Multi-layer approach to mobility management involves the following components • Application-based component • Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Domain Name Service (DNS) servers interact with Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) servers to provide location update and personal mobility while providing continuous connectivity for real-time applications (e.g., streaming audio/video). • Network layer component • Mobile IP with Location Registers (MIP-LR) significantly improves Mobile IP survivability and performance by allowing replication of the MIP home agent functionality; handles non-real-time application (ftp,telnet, chat). • Local mobility component • Micro-mobility Management Protocol (MMP) inherits cellular systems principle for mobility management, passive connectivity and handoff control but is designed for IP paradigm. Sets up forwarding caches for each mobile host to handle intra-domain micro-mobility.

  7. State of the Art Performance Improveent • Mobile IP requires IP-in-IP encapsulation (20-byte header overhead) • Application-layer approach provides 35% more bandwidth utilization • Mobile IP triangular routing increases latency • Application-layer approach provides 50% latency improvement (reduction from ~27ms to ~16 ms for large packets) • Mobile IP registration adds overhead • MIP-LR provides 50% reduction in management overhead (goal is latency of ~10.5 ms vs. baseline of ~18.5 ms in MIP case for a packet size of 1Kbyte in a small campus environment) • Mobile IP provides reduced bandwidth for large degrees of local mobility • MMP provides increase in throughput of 100% (goal of ~1000 kb/s throughput compared with baseline of ~500 kb/s throughput at 60 handoffs/min) Expected Performance Improvement of each mobility component

  8. SIP Based Mobility Key Features • Mobility as part of application layer signaling • No need to change kernel in the end terminals for RTP/UDP application unlike Mobile IP • Interaction with DNS, HTTP, LDAP for location management • Provides session, service mobility and personal mobility using unique URI scheme • Redundancy/survivability • Determine multiple SIP servers during auto-configuration • Via DRCP configuration option, multicast discovery, use of SRV record in DNS • Retransmission during call setup using session timer or switches to secondary server • Hierarchical SIP registration • No need to go back to home registrar, register in the visiting domain - less delay • Registration gets proxied to other SIP servers - Hierarchical registrars - Optimized • Performance • No triangular routing—reduces delay • No IP-IP tunneling—reduces network load and saves overhead • When both CH and MH move • Use SIP’s Record Route feature to go through SIP server • When SIP server also moves • Use Dynamic DNS

  9. LDAP DNS LDAP DNS Stream Server Stream Server SIP Server SIP Server 5. INVITE Proxy message Proxying Registration 4. Invite 1B 1A 6. Proxy Pre-session Move Mid-session Move 1. Register MN 2. Invite 3. Client moved 192.6.10.18 192.6.11.20 MN 7. Re-invite SIP-Based Mobility in Military Environment Domain 1 Domain 2 DNS DRCP Server Server Server Re-direct Server SIP Mobile Node Server 192.4.8.18 CH moves Correspondent Host 192.4.8.20 On-going Media Session (RTP)

  10. Mobile IP with Location Registers (MIP-LR) Basic Principles • Uses Location Register (LR) databases like commercial cellular systems • Home Location Register stores location, performs authentication, no tunneling • Visitor Location Register performs authentication and registration • Upper protocol layers (TCP, UDP) remain unaware of host mobility • MIP-LR is especially suited to military networks as compared to Mobile IP since it provides • Better performance: less delay and network load on ground and ACN • avoiding triangular routing and IP-IP encapsulation • Bettersurvivability: allows multiple replicated LRs and LRs placed outside the vulnerable area in ACN

  11. 3. Register 4. Query 5. New address VLR 1 HLR 1 3. Register 2. Register 4. Query 1. Move 7. Move p.q.r.s 6. Data Packets Mobile Node j.k.l.m 8. Update CH MIP-LR Mobility in Military Environment Domain 1 Domain 2 LDAP DNS LDAP DNS Stream Server Stream Server HLR 3 HLR 4 3. Register DHCP/ DRCP VLR 2 HLR 2 a.b.c.d Correspondent Host (CH)

  12. Micro-Mobility Management Protocol (MMP) • Features (of using MMP for local mobility management) • Forwarding caches for each mobile host to handle intra-domain mobility. • Fast handoffs – reduced data losses at handoffs • Passive connectivity/paging capabilities • Minimal signaling overhead, and no encapsulation overhead makes efficient use of low-bandwidth links • Extended version of MMP improves over other proposed forwarding-cache-based local mobility schemes such as Cellular IP and HAWAII • Military requirements • Robustness, reliability • Network mobility • Hierarchical network • More robust to gateway failure: multiple gateways possible • More robust to node failure: multiple paths to gateway(s) allowed • Optimizes period of gateway beacon messages • Application to military environment • Variations • Large domain version - Large number of MMP nodes under a gateway • Small domain version - (e.g., Gateway/MMP node does co-exist in the same host in the smallest domain version)

  13. MMP - Multiple Paths, Multiple Gateways Illustration • Can be exploited by nodes with multiple layer 2 (radio) links, but does not require all nodes to have multiple layer 2 links • Each node has primary gateway (and optionally a secondary gateway) • For primary gateway, has primary interface (and optionally, a secondary interface) • Concept illustrated below • Black links: primary path to primary gateway • Blue links: secondary path to primary gateway • Magenta links: path to secondary gateway • Beige links: additional radio links that are none of the above CH Gateway 1 Gateway 2 CH- Correspondent Node X - Cross-over-node X X X 1,2 - MMP Node 1 2 Mobile Node

  14. Integration of Mobility Components SIP Server SIP Server MIP-LR MIP-LR gateway gateway Domain 1 Domain 2 SIP, MIP-LR for Inter-domain mobility SIP - Real-time traffic MIP-LR - Non-Real-time traffic MMP for (Intra-domain Mobility) Shorter range ground radio links MIP-LR SIP server MIP-LR Brigade TOC Brigade TOC Brigade TOC SIP Server Brigade TOC Brigade TOC Subnet a.b.c.0 DRCP l.m.q.0 l.m.n.0 l.m.p.0 CH MH MH MH a.b.c.d l.m.n.x Inter-domain move IP address changes l.m.n.x l.m.n.x Intra-domain move IP address does not change

  15. SIP-MIP transport delay vs. Packet size (Simulation) Total number of hops = 12, N=4, M=4, P=4, p=1 SD - Signaling + Data D - Data

  16. Experimental Test-bed Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP) 40% utilization 35% Utilization Gain

  17. Experimental Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP) Latency 27 msec 16 msec

  18. MMP Comparison with MIP (TCP Throughput) - Simulation

  19. Experimental Results (MMP vs. Mobile IP) Downlink (100% Throughput increase)

  20. MIP-LR vs MIP analytical model results

  21. Experimental Results (MIP-LR vs MIP) MIP-LR vs. MIP Delay 20 18 50% reduction in management overhead 16 14 MIP 12 Round trip time in Msec MIP-LR 10 8 6 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Bytes per packet

  22. Conclusions/Future Work • Integrated Mobility Management approach takes advantage of best features of each Mobility Management component • Server based component provides survivability, redundancy and reliability features • Each mobility component provides better performance compared to traditional Mobile IP approach • Integrated Mobility Management is being prototyped in the laboratory test-bed • An application layer approach to MIP-LR is being investigated • Scalability analysis and deployment scenario in the military networks are some of the future work

  23. Backup Slides

  24. SIP Server modes of operation (Proxy & Re-Direct) SIP UA SIP UA

  25. SIP Mobility Basic Flows User application LDAP Database Caller A (SIP UA) SIP Re-direct server/registrar Callee B (SIP UA) Callee B (new location) REGISTER INVITE B 302 moved temporarily ACK INVITE 180 RINGING 200 OK ACK Callee moved during call RTP Media stream Re-register Re-INVITE with new Contact address SIP signaling and RTP/UDP session remains intact

  26. SIP Protocol Design Flows LDAP Database LDAP Database LDAP Database LDAP Database Ground Ground ACN ACN CH (SIP UA) SIP server DOMAIN 2 MH (SIP UA) DOMAIN 1 MH (new location) DISCOVER multiple SIP servers DISCOVER multiple SIP servers REGISTER Proxy Registration INVITE MN Moved temporarily INVITE Proxy INVITE OK ACK MH moved mid-call RTP Media stream Configuration & registration Re-INVITE with new Contact (IP)address in SDP SIP signaling and RTP/UDP application remains intact

  27. Home Network HA data Tunnelled data CH FA data MN SIP Server SIP Server 1 Home Network Home Network 2 CH 3 CH 4 Foreign Network MN 5 MN moves MN SIP Mobility - Basics 1. SIP INVITE 2. 302 client moved 3. SIP INVITE 4. SIP OK 5. Data Plain Mobile IP SIP Personal Mobility SIP Server SIP Server CH 2 Home Network 3 CH 4 1 Foreign Network 1. MN moves 2. MN re-invites 3. SIP OK 4. Data MN moves MN SIP Mid-session mobility When both move

  28. MH New VLR HLR 1 HLR 2 HLR 3 CH Registration (a) Registration (b) (c) Registration Accept Registration Accept (d) (e) (f) (g) MIP-LR Design: Protocol Flow ACN (FAILED) GROUND GROUND Query MH Care of Address Data Packets sent directly

  29. An Abstraction of Basic MMP MIP-LR, MIP, etc. (macro-mobility) Internet gateway gateway MMP (micro-mobility)

  30. Large Domain vs. Small Domain Implementation • What is optimal size of domain? • Too many mobile nodes in a domain may cause scalability problems • Too few mobile nodes in a domain may not exploit use of micro-mobility scheme • How many mobile nodes in a brigade, ACN coverage area, and what is the variability in this number? What are mobility rate statistics? • Large domain: gateway at ACN, has following advantages: • Large micro-mobility domain => more efficient mobility management signaling, fewer inter-domain handoffs • Small domain: gateway on the ground, e.g. in brigade TOC or lower in the hierarchy, has following advantages: • Continues to operate if/when the ACNs leave or fly out of range

  31. SIP/MIP Throughput Gain Simulation

  32. Simulation Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP) Latency

  33. Results from analytical model MIP vs. MIP-LR

  34. MMP - Registration Call Flow MN BS/FLA IRR IRP G/FA FAuS HA CN Roaming detection beacon Cache init Registration Authentication Mobile IP reg. Mobile IP reg. response Authentication response Registration Reply

  35. MMP - Other Call Flows MN BS/FLA IRR IRP G/FA FAuS HA CN Keep-alive route update Paging Keep-alive paging update Registration Mobile IP Keep-alive Registration Mobile IP reg. Mobile IP reg. response Registration Reply

More Related