distributed dynamic mobility management dmm problem statement n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 172 Views
  • Uploaded on

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)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT' - nanji


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
distributed dynamic mobility management dmm problem statement

DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT

  • Dapeng Liu (China Mobile)
  • Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI)
  • Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs)
  • MeliaTelemaco (Alcatel-Lucent)
  • PierrickSeite (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
outline

Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management

  • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
  • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
  • Summary
Outline
introduction of distributed and dynamic mobility management background and current status
Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Background and Current Status
  • IETF#78 Barbof
  • Around 30 attendees
  • 5 presentations

IETF#78

Bar Bof

Interest

group

Next

  • 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
slide4

Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Assumptions and Methodology

Assumptions and Methodology of DMM

  • Based on current mobility architecture
    • No New Mobility Architecture
  • Progressive Approach
    • Deployment considerations -> protocol extensions
    • Dynamic Anchoring -> Distributed Anchoring
dmm introduction network evolution trend

2G

GGSN

SGSN

BSC

BTS

DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend

Mobile Network is Evolving Towards Flat Architecture

Driving Force of Network Architecture Evolution

3G

Flat Network

Architecture

LTE

GGSN

LTE/SAE

SGSN

PGW

SGW

RNC

  • 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
  • Flat Data Plane
  • Offload traffic to the nearest GW
  • Centralized Control Plane
  • Centralized control and management

eNB

NB

Management

Account

User Data

Policy

Control Plane: Centralized

User Plane: Flat

Wi-Fi

3GPP is Specifying LIPA(Local IP Access) and

SIPTO (Selected IP Traffic Offload) Architecture

dmm introduction network evolution trend1

Residential / Enterprise network

DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend

Backhaul

Mobile Operator Core Network

LIPA L-GW

H(e)NB-GW

H(e)NB

MN

Local IP Access (LIPA)Scenario

dmm introduction motivation
DMM Introduction - Motivation
  • 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

Centralized Mobility Anchor

Internet

L-GW

L-GW

P-GW

L-GW

Local Content

S-GW

L-GW

L-GW

L-GW

  • 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
outline1

Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management

  • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
  • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
  • Summary
Outline
problem statement of dynamic anchor
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

problem statement of dynamic anchor1
Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor

CN

MA: Mobility Agent

MA

MA1

MA

MA2

MA

Dynamic Anchor Example

MN

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
outline2

Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management

  • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
  • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
  • Summary
Outline
problem statement of centralized mobility anchor

Home network with

Centralized Mobility

Anchor

Visited network

MA

MA

MA

MA

Problem Statement of Centralized Mobility Anchor

Distributed Mobility Management Concept

CN

MN

MA: mobility Agent

CN

MN

problems with centralized mobility anchor 1 routing

MA

MA

MA

MA

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.

CN

MN

problems with centralized mobility anchor 2 non optimal for flat architecture

SGW

SGW

SGW

Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(2) Non-Optimal for Flat Architecture
  • 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.

P-GW

CDN/

Cache

server

CDN/

Cache

server

CDN/

Cache

server

MN

problems with centralized mobility anchor 3 scalability

MA Mobility domain

Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(3) Scalability
  • Centralized route maintenance and context maintenance for a large number of mobile hosts is more difficult to scale.
  • Distributed Mobility Agent maintain less context

MN5

MN0

MN12

MN14

MN2

MN8

problems with centralized mobility anchor 4 signaling overhead

Home network

with MA

Visited network

Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(4) Signaling Overhead
  • 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

CN

MN

problems with centralized mobility anchor 5 dynamic mobility
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(5) Dynamic Mobility
  • 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.

MN11

MN1

MN6

MN15

MN5

MN0

MN12

MN14

MN2

MN4

MN7

MN9

MN13

MN3

MN8

problems with centralized mobility anchor 6 integration different mobile ip
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(6) Integration Different Mobile IP
  • 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.

Internet

L-GW

L-GW

P-GW

L-GW

Local Content

S-GW

L-GW

L-GW

L-GW

problems with centralized mobility anchor 7 single point of failure

MA

MA

MA

MA

Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(7) Single Point of Failure
  • 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.

CN

MN

outline3

Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management

  • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
  • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
  • Summary
Outline
summary motivation of new mobility management
Summary - Motivation of New Mobility Management

Traffic/Mobility Model Changed

Network Architecture is Evolving

  • 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
  • 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

Why new mobility

management?

Operator Need to Simplify Network and Reduce Cost

Mobility Management Need Optimization

  • 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
  • Mobility anchor also need to be distributed to network edge to support traffic offloading
  • Dynamic Mobility can reduce the complexity and reduce cost
summary what we have now
Summary – What We Have Now
  • Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-00
  • Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00
  • Other drafts
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-distributed-mobility
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-netext-dma
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-netext-distributed-lma-03
    • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-mext-mobisoc-00
slide23

Other references

  • 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 2009.
  • 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 2010.
  • H. Anthony Chan, “Integrating PMIP into LISP Network,” draft-chan-lisp-pmip-00.txt, October 2010.