1 / 15

Dallas, March 2006

Dallas, March 2006. IETF 65 th – autoconf WG. MANET connectivity scenarios and multiple gateways issues. Simone Ruffino {simone.ruffino@telecomitalia.it}. Scenarios draft. draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00 Goals: describe a set of scenarios of MANET connection to the Internet

rane
Download Presentation

Dallas, March 2006

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. Dallas, March 2006 IETF 65th – autoconf WG MANET connectivity scenarios and multiple gateways issues Simone Ruffino {simone.ruffino@telecomitalia.it}

  2. Scenarios draft • draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00 • Goals: • describe a set of scenarios of MANET connection to the Internet • provide a reference for AUTOCONF WG, to help finding a solution not tailored to one/two specific scenarios • Categorization based on gateways characteristics • Analysis ranges from no connectivity (e.g. isolated MANET) to more complex scenarios (e.g. multiple mobile Internet gateways) • No technical issues in the draft

  3. Isolated MANET • No connection to external networks • All traffic is generated by MANET nodes and addressed to MANET nodes • Applications : • temporary networks, set-up in areas where neither wireless coverage nor infrastructure exist • emergency networks for disaster recovery • battlefield applications • occasional work meetings • file sharing among co-workers

  4. Connected MANET • MANET nodes • exchange data traffic among themselves through multi-hop paths • communicate with hosts located in the external network, routing traffic towards a gateway • Internet Gateways (IGWs) • equipped with at least two network interfaces, one of which is connected to the MANET • receive traffic from outside hosts and route it to the destination MANET node www External IP Network … IGW IGW

  5. Connected MANET - Fixed IGWsMesh networks External IP Network External IP Network AP/IGW AP/IGW IGW IGW AP AP AP AP AP AP

  6. Connected MANET - Mobile IGWs Multi-hop cellular networks • Goal: coverage extension of cellular networks • GSM,GPRS,UMTS etc • Gateways are mobile • Nodes that are within coverage area can become gateways • Concurrently active multiple gateways Internet Cellular WAN

  7. Intermittent connectionTrain networks • IGWs in a MANET, especially if mobile and equipped with a radio interface, may not be permanently connected to the external network • MANETs may experience a burst of exchanged traffic while connected to the external network Station Station

  8. Internet Gateways • Gateways play a critical role • Depending on their characteristics, gateways: • could be dedicated devices, endowed with additional resources • could serve as enforcement point, ingress filtering, DNS etc. • could run an “external” routing protocol to announce internal routes to external routers and hosts • could also be normal MANET nodes (i.e. OCCASIONAL GATEWAYS) • Sometimes they could be small, mobile, low-powered devices (highly dynamic) • Gateways are the owners of topologically correct IPv6 prefixes, which can be assigned to MANET

  9. Multiple IGWs MANET • Multiple gateways • Improve reliability and fault tolerance (no single point of failure) • Enable load balancing of traffic directed/coming to/from the Internet • Essential feature, because gateways can become bottlenecks, if the number of nodes in the MANET increases • this also depends on the available bandwidth on the uplink interface. • But, different design choices can bring some additional issues • Single vs. Multiple prefixes advertised by IGWs • Address choice impacts performances • Overhead of address uniqueness checks • See also • sec. 3 of draft-ruffino-manet-autoconf-multigw-02

  10. Issue #1 • In case of multiple GWs announcing *one* network prefix, partitioning of the MANET may invalid routes in the Internet towards MANET nodes • E.g. if a MANET cloud breaks into two separate parts, each one containing a gateway, routers in the Internet cannot choose the correct gateway to deliver traffic for a MANET node • Solutions are possible, but currently there is no suitable IETF standard • Example solutions include: use of host routes, use of a signalling path through the Internet • Drawbacks: • solutions could require additional protocols/mechanism to run on Internet routers, gateways and MANET nodes • Applicability would be limited to scenarios with very limited mobility (i.e. no partitions)

  11. Issue #2 • In case of multiple gateways advertising *multiple* network prefixes, no coordination among gateways is needed • Each gateway is the legitimate owner of one (or more) prefix • Nodes can configure multiple global addresses on MANET interfaces • Nodes' choice of source address affects the downstream data path within the MANET • traffic from the Internet is routed through the gateway which owns the prefix, used by nodes to build source address; • if nodes choose a prefix announced by a very "far" gateway (in terms of routing metrics) traffic could flow through a non-optimal path within the MANET • Source address selection (RFC3484) operates on a prefix longest match basis • It does not take into account *distance* (in terms of routing metric) between node and gateways

  12. Routing dependance from address choice • Traffic coming from the Internet (green) • is directed to the gateway which owns the prefix used by nodes to configure their global addresses • can flow through many hops in the MANET although a better path could exist if a different GW were chosen for configuration • Low throughput, high latency and delay variation 2001:db8:0:a::/64 2001:db8:0:b::/64 2001:db8:0:a::1/64 2001:db8:0:a::1/64

  13. Lower throughput due to sub optimal downlink path Routing dependance from address choice (cont.)

  14. Issue #3 • MANET nodes could reconfigure (frequently) their global address(es), due to partitioning, merging and gateway failure. • draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-08 states that • every unicast IPv6 address SHOULD be checked for uniqueness, prior to configuration • it is not reccommended to perform DAD only on link-local addresses and skip the test for global addresses which use the same Interface ID • In a multiple-gateway/multiple-prefixes MANET, this could bring to a large amount of control signalling, especially if the ad-hoc network is very dynamic.

  15. Next steps • Revise and enhance draft-ruffino-autoconf-conn-scenarios-00, gathering more input on different scenarios/applications • Receive feedback on specific issues on multiple-gw/multiple-prefixes manet • Possible inclusion into the PS ? Thanks !

More Related