1 / 31

Cellular Universal IP (CUIP) An IP Mobility Scheme based on Universal IP Addressing

Cellular Universal IP (CUIP) An IP Mobility Scheme based on Universal IP Addressing. Patrick Pak Kit Lam November 12, 04. Agenda. Mobile IPv6 and its Problems The Proposed Scheme Future Work. Mobile IPv6 – How it works. Home Address: ABCD::1234. Home Address: ABCD::1234. COA:

cece
Download Presentation

Cellular Universal IP (CUIP) An IP Mobility Scheme based on Universal IP Addressing

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. Cellular Universal IP(CUIP)An IP Mobility Scheme based on Universal IP Addressing Patrick Pak Kit Lam November 12, 04

  2. Agenda • Mobile IPv6 and its Problems • The Proposed Scheme • Future Work

  3. Mobile IPv6 – How it works Home Address: ABCD::1234 Home Address: ABCD::1234 COA: ECDA::0012 Visited Network Internet Home Network CN’s Network Triangular Routing Route Optimization

  4. Total Handoff Delay (Layer 3) • Handoff Signaling Delay (TSIGNALING) • Delay for CoA autoconfiguration (Tc) • Delay for binding updates (Tb) • TSIGNALING = Tc + Tb = ~ few seconds for each handoff • Plenty of proposals to address this problem • Handoff Data Delay (TDATA) • IP Tunneling between home and foreign networks • Only RO can solve this so far, at the cost of extra signaling delay

  5. Summary of the Problems • Both TSIGNALING and TDATA cause unacceptable real-time application performance hit during handoff, especially under high velocity scenario • Existing solutions are inadequate: • Still relies on the MIPv6 architecture • Still needs CoA autoconfiguration (or acquisition) • Performance depends on signaling reliability – usually very low at the time of handoff (along the cell border) • RO solves triangular problem, but requires explicit support from the corresponding nodes

  6. What is the root of the problems? • Mobile IPv6 design is based on traditional IP routing foundation • Traditional IP routing requires all devices inside a network to use the same network prefix Require a new CoA in each foreign network Require Tunneling to “adapt to” the CoA Require signaling protocol to setup the cooperation between 2 networks

  7. Cellular Universal IP (CUIP) • Route-scoped (instead of network-scoped) • Handoff boundary is defined by route, not network • More distributed and less disturbance • No such thing as home agent, or domain router • Allow mobile nodes (MNs) to be routable anywhere with a universal IPv6 address • No CoA, no tunneling, no traditional burden! • Make use of IPv6 option header • Layer 3 only solution • No extra signaling required!

  8. Main Concepts of CUIP • Under hierarchical structure • each handoff scenario must consist of a unique cross-over point between the home route and the foreign route • We call it Cross-over Core Router or CCR • When a MN handoffs to another access router, only the routers on the new and previous routes, up to the CCR, need to be updated

  9. Illustration of the CCR Concept CCR for this handoff

  10. CUIP Signaling Scheme – CUHU (Handoff-on-the-fly) • CU Handoff Update (CUHU) • Signaling is embedded with the outgoing data • Use IPv6 Hop-by-hop Option Header • Signaling information will be removed by CCR (i.e. normal packets between CCR and the CN) • Considered to be an “in-band” signaling maximize efficiency and minimize handoff delay

  11. CUHU Mechanism Got you! But I am not the CCR for you. Let me forward you to my upper level. I am the CCR for you. I will remove the CUHU option for the IP packets toward the CN. Got you! But I am not the CCR for you. Let me forward you to my upper level. Universal IP Fe08::fe11:25bd has handed off to your coverage Voice Packets Voice Packets + CUHU

  12. Performance Analysis

  13. Performance Analysis • Delay for any handoff scenario: • where the NHis the number of routers involved in the handoff • Since TMRT , THOP, and TAIRare constants, we want to find out the expected number of routers involved among different handoff scenarios – E[NH]

  14. Performance Analysis – E[NH]

  15. Performance Analysis – E[NH] • Let Pibe the probability of an occurrence of a handoff scenario that has a CCR at level L-i • Let Nibe the corresponding number of involving routers (Ni = i + 1)

  16. Performance Analysis – E[NH]

  17. Performance Analysis – E[NH] • It can be shown that, for any M and K: • Therefore, in average • ≈ 3*0.157+20 ≈ 20.471 ms

  18. CUIP Signaling Scheme – CURU • CU Roaming Update (CURU) • Used for user roaming purpose • Globally update of MN’s new location (including new and previous route) • Traverse through the new and previous routes, up to the CCR • Continuously (every 100ms) sent by the MN after handoff, until an acknowledgement (returned from the old wireless access router) is received by the MN

  19. CURU – Signaling Traversal

  20. Future Work • An emulation network is planned to validate the design • Simulations that closely model the 3G networks are also anticipated • Detailed performance analysis

  21. Conclusions • CUIP allows IP mobility with a universal IP address • Solves the fundamental problems of MIPv6 • CoA acquisition and complex signaling protocols  signaling delay • IP tunneling  data delay • Introduced “in-band” signaling to maximize handoff efficiency • Average handoff delay is bounded

  22. Questions? Suggestions??

  23. Backup Slides

  24. Main Terminologies • Universal address -- a permanent address assigned to a MN at subscription • Home network – the ISP network that a MN subscribes service from • Foreign network – any network other than the home network. • Home route – the entire route leading to the MN at power-up time • Foreign route -- any route that differs from the home route • Previous route – a route that a MN attaches to before handoff • New route – a route that a MN attaches to after the handoff

  25. Identification of a CCR • Every core router (CR) can act as a CCR for the corresponding handoff scenarios • A CR must be able to accurately identify itself as a CCR when the time comes! • An unique characteristic of a CCR – it has an routing entry in the routing table for the previous home route of the “handing off” MN • No other CR (along the traversal path of the signaling packets) has this information • When a CR finds an entry for the source address of the signaling packets it is the CCR!

  26. Example of MRT – Handoff Scenario

  27. Example of MRT – The Routing Table If the X flag is set, it means that the MN in this matching query has handed off to somewhere else! The query then must look up the corresponding entry in the “Away” field. If the “Away” field is exhausted, it means that, although some home MNs have handed off to somewhere else, the MN matching this query has not. The normal routing will then resume, and the packet is sent according to the “Interface” field. If the HRP is exhausted, the query must then look up the VRP, because there might be visiting MNs along the route underneath this core router. If the VRP is also exhausted, the packet will be sent to the default route. The C flag here means that this core router is the CCR for this handoff. The query then has to look up the corresponding entry in the MRP. The query must fist look up the HRP using normal “Longest Prefix Match” algorithem. If an entry is found, the query must check the “Flags” field. If the X flag is not set, the packet is sent according to the “Interface” field as normal routing. The F flag here means that the MN in the matching query has handed off to a foreign route, and this core router is not the CCR. The packet must be sent to the default route. An entry should be found in the MRP when the C flag is set for the corresponding entry. The packet will then be sent according to the “Interface” field.

  28. Compatibility with RIP and OSPF • Routing protocols can only change the routing entries in the HRP without the X flag set • The entries with the X flag set must be left alone when the routes, for which the X flag is set, are down, they cannot be fixed by the routing protocols Need more intelligent MRT design

  29. Current Status of CUIP • Still at high level design stage • Only common handoff scenarios have been considered • QoS and security “seem” to be OK, but have not really thought through • Design bugs??? Suggestions??? • Incompatible with other existing schemes, including mobile IPv6 • Mobile IPv6 has just been standardized (June 2004) • Can CUIP be an alternative to MIPv6?

  30. CUIP IPv6 Option Header • Based on IPv6 Hop-by-hop option header • Routers must process this option upon receiving the packets • If a router cannot process this option, it must drop this packet and return an ICMP error message to the sender • Used by the CUIP Signaling schemes

  31. CUIP IPv6 Option Header Format

More Related