1 / 31

Mobile IP: Performance

Mobile IP: Performance. Reference: “Performance evaluation of Mobile IP protocols in a wireless environment”; Dell'Abate, M.; De Marco, M.; Trecordi, V. ; Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 1998; pp. 1810 -1816 (MobileIPUnicast-1.pdf). Mobile IP (MIP).

catalin-delgado
Download Presentation

Mobile IP: Performance

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. Mobile IP: Performance Reference: “Performance evaluation of Mobile IP protocols in a wireless environment”; Dell'Abate, M.; De Marco, M.; Trecordi, V.; Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 1998; pp. 1810 -1816 (MobileIPUnicast-1.pdf)

  2. Mobile IP (MIP)

  3. Route Optimization Mobile IP (ROMIP)

  4. MIP vs. ROMIP • Inefficiencies of MIP • Triangle routing • Home Agent overloading • Advantages of MIP • Simple • Exchange of control messages is limited • Address bindings are highly consistent

  5. MIP vs. ROMIP (cont) • Advantages of ROMIP • Direct routing • Handover management • A moving host informs its previous FA about the new care-of-address, so that packets tunneled to the old location can be forwarded to the current location • In MIP, those packets had to be discarded or sent to the HA again • Disadvantages of ROMIP • Complex • Control messages, processing overhead • Cached bindings are possibly inconsistent

  6. Hypothesis for Simulation • Mobile hosts always obtain a dedicated bandwidth wireless connection to the currently visited subnet • Update process model of ROMIP • Binding acquisition • HA, just after having tunneled the 1st packet, sends a binding warning message (W) back to the source • The source, in response to this warning, sends a binding request message (R) to the HA, keeping on sending user packets in the meanwhile • The HA replies with a binding update message (U), containing the requested care-of-address

  7. Hypothesis (cont) • Direct routing • The source caches the received binding and uses it to tunnel its packets directly to the FA (FA1) • Handover • The destination suddenly moves under another FA (FA2); just after its movement, it sends two binding update messages (U), both to its HA and to its previous FA (FA1) • The source has no way to get aware of the movement and keeps on emitting user packets to FA1. These packets get lost until FA1 receives the above update • As soon as FA1 gets updated, it warns the source and forwards incoming packets to the actual location (FA2)

  8. Hypothesis: Time Model for ROMIP

  9. Hypothesis: Fixed Network Topology Macro mobility Micro mobility

  10. Hypothesis: Mobile IP Router Model home list visitor list binding cache routing table

  11. Hypothesis: Mobile host Model

  12. Hypothesis: Traffic pattern • Traffic pattern • Packet group (geometric r.v.) at each arrival of a Poisson process (Bulking Poisson Process) • All packets in a group share their destination address, drawn uniformly among all mobile hosts’ addresses • Two traffic descriptors • Average session length (S, in kbit) • Average offered load (L, in kbit/s) • L = S/T, where T is the mean group arrival time

  13. Traffic Pattern

  14. Hypothesis: Mobility pattern • Mobility pattern • Mobility events occur at the arrivals of a Poisson process • When a mobile host enters a new subnet, it stays there for a negative exponential random time • p.d.f. = le-lt , P.D.F. = 1 - e-lt • Descriptor • Average mobility rate (the inverse mean stay time)

  15. Theoretical Analysis • R (packets/s): Rate at which control packets are issued by ROMIP protocol, normalized for a single user • Tstay (sec): Mean stay time for a mobile host • L (kbit/sec): Mean user offered load • S (kbit): mean session duration • Bradio (kbit/s) : available one-way bit rate on the radio channel # session/sec Binding update to HA Binding update to FA # handover during a session W, R, U

  16. Theoretical Analysis (cont) • Discussion • The control load due to the birth of new sessions decreases by increasing the session length (at a parity of user load, L) • The control load due to handover events could be brought down by increasing the radio channel capacity (at a parity of user load, L) • As user load L increases, a proportional control load increase is induced; this reaction does not take place in MIP, for which is simply R = 1/Tstay

  17. Theoretical Analysis (cont) • Validation for simulation • Little’s formula: Npkt = lpkt * Tpkt • Npktis the average # of packets in the system (user + control) • lpkt(1/sec) is the overall offered load (user + control) • Tpktis the mean end-to-end packet delay (obtained by weighting user and control delay) • lpkt = L /Plength + R • Plengthis the IP data unit length

  18. Simulation Result- Fig. 9

  19. Simulation Result- Fig. 10

  20. Discussion- Fig. 9 & 10 • 1. At null mobility rate, end-to-end delay always increases as session duration increases • 2. With S = 100 Kbit • The minimum delay is obtained, i.e. a value slightly higher than the time needed to transmit a packet over the source and destination radio links (2*8)/19.2 • Any further remaining part of a delay rises up to in the backbone • For null mobility, the above gap ought to be ascribed only to the increasing traffic burstiness

  21. Discussion- Fig. 9 & 10 (cont) • 3. Increasing the mobility rate, the MIP delay also increases • Owing to network load and tracking effort • 4. A similar increase is observed for ROMIP too, except for the 400 Kbit session, reason: • Suppose that session end-points mobility results in traffic scattering in the backbone, thus improving the delay performance over that obtained with lower mobility • With ROMIP, source and destination mobility cuts up the longest sessions into small pieces, thus canceling burstiness effects in the backbone

  22. Discussion- Fig. 9 & 10 (cont) • 5. ROMIP may gain efficiency with longer sessions, because of the source binding acquisition process • 6. Increasing session length, the MIP delay also increases • Since longer and longer traffic bursts make HA more congested • ROMIP seems to be much less sensible to session duration • However, it is evident that MIP delay performance improves and gets closer to ROMIP’s for relatively short sessions (100 Kbit)

  23. Simulation Result- Fig. 11

  24. Discussion- Fig. 11 • 1. For short sessions, MIP achieves much lower delay than ROMIP • In fact, short sessions hardly enter their direct routing phase provided by ROMIP • In these condition, ROMIP degenerates and delivers packets by triangle routing; • Moreover, it floods the network with useless control messages, giving rise to a performance drawback • 2. For longer sessions, ROMIP delay performance improves • Because of direct routing • In MIP, the links surrounding the HA rapidly become choked up by packet trains, giving rise to a huge delay

  25. Simulation Result- Fig. 12 Exchange???

  26. Discussion- Fig. 12 • Packet loss • Due to transmissions to the wrong subnet • Better performance for ROMIP • Because of handover support • But the performance is not substantial • Loss probability could be reduced by increasing the backbone bandwidth, to allow a more effective tracking of mobile hosts

  27. Simulation Result- Fig. 13 linear

  28. Discussion- Fig. 13 • Right side: cache agent overhead for tunneling operations • Linear relation between processing load and offered traffic exists, but only for low traffic volumes • For low mobility and low traffic, left-side diagram • Redirected packets have been tunneled only once (ideal operating region for ROMIP) • For High traffic • The location tracking algorithm lags behind • On the average, more than one tunnel hop is needed for a packet to catch the destination

  29. Simulation Result- Fig. 14 For ROMIP

  30. Discussion- Fig. 14 • Impact of cache size over quality of service • A small cache capacity gives rise to a lower loss and a higher delay • A large capacity originates a higher loss and a smaller delay • A large amount of cached binding may be inconsistent, but packets succeeding in reaching their destination often travel along the shortest path • Small lifetimes (timeout values) • May keep the bindings up-to-date, but it is more likely that a valid binding is removed and thus triangle routing occurs

  31. Conclusion • MIP shows better performance, when • The rate of birth and death of sessions is high • Large session duration • Exploit the optimization of routing by ROMIP • As long as the traffic bursts last on average as much as the average cell permanence time • The direct routing of ROMIP allows to better distribute the traffic offered to the fixed network • Indirect routing (MIP) is subject to overload of the HA

More Related