1 / 13

Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6

Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6. Youngjune Gwon James Kempf Alper Yegin Ravi Jain DoCoMo Communications Labs USA. Objective. Determine signaling scalability of HMIPv6, FMIPv6, and combined HMIP and FMIP (HFMIPv6). Compare signaling scalability against standard MIPv6 (SMIP).

herne
Download Presentation

Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6

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. Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 Youngjune GwonJames KempfAlper YeginRavi Jain DoCoMo Communications Labs USA

  2. Objective • Determine signaling scalability of HMIPv6, FMIPv6, and combined HMIP and FMIP (HFMIPv6). • Compare signaling scalability against standard MIPv6 (SMIP). • Use a piecewise simulation to assess. • Removes need to implement the protocols in a simulator. • Reduces amount of compute time needed to perform simulation.

  3. Piecewise Simulation Procedure • Simulate mobility traces for 100K mobile nodes. • Custom developed mobility simulator used. • Measure per handover signaling costs and latencies on actual implementations of the protocols. • SMIP implementation is MIPL. • FMIP implementation from DoCoMo (03 draft). • HMIP implementation from Monash. • HFMIP integration performed by DoCoMo. • Straightforward, could be further optimized. • Not draft-jung-mobileip-fastho-hmipv6-01.txt. • Simulate aggregate signaling cost using mobility traces, traffic model, and per handover measurements.

  4. Mobility Model • Mobility model from ETSI (i.e. 3GPP) Technical Report 101 112 v3.2.0 (Release 98), ETSI, April 1998 used. • 100K users simulated. • Two levels of mobility: • Pedestrian mobility suitable for WLAN. • Vehicle mobility suitable for WAN. WAN Mobility Model WLAN Mobility Model

  5. Wireless Access Network Model • 100 x 100 km planar area. • Two wireless networks: • WAN: 1 km radius cells. • WLAN: 100 m radius cells. • Optimal packing of wireless cells into hexagonal geometry. • Single access point per cell.

  6. Wired Backhaul Model • Star topology. • Access routers connected to multiple access points. • All cells under one access routers are in same subnet. • Aggregation routers connected to access routers. • HMIP MAP above aggregation router (when appropriate). • Measured 10, 20, and 50 ARs per MAP or Access Network. • Results only presented here for 20.

  7. Traffic Models • Two models: • Real time Voice over IP. • Web traffic. • Voice: • Poisson arrival process. • Mean call duration 120 seconds. • Markov process for transition between talking and silence states. • Data: • Poisson arrival process. • Time between sessions is Pareto. • Refs: • Voice: ETSI Technical Report TR 101 112 v3.2.0 (Release 98), ETSI, April 1998. • Data: Shankaranarayanan, N., et al., “Performance of a Shared Packet Wireless Network with Interactive Data Users,” Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), Vol. 8, pp. 279 – 293, June 2003.

  8. Results: Number of Handovers Per Hour

  9. Results: Handover Signaling Load

  10. Results: Mean IP Blackout Duration

  11. Results: Handover Packet Loss Data Packets Voice Packets

  12. Results: Traffic Tunnel Overhead Percent Tunneled Packets 100 90 FMIP HMIP 80 70 60 50 Percent (Per AR) 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Number of APs per AR Tunneled vs. Untunneled Packets Total Tunneled Packets

  13. Conclusions • More APs per AR results in decreased signaling load at IP level. • No surprise here. • HMIP has lower handover signaling cost. • FMIP has lower handover blackout time and lower handover packet loss. • But more APs per AR reduces HMIP blackout time and packet loss to slightly more than FMIP. • FMIP has much less traffic tunnel overhead. • Bottom line: FMIP should be simplified to reduce amount of over the air signaling associated with IP handover.

More Related