250 likes | 389 Views
in Fifth International Joint Conference on INC, IMS and IDC (NCM '09), 2009, pp. 409-415. A Route Optimization Scheme Based on Roaming in PMIPv6 ( pROR ). S.-s. Oh, H.-Y. Choi , and S.-G. Min. Introduction . the network-based approaches are used in 3G networks
E N D
in Fifth International Joint Conference on INC, IMS and IDC (NCM '09), 2009, pp. 409-415. A Route Optimization Scheme Based on Roaming in PMIPv6 (pROR) S.-s. Oh, H.-Y. Choi, and S.-G. Min
Introduction • the network-based approaches are used in 3G networks • the IETF NETLMM WG is developing a network-based localized mobility management protocol Proxy MIPv6 • Many route optimization (RO) schemes are not consider the inter-domain handover. • unnecessary tunnel among the LMAs remains • not considered the Security Association (SA) among the MAGs • a lot of control message is added [4] M. Liebsch, “Route Optimization ofr Proxy Mobile IPv6”, draft-abeille-netlmm-proxymip6ro-01, November 2007. [5] A. Dutta, “ProxyMIP Extension for Inter-MAG Route Optimization”, draft-dutta-netlmm-pmipro-01, July 2008. [6] SangjinJeong, “Route Optimization Scheme for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)”, ICACT 2008, February 2008. [7] G. Velev, “Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: Route Optimization Issues”, draft-velev-netlmm-mip-pmip-ro-01, February 2008.
a new LMA that support the route optimized tunneling options with roaming in the PMIPv6 (pROR-LMA) is proposed • avoid unnecessary tunneling in roaming scheme and security problem in route optimization • Depend on the location of the LMAs, the pROR-LMA selects the optimized tunneling among LMAs and MAGs.
Outline • Introduction • Related Works • Route Optimization (RO) with Non Security Association (Non-SA) • Route Optimization (RO) with Security Association (SA) • Inter-domain handover • A Route Optimization Scheme based on Roaming in PMIPv6 (pROR) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion
RO with Non Security Association • [4][5] assume that the MNs and the CNs are located in the PMIPv6 domains • the LMA detects that the RO can be established between the MN and the CN. • the LMA sends the RO information to the MAG and the MAG create RO path for the MN and CN. [4] M. Liebsch, “Route Optimization for Proxy Mobile IPv6”, draft-abeille-netlmm-proxymip6ro-01, November 2007. [5] A. Dutta, “ProxyMIP Extension for Inter-MAG Route Optimization”, draft-dutta-netlmm-pmipro-01, July 2008.
In [4], • the control message for the RO sequence are increased and • causes the state synchronization problem when the LMAs detect the RO simultaneously • [5] solves the synchronization problem • if the MN and CN are located in the other PMIPv6 domains or the MN or CN handover the other PMIPv6 domains, the security problem can arise [4] [5]
RO with Security Association • [6] solves the SA among the MAGs which are located in the other PMIPv6 domains • does not use the SA among the LMAs • the RO set up time is extended because of using the HoTI/CoTI message [6] SangjinJeong, “Route Optimization Scheme for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)”, ICACT 2008, February 2008.
Inter-domain handover • In SMA-PMIPv6 [2], the first attached LMA performs a role as the Session Management Anchor (SMA). • new LMA sends a PBU to the SMA. • the SMA tunnels packets bound for the MN to new LMA [2] N. Neumann, “Inter-Domain Handover and Data Forwarding between Proxy Mobile Ipv6 Domains”, draft-neumann-netlmm-inter-domain-00, July 2008.
H-PMIPv6 [3] • visit MAG requests authentication to visit AAAand the visit AAA requests authentication to the home AAA. • The home AAA sends Home LMA addressfor in regard to MN to • the visit LMA and MAG • visit LMA sends PBU to Home LMA. • the Home LMA sends PBA to visit LMA with HNP of the MN and visit LMA sends PBA to visit MAG 3 2 1 2 [3] S. Park, “Roaming Medchanism between PMIPv6 domains,” Draft-park-netlmm-pmipv6-roaming-01, July 2008.
However, SMA-PMIPv6 and H-PMIPv6 are not optimized because unnecessary tunneling between LMAs is used. • we introduce route optimization with roaming LMA (pROR-LMA) and a bi-directional tunneling between pROR-LMA and visit MAG (v-MAG)
Outline • Introduction • Related Works • A Route Optimization Scheme based on Roaming in PMIPv6 (pROR) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion
pROR • assume that the communication between LMAs is secure • The roaming scheme in pROR is similar with H-PMIPv6 • The serving LMA (s-LMA) gets the pROR-LMA addressfrom the serving policy store • makes a decision whether the MAG can attach to pROR-LMA directly. • based on the administration profile and the information about link delay between pROR-LMA and the s-LMA • With RO, the s-LMA is changed to pROR-LMA
When MN moves to new LMA, pROR operation is identical repeated.
pROR (cont.) • pROR makes further RO if the CN is located in a PMIPv6 network • When pROR-LMA receives the first packet from a CN, it checks the prefix of the CN and determines that whether the CN belongs to a PMIPv6 network • pROR-LMA checks the locations of three LMAs – • the LMA of the CN (c-LMA), • pROR-LMA, and • the s-LMA of the MN (if any)
Outline • Introduction • Related Works • A Route Optimization Scheme based on Roaming in PMIPv6 (pROR) • Performance Evaluation • Conclusion
compare the pROR with the previous RO with SA [6] and H-PMIPv6 for the performance evaluation
Simulation Configuration 10 ms 1~20 ms 1 ms 1~20 ms 1~20 ms 1~20 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms
Comparison with RO scheme • pROR just use the session key which is made by the LMA for creating tunnel, • but the RO with SA uses the additional control message. • pROR is more rapidly than the RO with SA about 20%
measure the packet delivery latency between the MAG1 and the MAG3 • The difference between the RO with the MAG and the RO with the LMA is about between 1% and 3% and can be ignored in the VoIP service, etc.
Comparison with Roaming Solution • Measure the packet delivery latency between the CN and the MAG2 • the latency ratio of the H-PMIPv6 and the pROR • sLMA離hLMA越遠,越不需建立vMAG-hLMA tunnel
CN is located in the PMIPv6 domain • If the packet delivery latency among the LMAs is lower than 10ms, the Case A is applied. • measure the packet delivery latency between MAG1 and MAG3
In these cases, we cannot conclude that the pRORimprove the packet delivery latency between the MN and CN.
Conclusion • We proposed pROR to provide route optimization with location management in PMIPv6. • follows closely the PMIPv6 standard and • extends existing messages by defining two flags using unused flags and adding new options. • By using direct tunneling with RO options, pROR can bypass pROR-LMA. • similar to that of MIPv6 RO between CN and MN.