1 / 31

QoS NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol for Mobility Support with Cross-Layer Approach

November 17, 2009 Lee, Sooyong torshong@kaist.ac.kr. QoS NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol for Mobility Support with Cross-Layer Approach. Contents. Introduction Background Motivation Proposed Approach Overview Host movement Detection using L2 Information CRN Discovery Advance Reservation

keelie-peck
Download Presentation

QoS NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol for Mobility Support with Cross-Layer Approach

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. November 17, 2009 Lee, Sooyong torshong@kaist.ac.kr QoS NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol for Mobility Support with Cross-Layer Approach

  2. Contents • Introduction • Background • Motivation • Proposed Approach • Overview • Host movement Detection using L2 Information • CRN Discovery • Advance Reservation • Localized State Update • Implementation and Experimental Result • Experimental Testbed Configuration • Average Data Transmission Rate • Application: MPEG Video Streaming • Simulation Study • Conclusion • References

  3. Introduction • Need for QoS Guarantees in Mobile Internet • Increasing demand for real-time multimedia services for mobile users • VoIP, Video streaming, Video Conferencing, IPTV etc. • Multimedia application characteristics • Require large bandwidth • Highly sensitive to delay and jitter • Loss-tolerant for the most part • Limitations on QoS guarantees in Mobile Internet • Characteristics of Wireless Links • Limited bandwidth • Error-prone wireless links • Service instability due to host mobility • Handoff latency • Traffic redirection overhead

  4. Background (1/7) • Mobility Management Protocols • Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) • Pre-call Mobility, mid-call Mobility • Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) • Multi-stream features • Mobile IP • Mobile IPv4/IPv6, Hierarchical Mobile IP, Proxy Mobil IP etc. • Other supporting technology • IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handover • Layer 2.5 • Provide link layer information to upper layer mobility management protocols Application layer (SIP) Transport layer (SCTP) Network layer (Mobile IP) IEEE 802.21 MIH Link layer

  5. Background (2/7) • IETF Internet QoS Architecture • Integrated Service (IntServ) • Per-flow based resource reservation for real-time applications • Service Models: Guranteed service, Controlled load, best-effort • Priority queues for packet scheduling and admission control in each router • Differentiated Service (DiffServ) • Coarse-grained QoS differentiation • Packet labeling based on service classes (TOS field in IP packet) • Service level agreement (SLA) among ISPs • Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) • Signaling protocol for IntServ • Reservation of network resources in hop-by-hop fashion • Receiver-initiated signaling • Soft-state: non-permanent control state will expire unless refreshed • One-to-one or many-to-many multicast QoS reservation

  6. Background (3/7) • RSVP extensions for QoS guarantees in Mobile Internet • MRSVP [1], HMRSVP [2], SARAH [3] • Shortcomings of RSVP itself • Scalability Problem • Per-flow based • Support IP-multicast which has not been widely deployed • Lack of Flexibility • Support only two QoS model (IntServ and DiffServ) • Not allow Packet Fragmentation • Only using unreliable protocols (UDP and IP) • Not support mobility • Security Concerns • Combining path discovery and signaling message delivery • Not provide solid security framework → Difficult to be deployed in All-IP based Mobile Internet

  7. Background (4/7) • Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) • NewGeneral Signaling Protocol suite proposed by IETF(RFC 4080, 2005) • NSIS Protocol Suite Features • Two Layer Architecture (NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol and NSIS Transport Layer Protocol) • Session-based signaling • Interact with both reliable and unreliable Transport protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP etc.) • Support Various QoS Models (IntServe, DiffServ, 3GPP, Y.1541 etc.) • Provide Security mechanism • Bidirectional Reservation • Support Mobility <Logical Components in an NSIS-aware node [8]>

  8. Background (5/7) • NSIS Signaling Scenario [8] • NSIS entities: peerrelationship • Each entity may store soft-state information about peers • Type of NSIS Entities • NSIS initiator (NI) • NSIS forwarders (NFs) • NSIS responder (NR) • Not all routers along the data path need to be NSIS-aware • QoS NSLP Operation • Supports both sender-initiated and receiver-initiated reservations • Message Types • QUERY, RESERVE, RESPONSE, NOTIFY <NSIS signaling scenario between host and edge node> <Basic a) sender-initiated and b) receiver-initiated protocol operation>

  9. Background (6/7) • Comparison of RSVP and NSIS [8]

  10. Background (7/7) • NSIS Tunnel Signaling [9] • The tunneling path is considered as non-NSIS-aware cloud. • When errors occur on the tunnel, the tunnel messages only drop off. • state management complexity increases (a) Sender Initiated (b) Receiver Initiated

  11. Motivation • RSVP extensions for Mobile Internet • Difficult to deploy due to shortcomings of RSVP • Mobility-related features of NSIS • Not yet fully validated • Problems of conventionalNSIS [9] • Session re-establishment after handoff procedure (100 ms delay only for this) • Overhead of complex mechanisms for discovering Crossover Node in Mobile IP tunnel • Applicable NSIS in mobile access networks • To reduce latency due to signaling session re-establishment • To address Mobile IP tunneling problems

  12. Proposed Approach – Overview (1/2) • Cross-layer Design • Host Movement detection using L2 Information through Layer 2 API • Mobility Control modules in QoS NSLP Layer • No Modifications in GIST Layer • Advance reservation, CRN Discovery, Localized State Update modules <Existing NSIS ProtocolStack> <Proposed NSIS ProtocolStack>

  13. Proposed Approach – Overview (2/2) • Overall Procedure • Before a Handoff ( ) • Step 1. Receiving L2 beacon frame from new AR, MN notifies with Handoff_Init • Step 2. Each QNE on old path determines whether it is CRN or not • Step 3. If a QNE is the CRN, it reserves resources on the new path in a passive way • After a Handoff ( ) • Step 4. MN notifies its handoff completion toward the new path and each QNE on new path activate passive reservation • Step 5. CRN requests state update on the common path • Step 6. CRN teardown old session

  14. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) - Host Movement Detection using L2 Information • Step 1. Cross-layer Interaction with Layer 2 (Link Layer) • Movement Prediction with Signal Strength of Access Points • Initiate Advance reservation Procedure at Cell Scan Threshold (CST) • Trigger handoff at Cell Switching Point (CSP) • Activate Passive reservation on the new path when Mobile IP handoff completes

  15. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) - CRN Discovery • Step 2. CRN Discovery • QoS NSLP NOTIFY message with Handoff Initiation (HO_INIT) flag • Message includes Changed Message Routing Information (MRI) – flow ID • Look up Routing table for determining whether it is CRN or not

  16. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) - CRN Discovery • An Example

  17. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) – Passive Reservation • Step 3. Advance Reservation • QoS NSLP stateless RESERVE and RESPONSE message • Stateless message does not install QoS State immediately → Just prepare resource reservation → For other kinds of traffic

  18. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) – Activation of Passive Reservation • Step 4. Activation of Advance Reservation • After L3 (Mobile IP) handoff completes • NOTIFY message with Handoff Done (HO_DONE) flag initiate activation of passive reservation • Activate passive reservation on the new path after a handoff

  19. Proposed Approach (Cont’d) – Localized State Update • Step 5. Local State Update • NOTIFY message with Route change (RT_CHG) flag is sent along common path between CRN and CN • Message includes new Message Routing Information (MRI) of which the destination address is new AR’s IP address • Step 6. Old Path Teardown • CRN teardowns previous signaling session on the old path →To avoid Invalid NR problem and waste of network resources

  20. Implementation and Experimental Results (1/3) • Testbed Configuration OS: Linux kernel 2.6.17 Mobile IP: HUT Dynamics 0.8.1 Traffic Scheduling: HTB/SFQ

  21. Implementation and Experimental Results (2/3) • Delay factors of handoff that affects the service disruption

  22. Implementation and Experimental Results (3/3) • Average Data Transmission Rate • 250 KBs (2 Mbps) reserved • 200 data packets per sec, each packet 1316 bytes • Link capacity: 94.1 (wired) vs. 4.9 (wireless) Mbps → 93.5 Mbps background traffic

  23. Application: MPEG Video Streaming (1/3) • Experimental Scenario • On aforementioned testbed • Background traffic generation: MGEN tool • Maximum throughput of wired network: 94.1 Mbps • Wired subnet A: non-congested Wired subnet B: congested • 93.5 Mbps background traffic • 1.7 Mbps video traffic

  24. Application: MPEG Video Streaming (2/3) • Comparison of video streaming rate variations • Video Quality disruption time with conventional NSIS [9]: 7 seconds • Video Quality disruption time with proposed scheme: 13 ms (Negligible!)

  25. Application: MPEG Video Streaming (3/3) • Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) of each MPEG video frame • PSNR < 30.0 dB: video frame severely disrupted • PSNR = 78.13 dB: no quality loss in video frame • Average PSNR value variation after a handoff • NSIS with advance reservation: 69.1 dB  68.7 dB • Conventional NSIS: 69.6 dB  49.59 dB (a) NSIS with Advance Resource Reservation (b) Conventional NSIS

  26. Simulation Study (1/3) <Simulation Environment>

  27. Simulation Study (2/3) • Performance metrics • Reservation session blocking ratio • probability that a reservation requests for a wireless cell is blocked due to lack of network resources • Reservation session loss ratio • probability that an MN loses its active reservation path after a handoff due to lack of network resources • Reservation session completion ratio • probability that an MN can complete the reservation session successfully without suffering from any reservation blocking or session loss • Latency of reservation activation after handoff • Versus hop count from the new AR and CRN

  28. Simulation Study (3/3)

  29. Conclusion • Contributions • Exploits shortcomings of RSVP with new signaling protocol NSIS • Lightweight, more flexible, scalable, more secure • Adapting Various Kinds of QoS Models • No Concern of Mobile IPTunneling • No need to send and receive signaling message over IP-in-IP tunnel explicitly • No additional S/W needed • Just some modifications of NSIS Protocol with existing NSIS features • Simplification of advance signaling process • Optimized reservation path establishment is not needed • Performance enhancement • Minimized additional re-establishment delay after handoff →Fast Signaling session recovery after a handoff in order to support time sensitive multimedia communications

  30. References • A. K. Talukdar, B. R. Badrinath, and A. Acharya, MRSVP: A Resource Reservation Protocol for an Integrated Services Network with Mobile Hosts, Wireless Networks 7 (2001) 5-19. January. • C. C. Tseng, G. C. Lee, R. S. Liu, and T. P. Wang, HMRSVP: A Hierarchical Mobile RSVP Protocol, Wireless Networks 9 (2003) 95-102. March. • W. T. Chen and L. C. Huang, RSVP mobility support: a signaling protocol for integrated services Internet with mobile hosts, in: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, vol. 3, March 26-30, 2000, pp.1283-1292. • L. Kyounghee, K. Myungchul, Y. Chansu, L. Ben, and S. Hong, Selective advance reservations based on host movement detection and resource-aware handoff, International Journal of Communication Systems 19 (2) (2006) 163-184. February. • R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S. Jamin, Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)-Version 1 Functional Specification, IETF RFC 2205, September 1997. • C. Perkins and others, IP Mobility Support for IPv4, IETF RFC 3344, August 2002. • R. Hancock, G. Karagiannis, J. Loughney, and S. Van den Bosch, Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework, IETF RFC 4080, June 2005. • X. Fu, H. Schulzrinne, A. Bader, D. Hogrefe, C. Kappler, G. Karagiannis, H. Tschofenig, and S. Van den Bosch, “NSIS: a new extensible IP signaling protocol suite, IEEE Communications Magazine 43 (2005) 133-141. October. • T. Sanda, X. Fu, S. Jeong, J. Manner, and H. Tschofenig, Applicability Statement of NSIS Protocols in Mobile Environments, IETF Internet Draft, November 2008. • B. Benmammar and F. Krief, MQoS NSLP: a mobility profile management based approach for advance resource reservation in a mobile environment, in: Proceedings of IFIP IEEE International Conference on Mobile and Wireless Communications Networks (MWCN), Marrakech, Morocco, September 19-21, 2005, pp. 19-21. • S. Lee, M. Kim, K. Lee, S. Seol, and G. Lee, Seamless QoS Guarantees in Mobile Internet Using NSIS with Advance Resource Reservation, in: Proceedings of IEEE Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), Okinawa, Japan, March 25-28, 2008, pp. 464-471. • Terzis, A., Srivastava, M., Lixia Zhang, A simple QoS signaling protocol for mobile hosts in the integrated services Internet, in: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 1999, New York, vol. 3, March 21-25, 1999, pp. 1011-1018. • E. Gustafsson, A. Jonsson and C. Perkins, Mobile IP Regional Registration, IETF Internet Draft, March 2000. • T. Tsenov, H. Tschofenig, X. Fu, C. Aoun, and E. Davies, GIST State Machine, IETF Internet Draft, November 2008. • S. Bosch, NSLP for Quality-of-Service signaling, IETF Internet Draft, February 2008.

  31. References • Max Laier, Analysis and Design of Mobility Support for QoS NSLP, Telematics Technical Report TM-2009-1, University of Karlsruhe, February 2009. • H. Fathi, R. Prasad, and S. Chakraborty, Mobility Management for VoIP in 3G Systems: Evaluation of Low-Latency Handoff Schemes, IEEE Wireless Communications 12 (2005) 96-104. April. • K. E. Malki, Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4, IETF Internet Draft, October 2005. • P. Calhoun, FA Assisted Hand-off, IETF Internet Draft, March 2000. • Sharma, S., N. Zhu, and T. Chiueh, Low-latency mobile IP handoff for infrastructure-mode wireless LANs, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 22 (2004) 643-652. May. • C. Tseng, L. Yen, H. Chang, and K. Hsu, Topology-Aided Cross-Layer Fast Handoff Designs for IEEE 802.11/Mobile IP Environments, IEEE Communications Magazine 43 (2005) 156—163. December. • X. Fu, B. Schloer, H. Tschofenig, and T. Tsenov. QoS NSLP State Machine, IETF Internet Draft, October 2007. • S. Seol, M. Kim; C. Yu, and J. Lee, Experiments and analysis of voice over Mobile IP, in: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’02), Lisbon, Portugal , vol. 2, September 15-18, 2002, pp. 977-981. • WaveLAN, http://www.agere.com/client/wlan.html. • Hierarchical Token Bucket (HTB), http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/. • Stochastic Fair Queueing (SFQ), http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classless.html. • Dynamics HUT Mobile IP, http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/Dynamics. • VideoLAN, Client (VLC), http://www.videolan.org. • The, Multi-Generator, Tool (MGEN), http://manimac.itd.nrl.navy.mil/MGEN/. • IEEE Standard 802.11-2007, Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, June 2007. • Tan, K. T., Ghanbari, M., and Pearson, D. E., An objective measurement tool for MPEG video quality, Signal Processing 70 (3) (1998) 279-294. • Hashimoto, Y., Sampei, S., and Morinaga, N., Channel monitor-based unequal error protection with dynamic OFDM subcarrier assignment for video transmission, in: Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC 2002-Fall), Vancouver, Canada, vol. 2, September 24-28, 2002, pp. 913-917. • The Network simulator NS-2, http://www.isi.edu/nanam/ns/. • Le Boudec, J.-Y., Vojnovic, M., The Random Trip Model: Stability, Stationary Regime, and Perfect Simulation, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 14 (6) (2006) 1153-1166. December. • IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks- Part 21: Media Independent Handover, IEEE, January 2009.

More Related