1 / 16

Comparison of IP Micromobility Protocol

Comparison of IP Micromobility Protocol. Wireless/Mobile Network Lab 이 진 우. Contents. Introduction Classification of protocols A Generic Model Simulation Model Handoff Quality Route Control Messaging Improved Handoff Schemes Conclusion. Introduction. Micormobility protocols

krikor
Download Presentation

Comparison of IP Micromobility Protocol

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. Comparison of IP Micromobility Protocol Wireless/Mobile Network Lab 이 진 우

  2. Contents • Introduction • Classification of protocols • A Generic Model • Simulation Model • Handoff Quality • Route Control Messaging • Improved Handoff Schemes • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Micormobility protocols • Motivation • Predominance of pico-cellular environment in the future – small cell size, large number of access points • Efficiency problem of Mobile IP for real-time application within a single domain : high handoff latency, high signaling overhead and transient packet loss • No paing capability in Mobile IP • Main functions • Path setup mechanism, Fast handoff mechanism, Paging mechanism • Presentation • Performance comparison of CIP(Cellular IP), Hawaii, Hierarchical Mobile IP(HMIP) based on the Columbia IP Micromobility Software(CIMS) ns-2 extension

  4. Classification of protocols • Hierarchical Tunnel-based Approach • Location database is maintained in a distributed form by set of FAs in the access network • Tunneling corresponding to FA toward MH’s AP • BCMP, IDMP, 3G UMTS/CDMA2000, HMIP • Mobile-Specific Routing Approach • Avoidance of the overhead introduced by decapsulation and reencapsulation schemes without tunneling and address conversion • Use home address and co-located COA in access network • Cellular IP, Hawaii

  5. Figure 1. Two approach Hierarchical Tunneling Approach Mobile-Specific Routing Approach

  6. A Generic Model (Cont.) • The use of MRP (mobile routing point) • MSR to refer to nodes that participate in the procedure • Each MSR contains a list of hosts whose data path traverses the MSR • Figure 2-a • Data packet addressed to MH0 are forwarded by using “IP-in IP” encapsulation • Use Hierarchical tunneling such as HMIP • Figure 2-b • Internal address (MH0’s identifier) remain unchanged while external address (the next MRP’s address) is replaced by each MRP • IP Packets are encapsulated in L2 frames such as CIP and Hawaii Figure 2 : a) A network of mobile routing points ; b) a full network with intermediate nodes

  7. A Generic Model <Mapping of micromobility protocols to the generic micormobility model based on MRPs> <Micromobility protocols grouped by the MPR protocol layer>

  8. Simulation Model • CIMS ( Columbia IP Micromobility Software) • Micromobility extension for the ns-2 network simulator • Support separate models for CIP, Hawaii, HMIP • CIP : Hard and semisoft handoff, Paging and security • Hawaii : UNF (unicast nonforwarding) and MSF (multiple stream forwarding) handoff • Hawaii • BaseStatioinNode object instead of AP • Hawaii router are implemented in special HawaiiAgent object • HMIP • Use a GFAAgent object to implement a single GFA and FAs in each AP Figure 3. The simulated network topology

  9. Handoff Quality (Cont.) • UDP • MH moves periodically between neighboring AP at a speed of 20 m/s • Use UDP probing traffic between CH and MH and count the average number of packet loss during handoff • Results of Figure 4 • CIP hard handoff and Hawaii UNF are very similar and handoff delay is related to the packet delay between the APs and the cross-over node • HMIP cannot benefit from crossover distance Figure 4. UDP packet loss at handoff

  10. Handoff Quality • TCP • At 14.75s into the simulation a CIP hard handoff occurs • Packet loss caused by the handoff results in a TCP timeout Figure 5. TCP sequence numbers at the time of CIP hard handoff

  11. Route Control Messaging • According to Tree topologies • CIP and Hawaii are similar for tree topologies • Difference for non-tree topologies • Suboptimal in Hawaii • Optimal in CIP • Trade-off of suboptimal routing • Cause performance bottleneck and signaling load at the common section • Discard update message at crossover MRP

  12. Improved Handoff Schemes (Cont.) • Packet loss reduction techniques • Bi-casting techniques of CIP • Semisoft handoff by allowing a MH to set up routing to new AP prior to handoff • Delay device for a fixed period amount of time (Tss) before transmission • Buffering and forwarding techniques of Hawaii • MSF operates after handoff • Old AP forwards packet to new AP during handoff • Store all packet received for a certain period (Tmsf) • HMIP • Operate along similar lines, bi-casting and buffering and forwarding

  13. Improved Handoff Schemes (Cont.) CIP semisoft handoff Hawaii MSF handoff Figure 8. UDP packet loss and duplication ; this is for packet interarrival times of 5 ms and 10 ms

  14. Improved Handoff Schemes (Cont.) semi-soft handoff (Tss = 50 ms) semi-soft handoff (Tss = 100 ms) Figure 9. TCP sequence numbers at the time of a Cellular IP

  15. Improved Handoff Schemes • Difference between CIP and Hawaii • Packet reordering • TCP protocol reacts adversely to Hawaii MSF • NewReno congestion control • Applying NewReno congestion control represents a different approach to improving handoff performance • NewReno can be advatageous in case of batch losses due to radio fading Figure 6. Application level TCP throughput in periodic handoffs

  16. Conclusion • Open issue • Support the delivery of a variety of traffic including best effort and real-time traffic • Work on a suitable QoS model for micromobility • Working group • IETF Mobile IP WG • IETF Seamoby WG • Low-latency handoff, IP paging

More Related