DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT

1. DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT • Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) • Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) • Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) • MeliaTelemaco (Alcatel-Lucent) • PierrickSeite (France Telecom) • H. Anthony Chan (Huawei) • Wassim Haddad (Ericsson) • Hui Deng (China Mobile) • Elena Demaria (Telecom Italia) • Carlos Bernardos (UC3M) • Jun Song (ZTE) • Nov. 2010

2. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor • Summary Outline

3. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Background and Current Status • IETF#78 Barbof • Around 30 attendees • 5 presentations IETF#78 Bar Bof Interest group Next • China Mobile/KDDI/France Telecom/Telecom Italia • Alcatel-Lucent/Ericsson/Tellabs/Huawei/ZTE/UC3M/NSN • Finished PS/Scenario drafts • More discussion in IETF • MEXT DMM session in IETF#79

4. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Assumptions and Methodology Assumptions and Methodology of DMM • Based on current mobility architecture • No New Mobility Architecture • Progressive Approach • Deployment considerations -> protocol extensions • Dynamic Anchoring -> Distributed Anchoring

5. 2G GGSN SGSN BSC BTS DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend Mobile Network is Evolving Towards Flat Architecture Driving Force of Network Architecture Evolution 3G Flat Network Architecture LTE GGSN LTE/SAE SGSN PGW SGW RNC • Traffic Offloading • Traffic is increasing very fast in the era of Mobile Internet • Operator needs to lower the operation cost • Content is Distributed to Network Edge • CND/Cache • Flat Data Plane • Offload traffic to the nearest GW • Centralized Control Plane • Centralized control and management eNB NB Management Account User Data Policy Control Plane: Centralized User Plane: Flat Wi-Fi 3GPP is Specifying LIPA(Local IP Access) and SIPTO (Selected IP Traffic Offload) Architecture

6. Residential / Enterprise network DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend Backhaul Mobile Operator Core Network LIPA L-GW H(e)NB-GW H(e)NB MN Local IP Access （LIPA）Scenario

7. DMM Introduction - Motivation • All the Traffic Needs to go through an Centralized Anchoring Point • Content servers and cache servers are getting deployed at the edge of the network (, which is good for fixed network providers and users) • Centralized mobility anchor in the mobile core is not very suitable for accessing the localized content server scenario Centralized Mobility Anchor Internet L-GW L-GW P-GW L-GW Local Content S-GW L-GW L-GW L-GW • Anchoring at the local gateway (L-GW) is beneficial for both operators (efficient resource usage) and end users (lower latency) • It becomes more efficient if the L-GW allows the mobile to choose a seamless connection or a shortest-path connection (valid only at the current location) • Mobility Anchor Needs to be Distributed along with the Local Gateways

8. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor • Summary Outline

9. Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor • Infrequent Mobility for Mobile Internet Users • Mobile devices remain attached to the same point of attachment • Application may Not Require Mobility • Example： YouTube/hulu/Web • However, current mobility support has been designed to be always on • Maintain the context for each mobile subscriber as long as they are connected to the network. • This can result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing costs for the service provider. Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many applications suggest that mobility can be provided dynamically, thus simplifying the context maintained in the different nodes of the mobile network. Mobility Anchor Need to be Dynamically Assigned

10. Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor CN MA: Mobility Agent MA MA1 MA MA2 MA Dynamic Anchor Example MN MN • It should be enough to provide handover capability only when it is really needed. • If the mobile host is nomadic meaning once attached, rarely moved, or is idle in most of time • If the mobile node moves away from MA1, while maintaining • communications, two mobility anchors will come into play. • MA1 for the traffic initiated via MA1,MA2 for traffic initiated via MA2

11. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor • Summary Outline

12. Home network with Centralized Mobility Anchor Visited network MA MA MA MA Problem Statement of Centralized Mobility Anchor Distributed Mobility Management Concept CN MN MA: mobility Agent CN MN

13. MA MA MA MA Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(1) Routing • Routing via a centralized anchor is often longer, so that those mobility protocol deployments that lack optimization extensions results in non-optimal routes, affecting performance • Routing optimization may be an integral part of a distributed design. CN MN

14. SGW SGW SGW Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(2) Non-Optimal for Flat Architecture • As mobile network becomes more flattened, centralized mobility management can become more non-optimal, especially as the content servers in a content delivery network (CDN) are moving closer to the access network • In contrast, distributed mobility management can support both hierarchical network and more flattened network. P-GW CDN/ Cache server CDN/ Cache server CDN/ Cache server MN

15. MA Mobility domain Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(3) Scalability • Centralized route maintenance and context maintenance for a large number of mobile hosts is more difficult to scale. • Distributed Mobility Agent maintain less context MN5 MN0 MN12 MN14 MN2 MN8

16. Home network with MA Visited network Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(4) Signaling Overhead • Excessive signaling overhead should be avoided when end nodes are able to communicate end-to-end • Capability to selectively turn off signaling that are not needed by the end hosts will reduce the handover delay CN MN

17. Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(5) Dynamic Mobility • Scalability may worsen when lacking mechanism to distinguish whether there are real need for mobility support • Dynamic mobility management, i.e., to selectively provide mobility support, is needed and may be better implemented with distributed mobility management. MN11 MN1 MN6 MN15 MN5 MN0 MN12 MN14 MN2 MN4 MN7 MN9 MN13 MN3 MN8

18. Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(6) Integration Different Mobile IP • Deployment is complicated with numerous variants and extensions of mobile IP • These variants and extensions may be better integrated in a distributed and dynamic design which can selectively adapt to the needs. Internet L-GW L-GW P-GW L-GW Local Content S-GW L-GW L-GW L-GW

19. MA MA MA MA Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(7) Single Point of Failure • Centralized approach is generally more vulnerable to a single point of failure and attack • Requiring duplication and backups, • Distributed approach intrinsically mitigates the problem to a local network so that the needed protection can be simpler. CN MN

20. Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management • Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor • Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor • Summary Outline

21. Summary - Motivation of New Mobility Management Traffic/Mobility Model Changed Network Architecture is Evolving • Mobile Internet traffic grows very • fast, mobile operator’s network • faces challenges • All traffic going to mobile core network • model will increase the cost • Cache/CDN is leading distribution of • content to network edge • Mobility model is changed: • : low mobility/smart applications • Traffic offloading is leading to evolve the network architecture towards flat architecture • Current Mobility management is not optimized for flat architecture • “Always-on Mobility Support” causes waste of network recourse Why new mobility management? Operator Need to Simplify Network and Reduce Cost Mobility Management Need Optimization • Centralized anchor will lead to no-optimal • route and too much tunnels in flat architecture • Large amount of mobility context management leads • to high cost of network element • To support telecom level high availability, centralized anchor • have to be designed complex • Mobility anchor also need to be distributed to network edge to support traffic offloading • Dynamic Mobility can reduce the complexity and reduce cost

22. Summary – What We Have Now • Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-00 • Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 • Other drafts • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-distributed-mobility • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-netext-dma • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-netext-distributed-lma-03 • http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-mext-mobisoc-00

23. Other references • P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “Distributed or Centralized Mobility?” Proceedings of Global Communications Conference (GlobeCom 2009). • M. Fisher, F.U. Anderson, A. Kopsel, G. Schafer, and M. Schlager, “A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE,” 19th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, (PIMRC 2008). • L. Zhang, R. Wakikawa, and Z. Zhu, “Support Mobility in the Global Internet,” Proceedings of ACM Workshop on MICNET, MobiCom 2009, Beijing, China, 21 September 2009. • P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “A Distributed Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP Architectures,” Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security, (NTMS 2008). • H. Anthony Chan, “Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility Anchors,” GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Seamless Wireless Mobility, Miami, USA, 6-10 December 2010. • H. Anthony Chan, “Integrating PMIP into LISP Network,” draft-chan-lisp-pmip-00.txt, October 2010.

24. Thanks！ Q&A