Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies Henning Schulzrinne,...
-
Upload
stella-mcgee -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young Telcordia Technologies Henning Schulzrinne,...
Authors: A. Dutta, J. Burns, K.D Wong, R. Jain, K. Young
Telcordia Technologies
Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University
Multi-layered Mobility Management for Survivable Network
IMM-Milcom’01– 2
Outline
Motivation Related Work Technology Description
– SIP based Mobility Management
– MIP-LR (Mobile IP with Location Register)
– MMP (Micro Mobility Management)
Integrated Approach Simulation/Experimental Results Conclusions/Future Work
IMM-Milcom’01– 3
Motivation Propose an Integrated Mobility Management Approach for Survivable
Network that will:– Support Personal mobility independent of user location across domains
using unique URI scheme– Support session and service mobility independent of the network attached– Provide continuous connectivity support for Real-Time (RTP/UDP/IP- e.g.,
audio/video streaming) and Non-Real-time (TCP/IP- e.g., ftp, telnet) application
– Provide intra-domain and inter-domain terminal mobility (pre-session and mid-session)
– Survivability and reliability by replicating server functionality in the nodes in the air and on the ground
– Bound by handoff delay and latency budget for real-time application– Use best features of each mobility management scheme
IMM-Milcom’01– 4
Multimedia Protocol Stack
Media Transport
App
lica
tion
Dae
mon
Ker
nel
Phy
sica
lN
etw
ork
H.323SIP
RTSP RSVP RTCPRTP
TCP UDP
IPv4, IPv6, IP Multicast
PPP AAL3/4 AAL5 PPP
SONET ATM
ADDSI
V.34
SignalingQuality of Service
media encaps(H.261. MPEG)
ICMP IGMP
SAP
802.11
DNSLDAP
MIP-LR MIP variant
MMP
188-220
SDP
MIPv6
App
lica
tion DHCP/DRCP
Application Layer approach
Network Layer
HCLOS EPLRS SINCGARS
Lin
k
IMM-Milcom’01– 5
Related Work and Brief Comparison
QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHESIntra-domainencapsulation
Inter-domainencapsulation
Changesto end-systems
Trianglerouting
Infrastructurechange
Fasthandoff
MIP Yes Yes No Yes No NoMIP-RO Yes Yes Yes No No NoMIP-RR Yes Yes No Yes No YesMIP-FF Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
CIP No Yes No Yes Yes YesHAWAII No Yes No Yes Yes YesMIP-LR No No Yes No No YesTeleMIP Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
SIP No No No No No Yes
IMM-Milcom’01– 6
IMM Technology Description
Multi-layer approach to mobility management involves the following components
Application-based component– Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Domain Name Service (DNS) servers
interact with Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) servers to provide location update and personal mobility while providing continuous connectivity for real-time applications (e.g., streaming audio/video).
Network layer component– Mobile IP with Location Registers (MIP-LR) significantly improves Mobile IP
survivability and performance by allowing replication of the MIP home agent functionality; handles non-real-time application (ftp,telnet, chat).
Local mobility component– Micro-mobility Management Protocol (MMP) inherits cellular systems principle
for mobility management, passive connectivity and handoff control but is designed for IP paradigm. Sets up forwarding caches for each mobile host to handle intra-domain micro-mobility.
IMM-Milcom’01– 7
Expected Performance Improvement of each mobility component
MMP provides increase in throughput of 100% (goal of ~1000 kb/s throughput compared with baseline of ~500 kb/s throughput at 60 handoffs/min)
Mobile IP provides reduced bandwidth for large degrees of local mobility
MIP-LR provides 50% reduction in management overhead (goal is latency of ~10.5 ms vs. baseline of ~18.5 ms in MIP case for a packet size of 1Kbyte in a small campus environment)
Mobile IP registration adds overhead
Application-layer approach provides 50% latency improvement (reduction from ~27ms to ~16 ms for large packets)
Mobile IP triangular routing increases latency
Application-layer approach provides 35% more bandwidth utilization
Mobile IP requires IP-in-IP encapsulation (20-byte header overhead)
Performance ImproveentState of the Art
IMM-Milcom’01– 8
SIP Based Mobility Key Features
Mobility as part of application layer signaling – No need to change kernel in the end terminals for RTP/UDP application unlike Mobile IP– Interaction with DNS, HTTP, LDAP for location management– Provides session, service mobility and personal mobility using unique URI scheme
Redundancy/survivability– Determine multiple SIP servers during auto-configuration
Via DRCP configuration option, multicast discovery, use of SRV record in DNS Retransmission during call setup using session timer or switches to secondary server
Hierarchical SIP registration– No need to go back to home registrar, register in the visiting domain - less delay– Registration gets proxied to other SIP servers - Hierarchical registrars - Optimized
Performance– No triangular routing—reduces delay
– No IP-IP tunneling—reduces network load and saves overhead
When both CH and MH move– Use SIP’s Record Route feature to go through SIP server
When SIP server also moves Use Dynamic DNS
IMM-Milcom’01– 9
SIP-Based Mobility in Military Environment
CorrespondentHost
SIPServer
LDAPDNS
StreamServer
SIPServer
LDAPDNS
StreamServer
1. Register2. Invite
3. Client moved
5. INVITE Proxy message
7. Re-invite
ServerRe-directServer
ServerServer
On-going MediaSession (RTP)
DRCPDNS
192.4.8.18
MobileNode Pre-session
Move
MN
192.6.10.18
SIP
Domain 1 Domain 2
6. Proxy
1B1A
Proxying Registration4. Invite
192.6.11.20MN
Mid-sessionMove
192.4.8.20
Server
CH moves
IMM-Milcom’01– 10
Mobile IP with Location Registers (MIP-LR) Basic Principles Uses Location Register (LR) databases like commercial cellular
systems– Home Location Register stores location, performs authentication, no
tunneling
– Visitor Location Register performs authentication and registration
Upper protocol layers (TCP, UDP) remain unaware of host mobility
MIP-LR is especially suited to military networks as compared to Mobile IP since it provides– Better performance: less delay and network load on ground
and ACN avoiding triangular routing and IP-IP encapsulation
– Better survivability: allows multiple replicated LRs and LRs placed outside the vulnerable area in ACN
IMM-Milcom’01– 11
MIP-LR Mobility in Military Environment
CorrespondentHost (CH)
HLR 3
LDAPDNS
StreamServer
8. Update CH
DHCP/DRCP
j.k.l.mMobile Node
Domain 1 Domain 2
HLR 4
LDAPDNS
StreamServer
4. Query
4. Query
HLR 1 VLR 1VLR 2 HLR 2
1. Move
2. Register
7. Movep.q.r.s
5. New address
a.b.c.d
6. Data Packets
3. Register
3. Register3. Register
IMM-Milcom’01– 12
Micro-Mobility Management Protocol (MMP)
Features (of using MMP for local mobility management)– Forwarding caches for each mobile host to handle intra-domain mobility.– Fast handoffs – reduced data losses at handoffs– Passive connectivity/paging capabilities– Minimal signaling overhead, and no encapsulation overhead makes efficient use of low-
bandwidth links Extended version of MMP improves over other proposed forwarding-cache-based local
mobility schemes such as Cellular IP and HAWAII– Military requirements
Robustness, reliability Network mobility Hierarchical network
– More robust to gateway failure: multiple gateways possible– More robust to node failure: multiple paths to gateway(s) allowed– Optimizes period of gateway beacon messages
Application to military environment– Variations
Large domain version - Large number of MMP nodes under a gateway Small domain version - (e.g., Gateway/MMP node does co-exist in the same host in the smallest domain
version)
IMM-Milcom’01– 13
MMP - Multiple Paths, Multiple Gateways Illustration
Can be exploited by nodes with multiple layer 2 (radio) links, but does not require all nodes to have multiple layer 2 links– Each node has primary gateway (and optionally a secondary gateway)– For primary gateway, has primary interface (and optionally, a
secondary interface) Concept illustrated below
– Black links: primary path to primary gateway– Blue links: secondary path to primary gateway– Magenta links: path to secondary gateway– Beige links: additional radio links that are none of the above
X X X
Gateway 2Gateway 1
1 2
Mobile Node
CH
X - Cross-over-node1,2 - MMP Node
CH- Correspondent Node
IMM-Milcom’01– 14
Integration of Mobility Components
gatewaygateway
Brigade TOCBrigade TOC Brigade TOC
Brigade TOC
Shorter range ground radio links
Brigade TOC
Domain 1Domain 2
CH MH
MMP for (Intra-domain Mobility)
SIPServer MIP-LR
SIPServer
MIP-LR
SIP server
MIP-LR
MIP-LR
DRCPSIP
Server
a.b.c.dInter-domain
moveIP address
changes
l.m.n.x
l.m.n.x l.m.n.x
SIP, MIP-LR for Inter-domain mobilitySIP - Real-time traffic
MIP-LR - Non-Real-time traffic
Subneta.b.c.0 l.m.n.0
l.m.p.0l.m.q.0
Intra-domain move IP address does not change
MH MH
IMM-Milcom’01– 15
SIP-MIP transport delay vs. Packet size (Simulation)
Total number of hops = 12, N=4, M=4, P=4, p=1
SIP/MIP Latency vs. Packet size
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Packet Size in bytes
La
ten
cy
in
ms
ec
MIP-SD
SIP-SD
MIP-D
SIP-D
SD - Signaling + DataD - Data
IMM-Milcom’01– 16
Experimental Test-bed Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP)
SIP vs MIP Utilization Gain
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Bytes per packet
SIP
B/W
Gai
n
SIP B/W Gain35% Utilization Gain
40%utilization
IMM-Milcom’01– 17
Experimental Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP) Latency
SIP vs. MIP Latency
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Packet Size in bytes
Late
ncy
in m
sec
SIP
MIP
16 msec
27 msec
IMM-Milcom’01– 18
MMP Comparison with MIP (TCP Throughput) - Simulation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
link latency (s)
kb
yte
/s
base MMP
base MIP
MMP SS
IMM-Milcom’01– 19
Experimental Results (MMP vs. Mobile IP) Downlink
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
handoffs per minute
TCP
thro
ughp
ut (k
byte
/s)
MMPMIP 0MIP 250MIP 500
(100% Throughput increase)
IMM-Milcom’01– 20
MIP-LR vs MIP analytical model results
Cost ratio of MIP-LR to MIP, for a = b = f = 2, d = 1, c = r =1
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Packet-to-Mobility Ratio, p
C
LR
/C
MIP
ld = 1 kB
ld = 100B
IMM-Milcom’01– 21
Experimental Results (MIP-LR vs MIP)
MIP-LR vs. MIP Delay
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Bytes per packet
Ro
un
d t
rip
tim
e in
Mse
c
MIP
MIP-LR
50% reduction in management overhead
IMM-Milcom’01– 22
Conclusions/Future Work Integrated Mobility Management approach takes advantage of
best features of each Mobility Management component Server based component provides survivability, redundancy
and reliability features Each mobility component provides better performance
compared to traditional Mobile IP approach Integrated Mobility Management is being prototyped in the
laboratory test-bed An application layer approach to MIP-LR is being investigated Scalability analysis and deployment scenario in the military
networks are some of the future work
IMM-Milcom’01– 23
Backup Slides
IMM-Milcom’01– 24
Location Server
Location Server
SIP /Redirect Server
Client
Client(ibc)
Client
Client
1
2 3 45
67
8 9
1011
INVITE [email protected] id:[email protected]
callee
Abc.com Xyz.edu
[email protected] [email protected]
INVITE lisa@ibc
200 OK
200 OK
ACK [email protected] id: [email protected]
ACK lisa@ibc
200 OK200 OK
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
INVITE [email protected] id:[email protected]
INVITE [email protected] id:[email protected]
302 moved temporarilyLocation [email protected]
200 OK
200 OK
SIP signaling using proxy server
SIP signaling using redirect server
(caller)
callee
(caller)
SIP/Proxy server
Xyz.edu
Abc.com
SIP Server modes of operation (Proxy & Re-Direct)
SIPUA
SIPUA
IMM-Milcom’01– 25
SIP Mobility Basic Flows
Caller A (SIP UA) SIP Re-direct server/registrar Callee B (SIP UA) Callee B (new location)
INVITE BREGISTER
180 RINGING
200 OKACK
RTP Media stream Callee movedduring call
INVITE
302 moved temporarily
ACK
Re-register
Re-INVITE with new Contact address
SIP signaling and RTP/UDP session remains intact
LDAPDatabase
Userapplication
IMM-Milcom’01– 26
SIP Protocol Design Flows
CH (SIP UA) SIP server MH (SIP UA) MH (new location)
REGISTER
RTP Media stream MH movedmid-call
INVITE MN
Re-INVITE with new Contact (IP)address in SDP
SIP signaling and RTP/UDP application remains intact
LDAPDatabase
ACN
LDAPDatabase
Ground
DISCOVERmultiple
SIP servers
LDAPDatabase
Ground
LDAPDatabase
ACN
DISCOVER multiple SIP servers
Moved temporarily
Proxy Registration
INVITE
Configuration & registration
Proxy INVITE
DOMAIN 1 DOMAIN 2
OK
ACK
IMM-Milcom’01– 27
SIP Mobility - Basics
CH
HA
FA
Home Network
MN
Tunnelled data
data
data
CH
SIPServer
Home Network
MN
1
2
3
4
5
Plain Mobile IP
CH
SIPServer
Home Network
MNmoves MN
Foreign Network
SIP Personal Mobility
SIP Mid-session mobility
1
2
3
4
1. SIP INVITE 2. 302 client moved
3. SIP INVITE4. SIP OK
5. Data
1. MN moves2. MN re-invites
3. SIP OK4. Data
CH
SIPServer
Home Network
MNmoves MN
Foreign Network
SIPServer
CH
When both move
IMM-Milcom’01– 28
MIP-LR Design: Protocol Flow
Registration Accept
MH HLR 1New VLR HLR 2 HLR 3 CH
Registration
Registration
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Registration Accept
Query
(FAILED)
MH Care of Address
Data Packets sent directly
GROUND ACNGROUND
IMM-Milcom’01– 29
An Abstraction of Basic MMP
MMP(micro-mobility)
MIP-LR, MIP, etc.(macro-mobility)
gatewaygateway
Internet
IMM-Milcom’01– 30
Large Domain vs. Small Domain Implementation
What is optimal size of domain?– Too many mobile nodes in a domain may cause scalability problems
– Too few mobile nodes in a domain may not exploit use of micro-mobility scheme
– How many mobile nodes in a brigade, ACN coverage area, and what is the variability in this number? What are mobility rate statistics?
Large domain: gateway at ACN, has following advantages:– Large micro-mobility domain => more efficient mobility management
signaling, fewer inter-domain handoffs
Small domain: gateway on the ground, e.g. in brigade TOC or lower in the hierarchy, has following advantages:– Continues to operate if/when the ACNs leave or fly out of range
IMM-Milcom’01– 31
SIP/MIP Throughput Gain Simulation
SIP-MIP Throughput GainSimulation
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Packet size in bytes
Th
rou
gh
pu
t G
ain
SIP-MIP Gain
IMM-Milcom’01– 32
Simulation Results (SIP vs. Mobile IP) Latency
SIP-MIP Latency Simulation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Packet size in bytes
Lat
ency
in m
sec
MIP Latency
SIP Latency
IMM-Milcom’01– 33
Results from analytical model MIP vs. MIP-LR
Mean delays of MIP and MIP-LRp = 5, t r = 2.5 ms, c = d = f = 1, l c = 100 Bytes
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 256 512 768 1024 1280
Data packet length (Bytes)
Del
ay (
s)
MIP: a=b=10
MIPLR: a=b=10
MIP: a=b=5
MIPLR: a=b=5
IMM-Milcom’01– 34
MMP - Registration Call Flow
MN IRR IRP G/FA FAuS HA CNBS/FLA
beaconRoaming
detection
Cache initRegistration
Registration Reply
Authentication
Mobile IP reg.
Mobile IP reg. response
Authentication response
IMM-Milcom’01– 35
MMP - Other Call Flows
MN IRR IRP G/FA FAuS HA CNBS/FLA
Keep-aliveroute update
Registration Reply
Mobile IP reg.
Mobile IP reg. response
Mobile IPKeep-aliveRegistration
PagingKeep-alive paging update
Registration