Implementation of Flow Management in MIPv6 Environment draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03.txt Umar Toseef University of Bremen in collaboration with Siemens AG, Berlin 68 th IETF, Prague

Implementation Overview  Basis for implementation Linux Kernel NEMO MCoA (nemo-0.2-mcoa-beta ) Ip6tables packet marking functionality  How far the implementation goes Filter exchange is possible only between HA and MN Priorities are not considered Actions FORWARD and DROP are working but not N-CAST Filters can be defined using source address/port range, destination address/port range, and protocol Source/destination prefix, SPI and flow label filters have not been implemented

Processing Field  Draft says to use value 255 as the “Remove Filter”  But there were only 4 bits in the PRO field  Used 15 for “Remove Filter” (It has been corrected in the newer version, 04 draft)

Specifying Src/Dest Ports without Protocol  In the tools (e.g. iptables) that we use we specify the protocol before specifying the port numbers  (E.g. 1) If a user specifies ICMP and port 25 -> disregard OR generate error  (E.g. 2) gives the port without any protocol -> always assume UDP and TCP and set filters for both OR generate error

Priorities  User can set overlapping priorities, simple e.g. E.g. 1 user says port range 5000 to 5200 priority 5 E.g. 2 user again says port 5100 priority 5  How should MN, HA and CN handle?

Duplicate Receipt of Filter Rules  If the first Filter ACK is lost, MN will send it the second time  HA will send FID already in list and send Error 135  How should MN handle this situation?

Performance Results Graph 1) Improvement of application performance Uses 2 UDP streams (simulates RTP/H323 multi-media) With one interface many packet drop, with 2 interfaces performance improves

Performance Results  Graph 2) Drop of unwanted flows Uses 2 TCP flows 1 flow is dropped hence the other flow bandwidth improves

End Thank You.

PRO Field Back

Srce/Dest Port Fields Back

Priority Fields Back