Master Thesis Presentation “Simulating mobility in a realistic networking environment” Supervisor : George Polyzos Examiner : George Xylomenos Student : Dimitrios Charoulis

Introduction Early days of the Internet: government-funded research network on top of PSTN “overlay” that complemented the PSTN infrastructure by adding packet-switching goal was to support the needs of researchers (file transfer) Internet Evolution: mass market platform  new needs – bandwidth –hungry applications – real-time constraints – content evolution – portable networking devices

Why Mobility ? Mobility : not to lose connection in application level while changing network interface At first there was no provisioning for mobile users. great evolution of wireless technologies increase of portable devices increase of wireless networks  need to keep portable devices connected Mobility issues in IP : Dual role of IP addresses – Identification of location and end-host id Unicast routing  Mobility offered as an “add-on” with protocol enhancements

What’s new with IPv6 Flexible header size – one or more extension headers may be used to include additional information – extension headers have one or more options Interfaces may have more than one registered addresses Stateless/Serverless address autoconfiguration (except for statefull address configuration, i.e. DHCPv6)

Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) Internet Foreign Network Home Network Correspondent’s Network Home Agent HA_BC CN_BC MN_BUL Binding Cache: Home-Address  Care-of-Address Binding Update List: HoA, CoA  Destination Assign Home-Address MN detects movement & forms a new CoA Send Binding Update to HA MN_BUL HoACoAHA HA processes BU, updates BC & sends a Binding Acknowledgement HA_BC HoACoA Tunnel between HA and MN At first place traffic towards MN comes through HA  TRIANGLE ROUTING Return Routability Procedure CN_BC HoACoA If BU valid update BC and send BA to MN MN_BUL HoACoAHA HoACoACN

Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Internet Foreign Network Home Network Correspondent’s Network Home Agent Mobile Anchor Point MN_BUL HA_BC CN_BC MAP_BC Assign Home-Address In new MAP domain configure two CoAs : On-Link-Care-of-Address (LCoA) Regional-Care-of-Address (RCoA) Send BU to MAP MN_BUL RCoALCoAMAP MAP_BC RCoALCoA Send BU to HA HA_BC HoARCoA MN_BUL RCoALCoAMAP HoARCoAHA Return Routability Procedure CN_BC HoARCoA

MIPv6 Vs HMIPv6 MIPv6HMIPv6 Handles micro- and macro- mobility the same way Separates micro- from macro - mobility Not suitable for recent handoversGood performance in micro-mobility handovers No special requirements in foreign network architecture Requires Mobile Anchor Point and Access Router May be used only for micro-mobility purposes Reduces signaling overhead to core network

Simulation scenario topology

Simulation scenario parameters ParameterValue Number of Mobile Nodes10(10)…90 Number of Correspondent Nodes10(10)…90 Wired connections bandwidth100 Mbps & 10 Mbps Propagation delay in core links2ms Propagation delay in network link0,3ms Type of trafficUDP Data rate135 Kbps Packet size256 Bytes

Simulation results I HMIPv6-S1 outperforms MIPv6 (on average 12,5% more handovers) When #MNs > 60, HMIPv6-S2 performs worst than other HMIP scenarios

Simulation results II When #MNs >60, HMIPv6-S1 and HMIPv6-S2 performance resembles MIPv6 ‘s  Datagram encapsulation/decapsulation processing-overhead on few MAPs reaches wired link delay and packet processing in core routers  HMIPv6-S3 outperforms MIPv6 every time

Simulation results III Change in L3HandoverLatency does not imply a proportional change in L3HandoverPacketLoss Again when #MNs increases over 60, HMIPv6-S1 and HMIPv6-S2 lose their advantage over MIPv6

Simulation results IV HMIPv6 reduces signaling towards HA and MN as most times MAP is the only entity to be informed.  Though signaling inside network is slightly increased ( BU  HA goes with BU  MAP)

Thank you !

Appendix

UNC campus network topology