Cooperation between stations in wireless networks Andrea G. Forte, Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science, Columbia University Presented by:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IEEE P802 Handoff ECSG Submission July 2003 Bernard Aboba, Microsoft Detection of Network Attachment (DNA) and Handoff ECSG Bernard Aboba Microsoft July.
Advertisements

Fast L3 Handoff in Wireless LANs Andrea G. Forte Sangho Shin Henning Schulzrinne.
IP Mobility Support Basic idea of IP mobility management
Cs/ee 143 Communication Networks Chapter 6 Internetworking Text: Walrand & Parekh, 2010 Steven Low CMS, EE, Caltech.
Internet Control Protocols Savera Tanwir. Internet Control Protocols ICMP ARP RARP DHCP.
Inter-Subnet Mobile IP Handoffs in b Wireless LANs Albert Hasson.
1 DHCP-based Fast Handover protocol NTT Network service systems laboratories Takeshi Ogawa draft-ogawa-fhopt-00.txt 62nd IETF - Minneapolis.
Improving TCP Performance over Mobile Ad Hoc Networks by Exploiting Cross- Layer Information Awareness Xin Yu Department Of Computer Science New York University,
Doc.: IEEE /1183r0 Submission September 2011 Masataka Ohta, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySlide 1 IP over Congested WLAN Date: Authors:
1 Route Optimization based on ND-Proxy for Mobile Nodes in IPv6 Mobile Networks Jaehoon Jeong, Kyeongjin Lee, Jungsoo Park, Hyoungjun Kim ETRI
Cooperation Between Stations in Wireless Networks Andrea G. Forte and Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science Columbia University, New York.
January 2008 VoIP in Wireless Networks Henning Schulzrinne Andrea G. Forte, Sangho Shin Department of Computer Science Columbia University.
A Study of Mobile IP Kunal Ganguly Wichita State University CS843 – Distributed Computing.
IEEE in the Large: Observations at the IETF Meeting Henning Schulzrinne, Andrea G. Forte, Sangho Shin Department of Computer Science Columbia University.
Fast Wireless Handoff in Networks Sangho Shin Andrea G. Forte Anshuman S. Rawat Henning Schulzrinne.
Cooperation in Wireless Networks Andrea G. Forte Henning Schulzrinne November 14, 2005.
November 2008 VoIP in Wireless Networks Henning Schulzrinne Andrea G. Forte, Sangho Shin Department of Computer Science Columbia University.
Implementing Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Unwanted Link Layer Traffic in Large IEEE Wireless Network By Naga V K Akkineni.
Media-Independent Pre-Authentication (draft-ohba-mobopts-mpa-framework-01.txt) (draft-ohba-mobopts-mpa-implementation-01.txt) Ashutosh Dutta, Telcordia.
Introducing Reliability and Load Balancing in Home Link of Mobile IPv6 based Networks Jahanzeb Faizan, Mohamed Khalil, and Hesham El-Rewini Parallel, Distributed,
Application-Layer Mobility Using SIP Henning Schulzrinne, Elin Wedlund Mobile Computing and Communications Review, Volume 4, Number 3 Presenter: 許啟裕 Date:
I-D: draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-01.txt Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages Over IP 67 th IETF Annual Meeting MIPSHOP Working Group.
Mobile IP Most of the slides borrowed from Prof. Sridhar Iyer
1 Sideseadmed (IRT0040) loeng 5/2010 Avo
Implementation and Evaluation of Mobility Management for Public Land Mobile Networks deploying the Session Initiation Protocol Thesis for the degree Master.
Simultaneous Mobility: Problem Statement K. Daniel Wong, Malaysia University of Science & Technology
An Integrated QoS, Security and Mobility Framework for Delivering Ubiquitous Services Across All IP-based Networks Haitham Cruickshank University of Surrey.
Concerns about designating the MAG as a Default Router James Kempf NETLMM Interim Sept. 27, 2006.
Handoff in IEEE Andrea G. Forte Sangho Shin Prof. Henning Schulzrinne.
Passive DAD Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University.
MOBILE IP GROUP NAME: CLUSTER SEMINAR PRESENTED BY : SEMINAR PRESENTED BY : SANTOSH THOMAS SANTOSH THOMAS STUDENT NO: STUDENT NO:
VoIP in Wireless Networks Henning Schulzrinne with Andrea G. Forte, Sangho Shin Department of Computer Science Columbia University ComSoc DLT June.
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
Performance Validation of Mobile IP Wireless Networks Presented by Syed Shahzad Ali Advisor Dr. Ravi Pendse.
Mobiwac 04 Link Layer Assisted Mobility Support Using SIP for Real-time Multimedia Communications October 1, 2004 Wooseong Kim, Myungchul Kim, Kyounghee.
SIPPING - IETF 62 - Minneapolis (March 2005)1 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Mobility draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility-00 Ron Shacham.
JinHyeock Choi, DongYun Shin hppt:// Fast Router Discovery with L2 Support draft-jinchoi-dna-frd-01.txt.
Spring 2004 Mobile IP School of Electronics and Information Kyung Hee University Choong Seon HONG
Mobile IP 순천향대학교 정보기술공학부 이 상 정 VoIP 특론 순천향대학교 정보기술공학부 이 상 정 2 References  Tutorial: Mobile IP
Ασύρματες και Κινητές Επικοινωνίες Ενότητα # 10: Mobile Network Layer: Mobile IP Διδάσκων: Βασίλειος Σύρης Τμήμα: Πληροφορικής.
An Introduction to Mobile IPv4
October 17, 2007 Cooperation Between Stations in Wireless Networks Andrea G. Forte Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science Columbia University.
Passive Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) Sangho Shin Andrea Forte Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University.
BAI513 - PROTOCOLS DHCP BAIST – Network Management.
1 Personal Mobility Management for SIP-based VoIP Services 王讚彬 國立台中教育大學資訊工程學系
* joint work with T. Chen, S. Han, and K. Chow Mobility Support over IEEE Wireless Access Networks Shanchieh Jay Yang Networked.
Doc.: IEEE /1183r1 Submission September 2011 Masataka Ohta, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySlide 1 IP over Congested WLAN Date: Authors:
Mobile IP Aamir Sohail NGN MS(TN) IQRA UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD.
Mobile IP THE 12 TH MEETING. Mobile IP  Incorporation of mobile users in the network.  Cellular system (e.g., GSM) started with mobility in mind. 
Introduction to “Tap – Dance ”. Company Proprietary Presentation Topics  Introduction  Handover scenarios  Inter-Network Handover consequences  Common.
Andrea G. Forte Sangho Shin Henning Schulzrinne
Telematics Protocols and Technologies
Mobile Networking (I) CS 395T - Mobile Computing and Wireless Networks
Networking Applications
Fast MAC Layer Handoff in Networks
with distributed anchor routers
2002 IPv6 技術巡迴研討會 IPv6 Mobility
IEEE in the Large: Observations at the IETF Meeting
Roaming Interval Measurements
Ron Shacham Henning Schulzrinne Srisakul Thakolsri Wolfgang Kellerer
VoIP in IEEE Networks Henning Schulzrinne
Application Layer Mobility Management Scheme for Wireless Internet
Cooperation Between Stations in Wireless Networks
Mobility Support in Wireless LAN
Mobile IP Outline Homework #4 Solutions Intro to mobile IP Operation
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
Presentation transcript:

Cooperation between stations in wireless networks Andrea G. Forte, Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science, Columbia University Presented by: Azbayar Demberel Duke University April 19, 2008

Agenda Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

VoIP and : terminal mobility problem AP Mobile Node L2 handoff: in case subnets are the same L3 handoff: in case the new AP is in different subnet Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion Source:

L2 handoff in Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

L3 handoff in Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Handoffs due to mobility L2 handoff (~ ms) Scanning (>90%) Network authentication Re-association L3 handoff (~1000ms) Subnet change discovery IP address acquisition (>90%) Application handoff Informing correspondent node of new IP address Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Cooperative roaming: goals and solution Fast handoff for real-time multimedia in any network Different administrative domains Various authentication mechanisms No changes to protocol and infrastructure Fast handoff at all the layers relevant to mobility Link layer Network layer Application layer New protocol: Cooperative Roaming Complete solution to mobility for real-time traffic in wireles networks Working implementation available Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Cooperative roaming: overview Stations can cooperate and share information about the network (topology, services) Stations can cooperate and help each other in common tasks such as IP address acquisition Stations can help each other during the authentication process without sharing sensitive information, maintaining privacy and security Stations can also cooperate for application layer mobility and load balancing Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Cooperative Roaming: AP caching Store AP Info to CacheSelective Scanning Signal Low 1 Cache KeyBest Next A B C A Cache KeyBestNext A B C A B B C A 6 11 SSID, Channel, SubnetID (e.g. MAC(A), 1, ) Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion Source: www1.cs.columbia.edu/~ss2020/presentation/L2handoff-poster.ppt

Cooperative Roaming: AP caching Store AP Info to CacheSelective Scanning Signal Low 1 Cache KeyBest Next A B C A Cache KeyBestNext A B C A B B C A BC B CA CA Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion Source: www1.cs.columbia.edu/~ss2020/presentation/L2handoff-poster.ppt

L2 cooperation protocol Mobile node BMobile node A 2. InfoResp diff(cache A, cache B) 1. InfoReq (cache A) Random backoff Mobile node C 1. InfoReq (cache A) 2. InfoResp diff(cache A, cache C) Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

L3 cooperation protocol Mobile node B (subnet 1) Mobile node A (subnet 2) 2. AmnResp (MAC(B), IP(B)) 1. AmnDiscover (subnet 1) Mobile node C (subnet 2) 1. AmnDiscover (subnet 1) Subnet1: nodeB( Mac(B), IP(B)) 3. IpReq (MAC(A)) 4. IpResp (MAC(A), IP(A), IP(router)) Acquire IP, using MAC(A) from DHCP server Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion L2 handoff begins Cache: subnet1( IP(A), IP(router))

Cooperative authentication Cooperation in the authentication itself not possible  keys, certificates (sensitive info) Use relay node (RN) to relay packets during authentication No bridging delay Use timeout to achieve fairness What about RN mobility? Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Experiment environment 2 subnets/AP’s 4 nodes (1 roamer, 1 helper, 2 sniffers) Roamer moved between two AP’s: perform L2, L3 handoff …i.e. extremely simple! Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Experiment results Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Cooperative roaming vs Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion Source:

Cooperative roaming vs Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion Source:

Discussion Too simple experiment: congestion and backoff might diminish all the benefits, in real life Assumes spatial locality / node “knows” what the next AP will be. No info on memory management policies: how often to ask neighbors In many places uses magic wand approaches (e.g. detect subnet change) CR might benefit from location routing Application layer mobility, load balancing left out Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Summary Seamless/near-seamless handoff Requires cooperation of many other nodes to achieve the benefits Worst case scenario ~ current Room for improvement: mobility detection, application layer handoff … Motivation Cooperative roaming Results Conclusion

Thank you Questions? Comments?

Backup slides From: andoff-lat-acm.pdf

Subnet Discovery (1/2) Current solutions Router advertisements Usually with a frequency on the order of several minutes. DNA working group (IETF) Detecting network attachments in IPv6 networks only. No solution in IPv4 networks for detecting a subnet change in a timely manner.

Subnet Discovery (2/2) Proposed approach Send bogus DHCP_REQUEST (using loopback address). DHCP server responds with a DHCP_NAK From the NAK extract subnet information such as default router IP address. The client saves the default router IP address in cache. If old AP and new AP have different default router, the subnet has changed.

Application layer handoff MN builds a list of {RNs, IP addresses}, one per each possible next subnet/AP RFC 3388 Send same media stream to multiple clients All clients have to support the same codec Update multimedia session Before L2 handoff Media stream is sent to all RNs in the list and to MN (at the same time) using a re-INVITE with SDP as in RFC 3388 RNs do not play such streams After L2 handoff Tell CN which RN to use, if any (re-INVITE) After successful L2 authentication tell CN to send directly without any RN (re-INVITE) No buffering necessary Handoff time: 15ms (open), 21ms (802.11i) Packet loss negligible

ARP Req. NAK MNDHCPd DHCP Req. ARP Req. Router ARP Resp. CN SIP INVITE SIP OK SIP ACK RTP packets (TEMP_IP) 138 ms 22 ms 4 ms 29 ms Waiting time IP acquisition SIP signaling L2 handoff complete Detecting subnet change Processing overhead Experimental Results (1/2)

Handoff Scenarios Scenario 1 The MN enters in a new subnet for the first time ever. Scenario 2 The MN enters in a new subnet it has been before and it has an expired lease for that subnet. Scenario 3 The MN enters in a new subnet it has been before and still has a valid lease for that subnet.

IP Selection (1/3) Scenario 1 Select random IP address starting from the router’s IP address (first in the pool). MN sends 10 ARP requests in parallel starting from the random IP selected before. Scenario 2 Same than scenario 1 except that we start to send ARP requests to 10 IP addresses in parallel, starting from the IP we last used in that subnet. Scenario 3 We do not need TEMP_IP as we have a valid lease. We just renew the lease.