1. Combining Mobility and Heterogeneous Networking for Emergency Management: a PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach Giuliana Iapichino and Christian Bonnet Mobile Communications Dept. Eurecom, France Oscar del Rio Herrero RF Payload Systems Division European Space Agency, Netherlands Cedric Baudoin and Isabelle Buret Research Dept. Thales Alenia Space, France 1 in Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing: Connecting the World Wirelessly, Leipzig, Germany, 2009, pp. 603-607. (IWCMC’09)

2. Outline Introduction PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach Handover Latency Analysis Conclusion 2

3. Introduction Emergency - the need for an easily deployable infrastructure at the disaster site – mobility and heterogeneous networking support is extremely important The proposed combination of PMIPv6 and Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [5] – represents a secure global and localized mobility solution – an efficient mechanism of intra and inter-technology handover 3

4. Host Identity Protocol the IP address is – a locator used to route traffic to the destination node and – The identifier of the node the same node would have different identifiers depending on where it is positioned in the network HIP separates the identifier from the locator – the Host Identity (HI) serves as the identifier The public key of an asymmetric key-pair. a 128-bit hash of the HI, called the Host Identity Tag (HIT), is used – allows it to be used instead of an IPv6 address at higher layers – The IP address is still used as the locator 4

5. 5

6. Creating a HIP Association – 4-way handshake (Base Exchange, BE) 6 R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela et al., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)," IETF, RFC 5201, 2008.

7. HIP mobility 7

8. Micro-Mobility Solutions for HIP In [7], Novaczki et al. propose a micro-mobility scheme. – the Local Rendezvous Server (LRVS) acts as the Mobile Anchor Point (MAP) in HMIPv6. the high number of messages needed to update In [8], So and Wang propose a new HIP architecture composed of micro-HIP (mHIP) agents – The mHIP agents under the same network domain share a common HIT – MN register itself in the RVS with the HIT of the mHIP domain breaks the macro-mobility of HIP as changing domain implies changing HIT 8 [7] S. Novaczki, L. Bokor, and S. Imre, “Micromobility Support in HIP: survey and extension of Host Identity Protocol”, Proc. IEEE MELECON 2006, May 2006, pp. 651-54. [8] J. Y. H. So, and J. Wang, “Micro-HIP: a HIP-based micro-mobility solution”, Proc. IEEE ICC Workshop 2008, May 2008,

9. PMIPv6 9 K.-S. Kong, W. Lee, Y.-H. Han et al., “Mobility management for all-IP mobile networks: mobile IPv6 vs. proxy mobile IPv6,” MWC: IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 36-45, 2008.

10. Outline Introduction PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach Handover Latency Analysis Conclusion 10

11. PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach HIT_domain - represent the whole PMIPv6 domain – a common HIT shared by all the entities in the PMIPv6 domain (LMA and MAGs) besides their own HIT A Mobility Management Key (MMK) – used by the MN to verify the signature of trusted PMIPv6’s entities. PMIPv6 use a per-MN-prefix scheme and not a per- interface-prefix approach – All interfaces of the MN share a HNP 11

12. Initialization 12 MN identifier Service Offer parameters: HIT_domain, MMK parameters MN accept the micro- mobility service

13. Communication Setup Initiated by the CN – the CN get the MN’s RVS server from the DNS server – The CN starts the HIP BE with the MN via RVS – I1 is routed by LMA to the correct MAG – The rest of the BE will operate via a similar process  Inspecting the HIP BE, the LMA record the mapping between the Security Parameters Index (SPI), CN’s IP address, MN’s IP address and the serving MAG 13

14. Intra-technology Handovers completely based on PMIPv6 - transparent to HIP 14

15. 15 The MN recognizes the HIT_domain and the MMK in the message and accepts the reply. serving MAG handle this UPDATE Inter-technology Handovers 1)Switch on a new wireless interface. 2)The same HNP, no need to UPDATE RVS.

16. Outline Introduction PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach Handover Latency Analysis Conclusion 16

17. 17

18. Handover latency – time that elapses between the moment in which the L2 handover completes at the RAP and the moment the MN receives the first packet after moving to the new point-of- attachment T L2 : represents the delay due to layer 2 signaling, T MD : the movement detection delay, T AC : the address configuration delay T REG : the location registration delay 18

19. In Novaczki’s scheme 19 T L2 T MD T AC T REG

20. In HIP-PMIPv6 approach 20 T L2 T REG PBU-PBAMN’s HIP update = + extra T REG

21. assume t mr to be 10 ms, t ra = 2 ms, and t am = 20 ms MinInt = 30 ms, MaxInt = 70 ms, R = 1000 ms and D = 1 21

22. 22 In fact, t am Double PBU/PBA

23. comments Contribution – 提出讓 LMA/MAG intercept and involve in the HIP messages – 定義 interleaving messages for HIP+PMIPv6 Deploying HIP may not be easy – requires modifications in protocol stacks and applications The definition of “L2 handover complete” Session mobility, Human mobility – 可能可以用 HI 作為 session/man identifier – 同一個人用不同 node 時, 經一認證機制, 將屬於該人的 HI assign 到他用的機器上 23