1. IPv6 & Mobile Residential Network 곽 광훈 ETRI (paxpia@etri.re.kr)

2. 2 Contents Backgrounds New Life Pattern with New Paradigm Residential Networks for new life pattern Network Mobility Network Mobility Current Issues Basic solution Extended solution New Paradigm for Network Switch Conclusion and Future works

3. 3 Backgrounds BcN (Broadband convergence Network)  NGN driven by Korean Government  NGcN(Network Generation convergence Network): previous name  Convergence  Wire & Wireless  Broadcasting & Communication  Voice & Data  Anytime, Anywhere, Anyone, Anydevice, Anymedia, Anyservice  En route Path toward Ubiquitous world IPv6 is one of the core initiatives for BcN  Addressability, Auto Configuration, Mobility, QoS...  Mandated by even DoD this year.

4. 4 New Life Pattern What is New Life Pattern using New Residential Network Environment  Locale not only of Fixed House but also of Nomadic House  Roles not only for Home but also for Office  Should consider the network for Personal Area Env.  For Wearable electronic devices  For Personalization with Accompanying Env. (Ex, Music, Temperature, Illumination, Humidity, Preferred Desktop Menu..)  Location independent access to Home  May be Used for even Public (Ex, Real time Regional Power Consumption Distribution Map) Means Moving Life

5. 5 Residential Network(1) IPv6 Nomadic House with same env. of fixed House BcN Temperature Illumination Menu in oven Favorite Music

6. 6 Residential Network(2) IPv6 Office Env. - Facility… - On-line meeting - Desktop Env. Cyber Office with real controllability to office facility BcN

7. 7 Residential Network(3) IPv6 BcN Real time Regional Power Consumption Distribution Map Moving filming with remote storage

8. 8 Residential Network(4) Residential Network  Beyond Home Network  Fixed Home Network + Nomadic Home Network + Personal Area Network Killer Ubiquitous Areas of most Human’s deployed life Core attribute  Network Mobility beyond Host Mobility  Tagging Environment

9. 9 Network Mobility(1) Network Mobility Applications  Networks attached to people (PANs)  Networks of sensors, devices, appliances and computers (vehicles)  Access Networks (Public transportation)  Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Why IPv6 for Mobility (both Host and Network)  ‘Where’ fully separated with ‘Who’  Auto Configuration of getting address for new zone  Embedded Security easy to adopt for BU

10. 10 Network Mobility(2) Host Mobility vs. Network Mobility  Host Mobility  Mobile node itself only  MN changes its point of attachment  Handled by Mobile IP WG in IETF  Network Mobility  Entire Network mobile as a unit and attached to Internet via a MR One or more IP-subnets One or more MRs  MR changes its point of attachment Node behind MR don’t change their own point of attachment  But the Protocol is based on ones of Host Mobility  Handles by NEMO WG in IETF CN MN HA AR CN MR HA AR MR

11. 11 Network Mobility(3) Benefits of Network Mobility over Host Mobility  Only the Mobile Router maintains Internet Access  Even with Standard IPv6 Node behind the MR  Means No Mobility support Node  More distinct requirement than ones of Host Mobility regarding Handover  Watching a movie while walking? Or Watching movie in a train? More Scenarios  Nested Mobility: A subset of Mobile Network is itself mobile  Visiting Mobile Nodes: A PDA in a train  Mobile IP-subnets: A PAN in a train  Multi-Homing  A Mobile Network connected to the internet via several Interfaces

12. 12 Network Mobility(4) NEMO WG  Initiated with the problem of Mobile IP not suitable for Network Mobility  Created in Oct. 2003  Stepwise Approach  Basic Support: short term solution Quick solution, even if not efficient Maintain session continuity to all MNNs Solution: Bidirectional tunnel between MR and HA  Extended Support: long term Optimal routing between arbitrary CNs and MNNs Solution: more investigation in the solution space is needed

13. 13 Network Mobility Current Issues Basic Solution: using Bi-directional Tunneling  To be explained later Prefix delegation for Mobile Network  draft-paakkonen-nemo-prefix-delegation-00.txt Multihoming  draft-charbon-nemo-multihoming-evaluation-00.txt Threat Analysis  draft-jung-nemo-threat-analysis-00.txt IPR status  Nokia and CISCO  Nokia has arranged Royalty Free license for open-source impl.

14. 14 Basic Solution Maintain session continuity for all MNNs  Draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-00.txt Resembles Mobile-IP  MR registers gets 1 CoA (or More) and register it with HA  HA records a network-specific route instead of home-specific route  Bidirectional tunnel between HA and MR Not Optimal solution, but guarantee mobile networks supported with minimal work  Permanent connectivity to all MNNs  Mobility management transparency to MNNs  Numbers of BU minimized (1 per MR not LFN)

15. 15 Extended Solution(1) Non-Optimal Routing with basic solution CN MR HA MR AR VMN CN MR HA AR LFN HA MN MN MR HA VMN1 AR VMN2 HA VMN2 MN HA MR VMN1 CN MR1 HA MR2 AR MR2 LFN HA MR1 MR2LFN From CN to Local Fixed Node From CN to Visiting MN From Visiting MN to Visiting MN From CN to Nested Mobile Network

16. 16 Extended Solution(2) Considerations for Optimal Routing  Binding Update to CN?  Who issues BU? MNN or MR LFN is never mobility-considered.  Currently BU is not piggybacked in MN in Mobile IPv6  MR issues first instead of MN when the first packet from NN?  Source routing chain for nested mobile network?  RSVP-like Binding Update? BU accumulation for every en-route MR?  Can the prefix delegation scheme used for this?  All the MNN Nobody knows the solution currently!

17. 17 New Paradigm for Network Switch Major Issue until now  Which Way the packet/frame should forward?  When the packet/frame should forward or is it discard?  But never consider the payload not only touch but even lookup! New Paradigm: Disruptive Technology  Contents Awareness  The needs for payload lookup ability  The Higher Hardware capacity( Ex, EZ chip: string parsing NP)  How about Contents customization for user?  How about Real time Consumer edge Transcoding for streaming  This issue may be needed or not for Optimal routing in Mobile Network

18. 18 Conclusion and Future works Network Mobility is core issue for New Residential Network. For Real Network Mobility, Optimal Routing should be considered soon. Should we break the taboo? the payload manipulation Future works for consideration  Haw can we deploy the ‘Contents awareness’?  Can Router issues Signaling packet for its node? BcN & Residential Network & IPv6  Should be merged together for Real Ubiquitous World