3. Agenda Introduction State the problems with regular Mobile IP Goals Fast Handover Bicasting Hierarchical Mobile IP Video Summary of conclusions Acknowledgements Your questions

4. Goals The Assar project's goals have been to: investigate the drafted extensions Fast Handover, Bicasting and Hierarchical MIP for Mobile IPv6. investigate if it's theoretically possible to handle telephone voice over IP using Mobile IPv6 with these extensions.

5. Fast Handover An extension to improve handover properties in MIPv6

6. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

7. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

8. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

9. AR1AR2 Router AP1 RtSolPr AP2AP3

10. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 RtSolPr

11. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 HI

12. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 HI

13. AR1AR2 Router AP1 HACK (nCoA) AP2AP3

14. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 HACK (nCoA)

15. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 PrRtAdv (nCoA)

16. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 PrRtAdv (nCoA)

17. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 F-BU

18. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 F-BU

19. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

20. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1 F-BACK AP2AP3

21. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 F-BACK

22. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

23. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

24. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 F-NA

25. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 F-NA

26. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

27. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 BU

28. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 BU

29. Tunnel AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 BU

30. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

31. Conclusions Packets are directed to the right destination in the time from the handover process starts and until all incoming packets uses the new care-of address. If the Layer-2 is not performed directly, there are packet delays. If the buffer is not big enough, there are also lost packets.

32. Bicasting A Fast Handover Extension

33. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

34. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

35. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3

36. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Packet loss

37. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Packet loss

38. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Using Bicasting

39. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Using Bicasting

40. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Using Bicasting

41. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Ping Ponging

42. AR1AR2 Router AP1AP2AP3 Ping Ponging

43. Regular MIPv6 handover AR AP AR AP L2 L2 +L3

44. Using Bicasting and Fast handover to decouple Layer 2 and 3 AR AP AR AP L2 L3

45. Mobile Node Old Access Router New Access Router Corresponding node L2 HO Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover RtSolPr HI HACK PrRtAdv F-BU Cache F-NA F-BACK L3 HO Rt Adv BU Ack BU (Rt Sol) Tunnelling of Forwarding Timing ambiguity

46. Mobile Node Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover RtSolPr HI HACK PrRtAdv F-BU Cache F-NA F-BACK L3 HO Rt Adv BU Ack BU (Rt Sol) No packets Tunnelling of Forwarding Old Access Router New Access Router Corresponding node L2 HO

47. Mobile Node Two Party Anticipated Fast Handover RtSolPr HI HACK PrRtAdv F-BU Cache F-NA F-BACK L3 HO Rt Adv BU Ack BU (Rt Sol) Duplicated packets Tunnelling of Forwarding Old Access Router New Access Router Corresponding node No packets L2 HO

48. Advantages with bicasting Minimize packet loss at the Mobile Node. Remove the timing ambiguity during handover. Decoupling of the L3 and L2 handover. Less service disruption in the case of ping- pong movement.

49. Disadvantage The increased overhead sent in the network

50. Hierarchical MIPv6 Reduces the signalling with nodes that may be far. Improves the handover latency.

51. MAP: Mobility Anchor Point Correspondent node sends the packets to the MAP. MAP redirects the packets to the Mobile Node.

52. HACN INTERNET MAP AR1AR2 MN MAP domain

53. HACN INTERNET MAP1 R1R2 MAP2 AR1AR2AR3AR4AR5 MAP domain 2 MAP domain 1 Routers that advertise the performance of MAP1 Routers that advertise the presence of MAP2

54. Mobile Node: 3 different IP addresses Home Address: valid on all the Internet. Regional Care-of Addresses: valid on the MAP domain. On-link Care-of Address: valid on the link.

55. Bindings Correspodent Node, Home Agent: (Home Address -- Regional Care-of Address) Mobility Anchor Point: (Regional Care-of Address -- On-Link Care-of Address)

56. Handover Mobile Node registers a new on-link Care-of Address in the MAP. MAP is located near the Mobile Node. No need to communicate with Correspodent Nodes that may be very far.

57. Combination of the 3 drafts compared with only Fast Handover and Bicasting Handover within a MAP domain Reduction of the signalling. Improvement of the redirection path. No improvements in the packet loss period. Bottleneck and single point of failure.

58. Combination of the 3 drafts compared with only Fast Handover and Bicasting Handover to another MAP domain No advantages!

59. Conclusions Reduces the signalling with Correspondent Node, Home Agent. Improves the handover latency. Possible combination with Fast Handover and Bicasting. We created an improved model of Hierarchical MIPv6.

60. Conclusions cont. Bottleneck It is possible to achieve real-time properties but it depends on Layer-2 triggers and Layer- 2 handover time.

61. Video

62. Summary of conclusions Fast Handover: It’s possible to have real-time properties but it’s necessary to have some coordination with the Layer-2 handover. Fast Handover with Bicasting: It’s possible to have real-time properties without coordination with the Layer-2 handover.

63. Summary of conclusions Hierarchical Mobile IP: It’s possible to have real-time properties but it depends on the Layer-2 handover time that must remain as small as possible. Fast Handover, Bicasting and Hierarchical MIP: Can improve the handover performance.

65. Acknowlegdements Our principals: Conny Larsson and Ulf Olsson from Ericsson Our coaches: Jiang Wu and Jon-Olov Vatn from KTH Hesham Soliman from Ericsson

66. Questions