1

Seamless Handover Scheme for Proxy Mobile IPv6

Ju-Eun Kang, LGDACOM CORPORATION/Research Institute of Technology, Korea

Dong-Won Kum, Yang Li, and You-Ze ChoSchool of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Kyungpook

National University, Korea

IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, 2008. (WIMOB '08)

2

Outline

• Introduction• Proxy Mobile IPv6 and

Fast handover Schemes for PMIPv6• The Proposed Seamless Handover Scheme• Performance Evaluation

3

Introduction

• Mobile IPv6– well-known mature standard for IPv6 host-based mobility– handover latency, packet loss and signaling overhead– the MIPv6 requires protocol stack modification

• Proxy Mobile IPv6– network-based mobility management support to an MN

in a topologically localized domain– allows the serving network to control the mobility management

on behalf of an MN• eliminating the MN from any mobility-related signaling

– still suffer from handover latency and packet loss during a handover

4

Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)

from: Proxy Mobile IPv6, RFC 5213

5

Han

dove

r del

ay

and

pack

et lo

ss

6

Fast Handover Schemes for PMIPv6 • [7] F. Xia, and B. Sarikaya, “Mobile Node Agnostic Fast Handovers for Proxy

Mobile IPv6,” Internet-Draft, draft-xia-netlmm-fmip-mnagno-01.txt, July 2007.

7

• limitations– Each MAG needs to have a tuple that contains the BS-IDs and IP

addresses for all the MAGs – packet ordering problem after a handover

• occurs between the packets buffered at the pMAG and the packets from the LMA after registration.

– The MN should provide information about the target network to pMAG through L2 signaling

8

The Proposed Seamless Handover Scheme

9

• The advantages of the proposed handover scheme– reduces the handover latency

• circumventing authentication and reducing the default router reconfiguration delay

– avoid the on-the-fly packet loss during a handover• packet buffering

– ensures the packet sequence during a handover• an additional packet buffering at the LMA

– the MN is not required to provide any information about the target network to the pMAG

• Overheads– Each MAG needs to maintain a database including its attached MN information,

such as MN_HNP, MN_IP and LMAA. – sending ND messages to the neighbor MAGs causes additional traffic. – The packet buffering at the MAG and the LMA incurs an overhead.

• Nonetheless, the proposed scheme can reduce the handover latency, and avoid the on-the-fly packet loss while ensuring the packet sequence

10

Performance Evaluation• IEEE 802.11b

– 2 Mbps link bandwidth. • A CBR with 0.01 second intervals

and FTP application using TCP Reno is considered.

400m

100m

150m

11

12

13

Infrastructure-based Route Optimization for NEMO based on Combined Local and

Global MobilityChristian Bauer, Serkan Ayaz,

German Aerospace Center

Max Ehammer, Thomas Gräupl andUniversity of Salzburg

Fabrice ArnalThales Alenia Space France

International Conference On Mobile Technology, Applications, And Systems, 2008MobiWorld workshop

14

Outline

• Introduction• Scenario of proxy-LMA protocol• MR in foreign non-PMIP domain• MR in foreign PMIP domain

15

Introduction • There is currently great interest in NEMO, especially from the side of the

aeronautical and Car2Car communications community – that have a great need for network mobility solutions.

• the lack of Route Optimization in the NEMO Basic support protocol has proved to be a major obstacle for its deployment.– The NEMO Basic Support protocol [12] extends MIPv6 from a Mobile Host (MH) to

support Mobile Routers (MR)

• Mobility management has been partitioned into four independent parts of two dimensions – local vs. global mobility and – host vs. router mobility.

• MIP and NEMO are addressing global mobility for both hosts and routers • whereas PMIPv6 provides local mobility for hosts only (as of now)

16

Global HA to HA protocol• 3GPP TR 24.801 v0.9.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical

Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; 3GPP System Architecture Evolution; CT WG1 Aspects (Release 8)”, May 2008.

• Provide some extent of route optimization support for NEMO-bs

• relies on a distributed HA architecture – that allows the MR to bind with its topologically closest HA

• supported by the Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery (DHAAD) procedure – defined in MIPv6 using IPv6 anycast addressing

17

Scenario of proxy-LMA protocol

roaming agreement

18

• consist of more than one LMA and associated MAGs• allows MRs to bind to the closest LMA instead to the

original one at the home link– serve as a proxy HA and – accepts traffic originating from and destined to the MR– nearly optimal routing is achieved

• In a non-PMIP access network, the MR will have to make use of its NEMO functionality to achieve network mobility.

19

MR in foreign non-PMIP domain

NEMO-bs BU/BA

20

21

MR in foreign PMIP domain

HA/LMA of the MR(Home LMA)

2222

Our primary use case for this RO procedure is Air Traffic Services and Airline Operational Services where only a very limited number of CNs exist.