1

TIMIP

HET-NETs ‘04, 28 July 2004pedro.estrela@inesc.pt

Micro-Mobility Performance Evaluation

of a Terminal Independent Mobile

Architecture

TIMIP - Paper 84

Pedro Estrela, Teresa Vazão, Mário Serafim Nunes

IST/INESC-ID, Portugal

2

Outline

Introduction Proposed Framework Model (simplified)

TIMIP Protocol / Architecture

Simulation Studies NS2 Simulation Scenario

Experiments Evaluation

Conclusions

3

Proposed Framework Model

Proposed Framework Model (simplified) Classifies existing protocols by their operations type and their efficiency Considers both Handover and Stable Operations Efficiency Protocol Efficiency = Handover Efficiency + Resource Optimization Efficiency More details in the Paper (including protocol classification)

Phase Operations Differentiating point Proposed Models

DetectionMobile movement detection

Layer 2 interactions/dependence?

Passive, Reactive, Predictive, Active

RegistrationNetwork routing tables update

Location and number of updated nodes?

Inter-Domain,

Intra-Domain, Cluster

Execution

Data packets Routing Shortest paths used? Non-Optimized, Optimized

State Maintenance Maintenance Cost? Explicit, InBand

4

TIMIP/sMIP – Architecture TIMIP – Terminal Independent Mobility for IP

Micro-Mobility proposal with surrogate behaviour and high efficiency

Terminal Independence - support for any IP terminal Detection and registration are both performed / generated at network side only

Efficiency Detection – Reactive Model – Highest possible in network side Registration – Cluster Model – Update Messages follow the shortest paths between the APs Execution – InBand State Maintenance – IP data traffic of the mobiles refresh routing paths Execution – Optimized Routing – Packets follow shortest paths inside the network

…

…

…

… …

…

LT

LT

LT

AP

AP

AR

AR

AR

ANG/ sFA

…

ANG/ sFA

Core Network

…

TIMIP Domain 1 TIMIP Domain 2

5

NS2 Simulation Studies

NS2 2.26 Simulator featuring TIMIP protocol simulation CIMS v1.0 mobility protocols:

HAWAII (MSF) / Hierarchal MIP/ Cellular IP (hard handoff)

Modified 802.11 infra-structured behaviour with multiple channels(hard handoffs forced)

Simulation Scenario One Mobile Node / Multiple APs Increasing hierarchal link delays Intra/Inter domain CBR Traffic

generation

Objective: Evaluate Efficiency Handover Efficiency by protocol Execution Efficiency by protocol

10 Mbit/s, 40 ms delay

10 Mbit/s, 20 ms delay 10 Mbit/s, 10 ms delay

Mobile Receiv er

Intra-Domain Generator

GW

New AP Old AP

Inter-Domain Generator

6

Experiment A – Registration Test probes:

CBR intra domain probes to MN, moving from node 9 to node 10 METRIC: Hard Handoff Lost probes measure Handover Latency

Handover Latency – Intra Domain traffic results TIMIP – Time needed to reach crosshover node 4 (close to new AP) HAWAII MSF – Time needed to reach Old AP (node 9) + OOO Cellular IP – Time needed to reach CrossHover node 1 (close to GW) Hierarchical MIP – Time needed to reach the domain’s GW (node 0)

Receive vs Generation Time during handover by protocolIntra-Domain

165

175

185

195

205

215

225

235

245

255

0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3Time (s)

Seq

uen

ce N

um

ber

s (n

)

GENERATOR

TIMIP

HAWAII

CIP

HMIP

HANDOVER

7

Experiment A – Registration Test probes:

CBR inter domain probes to MN, moving from node 9 to node 10 METRIC: Hard Handoff Lost probes measure Handover Latency

Handover Latency – Inter Domain traffic results TIMIP / HAWAII / Cellular IP – Time needed to reach CrossHover node 1 Hierarchical MIP – Time needed to reach the domain’s GW (node 0)

This experiment is also capable to evaluate execution phase efficiency (in the paper)

Receive vs Generation Time during handover by protocolInter-Domain

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

1.95 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3Time (s)

Seq

uen

ce N

um

ber

s (n

)

GENERATOR

TIMIP

HAWAIICIP

HMIP

HANDOVER

8

Experiment B – Execution Test probes:

CBR intra domain Traffic to MN, moving through all APs METRIC: Sum of packets forwarded in all nodes per time interval measure Resource Optimization

Resource Optimization – Intra Domain traffic results TIMIP – decreasing utilization, subject to location inside network HAWAII – similar values (+ handover instants visible) HMIP – all packets are forced to pass through the GW Cellular IP – similar to HMIP + packets completely exit the domain

Average Packets Forwarded in the Network - Intra Domain

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time

Av

era

ge

Pa

ck

ets

Fo

rwa

rde

d /

50

ms

TIMIP

HAWAII

HMIP

CIP

AP 8 AP 10AP 9 AP 11

9

Experiment B – Execution Test probes:

CBR inter domain probes to MN, moving through all APs METRIC: Sum of packets forwarded in all nodes per time interval measure Resource Optimization

Resource Optimization – Inter Domain traffic results All protocols - Similar utilization, in all locations HAWAII - Out-of-Order effect also visible in the graph (= increased network utilisation)

Average Packets Forwarded in the Network - Inter Domain

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time

Av

era

ge

Pa

ck

ets

Fo

rwa

rde

d /

50

ms

TIMIP

HAWAII

HMIP

CIP

AP 8 AP 10AP 9 AP 11

10

Conclusions Conclusions

TIMIP: micro-mobility protocol with Terminal Independence and Efficiency

TIMIP’s Efficiency – classified via proposed Framework Detection – Reactive Model (closest: MIP fast-handovers

Triggers) Registration – Cluster Model (closest: HAWAII) Execution

In-Band State Maintenance (closest: Cellular IP) Optimized Routing (closest: HAWAII)

Future Work Multicast QoS Support IPv6 Networks Support + IPv4 Terminal Independence Non Hierarchical Networks

11

Questions?

Questions?

Thank You!