Use of Mobile IP in MANET by Go16d1EG

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 50

									      Use of Mobile IP in MANET

              George Lee




2012/5/24                         1
                                   Outline
     (1) The Mobile IP Working Group
               http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mobileip-charter.html
     (2) The MANET Working Group
               http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html
     (3) Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
               C. E. Perkins, COMPSAC 1996.
     (4) MIPMANET - Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
               Jösson et al., IEEE MOBIHOC 2000
     (5) Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
         Network Testbed
               Maltz et al., IEEE Personal Communication Magazine, August,
                2001.
     (6) A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-Dynamic
         Networks
               Das et al., IEEE WCNC 2000.

2012/5/24                                                                     2
    The Mobile IP Working Group (1)
           MOBILEIP (MIP)
               To permit IP nodes (hosts and routers) using
                either IPv4 or IPv6 to seamlessly "roam"
                among IP subnetworks and media types.
               To support transparency above the IP layer,
                including the maintenance of active TCP
                connections and UDP port bindings.




2012/5/24                                                      3
    The Mobile IP Working Group (2)
           RFCs
               RFC 2002 IP Mobility Support (Obsolete  RFC 3220)
               RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP
               RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP
               RFC 2005 Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
               RFC 2006 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility
                Support using SMIv2
               RFC 2356 Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for Mobile IP
               RFC 2794 Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4
               RFC 2977 Mobile IP Authentication, Authorization, and
                Accounting Requirements
               RFC 3012 Mobile IP Challenge/Response Extensions
               RFC 3024 Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised
               RFC 3115 Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions
               RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4, revised



2012/5/24                                                                         4
    The Mobile IP Working Group (3)
           In the near term, the WG needs to work on:
               Use of NAIs to identify mobile users/nodes.
               Specifying how Mobile IP should use AAA functionality
                to support inter-domain and intra-domain mobility.
               Develop solutions for IPv4 private address spaces for
                the scenarios needed for deployment.
               Documenting any requirements specific to
                cellular/wireless networks.
           In the longer term, the WG needs to address:
               QoS in the mobile IP environment using diff-serv
                and/or int-serv/RSVP.
               Location Privacy.


2012/5/24                                                               5
                The MANET Working Group
           MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Network)
               An autonomous system of mobile routers (and
                associated hosts) connected by wireless links.
               The routers are free to move randomly and organize
                themselves arbitrarily; thus, the network's wireless
                topology may change rapidly and unpredictably.
               Such a network may operate in a standalone fashion,
                or may be connected to the larger Internet.
           RFC
               RFC 2501 Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET):
                Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation
                Considerations


2012/5/24                                                              6
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (1)
               C. E. Perkins
               January 2002
           Status
               Obsoletes: 2002
           Applicability
               Suitable for mobility across homogeneous
                media, as well as heterogeneous media.
               Solving the "macro" mobility (within a
                subnetwork) management problem.

2012/5/24                                                  7
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (2)
           Terminology                  ▲ CN
               Mobile Node or
                Visiting Node (▲)               ▲ MN
                                                  ▲ HA
                                         ▲ MN
               Home Agent (▲)
                                    ▲ FA
               Home Network
               Home Address

               Foreign Agent (▲)
               Foreign Network
               Care-of Address

               Correspondent Node (▲)

2012/5/24                                                8
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (3)
           Agent Discovery
               HAs and FAs may                     ▲ MN
                advertise their                          
                                                         ▲ HA
                availability              ▲ MN    |
                ( Agent                    |
                                         ▲ FA
                Advertisement).
               A newly arrived
                mobile node can
                send a solicitation
                ( Agent Solicitation)
                to ask an for an
                immediate agent
                advertisement
                ( Agent
                Advertisement)
2012/5/24                                                       9
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (4)
           Registration (1)
               At home                 ▲ MN
                                            
                                            ▲ HA
                 MN registers its      
                  home address
                  with its HA.
                  ( Registration
                  Request)
                 HA replies
                  ( Registration
                  Reply.)



2012/5/24                                       10
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (5)
           Registration (2)
               Away from home
                                                                            ▲ HA
                 MN registers its       ▲ MN
                  care-of address          
                                        ▲ FA
                                                                          
                  with its HA            
                  through FA).
                  ( Registration
                  Request)
                 HA replies (        The care-of address can either be
                                        determined
                  Registration Reply.
                                            from a FA’s advertisements (e.g. a
                                            FA’s address),
                                            or by some external assignment
                                            mechanism such as DHCP (co-located
2012/5/24
                                            care-of address).                   11
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (6)
      Data delivery               ▲ CN
      Datagrams sent to                  
       MN’s home address
       are intercepted by its    ▲ MN             ▲ HA
       HA.
                                  
      HA tunnels datagrams     ▲ FA
       to MN's care-of                        
       address.
      Datagrams are either
       relayed by FA to MN
       or delivered directly
       to MN.




2012/5/24                                            12
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (7)
      Data delivery              ▲ CN

       in the reverse
       direction                         ▲ HA
                                 ▲ MH
      Generally, using      
       standard IP routing   ▲ FA
       mechanisms, not
       necessarily passing
       through HA.




2012/5/24                                      13
   RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (8)
      Modified Data delivery          ▲ CN
      Datagrams sent to MN's      
       home address are                       
       intercepted by its HA.
                                                          ▲ HA
      HA tunnels datagrams to         ▲ MN
       MN's care-of address.                          
                                       
      HA notifies CN about        ▲ FA
       the care-of address of                     
       MN.
      Datagrams are either
       relayed by FA to MN or
       delivered directly to MN.
       CN tunnels datagrams
       directly to FA and MN.
      CN either tunnels
       datagrams to FA for
       relaying to MN or
       sends datagrams
       directly to MN.

2012/5/24                                                    14
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (1)
           C. E. Perkins,                               ▲ MN
            COMPSAC 1996.                                  ▲ AN
                                       ▲ MN
           Extending Mobile IP          ▲ AN
                                                          ▲ AN
                                                                 
                                                                 ▲ HA
            to allow mobile             ▲ AN             |
            nodes to use care-            |
            of-addresses even if
                                      ▲ FA

            they were more
            than one hop away.
               Default routers are
                allowed to be more
                than one hop away.    AN = Ad Hoc Node
               Foreign agents are
                allowed to use ad
                hoc routes.

2012/5/24                                                            15
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (2)
     Nomadic-aware applications
               Applications that are responsive to changing
                network conditions.
               Whenever a mobile node changes its point of
                attachment to the Internet, a number of
                environmental factors also change:
                  Cost of connection
                  Available bandwidth

                  Location




2012/5/24                                                      16
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (3)
           Examples of Nomadic-aware applications
               Directory services
               Proxy services
               Applications that depend on the fidelity of the
                network link
               User profile services
                    Security classification, e-mail topics, advertisement broadcast,
               Link adaptation services
                    The network interface monitors the high-water and low-
                     water marks and issues alarm to applications or adaptation
                     services.



2012/5/24                                                                               17
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                          (4)
     Callback features in the enhanced Mobile
      IP daemon:
               Allowing applications to post requests for the
                mobile-IP daemon to inform them when a
                change occurs in the mobile node’s point of
                attachment to the Internet.
               SIG_CELLSWITCH signal
               The care-of address is included as part of the
                callback notification.


2012/5/24                                                        18
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (5)
           Resource Discovery Protocol (RDP)
               To locate the desired resources, such as a printer or
                fax machine.
               Services register with a local Directory Agent (DA).
               User Agents (UA) (residing on mobile computers) to
                contact with the Directory Agent to obtain Uniform
                Resource Locators (URL) which are pointers to the
                desire services.
               To name the service, Uniform Resource Names (URN)
                are used.



2012/5/24                                                               19
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (6)
           A RDP example to locate
            a local printer               
             The mobile client sends a
              DHCP option 11 request      
              (for Resource Location
              Server, RLS) to a DHCP
              server.                     
             The DHCP server returns
              the IP address of the DA.
                                          
             The mobile client queries
              the DA with the URN of
              the printer.                
             The DA returns the
              printer’s URL.
             The client sends the
              printer command and the
              data to the printer.
2012/5/24                                         20
   Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
                        (7)
           The use of callback mechanism with DRP
               The callback mechanism is used to inform the client
                of the location change.
               Then, the client may start up a new DRP procedure.
           Summary and Conclusions
               Ad hoc routing:
                    DSDV (Destination Sequenced Distance Vector) is used.
                    Who about the others?
               No discussions on the cases of
                    Co-located care-of address, i.e. without foreign agents.
                    Multiple heterogeneous points of attachments


2012/5/24                                                                       21
                          MIPMANET (1)
           Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
               Jösson et al., IEEE MOBIHOC 2000
           I. INTRODUCTION
               Using AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance
                Vector) routing algorithm within ad-hoc
                networks
                  INTERNET DRAFT
                  Perkins et al., 19 January 2002

               Using Network Simulator 2 (ns-2)


2012/5/24                                                 22
                                MIPMANET (2)
           II. PROTOCOL DESCRIPTIONS
               A. Mobile IP
                    Using Foreign Agents, i.e. using a single care-of address
                    DHCP is not allowed
               B. AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector)
                    Distance Vector
                          Using traditional routing table, one entry per destination, but
                           without periodic routing table exchanges.
                          Only the nodes that lie on the path between the two end nodes
                           keep information about the route.
                    On-demand
                          Routes are only set up when a node wants to communicates
                           with some other node.



2012/5/24                                                                                    23
                               MIPMANET (3)
           III. INTERNET ACCESS
               A. Routing & Addressing
                    Traditional Internet routing
                         All nodes in the same network use the same network ID
                          of the IP address.
                         To use one route for the entire network
                    Ad-hoc network routing
                         Nodes in an ad hoc network may have different network
                          IDs
                         Since data link connectivity with all other nodes is not
                          possible, thus IP layer routing must be used.
                         On-demand routing has been shown preferable


2012/5/24                                                                            24
                           MIPMANET (4)
               Problems in routing for ad-hoc networks
                    Can’t route using network ID of a node.
                    No routes are known beforehand for on-demand routing.
                    The destination may be found unreachable after route
                     discovery.
                    How to make a node reachable for the Internet?
               Solution
                    A border node with reachable IP address is needed between
                     an ad-hoc network and the fixed Internet.
                    To use Mobile IP Foreign Agents as the access points to the
                     Internet.
                    Ad hoc routing protocol is used to deliver packets between FA
                     and VN.
                    A layered approach with tunneling is used for the outward data
                     flow to separate the Mobile IP functionality and the ad hoc
                     routing protocol.

2012/5/24                                                                             25
                               MIPMANET (5)
               B. Mobile IP
                    B.1 Implications of Multihop Communication
                         Instead of using link-layer connectivity, FA and VN must
                          use network-layer routing.
                         Broadcasts are more costly (bandwidth and energy) for a
                          multihop ad hoc network than on a single link.
                         To select among several possible FAs by the quality of
                          multiple links, not by a single link.
                         Nodes not using Mobile IP suffer with the flooding of
                          Agent Advertisements and Agent Solicitations.
                    B.2 Implications of On-Demand Routing
                         Mobile IP uses proactive routing, while many promising
                          routing protocols for ad hoc networks are on-demand.



2012/5/24                                                                            26
                              MIPMANET (6)
           IV. MIPMANET
               VN registers to a FA with its home address and
                obtains a single care-of address.
               To send a packet to the Internet:
                    Tunnel the packet to the FA.
               To receive packets from the Internet:
                    The packets are routed to the FA by the ordinary Mobile IP
                     mechanism.
                    The FA will then deliver the packets to VN in the ad hoc
                     network.
               Nodes that do not need Internet access will not
                register to a FA.

2012/5/24                                                                         27
                         MIPMANET (7)
           The layering of
            Mobile IP and ad
            hoc routing              End-to-end

            functionality is
            illustrated in Fig. 1.   Single-hop

           By the use of
            tunneling, the ad
            hoc network              Multi-hop

            becomes
            transparent to the
            Mobile IP.

2012/5/24                                         28
                          MIPMANET (8)
               A. Foreign Agents and Tunneling
                  MIPMANET lets the route discovery mechanism of
                   the ad hoc network search for the destination
                   within the ad hoc network.
                  If the destination is not within the same ad hoc
                   network, the packet is tunneled to the FA by the
                   ad hoc routing mechanism.
                  Only registered VNs get Internet access.




2012/5/24                                                             29
                               MIPMANET (9)
               B. Adapting Mobile IP
                  Instead of using link-layer addresses, network-
                   layer identifier, i.e. IP addresses, must be used.
                  B.1 Periodic Agent Advertisement
                         In ordinary Mobile IP, the minimum time between two
                          consecutive Agent Advertisements is 1 second.
                         In ad hoc networks, every periodic advertisement
                          involves flooding, thus the advertisement period should
                          be longer. (5 seconds is used in the simulation)
                    B.2 Movement Detection (Roaming)
                         A registered VN should register to another FA if it is two
                          hops closer to this FA than to the FA currently registered.



2012/5/24                                                                               30
                 MIPMANET (10)
     (a) All five nodes
         register with FA1.
     (b) E moves toward FA2.
         Node D and E decide
         to switch to FA2.




2012/5/24                        31
                        MIPMANET (11)
           VIII. FUTURE WORK
               Dynamic address allocation
               Cooperating access points
               Cost in fixed network
               Non-layered approach
               Multicast
               Mix between proactive and on-demand mechanisms




2012/5/24                                                        32
     Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
                      Network Testbed (1)
      Maltz et al., IEEE
       Personal
       Communication
       Magazine, August,
       2001.
      Testbed Overview
               5 roving nodes (RN):
                T1~T5 (900MHz)
               2 stationary nodes:
                E1~E2
               Field Office (2.4GHz)
                    R = Router
                    V = Visualizer (Monitor)

2012/5/24                                                 33
     Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
                   Network Testbed (2)
      DSR (Dynamic Source Routing)
               Entirely On-Demand
               Source Routing
                    The originator (source) of each packet attaches in the packet
                     an ordered list of nodes in the packet through which the
                     packet must be pass while traveling to the destination.
               Route Discovery (S  D)
                    ROUTE REQUEST (TTL = 1) (non-propagating)
                      to query its neighbor’s cache
                    ROUTE REQUEST (TTL = n) (flooding)
                    ROUTE REPLY (by D or some nodes that knows a route to D)
               Route Maintenance
                    ROUTE ERROR to S

2012/5/24                                                                            34
     Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
                   Network Testbed (3)
           Integration DSR with Mobile IP
               E2 provides Foreign Agent service.
               RN periodically verifies that it is currently best
                means available to maintain connection to the
                Internet.
                  LAN mode
                  DSR ad hoc mode

                  CDPD mode




2012/5/24                                                            35
     Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad Hoc
                   Network Testbed (4)
         DSR mode
               RN sends a AGENT SOLICITATION piggybacked on
                a ROUTE REQUEST targeting a limited broadcast
                address (255.255.255.255).
                    This allows AGENT SOLICITATION to propagate
                     throughout the ad hoc network.
             FA replies with AGENT ADVERTISEMENT.
             RN sends REGISTRATION REQUEST to HA via FA.

             HA replies REGISTRATION REPLY to RN via FA.

             ………




2012/5/24                                                          36
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (1)
           Das et al., IEEE WCNC 2000.
           Quazi-Dynamic Networks (QDN)
               QDN describes a mobility scenario that lies between
                two extremes of user movements and its impact to
                the network topology.
                    MANET
                         MN constantly moves.
                         Networks constantly change shape.
                    Cellular Network
                         Networks remains highly stable, at least in the core, with only
                          leaf nodes moving.
               Examples
                    A dynamic deployed sensor array (topology, # nodes )
                    A fast moving platoon (internal topology, movement )
2012/5/24                                                                                   37
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (2)
     Network Layer Mobility
               A. Mobile IP (MIP)
                  HA redirects datagrams.
                  MIP-FA
                         MN is assigned with a single care-of address by a foreign
                          agent (FA’s address).
                    MIP-CA
                         MN is assigned with a co-located care-of addresses by a
                          DHCP server.




2012/5/24                                                                             38
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (3)
     Network Layer Mobility
               B. MIP Gateway Foreign Agent (MIP-GFA)
                 HA redirects datagrams.
                 MN  FA  GFA  HA

                 MN is assigned with a global care-of address by
                  GFA (GFA’s address).
                 As long as MH lies within the same domain of GFA,
                  only local location update is needed.
                 Reducing global signaling overhead.




2012/5/24                                                             39
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (4)
     Network Layer Mobility
               C. MIP with Location Register (MIP-LR)
                  CN queries distributed location databases (similar
                   to HLR/VLR)
                  HA is not needed.

                  Direct communication between MN and CN.
                   Thus, solving triangle routing problem.
                  Global signaling overhead.




2012/5/24                                                               40
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (5)
     Network Layer Mobility
               D. MIP with Host Based Routes (MIP-HBR)
                 Enhanced the IP routing protocols so that MN
                  keeps the same IP address.
                 Use of host-specific routes in the routing table.

                 Not scalable.

                 No HA is needed.

                 Direct communication between MN and CN.
                  Thus, solving triangle routing problem.




2012/5/24                                                             41
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (6)
     Network Layer Mobility
               E. Mobile IPv6 (MIP-v6)
                  Sending binding updates directly to CN.
                  Direct communication between MN and CN.
                   Thus, solving triangle routing problem.
                  Higher update latency.

                  Global signaling overhead.




2012/5/24                                                    42
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (7)
     Network Layer Mobility
               F. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIP)
                  Same as MIP-v6, except that a hierarchical
                   management structure to separate local and global
                   mobility.
                  Reduced signaling overhead.

                  Encapsulation and de-capsulation at every level of
                   the hierarchy.




2012/5/24                                                               43
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (8)
     Network Layer Mobility
               G. Mobility Agent based IP (TeleMIP)
                  Use MIP for global mobility.
                  Use Intra-Domain Mobility Management Protocol
                   (IDMP) for intra-domain mobility.
                  Mobile Agent (MA) assigns MN a second locally-
                   scoped care-of address.
                  Private addressing can be used.
                   Thus saving IPv4 address space.
                  Load Balancing

                  Scalable

                  Robust
2012/5/24                                                           44
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (9)
     Application Layer Mobility
               A. SIP Mobility Support (SIP-MS)
                    SIP (Session Initiative Protocol)
                         An application-layer control protocol for creating,
                          modifying, and terminating session with one or more
                          participants.
                  SIP support user mobility by proxying (proxy
                   server) or redirecting (redirect server at the home
                   network) requests to the user’s current location.
                  Using UDP for real time communication.

               B. Host Mobility Management Protocol (HMMP)

2012/5/24                                                                       45
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (10)
     Application Layer Mobility
               A. SIP Mobility Support (SIP-MS)
               B. Host Mobility Management Protocol (HMMP)
                 Supporting TCP applications.
                 A SIP_EYE agent tracks TCP connection setups.

                 Location updates are done by SIP Re-Invites which
                  is a direct communication to the CN.
                       Global signaling is needed.
                       Neither HA nor FA is needed.




2012/5/24                                                             46
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (11)
           Qualitative
            Comparison
               with Network
                Characteristics



                                  




                                  

                                  


2012/5/24                                           47
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (12)
           Qualitative Comparison:   Four QDN application types




2012/5/24                                                          48
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (13)
           Qualitative
            Comparison
               With
                application
                types


                              




                              
                              


2012/5/24                                           49
    A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for Quasi-
              Dynamic Networks (14)
     Conclusion
               An optimal set of protocols, such as IDMP,
                SIP-MS, MIP-LR, TeleMIP, offers more robust,
                lower latency, and lower overhead solutions
                for QDN applications.
           Future Work
               A similar comparison for MANETs and Cell
                Networks.
               Any other Mobility Protocols?


2012/5/24                                                      50

								
To top