Transcription

1 ICTC / International Advisory Committee Steering Committee Organizing Committee Technical Program Committee Program at a Glance Industrial Session Special Session Tutorials Technical Paper Session Guideline for Session Chairs Information for Author We have witnessed fast development of various information and communication technologies in the first decade of the 21st century. At the same time, there has been a tremendous amount of efforts to fuse these individual technologies to provide non-precedent services to the end users. Also, there have been a lot of trials to apply information and communication technology (ICT) to other industrial sectors such as green convergence, smart screen & appliances, next generation broadcasting and media, mobile convergence networks, and other ICT convergence applications and services, all under the name of ICT convergence. ICTC is a unique global premier event for researchers, industry professionals, and academics, organized by KICS, Korea, with the technical co-sponsorship of IEEE Communications Society and IEICE Communications Society, which aims at interacting with and disseminating information on the latest developments in the emerging industrial convergence centered around the information and communication technologies. More specifically, it will address challenges with realizing ICT convergence over the various industrial sectors, including the infrastructures and applications in wireless & mobile communication, smart devices & consumer appliances, mobile cloud computing, green communication, healthcare and bio-informatics, and intelligent transportation. The conference will include technical sessions, tutorials, and invited industrial sessions. You are invited to submit papers in all areas of infrastructures, services, and applications for ICT convergence. Accepted papers will be published in the proceedings with an assigned ISBN number and submitted to IEEE Xplore, SCOPUS, and EI Compendex. Tour Information Visa Information Extended Submission Deadline(Final): July 31, 2013 Notification of Acceptance: August 27, 2013 Camera Ready Deadline: September 15, 2013 Author Registration Deadline: September 15, 2013 The Final Program is available! Please book your flight as soon as possible! The Technical Paper Session Program is now available! The Special Session (Invited Talks) Program is now available! IEEE Copyright form submission TODAY:266 TOTAL:49733

2 October 16 (Wednesday), 2013 [Session VI-1] Communication Networks and Future Internet Technologies 3 Chair: Yong-Yuk Won (Yonsei University, Korea) Imperfect Channel State Information [Session VI-2] Information & Communication Theory, and Their Applications 3 Chair: Daeyoung Park (Inha Universitym, Korea) [Session VI-3] Smart Media & Broadcasting, and Smart Devices/Appliances 2 Chair: Sang-Chul Kim (Kookmin University, Korea)

3 A Seamless Handover Scheme in LISP Networks Moneeb Gohar School of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Korea Hyung-Woo Kang School of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Korea Seok Joo Koh School of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Korea Abstract The Locator Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) has been made as an identifier-locator separation scheme. However, the issue of handover for mobile host is still a serious challenge in LISP. The existing LISP-based handover schemes tend to induce large handover delay and packet loss. To overcome such problems, we propose a new handover control scheme, in which the Map Request and Reply messages are exchanged between old access router and new access router after handover. Then, the locator update operation is performed so as to provide the route optimization. From the ns-2 simulation results, it is shown that the proposed scheme can give better performance than the existing LISP-based schemes in terms of handover delay and throughput. Keywords LISP; mobile networks; handover; analysis I. INTRODUCTION To support the IP mobility, a lot of schemes are so far been proposed [1-3]. On the other hand, the Locator Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) has recently been made in IETF [4], which splits the current IP address space into endpoint identifier (EID) and routing locator (RLOC). For data delivery between two hosts, an Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) prepends a new LISP header to the data packet of a source host, and an Egress TR (ETR) strips the LISP header prior to final delivery to the destination host. To address the LISP mobility control, the host-based schemes were proposed [5, 6], in which each mobile host implements the TR functionality. In addition, the works in [7] proposed a network-based scheme, in which a gateway of a domain implements the TR functionality. However, we note that all of the existing LISP mobility schemes are based on a centralized approach by using the central Map Server (MS). However, such a centralized scheme tends to induce larger handover delay and packet loss. In this paper, we propose a new handover control scheme for mobile LISP networks. The proposed handover control scheme can be used to effectively provide mobility support in wireless/mobile LISP networks, compared to the existing centralized schemes. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the existing schemes for handover control. In Section 3, we describe the proposed handover control scheme. Section 4 compares the existing and proposed schemes in terms of handover delay and throughput by ns-2 simulations. Section 5 concludes this paper. II. RELATED WORK To support the LISP mobility, the LISP [4] was extended to the LISP-MN architecture in [5], which proposed a host-based control scheme. In this scheme, it is assumed that Mobile Node (MN) will act as ITR and/or ETR in mobile network. In this architecture, a MS is used as an anchor point for MNs in the mobility control operations. That is, MN will maintain the map cache and directly communicate with MS. This centralized scheme may incur significant overhead of control messages at the MS. To deal with this problem, the work in [6] proposed an enhanced scheme for LISP-MN, which is denoted by LISP- MN-GLAB in this paper. In this scheme, the main idea is the same with LISP-MN. However, a Local Map Server (LMS) is employed at the gateway of the mobile network to provide a localized mobility control. The handover operations of LISP- MN-GLAB are shown in Fig.1. Fig. 1. Handover control in LISP-MN-GLAB In the figure, MN moves from ARold to ARnew region during communication with Correspondent Node (CN). MN shall configure a new Local LOC (LLOC) address. Then, Map Register and Map Notify messages are exchanged between MN and LMS for binding update. After that, MN sends a Solicit-Map Request message to CN. After receiving the Solicit-Map Request message, CN sends a Map Request message to MN to get the updated LLOC information. Then, the MN will send Map Reply message to CN with the updated LLOC information. Finally, the data packet is forwarded from CN to MN. On the other hand, the work in [7] proposed the Seamless Mobility Support (SMOS) scheme in the LISP networks, which is denoted by LISP-SMOS. The main feature of LISP- SMOS is that the EID of MN represents a 128-bit identifier such as Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [8], rather than IP address.

4 Each host uses an IP address of AR as its LLOC for networkbased mobility control. The gateway of a domain implements the TR functionality and has the LMS to contain the EID- LLOC mapping information for MNs. The handover operations of LISP-SMOS are shown in Fig. 2, in which MN moves from ARold to ARnew during data transmission. After handover to a new AR, the IP address of ARnew is used as LLOC and MN does not need to configure a new LLOC. After that, the Map Register and Map Notify messages are exchanged between MN and ARnew, and also between ARnew and LMS to update LLOC information with the modified LLOC. After updating the LLOC database, LMS broadcasts a Map Update message to all ARs in the domain. Finally, the data packet is forwarded from LMS to MN. In the proposed scheme, the LMS maintains EID-LLOC Cache (ELC). Each AR shall maintain its Remote LLOC Cache (RLC). The RLC contains the mapping of EID-LLOC for the remote hosts that are in active communication with a certain local host. B. Handover Control Operations To support seamless handover, the proposed scheme assumes the use of link-layer information which is defined in the IEEE [9]. The handover delay is defined as the time interval from the time that MN loses the network connection with the old AR until the time that MN receives the first data packet from the new AR. Fig. 4 shows the handover operation of the proposed scheme. Fig. 2. Handover control in LISP-SMOS III. PROPOSED HANDOVER CONTROL SCHEME A. Network Model The network model for the proposed handover control scheme is shown in Fig. 3. In the figure, each AR implements the TR functionality and maintains a Local EID Cache (LEC) which contains the list of EIDs for all of the attached hosts. The LEC information will be referred to by AR to deliver the data packets to the local hosts. In this paper, we will focus on only the intra-domain mobility control within a local mobile LISP domain, rather than the inter-domain mobility control across different mobile domains. For simplicity, we assume that both CN and MN are located within the same mobile domain (i.e., both are mobile hosts), and also we will assume that MN moves from one AR to another AR within the same domain, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Handover control in proposed scheme When MN moves to a new mobile network, then it sends a Map Register message to a new AR. On reception of this message, ARnew will update its LEC cache for MN and respond with a Map Notify message to MN. Then, ARnew sends a Map Register message to LMS. On reception of this message, LMS will update its ELC and respond with a Map Notify message to ARnew. After that, ARnew will exchange Map Request and Map Reply messages with ARold for handover control. The Map Reply message shall include the mapping information of EID-LLOC for MN. After exchanging of Map Request and Map Reply messages between the ARold and ARnew, a bidirectional tunneling is established for data forwarding between ARold and ARnew. After establishing the tunnel, ARold forwards the data packets to ARnew, and ARnew will forward the data packets to MN. Now, ARnew of MN sends a Map Request message to AR of CN for route optimization. On reception of the Map Request message, AR of CN will update its RLC table. Then, AR of CN will send the Map Reply message to the ARnew of MN. On reception of the Map Reply message, ARnew updates its RLC table. IV. SIMULATION ANALYSIS In this section, we present the performance analysis of the proposed scheme using ns-2 network simulator [10]. Fig. 3. Network model for proposed scheme A. Simulation Environment Fig. 5 depicts the network topology used in ns-2 simulation.

5 the handover delays of all the candidate schemes are not nearly affected by the MN speed. The proposed scheme gives better performance than the existing schemes. Fig. 5. Test network for ns-2 simulation As shown in the figure, the link between CN and AR has a network bandwidth of 11 Mbps and link delay of 10 ms, and the wired links between the AR and the GW are configured with a bandwidth of 100 Mbps and a transmission delay of 150ms. On the other hand, the wireless link between AR and MN has bandwidth of 11 Mbps and a link delay of 10ms. The link between ARs has bandwidth of 100Mbps and transmission delay of 6ms. During simulation, CN transmits the data packets over the UDP with a packet size of 1,000 bytes at the rate of 100 packets per second. B. Simulation Results Fig. 6 shows the sequence number of data packets that MN has received from CN for the three candidate schemes: LISP- SMOS, LISP-MN-GLAB, and the proposed scheme. From the figure, we can see the handover delays experienced by MN. In LISP-SMOS, the handover occurs in the time interval from 6.9 second to 7.31 second, which corresponds to the handover delay of 314ms. Similarly, in LISP-MN-GLAB, the handover occurs in the time interval from 6.9 second to 7.07 second, which corresponds to the handover delay of 70ms. On the other hand, the handover in the proposed scheme occurs in the time interval from 6.9 second to 7.02 second, which corresponds to handover delay of 20ms. Accordingly, the proposed scheme can reduce the handover delays of the existing schemes approximately by 50ms (compared to LISP- MN-GLAB) and 294ms (compared to LISP-SMOS). Fig. 7. Handover delay for different MN speed Fig. 8 compares the handover delays of candidate schemes for different transmission delay between ARs. We can see in the figure that the transmission delay between AR and AR gives a significant impact on LISP-MN-GLAB and the proposed scheme. This is because both schemes use the link between ARs for the Map Request and data delivery operations after handover to a new AR. On the other hand, LISP-SMOS is not affected by the transmission delay between ARs. This is because in LISP-SMOS the MN performs the Map Register and data delivery operations with the GW of the network. In the meantime, the proposed scheme gives better performance than the existing schemes. Fig. 8. Impact of transmission delay between AR and AR on handover delay Fig. 6. Traces of data packets received by MN during handover Fig. 7 compares the handover delays of the three candidate schemes for different MN speed. In the figure we can see that Fig. 9 compares the handover delay of candidate schemes for different transmission delay between AR and GW. We can see in the figure that transmission delay between AR and GW gives a significant impact on LISP-SMOS. This is because in LISP-SMOS the MN performs the Map Register and data delivery operations with the GW of network. On the other hand, LISP-MN-GLAB and the proposed scheme are not affected by transmission delay between AR and GW. However, the proposed scheme gives the best performance.

6 Fig. 9. Impact of transmission delay between AR and GW on handover delay Fig.10 compares the throughputs of candidate schemes for different transmission delay between AR and AR. We can see in the figure that the transmission delay between AR and AR gives a significant impact on the throughputs of LISP-MN- GLAB and the proposed scheme. On the other hand, LISP- SMOS is not affected by transmission delay between ARs. This is because LISP-SMOS performs the Map Register and data delivery operations with GW. The proposed scheme gives better performance than the existing schemes. Fig. 11. Impact of transmission delay between AR and GW on throughput V. CONCLUSION In this paper, we proposed a new handover control scheme in mobile LISP networks. In the proposed scheme, every AR has the functionality of TR. For handover support, the Map Request and Map Reply messages are exchanged between ARnew and ARold. Then, the locator update operation is performed between AR of CN and AR of MN so as to provide the route optimization. By simulation analysis, the proposed scheme is compared with the existing centralized schemes in terms of the handover delay and throughput. From the ns-2 simulation results, we can see that the proposed scheme gives better performance than the existing schemes in handover delay and throughput. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of NRF ( ), and by the MSIP support program of NIPA (NIPA-2013-H ). Fig. 10. Impact of transmission delay between AR and AR on throughput Fig. 11 shows the impact of transmission delay between AR and GW on throughput for candidate schemes. We can see that the transmission delay between AR and GW gives a significant impact on LISP-SMOS. This is because LISP- SMOS performs the Map Register and data delivery operations with GW. On the other hand, LISP-MN-GLAB and the proposed scheme are not affected by transmission delay between AR and GW. However, the proposed scheme can give better performance than the existing schemes. It is noted that the proposed scheme outperforms the existing schemes. This is because the proposed scheme performs the map request and data delivery operations between old AR and new AR, not using the GW of the network. REFERENCES [1] S. Gundavelli, et al., Proxy Mobile IPv6, IETF RFC 5213 (2008). [2] J. Kim, et al.,partial Bicasting with Buffering for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Handover in Wireless Networks, Journal of Information Processing Systems, 7 (2011), [3] D. Kim, et al.,analysis of Handover Latency for Mobile IPv6 and msctp.journal of Information Processing Systems, 4 (2008), [4] D. Farinacci, et al.,locator/id Separation Protocol (LISP). IETF Internet Draft, draft ietf-lisp-23(2012). [5] D. Farinacci, et al.,lisp Mobile Node. IETF Internet Draft, draft-meyerlisp-mn-07(2012). [6] M.Menth, et al.,improvements to LISP Mobile Node.Conference of International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), Amsterdam, Netherlands (2010). [7] J.Hou, et al.,support Mobility for Future Internet.Conference of International Telecommunications Network Strategy and Planning Symposium(2010). [8] R. Moskowitz, et al.,: Host Identity Protocol. IETF RFC 520(2008). [9] IEEE Working Group,Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media Independent Handover (MIH) Services,IEEE (2006). [10] Network Simulator NS-2. Available from: