Transcript Slide 1

Smartening the Environment using Wireless
Sensor Networks in a Developing Country
A TEST-BED ANALYSIS FOR SEAMLESS
MIPV6 HANDOVER IN
HETEROGENEOUS ENVIRONMENT
Mohammad Moshee Uddin, International Islamic University Malaysia
Al-Sakib Khan Pathan, International Islamic University Malaysia
Shariq Haseeb, MIMOS Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohiuddin Ahmed, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia
Presenter
Al-Sakib Khan Pathan
Department of Computer Science
International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia
Outline of the Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Background
Objective
Experimental Setup
Analysis and Results
Concluding Remarks
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
2
Introduction
• Use of multiple network interfaces is becoming more
common with a mobile node (MN).
• Now-a-days, almost every hand-held device has multiple
network interfaces built-in
–
–
–
–
–
Wi-Fi
Ethernet
WiMAX
Bluetooth
UMTS
• Multiple network interfaces
converged network
– Ubiquitous communications
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
3
Introduction (Continued)
• Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) has become a part of the solution
for the mobility support system to have ubiquitous
communication.
• Yet, it could not solve lots of problems because of its
limitations to support wide-scale applications such as
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications, addressing limitations
as well as IPsec (Internet Protocol Security), etc.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
4
Background: MIPv6
• MIPv6 is a key protocol which allows a node to have
ubiquitous communication with the help of mobility
support system.
• It allows MN to change its point of attachment without
changing the “Home Address” of MN. So any packet
may still be routed regardless of any point of attachment
as long as it is attached to the Internet.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
5
MIPv6 (Continued)
• Furthermore, multiple network interfaces also can be
handled by MIPv6 protocol to support heterogeneous
mobility.
• For instance, the movement from one Wi-Fi segment to
Ethernet segment or Ethernet segment to Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi
segment to WiMAX, and so forth, if the “Home Address”
remains the same.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
6
Main Objective of the Work
• Test-bed experimentations of vertical MIPv6 handover
performance (i.e., from Ethernet segment to Wi-Fi
segment and vice versa) to evaluate
– Handoff latencies
– Packet losses
while multiple interfaces are simultaneously associated
with different types of networks.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
7
MIPv6 Handover Process
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
8
Our Experimental Setup
• The test-bed has been implemented with two scenarios:
– Scenario1:
When MN moves around between home link and foreign link
(Figure 1)
– Scenario 2:
Again when MN moves around foreign links
(Figure 2)
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
9
Scenario 1 (Figure 1)
•
•
•
•
•
Two PC-based
routers: HA and FR
One switch
One IEEE
802.11abg Access
Point
One notebook as
MN with one
Ethernet and one
wireless interface
built-in
One PC-based
Correspondent Node
(CN).
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
10
Scenario 2 (Figure 2)
•
•
•
•
•
Three PC-based
routers: HA, FR1, and
FR2
Two switches
One IEEE 802.11abg
Access Point
One notebook as MN
with one Ethernet and
wireless interface
built-in
One PC-based CN
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
11
Experiment Methodology
• Figure 1 shows MN is associated with HL via Ethernet &
at the same time Wi-Fi network coverage is present.
• At this moment, MN is communicating with CN via home
link. Since Wi-Fi network is available, MN is also preassociated with Wi-Fi network (a.k.a FR).
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
12
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)
• At any given time, to create a vertical handover, Ethernet
connection has been disconnected manually from the
home link.
• Then the Wi-Fi interface immediately takes over the data
communication from Ethernet. This type of vertical
handover has happened from home network to foreign
network.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
13
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)
• Likewise, while MN is associated with the Wi-Fi network
and communicates with CN, at any given time Ethernet
cable has been manually plugged into the MN.
• After that, Wi-Fi interface has been disconnected from
foreign link and Ethernet immediately takes over the
handover procedure.
• The packets are captured to determine handoff delays
and packet losses while MN moves from home link to
foreign link and vice versa with multi-homed MN.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
14
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)
• In a similar fashion, handoff delays and packet losses
have been captured (see Figure 2), while MN moves
from foreign link to a new foreign link using multiple
network interfaces.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
15
Methodology and Tools
• The handover measurement has been conducted 50
times with the multi-homed MN between 2 and 3
seconds interval of router advertisement.
• MIPv6 tester [1] tool has been used to capture the
heterogeneous handoff latency where it opens bidirectional TCP/UDP packets between MN and CN over
the network.
• To capture packet loss, ‘iperf’ [2] tool has been used
during heterogeneous handover.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
16
Mathematical Analysis
• List of Notations
LTotal
L2
L3
LProbe
Total handover latency
Total layer 2 handover latency
Total layer 3 handover latency
Layer 2 latency that scans for available AP
LAuth
Layer 2 latency that performs authentication
LRe-assoc
Layer 2 latency that performs re-association
LRouter Discovery
Layer 3 latency that performs IP address configuration
LDAD
Layer 3 latency that performs uniqueness on the link
Layer 3 latency that performs a message regarding
location status
Layer 3 latency that performs a message confirming
location status
LBU
LBA
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
17
Mathematical Analysis
• According to [3], [4], [5], and [6], total handover latency
in MIPv6 could be mathematically put as follows:
LTotal = (L2 + L3)
(1)
L2 = LProbe + LAuth + LRe-assoc
(2)
L3 = LRouter Discovery + LDAD + LBU + LBA
(3)
• Therefore,
LTotal = LProbe + LAhth + LRe-assoc + LRouter Discovery + LDAD + LBU + LBA
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
(4)
18
Analysis
• This total handover latency (equation 4) is calculated
once the current AP becomes unavailable and MN
associates itself with a new AP during the movement
(i.e. a scenario of horizontal handover).
– Suppose an MN is associated with network X, at the same time it
could be under the coverage of network Y. Therefore, it can preassociate with the network Y while network X is still available.
But at any time network X may no longer available, then the
communication with MN will be handed over to network Y (X and
Y could be any type of network such as Ethernet LAN, Wi-Fi
network, WiMAX network, UMTS etc).
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
19
Results: Handoff Latency
TABLE 1. HANDOFF LATENCY DURING THE MOVEMENT OF MN
Max
Min
Average
HN to FN (Sec)
FN to FN (Sec)
FN to HN (Sec)
1.835
0.518
1.229
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 3
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
20
Results Analysis
• While MN is handed over to FN from HN with multihomed interfaces, the average delay is 1.835s (Table 1),
whereas the average handover delay with single
interface is 3.677s as in [7] and 3.447s as in [8].
• As for single interface handover process, it has to
maintain total layer 2 and layer 3 procedures following
equation 4.
• But for multi-homed MN, if one of the interfaces is preassociated with foreign network; layer 2 handover delay
can be reduced from total delay. Therefore, we can get
from the equation 1,
LTotal = (L2 + L3) - L2 = L3
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
21
Results Analysis
• Observing this experiment, multi-homed MN also
reduces the processing time of layer 3 (router discovery
and DAD [Duplicate Address Detection]) except binding
update (BU) and binding acknowledgement (BA).
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
22
Results Analysis
• On the other hand, while MN handover is done from FN
to another FN or it returns to home network from any
foreign network (Figure 3 and Table 1), minimal
handover latency occurs that could not be possible to be
detected by the MIPv6 tester tool.
• As multi-homed MN is simultaneously associated with
the networks, only one of the interfaces would be
communicating but HA keeps tracking all interfaces.
• This immediate handover procedure time is
approximately unnoticeable. So from these experiments
and equation number 1, it can be derived,
LTotal ≈ 0, if multi-homed MN is pre-associated.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
23
Results: Packet Loss
TABLE 2. PACKET LOSS DURING THE MOVEMENT OF MN
Max
Min
Average
HN to FN (Sec)
FN to FN (Sec)
FN to HN (Sec)
1.835
0.518
1.229
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 4
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
24
Results: Packet Loss
• Figure 4 shows the total packet loss in percentages of 50
trials during handoff and Table 2 summarizes maximum,
minimum and average packet loss.
• With multi-homed MN, average packet loss is about
3.85% while it moves from home network to foreign
network. At this point, packet loss occurs during binding
update and binding acknowledgement processes at layer
3 as in handoff latency.
• Packet loss is proportional to handoff latency.
LTotal ∝ PTotal (where PTotal is total packet loss)
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
25
Results: Packet Loss
• Again, while multi-homed MN moves from one foreign
network to another or returns to home network, minimal
packet loss may occur that also could not be detected,
similar to the handoff latency. Therefore, packet loss is
approximately unnoticeable as shown in Figure 4 and
Table 2 during the MN’s movement from foreign network
to another or its return to Home network.
• Hence,
PTotal ≈ 0%, if multi-homed MN is pre-associated.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
26
Concluding Remarks
• MIPL (Mobile IPv6 for Linux) enables all the features of
mobility for heterogeneous environment, yet some
delays may occur during handover processes which
cause some major packet loss.
• There are handoff delays and packet losses during the
handover process from HN to FN which degrade the
performance of communication.
• While MN moves from one FN to another or returns to
home network, handoff delay and packet loss are almost
unnoticeable and this improves communication process.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
27
Concluding Remarks
• Based on our findings we may state that; with the help of
MIPv6, a multi-homed MN may perform better vertical
handover process while it moves among foreign
networks in heterogeneous environment.
• As our future work, we would like to perform an extended
experiment and analyze other associated parameters to
get a detailed understanding of the potential use of the
technology for consumer related applications as well as
for other application areas.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
28
Major References
[1] MIPv6 tester, retrieved June 1st , 2010 from
http://www.bullopensource.org/mipv6/tester.php
[2] Measure Network Performance with iperf, Retrieved June 1st,2010,from
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/networking/features/article.php/3659616
[3] D. Johnson, C. Perkins and J. Arkko, “RFC 3775 Mobility Support in IPv6,” URL
reference: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3775.txt (June 2004).
[4] M. Siksik, H. Alnuweiri and S. Zahir, “A Detailed Characterization of the Handover
Process Using Mobile IPv6 in 802.11 Networks,” IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on
Communications, Computers and Signal Processing, Victoria, Canada, August 2005.
[5] V. Vassiliou and Z. Zinonos, “An Analysis of the Handover Latency Components in
Mobile IPv6,” Journal of Internet Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, December, 2009, pp. 230240.
[6] S. Haseeb and G. Kurup, “Performance Analysis of MIPL based Mobile IPv6
Testbed,” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on
Telecommunications and Malaysia International Conference on Communications,
May 14-17, 2007, Penang, Malaysia.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
29
Major References
[7] V. Vassiliou and Z. Zinonos, “An Analysis of the Handover Latency Components in
Mobile IPv6,” Journal of Internet Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, December, 2009, pp. 230240.
[8] S. Haseeb and G. Kurup, “Performance Analysis of MIPL based Mobile IPv6
Testbed,” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on
Telecommunications and Malaysia International Conference on Communications,
May 14-17, 2007, Penang Malaysia.
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
30
THANK YOU
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
31
Questions and Answers
[email protected], [email protected]
???
URL: http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
32