Use of Mobile IP in MANET

1
Use of Mobile IP in MANET

• George Lee

2
Outline

• The Mobile IP Working Group
• http//www.ietf.org/html.charters/mobileip-charter
  .html
• The MANET Working Group
• http//www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.ht
  ml
• Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity
• C. E. Perkins, COMPSAC 1996.
• MIPMANET - Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
• Jösson et al., IEEE MOBIHOC 2000
• Lessons from a Full-Scale Multihop Wireless Ad
  Hoc Network Testbed
• Maltz et al., IEEE Personal Communication
  Magazine, August, 2001.
• A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for
  Quasi-Dynamic Networks
• Das et al., IEEE WCNC 2000.

3
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.

4
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

5
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.

6
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

7
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.

8
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (2)

• Terminology
• Mobile Node orVisiting Node (?)
• Home Agent (?)
• Home Network
• Home Address
• Foreign Agent (?)
• Foreign Network
• Care-of Address
• Correspondent Node (?)

9
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (3)

• Agent Discovery
• HAs and FAs may advertise their availability (?
  Agent Advertisement).
• A newly arrived mobile node can send a
  solicitation (? Agent Solicitation) to ask an
  for an immediate agent advertisement (? Agent
  Advertisement)

10
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (4)

• Registration (1)
• At home
• MN registers its home address with its HA. (?
  Registration Request)
• HA replies (? Registration Reply.)

11
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (5)

• Registration (2)
• Away from home
• MN registers its care-of address with its HA
  through FA). (?? Registration Request)
• HA replies (?? Registration Reply.

• The care-of address can either be determined
• from a FAs advertisements (e.g. a FAs address),
  
• or by some external assignment mechanism such as
  DHCP (co-located care-of address).

12
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (6)

• Data delivery
• Datagrams sent to MNs home address are
  intercepted by its HA.
• HA tunnels datagrams to MN's care-of address.
• Datagrams are either relayed by FA to MN or
  delivered directly to MN.

13
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (7)

• Data delivery in the reverse direction
• Generally, using standard IP routing mechanisms,
  not necessarily passing through HA.

14
RFC 3220 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 (8)

• Modified Data delivery
• Datagrams sent to MN's home address are
  intercepted by its HA.
• HA tunnels datagrams to MN's care-of address.
• HA notifies CN about 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.

? CN
?
?
? HA
? MN
?
?
? FA
?
15
Mobile IP, Ad Hoc Networking, and Nomadicity (1)

• C. E. Perkins, COMPSAC 1996.
• Extending Mobile IP to allow mobile nodes to use
  care-of-addresses even if they were more than one
  hop away.
• Default routers are allowed to be more than one
  hop away.
• Foreign agents are allowed to use ad hoc routes.

16
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

17
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.

18
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 nodes point of attachment
  to the Internet.
• SIG_CELLSWITCH signal
• The care-of address is included as part of the
  callback notification.

19
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.

20
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 printers URL.
• The client sends the printer command and the data
  to the printer.

?
?
?
?
?
21
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

22
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)

23
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.

24
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

25
MIPMANET (4)

• Problems in routing for ad-hoc networks
• Cant 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.

26
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.

27
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.

28
MIPMANET (7)

• The layering of Mobile IP and ad hoc routing
  functionality is illustrated in Fig. 1.
• By the use of tunneling, the ad hoc network
  becomes transparent to the Mobile IP.

29
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.

30
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.

31
MIPMANET (10)

• All five nodes register with FA1.
• E moves toward FA2.Node D and E decide to switch
  to FA2.

32
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

33
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) T1T5 (900MHz)
• 2 stationary nodesE1E2
• Field Office (2.4GHz)
• R Router
• V Visualizer (Monitor)

34
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 neighbors 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

35
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

36
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.

37
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 ?)

38
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 (FAs address).
• MIP-CA
• MN is assigned with a co-located care-of
  addresses by a DHCP server.

39
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 (GFAs address).
• As long as MH lies within the same domain of GFA,
  only local location update is needed.
• Reducing global signaling overhead.

40
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.

41
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.

42
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.

43
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.

44
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

45
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 users current
  location.
• Using UDP for real time communication.
• B. Host Mobility Management Protocol (HMMP)

46
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.

47
A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for
Quasi-Dynamic Networks (11)

• Qualitative Comparison
• with NetworkCharacteristics

48
A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for
Quasi-Dynamic Networks (12)

• Qualitative Comparison Four QDN application types

49
A Comparison of Mobility Protocols for
Quasi-Dynamic Networks (13)

• Qualitative Comparison
• With application types

?
?
?
50
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?