distributed/dynamic mobility management(dmm) problem statement
DESCRIPTION
DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM) PROBLEM STATEMENT. Dapeng Liu (China Mobile) Hidetoshi Yokota (KDDI) Charles E. Perkins (Tellabs) Melia Telemaco (Alcatel-Lucent) Pierrick Seite (France Telecom) H. Anthony Chan (Huawei) Wassim Haddad (Ericsson) Hui Deng (China Mobile) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DISTRIBUTED/DYNAMIC MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(DMM)
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Outline
• Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management
• Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
• Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
• Summary
Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Background and Current Status
IETF#78Bar Bof
• China Mobile/KDDI/France Telecom/Telecom Italia• Alcatel-Lucent/Ericsson/Tellabs/Huawei/ZTE/UC3M/NSN• Finished PS/Scenario drafts
• More discussion in IETF• MEXT DMM session in IETF#79
• IETF#78 Barbof• Around 30 attendees• 5 presentations
Interestgroup Next
Assumptions and Methodology of DMM
Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management- Assumptions and Methodology
• Based on current mobility architecture
• No New Mobility Architecture
• Progressive Approach
• Deployment considerations -> protocol extensions
• Dynamic Anchoring -> Distributed Anchoring
• Flat Data Plane• Offload traffic to the
nearest GW
• Centralized Control Plane
• Centralized control and management
DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution TrendMobile Network is Evolving Towards Flat Architecture
Flat NetworkArchitecture
Wi-Fi
User Plane: Flat
Account User DataPolicyManagement
Control Plane: Centralized
BSC
BTS
SGSN
GGSN
2G
RNC
NB
SGSN
GGSN
3G
eNB
SGW
PGW
LTE/SAE
LTEDriving Force of Network Architecture Evolution
3GPP is Specifying LIPA(Local IP Access) and
SIPTO (Selected IP Traffic Offload) Architecture
• Traffic Offloading• Traffic is increasing very fast in
the era of Mobile Internet
• Operator needs to lower the operation cost
• Content is Distributed to Network Edge
• CND/Cache
BackhaulBackhaul
Residential / Enterprise network
Residential / Enterprise network
H(e)NB
H(e)NB-GW
Mobile Operator Core Network
Mobile Operator Core Network
MN
LIPA L-GW
DMM Introduction --- Network Evolution Trend
Local IP Access ( LIPA ) Scenario
• All the Traffic Needs to go through an Centralized Anchoring Point • Content servers and cache servers are getting deployed at the edge of the
network (, which is good for fixed network providers and users)• Centralized mobility anchor in the mobile core is not very suitable for accessing
the localized content server scenario
L-GW
L-GW L-GW
Local Content
Internet
P-GW
L-GW
S-GW
L-GWL-GW
Centralized Mobility Anchor
• Anchoring at the local gateway (L-GW) is beneficial for both operators (efficient resource usage) and end users (lower latency)
• It becomes more efficient if the L-GW allows the mobile to choose a seamless connection or a shortest-path connection (valid only at the current location)
Mobility Anchor Needs to be Distributed along with the Local Gateways
DMM Introduction - Motivation
Outline
• Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management
• Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
• Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
• Summary
Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
• Infrequent Mobility for Mobile Internet Users• Mobile devices remain attached to the same point of attachment
• Application may Not Require Mobility• Example : YouTube/hulu/Web
• However, current mobility support has been designed to be always on
• Maintain the context for each mobile subscriber as long as they are connected to the network.
• This can result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing costs for the service provider.
Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many applications suggest that mobility can be provided dynamically, thus simplifying the context maintained in the different nodes of the mobile network.
Mobility Anchor Need to be Dynamically Assigned
Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
MA1 MA MA MA2MA
CN
MN MN
• It should be enough to provide handover capability only when it is really needed.
• If the mobile host is nomadic meaning once attached, rarely moved, or is idle in most of time
• If the mobile node moves away from MA1, while maintaining communications, two mobility anchors will come into play.
• MA1 for the traffic initiated via MA1,MA2 for traffic initiated via MA2
Dynamic Anchor Example
MA: Mobility Agent
Outline
• Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management
• Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
• Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
• Summary
Problem Statement of Centralized Mobility Anchor
Distributed Mobility Management Concept
MA: mobility Agent
Home network withCentralized Mobility
AnchorVisited network
MN CN
MA MA MA MA
MN CN
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(1) Routing
• Routing via a centralized anchor is often longer, so that those mobility protocol deployments that lack optimization extensions results in non-optimal routes, affecting performance
• Routing optimization may be an integral part of a distributed design.
MA MA MA MA
MN CN
•As mobile network becomes more flattened, centralized mobility management can become more non-optimal, especially as the content servers in a content delivery network (CDN) are moving closer to the access network
•In contrast, distributed mobility management can support both hierarchical network and more flattened network.
SGW SGW SGW
MN
P-GW
CDN/Cacheserver
CDN/Cacheserver
CDN/Cacheserver
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(2) Non-Optimal for Flat Architecture
• Centralized route maintenance and context maintenance for a large number of mobile hosts is more difficult to scale.
• Distributed Mobility Agent maintain less context
MA Mobility domain
MN2
MN5
MN8
MN0
MN12 MN14
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(3) Scalability
• Excessive signaling overhead should be avoided when end nodes are able to communicate end-to-end
• Capability to selectively turn off signaling that are not needed by the end hosts will reduce the handover delay
Home networkwith MA
Visited network
MN CN
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(4) Signaling Overhead
• Scalability may worsen when lacking mechanism to distinguish whether there are real need for mobility support
• Dynamic mobility management, i.e., to selectively provide mobility support, is needed and may be better implemented with distributed mobility management.
MN2
MN3
MN1
MN4
MN5
MN7
MN8
MN6
MN9
MN0
MN12
MN13
MN11
MN14
MN15
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(5) Dynamic Mobility
• Deployment is complicated with numerous variants and extensions of mobile IP
• These variants and extensions may be better integrated in a distributed and dynamic design which can selectively adapt to the needs.
L-GW
L-GW L-GW
Local Content
Internet
P-GW
L-GW
S-GW
L-GWL-GW
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(6) Integration Different Mobile IP
• Centralized approach is generally more vulnerable to a single point of failure and attack
• Requiring duplication and backups, • Distributed approach intrinsically mitigates the problem to a local
network so that the needed protection can be simpler.
MA MA MA MA
MN CN
Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor-(7) Single Point of Failure
Outline
• Introduction of Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management
• Problem Statement of Dynamic Anchor
• Problems with Centralized Mobility Anchor
• Summary
Summary - Motivation of New Mobility Management
Mobility Management Need Optimization
Traffic/Mobility Model Changed
Operator Need to Simplify Network and Reduce Cost
Network Architecture is Evolving
• Traffic offloading is leading to evolve the network architecture towards flat architecture
• Current Mobility management is not optimized for flat architecture
• “Always-on Mobility Support” causes waste of network recourse
• Mobile Internet traffic grows very fast, mobile operator’s network faces challenges
• All traffic going to mobile core network model will increase the cost
• Cache/CDN is leading distribution of
content to network edge
• Mobility model is changed:: low mobility/smart applications
• Centralized anchor will lead to no-optimal route and too much tunnels in flat architecture
• Large amount of mobility context management leads to high cost of network element
• To support telecom level high availability, centralized anchor have to be designed complex
Why new mobilitymanagement?
• Mobility anchor also need to be distributed to network edge to support traffic offloading
• Dynamic Mobility can reduce the complexity and reduce cost
Summary – What We Have Now
• Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management
• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-00
• Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management
• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00
• Other drafts
• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-distributed-mobility• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-netext-dma• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-netext-distributed-lma-03• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-mext-mobisoc-00
• P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “Distributed or Centralized Mobility?” Proceedings of Global Communications Conference (GlobeCom 2009).
• M. Fisher, F.U. Anderson, A. Kopsel, G. Schafer, and M. Schlager, “A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE,” 19th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, (PIMRC 2008).
• L. Zhang, R. Wakikawa, and Z. Zhu, “Support Mobility in the Global Internet,” Proceedings of ACM Workshop on MICNET, MobiCom 2009, Beijing, China, 21 September 2009.
• P. Bertin, S. Bonjour, and J-M Bonnin, “A Distributed Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP Architectures,” Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security, (NTMS 2008).
• H. Anthony Chan, “Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility Anchors,” GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Seamless Wireless Mobility, Miami, USA, 6-10 December 2010.
• H. Anthony Chan, “Integrating PMIP into LISP Network,” draft-chan-lisp-pmip-00.txt, October 2010.
Other references
Thanks !Q&A