Mobility Support Using Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol in … · 2017-02-11 · To alleviate...

I. INTRODUCTION

As Internet services become popular, the number of

mobile Internet users has been rapidly increasing with

wide deployment of smart phones [1], [2]. It is reported

that the number of mobile Internet users will be 1.6 billion

in 2015 and exceed the number of desktop users [3].

It is noted that the Long Term Evolution (LTE) and

System Archictetcure Evolution (SAE) architecture has

been used for 4G mobile communication networks [4], [5].

To support the IP mobility in the LTE/SAE architecture,

Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIP) [6] has been considered in

[7]~[9]. In the study, to support the PMIP in the SAE

architecture, the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) is

used as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) of PMIP and

Serving Gateway (S-GW) is used as a Mobile Access

Gateway (MAG) of PMIP. We also note that the Mobile

IP (MIP) [10] can be used for global mobility management

with external Internet hosts. But, the mobility management

scheme based on MIP and PMIP tends to induce very

large delays in data transmission and handover operations,

since all of the control and data traffics must be delivered

via the centralized mobility agents, such as LMA of PMIP

and Home Agent (HA) of MIP.

337

The System Architecture Evolution (SAE) with Long Term Evolution (LTE) has been used as a key technology in

4G mobile communication networks. In the existing study to support mobility in SAE-based mobile networks, the

Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIP) was considered and the Mobile IP (MIP) may be used for global mobility support with

Internet hosts. However, the architecture of PMIP with MIP tends to induce large data transmission and route update

delays in SAE-based mobile networks. To overcome these limitations, this paper proposes the Locator Identifier

Separation Protocol (LISP)-based mobility management schemes in SAE-based mobile networks. For LISP mobility

support, we introduce a Local Map Server (LMS) which can be implemented with the Mobility Management Entity

(MME) of SAE and used to perform the LISP identifier-locator mapping management for LISP hosts within a mobile

network. As per the location of LISP Tunnel Router (TR), the proposed schemes are divided into the two specific

schemes: a host-based scheme, in which the LISP TR is implemented at a mobile host, and a network-based scheme, in

which LTE evolved Node B (eNB) performs the LISP TR functionality. By numerical analysis, the two proposed

schemes are compared with the existing PMIP-MIP scheme in terms of data transmission and route update delays.

From numerical results, we see that the proposed LISP-based mobility management schemes can give better

performance than the existing PMIP-MIP scheme. In particular, it is shown that the network-based LISP mobility

management scheme provides the best performance among the candidate schemes.

Keywords: LISP, LTE, SAE, Mobility management, Local map server

논문번호: TR14-078, 논문접수일자:2014.09.22, 논문수정일자:2014.11.07, 논문게재확정일자:2015.01.28

Moneeb Gohar, Jin-Ghoo Choi: Yeungnam University Jin-Ho Park, Seok-Joo Koh(Corresponding author): Kyungpook National University

Mobility Support Using Locator-Identifier Separation

Protocol in 4G Mobile Communication Networks

Moneeb Gohar ·Jin-Ghoo Choi ·Jin-Ho Park ·Seok-Joo Koh

To alleviate these drawbacks, this paper proposes the

new mobility management schemes based on the Locator

Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) in SAE-based

mobile networks. This is the first proposal in relevant

research areas to the best of our knowledge. The LISP has

recently been made in the IETF [11], which splits the

current IP address space into Endpoint Identifier (EID)

and Routing Locator (RLOC). In LISP, the Map Server

(MS) is used for EID-RLOC mapping management [12],

and the Tunnel Routers (TRs) are employed for data

delivery with the help of MS so as to obtain the RLOC of

the correspondent host or EID. To support the LISP

mobility, the LISP Mobile Node architecture was

proposed in [13]. In this scheme, LISP Map Server is

used as an anchor point for mobile hosts, and each mobile

host shall implement the TR functionality of LISP.

In this paper, we discuss how to use the LISP protocol

for effective mobility management in SAE-based mobile

networks. For this purpose, we introduce a Local Map

Server (LMS) so as to keep track of identifier-locator

mapping management for mobile LISP hosts in a mobile

network. It is assumed that LMS is co-located at the

Mobility Management Entitiy (MME) of SAE and that a

mobile network has its LMS. As per the location of LISP

TR, the proposed schemes are divided into a host-based

scheme, in which a mobile node performs the LISP TR

functionality, and a network-based scheme, in which the

evolved Node B (eNB) of SAE will perform the LISP TR

functionality.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In

Section II, we briefly review the existing mobility

management using the MIP and PMIP protocols in the

mobile networks. In Section III, we describe the two

proposed schemes (host-based and network-based) for

LISP mobility management in the SAE-based mobile

networks. Section IV analyzes and compares the three

candidate schemes interms of data transmission and route

update delays. In Section V, we will conclude this paper.

II. RELATED WORKS

The System Architecture Evaluation (SAE) is the core

network architecture for the 3GPP LTE system, which

supports high throughput and mobility between

heterogeneous access systems. The main components of

SAE include the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) and Evolved

UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN).

EPC networks consist of different entites, such as Serving

Gateways (S-GW), Mobility Management Entity (MME),

Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW), Home Subscriber

Server (HSS), and Policy and Charging Rules Function

Mobility Support Using Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol in 4G Mobile Communication Networks 338

Figure 1. Network model for PMIP-MIP-SAE

CN to MN. When MN establishes a radio link with eNB,

it sends an Attach Request to Mobility Management Entity

(MME). Then, the security-related procedures are

performed between MN and MME. MME updates the

associated Home Subscriber Server (HSS). To establish a

transmission path, MME sends a Create Session Request

to S-GW. When S-GW receives the request from MME, it

will send a Proxy Binding Update (PBU) message of

PMIP to P-GW. Then, P-GW will send a Binding Update

(BU) message of MIP to HA. HA will respond with a

Binding ACK (BA) message of MIP to PGW. The P-GW

responds with a Proxy Binding ACK (PBA) message of

PMIP to S-GW. Then, S-GW will respond with a Create

Session Response to MME. Now, MME sends the

information received from S-GW to eNB within Initial

Context Setup Request message. This signaling message

also contains the Attach Accept notification, which is the

response of Attach Request. Then, eNB responds with an

Initial Context Setup Response to MME. Then, MN sends

an Attach Complete message to MME. Then, MME sends

a Modify Bearer Request message to S-GW, and S-GW

will respond with a Modify Bearer Response to MME. For

data delivery, CN will send a data packet to P-GW. Then,

P-GW finds the location of MN from its database, and it

will forward the data packet to MN.

Figure 3 shows the data delivery from fixed CN to

MN [4], [5]. The initial procedures for binding update of

MN are the same with those in Figure 2. For data

delivery, CN will send a data packet to HA. Then, HA

finds the location of MN from its database, and it will

forward the data packet to P-GW, and further to MN.

Figure 4 shows the route update operation after

handover in PMIP-MIP-SAE [4], in which we consider the

route update after handover for communication with a

mobile CN. By handover, MN moves from Source eNB to

(PCRF). It is noted that S-GW works as a local mobility

anchor for intra-3GPP handover. The MME handles mobility

management and bearer management. P-GW provides IP

multimedia services to hosts. In the meantime, HSS provides

a database which contains user subscription information for

mobility management, authentication and authorization. The

PCRF is a component for policy management such as quality

of services and charging rules [4], [5].

To support IP mobility in SAE, the PMIP was

considered in [7]~[9]. In this study, P-GW of SAE is used

as LMA of PMIP, and S-GW of SAE is employed as

MAG of PMIP. In addition, we may consider the Mobile

IP [10] for global mobility management. In PMIP with

MIP in SAE-based mobile network (denoted by PMIP-

MIP-SAE), MIP is used for global mobility management

with Internet hosts, wheras PMIP will be used for local

mobility management within the mobile network. In this

archictecture, we assume that the Home Address (HoA) of

a Mobile Node (MN) is already announced to the

Correspondent Node (CN).

Figure 1 shows the network model for the PMIP-MIP-

SAE architecture, in which CN is classified into fixed CN

(Internet host) and mobile CN (mobile host). In the figure,

P-GW gives an access to MN and works as the LMA of

PMIP. S-GW will work as the MAG of PMIP. For PMIP-

based mobility support, MAG/S-GW sends a Proxy

Binding Update (PBU) message to LMA/P-GW, and then

LMA/P-GW responds with a Proxy Binding ACK (PBA)

message to MAG/S-GW. We consider the two

communication scenarios: ① CN is a mobile host that is

subscribed to the same mobile domain; ② CN is an

Internet host that is located outside the mobile network.

Figure 2 describes the initial procedures in PMIP-

MIP-SAE [4], [5], [7]~[9]: the network attachment and

binding update of MN, and the data delivery from mobile

339 Telecommunications Review·Vol. 25 No. 2·2015. 4

Figure 2. Binding update of MN and data delivery from mobile CN in PMIP-MIP-SAE

into host-based scheme (LISP-MN-SAE) and network-

based scheme (LISP-eNB-SAE).

1. Network Models

The network models for the proposed schemes are

illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6. In the two schemes,

MME of SAE will work as Local Map Server (LMS) of

LISP. In the meantime, it is assumed that Mobile Node

(MN)/Access Router (AR) will act as a lightweight Ingress

Tunnel Router (ITR) and/or Egress Tunnel Router (ETR)

in mobile network. For data delivery between two hosts,

an ITR prepends a new LISP header to the data packet of a

source host, and an ETR strips the LISP header prior to

final delivery to the destination host. The LISP TR will be

implemented by MN (in LISP-MN-SAE) or by eNB (in

LISP-eNB-SAE).


Tareget eNB. The Target eNB will send a Path Switch

Request message to MME. Then, MME send a Modify

Bearer Request to S-GW. On reception of Modify Bearer

Request, S-GW sends a PBU message to P-GW. Then, P-

GW responds with the PBA message to S-GW. S-GW

will respond with Modify Bearer Response to MME.

Then, MME sent Path Switch Request ACK to Target

eNB. Then, Target eNB sends Release Resource to Source

eNB.

III. LISP-BASED MOBILITYMANAGEMENT SCHEMES

In this section, we describe the two proposed schemes

for LISP-based mobility management in SAE-based

mobile networks. The proposed schemes are categorized

Figure 3. Binding update of MN and data delivery from fixed CN in PMIP-MIP-SAE

Figure 4. Route update operation after handover in PMIP-MIP-SAE

Before going into further description of the proposed

schemes, let us compare the proposed and exisiting schemes

in architectural perspective, as described in Table 1.

In PMIP-MIP-SAE, the HA of MIP is used for global

mobility management, and LMA (over P-GW) of PMIP is

used for local mobility management. The Care-of-

Address (CoA) is used as locator, where as Home Address

(HoA) is used as identifier. In data delivery, the data

packets of CN will be delivered to MN via HA and LMA.

In LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE, the Map

Server (MS) of LISP is used for global mobility

management, and Local MS (over MME) is used for local

mobility management. In LISP-MN-SAE, the Tunnel Router

(TR) of LISP is located at MN, whereas in LISP-eNB-SAE

the TR is located at eNB. The EID of LISP is used as an

identifier, and a Local LOCator (LLOC) is used locally,

whereas a Routing LOCator (RLOC) is used globally.

LLOC represents the IP address of eNB or MN, and RLOC


Figure 5. Network model for LISP-MN-SAE

Figures 6. Network model for LISP-eNB-SAE


does the IP address of gateway. For data delivery in the

LISP-based schemes, the location (RLOC or LLOC) query

operation will be performed with LMS and/or MS by using

the LISP map request message, before data transmission.

2. Binding update of MN and data deliveryprocedure from mobile CN

In this section, we present the LISP binding update of

MN and data delivery operations from mobile CN for the

two candidate schemes. It is noted that the initial

procedure for establishing PDN connection of LISP-MN-

SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE are the same with those of

PMIP-MIP-SAE, since Modify Bearer Request and

Response messages are exchanged between S-GW and P-

GW, instead of PBU and PBA.

2.1. LISP-MN-SAE

Figure 7 describes the initial procedure in LISP-MN-

SAE: the network attachement and binding update of MN,

and data delivery from mobile CN to MN.

After establishing a PDN connection, MN sends a

Map Register message to LMS over MME. Then, LMS

(over MME) updates its LISP database. LMS will send a

Map Register message to the global MS. Then, MS

updates its database and responds with a Map Notify

message to LMS. Then, MME respond with a Map Notify

message to MN (Step 1 through 4).

In the data delivery operation, CN will send a Map

Request message to LMS (over MME) to find the location

of MN. Then, LMS looks up its database and forward the

Map Request message to MN. Then, MN responds

directly with a Map Reply message to CN (Step 5 through

7). The tunnel is established between MN and CN. Now,

CN can send the data packet directly to MN through an

optimized route.

2.2. LISP-eNB-SAE

Figure 8 shows the binding update of MN and data

delivery from mobile CN to MN in LISP-eNB-SAE.

After establishing a PDN connection, eNB sends a

Map Register message to LMS over MME. Then, LMS

updates its LISP database. LMS/MME will send a Map

Register message to the global MS. Then, MS updates its

database and responds with a Map Notify message to

LMS. Then, MME respond with Map Notify message to

Table 1. Comparison of candidate mobility management schemes

Figure 7. Binding update of MN and data delivery from mobile CN in LISP-MN-SAE

AArrcchhiitteeccttuurreess

Local Mobility Agent

Global Mobility Agent

TR Location

Locators

Identifier

PPMMIIPP--MMIIPP--SSAAEE

P-GW/LMA

HA

Not available

CoA

HoA

LLIISSPP--MMNN--SSAAEE

MME/LMS

MS

MN

LLOC, RLOC

EID

LLIISSPP--eeNNBB--SSAAEE

MME/LMS

MS

eNB

LLOC, RLOC

EID

LLIISSPP--SSAAEE


candidate schemes. The initial procedure to establish a

PDN connection for LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE

are the same with the PMIP-MIP-SAE, since the Modify

Bearer Request and Response messages are exchanged

between S-GW and P-GW, instead of PBU and PBA.

3.1. LISP-MN-SAE

The binding update of MN and data delivery from

fixed CN to MN in LISP-MN-SAE is shown in Figure 9.

The initial procedures for binding update of MN are

the same with those of Figure 6 (Step 1 through Step 4).

In the data delivery, CN will first send the data packet to

GW/TR. Then, GW/TR sends the Map Request message

to MS to find the location of MN. Then, MS will look up

its database and forward the Map Request message to

eNB (Step 1 through 4).

For data delivery, CN will first send a data packet to

eNB. Then, eNB will send the Map Request message to

LMS (over MME) to find the location of MN. Then, LMS

will look up its database and forward the Map Request

message to MN. Then, MN responds directly with a Map

Reply message to eNB (Step 5 through 7). The tunnel is

established between eNB and eNB. Now, eNB will

forward the data packet directly to eNB of MN and further

to MN by way of the optimized route.

3. Binding update of MN and data deliveryprocedure from fixed CN

In this section, we describe the LISP binding update

and data delivery operations from a fixed CN for the two

Figure 8. Binding update of MN and data delivery from mobile CN in LISP-eNB-SAE

Figure 9. Binding update of MN and data delivery from fixed CN in LISP-MN-SAE


LMS. Then, LMS will also forward the Map Request

message to MN. MN responds directly with Map Reply

message to GW/TR (Step 5~8). The tunnel is established

between MN and GW/TR. Now, GW/TR will forward the

data packets to MN by way of P-GW/S-GW.

3.2. LISP-eNB-SAE

The binding update operation of MN and the data

delivery operation from a fixed CN to MN in LISP-eNB-

SAE are shown in Figure 10.

The initial procedures for binding update of MN are

the same with those of Figure 7 (Step 1 through Step 4).

In data delivery, CN will first send the data packet to

GW/TR. Then, GW/TR sends the Map Request message to

MS to find the location of MN. Then, MS will look up its

database and forward the Map Request message to LMS.

Then, LMS will also forward the Map Request message to

eNB. eNB responds directly with a Map Reply message to

GW/TR (Step 10 through 13). The tunnel is established

between eNB and GW/TR. Now, GW/TR forwards the

data packets to eNB of MN by way of P-GW/S-GW and

further to MN.

4. Route Update Operations after Handover

Figure 11 and 12 show the route update operations

after handover of LISP-based schemes, in which we focus

on route update operations after handover for

communication with a mobile CN. The route update

operations after handover of LISP-MN-SAE is shown in

Figure 11. By handover, MN moves from Source eNB to

Tareget eNB. Then, MN performs the map request

operation with CN by exchanging the Map Request and

Map Reply messages. The tunnel will be established

between MN and CN.

Figure 12 shows the route update operations after

handover for LISP-eNB-SAE. By handover, MN moves

from Source eNB to Tareget eNB. Then, Target eNB

sends a Map Request message to eNB of CN. On reception

Figure 10. Binding update and data delivery from fixed CN in LISP-eNB-SAE

Figure 11. Route update operation after handover of LISP-MN-SAE

In the figure, we denote Tx-y(S) by the transmission

delay of a message with size S sent from x to y via the

'wireless' link. Then, Tx-y(S) can be expressed as Tx-y(S)

= [(1-q)/(1+q)]×[(S/Bwl)+Lwl]. In the meantime, we

denote Tx-y(S,Hx-y) by transmission delay of a message

with size S sent from x to y via 'wired' link, where Hx-yrepresents the number of wired hops between node x and

node y. Then, Tx-y(S,Hx-y) is expressed as Tx-y(S, Hx-y )

= Hx-y×[(S/Bw)+Lw+Tq], which is based on the

works in [14].

For performance analysis, we use the following

notations, as shown in Table 2.

3. Analysis of Data Transmission Delay(DTD)

In this paper, Data Transmission Delay (DTD) is

defined by the sum of Binding Query Delay (BQD) and

of Map Request, eNB of CN will respond with a Map

Reply message to Target eNB. The tunnel is established

between Target eNB and eNB of CN.

IV. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ANDDISCUSSION

In this section, we analyze the Data Transmission

Delay (DTD) required for binding query and data delivery

and the route update delay for the three candidate

schemes: PMIP-MIP-SAE, LISP-MN-SAE, and LISP-

eNB-SAE.

1. Analysis Model

We also consider a network model for performance

analysis, as illustrated in Figure 13.


Figure 12. Route update operation after handover of LISP-eNB-SAE

Figure 13. Network model for performance analysis

data delivery delay (DDD). That is, DTD=BQD+DDD.

3.1. Binding query and data delivery from mobile CN

3.1.1. PMIP-MIP-SAE

In PMIP-MIP-SAE, the Binding Query Delay (BQD)

is 0. Thus, we get

BQDPMIP-MIP-SAE=0

For data delivery in PMIP-MIP-SAE, CN sends a data

packet to P-GW (LMA), and P-GW will forward the data

packet to MN. Then, the Data Delivery Delay (DDD) of

PMIP-MIP-SAE can be represented as

DDDPMIP-MIP-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-eNB(Sd)+2TeNB-SGW(Sd)

+2TSGW-PGW (Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)}

In the equation, Ndata represents the average number of

data packets to be transmitted by CN.

So, we obtain the overall Data Transmission Delay

(DTD) of the PMIP-MIP-SAE as follows.

DTDPMIP-MIP-SAE=BQDPMIP-MIP-SAE

+DDDPMIP-MIP-SAE=Ndata

×{TCN-eNB(Sd)+2TeNB-SGW(Sd)

+2TSGW-PGW (Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)}

3.1.2. LISP-MN-SAE

In LISP-MN-SAE, the binding query operations are

performed as follows. CN sends the Map Request to

MME/LMS. Then, MME/LMS forwards the Map Request

to MN. On the reception of Map Request, MN will

respond with a Map Reply to CN. This operations takes

TCN-eNB(Sc)+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TMN-

eNB(Sc)+TMN-eNB(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sc)+TCN-eNB(Sc).

Accordingly, the Binding Query Delay (BQD) of

LISP-MN-SAE is represented as follows.

BQDLISP-MN-SAE=2TMN-eNB(Sc)

+2TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sc)

+2TCN-eNB(Sc)

For data delivery, CN sends a data packet directly to

MN through an optimized route. Then, the Data Delivery

Delay (DDD) of LISP-MN-SAE can be represented as

DDDLISP-MN-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-eNB(Sd)

+TeNB-eNB(Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)}


Table 2. Parameters used for performance analysis

PPaarraammeetteerrssSc

Sd

Bw

Bwl

Lw

Lwl

Ha-b

Ndata

q

Tq

DDeessccrriippttiioonn

Size of control packets (bytes)

Size of data packets (bytes)

Wired link bandwidth (Mbps) between eNB and S-GW, between S-GW and P-GW, etc

Wireless bandwidth (Mbps) between host and eNB

Wired link delay (ms) between eNB and S-GW, between S-GW and P-GW, etc

Wireless link delay (ms) between host and eNB

Hop count between nodesa and b in the mobile network

Average number of data packets transmitted by a host

Link failure probability for a wireless link

Average queuing delay at each node


(DTD) of the LISP-MN-SAE as follows.

DTDLISP-MN-SAE=BQDLISP-MN-SAE+DDDLISP-MN-SAE

=2TMN-eNB(Sc)+2TeNB-MME(Sc)

+TeNB-eNB(Sc)+2TCN-eNB (Sc)

+Ndata×{TCN-eNB(Sd)

+2TeNB-eNB(Sd)+TMN-eNB (Sd)}

3.1.3. LISP-eNB-SAE

In LISP-eNB-SAE, the binding query operations are

performed as follows. CN will first send a data packet to

eNB. Then, eNB will send a Map Request to MME/LMS.

Then, MME/LMS forwards the Map Request to eNB of

MN. On reception of Map Request, eNB of MN will

respond with Map Reply to eNB of CN. This operations

takes TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sc).

Thus, the binding query delay (BQD) of LISP-eNB-SAE

is represented as

BQDLISP-eNB-SAE=2TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sc)

For data delivery in LISP-eNB-SAE, CN sends data

packet to eNB and eNB will forward the data packet to

eNB of MN and further to MN. Then, the Data Delivery

Delay (DDD) of LISP-eNB-SAE can be represented as,

DDDLISP-eNB-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-eNB(Sd)


So, we obtain the overall Data Transmission Delay (DTD)

of the LISP-eNB-SAE as follows.

DTDLISP-eNB-SAE=BQDLISP-eNB-SAE

+DDDLISP-eNB-SAE

=2TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sc)

+Ndata×{TCN-eNB(Sd)


3.2. Binding query and data delivery from fixed CN

3.2.1. PMIP-MIP-SAE

The binding query delay for the fixed CN case is the

same with that for the mobile CN case. So we get

BQDPMIP-MIP-SAE=0

In data delivery, the data packet is first delivered to

HA, and HA will forward the data packet to the concerned

host. So, the data delivery delay of PMIP-MIP-SAE is as

follows.

DDDPMIP-MIP-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-GW(Sd)

+TGW-HA(Sd)+TPGW-HA(Sd)

+TSGW-PGW(Sd)+TeNB-SGW(Sd)

+TMN-eNB(Sd)}


(DTD) of PMIP-MIP-SAE as follows.

DTDPMIP-MIP-SAE=BQDPMIP-MIP-SAE

+DDDPMIP-MIP-SAE

=Ndata×{TCN-GW(Sd)

+TGW-HA(Sd)+TPGW-HA(Sd)


+TMN-eNB(Sd)}


3.2.2. LISP-MN-SAE

In LISP-MN-SAE, the binding query operations are


GW/TR. Then, GW/TR will send Map Request to MS. MS

forwards the Map Request to MME/LMS. MME/LMS

forwards the Map Request to MN. MN responds with a

Map Reply to GW/TR. This operations takes TGW-

MS(S c)+T PGW-MS(S c)+T SGW-PGW(S c)+T SGW-

MME(S c)+T eNB-MME(S c)+T MN- eNB(S c)+T MN-

eNB(Sc)+TeNB-SGW(Sc)+TSGW-PGW(Sc)+TPGW-GW(Sc).

Thus, the Binding Query Delay (BQD) of LISP-MN-

SAE can be represented as follows.

BQDLISP-MN-SAE=TGW-MS(Sc)+TPGW-MS(Sc)

+2TSGW-PGW(Sc)+TSGW-MME(Sc)

+TeNB-MME(Sc)+2TMN-eNB (Sc)

+TeNB-SGW(Sc)+TPGW-GW(Sc)


GW, and GW will forward the data packet to the P-GW of

MN, and P-GW forwards to the concerned host. So, the

data delivery delay of LISP-MN-SAE is calculated as

follows.

DDDLISP-MN-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-GW(Sd)

+TGW-PGW(Sd)+TSGW-PGW(Sd)

+TeNB-SGW(Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)}


(DTD) of the LISP-MN-SAE as follows.

DTDLISP-MN-SAE=BQDLISP-MN-SAE+DDDLISP-MN-SAE

=TGW-MS(Sc)+TPGW-MS(Sc)


+TeNB-MME(Sc )+2TMN-eNB(Sc)

+TeNB-SGW(Sc)+TPGW-GW(Sc)+Ndata

×{TCN-GW(Sd)+TGW-PGW(Sd)

+TSGW-PGW(Sd)


3.2.3. LISP-eNB-SAE

In LISP-eNB-SAE, the binding query operations are


GW/TR. Then, GW/TR will send Map Request to MS. MS

will forward the Map Request to MME/LMS. MME/LMS

will also forward the Map Request to eNB. Then, eNB will

respond with a Map Reply to GW/TR. This operations takes

TGW-MS(Sc)+TPGW-MS(Sc)+TSGW-PGW(Sc)+TSGW-

MME(Sc)+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-SGW(Sc)+TSGW-

PGW(Sc)+TPGW-GW(Sc).

Accordingly, the binding query delay (BQD) of LISP-

eNB-SAE is represented as follows.

BQDLISP-eNB-SAE=TGW-MS(Sc)+TPGW-MS(Sc)


+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-SGW(Sc)

+TPGW-GW(Sc)


GW, and GW forwards the data packet to the P-GW of

MN, and P-GW will forward to the concerned host. So,

data delivery delay of LISP-eNB-SAE is calculated as

follows.

DDDLISP-eNB-SAE=Ndata×{TCN-GW(Sd)

+TGW-PGW(Sd)+TSGW-PGW(Sd)



(DTD) of the LISP-eNB-SAE as follows.


DTDLISP-eNB-SAE=BQDLISP-eNB-SAE+DDDLISP-eNB-SAE

=TGW-MS(Sc)+TPGW-MS(Sc)


+TeNB-MME(Sc)+TeNB-SGW(Sc)

+TPGW-GW(Sc)+Ndata

×{TCN-GW(Sd)+TGW-PGW(Sd)


+TMN-eNB(Sd)}

4. Analysis of Route Update Delay (ROD)

In the route update delay, we will consider only the

mobile CN case.

4.1. PMIP-MIP-SAE

In PMIP-MIP-SAE, when MN moves to another eNB

region, Target eNB will send a Path Switch Request to

MME. Then, MME will send Modify Bearer Request to

S-GW. The S-GW will perform the PBU and PBA

operations with P-GW. Then, S-GW responds with a

Modify Bearer Response to MME. MME will also respond

with Path Switch Request Ack to Target eNB. After that,

the data packet is delivered to MN by way of Target eNB.

So, we obtain the route update delay (ROD) of the PMIP-

MIP-SAE as follows.

RODPMIP-MIP-SAE=2TeNB-MME(Sc)+2TMME-SGW(Sc)

+2TSGW-PGW(Sc)+TeNB-SGW(Sd)

+TSGW-PGW(Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)

4.2. LISP-MN-SAE

In LISP-MN-SAE, when MN moves to another eNB

region, MN will send a Map Request message to Target

eNB. Then, Target eNB will forward Map Request

message to eNB of CN. The eNB of CN will forward the

Map Request message to CN. Then, CN responds directly

with a Map Reply to MN. After that, the data packet is

delivered to MN by way of Target eNB. So, we obtain the

route update delay (ROD) of the LISP-MN-SAE as

follows.

RODLISP-MN-SAE=2TMN-eNB(Sc)+2TeNB-eNB (Sc)

+2TCN-eNB(Sc)+TCN-eNB(Sd)

+TeNB-eNB (Sd)+TMN-eNB(Sd)

4.3. LISP-eNB-SAE

In LISP-eNB-SAE, when MN moves to another eNB

region, Target eNB sends a Map Request message to eNB

of CN. Then, eNB of CN will respond directly with a

Map Reply to Target eNB. After that, the data packet is

delivered to MN by way of Target eNB. So, we obtain the

route update delay (ROD) of the LISP-eNB-SAE as

follows.

RODLISP-eNB-SAE=2TeNB-eNB(Sc)+TeNB-eNB(Sd)

+TMN-eNB(Sd)

5. Numerical Results and Discussion

Based on the analytical equations for data transmission

delay and route update delay given so far, we compare the

performance of candidate schemes. For numerical

analysis, we configure the default parameter values, as

described in Table 3, by referring to [14].

5.1. Data Transmission Delay

Figure 14 through Figure 16 show the binding query

and data delivery delays for the mobile CN case. Figure

14 shows the impact of wireless link delay (Lwl) on data

transmission delay. From the figure, we see that the data

transmission delay linearly increases for all the candidate

schemes, as Lwl gets larger. It is shown that PMIP-MIP-

SAE gives the worst performance. This is because the

binding query operation is not performed, and data packets

are directly delivered to the centralized P-GW. On the

other hand, it is shown that the proposed LISP-based

schemes give better performance than the existing PMIP-


MIP-SAE scheme. This is because the proposed schemes

do not rely on the P-GW for data delivery, since the

binding query operation is performed with MME/LMS to

get an optimal route. The proposed LISP-eNB-SAE

scheme gives the best performance among the three

candidate schemes.

Figure 15 compares the data transmission delay for

different average queuing delay (Tq) at each node. It is

shown in the figure that the data transmission delay

linearly increases, as Tq gets larger, for all candidate


Figure 14. Impact of Lwl on data transmission delay

Table 3. Default parameter values

Parameter

Lwl

Tq (ms)

HeNB-SGW

HSGW-PGW

HMME-SGW

HeNB-MME

HeNB-eNB

HPGW-MS

HMME-MME

Ndata

HPGW-HA/MS, HGW-HA/MS, HPGW-GW

q

Lw

ScSdBwl

Bw

Default

10

5

2

3

2

2

2

5

2

10

6

0.2

2 ms

50 bytes

200 bytes

11 Mbps

100 Mbps

Minimum

1

1

1

1

Maximum

55

55

55

55

schemes. PMIP-MIP-SAE gives the worst performance.

This is because the data packets are directly delivered to

the centralized P-GW. On the other hand, it is shown that

the proposed LISP-eNB-SAE scheme gives the best

performance among the three candidate schemes.

Figure 16 shows the impact of the hop counts between

S-GW and P-GW (HSGW-PGW). In the figure, we can see

that HSGW-PGW gives significant impacts on data

transmission delay for the existing PMIP-MIP-SAE

scheme, and that the proposed LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-

eNB-SAE schemes give better performances than the

existing PMIP-MIP-SAE scheme. This is because PMIP-

MIP-SAE relies on P-GW for data delivery. In the

meantime, the LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE

schemes are not affected by HSGW-PGW. This is because

LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE perform the bidning

query operation with MME/LMS.

Figure 17 and 18 show the binding query and data


Figure 15. Impact of Tq on data transmission delay

Figure 16. Impact of HSGW-PGW on data transmission delay

delivery delay for the fixed CN case. Figure 17 illustrates

the impact of wireless link delay (Lwl) on data

transmission delay. We can see that the data transmission

delay linearly increases for all the candidate schemes, as

Lwl gets larger. It is shown that PMIP-MIP-SAE gives the

worst performance. This is because PMIP-MIP-SAE

relies on a centralized HA for data delivery, and there is

no query operation. On the other hand, it is shown that the

proposed LISP-based schemes give better performance

than the existing PMIP-MIP-SAE scheme. This is

because the proposed LISP-based schemes do not rely on

the MS for data delivery, since the query operation is

performed with MS to get an optimal route.

Figure 18 shows impact of average queuing delay (Tq)

at each node on data transmission delay. In the figure, we

can see that the data transmission delay linearly increases,

as Tq gets larger, for the three candidate schemes. PMIP-

MIP-SAE gives worse performance than LISP-MN-SAE


Figure 17. Impact of Lwl on data transmission delay

Figure 18. Impact of Tq on data transmission delay

and LISP-eNB-SAE. This is because in PMIP-MIP-SAE

data packets are directly delivered to the centralized HA,

and there is no query operation. On the other hand, it is

shown that LISP-MN-SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE give

almost the same performance. The gaps of performances

from PMIP-MIP-SAE get larger, as HeNB-SGW increases.

5.2. Route Update Delay

Figure 19 illustrates the impact of average queuing

delay (Tq) at each node on route update delay. We can see

that the route update delay linearly increases, as Tq gets

larger, for the three candidate schemes. We can see that

PMIP-MIP-SAE gives worse performance than LISP-MN-

SAE and LISP-eNB-SAE. This is because PMIP-MIP-

SAE performs the binding update operations with P-GW

after each handover. On the other hand, it is shown that

LISP-eNB-SAE gives the best performance among the

candidate schemes. This is because LISP-eNB-SAE does

not depend on PGW and it performs the map request


Figure 19. Impact of Tq on route update delay

Figure 20. Impact of HeNB-SGW on route update delay

operations after handover to update location.

Figure 20 compares the route update delay of the

candidate schemes for different hop counts between eNB

and S-GW (HeNB-SGW). In the figure, we can see that

HeNB-SGW gives significant impacts on route update delay

for PMIP-MIP-SAE. This is because PMIP-MIP-SAE

performs the binding update operation with P-GW after

every handover. In the meantime, the LISP-MN-SAE and

LISP-eNB-SAE schemes are not affected by HeNB-SGW,

and the LISP-eNB-SAE scheme provides the best

performance among all of the candidate schemes. The

gaps of the performances get larger, as HeNB-SGWincreases.

V. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we propose the two LISP-based mobility

management schemes in SAE-based mobile communication

networks. To support LISP identifier-locator mapping

management in the SAE architecture, we have introduced

a new entity, Local Map Server (LMS), which is used to

keep track of the locations of mobile hosts in the mobile

network. The proposed schemes are divided into the two

cases: host-based and network-based.

By performance analysis, we compared the two

proposed LISP-based mobility schemes with the existing

PMIP scheme. From numerical results, we see that the

proposed schemes can give better performance than the

existing PMIP scheme in SAE-based mobile networks in

terms of data transmission and route update delays. In

particular, we see that the proposed network-based LISP-

eNB-SAE scheme can give the best performance among

the candidate schemes.

AcknowledgmentThis research was partly supported by the Basic

Science Research Program of NRF(2010-0020926).

[References][1] Younghyun Kim, et al., ''Performance Analysis

of Distributed Mapping System in ID/Locator Separation Architectures,'' Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 39, Mar. 2014, pp. 223-232.

[2] Dong Ma, et al., ''Network Selection and Resource Allocation for Multicast in HetNets,'' Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 43, Aug.

2014, pp. 17-26.[3] Morgan Stanley Report: Internet trends, available

from http://www.morganstanley.com/.[4] 3GPP TS 23.401, GPRS enhancements for E-UTRAN

access, Rel-12 Ver. 12.4.0, 2014.[5] 3GPP TR 23.402, Technical Specification

Group Services and System Aspects: Architecture Enhancements for Non-3GPP Accesses, V10.7.0, Mar. 2012.

[6] S. Gundavelli, et al., Proxy Mobile IPv6, IETF RFC 5213, Aug. 2008.

[7] Julien Laganier, et al., ''Mobility Management for All-IP Network,'' NTT DOCOMO TechnicalJournal, Vol. 11, No. 3, Sep. 2009.

[8] Yuh-Shyan Chen, et al., ''A Secure Relay-Assisted Handover Protocol for Proxy Mobile IPv6 in 3GPP LTE Systems,'' Wireless Personal Communications, Vol. 61, Issue 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 629-656.

[9] A. R. Prasad, et al., ''Mobility and Key Management in SAE/LTE,'' CNIT Thyrrenian Symposium on Signals and Communication Technology, Sep.2007, pp 165-178.

[10] D. Johnson, et al., Mobility Support in IPv6, IETF RFC 3775,Jun. 2004.

[11] D. Farinacci, et al., Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), IETF RFC 6830, Jan. 2013.

[12] D.Farinacci, et al., LISP Map-Server Interface,IETF RFC 6833, Jan. 2013

[13] D. Farinacci, et al., LISP Mobile Node, IETF Internet Draft, draft-meyer-lisp-mn-10, Jan. 2014.

[14] Makaya, C. and Pierre, S., ''An Analytical Framework for Performance Evaluation of IPv6-based Mobility Management Protocols,'' IEEE Wireless Communication, Vol. 7. No. 3, pp. 972-983, 2008.



Moneeb Gohar

He received B.S. degree in Computer Science from

University of Peshawar, Pakistan, and M.S. degree in

Technology Management from Institute of Management

Sciences, Pakistan, in 2006 and 2009, respectively. He

also received Ph.D degree from the School of Computer

Science and Engineering in the Kyungpook National

University, Korea, in 2012. From September 2012 to

September 2014, he worked as a Post-Doctoral researcher

for Software Technology Research Center (STRC) in

Kyungpook National University, Korea. He has been as an

International Research Professor with the Department of

Information and Communication Engineering in the

Yeungnam University since September 2014. His current

research interests include Network Layer Protocols,

Wireless Communication, Mobile Multicasting, Wireless

Sensors Networks, TRILL, and Internet Mobility.

E-mail: [email protected]

Jin-Ghoo Choi

He received his Ph. D. degree from the School of

Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Seoul

National University in 2005. From 2006 to 2007, he

worked for Samsung Electronics as a senior engineer. In

2009, he was with the Department of Electrical &

Computer Engineering in The Ohio State University as a

visiting scholar. He joined the Department of Information

and Communication Engineering in Yeungnam University

as a faculty member in 2010. His research interests include

performance analysis of communication networks,

resource management in wireless networks, and wireless

sensor network


Jin-Ho Park

He received B. S. degree in Computer Science from

Kyungpook National University in 2012. He is now with

the Kyungpook National University as M.S Student. His

current research interests include Network Layer

Protocols, Wireless Communication, Mobile Multicasting

and Internet Mobility.


Seok-Joo Koh

He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Management

Science from KAIST in 1992 and 1994, respectively. He

also received Ph.D. degree in Industrial Engineering from

KAIST in 1998. From August 1998 to February 2004, he

worked for Protocol Engineering Center in ETRI. He has

been as a professor with the school of Computer Science

and Engineering in the Kyungpook National University

since March 2004. His current research interests include

mobility management in the future Internet, IP mobility,

multicasting, LED-based visible lights communication,

IoT and SCTP. He has so far participated in the

international standardization as an editor in ITU-T SG13

and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6.


Mobility Support Using Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol in … · 2017-02-11 · To alleviate...

Documents

Transcript of Mobility Support Using Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol in … · 2017-02-11 · To alleviate...