Transcript IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence with Application Perspective

IPv6 & Mobile
Residential Network
곽 광훈
ETRI
([email protected])
Contents









Backgrounds
New Life Pattern with New Paradigm
Residential Networks for new life pattern
Network Mobility
Network Mobility Current Issues
Basic solution
Extended solution
New Paradigm for Network Switch
Conclusion and Future works
2
Backgrounds
 BcN (Broadband convergence Network)
 NGN driven by Korean Government
 NGcN(Network Generation convergence Network): previous name
 Convergence
 Wire & Wireless
 Broadcasting & Communication
 Voice & Data
 Anytime, Anywhere, Anyone, Anydevice, Anymedia, Anyservice
 En route Path toward Ubiquitous world
 IPv6 is one of the core initiatives for BcN
 Addressability, Auto Configuration, Mobility, QoS ...
 Mandated by even DoD this year.
3
New Life Pattern
 What is New Life Pattern using New Residential
Network Environment
 Locale not only of Fixed House but also of Nomadic House
 Roles not only for Home but also for Office
 Should consider the network for Personal Area Env.
 For Wearable electronic devices
 For Personalization with Accompanying Env. (Ex, Music,
Temperature, Illumination, Humidity, Preferred Desktop Menu..)
 Location independent access to Home
 May be Used for even Public (Ex, Real time Regional Power
Consumption Distribution Map)
 Means Moving Life
4
Residential Network(1)
 Nomadic House with same env. of fixed House
IPv6
BcN
Temperature
Illumination
Menu in oven
Favorite Music
5
Residential Network(2)
 Cyber Office with real controllability to office facility
BcN
Office Env.
- Facility…
- On-line meeting
- Desktop Env.
6
IPv6
Residential Network(3)
 Real time Regional Power Consumption Distribution Map
 Moving filming with remote storage
IPv6
BcN
7
Residential Network(4)
 Residential Network
 Beyond Home Network
 Fixed Home Network + Nomadic Home Network + Personal
Area Network
 Killer Ubiquitous Areas of most Human’s deployed life
 Core attribute
 Network Mobility beyond Host Mobility
 Tagging Environment
8
Network Mobility(1)
 Network Mobility Applications
 Networks attached to people (PANs)
 Networks of sensors, devices, appliances and computers
(vehicles)
 Access Networks (Public transportation)
 Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
 Why IPv6 for Mobility (both Host and Network)
 ‘Where’ fully separated with ‘Who’
 Auto Configuration of getting address for new zone
 Embedded Security easy to adopt for BU
9
Network Mobility(2)
CN
 Host Mobility vs. Network Mobility
 Host Mobility
 Mobile node itself only
 MN changes its point of attachment
 Handled by Mobile IP WG in IETF
HA
AR
MN
MN
 Network Mobility
 Entire Network mobile as a unit and
attached to Internet via a MR
 One or more IP-subnets
 One or more MRs
CN
HA
 MR changes its point of attachment
 Node behind MR don’t change their
own point of attachment
 But the Protocol is based on ones of
Host Mobility
 Handles by NEMO WG in IETF
10
AR
MR
MR
Network Mobility(3)
 Benefits of Network Mobility over Host Mobility
 Only the Mobile Router maintains Internet Access
 Even with Standard IPv6 Node behind the MR
 Means No Mobility support Node
 More distinct requirement than ones of Host Mobility regarding
Handover
 Watching a movie while walking? Or Watching movie in a train?
 More Scenarios
 Nested Mobility: A subset of Mobile Network is itself mobile
 Visiting Mobile Nodes: A PDA in a train
 Mobile IP-subnets: A PAN in a train
 Multi-Homing
 A Mobile Network connected to the internet via several Interfaces
11
Network Mobility(4)
 NEMO WG
 Initiated with the problem of Mobile IP not suitable for
Network Mobility
 Created in Oct. 2003
 Stepwise Approach
 Basic Support: short term solution
 Quick solution, even if not efficient
 Maintain session continuity to all MNNs
 Solution: Bidirectional tunnel between MR and HA
 Extended Support: long term
 Optimal routing between arbitrary CNs and MNNs
 Solution: more investigation in the solution space is needed
12
Network Mobility Current Issues
 Basic Solution: using Bi-directional Tunneling
 To be explained later
 Prefix delegation for Mobile Network
 draft-paakkonen-nemo-prefix-delegation-00.txt
 Multihoming
 draft-charbon-nemo-multihoming-evaluation-00.txt
 Threat Analysis
 draft-jung-nemo-threat-analysis-00.txt
 IPR status
 Nokia and CISCO
 Nokia has arranged Royalty Free license for open-source impl.
13
Basic Solution
 Maintain session continuity for all MNNs
 Draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-00.txt
 Resembles Mobile-IP
 MR registers gets 1 CoA (or More) and register it with HA
 HA records a network-specific route instead of home-specific
route
 Bidirectional tunnel between HA and MR
 Not Optimal solution, but guarantee mobile networks
supported with minimal work
 Permanent connectivity to all MNNs
 Mobility management transparency to MNNs
 Numbers of BU minimized (1 per MR not LFN)
14
Extended Solution(1)
 Non-Optimal Routing with basic solution
CN
HA
AR
MR
MN
LFN
VMN
From CN to Visiting MN
From CN to Local Fixed Node
HAVMN2
AR
HAMN
MR
HAVMN1
CN
HAMR
CN
HAMR
HAMR2
AR
MN
VMN2
AR
MR2
MR
HAMR1
MR1
LFN
VMN1
MR2
LFN
From CN to Nested Mobile Network
From Visiting MN to Visiting MN
15
Extended Solution(2)
 Considerations for Optimal Routing
 Binding Update to CN?
 Who issues BU?
 MNN or MR
 LFN is never mobility-considered.
 Currently BU is not piggybacked in MN in Mobile IPv6
 MR issues first instead of MN when the first packet from NN?
 Source routing chain for nested mobile network?
 RSVP-like Binding Update?
 BU accumulation for every en-route MR?
 Can the prefix delegation scheme used for this?
 All the MNN
 Nobody knows the solution currently!
16
New Paradigm for Network Switch
 Major Issue until now
 Which Way the packet/frame should forward?
 When the packet/frame should forward or is it discard?
 But never consider the payload not only touch but even lookup!
 New Paradigm: Disruptive Technology
 Contents Awareness
 The needs for payload lookup ability
 The Higher Hardware capacity( Ex, EZ chip: string parsing NP)
 How about Contents customization for user?
 How about Real time Consumer edge Transcoding for streaming
 This issue may be needed or not for Optimal routing in Mobile
Network
17
Conclusion and Future works
 Network Mobility is core issue for New Residential
Network.
 For Real Network Mobility, Optimal Routing should be
considered soon.
 Should we break the taboo? the payload manipulation
 Future works for consideration
 Haw can we deploy the ‘Contents awareness’?
 Can Router issues Signaling packet for its node?
 BcN & Residential Network & IPv6
 Should be merged together for Real Ubiquitous World
18