Giuliana Iapichino and Christian Bonnet Mobile Communications Dept. Eurecom, France

1. in Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing: Connecting the World Wirelessly, Leipzig, Germany, 2009, pp. 603-607. (IWCMC’09) Combining Mobility and Heterogeneous Networking for Emergency Management: a PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach GiulianaIapichino and Christian BonnetMobile Communications Dept. Eurecom, France Oscar del Rio HerreroRF Payload Systems Division European Space Agency, Netherlands Cedric Baudoin and Isabelle BuretResearch Dept. Thales Alenia Space, France

2. Outline • Introduction • PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach • Handover Latency Analysis • Conclusion

3. Introduction • Emergency - the need for an easily deployable infrastructure at the disaster site • mobility and heterogeneous networking support is extremely important • The proposed combination of PMIPv6 and Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [5] • represents a secure global and localized mobility solution • an efficient mechanism of intra and inter-technology handover

4. Host Identity Protocol • the IP address is • a locator used to route traffic to the destination node and • The identifier of the node • the same node would have different identifiers depending on where it is positioned in the network • HIP separates the identifier from the locator • the Host Identity (HI) serves as the identifier • The public key of an asymmetric key-pair. • a 128-bit hash of the HI, called the Host Identity Tag (HIT), is used • allows it to be used instead of an IPv6 address at higher layers • The IP address is still used as the locator

6. Creating a HIP Association • 4-way handshake (Base Exchange, BE) R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela et al., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)," IETF, RFC 5201, 2008.

7. HIP mobility

8. Micro-Mobility Solutions for HIP • In [7], Novaczki et al. propose a micro-mobility scheme. • the Local Rendezvous Server (LRVS) • acts as the Mobile Anchor Point (MAP) in HMIPv6. • the high number of messages needed to update • In [8], So and Wang propose a new HIP architecture composed of micro-HIP (mHIP) agents • The mHIP agents under the same network domain share a common HIT • MN register itself in the RVS with the HIT of the mHIP domain • breaks the macro-mobility of HIP • as changing domain implies changing HIT [7] S. Novaczki, L. Bokor, and S. Imre, “Micromobility Support in HIP: survey and extension of Host Identity Protocol”, Proc. IEEE MELECON 2006, May 2006, pp. 651-54. [8] J. Y. H. So, and J. Wang, “Micro-HIP: a HIP-based micro-mobility solution”, Proc. IEEE ICC Workshop 2008, May 2008,

9. PMIPv6 K.-S. Kong, W. Lee, Y.-H. Han et al., “Mobility management for all-IP mobile networks: mobile IPv6 vs. proxy mobile IPv6,” MWC: IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 36-45, 2008.

10. Outline • Introduction • PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach • Handover Latency Analysis • Conclusion

11. PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach • HIT_domain - represent the whole PMIPv6 domain • a common HIT shared by all the entities in the PMIPv6 domain (LMA and MAGs) • besides their own HIT • A Mobility Management Key (MMK) • used by the MN to verify the signature of trusted PMIPv6’s entities. • PMIPv6 use a per-MN-prefix scheme and not a per-interface-prefix approach • All interfaces of the MN share a HNP

12. Initialization MN identifier Service Offer parameters:HIT_domain, MMK parameters MN accept the micro-mobility service

13. Communication Setup • Initiated by the CN • the CN get the MN’s RVS server from the DNS server • The CN starts the HIP BE with the MN via RVS • I1 is routed by LMA to the correct MAG • The rest of the BE will operate via a similar process • Inspecting the HIP BE, the LMA record the mapping between the Security Parameters Index (SPI), CN’s IP address, MN’s IP address and the serving MAG

14. Intra-technology Handovers • completely based on PMIPv6 - transparent to HIP

15. Inter-technology Handovers 1)Switch on a new wireless interface. 2)The same HNP, no need to UPDATE RVS. serving MAG handle this UPDATE The MN recognizes the HIT_domain and the MMK in the message and accepts the reply.

16. Outline • Introduction • PMIPv6 and HIP-based Approach • Handover Latency Analysis • Conclusion

18. Handover latency • time that elapses between the moment in which the L2 handover completes at the RAP and the moment the MN receives the first packet after moving to the new point-of-attachment • TL2 : represents the delay due to layer 2 signaling, • TMD : the movement detection delay, • TAC : the address configuration delay • TREG : the location registration delay

19. In Novaczki’s scheme TL2 TMD TREG TAC

20. In HIP-PMIPv6 approach TREG TL2 = + extra TREG MN’s HIP update PBU-PBA

21. assume tmr to be 10 ms, tra = 2 ms, and tam = 20 ms • MinInt = 30 ms, MaxInt = 70 ms, R = 1000 ms and D = 1

22. Double PBU/PBA In fact, tam

23. comments • Contribution • 提出讓LMA/MAG intercept and involve in the HIP messages • 定義interleaving messages for HIP+PMIPv6 • Deploying HIP may not be easy • requires modifications in protocol stacks and applications • The definition of “L2 handover complete” • Session mobility, Human mobility • 可能可以用HI作為session/man identifier • 同一個人用不同node時,經一認證機制,將屬於該人的HI assign到他用的機器上