1 / 24

On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming

On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming. Vatche Ishakian, Ibrahim Matta , Joseph Akinwumi Computer Science Boston University. Mobility = Dynamic Multihoming. Hosts / ASes became increasingly multihomed Multihoming is a special case of mobility

slone
Télécharger la présentation

On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming Vatche Ishakian, Ibrahim Matta, Joseph Akinwumi Computer Science Boston University I. Matta

  2. Mobility = Dynamic Multihoming Hosts / ASes became increasingly multihomed Multihoming is a special case of mobility RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture) is a clean-slate design – http://csr.bu.edu/rina RINA routing is based on node addresses Late binding of node address to point-of-attachment Compare to LISP (early binding) and Mobile-IP Average-case communication cost analysis Simulation over Internet-like topologies I. Matta

  3. What’s wrong today?one big, flat, open net There’s no building block We named and addressed the wrong things (i.e. interfaces) We exposed addresses to applications Applications Applications Network Transport Transport Network Network Data Link Data Link Physical Physical Web, email, ftp, … TCP, UDP, … IP protocol 128.10.127.25 128.197.15.1 DL DL PHY PHY www.cs.bu.edu 128.197.15.10 128.197.0.0 128.10.0.0

  4. RINA offers better scoping The IPC Layer is the building block and can be composed An IPC Layer has all what is needed to manage a “private” network, i.e. it integrates routing, transport and management E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant Each IPC Layer provides (transport) service / QoS over its scope IPv6 is/was a waste of time! We can have many layers without too many addresses per layer Applications Applications Network Transport Transport Network Network Data Link Data Link Physical Physical Web, email, ftp, … IPC Layer TCP, UDP, … IP IPC Layer DL IPC Layer DL PHY PHY

  5. To: B RINA: Good Addressing – private mgmt Bob want to send message to “Bob” “Bob”B A B IPC Layer I2 I1 IPC Layer • Destination application is identified by “name” • Each IPC Layer is privately managed • It assigns private node addresses to IPC processes • It internally maps app/service name to node address

  6. B, , are IPC processes on same machine To: B RINA: Good Addressing - late binding Bob want to send message to “Bob” A B IPC Layer I1 I2 I1 I2 IPC Layer BI2 • Addressing is relative: node address is name for lower IPC Layer, and point-of-attachment (PoA) for higher IPC Layer • Late binding of node name to a PoA address • A machine subscribes to different IPC Layers

  7. RINA: Good Routing source destination • Back to naming-addressing basics [Saltzer ’82] • Service name (location-independent)  node name (location-dependent)  PoA address (path-dependent)  path • We clearly distinguish the last 2 mappings • Route:sequence of node names (addresses) • Late binding: map next-hop’s node name to PoA at lower IPC level I. Matta 7

  8. Mobility is Inherent MH CH • Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones • Local movement results in local routing updates 8

  9. Mobility is Inherent CH • Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones • Local movement results in local routing updates 9

  10. Mobility is Inherent CH • Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones • Local movement results in local routing updates 10

  11. Compare to loc/id split (1) RLOC1x RLOC2y EIDx EIDy EIDx -> EIDy EIDx EIDy • Basis of solutions to the multihoming issue • Claim: the IP address semantics are overloaded as both location and identifier • LISP (Location ID Separation Protocol) ’06 Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y I. Matta

  12. Compare to loc/id split (2) RLOC1x RLOC2y EIDx -> EIDy EIDx EIDy • Ingress Border Router maps ID to loc, which is the location of destination Egress BR • Problem: loc is path-dependent, does not name the ultimate destination Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y

  13. LISP vs. RINA vs. … • Total Cost per loc / interface change = Cost of Loc / Routing Update + • r [ Pcons*DeliveryCost + (1-Pcons)*InconsistencyCost ] r: expected packets per loc change Pcons: probability of no loc change since last pkt delivery • RINA’s routing modeled over a binary tree of IPC Layers: update at top level involves route propagation over the whole network diameter D; update at leaf involves route propagation over D/2h, h is tree height I. Matta

  14. LISP I. Matta

  15. LISP I. Matta

  16. RINA I. Matta

  17. RINA I. Matta

  18. RINA I. Matta

  19. MobileIP I. Matta

  20. LISP vs. RINA vs. … 8x8 Grid Topology RINA uses 5 IPC levels; on average, 3 levels get affected per move LISP RINA I. Matta

  21. Simulation: Packet Delivery Ratio RINA • BRITE generated 2-level topology • Average path length 14 hops • Random walk mobility model • Download BRITE from www.cs.bu.edu/brite LISP I. Matta

  22. Simulation: Packet Delay LISP RINA I. Matta

  23. Bottom Line: RINA is less costly • RINA inherently limits the scope of location update & inconsistency • RINA uses “direct” routing to destination node • More work: prototyping I. Matta

  24. RINA papers @http://csr.bu.edu/rinaThank YouQuestions? I. Matta

More Related