On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming Mobility and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
on the cost of supporting mobility and multihoming
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming Mobility and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 10, 2022 148 likes •404 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming Mobility and Multihoming

Vatche Ishakian, Ibrahim Matta, Joseph Akinwumi Computer Science Boston University

  • I. Matta

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Mobility = Dynamic Multihoming Mobility Dynamic Multihoming

Hosts / ASes became increasingly multihomed Multihoming is a special case of mobility Multihoming is a special case of mobility RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture) is a RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture) is a

clean-slate design – http://csr.bu.edu/rina

RINA routing is based on node addresses RINA routing is based on node addresses

Late binding of node address to point-of-attachment

Compare to LISP (early binding) and Mobile-IP Compare to LISP (early binding) and Mobile IP Average-case communication cost analysis Simulation over Internet like topologies

  • I. Matta

Simulation over Internet-like topologies

slide-3
SLIDE 3

What’s wrong today?

  • ne big, flat, open net
  • ne big, flat, open net

Transport Applications Transport Applications Web, email, ftp, …

TCP, UDP, … IP t l

Network Transport Data Link Network Transport Data Link Network DL DL

TCP, UDP, … IP protocol

Physical Physical DL DL PHY PHY www.cs.bu.edu 128 10 0 0 128 197 0 0

Th ’ b ildi bl k

www.cs.bu.edu 128.197.15.10 128.10.0.0 128.197.0.0

There’s no building block We named and addressed the wrong things (i.e. interfaces) We exposed addresses to applications We exposed addresses to applications

slide-4
SLIDE 4

RINA offers better scoping

Transport Applications Transport Applications TCP UDP Web, email, ftp, … Network Transport Data Link Network Transport Data Link Network DL DL TCP, UDP, … IP

IPC Layer

Physical Physical DL DL PHY PHY

IPC Layer IPC Layer

The IPC Layer is the building block and can be composed

A IPC L h ll h t i d d t “ i t ” t k

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 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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

RINA: Good Addressing – private mgmt

want to send message to “Bob”

Bob

B A I “Bob”B

IPC Layer

I1 I2

IPC Layer

To: B

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

5

It internally maps app/service name to node address

slide-6
SLIDE 6

RINA: Good Addressing - late binding

want to send message to “Bob”

Bob

B A

IPC Layer

I1 I2 To: B B, , are IPC processes

  • n same

I1 I2

Addressing is relative: node address is name for lower IPC

BI2

IPC Layer

  • n same

machine

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

6

A machine subscribes to different IPC Layers

slide-7
SLIDE 7

RINA: Good Routing

source destination

Back to naming-addressing basics [Saltzer ’82]

Service name (location-independent)

node name (location-dependent) ( p ) PoA address (path-dependent) path We clearly distinguish the last 2 mappings Route: sequence of node names (addresses)

  • I. Matta

7

Route: sequence of node names (addresses) Late binding: map next-hop’s node name to PoA at lower

IPC level

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Mobility is Inherent Mobility is Inherent

CH MH

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones

8

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Mobility is Inherent Mobility is Inherent

CH

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones

9

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Mobility is Inherent Mobility is Inherent

CH

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones

10

Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Compare to loc/id split (1) Compare to loc/id split (1)

Basis of solutions to the multihoming issue Claim: the IP address semantics are overloaded as both

C a t e add ess se a t cs a e o e oaded as bot location and identifier

LISP (Location ID Separation Protocol) ’06

EIDx -> EIDy EIDx EIDy EIDx EIDy RLOC1x RLOC2y

  • I. Matta

Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Compare to loc/id split (2) Compare to loc/id split (2)

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

EIDx -> EIDy EIDx EIDy RLOC1x RLOC2y Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

LISP vs. RINA vs. … LISP vs. RINA vs. …

Total Cost per loc / interface change =

Cost of Loc / Routing Update + Cost of Loc / Routing Update + ρ [ Pcons*DeliveryCost + (1-Pcons)*InconsistencyCost ] ρ [

cons

y (

cons)

y ] ρ: 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 RINA s routing modeled over a binary tree of IPC

Layers: update at top level involves route propagation

  • ver the whole network diameter D; update at leaf

in ol es ro te propagation o er D/2h h is tree height

  • I. Matta

involves route propagation over D/2h, h is tree height

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

LISP LISP

  • I. Matta

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

LISP LISP

  • I. Matta

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

RINA RINA

  • I. Matta

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

RINA RINA

  • I. Matta

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

RINA RINA

  • I. Matta

1 8

slide-19
SLIDE 19

MobileIP MobileIP

  • I. Matta

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

LISP vs. RINA vs. … LISP vs. RINA vs. …

8x8 Grid Topology RINA uses 5 IPC levels; on average, 3 levels get affected per move LISP RINA

  • I. Matta

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Simulation: Packet Delivery Ratio Simulation: Packet Delivery Ratio

BRITE

RINA

BRITE

generated 2- level topology

Average path

length 14 hops

Random walk

mobility model

LISP

Download

BRITE from

www cs bu edu/brite www.cs.bu.edu/brite

  • I. Matta

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Simulation: Packet Delay Simulation: Packet Delay

LISP LISP RINA

  • I. Matta

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Bottom Line: RINA is less costly Bottom Line: RINA is less costly

RINA inherently limits the scope of RINA inherently limits the scope of

location update & inconsistency

RINA uses “direct” routing to destination

node

More work: prototyping

p yp g

  • I. Matta

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

RINA papers @ p p @ http://csr.bu.edu/rina Thank You Questions? Questions?

  • I. Matta

24