Need 4-6 pages paper about SDN-Openflow controller in 5G to address the problem of latencies..

wbuagrpu990
timer Asked: Sep 17th, 2017

Question Description

I did my masters in applied Management, MSC ( Mathematics). I have a Professional experience of more than 2 years is waiting to serve you and make you better off with quality and efficiency. I have also four years of demanding teaching experience in the field of finance and business studies at Master’s Level. I have a solid understanding of a diverse range of management applications, including market analysis, sales and marketing, team building and quality assurance.


Are you familiar with, SDN?

The paper should be an academic field that meets like ieee criteria or other networks journal.

I want to utilize SDN-Openflow controller in 5G to address the problem of latencies introduced by hard handovers in 3G/4G Networks.
Want to publish a paper in a journal about that.

If you search on the internet about SDN- for Mobility or SDN for cellular telecommunications, you will find many articles been published. I want it to similar like others or much better.

I want 4-6 pages paper, I have shared two papers. These are sample papers.

I want 100% unique content as, I need to check plagiarism on Turnitin

Unformatted Attachment Preview

IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World OpenFlow-based Proxy Mobile IPv6 over Software Defined Network (SDN) Seong-Mun Kim∗ , Hyon-Young Choi∗ , Pill-Won Park∗ , Sung-Gi Min∗ , and Youn-Hee Han† ∗ Department of Computer and Radio Communication Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea Email:sgmin@korea.ac.kr † School of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University of Technology and Education, CheonAn, South Korea Abstract—Software Defined Network (SDN) is widely deployed by using OpenFlow protocol for the implementation of flexible networking. A lot of researches are progressing to adapt OpenFlow to existing network architectures. PMIPv6 is proposed to handle the network-based local mobility using IP tunneling. However, it has some weak points such as IP tunneling overhead and sharing same path for the data and the control planes. In this paper, we propose OpenFlow-based Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) to obtain the advantages of the OpenFlow architecture for PMIPv6 network. The proposed scheme separates the mobility management function from the components of PMIPv6. It preserves the functionalities and messages defined in PMIPv6 but reconstructs components to take the advantages offered by the OpenFlow architecture. The reconstructed components set the flow table of switches located in the path as the controller of OpenFlow. The proposed scheme removes the tunneling to forward user traffic and separates the data and the control planes. OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 offers more flexible deployment architecture. I. I NTRODUCTION Recently, software defined network (SDN) is interested by many researchers due to its various advantages, such as separating control plane from data plane in separate entities (devices), traffic steering, reduction the inter-operability problems associated with multiple protocols in existing devices, and avoidance capacity issues in existing network devices. Thus, SDN is being rapidly deployed by using OpenFlow protocol [1]. OpenFlow opens the reference point between the control plane and an external controller. The similar architectural perspective is used by the soft-switch technology. As the softswitch uses the H.248.1/Megaco protocol for controlling the data plane externally, the OpenFlow switch uses the OpenFlow protocol for this purpose. The OpenFlow switch is based on the Ethernet switch and provides a way for researchers to run experimental protocols in the operating networks. The OpenFlow switch classifies flows based on the header information of network layer and link layer protocol. Typical mobility protocols are categorized into two types: the macro mobility management protocol and the micro mobility management protocol. They handle the inter-domain mobility and the intra-domain mobility, respectively. The general problems related with the macro mobility management protocol are large update latency, heavy signaling overhead, and weak location privacy [2]. To overcome these problems, several micro mobility protocols such as Cellular IP [3], HAWAII [4] are proposed. One of prominent characteristics 978-1-4799-2355-7/14/$31.00 ©2014IEEE 119 of these protocols is that they treat the mobility as a routing update problem. Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [2] is a micro mobility management protocol standardized by IETF. Unlike other micro mobility management protocols, it is the networkbased mobility management (NETLMM) and it excludes the mobile node from the mobility related signaling. One of weak points of PMIPv6 is that it uses the tunneling technique to forward traffic between the mobility anchor points and the access routers. The tunneling requires the encapsulation and decapsulation of packets at each end point of a tunnel. Another weak point is that all packets has to be forwarded through the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). It causes a triangle routing problem even if a mobile node (MN) and a corresponding node (CN) are close. Several micro mobility management protocols use the routing update messages to avoid tunneling. A particular router installs the host-specific address of an MN into the routers in the middle of the path between a mobility anchor point and an access router of the MN. Unfortunately, this method cannot be applied to PMIPv6 to replace the tunnel. The tunnel is used to forward downward traffic to the mobile node and upward traffic to the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). Unlike the downward traffic, the upward traffic requires the source address based routing against the destination address based routing used by the downward traffic. In this paper, we propose OpenFlow-based PMIPv6. The proposed scheme uses the same architecture, functionalities, and message formats defined in PMIPv6 but it separates MAG and LMA functions from the routers. It mitigates the tunneling overhead with OpenFlow switches and provides routing optimization. II. R ELATED W ORKS A. Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) PMIPv6 defines two network components, a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) and a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). It uses the same message format defined in MIPv6 [5] with some extensions. When an MN enters the PMIPV6 network, an MAG detects its attachment and proceeds the authentication process. During the authentication process, it acquires the identifier of mobile node (MN-ID) and its profile. Using this information, the MAG selects a LMA, which behaves as the Home Agent in MIPv6. The MAG sends a Proxy Binding Update (PBU) to the LMA. The PBU includes the MN-ID. The LMA assigns a Home Network Prefix (HNP) and replies IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World 01 01DWWDFKHG 0$* /0$ 5XOH $FWLRQ 01DWWDFKHGHYHQWIURP01 1HWZRUN $FTXLUH01,'DQG3URILOH 56 3DFNHWE\WHFRXQWHUV )RUZDUGSDFNHWWRSRUW (QFDSVXODWHDQGIRUZDUGWRFRQWUROOHU 'URSSDFNHW 6HQGWRQRUPDOSURFHVVLQJSLSHOLQH 3%8 $OORFDWH01+13 6HWXS%LQGLQJ&DFKH (QWU\ %&( 3%$ ,Q3RUW $FFHSW3%$ 6HWXS7XQQHODQG5RXWLQJ 5$ /0$ 2SHQ)ORZ6ZLWFK 6: 6HFXUH&KDQQHO 2SHQ)ORZ3URWRFRO 66/ 9/$1 ,' 6$ (WKHUQHW '$ 7\SH ,3 7&3 6$ '$ 3URWR 6UF 'VW Fig. 3: The Flow Table of OpenFlow Switch %L'LUHFWLRQDO7XQQHO Fig. 1: PMIPv6 Signaling +: 6WDWV 0$* )XQFWLRQDOLW\ 30,3Y 3URWRFRO )XQFWLRQDOLW\ &RQWUROOHU 2SHQ)ORZ 3URWRFRO 6ZLWFK 2SHQ)ORZ 3URWRFRO &RQWUROOHU ,QWHUPHGLDWH 6ZLWFK )ORZ7DEOH Fig. 4: The Architecture of OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 Fig. 2: OpenFlow System the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA). The MAG sends a Router Advertisement (RA) message to the MN by unicast unlike normal IPv6 RA message which is sent via multicast. To reply user packets between two agents, a tunnel is established if there is no tunnel between the two agents. When the MN attaches to the new MAG in the same domain, the MAG is controlling the link detects the MN and reports it to the LMA. The LMA redirects the traffic of MN to the new MAG and terminates the tunnel to the old MAG if no more MNs are exit on the tunnel. The concept of PMIPv6 is hiding the movement of the MN from the MN even if the handover is performed. Thus, PMIPv6 uses the tunnel to forward packets between the LMA and the MAG in order to support local mobility. B. Software Defined Network (SDN) and OpenFlow The implementation of flexible networking is on the rise the big issue by increasing various applications and protocols using networks. The researches which separate hardware functions and software functions from network devices are progressing to achieve the flexible networking. Separating functions from network devices is the main idea of SDN. Thus, OpenFlow is developed to provide a standard open interface between heterogeneous switches or routers. As depicted in Fig. 2, the OpenFlow system can be separated into a switch and a controller. The OpenFlow protocol is used for communication between them. According the OpenFlow whitepaper [6], the OpenFlow switch is proposed to run and isolate experimental traffic from existing production traffic. The controller commands the switch how to handle flows using the OpenFlow protocol through a secure channel. The OpenFlow switch opens the concept of programmable networks to enable the experiments can be conducted on the operating network. It has three main components: A Flow 120 Table, A Secure Channel, and the OpenFlow Protocol. Each entry in the Flow Table associates a flow with an action configured by the controller. A flow is classified by a 10-tuple including information from the physical layer to the transport layer, as shown Fig. 3. The OpenFlow switch is classified into two types, such as a dedicated OpenFlow switch and an OpenFlow-enabled switch. The former forwards traffic without the data link layer and the network layer processing. The latter is a normal IP router or a switch which can become the OpenFlow switch by adding the OpenFlow switch functions. The OpenFlow switch classifies per-flow and processes according to a rule defined in the Flow Table. It forwards packets to a destination via a given port. The flow is defined as TCP connection, particular MAC or IP address, and VLAN ID. Received packets are classified and are processed by following actions: a) forwarding the packets to a given port, b) encapsulating and forwarding the packets to the controller, c) dropping the packets, and d) forwarding the packets using normal IP routing. It is noted that the controller is out-of-scope of the OpenFlow specification. III. O PEN F LOW- BASED PMIP V 6 A. Architecture Fig. 4 shows the architecture of OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 (OPMIPv6). OPMIPv6 separates the mobility functionalities from the dedicated nodes of PMIPv6. The LMA function can be located in a controller, and the MAG function can be located in either the controller or an access switch. The LMA and the MAG functions use the PMIPv6 protocol to support the mobility management for the MNs. The controller communicates with the switches by using the OpenFlow protocol to set the data forwarding path and to control the switches. The separation of functions makes the controller to be more easily replicated to provide more resilience to failures or clustered to handle varying workload. IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World /0$ ,3 5RXWHU 30,3Y VLJQDOLQJ 2SHQ)ORZ VLJQDOLQJ ,3 5RXWHU /0$ /0$ 0$* )XQFWLRQDOLW\ )XQFWLRQDOLW\ )XQFWLRQDOLW\ 6ZLWFK 6ZLWFK 6ZLWFK 0$* 0$* 01 &RQWUROOHU &RQWUROOHU 6ZLWFK 6ZLWFK 0$* 0$* )XQFWLRQDOLW\ )XQFWLRQDOLW\ 6ZLWFK 6ZLWFK 01 01 (a) PMIPv6 6ZLWFK (b) OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 (c) OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 with a Centralized Mobility Management Controller Fig. 5: Control Plane Configurations of PMIPv6 and OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 In PMIPv6, the control message are forwarded through the data path. PMIPv6 protocol is used to support mobility management in OPMIPv6 between the LMA and the MAG functions if they are located in the controller and switches, respectively. OPMIPv6 with a centralized mobility manage controller (OPMIPv6-C) does not use PMIPv6 signaling by coexisting the LMA and the MAG functions in the controller. In addition, the controller and the switches in OPMIPv6 communicate through the dedicated secure link, which is separated from the data path. Consequently, the data and the control planes can be separated if the LMA and the MAG functions are located in the single node. The LMA and the MAG in PMIPv6 architecture always forward data packets through IP tunnel, whereas switches can forward packets without IP tunnel based on their own flow table which is configured by the controller in the OpenFlow architecture. OPMIPv6 uses the OpenFlow protocol to set the switches on the path for data forwarding. Thus, Packets can be forwarded without IP tunnel in OPMIPv6 and OPMIPv6-C. B. Control Plane Fig. 5 shows the control plane configurations of PMIPv6 and OPMIPv6. In PMIPv6, control message are exchanged between the LMA and the MAG through the data path, as shown Fig. 5(a). Signaling is performed for the following purposes: 1) notifying the attachment of MN, 2) forwarding the assigned HNP, and 3) setting up the routing path. In OPMIPv6, the LMA and the MAG functions can be located in the controller and the switches by separating the functions, as shown Fig. 5(b). The LMA and the MAG communicate each other through PMIPv6 for the purposes of 1) and 2). The OpenFlow protocol between the controller and the switches is used for the purpose of 3). The LMA function and the MAG function can be coupled in the centralized mobility management controller, called OPMIPv6-C, as shown Fig. 5(c). PMIPv6 signaling can be 121 omitted between the LMA and the MAG function due to colocation of the functions. OPMIPv6-C uses only the OpenFlow protocol which supports the purposes of 1), 2), and 3). Information related to 1) and 2) is handled by the LMA and the MAG functions in the controller. C. Data Plane OPMIPv6 can provide packet forwarding without IP tunnel and route optimization. PMIPv6 uses IP-in-IP tunneling technique between LMAs and MAGs, as shown Fig. 6(a). The tunnel is used to transfer downward and upward mobile traffic. Downward traffic from the LMA to the MAG must be routed using its destination address but the upward traffic should be routed using the source address rather than the destination address, which cannot be satisfied by normal IP routers. The OpenFlow switch has the ability to separate normal IP flows and the Flow table based ones. Downward traffic can be handled by normal IP routing with host-specific address in the routing tables in the router on the flow path and the upward traffic can be handled by the flow table based routing. The controller may add one host-specific entry into the routing table and one Flow table entry which handles the source address based upward traffic. In OPMIPv6, the data path is configured by the LMA controller, as shown Fig. 6(b). When the LMA controller detects the movement of the MN with the help of PMIPv6 signaling, it updates the flow table of intermediate switches in the path between the access router which is detecting the movement and the gateway. Thus, packets are forwarded without IP tunnel. According to the configuration, the LMA can distribute traffic for load balancing by considering the network condition. IV. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION As introductory, this section describes the topology for evaluation and the messages used by PMIPv6 and OpenFlow IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World &1 /0$ *DWHZD\ &1 /0$ 6ZLWFK )XQFWLRQDOLW\ *DWHZD\ &1 &RQWUROOHU *DWHZD\ 6ZLWFK 6ZLWFK ,6Q  6ZLWFK 7XQQHOLQJ 7XQQHOHQGSRLQWVDW WKHJDWHZD\DQGWKH DFFHVVURXWHU 6ZLWFK )ORZ7DEOHV 'RZQZDUGKRVW VSFLILFURXWLQJ 8SZDUGVRXUFH DGGUHVVEDVHGURXWLQJ 0$* 6ZLWFK 0$* $FFHVV $FFHVV )XQFWLRQDOLW\ ,6 $6 $6 01 01 $6Q Fig. 7: The Network Topology 01 01 (a) PMIPv6 TABLE I: PMIPv6 and OpenFlow protocol messages (b) OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 Fig. 6: Data Plane for Packet Forwarding protocol. The topology consists of one gateway switch and several access switches to represent a general administrative domain. Notation Message Size LP BU LP BAck LT CP H LT CP Ack LOF −SC LOF −P S LOF −F REQ LOF −F REP LOF −F M OD LOF −P IN LOF −HELLO Proxy Binding Update (PBU) Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBAck) TCP header (TCP) TCP Acknowledgement (TCPAck) Switch Configuration (SC) Port Status (PS) Features Request (FREQ) Features Reply (FREP) Modify Flow Entry (FMOD) Packet-In (PIN) Set to the protocol version (HELLO) 76 76 20 20 80 76 8 24 56 32 16 A. Network Model We exploit the similar network model and concept with [7] for evaluations. The topology in Fig. 7 is used to represent provisioning entities in PMIPv6, OPMIPv6, and OPMIPv6-C. The gateway and the access switch (AS) work as the LMA and the MAG respectively in PMIPv6. For OPMIPv6 , the gateway can work as the controller with the LMA functionality, and the AS works as an OpenFlow switche with the MAG function. In contrast, the gateway acts as the controller with the LMA and the MAG functions, and the AS only acts as the OpenFlow switch for OPMIPv6-C. Several intermediate switches (ISs) are located between the gateway and the ASs. The CN is placed the outside of a given administrative domain. The MN’s movement is limited in the domain where the gateway performs as a border router. In Fig. 7, the followings represent the number of hops between communication principals. - hC−G : the average number of hops between the CN and the gateway. - hG−A : the average number of hops between the gateway and the AS. - hA−M : the average number of hops between the AS and the MN. The dedicated link is used to communicate between the gate (the LMA controller) and the ISs on the path including the AS for OpenFlow. The dedicated link is used to control switches on the path by the gateway (the LMA controller), and it is one hop. For secure communication, OpenFlow messages are forwarded over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). 122 B. PMIPv6 and OpenFlow Messages Table I shows the message with the size in byte are used in PMIPv6 [2] and OpenFlow protocol [1] for the proposed scheme. In PMIPv6, the size of the PBU and PBA message must contain necessary mobility options such as Mobile Node Identifier, Home Network Prefix, Handoff Indicator, and Access Technology Type. Thus, the minimum size for the PBU and the PBA messages is required 76 Bytes [8]. OMIPv6-C does not use the PMIPv6 signaling. Alternatively, it uses the extended messages of OpenFlow for mobility signaling. The messages such as the PS and the SC, are able to contain necessary mobility options by adding a new option flag. OPMIPv6-C can do mobility signaling with the help of the extended messages. C. Cost Modeling We develop the analytical cost model to evaluate the performance of PMIPv6 and the proposed schemes based on [7]. The following notations are used to develop the cost model [8]–[10] as shown Table II. We define γ as the weighting factor for a dedicated link of OpenFlow protocol. (·) The signaling cost CS is the accumulative mobility signaling overhead. It is estimated as the product of the size of mobility signaling message and the hop distance. The packet (·) delivery delivery cost CP D is the accumulative traffic overhead (·) occurred by packet delivery on the routing paths. CP D is calculated as the product of the data packet size and the hop (·) (·) distance. The packet tunneling cost CP T is similar to CP D . It is used to represent the tunneling overhead, and it is calculated IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World The initial phase is performed before the attachment of the (OF ) MN. The initial phase signaling cost CIN IT is expressed as follows: TABLE II: The System Parameters Parameter Comments α β γ  λs E(S) Weighting factor for a wired link Weighting factor for a wireless link Weighting factor for a dedicated link IPv6 tunneling overhead Average session arrival rate at the MN Average session size in packets (OF ) CIN IT = (hG−A + 1)γ(3LT CP H + LHS + LHELLO ), (6) where LHS is the length of the hand shake messages for OpenFlow. It is expressed as follows: as the product of the size of IPv6 tunneling and the hop (·) distance. The total cost CT is expressed as follows: (·) CT = (·) CS + (·) CP D . (1) 1) Proxy Mobile IPv6: In PMIPv6, the mobility related signaling is performed by the LMA and the MAG on behalf (P M IP v6) is of the MN. The signaling cost of PMIPv6 CS expressed as follows: (P M IP v6) CS = 2LP BU αhG−A + 2LP BAck αhG−A , (2) where the signaling is performed over the wired link. Since the old MAG sends the de-registration PBU message to the LMA after handover, mobility signaling occurs twice. All data packets are forwarded through the bi-directional tunnel between the LMA and the MAG. The packet delivery cost (P M IP v6) is expressed as follows: CP D (P M IP v6) CP D = λs E(S)P (P M IP v6) , (3) where E(S) is the average payload size (Bytes) in packets, P (P M IP v6) is the path from the CN and the MN. The path is separated into three parts. The path between the gate and the AR is a tunnel. Thus, P (P M IP v6) is expressed as follows: P (P M IP v6) = αhC−G + αhG−A + βhA−M . (P M IP v6) The tunneling cost CP T is expressed as follows: (4) is inferred from Eq. 4 and LHS = LOF −F REQ +LOF −F REP +2LT CP +2LT CP Ack . (7) HELLO messages set to the highest OpenFlow protocol version supported by the controller and switches. HELLO message exchanging is performed at the initializing phase. LHELLO is the sum of length of the HELLO message. It is expressed as follows: LHELLO = 2(LOF −HELLO + LT CP + LT CP Ack ). If the MN attaches to the AS with the MAG function, PMIPv6 signaling is performed. When the MN sends data packets to the CN after PMIPv6 signaling, the first data packet is forwarded to the AS. The AS looks up the flow table to find matching entry. If the entry does not exist, the AS sends a PIN message to the LMA controller in order to inform the detection (OF ) for new flow. The PIN message cost CP IN is expressed as follows: (OF ) CP IN = γ(LOF −P IN + LT CP + LT CP Ack ). = λs E(S)αhG−A . (5) 2) OpenFlow-based Proxy Mobile IPv6: Basic mobility signaling is similar to PMIPv6. However, OPMIPv6 generates additional signaling over the dedicated link of OpenFlow in order to set the flow table of routers. The dedicated link is directly connected between the LMA controller and switches, and OpenFlow messages are transferred over TCP. Thus, general TCP operation called 3-way hand shaking (3WHS), is performed before sending OpenFlow messages. TCPAck message must be returned after an OpenFlow message forwarding. In OpenFlow, the controller and all switches must exchange the FREQ message and the FREP message, called hand shake (HS), in order to set some configurations. The 3WHS of TCP, exchanging Hello, and HS of OpenFlow are the initial phase. 123 (9) The controller sends a FMOD message to the AS and all ISs on the path to set the their flow table. The FMOD message (OF ) cost CF M OD is expressed as follows: (OF ) CF M OD = (hG−A + 1)γ(LOF −F M OD + LT CP + LT CP Ack ). (10) (OP M IP v6) (P M IP v6) CP T (8) The signaling cost of OPMIPv6 CS as follows: (OP M IP v6) CS (P M IP v6) = CS is expressed (OP M IP v6) + COF , (11) (OP M IP v6) where COF is the signaling cost for OpenFlow. (OF ) CF M OD signaling occurs twice to remove flow table entry after handover as the same reason of PMIPv6. It is expressed as follows: (OP M IP v6) COF (OF ) (OF ) (OF ) = CIN IT + CP IN + 2CF M OD . (OP M IP v6) The packet delivery cost CP D (P M IP v6) and is expressed as follows: CP D (12) is similar to IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World 90 80 PMIPv6 OPMIPv6 OPMIPv6-C 200 Signaling Cost 70 Signaling Cost 250 PMIPv6 OPMIPv6 OPMIPv6-C 60 50 40 30 20 150 100 50 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 100 150 200 250 300 Velocity (m/s) 350 400 450 500 550 600 Radius (m) Fig. 8: Signaling Cost versus v (R:400m) Fig. 9: Signaling Cost versus R (v:30m/s) D. Numerical Analysis Results (OP M IP v6) CP D = λs E(S)P (OP M IP v6) , (13) where P (OP M IP v6) is the path from the CN and the MN. In contrast with PMIPv6, packets are normally forwarded since OPMIPv6 does not use IP tunnel between the gateway and the (OP M IP v6) is zero. AS. As a result, packet tunneling cost CP T (OP M IP v6) is expressed as follows: Thus, P We explain the cost analysis results for PMIPv6 and OPMIPv6 in this section. Mobility model is applied to the cost model to consider the characters of an MN such as the access router (AR) crossing rate of the MN. The AR crossing rate of the MN is influenced by the velocity of the MN and the radius of the AR. Thus, actual signaling cost CA is calculated in [11], as follows: CA = P (OP M IP v6) = αhC−G + αhG−A + βhA−M . (14) 3) OpenFlow-based Proxy Mobile IPv6 with a Centralized Controller: OPMIPv6-C is similar to OMIPv6. On the other hand, the MAG function is contained to the LMA controller. Thus, mobility messages are substituted by the message of OpenFlow such as SC and PS. The PS message is used to inform the attachment of the MN from the AS to the LMA controller. The SC is used to delivery necessary mobility options from the LMA controller and the AS for the MN. The (OF ) signaling cost of OpenFlow version binding update CBU is expressed as follows: (OF ) CBU = γ(LOF −P S + LOF −CS + 2LT CP + 2LT CP Ack ) (15) Double signalings occurs by the same reason as PMIPv6. (OP M IP v6−C) is expressed The signaling cost of OPMIPv6 CS as follows: (OP M IP v6−C) CS (OF ) (OF ) (OF ) (OF ) = CIN IT + CP IN + 2CF M OD + CBU . (16) Consequently, OPMIPv6-C can reduce the signaling cost by using the OpenFlow architecture. The packet delivery cost (OP M IP v6−C) is the same with Eq. (13). CP D 124 2v (·) C , πR S (17) where R is the radius of coverage of the AR, and v is the average velocity of the MN. We set the default values of system parameter in Table II as follows: hC−G =5, hG−A =3, hA−M =1, α=1, β=1.5, γ=0.1, =40 bytes, λs =[0, 1], and E(S)=50. 1) Signaling Cost: Fig. 8 shows the signaling cost versus v. We set the parameter R=400m, and v increases to 50 m/s. The signaling cost is directly proportional to v. The cost of OPMIPv6 is higher than PMIPv6 because OPMIPv6 uses both the signaling of PMIPv6 and OpenFlow. However, OMIPv6C is the lowest since it uses only the signaling of OpenFlow. Fig. 9 shows the signaling cost versus R. We set the parameter v=30m/s and R=[100m, 600m]. The signaling cost is inversely proportional to R. As a result, the signaling cost of OPMIPv6C is the lowest. 2) Packet Delivery Cost: The packet delivery cost includes the packet tunneling cost. PMIPv6 only uses the IP tunnel to provide mobility service between the LMA and the MAG. On the other hand, OMIPv6 and OPMIPv6-C can forward packets between the LMA controller and the AR without IP tunnel. Thus, the packet tunneling cost is zero as illustrated Fig. 10. The numerical result of packet delivery cost is presented as show Fig. 11. Consequently, the packet delivery cost of PMIPv6 is the highest, and the packet delivery costs of OPMIPv6 is same with OPMIPv6-C. 3) Total Cost: In this section, the total costs for PMIPv6 and the proposed schemes are analyzed. We set the parameters, v=30m/s, R=400m to obtain the total cost. From the results, PMIPv6 is the highest, and OPMIPv6 and OPMIPv6-C are IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC 2014): Mobility Management in the Networks of the Future World 7000 PMIPv6 OPMIPv6 OPMIPv6-C 6000 Packet Delivery Cost 6000 Packet Tunneling Cost 7000 PMIPv6 OPMIPv6 OPMIPv6-C 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 Session Arrival Rate 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Session Arrival Rate Fig. 10: Packet Tunneling cost versus λs Fig. 11: Packet Delivery cost versus λs lower than PMIPv6. OPMIPv6-C is lower than OPMIPv6 since OPMIPv6-C does not use mobility signaling related to PMIPv6. As a result, the proposed scheme is more efficient than PMIPv6. [9] S. Lo, G. Lee, W. Chen, and J. Liu, ”Architecture for mobility and QoS support in all-IP wireless networks,” Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal, Vol. 22(4), pp. 691-705, May 2004. [10] Y. Han, and S. Hwang, ”Care-of address provisioning for efficient IPv6 mobility support,” Computer Communications, Vol. 29, pp. 1422-1432, September 2005. [11] J. Lee, and T. Chung, ”How much do we gain by introducingRoute Optimization in Proxy Mobile IPv6 networks?,” Annals of Telecommunications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0127-9, August 2009. [12] R. Kuntz, D. Sudhakar, R. Wakikawa and L. Zhang, ”A summary of Distributed Mobility Management,” IETF draft, August 2011. V. C ONCLUSION We propose OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 over SDN. It supports more flexible configuration architecture. As the mobility functions are separated to the controllers, increasing handling capacity, and resilience to failures are more easily supported. It can mitigate the IP-in-IP tunneling overhead problem with the help of flow table-base routing and support routing optimization. The results of performance evaluation represent that the proposed schemes are more efficient than PMIPv6. OpenFlow-based PMIPv6 can be applied to the distributed mobility management [12] as the proposed scheme separates the normal and mobile traffic uses the dynamic routing update. R EFERENCES [1] Open Networking Foundation, ”OpenFlow Switch Specification Version 1.3.0 (Wire Protocol 0x04),” June 2012. [2] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. Patil, ”Proxy Mobile IPv6,” IETF RFC 5213, August 2008. [3] Andrs G. Valk, ”Cellular IP: A New Approach to Internet Host Mobility,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 29, pp. 50-65, January 1999. [4] R. Ramjee, T.L. Porta, S. Thuel, K. Varadhan, and S.Y. Wang, ”HAWAII: A Domain-based Approach for Supporting Mobility in Wide-area Wireless Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking, Vol. 10-3, pp. 396-410, June 2002. [5] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Aekko, ”Mobility Support in IPv6,” RFC 3775, June 2004. [6] N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, and L. Peterson, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turner, ”OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 38-2, pp. 69-74, April 2008. [7] J. Lee, E. Thierry, and T. Chung, ”Cost Analysis of IP Mobility Management Protocols for Consumer Mobile Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 1010-1017, May 2010. [8] J. Lee, T. Chung, and S. Gundavelli, ”A Comparative Signaling Cost Analysis of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6,” Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) 2008. IEEE 19th International Symposium, September 2008. 125
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors