Internet DRAFT - draft-kuparinen-monami6-mcoa-performance
draft-kuparinen-monami6-mcoa-performance
Network Working Group M. Kuparinen
Internet-Draft H. Mahkonen
Expires: October 22, 2006 T. Kauppinen
Oy L M Ericsson Ab
April 20, 2006
Multiple CoA Performance Analysis
draft-kuparinen-monami6-mcoa-performance-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document analyses the difference between the signaling overhead
in single and bulk Binding Update (BU) mechanisms. The aim of this
document is to show that the signaling overhead can be reduced quite
substantially by using the bulk BU mechanism.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Mobile IPv6 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Binding Unique Identifier sub-option . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. MN <-> HA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. MN <-> CN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
2. Introduction
The current version of the multiple care-of address draft [3]
presented in the monami6 group has some support for registering
multiple care-of addresses (CoAs) with a single Binding Update (BU).
This is known as bulk registration and it works with the home
registrations. The current version, however, does not work correctly
when the Mobile Node (MN) wants to perform a bulk registration with a
Correspondent Node (CN) as the CN can't verify the CoAs included in
the BU. Also the MN can not detect which CoAs were registered
correctly and which failed with the current draft [3].
This draft proposes some changes to the sub-option layouts proposed
in [3]. The purpose of these changes is to enable bulk registration
with the Home Agent (HA). These modified sub-options are used later
in the draft to illustrate performance gain when using bulk
registrations instead of multiple binding updates.
The authors of this document have proposed changes to the option
layouts on the monami6 mailing list and these new layouts are also
used in this document. The purpose of these changes is to simplify
the implementation and add some missing features.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
3. Terminology
Binding Unique Identifier (BID)
The BID option allows the MN to specify the Binding Unique
Identification number (BID) and possibly the associated CoA which
should be bound to the MN's Home Address (HoA).
There can be one or more BID options in the BU when the MN is
sending BUs to its HA. If more than one BIDs are included the CoA
MUST be specified starting from the 2nd BID option.
Currently there can not be more than one BID options in the BU
when the MN is sending BUs to CNs.
The BID option allows the HA and CNs to notify the MN about
binding failures. In case of failure, the BID option is included
with the Binding Acknowledgement (BA) and reason of the error is
reported in the BID option's Status field.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
4. Protocol Overview
This draft refines the Bulk Registration behavior described in [3]
while impacts on the protocol operations are kept minimal. Due to
the problematic nature of bulk registrations with the CN, bulk
registrations are currently supported only with the HA.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
5. Mobile IPv6 Extensions
This performance analysis uses the following Mobile IPv6 options as
proposed by the authors on the monami6 mailing list.
5.1. Binding Unique Identifier sub-option
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding Unique ID (BID) |Priority/Status|C|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Care-of Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This option is used by the MN when sending BUs. If the C flag is set
the care-of address used for the binding is taken from the Care-of
Address field, otherwise the source address or the possibly included
Alternate Care-of Address option (ACoA) is used with the binding.
It should be noted that the MN can specify one or more Binding Unique
Identifier sub-options in a single BU. Multiple ACoA options SHOULD
NOT be included in the BU message to avoid possible problems with
legacy RFC3775 [2] HAs.
As bulk registration issues with the CN are not yet solved, there
MUST NOT be more than one BID option in the BU when the MN is sending
BUs to CNs.
This option is also used by HA and CN when sending BAs to tell the MN
which BIDs were successfully processed.
The R flag is used with de-registration and is not used in this
analysis.
This option has alignment requirement of 2n if the C flag in unset
and 8n+2 if the C flag is set.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
6. MN <-> HA
The following two examples show how the packets look like when the MN
is sending either a single BID or multiple BIDs inside a single BU.
It is assumed here that all bindings were successfully registered so
there is no need to include the BID option with BAs.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
One BID inside BU Multiple BIDs inside BU
================= =======================
BU BA BU BA
0 +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 |
+ + + + + + + +
... ... ... ...
+ + + + + + + +
| DSTOPT | | RH2 | | DSTOPT | | RH2 |
64 +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
|3b| |BU| 0| |3b| |BA| 0| |3b| |BU| 0| |3b| |BA| 0|
+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| CRC | | | CRC | | | CRC | | | CRC | |
72 +--+--+ + +--+--+ + +--+--+ + +--+--+ +
| BU | | BA | | BU | | BA |
+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| BID | | PAD | | BID | | PAD |
80 + +--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ + +--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| | | | | |
+--+--+ + +--+--+ +
| PAD | | BID |
88 +--+--+--+--+ +.......... +
| |
+ +
| |
96 + CoA +
| |
+ +
| |
104 +--+--+--+--+ --+
| PAD | | |
+--+--+ + |
| BID | |
112 +.......... +
| | 2
+ + 4
| |
120 + CoA + |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
128 +--+--+--+--+ --+
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
Number of BIDs Number of bytes (BU+BA)
to register with
the HA Single Bulk Difference
================ ============ ============ ==========
1 88+80= 168 88+80= 168
2 2x168= 336 104+80= 184 - 45 %
3 3x168= 504 128+80= 208 - 59 %
4 4x168= 672 152+80= 232 - 65 %
5 5x168= 840 176+80= 256 - 70 %
10 10x168= 1680 296+80= 376 - 78 %
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
7. MN <-> CN
As the bulk registration issues with the CN are not yet solved, this
chapter is incomplete. The only results presented are when the MN is
sending multiple BUs to the CN.
One BID inside BU Multiple BIDs inside BU
================= =======================
BU BA BU BA
0 +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 |
+ + + + + + + +
... ... ... ...
+ + + + + + + +
| DSTOPT | | RH2 | | DSTOPT | | RH2 |
64 +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
|3b| |BU| 0| |3b| |BA| 0| |3b| |BU| 0| |3b| |BA| 0|
+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| CRC | | | CRC | | | CRC | | | CRC | |
72 +--+--+ + +--+--+ + +--+--+ + +--+--+ +
| BU | | BA | | BU | | BA |
+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+
| BID | | PAD | | | | |
80 + +--+--+ + +--+--+ + TBD + + TBD +
| | | | | |
+--+--+ + +--+--+ +
| NONCE | | |
88 +--+--+--+--+ + +
| PAD | | | BAD |
+--+--+ + + +
| | | |
96 + + +--+--+--+--+
| BAD |
+ +
| |
104 +--+--+--+--+
Number of BIDs Number of bytes (BU+BA)
to register with
the CN Single Bulk Difference
================ ============ ============ ==========
1 104+94= 200 104+94= 200
2 2x200= 400 TBD TBD
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
8. Conclusions
The amount of data to transfer (over possibly slow radio links) can
be dramatically reduced with the bulk registration. Even with the
simplest case where the MN wants to register only two CoA with its HA
the amount of data to be sent between the MN and HA can be reduced by
45%.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
9. Security Considerations
None.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
10. IANA Considerations
None.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
11.2. Informative References
[3] Wakikawa, R., "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration",
draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05 (work in progress),
March 2006.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
Authors' Addresses
Martti Kuparinen
Oy L M Ericsson Ab
Hirsalantie 11
02420 Jorvas
Finland
Phone: +358 9 299 2191
Email: martti.kuparinen@ericsson.com
Heikki Mahkonen
Oy L M Ericsson Ab
Hirsalantie 11
02420 Jorvas
Finland
Phone: +358 9 299 3213
Email: heikki.mahkonen@ericsson.com
Tero Kauppinen
Oy L M Ericsson Ab
Hirsalantie 11
02420 Jorvas
Finland
Phone: +358 9 299 3057
Email: tero.kauppinen@ericsson.com
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multiple CoA Performance Analysis April 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kuparinen, et al. Expires October 22, 2006 [Page 17]
