Smartening the Environment using Wireless Sensor Networks in a Developing Country

1
Smartening the Environment using Wireless Sensor
Networks in a Developing Country
A TEST-BED ANALYSIS FOR SEAMLESS MIPV6 HANDOVER
IN HETEROGENEOUS ENVIRONMENT
Mohammad Moshee Uddin, International Islamic
University Malaysia Al-Sakib Khan Pathan,
International Islamic University Malaysia Shariq
Haseeb, MIMOS Berhad, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia Mohiuddin Ahmed, Jazan University, Saudi
Arabia
Presenter Al-Sakib Khan Pathan Department of
Computer Science International Islamic University
Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Outline of the Presentation

• Introduction
• Background
• Objective
• Experimental Setup
• Analysis and Results
• Concluding Remarks

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
3
Introduction

• Use of multiple network interfaces is becoming
  more common with a mobile node (MN).
• Now-a-days, almost every hand-held device has
  multiple network interfaces built-in
• Wi-Fi
• Ethernet
• WiMAX
• Bluetooth
• UMTS
• Multiple network interfaces converged
  network
• Ubiquitous communications

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
4
Introduction (Continued)

• Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) has become a part of the
  solution for the mobility support system to have
  ubiquitous communication.
• Yet, it could not solve lots of problems because
  of its limitations to support wide-scale
  applications such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
  applications, addressing limitations as well as
  IPsec (Internet Protocol Security), etc.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
5
Background MIPv6

• MIPv6 is a key protocol which allows a node to
  have ubiquitous communication with the help of
  mobility support system.
• It allows MN to change its point of attachment
  without changing the Home Address of MN. So any
  packet may still be routed regardless of any
  point of attachment as long as it is attached to
  the Internet.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
6
MIPv6 (Continued)

• Furthermore, multiple network interfaces also can
  be handled by MIPv6 protocol to support
  heterogeneous mobility.
• For instance, the movement from one Wi-Fi segment
  to Ethernet segment or Ethernet segment to Wi-Fi
  or Wi-Fi segment to WiMAX, and so forth, if the
  Home Address remains the same.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
7
Main Objective of the Work

• Test-bed experimentations of vertical MIPv6
  handover performance (i.e., from Ethernet segment
  to Wi-Fi segment and vice versa) to evaluate
• Handoff latencies
• Packet losses
• while multiple interfaces are simultaneously
  associated with different types of networks.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
8
MIPv6 Handover Process
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
9
Our Experimental Setup

• The test-bed has been implemented with two
  scenarios
• Scenario1
• When MN moves around between home link and
  foreign link (Figure 1)
• Scenario 2
• Again when MN moves around foreign links
• (Figure 2)

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
10
Scenario 1 (Figure 1)

• Two PC-based routers HA and FR
• One switch
• One IEEE 802.11abg Access Point
• One notebook as MN with one Ethernet and one
  wireless interface built-in
• One PC-based Correspondent Node (CN).

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
11
Scenario 2 (Figure 2)

• Three PC-based routers HA, FR1, and FR2
• Two switches
• One IEEE 802.11abg Access Point
• One notebook as MN with one Ethernet and wireless
  interface built-in
• One PC-based CN

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
12
Experiment Methodology

• Figure 1 shows MN is associated with HL via
  Ethernet at the same time Wi-Fi network
  coverage is present.
• At this moment, MN is communicating with CN via
  home link. Since Wi-Fi network is available, MN
  is also pre-associated with Wi-Fi network (a.k.a
  FR).

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
13
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)

• At any given time, to create a vertical handover,
  Ethernet connection has been disconnected
  manually from the home link.
• Then the Wi-Fi interface immediately takes over
  the data communication from Ethernet. This type
  of vertical handover has happened from home
  network to foreign network.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
14
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)

• Likewise, while MN is associated with the Wi-Fi
  network and communicates with CN, at any given
  time Ethernet cable has been manually plugged
  into the MN.
• After that, Wi-Fi interface has been disconnected
  from foreign link and Ethernet immediately takes
  over the handover procedure.
• The packets are captured to determine handoff
  delays and packet losses while MN moves from home
  link to foreign link and vice versa with
  multi-homed MN.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
15
Experiment Methodology (Contd.)

• In a similar fashion, handoff delays and packet
  losses have been captured (see Figure 2), while
  MN moves from foreign link to a new foreign link
  using multiple network interfaces.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
16
Methodology and Tools

• The handover measurement has been conducted 50
  times with the multi-homed MN between 2 and 3
  seconds interval of router advertisement.
• MIPv6 tester 1 tool has been used to capture
  the heterogeneous handoff latency where it opens
  bi-directional TCP/UDP packets between MN and CN
  over the network.
• To capture packet loss, iperf 2 tool has been
  used during heterogeneous handover.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
17
Mathematical Analysis

• List of Notations

LTotal Total handover latency
L2 Total layer 2 handover latency
L3 Total layer 3 handover latency
LProbe Layer 2 latency that scans for available AP
LAuth Layer 2 latency that performs authentication
LRe-assoc Layer 2 latency that performs re-association
LRouter Discovery Layer 3 latency that performs IP address configuration
LDAD Layer 3 latency that performs uniqueness on the link
LBU Layer 3 latency that performs a message regarding location status
LBA Layer 3 latency that performs a message confirming location status
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
18
Mathematical Analysis

• According to 3, 4, 5, and 6, total
  handover latency in MIPv6 could be mathematically
  put as follows
• Therefore,
• LTotal LProbe LAhth LRe-assoc LRouter
  Discovery LDAD LBU LBA (4)

LTotal (L2 L3) (1)
L2 LProbe LAuth LRe-assoc (2)
L3 LRouter Discovery LDAD LBU LBA (3)
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
19
Analysis

• This total handover latency (equation 4) is
  calculated once the current AP becomes
  unavailable and MN associates itself with a new
  AP during the movement (i.e. a scenario of
  horizontal handover).
• Suppose an MN is associated with network X, at
  the same time it could be under the coverage of
  network Y. Therefore, it can pre-associate with
  the network Y while network X is still available.
  But at any time network X may no longer
  available, then the communication with MN will be
  handed over to network Y (X and Y could be any
  type of network such as Ethernet LAN, Wi-Fi
  network, WiMAX network, UMTS etc).

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
20
Results Handoff Latency

• TABLE 1. HANDOFF LATENCY DURING THE
  MOVEMENT OF MN

HN to FN (Sec) FN to FN (Sec) FN to HN (Sec)
Max 1.835 0 0
Min 0.518 0 0
Average 1.229 0 0
Figure 3
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
21
Results Analysis

• While MN is handed over to FN from HN with
  multi-homed interfaces, the average delay is
  1.835s (Table 1), whereas the average handover
  delay with single interface is 3.677s as in 7
  and 3.447s as in 8.
• As for single interface handover process, it has
  to maintain total layer 2 and layer 3 procedures
  following equation 4.
• But for multi-homed MN, if one of the interfaces
  is pre-associated with foreign network layer 2
  handover delay can be reduced from total delay.
  Therefore, we can get from the equation 1,
• LTotal (L2 L3) - L2
  L3

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
22
Results Analysis

• Observing this experiment, multi-homed MN also
  reduces the processing time of layer 3 (router
  discovery and DAD Duplicate Address Detection)
  except binding update (BU) and binding
  acknowledgement (BA).

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
23
Results Analysis

• On the other hand, while MN handover is done from
  FN to another FN or it returns to home network
  from any foreign network (Figure 3 and Table 1),
  minimal handover latency occurs that could not be
  possible to be detected by the MIPv6 tester tool.
  
• As multi-homed MN is simultaneously associated
  with the networks, only one of the interfaces
  would be communicating but HA keeps tracking all
  interfaces.
• This immediate handover procedure time is
  approximately unnoticeable. So from these
  experiments and equation number 1, it can be
  derived,
• LTotal 0, if multi-homed MN is
  pre-associated.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
24
Results Packet Loss

• TABLE 2. PACKET LOSS DURING THE
  MOVEMENT OF MN

HN to FN (Sec) FN to FN (Sec) FN to HN (Sec)
Max 1.835 0 0
Min 0.518 0 0
Average 1.229 0 0
Figure 4
ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
25
Results Packet Loss

• Figure 4 shows the total packet loss in
  percentages of 50 trials during handoff and Table
  2 summarizes maximum, minimum and average packet
  loss.
• With multi-homed MN, average packet loss is about
  3.85 while it moves from home network to foreign
  network. At this point, packet loss occurs during
  binding update and binding acknowledgement
  processes at layer 3 as in handoff latency.
• Packet loss is proportional to handoff latency.  
• LTotal ? PTotal (where PTotal is
  total packet loss)

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
26
Results Packet Loss

• Again, while multi-homed MN moves from one
  foreign network to another or returns to home
  network, minimal packet loss may occur that also
  could not be detected, similar to the handoff
  latency. Therefore, packet loss is approximately
  unnoticeable as shown in Figure 4 and Table 2
  during the MNs movement from foreign network to
  another or its return to Home network.
•  Hence,
• PTotal 0, if multi-homed MN is
  pre-associated.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
27
Concluding Remarks

• MIPL (Mobile IPv6 for Linux) enables all the
  features of mobility for heterogeneous
  environment, yet some delays may occur during
  handover processes which cause some major packet
  loss.
• There are handoff delays and packet losses during
  the handover process from HN to FN which degrade
  the performance of communication.
• While MN moves from one FN to another or returns
  to home network, handoff delay and packet loss
  are almost unnoticeable and this improves
  communication process.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
28
Concluding Remarks

• Based on our findings we may state that with the
  help of MIPv6, a multi-homed MN may perform
  better vertical handover process while it moves
  among foreign networks in heterogeneous
  environment.
• As our future work, we would like to perform an
  extended experiment and analyze other associated
  parameters to get a detailed understanding of the
  potential use of the technology for consumer
  related applications as well as for other
  application areas.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
29
Major References

• 1 MIPv6 tester, retrieved June 1st , 2010 from
  http//www.bullopensource.org/mipv6/tester.php
• 2 Measure Network Performance with iperf,
  Retrieved June 1st,2010,from http//www.enterprise
  itplanet.com/networking/features/article.php/36596
  16
• 3 D. Johnson, C. Perkins and J. Arkko, RFC
  3775 Mobility Support in IPv6, URL reference
  http//www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3775.txt (June 2004).
• 4 M. Siksik, H. Alnuweiri and S. Zahir, A
  Detailed Characterization of the Handover Process
  Using Mobile IPv6 in 802.11 Networks, IEEE
  Pacific Rim Conference on Communications,
  Computers and Signal Processing, Victoria,
  Canada, August 2005.
• 5 V. Vassiliou and Z. Zinonos, An Analysis of
  the Handover Latency Components in Mobile IPv6,
  Journal of Internet Engineering, Vol.3, No.1,
  December, 2009, pp. 230-240.
• 6 S. Haseeb and G. Kurup, Performance
  Analysis of MIPL based Mobile IPv6 Testbed,
  Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International
  Conference on Telecommunications and Malaysia
  International Conference on Communications, May
  14-17, 2007, Penang, Malaysia.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
30
Major References

• 7 V. Vassiliou and Z. Zinonos, An Analysis of
  the Handover Latency Components in Mobile IPv6,
  Journal of Internet Engineering, Vol.3, No.1,
  December, 2009, pp. 230-240.
• 8 S. Haseeb and G. Kurup, Performance Analysis
  of MIPL based Mobile IPv6 Testbed, Proceedings
  of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on
  Telecommunications and Malaysia International
  Conference on Communications, May 14-17, 2007,
  Penang Malaysia.

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
31

• THANK YOU

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore
32
Questions and Answers

• spathan_at_ieee.org, sakib_at_iium.edu.my
• ???
• URL http//staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/

ISCE, June 14-17, 2011, Singapore