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]