Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of the Update Messages of Locator Identifier Split Protocols Using an IP Paging Mechanism at the End Networks

  • Aadarsh BussooaEmail author
  • Avinash Mungur
Conference paper
  • 69 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1129)

Abstract

This paper surveys two popular protocols, namely, LISP and HIP, which are used in decoupling the IP namespace into distinct locator and identifier namespaces, with the aim of addressing the challenges associated with the anticipated exponential growth of Internet-connected devices. One such challenge pertains to how the design of the Internet infrastructure can be re-engineered to support fast host mobility across distinct networks while maintaining session connectivity and minimising packet loss. The paper lays emphasis on the update mechanisms employed by these protocols, which are used to inform administrative servers of location changes of mobile nodes. The update mechanisms of these protocols are applied to an IP paging architecture and their performances are evaluated. The use of an IP paging mechanism shifts the focus of these protocols onto the optimisation of the end networks and how well they cope with update messages. Indeed, such an architecture lays emphasis on fast inter-paging area mobility, which is occurring in a restricted hierarchical IP paging network topology. Therefore, this paper evaluates the performance of update messages on different levels of network traffic and IPsec cryptography at the end networks.

Keywords

Locator identifier split protocols IP paging mechanism Locator Identifier Separation Protocol Host Identity Protocol Location update IPsec Map-Register message HIP Update packet 

References

  1. 1.
    Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), RFC 6830 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT), RFC 6836 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whittle, R.: Ivip (Internet Vastly Improved Plumbing) Architecture, draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04 (archived) (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mungur, A.: Analysis of locator identity split protocols in providing end-host mobility. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Technol. (IJIET) 7(2), 365–375 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moskowitz, E.R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., Henderson, T.: Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2), RFC 7401 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vogt, C.: Six/one router: a scalable and backwards compatible solution for provider-independent addressing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture - MobiArch 2008, p. 13 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkinson, R.: ILNP Concept of Operations, draft-rja-ilnp-intro-11 (archived) (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, R., Bhatti, S., Hailes, S.: A proposal for unifying mobility with multi-homing, NAT, & security, p. 74 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menth, M., Hartmann, M., Klein, D.: Global locator, local locator, and identifier split (GLI-Split). Future Internet 5(1), 67–94 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perkins, E.C.: IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised, RFC 5944 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perkins, E.C., Johnson, D., Arkko, J.: Mobility Support in IPv6, RFC 6275 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komu, M., Sethi, M., Beijar, N.: A survey of identifier-locator split addressing architectures. Comput. Sci. Rev. 17, 25–42 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuller, V., Farinacci, D.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface, RFC 6833 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seo, E., Sarang Wi, S., Zalyubovskiy, V., Chung, T.M.: The scalable LISP-Deployed software-defined wireless network (LISP-SDWN) for a next generation wireless network. IEEE Access 6, 66305–66321 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., White, C.: LISP Mobile Node, draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 (2018, work in progress)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saucez, D., Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis, RFC 7835 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Cabellos, A.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 (2018, work in progress)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., Saucez, D.: LISP-Security (LISP-SEC), draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 (2018, work in progress)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, J., et al.: IER: ID-ELoc-RLoc based architecture for next generation internet. J. Electron. 31(6), 519–536 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saucez, D., Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O., Farinacci, D.: Designing a deployable internet: the locator/identifier separation protocol. IEEE Internet Comput. 16(6), 14–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moskowitz, E.R., Komu, M.: Host Identity Protocol Architecture, draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 (2018, work in progress)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., Stevens, W.: Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6, RFC 3493 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laganier, J.: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extension, RFC 8005 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henderson, E.T., Vogt, C., Arkko, J.: Host Mobility with the Host Identity Protocol, RFC 8046 (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laganier, J., Eggert, L.: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension, RFC 8004 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laganier, J., Eggert, L.: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension, RFC 8003 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramjee, R., Li, L., La Porta, T., Kasera, S.: IP paging service for mobile hosts. Wireless Netw. 8(5), 427–441 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mungur, A., Edwards, C.: Performance of a tiered architecture to support end-host mobility in a locator identity split environment. In: Proceedings of Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN, vol. 26–29–Octo, no. Imi, pp. 446–449 (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mungur, A., Tuhaloo, M., Jawarun, M.: Performance evaluation of a hybrid paging mechanism to support locator identity split end-host mobility. In: 2016 8th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies Mobility and Security, NTMS 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kent, S., Seo, K.: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol, RFC 4301 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frankel, S., Krishnan, S.: IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap, RFC 6071 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deering, S., Hinden, R.: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, RFC 8200 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication Technologies, Faculty of Information, Communication and Digital TechnologiesUniversity of MauritiusReduitMauritius

Personalised recommendations