Host Identification and Location Decoupling a Comparison of Approaches - IWT 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Host Identification and Location Decoupling a Comparison of Approaches - IWT 2011

on

  • 1,151 views

The increasing proliferation of mobile devices with Internet access contributed to clarify some important limitations of TCP/IP stack regarding mobility, multihoming, traceability and security. In its ...

The increasing proliferation of mobile devices with Internet access contributed to clarify some important limitations of TCP/IP stack regarding mobility, multihoming, traceability and security. In its original design, Internet IP addresses were overloaded to simultaneously support host identification (ID) and location (Loc). As a consequence, application functionality can be affected when IP addresses are changed to update mobile nodes location. This dual functionality causes many problems in the current Internet, especially in supporting mobility. To deal with this limitations several solutions based on the idea of ID/Loc splitting have been proposed. In this position paper we present and compare some of them, summarizing their main features and limitations. We also identify opportunities and challenges for future research in the area as well as expected impacts/relations with other Future Internet aspects.

www.inatel.br/iwt

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,151
Views on SlideShare
784
Embed Views
367

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

7 Embeds 367

http://alberti.inatel.br 152
http://antonioalberti.blogspot.com 113
http://www.inatel.br 83
http://antonioalberti.blogspot.com.br 15
http://www.antonioalberti.blogspot.com 2
http://antonioalberti.blogspot.kr 1
http://www3.inatel.br 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Host Identification and Location Decoupling a Comparison of Approaches - IWT 2011 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Host Identification and Location Decoupling: A Comparison of Approaches Bruno Magalhães Martins Antônio Marcos Alberti © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 2. Outline1. Motivation2. Approaches for Host ID/Loc Splitting3. Comparison4. Conclusion © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 3. Motivation Current IP address → identification + location (overload). This limitates → mobility, multihoming, scalability, etc. Future networks need to separate identifiers (ID) from locators (Loc) → the so called ID/Loc splitting. Why ID/Loc splitting? → To move hosts without “loss of identity”. © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 4. Approaches for Host ID/Loc Splitting Mobile IP HIP (Host Identity Protocol) LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol) MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture) Akari MCP (Mobility Control Protocol) © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 5. Mobile IP Idea:  Two IP addresses:  Home-address → static; works as an ID for app. layer;  Care-of-address → dynamic; according to node’s location.  Two components:  Home-agent → atributes home-address; mantains mapping to current location;  Foreign-agent → atributes care-of-address; informs home-agent. Identification:  Home-Address Location:  Care-of-Address © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 6. ),D0%),/-! ;2,),&#),B! %"! <#=%7,! .E! /,6%,1! ("! 2("+,! %$1!7#($%#"!3%$2#0$!7#11!%"!#"",$%6%$A-!F%+0),!G!%7701$)($,1!<#=%7,!.E!&0"$%#"(7%$A-!!!! Mobile IPF%+-!G-!<#=%7,!.E!&0"$%#"(7%$A-! H,15%$,!$2,!*#=%7%$A!1055#)$!#&&,),/!=A!<#=%7,!.E!(55)#(2! © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  •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dentity Protocol) ,&&%%,"AB! $2,),! %1! (Host $2,!!5(4,$!/,1$%",/!$#!$2,!<>! F%+0),!T!5()$%(77A!%7701$)($,1!;SEW.E!5)#$##7!1$(4!?7,&$@!%"! F%+0),!T!5()$%(77A!%7701$)($,1!;SEW.E!5)#$##7!1$(4!?7,&$@!%"! 4,$!/,1$%",/!$#!$2,!<>! #"$)(1$! $#! $2,! ",3! Q.E! 5)#$##7! 1$(4! ?)%+2$@-! ."! $2,! 7($$,)B! #"$)(1$! $#! $2,! ",3! Q.E! 5)#$##7! 1$(4! ?)%+2$@-! ."! $2,! 7($$,)B!=,&#),! =,%"+! Idea:$2,! )#0$,/! $#! ),! =,%"+! )#0$,/! $#! $2,! $2,! $2,! 2#1$! %/,"$%&%,)! ("/!7#($#)! (),! 1,5()($,/! &)#*! ,(2! 2#1$! %/,"$%&%,)! ("/! %$1! %$1! 7#($#)! (),! 1,5()($,/! &)#*! ,(2! ,J$)(!/,7(AB!32%2!#07/!=,! (!/,7(AB!32%2!#07/!=,!,! #**0"%($%#"1-! <#=%7,! #$2,)-!;2,!.E!(//),11!3%77!#"$%"0,!$#!($!(1!(!7#($#)B!32%7,! layers:  New namespace between network and transport#**0"%($%#"1-! <#=%7,! #$2,)-!;2,!.E!(//),11!3%77!#"$%"0,!$#!($!(1!(!7#($#)B!32%7,! Host ID "+! (! )#0$%"+! #5$%*%L($%#"! $2,!Q.!%1!),15#"1%=7,!&#)!%/,"$%&A%"+!$2,!,"/!2#1$-! (! )#0$%"+! #5$%*%L($%#"!Layer $2,!Q.!%1!),15#"1%=7,!&#)!%/,"$%&A%"+!$2,!,"/!2#1$-! /%),$7A! $#! $2,! $2,! +&($%",% ! ! "/! /%),$7A! $#! +&($%",% Without HIP With HIP 7%$,)($0),! 8K:8M:8N:B! $2,! $2,! %"! 7%$,)($0),! 8K:8M:8N:B!1#76,! $2,! $2,! 5)#=7,*1! #&!7A! 1#76,! 5)#=7,*1! #&!(01,! %$! ),7%,1! #"! $2,! $2,! .E!! =,(01,! %$! ),7%,1! #"! .E!,! *(7%%#01! 01,)! ("!("! ! (! *(7%%#01! 01,)! "%(7! #&! O,)6%,! ?H#O@! H,"%(7! #&! O,)6%,! ?H#O@! ! ! ,! (//),11! "#$%&%($%#"! &(71,! (//),11! "#$%&%($%#"! F%+-!T-!S0)),"$!."$,)",$!!?7,&$@!("/!Q.E!5)#$##7!?)%+2$@!8K:-! F%+-!T-!S0)),"$!."$,)",$!!?7,&$@!("/!Q.E!5)#$##7!?)%+2$@!8K:-!  Identification: 8.! 90:1*2*9"+&3"(*0*:$;&(&35"4*1("3"+"7* 8.!90:1*2*9"+&3"(*0*:$;&(&35"4*1("3"+"7* (7!&7(31!%"!$2,!0)),"$! )%$%(7!&7(31!%"!$2,!0)),"$!"(*%! ),(//),11%"+! ("! "#$! Identifier → Public key as a flat name; provides  Host Y.OE!8Z:!%1!(!5)#5#1(7!&)#*!S%1#!OA1$,*1!3%$2!(!1%*%7()! %! ),(//),11%"+! ("! "#$! Y.OE!8Z:!%1!(!5)#5#1(7!&)#*!S%1#!OA1$,*1!3%$2!(!1%*%7()! unique IDs;("#"A*%$A! ("! "#$! =,! +#(7!$#!$2#1,!#&!Q.E!("/!<#=%7,!.E!5)#$##71B!%-,-!$#!1055#)$! +#(7!$#!$2#1,!#&!Q.E!("/!<#=%7,!.E!5)#$##71B!%-,-!$#!1055#)$!2,! ("#"A*%$A! ("! "#$! =,! &%"(77AB! $2,),! %1! "#! "#! *#=%7%$A! ("/! *07$%2#*%"+! %"! ;SEW.E! ",$3#)41-! Q#3,6,)B!! 7AP! &%"(77AB!  Location: *#=%7%$A! ("/! *07$%2#*%"+! %"! ;SEW.E! ",$3#)41-! Q#3,6,)B!! $2,),! %1! ;2,1,!/,&%%,"%,1!1$,*! Y.OE! 5)#$##7! %1! =(1,/! #"! (//),11! *(55%"+! =,$3,,"! ,/+,! Y.OE! 5)#$##7! %1! =(1,/! #"! (//),11! *(55%"+! =,$3,,"! ,/+,!,$1-!;2,1,!/,&%%,"%,1!1$,*!+!57($&#)*1!%",&&%%,"$7A! address. #),!",$3#)41! ("/!("/!$0"",7%"+! #6,)! [HE! ?[1,)! 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© Antônio M. Alberti 2011!5)#$##7!("/!%$!%1!=(1,/!#"!
  • 8. LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol) Idea:  Address mapping between edge and core IP networks; IP over UDP over IP; two IP addresses:  EIDs (Endpoint Identifiers) → persistent; used as an ID;  RLOCs (Routing Locators) → used to locate edge routers.  Two components:  ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) → maps EIDs on RLOCs;  ETR (Egress Tunnel Router) → maps RLOCs on EIDs. End Host Identification/Location:  EIDs Edge Router Identification/Location:  RLOCs © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 9. &*,3:-@!#-!.9!313!*5!.9!1/:(:-.8!.9!CA<!6:))!&/3(20)3.!.9!(3/7.!3-&!1*0.!:.!3//*1&:-4!.*!.9!C#D!*5!.9!&2.:-3.:*-!9*2.@! A9:2!(1*/22!/13.2!3!.0--)!B.6-!.9!&4!1*0.12@!I:401!J!:))02.13.2!.9!*(13.:*-!*5!"#$%@! LISP (Locator ID Separation Protocol) !!I:4@!J@!"#$%!50-/.:*-:-4!EFFH@! ! >*-2:&1! .9! 2/-31:*! *5! I:401! J8! 691! .9! $*01/K*&! © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 10. MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture) Idea:  Separation of trust relations, called domains, and the relations of connectivity, called zones;  Separation between signaling and data plan.  RZBS (Zone Bridging Realm Server) - provides dynamic mapping between IDs and locators. Identification:  Assigned at domain level; Location:  Assigned at zone level; © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 11. )*4:/3))+! .*! 9:,8! 69:)! 3! S*-! 30.9*1:.+! 9*)&2! .9!2@! :-5*1,3.:*-! *5! *-! *1! ,*1! 3&&1222! *1! )*/3.*12! *5! 20/9! 9*2.2@!A9!<TZ$!.372!/31!*5!,3((:-4!&*,3:-2!3-&!S*-28! &+-3,:/3))+!,3((:-4!9*2.!:&-.:5:12!*-!)*/3.*12@!I:401![! MILSA (Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture) :))02.13.2!W#"$X@! !! ! m Domains Zones&!9! I:4@![@!W#"$X!/*-/(.03)!31/9:./.01!EYH@! L! ! A9! .6*! .1,:-3)2! W#"$X! 021! :&-.:5:12! :))02.13.&! :-! © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 12. Akari Idea:  New namespace between network and transport layers: ID Layer. Identification:  By name and/or by identifier (ID) obtained by hash function;  Legible and unique local names;  Includes hierachical topology information in global names; Location:  IP, non-IP, post-IP. © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 13. Akari Identification Local Name +IMS Domain Name Global Name Hash Function ID Locator Location Source: Akari Prpject © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  • 14. MCP (Mobility Control Protocol) Idea:  New namespace between network and transport layers: HID-based Communication Layer. Identification:  HIDs (Host Identifiers) → hash function of host’s proprietary public key. Application/Transport Location:  Two protocols: HID-based Communication  ADP (Access Delivery Protocol);  BDP (Backbone Delivery). Network Delivery (ADP/BDP) © Antônio M. Alberti 2011
  •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omparison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ash function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© Antônio M. Alberti 2011,*I7.%6*/! .I*/J! 6*I#! %I7*+./+! .77*.,G#6! H*! ;"LK*,! +G#!4#6+!*/#]!
  • 16. Conclusion ID/Loc splitting is one of the most important solutions to address some of the current Internet limitations. Legible names are important to people. Approaches need to support post-IP designs. We need to evaluate the introduction of new layers. We need more holistic and integrated designs:  To cover relationships among identifiers, names, locators and routing.  To improve security and trust.  To integrate with information ID/Loc splitting. © Antônio M. Alberti 2011