Subject: [Monami6] flow filtering - issue 1

From: "Niko A. Fikouras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:31:52 +0200

Hi all,

We have acquired with the help of the nomadv4 implementation a series of 
UDP and TCP experimental results for flow mobility and flow 
distribution. I presume that these results are largely applicable for an 
IPv6 enironment. In both cases we have witnessed a significant increase 
in throughput which is an important measurable gain of the protocol 
extensions in question. As you might have expected TCP congestion 
avoidance mechanisms have demonstrated incompatibilities with the flow 
distribution (single flow) mechanisms but even still managed an 
increased throughput.
The conclusion is that flow mobility and flow distribution are feasible 
but the second is going to introduce a lot of complexity for us to address.

Should there be an interest we could arrange for these results to become 
publically available.

Best Regards
niko

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:48:36 +0100

Hi Niko,

Yes I think that this WG would have lot of interest in those results.  
If you can make them public, it would be very good to better  
understand flow distribution issues.

Nicolas

On 3 nov. 05, at 13:31, Niko A. Fikouras wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have acquired with the help of the nomadv4 implementation a  
> series of UDP and TCP experimental results for flow mobility and  
> flow distribution. I presume that these results are largely  
> applicable for an IPv6 enironment. In both cases we have witnessed  
> a significant increase in throughput which is an important  
> measurable gain of the protocol extensions in question. As you  
> might have expected TCP congestion avoidance mechanisms have  
> demonstrated incompatibilities with the flow distribution (single  
> flow) mechanisms but even still managed an increased throughput.
> The conclusion is that flow mobility and flow distribution are  
> feasible but the second is going to introduce a lot of complexity  
> for us to address.
>
> Should there be an interest we could arrange for these results to  
> become publically available.
>
> Best Regards
> niko
>

---

From: "Niko A. Fikouras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:38:40 +0200

Hi Nicolas, hi all,

a document that contains a presentation of the results can be found under:
http://www.mobileip.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=UpDownload&file=index&menu=6

You might want to have a look at the rest of the available downloads.

This document is part of a larger document so please excuse any stray 
references.
In short, the document presents an experimental evaluation of the 
Filters for Mobile IP Bindings protocol extension. The investigation 
takes a look at the distribution of whole flows between points of 
attachment, also known as Flow Mobility and the distribution of packets 
of a flow between points of attachment. The latter is referred to as 
Flow Distribution. The scenarios investigated involve TCP and UDP flows 
destined to mobile nodes capable of maintaining multiple wireless points 
of attachment. The software used is the UoB Nomad v0.11.
It is concluded that the Filters for Mobile IP Bindings protocol 
extension can grant greater flexibility to mobile clients, efficient 
utilisation of available resources and acceleration of UDP and TCP 
communications alike.

Best Regards
niko

Nicolas Montavont wrote:

>> applicable for an IPv6 enironment. In both cases we have witnessed  a 
>> significant increase in throughput which is an important  measurable 
>> gain of the protocol extensions in question. As you  might have 
>> expected TCP congestion avoidance mechanisms have  demonstrated 
>> incompatibilities with the flow distribution (single  flow) 
>> mechanisms but even still managed an increased throughput.