View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Integration of Satellite and LTE for Disaster Recovery
Maurizio Casoni, Carlo Augusto Grazia, Martin Klapez, NatalePatriciello
Department of Engineering Enzo FerrariUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Cavalese - Italy, January 15, 201512th Italian Networking Workshop
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 1 / 24
Context
PPDR
Public Protection and Disaster Relief
Needs
To provide data-intensive communication in disaster scenarios
State of reality in the EU
Different nations: different networks employed
Old technologies
Field operators often rely on commercial terrestrial networks
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 2 / 24
State of reality in the EU
Weaknesses of current solutions
[Availability] - Terrestrial Infrastructure
Non-negligible probability of disruption from disasters.Coverage subjected to profit logics.
[Data Rate] - Dedicated PPDR networks are slow
TETRA and Analogue PMR are the standard technologies; very good foradvanced voice services, very bad for data-intensive applications.
[Resilience] - Commercial networks are not reliable
Infrastructure-based systems are not redundant.They are vulnerable to disasters and subsequent incidents.
[Spectrum] - Interoperability
No EU spectrum harmonization to date.Poses additional issues in cross-border operations.
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 3 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration
Key design requirements:
Accessibility
The deployed network(s) must be easily accessed by general UE.
Coverage
In absence of adverse external conditions, it must be possible todeploy IAN(s) where terrestrial coverage is disrupted or absent.
Performance
It must provide broadband access, at least to PPDR operators.
Interoperability
It should permit concurrent exploitation of existing terrestrialnetworks, if operative in the disaster area.
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 4 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [System Architecture]
Access: LTE.Backhaul: Ka-band MEO satellites.
IAN provided by a MEOC is an atomic element with which to compose anad-hoc infrastructure-less network topology.
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 5 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [System Architecture]
Network architecture on a MEOC
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 6 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Networks Range]
Estimated LTE cell coverage in disaster scenarios
Urban: 0.5 km ←→ 1.5 km
Suburban: 1 km ←→ 2 km
Rural: 1 km ←→ 10 km
Satellite coverage depends on
Constellation type (GEO, MEO or LEO)
Number of satellites
Design choices
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 7 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Data Rate]
LTE
Theoretical: 326 Mbit/s in downlink, 75 Mbit/s in uplink
Real Average: 17 Mbit/s ←→ 33 Mbit/s
MEO Ka-band Satellites (O3b)
12 spot beams
1.2 Gbit/s each
Satellite LEO
Increasing interest in Ka-band frequencies from LEO community
Estimations of 3.75 Gbit/s
Previous attempts FAILED, mainly for cost reasons
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 8 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [LTE Service Provisioning]
Specific voice capabilities
From LTE Release 12 → Direct Mode Operation and Group Calls
External platforms such as IP Multimedia Subsystem or Open MobileAlliance service enablers
Broadband data support
High priority channels for FRs
Low priority channels for people in distress (to at least provide themwith basic communication capabilites)
⇓LTE BEARERS
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 9 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [LTE Service Provisioning]
Specific voice capabilities
From LTE Release 12 → Direct Mode Operation and Group Calls
External platforms such as IP Multimedia Subsystem or Open MobileAlliance service enablers
Broadband data support
High priority channels for FRs
Low priority channels for people in distress (to at least provide themwith basic communication capabilites)
⇓LTE BEARERS
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 9 / 24
LTE - sat Integration [Infrastructure-less/based topologies]
Infrastructure-less vs Infrastructure-based Topologies
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 10 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Handover]
Transparent handover provision
Through both S1 and X2 handover procedures
The handling of the handover by the target eNodeB as seen from UEis exactly the same
When to use what
X2 handover → UE is moving between terrestrial eNodeBs
S1 handover → UE is moving between MEOCs cells or between aMEOC and a terrestrial eNodeB
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 11 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Spectrum and Interoperability]
Commercial European LTE networks are mostly deployed in
Band 3 (1800 MHz)
Band 7 (2600 MHz)
Band 20 (800 MHz)
NO EU HARMONIZED FREQUENCY BAND FOR PPDR PURPOSES
⇑Architecture may help
MEOCs can be configured on place, in order to align the spectrum ofdeployed IANs with the frequency bands used by terrestrial networksin the specific geographical area of the disaster.
Multimode UE may be adopted. LTE supports interworking andmobility with GSM, UMTS, CDMA2000 and WiMAX.
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 12 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Spectrum and Interoperability]
Commercial European LTE networks are mostly deployed in
Band 3 (1800 MHz)
Band 7 (2600 MHz)
Band 20 (800 MHz)
NO EU HARMONIZED FREQUENCY BAND FOR PPDR PURPOSES
⇑Architecture may help
MEOCs can be configured on place, in order to align the spectrum ofdeployed IANs with the frequency bands used by terrestrial networksin the specific geographical area of the disaster.
Multimode UE may be adopted. LTE supports interworking andmobility with GSM, UMTS, CDMA2000 and WiMAX.
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 12 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [Indoor and Tunnel scenarios]
In general, FRs UE should be able to act as repeaters
We want to be able to provide coverage indoor, routing communication soas to make it reach a MEOC
2 Options
Deploy Picocells or Femtocells inside buildings and tunnels,respectively
Create a network chain by deploying the necessary number of FRs
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 13 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [QoS: Propagation Delay]
End-to-end latency comparison between GEO and MEO satellite backhauls
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 14 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [QoS: Queuing Delay]
TCP can create delay issues
Bufferbloat
Too large buffers may cause issues instead of preventing them
TCP acknowledges congestion only after the buffer fills
TCP reaction times
In wireless systems channel conditions can change very rapidly
TCP reacts slowly and always interprets losses as congestion signals
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 15 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [QoS: Queuing Delay]
TCP can create delay issues
Bufferbloat
Too large buffers may cause issues instead of preventing them
TCP acknowledges congestion only after the buffer fills
TCP reaction times
In wireless systems channel conditions can change very rapidly
TCP reacts slowly and always interprets losses as congestion signals
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 15 / 24
LTE - satellite Integration [QoS: Queuing Delay]
TCP can create delay issues
Bufferbloat
Too large buffers may cause issues instead of preventing them
TCP acknowledges congestion only after the buffer fills
TCP reaction times
In wireless systems channel conditions can change very rapidly
TCP reacts slowly and always interprets losses as congestion signals
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 15 / 24
C 2ML [Congestion Control Middleware Layer]
C 2ML scheme
Gateway
Node(i)
i : [1,n]
Remote
Node
App
CCL
TCP
IP
H2N
CCL
IP
H2N
IP
H2N
App
TCP
IP
H2N
Local Network
CCLP
We want to give guarantees!
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 16 / 24
C 2ML+ [Dynamic Bandwidth Management]
Using Channel State Information, a node is able to assess if the assignedbandwidth can be fully exploited
⇓DyBRA: Dynamic Bandwidth Reservation Algorithm
CLIENT HELLO
ACK HELLO
ACK USED
USED BW
ACK HELLO
ACK USED
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 17 / 24
C 2ML+ [Dynamic Bandwidth Management]
Using Channel State Information, a node is able to assess if the assignedbandwidth can be fully exploited
⇓DyBRA: Dynamic Bandwidth Reservation Algorithm
CLIENT HELLO
ACK HELLO
ACK USED
USED BW
ACK HELLO
ACK USED
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 17 / 24
C 2ML+ [Dynamic Bandwidth Management]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
bit/s
)
Time (s)
Standard C2ML+
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Queue O
ccupancy (
KB
)Time (s)
Standard C2ML+
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 18 / 24
C 2ML+ [Dynamic Bandwidth Management]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Data
Tra
nsm
itte
d (
MB
)
Queue O
ccupancy (
KB
)Queue Size (MB)
Tx DataMax Queue Occupancy
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Data
Tra
nsm
itte
d (
MB
)
Queue O
ccupancy (
KB
)
Queue Size (MB)
Tx DataMax Queue Occupancy
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 19 / 24
C 2ML+ [Resource Exhaustion Attacks]
Disasters may be natural or man-provokedIn the latter case, there may be interest to cut out legitimate users from
communication services
⇓QRM: Per-flow Queue Rate Management
Basic idea:
1 Detect a threat, i.e. if a node is sending packets at a rate greaterthan the allowed
2 Counteract the threat by dropping attackers’ packets ONLY
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 20 / 24
C 2ML+ [Resource Exhaustion Attacks]
Disasters may be natural or man-provokedIn the latter case, there may be interest to cut out legitimate users from
communication services⇓
QRM: Per-flow Queue Rate Management
Basic idea:
1 Detect a threat, i.e. if a node is sending packets at a rate greaterthan the allowed
2 Counteract the threat by dropping attackers’ packets ONLY
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 20 / 24
C 2ML+ [Resource Exhaustion Attacks]
Drop Tail throughput CoDel throughput
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
QRM throughput
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Th
rou
gh
pu
t (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 21 / 24
C 2ML+ [Resource Exhaustion Attacks]
Drop Tail throughput CoDel throughput
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
QRM throughput
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Thro
ughput (M
b/s
)
Time (s)
Flow 1Flow 2
Flow 3Flow 4
Attacker
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 21 / 24
C 2ML+ [Resource Exhaustion Attacks]
Drop Tail queue QRM queue
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
RT
T (
ms)
Queue O
ccupancy (
KB
)
Time (s)
Good Flow RTTMax Queue Occupancy
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
RT
T (
ms)
Queue O
ccupancy (
KB
)
Time (s)
Good Flow RTTMax Queue Occupancy
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 22 / 24
Final Conclusions
Hybrid LTE-satellite architecture
Easy connectivity
Both infrastructure-less and infrastructure-based
Almost ubiquitous coverage
Resilient
Fast
Resource Management: C 2ML+
Middleware for Centralized and Cooperative resourcemanagement
DyBRA for Dynamic Bandwidth management
QRM for protection against Resource Exhaustion Attacks
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 23 / 24
Thank you for the attention
Any question?
M. Klapez (UNIMORE) 12th INW January 15, 2015 24 / 24
Recommended