A mobility framework to improve heterogeneous wireless network services (original) (raw)
Related papers
An Architecture for Seamless Mobility Support in IP-Based Next-Generation Wireless Networks
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2000
Recent technological innovations allow mobile devices to be equipped with multiple wireless interfaces. Moreover, the trend in fourth-generation or next-generation wireless networks (4G/NGWNs) is the coexistence of diverse but complementary architectures and wireless access technologies. In this context, an appropriate mobility management scheme, as well as the integration and interworking of existing wireless systems, is crucial. Several proposals for solving these issues are available in the literature. However, these proposals cannot guarantee seamless roaming and service continuity. This paper proposes a novel architecture called Integrated InterSystem Architecture (IISA), which is based on the Third-Generation Partnership Project/Third-Generation
Mobility Management across Heterogeneous Access Networks
International Journal of Computer Applications, 2014
To satisfy customer demand for a high mobility services in heterogeneous network; Mobile protocol is needed to make intelligent and optimized handover. This paper is a comparative study between mobility management solutions such as (MIPv6 , NEMO , FHMIP and MIPv6 integrated with IEEE802.21) in heterogeneous networks to find out which of them performs better when it comes to send datagram from the correspondent node to the mobile node. Different scenarios were carried out to measure delay and throughput metrics of mobile node while roaming using NS2 (Network Simulator 2). The results showed that mobility protocols integrated with IEEE802.21 performed better in all the tests done and the overall expected handover (both L2 and L3) latency can be reduced even in vehicular environment.
Mobility Management Schemes for Heterogeneity Support in Next Generation Wireless Networks
2007 Next Generation Internet Networks, 2007
Seamless mobility support in a heterogeneous roaming environment poses several challenging issues in the choice of network architecture design and mobility protocol. Several standards organizations are designing next generation wireless network architectures with a suite of new network elements and protocols that provide service continuity for intraand inter-provider roaming. However, each of these mobility solutions provides its own set of signaling mechanisms and methods of interaction with different functional network elements. Thus, it becomes a challenging task for the network operators and service providers to support roaming to the visited networks with diverse capabilities while supporting service continuity. In this paper, we first highlight some of the next generation standards and then describe the main functional components of a generic next generation wireless architecture as described in several evolving standards. We then focus on the operational usage of network layer mobility protocols such as Client Mobile IP, Proxy Mobile IP and application layer mobility protocol for next generation networks, and address the operational issues associated with roaming and service continuity. Finally, we propose comprehensive mobility solutions that support the heterogeneity associated with the intra-and inter-provider roaming.
SEMO6-a multihoming-based seamless mobility management framework
2008
Abstract Mobility protocols are designed to support handover between different wireless networks. Many of them suffer problems such as high handover latency, high packet overhead, high packet loss during handoff, lack of application transparency, etc. To remove these problems, we proposed a network layer based mobility protocol framework, SEamless MObility using shim6 (SEMO6), for host mobility. It is based on using the SHIM6 protocol and provides multihoming, mobility and application transparency.
Mobility management for IP-based next generation mobile networks: Review, challenge and perspective
Journal of Network and Computer Applications
Host-based Network-based Location management Handover management a b s t r a c t IP Mobility management protocols are divided into two kinds of category: host-based and networkbased mobility protocol. The former category, such as MIPv6 protocol and its enhancements (e.g., HMIPv6 and FMIPv6), supports the mobility of a Mobile Node (MN) to roam across network domains. This is done through the involvement of MN in the mobility-related signalling, which requires protocol stack modification and IP address changes on the MN. The latter category, such as PMIPv6 protocol, handles mobility management on behalf of the MN thereby enabling it to connect and roam within localized domains, which requires neither protocol stack modification nor IP address change of the MN. PMIPv6 attracts attention in the Internet and telecommunication societies by improving the performance of the MN's communication to fulfil the requirements of QoS for real-time services. In this article, we present IPv6 features to support mobile systems and survey the mobility management services along with their techniques, strategies and protocol categories, and elaborate upon the classification and comparison among various mobility management protocols. Furthermore, it identifies and discusses several issues and challenges facing mobility management along with an evaluation and comparison of several relevant mobility studies.
International Journal of Computing & Network Technology
One of the main issues with Mobile Internet Protocol (MIP) is slow handovers. Mobility protocols are classified as micro or macro depending on the domain of the network. When macro mobility protocols are used in managing localized mobility requirements, they result in slow handovers and delays that result in loss of packets and make these protocols unsuitable for time sensitive applications. Micro mobility management protocols have been proposed to resolve this issue. Some of these localized protocols are more attractive as they keep mobility restricted to the network that removes the need of having mobility management support in their software stack. In other protocols hosts are involved in mobility management. In this paper we will review the concept of mobility and the mobility protocols available in IPv6. We will discuss proposed protocols aimed at macro and micro mobility management by grouping them according to their host or network based management approach. We will also compare their handover performance.
A mobility management model based on users' mobility profiles for IPv6 networks
Computer Communications, 2006
Fourth-generation (4G) mobile systems provide access to a wide range of services and enable mobile users to communicate regardless of their geographical location and their roaming characteristics. Due to the growing number of mobile users, global connectivity, and the small size of cells, one of the most critical issues pertaining to these networks is location management. In recent years, several strategies have been proposed to improve the performance of the location management procedure in 3G and 4G mobile networks. In this paper, we propose a new model called Seamless Mobile IPv6 (SMIPv6) to improve the performance of the handover component in location management schemes. This model improves handover by predicting user location based on Users' Mobility Profiles. The overall goals of SMIPv6 are to reduce both handover latency and signaling loads generated during the location update process. Simulation results show that the use of SMIPv6 produces a handover with low delay, as well as a significant drop of signaling overhead. Better results have been obtained by our protocol in all cases studied when compared to Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Fast Handovers for MIPv6 (FMIPv6).
A micro-mobility solution for supporting QoS in global mobility
2010
Today, users want to have simultaneously mobility, Quality of Service (QoS) and be always connected to Internet. Therefore, this paper proposes a QoS micro-mobility solution able to provide QoS support for global mobility. The solution comprises enhancements in the mobility management of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and in the resources management of Differentiated Services (DiffServ) QoS model. The mobility management of MIPv6 was extended with fast and local handovers to improve its efficiency in micro-mobility scenarios with frequent handovers. The DiffServ resource management has been extended with adaptive and dynamic QoS provisioning to improve resources utilization in mobile IP networks. Further, in order to improve resources utilization the mobility and QoS messages were coupled, providing a resource management able to, proactively, react to mobile events. The performance improvement of the proposed solution and the model parametrization was evaluated using a simulation model. Simulation results indicate that the solution avoids network congestion and starvation of less priority DiffServ classes. Moreover, the results also indicate that bandwidth utilization for priority classes increases and the QoS offered to MN's applications, in each DiffServ class, keeps up unchangeable with MN mobility.
Comparative Handover Performance Analysis of IPv6 Mobility Management Protocols
IPv6 mobility management is one of the most challenging research topics for enabling mobility service in the forthcoming mobile wireless ecosystems. The Internet Engineering Task Force has been working for developing efficient IPv6 mobility management protocols. As a result, Mobile IPv6 and its extensions such as Fast Mobile IPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 have been developed as host-based mobility management protocols. While the host-based mobility management protocols were being enhanced, the network-based mobility management protocols such as Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Fast Proxy Mobile IPv6 (FPMIPv6) have been standardized. In this paper, we analyze and compare existing IPv6 mobility management protocols including the recently standardized PMIPv6 and FPMIPv6. We identify each IPv6 mobility management protocol's characteristics and performance indicators by examining handover operations. Then, we analyze the performance of the IPv6 mobility management protocols in terms of handover latency, handover blocking probability, and packet loss. Through the conducted numerical results, we summarize considerations for handover performance.