Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis and Evaluation

.

Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis
and Evaluation
Adeniji Oluwashola David, Adenike Osofisan
Department of Computer Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
sholaniji@yahoo.com, od.adeniji@ui.edu.ng, nikeosofisan@gmail.com
Abstract-
Route Optimization (RO) in Mobile Internet Protocol
Version Six (MIPv6) is a technique that enables a
Mobile Node (MN) and a Corresponding Node (CN)
to communicate directly by bypassing the Home Agent
(HA). RO is usually faced with the problem of Internet
Protocol (IP) multilayer tunnels due to pinball or sub-
optimal routing. The generic consideration in
designing route optimization scheme is to use
minimum signaling information in the IPv6 packet
header. In order for optimization to take place in
MIPv6, a protocol called route optimization protocol
must be introduced. Route optimization protocol is
used basically to improve performance. Also RO can
also be described as a mechanism that eliminates the
inefficiency in tunneling of packets from MRs to their
HA before being sent to CNs over the Internet.
However, Network Mobility (NEMO) can be described
as a network whose point of attachment to the Internet
varies with time.
The tradeoff between the two protocols can provide a
significant impact on the networks. Furthermore, one
potential choice of selecting any of the protocols can
increase or decrease the degree of application in used.
The tradeoff in offloading solution can vary from
mobile access network and core mobile network.
Optimizing traffic breakout and support for mobility
are paramount to service operators. The study focused
on the development and evaluation of an experimental
test bed of route optimization in MIPv6 and
NEMO.The tradeoff between the two protocols was
examined. The results of the experimental test bed
shows the benefit of next generation of Internet
system, especially for real-time applications that
need to provide seamless connection with low handoff
latency.
Key Words: Mobile IPv6, Network Mobility, Route
Optimization, Tradeoff.
I. INTRODUCTION

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
has several proposals based on the protocol
constraints and configuration variables for
establishing Route Optimization. The design
of route optimization based on mobile IPv6
tackles some issues such as optimized
handoff delay, security and signaling
overhead thus constituting more variant
progress in mobile IPv6 network.
Route optimization allows a correspondent
node to send payload packet to a mobile
node’s new care of address (CoA) before the
mobile node communicate with a reachable
CoA in Johnson et al., 2004. When the
mobile node changes IP connectivity; a
binding update (BU) is introduced at the
corresponding node to a new CoA without
providing proof of reachability. The
corresponding node registers the new CoA
and sets it to an unverified state. The
prediction of incoming attacks is achieved in
a timely manner which enables security
professionals to install defense systems in
order to reduce the possibility of such attacks
Adeniji et al., 2020 in Zero Day attack
Prediction.
Bidirectional exchange of payload packets
takes place via the new CoA. Also the mobile
node reachability at the new CoA is verified
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
19 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

.

concurrently. Finally the corresponding node
moves the CoA to verify the state once
reachability verification is completed. Mobile
Internet Protocol Version Six (MIPv6) is a
standard communication protocol that was
developed by Internet Engineering Task
Force Perkins et al., 2011. This
communication protocol allows mobile
device users to move from one network to
another, while maintaining a permanent
Internet Protocol address. The dual role
played by Internet Protocol (IP) addresses
imposes some restrictions during mobility,
because when a terminal moves from one
network (IP subnet) to another, it will
maintain the IP address of the node that is
associated with in order not to change the
identifier in the upper layers during ongoing
sessions.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
explains Mobile IPv6 and Network Mobility.
In section 3 Route Optimization. 4 Tradeoff
Analysis and Evaluation. 5 discussion of
result of the experimental test bed was
provided. The conclusion of paper was made
in Section 5.
II. Mobile IPv6 and Network Mobility
The review on Measuring and Improving the
Performance of Network Mobility
Management in IPv6 Networks by Petander
et al., 2006 shows the analysis of NEMO
introducing an overhead in mobile network
node (MNN) and a CN when MR moves to a
foreign network in as shown below.
Fig 1: Logical Network Topology of the Test bed
This overhead due to IPv6 tunneling is 40
bytes for every packet. Signaling overhead of
NEMO with LFNs occur due to BU-BA
exchange between the MR and it’s HA. The
header of mobility management protocol
overhead will be larger.However, the
resource management of Multihoming in
nested mobile network raises new issues in
the host mobility of ipv6 network.in Adeniji
et al.,2008. So, the MNN in MIPv6-capable
of visiting mobile network (VMN) can use
MIPv6 to guarantee session continuity and
reachability. The effect of this result will
provide a higher protocol overheads and
inefﬁcient routing. If the VMN uses route
optimization (RO) connecting the CN, then
each packet overhead will be reduced. The
handoff mobility process in IPv6 network can
be divided into three main parts:
• Link layer handoff is the time for the
network interface to ﬁnd a new
Access Point and associate with it.
• IPv6 network attachment is when the
MR is attached to router in order to
configure a CoA. This router
discovery of MR sends a Router
Solicitation and receives a Router
Advertisement (RA) from a new
Access Router.
• NEMO home registration latency,
represents the delay when MR send a
BU to its HA and the HA replying
with a BA.
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

The test bed consists of NEMO-based MR
and HA prototypes for testing and measuring
the performance of NEMO and its
extensions. The MR uses the information on
the link layer to trigger handoffs when it
moves to a new wireless network. The test
bed analyzes the effect of NEMO handoffs
on real time traffic and then generates UDP
traffic with a small packet size. TCP traffic
was measured to analyze the effect of
handoffs protocol header and routing
overhead on bulk and interactive TCP traffic.
The end-to-end network latency does have an
effect on TCP performance of the MNNs.
The test bed also explains Make-Before-
Break Handoff Algorithm. The significant
roles of encryption algorithms are numerous
and essential in information
security.Logunleko et, al. (2020) in
Comparative Study of Symmetric
Cryptography Mechanism .
When the MR can connect to only one
Access Point, it is forced to break the
connection to its current network before
reattaching itself to a new network. With this
type of handoff, referred to as a Break-
Before-Make (BBM) handoff, packet loss is
hard to eliminate completely. The use of two
interfaces to enable Make-Before-Break
(MBB) handoffs for reducing packet loss due
to handoff latency. There is possibility for a
fast moving Mobile Router to take advantage
of high speed short range radio technologies
without compromising the service it offers to
Mobile Network Nodes. However, there are a
number of potential drawbacks to using
multiple interfaces in mobile devices, such as
an increase in power consumption,
interference caused by the usage of multiple
interfaces and increased size and cost.
Discussion on handover by Cabellos-
Aparicio et al., 2005 focuses on the
measurement of handover latency and
analyzes the effect of the latency on upper
layer protocol. Gaogang XIE et al., 2007
shows that in handover procedure, MN
detects the decrease of Received Signal
Strength Indication (RSSI) of attached access
point, then scans the currently available
access points and chooses the best one to
connect to. This procedure is called L2
handover. Handover latency of MIPv6 can
cause performance degradation and service
interruption. Enhancements have been
proposed to decrease handover latency such
as fast handover (FMIPv6), hierarchical
MIPv6 (HMIPv6) and fast handover for
HMIPv6 (FHMIPv6).
There are four phases in MIPv6 handover
procedure:
• Movement Detection,
• CoA Configuration,
• Home agent Registration and
• Route Optimisation
This procedure L3 handover of MIPv6 is
depicted in figure 2.1while the test bed
topology is shown in figure 2.3.
Figure 2.1: Flow of L3 Handover of MIPv 6
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

Figure 2.2: Test Bed Topology and Scenario
III: Route Optimization
Route optimization explains the process of
routing packets between a mobile node and a
correspondent node, using the shortest
possible path. The is done through two
communicating nodes. The MN is aware of
the communication of when Packet are
routed through the home agent when it
receives tunneled packets addressed to its
home address as shown in the figure below.
Figure 3.1: Mobile IPv6 route optimization
The mobile node receives a packet tunneled
from the home agent and decides whether
route optimization is needed. If RO is
needed, the mobile node informs the
correspondent node of its current location.
The correspondent node receives a binding
update from a mobile node and creates a new
entry in the binding cache or updates the
existing one with the new location of the
mobile node. The correspondent node can
communicate directly with the mobile node
by sending packets to the mobile node’s care-
of-address.
When a correspondent node sends a packets
to a mobile node for which it has a binding
cache entry, it must include a new routing
header (with a type field set to 2) when
receiving the packet, the mobile node
processes the routing header.
Hierarchical Route Optimization (HROS)
scheme was proposed in Gao et al., 2008 .This
scheme uses a new functional MNN-CN list
that is maintained dynamically through
communication between CN and MNN runs
through an optimal route during the movement
of mobile networks. Where the packets are
routed to current CoA nMR, there is no need
to be intercepted by HA, which means it
eliminates the pinball routing problem. In this
scheme, all the MR will act as Mobility
Anchor Point (MAP). Also, there is no
modification to the other entities. This made it
easy to deploy as shown below.
Figure 3.2: Packet encapsulation
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

MIPv6 Route Optimization for NEMO
(MIRON) scheme was proposed by (Bernardo
et al., 2008) and (Bernardo et al., 2004). The
proposal uses the MIPv6 amongst the Return
Routability (RR) procedure in Johnson et al.,
2004. The scheme did not highly improve the
NEMO RO, it only avoids the last tunnel
between the nMR Calderon et al., 2005.This
scheme does not handle nest topologies.
Route Optimization Scheme for Nested Mobile
Networks (NERON) scheme was proposed by
Faqir et al., 2009. In this scheme each visited
MR determines the address of the rMR’s which
is egress interface and its position inside the
nesting subnet. The NERON solution is light
weight signaling in comparison with MIRON.
The internet service driven network is a new
approach to the provision of network
computing that concentrates on the services
you want to provide as adopted in Adeniji et
al.,2008 .The performance of NERON with
dependents of the depth and packets has zero
tunneling overhead. Dutta et al., 2014 provides
observation in a test bed experiment of three
level hierarchies in MIPv6 with optimal
performance of 27% in handoff latency.
IV: MATERIALS AND METHODS
The developed experimental test bed in this
research consists of Mobile IPv6 for Linux
(MIPL) and NEMO implementation based on
NEPL (NEMO Platform for Linux). MIPL is
an implementation based on the Mobility
Support in IPv6. MIPL is divided into two
distinct parts: a kernel patch and the actual
Mobile IPv6 software implemented as a
kernel module. The NEMO configuration in
MIPv6 makes use of software called router
advertisement daemon (radvd).The radvd is
run by Linux system acting as ipv6 routers.
The Mobile Network in the testbed is
connected to the Internet via a Mobile Router
as shown in figure 4.1. During the
movement, MR moves between the Home
Link (HL) and Corresponding Link (CL).
The Home Link is the location of Home
Agent. The Home Agent is the gateway of
the Home Link and corresponding Link
interconnecting HL and CL.
a) The Prefix Delegate (PD) protocols can
delegate MR with /64 mobile Network
prefix. The will be used for the
Home Link Prefix and the Mobile
Network Node.
b) 2001:a:b:0::/48 is the Home Link,
2001:a:b:0::1000 is the Home Agent
Address, 2001:a:b:1::/64 to
2001:a:b:f:g::/64 are the Mobile
Network Prefixes.
c) When the Prefix Delegate (PD) protocols
are enabled at the access router, the MRs
and the MNs will delegate a preﬁx to the
MNs as attached under the nest.
d) When MNs performs the route
optimization, it uses the care-of address
generated from the preﬁx advertised with
the PD protocols.
e) Since this care-of address is topologically
correct, it by passes the bi-directional
tunnel established between the MR and
its HA as shown in Figure 4.1.
f) The AP function is to connect the wired
topology to the wireless nodes with
routing functionality by the exchange of
routing information with other nodes
which are routed to the correct
destination. The physical layout of
experimental test bed is depicted below
in fig 4.1..
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.
MR ::1
Figure 4.1: Testbed Configuration and
Topology Layout.
Ubuntu Linux operating system was used to
create and develop the entities in the RO
wireless test-bed which are MIPv6 platform
for Linux (MIPL) and NEMO platform for
Linux (NEPL). The operation of the test-bed
was divided into three phases.
In Phase 1, MN was at its Home
Network with mobility management
of MIPv6 starting with HA, MN and
CN.
In Phase 2, Mobile Router (MR) was
at its Home Network with mobility
management of NEMO in MIPv6
starting with MR and HA.
In Phase 3, CN and Corresponding
Router (CR) mobility management
was setup.
The information in figures shows important
result that was capture in the kernel log
during RO. Wireshark and iperf a packet
sniffer and monitoring tool was used to sniff
the data for analysis as depicted in figure 5.1
and figure 5.2.
Figure 5.1: Kernel log during Route Optimization
with the communicating CN
Figure 5.2: AP1 Roaming showing Care-of-Test,
Router Solicitation and Neighbor Advertisement.
The ping6 program was used to test for the
connectivity of the communicating node. The
HA
MN
CN
::10
::1000
::2 ::1
CR
NEMO
Link
2001:a:b:
1::/64
Corresponding Link
2001: a:c:1::/64
Home Link (HL)
2001: a:b:0::/64
AP1
AP2 AP3
AP4
Route Optimization
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

ping6 also checked if the nodes were
connected and they could talk to each other.
Figure 5.3: Ping6 test connectivity program at CN
V: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Trade-off Analysis and Evaluation.
When a mobile node receives a packet
containing a Binding Error message. An
Update List entry for the source of the Binding
Error message is required in order to prevent a
waste of resources. The tradeoff can lead to the
wastes of resources due to return routability
procedure of spoofed Binding Error messages.
Sometimes when the mobile node needs to
send a Binding Update to its home agent to
register its new primary care-of address which
the mobile node may not know the address of
any router on its home link that can serve as a
home agent for it. An ICMP Home Agent
Address Discovery Request message to the
Mobile IPv6 Home-Agents anycast address for
its home subnet prefix is required.
The primary goal of movement detection is to
detect Layer three (L3) handovers. Generic
movement detection uses Neighbor
Unreachability Detection to detect when
the default router is no longer bidirectional
reachable, in which case the mobile node
must discover a new default router. Layer
three handover (L3) on TCP and HTTP was
investigated while establishing http session,
particularly considering the upstream and
downstream impact on TCP and HTTP.
The study analyzes the performances of the
throughput based on TCP test on the test bed
during handover for the two scenarios. Figure
5.4 and figure 5.5 displays the result that was
captured on wireshark for TCP test 1 and
TCP test 2. The Handover Performance for
TCP in scenario1 shows the negative effects
of packet loss at 11.2sec with TCP sequence
number 150,000,000, with BBM handoffs
being ampliﬁed by the congestion control
mechanisms; whereas the handover
Performance for TCP in scenario2 reduces
the packet loss to 3.4sec with TCP sequence
number 34,000,000 due to MBB mechanism.
Figure 5.4: Handover Performance for TCP Test1 in
scenario1
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

When MR is connected to only one AP there
is the tendency for it to break the connection
to its current network before reattaching itself
to a new network. This type of handoff is
referred to as Break- Before-Make
(BBM).When BBM takes place, packet loss
is completely hard to eliminate as shown in
figure 5.4. To overcome this problem the MR
for the test bed was equipped with two
interfaces that will mitigate and reduce the
impact of handoff latency. The provision of
the two interfaces enables the Make-Before –
Break (MBB) Handoff that reduces the
packet loss. TCP traffic is not affected when
using MBB handoffs. In addition, it is visible
that the TCP throughput increases
permanently in scenario 2 during the MBB
handoff due to the availability of the new
access network for sending
acknowledgements, while still receiving data
via the old access network.MR can reduce
the impact of handoffs by optimizing the
IPv6 network attachment. The management
of binding update and interference between
the interfaces are potential limiting factors to
the performance of the handoffs.
Figure 5.5: Handover Performance for TCP Test 2
in scenario2
The experimental test bed also measure the
throughput between the two protocols. The
TCPIPV6 STREAM test provided by Netperf
was used for duration of 60 seconds. MNN is
configured as the client and CN is configured
as the server. Table 1.2 shows the result of
TCPIPV6 STREAM when Netperf was
launched.
Table 1.2: Tradeoff Analysis of Throughput of
RO TCPIPV6 Test 1
Protoc
ol
/
Elapse
Time(6
0s)
Recei
ved
Socke
t
Size
(Byte
)
Send
Socke
t Size
(Byte)
Send
Messa
ge
Size(
Byte)
Thro
ughp
ut
10^6
bit/se
c
Throughpu
t
10^6bit/sec
NEMO 8738
0
1638
4
1638
4
13912.
63Mbp
s
13912.63
Mbps
ERO
P
8738
0
1638
4
1638
4
13869.
77Mb
ps
13869.77
Mbps
The results gathered with the basic
configuration in Table 1.2 show that, EROP
throughput was 13869.77Mbps while NEMO
was 13912.63.Mbps throughputs. The
analysis for performance of the throughput
was 42.86Mbps (42.86%) which is less than
50Mbps at 100 Base TX. The information
that can be gathered is that, 42.86Mbps is
less than half of the logical throughput of the
link. This is due to the packets going in and
out from the single interface at the HAs.
Thus, depending on the operation of the HA.
So HA link can become the bottle neck.
The TCPIPV6 STREAM test 2 was
conducted by Netperf for duration of 10
seconds. MNN is configured as the client and
CN is configured as the server. Table 1.3
below shows the result of TCPIPV6
STREAM when Netperf was launched.
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

Table 1.3: Tradeoff Analysis of Throughput of
RO TCPIPV6 Test 2.
Protoc
ol
/
Elapse
Time(6
0s)
Receive
d
Socket
Size
(Byte)
Send
Socke
t Size
(Byte)
Send
Messag
e
Size(By
te)
Throughput
10^6bit/sec
NEMO 87380 16384 16384 11774.60 Mbps
EROP 87380 16384 16384 11718.24 Mbps
The result in table 4.4 was investigated with
the basic conﬁguration in Figure 1.3.EROP
throughput was 11718.24Mbps while NEMO
was 11774.60Mbps throughputs. The
performance of EROP proved effective with
56.36Mbps (56.36%) throughput with NEMO
Basic Support protocol. Logically EROP
offer about 5.6 times better throughput
compare with NEMO Basic Support
protocol.
V1: Conclusion
The analysis of tradeoff and evaluation in the
test bed integrates both MIPv6 and NEMO
on the same system and ensures that user get
seamless Internet connectivity. The
experimental test bed for MIPv6 and NEMO
was developed and implemented with MIPL
features in RFC 3775 enabled and NEPL
features in RFC 3963 enabled. Reduction in
packet delay from TCPIPV6 STREAM test1
and test2 using Netperf was shown as against
NEMO and EROP for duration of time. The
RO scheme procedure in the test bed retains
interoperability and provides easy
adaptability for implementation and
deployment. The test bed can be deployed for
video streaming that requires low handoff
latency for computing activities.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the Department of
Computer Science, University of Ibadan for
the support in this research work.
References
1. Gao Han, (2008). A hierarchical route
optimisation scheme for next generation
mobile network. IWCMC IEEE, pp 81-
85.
2. Bernardo, C., (2008). MIPv6 Route
Optimization for Network Mobility
(MIRON). Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), nemo-Miron-01.
3. Bernardos, C., Bagnulo, M., Calderon, M.,
(2004). MIRON: Mobile IPv6 Route
Optimization for NEMO, 4th Workshop on
Applications and Services in Wireless
Networks (ASWN) Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Draft, Miron 00.
4. Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Serral-Gracià, R.,
Jakab, L., Domingo Pascual, J., (2005).
Measurement based analysis of the
handover in a WLAN scenario. In PAMW.
ISBN 3-540- 25520-6.

5. Calderon, M., Bernardos, C., Bagnulo, M.,
Soto, I., (2005). Securing Route Optimization
in NEMO", Third International Symposium
on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad
Hoc, and Wireless Networks, WIOPT , pp
248-254.
6. S.D Adeniji, S Khatun, RSA Raja, MA
Borhan (2008).‘Design and analysis of
resource management support software for
multihoming in vehicle of IPv6 Network.
Proceedings of the Fifth IASTED
International Conference.Vol 607,issue
089.pp 13.
Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

.

7. Dutta N., Saha IS Misra, Pokhrel R.,
Mrinal, K., (2014). Performance Analysis of
Multilayer MIPv6 Architecture through
Experimental Test bed, Journal of Network,
Vol 7, pp 1682-1691.
8. Gaogang XIE1, C.Ji, Hongxia, Z., Jianhua,
Y., Yu, Z., (2007). Handover Latency of
MIPv6 Implementation in Linux IEEE
GLOBECOM, pp 1930-529.
9. Gao Han, (2008). A hierarchical route
optimisation scheme for next generation
mobile network. IWCMC IEEE, pp 81-85.
10. Adeniji O.d., Olatunji O.O 2020. Zero
Day Attack Prediction with Parameter
Setting Using Bi Direction Recurrent Neural
Network in Cyber Security.International
Journal of Computer Science and Information
Security (IJCSIS), Vol. 18, No. 3,pp 111-118
11. Perkins, Johnson, D., Arkko, J., (2011).
Mobility Support in IPv6, Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) Draft, RFC
6275.

12. Petander, H., Perera, E., LAN, K.C.,
Seneviratne, A., (2006). Measuring and
improving the performance of network
mobility management in IPv6 networks,
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Communication, 24(9),
PP.1671–1681
13.Logunleko K.B., Adeniji. O.D.,
Logunleko A.M, (2020). A Comparative
Study of Symmetric Cryptography
Mechanism on DES, AES and EB64 for
Information Security. International Journal of
Scientific Research in Computer Science and
Engineering Vol.8, Issue.1, pp.45-51.
14.SD Adeniji, S Khatun, MA Borhan, RSA
Raja, (2008) A design proposer on policy
framework in IPV6 network.2008 IEEE
International Symposium on Information
Technology.Vol 4,pp 1-6

Vol. 18, No. 5, May 2020
ISSN 1947-5500

Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis and Evaluation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis and Evaluation

Similar to Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis and Evaluation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Route Optimization in MIPv6 Experimental Test bed for Network Mobility: Tradeoff Analysis and Evaluation