Downloaded 34 times
Uploaded byWSO2
Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks
This document compares different approaches for mobile IP networks, including Mobile IP (MIP), Hierarchical Mobile IP (HMIP), Hierarchical Distributed Dynamic Mobile IP (HDDMIP), and Dynamic Hierarchical Mobile IP (DHMIP). It also discusses multicast-based approaches like Multicast Hierarchical Mobile IP (MHMIP). An analysis shows that MHMIP provides the best performance for mean handoff delay and mean bandwidth per call for high mobility terminals. It is recommended to use MHMIP for most cases, but to use DHMIP if inter-gateway foreign agent handoffs are frequent or the number of links in the MHMIP path is high.
More Related Content
Similar to Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks
Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks
- 1. Mobility Management Approaches forMobile IP Networks PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AND USE RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED BY : NADJIA KARA | PRESENTED BY : ABIMARAN K
- 2. Agenda Terminologies Introductionto different MIPs Functionality Comparison Analytical Model Results of the Analysis Recommendation 2
- 3. Terminologies Home Address Care of Address (CoA) Home Agent (HA) Foreign Agent (FA) Gateway Foreign Agent (GFA) IETF 3
- 4. Introduction to MIP Proposed by IETF to provide global mobility in IP networks MT registers with its home network and gets a permanent address Stored in Home Agent (HA), used for identification and routing When MT moves outside of home n/w, it obtains a foreign address(CoA) from Foreign Agent (FA) MT has to inform HA of its current location HA delivers data packets by tunneling them to MT’s current attachment Location update may be high, yields to signal delay 4
- 5.
- 6. Hierarchical Mobile IP(HMIP) Proposed to reduce the number of location update and signal latency FAs and GFAs are organized on hierarchy If MT changes FA within same regional n/w, it updates its CoA to regional GFA When MT moves to another n/w, it update HA using publicly routable GFA High traffic load on GFA and frequent movement between regional n/w degrades the performance 6
- 7. Hierarchical Distributed DynamicMobile IP (HDDMIP) Each FA can act as either FA and GFA Number of FA attached to GFA adjusted for each MT Regional n/w boundary is adjusted for MT Calculated based mobility variation and packet arrival rate Add processing load to MT to estimate packet arrival rate and subnet resident time GFA failure only affect the packet routing to MT belongs to this GFA System infrastructure and MTs cost could be high 7
- 8. Dynamic Hierarchical MobileIP (DHMIP) Proposed to reduce location update to HA Registering the new CoA to previous FA and building FA hierarchy When hierarchy level no reached to threshold, MT set up new hierarchy Location update to previous FA is less costly compare to HA update DHMIP outperform compared to HMIP and HDDMIP Increases n/w resources used for packet delivery 8
- 9.
- 10. Multicast-Based Mobility Approaches Reduce signaling load and signaling delay Suitable for 3GPP, 3GPP2 and LTE networks where small radio cells and high mobility of MTs Resource usage not greater than DHMIP Different Mobile IP multicast protocols are proposed 10
- 11. Multicast Hierarchical MobileIP (MHMIP) Hierarchical multicast groups, FAs are connected to each other through a GFA Set of GFAs are connected to an HA When MT moves through FAs belongs to same group, GFA multicast packets When MT moves outside of the group, new CoA registered with GFA of new group GFA send CoA to HA Reduces frequency of the location update to HA Group is static Reduces mobility signaling delay compared to HMIP and DHMIP specially for high mobility MTs 11
- 12.
- 13. Functionality Comparisons Bandwidthused by MHMIP signaling is smaller than MIP and DHMIP In MHMIP path reestablishment only between GFA and HA Bandwidth used for packet delivery is high, since several connection used Total bandwidth is higher For MT with high mobility, multicast resource are reused MHMIP mean bandwidth per call with high mobility is less than DHMIP and other MIP approaches 13
- 14. Analytic Model Eachhandoff require path reestablishment CoA update with HA New path from HA to FA for DHMIP and MIP From HA to GFA for MHMIP User data traffic transfer from previous path to new path Previous path discard 14
- 15. Results Analysis MHMIPmean bandwidth per call is smaller than DHMIP MHMIP allows cost reduction in terms of resource usage DHMIP involves high mean bandwidth per call MHMIP mean delay is smaller than DHMIP and MIP 15
- 16. Recommendation If inter-GFAshandoffs aren’t frequent, use MHMIP which provides best mean handoff delay and mean bandwidth per call for voice and data If inter-GFA handoff frequent, If mean bandwidth per call is important and number of links involved in MHMIP path reestablishment is high Use DHMIP Else use MHMIP In all most all cases, MHMIP gives lower mean handoff delay, and mean bandwidth 16
- 17.