Mobile IPv6 In Terms Research Articles

End-To-End Mobility for the Internet Using ILNP

As the use of mobile devices and methods of wireless connectivity continue to increase, seamless mobility becomes more desirable and important. The current IETF Mobile IP standard relies on additional network entities for mobility management, can have poor performance, and has seen little deployment in real networks. We present a host-based mobility solution with a true end-to-end architecture using the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP). We show how the TCP code in the Linux kernel can be extended allowing legacy TCP applications that use the standard C sockets API to operate over ILNP without requiring changes or recompilation. Our direct testbed performance comparison shows that ILNP provides better host mobility support than Mobile IPv6 in terms of session continuity, packet loss, and handoff delay for TCP.

Performance Analysis of Multilayer MIPv6 Architecture through Experimental Testbed

Mobility management is a key issue to achieve uninterrupted Internet services in IP based network. In IPv6, the mobility management is realized by its mobile version namely the Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6). The MIPv6 is further extended to Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) to reduce handoff latency suffered by mobile nodes and signaling load incurred due to movement if nodes within the micro mobility region defined by HMIPv6. The HMIPv6 is considered as first widely accepted layered architecture for mobility management for IPv6 network. Influenced by the benefits of HMIPv6, many researchers have suggested extension of MIPv6 into multiple layers. However, there is very little work on finding optimal levels of hierarchy in such layered architecture. The focus of this paper is to evaluate the performance of a multilayer (N-layered with N as 5) MIPv6 architecture through experimental testbed. We have observed handoff latency, signaling overhead and tunneling cost and figured out the optimal levels of hierarchy that provides the best acceptable results for all the observed parameters. Since, HMIPv6 outperforms MIPv6 in terms of handoff latency and signaling cost, so we compare our results with HMIPv6. Testbed observation depicts that three levels of hierarchy in MIPv6 architecture provides optimal performance with 27 % reduction in handoff latency and 67 % reduction in signaling overhead compared to single layer architecture like Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) protocol.

Multilayer Hierarchical Model for Mobility Management in IPv6: A Mathematical Exploration

The mobility solution provided by Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) imposes too much signaling load to the network and enforces large handoff latency to end user. Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) on the other hand, is designed by organizing MIPv6 in layered architecture and performs better than MIPv6 in terms of handoff latency and signaling load. Observation shows that, there is still possibility to shrink the handoff latency and the signaling load by further extending HMIPv6 into multiple layers. To explore this possibility of enhanced performance through layered architecture, this paper aimed at mathematical exploration of an N-layered MIPv6 network architecture in order to figure out the optimal levels of hierarchy for mobility management. A widespread analysis is carried out on various parameters such as location update frequency and cost, handoff latency and packet delivery cost. Influence of queuing delay on handoff latency is examined by modeling M/M/1/K queue in the architecture and user mobility is modeled using Markov chain. Analytical investigation reveals that three levels of hierarchy in MIPv6 architecture provide an optimal solution for mobility management.

Performance Analysis of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6: Does it Improve Mobile IPv6 in Terms of Handover Speed?

There has been a rapid growth in the need to support mobile nodes in IPv6-based networks. IETF has completed to standardize Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) for supporting IPv6 mobility. Even though existing literatures have asserted that HMIPv6 generally improves MIPv6 in terms of handover speed, they do not carefully consider the details of the whole handover procedures. In this paper, based on the current IETF standards of both MIPv6 and HMIPv6, we conduct a comprehensive study of all IP-level handover procedures: movement detection, duplicate address detection, and location registration. Based on this study, we provide a mathematical analysis on MIPv6 and HMIPv6 performance in terms of handover speed. From the analysis, we reveal that the average HMIPv6 handover latency is not always lower than the average MIPv6 handover latency. Furthermore, even the intra-domain handover latency of HMIPv6 is not reduced much compared with MIPv6 handover latency. A finding of our analysis is that optimization techniques for movement detection and duplicate address detection are essential to shortening HMIPv6 handover latency and increasing the benefit of HMIPv6.