mobility management approaches for mobile ip networks
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mobility Management
Approaches for Mobile IP Networks
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
RESEARCHED BY : NADJIA KARA | PRESENTED BY : ABIMARAN K
![Page 2: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Agenda
Terminologies
Introduction to different MIPs
Functionality Comparison
Analytical Model
Results of the Analysis
Recommendation
2
![Page 3: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Terminologies
Home Address
Care of Address (CoA)
Home Agent (HA)
Foreign Agent (FA)
Gateway Foreign Agent (GFA)
IETF
3
![Page 4: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
MIP continue… 5
![Page 6: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Hierarchical Distributed Dynamic Mobile 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
![Page 8: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Dynamic Hierarchical Mobile IP
(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
![Page 9: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
DHMIP continue … 9
![Page 10: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Multicast Hierarchical Mobile IP
(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
![Page 12: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
MHMIP continue … 12
![Page 13: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Functionality Comparisons
Bandwidth used 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
![Page 14: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Analytic Model
Each handoff 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
![Page 15: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Results Analysis
MHMIP mean 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
![Page 16: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Recommendation
If inter-GFAs handoffs 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
![Page 17: Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032617/55aa28ab1a28ab85388b489a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Q/A
THANK YOU
17