Mobile IP: state of the art report

Due to roaming, a mobile device may change its network attachment each time it moves to a new link. This might cause a disruption for the Internet data packets that have to reach the mobile node. Mobile IP is a protocol, developed by the Mobile IP Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working group, that is able to inform the network about this change in network attachment such that the Internet data packets will be delivered in a seamless way to the new point of attachment. This document presents current developments and research activities in the Mobile IP area

Efficient Micro-Mobility using Intra-domain Multicast-based Mechanisms (M&M)

One of the most important metrics in the design of IP mobility protocols is the handover performance. The current Mobile IP (MIP) standard has been shown to exhibit poor handover performance. Most other work attempts to modify MIP to slightly improve its efficiency, while others propose complex techniques to replace MIP. Rather than taking these approaches, we instead propose a new architecture for providing efficient and smooth handover, while being able to co-exist and inter-operate with other technologies. Specifically, we propose an intra-domain multicast-based mobility architecture, where a visiting mobile is assigned a multicast address to use while moving within a domain. Efficient handover is achieved using standard multicast join/prune mechanisms. Two approaches are proposed and contrasted. The first introduces the concept proxy-based mobility, while the other uses algorithmic mapping to obtain the multicast address of visiting mobiles. We show that the algorithmic mapping approach has several advantages over the proxy approach, and provide mechanisms to support it. Network simulation (using NS-2) is used to evaluate our scheme and compare it to other routing-based micro-mobility schemes - CIP and HAWAII. The proactive handover results show that both M&M and CIP shows low handoff delay and packet reordering depth as compared to HAWAII. The reason for M&M's comparable performance with CIP is that both use bi-cast in proactive handover. The M&M, however, handles multiple border routers in a domain, where CIP fails. We also provide a handover algorithm leveraging the proactive path setup capability of M&M, which is expected to outperform CIP in case of reactive handover.Comment: 12 pages, 11 figure

Multicast Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6) : Problem Statement and Brief Survey

Publisher PD

Macro/micro-mobility fast handover in hierarchical mobile IPv6

Mobile Internet Protocol version 6 (MIPv6) has been proposed to solve the problem of mobility in the new era of Internet by handling routing of IPv6 packets to mobile nodes that have moved away from their home network. Users will move frequently between networks, as they stay connected to the Internet. Thus, as mobility increases across networks, handovers will significantly impact the quality of the connection and user application. However, MIPv6 only defines means of managing global (macro)-mobility but does not address micro-mobility separately. Instead, it uses the same mechanism in both cases. This involves long handover delay and signaling load. The Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) protocol has been proposed as an extension of basic MIPv6 to solve this problem by splitting the handover management into macro-mobility and micro-mobility schemes. HMIPv6 introduced a new protocol agent called Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) to manage mobility and serve as a local entity to aid in mobile handover. The handover (or registration) operation is the operation when MN registers its presence to its Home Agent (HA) and Correspondent Node (CN). This paper proposes a mechanism to perform fast handover in HMIPv6 by adopting the multicast technique to the MAP for both macromobility and micro-mobility management. Our proposal is designed to minimize service disruption that occurs during the registration operation. We simulate the performance using network simulator (NS-2) and we present and analyze the performance testing for our proposal by comparing it with the basic hierarchical mobile IPv6. The results show that our scheme allows the MN to receive packets faster than the basic HMIPv6

Implementation of MHMIP and Comparing the Performance With MIP and DHMIP in Mobile Networks

Managing the mobility efficiently in wireless networks causes critical issue, in order to support mobile users. To support global mobility in IP networks The Mobile Internet Protocol (MIP) has been proposed. The Hierarchical MIP (HMIP) and Dynamic HMIP (DHMIP) strategies are also proposed for providing high signaling delay. Our proposal approach “Multicast HMIP strategy” limits the registration processes in the GFAs. For high-mobility MTs, MHMIP provides lowest mobility signaling delay compared to the HMIP and DHMIP approaches. However, it is resource consuming strategy unless for frequent MT mobility. Hence, we propose an analytic model to evaluate the mean signaling delay and the mean bandwidth per call according to the type of MT mobility. In our analysis, the MHMIP gives the best performance among the DHMIP and MIP strategies in almost all the studied cases. The main contribution of this paper is to implement the MHMIP and provide the analytic model that allows the comparison of MIP, DHMIP and MHMIP mobility management approaches

Generic Models for Mobility Management in Next Generation Networks

In the network community different mobility management techniques have been proposed over the years. However, many of these techniques share a surprisingly high number of similarities. In this technical report we analyze and evaluate the most relevant mobility management techniques, pointing out differences and similarities. For macro-mobility we consider Mobile IP (MIP), the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and mobility management techniques typical of a GSM network; for micro-mobility we describe and analyze several protocols such as: Hierarchical MIP, TeleMIP, IDMP, Cellular IP and HAWAII

Security and Privacy Issues in Wireless Mesh Networks: A Survey

This book chapter identifies various security threats in wireless mesh network (WMN). Keeping in mind the critical requirement of security and user privacy in WMNs, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of various possible attacks on different layers of the communication protocol stack for WMNs and their corresponding defense mechanisms. First, it identifies the security vulnerabilities in the physical, link, network, transport, application layers. Furthermore, various possible attacks on the key management protocols, user authentication and access control protocols, and user privacy preservation protocols are presented. After enumerating various possible attacks, the chapter provides a detailed discussion on various existing security mechanisms and protocols to defend against and wherever possible prevent the possible attacks. Comparative analyses are also presented on the security schemes with regards to the cryptographic schemes used, key management strategies deployed, use of any trusted third party, computation and communication overhead involved etc. The chapter then presents a brief discussion on various trust management approaches for WMNs since trust and reputation-based schemes are increasingly becoming popular for enforcing security in wireless networks. A number of open problems in security and privacy issues for WMNs are subsequently discussed before the chapter is finally concluded.Comment: 62 pages, 12 figures, 6 tables. This chapter is an extension of the author's previous submission in arXiv submission: arXiv:1102.1226. There are some text overlaps with the previous submissio

Improved Handover Routing Scheme In Hierarchical Mobile Ipv6 Networks

Mobile Internet Protocol version 6 (MIPv6) has been proposed to solve the problem of mobility in the new era of Internet. MIPv6 is a proposal for handling routing of IPv6 packets to mobile nodes that have moved away from their home network. In the near future, with the simultaneous growth of the mobile user population and the Internet, users will move more frequently between networks as they stay connected to the Internet and access its resources. Thus, as mobility increases across networks, handovers will significantly give impact on the quality of the connection and on user application . Previous research has shown that MIPv6 only defines a means of managing global mobility (macro-mobility) but does not address local mobility (micro-mobility) separately. Instead, it uses the same mechanism in both cases. This involves long handover delay and a lot of signaling. The extension of protocol of basic MIPv6 has been investigated. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) introduced Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) . HMIPv6 is the proposed enhancement of MIPv6 that is designed to reduce the amount of signaling required and to improve handover speed for mobile connections. New node in HMIPv6 called the mobility anchor point (MAP) serves as a local entity to aid in mobile handover. By separating global and local mobility, HMIPv6 makes it possible to deal with either situation of macro mobility and micro mobility appropriately. The MAP helps to decrease the delay and packet loss during handover. HMIPv6's handover operation has been investigated. We have analyzed the handover routing scheme on Internet Protocol (IP) layer. The operation of this handover starts from the mobile node (MN) sends binding update (BU) to its new network until MN receives packet from the correspondent node (CN) or home agent (HA) through its new network. The adoption of multicast scheme and the avoidance of redundancy in sending binding update scheme have been proposed and have been implemented to HMIPv6. Proposed multicast scheme may allow MN to receive packets during handover operation. The avoidance of redundancy in sending B U scheme may reduce the amount of signaling for the handover thus reduce the handover delay. We have tested the performance of HMIPv6 with the proposed schemes based on simulation study. The results show that our proposed schemes reduce the handover delay and the amount of packet loss in HMIPv6