Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Design and Evaluation of an Integrated Mobile IP and
SIP Framework for Advanced Handoff
ManagementChao-Hung Hung
20040813
bull Qi Wang Mosa Ali Abu-Rgheff Ammad Akram
bull Communications 2004 IEEE International Conference on Volume 7 20-24 June 2004 Pages3921 - 3925
Outline
bull INTRODUCTIONbull RELATED WORKbull PROPOSED HANDOFF
MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONbull CONCLUDING REMARKS
INTRODUCTION
bull mobility type ndash low-level
bull mode mobilitybull ad hoc mobilitybull terminal mobility
ndash high-level bull personal mobilitybull sessionbull mobilitybull servicebull mobility
INTRODUCTION
bull network-layer Mobile IP (MIP)ndash mobility-transparentndash TCP-based
bull application-layer Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)ndash mobility-awarendash UDP-based
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
bull Qi Wang Mosa Ali Abu-Rgheff Ammad Akram
bull Communications 2004 IEEE International Conference on Volume 7 20-24 June 2004 Pages3921 - 3925
Outline
bull INTRODUCTIONbull RELATED WORKbull PROPOSED HANDOFF
MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONbull CONCLUDING REMARKS
INTRODUCTION
bull mobility type ndash low-level
bull mode mobilitybull ad hoc mobilitybull terminal mobility
ndash high-level bull personal mobilitybull sessionbull mobilitybull servicebull mobility
INTRODUCTION
bull network-layer Mobile IP (MIP)ndash mobility-transparentndash TCP-based
bull application-layer Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)ndash mobility-awarendash UDP-based
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
Outline
bull INTRODUCTIONbull RELATED WORKbull PROPOSED HANDOFF
MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONbull CONCLUDING REMARKS
INTRODUCTION
bull mobility type ndash low-level
bull mode mobilitybull ad hoc mobilitybull terminal mobility
ndash high-level bull personal mobilitybull sessionbull mobilitybull servicebull mobility
INTRODUCTION
bull network-layer Mobile IP (MIP)ndash mobility-transparentndash TCP-based
bull application-layer Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)ndash mobility-awarendash UDP-based
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
INTRODUCTION
bull mobility type ndash low-level
bull mode mobilitybull ad hoc mobilitybull terminal mobility
ndash high-level bull personal mobilitybull sessionbull mobilitybull servicebull mobility
INTRODUCTION
bull network-layer Mobile IP (MIP)ndash mobility-transparentndash TCP-based
bull application-layer Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)ndash mobility-awarendash UDP-based
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
INTRODUCTION
bull network-layer Mobile IP (MIP)ndash mobility-transparentndash TCP-based
bull application-layer Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)ndash mobility-awarendash UDP-based
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
INTRODUCTION
bull a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
RELATED WORK
bull MIPv4ndash triangular routing is used and the MH
（ Mobility Host ） updates its bindingndash route optimisation (MIPv4-RO)
bull MIPv6ndash has integrated the route optimisation
concept
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
RELATED WORK
bull SIPndash re-INVITE messagendash SIP registration
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull MIP-SIP Mobility Servers
ndash HomeForeign Mobility Server (HMSFMS)bull be capable to support both MIP and SIP
and manages the various addresses
ndash minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Policies
ndash pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH
ndash After the handoff detection the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile
ndash Handoff policies
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTUREbull Handoff Schemes
ndash three major procedures are involved for a macro handoffbull new FMS discovery and new IPcare-of
address acquisitionbull binding updatebull registration
ndash Handoff signaling flow using MIP+ SIP+ or MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Delayndash the time gap between the instance
when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CHrsquos acknowledgement to the MHrsquos binding update message arrives at the MH
ndash macro handoff delay parametersbull tMH 1048774HA tHA 1048774CH tCH 1048774MH and tMH 1048774CH are the end-
to-end delays between MH HA and CH respectively
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash macro handoff delay calculation of the schemes
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and CHbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774HA ＝ 30 ms
ndash handoff delay vs delay between MH and HAHSHMSbull tHA 1048774CH ＝ 25 ms tMH 1048774CH ＝ 50 ms
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Binding Update Reliabilityndash higher signalling reliability would result
in fewer retransmission attempts
ndash Let PMIPv4-RO PMIPv6SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6SIP respectively while PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes
PMIP+SIP+MIP+SIP ＝ 1- （ 1- PMIPv4-RO ）（ 1- PMIPv6SIP ）
ndash comparison of successful binding updatesrsquo probabilities
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
Comparison of Successful Binding Updatesrsquo Probabilities
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
bull Handoff Signalling Loadndash additional messages to the traditional
schemesbull 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+bull 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+bull 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from
HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
ndash these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures Mobile IP and SIP
bull The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies
bull This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
CONCLUDING REMARKS
bull The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load
