A comparative signaling cost analysis of Macro Mobility scheme in NEMO (MM-NEMO) with mobility management protocol

NEMO BSP is an upgraded addition to Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6). As MIPv6 and its enhancements (i.e. HMIPv6) possess some limitations like higher handoff latency, packet loss, NEMO BSP also faces all these shortcomings by inheritance. Network Mobility (NEMO) is involved to handle the movement of Mobile Router (MR) and it's Mobile Network Nodes (MNNs) during handoff. Hence it is essential to upgrade the performance of mobility management protocol to obtain continuous session connectivity with lower delay and packet loss in NEMO environment. The completion of handoff process in NEMO BSP usually takes longer period since MR needs to register its single primary care of address (CoA) with home network that may cause performance degradation of the applications running on Mobile Network Nodes. Moreover, when a change in point of attachment of the mobile network is accompanied by a sudden burst of signaling messages, "Signaling Storm" occurs which eventually results in temporary congestion, packet delays or even packet loss. This effect is particularly significant for wireless environment where a wireless link is not as steady as a wired link since bandwidth is relatively limited in wireless link. Hence, providing continuous Internet connection without any interruption through applying multihoming technique and route optimization mechanism in NEMO are becoming the center of attention to the current researchers. In this paper, we propose a handoff cost model to compare the signaling cost of MM-NEMO with NEMO Basic Support Protocol (NEMO BSP) and HMIPv6.The numerical results shows that the signaling cost for the MM-NEMO scheme is about 69.6 % less than the NEMO-BSP and HMIPv6.

[1]  HeeYoung Jung,et al.  Fast handover support in hierarchical mobile IPv6 , 2004, The 6th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, 2004..

[2]  Mohammed Feham,et al.  Seamless Infrastructure independent Multi Homed NEMO Handoff Using Effective and Timely IEEE 802.21 MIH triggers , 2012, ArXiv.

[3]  Fan Zhao,et al.  Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement , 2007, RFC.

[4]  Julien Montavont,et al.  Multihoming in IPv6 mobile networks: progress, challenges, and solutions , 2013, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[5]  Samuel Pierre,et al.  Evaluating the Performance of Fast Handover for Hierarchical MIPv6 in Cellular Networks , 2008, J. Networks.

[6]  Hongke Zhang,et al.  Experimentation and performance analysis of multi-interfaced mobile router scheme , 2010, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory.

[7]  Sang-Jo Yoo,et al.  Analysis of Fast Handover Mechanisms for Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Network Mobility , 2009, Wirel. Pers. Commun..

[8]  Julien Montavont,et al.  Multiple mobile routers in NEMO: How Neighbor Discovery can assist default router selection , 2008, 2008 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications.

[9]  Mohammed Atiquzzaman,et al.  Signalling cost analysis of SINEMO: seamless end-to-end network mobility , 2006, MobiArch '06.

[10]  Mohamed Feham,et al.  A Seamless and Transparent MN-Proxy based Mobility Support For (n,n,1) Multihomed NEMO Model , 2010 .

[11]  Eranga Perera,et al.  Measuring and Improving the Performance of Network Mobility Management in IPv6 Networks , 2006, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[12]  Houda Labiod,et al.  Hybrid Handover Optimization for Multiple Mobile Routers-based Multihomed NEMO Networks , 2007, IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Services.

[13]  Ryuji Wakikawa,et al.  Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol , 2005, RFC.