Evaluation and Comparison of Signaling Protocol Alternatives for the Ultra Flat Architecture

The Ultra Flat Architecture is a new concept of fixed mobile convergent networks that aims to scale well with the mobile internet traffic explosion prognosticated for the next 5–10 years. This paper investigates the adequacy of three different signaling protocol alternatives for the Ultra Flat Architecture based on operator requirements. The applied evaluation method is the Multiplicative Analytic Hierarchy Process. After the presentation of the evaluation process, we define our evaluation criteria. It is followed by the presentation of the main features of three UFA signaling protocol alternatives. Finally, the terminal scores of the alternatives are analyzed under different circumstances. The SIP-based alternative shows high performance, and low deployment cost. It is adequate for IMS applications. However by the increase of the demand to support the mobility of legacy internet applications, HIP or MIP-based signaling schemes are more suitable to our criteria. The evaluation shows the effect of the criteria weights and the network scenario on the suitability of the alternatives.

[1]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Delegation of Signalling Rights , 2002, Security Protocols Workshop.

[2]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP) , 2005, RFC.

[3]  Mark Handley,et al.  SIP: Session Initiation Protocol , 1999, RFC.

[4]  Samrat Ganguly,et al.  IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) , 2008 .

[5]  Charlie Kaufman,et al.  Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol , 2005, RFC.

[6]  Sandor Imre,et al.  A delegation-based HIP signaling scheme for the Ultra Flat Architecture , 2010, 2010 2nd International Workshop on Security and Communication Networks (IWSCN).

[7]  Tommy Svensson,et al.  The road to IMT-advanced communication systems: State-of-the- art and innovation areas addressed by the WINNER + project , 2009, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[8]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol , 2008, RFC.

[9]  Fayez Al-Shraideh,et al.  Host Identity Protocol , 2006, International Conference on Networking, International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies (ICNICONSMCL'06).

[10]  Gee Rittenhouse,et al.  Flat Cellular (UMTS) Networks , 2007, 2007 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference.

[11]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Host Identity Protocol , 2005 .

[12]  Noel Crespi,et al.  Performance and implementation of UFA: A SIP-based Ultra Flat mobile network architecture , 2009, 2009 IEEE 20th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications.

[13]  Antti Toskala,et al.  High-Speed Packet Access Evolution in 3GPP Release 7 [Topics in Radio Communications] , 2007, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[14]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  Mobility support in IPv6 , 1996, MobiCom '96.

[15]  Ved P. Kafle,et al.  An ID/locator split architecture for future networks , 2010, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[16]  K. Daoud,et al.  One-node-based mobile architecture for a better QoS control , 2008, 2008 1st IFIP Wireless Days.

[17]  Seok Joo Koh,et al.  mSCTP for Vertical Handover Between Heterogeneous Networks , 2005, Human.Society@Internet.

[18]  Marcelo Bagnulo,et al.  Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 , 2009, RFC.

[19]  Basavaraj Patil,et al.  Proxy Mobile IPv6 , 2008, RFC.

[20]  Jürgen Quittek,et al.  TurfNet: An Architecture for Dynamically Composable Networks , 2004, WAC.

[21]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Hi3: An efficient and secure networking architecture for mobile hosts , 2008, Comput. Commun..

[22]  Pasi Eronen,et al.  IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) , 2006, RFC.

[23]  F. Lootsma.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement , 1999 .

[24]  F. Lootsma.  SCALE SENSITIVITY IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1993 .

[25]  David D. Clark,et al.  FARA: reorganizing the addressing architecture , 2003, FDNA '03.